Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs

from the I-guess-we're-extending-ignorance-of-the-law-privileges-to-judges-now dept

A municipal court judge in New Jersey who apparently doesn't understand either the First Amendment or local ordinances has just ordered a resident to take down some f-bomb-laden signs from her yard. (h/t Peter Bonilla)

A municipal judge on Thursday ruled that a Roselle Park homeowner’s owner’s anti- President Biden flags including the F-bomb on her fence were obscene and must be removed because they violated a borough ordinance.

Roselle Park Municipal Court Judge Gary Bundy ordered the Willow Avenue homeowner to remove the signs with profanity within a week or face a $250-a-day fine. Patricia Dilascio is the property owner but her daughter, Andrea Dick, had the signs, three of which include the F-word, on display.

The signs, which can be seen in this photo, are certainly colorful in terms of language, and very definitely convey their owner's displeasure with the current regime. However, it would appear they do not violate the ordinance cited by the judge, who also claimed to be all for protecting free speech rights while issuing an order that violates those rights. According to Judge Gary Bundy, free speech is not "absolute" and the town's law does not "abridge or violate" the First Amendment rights of the signs' owner.

It is clear from state law and statutes that we cannot simply put up the umbrella of the First Amendment and say everything and anything is protected speech.

Well, that's true, but only if you insist on limiting your analysis to superlatives, as this judge did. The town's law does not abridge the property owner's First Amendment rights. But this application of the law certainly seems to. The phrase "Fuck Biden" -- which appears on three different signs -- doesn't actually violate the ordinance the town of Roselle Park claims was violated. The law forbids the public display of "obscene material." Here's the law's definition of that term:

The word "obscene" shall mean any material, communication or performance which the average person applying contemporary community standards existing within the municipality, would find, when considered as a whole:

a. Appeals to the prurient interest;

b. Depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct as hereinafter specifically defined, or depicts or exhibits offensive nakedness as hereinafter specifically defined; and

c. Lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Given the "and" between b. and c. and the phrase "when considered as a whole," these signs would need to violate all three clauses to be considered obscene. "Fuck Biden" seems pretty clearly "political," even if the value of the sentiment is somewhat debatable. But there's nothing sexual or prurient about this use of the word "fuck," which would be taken by literally nobody to mean the property owner is suggesting someone should engage in a sexual act with the current President.

We certainly don't expect municipal courts to be run by Constitutional scholars or attorneys with years of experience defending civil rights, but we should expect appointed judges to at least keep up with the last 50 years of Supreme Court precedent (including some recent decisions) determining that the word "fuck" -- especially when used in conjunction with political issues -- is definitely protected speech.

But even the town's mayor seems to believe residents' rights end when public officials begin to get offended on behalf of rhetorical minors.

“Today was a win for the borough and decency,” Signorello, the mayor, said in a statement to NJ Advance Media. “While we respect the views of our residents, there’s no place for profanity by a school and school children.”

It was neither, Mayor Signorello. It was a win for people who still think the word "fuck" has the innate power to tear apart the fabric of society. It was a win for people that think the only speech that should be protected is speech they like or agree with.

The judge is no better.

The judge, while handing down his ruling and sentencing, rhetorically asked if a balance could be found between the homeowner’s freedom of speech and a mother having to explain what the f-word means to their child.

"It's a swear word" would be all the explanation most kids need. And most kids won't need an explanation because they're already familiar with the list of words not used in polite society. Judge Bundy seems to believe he's presiding over a Mayberry-esque community that still has milkmen and separate beds for husbands and wives, rather than a 2021 New Jersey town that's located in a state best known for mob violence, corrupt politicians, and residents considered only slightly less terrible than Philadelphians.

This is a dumb decision and it's supported by people saying even dumber things than the judge who blew this Constitutional call. The decision can be appealed and definitely should be. The ordinance doesn't say what the judge says it does, and the First Amendment still says what it has always said. For the moment, the signs remain up, which presumably means the imaginary uncomfortable family discussions of f-bombs will have to continue until this issue is finally resolved.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: 1st amendment, free speech, new jersey, obscenity, political speech, roselle park


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 9:49am

    The judge, while handing down his ruling and sentencing, rhetorically asked if a balance could be found between the homeowner’s freedom of speech and a mother having to explain what the f-word means to their child.

    I really hate to break it to people (again), but reality it rate X. And no amount of hand wringing insanity will actually change that.
    Fundamentally: living in terror that children might one day learn about one specific portion of how our reality operates is... very insane( as in "to act in a manor contrary to reality"). Also is possibly makes you a tyrannical monster.

    PS: I'm not suggesting children be inundated with specific messages, or to not try and limit the scope of what they have to deal with on any given day... but... reality, it's real, and it's not going away.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      z! (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 12:22pm

      Re:

      If it was an HOA, they wouldn't have a prayer.

      Well, no. HOA's are not immune from the Constitution, no matter how much they may think they are. And including unconstitutional clauses in a contract does not make them enforceable.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        allengarvin (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 12:49pm

        Re: Re:

        An HOA is not typically a state actor, bound by the first amendment. Some states do provide some speech-like protections for political signs--for instance, here in Texas, HOAs must allow you at least a single political sign around the time of elections: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/EL/htm/EL.259.htm

        Likewise, during the Bush admin, Congress passed a federal law that blocks HOAs and condominiums restricting the display of the US flag.

        But in general, clauses restricting speech are allowed and are enforceable.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        JMT (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 7:57pm

        Re: Re:

        "HOA's are not immune from the Constitution..."

        The Constitution is almost entirely a list of things the government is not allowed to do. HOA's are not governments, not matter how authoritarian they might act.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Tanner Andrews (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 3:30am

        Re: Re:

        And including unconstitutional clauses in a contract does not make them enforceable

        It is hard to get to ``unconstitutional'' in a contract between private parties.

        I can agree to do things for money, which things the government cannot compel me to do otherwise. For instance, I may work because people give me money, yet the government cannot directly compel me to work.

        I can also refrain from doing things for money. For instance, I could agree with a neighbor that I will not bring trespass or otherwise bar him from use of a certain portion of my property, though government insisting that I do so would be a taking. The term is ``easement'' for those of you keeping score at home.

        I can agree not to say certain things, for instance a non-disclosure agreement or a non-disparagement agreement, though the government could not stop me from revealing facts or unfavorable views. Or I can agree to say certain things: famous people often endorse products in return for money.

        The government has little to say about these things because the entities involved are not state actors.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 9:56am

    Did we really?

    Need to find 1000's of jobs for Uneducated people, that we hire Judges and police and politicians that seem to not even understand our own laws, regs and Common senses.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 9:57am

    I am very supportive of free speech, but where do we draw the line? If they want to keep the signs, fine but cover up the obscene language.

    Therefore, F**** the Prez would be fine but cover the UCK up or take them down.

    I don't feel like explaining to little six year olds that see that sign what the word DUCK spelled with a F means, thank you.

