'Take your a** home!' Heavily-armed black rights groups march through Austin chanting anti-illegal m

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Steve N, Sep 26, 2022.

  1. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) No it wasn't.
    2) No, I'm not. Quote the case then.
    3) The you in that sentence is the 2nd person informal. Think of it like a singular nebulous "they" or them. Not YOU personally, YOU as in ONE PERSON. Your claim was that a person saying they support the right to protest was endorsing the protest and may be up against it under the rule of parties ffs.
    4) We're talking about legal consequences, not what society thinks makes you an *******. Thanks for admitting your position has no basis in law though.
    5) He a) did not have his hands up surrendering and b) was actively charging the officer at the time. This is on tape, and I was at a historically black college when it occurred so trust me when I tell you that I've watched that tape and discussed that shooting ad nauseum Do you REALLY want to go for 2?
    6) Condoning violence is not what was done, the political speech itself was not illegal, and political speech can be vile and still be perfectly legal SEE Westboro Baptist Church.
     
    Buri likes this.
  2. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wow that's so cool and interesting and will somehow prevent the cascade of retaliatory strikes that a nuke fired in anger will cause. Totes mcgotes.
     
  3. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Bullying non nuke nations? You mean finishing a war the Japs started with an ambush attack? And only dropping nukes AFTER we had given them the ultimatum that we were going to start firebombing the main island if they wouldn't surrender and they told us to get ****ed? Yeah sure dude, big bully there.

    They started it, we gave them the opportunity to quit, they ****ed around and found the **** out.
    That's how wars work.
    Here: RUSSIA started it for a land grab, and as they're getting their **** pushed in violently in a conventional war they are laughably unprepared for by the Ukies have now threatened to turn a significant portion of the European breadbasket into radioactive glass. That's a poor choice.

    I oppose Russia invading a sovereign nation and trying to land grab it, and I oppose Russia threatening to back up their land grab with nukes when they KNOW we and the rest of the nuclear powers are essentially obligated to respond if he drops a nuke.
    They want to **** around and find out too? Nothing we can really do about it at this point. Unless you have a time machine or a magic wand banging around at your place?
     
    Buri likes this.
  4. JET3534

    JET3534 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2014
    Messages:
    13,350
    Likes Received:
    11,517
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So I guess it comes down to this question. Should American workers have to compete with illegals? The answer for any political party that claims to be for the working class should obviously answer NO. But yet they don't. Maybe the Dem are not really for the working class. Shocking.
     
    19Crib, ButterBalls and ricmortis like this.
  5. JET3534

    JET3534 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2014
    Messages:
    13,350
    Likes Received:
    11,517
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As expected. People that make claims should be able to present evidence to support their claims. Unless the claim was BS.
     
    ButterBalls likes this.
  6. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "In Heller and McDonald, we held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. In doing so, we held unconstitutional two laws that prohibited the possession and use of handguns in the home. In the years since, the Courts of Appeals have coalesced around a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny.
    ...
    " Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”T Konigsberg v. State Bar of Cal., 366 U. S. 36, 50, n. 10 (1961).3
    ...


    Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support applying means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Instead, the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.

    ...
    Not only did Heller decline to engage in means-end scrutiny generally, but it also specifically ruled out the intermediate-scrutiny test that respondents and the United States now urge us to adopt. Dissenting in Heller, Justice Breyer’s proposed standard—“ask[ing] whether [a] statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute’s salutary effects upon other important governmental interests,” id., at 689–690 (dissenting opinion)—simply expressed a classic formulation of intermediate scrutiny in a slightly different way, see Clark v. Jeter, 486 U. S. 456, 461 (1988) (asking whether the challenged law is “substantially related to an important government objective”). In fact, Justice Breyer all but admitted that his Heller dissent advocated for intermediate scrutiny by repeatedly invoking a quintessential intermediate- scrutiny precedent. See Heller, 554 U. S., at 690, 696, 704–705 (citing Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 520 U. S. 180 (1997)). Thus, when Heller expressly rejected that dissent’s “interest-balancing inquiry,” 554 U. S., at 634 (internal quotation marks omitted), it necessarily rejected intermediate scrutiny.5

    In sum, the Courts of Appeals’ second step is inconsistent with Heller’s historical approach and its rejection of means-end scrutiny. We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.” Konigsberg, 366 U. S., at 50, n. 10."

    Emphasis mine, from the decision of the Court. See how they say they reject a two step approach? See how they say historical analogs only?
    See how they say the two step interest balancing bullshit is popular but still wrong?
    Do you understand that that's the Court saying "all these decisions with interest balancing are wrong because they say Heller allows interest balancing but we explicitly find the opposite"?
    Sure you do.

    You really do not want to play this game with me dude, you're entirely unqualified. I'd say it isn't fun to beat up on a lay person, but I prefer not to lie. I enjoy it.
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2022
  7. Esau

    Esau Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2015
    Messages:
    16,720
    Likes Received:
    2,331
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Irrelevant.

    Israel struck first in Palestine. Nuke Israel, yes or no.
     
  8. Esau

    Esau Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2015
    Messages:
    16,720
    Likes Received:
    2,331
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So by this logic, Israel, for its land grab deserves to be nuked. Hmm, not sure I'm such a tyrant to think this way.
     
  9. Steve N

    Steve N Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2015
    Messages:
    70,217
    Likes Received:
    89,726
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    When released from prison the very first thing he did was call for violence only to be told his group evolved past that.
     
  10. Esau

    Esau Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2015
    Messages:
    16,720
    Likes Received:
    2,331
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Some ppl call bush a terrorist some ppl call him a hero, hey ho.
     
  11. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wait....When and where the hell did skin color come into our conversation about kicking people off of welfare that can work but won't come in?

    Oh well, it IS typical that when a lefty realizes that they have no case but don't want to admit it they resort to the race card. They just can't seem to help but see skin color in everything.
     
    JET3534 likes this.
  12. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I condemn lots of violence. But I don't consider words to be violence. The most words can do is INCITE violence. But they are not in and of themselves violence. I had and have no problem with ANY protest, so long as they don't turn into riots, I don't care what they say. In any case, what the group in the OP said is not violence.
     
  13. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Did you assume who it was that @Steve N was referring to in his OP?
     
  14. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Don't you think we'd know if they were? Anyway, Trump supporters don't tend to demand reparations for black people, or anyone else for that matter.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2022
  15. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "Reparations!"... "Reparations!"... "Reparations!" We hear all this "Reparations" bullshit from the hyperliberal, 'woke' Left, night and day -- BUT FOR WHAT?! Slavery ended in the United States, fully and finally, in 1865. The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act were made the law of the land back in 1964 and 1965 -- OVER 57 YEARS AGO!

    This "Reparations" nonsense is grossly unjust, and unfair, and it is nothing but a bald-faced SCAM of the most blatantly obvious kind, pushed by the America-hating, 'white-guilt' propaganda peddlers who, as always, want SOMETHING FOR NOTHING. :evil:










    search recall marker
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2022
    JET3534, Buri and chris155au like this.
  16. Egoboy

    Egoboy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    Messages:
    44,763
    Likes Received:
    32,099
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    True, but a false flag T**** operation certainly would... They are cogent enough to realize what some on the other side would ask for....
     
  17. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Are you promoting a conspiracy theory?
     
  18. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Did you assume who it was that @Steve N was referring to in his OP?
     
  19. Egoboy

    Egoboy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    Messages:
    44,763
    Likes Received:
    32,099
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's only a conspiracy theory if the original theory has been proven true...
     
  20. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What original theory?
     
  21. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Logic never works with ideologues!
     
  22. JET3534

    JET3534 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2014
    Messages:
    13,350
    Likes Received:
    11,517
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A "scam" is a good way to put it. Never understood the white guilt thing nor felt responsible as a white person for what other white people do good or bad, let alone before I was born. Nor do I feel gender guilt, or any other collective guilt pushed by liberals. I have to feel sorry for young people who are from an early age brainwashed with the left's identity politics.
     
    Pollycy likes this.
  23. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What original theory?
     
  24. 19Crib

    19Crib Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2021
    Messages:
    5,647
    Likes Received:
    5,529
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The illegal immigrants being sold to the people as low end labor. Actually only about 1/3 is. There are lots of English speakers among them who will work in the non union trades, office work, HVAC, masonry, glass, etc.
    Our schools are making blue collar work look low class, when in reality it is where the money is for most HS graduates.
    BTW, California glaziers union (AFAIK) only hires US citizens. In the SF Bay area they make ~ 50-80k a year depending on work and overtime.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2022
  25. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh, I agree! And I'm all in favor of LEGAL immigration -- within tightened limits. And I'm a big fan of "Green Card" workers who come in here legally, make good money, and then GO HOME! I wouldn't want anybody putting a new roof on my house unless he was Hispanic! Yeah... and I'm a right-wing Conservative, America-loving kind of guy!





    search recall marker
     

Share This Page