POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

[mookie1995]

Watched Maher last night. One of the guests said fine all the statues can go. I don't disagree. If that's the way we teach history in this country it's no wonder we fail. Put them all in Cemetery's or Museum's. Done.

So we go inside and bravely read the stones


With loves and hates and passions just like mine,

 

[French Rage]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Wendy Testaburger is through with Eric Cartman's ****.

 

[geezer]

There have been recent articles stating that these extremists are afraid of being identified in their home communities. That makes sense, given that they are cowards. If true, it would not be difficult to get face shots of them and publish them on social media and other online venues. But these vermin are probably the way they are partly as a result of suffering shame in their lives, and dishing out more of it might just make them angrier and farther underground.

Be careful though. This guy was misidentified and it got really ugly. http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/08/17/543980653/kyle-quinn-hid-at-a-friend-s-house-after-being-misidentified-on-twitter-as-a-rac

 

[state of hockey]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

If the statues must stay because of "It's our history!!1!" or "Big whoop who cares about statues?" let's just put up a big effing statue of Sherman every half-mile from Atlanta to Savannah.

It's our history, and big whoop a stupid statue.

 

[Handyman]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

What else is he going to say? He'd be burned at the stake if he said anything negative about the alt-left. Part of it was taking the alt-right crowd out, but a lot of it too me looked like alt-left looking to have a confrontation with the police.

The rally reinforced my views on what is happening. You basically have three groups; people who strictly oppose nazis and are there for the right reason, alt-right, and alt-left. The first group are wonderful people who we are lucky to have in this country. The latter two should be denounced by everyone else who isn't part of them.

Stop trolling. You sound even dumber than usual when you say "alt-left". (there is no alt left) If you are going to copy Faux News at least try and put it in your own words.

 

[Handyman]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

I honestly dunno what to call them. Extremist left? Ones who are looking to (probably) violently oppose the alt-right? The ones that are NOT using common sense to oppose the alt-right? If there's a different general media-friendly label (like alt-left), I'll gladly call them that.

You call them "The Left". Unlike the Right we dont need to section off a portion of our base. All you are doing is equivocating grops like BLM with Neo Nazis and sorry but they arent even close to the same. (and neither is Antifa dont even try it)

 

[Handyman]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

I think that's Bannon talking. Worked for him in the primaries. I'm thinking maybe after all this backlash over Charlottesville, Trumpy's starting to figure out that maybe, just perhaps, there's a majority of people in this country who don't think the way Bannon on the campaign trail and in the WH told him people think. After all, all Trumpy wants is the people to worship him. And make a chitload of money off them in the process.

I'm thinking that a lot of this white nationalism/white supremacy crap we've been hearing from him is gonna go away. I think we may have already seen a bit of that in his tweets about Boston. Maybe I'm just deluding myself, maybe I'm writing my own "is this the moment Trumpy becomes presidential?" column, I don't know.

Trump didnt get rid of Bannon over racism. Trump got rid of him because he thought Bannon was The Leaker.

Dont give Trump any credit...he is not pivoting and he is not being more Presidential.

 

[unofan]

Or "fighting words," but jimjames is saying white supremacist speech is, by its very nature, harmful. More like obscenity. Or child pornography, though child porn is unprotected because of the harm to the actors, not the listener/viewer.

"Fighting words" is essentially a dead doctrine. Technically never overruled, but nothing ever qualifies for it (otherwise the Westboro Baptist Church would've lost a long time ago). The imminent danger/threat is the only one that really applies, and again, it's pretty limited in scope.

 

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

"Fighting words" is essentially a dead doctrine. Technically never overruled, but nothing ever qualifies for it (otherwise the Westboro Baptist Church would've lost a long time ago). The imminent danger/threat is the only one that really applies, and again, it's pretty limited in scope.

Interesting. Thank you for adding value to the discussion (as always).

 

[bronconick]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Wendy Testaburger is through with Eric Cartman's ****.

Now with Ken Burns commentary

 

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

You call them "The Left". Unlike the Right we dont need to section off a portion of our base. All you are doing is equivocating grops like BLM with Neo Nazis and sorry but they arent even close to the same. (and neither is Antifa dont even try it)

So, are you okay with accepting that small portion of folks who are willing to use violence against hate groups? BLM is NOT the same as Neo-Nazis. Antifa (the peaceful ones) is NOT the same as Neo-Nazis.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

So, are you okay with accepting that small portion of folks who are willing to use violence against hate groups? BLM is NOT the same as Neo-Nazis. Antifa (the peaceful ones) is NOT the same as Neo-Nazis.

Are they not prosecuted if they do that? They are. Everyone is as far as I know. Unless you're male and it's against a woman. Then you probably get off with a slap on the wrist.

