Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Political Insurance??? This News Affects ALL Message Forums

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    Political Insurance??? This News Affects ALL Message Forums

    Bill Whittle's 3-week old insurance policy was cancelled after the underwriters learned his business sported a political blog.



    Now we have to PAY for "free speech?"

    Is Congress thinking up even more creative ways to steal from honest, law-abiding Americans? If not, then why aren't they writing laws to SECURE our Constitutional rights and freedoms?
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I have political insurance ... through Smith & Wesson. Ya know what I mean.

    Free speech? It does not exist anymore.

  3. #3
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Bill Whittle's 3-week old insurance policy was cancelled after the underwriters learned his business sported a political blog.



    Now we have to PAY for "free speech?"

    Is Congress thinking up even more creative ways to steal from honest, law-abiding Americans? If not, then why aren't they writing laws to SECURE our Constitutional rights and freedoms?
    of course not! Do you actually think they support the Constitution? We see the second fourth and fifth Amendment violated all the time. Of course these raving left-wingers would violate the first
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Jefferson County, CO
    Posts
    260
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Now we have to PAY for "free speech?"
    Not exactly. Remember that the 1st Amendment protects laws from being created to limit speech. But it does not say that everybody must put up with what you say, how you say it, where you say it, or when you say it. So, Bill is exercising his free speech rights, but that doesn't prohibit the insurance company from exercising their rights by denying him as a customer.

    Here's a good article on Cracked. It's a bit on the adult side (with reference to language), but well researched and spot-on as far as I can tell.
    http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things...t-free-speech/

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    of course not! Do you actually think they support the Constitution? We see the second fourth and fifth Amendment violated all the time. Of course these raving left-wingers would violate the first
    Not merely "would," but they're actively trying:

    "The amendment, which is favored by Harry Reid and most Senate Democrats, would give Congress unprecedented power to limit debate on public issues in the context of elections."

    "Many observers have noted that if the Udall amendment became law, Congress could set ridiculously low contribution and spending levels, so as to virtually guarantee the re-election of incumbents. This is true–campaign finance “reform” has always been largely about incumbent protection. But I think the proposed amendment is even worse than that. Given its appallingly poor draftsmanship, I don’t see any reason why Congress couldn’t permit a high level of spending on behalf of incumbents (or no limit at all), while setting low limits for spending on behalf of challengers, or prohibiting such contributions altogether."
    - Source

    Quote Originally Posted by jackrockblc View Post
    Not exactly. Remember that the 1st Amendment protects laws from being created to limit speech. But it does not say that everybody must put up with what you say, how you say it, where you say it, or when you say it. So, Bill is exercising his free speech rights, but that doesn't prohibit the insurance company from exercising their rights by denying him as a customer.
    Of course not. It's why they're doing it that's so troubling. People do have the right to share their opinion, even publically, just as others have the right to turn the channel. They do not, however, have the right to file one frivolous lawsuit after another at a business like Whittle's simply because they either don't like what he's saying or worse, they're maliciously trying to shut him up. That's the failure in our society, the declining ability or willingness of judges to toss frivolous lawsuits. They're letting more and more of these injurious violations against our system of justice make it into the courts, where they rob honest, law-abiding victims of serious portions of their equity for legal fees.

    This debacle reminds of the reason behind Heinlein's future history element where society solved most of their problems by getting rid of the lawyers. Permanently.

    Here's a good article on Cracked. It's a bit on the adult side (with reference to language), but well researched and spot-on as far as I can tell.
    http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things...t-free-speech/
    I enjoyed the article, and agreed with all of its points. The problem is, none are applicable to what's going on behind the scenes, as I described above. It's a a gift, an artificially created, parasitic con scheme whereby lawyers and judges lacking appropriate levels of integrity allow things into court which never should have been given access to our system of justice in the first place. Their marks include you, I, and anyone else who gets caught in the crossfire of political correctness.

    How do you feel about being taken for a ride, jackrockbic?

    I may not like walking through a park while hearing two or three people standing on a soapbox and orating their view of the world, but it's eminently preferable to a world where people face the choice of either paying "insurance" (also part of the scam) or risking massively expensive yet frivolous lawsuits being illegitimately allowed into the courts by thieving lawyers and judges who care more about perpetuating their "profession" than they do about protecting our system of justice.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •