Donald Trump

bbiggs

HughFreakingDillon said:

sometimes I just can't believe what I read on this board. 

Same. 

dignin

HughFreakingDillon said:

sometimes I just can't believe what I read on this board. 

What are you referring to? 

HughFreakingDillon

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

sometimes I just can't believe what I read on this board. 

What are you referring to? 

people picking and choosing which rights apply to whom because they don't like their message. 

I'd be as enraged as anyone if I saw any group mocking the murder of thousands, but fuck I wouldn't ever be ok with "laying a beating on them" or "throwing them in jail". 

Lerxst1992

Halifax2TheMax said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Free speech and spitting and dancing on the graves of innocent people killed in a massive terrorist attack are two different things in my mind.

If they aren’t in yours then no biggie. We can agree to disagree.

The one article that I read that mcgruff posted didn’t make mention of spitting and dancing on graves nor have I been choosy about which amendments need revision as I don’t believe I’ve ever posted an opinion on it. There’s disagreement and then there’s projection. Unless you have me confused with someone else?

You’ve spoken at length about gun reform which is linked to the second amendment. If you are for restricting weaponry that has been afforded to citizens via the 2nd... then you’re talking about revisions.

If you’re celebrating a massive attack resulting in 1000s of deaths... you’re figuratively dancing and spitting on their graves.

Just as I’m sure the founding fathers were not intending to include machine guns as part of the second... I’m pretty sure they were not intending ‘free speech’ to include openly celebrating the deaths of 1000s of innocent people resulting from a calculated attack from a foreign enemy.

How could they ever anticipate either happening?

True, I would like to see the second amendment amended via the constitutional process that allows it
or to see reasonable restrictions passed legally and surviving a Supreme Court challenge. Neither are likely, however, and as a result, more “responsible” gun owners will kill innocents.

While personally offended by some exhibitions of free speech, I believe everyone has the right to state their opinion, realizing that others may be offended. Seems to me you’re for fascism?

No need to revise the second amendment, just properly interpret the most important words, the opening words:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

So it's either talking about national security, organizing a militia, or regulating gun rights.

Enough of this revisionist history two comma Scalia crap.

dignin

HughFreakingDillon said:

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

sometimes I just can't believe what I read on this board. 

What are you referring to? 

people picking and choosing which rights apply to whom because they don't like their message. 

I'd be as enraged as anyone if I saw any group mocking the murder of thousands, but fuck I wouldn't ever be ok with "laying a beating on them" or "throwing them in jail". 

I agree, but I don't see anything wrong with having the conversation. As long as it's civil. 

Although I do call people's posts nonsense quite a bit, so I'm being pretty hypocritical.

Halifax2TheMax

HughFreakingDillon said:

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

sometimes I just can't believe what I read on this board. 

What are you referring to? 

people picking and choosing which rights apply to whom because they don't like their message. 

I'd be as enraged as anyone if I saw any group mocking the murder of thousands, but fuck I wouldn't ever be ok with "laying a beating on them" or "throwing them in jail". 

We’re in the age of Team Trump Treason. Remember him threatening violence on hecklers? His response versus Obama’s to same? Rah, rah, rah, USA USA USA.

mrussel1

mcgruff10 said:

OnWis97 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mrussel1 said:

my2hands said:

People excusing even the thought of Americans celebrating the 9/11 attacks?

I'm all for freedom of speech, but c'mon folks? That wasn't a rally of fucking Illinois Nazi's, that was a disastrous terrorist attack. 

It's easy to be for freedom of speech when it isn't objectionable.  The test of the amendment is when we find the speech reprehensible.  

If you’re an American celebrating the tower attacks on the day they occurred... then from my way of thinking... you’re an enemy of the people and should be treated as such.

Enemy of the people...that seems to be a common excuse for relaxing the first amendment.

I have no problem with that in this instance.  You celebrate while in view of the towers, yeah your ass should be thrown in jail or get a severe beating.  In my mind those actions speak volumes, you are supporting the enemies of the United States.  

You're advocating lawlessness and vigilante justice.  We used to have quite a bit of that in the South only 50 years ago.  

HughFreakingDillon

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

sometimes I just can't believe what I read on this board. 

What are you referring to? 

people picking and choosing which rights apply to whom because they don't like their message. 

