JFKjr Posted September 16 Posted September 16 16 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: Would free speech champion Charlie Kirk be in favor of firing people who spoke ill of Charlie Kirk on social media? Hmm .... ... Trump always seems to know how to cede the moral high ground within roughly 48 hours. If anything this shows we should all hide any evidence of political beliefs before entering a hospital.
Roundybout Posted September 16 Posted September 16 1 hour ago, BillsFanNC said: Then it follows you’re opposed to firing people for not self-flagellating over Charlie Kirk? Oh wait, you’re a libertarian.
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted September 16 Posted September 16 21 minutes ago, Roundybout said: Then it follows you’re opposed to firing people for not self-flagellating over Charlie Kirk? Oh wait, you’re a libertarian. Can you honestly not separate not like Charlie Kirk's believes and cheering his murder? 1
Roundybout Posted September 16 Posted September 16 1 minute ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said: Can you honestly not separate not like Charlie Kirk's believes and cheering his murder? Pam Bondi sure can’t. And that’s the scary thing
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted September 16 Posted September 16 Just now, Roundybout said: Pam Bondi sure can’t. And that’s the scary thing Whataboutism.
Roundybout Posted September 16 Posted September 16 14 minutes ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said: Whataboutism. I can absolutely separate it. It’s not going to matter when Miller decides that anyone on the left is now a domestic terroirst
Pokebball Posted September 16 Posted September 16 (edited) 17 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: Would free speech champion Charlie Kirk be in favor of firing people who spoke ill of Charlie Kirk on social media? Hmm .... ... Trump always seems to know how to cede the moral high ground within roughly 48 hours. Probably not, but man, I tell you, before retiring I owned my own business. Ifone of my employees was out there saying shyt like this, it would most definitely harm my business. Edited September 16 by Pokebball 1
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted September 16 Posted September 16 6 minutes ago, Roundybout said: I can absolutely separate it. It’s not going to matter when Miller decides that anyone on the left is now a domestic terroirst You should probably move to Canada or Mexico. Scary times
The Frankish Reich Posted September 16 Posted September 16 1 hour ago, Roundybout said: Pam Bondi sure can’t. And that’s the scary thing The Bondi statement on "hate speech" is just stunning coming from the nation's chief law enforcement officer. Anyone who wrote that on a bar exam would fail. And what's more troubling: a lot of Trump fans (including obviously many here) think that this is good policy and constitutional. I thought this was supposed to be about undoing the excesses of Wokism. The kind of thing where saying something innocuous and even true about George Floyd ("remember, he was a career criminal") could get you canceled. Now we're seeing that it is about substituting Right Wing Wokism for Left Wing Wokism. Say something innocuous and true about Charlie Kirk ("remember, his style of rhetoric is what inflames people") and you can get canceled. And now if Pam Bondi has her way, you can get indicted too. I guess that's what you voted for. 2 1
JFKjr Posted September 16 Posted September 16 8 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: The Bondi statement on "hate speech" is just stunning coming from the nation's chief law enforcement officer. Anyone who wrote that on a bar exam would fail. And what's more troubling: a lot of Trump fans (including obviously many here) think that this is good policy and constitutional. I don't agree with arresting or charging anyone for 'hate speech.' I don't think it would stand judicially speaking. Threats of violence may fall under a different category however, so we'll see how it plays out. 2 1
The Frankish Reich Posted September 16 Posted September 16 Just now, JFKjr said: I don't agree with arresting or charging anyone for 'hate speech.' I don't think it would stand judicially speaking. Threats of violence may fall under a different category however, so we'll see how it plays out. Good response. But what do you think about the threats of prosecution coming from Bondi, Stephen Miller, even JD Vance? I'm not talking about prosecutions related to the actual murder of Kirk. I'm talking about prosecutions for protected speech. In what way is it o.k. for the highest law enforcement officer in the land to even threaten such clearly unconstitutional prosecutions in order to keep people from exercising their constitutional rights? 1
SectionC3 Posted September 16 Posted September 16 15 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: The Bondi statement on "hate speech" is just stunning coming from the nation's chief law enforcement officer. Anyone who wrote that on a bar exam would fail. And what's more troubling: a lot of Trump fans (including obviously many here) think that this is good policy and constitutional. I thought this was supposed to be about undoing the excesses of Wokism. The kind of thing where saying something innocuous and even true about George Floyd ("remember, he was a career criminal") could get you canceled. Now we're seeing that it is about substituting Right Wing Wokism for Left Wing Wokism. Say something innocuous and true about Charlie Kirk ("remember, his style of rhetoric is what inflames people") and you can get canceled. And now if Pam Bondi has her way, you can get indicted too. I guess that's what you voted for. Totally agree. I thought it was early to make the point, but Woke is now a "Right" issue.
boyst Posted September 16 Posted September 16 5 minutes ago, JFKjr said: I don't agree with arresting or charging anyone for 'hate speech.' I don't think it would stand judicially speaking. Threats of violence may fall under a different category however, so we'll see how it plays out. Hate is an opinion to begin with, so there's controversy there. Whatever he keeps talking about the first amendment. The first amendment does not protect people like they seem to think. It protects you from the government nothing more nothing less. You can't get arrested, find, punished, nor in prison for something you say You can say something and still get fired from your job, evil glances, disowned by your family, anything. There are actions and consequences for everything, and people are too short-sighted to want to realize that.
JFKjr Posted September 16 Posted September 16 3 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Good response. But what do you think about the threats of prosecution coming from Bondi, Stephen Miller, even JD Vance? I'm not talking about prosecutions related to the actual murder of Kirk. I'm talking about prosecutions for protected speech. In what way is it o.k. for the highest law enforcement officer in the land to even threaten such clearly unconstitutional prosecutions in order to keep people from exercising their constitutional rights? I think they are reacting politically. Fortunately we have separation of powers and I doubt anything unconstitutional will stand. That doesn't mean I "wish I voted for Kamala." 1
SectionC3 Posted September 16 Posted September 16 1 minute ago, JFKjr said: I think they are reacting politically. Fortunately we have separation of powers and I doubt anything unconstitutional will stand. That doesn't mean I "wish I voted for Kamala." I'd be a lot more confident of that were it not for the whitewashing of J6. I'll add that it's hard to persecute hyperbole by engaging in hyperbole.
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted September 16 Posted September 16 1 minute ago, SectionC3 said: I'd be a lot more confident of that were it not for the whitewashing of J6. I'll add that it's hard to persecute hyperbole by engaging in hyperbole. j6 has been beaten to death, the horse is just bones at this point. 1 1
Recommended Posts