Us troops even at war with Islam in PHILIPPINES. Will this war ever end?

So in your world, the Nazis in Europe would be free to deny the Holocaust, build back up Nazi regimes, and then give it a go again?

What am I saying? Of course that is your dream world.

 

So you would support similar laws being made against Marxists, who were responsible for far more deaths than the Nazis? You'd take away their freedom of speech? No, of course you wouldn't support that, because you are inconsistent and hypocritical.

 

You made a specific claim. You claim I support Marxist dictatorships. Either back up that claim with evidence or drop it.

Are you going to claim European countries are now "Marxist dictatorships"?

 

Please do not confuse Ron with facts.

 

So an admitted socialist who favors using the Government to clamp down on political adversaries somehow doesn't support socialist Governments who clamp down on political adversaries. Makes perfect sense.

 

What Marxists deny the Holocaust? There's already laws in Europe that make denying the Holodomor the same as denying any other genocide.

 

Are you now claiming that the European countries of today are Marxist dictatorships?

Either back up your claim with evidence or admit you were lying.

 

You just said you supported the removal of rights of people to discuss certain ideas that you don't approve of because of your fear of a right-wing regime taking place. Since you are in favor of far-left wing regimes, this is based on nothing more than your desire to not have your political opposition gain power. You're willing to empower the Government to oppress your adversaries in order to accomplish this. You can dress this up any way you like, however it's clear you aren't actually concerned about the loss of rights or freedom. You gladly take those from people you don't approve of. You're no better than the people you criticize.

 

Which far left regimes am I in favor of?

Are you claiming current European governments with laws against Holocaust denial are "Marxist dictatorships"?

 

I've seen you defend Cuba and Venezuela. Why aren't you honest enough to just admit that, as an admitted socialist, you support socialist dictatorships?

And, more importantly, as someone who admits he doesn't mind using the power of Government to remove freedoms of people he doesn't approve of, how do you justify criticizing someone else who wants to do the same?

 

Just because someone disagree's with you opinion does not mean they are against freedom of speech.

 

You have? Can you provide quotes?

There is quite a big difference from limiting a single right in a specific circumstance and denying all rights to a person as you wish to do.

 

He supports the Government putting people in jail for having opinions he doesn't approve of. How is that not an example of someone being against the freedom of speech?

 

And the home of the number one state sponsor of terror groups.

 

"Who cares about Cuba?"

""He reshaped Cuba in his image, for both bad and good," said Pastor, who died in 2014. "Cuba will be a different place because he lived and he died.""

What was the good?"

In other words, it's OK to take away freedoms just as long as they are in accordance with Questerr's left-wing agenda.

 

That's false. Anyone in Europe is free to have any opinion they want. Nazis are not allowed to prothetyze others in attempts to deny the Holocaust.

 

So, in other words, they are not allowed to share their opinions, which is a fundamental right.

And denying the holocaust is not the only speech law.

 

Someone should be jailed for yelling fire in a crowded theater.

In general I agree with you that people should not be jailed for objectionable ideas.

 

So supporting my economic freedoms means I support Cuba's Marxist government? Opposing Batista's dictatorship means I support Cuba's Marxist government?

Curious, did Nixon support Marxist dictatorships because he opened the door for trade with China? We had trade with the Soviet throughout pretty much the entirety of the Cold War. Does that mean Reagan supported Marxist dictatorships?

Opposing Nazis is unique to the Left wing? Does that mean American conservatives are pro-Nazi?

 

But Questerr does. The same guy who likes to go around pretending he cares about rights and freedoms.

 

I gave examples of you defending and supporting a socialist dictatorship in Cuba. Someone asked why Castro was good, and you answered.

Your opposition is based on you being a member of the left. Has nothing to do with how American conservatives feel on the subject.

 

No, you gave examples of me defending my economic freedom and opposing a mafia-supported Rightwing dictatorship. Nothing you quoted showed me supporting Cuba's Marxist government.

No, my opposition is based on the Nazis murdering several million people, but you of course would ignore those deaths because the people who died weren't Aryans.

 

You support it so much you want to vacation there, similar to how Bernie Sanders vacationed in the Soviet Union while the Cold War was still going. Why would you want to give money to a Government you don't support?

The Soviets murdered many more than that. Didn't stop you from adopting their ideology.

 

I want to vacation there because it's a tropical island with tons of historical sites to see and the dollar goes extremely far there. Are you going to claim that by vacationing somewhere you must support its government?

Trump has been on vacation to China. Does that mean he supports China's Marxist government?

How exactly have I adopted the Soviet's ideology?

 

The main principle this nation was founded on was respect for individual rights and freedoms. That said - there are no absolute freedoms.

The Gov't is not supposed to have authority to make any law that messes with individual liberty with the exception that one persons liberty ends where the nose of another begins - direct harm one person on another.

The authority of Gov't can be extended but, the bar is supposed to be "overwhelming majority".

In other words, if an overwhelming majority agree that some action is so harmful ( examples might be incest or beastiality) it is then legitimate for the Gov't to make law which abridges this freedom.

Power was given to gov't to punish people for direct harm. There are not many who think murder, rape, theft should be legal and on this basis the people gave power to some authority (Gov't) to punish.

The bar is no different for any other law that messes with individual liberty (or at least this is the way it is supposed to be). In both Republicanism and Classical Liberalism, use of a simple majority (50+1) to take away individual liberty was called "Tyranny of the Majority".

Every Gov't has a simple majority mandate. If this was all that was required to mess with liberty then there would be no point in putting individual liberty "above" the legitimate authority of Gov't.

So then, if Gov't can get a min of 2/3rd's majority to agree that some form of speech is so offensive to the general public that it should be banned ... this is legitimate.

I do not think that Holocaust denial meets this bar - and in fact this test has not been used - therefor such law is illegitimate.

We currently live in a system of "Tyranny of the Majority".

Every sitting member of SCOTUS should be dismissed for dereliction of duty - failure to interpret law and the constitution by the principles on which this nation was founded.

We have fallen so far down the slippery slope that we can no longer see the mountaintop.