Reply
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
158
Views

Re: NO PROTECTION FOR TRUMP INCITING VIOLENCE

158 Views
Message 11 of 43

liberal or conservative, it was clear to anyone watching Trump's ridiculous campaign rallies, that he often and knowingly incited violence, and, I might add, relished the opportunity to do so.  This has nothing to do with the judge, it has everything to do with the idiot in the WH.

Gee, I miss having a real President!!
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
158
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
162
Views

Re: NO PROTECTION FOR TRUMP INCITING VIOLENCE

162 Views
Message 12 of 43

I wonder what bogus way Putin's orange coward will use to dodge responsibility for his reckless verbal incitation of violence...

44>dolt45
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
162
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
157
Views

Re: NO PROTECTION FOR TRUMP INCITING VIOLENCE

157 Views
Message 13 of 43

@rk9152 wrote:



It's really a very easy question - do you or do you not disapprove of the actions of the mob at Berkeley? Or how about speakers being shut at other universities by the mobs. No "straw man" in that  - not even a "cats" - or a "look over there". It is a very straight forward question that you seem to want to dodge.


 

Well of course - that's as absurdly easy as the "in the road" question - what's the difference between a dead skunk in the road and a dead conservative in the road?  

 

Skid marks before the skunk...

 

You say I didn't answer your question...

 

Yup - I didn't...

 

 

44>dolt45
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
157
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
149
Views

Re: NO PROTECTION FOR TRUMP INCITING VIOLENCE

149 Views
Message 14 of 43

@rk9152 wrote:

Sure, he may have created a reaction to people who came to a rally to hear a candidate and were not happy having their right to hear him taken away by a radical agitator. So the question arises - was the agitator not responsible for the reaction he was seeking??


Hmm, Kind of a "She was asking for it with that short skirt" kind of argument?  I really don't see another way of looking at this. 

 

Oddly enough, I have heard many people define "radical agitato" to be the ones who starte the violence.  

 

Regardless, Trump will now have his day in court.  It will be a fun day for progressives. 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
149
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
148
Views

Re: NO PROTECTION FOR TRUMP INCITING VIOLENCE

148 Views
Message 15 of 43

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@myexper wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@Richva wrote:

Well good. I am glad to see the courts are still protecting the rights of citizens. 


Think of the rights under discussion - the "right" to be paid to disrupt a political event. Do you really applaud that??


Accusations of applauding paid protesters?  Noooooo ....... Just another straw man argument  (the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent).

 

 

The "rights under discussion" were the rights of protesters to not be beat up by Trump's goon squad!


Does that mean you disapprove of the actions of the mob at Berkeley? Or how about speakers being shut at other universities by the mobs. If so, welcome to the world of the Rational Right.


So you counter your straw man argument by not answering the question and changing the subject?  Your first argument also included using "facts not in evidence".


Hmmmmm... welcome back. Now, what is the burning question that I did not answer?? I was responding to someone's statement about the right of citizens and was inquiring as to the definition of that term. For example, does it include the right to abridge another's free speech?


No where in your responses have I seen any response about what Trump said (what this thread is about), instead you keep trying to deflect to otyher subjects.  Respond to what you think about Trump's comments and I'll respond to yours.


Welcome back. Now, what are the Trump comments that you need me to explain to you? This is a long thread with several people offering input. What is your burning issue?


What I said above.  What do you think about Trump's comments during his campaign that may have encited violence?  Some examples would be him offering to pay someone's legal fees and talking about what would happen to someone in the old days.


Sure, he may have created a reaction to people who came to a rally to hear a candidate and were not happy having their right to hear him taken away by a radical agitator. So the question arises - was the agitator not responsible for the reaction he was seeking??

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
148
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
153
Views

Re: NO PROTECTION FOR TRUMP INCITING VIOLENCE

153 Views
Message 16 of 43

@pc6063 wrote:

rk-9152--Where is the proof of paid DNC protesters?  Come up with something credible, which does not mean former high level employee and White Supremist, Steve Bannon's Breitbart-or let's make up some stories that will blow up in the stupid president's face, FOX news.  We are all waiting.


Please - no game playing. it has been given. Let's drop the nonsense about "White Supremacist" or "Supremist" if you prefer. Regardless of who filmed the dude and your opinion of that person or his employer, the words are the words. the admissions are the admissions.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
153
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
152
Views

Re: NO PROTECTION FOR TRUMP INCITING VIOLENCE

152 Views
Message 17 of 43

@myexper wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@myexper wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@Richva wrote:

Well good. I am glad to see the courts are still protecting the rights of citizens. 


Think of the rights under discussion - the "right" to be paid to disrupt a political event. Do you really applaud that??


Accusations of applauding paid protesters?  Noooooo ....... Just another straw man argument  (the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent).

 

 

The "rights under discussion" were the rights of protesters to not be beat up by Trump's goon squad!


Does that mean you disapprove of the actions of the mob at Berkeley? Or how about speakers being shut at other universities by the mobs.


It means what I stated ...... and not to be convoluted by the straw man argument you fallaciously introduced.


It's really a very easy question - do you or do you not disapprove of the actions of the mob at Berkeley? Or how about speakers being shut at other universities by the mobs. No "straw man" in that  - not even a "cats" - or a "look over there". It is a very straight forward question that you seem to want to dodge.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
152
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
153
Views

Re: NO PROTECTION FOR TRUMP INCITING VIOLENCE

153 Views
Message 18 of 43

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@myexper wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@Richva wrote:

Well good. I am glad to see the courts are still protecting the rights of citizens. 


Think of the rights under discussion - the "right" to be paid to disrupt a political event. Do you really applaud that??


Accusations of applauding paid protesters?  Noooooo ....... Just another straw man argument  (the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent).

 

 

The "rights under discussion" were the rights of protesters to not be beat up by Trump's goon squad!


Does that mean you disapprove of the actions of the mob at Berkeley? Or how about speakers being shut at other universities by the mobs. If so, welcome to the world of the Rational Right.


So you counter your straw man argument by not answering the question and changing the subject?  Your first argument also included using "facts not in evidence".


Hmmmmm... welcome back. Now, what is the burning question that I did not answer?? I was responding to someone's statement about the right of citizens and was inquiring as to the definition of that term. For example, does it include the right to abridge another's free speech?


No where in your responses have I seen any response about what Trump said (what this thread is about), instead you keep trying to deflect to otyher subjects.  Respond to what you think about Trump's comments and I'll respond to yours.


Welcome back. Now, what are the Trump comments that you need me to explain to you? This is a long thread with several people offering input. What is your burning issue?


What I said above.  What do you think about Trump's comments during his campaign that may have encited violence?  Some examples would be him offering to pay someone's legal fees and talking about what would happen to someone in the old days.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
153
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
148
Views

Re: NO PROTECTION FOR TRUMP INCITING VIOLENCE

148 Views
Message 19 of 43

rk-9152--Where is the proof of paid DNC protesters?  Come up with something credible, which does not mean former high level employee and White Supremist, Steve Bannon's Breitbart-or let's make up some stories that will blow up in the stupid president's face, FOX news.  We are all waiting.

Gee, I miss having a real President!!
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
148
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
148
Views

Re: NO PROTECTION FOR TRUMP INCITING VIOLENCE

148 Views
Message 20 of 43

@afisher wrote:

@alferdpacker wrote:

The topic is about the fact that the judge ruled that Trump's comments had the appearance of tending to be responsible for inciting acts of violence upon protestors by his supporters, and thus was NOT protected by ANY portion of the First Amendment's Free Speech provisions.

 

Other sorts of issues that do not bear directly upon this subject matter should be brought up in another completely separate subject post.

 

 


   But if the Donald supporters had to debate issues directly, they would not be here....all they have is Distraction.   

 

     Sideways:   A court in NY ruled against EXXON about moving the legal case against it for failing to inform investor's about Climate Change.     The Exxon arguments are all about distraction and hopes to move the case to TX.    EPIC FAIL!


Again - you can always find some radical, leftwing activist Judge to make any case you want at the lower levels. That Judge's "opinion" as all the meaning of "EPIC FAIL".

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
148
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Top Authors