Post New

This has been easy to see from a mile away.

Advisers to former President Donald J. Trump said they would not commit to another debate, one they had already agreed to participate in, now that the Democrats have changed candidates from President Biden to Vice President Kamala Harris.

No surprise. The rapist felon has always been a wuss.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/25/us/politics/tru...

Lemme guess 'bone spurs'? LOL

The GOP has chosen a weak, old, scared little weirdo to represent them.

Don't take my word for it, listen to his VP pick, JD Vance, who said Trump is "noxious." "My God what an idiot" "He's a monster" "I never liked him"
"One of the most hated and douchey celebs" "I go back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical a**hole like Nixon or that he's America's Hitler. How's that for discouraging?"
"Definitely an element of Donald Trump’s support that has its basis in racism and xenophobia"
"Fellow Christians, everyone is watching us when we apologize for this man. Lord help us."

Lord help us. Amen.

The current projections are that he will win the election. So why debate? It's just an opportunity for him to screw up.

Though that could change. Apparently, Harris is running tighter than Biden did, and is gaining momentum.

am feeling that trump will eventually be forced to another debate, and the dems , again, will waste any leverage on rules that limit the volume of lies and off-topic replies that will be given free airtime.
(based on fact that harris seemed ok with terms set by the abysmal biden debate team)

the dems , again, will waste any leverage on rules that limit the volume of lies and off-topic replies

Those don't really matter. Harris just needs to adopt Trump's debate strategy. Don't answer any questions, just go to your stock list of talking points.

I'd tweak that a little bit. Answer the question in 5 seconds or so, then go on to the talking points - which should mainly be a repetition of Convict Trump's offenses and when possible loosely related to the question. For example:


Moderator: Vice President Harris, how would you address the war in Gaza?

VP: Israel has a right to defend itself, and how it does so matters. My opponent prefers to coddle dictators, strong men, and autocrats like Putin, Xi, and Kim. He would let Putin have Ukraine rather than stand up to Putin's unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country. He would let Xi take Taiwan just to keep cheap products flowing to the US so his billionaire friends can make more money.

--Peter

Moderator: Vice President Harris, how would you address the war in Gaza?

VP: Israel has a right to defend itself, and how it does so matters. My opponent prefers to coddle dictators, strong men, and autocrats like Putin, Xi, and Kim. He would let Putin have Ukraine rather than stand up to Putin's unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country. He would let Xi take Taiwan just to keep cheap products flowing to the US so his billionaire friends can make more money.

I've e-mailed a few hypotheticals to Harris' team. Maybe they just get deleted, maybe someone takes a look. I'd send that to them...

Mine: "Mr. Trump has just used a tactic his advisor, Steve Bannon, who happens to be in prison (or is awaiting trial on felony fraud charges) calls flooding the zone with manure. It would take more than the alloted time to respond to those lies so I will actually respond to the debate question.

so basically the same strategy biden was unable to execute? seems uninspired.

why not try real-time fact-checking to truncate a full 30sec of nonsense. or a moderator with a iron grip on facts, willing&able to challenge via mic control. let MAGA cry about it afterwards.

why not try real-time fact-checking to truncate a full 30sec of nonsense. or a moderator with a iron grip on facts, willing&able to challenge via mic control. let MAGA cry about it afterwards. - weatherman

-------------------

Can't let opinions and ideas you don't agree with out in public, don't cha know.

bighairymike: Can't let opinions and ideas you don't agree with out in public, don't cha know.

No one's talking about opinions and ideas.

For example, at the first debate Trump said: “Nobody ever cut taxes like us. He wants to raise your taxes by four times. He wants to raise everybody’s taxes by four times. He wants the Trump tax cuts to expire.”

That's a lie.

Biden’s tax plan does not raise taxes for 98% of households. And Biden wants to extend the majority of the Trump tax cuts, too, though he has advocated for hiking taxes on very high earners.

Trump also said: “The fact is that his big kill on the Black people is the millions of people that he’s allowed to come through the border. They’re taking Black jobs now.”

Set aside the insulting undefined "opinion" of what "Black jobs" are and the facts are clear: the Black unemployment rate fell to 4.8% in April 2023 — an all-time low.

So, another lie.

Trump said he "ended catch and release."

Yep, another lie.

The U.S. doesn’t have enough facilities to detain every migrant who crosses the border until they can see judges, no matter who is president, so Trump — like Barack Obama before him and Biden after him — released migrants back into the U.S.

