It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Steve King Calls His Removal “Unprecedented Assault “ of Freedom of Speech.

page: 12
17
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey



“Mixing cultures will not lead to a higher quality of life but a lower one.”


Well i cant see anything wrong with this statement. But apparently it upsets the liberals who fantasize of a Utopia such as a mixed society.
edit on 17-1-2019 by AtlasHawk because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 05:09 AM
link   
To those that say "It's common sense that all cultures are equal.":

Does that mean you support the notion that 1930's Nazi culture is equal to 2010's Progressive culture?

Or are some cultures just more equal than others?

Is the culture of Shariah Law, where homosexuals are tossed off of roofs by government Storm troopers, equal to something like Native American culture?



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 05:59 AM
link   
a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

Not all cultures are equal. Some were so terrible they are no longer around due to implosion.

Others were very noble but are also gone due to conquest by terrible cultures.

Strong and fair should be the goal.

Some in our culture are trying to embrace the opposite. Weak and underhanded, which will lead to us not being around eventually as a culture.

We were too noble and not strong enough to defend what we built. That's why this problem developed.

Balance is life.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: tadaman



Not all cultures are equal. Some were so terrible they are no longer around due to implosion.


OK. Feel free to compare and contrast. I don't believe I assigned any "value judgements" on cultures in any of my posts in this thread. Others have.

I have simply compared and contrasted.

Have a good one!





posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

So then you would say that the Scandinavian culture is the superior culture on the planet right now? I mean they have existed with the same form of government for longer than any other Western culture and they are also very egalitarian.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

I would quantify their culture as balanced and long lasting, yes.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 07:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: narrator
...
He's free to say whatever wants, but he isn't free from the consequences of what he says.


The Constitution does not guarantee "all" rights to illegals, it only guarantees those rights to legal residents and citizens and the courts have afforded some protections to illegals.


originally posted by: narrator
I mean, read those quotes in the OP, objectively, and then say that he should still be heading a subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice. He's quoted saying things that go directly against those ideals.

He's also free to believe whatever he wants, but again, not free from the consequences. Since he believes that not all cultures are equal (as he's been quoted as saying), he shouldn't be in charge of a civil justice committee.

It's just common sense.


Perhaps you should start by reading the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights within it... It's "common sense" if you are going to try to claim that it gives rights to illegal aliens, when in fact it doesn't.


edit on 17-1-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


The Constitution does not guarantee any rights to illegals, it only guarantees those rights to legal residents and citizens.


Wrong. Read the Constitution again. Most of it's provisions never use the word "citizen." Instead it uses the word "person." Which means that anyone under US jurisdiction is granted the rights outlined in the Constitution.

Hell, it doesn't even prohibit noncitizens from voting. It wasn't until 1926 that most states had passed laws prohibiting it.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

Tells us, do you have any idea of what has been going on, and is still going on in Europe with the Muslim refugees?

Thousands of them, in several cities in Germany in New Year's eve decided to go on a rampage to sexually attack any western woman they saw, including those with their husbands/boyfriends...

The sexual assaults by the newly arrived Muslims, and those who followed suit, caused the government of Germany to tell their women not to go out alone.

In Britain and other European nations the sexual assault by Muslim immigrants has also increased, yet the politically correct idiots in charge decided to just give women a bracelet that said "don't touch" or something like that...

The majority of Muslims in the ME don't see women as the equals of their men, which is why we have seen an increase in the Muslim attacks, honor killings, raping western women, cutting the faces of women who would dare say "no" to their sexual advances, or they even throw acid to the faces of western women who say "no" to them. That's what "multiculturalism" has brought to Europe.

edit on 17-1-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254

Wrong. Read the Constitution again. Most of it's provisions never use the word "citizen." Instead it uses the word "person." Which means that anyone under US jurisdiction is granted the rights outlined in the Constitution.

Hell, it doesn't even prohibit noncitizens from voting. It wasn't until 1926 that most states had passed laws prohibiting it.


