Pam Bondi Is Wrong About Free Speech

[West]

Just now, LinkSoul60 said:

You probably want to get someone to help you interpret what you linked and said.

The article is purely about trial law and eliminating bench trials, not judges. 

Good try though.... 😂

 

But it uses "eradicate" duh

[CdnFox]

Just now, West said:

But it uses "eradicate" duh

LOL soon as i saw his post i'm like 'he's never going to get this" 

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

"leftism" likely means "the Democratic Party" in this context.

Seems a lot harder than saying "a Nazi must be opposed"...


 

The US Democrat Party used to equate roughly with Canadian Conservatives. 

Now they are a directionless bunch of extremist activists. THAT'S "leftism" Mike. The only thing they all have in common is an insane level of pure hatred for Trump.

Soros and other wealthy people have taken advantage of this and finance NGOs that funnel the money to activist authorities. This needs to be stopped somehow.

The solution Bondi is proposing is questionable in legal terms...but their actions are driving the "culture war" you claim to abhore.

Edited September 16, 2025 by Nationalist

[LinkSoul60]

5 minutes ago, West said:

But it uses "eradicate" duh

Get someone to help you understand the summary.  If you even remotely think that 'eradicating' bench trials in any way shape or form means eradicating judges you're going to need someone to help you with that as well.  Duh....

[West]

4 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Get someone to help you understand the summary.  If you even remotely think that 'eradicating' bench trials in any way shape or form means eradicating judges you're going to need someone to help you with that as well.  Duh....

No honest person with access to Google would make such a stupid comment

[LinkSoul60]

3 minutes ago, West said:

No honest person with access to Google would make such a stupid comment

I've refrained from referring to you as that, which is why I suggested and still suggest you get someone to help you understand what the summary is about.

Maybe at the dinner table tonight ask your parents what this means - 'One simple yet meaningful way we can exercise the community jury trial right is by eliminating bench trials'.  If you get the 'you should have stayed in school' look think of this back and forth....

[Michael Hardner]

I provided a Google link for the exact phrase and it only had 2 hits - both of which pointed to the same threat.

 

Look, I am glad for people to call for civility but it begins at home.  And - yes - I have apologized myself for being nasty on here in the past too.

[West]

6 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

I've refrained from referring to you as that, which is why I suggested and still suggest you get someone to help you understand what the summary is about.

Maybe at the dinner table tonight ask your parents what this means - 'One simple yet meaningful way we can exercise the community jury trial right is by eliminating bench trials'.  If you get the 'you should have stayed in school' look think of this back and forth....

You haven't followed the discussion have you? 

[West]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

I provided a Google link for the exact phrase and it only had 2 hits - both of which pointed to the same threat.

 

Look, I am glad for people to call for civility but it begins at home.  And - yes - I have apologized myself for being nasty on here in the past too.

What i copied and pasted was the AI result i when I typed in the key words into a search engine. I am a lover Mike and oppose violence. I do support holding judges to account for turning their bench into an arm of the Democrat party tho to strike fear into political opposition. 

If you can honestly sit there and think that trying to target pepples businesses family friends with bogus legal challenges for simply having different political ideas i would suggest you are not about civility. 

[LinkSoul60]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

I provided a Google link for the exact phrase and it only had 2 hits - both of which pointed to the same threat.

 

Look, I am glad for people to call for civility but it begins at home.  And - yes - I have apologized myself for being nasty on here in the past too.

No different here... I've said things that I've had to apologize for and am sure I will again.  Maybe even today?

My 2 cents though....  It doesn't matter what 'we' are average citizens do to bring civility to our society if the persons who lead our countries have no desire to change the narrative.  Most things start at the top and as the saying goes, sh*t flows downhill.  If our political leaders want divisiveness then we'll be divisive.  If our political leaders have some sort of epiphany where they say enough is enough and regardless of your political stripes we're all the same then we may eventually get closer to a more politically sane society.  Sadly, I am not hopeful at all for the latter....

[LinkSoul60]

10 minutes ago, West said:

You haven't followed the discussion have you? 

Yes I have and stayed out of it until your link and post of eradicating bench trials and thinking that meant Cambridge is spreading hate. 

Please, go ask someone to interpret the summary for you....

[gatomontes99]

2 hours ago, West said:

What about if hypothetically they call someone a "fascist" then fund a group called "Antifa" who go around and physically assault people who you call fascists?

That is possibly not covered on free speech. Brandenburg v Ohio basically said that because the head of the KKK there called black people all kinds of names and claimed they were destroying society and all this other rascist crap but didn't explicitly or implicity say to go harm them, that it was free speech. Even though people did commit acts of violence, maybe as a result of his speech, he wasn't responsible. 

