15
   

R.I.P. The 1st amendment 1791-2021

 
 
hightor
 
  -3  
Mon 15 Feb, 2021 10:40 am
@engineer,
Maybe Brandon9000 should direct his questioning to a more authoritative source...like Mitch McConnell:
Quote:
"This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either overturn the voters' decision or else torch our institutions on the way out," McConnell said.

McConnell says Trump was "practically and morally responsible" for riot after voting not guilty

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell excoriated former President Trump Saturday in a speech on the Senate floor shortly after McConnell voted to acquit in the former president's second impeachment trial. In a speech with a first half reminiscent of the arguments made by House impeachment managers, McConnell said the former president was "practically and morally responsible" for the attack on the Capitol on January 6.

But McConnell argued that he believed it was unconstitutional to convict a president who was no longer in office.

"This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either overturn the voters' decision or else torch our institutions on the way out," McConnell said.

McConnell was unequivocal about Mr. Trump's responsibility. "There is no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day," he said, and added that Mr. Trump watched the events unfold on television. "A mob was assaulting the Capitol in his name," he said. "These criminals were carrying his banners, hanging his flags and screaming their loyalty to him."

McConnell said the people who stormed the Capitol believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of Mr. Trump. "Having that belief," McConnell said, "was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories and reckless hyperbole which the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet earth."

McConnell described the violence on January 6, saying that Americans beat and bloodied their own police, stormed the Senate floor and built a gallows and chanted about murdering the Vice President. "They did this," McConnell said, "because they'd been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on earth, because he was angry he lost an election."

source

Sounds like a ringing endorsement of everything engineer and I have been saying and a complete dismissal of Brandon9000's argument. McConnell obviously sees what Brandon9000 apparently can't.
Brandon9000
 
  4  
Mon 15 Feb, 2021 11:23 am
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

None of these quotations suggests violence...

In the context of calling the election stolen and telling people their very country is at stake, ALL OF THAT SUGGESTS VIOLENCE! Trump was not talking to a random group of people, he was fully briefed on the crowd. The FBI was tracking extremist plans from all over the country. I think if you witnessed a stoning, you would say "well, that guy only threw one rock and that rock probably didn't kill the person, probably didn't even hit them so NOT GUILTY". It's all the rocks together, the impact of each stone in succession, that is the problem.

How little you understand. An incitement to violence has to contain an actual request or suggestion that violence be done. When I ask you for a sentence that "suggests" violence, I am asking for a sentence which suggests that the listener go be violent like "I want you to hit him," and there is nothing that Trump said which does that. To solicit violence, you need to make a suggestion that violence ought to occur. Telling people that "things are bad and must be fixed" is not an incitement to violence. People make speeches saying that kind of stuff all the time.

For the millionth time, give me one sentence Trump spoke that suggests that the listener ought to go commit a violent act. I look forward to a response from you doing anything except for what I asked.
engineer
 
  -2  
Mon 15 Feb, 2021 11:45 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

How little you understand. An incitement to violence has to contain an actual request or suggestion that violence be done.

No it doesn't. For the millionth time, you can indirectly request or suggest that violence be done. You do not have to say "go hit someone". In fact, Trump did say over and over "fight" and "fight like hell." You say those are just figurative, but context matters. Those links (that you conveniently refuse to read) explain that clearly. At this point, it is obvious you don't want to understand, choosing to be ignorant and claim victory than learn something that might challenge your world view.
hightor
 
  0  
Mon 15 Feb, 2021 11:52 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
For the millionth time, give me one sentence Trump spoke that suggests that the listener ought to go commit a violent act.


Okay. These are from 2016:

Quote:
Donald Trump told supporters Monday to “knock the crap out of” would-be hecklers at a campaign rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

“If you see somebody with a tomato, knock the crap out of them,” Trump said, referencing another incident with a protestor.

Trump was in Iowa last week when a protestor threw a tomato—and missed. Protests are frequent at his rallies, with the disruptions protesting the rhetoric of some of the GOP front-runner’s talking points.

Trump said he would even pay for any legal fees that supporters incurred stopping a tomato-thrower. The theory was quickly put to the test when Trump spotted a protestor and had them removed.

source

and
Quote:
LAS VEGAS — Donald Trump wished grievous bodily harm on a protester at his rally here on Monday night, saying he’d like to punch the man in the face and see him carried out on a stretcher.

“The guards are being very gentle with him,” Trump said. “I’d like to punch him in the face, I’ll tell you that.”

source

I know, they're from five years ago. But don't you see how they normalize violence on his behalf? It gives his supporters the idea that he condones that sort of behavior. When he says "fight!" it means something different from when someone like Sen. Elizabeth Warren says it.

Here, look at this timeline; Trump has a long history of inciting violence:
A comprehensive timeline of Trump encouraging hate groups and political violence.

Trump's love affair with violence and attraction to raw power is unprecedented in the history of the presidency.

Look at this idiot:


0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Mon 15 Feb, 2021 04:23 pm
Sen Richard Burr, R-NC

Quote:
“I have listened to the arguments presented by both sides and considered the facts. The facts are clear.

“The President promoted unfounded conspiracy theories to cast doubt on the integrity of a free and fair election because he did not like the results. As Congress met to certify the election results, the President directed his supporters to go to the Capitol to disrupt the lawful proceedings required by the Constitution. When the crowd became violent, the President used his office to first inflame the situation instead of immediately calling for an end to the assault.

“As I said on January 6th, the President bears responsibility for these tragic events. The evidence is compelling that President Trump is guilty of inciting an insurrection against a coequal branch of government and that the charge rises to the level of high Crimes and Misdemeanors. Therefore, I have voted to convict
.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  5  
Tue 16 Feb, 2021 04:01 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

How little you understand. An incitement to violence has to contain an actual request or suggestion that violence be done.

No it doesn't. For the millionth time, you can indirectly request or suggest that violence be done. You do not have to say "go hit someone". In fact, Trump did say over and over "fight" and "fight like hell." You say those are just figurative, but context matters. Those links (that you conveniently refuse to read) explain that clearly. At this point, it is obvious you don't want to understand, choosing to be ignorant and claim victory than learn something that might challenge your world view.

First of all, I refused to read the links, as I explained clearly to hightor, because the person who makes the claim has the responsibility to provide evidence, at least if challenged. I'm not going to read some article searching for buried treasure to make your case. It's just a way for you to get out of doing work or to obscure a losing argument.

You are misquoting me:

You do not have to say "go hit someone."

I never said that you have to say "go hit someone." I gave it as an example. What you do have to do is have some sort of actual solicitation to violence. The idea that "creating an atmosphere" by saying "fight like hell" is enough for someone to be guilty of incitement to violence is laughable. Politicians tell their supporter stuff like that constantly.

What's really disturbing is that you want to live in a country in which all that's required for someone to be penalized legally for speech is for him to tell people to protest and fight, both of which are absolutely rights as long as the fighting is not literal. A person's enemies will always say that he "created an atmosphere." It apparently doesn't bother you at all to give up the freedom of speech which has distinguished this country from every other one that's ever existed. It appalls me how little the left respects the Bill of Rights. You know in the oath of office when they refer to "domestic" enemies the Constitution must be defended against? That's you.

Furthermore, you also don't seem to mind if you break the institutions of government so that future generations won't be protected by them. Impeachment was designed to give the country a way to oust a president who was an actual criminal. Not as a means of continuing a lost election. Possibly from now on, whenever the Congress is controlled by a different party from the president's, he will be impeached as a matter of course. You're ruining the institutions of government so that they won't protect future generations and you don't give a sh*t.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  -4  
Wed 17 Feb, 2021 12:18 pm
LIMBAUGH CROAKED!
BillRM
 
  -3  
Fri 19 Feb, 2021 08:24 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

LIMBAUGH CROAKED!


I can only wonder if it was due to illegal drugs.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  -3  
Fri 19 Feb, 2021 08:27 pm
@hightor,
Do not forget that poor Brandon9000 have an army of voting bots to support.
BillRM
 
  -3  
Sat 20 Feb, 2021 07:49 am
@BillRM,
Poor overwork Bots...................
engineer
 
  0  
Sat 20 Feb, 2021 07:58 am
@BillRM,
Makes you wonder at the time and effort required.
hightor
 
  -1  
Sat 20 Feb, 2021 09:14 am
@engineer,
For the results obtained!
0 Replies
 
longjon
 
  -3  
Mon 22 Feb, 2021 03:30 am
Here's an article from the New York Times from this past week urging people that "critical thinking is bad", and that people should "stop overthinking what you see online."

So the left is literally telling people not to think for themselves and to only obey the establishment.

Watch in this thread as leftists defend this position. They already have.

The sheeple want their rights taken away. They don't want freedom.

Free speech does not exist in America anymore.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/18/opinion/fake-news-media-attention.html
hightor
 
  -2  
Mon 22 Feb, 2021 03:51 am
@longjon,
Quote:
So the left is literally telling people not to think for themselves and to only obey the establishment.

I'm not surprised that you completely misinterpreted the article:

Quote:
1. Stop.

2. Investigate the source.

3. Find better coverage.

4. Trace claims, quotes and media to the original context.


Anyone reading your posts would be well-advised to take the advice quoted above.

Quote:

Free speech does not exist in America anymore.

Are you an immigrant? Are you non-white? Do you struggle with the language? I get the feeling you're not from the USA. The conditions you describe simply don't exist. The government is not telling you what you can and cannot say and punishing you for your transgressions; the business models of social media platforms make it unprofitable to carry hate speech and disinformation. There's a big difference.

BillRM
 
  -2  
Mon 22 Feb, 2021 10:36 am
@hightor,
Lord someone is proving once more that they had one hell or an army of bots at their command.

Some one should point out to them that such large votes down numbers is an indication of bots an they would be better off using lessor numbers of votes downs

Given the misused of votes we are seeing more and more of I suggest that Robert removed the voting section.
hightor
 
  0  
Mon 22 Feb, 2021 10:54 am
@BillRM,
Right, it's no longer a judgment on the value of any particular post, it's become a way of effectively eliminating content (unless members click "view"). I'm sure A2K's command and control center is aware of the abuse, and has been for some time, but I really don't know how easy it would be to make the necessary changes.
0 Replies
 
longjon
 
  2  
Mon 22 Feb, 2021 01:52 pm
I love the whinging here. If you take even a cursory glance anywhere else on this site, you will notice conservatives being down thumbed in droves. Not to mention my own post here voted into the negatives.

Did the thought ever occur to these brainiac leftists that in a thread about the 1st amendment that their radical far leftist ideas may not be popular?

Oh no, of course not. It must be a Qanon insurrection.
engineer
 
  0  
Mon 22 Feb, 2021 02:07 pm
@longjon,
You've probably noticed that our little corner of the Internet does not see the most traffic. When ten votes come in on dozens of posts over a few minutes, then nothing more for days, it is pretty obvious what is going on, especially when some of the posts being down marked are pretty uncontroversial. Most people of both parties don't bother to thumb posts that don't really put forward a position. If our bot farmer wanted to be more believable, he would stage the bots over time and hit every other or every third post to make it more realistic.

We used to have a clear foreign actor here who would show up every two weeks like clockwork, post a single post to five political threads to incite fights and then disappear. It was just too easy to see the pattern. You have to be smarter.
BillRM
 
  -3  
Mon 22 Feb, 2021 02:36 pm
@engineer,
Robert could just only permit voting by accounts with at least some numbers of postings in their history.
engineer
 
  -1  
Mon 22 Feb, 2021 02:40 pm
@BillRM,
I've thought of that myself, no thumbing until you've posted X times. I think Robert has decided not to invest any additional resources in code changes so I doubt there is going to be any change.
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.66 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 06:23:04