Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Nobody hates the 1st amendment more than Trump

Options
24

Comments

  • dhdawg
    dhdawg Member Posts: 13,326
    Options
    Burning a flag while something I would never do isn't a direct threat of violence nor incites immediate fear like yelling fire in a theatre does. If someone wants to beat someone up for it, fine, but they should be prosecuted for it.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    Options
    WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:

    HondoFS Is just mad because the authoritarian he doesn't like said this rather than the authoritarian he loves.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005

    The law would have prohibited burning or otherwise destroying and damaging the US flag with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • greenblood
    greenblood Member Posts: 14,304
    Options
    WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:

    HondoFS Is just mad because the authoritarian he doesn't like said this rather than the authoritarian he loves.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005

    Wow

    But still...
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • WeAreAFatLesboSchool
    WeAreAFatLesboSchool Guest Posts: 736
    Options
    2001400ex said:

    WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:

    HondoFS Is just mad because the authoritarian he doesn't like said this rather than the authoritarian he loves.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005

    The law would have prohibited burning or otherwise destroying and damaging the US flag with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism.
    or a breach of the peace; or (2) stealing or knowingly converting the use of a U.S. flag either belonging to the United States or on lands reserved for the United States and intentionally destroying or damaging that flag.[4]


    even the NY Times thinks you're an idiot.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/07/opinion/senator-clinton-in-pander-mode.html?_r=0

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dhdawg
    dhdawg Member Posts: 13,326
    Options
    WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:

    HondoFS Is just mad because the authoritarian he doesn't like said this rather than the authoritarian he loves.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005

    yep. and Obama repealed habeus corpus in the shitty NDAA of 2012 that he signed. everyone sucks
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dnc
    dnc Member Posts: 56,614
    Options
    dhdawg said:

    Burning a fag while something I would never do isn't a direct threat of violence nor incites immediate fear like yelling fire in a theatre does. If someone wants to beat someone up for it, fine, but they should be prosecuted for it.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    Options
    WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:

    2001400ex said:

    WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:

    HondoFS Is just mad because the authoritarian he doesn't like said this rather than the authoritarian he loves.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005

    The law would have prohibited burning or otherwise destroying and damaging the US flag with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism.
    or a breach of the peace; or (2) stealing or knowingly converting the use of a U.S. flag either belonging to the United States or on lands reserved for the United States and intentionally destroying or damaging that flag.[4]


    even the NY Times thinks you're an idiot.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/07/opinion/senator-clinton-in-pander-mode.html?_r=0

    Yeah and Hillary couldn't even get the law on the floor with a conservative Congress. Do you have a point?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dhdawg
    dhdawg Member Posts: 13,326
    Options
    2001400ex said:

    WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:

    HondoFS Is just mad because the authoritarian he doesn't like said this rather than the authoritarian he loves.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005

    The law would have prohibited burning or otherwise destroying and damaging the US flag with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism.
    Burning a flag is political speech, the SC made that determination decades ago. I don't trust the government to decide what kind of flag burning is intimidation and what isn't
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    Options
    dhdawg said:

    2001400ex said:

    WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:

    HondoFS Is just mad because the authoritarian he doesn't like said this rather than the authoritarian he loves.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005

    The law would have prohibited burning or otherwise destroying and damaging the US flag with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism.
    Burning a flag is political speech, the SC made that determination decades ago. I don't trust the government to decide what kind of flag burning is intimidation and what isn't
    Agreed. My point was,, the bill that was provided, that never left committee, had that as a clause.

    Burning the flag is FS. But it is free speech. I think our other laws already cover intimidation and terrorism.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RaceBannon
    RaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 102,657 Swaye's Wigwam
    Options
    Scalia cast the deciding vote about 20 years ago and said the same thing Trump just said but then ruled it protected speech

    That isn't the argument here. The argument is can a President elect express his opinion that the perp should be jailed? Of course he can.

    If you think that means he can do anything about it you might want to find another hobby.

    The Constitution is a living document, so I have heard, what is unconstitutional now can be constitutional tomorrow.

    Trump isn't a politician like Josh Ernst who claims he hates flag burning but the constitution and shit. Take a stand loser.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    Options
    RaceBannon said:

    Scalia cast the deciding vote about 20 years ago and said the same thing Trump just said but then ruled it protected speech

    That isn't the argument here. The argument is can a President elect express his opinion that the perp should be jailed? Of course he can.

    If you think that means he can do anything about it you might want to find another hobby.

    The Constitution is a living document, so I have heard, what is unconstitutional now can be constitutional tomorrow.

    Trump isn't a politician like Josh Ernst who claims he hates flag burning but the constitution and shit. Take a stand loser.

    If Hillary or Obama said what Trump just said, you'd call them a communist.

