Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@hightor,

(4) People in the stock market would have sold stock like crazy if they thought an insurrection was taking place. The bond market would also have gone crazy. Instead, the stock market went up modestly. Investors KNEW that no insurrection was taking place.
Trump was still commander-in-chief on Jan 7. Are you telling
me that anybody (except Pelosi) seriously thought that Trump was leading an insurrection?
(5) Absentee ballots were legal in the last election, NOT mail-in ballots where fraud could easily occur.
(6) It is true that all legal means we're used by Trump (including encouraging his supporters to remain vigilant in 2022 and beyond).

1 Reply

@NealNealNeal,

1) The criminalization of hate speech is not used "as an excuse for denying other people their 1st amendment rights"; it's a political gesture by the Democrats to address the concerns of an important part of their political base. It's supposed to signal that "We get it" and draw attention to a persistent social evil.

Quote:

Then, the idea of "hate speech" came along Now, progressives use "hate speech" to apply to anyone who disagrees with them

But spreading disinformation about vaccines or repeating lies about election fraud aren't matters of "hate speech". Look, if we didn't have these concentrated media monopolies there'd be a popular media platform for everyone's garbage. But as there are so few alternatives to the products and platforms supplied by the five big tech giants it's not surprising that the slimeball companies would try to maintain some consistent, if minimal, measure of editorial control over the content — in order not to lose advertising dollars. But there's nothing stopping Fox or OANN from entering that market and developing platforms appealing both to a conservative base and potential advertisers. It has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.

2) Why would they want to keep churches closed for any other reason than that of public health? Churches around here found creative ways to assemble without endangering the community. It was only a few of the right-wing political churches — the ones with the Trump flags and the armed deacons — that insisted on stuffing themselves into the same enclosed area for a few hours, unmasked, of course. They spread that virus among themselves and then all over the state. They deserve condemnation.

Quote:

After all, the riots were quite acceptable to these progressives.

And which "progressives" are we talking about again?

3) Nowhere have you provided any evidence that Roberts "knew the trial was a sham". Where did he say this? I think you just made it up because it's what you want to believe.

1 Reply

@hightor,

(1) Until fairly recently even the speech of the KKK was protected. However, "hate speech" was largely the result of homosexuals forcing their views on other people. Progressives made up the idea that "hate speech" included any thought that homosexuality was immoral. Progressives got more and more irrational and intolerant of any disagreement with their ideas.

(2) There was a site called Parlor that got shut down because of the popularity it had with conservatives.

(3) People have the right to decide for themselves what is disinformation. We do not need a "nanny state" telling us what to do. Stop being so supercilious. Stop scaring people like you do. Allow us to decide for ourselves.

(4) We have the Constitutional right to worship together. If you don't want to join us, then stay home. Stop trying to silence us.

(5) George Orwell wrote books about the tyranny brought about by Socialism. Progressives are trying to make our country into a Big Brother society.

(6) Roberts knows that it is unconstitutional.

That is why he refused to take part

3 Replies

@NealNealNeal,

No forcing involved. Just bigotry on the anti-gay groups who banned any tlak of homosexuality. When MA lgealized gay marriage, the first state tpo do so, 60-some pecent of the state approved of it. 13 state policticans were vocal aginst it. 11 lost their seats in thke necxt elections. That sut them up. National support is in the 70s. You've been left behind by cultural change, and social morality.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

it's parler, not parlor. can't even get the name right. They ere shut down for ramant lies, disinformation bigotry, you name it. People have been ;pissed at social media publishing any damned thing it wanted. So now social media reacted to that anger, and the people who spread the disinformation never stopped to think that they were the biggest purveyors of what people disliked. be careful what you wish for because you just might find your wish coming true.

0 Replies

@NealNealNeal,

we had a prersident who spent four years continually lying to us day afte day, 30000 times. He said it loud and often and millions of peop;le believed every lying word. That led yo a brazen 10 eeks plot to stal a fair election, stage a coup d'etat, and sedition and violennt insurrection. Free speech isn't limitless. You can't yeall "fire" in a crowded theater. That is exactly what trump did. he got shut down for it.

0 Replies

@NealNealNeal,

Ever heard of "government of the people, by the people, FOR THE PEOPLE, Lincoln's formulation of democracy.. wE PAY FOR IT, IT DPOES THE THINGS WE WANT What you and your misguided ilk keep calling the "n=anny state" is precisely the "by the people, FOR THE PEOPLE" part of it. We pay for it, it does the things we want. Except when the rabid right and trump got control of it.

1 Reply

@NealNealNeal,

Quote:

2) There was a site called Parlor that got shut down because of the popularity it had with conservatives.

It got shut down because no one wanted to host the toxic mix of disinformation and exhortation to violence exhibited by rabid conservatives. If the site had been willing to monitor its content, as other platforms do, it would still be up and running.

Quote:

(3) People have the right to decide for themselves what is disinformation.

That doesn't mean that the media is required to distribute it.

Quote:

(4) We have the Constitutional right to worship together. If you don't want to join us, then stay home. Stop trying to silence us.

And you have a moral duty to avoid infecting others with contagious pathogens. If you're so institutionally dependent that you don't even know how to practice your religion without supervision you're making a mockery of the teachings of Jesus. If you insist on defying public health ordinances about social distancing and crowds then you should all quarantine yourselves in your covid-infested sanctuaries and not risk spreading disease to the society at large.

Quote:

(5) George Orwell wrote books about the tyranny brought about by Socialism.

Orwell was a socialist. His books were about the totalitarianism and the use of ideology in the pursuit of political power.

Quote:

Progressives are trying to make our country into a Big Brother society.

It's not "progressives" doing that — it's consumers. Consumers are the ones choosing to install electronic devices in their homes and to carry them around all day, devices which can track them and use this information.

Quote:

(6) Roberts knows that it is unconstitutional.

I asked you before; provide evidence for this. Where did Roberts say the procedure was unconstitutional? Where did he provide that as the reason for not presiding at the hearing?

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Ever heard of "government of the people, by the people, FOR THE PEOPLE, Lincoln's formulation of democracy.. wE PAY FOR IT, IT DPOES THE THINGS WE WANT What you and your misguided ilk keep calling the "n=anny state" is precisely the "by the people, FOR THE PEOPLE" part of it. We pay for it, it does the things we want. Except when the rabid right and trump got control of it.

One problem is that progressives shut down moderate liberals as well as all forms of conservative thought. For example, I favor moderate clean energy goals, better treatment of animals, and individuals helping the poor. I sympathize with the views of black people and recognize that perhaps I lack empathy for blacks because I am not black
I can get along fine with people like Vikorr. However, your leftist leanings bothers me I don't like totalitarian government.

2 Replies

@NealNealNeal,

I also see the total hypocrisy of liberals. How many times do people on this board demean people of low intelligence. What about a mother taking care of her pre-born child. Why are people considered less than human because they have an extra chromosome. Why are we the first generation to treat the elderly like garbage. The hypocrisy and egotism of leftists is so very evident. It is not there with conservatives.

1 Reply

@NealNealNeal,

Quote:

(4) People in the stock market would have sold stock like crazy if they thought an insurrection was taking place.

Um...do you really think the mob had any chance of accomplishing anything more than intimidation, physical assault, and vandalism? An "insurrection" is simply a revolt against the authority of government. Again and again you try to claim that the riots associated with the death of George Floyd were just as bad, if not worse than the riot at the Capitol — then why didn't the stock market crash in May and June? I mean, really — no one believed that a bunch of costumed thugs were actually going to conduct a successful coup d'etat. Even if they'd managed to hang Pence the government wasn't going to fall. Are you the only person who didn't realize that?

Quote:

Trump was still commander-in-chief on Jan 7. Are you telling
me that anybody (except Pelosi) seriously thought that Trump was leading an insurrection?

Trump incited a mob to commit violence. Yes, he was still technically the commander-in-chief and the fact that he never ordered troops to protect the Capitol is yet another dereliction of duty and a reason to convict him.

0 Replies

@NealNealNeal,

Quote:

How many times do people on this board demean people of low intelligence.

oralloy does it all the time.

Quote:

What about a mother taking care of her pre-born child.

What about it?

Quote:

Why are people considered less than human because they have an extra chromosome.

They aren't.

Quote:

Why are we the first generation to treat the elderly like garbage.

We're not. Although some conservatives think the elderly are expendable:
The lieutenant governor of Texas argued in an interview on Fox News Monday night that the United States should go back to work, saying grandparents like him don’t want to sacrifice the country’s economy during the coronavirus crisis. “No one reached out to me and said, ‘as a senior citizen, are you willing to take a chance on your survival in exchange for keeping the America that all America loves for your children and grandchildren?’” Patrick said. “And if that’s the exchange, I’m all in.”

Quote:

The hypocrisy and egotism of leftists is so very evident.

You can find identical behavior on the right as well.

Quote:

It is not there with conservatives.

It most certainly is. It's a human trait, not a political characteristic.

2 Replies

@NealNealNeal,

If you talk crap, it gets pointed out to you, yes.

0 Replies

@hightor,

Obviously you are too egotistical to realize what I am saying is true. Perhaps a few people on this board will realize the hypocrisy of leftists.
I will keep on using my constitutional rights even if leftists get angry that I disagree with them.

1 Reply

@NealNealNeal,

Quote:

Obviously you are too egotistical to realize what I am saying is true.

Possibly. But there's another explanation for why I don't accept what you say as truth: you provide neither facts nor logic to support your hackneyed contentions. So how do I know that, in fact, it is not you who whose judgment is clouded by egotism?

Are you going to show us where Roberts declares the impeachment proceedings unconstitutional?

Are you going to chastise oralloy for demeaning those of us with pedestrian-level IQs?

Will you admit that hypocrisy is a human characteristic and not specifically associated with one particular ideology?

1 Reply

@hightor,

(1) Please read Article 1 Section 3 Clause 6. Roberts refused to president because Donald Trump was no longer president. However, he did president over the first trial when Trump WAS president.

(2) I already pointed out in previous posts that it is hypocritical to belittle people with disabilities while calling other people bigots.

(3) Yes I will agree. However, many conservatives admit that they often fail. With the possible exception of you, I have never heard a progressive admit they are hypocrites.

2 Replies

@NealNealNeal,

Please replace the word "preside where necessary.

0 Replies

@NealNealNeal,

Quote:

(1) Please read Article 1 Section 3 Clause 6. Roberts refused to president because Donald Trump was no longer president. However, he did president over the first trial when Trump WAS president.

Yes, in accordance with his duties he presides over the trial of a sitting president. He's not required to preside when the president is no longer in office. But choosing not to do so doesn't indicate that the trial is a "sham". You've shown no evidence he refused the job for that reason.

Quote:

(2) I already pointed out in previous posts that it is hypocritical to belittle people with disabilities while calling other people bigots.

Yeah, but why are you bringing it up? I never said anything like that.

1 Reply

@hightor,

My major reference is about leftists who are bigots while condemning people who merely disagree with them as bigots.
Since you and MontereyJack are engaged in discussion, I could not possibly be talking about either of you.
Vikorr tends to look at both sides of an issue so I find him quite refreshing (Perhaps he could be a little nicer to Ollie?).

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Wrong.

Not wrong.

I give no credence to any side.

vikorr wrote:

as just one example amongst many, for Mr Cooper, you said he was threatening Ms Cooper to the point that she would be justified shooting him.

He admitted that he made the threats.

vikorr wrote:

I provided that his 'threat' was very vague and could have meant several different things
- you patently ignored all other possible meanings other than the one you wished to focus on

That's because the possibility of those other meanings is completely irrelevant.

The only thing that matters is that Amy Cooper felt threatened.

vikorr wrote:

I listed behaviours displayed by Mr Cooper, that gave context to interpreting the vague 'threat'. In the video he was:
- calm in behaviour
- calm in voice
- did not apporach her
- asked her not to approach him
You patently ignored all these behaviours except distance,

I ignore them because they have zero relevance.

vikorr wrote:

- you claimed he did approach her

Wrong. I claimed that he tried to lure her pet away from her.

vikorr wrote:

I pointed out that his own words (which you use as evidence he approached her) did not say he approached her, and that in the video he obviously was telling her not to approach him, and he never approached her
- you patently ignore that you were wrong

I am not wrong. He did try to lure her pet away from her.

vikorr wrote:

You then call him a thug... when he has displayed no violent behaviours, but calm, rational ones.

You're lynching an innocent person. I'm not going to be gentle in my defense of that innocent person.

vikorr wrote:

In the other thread, you say she would be justified in shooting him... when he displayed no violent behaviours, only calm and rational ones.

Correct. She felt threatened by him and she has every right to protect herself.

vikorr wrote:

You display extreme bias in cases like this. This isn't arguable - you actually display it in writing.

I display no bias of any kind whatsoever.

vikorr wrote:

You certainly can't point out where you didn't ignore the above each and every time.

I freely admit that I disregard all of the irrelevant data that you keep referring to.

Well, I did point out that I saw no relevance. So I'm not disregarding it entirely.

vikorr wrote:

This is just like you being asked to show a post where you support a black persons side when a white person is involved in conflict with them. You can't do it

Untrue. I merely refuse to dignify the request with a reply.

vikorr wrote:

because you haven't ever supported a black persons side - only the white persons side.

I support only truth and justice. I don't give credence to the words of any side.

vikorr wrote:

And it is for the same reason - you only give credence to one side of the story - which just happens to always be the white persons side.

Wrong. I do not give credence to any side.

1 Reply

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know