Nazi brown shirts break up Dem poltical rally

Originally posted by krankinkx
Once again...You know nothing of what you profess to have studied in "Law School" . I told you that the "Bill of Rights" applies to all people in this great land. You can't change that by saying it doesn't with the hope that it will strengthen your argument. Lies are just that....LIES.
I have studied it...YOU are wrong. If anyone buys the snake-oil you sell, I have a bridge in San Francisco to sell them.

(LYING HYPOCRITE)

Seroiusly, now you're just dumb. The Bill of Rights was created to limit government intrusion upon the people. That's why I said it applies to GOVERNMENT CONDUCT. You're a friggin idiot. You can't even comphrehend a #in simple sentence. That's why the First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


IT HAS TO DO WITH GOVERNMENT CONDUCT---NOT PRIVATE ACTION, YOU #ING MORON.

That's it. Don't talk to me again.

To pull verses out of context in the "Bill of Rights" and not share the content (in it's entirety) of the specific right we are discussing does not support the position you have that colleges can stop peaceful demonstrations that are totally in line with that amendmant.

[Edited on 1-21-2004 by krankinkx]

Try as you might! You know nothing about the "Bill of Rights"

To pull verses! That's the entire First Amendment! What brand of moron are you? You just told me if I wanted to speak on your PRIVATE property, you wouldn't allow it! ANd it would be your God-given right! What's the difference for a college which is private! None!

The only difference is that you're an idiot! That's the whole problem with this entire dialogue!

For someone who cries every time that somone says somthing off color about him, you seem do a lot of insulting , inclusive of the use of lots of vulgarity..They teach that at the U OF D???

Be Honest

Originally posted by krankinkx
For someone who cries every time that somone says somthing off color about him, you seem do a lot of insulting , inclusive of the use of lots of vulgarity..They teach that at the U OF D???

Be Honest

No, your obstinate idiocy just pisses me off like no other repugnant groupie.

If the heat of the discussion is to much for you maybe it is time you hung up your moderators cap.

Out of curiosity..
Isn't a moderator supposed to be a moderate...not a left wing-Commi-Lib-Pinko-socialist-facist???

Just wondering

HEIL to Colon-el...Our Great supressor of Civil Rights!!!
When you get your rough draft of your version of the Constitution done let me know and I'll proof read it for you!! NO CHARGE..

OK, I can't stay out any longer.

As Colonel already posted the First Amendment, in its original, uncut, unedited form, I shall refrain from re-posting it. The key phrase is "Congress shall make no law." It does NOT read "no law shall be made." There is a BIG difference between these two statements, just as there is a big difference between "Do not shoot people" and "Do not shoot John Smith."

It has LONG been upheld by every court in this country that the freedom of speech does not extend into the private sphere to the same extent to which it does the public. Under this logic, individuals and private entities are allowed to perform random drug testing, restrict or ban solicitation and demagoguery on their property, and ban whomever they like (or don't like, as the case may be) from entering upon their property.

If someone told you that you were not allowed to lock your door or restrict entry to your house, you'd be up in arms in protest. You would contend that you have the right to do what you like with your privately-owned property. It is the same logic that allows private universities and businesses to restrict who and what is on its property.

Restricting entry into ones home is certainly a far cry from restricting ones right to free speech.


[Edited on 1-21-2004 by krankinkx]

It is amusing that the supreme court has ruled time and time again that it is legal "within boundaries" to protest in front of privately owned abortion clinics.

[Edited on 1-21-2004 by krankinkx]

[Edited on 1-21-2004 by krankinkx]

Originally posted by krankinkx
It is amusing that the supreme court has ruled time and time again that it is legal "within boundaries" to protest in front of privately owned abortion clinics.

[Edited on 1-21-2004 by krankinkx]

[Edited on 1-21-2004 by krankinkx]

Maybe b/c they protested on a PUBLIC street which all that is required is a permit! You are boneheaded.

sminneman

Ferget it. Its impossible to explain anything to this knuckle-dragger and its obvious he never went to law school or ANY form of higher educatoin for that matter. If so, it is blatantly obvious it was wasted upon him.

www.easterneronline.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/01/08/3ffdde7b9d96f

rhis whole argument started over Colon-el's insistance that the colleges that restricted the free speech rights of the Young Republicans were private schools. this article says otherwise.

Originally posted by Colonel

sminneman

Ferget it. Its impossible to explain anything to this knuckle-dragger and its obvious he never went to law school or ANY form of higher educatoin for that matter. If so, it is blatantly obvious it was wasted upon him.

Sigh. As much as I would love to believe that people are unique and individual, I have had too many experiences with Republicans to lie to myself that way. I used to think they were especially bad here in Kansas, a state which has never elected a non-Republican US senator. However, thanks to this board and recent experiences I've had with Republicans from around the country, I stand corrected.

Eatern Washington University is a public shool... Nimrod.

sminnnmanne or whatever

can you read better than your compadre colon-el? If so maybe you could read the afore mentioned article to him.

Originally posted by krankinkx
www.easterneronline.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/01/08/3ffdde7b9d96f

rhis whole argument started over Colon-el's insistance that the colleges that restricted the free speech rights of the Young Republicans were private schools. this article says otherwise.

As a public institution, I will concur that its grounds are not subject to censorship, short of hate speech, incitements to violence, and the like. Personal feelings about Affirmative Action aside, I think that the students should have been allowed to conduct their bake sale. Likewise, any students who wished should also have been allowed to protest the sale, directly alongside it if they so chose.

However, my earlier point remains valid. Private institutions are free to open and close their property to whatever persons they wish. This right is only limited by criminal law, as it is expressly stated in criminal law. The Bill of Rights does not apply to private institutions, no matter how much anyone thinks it should.

It is comforting to know that there is a Liberal who can actually agree with Common sense, it is not always the case.
I respectfully disagree with you in theory about private property and I will find you case evidence to back up my opinion.
Tonight, however, it is late and I must retire. Parting is such sweet sorrow.

financialaid.ewu.edu...

Check out the numbers of scholarships available to prospective students at EWU and which group gets the least?!

Originally posted by krankinkx
Eatern Washington University is a public shool... Nimrod.

I was figuring you'd bring that "public school" thing up. If you DID go to law school, which you didn't, you'd know that schools, military bases, postal service property, and the like are not public forums and speech may be regulated if it causes a disturbance.

Bethel School District No. 43 v Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986)

The only absolute public forums are streets, sidewalks, and parks. You still lose, dummy.

[Edited on 21-1-2004 by Colonel]