If we let that kind of wrong-think out into the society, we'd have millions of new terrorists next week. Jesus man, do you think our culture could withstand citizens actually discussing things in public? Who's going to obsess over our incremental technology upgrades, if they have actual issues to think about?
The people pushing that agenda don't have a problem with terrorism. That's their go-to tactic. They, and you, openly support the use of violence to suppress ideas.
You fail.
Never once have I supported any government suppression of ideas. However (for the 800th time), the Constitution does not protect me from kicking your ass when you say something stupid. You can sue for damages, or I can be arrested for assault, but it’s not a “free speech” issue.
I love how you always demonstrate that you actually do believe in terrorism as a legitimate means by throwing up this distinction between private mobs in the streets and government agents. You really think that makes it better.
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Dumb slut partied too hard and woke up in a weird house. Ran out the door, weeping for her failed life choices, concerned townsfolk notes her appearance and alerted the fuzz.
Okeefenokee wrote:
The people pushing that agenda don't have a problem with terrorism. That's their go-to tactic. They, and you, openly support the use of violence to suppress ideas.
You fail.
Never once have I supported any government suppression of ideas. However (for the 800th time), the Constitution does not protect me from kicking your ass when you say something stupid. You can sue for damages, or I can be arrested for assault, but it’s not a “free speech” issue.
I love how you always demonstrate that you actually do believe in terrorism as a legitimate means by throwing up this distinction between private mobs in the streets and government agents. You really think that makes it better.
Better or worse, the legal distinction is pretty fucking clear.
GrumpyCatFace wrote:
Never once have I supported any government suppression of ideas. However (for the 800th time), the Constitution does not protect me from kicking your ass when you say something stupid. You can sue for damages, or I can be arrested for assault, but it’s not a “free speech” issue.
I love how you always demonstrate that you actually do believe in terrorism as a legitimate means by throwing up this distinction between private mobs in the streets and government agents. You really think that makes it better.
Better or worse, the legal distinction is pretty fucking clear.
Yeah, both are illegal you fucking tard.
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Dumb slut partied too hard and woke up in a weird house. Ran out the door, weeping for her failed life choices, concerned townsfolk notes her appearance and alerted the fuzz.
Hanarchy Montanarchy wrote:There is no such thing as legitimate violence against the state?
George Washington will be crushed when he finds out.
Apparently, a popular uprising would be 'state violence' against the state. So, when the state retaliates with stormtroopers, it's really an inter-governmental conflict.
Grumps is saying political street violence by his pantifa butt buddies isn't state action, and therefor doesn't violate the 1A, as though that makes it legal.
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Dumb slut partied too hard and woke up in a weird house. Ran out the door, weeping for her failed life choices, concerned townsfolk notes her appearance and alerted the fuzz.
Okeefenokee wrote:
The people pushing that agenda don't have a problem with terrorism. That's their go-to tactic. They, and you, openly support the use of violence to suppress ideas.
You fail.
Never once have I supported any government suppression of ideas. However (for the 800th time), the Constitution does not protect me from kicking your ass when you say something stupid. You can sue for damages, or I can be arrested for assault, but it’s not a “free speech” issue.
Yeah, it's a 2nd Amendment issue.
Which he wants to repeal. Ergo he is against free speech.
Okeefenokee wrote:Grumps is saying political street violence by his pantifa butt buddies isn't state action, and therefor doesn't violate the 1A, as though that makes it legal.
Heckler's veto that is what he is advocating. He encourages the violence, he approves of it.