Hey you know what!!!! That could apply to Bush and Obama!!!!! And oh by the way! I dont wear hats!!!!! Hate them! They mess my hair up.
Not blaming anyone, but liberals still blame Bush. I was making a point based on what you had written earlier.
"People can preach what they want from a pulpit and the puppet that carries it out is the guilty party, right?"
Who, HOO you gonna blame when obamas gone vance? hillary? Wrap your head around that one! hahaha
I think you meant "wrap your head around that".
There are no blurred lines, when you tell someone to kill others that is against the law, that is not free speech. No modern day American politician (left or right) has ever said go out and kill these people because of X or Y(exclude the War on Terror).
And because I love this guy I have to bring him into the conversation. Obama sat and listened to Rev. Wright for 20 years, 20 years of "God Damn America" and Obama started his political career in the home of a terrorist. So wrap that around your head.
Anyway, back to the topic, I think France is wise in their decision to nip the problem at the site of where their Muslim communities are becoming radicalized locally.
I got no problem with that, but how does that work under our constitution? And what is considered hate speak? How long till we all lose our freedom of religion? Slippery slope it looks like to me is all Im sayin
There are limitations regarding Freedom of Speech/ First Amendment Rights. What it comes down to is if the administration wants to pursue enforcing any restrictions on a particular group (religious or otherwise) spewing hate speech. I don't see that happening in the U.S. any time soon...
Anyway, back to the topic, I think France is wise in their decision to nip the problem at the site of where their Muslim communities are becoming radicalized locally.
I think I just made the case for government and federal laws that all should be held accountable to. Until we clarify this one question and hold all or none responsible, the blurred lines prevail and people will continue to decide themselves who can and who cannot have rights under our laws. Maybe a constitutional ammendment is in order?
No. Thats your game. Are you going to answer my question?
Where does the freedom of speach begin and end and who does it apply to I ask?
Avoid and deflect, typical liberal crap !!!!!!
is manipulation a crime punishable by life in prison?
I don't recall anyone telling people to go and kill someone over the planned parent hood issue, do you ? However that is the case with the radical mosques and BLM, they are telling people to go and kill to support their cause and yes I do have a problem with that.
Here is my point. Words matter. How do you control speech? Who has the right and who doesnt have the right to say what they think. If you go to a christian church and study the bible, there is lots of horrible things in there such as god destroyed sodom and gemorah because of homosexuals and other sin.Does that mean we shut down the church? Politicians convince u, like the Dems do that their way is the way and you either choose to follow and suck up their rhetoric or not. Take the planned parenthood issue of the tape that alledged selling of baby parts? Coincidental that the nut in colorado uttered those same words? Where did he hear that? And it wasnt even true. Words matter. So who can speak and b covered under the constitution and who chooses who has those rights or not?
Manson directly instructed his people to go out and kill and should be in jail, once again I ask have you heard ANY politician say it was ok to go out and kill people ?
How is the term incitement not applicable to both scenarios? People can preach what they want from a pulpit and the puppet that carries it out is the guilty party, right? Just like guns dont kill people, people do? Isis preaches a certain ideology and their puppets carry it out. Politicians preach a certain ideology and their puppets carry it out. But I ask again, who should be covered by the constitution and who should not? Charles Manson committed no crime other than to preach the ideology, and his puppets carried it out. He is in jail. It is the faithfulness of the puppets to the master who speaks that seems to do the dirty work after being pumped up by the rhetoric. no?
Have you heard ANY politician say it was ok to go out and kill people ?
I haven't, but you do hear that coming from BLM and radical mosques.
Or should police be held accountable for the existance of black lives matter would be another question. So who does or does not have the freedom of speach and who should or should not?
Should black lives matter be held accountable for their incitement to kill
police ?
If we start closing mosques for preaching incitement to its followers, should that not also apply to our politicians being held accountable for their incitement as well I wonder? Where does the freedom of speach begin and end and who does it apply to I ask?
BD strikes again. Yes the radical ones that teach radical islam are to blame. Just as any church that teaches to kill people is to blame and should be closed.
Well, good for France for taking preventative measures against Islamic radicals. So far they've closed four mosques; French Interior Minister Cazeneuve wants 'mosques where hate is preached' to be dissolved.
wsj.com/articles/French-authorities-close-mosques-during-state-of-emergency-14490790003
We were founded on the idea of religious freedom. Mosques are no more to blame on radical religious beliefs than are churches.
In America that would be called intolerance for closing a mosque that taught radical islam.