    Otherwise, make the case that the F word is not bad and we can add the following to the first grade reader.

    Jack fell down, broke his crown, and said "I've had a F***ing bad day."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:00am

      Re:

      It doesn't matter what you feel like. That's the law.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:17am

        Technically legal does not equate to morally correct.

        The law vs morality. Compromises must be made.

        An argument can be made that free speech is not infringed by requiring the Letters UCK be covered up.

        Any reasonable adult would understand that F*** is not praise.

        It allows the homeowner to have their signs, to get their message across, and to protect the young and innocent.

        tldr: We could protect both free speech and the children.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:25am

          Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct.

          If they don't know what the word means, then exposure to it doesn't make them less innocent.

          If they do know what the word means, then exposure to it also doesn't make them less innocent

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:29am

          An argument can be made that free speech is not infringed by requiring the Letters UCK be covered up.

          It’d be a terrible argument, sure, but it could be made.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:36am

          Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct.

          Technically legal does not equate to morally correct.

          Are these the same children of people who aren't concerned about them knowing that you can grab them by the pussy?

          Or that white supremacists are fine people?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 9:22pm

            Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct.

            Was wondering how long before Techdirt commenters would bring up the two subjects they’re most obsessed with: sexual fantasies about D. Trump, and those kkk nazi evil bad guy white soopremaciztssss that are hiding behind every rock.

            My answer: about an hour. So you guys showed some restraint. Congrats!

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:07pm

              Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct

              Its about quadruple the time it takes one of you idiots to misrepresent the First Amendment. So ya know people who live in Klan houses and all that.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 12:23am

              Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct

              "sexual fantasies about D. Trump"

              You have a very strange, broken, mind if you think that referring to Trump's boasts about committing sexual assault means that the person criticising them is the one with a problem.

              "those kkk nazi evil bad guy white soopremaciztssss that are hiding behind every rock"

              That rock being the white supremacist rallies in support of Trump that were being referred to.

              Why is reality so hard for you to grasp that you feel the need to attack people who refer to it?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 3:19am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally cor

                "Why is reality so hard for you to grasp that you feel the need to attack people who refer to it?"

                Because when reality won't back the assertions of the alt-right they think reality is a liberal lefty and deny it.

                It's like trying to talk to an ISIS zealot at this point. Bringing them facts is just asking for them to go all "Jahid! 🤯" on you.
                And yea, they'd misspell their own slogans and get them backwards which at least puts even ISIS ahead of them in that regard...

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2021 @ 6:08am

              Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct

              So they are the same children, then?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              bhull242 (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 7:02am

              Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct

              sexual fantasies about D. Trump

              Pointing out something Trump actually said that was necessarily sexual in nature is not a sexual fantasy about Trump.

              those kkk nazi evil bad guy white soopremaciztssss that are hiding behind every rock

              You think they’re hiding? Or rather, you think that we think they’re hiding? They’re marching proudly.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2021 @ 6:31pm

              Re: Re: Re:

              You're not in any shape to start throwing stones from your castle of glass, Hamilton.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Lostinlodos (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 3:48pm

            Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct.

            Well, grab them by the pussy is only a thing because Media decided to replay it 24/7. So any dem claiming ‘for the children’ can shut up.

            And trump denounced the white suprematists. It was the others he was talking about.
            It’s very clear in the transcript.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 11:19pm

              Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct

              Yes, it was very relevant that in the run up to an election the positions of one of the major candidate was known, especially since he was running for party that has previously impeached a president for lying about a consensual sex act. Boasting about sexual assault would appear to be newsworthy, no matter which party the candidate was running for, but it was particularly relevant there.

              It makes a lot more sense for the media to not "shut up" about that than it did for the right wing press to be so up in arms about Benghazi or emails, for example.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Lostinlodos (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 12:16am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally cor

                Relevant?
                But the laptop wasn’t?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Toom1275 (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 12:50am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally

                  Why would a fraud spun up by Giuliani's Russian handlers be relevant to anything other than a criminal investigation or Giuliani?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Lostinlodos (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 1:07am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to mor

                    Oh, you’re still ignoring your tiny bubble. The laptop proves a direct connection. One the FBI is now investigating, among others.

                    When they can’t ignore it anymore MSNBCNN will fill you in on the most basic of it.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      PaulT (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 6:01am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to

                      "The laptop proves a direct connection"

                      To people stupid enough to believe Rudy at face value, sure. The jury's out for the rest of us.

                      "One the FBI is now investigating, among others."

                      We will await the results of their investigation, and any court verdict made as a result. They're just a bit busy now dealing the proven criminals in Trump's orbit, but I eagerly await anything that places the claims in the realm of reality, rather than the desperate fairytale to placate the cult that it sounds like it is.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  PaulT (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 5:58am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally

                  We're yet to see proof that the laptop exists, assuming you refer to Hunter Biden. Until proof exists, we can assume it's the desperate fiction that it sounds like it is.

                  That's way less relevant than Trump confessing to sex crimes on tape.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 7:27am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally

                  "But the laptop wasn’t?"

                  At least verify a little of what you're talking about. Some shady repairman went to Rudy Giuliani with a laptop they claimed they got from Hunter Biden (unclear how), which contained emails without a certificate they claimed were written by hunter biden, and who no one could answer how they even got it.

                  Yeah, it's not relevant if I produce a set of "evidence" which amounts to a spreadsheet where I've typed "I Iz Guilti. Sijnd Huntr Biden"

                  But it's really relevant when a presidential candidate admits to being a sex predator right before the election. Particularly so in view of his unfortunate earlier utterings about Epstein who he described as a terrific guy who, like Trump, loved women and liked them young.

                  Lostinlodos, are you even aware of scale and context?

                  Hunter Biden is an unfortunate case of ineptitude coat-tailing on the fame of relatives. Not as blatantly as Trump employing his inept relatives to jobs with extreme qualification requirements, but certainly not good.
                  Nevertheless there's no indication that Joe had anything to do with either Hunter's employment or whatever Hunter was up to.
                  What we do have is Trump on record trying to blackmail a foreign government into producing dirt on Hunter and his dad.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Lostinlodos (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 12:46pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to mor

                    “ laptop they claimed they got from Hunter Biden (unclear how), ”
                    It was dropped off for repair, and abandoned.

                    “ What we do have is Trump on record trying to blackmail a foreign government into producing dirt on Hunter and his dad.”
                    Uh, where?

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2021 @ 2:03pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to

                      It was dropped off for repair, and abandoned.

                      Did you know that they took the word gullible out of the dictionary?

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Lostinlodos (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 2:40pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equat

                        Given how many times that’s happened at shops I worked at… it’s not hard to believe.

                        Compute, laptops, servers, in later times phones… people forget, people don’t like the price, whatever the reason.

                        Ask anyone from geek squad how often it happens. I often worked in small shops. It was a regular occurrence.

                        I know when tiger direct stores went under there was a fair amount of abandoned equipment that was sold in the liquidation.
                        Tiger was know for their clearance shelves of abandoned equipment long before that.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          PaulT (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 3:20pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not e

                          "Given how many times that’s happened at shops I worked at… it’s not hard to believe."

                          It's not hard to believe that such a thing that happened, in a general sense.

                          It's hard to believe that it happened in such a way where such obviously damning evidence (which has never been revealed) just so happened to occur weeks before an election where such things being true could have helped a specific political candidate and made it into the hands of someone with the track record of Rudy, especially given his conduct since then.

                          "Ask anyone from geek squad how often it happens. I often worked in small shops. It was a regular occurrence."

                          In the UK, Gary Glitter was exposed as a paedophile because he took his PC in to a major retailer to repair and they spotted his chid porn collection. The difference between that and Hunter? Evidence. Where is the evidence? The same place as all those fake ballots and Trump's tax returns, I presume... Again, it's an extraordinary story that requires extraordinary evidence. Where is it? What have you seen that the rest of us haven't that makes this believable?

                          In the absence of evidence, Occam's Razor suggests that it was a Hail Mary pass from a desperate campaign that realised their attempts to suppress mail voting hadn't worked and they remembered they got traction from computer stuff before... only they couldn't get anything as compelling as Hillary's email server to counter Trump's admitted crimes.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                            icon
                            Lostinlodos (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 3:57pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does n

                            “Where is the evidence? “
                            I believe with the FBI at the moment

                            “The same place as all those fake ballots”
                            I doubt the exist

                            “Trump's tax returns”
                            Private, none of our business.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2021 @ 5:44pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal do

                              I believe with the FBI at the moment

                              Prove it.

                              Considering nobody wants to touch it with a 10 foot pole, I would guess that the whole laptop story was just a steaming, stinking pile of 💩!!

                              I mean it's Rudy "I spread covid with my farts" "I book pressers between a porn shop and crematorium" Giuliani, who has about zero credibility now-a-days.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              PaulT (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 11:09am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal do

                              "I believe with the FBI at the moment"

                              OK, then we will see what comes out of that particular investigation. Until then all we have is the publicly told story, which is so full of holes I can use it to drain pasta.

                              "Private, none of our business."

                              Your desire not to see how much the con artist you voted for was conning you is noted, but I think it's highly relevant to see how much money he owed to foreign powers and how much he defrauded the federal government while in power, and before.

                              If those returns state that the amount both those things occurred was to the tune of $0, then so be it, but I don't see why the documents aren't relevant. Especially given that after multiple documents were provided proving that Obama was eligible for the presidency, Trump himself kept claiming he wasn't.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • icon
                                Lostinlodos (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 12:34pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically lega

                                I’ve never agreed with publicising tax info. Go back to 1996 and you’ll find my bitching about it. Again in 04.
                                It’s just not any of our business.

                                And I’ve throughly documented where the brother thing came from.
                                Obama’s own agent. Prior to his political Career.
                                Who’s author card stated he was born in Africa.
                                I’ve linked to the photos of that.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • icon
                                  Stephen T. Stone (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 12:40pm

                                  Knowing whether a potential president has any financial issues⁠—including debts to foreign nationals who could use those debts as leverage against the president⁠—is, in fact, the business of the American people. We deserve to know whether our president is free from foreign influence and paying their fair share to the public treasury. We also deserve to know if our president stands to profit from his time in office. I mean, Jimmy Carter sold his peanut farm, for fuck’s sake.

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • icon
                                  bhull242 (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 4:42pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically

                                  I’ve never agreed with publicising tax info. Go back to 1996 and you’ll find my bitching about it. Again in 04.
                                  It’s just not any of our business.

                                  It’s all fine and dandy that you’re consistent about it, but

                                  1. I have no idea who you are, and this site did not exist in '96 or (AFAICT) '04, so… How am I supposed to find these old claims of yours where you complain about publicizing tax info?

                                  2. It’s important to ensure that the president won’t be compromised by foreign entities or private companies to whom they personally owe a debt to. It’s also important to be able to verify that they’re telling the truth when they claim to be rich/poor and to be able to identify potential conflicts of interest.

                                  And I’ve throughly documented where the brother thing came from.
                                  Obama’s own agent. Prior to his political Career.
                                  Who’s author card stated he was born in Africa.
                                  I’ve linked to the photos of that.

                                  Again, I have no idea how you expect me to find these old claims of yours.

                                  But it really doesn’t matter because we already have multiple pieces of definitive proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, not Africa, so regardless of what his brother, his agent, or his “author card” (whatever that is) says, the fact is that he was born on American soil, not in Africa.

                                  With that said, what “agent” are you talking about? Obama was a lawyer (who generally don’t have agents) before he became a politician, and I’m pretty sure that he wrote his first book after starting in politics, so before his political career, he wouldn’t have had an agent or an “author card”. I could be wrong about that, but this seems doubtful. Speaking of, what even is an “author card”, anyways? And how would it even be relevant?

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • icon
                                    Lostinlodos (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 6:06pm

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technica

                                    “ How am I supposed to find these old claims”
                                    I’ve had the same handle since the dialup days. When I ran the JamPro servers. The @ has changed a few times but the name is (or should be) all me.

                                    “ It’s all fine and dandy that you’re consistent about it”
                                    I am because 2:
                                    “…” tax returns don’t guarantee anything regarding foreign entities, and as far as wealth, it only covers reportable income, not non-reportable holdings.

                                    It’s an extremely invasive request that would do little for the public.

                                    “ Again, I have no idea how you expect me to find these old claims of yours.”
                                    That’s not old, I did it right here a few weeks ago.
                                    Brother should be birther btw.
                                    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/promotional-booklet/

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • icon
                                      PaulT (profile), 26 Jul 2021 @ 7:16am

                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tech

                                      "That’s not old, I did it right here a few weeks ago."

                                      Not everyone reads every thread. Stop being a dishonest twat, and link to the thing you're referring to if it's so fundamental to your argument, or at least be prepared to defend it in a way other than "durr I already said that"

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      • icon
                                        Lostinlodos (profile), 26 Jul 2021 @ 12:36pm

                                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                        Scroll up. I did 12 hours before this reply.

                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                        • icon
                                          PaulT (profile), 26 Jul 2021 @ 12:51pm

                                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                          I love the way that your response to me telling you to cite what you're referring to is to make a claim about a rough time that you think you commented, rather than use the tools at your disposal to link to the actual comment.

                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • icon
                                  PaulT (profile), 26 Jul 2021 @ 7:14am

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically

                                  "It’s just not any of our business."

                                  The fact that you don't care about whether in coming government officials have previously been defrauding the government financially is your problem, not that of honest people who want to see how much the con artist fleeced.