1. Tear down the statues.
2. Invite the Nazi's to watch.
3. Defecate on the statues while flipping the bird to the Nazi's.
4. Laugh.
5 Repeat.

 

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Interesting. Thank you for adding value to the discussion (as always).

Similarly FWIW, while there are some varying laws in different states covering some threats or intimidation, it's highly doubtful that the latter here constitutes assault in most any context:

The difference between "I wish you would die" and "I'm going to come to your town and kill you."

If a person says "I'm going to shoot you!" but doesn't have gun, it isn't assault. A key element to assault is that there has to be an immediate threat, one that a reasonable person recognizes and would fear imminent death or bodily harm from. If a person points a realistic looking toy gun at you and says the same, it is assault, even though you're in no danger of being shot. If you're sleeping and Dirty Harry points a loaded .44 Magnum at your head, it isn't assault, even though you are in danger because you are unaware of any threat. (Other laws may cover Dirty Harry though.)

 

[bronconick]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

We could copy the eastern Europeans who took all the Lenin statues in the 90's and put them all by themselves facing each other in the middle of nowhere.

 

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

One of the things I was thinking about in this whole monuments and symbols thing, is appropriation. For example, a meaningless cartoon frog has been turned into a symbol of racism, I think, if I understand correctly, on purpose. And while hate groups have clung to their to their symbols, they do have a history of appropriating new ones from time to time, and by doing so, make them something that the rest of us have the desire to suppress and destroy. As an example, perhaps if I were a Nazi KKK whack job, I'd consider adopting Jefferson or Washington as "freedom loving slave owners" or some such, and hold my next rally at the Jefferson Memorial. There has been controversy surrounding Jefferson in the past and I believe just this last week, Al Sharpton advocated perhaps de-funding his memorial in DC. Racists attempting to appropriate Jefferson would probably find some success in creating further division, which is, of course, one of their chief aims. But perhaps ultimately we'd say, yes, Jefferson was a slave owner, that's offensive and he must go. Or perhaps not. My point is that it there is something inherently wrong with Nazis having some measure of power to adopt a particular symbol, and in reaction, the rest of us then feeling the natural desire to crush whatever it may be. I don't like that they get to pick and we respond, if that makes sense.

I think Kanye put the Confederate flag on a tour a few years back in some attempt to re-appropriate that symbol. Kanye's kind of a weird dude at times, but I kind of liked his reaction to it, even though he took a ton of flack over it.

 

[mookie1995]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

jefferson was attracted to negro women. that should count for something....

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Jefferson most likely raped black women, out of convenience. What were they supposed to do, say no to the master of the plantation?

 

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

One of the things I was thinking about in this whole monuments and symbols thing, is appropriation. For example, a meaningless cartoon frog has been turned into a symbol of racism, I think, if I understand correctly, on purpose. And while hate groups have clung to their to their symbols, they do have a history of appropriating new ones from time to time, and by doing so, make them something that the rest of us have the desire to suppress and destroy. As an example, perhaps if I were a Nazi KKK whack job, I'd consider adopting Jefferson or Washington as "freedom loving slave owners" or some such, and hold my next rally at the Jefferson Memorial. There has been controversy surrounding Jefferson in the past and I believe just this last week, Al Sharpton advocated perhaps de-funding his memorial in DC. Racists attempting to appropriate Jefferson would probably find some success in creating further division, which is, of course, one of their chief aims. But perhaps ultimately we'd say, yes, Jefferson was a slave owner, that's offensive and he must go. Or perhaps not. My point is that it there is something inherently wrong with Nazis having some measure of power to adopt a particular symbol, and in reaction, the rest of us then feeling the natural desire to crush whatever it may be. I don't like that they get to pick and we respond, if that makes sense.

I think Kanye put the Confederate flag on a tour a few years back in some attempt to re-appropriate that symbol. Kanye's kind of a weird dude at times, but I kind of liked his reaction to it, even though he took a ton of flack over it.

That does makes more sense than you realize, I think.

 

[mookie1995]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Jefferson most likely raped black women, out of convenience. What were they supposed to do, say no to the master of the plantation?

all sex is rape. duh

 

[Handyman]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

So, are you okay with accepting that small portion of folks who are willing to use violence against hate groups? BLM is NOT the same as Neo-Nazis. Antifa (the peaceful ones) is NOT the same as Neo-Nazis.

There is always a small group. They arent the "Alt Left" they are just ********s. Just like there is no "Alt Right" they are just racist buttholes.

When you come up with names like those you are rationalizing them and legitimizing them. You are making them part of something they arent. Just call them what they are and segregate them from the group.