[s]YouTube stuff[/s] cancelled

[Smitty-48]

Looks like some kind of hipster peacock.
Good for him though, sticking to his fashion decision no matter how crazy it makes him look.

Indeed, It's his iconic style, he owns it.

Not my thing tho, I got my fill of high collars in army No. 1 Dress Ceremonial.

[SuburbanFarmer]

It appears that both sides are willing to play lawyers when it suits them. Both sides are also willing to avoid direct evidence in favor of feelz. Shocking.

[StCapps]

It appears that both sides are willing to play lawyers when it suits them. Both sides are also willing to avoid direct evidence in favor of feelz. Shocking.

It appears the Grumpy no idea what evidence is, and his milquetoast fence sitter act isn't fooling anybody.

[Smitty-48]

It appears that both sides are willing to play lawyers when it suits them. Both sides are also willing to avoid direct evidence in favor of feelz. Shocking.

It appears the Grumpy no idea what evidence is, and his milquetoast fence sitter act isn't fooling anybody.

Milquetoast Millennial Subhuman Cockroach.

[Speaker to Animals]

There are allowances for obvious hyperbole. He is not inciting violence, he is not actually threatening anyone, that's free speech.

Depends if the threat is actionable, I'd imagine. You'd have to ask Fife, but it is generally not generally a good idea to express those kinds of threats.

1. First, there has to be a specific federal or N.Y. criminal statute that would support prosecution. Federal -- is the old guy inciting anyone else to do something violent, or is he just talking about what he would do, given the opportunity. "If I had a gun, I'd wipe em all out," or "Give me a gun and I'll take care of em all." I don't see that he is trying to get anyone else to fuck the SJWs up, he's just saying what he would do if he had a chance. Maybe some of the later "making terroristic threats" statutes could fit, it would take a little research.

2. Second, is the First A. an absolute defense in this case? Check the Brandenburg test. "Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." I doubt a jury would find this old guy was likely to produce an actual shooting by what he said, imminently or otherwise.

This old guy should have definitely chosen some other language to express what he was thinking, maybe something like "if I was still young enough, I'd take any and every one of you faggot motherfuckers on anywhere, anytime." But he's a 90+ year old veteran of the Pacific Theater, I'm willing to give him a little slack when he's confronted by worthless shitheads with nothing better to do than taunt him.

For midwit commie fucks to advocate for this old guy to be prosecuted, when he was clearly provoked by the limp-dicked pansies on the sidewalk of his fucking parade, is de rigueur for the mob-rule communist mentality I'm afraid.

Thanks for the insight.

[Speaker to Animals]

At least one of those protesters was a veteran.

A veteran who is openly violating his oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. Oath breakers are haram.

[Speaker to Animals]

There are allowances for obvious hyperbole. He is not inciting violence, he is not actually threatening anyone, that's free speech.

Depends if the threat is actionable, I'd imagine. You'd have to ask Fife, but it is generally not generally a good idea to express those kinds of threats.

Not generally a good idea, sure. But he wasn't threatening anyone, he was just using a figure of speech because he was pissed at the douche bag protestors is all. That is very obvious to anyone who isn't Montegriffo anyway.

I am just saying. I understand why he is pissed. I get it. I just think it's a pretty bad idea to give these democrat insurgents rhetorical ammunition for anything.

[Montegriffo]

At least one of those protesters was a veteran.

A veteran who is openly violating his oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. Oath breakers are haram.

So you believe that protesting against the government is anti-constitutional?
Perhaps you would be more comfortable living in a country with an absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia rather than a constitutional democracy.

[Montegriffo]

Depends if the threat is actionable, I'd imagine. You'd have to ask Fife, but it is generally not generally a good idea to express those kinds of threats.

Not generally a good idea, sure. But he wasn't threatening anyone, he was just using a figure of speech because he was pissed at the douche bag protestors is all. That is very obvious to anyone who isn't Montegriffo anyway.

I am just saying. I understand why he is pissed. I get it. I just think it's a pretty bad idea to give these democrat insurgents rhetorical ammunition for anything.

Protesting against your government makes you an insurgent?
I know you aren't a fan of democracy but wishing for a totalitarian state run by the military does not make you a patriot.

[Speaker to Animals]

At least one of those protesters was a veteran.

A veteran who is openly violating his oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. Oath breakers are haram.

So you believe that protesting against the government is anti-constitutional?
Perhaps you would be more comfortable living in a country with an absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia rather than a constitutional democracy.

No. Protesting is just fine, Monte. Nobody is arguing that protesting is unconstitutional. We are pointing out what these people are actually advocating in their "protest". They are calling for the unconstitutional and illegitimate overthrow of American democracy. Stop being so insufferably autistic about this point.

The veteran protesting was violating his oath not by protesting but what he was protesting for.

The veteran making terroristic threats does so from his oath to defend the Constitution from her enemies, including domestic enemies, of which the democratic party largely consists today. Anybody who wants to overthrow the 2016 election simply because they don't like Trump makes themselves an enemy of the Constitution.

Get Trump on an actual crime and you are golden. Literally any crime. The Constitution even allows for misdemeanors, but don't then act shocked when your hypocrisy is called out for not advocating the removal of Obama after he was caught in numerous felonious crimes and even weaponized the intelligence community against the opposition party as if this is Nicaragua.

Most veterans are disgusted right now because we saw what the fuck the left is wishing for here. It's fucking horrible. You don't want to live in the Balkans during the wars. Or the sectarian conflicts in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Most of Africa, etc. Just fucking stop. Because it really would be easier to follow this old cat's advice than deal with what will happen if these people succeed in overthrowing the elected government of the United States.