Comments on: ACD Discontinues Publication of J. Grant Swank’s columns

By: Interview With ACD Founder J.J. Jackson (Part 1 of 2) | American Conservative Daily

Sun, 08 Feb 2009 11:53:59 +0000

[...] Jackson: Yes, Grant Swank was an example of an author that I vetted but didn’t do a good job of vetting. Once we started [...]

By: LibertarianPrince (Moderator)

LibertarianPrince (Moderator) — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 00:04:32 +0000

Conservative jurisprudence has always believed that the inalienable rights of any man are not able to be violated by any agent of the government. The concept of the 14th amendment restraining states is not something that is odd considering it states exactly that and in a long standing principle of modern conservative and classical liberal thought.

By: Leo

Leo — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:13:02 +0000

“The question that needs to be asked then is why you believe in things that are false and easily disproven.”

To be fair, a whole lot of people make exactly that mistake, and the group certainly isn’t confined to liberals. Sarah Palin complained about media criticism violating her 1st Amendment rights, for example.

If I had to guess, I would say that about 50% of Americans believe that the 1st Amendment applies against private actors, 30% couldn’t tell you what the Amendment is about at all, and 20% could accurately tell you that it restrains state and federal government but not private actors.

By the way, it’s interesting that you so easily acknowledge the incorporation of 1st Amendment rights against the states through the 14th Amendment. I thought conservative jurisprudence was skeptical of the notion of substantive due process.

By: Sadly, No! » The Conservative Crackup: Special Wingnut Unit

Sadly, No! » The Conservative Crackup: Special Wingnut Unit — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 05:32:59 +0000

[...] Geller, Emperor Misha I, LC JackBoot IC/A-OBR, Debbie Schlussel, Dafydd ab Hugh, Warrior Subject: ACD Discontinues Publication of J. Grant Swank’s columns Posted Thursday, Nov. 6, 2008, at 9:27 PM [...]

By: LibertarianPrince (Moderator)

LibertarianPrince (Moderator) — Fri, 16 May 2008 22:02:49 +0000

The question that needs to be asked then is why you believe in things that are false and easily disproven. My point is that you should be wary of calling the kettle black Mr. Pot.

That you have viewpoints is fine. Make sure they are justifiable however and don’t speak beyond your knowledge. That is my advice to you.

By: Noel

Noel — Fri, 16 May 2008 20:47:47 +0000

I am sorry, I am only in 9th grade, and our class has never covered the constitution in detail. I looked it up on wikepedia and you are right there. on the other hand, you seem like a person who has valid viewpoints (if not exactly what i believe), so you have to admit in the “Obama is a Muslim” article, he had an inaccuracy almost every sentence when expressing his viewpoint.

By: LibertarianPrince (Moderator)

LibertarianPrince (Moderator) — Fri, 16 May 2008 09:55:21 +0000

Noel, obviously you are a liberal. I can tell because you completely misrepresented the first amendment in your second comment. Note: The first amendment only applies to Congress and the government (as well as States see 14th Amendment) not private individuals, companies and enterprises such as this website.

For our terms of use:

“This site, while accessible to the public, is a privately owned and operated. It is not a “place of public accommodation” and you do not have a “right” to make comments or post articles and commentary on this site.”

By: Noel

Noel — Fri, 16 May 2008 02:45:09 +0000

Also, dont get rid of them entirely.

A) Getting rid of them would be a violation of freedom of speech/freedom of press.

B) No matter what everyone else says, this guy has a right to his own view.

C) His posts are fun to read to see how many inaccuracies are in them.

By: Noel

Noel — Fri, 16 May 2008 02:40:17 +0000

Im a liberal and I’ve read a couple of Swank’s articles. Just put a comment on his articles saying that he is insane. If you do that, my image of the ultra-conservative would improve a little bit. Dont try to protect him if you have actually read his posts and think he is crazy. If you did that, the nation would not think highly of you guys and this website (not that it would anyway). On the other hand, if you think his views are true or valid, then say that. Dont fold under my pressure to get you to back away from him if you think his views are good. Say that he has a right to express his views, and that you want every view to be heard if you think that. I woudnt think less of you if you did that either. Anyway, base your decision of what to do with his articles on what you think, because you are the creator of this website, and you have a right to your freedom of speech. Do not base your decision upon popularity, do what you think is right.