America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 40,459 comments
- 1,848,293 views
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,626
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
I'd suggest you look at the photo in my post you replied to again. The group whose records were burnt in it were banned by over 30 radio stations. Today, books are being banned by libraries. Legislation such as Stop WOKE bans educators from teaching people about historical racism and sexism.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 34,134
- Mile High City
Sure would be a shame if there was a video of Rittenhouse saying he'd like to go murder people that wasn't taken into account by the jury because of the judge. Oops!
6 details the Kyle Rittenhouse jury didn't consider when it deliberated the teenager's fate
Several details about Kyle Rittenhouse and the men he shot garnered media attention, but were not deemed appropriate for the jury to consider.
www.insider.com
Last edited:
Obelisk
Premium
- 9,820
- United States
- RMedia_Obelisk
On top of that, the dude actively brought a firearm across state lines to an unfamiliar area where he knew there was going to be a lot of tension. It's one thing if your home is in arm's reach of a potential violent clash, but it's another when you are actively arming yourself and seeking out a violent clash.
Been LOLing at this thread over the past few days with how painfully goofy and false the talking points from the one user are.
Been LOLing at this thread over the past few days with how painfully goofy and false the talking points from the one user are.
Last edited:
- 99
- United States
I wasn't aware of that video. If it's him saying that, it seems like the guy is an asshole and could be specifically looking for trouble. Yet, he didn't shoot at people entering stores, or marching down the street.
Also, why he and the guy who helped him obtain the gun illegally got away with it?
Obelisk
Premium
- 9,820
- United States
- RMedia_Obelisk
The guy who aided him paid a $2,000 fine. He pleaded no contest on the charges.
Obelisk
Premium
- 9,820
- United States
- RMedia_Obelisk
"Pretty old" is an overestimate. The stuff you're trying to challenge UKMikey on was in the 1860s.
The picture is from a protest against the Beatles in 1966 (over 100 years more recent and much more pertinent to modern culture) because John Lennon said something to the effect of the Beatles being "more popular than Jesus" in a March 1966 interview.
McLaren
Premium
- 45,737
- Texas
Forgetting a crucial part of that story.
When did Democrats and Republicans switch platforms?
When did Democrats and Republicans switch platforms, changing their political stances — and why? The Republicans used to favor big government, while Democrats were committed to curbing federal power.
www.livescience.com
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,626
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
In your eagerness to go back to antebellum history, you appear to have neglected to mention the stuff happening today in the rest of my post.
The Democrats of a century and a half ago aren't the same people as those of today. Meanwhile, the people who banned the Beatles are on the same side as those who ban women from life saving birth control today. They haven't switched their stance.
Last edited:
- 40,930
Lol "Republicans ended slavery and Democrats wanted it" is stuff I learned the truth about in middle school.
Anyway, sidestepping this sideshow for a second:
I'm glad the Biden came out and denied being involved with this specific Hunter nonsense.
Anyway, sidestepping this sideshow for a second:
I'm glad the Biden came out and denied being involved with this specific Hunter nonsense.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 34,134
- Mile High City
What about these people that the prison system let back out on the streets?
I can post pictures all day of attractive young people who were killed by people that were let back out on the streets for one reason or another. Does this mean that we should execute all people who are charged with particular crimes because they might kill again? Does this mean that the parole board is responsible for their crimes afteward? The idea that because someone who was deported might come back and commit a crime means that cities can never dispute any enforcement over legal or illegal immigration is... well it's these:
Last edited:
- 5,777
- Alabamistan
He's just upset that illegals are taking jobs away from American citizens who murder. It's the same thing as painting illegals as mostly sexual predators and abusers. The churches and religious organizations should stand up and say, "hey that's our jobs".What these people who the prison system let back out on the streets?
I can post pictures all day of attractive young people who were killed by people that were let back out on the streets for one reason or another. Does this mean that we should execute all people who are charged with particular crimes because they might kill again? Does this mean that the parole board is responsible for their crimes afteward? The idea that because someone who was deported might come back and commit a crime means that cities can never dispute any enforcement over legal or illegal immigration is... well it's these:
Keef
Premium
- 25,190
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
Just completed a full trial of jury duty yesterday which included half a day of jury selection, 2.5 days of trial, and about 8 hours of jury deliberation. It was a doozy for several reasons including lack of evidence, unreliable witnesses, and the fact that it wasn't until after our verdict was handed in that we realized we not only just changed a man's life forever but also overturned a prior verdict.