I'd be as enraged as anyone if I saw any group mocking the murder of thousands, but fuck I wouldn't ever be ok with "laying a beating on them" or "throwing them in jail". 

I agree, but I don't see anything wrong with having the conversation. As long as it's civil. 

Although I do call people's posts nonsense quite a bit, so I'm being pretty hypocritical.

no, I don't have any issue with any discussion, really. just find the hypocrisy amazing. 

mcgruff10

mrussel1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

OnWis97 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mrussel1 said:

my2hands said:

People excusing even the thought of Americans celebrating the 9/11 attacks?

I'm all for freedom of speech, but c'mon folks? That wasn't a rally of fucking Illinois Nazi's, that was a disastrous terrorist attack. 

It's easy to be for freedom of speech when it isn't objectionable.  The test of the amendment is when we find the speech reprehensible.  

If you’re an American celebrating the tower attacks on the day they occurred... then from my way of thinking... you’re an enemy of the people and should be treated as such.

Enemy of the people...that seems to be a common excuse for relaxing the first amendment.

I have no problem with that in this instance.  You celebrate while in view of the towers, yeah your ass should be thrown in jail or get a severe beating.  In my mind those actions speak volumes, you are supporting the enemies of the United States.  

You're advocating lawlessness and vigilante justice.  We used to have quite a bit of that in the South only 50 years ago.  

I'm ok with it in this instance.  The 1950's, no way Jose.  

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Duh. I get the f**king law and I get why it is written as it is. Common sense tells me that rejoicing over an attack on your country resulting in the death of 1000s of innocent people is not right. To my way of thinking... you’ve announced your side. And you should be treated as such.

If it is happening in Saudi Arabia then fair enough. Notice how I never said Afghanistan?

I’ll try and exit again. Tough to do when you try only to take some cheap shots. Trump supporter? Racist? 

Geezuz man.

mcgruff10

HughFreakingDillon said:

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

sometimes I just can't believe what I read on this board. 

What are you referring to? 

people picking and choosing which rights apply to whom because they don't like their message. 

I'd be as enraged as anyone if I saw any group mocking the murder of thousands, but fuck I wouldn't ever be ok with "laying a beating on them" or "throwing them in jail". 

Oh come on Paul.  You know you'd have a smile on your face if a Neo-Nazi got his ass beat during a protest and then sent to jail.  Let's stop with the kumbaya crap.  

mrussel1

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

OnWis97 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mrussel1 said:

my2hands said:

People excusing even the thought of Americans celebrating the 9/11 attacks?

I'm all for freedom of speech, but c'mon folks? That wasn't a rally of fucking Illinois Nazi's, that was a disastrous terrorist attack. 

It's easy to be for freedom of speech when it isn't objectionable.  The test of the amendment is when we find the speech reprehensible.  

If you’re an American celebrating the tower attacks on the day they occurred... then from my way of thinking... you’re an enemy of the people and should be treated as such.

Enemy of the people...that seems to be a common excuse for relaxing the first amendment.

I have no problem with that in this instance.  You celebrate while in view of the towers, yeah your ass should be thrown in jail or get a severe beating.  In my mind those actions speak volumes, you are supporting the enemies of the United States.  

You're advocating lawlessness and vigilante justice.  We used to have quite a bit of that in the South only 50 years ago.  

I'm ok with it in this instance.  The 1950's, no way Jose.  

Dude.. you're a history teacher aren't you?  Why is this okay, because you agree with it?  Is it okay also when a black guy rapes a white woman?  When isn't it okay?

mfc2006

HughFreakingDillon said:

sometimes I just can't believe what I read on this board. 

Same here.

dignin

Anyways, the whole premise that Muslims were celebrating in New Jersey after the towers fell is complete bullshit.

Interesting conversation but started on a lie. As has been already stated, it's been investigated at length and debunked many times. 

https://www.snopes.com/news/2015/11/22/donald-trump-cheering-911/

HesCalledDyer

HughFreakingDillon said:

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

sometimes I just can't believe what I read on this board. 

What are you referring to? 

people picking and choosing which rights apply to whom because they don't like their message. 

I'd be as enraged as anyone if I saw any group mocking the murder of thousands, but fuck I wouldn't ever be ok with "laying a beating on them" or "throwing them in jail". 

