Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Annoyed]

If he'd done his blogging in private, there wouldn't have been a problem.
But it's a public feature, and that is limited by law -- negating the holocaust is a big no no.

I saw today that there was an opinion piece about the sentencing of him having to visit 5 camps in the next 5 years. I haven't read it yet, but it asks if it will change anything, and whether there's even a point in him visiting. Will it change his views by any means?

See, that's the point I object to, it shouldn't be limited by law. People should have the right to express any opinion they want, regardless of how stupid it is. As I've said over and over, let the idiot say whatever he wants, the audience can decide on the value of what he is saying.

Like I said, glad I don't live there.

[garhkal]

Glad I don't live there.
In my opinion, if some idiot wants to post stuff on his blog or whatever that proves he's an idiot, it should not be a criminal offense. He might not have a popular blog much longer, but it isn't a crime, in my view. You can't outlaw stupidity.

Can you imagine what sort of idiocy we would go to jail for, if hte liberals in the States managed to pass laws like they did in Germany in regards to holocaust denial??

[Annoyed]

Yes. But be honest, the same could happen if any side or faction does it.
Using an extreme example, suppose 10 years out, the real racist, bigoted, robe wearing loonies on the right gained that power. I wouldn't be surprised if they embarked upon an agenda to erase Obama from the national consciousness. It could become a crime to speak his name.
Sure, it's stupid, but no dumber than crap that I would expect from the left.

That's why I'm so against legal restrictions on speech.
I don't care how stupid someone's idea is, he has the right to speak it.
No one has to listen to him, or if someone does listen, they can judge for themselves the value of what is being said.

[Gatefan1976]

Yes. But be honest, the same could happen if any side or faction does it.
Using an extreme example, suppose 10 years out, the real racist, bigoted, robe wearing loonies on the right gained that power. I wouldn't be surprised if they embarked upon an agenda to erase Obama from the national consciousness. It could become a crime to speak his name.
Sure, it's stupid, but no dumber than crap that I would expect from the left.

That's why I'm so against legal restrictions on speech.
I don't care how stupid someone's idea is, he has the right to speak it.
No one has to listen to him, or if someone does listen, they can judge for themselves the value of what is being said.

So what do you think of the white house wanting an ESPN host fired for calling trump a white supremacist?
The majority of the right leaning media wants her head. They certainly wanted Kathy Griffins head.

[Annoyed]

So what do you think of the white house wanting an ESPN host fired for calling trump a white supremacist?
The majority of the right leaning media wants her head. They certainly wanted Kathy Griffins head.

I have no problem with the White House wanting that host fired. Nor would I have a problem if they banned that reporter from the premises. I would have a problem if the White House actually tried to have them fired.

[Gatefan1976]

But they -are- trying to get her fired, just not in a direct approach.

[garhkal]

So what do you think of the white house wanting an ESPN host fired for calling trump a white supremacist?
The majority of the right leaning media wants her head. They certainly wanted Kathy Griffins head.

IMO since she (gifford) called for Trump's head/assassination, i felt SHE DESERVED getting ostracised like she did.
As for the ESPN Host, didn't we see quite a few conservatives get fired for LESS than she did??



Now onto other news..
HOW CAN this be seen as anything BUT Praising/condoning criminal acts??
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...d-great-thing/

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/...ldren-america/

http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/20/pe...a-great-thing/

And coming from a sitting senator who last i checked, all swear an oath to follow and uphold OUR LAWS and constitution??

[Gatefan1976]

IMO since she (gifford) called for Trump's head/assassination, i felt SHE DESERVED getting ostracised like she did.

Yet, unlike dear leader who wants to grab pussy and shoot people, even the left called for it as well.
The right wing response was WHAT?
Voting him into power.
Nice job!!
If you just want to play games, you -are- going to loose.

As for the ESPN Host, didn't we see quite a few conservatives get fired for LESS than she did??

Like WHO?

Now onto other news..
HOW CAN this be seen as anything BUT Praising/condoning criminal acts??
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...d-great-thing/

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/...ldren-america/

http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/20/pe...a-great-thing/

I'm sure there are good people -on both sides-

And coming from a sitting senator who last i checked, all swear an oath to follow and uphold OUR LAWS and constitution??

Try that on the person you voted in, M'kay.
Or is it OK that he violates every norm of your society, and your government?

[Annoyed]

But they -are- trying to get her fired, just not in a direct approach.

By "trying to get her fired", I mean using govt. authority to order ESPN to can her.

[Falcon Horus]

See, that's the point I object to, it shouldn't be limited by law. People should have the right to express any opinion they want, regardless of how stupid it is. As I've said over and over, let the idiot say whatever he wants, the audience can decide on the value of what he is saying.

Here, do a bit of reading:

HISTORICAL REVISIONISM (NEGATIONISM)

Historical revisionism is either the legitimate scholastic re-examination of existing knowledge about a historical event, or the illegitimate distortion of the historical record — if it constitutes the denial of historical crimes—may then also be called negationism.

Broadly understood, there are two motivations behind revisionist history: the ability to control ideological influence and to control political influence.

IMO since she (gifford) called for Trump's head/assassination, i felt SHE DESERVED getting ostracised like she did.
As for the ESPN Host, didn't we see quite a few conservatives get fired for LESS than she did??

So, what does Trump deserve for retweeting hitting Clinton with a golfbal?


It sure does make Melania look like an utter idiot talking about cyberbullying.

File those divorce papers already woman!

[Annoyed]

Here, do a bit of reading:

HISTORICAL REVISIONISM (NEGATIONISM)

Historical revisionism is either the legitimate scholastic re-examination of existing knowledge about a historical event, or the illegitimate distortion of the historical record — if it constitutes the denial of historical crimes—may then also be called negationism.

Broadly understood, there are two motivations behind revisionist history: the ability to control ideological influence and to control political influence.

Oh, I'm quite aware of revisionist history, we see quite a bit of that being taught in the schools and more an more of late, our society as a whole.

PS: Check your PM's.

[garhkal]

Yet, unlike dear leader who wants to grab pussy and shoot people, even the left called for it as well.
The right wing response was WHAT?
Voting him into power.
Nice job!!
If you just want to play games, you -are- going to loose.

And pray tell, what laws did he violate saying that?

Like WHO?

Give me a bit to find it out for ya..

Y
I'm sure there are good people -on both sides-

So hold on here. you think parents who WILLFULLY break the law and send their kids to another country are 'good people'?

YTry that on the person you voted in, M'kay.
Or is it OK that he violates every norm of your society, and your government?

Who's norms is he violating?

[Gatefan1976]

And pray tell, what laws did he violate saying that?

What laws did Kathy break?
She didn't say a damn word in the vid, she did not "call" for anything, or is -her- speech not as protected as trumps speech?
Neither of them "broke the law" so going into the "law defence" is utterly irrelevant.

Give me a bit to find it out for ya..

OK

So hold on here. you think parents who WILLFULLY break the law and send their kids to another country are 'good people'?

Sorry what?
Are you upset that I said there are good people on both sides?
Hell, works for trump, or did you not notice that I was using his exact words?

Who's norms is he violating?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-norms/540165/

[aretood2]

So hold on here. you think parents who WILLFULLY break the law and send their kids to another country are 'good people'?

You're implying that they did it with malice.

[garhkal]

What laws did Kathy break?
She didn't say a damn word in the vid, she did not "call" for anything, or is -her- speech not as protected as trumps speech?
Neither of them "broke the law" so going into the "law defence" is utterly irrelevant.

Incorrect. By her holding a severed head, she in essence called for him to be assassinated..

and as

Threatening the President of the United States is a felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871.[1][2][3][4] It consists of knowingly and willfully mailing or otherwise making "any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States". This also includes presidential candidates and former Presidents. The United States Secret Service investigates suspected violations of this law and monitors those who have a history of threatening the President. Threatening the President is considered a political offense.[5] Immigrants who commit this crime can be deported.[6]

shows, that is illegal.

Sorry what?
Are you upset that I said there are good people on both sides?

If someone's breaking the law, HOW can they be good?

You're implying that they did it with malice.

Since when has 'malice' made a difference in whether what you do is a crime or not'?