Wrong, there are only some protections allowed to illegal immigrants. But it does not guarantee them rights which are reserved for legal people living in the U.S.


...
Though the Constitution itself does not expressly protect people who are not citizens, courts have extended Fourth, Fifth and 14th Amendment protections to non-citizens in the United States.
...

classroom.synonym.com...



edit on 17-1-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

And what does the 14th Amendment say?



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: narrator

Your reply prompts a serious question in my mind.

You dont support either party. Why ever in the world would you give a crap what the Republicans do?



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 08:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: UKTruth

So you disagree that everyone should be equal under law? Who do you think should be considered superior? Who do you think should be considered inferior? I'm interested to know your hierarchy.


You didn't say equal under the law.

Equal rights and application of the law is sensible.
But human beings are not equal. Some are superior to others in a multitude of ways.


I disagree. For everything that one human is better than another at (example, one person can run a mile faster than another), that person is better than the first (the slower runner is better at swimming).

Therefore, overall superiority/inferiority isn't a thing. Different, sure. But unless you say precisely what topic/event you mean when you compare superiority, the actual meaning goes away and just boils down to...different. Equal, but different.


That's not how equal works. We have equal rights, that's as far as equal goes. That's as far as equal needs to go. Why would you try to apply it to every human and every culture? Am I equal to the paraplegic on my left or the Green Beret on my right? No. Do we have the same equal rights? Yes.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: TonyS

Because they have almost total control of the country?



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: narrator

Your reply prompts a serious question in my mind.

You dont support either party. Why ever in the world would you give a crap what the Republicans do?


I've heard a lot of liberals say that since the election. They claim they don't care about either party. I guess I would too if I had that much egg on my face.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 08:22 AM
link   
About as as expected. Another moronic rwnj speaks out about things they can’t understand. a reply to: projectvxn



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: underwerks
Anyone who wonders out loud why the words “white supremecist” became offensive shouldn’t hold any position in government.

Despite what our reality-challenged right wingers here believe, this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. He wasn’t stopped from saying what he said, and no one is trying to. As a matter of fact it was reported widely. So his right to say what he wants hasn’t been infringed.

What he wasn’t free to do is to be exempt from the consequences of what he said. And that has nothing to do with his first amendment rights being violated. That’s exactly how things are supposed to work.

All the “free speech” people here are doing is being angry because someone got called out for their idiotic small minded racist statements. Which in turn makes me think that either they have a fundamental misunderstanding of how our rights work or they agree with this ancient POS.

Take your pick.


Dude, you live on the west coast. What do you know about reality?


I know that going by your and others comments, you seem to be severely divorced from it.

And that’s not a subjective opinion.


You don't really have the room to tell me I'm divorced from reality. You and those like you don't even understand what the term "equal" means. You need a date with Webster.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




The Constitution does not guarantee any rights to illegals, it only guarantees those rights to legal residents and citizens.



Frequently, though, citizenship and personhood are regarded as opposing concepts. Whereas citizenship references national belonging and its associated rights, personhood evokes the rights and dignity of individuals independent of national status. Personhood stands for the universal, in contrast to citizenship, which is ultimately exclusionary.


till, for a great many purposes, the “right to have rights”10 is not contingent on the possession of citizenship status. In the international arena, it is largely persons who are the subjects of human rights


what the Plyler court did, unanimously, when it explicitly recognized undocumented immigrants as constitutional persons. “An alien is surely a ‘person’ in any ordinary sense of that term,” Justice Brennan wrote. “Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as ‘persons.’”


What is significant about the holding is that it says that unauthorized status under the immigration laws, even if relevant to the ultimate policy question, simply does not bear on the question of fundamental constitutional standing.27 The constitutional personhood of aliens goes without saying, and to that extent could be described as generally secure.28




The Constitution famously begins with a flourish, “We the Peo- ple.” 1 Less famously, the phrase “the people” appears in several other constitutional clauses, five of which are in the Bill of Rights. 2 The First Amendment ensures “the right of the people” to petition the gov- ernment and to asse mble peacefully; 3 the Second Amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”; 4 the Fourth Amend- ment protects “the right of the people” against unreasonable searches and seizures; 5 and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments reserve to “the people” nonenumerated rights and powers, respectively. 6 Do these ref- erences to “the people” point to pa rticular individuals, or are they merely rhetorical? If they point to particular individuals, do they refer to American citizens, or to everyone in the country irrespective of citi- zenship? Finally, could “the people” mean different things in different amendments?
Source

So what is being said, it that when the constitution says "people" or "person," it means everyone, not just citizens.

The Constitutional Rights of Noncitizens


Immigration restrictionists sometimes claim that noncitizens have no rights under the Constitution, and that the US government is therefore free to deal with them in whatever way it wants. At least as a general rule, this claim is simply false.


Noncitizens undeniably have a wide range of rights under the Constitution. Indeed, within the borders of the United States, they have most of the same rights as citizens do, and longstanding Supreme Court precedent bans most state laws discriminating against noncitizens. There is little if any serious controversy among experts over this matter.


The First Amendment prevents the government from censoring noncitizens’ speech or suppressing the practice of their religion. The Fourth Amendment protects them against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fifth Amendment ensures that noncitizens’ property can only be taken by the government for a public use, and only if just compensation is paid. Should a noncitizen be charged with a crime, he has exactly the same Fifth and Sixth Amendment procedural rights as a citizen, including the right to a jury trial, the right to counsel, and protection against self-incrimination. If convicted, the Eighth Amendment prevents the government from subjecting aliens to “cruel and unusual punishment” in exactly the same ways as it does with citizens.
Source

More background:


In United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez 8 in 1990 , the Court said that “the people” refers to those “ persons who are part of a national community ,” 9 or who have “substantial connectio ns” to the United States. 10 The touch- stone was not citizenship, but the extent of one’s connection to this country. This definition of “the people” applied consistently through- out the Bill of Rights, the Court said. 11 In District of Columbia v. Hel- ler 12 in 2008 , the Court approvingly quoted Verdugo-Urquidez ’s defini- tion, and similarly suggested that the term “the people” has a consistent meaning throughout the Constitution. 13 But Heller also said that “the people” “refers to all members of the political community .” 14


Justice Kennedy provided the fifth vote, his concur- rence explicitly disagreed with the majo rity’s view of “the people.” He wrote, “I cannot place any weight on the reference to ‘the people’ in the Fourth Amendment as a source of restricting its protections.” 31 In his view, the Framers’ use of “the right of the people” reflects “the im- portance of the right,” but does not “restrict the category of persons who may assert it.” 32 If the search had occurred in the United States, the Fourth Amendment would have applied, he said. 3


Harv. Law Review



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: LSU2018

Or maybe it's because the DNC showed their true colors in 2016 and made it abundantly clear that they're no different than the neo-Cons.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 08:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: narrator
a reply to: Propagandalf

That isn't an argument for censorship. It's common sense. Actions (including the act of speaking) have consequences.

Example: Tell a cop you plan to bomb a building. That's just freedom of speech, right? By your logic, you shouldn't be investigated by the police in that scenario, because you're allowed to say whatever you want with zero consequences.



That's a terroristic threat.


It's still speech. Why should they be punished for saying it, it's just speech? You're all for freedom of speech, right? People shouldn't have any consequences for saying anything, right?


You're putting words in my mouth.

There's a major difference in saying mixed cultures bring down the quality of life and saying you're gonna bomb the police station. If Madonna was a Republican and she made her comments about blowing up the White House in November 2008, she would have been jailed for a terroristic threat. I have no doubt about that.


So absolute freedom of speech shouldn't exist then?


I had just started dating a girl back in 2010. Her ex got my number and texted me, told me he was gonna kill me. The girl called police, he was arrested. Had he told me that I bring the quality of life down, nothing would have happened.

Do you get it yet?




top topics



 
17
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join