BubberMiley Posted February 5, 2017 Report Share Posted February 5, 2017 28 minutes ago, betsy said: Eh? Say that again. Who defended Putin being a murderer? Cite. Your rant is irrelevant. It does not take away from the fact that a lot of libs have gone total bonkers - Whoopi calling for martial law, and silverman calling for a coup! They're nuts! Watch Bill O'Reilly's interview with Trump tonight before the Superbowl. After watching, ask yourself why he cannot say anything negative about Putin ever. Then remember the recently deceased KGB agent tied to the pee dossier. Then ask yourself whether that is not a little suspicious, and consider whether it would be appropriate for people to go bonkers in such a situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted February 5, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2017 Just now, BubberMiley said: Watch Bill O'Reilly's interview with Trump tonight before the Superbowl. After watching, ask yourself why he cannot say anything negative about Putin ever. Then remember the recently deceased KGB agent tied to the pee dossier. Then ask yourself whether that is not a little suspicious, and consider whether it would be appropriate for people to go bonkers in such a situation. That's not what you said. Cite where he defended Putin as a murderer! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 5, 2017 Report Share Posted February 5, 2017 4 minutes ago, BubberMiley said: Watch Bill O'Reilly's interview with Trump tonight before the Superbowl. After watching, ask yourself why he cannot say anything negative about Putin ever. Then remember the recently deceased KGB agent tied to the pee dossier. Then ask yourself whether that is not a little suspicious, and consider whether it would be appropriate for people to go bonkers in such a situation. Better Putin than Trudeau.....who can't seem to say anything but negative things about President Trump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted February 5, 2017 Report Share Posted February 5, 2017 14 minutes ago, betsy said: That's not what you said. Cite where he defended Putin as a murderer! In the interview with Bill O'Reilly. Geez. Read the news before you post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted February 5, 2017 Report Share Posted February 5, 2017 5 hours ago, betsy said: Freedom of speech is not doing fine. When protest groups can dictate what speakers can speak in public venues, you don't have freedom of speech. Freedom of choice is not doing fine. When protest groups (and certain authorities) can dictate what people must not listen to, you don't have the freedom to choose. We have the same problem in Canada. Freedom of Speech does not also guarantee that people won't object to what you say. Freedom of speech does not guarantee you an audience. It does not guarantee you a building or a room to say what you want to say. If somebody wants to say something desperately enough, but can't find a building to say it in, there are street corners and parks he or she can use. Other options are blogs, youtube, facebook, twitter, Instagram, vlogs, forums, and who-knows-what-else. This claim that freedom of speech is being impacted because people protest and venues respond is ridiculous. People protesting is one of the freedoms of our country, and is another aspect of free speech. Venues responding due to public pressure is called 'capitalism'. It is an unusual business that will put principles ahead of their bottom line, and no matter how a business owner may feel about any given speaker's views, if they perceive they'll lose more customers than they'll gain by having that speaker in their venue, they won't have that speaker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CITIZEN_2015 Posted February 5, 2017 Report Share Posted February 5, 2017 Democracy will prevail. Democratic institutions in the US are much more powerful than ONE man who has been put temporarily in charge of decision making in the US by a minority of voters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted February 5, 2017 Report Share Posted February 5, 2017 3 hours ago, betsy said: Then we too, need, law and order, don't we? We can't just let a mob of unruly protesters become the "law" on our streets! How many times does it take? The protesters we not unruly, there was a small element of interlopers that hid among the protestors. Blame the right people, and stop justifying your claims against innocent people by citing others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 5, 2017 Report Share Posted February 5, 2017 Several protesters were unlawful and refused lawful police orders to disperse once rioting began. Unwittingly, the rioting and "peaceful" protesters have played right into Trump supporters hands for more "law and order". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted February 5, 2017 Report Share Posted February 5, 2017 50 minutes ago, betsy said: That's not what you said. Cite where he defended Putin as a murderer! It's from the Fox Superbowl interview, with Bill O'Reilly. Quote “He’s a killer, though,” O’Reilly said. “Putin’s a killer.” “There are a lot of killers,” Trump answered. “We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent?” Not a first for Trump, though: Quote The subject has arisen before in connection with Trump’s view of the Russian president. In December 2015, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough told Trump: “He kills journalists that don’t agree with him.” Trump answered: “Well, I think that our country does plenty of killing, too, Joe.” Putin's a killer, but we've got a lot of killers. Tremendous killers, high-energy killers. Some of the best killers, believe me folks. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kactus Posted February 5, 2017 Report Share Posted February 5, 2017 (edited) This is an unusual presidency...This guy is a psychopath. Tells you something about his supporters.... Edited February 5, 2017 by kactus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted February 5, 2017 Report Share Posted February 5, 2017 1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said: Several protesters were unlawful and refused lawful police orders to disperse once rioting began. You are correct the interlopers impacted the rights of the protesters before the speaker. Many rights were denied by the actions of the interlopers, the right to free speech was significantly smaller than the right of the many protesters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 5, 2017 Report Share Posted February 5, 2017 1 minute ago, ?Impact said: You are correct the interlopers impacted the rights of the protesters before the speaker. Many rights were denied by the actions of the interlopers, the right to free speech was significantly smaller than the right of the many protesters. Once police officers lawfully direct that protesters are to disperse, they are violating the law if they refuse to do so. Destruction to property and assault will not be permitted to continue just because "peaceful" protesters were not directly involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted February 5, 2017 Report Share Posted February 5, 2017 4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: Once police officers lawfully direct that protesters are to disperse, they are violating the law if they refuse to do so. Correct, the police gave an order that violated the many protestors right to peaceful protest. That is what we should be lamenting here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 5, 2017 Report Share Posted February 5, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Correct, the police gave an order that violated the many protestors right to peaceful protest. That is what we should be lamenting here. Protesters do not have the right to protest amid rioting, property damage, and assault. That is not "peaceful assembly". Edited February 5, 2017 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 5, 2017 Report Share Posted February 5, 2017 12 hours ago, kimmy said: I think you have that backwards. Trans people have been discretely using opposite public restrooms for decades with extremely minimal impact on anyone. But in 2016, in response to nothing at all, the North Carolina Republicans decided to make a law against it anyway. America's red states do a lot of goofy stuff. I fail to see why Canadian progressives felt so incensed about it and let it take over their world. Suddenly that's all we were hearing, leading to our progressive prime minister jumping on the band wagon to lead the charge for new laws to protect a tiny number of people from discrimination like... not using their preferred form of address. 12 hours ago, kimmy said: The freedom of speech? When was that in jeopardy? The freedom of speech is doing fine. What I'm getting at is that there are what I like to call actual human rights (as opposed to all the new ones progressives have invented). Freedom of speech is one of those, as is, ironically, freedom of religion, assembly, etc. Progressives have demonstrated a noted lack of enthusiasm for these rights, while zealously embracing the new, far less important 'rights'. 12 hours ago, kimmy said: The rights of gay people or trans people aren't on quite as stable of ground as the right to free speech. Especially in some parts of the US, where lawmakers are constantly on the attack. That's why the protests. You can ask "well it only affects a small portion of the population so why is it a big deal?" but to me the idea that it's ok to attack people if you pick a vulnerable enough target doesn't sit well. -k When has it been 'okay' to attack anyone? We already had laws against that, correct? On the other hand, according to Ontario's human rights commissioner, it will, when Trudeau's bill is passed, become illegal to not address a transgendered person by their chosen name and pronoun. This kind of thing is apparently way more important than freedom of speech or religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted February 5, 2017 Report Share Posted February 5, 2017 6 hours ago, betsy said: Not only terror attacks. Anarchists could take advantage of the situation. A divided nation that's trying to cope with internal problems becomes more vulnerable. The possibility that its enemies will take advantage of the situation is highly likely. This notion that Americans must rally together and stop dissenting, for the safety of America, seems to lead to the conclusion that Trump supporters view dissent as a threat to the country. Is that the case? 6 hours ago, betsy said: You see that every time a black person was shot by the police in the USA.....certain groups infiltrate protests/rallies, and turn it violent. During the inauguration of Trump, a small hooded group infiltrated what would've been a peaceful rally against Trump, and resorted to violence. ...so if I get what you're saying, people need to stop protesting, because a handful of miscreants broke windows during the Trump inauguration? -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 5, 2017 Report Share Posted February 5, 2017 6 hours ago, ?Impact said: Yes, it is bad when the venue organizers want to hold the event (like the recent UC Berkley example) but decide not to because of violent interlopers. That however has absolutely nothing to do with the protestors. Wait, what? The people who own the venue deciding to shut down a speech because of protestors hurling fire bombs and breaking through doors has nothing to do with the protesters?! Did you seriously just write that?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 5, 2017 Report Share Posted February 5, 2017 1 hour ago, betsy said: That's not what you said. Cite where he defended Putin as a murderer! He did. O'Rielly said to him that Putin is a murderer and Turmp said, well, so? We've got a lot of murderers. You think our history is so good? I personally can't recall which American presidents had their opponents and critics murdered, but them I'm not a conspiracy kook like Trump. Maybe he's got a list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 5, 2017 Report Share Posted February 5, 2017 1 hour ago, dialamah said: Freedom of Speech does not also guarantee that people won't object to what you say. With hammers and bricks and Molotov cocktails... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted February 5, 2017 Report Share Posted February 5, 2017 4 minutes ago, Argus said: Wait, what? The people who own the venue deciding to shut down a speech because of protestors hurling fire bombs and breaking through doors has nothing to do with the protesters?! Interlopers hiding among protestors does not make the protestors guilty of the interlopers acts. If you want that logic, then you are personally responsible for every terrorist act that ever happened in Canada. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted February 5, 2017 Report Share Posted February 5, 2017 1 minute ago, Argus said: With hammers and bricks and Molotov cocktails... Agreed, some people do get carried away with their protesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 5, 2017 Report Share Posted February 5, 2017 56 minutes ago, ?Impact said: You are correct the interlopers impacted the rights of the protesters before the speaker. Many rights were denied by the actions of the interlopers, the right to free speech was significantly smaller than the right of the many protesters. Interesting how you somehow are able to completely divorce the 'interlopers' from the 'protestors' as if these were to distinct and separate groups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 5, 2017 Report Share Posted February 5, 2017 2 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Interlopers hiding among protestors does not make the protestors guilty of the interlopers acts. If you want that logic, then you are personally responsible for every terrorist act that ever happened in Canada. Uh huh. Interlopers. Funny, but I haven't seen any reports of 'interlopers' nor a single 'protest' from the 'protesters' who are shocked and appalled (or even surprised) at what happened. Instead they seem quite happy with the way things worked out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 5, 2017 Report Share Posted February 5, 2017 3 minutes ago, dialamah said: Agreed, some people do get carried away with their protesting. These are the people the police should ensure are carried away by ambulance to an eventual multi-year assignment on a work farm picking apples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted February 5, 2017 Report Share Posted February 5, 2017 1 minute ago, Argus said: Interesting how you somehow are able to completely divorce the 'interlopers' from the 'protestors' as if these were to distinct and separate groups. Interesting how you connect the interlopers to the protestors as if they were the same group. Just now, Argus said: These are the people the police should ensure are carried away by ambulance to an eventual multi-year assignment on a work farm picking apples. You might be happier in communist China with its work camps. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.