Time to face fact

[Harlan Huckleby]

HH;
You seem to be suggesting that free speech means saying/publishing whatever you want to, wherever you want to, whenever you want to. It never has meant that, and never will.

uhh, hardly. Pay attention.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If it was just a prop, and not your "speech", where is the censorship?

symbols, images, films are all a part of speech.

And if you want to take it as nutty as our Supreme Court - so is money!

People have different thresholds of sensitivity. I see that .gif of the Zapruder film and see only a reminder of familar imagery, it is not remotely offensive. Kiwon has declared that any reference to the assasination is in poor taste, so presumably the Seinfeld skit is inappropriate for him. (Very insensitive of you to declare such parodies as harmless when they are hurtful to Kiwon. ) You claim that the threshold was passed by the .gif because it was "enhanced". (I have no idea what this means, but I think if we hooked electrodes to your head and taped your eyelids open ala "Clockwork Orange", your response to the original Zapruder and that tiny little "enhanced" gif would be identical. Which is to say no response at all in both cases, which is also to say you are blowing it out your ass.)

[MadtownPacker]

Looks like we have all agreed you are truly the victim in all this HH. Will you ever forgive us? Great! Now get over it.

[mraynrand]

Is someone really arguing he has a constitutional 'free speech' right on a private forum? If so: What a fool.

[th87]

I believe the majority of male Muslims concuss themselves while praying...have you seen some of those prayer calluses?

Haha how many have you seen?

Of the probably thousand or so Muslims I've ever talked to (at school, cultural and family get togethers), never have I ever noticed a prayer callous.

[mraynrand]

Haha how many have you seen?

Of the probably thousand or so Muslims I've ever talked to (at school, cultural and family get togethers), never have I ever noticed a prayer callous.

relax

[George Cumby]

Is someone really arguing he has a constitutional 'free speech' right on a private forum? If so: What a fool.

Initially. When that didn't work, the argument drifted over to a matter of "values". That doesn't seem to be working to well, either.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Initially. When that didn't work, the argument drifted over to a matter of "values". That doesn't seem to be working to well, either.

Free speech is never absolute, we compromise free speech all the time, everywhere.

There is a difference between free speech being a (qualified) legal right, and a value. Sorry if you don't understand what that word "values" means, but it is a principle that a person or group adopts. I'll try one more time:

A website that defines its guidelines, then lives by those guidelines, especially when some people are upset, is operating with integriy, and it it values free speech. For instance, youtube may be sorely tempted to censor the "Innocense of Muslims" video, but they say they won't because the video doesn't violate its policies. That is the spirit of free speech, and you should notice it has nothing to do with constitutional rights to free speech.

Another example: when you demanded that a picture be taken down because it upset you, you either have no understanding or respect for free speech, or you were too mad to think straight. You behaved exactly like the angry Muslim demanding justice for an offensive video on the internet. In short, you were a jackass.

Hope that helps!

[Harlan Huckleby]

Is someone really arguing he has a constitutional 'free speech' right on a private forum? If so: What a fool.

no, that argument was never made, it certainly would be a foolish one.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Looks like we have all agreed you are truly the victim in all this HH. Will you ever forgive us? Great! Now get over it.

sorry, amigo, a horrific crime has occured, a terrible stain on the soul of packerrats. No man is free until all men are free. Remember the Alamo! Vendetta!

[MadtownPacker]

sorry, amigo, a horrific crime has occured, a terrible stain on the soul of packerrats. No man is free until all men are free. Remember the Alamo! Vendetta!

I wish there was a way of seeing how many people have you on ignore.

Where do I split this thread so I can put all the crap some wheres else?

[George Cumby]

I wish there was a way of seeing how many people have you on ignore.

Where do I split this thread so I can put all the crap some wheres else?

Where is the "ignore" button, anyway?

[Patler]

symbols, images, films are all a part of speech.

And if you want to take it as nutty as our Supreme Court - so is money!

