trump

[Tombs]

If I was inclined to buy a flag, and then wished to burn said flag (again one that I purchased with fruits of my labor), how could one possibility see that as a violent act? We both know it is not. It may make people very upset, but as is repeated ad naseum, here, nobody have the right to not be offended.

If you then take that flag to a republican party rally for an AMERICAN election, burn that flag, then raise another nation's flag in its place that's a bit different than your typical flag burning. That's effectively saying that your party hates this country. That's not protesting the other party.

While it isn't an act of violence, it does paint a picture for what democrats actually stand for. Hatred of our nation, hatred of our flag, and violence towards peaceful people who just wanted to hear a speech.

Hey now, don't be so hard on Tombs, there's already been an in-thread warning.

After all, he's the one that is advocating for thought police.[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]How does a nation survive people from the inside petitioning for the destruction of the nation, because they hate the rights that are guaranteed to the people?

[/FONT]Yes that's a philosophical issue.

Lets lay out a theoretical situation, as plenty of things like this have happened throughout history.

Russia plants people inside of the US who make use of the education system and social media to fire up political groups and rally them around the idea that the US is inherently bad and that we must change our government to be more like that of theirs. These people go on to snowball larger and larger groups of people until they've achieved nearly half of the population subscribing to the ideology that our country must be destroyed and taken over by another nation who knows better how to run us. They win over followers through all branches of government, and actively fight with their opponents in the streets. They finally put up some candidates for congress and president and win. The country is now history.

How would you propose to stop such a situation once it has already grown to be a large percentage of the population?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

So Alcohol companies should be bankrupted through frivolous lawsuits. Why stop there? Why not gun manufacturers?

 

[Dead Duck]

So Alcohol companies should be bankrupted through frivolous lawsuits. Why stop there? Why not gun manufacturers?

Dude-
This Clinton Love Fest has got to stop. She's really not attractive at all.

 

[T.Lex]

As if that makes a difference? To believe that mere difference or belief - or mere taking of offense - justifies the use of physical violence is stupid, juvenile, and dangerous. If she holds such a belief, she is not intelligent.

Hmmm... plenty of smart people have justified the use of physical force over the years. I think your linkage of the 2 is faulty.

I believe my statement was perfectly clear the first time:

Well, highlighted differently, it has a slightly different meaning:

Now, should she act on that belief, either to engage in said beating-up, or to encourage others to engage in said beating-up, then a response is warranted. If, in acting on that belief to engage in said beating-up, she puts someone in reasonable fear of mortal harm, then she will deserve whatever happens when her victim righteously uses deadly force in self-defense.

You are absolutely equivocating both committing the act and justifying the act. So, again, to be clear, justifying the beatings cannot amount to putting someone in reasonable fear of harm, right?

Except that Trump supporters aren't the ones acting violently, and Trump isn't the one encouraging acting violently. You seem to be confusing Trump for George Soros.

How soon INGO forgets.

"I'd like to punch him in the face," Trump said, remarking that a man disrupting his rally was escorted out with a smile on his face....
"In the old days," Trump added, protesters would be "carried out on stretchers."
"We're not allowed to push back anymore," Trump said.

(No one was pushing him.)

Man who hit protester at Trump rally threatens to kill him - NY Daily News

An elderly goon who sucker-punched a black protester at a Donald Trump rally in North Carolina said he has no regrets about his hateful actions and warned the level of violence could be ramped up.
“Next time we see him, we might have to kill him!” 78-year-old John McGraw told “Inside Edition” Wednesday after landing the brutal blow.

BTW, references to my daughter are more or less a rhetorical device. She hasn't actually told me that Trump protesters deserve to be beaten up. But, she does think they are idiots.

How does a nation survive people from the inside petitioning for the destruction of the nation, because they hate the rights that are guaranteed to the people?

Yes that's a philosophical issue.

And one that's been around since the Revolution, in various forms. We've managed to muddle through.

Lets lay out a theoretical situation, as plenty of things like this have happened throughout history.

Like what? Absolutely not like this tin-foil McCarthyism:

Russia plants people inside of the US who make use of the education system and social media to fire up political groups and rally them around the idea that the US is inherently bad and that we must change our government to be more like that of theirs. These people go on to snowball larger and larger groups of people until they've achieved nearly half of the population subscribing to the ideology that our country must be destroyed and taken over by another nation who knows better how to run us. They win over followers through all branches of government, and actively fight with their opponents in the streets. They finally put up some candidates for congress and president and win. The country is now history.

How would you propose to stop such a situation once it has already grown to be a large percentage of the population?

Not by electing an authoritarian goon. But maybe that's just me.

 

[Tombs]

And one that's been around since the Revolution, in various forms. We've managed to muddle through.



Like what? Absolutely not like this tin-foil McCarthyism:

[]quote]Russia plants people inside of the US who make use of the education system and social media to fire up political groups and rally them around the idea that the US is inherently bad and that we must change our government to be more like that of theirs. These people go on to snowball larger and larger groups of people until they've achieved nearly half of the population subscribing to the ideology that our country must be destroyed and taken over by another nation who knows better how to run us. They win over followers through all branches of government, and actively fight with their opponents in the streets. They finally put up some candidates for congress and president and win. The country is now history.

How would you propose to stop such a situation once it has already grown to be a large percentage of the population?[QUOTE

Not by electing an authoritarian goon. But maybe that's just me.

The country was never set up to allow everyone to vote, our forefathers knew this full and well, that's why safeguards weren't in place to protect against such a situation.

But now that everyone can vote, the country could be taken over by allowing open borders with amnesty. They're even trying to allow prisoners to vote now.
And you just think we'll muddle through?

The constitution is as close to a perfect document as it can get, the problem is that people have decided to abandon core principles that allow our system of government to work correctly.

You also didn't answer the question.

 

[jamil]

So Alcohol companies should be bankrupted through frivolous lawsuits. Why stop there? Why not gun manufacturers?

Well, to answer the question, because he didn't lose a brother to guns. I'm sure if he lost a loved one to some gun wielding criminal, he would advocate suing them.

 

[T.Lex]

First, I need to set the record straight. I straight up asked my daughter about people justifying beating up Trump supporters. She said that was "stupid" and that no one should be beaten up for what they say. Especially when they are stupid when they say stupid things.

Something else that is stupid that she just told me about is apparently there's a twitter fight between Trump and HRC. She says that's stupid, too. That's how teenage girls fight on twitter and it demeans the presidency for the 2 main candidates to do it.

So there's that.

The country was never set up to allow everyone to vote, our forefathers knew this full and well, that's why safeguards weren't in place to protect against such a situation.

Oh my. This has taken an interesting turn.

But now that everyone can vote, the country could be taken over by allowing open borders with amnesty. They're even trying to allow prisoners to vote now.

I guess to some people, the country probably has gone downhill since the 1/5 rules, poll taxes, and suffrage.

And you just think we'll muddle through?

Well, yes. We don't really have a choice.

The constitution is as close to a perfect document as it can get, the problem is that people have decided to abandon core principles that allow our system of government to work correctly.

Like slavery?

You also didn't answer the question.

I did.

 

[jamil]

Just so I'm clear on this, you're now saying that you were incorect and that your daughter doesn't support beating up Trump supporters.

First, I need to set the record straight. I straight up asked my daughter about people justifying beating up Trump supporters. She said that was "stupid" and that no one should be beaten up for what they say. Especially when they are stupid when they say stupid things.

Something else that is stupid that she just told me about is apparently there's a twitter fight between Trump and HRC. She says that's stupid, too. That's how teenage girls fight on twitter and it demeans the presidency for the 2 main candidates to do it.

So there's that.



Oh my. This has taken an interesting turn.


I guess to some people, the country probably has gone downhill since the 1/5 rules, poll taxes, and suffrage.


Well, yes. We don't really have a choice.


Like slavery?


I did.

 

[chipbennett]

Don't you think that's a bit harsh? She's 18. That kind of thinking is immature, yes, but it doesn't mean she's stupid. At 18 she's just mimicking what her peers say.

No, not harsh at all. Uncritical, unthinking mimicking of what one's peers says is decidedly lacking in intelligence. And condoning violence for a difference in belief (such as supporting a different political candidate) is dangerous. Condoning violence in response to having one's delicate sensibilities offended is equally dangerous. Civil, responsible, free adults do not resort to violence in order to enforce purity of thought.

(I have zero tolerance for such behavior, or for those who condone it. I am utterly appalled and sickened by what happened in San Jose. What happened there was absolutely a paradigm shift. We will lose our country, our culture, and our freedoms if we do not actively resist the forces that perpetrated what happened. I couldn't care less if that comes across as harsh. There is too much at stake.)

 

[chipbennett]

If I was inclined to buy a flag, and then wished to burn said flag (again one that I purchased with fruits of my labor), how could one possibility see that as a violent act? We both know it is not. It may make people very upset, but as is repeated ad naseum, here, nobody have the right to not be offended.

To people who have fought and bled defending the principles represented by that flag - to people who have lost loved ones who died defending the principles represented by that flag - I can absolutely understand how flag burning represents inciting to violence.

 

[Tombs]

No, not harsh at all. Uncritical, unthinking mimicking of what one's peers says is decidedly lacking in intelligence. And condoning violence for a difference in belief (such as supporting a different political candidate) is dangerous. Condoning violence in response to having one's delicate sensibilities offended is equally dangerous. Civil, responsible, free adults do not resort to violence in order to enforce purity of thought.

