Are you referring to fascist dictator "nazi" or literal badge-wearing capital-N Nazi? There's a difference. I'd argue that one is a general coarse criticism while the other is a very specific accusation that might pass judicial muster as defamatory.

That's the real crux here. Comments accusing Obama of being socialist/communist/Nazi (fascist or literal) generally are not taken seriously, since anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see these people don't even know what those words mean.

But that does not, IMHO, constitute "political speech." I don't approve of people suing over hurt feelings either, but those kinds of comments don't really deserve 1st amendment protection.
=Smidge=

I think there's room to make a distinction between general insult "nazi" aka fascist as you describe, and actual, literal White supremacist anti-jew swastika-wearing "Hitler did nothing wrong" capital-N Nazi. Those people do exist, you know...
=Smidge=

Defamation, along with obscenity and inciting panic or violence, have never been free speech. Slander and libel are civil crimes that you can be sued for in court, and it's been that way since day one. To facilitate enforcement of defamation laws, the court has decided it's acceptable to try and de-anonymize the poster in question.

Just because the words are about a political candidate, does not make it political speech. This case is not the same as speaking unpopular political views and opinions - that WOULD be protected speech. It's the difference between supporting Nazi idealism (free speech) and accusing someone of being a Nazi (not free speech).
=Smidge=

You're misusing the statistics and twisting them to fit your preconceived notions of how terrible police are. Around 1% get complaints, but that doesn't say how many are valid. The second paragraph quoted doesn't change that... in fact, it adds nothing to it... 10% could get complaints, it doesn't make 10% guilty of wrong doing.

As far as not talking to police, you're again missing context... if you're under arrest, then don't talk to police. Otherwise you're likely just being an asshole and obstructing justice. If you say something incriminating before being read your Miranda rights, it's inadmissible in court... and of course, you can only say something incriminating if you've actually done something wrong. If you haven't done anything wrong, there's no reason not to talk to police.

Yes, I thought about what an asshole you are belittling me for consuming "subsidized garbage" when you know nothing about me.

Right... they provide a kiosk for people to submit applications. So I don't see the problem. BTW, you're wrong about most of those places - since most of them are franchises, they are owned by a local owner; I don't even frequent fast food places that often, but have seen plenty of people asking for, and getting, paper applications. I'm not saying people don't need help, I'm saying internet is NOT a necessity - but we're not even talking about internet access, TFA is talking about BROADBAND.

U.S. Constitution explicitly says the right to bear arms cannot be infringed. It doesn't say "guns," it says "arms." No, it doesn't make sense for an individual to have an ICBM, but given the point of the amendment, I'd say any personal arms should be legal for law-abiding citizens. But instead of just denying people the right clearly protected in the constitution, if you disagree, the only really "legal" way to block it is to pass an amendment clarifying which arms. But we don't need to follow the constitution anymore, anyway... the government has slowly "interpreted" away most of the meaning already, which is why the government grants itself the right to fully automatic weapons, but not citizens.

Then when people say the reason for the amendment is for the citizens to protect itself from a tyrannical government, you say "like you can defend against bazookas and automatic weapons and hand grenades and Apache gunships!" Completely oblivious to the fact that the government has granted itself the right to have those weapons and taken it away from individuals, explicitly subverting the purpose of the amendment, and you don't see the problem with that.

No, I think he got it - just in a slightly more wordy, round-about way. If you ask Europeans if they'd want to live in Texas, most of them picture cowboys walking around with holsters and it being like the "wild west." They don't really seem to get that it's often the most "liberal" cities that have the worst problems.

That's patently absurd.... "Don't talk to police" is for the people asking for trouble. Don't be a dick to police who are doing their job well. My father was a police officer for 20 years and somehow managed not to shoot any black people or violate anyone's rights. That's 99.9% of police officers. They cannot shoot you if they "feel like it." Sometimes police officers commit crimes and get away with it, but you've been brainlessly skewed by the media if you think that's the "norm."

My father asked me if I ever considered being a police officer, and I told him straight out I don't have the patience for assholes like you.

That seems true, but those people should be punished - the reaction shouldn't be to restrict everyone else even more.

I agree with helping those unable to protect their own rights, I don't agree with protecting people unwilling to protect their own rights.

No, I actually don't believe teaching a man to fish is shortsighted or selfish. You are also one of the many people conflating "internet" and "broadband," and you somehow also missed the part where I quite clearly say that I know some people can't help themselves and we need assistance programs to help them... so I guess what I'm seeing is you're a confirmation biased douche-bag dumb-fuck who can't read or comprehend.

No, they don't - there's no greater indicator that someone will be living in poverty than being part of a single parent family. The stupid choice was allowing ones self to become pregnant as a teen - that they then own up to it and become responsible doesn't really matter since the bulk of the "damage" is already done - they've completely limited their chances and choices.

I will throw this out there, again, too - we're not talking about internet access, we're talking about broadband internet access. You don't need broadband to send email and fill out applications, and somehow, some way, millions of poor people across the country have managed to get jobs that required them to have internet access.

Yes and no.... for example, they realized a national company to deliver mail was necessary (as opposed to a bunch of local ones trying to work together), but they don't run it. It's USPS.com and not USPS.gov for a reason. And while they realized the necessity of some infrastructure, they did not give power to the federal government to do it, they quite explicitly left it in the hands of local governments.

If something's subsidized for me, then it's already subsidized for them... so what are we talking about?