The Left is on the attack. It's a war.

[land 1]

ok i know this is more on a president level but king andy now says open after saying we must close everything but after trump is gone,  trump has said this for months, and he does it when covid is in a upswing someone explain this, i do agree to open up but this obvioulsly political move on king andy... also the left saying LEO did not do enough during capitol riots but did to much during other riots for the past year wtf the cops cant win ,,,,,

[9jNYstarkOH]

40 minutes ago, land 1 said:

ok i know this is more on a president level but king andy now says open after saying we must close everything but after trump is gone,  trump has said this for months, and he does it when covid is in a upswing someone explain this, i do agree to open up but this obvioulsly political move on king andy... also the left saying LEO did not do enough during capitol riots but did to much during other riots for the past year wtf the cops cant win ,,,,,

It’s called political theatre used to manipulate voters that couldn’t see though the bs lies and some still don’t.

Edited January 19, 2021 by 9jNYstarkOH

[Shoots100]

10 hours ago, Versatile_Hunter said:

No, there’s debate and then there’s the unhinged crap spouted by 2-4 members of the forum. It’s important to call it out as such. 

I agree, so stop posting gibberish with your 3 socialist friends here.

You asked for it, we gave it to you in spades and then you whine like the typical socialist child that only retorts with insults.

There is a movement to silence all republican or conservative voices in the media and their sponsors, because they don't like the truth being brought to light, like you and your ilk are trying to do here.

This is being brought to you by the party that was promoting the "Fairness" doctrine ??????????

How the tables have turned. 

 

 

[Versatile_Hunter]

29 minutes ago, Shoots100 said:

I agree, so stop posting gibberish with your 3 socialist friends here.

You asked for it, we gave it to you in spades and then you whine like the typical socialist child that only retorts with insults.

There is a movement to silence all republican or conservative voices in the media and their sponsors, because they don't like the truth being brought to light, like you and your ilk are trying to do here.

This is being brought to you by the party that was promoting the "Fairness" doctrine ??????????

How the tables have turned. 

 

 

Aww, you want some attention. Let’s see, what are you trying to say. ‘Asking for it,  whining, tables turning’... More fantasy play, I see. 

There is no movement to silence conservatism. Some patriots are working hard to not promote or elevate idiotic ideas. That’s a great thing and I hope the effort outlasts Trump. Now, go play dress up and look for lizard people! 

[Grouse]

Insults cast towards opponents in a debate are signs the party has nothing intelligent to offer refuting the subject being discussed.  It's their way of admitting they have already lost.  When someone calls your statement an "idiotic idea" without providing some factual retort to support that statement, they are devolving towards juvenile temper tantrum levels.

At this time, to state there is "no movement to silence" conservatism, with complete disregard for the facts and evidence in all areas of social and main stream media, is to state one does not care about facts. 

To say people are working hard to "not promote" something, is Orwellian doublespeak for "suppress speech and censor".  

The first thing any Marxist power structure will do is move to control the flow of information.  Elimination of free speech, censorship and minimization of logical opposing ideas are common tactics. 

When someone adopts such a mindset to use in socialization, they reveal their utter contempt for all those around them with opposing ideas.  Such hatred only worsens with societal approval.

[9jNYstarkOH]

8 hours ago, Versatile_Hunter said:

Aww, you want some attention. Let’s see, what are you trying to say. ‘Asking for it,  whining, tables turning’... More fantasy play, I see. 

There is no movement to silence conservatism. Some patriots are working hard to not promote or elevate idiotic ideas. That’s a great thing and I hope the effort outlasts Trump. Now, go play dress up and look for lizard people! 

Are the great patriots you speak of the leadership from the grifting Lincoln project that are accused of swindling leftists out of millions to put into their own businesses as trump gained voter support that you kept posting about. Seems as if cofounder of the grifting Lincoln project is as confused as most leftists.

 

Edited January 19, 2021 by 9jNYstarkOH

[9jNYstarkOH]

[Grouse]

Doesn't that group identify as "Never Trumpers"?

