Northcountryman

But You discredited your argument when you posted a link in support of your claim that Trump- and , at least 1 member of his family- planned the riot , then gleefully watched after setting it it motion , which was clearly not true due to the fact that the film was shot BEFORE THE SPEECH. Not good... And I will mention it again,storming the capitol and protesting police violence are two very different things.- Bowman Mike You've said this before in previous posts and it is a false and inaccurate comparison. Didn't an ANTIFA/BLM mob threaten the white house last summer , such that the President had to be moved to the White House Bunker? And that was ok? If thats not an act of sedition , an insurrection, I dont know what is!! Also, protesting police violence is fine , but NOT when you loot and burn, attack, injure and even kill, innocent people ; and destroy millions of dollars of public AND private property.

Excellent point!! Why was a procedural action taken and they didnt vote on it? Anyone know?

Ok, so I read the article you posted; here's my take: 1) There are some examples of condemnation by Democratic Leaders of the Antifa/BLM protests from last summer provided: (Note:I was glad to see the Joe Biden one posted below!) On May 31, the fifth night of demonstrations, former Vice President Joe Biden, the party’s presumptive nominee, wrote in a statement that protesting police brutality is “right and necessary” and the “American response." “But burning down communities and needless destruction is not,” Biden wrote. “Violence that endangers lives is not. Violence that guts and shutters businesses that serve the community is not.” Here's one from James Clyburn: On June 3, Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., the majority whip of the House of Representatives, told The Washington Post that the movement for racial justice suffers when it is “hijacked” by violence. "We have to make sure we do not allow ourselves to play the other person’s game,” Clyburn said. “Peaceful protest is our game. Violence is their game. Purposeful protest is our game. This looting and rioting, that's their game. We cannot allow ourselves to play their game." Conclusion: Too often in our political discourse, we're so often in "attack mode"- myopically engrossed by our mission and, in our efforts to to demonize , attack, impugn and besmirch our political opponents-that we lose sight of the fact that our ultimate objective should NOT be to defeat the other side, but rather, to determine the TRUTH. Having said that, I would concede that youre right , that there was SOME codemnation by the left of the rioting taking place last summer. 2)Although the article provided a few examples, wheres the rest? Why was it not universal? Actually, a fairly sizable number of leading Democrats never came out and codemned the violence at all!! In retrospect, why wasnt there a show of unity -in which ALL leading dems and republicans came out together in solidarity in codemnation of the rioting and violence that was being perpetrated at the time? Could have made a difference, dont you think? So, Was there also universal condemnation of the rioters by the left and , at a level that was as vehement as that demonstrated by Leaders on the Right? No... Heres a link to an article pertaining to AOC's comments after the Seattle riots: https://nypost.com/2020/08/15/aoc-is-speechless-on-seattle-protesters/ Upon reading, I think youll agree that is hardly a condemnation; in fact, sounds more like excuse-making for some loathsome and incredibly lawless behavior being undertaken at the time. Heres another one of a speech made by Schumer, I believe in the Senate chambers: https://www.c-span.org/video/?472691-3/senate-minority-leader-schumer-protests-pandemict Upon reading the text , you will find no language that expresses outrage and/or codemnation for the rioting. Also, note that this speech was given ON JUNE 3RD, WHEN THE RIOTING WAS OCCURRING AT A FEVERISH PITCH!! Conversely, it appears that Schumer spend a great deal of time making excuses for the riotous behavior going on at the time. Now, Im sure that you guys on the left would agree that NOONE on the right -at least,those in positions of politcal power, anyway- has sanctioned, condoned or made excuses for the rioting that occurred on Jan 6 right? The condemnation for that despicable act came out IMMEDIATELY , NOT SEVERAL DAYS AFTER; moreover it was universal (e.g., Lindsey Graham, Mitch Mcconnell , FOX news, etc.) and INCLUDED THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF. Overall, I think that its fair to say that both sides(i.e., dems and republicans) passionately and emphatically condemned the riots that occurred on Jan 6th and, although some on the left did speak out in condemnation of the ANTIFA/BLM riots(which is good), it was not nearly as passionate , nor was there unity in sentiment. Consequently, many on the right view this as hypocrisy- outraged about violence and mayhem only when you diagree with the group who's perpetrating it. And when hypocrisy is demonstrated by a person or group, they lose their credibility and undermine their message!!

Excellent analogy , I agree

Everything I’ve seen and read indicates that they did not ; Can you prove it ?

Yup , I agree, doesn’t prove anything as far as I’m concerned .

Doesnt matter; according to Supreme Court ruling, his speech should be protected and he cannot be impeached and he should not be silenced because of it. What is your argument with your post, though? That theres near unanimous agreement that he condoned and provoked it? Your response Doesnt appear to pertain to my post that you quoted.

Not true. I can pull up severa lexamples in which they did and again, Trump did not condone violence or rioting, though, -and as I;ve stated before- he was very irresponsible IMHO.

