DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus And The Violence Begins...

jesus clem, why can't you just let me be angry? always gotta make an enlightening post and calm me down. so frustrating.

LOL......love well-timed humor.

We're hardly in the same boat. The far left is still the far left and fringe. But Tucker and company have trained you to believe that progressives like me are the far left. That corporate dems who act just like republicans are the only decent dems. That's ridiculous.

I've never been "party line Republican" any more than I've ever been "party line democrat". That's what pisses off people on both sides and why I get labeled by both sides. And I'm fine with that. I'll never be a sheep that blindly follows extremists on either side.

And Joy and company have trained you republicans are evil and racist. C'mon man, the media is there to get you mad so you buy stuff they advertise.

Ever notice how all they can do is scream "Venezuela!"? They never want to talk about most all of the rest of the free world and how they actually put their people over politics and are doing well. They find the worse case scenario and pretend that's that's the norm when anyone with a brain knows better.

Fair enough, won't be the last time I'm wrong thinking I understand somebody's POV from conversing. It happens.

Can you tell me exactly what that has to do with knowing who is getting billions and billions in subsidies? And the farmers certainly do. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing but if you're gong to keep droning on about government handouts, stop trying to pick and choose. Your claim has been that our government is handing out money to do nothing. When you hand out money for people not to grow crops, that's exactly what you're describing.

I do. But you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. You can't yell bomb on a plane. Inciting a riot is a crime. It seems more and more people are understanding that saying things that cause chaos is not actually about free speech.

I'm not quite sure where I draw the line on this so it's not like I'm trying to take a stand here. I'm just saying there certainly are limits to free speech.

You can yell fire in a crowded theater, if there is a fire. But go to the tired trope example.

Limiting a right should, at a minimum, require strict scrutiny.

So you have no legitimate response. Figures.

Keep in mind your opinion is not fact, if you don't like mine you can be insulting or make an actual argument. We see what you choose ad nauseum.

It seems you lack the understanding as to what an insult is. Either that or you're highly sensitive.


In case you missed it, this isn't an actual argument.

Ah, strict scrutiny. My bar exam repressed memories come back to haunt me.

You're not really saying anything differently than what he said there. It's a frequently-used example, but it's valid nonetheless. Given the fact you utilized the legalese phrase, I'm betting you also know about all the types of unprotected speech that have made it through the courts, which go beyond Pit's example. There's a whole host of unprotected speech categories that have survived judicial review. We just witnessed a huge celebrity trial covering one of them.

I, like you, am also a proponent of the First Amendment and the Freedom of Speech, but I certainly don't disagree with what the Court has determined to be categories of unprotected speech either. It seems like "incitement" seems to be the hot topic category of today (or I suppose defamation if you're more into celebrity stuff than politics).

Direct incitement seems to be a valid category for being unprotected, but even then it is slippery. We have to be careful with the "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" method of restricting rights. Is a bunch of teenagers in a theatre yelling fire actually incitement or is it just annoying and stupid? What about a more mature person that might be taken more seriously?

Enumerated constitutionally protected rights should not be restricted if there is another way of mitigating abuse, in my opinion. That said I am a fan of freedom and I believe in personal responsibility, I don't believe the government is here to nanny us and for the most part should stay way from our rights. This isn't always a popular opinion.

For what it's worth, I don't see "hate speech" as direct incitement and I do believe it should be protected. I don't have to like what someone says, or agree with it, to agree with their right to say it. I get this is even less a popular opinion in the shout at each other political debate world.

This was.

We know the test. It just has to be applied in the various scenarios. Is the restricting construct narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest? Roberts himself came out and emphasized that narrowly tailored does not equate to "perfectly tailored."

j/c...

Hat tip to the tipster who called police.

With the exception of limiting Women's Rights and what they do with their bodies. Then it's not a right - it was a mistake but the SC.

Straw argument, especially since you seem to be indicating I approve of an abortion ban.

‘Pack Your Stuff and Get Out of My House,’ Says Patriot Front Member’s Mom

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pack-stuff-house-says-patriot-003530647.html

27 years old and was still living at moms house.

Funny that’s the image you used, because that’s the kind of women these losers believe they’re ENTITLED to date lmao

Which really wasn't much different than what I was saying. Had you stuck to it that would have been fine. We were on our way to at least some form of agreement to at least a great extent. But while you always seem to be the one pointing the finger, you couldn't help but put that snide comment in there. Don't feel like I'm pointing the finger at you alone, I do the same thing. The only difference seems to be I step up and own it.

You see, the yelling fire in a crowded theater and yelling bomb on an airplane aren't the only limits. There's libel, defamation, slander and inciting a riot. All force accountability on the one stating or publishing their words. I'm not for further limits on free speech just like yourself. I do however look at the world around me today and wonder if and when these laws need to be more firmly enforced.

I'm not commenting on your specific views about abortion bans. Just in general - rights need to be protected - except when women's rights are involved. That seems to be a trend. Gay and LGBQT rights too possibly by extension based on the draft opinion. Based on your response - and possible neutrality or anti-roll back stance on Roe vs Wade ... you sound like you agree.

I made a clarifying remark and you get your panties bunched.

You can, indeed, yell fire in a theatre. A more correct statement on the limits of free speech would be you can't yell fire in a theatre to incite panic and a riot.

To be fair, the statement for yelling fire is so very overused by people who have no real idea what they are talking about when discussing a right.

Example: No right is absolute, you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre so it seems natural that you can't have semi-automatic firearms.

You like to be pedantic and find the littlest flaw to argue, but no no, you shouldn't be subjected to the same.

I wonder if Nicholas Roske was as well.

You, as per your usual self ignored that I said I did the same thing. How convenient of you. You ignored that I pointed out that libel, slander and defamation were also limits on free speech. Once again you have no desire to to have a discussion or you would have addressed those points.

I don't care what you post or how you post. Just try manning up and owning it. I have no problem admitting I'm very snarky, sarcastic and more direct than some people care for. But you refuse to do the same.

a loser? absolutely. glad his sister got him to come to his senses. but he's absolutely a loser.

see how easy it is to call things out and not go "but whatabout"

try it sometime.

I apologize. I must have missed where you made fun of Nicholas Roske for being 26 and living at home like a looser.

"but whatabout" is the name of the game around these here parts so often. Biden's economy is bad "but whatabout the criminal" Trump is horrible "but what about the dude that doesn't know where they are".

It is part and parcel of political "discourse" these days. You hold up an example of something you don't like, but to be honest both sides have the stuff.

And yet when treated to the same you complain. Maybe you should go off for self reflection and realize when you give people BS you are going to see it returned to you.

To be fair,you said something similar, but with less precision than I did, originally. You have also said it in the past. You seem to like finding those little imprecise things to wedge your arguments into, but again you don't appreciate the turn around of it.

he is absolutely a loser.

you brought him up. i called him a loser.

i dont need to bring up trump or anyone else. there is zero defense for clowns like this. dont care what you believe, the moment you threaten other people physically over politics, you're a bum.

Pointing something obvious out isn't complaining. Hypocrisy is a dish best served cold. Here you were claiming you wanted a discussion and yet still refuse to engage in it. Par for the course. It's obvious you do not wish to discuss the topic no matter how much you lied about it.

As of January 2022

34% of Americans say violence against government is sometimes justified, new poll finds

Thirty-four percent of Americans think violent action against the government is sometimes justified, according to a new poll from The Washington Post and the University of Maryland released days ahead of the one-year anniversary of the insurrection at the US Capitol.

The new figure “is considerably higher than in past polls by the Post or other major news organizations dating back more than two decades,” according to the newspaper. The survey, conducted between December 17 and 19, revealed stark partisan splits on the question: 40% of Republicans and 41% of independents said violence against government is sometimes justified, compared to 23% of Democrats.

In a separate CBS News-YouGov poll released Sunday, 62% of Americans said they expect violence over losing in future presidential elections; 38% said they expect the losing side will concede peacefully. At least a quarter of Americans said “force might be justified,” depending on the situation, regarding issues like civil rights, gun policies, election results and labor.

Thursday marks the one-year anniversary of the January 6 attack, during which supporters of then-President Donald Trump stormed the Capitol in an attempt to stop lawmakers from certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Rioters attacked law enforcement officers and destroyed parts of the iconic building, with the violent event leading to the deaths of multiple people the day of the attack or shortly thereafter, while several officers who responded to the Capitol during the attack later died by suicide.

The Post-UMD poll found 60% of Americans feel Trump bears “a great deal” or “good amount” of responsibility for his role in the attack. Self-identified Republicans and Trump supporters in the poll tended to think he bears less responsibility.

In the CBS News-YouGov poll, 62% of Americans said they think Trump should “not seek the presidency again,” while 26% said he should run in 2024. The former President has not announced a bid for a second term but is seen by many as the likely Republican frontrunner should he run again.

Shortly after the insurrection, the House impeached Trump for inciting the mob, though he was later acquitted by the Senate in a vote that took place after his tenure ended. A small minority of Republicans voted with Democrats to impeach him in the House and convict in the Senate, but Trump has continued to hold significant influence over the direction of the GOP, with his loyalist members downplaying the violence on January 6 in the months since the attack.

The Post-UMD survey found that 54% of Americans believe rioters who entered the Capitol were “mostly violent,” while 19% view them as “mostly peaceful,” and another 27% see them as “equally peaceful and violent.” Democrats were much more likely to view them as mostly violent (78%) compared to Republicans (26%).

There was more agreement about violence against law enforcement officers that day, with 87% saying they think “some protesters injured police officers” and 10% saying “everyone acted peacefully.”

More than 700 people have been charged by the Justice Department in connection with the Capitol riot, with the offenses ranging from illegally entering the building to assaulting officers and members of the media.

The Post-UMD poll was conducted among 1,101 adults online and by phone. The overall results have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

The CBS-YouGov poll was conducted from December 27 to December 30 among 2,063 adults. The overall results have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.6 percentage points.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/02/politics/january-6-poll-violence-against-government/index.html

so since i'll be getting professional training for the fam, what do you think i should start my daughters off with?

i was thinking a M9 to learn, but maybe a rocket launcher or flamethrower would be more appropriate.

House passes expanded security for Supreme Court justices’ families, 27 Democrats vote ‘no’


The House passed a bill on Tuesday that would provide security protections to family members of Supreme Court justices, sending the measure to President Biden’s desk for final approval.

The legislation, dubbed the Supreme Court Police Parity Act, cleared the House in a 396-27 vote, with only Democrats objecting to the measure.

Passage in the lower chamber comes more than a month after the Senate approved the bill by unanimous consent — meaning all 100 lawmakers signed off on the measure, allowing it to clear without having to go through a formal vote.

The bill offers “around-the-clock security protection” to family members of Supreme Court justices and “any officer” of the bench if the Court Marshall deems it necessary, protections similar to those received by some executive and congressional officials.

Supreme Court justices already have federal protection.

The month-long delay was the result of a standoff between the House and Senate: Democrats in the lower chamber wanted to pass an expanded bill that also offered protections to Supreme Court staff, including judicial clerks, if the Court Marshall deemed it necessary.

Senate Republicans, however, were refusing to pass that bill. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters on Monday that the House version “is not going to pass the Senate.”

“The security issue is related to Supreme Court justices, not nameless staff that no one knows,” he added.

On Tuesday night, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) revealed that the House would vote on the Senate bill, sponsored by Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Chris Coons (D-Del).

Asked why Democrats had decided to accept the Senate version as written, Hoyer said “I can’t really give you an explanation, because adding more employees doesn’t seem like a very controversial thing to do.”

Hoyer added he was “surprised” by the Senate pushback to the expanded proposal. “But it is what it is. And we’re going to move the bill,” he added.

The Senate introduced the security bill days after Politico sent shockwaves throughout the country by publishing a draft majority opinion that showed the bench prepared to overturn Roe v. Wade, the nearly 50-year-old Supreme Court decision that safeguards the right to abortion on the federal level.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the draft opinion that “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” adding that “a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history.”

Protests broke out across the country following the leak, and abortion rights activists, the Biden administration and Democrats countrywide are reportedly preparing a range of actions should Roe be overturned.

A final ruling in the case — involving a Mississippi law that outlaws nearly all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy — is expected by the end of the month.

Republicans upped the pressure to pass the bill last week, after an armed man who said he wanted to kill Justice Brett Kavanaugh was arrested near the justice’s home and charged with attempted murder.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) made three requests to pass the bill by unanimous consent over the past week, all of which failed.

In remarks from the House floor Tuesday, McCarthy said he was “glad” Democratic leadership brought the Senate bill up for a vote, but questioned why it took so long.

“The House Democrats have delayed it for more than a month. The question the American public asks is why? Why would you delay it?” McCarthy said.

“We have all known that additional security has been necessary since the Dobbs opinion was leaked last month,” he added, citing the Supreme Court leak before pointing to the assassination attempt of Kavanaugh.

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), during debate of the bill on the House floor Tuesday, said “in the interest of protecting the justices’ families we can no longer delay in passing the only version of the bill [Republicans] would apparently agree to.”

He called the Senate bill “the best we can get,” adding in a separate comment “I hope we will move swiftly another bill to extend protection to families of employees as well.”

The California Democrat blamed Republicans for delaying the vote, condemning his colleagues across the aisle for not getting on board with the expanded measure that also offered protection to families of employees.

“Let me tell you why it took us a few weeks rather than just one week to pass this legislation. It’s because Republicans refuse to protect the families of Supreme Court employees who are at risk,” Lieu said. “Shame on you for not doing that.”

Congressman Dan Bishop (R-N.C.) accused Democrats of holding up the security bill as a way to protect the individual who leaked the draft majority opinion overturning Roe v. Wade.

The leaker is not known to the public, and the underlying motivation remains unclear. Chief Justice John Roberts ordered an investigation into the leak, though no details have been provided since.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) on the House floor said the bill “should’ve passed a darn long time ago,” adding “better late than never.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/...ections-to-supreme-court-family-members/


The damn GOPers were out acting like dems didn't want to pass protection, while dems actually wanted it extended to court employees who also receive threats as well. Shameful double talk and innuendos because it was Republicans refusing to protect employees.

Use the AK-15. It's all the rage these days and seems that people claim it's great for not only hunting, but shooting and home protection as well. From that description it sounds like the best weapon ever invented.

NYT columnist calls out media downplaying Kavanaugh assassination attempt

Douthat said assassination attempt would've "undoubtedly received" massive attention if it had come from the right

https://www.foxnews.com/media/nyt-columnist-calls-media-downplaying-kavanaugh-assassination-attempt

Yep, 2 sets of Laws and now 2 sets of Morals in Amerika.

Shame!

Tears for beers Kavanaugh was never in any real danger. Oh the faux victimhood of the thin-skinned MAGATS is just priceless. They should assign some gravy militia to protect him, that's all he deserves.