"There's a compassionate way to murder infants"

[Xavier_Onassis]

I have no idea how anyone could answer the first question. It is grammatically defective and makes no sense.

You can't say "anything you want" The Court has made that clear. You cannot threaten to kill people, you cannot yell FIRE! or otherwise cause people, to panic or riot.

What "pending government agency" are you talking about?

Who does the government claim gets to define hate speech? Surely you know who allegedly claims this right? Why ask me?

[sirs]

I have no idea how anyone could answer the first question. It is grammatically defective and makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense for someone who wants to take the question seriously.  Here's how it should have been answered....The Government has no bloody business monitoring or tabulating what THEY think is hate speech.  Especially if its the Government that gets to decide what is and isn't hate speech.

You can't say "anything you want" The Court has made that clear. You cannot threaten to kill people, you cannot yell FIRE! or otherwise cause people, to panic or riot.

And none of that has anything to do with hate speech, the point that you yourself have said is the issue, outside of threatening to kill someone, which no one is claiming is ok, or even constitutionally protected.  The issue specifically here is that no one has a right not to be offended. If someone says something you don't like, or support, or agree with...TOUGH.  If someone says something that offends the living snot out of you....TOUGH.  And the Government has no blooming business in trying to monitor what someone says that might offend someone else, based all the more on what they have decided is hate speech

What "pending government agency" are you talking about?

Just the beginning

Who does the government claim gets to define hate speech? Surely you know who allegedly claims this right? Why ask me?

Because I have no clue, what you're talking about

[Xavier_Onassis]

You are not all that good at normal speech. Perhaps you should seek out a hate speech coach, so as to achieve that proper amount of hatefulness.

People at the very least should know that you are hating them, and not just blathering to yourself like the Cat Lady on the Simpsons.

No one has a  right not to be offended.  Too bad the missed putting that one in the Constitution.

This has become far too silly to continue.

[sirs]

People at the very least should know that you are hating them, and not just blathering to yourself like the Cat Lady on the Simpsons.

Speaking of making no sense, people can think and feel anything.  What one person says to 2 others, 1 person can think its you hating them, the other can think it's a bad joke.  So no, no one can know that "you are hating them", unless they actually say so...as in "I hate you" 

No one has a  right not to be offended.  Too bad the missed putting that one in the Constitution.

Wow, doesn't that demonstrate just how warped a hard core socialist would take things, if they had the control to do so, and why the 1st amendment to the Constitution remains the most important amendment, to the Constitution, followed by the 2nd amendment

[Xavier_Onassis]

This has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism. You are inarticulate because you are clueless.

[sirs]

Speaking of clueless, never claimed this had anything to do with socialism, professor deflection   

[Xavier_Onassis]

You called me a "hard core Socialist".

I am not any sort of hard core anything.

[sirs]

Your actions/words, speak otherwise, not to mention the point I made again had nothing to do with Socialism in general.  So, deflect at will, as that is your SOP

[Xavier_Onassis]

If Socialism has nothing to do with it, why o why did you mention it?

Of course, none of you silly righties bothered to watch the documentary that according to CU4, PBS had no right to show.

The point of the documentary was that rthe Supreme Court ruled that late term abortions could be performed in extenuating circumstances, and that there were ony a few places where this was done. It presented the doctors and the patients. Nearly all of the abortions were of fetuses that were grossly deformed and that the parents lacked the resources to cover the potential medical bills, It was very well done.

But I suppose that Football, Faux Snooze and Dancing with the Stars was just too enticing for you schlubs to watch.

PBS regularly shows documentaries credited to David Koch, by the way, but you would not know anything about that, either.

[sirs]

If Socialism has nothing to do with it, why o why did you mention it?

Because your verbal antics appear to portray you as one.  It's no different than when you're calling me a "silly rightie".  The point I was making, that you quickly tried to deflect, is how quickly you'd support the idea that there should actually be a right not to be offended.  Good god      That mindset is right out of the book Divergent, where you're not allowed to think or act in any form, outside of some established parameter of thought.  Very scary mindset.  Likely worse than a Socialist state

Of course, none of you silly righties bothered to watch the documentary that according to CU4, PBS had no right to show.

ok, now you're going to have to back up that claim that they said that PBS "had no right", because from what I've read is frequent criticism of what PBS ran, minus any complimentary documentaries.  In other words, criticism isn't the same as "they had no right" in the 1st place.  I do realize that to the left, the act of criticism gets mutated into all forms are far more nefarious conclusions, such as racism.  So, you're going to have to provide actual quotes from them that say PBS had no business/right running that documentary, since that's merely your twisted opinion.  Don't worry, I won't hold my breath.

The point of the documentary was that rthe Supreme Court ruled that late term abortions could be performed in extenuating circumstances, and that there were ony a few places where this was done.

And guess what, I'm one of those pragmatic conservatives that actually supports abortion, in those rare circumstances, that without the procedure, the mom could die. 

But I suppose that Football, Faux Snooze and Dancing with the Stars was just too enticing for you schlubs to watch.

A) I rarely watch football, B) I rarely watch Fox News, and C) I never watch Dancing with the Stars.  So much for that erroneous claim

PBS regularly shows documentaries credited to David Koch, by the way, but you would not know anything about that, either.

Since I don't watch PBS, you'd be right.  I guess now that makes you a fan of the Kochs.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Some shows sponsored by David Koch are pretty good, actually. They tend to be nature shows.
I am a fan of learning new stuff, which is harder to do by watching sports, sitcoms and the usual TV fare.

[sirs]

If Socialism has nothing to do with it, why o why did you mention it?

Because your verbal antics appear to portray you as one.  It's no different than when you're calling me a "silly rightie".  The point I was making, that you quickly tried to deflect, is how quickly you'd support the idea that there should actually be a right not to be offended.  Good god      That mindset is right out of the book Divergent, where you're not allowed to think or act in any form, outside of some established parameter of thought.  Very scary mindset.  Likely worse than a Socialist state

Just in case we missed the point of my response, vs what the Kochs do or don't support via PBS

[Plane]

....................Nearly all of the abortions were of fetuses that were grossly deformed and that the parents lacked the resources to cover the potential medical bills, It was very well done.
.......................

So , it included some lies?

[Xavier_Onassis]

I saw no lies. They presented no one who leered and chuckled as tiny fetuses were flushed.  It presented what I would call a fair assessment of the daily routines of several doctors, none of whom seemed to be motivated by money.  There were no doctors or patients that seemed in any way disturbed, evil or unusual. I suppose that it is still available to watch on your computer.

[sirs]

The point I was making, that you quickly tried to deflect, is how quickly you'd support the idea that there should actually be a right not to be offended.  Good god      That mindset is right out of the book Divergent, where you're not allowed to think or act in any form, outside of some established parameter of thought.  Very scary mindset.  Likely worse than a Socialist state

Just in case we missed the point of my response, vs what the Kochs do or don't support via PBS

Here's a fella, that I sincerely believe the Professor would love to get to know...if he doesn't already The head of Berkeley is instituting rules to curb free speech, in the supposed name of free speech.  Indeed, what a steaming pile of ideology