Yep, not implying it is - like I said, just taking the point to a logical extreme where (ideally) everyone would agree that at least some speech can’t be allowed with no repercussions. I’m curious where along the spectrum of fucked up things to say you’d personally draw the line - were you focusing on the distinction between nazi shit/gore and a direct threat because you’d consider either/both allowable, or just wanting to point out a false dichotomy?
Obligatory fuck ford - the irony of his corrupt ass calling anyone else greedy is almost funny - but more importantly why would this be a problem? The article says Singh denies the pension is a factor, but if he wanted to hold out a little longer to get the money that he’s earned then… good for him? They don’t even seem to be accusing him of prioritizing that over the public good or anything, just of wanting money that he *checks notes* worked for and would meet the criteria to claim? The ability to scoff at being paid for your political work is a red flag to me (might indicate corruption/generational wealth/etc), and they’re really out here acting like it’s a moral requirement for office.