NewsVine_Mariyam
Platinum Member
- Thread starter
- #81
whatever you have, I have a better oneWell then ante up and put your money where your mouth is. I'm game, what about you?no denigration--FACTSWell I guess you don't read very well either do you...Well, I am glad that your niece that you tout so proudly is doing well. Too bad her aunt didn't provide a good example. WTF does her education have to do with you anyway. MoronIt may have been a childish response but it's 100% the truth.very childish of youFor at least the 10th time Harmonica, when did you graduate and what fields are your degrees in? I would just about bet that my 20 year old niece has more degrees than you do.1.that's just you -it's your HATE filled, bigoted, racist OPINION onlyIn my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".
In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.
The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?
Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.
I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.
2. it's a hate crime if you do it on someone else's property
3. blacks commit hate crimes at TWICE the rate of whites
4. again AGAIN--you people concentrate on what's not a real problem instead of the real problems like black murder/crime rates and low grad rates
As far as my opinion, at least it's based on an educated interpretation of our constitution, laws and case law. And believe it or not (as I'm sure you won't), I am paid good money for my "professional opinion".
Don't be stupid.
..I KNOW my nieces graduated high school--a lot better than you
And I'm not talking about your nieces, I'm talking about you. Nor am I referring to high school diplomas, my niece already has a college degree and she's not even 21 yet.
Have you seen this before?:
"You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are free to go where you want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, “you are free to compete with all the others,” and still justly believe that you have been completely fair"
Why is your focus continuously on the couple of million or so of black Americans who are in the criminal justice system versus the 35+ million who are not and who are doing fine with or without a diploma or degree? What is it exactly that prevents you from being able to focus on anything positive when it comes to black people?
Harmonica is constantly denigrating black people as criminals and for having lower graduation rates, yet he himself has no room to talk (go ahead, ask him).
What makes you think I haven't provided my niece with a good example? Oh wait you've already created some stereotypical image of who I am in your mind, right?
''no room to talk''--hahahhahahahahahahhahah
DUH