Video on Ted and Dianne's exchange.

[just jk]

do a little research - you can google what speech is protected and what isnt. Cruz was comparing one amendment to another - and that's not always a winning argument in a free flowing debate.

i work in law enforcement - i work in an agency full of lawyers......protected speech has been a topic of discussion in my office several times because federal employees try to get away often saying stupid shit and then claiming it's protected by the first amendment

it's not nearly as broad as you think

my point was that rather than play cutesy with her - with hypothetical "what ifs" - stick to facts - the left owns the media. i thought Cruz looked like an insolent brat during that exchange

feel free to disagree - everybody is on Cruz's jockstrap like he just got annointed prom king......i like him a lot but i can recognize a missed opportunity when i see them.

the constitution argument convinces who of what? the anti gun crowd? no sir. unfortunate but true

 

[Younggun]

Sorry, but in many cases federal employees are not in the same boat as average citizens. Look at the military as a prime example.


I will not google anything or do the homework in an attempt to find evidence of something I think is incorrect.

If you think you are correct then give us an example of a type of speech which is not protected and is not intended to harm others. Don't make a claim then tell us to prove your right. We have already stated why certain things can not be said at certain times and it has nothing to do with the words but the intent or the acts committed(in the case of pornography)

 

[just jk]

wow - that is some logic there. dont make a claim and then ask you to prove i'm right - but its ok for you to make a claim and prove i'm wrong but offer no proof

federal employees have the same exact rights as any other - i used them as an example because those are who we deal with

whatever - if your'e too lazy to do a google search - then this is a pointless discussion

i like Cruz - a lot - i just think he missed a great opportunity to discuss facts, public opinion, crime stats, etc

are there any other politicians you'll get bent out of shape over if they are criticized?

 

[mikeofcontex]

The emporer is naked and Cruz exposed it quite well. "They" don't have the courage to attempt to amend so they posture and complain and attempt to use the courts while clearly violating their own oaths.

 

[Younggun]

wow - that is some logic there. dont make a claim and then ask you to prove i'm right - but its ok for you to make a claim and prove i'm wrong but offer no proof

federal employees have the same exact rights as any other - i used them as an example because those are who we deal with

whatever - if your'e too lazy to do a google search - then this is a pointless discussion

i like Cruz - a lot - i just think he missed a great opportunity to discuss facts, public opinion, crime stats, etc

are there any other politicians you'll get bent out of shape over if they are criticized?

It's not the politician I am defending, it is the point he made.


Myself and others have given example of why certain things can not be said and why. It had nothing to do with free speech but the actions involved.

You are asking us to give proof that something doesn't exist. Prove Sasquatch doesn't exist and I will prove your evidence does not exist. There is a reason we set out to prove the EXISTENCE of certain things and not the other way around.

If my right to free speech had truly been infringed the burden is on you to prove or show evidence that infringement exists, not for me to prove it does not.

 

[just jk]

it's a long legal discussion really

one i really dont give a rats ass to have on this board....if you've got a lawyer as a friend - ask him/her

ask about the concept of standing in a court .......ask about the difference between being able to say what you want- and using the 1st amendment to protect it in the courts

have a great day tho!

 

[just jk]

let me ask you this - does the 2A apply to ALL individuals? or a specific group with privileges?

are there exceptions to the 2A?

 

[Younggun]

All law abiding citizens.

Also, you have avoided my question, actually completely disregarded my point with a "do it yourself" attitude and started moving towards a different topic.

Not very convincing.

 

[just jk]

ok - so there are some people who dont have the right to own guns

and i simply stated that - not all speech is protected

save the educational legal argument for another day - but nobody here has disputed what i said - in fact, you only confirmed it

and that was my point - when you make a constitutional argument - comparing one amendment to another - to strengthen your argument on the 2A.....you're only giving the other side to bring up limitations - which then strengthens their argument - which then gives the liberal media a soundbite and hook to feed off

thats the point i'm making - it's just my opinion- you dont have to believe its right.

Cruz is a great ally to have - i just happen to think there are stronger arguments to make

 

[Younggun]

ok - so there are some people who dont have the right to own guns

and i simply stated that - not all speech is protected

save the educational legal argument for another day - but nobody here has disputed what i said - in fact, you only confirmed it

and that was my point - when you make a constitutional argument - comparing one amendment to another - to strengthen your argument on the 2A.....you're only giving the other side to bring up limitations - which then strengthens their argument - which then gives the liberal media a soundbite and hook to feed off

thats the point i'm making - it's just my opinion- you dont have to believe its right.

