And leftists do? Care about their votes, maybe

agent-maroon said:

---

And leftists do? Care about their votes, maybe

---

To this day, no leftist candidates have been presented. All of the "squad" are either Democrat shills or miserable neolibs that don't care about the average American.

Musk!!!

WaltonAg18 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

Can't wait to see all the ISIS accounts reinstated, for freeze peach of course.

---

Love this gaslighting.

---

look, i don’t support ISIS or like them, but i have no choice but to support their free speech. in order to beat bad ideas in the marketplace of ideas we have to debate them #standwithISIS

— transgender ISIS (@JUNlPER) October 28, 2022

---

Are you seriously going to go here? American conservatives get banned while all the nefarious terrorists and evil people across the planet get to remain on twitter and push their agendas and plan terrorist acts openly?

Really?

---

Everyone, let me repeat that, EVERYONE deserves a spot in the marketplace of ideas from what I've learned on forum 16.

If we're to be the champions of free speech, you're fine with silencing your political opponents? Sounds a lot like what the libs do. Reflection required ahead.

---

Then your comprehension sucks ass and you are lying.

The long running factual situation is that American conservatives get cancelled while leftists and terrorists get to say whatever they want with zero repercussions.

All thats ever been wanted is equal speech with the American left and keeping actual terrorists off the platform. You know this so quit being an obtuse dumbass.

---

Your ad homs are unnecessary.

Who gets to define "actual terrorists"? The corrupt and crooked government?

For all I know those people were the same victims of cancel culture as all the other conservatives. They just have a slightly different viewpoint from you, why shouldn't their opinion be voiced just as evenly?

---

Reductio ad absurdum

You support free speech so you support terrorists advocating killing people.

Advocating committing murder may just step slightly over a line. Advocating different political views doesn't.

HTH

The moment you start arguing with an ignorant fool, you have already lost. Ali Ibn Abi Talib

When arguing with a fool, make sure the opponent isn't doing the exact same thing. Abraham Lincoln

Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.

Mark Twain

Ag with kids said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

Can't wait to see all the ISIS accounts reinstated, for freeze peach of course.

---

Love this gaslighting.

---

look, i don’t support ISIS or like them, but i have no choice but to support their free speech. in order to beat bad ideas in the marketplace of ideas we have to debate them #standwithISIS

— transgender ISIS (@JUNlPER) October 28, 2022

---

Are you seriously going to go here? American conservatives get banned while all the nefarious terrorists and evil people across the planet get to remain on twitter and push their agendas and plan terrorist acts openly?

Really?

---

Everyone, let me repeat that, EVERYONE deserves a spot in the marketplace of ideas from what I've learned on forum 16.

If we're to be the champions of free speech, you're fine with silencing your political opponents? Sounds a lot like what the libs do. Reflection required ahead.

---

Then your comprehension sucks ass and you are lying.

The long running factual situation is that American conservatives get cancelled while leftists and terrorists get to say whatever they want with zero repercussions.

All thats ever been wanted is equal speech with the American left and keeping actual terrorists off the platform. You know this so quit being an obtuse dumbass.

---

Your ad homs are unnecessary.

Who gets to define "actual terrorists"? The corrupt and crooked government?

For all I know those people were the same victims of cancel culture as all the other conservatives. They just have a slightly different viewpoint from you, why shouldn't their opinion be voiced just as evenly?

---

Reductio ad absurdum

You support free speech so you support terrorists advocating killing people.

Advocating committing murder may just step slightly over a line. Advocating different political views doesn't.

HTH

---

Whether intentionally or not, you're significantly misrepresenting my point. I never said that free speech supporters must also support terrorists openly advocating killing people, that was never even mentioned.

One of the claims made in this thread are that "terrorists don't deserve free speech". Using the broad term of "terrorist" as an explanation of who deserves free speech and who doesn't simply paves the path for the government to use that broad description to silence their party's opposition.

Are terrorists only those who murder others? Does it include their neighbors? Family members? One poster said anyone who supports them - what does that support consist of? Who determines the severity of the contribution?

If you agree that advocating different political and religious views doesn't merit being silenced, then as long as the member hasn't partaken in any crimes themselves it should be perfectly fine to use Twitter for recruiting.

Sorry your monopoly lost.

You seemed to have missed my question again, reposting for you.

We let criminals say whatever we want on Twitter?

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

You seemed to have missed my question again, reposting for you.

We let criminals say whatever we want on Twitter?

---

Well, Hitler was a war criminal and everyone on the Right is literally HiTlEr!

Ergo.....

WaltonAg18 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

Can't wait to see all the ISIS accounts reinstated, for freeze peach of course.

---

Love this gaslighting.

---

look, i don’t support ISIS or like them, but i have no choice but to support their free speech. in order to beat bad ideas in the marketplace of ideas we have to debate them #standwithISIS

— transgender ISIS (@JUNlPER) October 28, 2022

---

Are you seriously going to go here? American conservatives get banned while all the nefarious terrorists and evil people across the planet get to remain on twitter and push their agendas and plan terrorist acts openly?

Really?

---

Everyone, let me repeat that, EVERYONE deserves a spot in the marketplace of ideas from what I've learned on forum 16.

If we're to be the champions of free speech, you're fine with silencing your political opponents? Sounds a lot like what the libs do. Reflection required ahead.

---

Then your comprehension sucks ass and you are lying.

The long running factual situation is that American conservatives get cancelled while leftists and terrorists get to say whatever they want with zero repercussions.

All thats ever been wanted is equal speech with the American left and keeping actual terrorists off the platform. You know this so quit being an obtuse dumbass.

---

Your ad homs are unnecessary.

Who gets to define "actual terrorists"? The corrupt and crooked government?

For all I know those people were the same victims of cancel culture as all the other conservatives. They just have a slightly different viewpoint from you, why shouldn't their opinion be voiced just as evenly?

---

Reductio ad absurdum

You support free speech so you support terrorists advocating killing people.

Advocating committing murder may just step slightly over a line. Advocating different political views doesn't.

HTH

---

Whether intentionally or not, you're significantly misrepresenting my point. I never said that free speech supporters must also support terrorists openly advocating killing people, that was never even mentioned.

One of the claims made in this thread are that "terrorists don't deserve free speech". Using the broad term of "terrorist" as an explanation of who deserves free speech and who doesn't simply paves the path for the government to use that broad description to silence their party's opposition.

Are terrorists only those who murder others? Does it include their neighbors? Family members? One poster said anyone who supports them - what does that support consist of? Who determines the severity of the contribution?

If you agree that advocating different political and religious views doesn't merit being silenced, then as long as the member hasn't partaken in any crimes themselves it should be perfectly fine to use Twitter for recruiting.

---

You literally posted the following:

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3334170/replies/63405416

Quote:

---

Can't wait to see all the ISIS accounts reinstated, for freeze peach of course.

---

You're doing exactly what I said...reductio ad absurdum...

Committing or advocating crimes is NOT free speech that's allowed by the SCOTUS. Recruiting people to commit crimes is also not allowed as free speech. Ever heard of RICO laws?

Providing support to people committing crimes is also not allowed...it's a ****ing crime in and of itself.

There ARE limits to free speech...but they should be few and far between...and that is something the SCOTUS 100% agrees with.

This is NOT rocket surgery.

Ag with kids said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

Can't wait to see all the ISIS accounts reinstated, for freeze peach of course.

---

Love this gaslighting.

---

look, i don’t support ISIS or like them, but i have no choice but to support their free speech. in order to beat bad ideas in the marketplace of ideas we have to debate them #standwithISIS

— transgender ISIS (@JUNlPER) October 28, 2022

---

Are you seriously going to go here? American conservatives get banned while all the nefarious terrorists and evil people across the planet get to remain on twitter and push their agendas and plan terrorist acts openly?

Really?

---

Everyone, let me repeat that, EVERYONE deserves a spot in the marketplace of ideas from what I've learned on forum 16.

If we're to be the champions of free speech, you're fine with silencing your political opponents? Sounds a lot like what the libs do. Reflection required ahead.

---

Then your comprehension sucks ass and you are lying.

The long running factual situation is that American conservatives get cancelled while leftists and terrorists get to say whatever they want with zero repercussions.

All thats ever been wanted is equal speech with the American left and keeping actual terrorists off the platform. You know this so quit being an obtuse dumbass.

---

Your ad homs are unnecessary.

Who gets to define "actual terrorists"? The corrupt and crooked government?

For all I know those people were the same victims of cancel culture as all the other conservatives. They just have a slightly different viewpoint from you, why shouldn't their opinion be voiced just as evenly?

---

Reductio ad absurdum

You support free speech so you support terrorists advocating killing people.

Advocating committing murder may just step slightly over a line. Advocating different political views doesn't.

HTH

---

Whether intentionally or not, you're significantly misrepresenting my point. I never said that free speech supporters must also support terrorists openly advocating killing people, that was never even mentioned.

One of the claims made in this thread are that "terrorists don't deserve free speech". Using the broad term of "terrorist" as an explanation of who deserves free speech and who doesn't simply paves the path for the government to use that broad description to silence their party's opposition.

Are terrorists only those who murder others? Does it include their neighbors? Family members? One poster said anyone who supports them - what does that support consist of? Who determines the severity of the contribution?

If you agree that advocating different political and religious views doesn't merit being silenced, then as long as the member hasn't partaken in any crimes themselves it should be perfectly fine to use Twitter for recruiting.

---

You literally posted the following:

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3334170/replies/63405416

Quote:

---

Can't wait to see all the ISIS accounts reinstated, for freeze peach of course.

---

You're doing exactly what I said...reductio ad absurdum...

Committing or advocating crimes is NOT free speech that's allowed by the SCOTUS. Recruiting people to commit crimes is also not allowed as free speech. Ever heard of RICO laws?

Providing support to people committing crimes is also not allowed...it's a ****ing crime in and of itself.

There ARE limits to free speech...but they should be few and far between...and that is something the SCOTUS 100% agrees with.

This is NOT rocket surgery.

---

Quote:

---

Committing or advocating crimes is NOT free speech that's allowed by the SCOTUS.

---

This is a foolish, juvenile viewpoint. I can tweet "everyone should speed, speed limits are pointless", which is advocating for breaking a law - the speed limit. Will the cops be breaking down my door shortly thereafter? No, because it is still considered free speech.

Take the classic "you can't shout fire in a movie theater" myth. Any idea what case that is derived from? Probably not, but I'll give you a hand.

It comes from Schenck v. United States and the conclusion is that advocating for draft dodging is equivalent to shouting fire in a theater. That case was overthrown by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which determined that imminent lawless action must be at risk of being incited. No imminent lawless action, you're well within the bounds of free speech.



I suggest doing a modicum of research before you claim such nonsense as fact. And maybe figure out what a RICO is, lol.

The quality of the armchair lawyering on this site isn't getting worse. It's just wandering further into the world of non sequitur.

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

The quality of the armchair lawyering on this site isn't getting worse. It's just wandering further into the world of non sequitur.

---

Psshhh, like YOU have any idea what being a lawyer is all about.

It is in his profile.

aggiehawg said:

---

It is in his profile.

---

Are you seriously this dense?

WaltonAg18 said:

---

Can't wait to see all the ISIS accounts reinstated, for freeze peach of course.

---

Can't wait to see you cry more

WaltonAg18 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

Can't wait to see all the ISIS accounts reinstated, for freeze peach of course.

---

Love this gaslighting.

---

look, i don’t support ISIS or like them, but i have no choice but to support their free speech. in order to beat bad ideas in the marketplace of ideas we have to debate them #standwithISIS

— transgender marx (@JUNlPER) October 28, 2022

---

Are you seriously going to go here? American conservatives get banned while all the nefarious terrorists and evil people across the planet get to remain on twitter and push their agendas and plan terrorist acts openly?

Really?

---

Everyone, let me repeat that, EVERYONE deserves a spot in the marketplace of ideas from what I've learned on forum 16.

If we're to be the champions of free speech, you're fine with silencing your political opponents? Sounds a lot like what the libs do. Reflection required ahead.

---

Then your comprehension sucks ass and you are lying.

The long running factual situation is that American conservatives get cancelled while leftists and terrorists get to say whatever they want with zero repercussions.

All thats ever been wanted is equal speech with the American left and keeping actual terrorists off the platform. You know this so quit being an obtuse dumbass.

---

Your ad homs are unnecessary.

Who gets to define "actual terrorists"? The corrupt and crooked government?

For all I know those people were the same victims of cancel culture as all the other conservatives. They just have a slightly different viewpoint from you, why shouldn't their opinion be voiced just as evenly?

---

Reductio ad absurdum

You support free speech so you support terrorists advocating killing people.

Advocating committing murder may just step slightly over a line. Advocating different political views doesn't.

HTH

---

Whether intentionally or not, you're significantly misrepresenting my point. I never said that free speech supporters must also support terrorists openly advocating killing people, that was never even mentioned.

One of the claims made in this thread are that "terrorists don't deserve free speech". Using the broad term of "terrorist" as an explanation of who deserves free speech and who doesn't simply paves the path for the government to use that broad description to silence their party's opposition.

Are terrorists only those who murder others? Does it include their neighbors? Family members? One poster said anyone who supports them - what does that support consist of? Who determines the severity of the contribution?

If you agree that advocating different political and religious views doesn't merit being silenced, then as long as the member hasn't partaken in any crimes themselves it should be perfectly fine to use Twitter for recruiting.

---

Democrats and their foot soldiers (blm, antifa) did tens of billions in damage to major cities in 2020, murdered like 50 people, coordinated bail payments, all through twitter.

the right has a long way to go to catch up what your party did in 2020 to make sure Trump lost.

the only thing you need to be doing on this topic is closing your browser, logging off, and try to apply some of that critical thinking you were supposed to be learning in College Station.

WaltonAg18 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

Can't wait to see all the ISIS accounts reinstated, for freeze peach of course.

---

Love this gaslighting.

---

look, i don’t support ISIS or like them, but i have no choice but to support their free speech. in order to beat bad ideas in the marketplace of ideas we have to debate them #standwithISIS

— transgender marx (@JUNlPER) October 28, 2022

---

Are you seriously going to go here? American conservatives get banned while all the nefarious terrorists and evil people across the planet get to remain on twitter and push their agendas and plan terrorist acts openly?

Really?

---

Everyone, let me repeat that, EVERYONE deserves a spot in the marketplace of ideas from what I've learned on forum 16.

If we're to be the champions of free speech, you're fine with silencing your political opponents? Sounds a lot like what the libs do. Reflection required ahead.

---

Then your comprehension sucks ass and you are lying.

The long running factual situation is that American conservatives get cancelled while leftists and terrorists get to say whatever they want with zero repercussions.

All thats ever been wanted is equal speech with the American left and keeping actual terrorists off the platform. You know this so quit being an obtuse dumbass.

---

Your ad homs are unnecessary.

Who gets to define "actual terrorists"? The corrupt and crooked government?

For all I know those people were the same victims of cancel culture as all the other conservatives. They just have a slightly different viewpoint from you, why shouldn't their opinion be voiced just as evenly?

---

Reductio ad absurdum

You support free speech so you support terrorists advocating killing people.

Advocating committing murder may just step slightly over a line. Advocating different political views doesn't.

HTH

---

Whether intentionally or not, you're significantly misrepresenting my point. I never said that free speech supporters must also support terrorists openly advocating killing people, that was never even mentioned.

One of the claims made in this thread are that "terrorists don't deserve free speech". Using the broad term of "terrorist" as an explanation of who deserves free speech and who doesn't simply paves the path for the government to use that broad description to silence their party's opposition.

Are terrorists only those who murder others? Does it include their neighbors? Family members? One poster said anyone who supports them - what does that support consist of? Who determines the severity of the contribution?

If you agree that advocating different political and religious views doesn't merit being silenced, then as long as the member hasn't partaken in any crimes themselves it should be perfectly fine to use Twitter for recruiting.

---

You literally posted the following:

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3334170/replies/63405416

Quote:

---

Can't wait to see all the ISIS accounts reinstated, for freeze peach of course.

---

You're doing exactly what I said...reductio ad absurdum...

Committing or advocating crimes is NOT free speech that's allowed by the SCOTUS. Recruiting people to commit crimes is also not allowed as free speech. Ever heard of RICO laws?

Providing support to people committing crimes is also not allowed...it's a ****ing crime in and of itself.

There ARE limits to free speech...but they should be few and far between...and that is something the SCOTUS 100% agrees with.

This is NOT rocket surgery.

---

Quote:

---

Committing or advocating crimes is NOT free speech that's allowed by the SCOTUS.

---

This is a foolish, juvenile viewpoint. I can tweet "everyone should speed, speed limits are pointless", which is advocating for breaking a law - the speed limit. Will the cops be breaking down my door shortly thereafter? No, because it is still considered free speech.

Take the classic "you can't shout fire in a movie theater" myth. Any idea what case that is derived from? Probably not, but I'll give you a hand.

It comes from Schenck v. United States and the conclusion is that advocating for draft dodging is equivalent to shouting fire in a theater. That case was overthrown by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which determined that imminent lawless action must be at risk of being incited. No imminent lawless action, you're well within the bounds of free speech.



I suggest doing a modicum of research before you claim such nonsense as fact. And maybe figure out what a RICO is, lol.

---

Nice job of ignoring what my point was...

And completely misrepresenting what I stated.

I give you 1 internet point for the inanity...

Ag with kids said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

Can't wait to see all the ISIS accounts reinstated, for freeze peach of course.

---

Love this gaslighting.

---

look, i don’t support ISIS or like them, but i have no choice but to support their free speech. in order to beat bad ideas in the marketplace of ideas we have to debate them #standwithISIS

— transgender marx (@JUNlPER) October 28, 2022

---

Are you seriously going to go here? American conservatives get banned while all the nefarious terrorists and evil people across the planet get to remain on twitter and push their agendas and plan terrorist acts openly?

Really?

---

Everyone, let me repeat that, EVERYONE deserves a spot in the marketplace of ideas from what I've learned on forum 16.

If we're to be the champions of free speech, you're fine with silencing your political opponents? Sounds a lot like what the libs do. Reflection required ahead.

---

Then your comprehension sucks ass and you are lying.

The long running factual situation is that American conservatives get cancelled while leftists and terrorists get to say whatever they want with zero repercussions.

All thats ever been wanted is equal speech with the American left and keeping actual terrorists off the platform. You know this so quit being an obtuse dumbass.

---

Your ad homs are unnecessary.

Who gets to define "actual terrorists"? The corrupt and crooked government?

For all I know those people were the same victims of cancel culture as all the other conservatives. They just have a slightly different viewpoint from you, why shouldn't their opinion be voiced just as evenly?

---

Reductio ad absurdum

You support free speech so you support terrorists advocating killing people.

Advocating committing murder may just step slightly over a line. Advocating different political views doesn't.

HTH

---

Whether intentionally or not, you're significantly misrepresenting my point. I never said that free speech supporters must also support terrorists openly advocating killing people, that was never even mentioned.

One of the claims made in this thread are that "terrorists don't deserve free speech". Using the broad term of "terrorist" as an explanation of who deserves free speech and who doesn't simply paves the path for the government to use that broad description to silence their party's opposition.

Are terrorists only those who murder others? Does it include their neighbors? Family members? One poster said anyone who supports them - what does that support consist of? Who determines the severity of the contribution?

If you agree that advocating different political and religious views doesn't merit being silenced, then as long as the member hasn't partaken in any crimes themselves it should be perfectly fine to use Twitter for recruiting.

---

You literally posted the following:

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3334170/replies/63405416

Quote:

---

Can't wait to see all the ISIS accounts reinstated, for freeze peach of course.

---

You're doing exactly what I said...reductio ad absurdum...

Committing or advocating crimes is NOT free speech that's allowed by the SCOTUS. Recruiting people to commit crimes is also not allowed as free speech. Ever heard of RICO laws?

Providing support to people committing crimes is also not allowed...it's a ****ing crime in and of itself.

There ARE limits to free speech...but they should be few and far between...and that is something the SCOTUS 100% agrees with.

This is NOT rocket surgery.

---

Quote:

---

Committing or advocating crimes is NOT free speech that's allowed by the SCOTUS.

---

This is a foolish, juvenile viewpoint. I can tweet "everyone should speed, speed limits are pointless", which is advocating for breaking a law - the speed limit. Will the cops be breaking down my door shortly thereafter? No, because it is still considered free speech.

Take the classic "you can't shout fire in a movie theater" myth. Any idea what case that is derived from? Probably not, but I'll give you a hand.

It comes from Schenck v. United States and the conclusion is that advocating for draft dodging is equivalent to shouting fire in a theater. That case was overthrown by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which determined that imminent lawless action must be at risk of being incited. No imminent lawless action, you're well within the bounds of free speech.



I suggest doing a modicum of research before you claim such nonsense as fact. And maybe figure out what a RICO is, lol.

---

Nice job of ignoring what my point was...

And completely misrepresenting what I stated.

I give you 1 internet point for the inanity...

---

What was misrepresented? You claim that "advocating for breaking laws is illegal", when it isn't.

You claim that "providing support" to "people committing crimes" is illegal, which is (intentionally, I'm sure) vague and also doesn't represent the country we live in.

Squadron7 said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

titan said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

Can't wait to see all the ISIS accounts reinstated, for freeze peach of course.

---

Sure, because you can't ban international terrorists without banning Jordan Peterson first.

---

Yeah, its a foolish thought. Musk is under no obligation to put willful foreign enemies who have declared war on his network that we are still at war with. I don't remember a peace treaty or cease-fire in the WoT or 9/11 War as prefer to call it.

---

The Saudi's? Iranians? Are they all going to be banned now since you've decided they're "foreign enemies"?

Some free speech proponent you truly are.

---

I have to ask…before Elon bought Twitter did you know that men can't get pregnant?

---

Come on now. No way WaltonAg18 is a Biologist.

All of the leftist governments I know are strongly anti-free speech. It's a peculiar mind that advocates for both leftism and free speech. They are, practically speaking, mutually exclusive.

Sea Speed said:

---

Guys, that video is fake.

---

I think humor is allowed on Twitter now.

That might be fake news...

WaltonAg18 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

Can't wait to see all the ISIS accounts reinstated, for freeze peach of course.

---

Love this gaslighting.

---

look, i don’t support ISIS or like them, but i have no choice but to support their free speech. in order to beat bad ideas in the marketplace of ideas we have to debate them #standwithISIS

— transgender marx (@JUNlPER) October 28, 2022

---

Are you seriously going to go here? American conservatives get banned while all the nefarious terrorists and evil people across the planet get to remain on twitter and push their agendas and plan terrorist acts openly?

Really?

---

Everyone, let me repeat that, EVERYONE deserves a spot in the marketplace of ideas from what I've learned on forum 16.

If we're to be the champions of free speech, you're fine with silencing your political opponents? Sounds a lot like what the libs do. Reflection required ahead.

---

Then your comprehension sucks ass and you are lying.

The long running factual situation is that American conservatives get cancelled while leftists and terrorists get to say whatever they want with zero repercussions.

All thats ever been wanted is equal speech with the American left and keeping actual terrorists off the platform. You know this so quit being an obtuse dumbass.

---

Your ad homs are unnecessary.

Who gets to define "actual terrorists"? The corrupt and crooked government?

For all I know those people were the same victims of cancel culture as all the other conservatives. They just have a slightly different viewpoint from you, why shouldn't their opinion be voiced just as evenly?

---

Reductio ad absurdum

You support free speech so you support terrorists advocating killing people.

Advocating committing murder may just step slightly over a line. Advocating different political views doesn't.

HTH

---

Whether intentionally or not, you're significantly misrepresenting my point. I never said that free speech supporters must also support terrorists openly advocating killing people, that was never even mentioned.

One of the claims made in this thread are that "terrorists don't deserve free speech". Using the broad term of "terrorist" as an explanation of who deserves free speech and who doesn't simply paves the path for the government to use that broad description to silence their party's opposition.

Are terrorists only those who murder others? Does it include their neighbors? Family members? One poster said anyone who supports them - what does that support consist of? Who determines the severity of the contribution?

If you agree that advocating different political and religious views doesn't merit being silenced, then as long as the member hasn't partaken in any crimes themselves it should be perfectly fine to use Twitter for recruiting.

---

You literally posted the following:

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3334170/replies/63405416

Quote:

---

Can't wait to see all the ISIS accounts reinstated, for freeze peach of course.

---

You're doing exactly what I said...reductio ad absurdum...

Committing or advocating crimes is NOT free speech that's allowed by the SCOTUS. Recruiting people to commit crimes is also not allowed as free speech. Ever heard of RICO laws?

Providing support to people committing crimes is also not allowed...it's a ****ing crime in and of itself.

There ARE limits to free speech...but they should be few and far between...and that is something the SCOTUS 100% agrees with.

This is NOT rocket surgery.

---

Quote:

---

Committing or advocating crimes is NOT free speech that's allowed by the SCOTUS.

---

This is a foolish, juvenile viewpoint. I can tweet "everyone should speed, speed limits are pointless", which is advocating for breaking a law - the speed limit. Will the cops be breaking down my door shortly thereafter? No, because it is still considered free speech.

Take the classic "you can't shout fire in a movie theater" myth. Any idea what case that is derived from? Probably not, but I'll give you a hand.

It comes from Schenck v. United States and the conclusion is that advocating for draft dodging is equivalent to shouting fire in a theater. That case was overthrown by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which determined that imminent lawless action must be at risk of being incited. No imminent lawless action, you're well within the bounds of free speech.



I suggest doing a modicum of research before you claim such nonsense as fact. And maybe figure out what a RICO is, lol.

---

Nice job of ignoring what my point was...

And completely misrepresenting what I stated.

I give you 1 internet point for the inanity...

---

What was misrepresented? You claim that "advocating for breaking laws is illegal", when it isn't.

You claim that "providing support" to "people committing crimes" is illegal, which is (intentionally, I'm sure) vague and also doesn't represent the country we live in.

---

a) No I didn't.
b) ISIS ****ing advocates beheading people. That's not exactly vague.
c) YOU started arguing that ISIS should be allowed back "Can't wait to see all the ISIS accounts reinstated, for freeze peach of course." Member that? Pepperidge Farms members...
d) Your entire argument started out as reductio ad absurdum...and you haven't backed off of it, but the goalposts ARE in a different stadium, now.

I'm thinking more this....

Ag with kids said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

Can't wait to see all the ISIS accounts reinstated, for freeze peach of course.

---

Love this gaslighting.

---

look, i don’t support ISIS or like them, but i have no choice but to support their free speech. in order to beat bad ideas in the marketplace of ideas we have to debate them #standwithISIS

— transgender marx (@JUNlPER) October 28, 2022

---

Are you seriously going to go here? American conservatives get banned while all the nefarious terrorists and evil people across the planet get to remain on twitter and push their agendas and plan terrorist acts openly?

Really?

---

Everyone, let me repeat that, EVERYONE deserves a spot in the marketplace of ideas from what I've learned on forum 16.

If we're to be the champions of free speech, you're fine with silencing your political opponents? Sounds a lot like what the libs do. Reflection required ahead.

---

Then your comprehension sucks ass and you are lying.

The long running factual situation is that American conservatives get cancelled while leftists and terrorists get to say whatever they want with zero repercussions.

All thats ever been wanted is equal speech with the American left and keeping actual terrorists off the platform. You know this so quit being an obtuse dumbass.

---

Your ad homs are unnecessary.

Who gets to define "actual terrorists"? The corrupt and crooked government?

For all I know those people were the same victims of cancel culture as all the other conservatives. They just have a slightly different viewpoint from you, why shouldn't their opinion be voiced just as evenly?

---

Reductio ad absurdum

You support free speech so you support terrorists advocating killing people.

Advocating committing murder may just step slightly over a line. Advocating different political views doesn't.

HTH

---

Whether intentionally or not, you're significantly misrepresenting my point. I never said that free speech supporters must also support terrorists openly advocating killing people, that was never even mentioned.

One of the claims made in this thread are that "terrorists don't deserve free speech". Using the broad term of "terrorist" as an explanation of who deserves free speech and who doesn't simply paves the path for the government to use that broad description to silence their party's opposition.

