• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Free Speech and Nazi Doctrine

Status
Not open for further replies.
haymarket said:
This is not about Obama - despite the right wing obsession with him.
Click to expand...

Obama is a tangent at best. The sole relevance was to the definition you used and Obama was the answer I supplied to show your definition is too vague and indistinct. I am not changing the subject, I am replying to your definition.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Obama is a tangent at best. The sole relevance was to the definition you used and Obama was the answer I supplied to show your definition is too vague and indistinct. I am not changing the subject, I am replying to your definition.
Click to expand...

What you did was engage in the right wing obsession with Obama. Pure and simple.

btw - what definition are you referring to and what did you find wrong with it?
 
haymarket said:
What you did was engage in the right wing obsession with Obama. Pure and simple.

btw - what definition are you referring to and what did you find wrong with it?
Click to expand...

Pay attention. Go back in the thread and look. If you cant be bothered to remember what you posted, you may as well concede the point and move on. You want to defend it, go and look. I am tired of this sort of serial dishonesty on your part.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Pay attention. Go back in the thread and look. If you cant be bothered to remember what you posted, you may as well concede the point and move on. You want to defend it, go and look. I am tired of this sort of serial dishonesty on your part.
Click to expand...

I knew you would be unable to produce it.
 
haymarket said:
I knew you would be unable to produce it.
Click to expand...

You don't know what you posted yourself? If that's the case, I don't see a point in responding to you at all if you can't hold to a basic sense of honesty about your previous posts.
 
OpportunityCost said:
You don't know what you posted yourself? If that's the case, I don't see a point in responding to you at all if you can't hold to a basic sense of honesty about your previous posts.
Click to expand...

The issue in your claims about my posts is always the same.... just what is it do you think I posted and lets see it? So lets see what you claim I posted. Present it.

You never do.

You cannot do so.

You will not do so.
 
haymarket said:
The issue in your claims about my posts is always the same.... just what is it do you think I posted and lets see it? So lets see what you claim I posted. Present it.

You never do.

You cannot do so.

You will not do so.
Click to expand...

Not to your satisfaction because you will simply ignore it. You aren't debating anymore and haven't been for a long time. Good day.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Not to your satisfaction because you will simply ignore it. You aren't debating anymore and haven't been for a long time. Good day.
Click to expand...

Thank you for confirming you are unable to produce what was demanded of you and you have nothing in the way of evidence to support your claims.
 
Fledermaus said:
You responded to it multiple times while insisting an irrelevant election was an indication of later popularity.
Click to expand...

But yet you cannot identify it with a reproduction of the relevant content you claim exists nor post number.

The only person who has presented verifiable evidence of a free and open expression of support or non support from the German people regarding Hitler and the Nazi Party was myself in presenting the election numbers from the 1932 cycle. Everything else has been speculation about an authoritarian regime which did not tolerate dissent.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
aha! the old "there is a needle in that field of haystacks out there - go find it" defense. :doh:roll:
Click to expand...

Awfully hypocritical for the guy that demands everyone search his post history.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Awfully hypocritical for the guy that demands everyone search his post history.
Click to expand...

When anybody - yourself included - claims I took a certain position on an issue , I simply demand that they provide that position from me so I can speak to it.

It is sad that you consider that an imposition .
 
calamity said:
Nazi doctrine calls for the extermination of Jews and other people deemed "lesser" by White Supremacists. IMO, such speech should not be legal in the US. Period.
Click to expand...



Acting like a nazi to try to stop nazis, brilliant!
 
haymarket said:
When anybody - yourself included - claims I took a certain position on an issue , I simply demand that they provide that position from me so I can speak to it.

It is sad that you consider that an imposition .
Click to expand...

Its sad that you cant simply restate as an honest debater.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Its sad that you cant simply restate as an honest debater.
Click to expand...

What is it I need to "restate" and why would I need to restate anything I have already stated in the first place?
 
haymarket said:
What is it I need to "restate" and why would I need to restate anything I have already stated in the first place?
Click to expand...

You demand it of me all the time because you don't take the time to examine claims at face value and issue blanket denials. Before you complain of the splinter perhaps you should get rid of the log. When pressed on your thoughts, if you were interested in an honest dialogue, you could present them without rancor and without obfuscation. You do not.
 
calamity said:
Nazi doctrine calls for the extermination of Jews and other people deemed "lesser" by White Supremacists. IMO, such speech should not be legal in the US. Period.
Click to expand...

Hey man I would totally agree with you!

Here's the thing, that's what is considered dangerous speech which rather than spreading a message works as a call to action to those listening, and this is in fact already illegal and a punishable act. For example, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded public place is entirely illegal because it puts others at risk. And the way I'm reading it, the Hitler example falls into that category. Again, I totally agree with you that dangerous calls to action should be illegal but in MY opinion, the moment you start to limit peoples' ability to express themselves and their ideas, you've got a real constitutional mess on your hands. Not to say that you have to listen to that angry BLM activist shouting on the corner, or that Klansmen holding up an abhorrently racial sign shouting slurs, it just means that you can't act against them for doing that. Sorry if this is coming across as talking down I was just trying to be civil and get my point across!

I'm new to this forum so anyone looking for wholesome political debate feel free to message or respond to me and I'd be happy to have a dialogue!
 
Scotch said:
Hey man I would totally agree with you!

Here's the thing, that's what is considered dangerous speech which rather than spreading a message works as a call to action to those listening, and this is in fact already illegal and a punishable act. For example, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded public place is entirely illegal because it puts others at risk. And the way I'm reading it, the Hitler example falls into that category. Again, I totally agree with you that dangerous calls to action should be illegal but in MY opinion, the moment you start to limit peoples' ability to express themselves and their ideas, you've got a real constitutional mess on your hands. Not to say that you have to listen to that angry BLM activist shouting on the corner, or that Klansmen holding up an abhorrently racial sign shouting slurs, it just means that you can't act against them for doing that. Sorry if this is coming across as talking down I was just trying to be civil and get my point across!

I'm new to this forum so anyone looking for wholesome political debate feel free to message or respond to me and I'd be happy to have a dialogue!
Click to expand...

You cannot make an intelligent argument by invoking a false analogy. The analogy of "yelling 'Fire!'" is not parallel to what you are discussing. First, the often misquoted phase appeared in the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Schenk v. U.S. "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." The word "falsely" is a qualifier. Yelling "fire" in a public place is not illegal, when and where one believes a fire to exist or where a fire does exist. But "falsely" yelling fire is prohibited precisely and exactly because of the likely panic that may ensue along with possible physical injury and property damage.

A "dangerous call to action," whatever that seemingly ominous and ambiguous phrase means, is not parallel to the "falsely yelling fire" because the former does not, without more, have the same risk of resulting in physical injury or property damage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom