May 11, 20223 yr 1 hour ago, Gannan said: You had no problem with Jan. 6. All you Trumpbots can spare the rest of us your righteous indignation. Yeah, and they had no problem with storming the Michigan State House or the plot to kidnap the Governor as well.
May 11, 20223 yr 2 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Yeah, totally. It's completely reasonable to think that, without the right to vote, a citizen could maximize their autonomy and political freedom and limit the power of the state Yes, genius. Universal suffrage does not equate to maximized freedom. That’s how you get transfer payments and high taxation rates. That’s how you get drug laws. And illegal prostitution. And zoning laws. And all manner of minimal autonomy laws and regulations. People can vote to maximize authoritarianism if they wish. The idea that universal suffrage equates to maximized freedom is ludicrous.
May 11, 20223 yr 13 minutes ago, TEW said: The idea that democracy is synonymous with libertarianism is profoundly stupid. So is the idea that National Socialist German Workers' Party is synonymous, with the Democratic Party or Liberalism.
May 11, 20223 yr Author 1 minute ago, TEW said: Yes, genius. Universal suffrage does not equate to maximized freedom. That’s how you get transfer payments and high taxation rates. That’s how you get drug laws. And illegal prostitution. And zoning laws. And all manner of minimal autonomy laws and regulations. People can vote to maximize authoritarianism if they wish. The idea that universal suffrage equates to maximized freedom is ludicrous. There are no perfect solutions, but the first condition of liberty is the ability to choose who represents you, genius.
May 11, 20223 yr 30 minutes ago, TEW said: Did this make sense in that vacuous head of yours? I am sure you can see your own hypocrisy. Everyone else can.
May 11, 20223 yr 9 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said: So is the idea that National Socialist German Workers' Party is synonymous, with the Democratic Party or Liberalism. Oh wow, now you care about applying the term NSDAP correctly?
May 11, 20223 yr 10 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: There are no perfect solutions, but the first condition of liberty is the ability to choose who represents you, genius. No, it isn’t. Literally this is a factually false statement.
May 11, 20223 yr Author Just now, TEW said: No, it isn’t. Literally this is a factually false statement. Then I guess we should just trust Daddy Government to protect our liberty?
May 11, 20223 yr 8 minutes ago, TEW said: Oh wow, now you care about applying the term NSDAP correctly? Welp, many people like you and other White Supremacists believe it means the Notzee party were a bunch of Bernie Sanders, Liberal socialists. Which they were not. It all hinges on the word Socialist. Yeah, and it is correct in English. In German The D stands for Deutsche = German. Die Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. Nice Try.
May 11, 20223 yr 1 hour ago, EaglesRocker97 said: You were agreeing with a post from another poster that said "I would draw the line that the protests should not be in front of peoples personal homes." I guess you were just saying you personally find that to be distasteful, but "drawing the line" to me implied that there should be some sort of ordinance against it. The context of the post I responded to was centered around how the WH should be messaging this topic. It wasn’t about legal policy.
May 11, 20223 yr 56 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Then I guess we should just trust Daddy Government to protect our liberty? Non sequitur.
May 11, 20223 yr 53 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said: Welp, many people like you and other White Supremacists believe it means the Notzee party were a bunch of Bernie Sanders, Liberal socialists. Which they were not. It all hinges on the word Socialist. Yeah, and it is correct in English. In German The D stands for Deutsche = German. Die Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. Nice Try. Now I’m a white supremacist? And I believe the NSDAPs were like Bernie Sanders? You need help. A lot of help.
May 11, 20223 yr 2 hours ago, Gannan said: You had no problem with Jan. 6. All you Trumpbots can spare the rest of us your righteous indignation. So that's how you all think? Your OK with the current 'protests' but not OK with Jan 6? I for one think both are wrong but apparently that isn't something that is accepted around here, you either have to be completely left or completely right and agree with 'your' chosen group. People need to start thinking for themselves and making decisions based on what their beliefs are and not the party they are associated with. So you can go on and agree with all the protests from the left, call any protests from the right an insurrection and some of us can think that both sides can be wrong or right and not align solely with their party.
May 11, 20223 yr Just now, GreenReaper said: So that's how you all think? Your OK with the current 'protests' but not OK with Jan 6? I for one think both are wrong but apparently that isn't something that is accepted around here, you either have to be completely left or completely right and agree with 'your' chosen group. People need to start thinking for themselves and making decisions based on what their beliefs are and not the party they are associated with. So you can go on and agree with all the protests from the left, call any protests from the right an insurrection and some of us can think that both sides can be wrong or right and not align solely with their party. If the Jan 6th protestors stayed on the public street and didn't engage in violence (as the abortion protestors have been doing thus far) they would have been fine. Breaking and entering and assault cross the line. One is exercising one's constitutional rights, the other is a crime. So yes, that's how I think... that there is a difference between exercising one's rights and a criminal act. I'm intelligent enough to understand the difference. Sadly, others are not.
May 11, 20223 yr 2 hours ago, GreenReaper said: So that's how you all think? Your OK with the current 'protests' but not OK with Jan 6? I for one think both are wrong but apparently that isn't something that is accepted around here, you either have to be completely left or completely right and agree with 'your' chosen group. People need to start thinking for themselves and making decisions based on what their beliefs are and not the party they are associated with. So you can go on and agree with all the protests from the left, call any protests from the right an insurrection and some of us can think that both sides can be wrong or right and not align solely with their party. Just the ones that attempt an insurrection.
May 11, 20223 yr Even WaPo is admitting it's against the law retards. You don't have to be a legal scholar to figure this one out.
May 11, 20223 yr 3 hours ago, GreenReaper said: So that's how you all think? Your OK with the current 'protests' but not OK with Jan 6? I for one think both are wrong but apparently that isn't something that is accepted around here, you either have to be completely left or completely right and agree with 'your' chosen group. People need to start thinking for themselves and making decisions based on what their beliefs are and not the party they are associated with. So you can go on and agree with all the protests from the left, call any protests from the right an insurrection and some of us can think that both sides can be wrong or right and not align solely with their party. To even compare the two is moronic.
May 11, 20223 yr 8 minutes ago, Kz! said: Even WaPo is admitting it's against the law retards. You don't have to be a legal scholar to figure this one out. Reading that code would lead me to believe this applies to a judge in a criminal trial Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer,[/wuote]
May 11, 20223 yr 2 minutes ago, Gannan said: Probably Trump supporters dressed up as liberals anyway. Remember that whole summer when we had Proud Boys dressing up as BLM and rioting?
May 11, 20223 yr 3 hours ago, downundermike said: Reading that code would lead me to believe this applies to a judge in a criminal trial Okay, I'll bite - what language in the code led you to believe that? (You're actually off on at least three points in your sentence - but I'm curious as to your reasoning process)
May 12, 20223 yr Author Quote Republican senator’s push to arrest abortion protesters meets GOP resistance Some GOP senators say Sen. Tom Cotton is going too far with his call to arrest and prosecute protesters outside the homes of Supreme Court justices. WASHINGTON — Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., wants the abortion-rights protesters demonstrating in front of the homes of Supreme Court justices to be swiftly arrested and prosecuted by the Justice Department. Some of his Republican colleagues, however, say that would go too far and that it could violate First Amendment protections. "I think if they’re being peaceful and are staying off their property and are not disrupting neighborhoods or causing or inciting fear, it’s probably a legitimate expression of free speech,” Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., a former member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, said Wednesday. "First Amendment rights are so, so special. … We should all be erring in favor of the First Amendment, in favor of freedom of speech, in favor of freedom of religion, in favor of the freedom of assembly,” she said. "Because if we start fearing our rights to speak and express our religious convictions, and if we fear assembly, the consequences of parsing those rights are extremely dangerous.” Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., said he, too, believes peaceful protests — even outside the homes of justices — is protected speech. "I’m a First Amendment guy, and I think that cuts both ways,” Braun said in an interview. "If they’re there and they’re doing it peacefully, you know, I’m for that ability on either side of the political spectrum.” Protesters have been chanting and holding up signs in front of the homes of three conservatives: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito, who wrote the leaked majority draft opinion that would overturn the constitutional right to abortion enshrined nearly a half-century ago in the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. More demonstrations are planned for Wednesday night at conservative justices’ homes in the Washington area. In a stern letter Tuesday to Attorney General Merrick Garland, Cotton slammed "left-wing mobs” that have protested outside the homes of conservative justices after the draft opinion leaked. Cotton, who said in 2020 he supported the use of military force to suppress the protests against police violence sparked by the murder of George Floyd, called the recent protests illegal and a "blatant violation” of a 1950 law that says anyone who "pickets or parades” near a building or residence used by a judge with the intent of influencing the judge shall face fines or imprisonment. If the Justice Department doesn’t act, Cotton told Garland, perhaps the next Congress should begin impeachment proceedings. Cotton, a potential 2024 presidential candidate, said Wednesday in an interview: "There is a federal law that prohibits the protesting of judges’ homes. Anybody protesting a judge’s home should be arrested on the spot by federal law enforcement.” He added that if his Senate GOP colleagues "want to raise a First Amendment defense, they are free to do so.” "I don’t advocate for arresting people protesting on public streets in Washington, D.C., the nation’s capital. I do believe they should be arrested for protesting in the homes of judges, jurors and prosecutors,” Cotton said. "Federal law prohibits an obvious attempt to influence or intimidate judges, jurors and prosecutors.” Cotton spoke the same day Senate Republicans — along with Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. — blocked a Democratic-backed bill that would have codified abortion rights into federal law. Asked whether he believed people could legally protest at the home of an elected official such as himself, Cotton replied: "I generally suggest protesting in public spaces, not in front of public homes of any person. But that’s not against federal law. That’s why Chuck Schumer is wrong.” Schumer, D-N.Y., the Senate majority leader, told reporters Tuesday that he was OK with people peacefully protesting outside the justices’ homes, saying such demonstrations are "the American way” and noting that people protest in front of his home in New York "three, four times a week.” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Tuesday that President Joe Biden believes "violent threats and intimidation of any kind have no place in political discourse.” But she said the White House understands the "outrage” in the country over the potential loss of abortion rights. "And we believe, of course, in peaceful protests,” she said. "And we certainly continue to encourage that outside of judges’ homes, and that’s the president’s position.” Cotton isn’t on an island. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the protests were "far outside the bounds of normal First Amendment speech or protest,” adding, "It is an attempt to replace the rule of law with the rule of mobs.” And Wednesday, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, demanded in a letter to Garland that the Justice Department protect justices and prosecute the targeted justices' homes. At the state level, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan tweeted Wednesday night that he and Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin had called on Garland to "provide adequate resources” to ensure the safety of Supreme Court justices and their families. In their letter, the GOP governors asked the Justice Department to enforce the 1950 law cited by Cotton. Justice Department spokesman Anthony Coley said in a statement that Garland continues to be briefed on security matters related to the justices and has directed the U.S. Marshals Service to "help ensure the Justices’ safety” by assisting the Supreme Court police and the court marshal. Some Republican senators said there can be a middle ground when it comes to the demonstrations. Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas, the son of a police officer, said he would like authorities to engage in dialogue with and issue warnings to the protesters before they make any arrests. "I would prefer a softer approach. I would prefer some type of warning to the crowd, much like getting a speeding ticket,” Marshall said. "Sometimes there’s a place for a warning, so I’d like to see those crowds get warnings before we move all the way to prosecution.” Other GOP senators said they were unsure whether protesting outside a judge’s home qualifies as breaking the law, but they also condemned the recent demonstrations. "Whether or not it’s legal, it’s inappropriate, and they should not be harassing the justices,” said Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who called police this week after protesters wrote messages in chalk outside her home urging her to vote for a Democratic abortion rights measure. Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, who’s also had protesters outside his home before, said the Supreme Court grounds are where people should make their voices heard. "I think generally that a justice’s home should not be the place that we protest,” Romney said. "We've got a Supreme Court building, and that’s probably the best place to do that." https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republican-senators-push-arrest-abortion-protesters-meets-gop-resistan-rcna28435
May 12, 20223 yr Ohio bill orders doctors to ‘reimplant ectopic pregnancy’ or face ‘abortion murder’ charges Ohio introduces one of the most extreme bills to date for a procedure that does not exist in medical science
May 12, 20223 yr 48 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: Ohio bill orders doctors to ‘reimplant ectopic pregnancy’ or face ‘abortion murder’ charges Ohio introduces one of the most extreme bills to date for a procedure that does not exist in medical science dude that's so radical omg...
Create an account or sign in to comment