Good Ol' Discussion

[RANOVRU]

Yes and yes to the last two posts.

Freedom of speech is protected under the constitution. Ironically it allows you to hate even the idea itself.


What I don't get is how so many 'actions' get thrown into 'freedom of speech'. IMO FOS protects anything said or written. Burning a flag is an action that blatantly disrespects our country. To me that's where the line is drawn.

 

[gooba]

They are considered expression it's the same as wearing an armband to school or raising a fist at the Olympics. No words spoken but point made

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[RANOVRU]

Expressions and no words spoken are the opposite of speech. Same as actions are not speech.

Guess I'm more of a literal guy.

 

[NoobCrawler]

Yes and yes to the last two posts.

Freedom of speech is protected under the constitution. Ironically it allows you to hate even the idea itself.


What I don't get is how so many 'actions' get thrown into 'freedom of speech'. IMO FOS protects anything said or written. Burning a flag is an action that blatantly disrespects our country. To me that's where the line is drawn.

My exact thoughts. Burning a flag is an action. If you drew a picture of an American flag burning, that would be freedom of speech. I'll still think you're a complete waste of space & an asshole, but I wouldn't think you need to have felony charges brought against you.



Here's a slightly off topic story, it kind of correlates though. And I know there is some wrestling fans here. Back when Kevin Owens came on the scene, he was feuding with then US champion John Cena. Not once, but twice Owens took the US belt and put his foot on it. Now, it does have a flag painted on it, and the symbology is still the same. I don't like the guy for that. Not that character, the actual guy because he was okay with doing that. I realize that may be a bit overboard, but that's how strongly I love & respect the flag.

 

[gooba]

I am a huge wrestling fan and while I see your point(I never thought of it that way till now though). John cena is too patriotic to let storyline go so far as to disgrace the flag Sgt. Slaughter who is high up in WWE is also a veteran who also wouldn't let it happen and with all the WWE as a whole does for our troops I'd say it's more of a trashing the championship itself as it's not popular with the wrestlers. Otherwise rusev would've trashed the belt when he had it. Although I think they treaded very lightly with his anti American thing.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[RANOVRU]

I'm not a 'pro wrestling' fan but let me break it down real simple.

Freedom of speech is people at the doors of a McDonalds yelling in protest.

Freedom of speech is NOT people yelling and blocking the doors/drive through.

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

I'm not a 'pro wrestling' fan but let me break it down real simple.

Freedom of speech is people at the doors of a McDonalds yelling in protest.

Freedom of speech is NOT people yelling and blocking the doors/drive through.

"thumbsup"

Laws still have to be obeyed during a protest.

 

[wings_of_fire]

Laws still have to be obeyed during a protest.

Depends on the kind of opression.

 

[NoobCrawler]

I am a huge wrestling fan and while I see your point(I never thought of it that way till now though). John cena is too patriotic to let storyline go so far as to disgrace the flag Sgt. Slaughter who is high up in WWE is also a veteran who also wouldn't let it happen and with all the WWE as a whole does for our troops I'd say it's more of a trashing the championship itself as it's not popular with the wrestlers. Otherwise rusev would've trashed the belt when he had it. Although I think they treaded very lightly with his anti American thing.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Yeah, like I said, I'm sure I'm overreacting about it, as I know how much the company loves the troops, but him doing that just didn't sit right with me.

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

Depends on the kind of opression.

True. Still, there is something to be said for the power of a peaceful protest.

 

[badhoopty]

years ago when bush jr started shit with the middle east there was a big big protest in downtown chicago where a group of people "marching" took over lake shore drive and halted rush hour traffic. one of my friends was in the group, and he and others got rounded up by the cops and put in police vans for awhile.

4 or 5 years later he gets a FAT check in the mail from a lawsuit filed against the cops for whatever reason.

 

[NoobCrawler]

Curious as to people's opinion on the flak Trumps been getting lately. Being called a Nazi/Hitler is wildly inaccurate & crazy to me. I think it's just he says what he thinks & doesn't care about people fluffy little spines when he does. I like that about him. Sure, his policies & ideas could be worded out a bit better, but they all have merit & the sentiment is true.

I also greatly think that people are taking his words & blowing them WAY out of proportion. First, the "Mexicans are all rapists" lie that people spout. The discussion was on immigration. It's pretty obvious he was talking about illegals. Now, he did say that they're rapists, yes. Which is a stretch, as they're certainly not all rapists. But they're certainly not all saints either. They ate illegal after all, regardless of why they fled. It's a crap deal, but there's a reason for the system in place.

"ban all Muslims" lie. A temporary ban on incoming Muslims, not really a a bad thing. We already have enough I'll intentioned people here, why would we allow more to come on? Until we can get a better handle on the screening process, hell yes. Sucks for the good ones, absolutely. Again, crap deal. I can guarantee you there's 14 people & countless family & friends who wished it was so...

Now, I'm not saying that he's a great candidate, as I don't think anyone is really, as screwed up as our gov't is. But he certainly isn't worse than what we have now. I do think though, if he has the correct cabinet behind him, he could do the job. It's laughable when hippies compare him to Hitler. Someone even said that Trump wants all Muslims on a watch list. I looked, couldn't fin him saying it, but did see an interviewer asking if that would be a route to take. Trump never answered yes, so another lie. I asked him to provide the link, in case I missed it, all I got in response was cricket sounds...says a lot about Trump nay sayers.

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

About 75% of the things Trump says we should do, or what he'll do once he's elected ( :lmao: ) are unconstitutional and flat-out goes against what this country is about. Another 20% is batshit crazy talk, and the remaining 5% is somewhat realistic.

Several places have been fact-checking Trumps speeches. A great deal of what he says is completely untrue, far more than any other candidate.

He knows his audience and is milking them for everything they are worth. They have an idealized perception of America that is nowhere near reality.

His recent comments about Muslims earned his comparison to Hitler, and he earned it fair and square. Gaining the support of the KKK and neo-Nazis solidifies that fact.

As far as how he talks unapologetically, that's fine, he can say whatever is on his mind, but that does not make it true, not does it make him immune from criticism.

 

[C*H*U*D]

Gaining the support of the KKK and neo-Nazis solidifies that fact..

Don't forget Putin "thumbsup"

 

[NoobCrawler]

I just don't see how him saying there should be a temporary ban on Muslims is anything close to what Hitler did. Perhaps I'm. Issuing something in the correlation, but I haven't heard Trump say he wants to kill the Muslims, en masse. And yes, I did hear about him saying the family memebrs of terrorists should be killed. I say yes to that as well, assuming they were fully aware of what was going on & are of the same mindset.

Take the. Other of the San Bernardino couple. There's no possible way she had no idea what was going on in that house, unless she's both completely blind & deaf. They should investigate her for sure. Then again, I think we should kill all ISIS sympathizers in this country...but I digress.

Trump didn't say he wants to round up every known Muslim, place them in camps, then kill them. Again, I may be missing something, but that's the presumption I get when that comparison is made.

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

Don't forget Putin "thumbsup"

For sure. When a candidate has the backing of a Communist country, he's pretty well gone off track. :ror:

I just don't see how him saying there should be a temporary ban on Muslims is anything close to what Hitler did. Perhaps I'm. Issuing something in the correlation, but I haven't heard Trump say he wants to kill the Muslims, en masse. And yes, I did hear about him saying the family memebrs of terrorists should be killed. I say yes to that as well, assuming they were fully aware of what was going on & are of the same mindset.

Take the. Other of the San Bernardino couple. There's no possible way she had no idea what was going on in that house, unless she's both completely blind & deaf. They should investigate her for sure. Then again, I think we should kill all ISIS sympathizers in this country...but I digress.

Trump didn't say he wants to round up every known Muslim, place them in camps, then kill them. Again, I may be missing something, but that's the presumption I get when that comparison is made.

Hitler began by rounding up and imprisoning Jews. The killing didn't come until later. I'm not saying Trump wants to eventually kill them, but putting them all in camps is very Hitlerish.

Whether or not someone here is an ISIS sympathizer, they are still citizens of this country and protected by due process. What you're suggesting is what Hitler did with his gestapo.

 

[WHITE-TRASH]

For sure. When a candidate has the backing of a Communist country, he's pretty well gone off track. :ror:

I disagree completely. Putin right or wrong has balls and he isn't beholden to a political party. Sure he's a dirty pinko commie but at least he doesn't lie about it like 99% of those in or running for office.

 

[C*H*U*D]

...And yes, I did hear about him saying the family memebrs of terrorists should be killed. I say yes to that as well, assuming they were fully aware of what was going on & are of the same mindset.

The Geneva Convention would disagree.

Trump didn't say he wants to round up every known Muslim, place them in camps, then kill them. Again, I may be missing something, but that's the presumption I get when that comparison is made.