Yes, I definitely should have disclaimed my previous post with "although hatred or violence of any kind is not the appropriate response."  I was simply stating what is and isn't protected. (Not saying you or anyone interpreted it differently, buuuuut just in case...)  If you beat someone up because you don't like their hate speech/symbols, as much as you think it might be appropriate, you're the one who's breaking the law.

Edit: And if you don't beat them up, it doesn't mean you're on their side, either.

HughFreakingDillon

mcgruff10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

sometimes I just can't believe what I read on this board. 

What are you referring to? 

people picking and choosing which rights apply to whom because they don't like their message. 

I'd be as enraged as anyone if I saw any group mocking the murder of thousands, but fuck I wouldn't ever be ok with "laying a beating on them" or "throwing them in jail". 

Oh come on Paul.  You know you'd have a smile on your face if a Neo-Nazi got his ass beat during a protest and then sent to jail.  Let's stop with the kumbaya crap.  

nope. sorry. not the case. it's not kumbaya crap. I firmly believe in not administering vigilantism. If you are ok with a nazi getting beat up, you have to be ok with an abortion clinic getting bombed. And I just can't be ok with either of those. 

Spiritual_Chaos

nvm

mcgruff10

mrussel1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

OnWis97 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mrussel1 said:

my2hands said:

People excusing even the thought of Americans celebrating the 9/11 attacks?

I'm all for freedom of speech, but c'mon folks? That wasn't a rally of fucking Illinois Nazi's, that was a disastrous terrorist attack. 

It's easy to be for freedom of speech when it isn't objectionable.  The test of the amendment is when we find the speech reprehensible.  

If you’re an American celebrating the tower attacks on the day they occurred... then from my way of thinking... you’re an enemy of the people and should be treated as such.

Enemy of the people...that seems to be a common excuse for relaxing the first amendment.

I have no problem with that in this instance.  You celebrate while in view of the towers, yeah your ass should be thrown in jail or get a severe beating.  In my mind those actions speak volumes, you are supporting the enemies of the United States.  

You're advocating lawlessness and vigilante justice.  We used to have quite a bit of that in the South only 50 years ago.  

I'm ok with it in this instance.  The 1950's, no way Jose.  

Dude.. you're a history teacher aren't you?  Why is this okay, because you agree with it?  Is it okay also when a black guy rapes a white woman?  When isn't it okay?

I teach history but like many others I am a person that was greatly effected by 9/11.  I stand by my opinion.  Sorry bud, no one should have been publicly celebrating the deaths of nearly 3,000 civilians especially while in view of the New York skyline.  
Let's agree to disagree and move on.  

mrussel1

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

OnWis97 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mrussel1 said:

my2hands said:

People excusing even the thought of Americans celebrating the 9/11 attacks?

I'm all for freedom of speech, but c'mon folks? That wasn't a rally of fucking Illinois Nazi's, that was a disastrous terrorist attack. 

It's easy to be for freedom of speech when it isn't objectionable.  The test of the amendment is when we find the speech reprehensible.  

If you’re an American celebrating the tower attacks on the day they occurred... then from my way of thinking... you’re an enemy of the people and should be treated as such.

Enemy of the people...that seems to be a common excuse for relaxing the first amendment.

I have no problem with that in this instance.  You celebrate while in view of the towers, yeah your ass should be thrown in jail or get a severe beating.  In my mind those actions speak volumes, you are supporting the enemies of the United States.  

You're advocating lawlessness and vigilante justice.  We used to have quite a bit of that in the South only 50 years ago.  

I'm ok with it in this instance.  The 1950's, no way Jose.  

Dude.. you're a history teacher aren't you?  Why is this okay, because you agree with it?  Is it okay also when a black guy rapes a white woman?  When isn't it okay?

I teach history but like many others I am a person that was greatly effected by 9/11.  I stand by my opinion.  Sorry bud, no one should have been publicly celebrating the deaths of nearly 3,000 civilians especially while in view of the New York skyline.  
Let's agree to disagree and move on.  

I was as well, as I worked in NOVA at the time.  But as soon as you open the gate to allow vigilante justice, then it becomes a pogrom pretty quickly.  And don't think those don't occur.  There was a massive one in India 20 years ago where thousands of ethnic minorities were murdered because of something an individual did.  You give people a green light to exercise their prejudices without consequences.  There's no agreeing to disagree.  You either support the rule of law or you don't.  It's pretty straightforward.  

rustneversleeps

good grief...