                                  "And I’ve throughly documented where the brother thing came from.
                                  Obama’s own agent. Prior to his political Career."

                                  I didn't mention a brother? What are you talking about?

                                  Yes, there's been some mistakes over the years relating to misreporting over Obama's birth status, but most of that is easily explained by the fact that he is Barack Hussein Obama JUNIOR. His father having the same name seems to confuse some people.

                                  Yet, that's easily explained by every official document, the Republican governor of Hawaii at the time of the "controversy" and lots of other bits of paperwork that you people demand are a conspiracy that started before the man was even born.

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                            icon
                            Chozen (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 10:40pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does n

                            "It's hard to believe that it happened in such a way where such obviously damning evidence (which has never been revealed) just so happened to occur weeks before an election where such things being true could have helped a specific political candidate and made it into the hands of someone with the track record of Rudy, especially given his conduct since then."

                            You keep omitting that your hypothetical son of politican is a crackhead. When you include that detail its not had to beleive.

                            Crackhead gets high breaks his laptop. Crackhead takes it to a repair shop the next day. Crackhead goes home, gets high, and forgets all about the laptop.

                            When you include the crackhead part its not a far fetched story.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2021 @ 12:19am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal do

                              Crackhead gets high

                              And do tell, what verifiable proof do you have that Hunter Biden was high on crack at the time this all "supposedly" took place?

                              You just keep adding more and more to the story to make you sound less gullible.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • icon
                                Chozen (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 6:41pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically lega

                                lol

                                You guys are hilarious.

                                'Yes we have all seen him smoking crack but you have no proof he was high then'

                                Just shut up. You don't deserve a response.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • identicon
                                  Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2021 @ 9:26pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically

                                  Just shut up. You don't deserve a response.

                                  LOL, but you responded anyway!

                                  What a fucking idiot!!

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              PaulT (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 11:11am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal do

                              "Crackhead gets high breaks his laptop."

                              Mike Lindell broke his laptop?

                              Oh, never mind, you're just making another unfounded claim that doesn't even come close to explaining the most suspicious part. (Really? You think all this happens and Rudy got the laptop and it's not suspicious? Just before the election that trump was projected to lose already?)

                              The problem with the story is not "guy breaks laptop, flies to the other side of the country and forgets about it", even though that sounds ridiculous already. It's the next part that's laughable.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              bhull242 (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 4:25pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal do

                              You keep failing to understand that

                              a) there is no evidence that Hunter was still addicted to—let alone still using—crack in the past decade or so, let alone using enough crack to cause a blackout while still being coherent enough to take the laptop to a repair shop across the country at the time of the alleged incident;

                              b) nothing in the story suggests that the person delivering the laptop to the repair shop was high at the time, which should have been the case if your idea was true;

                              c) that still wouldn’t explain a lot of Hunter’s actions, like going to the other side of the country to get the laptop repaired, or not doing anything about the fact that a laptop that he had before the blackout and that contained incriminating evidence is no longer in his possession after said blackout, among many, many other things;

                              d) that wouldn’t explain any of the actions taken by the computer repairman or Rudy Giuliani, including (but not limited to):
                              i) the repairman—who at the time had already finished fixing the laptop but still had no idea that the laptop even could have belonged to Hunter or that the guy who dropped it off was Hunter or otherwise connected to Biden in some way—risked being brought to court or jail for unlawful access of someone’s computer by deciding to investigate the contents of this random computer belonging to some random guy just because he failed to come pick it up;
                              ii) the repairman first contacted Rudy Giuliani—not the press, not law enforcement, not the denizens of the internet—to reveal this damning and important information to him and to him alone;
                              iii) Rudy and the repairman both sat on this information for quite some time before going to the press with it (it doesn’t even appear that they had immediately contacted law enforcement), which makes absolutely no sense; and
                              iv) rather than showing the relevant emails in their entirety or letting anyone else have access to the original emails or to the laptop itself, the two only showed captures of the emails that lacked any of the metadata that could be used to authenticate them as having been sent to/by Hunter, and that the contents were unaltered;

                              e) no one at the New York Post was willing to sign their name to the article, which makes no sense if they had any faith that the story was likely to be true; and

                              f) even if literally everything else in the story was true, the fact is that the contents of the emails were false (whether it was Hunter, whoever brought the laptop over (who may not have been Hunter—neither Rudy nor the repairman have said that that was necessarily the case), the repairman, or Rudy Giuliani is irrelevant; it’s still false), and they were known to be demonstrably false soon after the story broke, as publicly available documents from the White House show that the meeting described in those emails did not take place, so this says absolutely nothing about Joe Biden at all.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2021 @ 5:34pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not e

                          Given how many times that’s happened at shops I worked at… it’s not hard to believe.

                          That is understandable.

                          But believing the incredible story about Hunter's laptop, well, that takes a huge leap of faith, or just plain gullibility.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            PaulT (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 11:13am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does n

                            I'll state again - the guy leaving a laptop to be repaired and not picking it up is not the unbelievable part. It's the part about it just happening to land in Rudy's hands just before the election but totally honestly containing incriminating evidence that we can't publish right now.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              Toom1275 (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 12:08pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal do

                              The actual chain of evidence for the laptop is Russia>Giuliani>MAGA Stooge computer shop

                              The only thing the FBI's investigating is Giuliani's dealing with Russian spies.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              bhull242 (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 4:47pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal do

                              It may not be the biggest problem with the story, but the claim that Hunter went to a computer repair shop on the opposite side of the country, dropped off a laptop full of incriminating evidence to be repaired, left, and then never came back for it is still pretty hard to believe.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • icon
                                PaulT (profile), 26 Jul 2021 @ 7:19am

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically lega

                                It's is a stupid argument, but barring the "it definitely contains incriminating evidence" part, that's understandable. A busy businessman takes his laptop in for repair while travelling, thinking he needs it desperately, then someone on his staff tells him he can just buy a new one and restore it so he does that and doesn't even give the shop a courtesy call to say he doesn't need the repair any longer?

                                That's perfectly believable, except for the "it definitely had information on it that would kill his dad's political career" part.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • icon
                                  Lostinlodos (profile), 26 Jul 2021 @ 12:42pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically

                                  And in this day and age people are security stupid.
                                  People think a login password will protect them.
                                  In business people think encryption is kool. Not realising how easy it is to bypass.
                                  Legitimate not knocking, Biden may well have thought it was safe.
                                  He very may well not have known that the emails were saved to the drive by default.

                                  It’s sad how many times I’ve heard people say I deleted this or that can you get it back. Forget tools.
                                  Go to …\…\…\… and there’s a copy.

                                  Tech ignorance is a major problem.

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • icon
                                    PaulT (profile), 26 Jul 2021 @ 12:54pm

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technica

                                    I'll note that none of what you said makes the story any more believable, or provides evidence that any of the accusations are true. "It's possible that he did this in the scenario I have in my head" is still not evidence, especially in the face of far more corruption from the guy you voted for.