Very strange how a change in law and subsequent appeal could turn multiple counts of murder into self defense. I can only imagine that the previous jury may have felt in their hearts that this was a case of self defense but inadequate law and rules prevented them from being able to justify that. During the intial trial over two years ago, the burden of proof for self defense was on the defendant. Now, the burden of proof against self defense is on the prosecution. And frankly, so little was proven from any perspective that whoever the burden happens to be on at the time was always going to lose.
The system works in mysterious ways. We're all individuals making decisions in our lives and as individuals we have to weigh all sides of an issue when we make a big decisions. But court breaks that down into pieces, to the point where they create teams, a "good" and "bad" team, a prosecution and defense, and those teams are so focused on whatever their job may be that it's like they've taken the angel and devil off your shoulder and sat them at tables in front of you. That's really what it felt like, like they took our internal decision making process and put it in front of my eyeballs to soak everything in step by step.
I hated it but it was very interesting and ultimately the whole jury agreed enough that it worked. And now a young man in his twenties who thought he was hanging with friends but ended up scared in a split-second decision making process is free to roam after being imprisoned for something he never wanted to happen. Hopefully he's able to move to a better place, make more trustworthy friends, and find some stability.
And yeah I'd be glad to do it again. It's almost like all that time spent arguing on the internet has finally amounted to something.
Very strange how a change in law and subsequent appeal could turn multiple counts of murder into self defense. I can only imagine that the previous jury may have felt in their hearts that this was a case of self defense but inadequate law and rules prevented them from being able to justify that. During the intial trial over two years ago, the burden of proof for self defense was on the defendant. Now, the burden of proof against self defense is on the prosecution. And frankly, so little was proven from any perspective that whoever the burden happens to be on at the time was always going to lose.
The system works in mysterious ways. We're all individuals making decisions in our lives and as individuals we have to weigh all sides of an issue when we make a big decisions. But court breaks that down into pieces, to the point where they create teams, a "good" and "bad" team, a prosecution and defense, and those teams are so focused on whatever their job may be that it's like they've taken the angel and devil off your shoulder and sat them at tables in front of you. That's really what it felt like, like they took our internal decision making process and put it in front of my eyeballs to soak everything in step by step.
I hated it but it was very interesting and ultimately the whole jury agreed enough that it worked. And now a young man in his twenties who thought he was hanging with friends but ended up scared in a split-second decision making process is free to roam after being imprisoned for something he never wanted to happen. Hopefully he's able to move to a better place, make more trustworthy friends, and find some stability.
And yeah I'd be glad to do it again. It's almost like all that time spent arguing on the internet has finally amounted to something.
Last edited:
- 21,105
- NJ/USA
- Blitzbay
Reminds me, I'm probably due for jury duty again sometime soon.Just completed a full trial of jury duty yesterday which included half a day of jury selection, 2.5 days of trial, and about 8 hours of jury deliberation. It was a doozy for several reasons including lack of evidence, unreliable witnesses, and the fact that it wasn't until after our verdict was handed in that we realized we not only just changed a man's life forever but also overturned a prior verdict.
Very strange how a change in law and subsequent appeal could turn multiple counts of murder into self defense. I can only imagine that the previous jury may have felt in their hearts that this was a case of self defense but inadequate law and rules prevented them from being able to justify that. During the intial trial over two years ago, the burden of proof for self defense was on the defendant. Now, the burden of proof against self defense is on the prosecution. And frankly, so little was proven from any perspective that whoever the burden happens to be on at the time was always going to lose.
The system works in mysterious ways. We're all individuals making decisions in our lives and as individuals we have to weigh all sides of an issue when we make a big decisions. But court breaks that down into pieces, to the point where they create teams, a "good" and "bad" team, a prosecution and defense, and those teams are so focused on whatever their job may be that it's like they've taken the angel and devil off your shoulder and sat them at tables in front of you. That's really what it felt like, like they took our internal decision making process and put it in front of my eyeballs to soak everything in step by step.
I hated it but it was very interesting and ultimately the whole jury agreed enough that it worked. And now a young man in his twenties who thought he was hanging with friends but ended up scared in a split-second decision making process is free to roam after being imprisoned for something he never wanted to happen. Hopefully he's able to move to a better place, make more trustworthy friends, and find some stability.
And yeah I'd be glad to do it again. It's almost like all that time spent arguing on the internet has finally amounted to something.
Last edited:
- 30,119
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
lol
This is no different from a Democrat living in a deep red state citing family who worry about their situation. Tell me, how effective a rhetorical device do you consider that to be?
Republicans: "States' rights."
Also Republicans: "ReEeEeEeEeEeEeEe SaNcTuArY CiTiEs!!1!"
As I've said before, Republicans are only for "states' rights" (states don't actually have rights; states only have force) insofar as they can invoke it to block federal enforcement of that which they oppose. They absolutely want federal enforcement of their own agenda.
Particularly humorous here is the conservative cause célèbre of advocating for the selective abolishment of federal law enforcement, but obviously not ICE...because reasons.
Oh, they absolutely understand it, they just think they should benefit from it without being constrained by it; in-groups protected but not bound and out-groups bound but not protected.
So I've been seeing a lot of this supposed "PedoCon [Pedophile Conservatives*] Theory" which highlights those who want to link drag and general LGBT-"ness" to child sexual abuse being revealed to have been involved in child sexual abuse themselves, either indirectly as by possession of sexual abuse materials or directly as by sexual assault of the underaged, and at bare minimum I'm more than a little curious about the contents of your various electronic devices, while on the other end I may wonder if--to borrow from online rhetoric of the anti-drag right--a wood chipper might be called for.
*I should say that I'm not super thrilled about the name for reasons that I've stated elsewhere. Pedophilia is thought alone and doesn't imply action, nor are those who perpetrate child sexual assault necessarily pedophiles. Rape isn't sex. Rape is abuse.
That said, the theory itself is certainly probative. Examples provided are numerous.
A pending lawsuit isn't meaningful--people can sue over just about anything--but I suppose you're referring to the Center for American Liberty...lol...and its suit against the Chico Unified School District over a counselor "socially transitioning" a student by using their preferred pronouns without the notification of guardians, which isn't in violation of California statute and thus isn't an actionable tort, but then performativity is the point when it comes to conservatives' pronoun bitchfit.
Notably, "social transitioning" has exactly nothing to do with puberty blockers and "genital mutlation," but neither is it accurate that an 11-year-old isn't allowed to make legal decisions. There are circumstances in which consent by minors isn't recognized by law unless a parent or legal guardian also consents, such as medical decisions (of which "social transitioning" is not an example), but there are many others in which sole consent by minors is.
It should be said that parents don't own their children, nor do parents have rights. Individuals have rights and individuals may be parents, but "parents' rights" is collectivist nonsense that's too often invoked by conservatives to ignore or disfavorably weight the rights of individuals, even when those individuals are also parents.
Private actors availing social networks conditionally and entirely at their discretion absolutely have expressive rights, and removal of user content on the basis that private actors disagree with it rather than that it's in violation of the law is itself free speech. Again, in-groups protected but not bound and out-groups bound but not protected.
Free speech is speech not subject to legitimate state action, either direct as by penalty or prosecution, or indirect as by adjudication of civil wrongs.
All speech is free except when it's not, and ideally it's only not when individuals are legitimately harmed by it. Speech is freer in some countries than others. The United States is pretty good, but exceptions such as fighting words and obscenity still exist as binding legal precedent.
Fighting Words Doctrine holds that speech which may provoke physical retaliation may be punished, except physical violence is never appropriate in response to otherwise protected expression and is itself a violation of rights.
Obscenity weaponizes offense, which is to say that expression may be unprotected if an individual may be offended by it. There is no right to not be offended (which is why there is no "hate speech" exception to free speech in the United States), and that offense is subjective makes it clear that the individual isn't legitimately harmed by it. Absurdly, the current test for obscenity in First Amendment jurisprudence (the Miller test) even employs community standards as one of the prongs; the notion that individuals in a community may be more likely to be offended by materials.
It's funny because conservatives will even cancel conservatives when, like Kaepernick, they're guilty of wrongthink. See the pro-Trump media outlet Breitbart's smear campaign against DeSantis using conservative influencer and prominent DeSantis supporter Pedro Gonzalez's racist and anti-Semitic messages.
lol. No but those are passive threats. Just like the bomb threats directed at hospitals based on the falsehood perpetuate by conservatives that they're performing gender reassignment "bottom" surgery on minors.
Is it weird that conservatives insist that the Democrats (who were conservatives) were fighting to keep slaves at the very same time that they insist that conservatives (who were Democrats) were fighting for "states' rights"? I think it's weird. Also the Confederate flag is definitely a symbol of Southern heritage, right?
Republicans: "Hunter Biden is a junkie, a whoremonger, a tax cheat, and generally corrupt."
Also Republicans: "Hunter Biden absolutely would not lie about his dad, the former vice president, being present for a text conversation to impress someone on the other end. Nope."
Last edited:
- 5,107
- Nor Cal
- sturk0167
Too long. Didn't readlol
This is no different from a Democrat living in a deep red state citing family who worry about their situation. Tell me, how effective a rhetorical device do you consider that to be?
Republicans: "States' rights."
Also Republicans: "ReEeEeEeEeEeEeEe SaNcTuArY CiTiEs!!1!"
As I've said before, Republicans are only for "states' rights" (states don't actually have rights; states only have force) insofar as they can invoke it to block federal enforcement of that which they oppose. They absolutely want federal enforcement of their own agenda.
Particularly humorous here is the conservative cause célèbre of advocating for the selective abolishment of federal law enforcement, but obviously not ICE...because reasons.
Oh, they absolutely understand it, they just think they should benefit from it without being constrained by it; in-groups protected but not bound and out-groups bound but not protected.
So I've been seeing a lot of this supposed "PedoCon [Pedophile Conservatives*] Theory" which highlights those who want to link drag and general LGBT-"ness" to child sexual abuse being revealed to have been involved in child sexual abuse themselves, either indirectly as by possession of sexual abuse materials or directly as by sexual assault of the underaged, and at bare minimum I'm more than a little curious about the contents of your various electronic devices, while on the other end I may wonder if--to borrow from online rhetoric of the anti-drag right--a wood chipper might be called for.
*I should say that I'm not super thrilled about the name for reasons that I've stated elsewhere. Pedophilia is thought alone and doesn't imply action, nor are those who perpetrate child sexual assault necessarily pedophiles. Rape isn't sex. Rape is abuse.
That said, the theory itself is certainly probative. Examples provided are numerous.
A pending lawsuit isn't meaningful--people can sue over just about anything--but I suppose you're referring to the Center for American Liberty...lol...and its suit against the Chico Unified School District over a counselor "socially transitioning" a student by using their preferred pronouns without the notification of guardians, which isn't in violation of California statute and thus isn't an actionable tort, but then performativity is the point when it comes to conservatives' pronoun bitchfit.
Notably, "social transitioning" has exactly nothing to do with puberty blockers and "genital mutlation," but neither is it accurate that an 11-year-old isn't allowed to make legal decisions. There are circumstances in which consent by minors isn't recognized by law unless a parent or legal guardian also consents, such as medical decisions (of which "social transitioning" is not an example), but there are many others in which sole consent by minors is.
It should be said that parents don't own their children, nor do parents have rights. Individuals have rights and individuals may be parents, but "parents' rights" is collectivist nonsense that's too often invoked by conservatives to ignore or disfavorably weight the rights of individuals, even when those individuals are also parents.
Private actors availing social networks conditionally and entirely at their discretion absolutely have expressive rights, and removal of user content on the basis that private actors disagree with it rather than that it's in violation of the law is itself free speech. Again, in-groups protected but not bound and out-groups bound but not protected.
Free speech is speech not subject to legitimate state action, either direct as by penalty or prosecution, or indirect as by adjudication of civil wrongs.
All speech is free except when it's not, and ideally it's only not when individuals are legitimately harmed by it. Speech is freer in some countries than others. The United States is pretty good, but exceptions such as fighting words and obscenity still exist as binding legal precedent.
Fighting Words Doctrine holds that speech which may provoke physical retaliation may be punished, except physical violence is never appropriate in response to otherwise protected expression and is itself a violation of rights.
Obscenity weaponizes offense, which is to say that expression may be unprotected if an individual may be offended by it. There is no right to not be offended (which is why there is no "hate speech" exception to free speech in the United States), and that offense is subjective makes it clear that the individual isn't legitimately harmed by it. Absurdly, the current test for obscenity in First Amendment jurisprudence (the Miller test) even employs community standards as one of the prongs; the notion that individuals in a community may be more likely to be offended by materials.
It's funny because conservatives will even cancel conservatives when, like Kaepernick, they're guilty of wrongthink. See the pro-Trump media outlet Breitbart's smear campaign against DeSantis using conservative influencer and prominent DeSantis supporter Pedro Gonzalez's racist and anti-Semitic messages.
lol. No but those are passive threats. Just like the bomb threats directed at hospitals based on the falsehood perpetuate by conservatives that they're performing gender reassignment "bottom" surgery on minors.
Is it weird that conservatives insist that the Democrats (who were conservatives) were fighting to keep slaves at the very same time that they insist that conservatives (who were Democrats) were fighting for "states' rights"? I think it's weird. Also the Confederate flag is definitely a symbol of Southern heritage, right?
Republicans: "Hunter Biden is a junkie, a whoremonger, a tax cheat, and generally corrupt."
Also Republicans: "Hunter Biden absolutely would not lie about his dad, the former vice president, being present for a text conversation to impress someone on the other end. Nope."
- 11,953
- Marin County
- 3,817
- Hoboken, New Jersey
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,626
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
Are you sure they weren't too long for him to read?
Think he's just happy that fewer black people and other minorities will become college grads and that libs are sad about it.
Last edited:
