The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
I honestly see nothing wrong with his statement. Trump is criticized simply for having an R next to his name. I think Rand Paul, the alt-right-extremist summed it up pretty nicely:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/w...VvFyurgcMnkecU
Rand Paul: Ilhan Omar deserves 'rebuke over trying to say we have a rotten country’
Sen. Rand Paul has joined in the criticism of Somalia-born House Rep. Ilhan Omar, and said that she deserves to be rebuked for criticizing the United States, which took her in as a refugee in 1992.
Paul, both an ally and sometime critic of Trump, added, “She says this is terrible, a place without justice and all this. She’s a congresswoman. She got here as a refugee 20 years ago. She’s elected to Congress. I can’t imagine a better country that elected her to congress and she badmouths our country.”
Trump stirred up controversy over the weekend when tweet-attacked Omar and three other new House Democrats.
Sen. Rand Paul has joined in the criticism of Somalia-born House Rep. Ilhan Omar, and said that she deserves to be rebuked for criticizing the United States, which took her in as a refugee in 1992.
Paul, of Kentucky, said that he is “dumbfounded” by the Minnesota congresswoman’s “angry story.”
Speaking back home to Wave 3 News, Paul said, “She has this bitterness and anger toward the country,” adding, “I think she does deserve a rebuke over trying to say we have a rotten country.”
In joining President Trump in criticizing the Mogadishu-born freshman lawmaker, Paul said “I’m sort of dumbfounded how unappreciative she is of our country.”Speaking back home to Wave 3 News, Paul said, “She has this bitterness and anger toward the country,” adding, “I think she does deserve a rebuke over trying to say we have a rotten country.”
Paul, both an ally and sometime critic of Trump, added, “She says this is terrible, a place without justice and all this. She’s a congresswoman. She got here as a refugee 20 years ago. She’s elected to Congress. I can’t imagine a better country that elected her to congress and she badmouths our country.”
Trump stirred up controversy over the weekend when tweet-attacked Omar and three other new House Democrats.
Im sorry, but if everything is racist, nothing is.
You guys ruined racism.
Last edited by Braineack; Jul 18, 2019 at 10:18 AM.
Reply
0
0
I don't see how a bill which states that “all Americans have the right to participate in boycotts in pursuit of civil and human rights at home and abroad, as protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.” is racist under any circumstances. It could only appear so through a very orange lens.
Also, no comment on the gift basket thing? I thought that was really clever.
Also, no comment on the gift basket thing? I thought that was really clever.
2) I gave a PosCaf for the basket evaluation.
3) As an aside, have Joe P and Scott S ever met in person?
DNM
Reply
0
0
olderguy:
I like you.
Apparently you've been around a long time (Yeah, longer than Joe or Scott), but I've only seen you on line fairly recently.
Do you have a Miata, like Joe, or not, like Scott. Build thread?
On another subject, no Box Cutters on flights. Also, even though there was a lot of info on the interweb about relaxed knife rules, on the official TSA website, I see nothing about that, and they even have a separate line item in the FAQ section (IIRC) that says no to Swiss Army Knives.
DNM
I like you.
Apparently you've been around a long time (Yeah, longer than Joe or Scott), but I've only seen you on line fairly recently.
Do you have a Miata, like Joe, or not, like Scott. Build thread?
On another subject, no Box Cutters on flights. Also, even though there was a lot of info on the interweb about relaxed knife rules, on the official TSA website, I see nothing about that, and they even have a separate line item in the FAQ section (IIRC) that says no to Swiss Army Knives.
DNM
Last edited by DNMakinson; Jul 18, 2019 at 07:05 PM. Reason: TSA
Reply
0
0
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 34,402
Total Cats: 7,523
From: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
#1 is an excellent question. And I'll note that it is relatively rare among legislation in the 21st century in that it affirms and protects a liberty of the people, rather than decreasing the liberty of the people.
That having been said, I can answer the "why" question by saying that it's for the same reason that we need the Bill of Rights. While this is clearly contrary to the intent of the founders, the reality of this situation is that we live in an age in which the absence of a law which secures a certain right for the people is often interpreted as either the absence of that right existing, or tacit permission for government / police / the courts to violate that right without consequence.
Or, put another way, why did we need a constitutional amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech and religion and the press and assembly? Well, because in a lot of countries, those things are routinely forbidden or curtailed. What do you think would happen if a Saudi newspaper columnist were to print an opinion piece which openly criticizes King Salman, claims that the Quoran is a collection of fairy tales, and advocates full equality for women and gays?
#2: Thank you.