He did say that we have to close down Mosques and put Muslim Americans on watch lists. Lists sound like a great idea until you're the one on the list.

I disagree completely. Putin right or wrong has balls and he isn't beholden to a political party. Sure he's a dirty pinko commie but at least he doesn't lie about it like 99% of those in or running for office.

Of course there's also those pesky murder allegations :ror:. Of which Trump seems to have no problems with.

“Well, I think our country does plenty of killing also, Joe,” ~ Trump.

I do like how Putin is keeping us out of Syria right now, and I like how he's against regime change, but I wouldn't exactly interpret praise from him as a good thing.

 

[NoobCrawler]

For sure. When a candidate has the backing of a Communist country, he's pretty well gone off track. :ror:



Hitler began by rounding up and imprisoning Jews. The killing didn't come until later. I'm not saying Trump wants to eventually kill them, but putting them all in camps is very Hitlerish.

Whether or not someone here is an ISIS sympathizer, they are still citizens of this country and protected by due process. What you're suggesting is what Hitler did with his gestapo.

The Geneva Convention would disagree.



He did say that we have to close down Mosques and put Muslim Americans on watch lists. Lists sound like a great idea until you're the one on the list.



Of course there's also those pesky murder allegations :ror:. Of which Trump seems to have no problems with.

“Well, I think our country does plenty of killing also, Joe,” ~ Trump.

I do like how Putin is keeping us out of Syria right now, and I like how he's against regime change, but I wouldn't exactly interpret praise from him as a good thing.

Where did Trump explicably say he wants to put Muslims in camps or shut down mosques? These aren't accusatory either...I haven't head the camp part, but I could've missed it. I have heard him, or it may have been Carson, say that mosques should be monitored. Now, to what extent is hard to say...not sure if he(or they) meant every mosque, or ones that are found to have suspicious behavior. Which is of course subjective...but...

As far as putting Muslims on watch lists, I did run into that lie before. It was a Yahoo! reporter who interviewed Trump and had that suggestion in a question to Trump.

It was Hunter Walker, Yahoo! National Correspondent. He said, "And in terms of doing this, to pull off this kind of tracking we need, do you think we might need to register Muslims in some type of database, or note their religion on their ID?" Trump answered, "Well, we're going to have to look at a lot of things very closely. We're going to have to look at the mosques. We're going to have to look very, very carefully. We have a president that refuses to say radical Islamic terrorism, he refuses to say it, which is the biggest shock in the world, because how can you not say it, if you don't say it, you're not going to get to the problem."

I know I seem like a die hard Trump supporters with my defense of him. But it's just tiring seeing people make him out to be some monster that he clearly isn't. Sure, he could word his responses differently, but thats what is nice about him, he doesn't PC himself.

All this stuff he says he plans to do has a such a slight margin of actually happening, it's not worth getting all riled up over anyways...

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

I know I seem like a die hard Trump supporters with my defense of him. But it's just tiring seeing people make him out to be some monster that he clearly isn't. Sure, he could word his responses differently, but thats what is nice about him, he doesn't PC himself.

All this stuff he says he plans to do has a such a slight margin of actually happening, it's not worth getting all riled up over anyways...

Here's the thing about leading an advanced and civilized nation: you have to have a bit of tact and at least a smidge of self restraint. You can't blurt out anything and everything that comes to mind and credit it to honesty and an unwillingness to be "PC". You are the face and voice of an entire nation, you need to act like it.

9 times out of 10 when I hear someone say they are tired of having to be PC, it's usually because they can't figure out why they are getting flak for being a loudmouthed ignorant asshole.

Trump won't get anywhere near a nomination for POTUS. I know that, I'm not worried about that. What worries me are the nutters that he's prying out of the woodwork that feel every fear mongering, knee-jerk reaction to current events is totally justifiable. He's stuck his paddle into the bottom of the barrel of our society and whipping up all the useless junk that has settled at the bottom. Those people are going to influence the nomination and election, regardless of where Trump ends up.

The trouble with quoting Trump is that he speaks ambiguously about most everything. In regards to the Yahoo interview, the reporter was definitely asking a loaded question, but the reply was not unlike what he had given to other reporters. In essence, he alludes to doing more than surveillance and registration, which he does quite a bit, but never mentions anything specific. You can also sort out where his head is at by what he doesn't say, which is that such things are unconstitutional and wholly un-American. The one shining moment the GOP has had this election cycle was to almost universally denounce the things he's been suggesting.