Printable View
It's all he knows, for he doesn't know how to think for himself so he assumes others can't either..Quote:
Originally Posted by Godsanvil
He'll probably respond to you with some unoriginal copy & paste bullshit from a random lefty blog.
Oh hey would you look at that!Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
They're both hate groups you ignorant racist twat. Are you really this stupid or are you just that full of shit? It's one or the other, there is no third option.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Go sniff some more of your own farts.
Remember when you didn't say shit about Scalise getting shot except to blame the gun?Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
Do you honestly think anyone here takes you seriously?
this is where she'll say "something something substance" in her deflection filled non-response. Unless she sees this in the quote, in which case she'll click the cancel button.
Here is a complete summary of you:Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
https://pics.me.me/hey-thats-my-bike...s-18830452.png
Well plenty of people helped the injured. If the guy in the car was attacked he didn't have to ram a crowd of people. I haven't seen any evidence of him being attacked. First responders can only do so much. It would be nice if they were at the scene of an incident in under zero seconds but they physically can't. There were medical professionals in the crowd that immediately helped people including giving CPR to Heather Heyer who died very quickly due to her injury.Quote:
Originally Posted by Berubeo21
I don't understand your terrorist question.
I like to spread information when I find it. You can click the links or go beat off. Your choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Nothing about Heather Heyer being murdered by a white supremacist while protesting hate is bullshit. It's all true.
The Greatest Generation: gave their lives to fight Nazis
The Make America Great Again Generation: "i think there is blame on both sides"
Hey, did you know all the actual Nazis are pretty much dead? I mean, I know it comes as a shock to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Nazis from WW2? Sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Those were the only real Nazis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Except for a few in prison and sympathizers like Soros . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Okay, there are a few super old farts floating around, but most of the actual card carrying members of the NSDAP are long gone, especially the ones that had any sort of ranked position.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
FalseQuote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Yet some Americans are just fine with nazism here. Certainly not the ones who fought them in WW2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
On another note... There are still plenty of WWII vets around. What makes you think all the nazis from then are gone?
You calling these idiots Nazis is disrespectful to the people the had to live under the boot of the real thing. None of these dumbasses are Nazis, unless there was a fucking German centenarian there, there was not a single Nazi there.thereQuote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Every comparison made of someone to Hitler, to a group and Nazis, softens the image of the horror that was in the 30s and 40s.
And there ar eplenty of Americans that are just fine with Communism here. How many people did Stalin and Mao kill? Right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
This post contradicts itself on its face.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
No, it doesn't. I was comparing ideals, not calling the people Soviets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
I can show you were you say you're constantly corralled by pirates throwing rocks at you if you want.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
Just as an aside - I think more people are 'ok' with Communism because it hasn't been tied to racism like Nazism (rightfully) has.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
I will agree that both are violent ideologies and I don't understand how either side expects to be taken seriously when you walk around brandishing their respective symbolism.
All we need to do is throw Japanese flags in there. What side of the spectrum would you consider them? Left or right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pin
I've never really given this any consideration, so with a completely uneducated glance, I would consider them somewhere between moderate to conservative right, based solely on what little I know of their customs and culture - which may or may not have been shaped by Mr. Baseball, The Last Samurai, and parts of Kill Bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Denying that Nazi groups still exist is dangerous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
They aren't Nazis. They are racist groups. I do not deny that, but they aren't National Socialist German Workers Party members.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Just because you say both sides are guilty doesn't mean you are okay with Nazism. I means you aren't okay with either. Stop trying to play word game gotcha with every post on here. Basically you have Nazis on one side and Mao Tse-tungers on the other. Both are scum. We fought hundreds of years of war to get out from under European forms of Government now you have two group of scumbags who want to shit all over that and go back to failed forms of Government.
Piss off with that. They're Nazi's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
When you walk around chanting "Blood and soil" with torches, you're a fucking nazi.
Hitler saluteQuote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Nazi flags
Blood and soil
Yeah my bad, they're totally not Nazis.
Aren't you in training to be a cop? The symbology and slogans that were being paraded around are like day 1 gang recognition stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
I think Gelston's point is none of these people have marched anyone off to a death camp.
Most of these people probably wet themselves when they are face to face with a black person.
And their official names are not National Socialist German Workers Party, NSDAP, or Nazis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
And I don't think a single one of the is wearing Hugo Boss.
If your point is that they're NEO Nazi groups and not literal Waffen SS translocated 70 years into the future, that's a very silly thing to be arguing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
My point is there is a big world of fucking difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
Everybody knows the only REAL Nazis left are on the Moon.
Gelston be like, "these dudes aren't Nazis"Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
https://itsgoingdown.org/wp-content/...1024x729-7.jpg
They are a bunch of racist idiots from Minnesota using Nazi symbols of hate because they lack their own vision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
Just a bunch of misunderstood LARPers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
I don't know, they look like Nazis to me. If it was black and white I would think that was 1930s Germany.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
If I start going around wearing Roman armor, espousing Imperial Roman beliefs, and carry the aquila around with me, am I then an Imperialist Roman? No, I'm some idiot in a costume.
You don't need a costume to be an idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Why would 1930's Germany be using 10 digit phone numbers? Or zip codes? Or be talking about PO boxes?Quote:
Originally Posted by tyrant-201
You are the worst historian ever.
:(Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
You know what? Fuck it. Call them whatever you want. These fat fucks don't even compare to real Nazis, if you want to keep watering down the actual ones by comparing them with scooty puff jr light, have fucking fun.
noun, plural Nazis.
1.a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, whichcontrolled Germany from 1933 to 1945 under Adolf Hitler andadvocated totalitarian government, territorial expansion, anti-Semitism, and Aryan supremacy, all these leading directly to WorldWar II and the Holocaust.
2.(often lowercase) a person elsewhere who holds similar views.
3.(often lowercase) Sometimes Offensive. a person who is fanaticallydedicated to or seeks to regulate a specified activity, practice, etc.:
Only real difference I see is that one gained power, and the other is still trying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Love how these walking piles of shit have insignia on their collar like they are in some form of military. My Grandfather would Murder these guys in the street if he was still alive and saw them. The only time an American should hold a Flag with a swastika is if he is taking it off a dead Nazi.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
You left out tentacle rape.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pin
Nazi wannabes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
Mustard gas! Mustard gas! Mustard gas!Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
*chick on the sidelines claps*
Soviet is not a political party. Communist and Nazi both are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
If someone had called out the Nazis of the 1920s, maybe they never would have become "real Nazis" either.Quote:
You know what? Fuck it. Call them whatever you want. These fat fucks don't even compare to real Nazis, if you want to keep watering down the actual ones by comparing them with scooty puff jr light, have fucking fun.
Who does Wolf Blitzer blame for the terrorist attack in Spain today?
Could it be ISIS? Islamic Terrorism?
Nope, white supremacists!
Let's just ignore the dozen or so terrorist attacks carried out by Muslims in the same fashion over the past couple of years, we can now start blaming white nationalists for Islamic terror attacks too!Quote:
BLITZER: Yeah, there will be questions about copycats. There will be questions if what happened in Barcelona was at all a copycat version of what happened in Charlottesville. Virginia. Even though they may be different characters [with] different political ambitions. They used the same killing device, a vehicle going at high speed into a large group of pedestrians.
As the propaganda arm of the far left continues to slide further and further into lunacy.
ISIS taking queues from the alt-right Nazis!
So, it's really Trump's fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Well the people on the left are using the same tactics as Mao, Khmer Rouge, and ISIS. Maybe they should be called out. Too many of my people have died in wars trying to stop the spread of failed European political systems to let a bunch of people who are barley old enough to drive a car start it up here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
But ISIS was already plowing through people with cars way before Charlottesville.
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/...256_nqlyaa.png
Oh shit ISIS is run by time travellers!Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
More like they must be secretly run by American white supremacists!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashlander
https://youtu.be/4S2TZOdXAtQ
This 1000%.
Ajit Pai gets new term on FCC despite protest of anti-net neutrality plan
So much for draining the swamp.
Shocked, shocked I tell you.