You may incorrectly think of those Trumpisms as "opinions" but they're not.

Try harder.

Escape the cult.

Can't let opinions and ideas you don't agree with out in public, don't cha know.

Fact-checking is not disagreeing with opinions and ideas. It is identifying lies.

For example, claiming there was widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election is a lie. It is not an opinion or an idea. No credible evidence of such widespread fraud has ever been found. Those bits that have been spun around the MAGAsphere over the last 4 years have all been proven to be lies. Again, this isn't an opinion or an idea. These are facts.

--Peter

why not try real-time fact-checking to truncate a full 30sec of nonsense. or a moderator with a iron grip on facts, willing&able to challenge via mic control.

A buzzer and flashing red light activate, then a debunking chyron pops up on the tv screen and on a display shown to the candidates!

Or..... after each candidate has finished addressing a topic, lies from both sides are debunked in real time.

I'm all for fact-checking. But I would be surprised if any politician would agree to a debate that included it. Maybe I'm being cynical.

Convict Trump would come out much worse than Harris with such a thing, but no politician wants to be told real-time that they got something wrong.

I'm all for fact-checking.

Real time fact checking is a non-starter this time.

One candidate has proven failed fact checks don’t matter to him or his supporters. And the very few undecideds already know he lies a lot. But even just one or two failed fact checks would hurt the other candidate.

With such a mis-match of consequences, there’s no reason for Harris to suggest it or agree to it.

—Peter

bighairymike: Can't let opinions and ideas you don't agree with out in public, don't cha know.

No one's talking about opinions and ideas.

For example, at the first debate Trump said: “Nobody ever cut taxes like us. He wants to raise your taxes by four times. He wants to raise everybody’s taxes by four times. He wants the Trump tax cuts to expire.”

That's a lie.

--------------

It is entirely OK to express LIES too. The bigger, that fatter, is it still OK. and by either side, or all five sides, it it still so OK. Maybe not OK in your eyes, but your opinion although you are to free to express it is not final and never can be. Or my opinion either. Get it? See how that works....

It is entirely OK to express LIES too.

Sometimes, yes. Sometimes not.

There is room for exaggeration of the kind you highlighted. "Wants to raise everybody's taxes by four times" is something I can let go as a rhetorical device - overstating something for effect.

But lies can also be destructive when they are an attempt to pass the lie off as actual fact, like my voter fraud example earlier in the thread. Those lies are not OK, and never will be.

Presidents - and politicians in general - have always used both. But they use them in the right time and right place. What Trump has done over the past several years as a politician has gone far beyond the expected use of lies. He is constantly going in the dangerous direction with them, to the point where his supporters actually believe many of them as truth. The attack on the Capitol is another example. It's very hard to look at any individual statement from Trump in the days and hours leading up to the attack and say that some lie was OK and others were not. But when you instead switch points of view and talk to the attackers, time after time you hear them saying that the President told them to do it - that they were following his instructions.

When your supporters start saying things like that, you have crossed the line into lies that are destructive.

--Peter

When your supporters start saying things like that, you have crossed the line into lies that are destructive.

--Peter

---------------

And so?

Those lies are not OK, and never will be.


How about making up a dossier and impeaching a President over it? Is that a destructive lie?

How about making up a dossier and impeaching a President over it? Is that a destructive lie?

Trump’s 1st impeachment had to do with Trump abuse of power over a phone call and obstruction of Congress.

Trump’s 2nd impeachment had to do with incitement of insurrection.

The Steel dossier had to do with Russian interference in a U.S. election.

Trump was not impeached over the Steel dossier.

"For example, claiming there was widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election is a lie. It is not an opinion or an idea. No credible evidence of such widespread fraud has ever been found. Those bits that have been spun around the MAGAsphere over the last 4 years have all been proven to be lies. Again, this isn't an opinion or an idea. These are facts.

BHM doesn't deal in facts. He deals in feelings.

So you can show him facts and figures about crime and how it is dropping, and it just seems like more crime because the world is smaller and through social media we are more aware of even the little crime that is happening, but he doesn't care. He 'feels' crime is worse than it was and that is all that matters. Same with inflation, employment, immigration, etc. Facts do not matter, only his feelings.

That is also why the propaganda his political masters feed him to keep him in line is so effective. They aren't trying to change his mind with facts. They just have to reassure his 'feelings".

