Page 50 of 58 FirstFirst ... 40464748495051525354 ... LastLast
Results 736 to 750 of 860

Thread: Was 2020 election stolen or not?

  1. #736 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,854
    Thanks
    30,538
    Thanked 12,939 Times in 11,525 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    All of which has been debunked, but if one is drunk on the Kool Aid, all the facts in the world ain’t going to make a difference
    Argument of the stone fallacy. Attempted proof by stone. You can't wish the evidence away, dude.
    "The atmosphere is among the factors that determines the Earth's atmosphere." --ZenMode
    "Donald has failed in almost every endeavor he has attempted. " --floridafan
    "Abortion is not a moral issue. " --BidenPresident
    "Propaganda can also be factual." --Flash
    "Even after being vaccinated, you shed virus particles." --Jerome
    "no slavery is forcing another into labor" -archives
    "Evs are much safer from fires" -- Nordberg
    "Abortion has killed no one." -- LurchAddams

  2. #737 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    136,609
    Thanks
    46,754
    Thanked 68,633 Times in 51,921 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,506 Times in 2,463 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    I think you're intimidated by me, which is why you are trying to diminish me here.
    Interesting. Am I correct? Aren't you a young woman, late teens/early twenties, who hasn't completed a college degree?

    If that's accurate, then where is the insult? How can I be diminishing you? Truth is truth.

    If I'm wrong and you're really a dried up old spinster and misandrist, then I can see why you think my opinion is diminishing.
    God bless America and those who defend our Constitution.

    "Hatred is a failure of imagination" - Graham Greene, "The Power and the Glory"

  3. #738 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,410 Times in 10,039 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle View Post
    Interesting. Am I correct? Aren't you a young woman, late teens/early twenties, who hasn't completed a college degree?
    Nope.

    Your instincts steered you wrong yet again.


    If that's accurate, then where is the insult? How can I be diminishing you? Truth is truth.
    It's not true, and it also has no bearing on my arguments or points.

    I don't use my personal given circumstances in a debate.

    I don't make anecdotal arguments.

    I don't use "take my word for it".

    I just have standards that many people can't seem to meet.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  4. #739 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    Again, not a lie because Nazis pose an inherent threat to me because I'm Jewish. Stand your ground applies in that case.
    No such thing as an "inherent threat." Another lie from LV426. Stand your ground only applies to a person making aggressive moves toward you that could cause harm. A Nazi uniform is not an "aggressive move."

    Again, you are spreading lies and disinformation just like those claiming election fraud.

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    5 judges did that very thing to a woman in New York, about a month ago:

    Judge Orders New York Woman to Remove Confederate Flag or Risk Custody of Biracial Child
    https://www.newsweek.com/judge-order...-child-1590881
    You should be ashamed of such misleading lies. This is not a free speech case. The article clearly states "while recognizing that the First Amendment protects the mother's right to display the flag,.." You apparently did not even read the article you linked to since it makes clear she has the constitutional right to display the flag.
    This is a child custody case and the conditions of the home are an important factor. If the woman had the flag when she was first granted custody there has been no "change" in the conditions of the home and would not be an issue. But the flag was placed there after granting custody. Don't confuse free speech with child custody issues.

    You are willing to be deceptive to try to win an argument even when you know you are wrong.

  5. #740 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,410 Times in 10,039 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle View Post
    If I'm wrong and you're really a dried up old spinster and misandrist, then I can see why you think my opinion is diminishing.
    Every instinct you have is wrong.

    You should re-evaluate your life choices because they led you to this; trying to pick a fight with someone on an anonymous forum because they don't accommodate your entitlement.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  6. #741 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,410 Times in 10,039 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    No such thing as an "inherent threat."
    Yes there is, it is the basis of many "stand your ground" laws.


    Stand your ground only applies to a person making aggressive moves toward you that could cause harm
    A Nazi's mere existence is intended to cause harm to me, so they are perpetually an imminent threat.


    Again, you are spreading lies and disinformation just like those claiming election fraud.
    No I'm not, Flash. This is a legal interpretation of self defense laws that are applied evenly. If a Black man, by his mere existence, justifies deadly force from police officers because they feel their safety is threatened by that man's presence, then the same applies to citizens.


    You should be ashamed of such misleading lies. This is not a free speech case. The article clearly states "while recognizing that the First Amendment protects the mother's right to display the flag,.."
    Yeah, however, the judges said "in spite of that, you have to give up your flag if you want to see your kid".

    So that is quite literally FIVE JUDGES ordering someone to remove their Confederate Flag....which is precisely what you claimed never happened.


    This is a child custody case and the conditions of the home are an important factor. If the woman had the flag when she was first granted custody there has been no "change" in the conditions of the home and would not be an issue. But the flag was placed there after granting custody. Don't confuse free speech with child custody issues.
    What does a flag have to do with child welfare? Is this the same argument for keeping Confederate monuments up?
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  7. The Following User Says Thank You to LV426 For This Post:

    evince (06-15-2021)

  8. #742 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    183,528
    Thanks
    71,923
    Thanked 35,503 Times in 27,049 Posts
    Groans
    53
    Groaned 19,565 Times in 18,156 Posts
    Blog Entries
    16

  9. #743 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,410 Times in 10,039 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    You are willing to be deceptive to try to win an argument even when you know you are wrong.
    You said this was a lie:

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    5. A judge can prohibit a person from flying a Confederate flag.
    Then I posted this which is precisely what you said above was a lie:

    Judge Orders New York Woman to Remove Confederate Flag or Risk Custody of Biracial Child
    https://www.newsweek.com/judge-order...-child-1590881

    And then you tried to move the goalposts to make this a First Amendment issue, after having to eat a plate of shit by reading 5 judges ordering someone to remove their Confederate Flag:

    This is not a free speech case.
    Doesn't fucking matter because you have 5 judges unanimously doing exactly the thing you said was a lie.

    You didn't say "5. A judge can prohibit a person from flying a Confederate flag in free speech cases", you just said, blanket statement, that it was a lie that judges could order Confederate Flags to be removed.

    Clearly they can, and they did.

    So you're saying that a judge CAN order flags down, so long as it's part of a court order for something else, and that isn't a First Amendment violation?

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  10. The Following User Says Thank You to LV426 For This Post:

    evince (06-15-2021)

  11. #744 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    183,528
    Thanks
    71,923
    Thanked 35,503 Times in 27,049 Posts
    Groans
    53
    Groaned 19,565 Times in 18,156 Posts
    Blog Entries
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle View Post
    LV, as a young woman, tends to see the world mostly in emotional terms, not coldly logical terms. She wants you to share her angst at the assholes pushing the Big Lie, not have you explain why they are assholes.

    QED

    The classic "undisciplined mind of a human being".
    What the fuck Dutch



    Eat shit you misogynous dick lips

  12. #745 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,410 Times in 10,039 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Don't confuse free speech with child custody issues.
    If you're going to move the bar, at least be subtle about it.

    They ordered the flag down in spite of the First Amendment, which proves my case that a judge can order you to not fly a Confederate Flag.

    At what point does it cross from being a 1A issue to a child welfare issue? What is the Legal threshold? Or is this just a specious argument you're making?
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  13. #746 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,410 Times in 10,039 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evince View Post
    What the fuck Dutch

    Eat shit you misogynous dick lips
    If he's this much of a misogynist on JPP to someone he thinks is a woman, can you imagine how much of a prick he is to the actual, real women in his life?
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  14. The Following User Says Thank You to LV426 For This Post:

    evince (06-15-2021)

  15. #747 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    If you're going to move the bar, at least be subtle about it.

    They ordered the flag down in spite of the First Amendment, which proves my case that a judge can order you to not fly a Confederate Flag.

    At what point does it cross from being a 1A issue to a child welfare issue? What is the Legal threshold? Or is this just a specious argument you're making?
    The woman only had to remove the flag to retain custody of the child because he was biracial. If the custody issue did not exist they could not order her to remove the flag.

    So, my point still stands. A person has the right to display a Confederate (or any other) flag under the 1st Amendment.

    A person has the right to wear a Nazi uniform and as long as they are not threatening and peaceful you have no right to harm them as there is no such thing as an "inherent threat." Stand your ground means if a person is approaching you in a threatening matter you are not required to give ground to prevent a conflict (as required in some states).

    The case was never a free speech case because displaying the flag was not an issue. Only when they were evaluating her for child custody did it become an issue.

    In one court case a woman was granted custody of her child. Afterward, her boyfriend moved into the house. In order to keep the child the judge ordered her to either marry the boyfriend or remove him from the house and take the child to the church of her choice. The court threw out the religious requirement but upheld the live-in boyfriend order--because conditions changed.

    If we all lived in your world none of us would have any freedoms if you disagreed with the content.

  16. #748 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,410 Times in 10,039 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    The woman only had to remove the flag to retain custody of the child because he was biracial.
    Ah, so the flag represents something, then?

    You've been saying it doesn't. That it's "just a flag."

    Now you seem to be changing your argument again.

    So, this woman was ordered by five judges to remove her racist flag because it puts the child's welfare into danger/question.

    But how could a flag do that if it's just a flag, like you had been saying for years?

    Remember? You and I got into a long argument about how the flag doesn't represent anything, doesn't cause harm, doesn't mean anything other than being a flag.

    You threw that whole argument away for this new one that tries to make a distinction between a judge ordering someone to remove a flag, and a judge ordering someone to remove a flag.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  17. #749 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,410 Times in 10,039 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    So, my point still stands. A person has the right to display a Confederate (or any other) flag under the 1st Amendment.
    It doesn't matter the reason for removing the flag, what matters is that the flag was removed.

    The only way your argument can now make sense is if you agree that the Confederate Flag is more than "just a flag".

    Remember, you had been arguing for years that it's just a flag and can't be representative of racism because it means different things to different people, it can't pose a physical threat, it can't harm anyone.

    THAT WHOLE ARGUMENT OF YOURS IS NOW INVALIDATED BY YOUR NEW ONE.

    So a judge can most definitely order you to remove a Confederate Flag if it is putting someone's welfare or safety at risk, which is what the judges said in this case.

    And again, YOU SAID BEFORE that a flag could never do that.

    But now your new argument hinges on the flag actually causing harm or threatening someone's welfare.

    You just fucked your entire argument over because you have a personal hatred for me.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  18. The Following User Says Thank You to LV426 For This Post:

    evince (06-15-2021)

  19. #750 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,410 Times in 10,039 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    The case was never a free speech case because displaying the flag was not an issue. Only when they were evaluating her for child custody did it become an issue.
    The 1A doesn't go away simply because it's inconvenient for your argument.

    The 1A doesn't go away because of something unrelated.

    Now, the problem you face is that you can't pretend that the Confederate Flag doesn't pose harm or a threat because you're arguing that it does for the sake of your 1A/not-1A-but-1A argument.

    You said before that a flag could never harm anyone.

    Now you're saying it can.

    So you completely flip-flopped on your position just to try and spite me.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


Similar Threads

  1. Newt Gingrich - No question the close batteground states were STOLEN in 2020 election
    By Text Drivers are Killers in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-10-2021, 11:45 AM
  2. The stolen election in the news
    By Legion in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-26-2021, 10:09 AM
  3. The stolen election in the news
    By The Anonymous in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-12-2021, 05:44 PM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-21-2021, 01:23 PM
  5. Stolen election?
    By Canceled.LTroll.29 in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-21-2008, 01:39 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

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