Unfortunately Von Brunn is not the exception.

Dixie said:
Right, Taichicklet... and when you rant, little sparkly rainbow ponies appear, and the world is full of strawberry shortcake! All the world genuflects toward you, to hear what profound wisdom is about to come from your lips, because we all know you are smarter than the rest of the world combined, and we are humbled by your presence!

You fucking asshole idiot! Go soak your pathetic pinhead... it needs it!
Click to expand...

As I aptly pointed out, when challenged you claim that any further details regarding a point of discussion don't matter.....that's a-typical for buffoons like you who rant against "libs"....your willful ignorance is your pride.

I posted against right wing EXTREMISTS and racists, NOT conservatives. YOU immediately whined that right wing conservatives were being attacked. So either you're too fucking stupid to recognize the difference, or doth protest too much!


Say goodnight gracie, shows over for you!

;)
 
Southern Man said:
The guy was a neo-nazi, ie socialist. The uni-bomber Kazinski was also a liberal whacko, and read AlGore's book. *shrug*
Click to expand...

You moron, Nazi's murdered socialists, communists and tried to stamp out democracy.....Hitler's political party was about anything BUT socialism. Do you even know the definition of socialism as opposed to fascism as opposed to totalitarianism as opposed to capitalism? Get educated before your fingers hit the keys.

And how the hell does Al Gore figure in all of this? What the hell is the matter with you?
 
Southern Man said:
The guy was a neo-nazi, ie socialist. The uni-bomber Kazinski was also a liberal whacko, and read AlGore's book. *shrug*
Click to expand...

Seriously, you have to be drinking some special kind of kool-aid to think this. A good portion of his manifesto is dedicated specifically to attacking "leftism."

Look, lifted straight from his manifesto:
6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled
society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of
our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can
serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern
society in general.
 
Taichiliberal said:
You moron, Nazi's murdered socialists, communists and tried to stamp out democracy.....Hitler's political party was about anything BUT socialism. Do you even know the definition of socialism as opposed to fascism as opposed to totalitarianism as opposed to capitalism? Get educated before your fingers hit the keys.

And how the hell does Al Gore figure in all of this? What the hell is the matter with you?
Click to expand...

He's confused by the title "national socialism," which he doesn't care to find out in practice looks nothing like socialism.
 
Taichiliberal said:
As I aptly pointed out, when challenged you claim that any further details regarding a point of discussion don't matter.....that's a-typical for buffoons like you who rant against "libs"....your willful ignorance is your pride.

I posted against right wing EXTREMISTS and racists, NOT conservatives. YOU immediately whined that right wing conservatives were being attacked. So either you're too fucking stupid to recognize the difference, or doth protest too much!


Say goodnight gracie, shows over for you!

;)
Click to expand...

No, the show is over when I get ready for the show to be over, you don't control my "on/off" switch, moron! I know what you posted, I know what you insinuated, with the very title of the thread, which was a damn bald-faced lie in of itself. Then when I called you on it, you acted like sugar wouldn't melt in your mouth, until one of your pinhead butt buddies came along and essentially proved my point. Since then, this whole topic has taken on the very tone I claimed you were presenting in the first place, as the pinheads line up to interject their insulting lies and insinuations about right-wing conservatives. It's typical of the two-faced liberal mentality.... make some kind of veiled remark, insinuate something absurd, then claim that's not what you said... while your buddies expound on the absurdity and demonstrate exactly what you meant. Cute little trick you have there Chicklet!
 
Taichiliberal said:
You moron, Nazi's murdered socialists, communists and tried to stamp out democracy.....Hitler's political party was about anything BUT socialism. Do you even know the definition of socialism as opposed to fascism as opposed to totalitarianism as opposed to capitalism? Get educated before your fingers hit the keys.

And how the hell does Al Gore figure in all of this? What the hell is the matter with you?
Click to expand...

Ted Kazenski read Al Gore's book the same as Tim McVeigh read Turner Diaries. That was his point. I know.... it flew comfortably over your pinhead!
 
Good Luck said:
You are right - you don't "get it". Because we are talking about liberty and you haven't a foggy fucking clue what that is. Oh, great...this dumb cluck again. Folks, Bravo loves to spew his opinion along with his supposition and conjecture as facts & logic. Unfortunately, his willfully ignorant neocon mindset keeps him from recognizing the absurdity of his blatherings. Let's see how he fairs here.

