Home | About | Donate

Those Demanding Free Speech Limits to Fight ISIS Pose a Greater Threat to U.S. Than ISIS


#1


#2

Yes Glenn it certainly looks like both parties want to use the bogus excuse of terrorism to censor the net. When what they really want is to limit dissent.

Donald Trump, HRC and Newt are the terrorists that should scare hell out of you! Trump's staff just said something to the effect that what good are nukes...if we do not use them.


#3

Government of the government, by the government and for the government...


#6

How about we remove the reasons for people wanting to kill us? We might stop invading their countries and killing innocent people. We might stop toppling other countries' governments that don't follow orders from the exceptional indispensible nation. We might reconsider building military bases in every damn country on the face of the earth. What other country does that? I hope China and Russia build military bases in Canada and Mexico and Cuba and Nicaragua and Costa Rica. What's to stop them? The US has set the precedent. What arrogance. What hubris. What literal insanity. When does it stop? Our leaders (sic) seem to understand only one thing, and that thing is violence. Wake up, people. Wake up. Our "leaders" are literally psycopathic and/or sociopathic. Just listen to them speak. Ugh.


#7

Glenn, You know this ISIS is a fraud to perpetrate the MIC war on war....$$$$$ to be extracted from the treasury . The people are being robbed of resources for the private companies who profit. War is always a racket. National security is a front for stealing, TSA , another scam. As long as people like Judith Miller are allowed to lie in the 'paper of record' , nothing will change.


#8

If newt Gingrich is worried about losing USAian cities, shouldn't he be lobbying to fix Detroit and New Orleans?


#9

There goes Cass Sunstein proving that once in a great while Glenn Beck is right in what he's ranting about.


#10

Cleveland, and Milwaukee are real-estate-racism-devastated cities too.


#11

"Free speech will give ISIS the tools to kill us all!"

Yeah. but especially, beware the Jabberwock with jaws that snatch and claws that scratch! But forget the Vorpal Sword - pack a TEC-9!


#12

"America faces unprecedented danger from the groups online radicalization tactics"

Where the flying-fuck does this utter bullshit come from?????

"Unprecedented danger"???? So I guess ISIL has 10,000 nuclear warheads, deliverable through ICBMs, SLBMs, and long range, intercontinental heavy bombers?

How can ANYONE who has had their childhood poisoned by terror of real danger - from Kennedy-to-Ronnie Raygun - of annihilation of whole cities, and a slow death by nuclear fallout rain for everyone else - all becasue of a seemingly petty disagreement with some Slavic people on the other side of the north pole regarding economic systems, regard this trifling "ISIL", who can, what? Shoot up some nightclubs? Crash an airliner or two? - as an "unprecedented danger"???

Why do so many USAns fall for this bullshit. Why was I born in a country full of such fucking imbeciles?


#13

Exactly.


#15

Post flagged for off-topic, conspiracy-spamming and personal attacks.


#16

Greenwald sez: "Even National Review ... included Gingrich’s anti-free speech proposal on its 2011 list of the bad ideas the former speaker has espoused in his career."

— Odd ... this suggests there was a good idea in there somewhere.


#18

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#19

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#22

wars are fought by adolescents who have yet to come to terms with their own mortality. those who enlist sign a contract making them "government issue" meaning they yield all decisive power. "theirs is not to question why; theirs is but to do and die!" so, how do young men and women who have given up all their constitutionally protected rights, preserve yours and mine? war is destructive; always has been.


#25

Perpetrate should be perpetuate. These darn phones often self-correct to the wrong word...


#26

We have some irony here. You deny SR's first amendment rights for three reasons. All three of those reasons are usually ignored. Personal attacks are common here (What's wrong with you, Shazaam?) And I have been called a liar and a charlatan many times. And conspiracy theories abound on this site. Off topic comments can be ignored but sometimes they are actually on topic, insightfully pointing out a subject that was ignored by an author when the subject was in fact the heart of the article. I say SR's first amendment rights are not subject to your censorship. Truly bizarre that you would flag a comment in an article that points out the dangers inherent in censorship.


#27

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.