Cruz is a great ally to have - i just happen to think there are stronger arguments to make

Murderers, rapists, felons.

This is your counter argument?

 

[just jk]

lol - i'm done with this....you've missed my point entirely

enjoy your day

 

[mikeofcontex]

I fully understand the argument... just disagree... We have a generally ignorant public so driving a discussion of the meaning of the Bill of Rights is always good. The news media will fabricate arguments to support their ideology without any help from "us."

 

[M. Sage]

meh - just not going to do the internet argument thing - especially with you.....

whatever

What other kinds of speech aren't protected!? Those are honestly the only ones I know of.

 

[M. Sage]

federal employees have the same exact rights as any other - i used them as an example because those are who we deal with

Yes, they do. However, just like the rest of us, their employment may be terminated due to them saying stupid things. If I say something bad that's associated with my employer and he doesn't like it, he'll fire me. And he's within his right to do so.

Your analogy seems to be false, I'm sorry.

 

[just jk]

Yes, they do. However, just like the rest of us, their employment may be terminated due to them saying stupid things. If I say something bad that's associated with my employer and he doesn't like it, he'll fire me. And he's within his right to do so.

Your analogy seems to be false, I'm sorry.

you are wrong on being fed employees being fired for saying stupid things. firing federal employees is much tougher than it is in the private sector

my analogy isnt wrong - you just dont agree with it - which is fine. there isnt much you write that i agree with - so fair is fair

I'm sorry.

 

[just jk]

What other kinds of speech aren't protected!? Those are honestly the only ones I know of.

if i honestly thought you wanted to entertain a lengthy answer and be open minded without picking it apart for the sport of it - i'd consider answering it

but based on our history - i'll pass

 

[M. Sage]

if i honestly thought you wanted to entertain a lengthy answer and be open minded without picking it apart for the sport of it - i'd consider answering it

but based on our history - i'll pass

No, I really do want to know. If you're going to make a claim, you better back it up. Otherwise, don't bother making said claim.

 

[M. Sage]

you are wrong on being fed employees being fired for saying stupid things. firing federal employees is much tougher than it is in the private sector

my analogy isnt wrong - you just dont agree with it - which is fine. there isnt much you write that i agree with - so fair is fair

I'm sorry.

So you weren't talking about fed employees being punished for saying things that reflected poorly on their position?

I'd forgotten how hard it is to fire them...

 

[AlamoMIA]

Ted Cruz employed the axiom that a picture is always worth a thousand words.

He set up Feinstein with only 2 possible responses.

1) Agree with the central point imbedded within his question that her proposed legislation violates the 2nd Amendment and therefore should be withdrawn from consideration.
2) Get all huffy about being so effectively checkmated by the "JUNIOR" Senator from Texas, and resort to taking offense at being "lectured".


The proof that Cruz won that exchange is that Leahy, and Durbin had to jump in to disrupt the exchange before Feinsten made a complete fool of herself. Feinstein at least eventually answered the question honestly with a "NO".

The only thread that these charletans cling to when citing Heller is the reference to the 2nd Amendment is " not absolute".

On the contrary , the 2A is absolute in providing that the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms suitable for THEIR militia duties SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED (now that is pretty absolute).

There exists no natural "right" to bear arms for the purpose of assassination, robbery, kidnapping, rape, or murder.

Therefore the 2A does not even remotely apply under such circumstances. This routine tactic of interjecting this utterly absurd 2A "squelcher" that circumstances exist under which the 2A is "not absolute " is like saying constitutional protection provided that the RIGHT to paint using the color RED SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is somehow not absolute , and is "not unlimited" because there are other colors in the spectrum.

 

[ROGER4314]

Cruz played Swinestein like a fish! He was in complete control, got her to show her vulnerable places then slacked off to fight another day. I spent the first 30+ years of my life learning how to exploit vulnerable places so I could hurt people. When she lost it, I would have moved in for the kill. When you lose your temper, you lose your mind.

Cruz, however, noted how she reacted, kept playing her then slacked off. She was probed by a master. Cruz owns her and will pop her off any time he chooses to. The guy is a sharp player!

Flash