People have different thresholds of sensitivity. I see that .gif of the Zapruder film and see only a reminder of familar imagery, it is not remotely offensive. Kiwon has declared that any reference to the assasination is in poor taste, so presumably the Seinfeld skit is inappropriate for him. (Very insensitive of you to declare such parodies as harmless when they are hurtful to Kiwon. ) You claim that the threshold was passed by the .gif because it was "enhanced". (I have no idea what this means, but I think if we hooked electrodes to your head and taped your eyelids open ala "Clockwork Orange", your response to the original Zapruder and that tiny little "enhanced" gif would be identical. Which is to say no response at all in both cases, which is also to say you are blowing it out your ass.)

Symbols, images, films, etc. CAN be speech, they are not automatically protected speech or even speech generally. YOU described the film in your use of it as "just a prop" in your "parody" of Zool and others. If it was just a prop, it was not your "speech", so what are you bitching about if some wanted your prop removed?

When did I say the Seinfeld parody was harmless? I can understand it being offensive to some.
I don't recall Kiwon declaring that any reference to the assassination is in poor taste.
Up to your old tricks again, I see. When backed into a corner you simply make up shit about others, then "refute" it. What a weakass approach to discussion.

Since you have degraded the discussion to that point you have, and since this thread should be a football discussion anyway, I will not be tempted to click "View Post" again for any of your posts, and will simply leave you on ignore.

[Kiwon]

We are just not a good football team.

Offensively, the offensive line is a joke, across the board, not good. Rodgers is not good. He's holding the ball again, which makes our poor OL even worse. McCarthy an rodgers are both looking for the home run, and teams are saying beat us short, and we refuse to do it. Today my buddy and I kept saying that the CBs were playing 8yards off and dropping..run a damn slant. The OLB and DL were coming hard upfield...run a damn screen! Both times we did either of those, weird, they worked! Jennings is busy making commercials, Jordy looks scared, and our only reliable WR is fricken James Jones. I'm not even going to discuss Finley. Teams are completely our coaching/scheming McCarthy.

Defensively, I donno. We haven't played horrible but we still crap ourselves at different times.

Then to top it off we have to fight the refs. Perry crushes Luck, penalty. Shields gets shoved 10 yards, he gets a penalty. I mean I just have no clue why we get screwed on every call.

Back to football.

I think the legacy of 15-1 last season is high expectations. Realistically is hard not to be disappointed. We got spoiled. I did, at least.

But, we are 1-0 in the Division. That's as good as anybody. The first goal is always winning your Division.

Sherman had a couple of years where the Packers started off badly and still made the playoffs. Injuries were a problem then too. Yeah, Rodgers is getting knocked around, so did Favre. Benson's hurt, Favre won without top-flight backs. To his credit, Jones has improved as have the Defense (it had to).

The end of the Seattle game was a debacle. The coaching criticism is spot on. M3 and Capers just seem slow to adjust.

All I'm saying is things are bad, but they could be worse. This isn't last year's Packers. A-Rod and Jennings are mortal this year. The OL concerns me the most. Maybe it will be the Defense that salvages the season. The Pack can be a good team, but probably not a great one. Let's win within our division and see what happens.

[ND72]

Back to football.

I think the legacy of 15-1 last season is high expectations. Realistically is hard not to be disappointed. We got spoiled. I did, at least.

But, we are 1-0 in the Division. That's as good as anybody. The first goal is always winning your Division.

Sherman had a couple of years where the Packers started off badly and still made the playoffs. Injuries were a problem then too. Yeah, Rodgers is getting knocked around, so did Favre. Benson's hurt, Favre won without top-flight backs. To his credit, Jones has improved as have the Defense (it had to).

The end of the Seattle game was a debacle. The coaching criticism is spot on. M3 and Capers just seem slow to adjust.

All I'm saying is things are bad, but they could be worse. This isn't last year's Packers. A-Rod and Jennings are mortal this year. The OL concerns me the most. Maybe it will be the Defense that salvages the season. The Pack can be a good team, but probably not a great one. Let's win within our division and see what happens.

Ahman Green?

I know 15-1 changed our perspective, but it just seems as if McCarthy and Capers are getting out worked, which to me is frustrating.