                                    "Legitimate not knocking, Biden may well have thought it was safe."

                                    He may also not have done it at all. Or, he did leave a laptop but it had none of the things claimed on it. Or, it did, but the tampering from Rudy and his buddies makes it impossible to determine any guilt.

                                    As ever, while a rough outline of a fiction might have some merit, if you're trying to use it in court to convince people to sway their vote, I would hope you have more evidence that can be verified. As with the claims of voter fraud, there's only one question - where is the evidence?

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2021 @ 9:42pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equat

                        And if you don't believe that the right wingers are gullible, then head on over to this article:

                        I Tried to Make Claims About Election Fraud So Preposterous Trump Fans Wouldn’t Believe Me. It Was Impossible.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      PaulT (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 2:04pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to

                      "It was dropped off for repair, and abandoned."

                      To a random shop on the other side of the country, then completely forgotten about until the shop owner decided to inform Rudy Giuliani in the final weeks of Trump's campaign.

                      Nobody's saying it's not possible, only that it's an extraordinary story that requires extraordinary evidence that has so far been lacking. Sort of like Trump's claim that 8 million votes were faked, and all the other con games you apparently fall for so easily with zero supporting evidence.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      bhull242 (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 4:49pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to

                      “laptop they claimed they got from Hunter Biden (unclear how), ”
                      It was dropped off for repair, and abandoned.

                      By whom? Neither Rudy nor the repairman claimed it was definitely Hunter Biden, so we still don’t know how it got from Hunter to the repairman (if it actually did).

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    PaulT (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 1:59pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to mor

                    Let's even rewrite the story...

                    The son of a prominent candidate currently leading in polls is claimed to have gone to a random repair centre on the other side of the country with a laptop full of incriminating evidence, but never goes back to pick it up. Close to a year later, very close to the election, the laptop happens to make it into the hands of a close confidant and ally of the opposing candidate, who presents the claim (but not the evidence) that the laptop is credible enough to kill his opponent's chances.

                    You don't have to mention the party, or even the country, in the above claim before people smell bullshit. Meanwhile, it's supposedly equivalent to a recording of the opposing candidate admitting to sex crimes?

                    Time will tell if there's anything there, but how anyone no predisposed to a certain position can take it seriously is beyond me.

                    "Hunter Biden is an unfortunate case of ineptitude coat-tailing on the fame of relatives"

                    Yet, not as blatant or deadly as the Trump family members inserted into prominent political positions. Even if they had concrete evidence of nepotism, it would pale in comparison to what we know about Ivanka and Jared.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                      icon
                      Chozen (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 4:24pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to

                      "The son of a prominent candidate currently leading in polls is claimed to have gone to a random repair centre on the other side of the country with a laptop full of incriminating evidence, but never goes back to pick it up."

                      Your hypothetical conveniently left out that the son was also a crackhead which makes the scenario far more believable.

                      High crackhead breaks laptop, takes laptop to computer repairman, crackhead completely forgets entire incident. Not very far fetched once you include that whole crackhead part.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 8:25am

                        “I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don’t trust coincindences.”

                        I have a few questions for you:

                        • What proof do you have that Hunter Biden was on any kind of drugs when he allegedly dropped off the laptop?

                        • What proof do you have that Hunter Biden was, at the time of this alleged event, addicted to crack cocaine or any other kind of drug? Hell, what proof do you have that Hunter Biden is currently addicted to crack cocaine or any other kind of drug?

                        • What proof do you have, beyond the say-so of the computer repairman and Rudy “Four Seasons Total Landscaping” Giuliani, that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden?

                        • Why would Hunter Biden have taken his laptop to a computer repair shop so far from his home? (“He was on crack” is not an acceptable answer.)

                        • Why would he have left incriminating evidence on the laptop from the time of the dropoff to any time before the story broke? (“He was on crack” is not an acceptable answer.)

                        • Why did he never pick up his laptop later? (“He was on crack” is not an acceptable answer.)

                        • Why would the computer repairman⁠—who had expressed support for Trump and right-wing ideology on social media⁠—first go to Rudy Giuliani, a known Trump agent, instead of the press or even law enforcement?

                        • Why were the emails alleged to have been found on the laptop presented in a way that didn’t show off the metadata that could help prove the emails were legit?

                        • Why has no one else ever seen the original emails and confirmed their veracity (or lack thereof) using that metadata?

                        • What could possibly explain the timing of the release of the “Biden laptop” story (less than a month before the election) beyond someone in the Trump campaign saying “we need another October Surprise”?

                        • Why did the reporters for the New York Post refuse to sign their names to a story with potentially huge political implications?

                        For me to believe the “Biden laptop” story is anything but bullshit, I need to see some extraordinary evidence. You haven’t provided any. So answer the questions and show me that extraordinary evidence. I want you to make me believe the story without insulting my intelligence or asking me to lower my own. If you can’t do that, don’t bother trying. Your gullibility isn’t my problem to fix.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          PaulT (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 11:16am

                          Re:

                          "at the time of this alleged event"

                          He's deliberately ignoring that part, along with what happened after the laptop was dropped off for some reason. I wonder why that is?

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            Toom1275 (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 12:11pm

                            Re: Re:

                            There's also the projected fiction that Joe acted in a corrupt quid-pro-quo deal with Ukraine like Trump did.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              PaulT (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 12:38pm

                              Re: Re: Re:

                              Evidence is always welcome, but I dare say that if IMAX could harness the projection in these arguments there would be no fear of cinemas going broke.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              Lostinlodos (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 12:45pm

                              Re: Re: Re:

                              This for that is called politics.
                              I’m not against that.

                              I personally think we should have nothing to do at all with the genocidal Ukrainian government.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                          icon
                          Lostinlodos (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 11:49am

                          Re:

                          On the flip side you have the son of the then Vice President, already known for a association alone position of management, and emails if potentially dirty dealings.

                          But you wholeheartedly buy the story that germaphobe Trump went to Russia to play around with sex workers and get peed on?

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            PaulT (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 12:08pm

                            Re: Re:

                            "On the flip side you have the son of the then Vice President, already known for a association alone position of management, and emails if potentially dirty dealings."

                            Potentially, sure. Where's the evidence? If you have the same access to evidence as the rest of us do right now, what makes your version so much more valid? Why is there no more reliable source than the guy who's been laughed out of so many courts since the election that he thought a garden centre was a great place for a press conference and that, well, Trump would actually pay him for services rendered?

                            Also, I'd advise against a Trump voter complaining about nepotism and favouritism. It probably won't go your way if we have to start whipping out examples.

                            "But you wholeheartedly buy the story that germaphobe Trump went to Russia to play around with sex workers and get peed on?"

