EvilCat Breath
Diamond Member
- Sep 23, 2016
- 94,984
- 70,998
- 3,645
YOU never encountered the word "support" before.
Do democrats know when they are lying, that they are lying?
Trump Administration Ministry of Truth to Define and Prosecute "Hate Speech"
- Thread starter charlottebronte666
- Start date
Do democrats know when they are lying, that they are lying?
Actually, this is what I was talking about. One side or the other testing the limits of free speech. Now you see Republicans would classify insults to Trump as hate speech.
They've been calling us communists for years. When have we ever suggested that's hate speech? But calling them fascists or comparing them to Hitler, Trump says should be illegal. And he told the reporter Pam Bondi should go after him.
Trump threatens to ‘go after’ reporter, said critical coverage could be hate speech
Pam Bondi said there's free speech and there's hate speech. Especially now.
Is Pam Bondi that stupid? Or just a ******* nazi? Did I just commit a crime?
Trump said to a reporter "They should go after you. You have a lot of hate in your heart"
WOW!
You have to take Facebooks word for it that Biden threatened them. I don't think they did. In fact Facebook said if the administration asked them again they'd say no. So clearly Zucky wasn't scared. But, I bet Zucky wouldn't dare tell Trump no.
Papageorgio
The Ultimate Winner
He is the leader of our country, yes. So he is your dear leader as well.
Papageorgio
The Ultimate Winner
Again I am against it all, free speech is our right, we need to make sure no one infringes on our free speech, I don’t care which side does it, it is flat out wrong.
Papageorgio
The Ultimate Winner
I have strong opinions and I don’t have all the answers but maybe we can find a civil path to engage in. What we are doing now is not working, we have no real leaders wanting to step up, so it is up to us, the American people to help calm the waters. I am not perfect, I get angry and snap back at others but this plan may be a way forward.
Civility Action Plan
Practical Steps to Reduce Division Without Compromising Principles
Civility Action Plan
Practical Steps to Reduce Division Without Compromising Principles
- Listen to Understand
Focus on the why behind someone’s view, not just the words. Ask clarifying questions instead of preparing rebuttals. - Respect People, Even in Disagreement
Disagree with ideas, not identities. Say: “I respect you, even though I don’t share that view.” - Practice Charitable Interpretation
Give others the benefit of the doubt. Assume passion or lack of clarity, not malice. - Lead with Shared Values
Start conversations with common ground—family, safety, fairness, freedom. Build from what unites rather than what divides. - Reject Absolutism
Avoid words like always, never, everyone, no one. Use phrases like “In my experience…” to invite nuance. - Model Humility
Admit when you don’t know something. Recognize flaws in your own side. This builds credibility. - Encourage Critical Thinking
Ask why instead of preaching what. Promote reflection, not conformity. - Build Communities of Respect
Strengthen civility in your family, workplace, church, or neighborhood. Small circles of respect ripple outward. - Respond Calmly to Heat
Refuse to match anger with anger. Calm tones and respectful words de-escalate tension. - Lead by Example
Every interaction is leadership. Set the tone you want America to follow.
Did Biden infringe on your free speech? Did he suggest going after people who exercise their free speech like Trump is doing? Trump on camera told a reporter that he is hateful towards him and Pam should go after him for hate speech.
Biden Administration begged Facebook to take down fake news. Sometimes facebook did, sometimes it didn't.
Doesn't seem like Biden was so ready to trample your 1st amendment rights. You just know Trump doesn't care about the first OR 2nd amendment rights.
Remember Trump 1.0 said take away guns first then due process later?
How about Team Trump blowing up a boat on the coast of Venesuela and claiming it was smuggling drugs. No proof. No due process. And we're supposed to just take their word for it?
Vice President JD Vance is defending the Trump administration’s use of military force against suspected drug traffickers — while acknowledging the “due process concerns” that earned him a rebuke from a fellow Republican.
So Republicans are concerned about the Trump administration too.
Vance addressed criticism from Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, who criticized the vice president for endorsing the killing of the people on the boat without any kind of judicial process, and then dismissing concerns about human rights.
“I understand the concerns about due process, I understand some of the criticisms that have been raised, but this is not a situation where we can send the Navy SEALs into these places, arrest them and give them a proper civil trial or criminal trial,” Vance said in the interview.