    HTH
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • GrundleStiltzkin
    GrundleStiltzkin Member Posts: 61,482 Standard Supporter
    Options
    2001400ex said:

    RaceBannon said:

    Scalia cast the deciding vote about 20 years ago and said the same thing Trump just said but then ruled it protected speech

    That isn't the argument here. The argument is can a President elect express his opinion that the perp should be jailed? Of course he can.

    If you think that means he can do anything about it you might want to find another hobby.

    The Constitution is a living document, so I have heard, what is unconstitutional now can be constitutional tomorrow.

    Trump isn't a politician like Josh Ernst who claims he hates flag burning but the constitution and shit. Take a stand loser.

    If Hillary or Obama said what Trump just said, you'd call them a communist.

    HTH
    You mean like Flag Protection Act of 2005 :wink:
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RaceBannon
    RaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 102,657 Swaye's Wigwam
    Options
    2001400ex said:

    RaceBannon said:

    Scalia cast the deciding vote about 20 years ago and said the same thing Trump just said but then ruled it protected speech

    That isn't the argument here. The argument is can a President elect express his opinion that the perp should be jailed? Of course he can.

    If you think that means he can do anything about it you might want to find another hobby.

    The Constitution is a living document, so I have heard, what is unconstitutional now can be constitutional tomorrow.

    Trump isn't a politician like Josh Ernst who claims he hates flag burning but the constitution and shit. Take a stand loser.

    If Hillary or Obama said what Trump just said, you'd call them a communist.

    HTH
    This is a completely moronic statement that makes no sense whatsoever.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    Options
    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    2001400ex said:

    RaceBannon said:

    Scalia cast the deciding vote about 20 years ago and said the same thing Trump just said but then ruled it protected speech

    That isn't the argument here. The argument is can a President elect express his opinion that the perp should be jailed? Of course he can.

    If you think that means he can do anything about it you might want to find another hobby.

    The Constitution is a living document, so I have heard, what is unconstitutional now can be constitutional tomorrow.

    Trump isn't a politician like Josh Ernst who claims he hates flag burning but the constitution and shit. Take a stand loser.

    If Hillary or Obama said what Trump just said, you'd call them a communist.

    HTH
    You mean like Flag Protection Act of 2005 :wink:
    Bringing a law through Congress as a member of the Senate that didn't even make it to the floor for vote. While FS, is not quite doing what Trump did.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dnc
    dnc Member Posts: 56,614
    Options
    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    2001400ex said:

    RaceBannon said:

    Scalia cast the deciding vote about 20 years ago and said the same thing Trump just said but then ruled it protected speech

    That isn't the argument here. The argument is can a President elect express his opinion that the perp should be jailed? Of course he can.

    If you think that means he can do anything about it you might want to find another hobby.

    The Constitution is a living document, so I have heard, what is unconstitutional now can be constitutional tomorrow.

    Trump isn't a politician like Josh Ernst who claims he hates flag burning but the constitution and shit. Take a stand loser.

    If Hillary or Obama said what Trump just said, you'd call them a communist.

    HTH
    You mean like Flag Protection Act of 2005 :wink:
    Bringing a law through Congress as a member of the Senate that didn't even make it to the floor for vote. While FS, is not quite doing what Trump did.
    Yes, tweeting an opinion is worse than trying to make it a law.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RaceBannon
    RaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 102,657 Swaye's Wigwam
    Options
    Almost everyone who has the vapors over what Trump tweeted had started out by saying they hate flag burning but....

    If you only have 140 characters then you have to expect your readers to not be fucking retards

    We are dealing with people here that think if you tell an actor to shut the fuck up you've trashed the constitution

    Low information types
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • GrundleStiltzkin
    GrundleStiltzkin Member Posts: 61,482 Standard Supporter
    Options
    RaceBannon said:

    Almost everyone who has the vapors over what Trump tweeted had started out by saying they hate flag burning but....

    If you only have 140 characters then you have to expect your readers to not be fucking retards

    We are dealing with people here that think if you tell an actor to shut the fuck up you've trashed the constitution

    Low information types

    If Trump's tweet is constitutional tomfoolery, I suppose Obama's statement was trampling due process.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • AIRWOLF
    AIRWOLF Member Posts: 1,840
    Options
    RaceBannon said:

    If you only have 140 characters then you have to expect your readers to not be fucking retards

    Giving Trump way too much credit. Also, why would he expect his core constituency not to be readers of his tweets.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RaceBannon
    RaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 102,657 Swaye's Wigwam
    Options
    AIRWOLF said:

    RaceBannon said:

    If you only have 140 characters then you have to expect your readers to not be fucking retards

    Giving Trump way too much credit. Also, why would he expect his core constituency not to be readers of his tweets.

    All you have to do is look at this thread to see how wrong you are
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter