GG Posted November 29, 2016 Posted November 29, 2016 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/flashback-clinton-introduced-bill-to-criminalize-flag-burning/article/2608366 Did you miss this? So you're confirming that the election was between two very bad choices?
Prickly Pete Posted November 29, 2016 Posted November 29, 2016 (edited) One final thing on popularity of anti-flag-burning laws. Hillary Clinton SPONSORED one in 2005 that featured a one-year prison sentence. That moment when the MSM realizes Trump just took a position advocated by Hillary Clinton in 2005 Click on to enlarge B-Man, they are so far up their own @&&'s that they can't look in the mirror. So you're confirming that the election was between two very bad choices? Nope. Edited November 29, 2016 by HoF Watkins
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 29, 2016 Posted November 29, 2016 I can wake you up now and note that the future president just said he thinks people should be jailed for exercising their first amendment rights. Can he actually do it? No. But look what we elected. His opponent felt the same way, so either way, that's what you were going to get. Not a defense, just a commentary.
B-Man Posted November 29, 2016 Posted November 29, 2016 (edited) Look, once you have decided that Microagressions, hate speech, misgendering, and "hurtful" chalkings CAN BE PUNISHED, what grounds do you have to stand on when criticizing Donald Trump for wanting to outlaw flag-burning? Sure it’s a dumb and unconstitutional idea, but Dems have been on board with lots of those where speech is concerned. I mean, pretty much the entire Democratic party supports overturning Citizens United — a case in which a filmmaker faced punishment for criticizing Hillary Clinton — so what free speech principles are they invoking now? So......from now on, I'll assume all of the lefty folks upholding flag burning as core right are against all hate speech laws in every context. Right? Edited November 29, 2016 by B-Man
GG Posted November 29, 2016 Posted November 29, 2016 Nope. Really? Is that why you're comparing a bad pandering tweet to an equally bad pandering bill?
Prickly Pete Posted November 29, 2016 Posted November 29, 2016 Really? Is that why you're comparing a bad pandering tweet to an equally bad pandering bill? Who is?
GG Posted November 29, 2016 Posted November 29, 2016 Who is? Did you not link the Washington Examiner article that reminds people of Clinton's pandering bill? Is it meant to balance out Trump's pandering tweet?
Prickly Pete Posted November 29, 2016 Posted November 29, 2016 (edited) Did you not link the Washington Examiner article that reminds people of Clinton's pandering bill? Is it meant to balance out Trump's pandering tweet? Where? I didn't say anything, but "did you miss this?", and "I think Trump intentionally proposes the Clinton's own policies, just for kicks". Why are you jumping to conclusions, Bro? Edited November 29, 2016 by HoF Watkins
Doc Posted November 29, 2016 Posted November 29, 2016 I can wake you up now and note that the future president just said he thinks people should be jailed for exercising their first amendment rights. Can he actually do it? No. But look what we elected. Again, like I said to you prior to the election, it's just words. Did you miss this? http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/flashback-clinton-introduced-bill-to-criminalize-flag-burning/article/2608366 I think Trump intentionally proposes the Clinton's own policies, just for kicks. And then there's that...
Prickly Pete Posted November 29, 2016 Posted November 29, 2016 Again, like I said to you prior to the election, it's just words. And then there's that... I guess this topic is no fun anymore....
GG Posted November 29, 2016 Posted November 29, 2016 (edited) Again, like I said to you prior to the election, it's just words. And then there's that... It is not just words. President's words set the tone for the nation and the world, and as we've seen in the last 8 years, words alone have huge ramifications that have nothing to do with legislation or even executive orders. So for all of you who have taken Obama to task for inopportune comments that have snowballed, better buckle up for the next four years of the ramifications of stupid comments. Edited November 29, 2016 by GG
Nanker Posted November 29, 2016 Posted November 29, 2016 Oh, I've got my popcorn ready. Should be good theater.
keepthefaith Posted November 29, 2016 Posted November 29, 2016 Since then, Dems can only get elected and re-elected with more special treatment and giveaways for each segment (as they see it) of voters. The Dem party of JFK and Bill Clinton is long gone.
Keukasmallies Posted November 29, 2016 Posted November 29, 2016 Since then, Dems can only get elected and re-elected with more special treatment and giveaways for each segment (as they see it) of voters. The Dem party of JFK and Bill Clinton is long gone. As are most of their mistresses!
Doc Posted November 29, 2016 Posted November 29, 2016 It is not just words. President's words set the tone for the nation and the world, and as we've seen in the last 8 years, words alone have huge ramifications that have nothing to do with legislation or even executive orders. So for all of you who have taken Obama to task for inopportune comments that have snowballed, better buckle up for the next four years of the ramifications of stupid comments. It depends on the comments being made and if any actions are undertaken.
GG Posted November 29, 2016 Posted November 29, 2016 It depends on the comments being made and if any actions are undertaken. Would you agree that Obama's comments and demeanor played a big role in deterioration of race relations in the last few years? Was there any legislation or executive action that followed his words?
Doc Posted November 29, 2016 Posted November 29, 2016 Would you agree that Obama's comments and demeanor played a big role in deterioration of race relations in the last few years? Was there any legislation or executive action that followed his words? The deterioration had a lot to do with white cop(s)/black victim incidents and the justice department got heavily involved in them, on orders or at least taking their cue from Obama.
GG Posted November 29, 2016 Posted November 29, 2016 The deterioration had a lot to do with white cop(s)/black victim incidents and the justice department got heavily involved in them, on orders or at least taking their cue from Obama. You can update to me on the DoJ actions, when you get back from the Beer Summit, reminding us all on why you didn't build that, while you're clinging to your guns & religion. Stupid comments that defined a Presidency are about to go into hyperdrive.
Tiberius Posted November 29, 2016 Posted November 29, 2016 His opponent felt the same way, so either way, that's what you were going to get. Not a defense, just a commentary. Hillary was calling for arresting flag burners?
Recommended Posts