The president announced Sept. 2 that the U.S. conducted an airstrike against a suspected drug boat off the coast of Venezuela, killing 11 people. Vance defended it at the time as “the highest and best use of our military” while dismissing accusations the strike amounted to a war crime.
Vance’s earlier comments drew the ire of the Libertarian-leaning Paul, who questioned the lack of due process for the suspected drug traffickers killed in the strike and called Vance’s comments “a despicable and thoughtless sentiment.”
Legal experts have questioned the legal basis for the strike and have warned about the precedent it sets for future actions against suspected criminals outside the country. Democrats have joined Paul in raising concerns over the legality of the strike.
So Trump will take away your rights, then due process later. When it's too late.
What do you mean we don't have any real leaders? First of all, the only leaders we have right now are Trump, Mike Johnson and whoever the Senate majority leader is.
Are Democrats acting badly too now?
Oh yea, and how about the Governor of Utah? A Republican. He sounds like a real leader. What's wrong with him?
It's different when they do it.
Zincwarrior
Diamond Member
So, no examples. Got it.
In all due respect, I could be wrong as I certainly didn't read all your posts for four years, but you didn't seem to take that position in the Biden Administration.
'The Most Massive Attack Against Free Speech in United States History' | The Libertarian Institute
Sometime since January 2021, Biden administration policymakers decided that they were infallible—or a “close enough for government work” level of infallible. They claimed a divine right to suppress the online posts and comments of conservatives and anyone else who had a bad attitude towards...
libertarianinstitute.org
But as for encouraging others to commit a crime, the nuances are too many and far reaching to list them all. Of course there are the blatant examples of domestic terrorists using social media to solicit rioters.
But just encouraging any form of violence or violation of another's rights should not be tolerated.
My post here addresses some of that:
Papageorgio
The Ultimate Winner
What are you rambling about? I already told you my position, government needs to stay out of our lives. I can’t explain it any better than that.
Papageorgio
The Ultimate Winner
Harris, Biden, Obama, Trump, Sanders, Pelosi, Johnson, McConnell, Newsom, are not leaders. You may think they are but they aren’t real leaders.
The governor of Utah might be a leader but that takes time and he is such a great leader, you can’t remember his name?
JFK, Reagan, were two of the best leaders in my lifetime.
I didn’t mention Democrats, but calling the other side nazi, facist, hitler doesn’t help does it? You tell me.
berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 33,662
- 27,436
- 2,820
A very excellent list.
But when that isn't happening in the public sector in the media, on social media, in the halls of congress. . .
. . .when rhetoric is such that it suggests or encourages doing harm or violence to people or property, you do not think the government should disallow that or hold accountable those who are promoting illegal acts?
There is a huge difference between saying "I hate Pam Bondi" or "I hate Donald Trump" or "I hate Charlie Kirk" or that any of those or anybody else is'scum' or some other hateful characterization--all protected speech--and saying that these are should be/must be silenced, cancelled, destroyed, neutered or whatever.
When I posted something similar earlier, you disagreed with it. I wondered why at the time.
Papageorgio
The Ultimate Winner
I can’t control what others say, I can control what I say and how I react. If we all tried to calm the waters, we could get further. That said, I will defend anyone’s right for free speech.
So you think the government should not make it a crime to encourage mayhem, destruction, rioting, assault, murder? As reprehensible as that is, it must be protected free speech?
I can't take that position. It's hard yes, to make the choice of whether something is just casual harmless rhetoric and when it is something more sinister.
In my opinion, it is allowing that more sinister with impunity for so long that has contributed a great deal to the incivility, unrest, violent society that we have become in various areas. Make it unacceptable, unallowable as it once was, and that will go a long way to cool the temperature.
Last edited:
Frankeneinstein
Gold Member
No, that is parroting.
Time for an eye examination dude.
I'm noticing a tactic coming from the fascist right. Calling out lies when there are no lies. And completely ignoring when their leaders lie.
What was the one I saw today? So many lies to choose from.
Oh yea. JD Vance said it's obvious the violence is coming from the left. Only that's a lie. You can't dispute it. 52% violence comes from right wing extremists. 22% from the left. 22% from Islam. Facts.
They'll say I lied because I didn't get the percentages exactly right. They get the point. Or do they?
Similar threads