Thanks. It’s hard to keep track of the lies and bullcrap the democrats firehouse all over the body politic. When it comes to brazenly lying, nothing touches that cesspool of a party.

When it comes to brazenly lying, nothing touches that cesspool of a party.

Puleeeeze

Gifted article from the WaPo below.

Trump’s false or misleading claims total 30,573 over 4 years

And that was in January 2021 and just 1 Republican!!!

If you can find an article about the entire Democrat party having a tenth of that many lies and misleading claims over 4 years, please post it.

I admit it was bad when MSNBC had to pay Dominion over three-quarters of a billion dollars dollars for lies they told and America’s mayor Rudy Giuliani was disbarred for lying, but those are rare Democrat lies.



https://wapo.st/3LG2gK4

That’s nice. I’m. Talking about a your party. How many lies did Biden tell in the debate?

"How about making up a dossier and impeaching a President over it? Is that a destructive lie?"

Perhaps you should actually read the Mueller report rather than keep playing the fool. Seriously.

1. Trump wasn't impeached over the Steele dossier. Why are you lying by implying he was?
2. The Steel Dossier was not "made up". You are a liar for saying that. For the more well-informed people, they would know that the Steele document was a political opposition report. An opposition a report is a report containing whatever negative reporting about an opposition candidate that can be dug up. When written correctly (and there has never been a suggestion that it was not written correctly), there are many sections to the report. One of the sections would be 100% verified information. For example, Trump has had bankruptcies in his past. That is easily verified through public records. Another would be that Trump has been married multiple times, cheating on previous wives. Again, that is all easily verified. I am quite sure both of those items were included in the report. You don't think those items were "made up" do you?

Another section would be on information that cannot be 100% verified, but enough people are willing to collaborate that it is likely true. Trump being friends with Jeffery Epstein and partying with him and flying on his plane. Trump walking into the dressing room of the Miss Teen pageant and ogling the teens as they were half dressed would also fall under this category. His sales and business dealings with Russian underworld crime figures would also fall into this category.

None of this stuff is "made up". They are all events that there is information to support these rumors.

Then there would be rumors that are unverifiable. They are unverifiable, but that does not mean that they were "made up". Like most rumors of such nature, they could be true, they might be false, they might be partially true. The report would make quite clear that these are unverified rumors. The story about when Trump was in Russia and the Russians goaded him with prostitutes and secretly recorded them having sex (with one of the participants peeing on the others in the bed) would fall into this category. These rumors were not "made up" by anyone connected to the Steel dossier. They were just rumors that could be dug up but could not be verified.

I find it hilarious that you automatically think these rumors are false and made up. You have absolutely no way of knowing if they are true or not at all. That is the whole point of that section of the report.

Stop lying about stuff. Educate yourself. Take the time to read the Mueller report and stop playing the fool on the internet.

When it comes to brazenly lying, nothing touches that cesspool of a party.

A statement clearly in opposition to the facts.

You are in a cult.

Not only has no evidence for meaningful voter fraud ever been found, it has been looked for exhaustively, and I mean with the finest tooth combs imaginable.

Not only has no evidence for meaningful voter fraud ever been found, it has been looked for exhaustively, and I mean with the finest tooth combs imaginable.

I live in the Phoenix area. There was a bunch of questionable stuff initiated by the Republicans to recount the votes with a shady third-party vendor. They were so sure they would find fraud. Turns out that Biden took Arizona by more than the official count (a few hundred votes), per that shady third-party vendor. If you believe the shady company. Though the official count stands (as it should). I just thought it was hilarious that the Reps created a vote-counting theater, and ended up with egg on their faces courtesy of the partisan company they hired. :-)

i would absolutely watch that debate.
look no further than some replies on this thread for MAGA unable to discern opinion from facts.

they are not benefiting for what has been on loop uncontested from trump since 2016. waiting til the end of a show\debate\question means facing a pile so deep MAGA can not remember the question or topic.

And so?

Well, I could go into a long response, expanding on what I've already said. But that won't make any difference to you. You'll just find some words that sound bad and say they apply to me. And you'll find a few words that sound good and apply them to you.

That's because you are nothing more than a hero-bot. You don't care about the meanings of words, you just sort them into "good" and "bad". All the "good" words apply to you and your Trumpist friends. All the "bad" words apply to anyone who opposes you - which includes me at the moment.

So I won't take your bait and try to debate you. Because you aren't interested in debate. You are only interested in making yourself feel good. You have to make yourself the hero, and you only have one trick to do that, by labeling me with "bad" words and labeling yourself with "good" words.

--Peter

>>And so?

Well, I could go into a long response, expanding on what I've already said. But that won't make any difference to you. You'll just find some words that sound bad and say they apply to me. And you'll find a few words that sound good and apply them to you.

That's because you are nothing more than a hero-bot. You don't care about the meanings of words, you just sort them into "good" and "bad". All the "good" words apply to you and your Trumpist friends. All the "bad" words apply to anyone who opposes you - which includes me at the moment.

So I won't take your bait and try to debate you. - peter

---------------

OK, but it was a serious question. And so?

I will answer that question with what you implied but were too timid? or something to state explicitly...


>>When your supporters start saying things like that, you have crossed the line into lies that are destructive.

--Peter<<

---------------

And so?

And so the power of the state should be applied to prevent such lies from being expressed in the first place.

Personally, I think granting that power is more dangerous than any so called lie.

And so?

And so the power of the state should be applied to prevent such lies from being expressed in the first place.

Personally, I think granting that power is more dangerous than any so called lie. </i?>

The paradox of tolerance states that if a society's practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them. Karl Popper describes the paradox as arising from the fact that, in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.

So basically we want to drive a stake through the heart of the beast.

..And so?

And so the power of the state should be applied to prevent such lies from being expressed in the first place.

Personally, I think granting that power is more dangerous than any so called lie. <<

The paradox of tolerance states that if a society's practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them. Karl Popper describes the paradox as arising from the fact that, in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.

So basically we want to drive a stake through the heart of the beast. - Lapsody

---------------

What about my position is intolerant?

I am advocating that the expression of all views, comments, opinions, and yes even lies should be tolerated ((by either side if that needs to be stated). The person hearing them can sort out what to believe or not believe or to investigate further. Any other solution requires a Ministry of Truth which I claim is more dangerous than any lie.

Anyway, I will vote based on my own views and not be ruled by a paradox. Am I allowed to say that?

You pretty much did exactly as I predicted. You found something bad to say about me by making up a story - a story where I'm the bad guy and you are the good guy.

It's the only trick you have. It's all you know how to do. Make yourself the hero by putting your opponents down. It's as if you are drowning in a sea of doubt, climbing on top of anyone you can to keep your head above water. You are the hero, so you deserve to survive. The other guys are losers and deserve to be pushed down to save the hero.

--Peter

What about my position is intolerant?

I am advocating that the expression of all views, comments, opinions, and yes even lies should be tolerated ((by either side if that needs to be stated). The person hearing them can sort out what to believe or not believe or to investigate further. Any other solution requires a Ministry of Truth which I claim is more dangerous than any lie.

Anyway, I will vote based on my own views and not be ruled by a paradox. Am I allowed to say that?

Wow. His response was...epic. Though not in the way he thinks it was.

When a society allows a privileged view to outlaw everything deemed "intolerant" then pretty soon a small number of people will vie for control over who gets to define what "tolerant" is...and at that point you live in a world where speech must be approved or is proactively censored...presumably with consequences for offenders.

Once you've reached that point, you don't live in a free society. You live in an authoritarian, oppressive state. That's not what we have here.

This notion of "tolerance" being swamped out by "intolerance" is a laugh riot given that the main purveyors of Cancel Culture are the people who cry about "tolerance" the most.

This notion of "tolerance" being swamped out by "intolerance"

You are another Hero-bot. Tolerance is good, intolerance is bad. That's all you know. But words have meaning and context. Is it good to be tolerant of murderers? Is it bad to be intolerant of child molesters?

For you, it doesn't matter. Tolerance is good. Intolerance is bad. You are a hero, so whatever you do or say is heroic, because you are a hero. The circular logic means nothing to you. I am bad because I oppose your circular reasoning. So you have to put me down to be the hero.

Canceling is bad, so you oppose cancel culture. It matters not what bit of culture is being cancelled. Cancelling is bad, so you attribute it to me. Tolerance is good, so you attribute it to yourself.

You may now continue to make my point by calling me something bad, and calling yourself something good.

--Peter

You are another Hero-bot. Tolerance is good, intolerance is bad. That's all you know. But words have meaning and context. Is it good to be tolerant of murderers? Is it bad to be intolerant of child molesters?

You are so, so bad at this. So expressing a viewpoint other than liberal orthodoxy makes one on the same level as a murderer or child molestor or a murdering child molestor?

Yeah...no.

<Post filled with name calling and insinuations>
You may now continue to make my point by calling me something bad, and calling yourself something good.

Nice try. You don't get to roll into threads and claim Victimhood when you're sitting in your glass house shotgunning stones left and right.

It's obvious that you don't really read what others tell you...which puts you on the same level as most of the other libs on the board. To you, people who aren't in your Bubble Tribe are in a similar bubble elsewhere and you've already made up your mind what they're going to say...so why read it? Just post what you knowwww they're going to say and argue against the Godzilla-sized strawman you just hoisted up.

Sorry. Real life is full of people who don't think like you do, and we can be thankful for that.

What about my position is intolerant?

Not your post, but we've got this populous mass swayed by a huckster, who is also part criminal, and a part of the speech is intolerance, no compromise - and we need to get away from that. At least there isn't someone spouting RINO all the time. So things that look like an endorsement of replacement theory should not be there. Let's not get that one mainstream.

You don't get to roll into threads and claim Victimhood when you're sitting in your glass house shotgunning stones left and right.

Yes. That's exactly what I'm doing. Why shouldn't I do that? Is there something wrong with it?


It's obvious that you don't really read what others tell you...which puts you on the same level as most of the other libs on the board. To you, people who aren't in your Bubble Tribe are in a similar bubble elsewhere and you've already made up your mind what they're going to say...so why read it? Just post what you knowwww they're going to say and argue against the Godzilla-sized strawman you just hoisted up.

Of course, you do exactly what I said you would do. You prove my point. You are easily predictable, because you have only one trick up your sleeve. It's all you know how to do. It is all a Hero-bot knows.

--Peter

Is there something wrong with it?
You mean besides unoriginal and boring?

And then you end your post with more personal attacks because of your Victimhood Complex.

The fact of the matter is, nobody personally insults you like you do others. No, what triggers you off is reading something that falls outside of your Approved Positions on issues.

In one of our very first interactions here you claimed that all Republicans are essentially country-destroying maniacs. I see that opinion still holds...only somebody deep inside a bubble would get to that point.


Thus making my statement above about the bubble an excellent form of quod erat demonstrandum.

Good luck!

You mean besides unoriginal and boring?

True. My thinking here is unoriginal. Maga lovers have been using it for almost a decade now. Just look at yourself. You call me a victim, and I freely admit it. I'm a victim here.

But then you call my simple explanation of simple thinking a personal attack and make yourself a victim. I am not doing anything original, I'm just copying you.

what triggers you off is reading something that falls outside of your Approved Positions on issues.

And then straight into the labeling me with something bad. Right on cue. I'm not even talking about issues here.

You are nothing more than a Hero-bot, repeating things that make you feel good about yourself, and then defending that claimed high ground by putting down anyone who might call that self-praising out for what it is.

--Peter

When a society allows a privileged view to outlaw everything deemed "intolerant" then pretty soon a small number of people will vie for control over who gets to define what "tolerant" is...and at that point you live in a world where speech must be approved or is proactively censored...presumably with consequences for offenders.

Once you've reached that point, you don't live in a free society.

Wow, nice little flight of fancy there. You should read a little Karl Popper, but his view is tied to history and he supports it. There is much more chance of an authoritarian coming from the right, so we have to watch you. Is Jan 6 a one off? Or do you have more surprises in store?

You pretty much did exactly as I predicted. You found something bad to say about me by making up a story - a story where I'm the bad guy and you are the good guy.

It's the only trick you have. = peter

-------------

I won't call it a trick, but you persist in attacking me instead of engaging the question.

I am just speculating, sure. Let me put the question this way. And then perhaps you will share your thoughts beyond calling me a doodie head.

"When your supporters start saying things like that, you have crossed the line into lies that are destructive." - pete

What should be done, if anything, about lies that cross the line and become "destructive lies"?

BTW, I an not attacking you, I thought it was a good question and might stimulate some interesting discussion of the limits of free expression. That would be more interesting and possibly productive than bashing each others VP picks. to me anyway. that's all.

OK, I'll give you one serious reply.

What should be done, if anything, about lies that cross the line and become "destructive lies"?

Two things.

One - they should be called out as lies. Not by the government but by other people also expressing their free speech rights.
Two - if those lies precipitate illegal activity, they should be prosecuted as aiding and abetting, or inciting, or conspiracy, or some other similar statues already existing in the law. I don't think we need any new laws, existing laws are likely sufficient.

--Peter

Wait - bonus third thing. The liar can be held civilly liable for any damages their lies cause. Again, existing laws are likely sufficient here. Libel, slander, defamation, for example.

You are another Hero-bot. Tolerance is good, intolerance is bad. That's all you know. But words have meaning and context. Is it good to be tolerant of murderers? Is it bad to be intolerant of child molesters? - Pete

------------

Pete, take a breath, we are talking about words here, not deeds.

So things that look like an endorsement of replacement theory should not be there. - Lapsody

---------------

You statement also leaves out the "and so" part. Not picking a fight with you either, just curious about the liberal view is on the subject of supressing "lies"

>>What should be done, if anything, about lies that cross the line and become "destructive lies"?<<

Two things.

One - they should be called out as lies. Not by the government but by other people also expressing their free speech rights.
Two - if those lies precipitate illegal activity, they should be prosecuted as aiding and abetting, or inciting, or conspiracy, or some other similar statues already existing in the law. I don't think we need any new laws, existing laws are likely sufficient.

--Peter

Wait - bonus third thing. The liar can be held civilly liable for any damages their lies cause. Again, existing laws are likely sufficient here. Libel, slander, defamation, for example. = pete

-----------

Hmmm, after you actually state your thoughts on the matter, I agree with you.

No new laws required. Calling out lies without government interference, and let the courts settle any resulting criminal or civil matters.

Hmmm, after you actually state your thoughts on the matter, I agree with you.

Cool.

Just to be clear, we'll remain cool if I have to call out any lies you repeat? Because I do plan on doing that if needed.

--Peter

You are nothing more than a Hero-bot, repeating things that make you feel good about yourself, and then defending that claimed high ground by putting down anyone who might call that self-praising out for what it is.

Bots repeat themselves endlessly, like the resident one that posts here.
It's equally boring.

But do keep playing the victim.

You forgot one detail: In the reply I made to Mike upthread...it had nothing to do with you. You assumed it did, started flinging insults, and here we are.

You assumed it did, started flinging insults, and here we are.

I didn't fling any insults. I just did exactly what you do - claim that I am right and stand on that statement to make myself feel better about myself. And now I feel even better because you can do nothing but what I predicted you would do. You proved that I am right by your Hero-bot response.

--Peter

So things that look like an endorsement of replacement theory should not be there. - Lapsody

---------------

You statement also leaves out the "and so" part. Not picking a fight with you either, just curious about the liberal view is on the subject of supressing "lies"

I have no idea what you mean by "and so" part. It's normally done by societal shunning. Keeping it on the fringe zones.

Lulz. More insults, more repetitive posting.

Is this all you are? I guess so. You’re not making any sense at all.

More insults, more repetitive posting.

So what? It doesn’t matter. All I’m doing is copying your style - repetitively posting insults mixed in with self praise.

Is this all you are? I guess so.

Gets annoying after a while, doesn’t it?

—Peter

Copying my style? Nah. You’re doing nothing of the sort. You rolled in, started firing and haven’t let up since.

If that makes you feel good, more power to you.

"And so?

And so the power of the state should be applied to prevent such lies from being expressed in the first place.

Personally, I think granting that power is more dangerous than any so called lie."

LOL. This is even too dumb for you. He never said anything like you are pretending he did.

Do better. Your ignorance is literally destroying American democracy.

Copying my style? Nah. You’re doing nothing of the sort.

Really. I am. You just can’t see it.

If that makes you feel good, more power to you.

It does, just like you get pleasure out of your constant stream of nonsense. It’s all just mental masturbation. The difference is that when I’m done I zip up and go back to the real world where there is complexity and nuance and facts, where I have the humility to know that I’m not always right even though I try my best. In the meantime you stay in your fantasy world, slaying the libs with your one trick that lets you hide your insecurities behind a mask of bravado.

—Peter

Dope, gaslighting, projects from "deep inside a bubble" : You mean besides unoriginal and boring...you end your post with more personal attacks...nobody personally insults you like you.


I've nicknamed the 'Next' button 'the Dope button'.

