Archon_Wing
Vote for me or die
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,257
No need to dog whistle. It's obvious that you're an Arnie fan.
What, of course not.
I'll be back.
Julius Streicher and what to do about free speech?
- Thread starter Mark1031
- Start date
What, of course not.
I'll be back.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
If you have something other than trash, you can simply address arguments already presented in the thread. If you can't do that, I won't respect anything you post in response to me.
If you want something more than dismissals and insults, first try it yourself.
Allegations are not convictions, GTFO with that. He has good reason to believe he won't get a fair shake, for exactly the same reasons Snowden believes such.
There are few people Trump could have pardoned that would have pissed off his enemies (including some of the corrupt deep state) more than pardoning Assange and Snowden. It's not lost on me that it was under Trump's watch that US moved to extradite Assange. He had a chance to walk that back, stick it to his enemies for personal gain, and undo a major injustice. He didn't take it, despite knowing all that. I suspect he must have feared negative perceptions/blowback or actual threats, and thus call avoiding doing it cowardice. Or maybe he fears Assange would have something on him too...which is still cowardice.
Assange was made an example of, and some of the 2019 indictments are among the most blatant public violations of US first amendment protections ever. Obama and especially Trump hold no respect for how they handled his disclosure of information.
The capitol riots harmed him. Some pathetic congressmen actually changed their votes based on that (they need to be voted out as soon as their term ends, since obviously they aren't consistent with principles). He got no benefits from it, and is also getting false accusations of incitement and a blatantly unconstitutional impeachment of someone who is now not even president based on actions that are not even crimes. Yet somehow he, who is very unlikely to see himself in a seat of power ever again, is more of a threat than those cretins operating directly against their sworn duty?
Yet his pardons are baffling, even if we assume self-interest. Then again, so were his appointments while in office...most of which were neither loyal to him nor to the country.
At least he didn't start new wars. I hope Biden continues that trend, rather than copying his other predecessors dating back most of our lifetimes.
I never said an allegation was a conviction. "GTFO with that" indeed. Beyond that, I'm not interested in your defense of Assange. I simply spoke from what factually happened, and didn't mention my opinions on it at all.
I'm saying it's uncharitable to Snowden to mention them in the same context. Their situations are legally different, and Snowden doesn't deserved to be tarnished with the same brush.
If it makes you happy, I consider their situations ethically different too. But that isn't what I argued, or even raised.
Just so we can dispense with the moronism that a Republican considers impeachment to be about anything other than a political tool.
https://www.cbs46.com/news/congress...cle_b6fb3544-5c2b-11eb-abd0-a7ac268026b8.html
https://www.cbs46.com/news/congress...cle_b6fb3544-5c2b-11eb-abd0-a7ac268026b8.html
Not whataboutism on my part, but the first question for me was the precedent.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...icles-of-impeachment-against-president-trump/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...icles-of-impeachment-against-president-trump/
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
I’m already counting down the day Biden starts drone striking people.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Which goes back to at least Clinton. But the difference is that Democrats at least look at wrongdoing. It may not be impeachable. It may not be significant enough to bring that up. But it is wrongdoing.
Republicans just use it as a political tool to hobble the opposition.
Archon_Wing
Vote for me or die
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,257
What did Andrew Johnson do wrong anyways?
I gather he sucked, but what else?
I gather he sucked, but what else?
I don't know who that is, but Jackson did a whole bunch of genocide. On purpose, with fully malicious intent. He also broke the Supreme Court, and a whole bunch of other stuff I can't recall.
Archon_Wing
Vote for me or die
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,257
Andrew Johnson is the first president to be impeached, ever.
Jackson is another scumbag that got remembered more favorably than he really was.
After Lincoln was killed, Johnson pretty much singlehandedly prevented reconstruction from getting a start which might have led to it working.
Berzerker
Deity
I'm not sure what you're asking, the definition of 'freedom of speech' is not limited to a legal basis. Many countries will hurt or kill people for speaking, they have no legal basis. But we still accuse those countries of violating free speech. In our system the 1st Amendment is the legal basis.
Ofc its a matter of free speech and I seriously doubt anyone would object to another rant about whatshisface. The media will miss him too.
Yup...and John Kiriakou (he exposed waterboarding). All victims of the deep state. Tucker Carlson said there was suspicion McConnell told Trump impeachment would have legs if he pardoned these whistle blowers. Shameful either way.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
In the context of people committing alleged crimes against you, I don't see how you could use anything but the legal basis.
Berzerker
Deity
I thought we were debating if censorship violated free speech, not if it was a crime. If the mob wanted to silence people with threats and intimidation those might be the crimes but they violate free speech nonetheless. In this case, congressional Democrats and the party pushed for censorship, gotta keep them evil Russians from interfering in our election.
When these media CEOs testified they were blamed for the interference. How dare you Mark Zuckerberg let Russians use your platform to spread lies! The Dems have been howling for censorship and they got it, so this notion it cant be censorship ignores reality. And its a violation of the 1st Amendment just like when Trump told NFL owners to punish players taking a knee.
Congress cant threaten people to do for them what is prohibited by the Constitution. Congress shall make no law prohibiting the freedom of speech = Congress shall make no law requiring others to prohibit free speech. That violates the freedom of speech of both the censors and the censored.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
If censorship violates free speech, and that isn't a crime, then who cares? Suck it up and move on, those violating your whatever didn't do anything wrong.
By the way, if we are debating "if censorship violated free speech" then that's usually done in the context of the 1st amendment. No?
By the way, if we are debating "if censorship violated free speech" then that's usually done in the context of the 1st amendment. No?
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Censorship is innate to freedom of speech unless you want to abolish the right to control your own property.
Similar threads
