As opposed to attacking politicians cause they are republican?

https://scontent-ort2-2.cdninstagram...ninstagram.com



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


Im sorry, but if everything is racist, nothing is.


https://danlebrero.com/images/boy-who-cried-wolf.jpg


You guys ruined racism.



https://scontent-ort2-2.cdninstagram...ninstagram.com

1) Why in the world we need a bill that states that?
2) I gave a PosCaf for the basket evaluation.
3) As an aside, have Joe P and Scott S ever met in person?

DNM

I've heard that it is only one person with a split personality

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

RACEBAIT ALL OF THE THINGS!!!!!


https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net...af&oe=5DBED3DC



https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net...7f&oe=5DA9136C

#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.)

we've met for lunch once in NYC. We both got a porter and a burger. It was snowing that morning; it was a good day.

:bowrofl:

i did like the baskets. but i prefer them full of deplorables...

I've never seen them in the same place together.

I'm imagining them as one person and Joe / Scott having a discussion with himself.

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.

https://imgix.bustle.com/uploads/ima...to=format&q=70

Don't be sanctimonious. Not even Trump is denying it:

Fake news! No people named in those tweets!

It was a good day. Good beer and good company.

My question might have been asked, “What might this add to the liberty already protected by the First Amendment?”

Well, the rights under the 1st are not unlimited. There's the Fighting Words Doctrine (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire), which holds that speech which tends to incite violence can be limited.

(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.