Tolerating the intolerant brings to mind a fight scene in 'Saving Private Ryan' in which a Nazi, having gained the upper position while wrestling an American Jewish soldier, urges the Jew to 'hush hush hush" as he slides his knife into his chest.

American Nazis continue to distribute their vile fliers to driveways in our community in the middle of the night. It's comforting to read the broad condemnation on social media of that cowardly activity.

It's good to be intolerant of the intolerant. It's how Nazis are defeated.

Really. I am. You just can’t see it.

No, you're copying the "style" that exists in your head. That's a you thing, not a me thing.

You're one of the thinnest skinned posters here and even a mild pushback triggers you. Again, another you thing. Not a me thing.

I can't help it if you're unable to process logic and have a need to lash out. That's you, not me.

Good luck!

American Nazis continue to distribute their vile fliers to driveways in our community in the middle of the night.

And many of our current proto-fascists are champing at the bits to go full fascist. They would love to.

The fact of the matter is, nobody personally insults you like you do others.

I do! Throwing balls at the right wing herobot geeks on the dunk tank bench is briefly amusing once or twice a week. It's the cost one suffers for reading honest opinions that are based on facts, whether liberal or conservative.

What should be done, if anything, about lies that cross the line and become "destructive lies"?

It all depends on the context. Can you apply a context to the question?

1930s Europe, for example... or 1960s Mississippi perhaps... or Trump's brief political dalliance.

Germany banned the Nazi party and its rhetoric after WW2.

White nationalists perpetuate the lie that some races/creeds/colors/genders are biologically inferior.... good lie or bad lie? Do those lies have a place in the K thru 12 classrooms?

Pete, take a breath, we are talking about words here, not deeds.

I hope one of the legal beagles steps in and educates you on that belief.

IANAL but I'm pretty sure one can be convicted for one's words if it can be proved that they caused a crime.

I hope one of the legal beagles steps in and educates you on that belief.

IANAL but I'm pretty sure one can be convicted for one's words if it can be proved that they caused a crime.

Generally, that's not correct. Speech is almost never criminalized merely because it causes a crime (as opposed to speech which itself can be criminal, like fraud or perjury or something like that).

The main exception is the very limited category of speech which fails the Brandenburg v. Ohio standard. Speech can be prohibited or made a crime if it both: (1) is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) is "likely to incite or produce such action."

That's why you're allowed to be a racist and white supremacist and a Nazi and all sorts of terrible things which might cause crimes; or to generally advocate that people commit crimes, like people who extol recreational illegal drug use. It's legal to say that you think the government should be overthrown by violent revolution, as a general idea. If you're not directing your speech towards inciting imminent lawless action - like inciting a riot right then - your speech can't be criminalized on that basis.

White nationalists perpetuate the lie that some races/creeds/colors/genders are biologically inferior.... good lie or bad lie? Do those lies have a place in the K thru 12 classrooms? - sano

-=------------

Kinda changing the subject there sano. We are talking about public speech in open forums, not school curricula. But since you asked K thru 12 is a tremendously wide range of learning ability. As a general rule, I think it is OK to discuss these subjects in school in age appropriate ways and with acknowledgement, even emphasis, of the progress that has been made as well as issues that remain.

The main exception is the very limited category of speech which fails the Brandenburg v. Ohio standard. Speech can be prohibited or made a crime if it both: (1) is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) is "likely to incite or produce such action."

That's what I was referring to.

Thanks.

I didn't say "discuss these subjects in school"

I said promote obvious lies in school.

But fine...

Move it to a public place; a school sponsored rally in the open quad of a state university or in a stadium at half=time. Should a white nationalist dean perpetuate the lie that some races/creeds/colors/genders are biologically inferior in a half-time speech? ... or invite a guest speaker endorsed by the school administration to perpetuate lies that generate hate on a public campus quad or stadium?

>>The main exception is the very limited category of speech which fails the Brandenburg v. Ohio standard. Speech can be prohibited or made a crime if it both: (1) is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) is "likely to incite or produce such action." - albaby

That's what I was referring to.

Thanks. - sano

---------------

It sure didn't sound like it the way you phrased it in your original reply. I didn't realize you had such depth on the finer points of legal precedents.

I call BS.

I'm pretty sure one can be convicted for one's words if it can be proved that they caused a crime.
------------------
Speech can be prohibited or made a crime if it both: (1) is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) is "likely to incite or produce such action." - albaby

BHM: I call BS.

Not that I give a damn, but you're wrong.

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.