Printable View
AOC is honestly pretty much fine. I wouldn't vote for her, but you can make case for her getting elected. Not so much the rest of the squad. MTG is the most obvious "younger" candidate on the right that ought to go. Tuberville should be on the list of not so golden oldies that ought to depart.
Ah almost forgot about that ole crackpot.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoMuskies
I want to hear the list of Democratic politicians paul doesn't like. Would the list go past RFK or Tulsi? Maybe he's not so sure about that Blagojevich character, either. Could he muster some disdain for Menendez?
Kash!
Winning!
The Cabinet of Creeps grows: RFK, Jr., Tulsi, Hegseth, now Patel. "Little Marco" looks like an accomplished public servant next to these jokers.Quote:
Originally Posted by XU_Lou
Kash isn't in the Cabinet. Rubio got 99 votes in the Senate, so I suppose your last point is right.
Thanks for sharing.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoMuskies
I consider myself to be a free speech advocate, and some of the examples the article claims as being crimes strike me as being utterly ridiculous. Insulting someone publicly should not be a crime. Sharing opinions, ANY opinion, even something as vile as saying refugee children should play with electrical wires, that's still just an opinion. I don't think too many people will feel too badly for the guy who said that if someone were to knock his teeth down his throat, but it's not a crime.
But there are limits to free speech.
Should revenge porn be legal?
Should using deep fakes or AI generators to create sexual images of people and then posting them online while trying to pass them off as real be legal? Should posting the personal information of those people (name, age, address, social media, phone numbers, etc) along with the fake pictures that don't look fake at all be legal?
Should a lie that could damage someone's life or career that makes no attempt to look like a parody, but tries to pass itself off as factual be legal?
Should it be legal for someone to go online and post a reward for anyone who harms the children of someone they don't like? Should a person who does that be able to say "I wasn't serious. And it's my free speech"?
I would say if something is false, is an invasion of privacy, and can cause someone to be harmed, then maybe that's someone who needs their house raided.
Calling someone ugly on the internet is not a nice thing to do, but no one should be charged with a crime for doing it. Examples like the ones I gave above...I for one do not think those should be legal and to call it an exercise of free speech is wrong. The 1st Amendment does have limits. You can't film yourself abusing children and claim that it's artistic expression. No one, not even the biggest advocates of free speech, would argue that.
I’m not sure either, but I’m thinking that’s the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoMuskies
Yes, please!Quote:
Originally Posted by Smails
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
HahaQuote:
Originally Posted by hoopster68
The second biggest problem (behind free speech itself) is who is going to decide like others have said? Some lady named Karen?
Or Maybe this person could be the hate speech czar? I realize her tenure at the disinformation board didn’t last long, but she did have a catchy tune!
https://nypost.com/2022/04/29/biden-...d-over-tiktok/