Paroled convicts do not have 100% of their rights returned, But the other neocon numbskull said they did, so at least we agree on this point such as the right to keep and bear arms. along with choosing their friends (no ex-cons), or their place/type of employment, etc. However, once paroled, some rights ARE restored. I never said they weren't Among them are FULL 1ST Amendment rights. You keep telling me to do research, then pull crap out of your ass about which rights are restored and which ones are not for paroled convicts. So I'll return the advice: do some research. And of course, you didn't research how ex-convicts rights interact with the 1st Amendment. As usual, you rant and rave WITHOUT DOING YOUR HOMEWORK. So wipe the spittle from your mouth... Observe and learn http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=21203

As for pornographic material relating to minors - that is illegal for everyone, not just pedophiles. Not quite....you have (or had) magazines on the racks with titles like "Barely Legal" the catch being that women over 21 looking like high school kids (14-18). Pedophiles would be in violation of their parole for possessing such material. The difference for convicted pedophiles is the penal system defines the use of such material as a parole violation - which eliminates the necessity to bring and prove separate charges against the pedophile. They can arrest them and send them to the pokey, cheaply and quickly. (My only complaint is the bastages shouldn't be out in the first damned place.) But as you say since such material is illegal for everyone, then there would be no need for subterfuge. What you fail to understand is that the pedophile's porn stash is of material that is not labled kiddie porn...but of material that ONLY displays minors. Clippings of minors and pre-schoolers from various legitimate magazines, or anything that would seem "innocent" to you and me etc.

The whole thing about McVie is a load of totalitarian nonsense. Again, only a stubborn fool keeps incorrectly using a word. "Totalitarianism" has NOTHING to do with McVeigh. If a crazy person were to run around cutting people's head off, carrying around an annotated copy of Alice in Wonderland, with the phrase "off with their heads" highlited in pink, do we take Alice in Wonderland off the shelves? The fact is crazy people are just that: crazy. There is no way to control any and all possible triggers of such types, be they political writings you don't like, or popular literature.You're comparing Alice in Wonderland to the Turner Diaries! That in and of itself screams volumes as to the sheer idiocy of your stance here. But to clear the air, I did not advocate book banning. I merely pointed out reference material McVeigh used for his nefarious plans. Oh, and McVeigh was NOT insane....just another right wing extremist finally living out his racist frustrations. If he were insane, he would not have been able to stand trial (unless he was tried in Texas with GW Bush as governor).

If a person, through speech or writing, actually advocates and encourages violence against a targeted group is one thing. Such expression is considered to be unprotected by the 1st Amendment, and any consequences which result from such expression are prosecutable under conspiracy laws. No shit sherlock, I previously stated such! But as the Turner Diaries were written as a "fable" and NOT a directive, the author would escape prosecution. None-the-less, the book was part of McVeigh's reference material, as proven in the court trial.

But expression of hatred toward a group (ie: I hate such-and such type people) IS protected. We may not like those who expound such opinions. We may even (gasp) HATE them for their bigotry. But they have every right to express themselves by any peaceable means available to them, just as we have the right to express ourselves through any peaceable means.
Click to expand...

I never said otherwise...you again state the obvious. My point was that since Van Brunn was a convicted felon and his crime was racist and anti-gov't, I fail to see why he was allowed to operate a web site spouting the same stuff, as there is a legal precedent that would have prevented him from doing such.
 
Dixie said:
Ted Kazenski read Al Gore's book the same as Tim McVeigh read Turner Diaries. That was his point. I know.... it flew comfortably over your pinhead!
Click to expand...

THINK, you blithering idiot, THINK! Al Gore's book was about environmental FACTS, NOT some racist fable diagramming an anti-gov't race war. Nowhere in Gore's writings does he allude to, advocate, insinuate, illustrate, demonstrate, suggest or imply some grass root insurgency against the gov't. Kazenski read a LOT of material, but HE drew his own conclusions that were NOT based on the ideologies of much of the material.

Big difference, but one that a willfully ingorant neocon parrot would miss. "Bravo" for verifying that.
 
