"There's a compassionate way to murder infants"

[sirs]

After WWII, the Allies demanded that the Germans ban all use of the swastika, Nazi insignia, and Nazi slogans.

How is that different from banning "hate speech"?

As I said,
- who gets to define the parameters of hate speech?? 
- And don't we have a 1st amendment right to say whatever it is we want?? 
- And whats it to the Government to be using tax dollars to monitor what they determine is hate speech?? 

The left is stumbling all over them selves claiming anything criticizing the current President is based on his race, and thus would be considered hate speech 

THAT's what makes it different, since we're not in a war with Nazis, so there's nothing to connect the analogy.  The only war were in is with radical Islamofascists.  Do we tell them they're banned from using the word Jihad?  the Koran??  Infidel??  That's the only rational connection you could make to your use of nazis

.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The issue is hate speech.
In Germany you can probably get arrested for raising your arm in a Nazi salute and saying Zeig Heil! Which means Hail Victory.

I do not see "hate speech" as much of an issue.

On the other hand this documentary is titled "after Tiller" Tiller beign a doctor murdered by some fanatic that I am sure many of the anti-choice crowd sees as some sort of hero.
They want to CENSOR a TV documentary about actual events.

They are defending "hate actions" like putting so many BOGUS restrictions on clinics that do abortions that they can no longer stay in business.

[Plane]

Bogus?

Is applying the same requirements to abortion clinics as are applied to other clinics bogus in some way?

I think that preventing the state from applying standards for clinics is asking for trouble, like that hero Dr Gosling.

[Xavier_Onassis]

That is not what they are doing, and you know it.
The goal of this BOGUS legislation is NOT to ensure the safety of patients but to make abortions impossible. The assholes that submitted these bills have admitted this.

[Plane]

   I suppose that it was not the intent of legislators to make an abortion mill dangerous for its adult patients , but by shielding Dr Gosnel from regulation that is what they got.
   http://abcnews.go.com/Health/philadelphia-abortion-doctor-accused-killing-babies-scissors-charged/story?id=12649868
 
     It is not unreasonable to require of abortion profit centers the same requirements as other sorts of clinics that are performing equally invasive procedures.

     If most of the Texas abortion clinics cannot meet requirements that all of their dentists already meet , is this not evidence that they were sub standard?


     I do not think that the solution to sub standard is the erasure of standard.

[sirs]

The issue is hate speech.

Exactly.....You seemed to have side stepped the most pertinent points being made here, regarding that issue.  Specifically:
 
- who gets to define the parameters of hate speech?? 
- don't we have a 1st amendment right to say whatever it is we want, even if it offends someone else?? 
- And whats it to the Government to be using tax dollars to monitor what they determine is hate speech??

They are defending "hate actions" like putting so many BOGUS restrictions on clinics that do abortions that they can no longer stay in business.

Now its about hate "actions", not speech?  And who gets to define what actions are "hate" vs "protection" of the unborn child??     

[Xavier_Onassis]

There is no such thing as an unborn child.
 To be a child, a fetus must be born.

[sirs]

And who gets to define that supposed non-existent term??  The same folks that get to define what is and isn't "hate speech"?  Precisely my point.  A child not yet born is defacto an unborn child

Can you try answering the rather simple questions vs just launching into yet another irrelevant tangent?:
- who gets to define the parameters of hate speech?? 
- don't we have a 1st amendment right to say whatever it is we want, even if it offends someone else?? 
- And whats it to the Government to be using tax dollars to monitor what they determine is hate speech??

[Xavier_Onassis]

I get to define words for my own use.
I say that a woman has an ABSOLUTE right to decide for herself whether she has an aboution, whether a fetus is an unborn child, all that stuff. You have no right to tell her what she cannot do, neither dies any government.
 You rightwingers are always blathering about government intrusion, but you deny women the right to determine the most basic act of all.


I note that the documentary in question is scheduled to be on tonight. So you can watch it and piss and moan, or watch Foxcrap instead.

[sirs]

Putting aside your parameters of abortion, as that was not related to any of the questions posed (but ironically does demonstrate the substantive flaw in those who would want to define hate speech), Can you try answering the rather simple questions?  "The issue is hate speech"...YOUR Words.  So:

- who gets to define the parameters of hate speech, as it relates specifically to this pending Government agency?? 
- don't we have a 1st amendment right to say whatever it is we want, even if it offends someone else?? 
- And whats it to the Government to be using tax dollars to monitor what they determine is hate speech??

Try answering one at a time, if you're not really a multi-tasker

[Xavier_Onassis]

Are you saying that there should be no such thing as hate speech?

I don't think much about hate speech. I don't really have an opinion about it.

It does seem rational for the Allies to insist that the Germans ban Nazi symbols, slogans and political groups after WWII. What do you think about that?

It doesn't seem rational to assume that Americans, or anyone, is not all that different from Germans. The difference is that the Nazis were respected in Germany as they never were here.

[Plane]

There is no such thing as an unborn child.
 To be a child, a fetus must be born.

If this were true there would be no problem.

But this is an invented distinction that represents no difference.

Women have been "with child" for centuries.

Though you have a right to your own opinion , you don't get to define reality for everyone with your own facts.

That very childlike thing that exists within a womb is not a child until it exits the womb?
Can you prove it?

[sirs]

Are you saying that there should be no such thing as hate speech?

No, never eaid, or even implied such a thing.  Now, can you please try answering the question(s).  Or is your non-answer the answer I kind of figured it to be??

Let's try one at a time:

Whats it to the Government to be using tax dollars to monitor what they determine is hate speech??

It does seem rational for the Allies to insist that the Germans ban Nazi symbols, slogans and political groups after WWII. What do you think about that?

See, you ask a question, while consistently avoiding answering mine.  What do I think?...it was a war, and the ban was applied towards those we had just won a war over.  Again, to apply that to current reality, we'd have to win our war against Islamofascism, followed by instituting a ban on terms like Jihad.  That's the only place your analogy makes any sense

Now, care to answer mine?

[Xavier_Onassis]

I have no idea what the Hell your question was.

[sirs]

- Whats it to the Government to be using tax dollars to monitor what they determine is hate speech??

- Who gets to define the parameters of hate speech, as it relates specifically to this pending Government agency??

- Don't we have a 1st amendment right to say whatever it is we want, even if it offends someone else??