                            Strange... he didn't mention that specific story, nor does doubt about that story invalidate other stories for which there is far more evidence. What is it about that story that makes you think that it's a "gotcha" moment to mention it? I mean, the sex worker part is completely believable given that he paid off a porn start to hide infidelity, but the rest of it doesn't matter if it tracks or not.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                              icon
                              Lostinlodos (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 12:41pm

                              Re: Re: Re:

                              “ Also, I'd advise against a Trump voter complaining about nepotism and favouritism.”
                              I’m not. I’m complaining that Biden refuses to admit it and move on.
                              The constant left denial that it is what it is is what makes the story stuck.

                              If he admitted it up from, like Obama and pot, nobody would be discussing it today.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • icon
                                PaulT (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 1:01pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                "I’m not. I’m complaining that Biden refuses to admit it and move on."

                                Admit what? The unproven allegations brought against him by his losing opponent that don't even stand up to logical analysis? Let's see what the courts say if it gets that far then demand an apology.

                                "The constant left denial that it is what it is is what makes the story stuck."

                                Sorry, but if the "left" going "well that a stupid, obviously false story" and it sticks because of that without evidence, that's your problem.

                                "If he admitted it up from, like Obama and pot, nobody would be discussing it today."

                                Admitted what? people still claim that Obama wasn't born in the US, and are trying to pretend that all the COVID deaths before the election were really his fault. Do you think that admitting to something like that would stop the whining?

                                Let's wait for evidence. Until that happens, the evidence is that Trump was a corrupt nepotistic loser, and that Biden had a nutty ex-NY mayor claim something about his son.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • icon
                                  Lostinlodos (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 1:49pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  “ Admit what? The unproven allegations”
                                  That his son got a job he was completely unqualified for simply for being his son.

                                  “ Sorry, but if the "left" going "well that a stupid, obviously false story"
                                  Mind telling me what Little B’s qualifications are to be on the board of any company!

                                  “ Admitted what?”
                                  He got the job because of daddy

                                  “ people still claim that Obama wasn't born in the US”
                                  Funny sad ignorant idiots. Here’s a cookie.

                                  “ COVID deaths before the election were really his fault”
                                  Who says Anyone in the US is at fault for pre election covid deaths?

                                  “ Do you think that admitting to something like that would stop the whining”
                                  Probably. If he said ‘yep, my son got the job based on my name. Happens all the time. Here’s a short list from both parties’.
                                  Yes. I believe it would be a non factor and over with.

                                  “ Let's wait for evidence.”
                                  On the laptop? Yes.
                                  I didn’t say it was true. Not once. Anywhere. I said is was possible. And more likely than the plan pee-pee-gate.
                                  I said it was just as newsworthy as an obviously fake pile of documents created and paid for directly within the Clinton chain of command. If not more so.

                                  Until that happens, the evidence is that Trump was a corrupt
                                  (Evidence not provided)
                                  nepotistic (most politicians are)
                                  loser, (disagree)

                                  “…and that Biden had a nutty ex-NY mayor claim something about his son.”
                                  He claimed a lot of things. Some true, some false. Some as yet unknown.

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • identicon
                                    Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2021 @ 1:58pm

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                    That his son got a job he was completely unqualified for simply for being his son.

                                    Oh please do tell us, what qualifications did Kushner and Ivanka have to become top level white house aids?

                                    Where were you complaining about Trump's daughter getting a white house job she was completely unqualified for simply for being Trump's daughter?

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • icon
                                    PaulT (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 2:12pm

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                    "That his son got a job he was completely unqualified for simply for being his so"

                                    Define "unqualified". Define why this is so much worse than what Trump's family got treated to that it should have been a deal breaker for people who would vote otherwise.

                                    "Mind telling me what Little B’s qualifications are to be on the board of any company!"

                                    I was referring to the laptop there, but I'd also defer to Trump's hiring record there as contrast.

                                    "Funny sad ignorant idiots. Here’s a cookie."

                                    Yet, their vote for Trump was indistinguishable from yours at the end of the day.

                                    "Who says Anyone in the US is at fault for pre election covid deaths?"

                                    Basic reality. There's a lot of missteps, ranging from Trump's firing of the pandemic team to Jared's alleged intervention that convinced him to withhold aid because it would benefit blue states, to the simple fact that the US was vastly disproportionately affected compared to the rest of the world. It's a complex subject, but there's plenty of documentation out there, much of it from places you can't just wave away as Democrat propaganda.

                                    "Probably. If he said ‘yep, my son got the job based on my name. Happens all the time. Here’s a short list from both parties’."

                                    Biden could say oxygen was beneficial to lungs and there would be news networks claiming otherwise. Until it got to a point where they needed to backtrack as they have done recently with vaccine advice of course.

                                    "I didn’t say it was true. Not once. Anywhere. I said is was possible."

                                    It's more likely to be possible that the claimed data doesn't exist.

                                    "And more likely than the plan pee-pee-gate."

                                    You bring that up again, but unless I missed something nobody else has in this thread?

                                    "Until that happens, the evidence is that Trump was a corrupt
                                    (Evidence not provided)"

                                    It has been over and over again for several years. You just rejected it or ignored it.

                                    "nepotistic (most politicians are)"

                                    Yet it's only a black mark against Biden if true, you were fine with it under Trump..

                                    "loser, (disagree)"

                                    Sorry, no matter what Murdoch tells you, the multiple times bankrupt con artist did lose the last election.

                                    "He claimed a lot of things. Some true, some false. Some as yet unknown."

                                    So... let's reserve judgement until the facts prove which way this insanely unlikely laptop story goes. I'm betting based on his track record before and after the claim.

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • icon
                                      Lostinlodos (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 3:51pm

                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                      unqualified
                                      Lacking the qualifications required for

                                      “ Yet, their vote for Trump was indistinguishable from yours at the end of the day.”
                                      As the Nation of Islam was from Democrats.
                                      I don’t run around calling every democrat racists for a tiny tiny fraction of a fraction.

                                      You can say what you want. Retrospect is not at the time.
                                      You won’t convene any person is more responsible than anyone else.
                                      Except maybe dr flip flop who spent the first two months say no need for masks then failing to inform people of which mask true to use for the most safety.

                                      I don’t consider conjecture and coincidence to be evidence.

                                      “ Yet it's only a black mark against Biden if true, you were fine with it under Trump..”
                                      I’m fine with it anywhere.
                                      My problem isn’t the deed. It’s the constant denial.

                                      “ no matter what Murdoch”
                                      Oh, you talking about the election. Yes evidence says he lost the election. I didn’t say he didn’t.

                                      Laptop-
                                      I have no judgement. Other than it was just as newsworthy as everything anti-trump was. Much of that was also ultimately shown to be false.

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      • icon
                                        bhull242 (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 1:18pm

                                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                        unqualified
                                        Lacking the qualifications required for

                                        But what qualifications was he lacking?

                                        Except maybe dr flip flop who spent the first two months say[ing] no need for masks […]

                                        The no-mask thing wasn’t that there was no need for masks but that it was more important to ensure that those who worked in hospitals got first dibs, and it was unknown at the time if cloth masks would be effective or how effective masks would be.

