Anyone who continues to work with Trump is complicit in his support of white supremacists

[Melizmatic]

@Bobo

Oh, I never assumed that you personally weren’t. The message/tirade was meant more for the peanut gallery we usually get here promoting peace regardless of the situation.

Yes, we get a few pacifists, and there is an appropriate time for pacifism… but I dont think right now is that time.

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst, my Gram always said.

[some_guy]

@lolipop_jones

On a scale of Pyongyang=10, USA=4, Somalia=0, I’m about a 2. Where are you??

Except the scale doesn’t just go left-right, it goes up-down too, and there are a lot of different ways to define all the areas in between. But if “communism = dictatorship” and “capitalism = freedom” then explain Salvador Allende and Augusto Pinochet. Economic freedom is not always the same thing as personal freedom.

[Israel_B]

@Yri

The paragraph reads like a frickin’ Dayenu of reasons to believe he is and has always been a racist.

Unfortunately people often have short or selective memories.

[Melizmatic]

[gatto]

@lolipop_jones

but if all they do is stand up and shout, they are covered by the first amendment.

first: not if its harassment. and it’s absolutely clear that the “protests” both the night before, and the day heyer was murdered, were exactly that.

when their speakers harass, intimidate, threaten, or incite violence – this passes beyond the first amendment.

second: the first amendment only covers what how the government is allowed to interact with the citizens it represents.

free speech does not mean that any other person has to put up with white terrorist bullshit. campuses are not required to give them a stage, internet sites are not required to promote or keep their posts, and their fellow citizens have every right to block their attempts to gain traction in the public sphere.

[Caleb]

Bing: I’m dreaming of a white Christmas

Elvis:
You’ll be doin’ all right, with your Christmas of white

I’ll have a blue blue Christmas

[Caleb]

Bannon has it down to a science

Goebbels Riefenstahl

Trump is the spokesperson flunky.

[ChuckV]

Don’t you need a seasonal reference?

[lolipop_jones]

@gatto

when their speakers harass, intimidate, threaten, or incite violence – this passes beyond the first amendment.

If the speakers are making explicit demands for violence I agree. “Harassment” is a lot more nebulous and I would give the speaker the benefit of the doubt.

@gatto

the first amendment only covers what how the government is allowed to interact with the citizens it represents.

The government is obligated to protect the free speech right of citizens to the extent that if someone physically assaults the speaker, that person has committed a punishable crime.

@gatto

free speech does not mean that any other person has to put up with white terrorist bullshit. campuses are not required to give them a stage, internet sites are not required to promote or keep their posts, and their fellow citizens have every right to block their attempts to gain traction in the public sphere.

I could replace “white terrorist” with “Communist” and “internet” with “movies and TV” and your statement would fit right in with America, 1954.

[emo_pinata]

@lolipop_jones

I could replace “white terrorist” with “Communist” and “internet” with “movies and TV” and your statement would fit right in with America, 1954.

So if you change the sentence it fits your attack against people standing against documented domestic terrorism in response to a domenstic terrorist running a car through a crowd. Considering there is no communist equivalent, your statement makes no sense.

[emo_pinata]

Don’t change the topic, you made a garbage comparison and can’t back it up. I don’t need to defend the statements you just assigned to me - you need to defend your lazy false equivalence.

[lolipop_jones]

@some_guy

Economic freedom is not always the same thing as personal freedom.

Let’s get our terms straight. You can have a country with a generous social safety net, paid for by taxation, and still have economic freedom. You can also have worker-owned companies and still have economic freedom.

It’s when a government authority controls who can conduct business, what and how much can be produced and sold, that economic freedom is lost.

As a rule, there are few nations low on the economic freedom scale in which personal freedom survives very long. And the reverse applies too (there was a good deal less economic freedom for Germans under Hitler than you might think).

Gotta have both.

[lolipop_jones]

No I don’t. You are equating a speaker advocating something you don’t like with a driver ramming his car into a crowd.

[One_Brown_Mouse]

@lolipop_jones

but if all they do is stand up and shout, they are covered by the first amendment.

but if they Twist and Shout they’re covered by Chubby Checker (and if you’re lucky, the Fat Boys too)

[lolipop_jones]

Does someone covering the Isley Brothers have first amendment rights?

[One_Brown_Mouse]

@lolipop_jones

You are equating a speaker advocating something you don’t like with a driver ramming his car into a crowd.

That driver was equating his ramming his car into a crowd with advocacy.

bumpers aren’t speech.

[emo_pinata]

No I didn’t, but it is not surprising that you literally equated speech you don’t like with McCarthy-it’s red scare tactics and cannot stand up to defending how it is a fair comparison.

It’s not surprising at all, and extremely intellectually dishonest.

[One_Brown_Mouse]

@lolipop_jones

Does someone covering the Isley Brothers have first amendment rights?

I’m afraid that’s a Second Amendment issue.

[lolipop_jones]

Exactly. “Speech” and “Violence” are two separate things. If I say something you do not like, that does not make it violence, if I hit someone you do not like, that does not make it speech.

[lolipop_jones]

We’re not communicating here. Sometimes that happens. Sorry bout that.