Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 153 of 201 FirstFirst ... 53103143151152153154155163 ... LastLast
Results 2,281 to 2,295 of 3015
  1. #2281
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,183
    Quote Originally Posted by Redrum187 View Post
    No one has had the opportunity is a better way to put it.

    Let me ask you a question... Do you think when/if life gets back to normal (pre covid-19 with no restrictions), and a similar virus to covid-19 spreads globally... will people be willing to lock down just as easily as we did in March or will people will be more skeptical/unwilling to do so?

    I want to know your opinion. My opinion... I think the majority of people aren't going to do it so willingly next time, unless it's a virus exponentially worse than covid-19.

    An unrelated question for you as well. Do you ever listen to Joe Rogan's podcast? If so, what do you think of him?
    I mean give a clear cut explanation of why you are right it is unconstitutional, it should be easy to explain if everyone is so sure about this. I don't think it is nearly as clear cut though but we can't even get into it because no one has explained ANY reasoning 2 months in now they just keep using it to justify their beliefs without explanation (at least anything rational, it's like what we see above instead).

    I am not sure, it might depend on who is in charge at the time. If we have a POTUS saying it is fake from the start we might have similar issues with people taking it seriously. If we have a POTUS riling up fear about rights etc. same type of thing. As I have been saying a lot of what people have been pushing in here is their personal political beliefs more than anything rational when it comes to these arguments.

    https://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...-lockdown-poll
    https://thehill.com/homenews/the-mem...great-lockdown

    Even late April many people still supported more lockdown from this one. I think most people agree with what has been happening so far and it is just the extremes/fringes and people overly political making a deal out of it (like Trump and his base).

    Sorry missed the Rogan question... I do listen from time to time (he has so many how could you listen to all?) and generally like him because of the diversity of people and so on. I wouldn't say I always agree but I like him/the show in general at times depending on the people/topic

  2. #2282
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    46,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Redrum187 View Post
    There are lots of laws/supreme court precedents that are/were unconstitutional. Some have been corrected (slavery, sufferage, etc...) others are on the table (marijuana) and some may never be tried in court (the Federal Reserve). Just because a court hasn't ruled that something infringes on a person's rights (unconstitutional) doesn't mean it ISN'T really unconstitutional.

    Another perfect example is Bush and his Patriot Act. That was a tremendous piece of propaganda which ultimately obliterated our civil liberties. We aren't ever getting those back. But those who realize this and are fighting (peacefully) to hold onto them are often mislabeled as "extreme right".
    well said

  3. #2283
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    46,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamiecballer View Post
    It's the internet. When inaccurate potentially deadly information is passed by ignorant people it's a threat. A lesson that you as an American should know better than anyone.

    Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk
    there are far deadlier outcomes that come from censorship. not sure what u mean but its because I'm American that I know what separates this nation. censorship only raises eyebrows, especially once proven ignorant as YouTube already has.

    again, I'll take my chances with truth over the truth they promote and want u to mindlessly believe

  4. #2284
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    21,207
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamiecballer View Post
    This should put your freedom of speech argument to rest. From the first result in Google:

    While*freedom of speech*is one of our fundamental rights, there are*limitations. ... As a general rule,*limitations*on*free speech*preclude*speech*that is harmful to others, threatening, or generally repulsive and reviled.

    Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk
    this isnt related to this but more just a question about Canada.

    What has Canada done to aid their citizens? and help businesses survive this? enhanced unemployment benefits? business loans? stimulus packages? universal food stamp system?

    Did all of Canada shut down?

  5. #2285
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    46,612
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    I have seen cops kill people unjustly, are we saying cops are the end all be all? Lolz cmon. You aren't even giving actual data even if we were to use cops as a barometer again it is just your examples nothing more/real.

    Some people breaking the law or acting bad doesn't justify everyone else doing it. You are just trying to use any story you can to justify your beliefs not actually explain how it's unlawful
    you've never seen a cop broadcast to all, that killing innocent people is just and totally constitutional is the point. you're still not getting it.

    except its not acting bad, its acting American. I use examples to highlight the point, you've yet to understand it and really haven't defended your position either. what makes it bad? that u have a different threshold for risk factors?

  6. #2286
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    21,207
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamiecballer View Post
    You misunderstand freedom of speech and how it relates to technology. Nobody is denying your freedom of speech. Facebook does not offer to be your conduit to spreading dangerous lies that endanger the public safety of us all. But by all means climb up atop your house and use that right to free speak it from the rooftops.

    Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk
    well part of freedom of speech is the right to assemble....... and in michigan and NY- governors have clearly tried to shut that down

  7. #2287
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    21,207
    if covid 19 didnt exist and the government was locking people down and demonizing people who protested it..... would the government be acting constitutional?

    would the protesters be evil in your mind?

  8. #2288
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,183
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronz View Post
    you've never seen a cop broadcast to all, that killing innocent people is just and totally constitutional is the point. you're still not getting it.

    except its not acting bad, its acting American. I use examples to highlight the point, you've yet to understand it and really haven't defended your position either. what makes it bad? that u have a different threshold for risk factors?
    You have no idea what I have seen a cop do or how crazy some can be it appears (innocent can be opinion). You also never provided any real proof of a lot of cops out there doing this or that it is more than just a couple randos so I have never seen a cop do what you say at all.

    What do you mean defended my position? That an order was in place and she went against it? That we have rules/laws in place and when you don't follow them you may be punished? What position do I need to defend that isn't normally common sense when people aren't going over the top whining about their personal beliefs (like "acting American")?
    Last edited by mngopher35; 05-20-2020 at 11:37 PM.

  9. #2289
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    46,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamiecballer View Post
    This should put your freedom of speech argument to rest. From the first result in Google:

    While*freedom of speech*is one of our fundamental rights, there are*limitations. ... As a general rule,*limitations*on*free speech*preclude*speech*that is harmful to others, threatening, or generally repulsive and reviled.

    Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk
    you can't scream fire if there's no fire, or try to advocate for violence (even tho soo many get away with it anyways), outside of that its basically fair game. lesser laws can jail u for basic insults or certain inquiries that shan't be named

  10. #2290
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    46,612
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    You have no idea what I have seen a cop do or how crazy some can be it appears (innocent can be opinion). You also never provided any real proof of a lot of cops out there doing this or that it is more than just a couple randos.

    What do you mean defended my position? That an order was in place and she went against it? That we have rules/laws in place and when you don't follow them you may be punished? What position do I need to defend that isn't normally common sense when people aren't going over the top whining about their personal beliefs (like "acting American")?
    yes I do. if a cop had done that it would have circulated everywhere, as my example had. you've provided no proof either.. think of term broadcasted. as a call to all cops that they can't lose the trust of the people by infringing on their freedoms

    hey so long as u know you totally can disobey unjust laws and that plenty of those who are supposed to uphold them know they're unconstitutional, then that's fine by me.

  11. #2291
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    2,916
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    No, what we have is months of people saying it goes against my rights, is unlawful etc and when questioned they have always backed away and been unable to defend that like styles/chronz above and often those similar arguments recycled.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Being willing to make a case on PSD is not indicative of there being or not being proof. Ultimately, it comes down to interpretation of the law/precedents. A court has to take a case for the opportunity to prove something is unconstitutional/an infringement of civil liberties.
    2015 Bull's Mock Trade Game Championship Team

    San Antonio Spurs

    PG: Chris Paul | Patty Mills | Jose Calderon
    SG: Khris Middleton | J.J. Redick | Iman Shumpert
    SF: DeMarre Carroll | P.J. Tucker | Anthony Morrow
    PF: Tim Duncan | Carlos Boozer | Kyle O'Quinn
    C : Al Horford | Rudy Gobert

  12. #2292
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    21,207
    Quote Originally Posted by Redrum187 View Post
    Being willing to make a case on PSD is not indicative of there being or not being proof. Ultimately, it comes down to interpretation of the law/precedents. A court has to take a case for the opportunity to prove something is unconstitutional/an infringement of civil liberties.
    I honestly always thought that people in favor of the lock down and throwing away their lives.... were in agreement with it going against the constitution. They just figured that price was worth paying to save lives.

  13. #2293
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,183
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronz View Post
    yes I do. if a cop had done that it would have circulated everywhere, as my example had. you've provided no proof either..

    hey so long as u know you totally can disobey unjust laws and that plenty of those who are supposed to uphold them know they're unconstitutional, then that's fine by me.
    If it was on tape. Great so you understand how ridiculous all your ranting in here has been when you never back up any claims.

    So long as you know you haven't provided any proof of them being unjust/unconstitutional and that plenty of people do bad things no matter their position, that's fine by me.

  14. #2294
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    46,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Redrum187 View Post
    Very true, but there is a gray area when it comes to "repulsive and reviled". I think country and rap music is repulsive and vile (I'm not even kidding either), but I'd never argue a ban on those genres (as much as I'd love one).

    My mom gasps every time someone says the "f word" in a movie. It's ridiculous. She thinks those words are repulsive and reviled.

    There are things we universally agree we do NOT have the right to voice out (physical threats, "bomb" or "fire" on a plane, etc...) but then others society doesn't agree on because they are so damn subjective. Political ideology shouldn't be something that should be censored... it is though.

    These rules don't apply to private institutions, nor do I think they should. If I'm upset that PSD censors my "profanity" then I'm free to not use their site. No one is making me come here. Likewise, many conservatives complain about Facebook censoring them... yet they LIVE on Facebook...
    we're testing uncharted waters with regards to online censorship. all the evidence and signs point to a left wing bias in these virtual town squares. I dont think it's as easy as just creating a new platform either but idk much on that front

  15. #2295
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,183
    Quote Originally Posted by Redrum187 View Post
    Being willing to make a case on PSD is not indicative of there being or not being proof. Ultimately, it comes down to interpretation of the law/precedents. A court has to take a case for the opportunity to prove something is unconstitutional/an infringement of civil liberties.
    If your argument is that it is unconstitutional/unlawful you should be able to back that up. If you keep screaming that over and over to justify what you want politically without context/ever explaining it and going off the deep ends and breaking orders and so on people can criticize it for what it is.

    I can justify any action I want by saying its against my rights/unlawful/unconstitutional but that doesn't really mean much if I can't back anything up.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •