more war discussion - another split from the 48hrs thread

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2003-03-17 11:38pm

Conquest is seldom just.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-17 11:44pm

Enlightenment wrote:Conquest is seldom just.

But in the case it sure is.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-03-18 12:06am

Enlightenment wrote:Conquest is seldom just.

Justice can never be conquest, and this is what I would call some long overdue justice.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2003-03-18 01:04am

Nathan F wrote:Justice can never be conquest, and this is what I would call some long overdue justice.

I'm sure the destitute and oppressed Halliburton Energy board members are desparately hoping for justice to be done. Why, some of these people are so poor that they can barely keep up the payments on their fifth houses and fifteenth cars.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2003-03-18 02:52am

DG_Cal_Wright wrote:Say, anyone got some rope? If we can't hang is ass, let's tie him to one of those MOABs, see how an extra 100lbs of geek effect it's flight.

What a heartwarming display of the average rightwingnut's respect for freedom of speech. Lynch any dissenters in the name of freedom lately, hypocrite?

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2003-03-18 03:37am

Yeah, no shit.

I love it when the right wing screwballs get all pissy when it comes to respecting the country, but when someone protests they have a fit and make fun of them.

Look, idiots! Protesting is totally American! Get a clue.

Cal Wright · Post by **Cal Wright** » 2003-03-18 10:52pm

Enlightenment wrote:
DG_Cal_Wright wrote:Say, anyone got some rope? If we can't hang is ass, let's tie him to one of those MOABs, see how an extra 100lbs of geek effect it's flight.
What a heartwarming display of the average rightwingnut's respect for freedom of speech. Lynch any dissenters in the name of freedom lately, hypocrite?

Go to hell. He wasn't saying that in the freedom of speech anymore than porn on the internet is a first amendment right. I need to know where your buried so I can shit on your grave.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2003-03-19 02:10am

SylasGaunt wrote:People have their right to protest, on the other hand the same people you're mocking have teh same right to free speech so get over it.

Free speech does not extend to yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater or suggesting that someone should be lynched.

DG_Cal_Wright wrote:Go to hell. He wasn't saying that in the freedom of speech anymore than porn on the internet is a first amendment right.

Idiot. Porn is protected speech.

I need to know where your buried so I can shit on your grave.

Watch your mouth, little boy, before it runs off so far that you wind up saying something actionable.

Someone HOS the rest of this bullshit....

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-03-19 02:15am

Idiot. Porn is protected speech.

Sort of. Court decisions give states & localities a lot more leeway in regulating porn than you'd think.

It ought to be, but it ain't.

Cal Wright · Post by **Cal Wright** » 2003-03-19 02:24am

Enlightenment wrote:

Idiot. Porn is protected speech.

So they claim, but moans and groans ain't what I consider speech. They might have the 'right' to allow access on the net, however I do not see how it falls under speech. Possibly press, but that's still shaky.

Watch your mouth, little boy, before it runs off so far that you wind up saying something actionable.

Little boy? How cheap. Saying something actionable? So your not just trying to flame bait me, but leading me into some bullshit tangle. LoL. Nope, it's not going to happen you crap shoot of a human being. I choose my words carefully. What good do threats do on this board. The only threats you'll get from me is the promise to openly flame you on this board whenever you spew bullshit forth unto the masses.

Someone HOS the rest of this bullshit....

I've been asking all night actually. We'll have to wait until the morning. Then it's on.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-19 04:04am

That's what the hell I'm here for. Why does this need HoS? I just don't see it.

Cal Wright · Post by **Cal Wright** » 2003-03-19 08:44pm

Not the whole thing, just were Enlightenment staggered on, and spewed bullshit forth from the opening in that melon that sits on his shoulders.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-19 08:51pm

DG_Cal_Wright wrote:So they claim, but moans and groans ain't what I consider speech. They might have the 'right' to allow access on the net, however I do not see how it falls under speech. Possibly press, but that's still shaky.

Don't be absurd. The freedom of speech infers a freedom of expression. Porn is legally protected expression and hurts no one.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-03-19 09:09pm

Vympel wrote:That's what the hell I'm here for. Why does this need HoS? I just don't see it.

It has veered off-topic, so I say split it or something, but see if it gets worse before HoS-ing the split thread.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-03-19 09:23pm

All right, people. I've cleaned the Good luck thread again. Again, stay on the fucking topic in that particular thread and debate the war here or somewhere else.

Fuck.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2003-03-20 12:44am

DG_Cal_Wright wrote:I've been asking all night actually. We'll have to wait until the morning. Then it's on.

Oh, grow up...

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-03-20 12:47am

Durandal wrote:
DG_Cal_Wright wrote:So they claim, but moans and groans ain't what I consider speech. They might have the 'right' to allow access on the net, however I do not see how it falls under speech. Possibly press, but that's still shaky.
Don't be absurd. The freedom of speech infers a freedom of expression. Porn is legally protected expression and hurts no one.

Not if a state or locality can convince a federal court that the porn in question fits the legal definition of obscenity.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-20 01:20am

Durran Korr wrote:Not if a state or locality can convince a federal court that the porn in question fits the legal definition of obscenity.

Obscenity also hurts no one. The notion that people should have the right to outlaw anything which offends them (even if no material harm can be established) is absurd.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-03-20 01:24am

I think that just because some people and corporations will profit by it, it doesn't necessarily make it wrong.