I just love how totalitarians can take completely unrelated cases to justify fucking over liberty.

Your case, dipstick, was about a man who impersonated a peace officer, and was told to take decals off his car that HELPED HIM commit his crime. Of course he could not continue to run around in a car deliberately altered to mimic a police vehicle. That's a big fucking DUH!

Last I checked, talking hate (or blogging it) does not HELP one commit murder. The behavior of hate may be associated with the murder, but TALK does not cause crime, nor does it assist in the commission of a crime.

So try again twinky. Your "research" abilities are fucking pathetic. There is no way the case you posted could be used as precedent for shutting down a hate blog.

Second, your use of McVei is another piece of association bullshit. McVei (even if one were to accept your assertions of a cause/effect relationship) read the writings OF ANOTHER PERSON. The web site you are complaining about was written by the SAME person that committed the crime. ENTIRELY different scenario.

Last - do you think for one second that shutting down this guy's web site would have changed his mind about going berserk like he did? Do you think it makes a different whether this guy wrote his crap on the web , or whether he wrote it in secret diaries before going out to commit random murder?

But typical of the totalitarian mindset, you shitheaps leap on any and every excuse to limit this liberty here, put "reasonable controls" on another liberty for otherr bogus trumped up reasons.

And just to clear up another of your fucking lies, neonazis are NOT right wing. Nor are they left wing. They are extremists way off on their own little world that has nothing to do with the modern spectrum of American political philosophies. However, looking at the authoritarian big government policies of the far left it is far easier to equate the extreme authoritarianism of fascism with left policies than the limited small government "leave us the hell alone" political philosophy of the right.
 
The shooter did leave a note about no one taking his guns away.

Sounds kinda right wing to me.
 
And just to clear up another of your fucking lies, neonazis are NOT right wing. Nor are they left wing. They are extremists way off on their own little world that has nothing to do with the modern spectrum of American political philosophies. However, looking at the authoritarian big government policies of the far left it is far easier to equate the extreme authoritarianism of fascism with left policies than the limited small government "leave us the hell alone" political philosophy of the right.
Click to expand...

:thup: Excellent rebuttal!
 
Good Luck said:
However, looking at the authoritarian big government policies of the far left it is far easier to equate the extreme authoritarianism of fascism with left policies than the limited small government "leave us the hell alone" political philosophy of the right.
Click to expand...

LOL. You're not talking about the Big government fascists called republicans are you?

As if.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Seriously, you have to be drinking some special kind of kool-aid to think this. A good portion of his manifesto is dedicated specifically to attacking "leftism."

Look, lifted straight from his manifesto:
6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled
society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of
our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can
serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern
society in general.
Click to expand...

Taichiliberal said:
You moron, Nazi's murdered socialists, communists and tried to stamp out democracy.....Hitler's political party was about anything BUT socialism. Do you even know the definition of socialism as opposed to fascism as opposed to totalitarianism as opposed to capitalism? Get educated before your fingers hit the keys.

And how the hell does Al Gore figure in all of this? What the hell is the matter with you?
Click to expand...

Von Brunn hated Bush, hated the War on Terror, hates God and his next target was the Weekly Standard. In other words: a flaming liberal.
 
Southern Man said:
Von Brunn hated Bush, hated the War on Terror, hates God and his next target was the Weekly Standard. In other words: a flaming liberal.
Click to expand...

There are groups who hate Bush and the War on Terror that are not liberals.

Are you saying that islamic extremist groups are liberals?
 
Southern Man said:
Insofar as they hate limited government, yes. Looks like Von Brunn has them in common as well. *shrug*
Click to expand...

Liberals use the US Constitution to protect their free speech. YOu agree with the Constitution so you must be a liberal.

That is about as goofy as your statement that the islamic extremists are liberals insofar as they hate limited government.
 
WinterBorn said:
Liberals use the US Constitution to protect their free speech. YOu agree with the Constitution so you must be a liberal.

That is about as goofy as your statement that the islamic extremists are liberals insofar as they hate limited government.
Click to expand...

Liberals passed "Campaign Finance Reform" that limits what can be said during the last few months of political campaigns and are now trying to impose the "Fairness Doctrine", therefore they are against Free Speech.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top