[DoubleDose]

12 hours ago, land 1 said:

ok i know this is more on a president level but king andy now says open after saying we must close everything but after trump is gone,  trump has said this for months, and he does it when covid is in a upswing someone explain this, i do agree to open up but this obvioulsly political move on king andy... also the left saying LEO did not do enough during capitol riots but did to much during other riots for the past year wtf the cops cant win ,,,,,

Yes, Govs actions and timing are suspect.  I think he has come to realize that NYS has been closed for so long that it is destroying the state finances beyond return.  When his actions were destroying individual NYers finances beyond return that was okay, but the State not okay.  Perhaps he knows or been made aware that the BIden administration is not going to sufficiently bail him out. 

[Northcountryman]

10 hours ago, Versatile_Hunter said:

Aww, you want some attention. Let’s see, what are you trying to say. ‘Asking for it,  whining, tables turning’... More fantasy play, I see. 

There is no movement to silence conservatism. Some patriots are working hard to not promote or elevate idiotic ideas. That’s a great thing and I hope the effort outlasts Trump. Now, go play dress up and look for lizard people! 

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...

[Grouse]

The problem becomes, who gets to be the arbiter of the law, similar to who gets to count the votes?

[Versatile_Hunter]

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

The problem becomes, who gets to be the arbiter of the law, similar to who gets to count the votes?

This is preposterous! Republican appointed judges and attorneys generals oversaw and adjudicated the vote count that you insist was fraudulent. There is a court system in place that addresses disputes. The verdict (as determined by Republican officials) is out - free and fair elections, Biden won. 
In terms of representing both sides and allowing for debate, QAnon is most certainly not a voice worth entertaining. Let’s hope the ensuing war within the Republican Party will push QAnon and its supporters back to the fringes where it belongs.

 

 

[DoubleDose]

7 hours ago, Northcountryman said:

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...

Further legal conundrum of this bias is that Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc are private (not public) companies, thus not 1st amendment protected, that can censor YET courts have ruled that politicians (particularly POTUS) as public figures cannot block viewers in this same media/ platform  because that is a violation of 1st amendment protection of the persons blocked.  Hard to comprehend that 1st amendment protection does and does not apply within the same media/platform.  

[SportsmanNH]

15 minutes ago, DoubleDose said:

Further legal conundrum of this bias is that Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc are private (not public) companies, thus not 1st amendment protected, that can censor .  

They are NOT private companies . They are public companies as they are listed and traded on the stock market as such . You have to admit that it was total bias to the left at all media companies. Things need to change. We CANNOT have our country run by Google, Twitter, Facebook , Apple , and Amazon. This monopoly needs to be blown up .

Even the national news stations , ABC , CBS , and NBC were totally off their rocker when reporting the news. I would actually watch an event live , and then when it was reported by the big news anchors , Stephanopoulos , Muir , etc , I would sit back and scratch my head wondering what they were talking about . What they were reporting didn't even resemble what actually happened . I guess honest reporting of the actual news like Walter Cronkite is long gone.  

 

[Versatile_Hunter]

2 minutes ago, SportsmanNH said:

They are NOT private companies . They are public companies as they are listed and traded on the stock market as such . You have to admit that it was total bias to the left at all media companies. Things need to change. We CANNOT have our country run by Google, Twitter, Facebook , Apple , and Amazon. This monopoly needs to be blown up .

Even the national news stations , ABC , CBS , and NBC were totally off their rocker when reporting the news. I would actually watch an event live , and then when it was reported by the big news anchors , Stephanopoulos , Muir , etc , I would sit back and scratch my head wondering what they were talking about . What they were reporting didn't even resemble what actually happened . I guess honest reporting of the actual news like Walter Cronkite is long gone.  

 

What we can’t have is a president who refuses to communicate with the populace outside of tweets. This jackass has a news briefing room in his house. No one is censoring the president. He can speak to millions on a whim. 
I applaud Twitter for doing the responsible thing and closing his account for fomenting insurrection. People died. Look, even the current head of the Republican Party blames Trump for lying to his base and inciting the deadly riots. Here you go:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcconnell-trump-capitol-riot-senate-weighs-another-impeachment-trial

[BowmanMike]

8 hours ago, Northcountryman said:

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...

Can you provide a link to where trump said anything about peacefully marching to the capitol on January 6th?

I may have missed that little word.

[9jNYstarkOH]

 

1 minute ago, BowmanMike said:

Can you provide a link to where trump said anything about peacefully marching to the capitol on January 6th?

I may have missed that little word.

The speech transcript has been posted multiple times 

Edited January 19, 2021 by 9jNYstarkOH

[BowmanMike]

1 minute ago, 9jNYstarkOH said:

 

The speech transcript has been posted multiple times 

What about the parts where he said you have to fight,be strong? And Giuliani saying how about a trial by combat? 