Are terrorists only those who murder others? Does it include their neighbors? Family members? One poster said anyone who supports them - what does that support consist of? Who determines the severity of the contribution?

If you agree that advocating different political and religious views doesn't merit being silenced, then as long as the member hasn't partaken in any crimes themselves it should be perfectly fine to use Twitter for recruiting.

---

You literally posted the following:

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3334170/replies/63405416

Quote:

---

Can't wait to see all the ISIS accounts reinstated, for freeze peach of course.

---

You're doing exactly what I said...reductio ad absurdum...

Committing or advocating crimes is NOT free speech that's allowed by the SCOTUS. Recruiting people to commit crimes is also not allowed as free speech. Ever heard of RICO laws?

Providing support to people committing crimes is also not allowed...it's a ****ing crime in and of itself.

There ARE limits to free speech...but they should be few and far between...and that is something the SCOTUS 100% agrees with.

This is NOT rocket surgery.

---

Quote:

---

Committing or advocating crimes is NOT free speech that's allowed by the SCOTUS.

---

This is a foolish, juvenile viewpoint. I can tweet "everyone should speed, speed limits are pointless", which is advocating for breaking a law - the speed limit. Will the cops be breaking down my door shortly thereafter? No, because it is still considered free speech.

Take the classic "you can't shout fire in a movie theater" myth. Any idea what case that is derived from? Probably not, but I'll give you a hand.

It comes from Schenck v. United States and the conclusion is that advocating for draft dodging is equivalent to shouting fire in a theater. That case was overthrown by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which determined that imminent lawless action must be at risk of being incited. No imminent lawless action, you're well within the bounds of free speech.



I suggest doing a modicum of research before you claim such nonsense as fact. And maybe figure out what a RICO is, lol.

---

Nice job of ignoring what my point was...

And completely misrepresenting what I stated.

I give you 1 internet point for the inanity...

---

What was misrepresented? You claim that "advocating for breaking laws is illegal", when it isn't.

You claim that "providing support" to "people committing crimes" is illegal, which is (intentionally, I'm sure) vague and also doesn't represent the country we live in.

---

a) No I didn't.
b) ISIS ****ing advocates beheading people. That's not exactly vague.
c) YOU started arguing that ISIS should be allowed back "Can't wait to see all the ISIS accounts reinstated, for freeze peach of course." Member that? Pepperidge Farms members...
d) Your entire argument started out as reductio ad absurdum...and you haven't backed off of it, but the goalposts ARE in a different stadium, now.

---

a) if that wasn't your point, why incorrectly reference RICO laws - used to prosecute large groups of associates? Give me a break.

b) So as long as they don't explicitly advocate for breaking a law (which is still free speech, but let's pretend it isn't - you conveniently forgot to address that, but it's alright to feel embarrassed).

c) That isn't an argument, it's a question.

d) Yawn. Goalposts haven't moved. Initial pointing of the hypocrisy behind "Free speech for all only means free speech for those you agree with" - still hasn't been debated, only proven in this thread.

I've already come to terms with the fact that you won't be addressing most of what I just wrote, but figured I'd get it out there for clarity's sake

WaltonAg18 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

Can't wait to see all the ISIS accounts reinstated, for freeze peach of course.

---

Love this gaslighting.

---

look, i don’t support ISIS or like them, but i have no choice but to support their free speech. in order to beat bad ideas in the marketplace of ideas we have to debate them #standwithISIS

— transgender marx (@JUNlPER) October 28, 2022

---

Are you seriously going to go here? American conservatives get banned while all the nefarious terrorists and evil people across the planet get to remain on twitter and push their agendas and plan terrorist acts openly?

Really?

---

Everyone, let me repeat that, EVERYONE deserves a spot in the marketplace of ideas from what I've learned on forum 16.

If we're to be the champions of free speech, you're fine with silencing your political opponents? Sounds a lot like what the libs do. Reflection required ahead.

---

Then your comprehension sucks ass and you are lying.

The long running factual situation is that American conservatives get cancelled while leftists and terrorists get to say whatever they want with zero repercussions.

All thats ever been wanted is equal speech with the American left and keeping actual terrorists off the platform. You know this so quit being an obtuse dumbass.

---

Your ad homs are unnecessary.

Who gets to define "actual terrorists"? The corrupt and crooked government?

For all I know those people were the same victims of cancel culture as all the other conservatives. They just have a slightly different viewpoint from you, why shouldn't their opinion be voiced just as evenly?

---

Read through the thread and think the ad homs are definitely necessary. The "well you want to ban isis so you're a hypocrite" angle is some half baked "everything is relative there are no absolutes" post modern deflection bull***** You should feel intellectual embarrassment for positing that we have to take free speech to its absolute extreme to avoid hypocrisy. There's a sweet spot between 4 Chan sewer where illegal action is planned and the current leftist thought police model.

Deputy Travis Junior said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

Can't wait to see all the ISIS accounts reinstated, for freeze peach of course.

---

Love this gaslighting.

---

look, i don’t support ISIS or like them, but i have no choice but to support their free speech. in order to beat bad ideas in the marketplace of ideas we have to debate them #standwithISIS

— transgender marx (@JUNlPER) October 28, 2022

---

Are you seriously going to go here? American conservatives get banned while all the nefarious terrorists and evil people across the planet get to remain on twitter and push their agendas and plan terrorist acts openly?

Really?

---

Everyone, let me repeat that, EVERYONE deserves a spot in the marketplace of ideas from what I've learned on forum 16.

If we're to be the champions of free speech, you're fine with silencing your political opponents? Sounds a lot like what the libs do. Reflection required ahead.

---

Then your comprehension sucks ass and you are lying.

The long running factual situation is that American conservatives get cancelled while leftists and terrorists get to say whatever they want with zero repercussions.

All thats ever been wanted is equal speech with the American left and keeping actual terrorists off the platform. You know this so quit being an obtuse dumbass.

---

Your ad homs are unnecessary.

Who gets to define "actual terrorists"? The corrupt and crooked government?

For all I know those people were the same victims of cancel culture as all the other conservatives. They just have a slightly different viewpoint from you, why shouldn't their opinion be voiced just as evenly?

---

Read through the thread and think the ad homs are definitely necessary. The "well you want to ban isis so you're a hypocrite" angle is some half baked "everything is relative there are no absolutes" post modern deflection bull***** You should feel intellectual embarrassment for positing that we have to take free speech to its absolute extreme to avoid hypocrisy. There's a sweet spot between 4 Chan sewer where illegal action is planned and the current leftist thought police model.

---

Thanks for participating in this lovely thought exercise - truly enjoyable.

4chan sewer where illegal action is planned? If we put on our critical thinking hats for just a short moment (I promise it isn't painful), we can see that 4chan allows for more freedom of speech than any other online forum. You'd rather that be censored? Who censors it, a new department of the government filled with people many along reviewing every single post on the taxpayer dime? Another avenue for corruption, sounds exactly like the Republican playbook.

It's alright, clearly the conclusion of this thread is what I've mentioned several times - you don't want less censorship, you just want censorship of ideas you disagree with, based on some arbitrary guidebook designed by people you agree with.

WaltonAg18 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

Can't wait to see all the ISIS accounts reinstated, for freeze peach of course.

---

Love this gaslighting.

---

look, i don’t support ISIS or like them, but i have no choice but to support their free speech. in order to beat bad ideas in the marketplace of ideas we have to debate them #standwithISIS

— transgender marx (@JUNlPER) October 28, 2022

---

Are you seriously going to go here? American conservatives get banned while all the nefarious terrorists and evil people across the planet get to remain on twitter and push their agendas and plan terrorist acts openly?

Really?

---

Everyone, let me repeat that, EVERYONE deserves a spot in the marketplace of ideas from what I've learned on forum 16.

If we're to be the champions of free speech, you're fine with silencing your political opponents? Sounds a lot like what the libs do. Reflection required ahead.

---

Then your comprehension sucks ass and you are lying.

The long running factual situation is that American conservatives get cancelled while leftists and terrorists get to say whatever they want with zero repercussions.

All thats ever been wanted is equal speech with the American left and keeping actual terrorists off the platform. You know this so quit being an obtuse dumbass.

---

Your ad homs are unnecessary.

Who gets to define "actual terrorists"? The corrupt and crooked government?

For all I know those people were the same victims of cancel culture as all the other conservatives. They just have a slightly different viewpoint from you, why shouldn't their opinion be voiced just as evenly?

---

Reductio ad absurdum

You support free speech so you support terrorists advocating killing people.

Advocating committing murder may just step slightly over a line. Advocating different political views doesn't.

HTH

---

Whether intentionally or not, you're significantly misrepresenting my point. I never said that free speech supporters must also support terrorists openly advocating killing people, that was never even mentioned.

One of the claims made in this thread are that "terrorists don't deserve free speech". Using the broad term of "terrorist" as an explanation of who deserves free speech and who doesn't simply paves the path for the government to use that broad description to silence their party's opposition.

Are terrorists only those who murder others? Does it include their neighbors? Family members? One poster said anyone who supports them - what does that support consist of? Who determines the severity of the contribution?

If you agree that advocating different political and religious views doesn't merit being silenced, then as long as the member hasn't partaken in any crimes themselves it should be perfectly fine to use Twitter for recruiting.

---

You literally posted the following:

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3334170/replies/63405416

Quote:

---

Can't wait to see all the ISIS accounts reinstated, for freeze peach of course.

---

You're doing exactly what I said...reductio ad absurdum...

Committing or advocating crimes is NOT free speech that's allowed by the SCOTUS. Recruiting people to commit crimes is also not allowed as free speech. Ever heard of RICO laws?

Providing support to people committing crimes is also not allowed...it's a ****ing crime in and of itself.

There ARE limits to free speech...but they should be few and far between...and that is something the SCOTUS 100% agrees with.

This is NOT rocket surgery.

---

Quote:

---

Committing or advocating crimes is NOT free speech that's allowed by the SCOTUS.

---

This is a foolish, juvenile viewpoint. I can tweet "everyone should speed, speed limits are pointless", which is advocating for breaking a law - the speed limit. Will the cops be breaking down my door shortly thereafter? No, because it is still considered free speech.

Take the classic "you can't shout fire in a movie theater" myth. Any idea what case that is derived from? Probably not, but I'll give you a hand.

It comes from Schenck v. United States and the conclusion is that advocating for draft dodging is equivalent to shouting fire in a theater. That case was overthrown by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which determined that imminent lawless action must be at risk of being incited. No imminent lawless action, you're well within the bounds of free speech.



I suggest doing a modicum of research before you claim such nonsense as fact. And maybe figure out what a RICO is, lol.

---

Nice job of ignoring what my point was...

And completely misrepresenting what I stated.

I give you 1 internet point for the inanity...

---

What was misrepresented? You claim that "advocating for breaking laws is illegal", when it isn't.

You claim that "providing support" to "people committing crimes" is illegal, which is (intentionally, I'm sure) vague and also doesn't represent the country we live in.

---

a) No I didn't.
b) ISIS ****ing advocates beheading people. That's not exactly vague.
c) YOU started arguing that ISIS should be allowed back "Can't wait to see all the ISIS accounts reinstated, for freeze peach of course." Member that? Pepperidge Farms members...
d) Your entire argument started out as reductio ad absurdum...and you haven't backed off of it, but the goalposts ARE in a different stadium, now.

---

a) if that wasn't your point, why incorrectly reference RICO laws - used to prosecute large groups of associates? Give me a break.

b) So as long as they don't explicitly advocate for breaking a law (which is still free speech, but let's pretend it isn't - you conveniently forgot to address that, but it's alright to feel embarrassed).

c) That isn't an argument, it's a question.

d) Yawn. Goalposts haven't moved. Initial pointing of the hypocrisy behind "Free speech for all only means free speech for those you agree with" - still hasn't been debated, only proven in this thread.

I've already come to terms with the fact that you won't be addressing most of what I just wrote, but figured I'd get it out there for clarity's sake

---

1) Classic misdirection from my point. You're debating a small detail about my overall argument as if that will negate the overall point. Cute.

b) "So as long as they don't explicitly advocate for breaking a law"...you mean the people that have BEHEADED PEOPLE and RECRUITED PEOPLE? Yeah..I guess they don't check your box.....YOU posted "Can't wait to see all the ISIS accounts reinstated, for freeze peach of course." Why would you state that and then run away from it?

iii) That is a STATEMENT, not a question. Have you never played Jeopardy?

Cuatro) JFC...This convo started in Kyle Field and I'm now in Wimbledon wondering WTF is going on...You STILL haven't even addressed your original reductio ad absurdum argument. And I know why...because you don't want to defend it.
V) I addressed your points. You won't address mine. The comparison of allowing ISIS to keep posting to allowing regular people to post "free speech" is, as I said, reductio ad absurdum.

Deputy Travis Junior said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

WaltonAg18 said:

---

Can't wait to see all the ISIS accounts reinstated, for freeze peach of course.

---

Love this gaslighting.

---

look, i don’t support ISIS or like them, but i have no choice but to support their free speech. in order to beat bad ideas in the marketplace of ideas we have to debate them #standwithISIS

— transgender marx (@JUNlPER) October 28, 2022

---

Are you seriously going to go here? American conservatives get banned while all the nefarious terrorists and evil people across the planet get to remain on twitter and push their agendas and plan terrorist acts openly?

Really?

---

Everyone, let me repeat that, EVERYONE deserves a spot in the marketplace of ideas from what I've learned on forum 16.

If we're to be the champions of free speech, you're fine with silencing your political opponents? Sounds a lot like what the libs do. Reflection required ahead.

---

Then your comprehension sucks ass and you are lying.

The long running factual situation is that American conservatives get cancelled while leftists and terrorists get to say whatever they want with zero repercussions.

All thats ever been wanted is equal speech with the American left and keeping actual terrorists off the platform. You know this so quit being an obtuse dumbass.

---

Your ad homs are unnecessary.

Who gets to define "actual terrorists"? The corrupt and crooked government?

For all I know those people were the same victims of cancel culture as all the other conservatives. They just have a slightly different viewpoint from you, why shouldn't their opinion be voiced just as evenly?

---

Read through the thread and think the ad homs are definitely necessary. The "well you want to ban isis so you're a hypocrite" angle is some half baked "everything is relative there are no absolutes" post modern deflection bull***** You should feel intellectual embarrassment for positing that we have to take free speech to its absolute extreme to avoid hypocrisy. There's a sweet spot between 4 Chan sewer where illegal action is planned and the current leftist thought police model.

---

I've been hammering the reductio ad absurdum point but he'll keep avoiding it.

WaltonAg18 said:

---

It's alright, clearly the conclusion of this thread is what I've mentioned several times - you don't want less censorship, you just want censorship of ideas you disagree with, based on some arbitrary guidebook designed by people you agree with.

---

This is the point of your elaborate that derail: once we admit we don't want isis on Twitter you can declare that we don't want less censorship we just want less. But this 3+ Sigma example ignores that most people on the right want Twitter to have significantly less censorship than it currently does. If somebody wants to tweet about how great universal health care is or how the election was stolen from Stacey Abrams or whatever most of us think they should be able to do that. The Twitter censors, coincidentally all of whom leaned far left, are not nearly so magnanimous toward those with whom they disagree.

So we really do want less censorship than currently exists, not just a different type.

1) Classic misdirection from my point. You're debating a small detail about my overall argument as if that will negate the overall point. Cute.

Small detail? It's one of a handful of paragraphs. You've still not addressed it directly, but I'll take this as a conceit.


b) "So as long as they don't explicitly advocate for breaking a law"...you mean the people that have BEHEADED PEOPLE and RECRUITED PEOPLE? Yeah..I guess they don't check your box.....YOU posted "Can't wait to see all the ISIS accounts reinstated, for freeze peach of course." Why would you state that and then run away from it?

Nothing has been ran away from. You truly think every single member of ISIS is actively beheading people? Make sure you check the closet for the boogeyman as well, because that's just as logical. Large organizations require levels upon levels of - gasp - organization! Meaning that you can join ISIS and just be part of their social media team, and as long as you don't commit any crimes yourself you should be well within your right to free speech.


iii) That is a STATEMENT, not a question. Have you never played Jeopardy?

...I'll take "jfc" for $500, Alex. Good lord.

Cuatro) JFC...This convo started in Kyle Field and I'm now in Wimbledon wondering WTF is going on...You STILL haven't even addressed your original reductio ad absurdum argument. And I know why...because you don't want to defend it.

The initial argument that ISIS accounts can be reinstated now - apparently the only requirement is they don't discuss their crimes.

V) I addressed your points. You won't address mine. The comparison of allowing ISIS to keep posting to allowing regular people to post "free speech" is, as I said, reductio ad absurdum.

Again, it goes back to one of my points from several posts ago. If they aren't advocating crimes (which isn't inherently illegal, but you still won't address that embarrassing slip up on your end) then they have every right to stay.

Come back to this thread and you dip****s are still debating ISIS. Mercy. Make it stop.