Now, had he explicitly called for killings or directed people to do it, then it wasn't free speech. If your example could show that the speech was intended to justify violence, then it would not be free speech. 

 

Edited September 16, 2025 by gatomontes99

[West]

5 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

No different here... I've said things that I've had to apologize for and am sure I will again.  Maybe even today?

My 2 cents though....  It doesn't matter what 'we' are average citizens do to bring civility to our society if the persons who lead our countries have no desire to change the narrative.  Most things start at the top and as the saying goes, sh*t flows downhill.  If our political leaders want divisiveness then we'll be divisive.  If our political leaders have some sort of epiphany where they say enough is enough and regardless of your political stripes we're all the same then we may eventually get closer to a more politically sane society.  Sadly, I am not hopeful at all for the latter....

There won't be civility when;

1. Democrats weaponize the legal system to target political opponents. This includes targeting faith groups, home school groups or others who they have ideological disagreements with. 

2. When Democrats in the media lie to demonize their opposition by calling them nazis

3. When Democrats hold bogus impeachment proceedings trying to eradicate Trump from political life thru fraudulent means

4. When Democrats do not respect basic civil liberties like freedom of expression. When they take ACTION such as an assassination to silence the other guys I dont see how there can be civility

5. When they fund or at the very least support rioters and plan to bail them out

6. When they target other peoples kids through weaponizing their ideology. 

Men like Charlie Kirk vigorously defended their ideas. The difference is the Democrats use shady action to silence dissent such as burying people in fake allegations. There's really no way to "unify" with such radicalism 

4 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Yes I have and stayed out of it until your link and post of eradicating bench trials and thinking that meant Cambridge is spreading hate. 

Please, go ask someone to interpret the summary for you....

I was actually being sarcastic. Others in the conversation were able to recognize that

[gatomontes99]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sure, I think in general we all agree with that. God knows he's been called Nazi often enough

But I would argue there's a point where it begins to cross a line. Calling a person a Nazi is one thing. Saying that a person is a Nazi who must be opposed it's starting to get a little bit close to a dangerous line and we hear that very often. Saying someone is a Nazi who must be opposed at any cost..... At any cost? Do you see where now we're into an area where it could very well be argued that the person is advocating violence and hatred

I think as soon as you start saying somebody else is evil or that we shouldn't tolerate them or that they must be silenced or the like you are stepping over a line from having an opinion about somebody you strongly suggesting that person must be eradicated.

There's a story out of old England about henry the second.  The archbisiop of canterbury was making trouble for him and in frustration he yelled out "who will rid me of this turbulent priest?!?!" 

He did not mean for it to be an order, but  his knights took it to be his wish and ran off and killed the guy. 

Even tho he didn't DIRECTLY tell anyone to ACTUALLY 'rid him' of the priest, it's been held up as an example of needing to be very careful of what you say because it's easy for words that suggest someone should be 'gone' to be misinterpreted.

I can see your points. But the king does have a certain power over knights. Maybe that isn't quite the perfect example. 

The problem with drawing the line on something subjective is that it is subjective. The Brandenburg v Ohio case was well adjudicated because it gave a well defined line. 

[LinkSoul60]

Just now, West said:

There won't be civility when;

1. Democrats weaponize the legal system to target political opponents. This includes targeting faith groups, home school groups or others who they have ideological disagreements with. 

2. When Democrats in the media lie to demonize their opposition by calling them nazis

3. When Democrats hold bogus impeachment proceedings trying to eradicate Trump from political life thru fraudulent means

4. When Democrats do not respect basic civil liberties like freedom of expression. When they take ACTION such as an assassination to silence the other guys I dont see how there can be civility

5. When they fund or at the very least support rioters and plan to bail them out

6. When they target other peoples kids through weaponizing their ideology. 

Men like Charlie Kirk vigorously defended their ideas. The difference is the Democrats use shady action to silence dissent such as burying people in fake allegations. There's really no way to "unify" with such radicalism 

You sound like a mini-Trump, except that he knows right from wrong whereas you don't.  He doesn't care about right and wrong and simply espouses divisiveness for his self-serving political purposes.  You're just a follower who has chosen to let Trump do your thinking and to set your standards.  

To my last comment of not being hopeful, touché...

 

[West]

1 minute ago, LinkSoul60 said:

You sound like a mini-Trump, except that he knows right from wrong whereas you don't.  He doesn't care about right and wrong and simply espouses divisiveness for his self-serving political purposes.  You're just a follower who has chosen to let Trump do your thinking and to set your standards.  

