Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[kidcarter8]

GOP Senator Lisa Murkowski has urged the Republican Party to look to the future, emphasizing to CNN on Tuesday that she has "not embraced the party of former President Donald Trump."

The Alaska Republican said that "I think we're in a place where Donald Trump is gone and, in terms of his role in party, that has yet to be determined. But I have not embraced the party of Donald Trump. I'm looking for the Republican Party

Palin-Murkowski primary, please.

[josh]

It should be a crime more serious than 'public nuisance'.

Palm Beach man burns Australian flag in Brisbane’s Anzac Square

Mackenzie Ravn, Gold Coast Bulletin
April 24, 2015

A PALM Beach man has been arrested after burning the Australian flag in Brisbane’s Anzac Square today.

A police spokesman said officers were called to Anzac Square in Brisbane City about 10am following reports a man had brought a flag to the location and set it alight.

“They have attended and arrested a 66-year-old Palm Beach man and charged him with one count of public nuisance,” he said.

The man burnt the flag while standing near the Eternal Flame at Brisbane’s Shrine of Remembrance on the eve of Anzac Day.

The man will front Brisbane Magistrates Court tomorrow.

#####

bambu-ilk live in hope that flag burners will be seriously punished....well more seriously that "free speech" and "public nuisance" anyway.
"No conviction recorded" if they do their time with the toothbrush at city hall.

There are plenty of bambu-ilk in the west, 'screaming' with outrage every time their flags are shown being torched in public.

So you oppose free speech. No surprise there, Errol.

Burning the national flag is not speech, it's arson.
Turning to ashes all that the flag represents.
It should be a crime.

You hsave nothing new to say on this, to the point that youre making up bullshit to try to justify your unconstitutional views.

The laws you propose would be struck down: YOU do not get to decide what is or is not free speech, the US (not Australian) Supreme Court does.

They have ruled.

Drop it.

[josh]

GOP Senator Lisa Murkowski has urged the Republican Party to look to the future, emphasizing to CNN on Tuesday that she has "not embraced the party of former President Donald Trump."

The Alaska Republican said that "I think we're in a place where Donald Trump is gone and, in terms of his role in party, that has yet to be determined. But I have not embraced the party of Donald Trump. I'm looking for the Republican Party

Palin-Murkowski primary, please.

Kid has embraced the party of Donald Trump. He's not looking for the Republican Party[/i].

[LarryBnDC]

GOP Senator Lisa Murkowski has urged the Republican Party to look to the future, emphasizing to CNN on Tuesday that she has "not embraced the party of former President Donald Trump."

The Alaska Republican said that "I think we're in a place where Donald Trump is gone and, in terms of his role in party, that has yet to be determined. But I have not embraced the party of Donald Trump. I'm looking for the Republican Party

Palin-Murkowski primary, please.

Why?

Sarah is certifiable.

[LarryBnDC]

The anti-1619 Project bills (which come after U.S. Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas filed related legislation last July) are brief and use similar or identical language. The legislation out of Arkansas and Mississippi both call the project “a racially divisive and revisionist account of history that threatens the integrity of the Union by denying the true principles on which it was founded.” The Iowa bill expands its threat to school funding by suggesting any teachings with “any similarly developed curriculum” could face repercussions. The Missouri bill prohibits teaching, affirming or promoting claims, views, or opinions presented in the 1619 Project as “an accurate account or representation of the founding and history of the United States of America.”

https://19thnews.org/2021/02/anti-1619-project-state-bills/?utm_campaign=19th-social&utm_content=https://19thnews.org/2021&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

[Hamilton Samuels]

It should be a crime more serious than 'public nuisance'.

Palm Beach man burns Australian flag in Brisbane’s Anzac Square

Mackenzie Ravn, Gold Coast Bulletin
April 24, 2015

A PALM Beach man has been arrested after burning the Australian flag in Brisbane’s Anzac Square today.

A police spokesman said officers were called to Anzac Square in Brisbane City about 10am following reports a man had brought a flag to the location and set it alight.

“They have attended and arrested a 66-year-old Palm Beach man and charged him with one count of public nuisance,” he said.

The man burnt the flag while standing near the Eternal Flame at Brisbane’s Shrine of Remembrance on the eve of Anzac Day.

The man will front Brisbane Magistrates Court tomorrow.

#####

bambu-ilk live in hope that flag burners will be seriously punished....well more seriously that "free speech" and "public nuisance" anyway.
"No conviction recorded" if they do their time with the toothbrush at city hall.

There are plenty of bambu-ilk in the west, 'screaming' with outrage every time their flags are shown being torched in public.

So you oppose free speech. No surprise there, Errol.

Burning the national flag is not speech, it's arson.
Turning to ashes all that the flag represents.
It should be a crime.

You're simply wrong that it's not speech. And that's already been determined.

It is meant to be a powerful statement. Your reaction proves that.

What should upset you, though, are the black flags flown by the right wingers on Inauguration Day.

[Hamilton Samuels]

The anti-1619 Project bills (which come after U.S. Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas filed related legislation last July) are brief and use similar or identical language. The legislation out of Arkansas and Mississippi both call the project “a racially divisive and revisionist account of history that threatens the integrity of the Union by denying the true principles on which it was founded.” The Iowa bill expands its threat to school funding by suggesting any teachings with “any similarly developed curriculum” could face repercussions. The Missouri bill prohibits teaching, affirming or promoting claims, views, or opinions presented in the 1619 Project as “an accurate account or representation of the founding and history of the United States of America.”

https://19thnews.org/2021/02/anti-1619-project-state-bills/?utm_campaign=19th-social&utm_content=https://19thnews.org/2021&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

Neither version of history is accurate.

Which honest people know.

[facilitatorn]

Now that IS a ban. We have examples that both are and aren’t bans now. We can look at them side by side and try to spot differences in degree at least if not qualitatively more than that.

[facilitatorn]

http://m.dailykos.com/stories/2021/2/9/2014947/-Oathkeeper-Charged-With-Conspiracy-In-Capitol-Riot-Claims-To-Be-Former-FBI-Section-Chief

Organized coordinated insurrection. It all revolved around the cowardice and vulnerability of one sad creep, now having reaped his second impeachment.

[LarryBnDC]

Now that IS a ban. We have examples that both are and aren’t bans now. We can look at them side by side and try to spot differences in degree at least if not qualitatively more than that.

Quite.

[Hairy Lime]

The anti-1619 Project bills (which come after U.S. Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas filed related legislation last July) are brief and use similar or identical language. The legislation out of Arkansas and Mississippi both call the project “a racially divisive and revisionist account of history that threatens the integrity of the Union by denying the true principles on which it was founded.” The Iowa bill expands its threat to school funding by suggesting any teachings with “any similarly developed curriculum” could face repercussions. The Missouri bill prohibits teaching, affirming or promoting claims, views, or opinions presented in the 1619 Project as “an accurate account or representation of the founding and history of the United States of America.”

https://19thnews.org/2021/02/anti-1619-project-state-bills/?utm_campaign=19th-social&utm_content=https://19thnews.org/2021&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

Cancel culture strikes again.

[josh]

The anti-1619 Project bills (which come after U.S. Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas filed related legislation last July) are brief and use similar or identical language. The legislation out of Arkansas and Mississippi both call the project “a racially divisive and revisionist account of history that threatens the integrity of the Union by denying the true principles on which it was founded.” The Iowa bill expands its threat to school funding by suggesting any teachings with “any similarly developed curriculum” could face repercussions. The Missouri bill prohibits teaching, affirming or promoting claims, views, or opinions presented in the 1619 Project as “an accurate account or representation of the founding and history of the United States of America.”

https://19thnews.org/2021/02/anti-1619-project-state-bills/?utm_campaign=19th-social&utm_content=https://19thnews.org/2021&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

Neither version of history is accurate.

Which honest people know.

Speaking on behalf of all the dishonest people out there, Ham, got any evidence to support that position?

Clearly, they cannot both be true, but what support do you have to claim neither is accurate?

And do you have any history curriculum from those times that you consider to be accurate?

I'd love to see if before the end of this month, when I'll be getting to that time period with my students.

[facilitatorn]

http://www.salon.com/2021/02/09/trump-impeachment-lawyers-terrible-opening-argument-stuns-observers_partner/

The undiluted jiggery pokery, but is it a legal strategy?

[facilitatorn]

http://www.vice.com/en/article/epd8e7/state-troopers-in-louisiana-kept-turning-off-their-bodycams-and-allegedly-beating-people

TMCAB

[josh]

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/02/09/senator-bill-cassidy-changes-vote-constitutionality-impeachment-trial-two-sot-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/this-week-in-politics/

Kid inanely suggested that if the prosecution did a better job, maybe they'd get more fokks to move to the other side.

Bill Cassidy suggests that the prosecution did its job. I haven't heard any of the GOP senators who did not change their mind address the issue.

And their votes speak for themselves, but not about the case, in the slightest - they would have voted against any Democratic Party president being tried and in favor of a GOP president being tried.

And while I suspect the same is true in reverse for the majority of Dems, you can't tell from this trial, because Trump is on trial.