Racist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
stop projectingQuote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I'm not the one who wants to fire an Indian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
This made me think of TheE.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Racist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
It isn't racist when the motherfucker is actually an Indian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
:OQuote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Minus the having a job part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Really, only the Indian part. Did we ever have any other Indians on here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Rogue
https://i.imgur.com/i5DCAuV.jpg
I see this argument being made frequently. Should we apply the same logic to the 1st amendment and such things as the internet and social media?
There are limits on every amendment. Instead of arguing glittering generalities, focus on what happened. The guy used a currently legal modification to spray automatic gunfire into a crowd, killing ~60 and causing hundreds more injuries.
There's no doubt in my mind that those bump fire stocks should be illegal. Not sure why something hasn't been done about them already.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
Nope, he still had to pull the trigger once per round. Still semi-automatic fire, a bump stock makes that trigger pulling faster but it does not make it automatic fire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
You don't pull the trigger with a bumpfire stock, you hold your finger stationary while the gun's recoil repeatedly bounces the trigger off your finger. The cyclic rate of fire is functionally automatic.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
You still activate the trigger once per bullet and it is not the equal of automatic fire. It is close but not equal. Facts matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
What is the argument for keeping bump stocks legal? It's not like you would use them for hunting.
That's the extremely narrow definition of automatic that's in the books. Do you think automatic weapons are heavily regulated because of their feeding system or because of their rate of fire?Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
I've fired both autos and bumpfire, the rate of fire is similar enough to be identical, at least depending on the manufacturer.
I don't think I've seen anyone make an argument for keeping bump stocks legal. I think even the NRA and Republicans in Congress have said they should be looked in to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
The Second Amendment doesn't have limitations and is not about hunting. The automatic weapons ban is a farce and is simply a step down the slope. Why should law abiding citizens be restricted from owning what they want?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
I think you're confused here. We're talking about the United States Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
Do you... do you not realize the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution?Quote:
Originally Posted by Candor
Except for that whole well regulated militia thing, but why pay attention to that bit and the historical context?Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
For what purpose does someone need a fully automatic weapon?
https://i2.wp.com/pitweston.com/wp-c...sofspiders.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Bump stocks are flying off the shelves.
No, for that you need...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
https://d2p4va2bfxy5el.cloudfront.ne...-bg.jpg?3d4c76
Then we shouldn't go down the slope at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
Ok, then you are fine with anyone owning a fully auto machine gun?
What about a rocket launcher?
What about a tank?
What about a nuclear weapon?
Do you see how your argument makes no sense at all?
FTFYQuote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Lots of legal scholars have argued both ways. Based on the English standards at the time it does not modify the primary sentence which includes ". . . shall not be infringed."Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenlaar
Yes I am fine with people owning those things assuming they can afford them. My argument is perfectly accurate and denotes a social reality with laws and the decay of society. If you are not committing harm on others then why should not not be able to own whatever you want? Why is it that wen a drunk hits someone, it's the drunk's fault, when a suicide bomber kills people, it's the bomber's fault, when a terrorist (or fucked up rich teen brat) drives into a crowd it's their fault but when someone shoots people (other than in Tennessee) it's the gun's fault?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
And I thought Back was the king of stupidity. Congratulations on stealing his crown.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
It's a big enough crown for the two of them to share.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
So, you are fine with people owning nuclear weapons, as long as they can afford them?Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
I'm not blaming guns or anyone and I am a NRA supporter.. but you might be the only one I have ever had a conversation with that believes that people have the right to own a nuclear weapon.
I'm not sure where to go from here.
Whaaaaaaaaaa, I am overly emotional that guns might kill people and I can't personally handle the responsibility of owning one and so obviously no one else should own them either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Necro
Okay, surely you can easily explain this then. The second part of the sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," is not modified by the first half of the sentence. So, what did they put the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" part there for? A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...what? What is the purpose of mentioning well regulated militias if the second part of the sentence is not related to them?Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
Do you know what a militia is?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenlaar
Sure. It's something that was considered vital to the safety of the nation in a time when a massive standing national army not only didn't exist, but was seen as a danger in and of itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
That constitution thing is so outdated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenlaar
You're not adjusting for inflation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Necro
So, you still didn't answer what a militia is. You obviously don't know what one is. When the constitution was written, discussing the militia, they were definitely referring to a force of citizens who were self supplied, including their own weapons. They are not professional, they don't get issued stuff. They have their own stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenlaar
And they were part of regulated and trained militia groups. And their purpose was specifically to be prepared to defend the US if needed because, again, we not only didn't have a massive standing national army, but having a massive standing national army was considered a danger in and of itself. Obviously that no longer applies, does it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
THE JUDEAN PEOPLE'S FRONT?!?!?!?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenlaar
Sounds to me like they wanted them equipped with the best stuff they could get their hands on. And have plenty of ammo to blast the opposition along with backup weapons. No shit they didn't mention auto or semi-auto rifles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Necro
Der, dem people over dere with dem crawsbows ain't rite! They's posed to be usin spears, gaddamnit!
So you're also going to ignore that the reason for the second amendment was that the founding fathers didn't want to have a massive standing national army and thus planned on the US relying on militiamen for home defense, and how the fact that we do now have that standing army completely negates the entire reason that it was put in to begin with?Quote:
Originally Posted by subzero
Are you going to ignore what the American Revolution was about? It was about us rebelling against a tyrannical government. The 2nd Amendment doesn't exist to protect the US from other nations, it exists to protect the people from the Government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenlaar
Historically, militias were used as ad hoc armies, particularly during the French and Indian war which had just finished. When they say "well regulated militia", national defense was definitely in there too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
To insure domestic tranquility.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
One of, if not the single largest principle, that this country was founded on is this little thing they called, "Liberty". It was founded by people who fled oppression. They were very much against such things (yes... slavery; every rule has it's exception!) and many of the laws and ideals they put forth were done to preserve their new-found freedom and to put themselves in a position to prevent future subjugation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenlaar
Let me say this for you again: They fled an oppressive government.
When things like this are taken, or given away as some would prefer it, they aren't given back. The more a populace is disarmed and thus weakened, the stronger the hold a government has over it's people. So, no, I'm not a big fan of just handing more power to the government and I don't think they would be, either, if we're really talking about guys from the 1700s. Those guys stood for liberty. They fought for liberty. The laws they put in place were there to support liberty. You're trying to dissect a very limited portion of a much larger ideal in order to dismiss something that I honestly think would be quite contrary to what they wanted.
Disarming never works out, look at what happened to Ukraine. They gave up their nuclear weapons and now they've been invaded by Russia and had Crimea stolen from them.
That's on the national level though. We're way past the point where citizens could have held off a determined oppressive government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Well not with that attitude.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
My rights do not end because your feelings got hurt or you are uncomfortable. The left needs to learn this and so do you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Considering how many on the right had their feelings hurt because of people kneeling during the anthem.. I'd say both sides need to learn this.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
What do you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
I don't recall anyone on the right mandating a law be passed that would require NFL players to stand for the anthem. Got a link for that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Why would I have a link to something I didn't even mention? learn2read
The military and police departments outgun the average person by several magnitudes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
He said "My rights do not end because your feelings got hurt or you are uncomfortable." No one on the right called for the NFL players rights to end. But it's good to see you already recognized you were wrong. That was fast. Progress!Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
People called for kneelers to move out of the country, they called for a rule in the NFL to be passed to force them to stand during the anthem, Trump called for them to be fired, etc. Stop trying so hard to be idiotic.
Yes. That does make things difficult, but not impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
None of which infringes on anyone's rights at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
No. Red Dawn was a masturbatory fantasy, not an achievable thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Trying to force people to stop exercising their 1st amendment is the very definition of infringing on their rights.
See 2014 Euromaidan revolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
No it's not, unless they are using violence or the government is getting involved in said stopping of 1st amendment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
We're talking about the US and a hypothetical government that is willing to start shooting. I'm not sure I'd call the situation in Ukraine a win, in any case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Because POTUS isn't party of the federal government.. Listen, I know your feelings were hurt but get over it.
The Ukrainian police start shooting and killing protesters, which ultimately caused them to lose the situation because of global outrage. Firepower alone doesn't always win wars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
Historically, they provided their own arms also. Unless the Constitution has an amendment, it is what it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
People can bitch and complain about what it was the or what it is now, but until there is an Amendment changing the second, it is what it is. Suck it the fuck up.
We outgun Iraq and Afghanistan too. Just saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
Not to mention, most Americans wouldn't follow an order that tells them to open fire on other Americans. I wouldn't.
Huh? My feelings were never hurt. I thought they were being disrespectful pieces of shit, nothing more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
You would have a point.. if there were 320 million military and police departments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
Exactly this. "Gun Control" is just a bullshit cover. What the lunatic left really wants is the removal of the 2nd Amendment, but they are too cowardly to come out and say it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Which is why I never agree to any kind of limitation as lawful because it is a slippery slope and the Left is pushing us down it all the time. Giving an inch so to speak is still an inch further down the slope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
lolsnowflakeQuote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
How does thinking someone is being a disrespectful piece of shit = snowflake?Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
What's your definition of snowflake? Besides "PB" or some shit, as that would be an "example" and not a definition.
You need to take off those rose-colored glasses, man. The people who founded this country were only against the oppression and subjugation of themselves. Slavery isn't the one and only exception. This country was founded on destroying the Native Americans and continually herding them onto ever shrinking reservations. This country was founded on treating immigrants of every stripe as second class citizens at best, and a plague on our population at worst. Which is why...Quote:
Originally Posted by subzero
...we need to stop trying to govern the functioning of our country based on whitewashed principles and the ideals of the fucking 1700 and 1800's. If the founding fathers were still in charge, we wouldn't have a national army that, even if half of them defied the government and joined "the resistance," would still be able to put down any group of any people that they wanted to. This isn't a world where fighting the government means riding your horse to a field and forming a line, it isn't a world were fighting the government means you and your resistance buddies name yourselves after some cool animals and go all Wolverines on everybody, it's a world where fighting the government means satellite surveillance and drones strikes and tactical missile strikes and bunker busters. And what I'm not a big fan of is supporting your freedom fighter fantasies over doing the only thing we can do to help stop thousands upon thousands of people from being murdered every year.Quote:
When things like this are taken, or given away as some would prefer it, they aren't given back. The more a populace is disarmed and thus weakened, the stronger the hold a government has over it's people. So, no, I'm not a big fan of just handing more power to the government and I don't think they would be, either, if we're really talking about guys from the 1700s. Those guys stood for liberty. They fought for liberty. The laws they put in place were there to support liberty. You're trying to dissect a very limited portion of a much larger ideal in order to dismiss something that I honestly think would be quite contrary to what they wanted.
They do end when it is determined they pose an (arbitrarily determined) level of risk, though. You aren't allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater. You aren't allowed to bear nuclear arms. You aren't allowed to murder someone because God told you. If you ever step into the real world, you'll find out things are a lot more complicated than "I HAVE RIGHTS!"Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
It may interest you to learn that neither our legislative nor judicial systems operate on precedent at the highest level. Both the Congress and the Supreme Court are free to behave in a way that expressly contradicts prior behavior - this is kind of the point of both bodies.Quote:
Which is why I never agree to any kind of limitation as lawful because it is a slippery slope and the Left is pushing us down it all the time. Giving an inch so to speak is still an inch further down the slope.
The President is part of the government. hthQuote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
What's your solution though?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenlaar
You aren't even making any sense... which is usually the case in any political discussion with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Ever the Patriot! Thanks again for answering the call to serve your coun... Oh wait, forgot you are a couch-Patriot.
I'm sure you were standing at attention in front of your TV screen this afternoon though, right?? Right???
Yes. Now finish reading that sentence of mine. Go on, you're a big boy now, you can do it...unless...UNLESS...the government...come on...unless the government gets involved in stopping 1st...come on, almost there...1st amendment. Yes. When did Trump personally stop anyone's first amendment rights?Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Troll.
Troll calling someone else a troll.. :lol2:
Here we see the ever confused Androidpk in his natural habitat, trying desperately to make sense of the world around him and failing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
And here we see, in a most rare opportunity - a troll, attempting to troll a troll by trolling. Spectacular indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
He got involved in stopping First Amendment rights by publicly declaring that the people exercising them should lose their jobs. This threat has a chilling effect on protected speech regardless of whether the government uses their powers to directly ban the speech, and said chilling effect is a violation of the First Amendment, as is well established in Lamont v Postmaster General, Wieman v Updegraff, and decades of case law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
hth
How did he threaten anyone? He stated his opinion, he has no power to fire them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Lamont v Postmaster General- That is about the post office imposing an affirmation obligation for recipients of political material. Nothing to do with this.
Wieman v Updegraff- This is about due process. nothing to do with 1st Amendment.
More examples please.
That does it, you're out of my text will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gompers
He has power to do a heck of a lot worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
If only you had kept reading. "The addressee carries an affirmative obligation which we do not think the Government may impose on him. This requirement is almost certain to have a deterrent effect."Quote:
Lamont v Postmaster General- That is about the post office imposing an affirmation obligation for recipients of political material. Nothing to do with this.
"Such unwarranted inhibition upon the free spirit of teachers affects not only those who, like the appellants, are immediately before the Court. It has an unmistakeable tendency to chill that free play of the spirit which all teachers ought especially to cultivate and practice; it makes for caution and timidity in their associations by potential teachers."Quote:
Wieman v Updegraff- This is about due process. nothing to do with 1st Amendment.
Like what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
But you took the retarded stance of saying anyone should be able to buy a nuclear weapon if they can afford it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
That's not a slippery slope.. that's just stupidity.
Who are you referring to?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gompers
You DO realize that there is no tradition to stand at attention in front of your TV screen.... right?
Seeing as how you repped me, I think you know damn well who I was referring to. YOUR POOR WIDDLE BONE SPURS!Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
As the President of the United States he is cloaked in immense power, and as we know from the docudramadey The USSR Strikes Back no other vessel that small has a cloaking device.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Just imagine.
Imagine.
I've read them fully. Nothing to do with this case. Provide more, you said we have decades of them, should be easy to provide more examples.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
And I'm not very imaginative, tell me what he could do.
http://s3.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/a.../185694_v2.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
So, you ARE of the retarded opinion that:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gompers
If you don't join the military, you can't have an opinion about anything regarding patriotism, the flag or the National Anthem.
You have to stand for the National Anthem while at home watching it on TV.
When they say "the best and brightest", they didn't mean you.
Thank you for your service.. sorry you are a fucking retard though.
I quoted you word for word where the Justices talk about the chilling effect. You insist they don't. I can live with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
So, there aren't decades of case law then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
It's like they always say: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it read a concurring opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
So, no. You can't find the decades of case law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/30/john...civil-war.html
Damn it Kelly I wanted to like you.Quote:
White House Chief of Staff John Kelly on Monday said, "the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War."
...
"There are certain things in history that were not so good, and other things that were very, very good," Kelly said. "I think we make a mistake as a society, and certainly as individuals, when we take what is accepted as right and wrong, and go back 100, 200, 300 years or more and say, 'What Christopher Columbus did was wrong.'"
Was he wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
How do you compromise slavery?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
The Government did it several times before, ask them. He didn't say anything was right or wrong, just that it could have been avoided with compromise. It could have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Weak. The correct answer is there is no compromise to slavery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
You're assuming my problem with his statement is the veracity of it rather than the sentiments he was expressing in the context of his interview.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Except there was. Many times. If you had been born and lived in the early to mid 1800s, you'd probably have a slightly different mindset too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Lincoln was even willing to compromise. The South wasn't having any of it though.
If you were born black you'd probably have a slightly different mindset too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Are you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I'd still recognize that the history of slavery involved a lot of compromises that the US Government made. You can say "No compromises!!!!" all you want, but it is a fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Yes, the government had many compromises over slavery. Even the 3/5ths compromise has the word "compromise" right in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
But I deleted my post because I figured you were just gonna herp derp in your reply.
Sure you did. Can you name 5 of these "many compromises"?
No, I'm .01% Western Saharan on my father's side.Quote:
Originally Posted by Necro
Oh, the 3/5ths Compromise isn't enough?Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Here are several.
https://herb.ashp.cuny.edu/items/show/1286
I don't consider it a good compromise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
....Okay, but it was one of multiple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Were there any financial incentives? That seems like it should have been the way to go.
Financial incentives for what? Not having slaves?Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
What would have been your preference? Slave states demanded slaves be counted as a whole person for representation, even though slaves couldn't vote for pro-abolitionist candidates, so they could have dominated Congress? Non slave states dug in their heels and demanded slaves not be counted at all? This all led to war? That was Kelly's point. You know the saying; a good compromise is both sides walking away not getting everything they wanted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Of course in the general sense that slavery is bad it was a bad compromise but abolishing slavery wasn't going to happen that day.
yesQuote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Abolishing slavery after the Civil War was the best thing that could happen for plantation owners, to be honest. Now they didn't have to pay to cloth and feed their workers and they could pay them next to nothing. It was cheaper for them. It was, of course, also better for the former slaves... They had a few more rights. Jim Crowe kept them down for a long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
The entire economy of the southern states was based on slavery. You'd have to subsidize their entire economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Well, I imagine if we had had a compromise instead of the Civil War, there eventually would have been incentives for plantation owners to switch to more mechanized farming. Eventually slavery was going to become more expensive than it was worth and it would have been legislated away without much of a fuss. I'm fairly positive slavery wouldn't exist now, but African American rights probably would be a little behind what they are now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
The Civil War answered more than just the slavery question though. I think it was kind of important for us to have it.
reported to tisketQuote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Tisket can suck my clock.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
digital or anal log?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....shit_anim4.gif
"SO disappointed! My SB 48 (outlaw child marriage) won’t be called for a vote," sponsor Julie Raque Adams, a Louisville Republican, said in a Tweet early Thursday. "It is disgusting that lobbying organizations would embrace kids marrying adults. We see evidence of parents who are addicted, abusive, neglectful pushing their children into predatory arms. Appalling."
http://www.kvue.com/article/news/nat...0-2b095f8348ba
A distinction to be made, they aren't being punished because they ran in, they are being punished because they didn't report their location.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Makes sense.Quote:
A Miramar PD spokesperson told Blue Lives Matter, "Miramar PD had numerous officers and a victim advocate respond, without incident. The two SWAT officers temporarily suspended from the SWAT team, but not active duty, were not suspended for responding, but for NOT advising that they responded. They did not advise prior to self-dispatching, during the incident, nor immediately following. This is an officer safety issue, a violation of policy and goes against incident command training and the best practices learned from other mass casualty / shooting incidents."
History is on their side the way Germany had the 1st two Reich's on their side.Quote:
In a surprise appearance on Saturday, former Trump adviser Steve Bannon addressed France's far-right National Front, telling a gathering of the party that they are “part of a worldwide movement that is bigger than France, bigger than Italy, bigger than Hungary — bigger than all of it. And history is on our side.”....Bannon told the crowd, “Let them call you racists. Let them call you xenophobes. Let them call you nativists,” The Post reported. “Wear it as a badge of honor. Because every day, we get stronger and they get weaker.”
https://media.giphy.com/media/Gt4FaBEFngjL2/giphy.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
What the actual fuck??!?!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
https://twitter.com/Stonekettle/stat...05319496151040
This is a long thread about arming teachers in schools. He's asking good questions that seem to get ignored in the arm the teachers debate.
Quote:
Stonekettle Retweeted Donald J. Trump
"Highly trained expert teachers"
Highly trained expert teachers
Highly trained
Highly trained by ... who?
Who designs the training. On what criteria? To what standards? No, don't just say, "the local police department" or something similar.
They'll be trained by playing violent video games.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
No, only a few weeks. But that's only basic, and I know we're not sending teachers to a military boot camp.Quote:
it takes years of training to condition a soldier to kill another human being
I just want to know why there's more of an effort to provide firearms training to teachers, instead of better funding for... y'know.... teaching.