I'm against impeaching a President, unless he or she has committed a high crime or misdemeanor.
Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power, and want a certain result with all your heart, you naturally express your wishes in law, and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care wholeheartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises.
But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of t***h is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that t***h is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.
That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year, if not every day, we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system, I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.
Of course, the story of free speech in America neither begins nor ends with Abrams. But it is a clear pivot point. In that 1919 case, a dispute decided one year minus one day after the end of the first "war to end all wars," the United States Supreme Court sustained the convictions of five Russian-born men who were prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917, as it had been amended by the S******n Act of 1918, for "provoking and encouraging" resistance to the government's war efforts (and its hostile maneuvers toward Russia) through a series of pamphlets.
From his dissent in Abrams vs United States: described as the most powerful dissent in American history
The Trump tax bill changed the method of computing the inflation rate so it slows down increases down to your detriment if you receive benefits or pay taxes. I don't know if the new method was used in the recent figures. I've read that real average hourly earnings shrank by the most since 2012 in July. You want to earn more 'join a union'.
The article, very well written and researched, reminds us that sanctions against exports to Russia of any items which could be used.for a military purpose had been imposed by the Obama administration in 2014 in response to Russia's invasion of Crimea. At that time also Obama had t***sferred 350 million to Ukranie for military arms purchases. The new sanctions are not Trump's idea, but are actually compelled by a recent statute and by a 1991 law to punish countries which engage in chemical or biological warfare. The Republican head of the Congressional commitee which produced the recent law had chastised the Trump administration for missing a 60 day deadline for imposing the sanctions. According to the article there is not that much new ground being broken. The article to me is an example of the deep state at work doing the job it is supposed to do. The article does allude to the seemingly less intense views on Rusian sanctions held by Mr. Trump. Having read the article I can't make any sense out of the.prior two comments and I wonder even if the source of this thread had herself read the article. It is a good example of real news that the failing New York Times supplies every day. Mr. Trump would be well advised to read the paper himself.
Crayons, Google "Alex Jones Sandy Hook School k*****gs h**x" , read everything that appears and come back tomorrow and make the same comment.
Enjoyed reading the article. Nothing like the good old days to show you how it's done. I'll have to read the book and find out about the other 24. I bet today's campaigns which are considered so vicious may not be that bad when compared with those of the past.
Contigo ergo sum. Totally irrelevent, but I had to show the depth of my knowledge.
I've thought that Republicans claimed the science of g****l w*****g was a h**x because once you decide its true, you become a g*******t of sorts for any solution will require global actions and cooperation. Better say it's a h**x they conclude, since who wants to be accused of considering the welfare of people from s**thole countries and the like.
This Jones character says that there was no massacre of 20 children at Sandy Hook School. It seems that instead of concluding immediately that the fellow is deranged, some people actually believe him and have been harassing the parents of the children. Apparently to get them to confess that the k*****gs were fraudulent. If I was sk**lful with internet stuff I'd post a picture of the children k**led right here. Just looking at their innocent faces and knowing they were gunned down is painful. How awful for parents to have to live with it every day.
Obviously a very sensitive area and easily bruised.
was a question asked at a 50th Wedding Anniversary party I attended last Saturday evening.
So you Trump supporters when you're enthusiastically praising Trump don't discount the idea that the person who is politely smiling as they listen to you considers you insane.
How things have changed, now Republicans are r****ts, and Democrats are for all the people. Have you noticed Republicans only do things to take care of their own. Nothing for the common people.
25% of Republicans believe that the Emancipation Proclamation was a bad idea. Remember a large percentage of Republicans are direct descendents of s***e owners, so it's a small step to believing freedom.of the press should go.
If there is civil war Trump will have caused it.
I'm thankful that I live in an area where law and order will be enforced.