To my last comment of not being hopeful, touché...

 

A good chunk of the population in the US sees the same way. They see pro lifers getting multi year sentences and politicians legal representation having their law offices raided. I dont think its a "conspiracy theory" or unreasonable to be concerned.

[LinkSoul60]

11 minutes ago, West said:

I was actually being sarcastic. Others in the conversation were able to recognize that

Good back peddle 👍

[LinkSoul60]

Just now, West said:

A good chunk of the population in the US sees the same way. They see pro lifers getting multi year sentences and politicians legal representation having their law offices raided. I dont think its a "conspiracy theory" or unreasonable to be concerned.

I see a lot of reasons to be concerned...  Politics have always divided people but the level of divisiveness and anger that we've seen this last decade only appears to be increasing. That's awesome that 'a good chunk' of the population see's divisiveness and anger as a way of life isn't it....

[Michael Hardner]

37 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

 ....  It doesn't matter what 'we' are average citizens do to bring civility to our society if the persons who lead our countries have no desire to change the narrative.   

It's an interesting question. 

Both American parties poll and product test candidates and messages over and over 

I think part of the reason the populists like MAGA is that they clearly don't do that. 

But.... There is still some feedback. If you look at the messages that they've abandoned, for example Trump being quiet on vaccines whereas he was very pro-vaccine at one point. If you look at those messages, you'll find that sometimes the people actually lead the leaders. 

Interesting though.

[West]

22 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

I see a lot of reasons to be concerned...  Politics have always divided people but the level of divisiveness and anger that we've seen this last decade only appears to be increasing. That's awesome that 'a good chunk' of the population see's divisiveness and anger as a way of life isn't it....

Certainly never to the level of raiding the opposition law offices though. That is what youd expect to see in the USSR.

[Nationalist]

47 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

No different here... I've said things that I've had to apologize for and am sure I will again.  Maybe even today?

My 2 cents though....  It doesn't matter what 'we' are average citizens do to bring civility to our society if the persons who lead our countries have no desire to change the narrative.  Most things start at the top and as the saying goes, sh*t flows downhill.  If our political leaders want divisiveness then we'll be divisive.  If our political leaders have some sort of epiphany where they say enough is enough and regardless of your political stripes we're all the same then we may eventually get closer to a more politically sane society.  Sadly, I am not hopeful at all for the latter....

Ok...should we punish those who perpetrated the RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA bullshit? Maybe stick Hilary-Billary in a cage?

Should we punish Trump for holding a rally and protest?

Where do you start?

IMO...this cannot start at the top because they are elected and will do whatever it takes to get re-elected. It starts with you...and me...the people.

[Chrissy1979]

Just now, Nationalist said:

Ok...should we punish those who perpetrated the RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA bullshit? Maybe stick Hilary-Billary in a cage?

Should we punish Trump for holding a rally and protest?

Where do you start?

IMO...this cannot start at the top because they are elected and will do whatever it takes to get re-elected. It starts with you...and me...the people.

You can always tell the people who work hard for Putin. They’re the ones always professing his innocence.

[West]

4 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Ok...should we punish those who perpetrated the RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA bullshit? Maybe stick Hilary-Billary in a cage?

Should we punish Trump for holding a rally and protest?

Where do you start?

IMO...this cannot start at the top because they are elected and will do whatever it takes to get re-elected. It starts with you...and me...the people.

You blame "MAGA" while simultaneously giving supposed moderates a pass for doing pre dawn SWAT raids against political opponents. 

Edit for Mike

Edited September 16, 2025 by West

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, LinkSoul60 said:

I've refrained from referring to you as that, which is why I suggested and still suggest you get someone to help you understand what the summary is about.

Maybe at the dinner table tonight ask your parents what this means - 'One simple yet meaningful way we can exercise the community jury trial right is by eliminating bench trials'.  If you get the 'you should have stayed in school' look think of this back and forth....

You can't figure out the discussion but somehow it's @West's fault that you're not getting it. 

Typical. Still practicing your debate skills against 6 year olds i see. 

[Nationalist]

2 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

You can always tell the people who work hard for Putin. They’re the ones always professing his innocence.

@LinkSoul60

This is the sort of garbage accusations that fuel the fires. This...person...has no idea who I work for, or if I work for anyone. She's mad 'cause I dont agree with her and feel an uncontrollable need to beak off.

Its starts with level headed people coming down on the insanity on their own sides of the arguments.