#3: No, but I have seen his source code. (Braineack is a bot which runs on the MT server, which harvests memes from ult-right blogs and re-posts them here.)
Reply
0
0
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
Reply
1
1
So here's the thing.
Who would you think he was referring to, if you're going to make the case that mentally diseased liberals and SJWs are jumping to conclusions?
Are you suggesting that maybe he was referring to the 6 Democrat Congresswomen that actually came from other countries? Maybe he left out all the men because men don't come from broken countries? And naturally left out the Republicans that came from other countries because since they only come from great countries, the best countries. The people love those countries.
Reply
0
0
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 34,402
Total Cats: 7,523
From: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Reply
0
0
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 288
Total Cats: 38
So here's the thing.
Who would you think he was referring to, if you're going to make the case that mentally diseased liberals and SJWs are jumping to conclusions?
Are you suggesting that maybe he was referring to the 6 Democrat Congresswomen that actually came from other countries? Maybe he left out all the men because men don't come from broken countries? And naturally left out the Republicans that came from other countries because since they only come from great countries, the best countries. The people love those countries.
Who would you think he was referring to, if you're going to make the case that mentally diseased liberals and SJWs are jumping to conclusions?
Are you suggesting that maybe he was referring to the 6 Democrat Congresswomen that actually came from other countries? Maybe he left out all the men because men don't come from broken countries? And naturally left out the Republicans that came from other countries because since they only come from great countries, the best countries. The people love those countries.
Last edited by Skamba; Jul 18, 2019 at 02:25 PM. Reason: added another tweet
Reply
0
0
Don't be sanctimonious. Not even Trump is denying it:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...29281919102976
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...27083110510594
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...29281919102976
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...27083110510594
Fake news! No people named in those tweets!
Reply
0
0
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 34,402
Total Cats: 7,523
From: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Reply
0
0
Reply
0
0
#1 is an excellent question. And I'll note that it is relatively rare among legislation in the 21st century in that it affirms and protects a liberty of the people, rather than decreasing the liberty of the people.
That having been said, I can answer the "why" question by saying that it's for the same reason that we need the Bill of Rights. While this is clearly contrary to the intent of the founders, the reality of this situation is that we live in an age in which the absence of a law which secures a certain right for the people is often interpreted as either the absence of that right existing, or tacit permission for government / police / the courts to violate that right without consequence.
Or, put another way, why did we need a constitutional amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech and religion and the press and assembly? Well, because in a lot of countries, those things are routinely forbidden or curtailed. What do you think would happen if a Saudi newspaper columnist were to print an opinion piece which openly criticizes King Salman, claims that the Quoran is a collection of fairy tales, and advocates full equality for women and gays?
That having been said, I can answer the "why" question by saying that it's for the same reason that we need the Bill of Rights. While this is clearly contrary to the intent of the founders, the reality of this situation is that we live in an age in which the absence of a law which secures a certain right for the people is often interpreted as either the absence of that right existing, or tacit permission for government / police / the courts to violate that right without consequence.
Or, put another way, why did we need a constitutional amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech and religion and the press and assembly? Well, because in a lot of countries, those things are routinely forbidden or curtailed. What do you think would happen if a Saudi newspaper columnist were to print an opinion piece which openly criticizes King Salman, claims that the Quoran is a collection of fairy tales, and advocates full equality for women and gays?
Reply
0
0
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 34,402
Total Cats: 7,523
From: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
(Interestingly, I wonder how long it's going to take before a court finds that the President's tweets tend to incite violence, by provoking both Fa and Antifa factions into conflict?)
There's also Criminal defamation, which is a type of slander or libel.
And obscenity, that's not protected by the 1st. As an example, Ira Isaacs, the filmmaker behind the infamous "2 girls, 1 cup" video got four years in prison. Which is scary, as Justice Potter Stewart, in Jacobellis v. Ohio, could provide no definition for Obscenity other than “I know it when I see it.” (There was more than just the 2 Girls video- raunchier stuff. Must have been a hell of an interesting trial. )
Freedom of assembly is not unlimited. The State may enforce regulations of the time, place, and manner of expression. (Perry v. Perry, Frisby v. Schultz, etc.)
It took a court case (Texas v. Johnson) to clarify that burning the American flag was protected political speech, after Gregory Lee Johnson was sentenced to a year in prison for doing it.
So, yeah. There's lots of stuff that isn't protected by the 1st, and also lots of stuff that is, but for which people were arrested / punished until the courts or the legislature made it clear that that wasn't allowed.
Reply
0
0
