• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Split Thread Is Elena Kagan a Zionist? (split from "...explains the Holocaust")

Saggy

Graduate Poster
S
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
1,819
little grey rabbit said:
And this is why outsiders read this thread and think JREFers are "spastics" or whatever derogatory term they personally prefer.
Click to expand...

What makes you think any 'outsiders' read this thread? I'd be surprised if any did. The whole point of the JREFers is to make the thread so idiotic that no one will read it. Thus, from their perspective, the more idiotic their posts, the better.

Just for fun, when you don't have anything else to do .... check out the first 10 pages of this amazing piece of crap by out next Supreme ....

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Private-Speech-Public-Purpose.pdf

It's all about suppressing the truth about the Zionists, and they're after the First Amendment with hammer and tong . She starts out using words like 'normative' and 'propositional', she's an academic you know ....... but in just a few pages is railing against 'racists' and 'hate speech'.
 
Last edited:
A Holocuast Denier gets all upset because a Jew is nominated to the Supreme Court. Who could have guessed that?
 
dudalb said:
A Holocuast Denier gets all upset because a Jew is nominated to the Supreme Court. Who could have guessed that?
Click to expand...
.
And what's pitiful is that Saggy obviously hasn't actually read the document in question, which very clearly *supports* the First Amendment for all, including racists...

To get somewhat back on-topic, I note that Saggy has not responded to the ramifications of "a single 'liar' means the Holocaust is a hoax" thesis over in the "Remote Viewing" thread in Conspiracy Theories...
.
 
TSR said:
.
And what's pitiful is that Saggy obviously hasn't actually read the document in question, which very clearly *supports* the First Amendment for all, including racists...
.
Click to expand...

Here is a short assessment of the degenerate trash written by the next Supreme simple enough for the JREFers to understand .....

Kagan wrote that government can restrict free speech

http://www.examiner.com/x-37620-Con...rote-that-government-can-restrict-free-speech

One does not need to read past page 10 of Kagan's article to know that this is garbage straight from the ADL.
 
Last edited:
Saggy said:
Here is a short assessment of the degenerate trash written by the next Supreme simple enough for the JREFers to understand .....

Kagan wrote that government can restrict free speech

http://www.examiner.com/x-37620-Con...rote-that-government-can-restrict-free-speech

One does not need to read past page 10 of Kagan's article to know that this is garbage straight from the ADL.
Click to expand...
.
And this restriction is news to you? Try shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater which is not on fire, or writing to the White House about your plans to kill the President.

Once again, one notes that given the chance to actually *quote* Kagan on the matter, Saggy prefers to posit ulterior motives that zir source doesn't even support.

Do cite *specifically* which part of her opinion is "straight from the ADL" and support it.

*Then* we can get back to your "one liar" thesis.

Or maybe you've found those pics you knew you did not have when you made the claim? What is it called when one says something one knows isn't so, Saggy?
.
 
TSR said:
.
Do cite *specifically* which part of her opinion is "straight from the ADL" and support it.
.
Click to expand...

The entire paper is straight from the ADL because of it's constant use of the terms 'hate speech' and 'racist', entirely inappropriate in a discussion of constitutional law. This sort of name calling is typical of Zionists everywhere.

Now, let's look at this pile of crap a little more closely ... here is a representative quote ...

"The R.A.V. decision thus serves as a stark example of the importance of governmental motive in the Court's First Amend- ment analysis. Here, a debate about motive occurred in the open, revealing how a desire to punish impermissible purpose may explain and animate the Court's elaboration of doctrine."

This is just pure crap, an 'academic' rational of censoring speech based on the motive of the law .... if the motive is good, and what better motive is there than preventing criticism of Zionism, the law stands. That's not the Constitution of the US, that's Zionism.
 
Last edited:
Zionist= anyone who accepts the existance of the State of Israel.

me thinks Saggy really means "right-wing Zionist".
 
Saggy said:
The entire paper is straight from the ADL because of it's constant use of the terms 'hate speech' and 'racist', entirely inappropriate in a discussion of constitutional law. This sort of name calling is typical of Zionists everywhere.
Click to expand...
.
When the topic is hate speech laws, however, it is difficult to avoid them. Free hint: What law, specifically, is she discussing?
.
Saggy said:
Now, let's look at this pile of crap a little more closely ... here is a representative quote ...

"The R.A.V. decision thus serves as a stark example of the importance of governmental motive in the Court's First Amendment analysis. Here, a debate about motive occurred in the open, revealing how a desire to punish impermissible purpose may explain and animate the Court's elaboration of doctrine."
Click to expand...
.
Second free hint: is she arguing *for* or *against* this doctrine?
.
Saggy said:
This is just pure crap, an 'academic' rational of censoring speech based on the motive of the law .... if the motive is good, and what better motive is there than preventing criticism of Zionism, the law stands. That's not the Constitution of the US, that's Zionism.
Click to expand...
.
Nor is that what she is arguing -- try *reading* the document, not just what you have been spoon-fed.
.
 
TSR said:
.
When the topic is hate speech laws, however, it is difficult to avoid them. Free hint: What law, specifically, is she discussing?
.

.
Second free hint: is she arguing *for* or *against* this doctrine?
.

.
Nor is that what she is arguing -- try *reading* the document, not just what you have been spoon-fed.
.
Click to expand...

The 'hate speech' laws were created by Zionists and are promoted by Zionists. Zionism is the sole source of 'hate speech' laws. She doesn't put quotes around 'hate speech' or 'racist', she uses them as accepted concepts in discussions of constitutional law, and uses them to critique the law and its consequences.

If you want to know what law she discusses first, read the document. It's unconstitutional on its face, but that doesn't stop Zionists like Kagan.

She is arguing that the doctrine is what has evolved, and hence she is arguing for it.

You wanted a quote, I gave you one, and you reply with nonsense. I know what she is arguing, you don't. If you want to argue against a quote, supply a counter-quote.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
Saggy- do you know the difference between a Zionist and a Jew?
Click to expand...

I agree with your previous definition of Zionist. And, there are a lot more Zionists than there are Jews. But, non-Zionist Jews are pretty rare I think. There are no non-Zionists, Jewish or otherwise, in or on the US media, or in US politics, with the possible exception of Ron Paul. I suppose I regard Jews as the real Zionists, and the rest just fellow travelers or some such.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom