Things that made you laugh today (Political Version)

[Androidpk]

Someone on Trump's staff really needs to tell him to stop bring up that faux story about General Pershing and the Muslim massacre. Or not

[Parkbandit]

Why the fuck are you using Vista? This is why Trump won.

You are literally communicating with a guy who drilled holes in his computer case for ventilation.

He's about as sharp as a tennis ball.

[Latrinsorm]

Its not just protecting speech I hate, its just protecting free speech full stop. Whether it is hateful or not doesn't matter to me in this regard. You know next to nothing about me but pretend to know the inner workings of my mind. So there are the quotes I read about, and then there are the quotes you still have yet to provide that show what you are talking about.

I've yet to provide them because you never once asked me for them. This is why I'm not 'pretending' to know the inner workings of your mind, I see them quite clearly. Here's another example:

What's your point?

These were back to back posts:
"Saying things that people disagree with is protected by the First Amendment."
"the amount anyone disagrees with speech is completely irrelevant to whether it's protected or not."
And you ask what my point is! lol.

Let me ask you, seriously. One Netizen to another. Isn't this shtick of yours way more work than just posting honestly? I feel like you'd have to go so far out of your way to do this that it couldn't possibly be worth the effort, but here we are. It's not like there are any shortage of people on the Internet who would disagree with what you honestly believed and get you your argument fix. I just don't get it.

Anyway.

Tell us your opinion of this whole situation.

1. This particular Nazi rally included speech that failed the test established in Brandenburg v. Ohio that has never been overturned or altered. To wit:
-it was directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action, and
-it was likely to incite or produce such action.

It does not matter that the speech was hateful.
It does not matter that the speech was unpleasant.
It does not matter that the speech was racist.
It does not matter.
This speech was not protected in the same way that yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected.

2. This statue (and many like it) were explicitly designed to glorify the Confederacy.
Not Virginia.
Not America.
Not states' rights.
The Confederacy.
Know how I know this? It had an unveiling ceremony. The veil used was not the flag of Virginia, nor the flag of America, nor a tarp with "states' rights" written on it.
It was the Confederate flag.
And the speeches given included one welcoming veterans as:
"Confederate Veterans, cherishing deathless devotion to a cause as precious to them in old age as it was when, in glorious youth, they trod battlefields."

It (and many like it) continue to explicitly glorify the Confederacy and other failed, treasonous movements based on racism such as Naziism.

We tore down symbols glorifying Naziism seventy years ago, and everybody is still extremely well versed in the history of the Nazis.
Ergo we can tear these down without fear that anyone will forget the history of the Confederacy.

[drauz]

I've yet to provide them because you never once asked me for them. This is why I'm not 'pretending' to know the inner workings of your mind, I see them quite clearly. Here's another example:These were back to back posts:
"Saying things that people disagree with is protected by the First Amendment."
"the amount anyone disagrees with speech is completely irrelevant to whether it's protected or not."
And you ask what my point is! lol.

Let me ask you, seriously. One Netizen to another. Isn't this shtick of yours way more work than just posting honestly? I feel like you'd have to go so far out of your way to do this that it couldn't possibly be worth the effort, but here we are. It's not like there are any shortage of people on the Internet who would disagree with what you honestly believed and get you your argument fix. I just don't get it.

If you can't see how your comment and mine aren't related, I can't help you.

I don't have subpoena powers, feel free not to respond if this is an imposition on you.

[Latrinsorm]

If you can't see how your comment and mine aren't related, I can't help you.

I don't have subpoena powers, feel free not to respond if this is an imposition on you.

No huffy remark about not responding to me anymore this time? I guess you can change up your shtick after all.

[drauz]

No huffy remark about not responding to me anymore this time? I guess you can change up your shtick after all.

Its almost like my moods can change from day to day...like a human.

Beep-boop.

[Androidpk]

Its almost like my moods can change from day to day...like a human.

Beep-boop.

Schizophrenia

[drauz]

Schizophrenia

Thats what the voice in my head said too.

[drauz]

Harry Potter has become a Grand Wizard

[Neveragain]

I've yet to provide them because you never once asked me for them. This is why I'm not 'pretending' to know the inner workings of your mind, I see them quite clearly. Here's another example:These were back to back posts:
"Saying things that people disagree with is protected by the First Amendment."
"the amount anyone disagrees with speech is completely irrelevant to whether it's protected or not."
And you ask what my point is! lol.

Let me ask you, seriously. One Netizen to another. Isn't this shtick of yours way more work than just posting honestly? I feel like you'd have to go so far out of your way to do this that it couldn't possibly be worth the effort, but here we are. It's not like there are any shortage of people on the Internet who would disagree with what you honestly believed and get you your argument fix. I just don't get it.

Anyway.1. This particular Nazi rally included speech that failed the test established in Brandenburg v. Ohio that has never been overturned or altered. To wit:
-it was directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action, and
-it was likely to incite or produce such action.

It does not matter that the speech was hateful.
It does not matter that the speech was unpleasant.
It does not matter that the speech was racist.
It does not matter.
This speech was not protected in the same way that yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected.

2. This statue (and many like it) were explicitly designed to glorify the Confederacy.
Not Virginia.
Not America.
Not states' rights.
The Confederacy.
Know how I know this? It had an unveiling ceremony. The veil used was not the flag of Virginia, nor the flag of America, nor a tarp with "states' rights" written on it.
It was the Confederate flag.
And the speeches given included one welcoming veterans as:
"Confederate Veterans, cherishing deathless devotion to a cause as precious to them in old age as it was when, in glorious youth, they trod battlefields."

It (and many like it) continue to explicitly glorify the Confederacy and other failed, treasonous movements based on racism such as Naziism.

We tore down symbols glorifying Naziism seventy years ago, and everybody is still extremely well versed in the history of the Nazis.
Ergo we can tear these down without fear that anyone will forget the history of the Confederacy.