NO PROTECTION FOR TRUMP INCITING VIOLENCE

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
150
Views

Re: NO PROTECTION FOR TRUMP INCITING VIOLENCE

150 Views
Message 21 of 43

@umbarch64 wrote:

The image of that character from "MAD" magazine...the one that says, "WHAT, me worry?" popped up after reading the exhanges.  This character was facing directly into the 'camera', standing erect on top of a 'YUGE' mound labeled LIES, arms tightly crossed over his chest, index finger of each hand pointing off into the distance. 

 

On his face was this expression of puzzled innocence. On his head was a beanie, propellor spinning,  the words "PROUD TRUMP SUPPORTER" emblazoned across each side. The cartoon was captioned, "WHO..ME?  I just do what I'm told".

 

 


Yes, you can always find some radical cartoonist or op/ed writer to make any silly point you might want. It has no meaning beyond the hardcore looking for their revolution (from the comfort of their living rooms).

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
150
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
144
Views

Re: NO PROTECTION FOR TRUMP INCITING VIOLENCE

144 Views
Message 22 of 43

@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.

 

 


Of course, as recent event have shown, you can always find a radical, activist Judge to accept any left-wing ideological premise. Your shouting has no effect on that.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
144
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
137
Views

Re: NO PROTECTION FOR TRUMP INCITING VIOLENCE

137 Views
Message 23 of 43

@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?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
137
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
151
Views

Re: NO PROTECTION FOR TRUMP INCITING VIOLENCE

151 Views
Message 24 of 43

@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.

DUMP TRUMP AND DITCH MITCH TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
151
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
153
Views

Re: NO PROTECTION FOR TRUMP INCITING VIOLENCE

153 Views
Message 25 of 43

@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!

PRO-LIFE is Affordable Healthcare for ALL .
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
153
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
154
Views

Re: NO PROTECTION FOR TRUMP INCITING VIOLENCE

154 Views
Message 26 of 43

The image of that character from "MAD" magazine...the one that says, "WHAT, me worry?" popped up after reading the exhanges.  This character was facing directly into the 'camera', standing erect on top of a 'YUGE' mound labeled LIES, arms tightly crossed over his chest, index finger of each hand pointing off into the distance. 

 

On his face was this expression of puzzled innocence. On his head was a beanie, propellor spinning,  the words "PROUD TRUMP SUPPORTER" emblazoned across each side. The cartoon was captioned, "WHO..ME?  I just do what I'm told".

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
154
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
161
Views

Re: NO PROTECTION FOR TRUMP INCITING VIOLENCE

161 Views
Message 27 of 43

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.

 

 

44>dolt45
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
161
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
165
Views

Re: NO PROTECTION FOR TRUMP INCITING VIOLENCE

165 Views
Message 28 of 43

@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.

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
165
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
169
Views

Re: NO PROTECTION FOR TRUMP INCITING VIOLENCE

169 Views
Message 29 of 43

@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?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
169
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
179
Views

Re: NO PROTECTION FOR TRUMP INCITING VIOLENCE

179 Views
Message 30 of 43

@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".

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
179
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Now until February 11, play this classic game online at AARP. Get in the game and play now.


jeopardy for aarp logo

Top Authors