Are you saying that QAnon is a right of center belief system/conspiracy then? I believe that it is considered to be embraced more by the extreme far right.

Are you serious? Fight to be strong is a little too over the top for you? If thats your standard , then almost ANY inspirational speech would be deemed as potentially inciting violencevand would be banned !! What about the Kathy Gifford post in comparison; that ok with you though?

I agree; on public land always use a light when moving cuz you never know!!

Hey FD. hard to tell but it certainly looks like the same Buck to me! I agree that hunting pressure has significantly declined over the past 20-30 yrs or so and, no doubt, has had an impact on increasing survival rate. Also, like you said, I think that deer are "figuring it out" and migrating down to Suburbia where theres more food, fewer Predators and fewer Hunters. Property with the highest deer density is, nearly without exception, suburban and/or agricultural; consequently, some of your best chances to score are likely to be, literally , in someones back yard!

Great pics of some beautiful bucks !! I think a lot more survive the season than we hunters realize. Not too long ago , I used to wonder how any bucks survived the season ( when considering the sheer size of the orange army) ; now , I Wonder how hunters Are able to get any cuz they seem to be so damn elusive and smart!!! Lol

According to Wiki, Here's a list of speech categories not protected by the 1st Amendment: Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial ... I would imagine that, according to this list , those on the left - who , by far constitute the majority in media (this also includes social big media tech giants such as Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)- would say that Trumps Tweets and subsequently, his speech prior to the riots, should not be protected speech because they fall under the speech category of "speech that incites imminnent lawless actions". But , according to the Supreme court decision (see Brandenburg vs. Ohio, 1969), it doesnt meet the standard. Here's a brief summary of their decision: To be considered incitement and thus not protected by the First Amendment, incendiary speech must: - Be intended to provoke imminent lawless action; and - Be likely to cause such action. As Brandenburg’s speech was not made in the presence of potential targets of his advocated violence, it was not likely to cause imminent lawless action. As such, reprehensible though his speech may have been, Brandenburg’s speech was protected by the First Amendment. Since Trump CLEARLY said in his speech that the crowd should "peacefully" march and have your voices heard , it , thus, CANNOT be considered an incendiary speech intended to promote violence and imminent lawless action. The conclusion reached otherwise by the majority on the left is arbitrary and coming from a biased and subjective perspective and therefore, is erroneous. If this speech, and various other Trump tweets hereafter, are considered to be UNPROTECTED speech , then why is Twitter NOT banning other tweets coming from ANTIFA/BLM thugs back in the spring/summer advocating rioting and violence? In numerous cases, they were using Twitter as a means of organizing the riots and inflaming tensions in order to promote them . Why, then, were they not banned ?? CLEAR DOUBLE STANDARD, THATS WHY Heres one example of their clear bias because this was NOT removed by Twitter (Kathy Gifford tweet): And what about the Madonna tweet about blowing up the White house? No such ban on her Tweets resulted as a result of this hugely offensive post. Why is this?? BECAUSE THEIR'S A DOUBLE STANDARD!! Twitter is CLEARLY left leaning and liberal-biased and they agree with the content posted by the aforementioned users; consequently, they do not apply the same standard for removal of "content which may incite or promote violence" that thay do with Conservative/right-leaning content, whom they diagree with. AGAIN, CLEAR BIAS And This is why those of us on the right are often frustrated...

Really , that’d be great !

Gotcha, thanks

You guys sure #3 is Beech? Doent look like its smooth enough to me; how can you tell?

Shirts huh, You were saying?

Im surprised that the left is not clamoring for Obamas face to be added onto Rushmore; within time, they undoubtedly will , so be prepared for a good laugh!!

"Endlessly regurgitating fringe web "news" isn't debate. "- Left field Although you may feel that way , Many others on here might disagree with that characterization "The International Academy of Craptastic Journalism for one. Very low standards. If it passes their muster and levels (crappy, craptastic, craptabulous), you can be sure, it's crap."- Left field "This does nothing to promote robust debate and is a classic example of the all-too-common tactic of resorting to insults and sardonic retorts when ones senses "they" or "their side" may be losing the argument. Come on Man!! lol" -Northcountryman I rest my case !!

And who determines if its crap or not, you? Leftfield? I think that it should be up to the individual reader to determine that , and then, provide evidence that rebuts the post which they disagree with; "Calling it out" -like you say-can be accomplished more effectively in that manner IMHO

Hey OB, I was wondering where you got that call from anyway? Looks pretty vintage; is it worth anything maybe?

I think I heard on the news this morning that they were saying that vaccinated people can , potentially, still be carriers; if true, they would still need to wear a mask, regardless of their staus of 'being vaccinated".

Oh, BTW, whos Papist?

This does nothing to promote robust debate and is a classic example of the all-too-common tactic of resorting to insults and sardonic retorts when ones senses "they" or "their side" may be losing the argument. Come on Man!! lol