The rhetoric is a little over the top,same as the title of this thread..I think grouse wants to start a war.

[Versatile_Hunter]

10 hours ago, 9jNYstarkOH said:

Are the great patriots you speak of the leadership from the grifting Lincoln project that are accused of swindling leftists out of millions to put into their own businesses as trump gained voter support that you kept posting about. Seems as if cofounder of the grifting Lincoln project is as confused as most leftists.

 

Surely if a jackass with a Trump shirt and an AR can be labeled a patriot, Jack Dorsey fits the bill as well. Certainly he helped Trump’s cause much more than any imbecile at the riot did. 

[9jNYstarkOH]

6 minutes ago, BowmanMike said:

What about the parts where he said you have to fight,be strong? And Giuliani saying how about a trial by combat? 

The rhetoric is a little over the top,same as the title of this thread..I think grouse wants to start a war.

You will find over the top rhetoric on both sides in a divided nation and it is clearly where we are at. And when the left and right speak people from their perspective side will hear what they want as the opposite side does also (as we have here with you and I) But the words fight and be strong do not mean to storm the capital no more than the words peacefully march do and the impeachment for his speech was a 7hr farce. 

[BowmanMike]

Just now, 9jNYstarkOH said:

You will find over the top rhetoric on both sides in a divided nation and it is clearly where we are at. And when the left and right speak people from their perspective side will hear what they want as the opposite side does also (as we have here with you and I) But the words fight and be strong do not mean to storm the capital no more than the words peacefully march do and the impeachment for his speech was a 7hr farce. 

In my mind it's not a big leap from trumps speech to the storming of the Capitol. Of course you cant pinpoint what a crowd is going to do,but as a president you should maybe watch what you are saying a little closer?  Especially if you have some fairly fanatic followers? The right's rhetoric has been pretty wild on the election fraud bs. 

There was a video of don jr counting down as the rioters were about to storm the Capitol,and he looked pretty happy about it. I think the words used were t minus 60 ... And papa trump.was in the background watching things unfold on live TV and doing nothing...for hours..

[Versatile_Hunter]

5 minutes ago, 9jNYstarkOH said:

You will find over the top rhetoric on both sides in a divided nation and it is clearly where we are at. And when the left and right speak people from their perspective side will hear what they want as the opposite side does also (as we have here with you and I) But the words fight and be strong do not mean to storm the capital no more than the words peacefully march do and the impeachment for his speech was a 7hr farce. 

There is no QAnon equivalent left of center. 

[9jNYstarkOH]

10 minutes ago, Versatile_Hunter said:

Surely if a jackass with a Trump shirt and an AR can be labeled a patriot, Jack Dorsey fits the bill as well. Certainly he helped Trump’s cause much more than any imbecile at the riot did. 

Don’t feel to bad about your pushing of the grifting lincon project they took a lot of cash of you leftist and but no one here wasted  time on your bs links. I am more concerned with the guy taking over city blocks in a blm shirt with a AK passing out AR’s to kids that don’t know which end is which.

[Northcountryman]

27 minutes ago, BowmanMike said:

What about the parts where he said you have to fight,be strong? And Giuliani saying how about a trial by combat? 

The rhetoric is a little over the top,same as the title of this thread..I think grouse wants to start a war.

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?

[9jNYstarkOH]

10 minutes ago, BowmanMike said:

In my mind it's not a big leap from trumps speech to the storming of the Capitol. Of course you cant pinpoint what a crowd is going to do,but as a president you should maybe watch what you are saying a little closer?  Especially if you have some fairly fanatic followers? The right's rhetoric has been pretty wild on the election fraud bs. 

There was a video of don jr counting down as the rioters were about to storm the Capitol,and he looked pretty happy about it. I think the words used were t minus 60 ... And papa trump.was in the background watching things unfold on live TV and doing nothing...for hours..

Where have you been all summer as Democrats condoned and encouraged this behavior. Again we as a nation are divided and a lot of people are okay when it is their side but act shocked when it comes from the other side. The riots where not okay all summer and storming the capital was not okay on the 6th. I am okay with both groups of protesters just not the bad actors in either group and I am not okay with only one group of bad actors being held accountable.

Edited January 20, 2021 by 9jNYstarkOH