(I have zero tolerance for such behavior, or for those who condone it. I am utterly appalled and sickened by what happened in San Jose. What happened there was absolutely a paradigm shift. We will lose our country, our culture, and our freedoms if we do not actively resist the forces that perpetrated what happened. I couldn't care less if that comes across as harsh. There is too much at stake.)

The ugly reality is that you don't just walk up to violent crazy people and say hey stop doing that, the country is more important than this. They'll bloody you up and continue their subversion campaign.

The solutions to this needed to be made back when voting rights were altered, back when it would have been considerably less disruptive to implement. But now people are going to whine and scream if you outlaw speech against the founding principles and rights this nation is based on. I don't believe you can have freedom to subversion and allow everyone to vote at the same time, but that's just my opinion. I'm not against freedom of speech at all, I'm just saying you can't have both at once and expect to survive for ever as a nation.

If you know of a solution, I'm all ears. (And by solution, I don't mean shrugging)

 

[chipbennett]

Hmmm... plenty of smart people have justified the use of physical force over the years. I think your linkage of the 2 is faulty.


Well, highlighted differently, it has a slightly different meaning:


You are absolutely equivocating both committing the act and justifying the act.

Your selective highlighting ignores the fact that there are two sentences. Engaging and advocating merit a response. Engaging in such a way that puts someone in mortal fear merits the use of deadly force in self-defense. The two statements are related, but intentionally and explicitly separate.

So, again, to be clear, justifying the beatings cannot amount to putting someone in reasonable fear of harm, right?

I stand by the clarity of my original statement, as stated, and leave reading comprehension as an exercise for the reader.

How soon INGO forgets.

(No one was pushing him.)

Man who hit protester at Trump rally threatens to kill him - NY Daily News

How quickly some forget that Trump and his supporters have been the victim, not the instigators, of antagonism and violence. How quickly some forget the documented evidence of agents provocateur busted for posing as Trump supporters while trying to start trouble. It is Trump supporters who are continually harassed, antagonized, and assaulted. I will not fault victims of such continual behavior for defending themselves, or for using the occasional, excessive rhetoric (e.g. "I want to punch him in the face") in response to the criminal behavior to which they are subjected.

BTW, references to my daughter are more or less a rhetorical device. She hasn't actually told me that Trump protesters deserve to be beaten up. But, she does think they are idiots.

Not surprising. I would fully expect a child of yours to have been taught, and expected, to think for herself.

She's more than welcome to think that Trump supporters are idiots.

 

[Fizzerpilot]

I support any candidate that promises to uphold the Constitution. Now, we have one who admits that she would "regulate" our rights... So, she doesn't get my support. I have no need for any elitist, political dynasty, to regulate my rights, afforded me, by the Constitution.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I support any candidate that promises to uphold the Constitution. Now, we have one who admits that she would "regulate" our rights... So, she doesn't get my support. I have no need for any elitist, political dynasty, to regulate my rights, afforded me, by the Constitution.

Ok, I can follow that logic..... assuming you put Trump in the same box.

 

[Fizzerpilot]

I'm thinking Supreme Court nomination... In light of the 9th courts ruling that your right to carry concealed, is not protected by the Constitution. Should it go to the Supreme Court, lm not sure I want HRC making that appointment. But we are all entitled to our opinions.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm thinking Supreme Court nomination... In light of the 9th courts ruling that your right to carry concealed, is not protected by the Constitution. Should it go to the Supreme Court, lm not sure I want HRC making that appointment. But we are all entitled to our opinions.

So you pick and choose which parts of the Constitution your ok with candidates ignoring?

 

[BugI02]

If I was inclined to buy a flag, and then wished to burn said flag (again one that I purchased with fruits of my labor), how could one possibility see that as a violent act? We both know it is not. It may make people very upset, but as is repeated ad naseum, here, nobody have the right to not be offended.

Just so we're absolutely clear, here ...

If I buy a flag - any flag - with my hard earned cash

And then I choose to publicly burn it, I absolutely would not be inciting violence, correct?View attachment 47760

 

[Kutnupe14]

Just so we're absolutely clear, here ...

If I buy a flag - any flag - with my hard earned cash

And then I choose to publicly burn it, I absolutely would not be inciting violence, correct?View attachment 47760

I assure you, stuff like that gets nothing more than a chuckle from me. If you bought it, you can burning it. Why do you need clarification for that particular image?

 

[Tombs]

Just so we're absolutely clear, here ...

If I buy a flag - any flag - with my hard earned cash

And then I choose to publicly burn it, I absolutely would not be inciting violence, correct?View attachment 47760

You'd be better off asking about burning a Qu'ran. I've seen quite a few say you're asking for violence if you burn one.

 

[BugI02]

I assure you, stuff like that gets nothing more than a chuckle from me. If you bought it, you can burning it. Why do you need clarification for that particular image?

Because I can think of a long list of places where burning that would absolutely get me a beatdown or worse. It's not meant to elicit a response with the exception of assessing the breadth of your support for the idea that flag burning =/= incitement