Reply With Quote
Yes it is. The cons ution protects speech of that sort.
What isn't clear about that?
You are missing the point here. I'm talking about holding politicians accountable. There's nothing that can be done about crazy people, but they shouldn't be encouraged.
Yes it is. The cons ution protects speech of that sort.
What isn't clear about that?
For what crazy people do.
yeah we all read here I'm sure. But how else will you know what the masses are eating?
Do I have to go over this again?
No. For what they say. Now who's being obtuse?
yeah we all read here I'm sure. But how else will you know what the masses are eating?
sorry if i missed the names of these politicians.
anyone else want to reveal their names?
Peas in a pod.
Absent violent conduct by the mentally insane, who's to determine which political speech is irresponsible and how?
Ohmwrecker makes me remember why I stopped posting regularly. Have fun getting owned by WH.
I guess if by " getting owned" means arguing with someone who refuses to argue the point, then . . . guilty.
I am refusing to argue what, please?
(btw, you dodged a few questions yourself)
I'm talking about holding public servants accountable by restricting what they are concerned with (money & power) and you are talking about legislating insanity.
It's pretty pointless to continue.
OK. I'll play along . . . shoot.
You are talking about electoral reform.
Bull . You are talking about strengthening the hand of government to quash political speech based on your fear of what crazy people might do because of it.
Wise decision.
Changing the subject obviously didn't work for you, and continuing the conversation would only expose more of your hare-brained thinking on the topic.
I'm not afraid. Crazy people are going to do crazy things. That's obvious. Politicians should not be matching them card for card.
I changed the subject? You responded to me, bubba. I think I know what the subject is.
The subject is your sidebar on election reform?
lol
That was an answer to a non-topic related question that you asked.
The subject is:
(Are you ready?)
Should politicians and public servants be held accountable for irresponsible rhetoric and speech?
They are already held accountable by voters at the ballot box. Next.
Go ahead, why don't you tell us how politicians should be held responsible for incendiary political speech since that's what we're supposedly talking about now.
Avoidance. Popularity contests and corporate sponsored campaigns is not the concern.
It's a simple question.
Have you read the thread le?
^^^more dodging and weaving. I'm not surprised.
Im still waiting on a concrete premise from Ohmwrecker. This is turning Parkeresque.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