                                        […] then failing to inform people of which mask [] to use for the most safety.

                                        Any idiot could figure out that the medical masks used by doctors would be more effective than cloth masks, or that two masks would be more effective than one. Once it was stated publicly that everyone should wear masks, the rest didn’t exactly take rocket science to figure out. Many anti-mask people were (inadvertently) pointing these things out early on, so to claim that the CDC needed to say such things explicitly is a bit odd.

                                        Plus, which mask is the most effective isn’t as important (in a non-medical context) as ensuring that everyone who can wear masks does. A medical mask may be more effective than a cloth mask, and two masks may be more effective than one, but a single cloth mask is far more effective than no mask at all. Just getting people to wear masks in public or in indoor/crowded areas and to social distance was difficult enough.

                                        Also, you underestimate how hamstrung Fauci was by the Trump Administration during 2020. Perhaps he would have been clearer and more upfront earlier on about these things, but we don’t know. Plus, the WHO made some mistakes early on—particularly regarding whether or not masks should be worn—which meant Fauci was working from bad information. Doctors can be like computers in this way: garbage in, garbage out.

                                        “Yet it's only a black mark against Biden if true, you were fine with it under Trump..”
                                        I’m fine with it anywhere.
                                        My problem isn’t the deed. It’s the constant denial.

                                        If ”it” is about whether or not the claim that Hunter got the job because the employers knew he was Biden’s son, I’m not aware of that being affirmed or denied by Biden or anything. It’s entirely plausible that Biden would be unaware of whether or not that was true. Either way, even if that claim is true, I fail to see how that would even be a black mark for Biden himself.

                                        If it’s a claim that Biden himself personally acted to make Hunter get the job, that has not at all been demonstrated (there is no evidence to make that remotely likely), and if it was, that would be unethical and unusual (though admittedly far from unheard of among politicians, it’s not as common as you imply). I’m also not aware that Biden has denied it, but I would not be surprised if he did.

                                        If it’s about the laptop, that has been denied, but you have explicitly said that you aren’t claiming that that is necessarily true, so you have no reason to be upset with Biden denying/failing to admit it’s true. It’s also extremely implausible, lacks supporting evidence, and—insofar as it relates to anything Biden himself has said or done—is demonstrably false and was shown to be definitely false almost immediately.

                                        Laptop-
                                        I have no judgement. Other than it was just as newsworthy as everything anti-trump was. Much of that was also ultimately shown to be false.

                                        No, no it wasn’t.

                                        The Ukraine call, for example, was far more newsworthy, and it wasn’t ultimately shown to be false. Same goes for the claims about his handling of COVID and social distancing; anything he has publicly said on Twitter, in press conferences, at rallies, on camera, on TV, in executive orders, in legal filings, on the Access: Hollywood tape, etc.; and his many, many attempts to discredit and/or overturn the results of the 2020 US Presidential General Election.

                                        The Steele Dossier was used (along with other things) by federal agents to investigate Russian operatives and the Trump campaign, which ultimately led to multiple indictments, guilty pleas, and convictions of people part of or associated with the Trump campaign, so I wouldn’t say it was either ultimately shown to be false (at least not in general) or ultimately not newsworthy at some point. (There is some question as to the newsworthiness/trustworthiness of the dossier when Buzzfeed first publicized it, but it has since been shown to be newsworthy.)

                                        The alleged pee-pee rape, while not something I personally think is terribly likely (though not entirely implausible, either) or have ever taken all that seriously, was newsworthy because it would suggest that Trump would be relatively susceptible to foreign influence through blackmail/extortion, and it’s also hilarious whether it’s true or not; it wasn’t sourced entirely from someone known (then or now) to be biased and untrustworthy, neither the story nor the claims of how the info was acquired are or were definitively and demonstrably false (especially at the time) or completely implausible (maybe not that likely, but not completely implausible, either), so it wasn’t something that needed more evidence to become newsworthy.

                                        The claim that he has interfered with investigations involving himself or his associates has been shown to be true (he didn’t exactly hide it), and that is definitely more newsworthy than the laptop story.

                                        The claim that Trump bypassed or overturned the normal routes to ensure his daughter and son-in-law not only got jobs in the White House but also got high-level security clearance despite many red flags during the background checks is demonstrably true, was entirely plausible at the time, and is and was quite newsworthy.

                                        Each of these are or were more plausible and/or newsworthy than the laptop story. Also, unlike the laptop story, none of them had any significant portion of them or inferences from them being definitively disproven soon after they became publicly known. (Specifically, it was quickly and definitively shown that the meeting described in the alleged emails allegedly taken from the laptop allegedly belonging to Hunter never happened. As this is the only part of the entire story that could plausibly be used to make Biden himself look bad, this pretty drastically reduces any newsworthiness that the laptop story ever could have had.)

                                        On top of that, the only original sources for the laptop story—known, anonymous, and pseudonymous alike—as well as the outlet who first published it are all known to be heavily biased against Biden and/or for Trump and to be untrustworthy; the story itself is inherently, heavily flawed and implausible even ignoring the sources (crackhead or not, it’s an incredibly long stretch to believe that Hunter would travel all the way across the country just to drop off his laptop at a computer repair shop run by a known pro-Trump guy and then never pick it up; at the very least, he would have realized the laptop was missing at some point and would have been able to gather evidence of where it ended up during that time; the way the emails are presented makes them impossible to verify that they were, indeed, what they were claimed to be; and the fact that the computer repairman chose to call Rudy Giuliani—Trump’s personal lawyer—to present this evidence to him first rather than presenting it to law enforcement or federal agents, and then neither sent it to law enforcement or any federal agency (at least not before Giuliani presented it to the media in a suspicious manner) is also implausible if the story was true.

                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      • icon
                                        PaulT (profile), 26 Jul 2021 @ 7:22am

                                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                        "Lacking the qualifications required for"

                                        Such as...?

                                        Vague assertions might work in Trump land, but we need specifics that can be verified or falsified here.

                                        "I don’t consider conjecture and coincidence to be evidence."

                                        Unless Trump says it then you're falling over yourself to defend it.

                                        "I have no judgement. Other than it was just as newsworthy as everything anti-trump was. Much of that was also ultimately shown to be false."

                                        No, completely made up fictions about what might have happened with a potentially fictional laptop was not as newsworthy as Trump's record of governance over the years where he helped contribute to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • icon
                                      Toom1275 (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 9:49pm

                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                      Someone who trusts factual and balanced sources would have known facts like this:

                                      Biden, a trained lawyer, had served on the board of a U.S. company and had also formed an investment firm with fellow Yale graduates Archer and Christopher Heinz, the stepson of former U.S. Senator John Kerry.

                                      According to four sources close to the company, Biden regularly attended Burisma’s twice annual board meetings – all of which were held outside of Ukraine.

                                      A source close to the company said Biden took part in strategic conversations and shared his opinions and experience. In between board meetings, “there were constant calls, dialogue, sharing of advice, consideration of different options,” the source said. “Expansion to other markets was also discussed,” the source added.

                                      Another source close to Burisma said Biden assisted with analysis of oil and gas assets the company was considering buying abroad, though a deal didn’t go through. The company was considering possible acquisitions in Europe, Kazakhstan and the United States, the source and another person close to Burisma said.

                                      Both sources said that around the time Biden was appointed, Burisma was also looking to secure a financing deal with foreign investment funds, including one in the United States.

                                      Biden helped to find lawyers to work on this process, before it broke down due to the start of the war in east Ukraine, one of those two sources said. “He was a ceremonial figure,” that person added.

                                      Imstead of parroting the hyperpartisan "unqualified nepotism" disinformation he wants to hear.

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                        icon
                                        Lostinlodos (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 10:31pm

                                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                        You failed to source it. Btw.

                                        I knew about Amtrak (an appointment) but can find little he was actually involved in.

                                        So the only thing he has going for him is his time at MBNA which is an entirely different field. Mind you that was a major donor company to Biden Sr and the largest supporter of Biden’s bankruptcy reform package.
                                        The company was a magnet for controversy in semi-legal credit practice. So it’s not exactly a glowing endorsement for Hunter.
                                        The company eventually was bought out, stripped of management, and reformed as a brand not much later. Before ultimately becoming a low level trade name for entry level products.

                                        And did he ever practice law? I can find nothing. So be cautious how you phrase that. Trained is key.

                                        I reiterate he doesn’t have the qualifications for such a seat.
                                        That’s not a bad thing, per say, but remains factually correct.

                                        Maybe step outside your bubble and investigate your own sources.
                                        His record is hardly one of real success.

                                        Family positioning happens in business, including political business, as a matter of course.
                                        Again I don’t see anything inherently wrong with it!l.
                                        My issue is attempting to pretend it happened for some other reason!

                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                        • icon
                                          Toom1275 (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 11:27pm

                                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                          My issue is attempting to pretend it happened for some other reason!

                                          You're free to stop being the only one here pretending at any time. Nobody else can fix your issues for you.

                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                            icon
                                            Lostinlodos (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 12:33am

                                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                            He got the job because of his father. Period.

                                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                            • identicon
                                              Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2021 @ 2:03am

                                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                              He got the job because of his father. Period.

                                              How did Ivanka and J\ared get their jobs at the white house?

                                              Because of their father. Period.

                                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                            • icon
                                              Toom1275 (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 11:02am

                                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                              Period.

                                              You only say that when you're lying and have nothing with which to keep defending your disinformation against constantly being debunked.

                                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                              • icon
                                                Lostinlodos (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 12:14pm

                                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                Yes bubble man. Because my quick overview of his work history was inaccurate?
                                                You want to call the facts inaccurate when even your bubble agrees?

                                                I say period when there’s nothing factual to discuss.

                                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                            • icon
                                              bhull242 (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 1:46pm

                                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                              “He got the job because of his father,” is not the same thing as, “His father acted to get him the job.”

                                              The former says nothing about Biden himself; only Burisma and, to a lesser extent, Hunter. It also hasn’t really been explicitly denied by Biden, nor would he necessarily be expected to know whether or not it’s true. (It’s entirely plausible that—even if this claim is actually true—Biden himself could have no knowledge or insight about whether or not it’s true; it’s also plausible that Hunter would have no idea, either, but that’s a side note.) I don’t see any reason that Biden should have to “admit” that that particular claim is true.

                                              The latter does say something about Biden if true, but there is zero evidence supporting that particular claim, and—while not implausible—is not exactly likely, nor is it as common as you seem to suggest. So, again, I fail to see why Biden should have to “admit” that that claim is true. It is not obviously true, it is not an entirely mundane claim, it could have legal and political repercussions, and there is no evidence supporting it over the former claim.

                                              I don’t have enough information to know whether or not the former claim is true, but I don’t see why it should matter with respect to Biden. I do know that people receive jobs they aren’t qualified for all the time without having such or similar connections to an important/powerful figure, that others receive jobs they are not qualified for primarily or solely because of such or similar connections to an important/powerful figure, and that the second one can happen without either the [future] employee or major figure actually saying or doing anything to push that or anything. I don’t know the relative likelihood of each of these things, nor how they—as a whole or individually—compare with the likelihood of someone who does have such a connection receiving a job they aren’t qualified for for reasons that have nothing to do with that connection. I can say it’s sufficiently likely that I wouldn’t readily dismiss the claim as even remotely unlikely, and that I don’t really think it matters whether or not Biden “admits” to it.

                                              The latter claim, though, is completely unsupported and doesn’t appear to be terribly likely (failing Hitchen’s Razor), and it fails Occam’s Razor when compared to the former claim. It certainly isn’t obvious or indisputable.

                                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                              • icon
                                                Lostinlodos (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 3:01pm

                                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                He had no qualifications to be on the board of an energy company.
                                                Especially an international multiplayer.
                                                An appointed executive position whit minimum interaction,
                                                A company that was proven corrupt during his time in management, and no (verified that I can find) legal practice.
                                                All he had to say was daddy’s name got me the job. Even say maybe, I don’t know. Anything besides nah-ah.

                                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                • icon
                                                  PaulT (profile), 26 Jul 2021 @ 7:29am

                                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                  "He had no qualifications to be on the board of an energy company."

                                                  What are the qualifications to be on the board of an energy company?

                                                  When sourcing your citations, bear in mind that many companies have board members with zero direct experience in the field the company operates in.

                                                  I will guarantee that it's more experience than Jared had in pandemic control.

                                                  "All he had to say was daddy’s name got me the job."

                                                  Ok, so - at worst -the only problem you had is that he did the same that Trump did only to a far lower degree (Biden only got one family member a position, whereas Trump did the same for all his family and sycophants).

                                                  Yet, you use this as a reason to vote against Biden and not Trump?

                                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                  • icon
                                                    Lostinlodos (profile), 26 Jul 2021 @ 12:45pm

                                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                    “ Yet, you use this as a reason to vote against Biden and not Trump”
                                                    No. I voted against Biden because he has dementia.
                                                    And I knew he wouldn’t be the acting president.
                                                    I don’t vote for empty ballot spots.

                                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • icon
                                    nasch (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 2:52pm

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                    I believe it would be a non factor and over with.

                                    Yeah Fox News is well known for letting bygones be bygones when it comes to Democrats.

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                      icon
                                      Lostinlodos (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 4:14pm

                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                      Well, nobody is talking about Obama and pot.
                                      Again I don’t actually watch the station, I only get their news feed which is only indirectly related to their talk shows.
                                      Keep in mind your choices aren’t really all that good at moving on either.

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      • icon
                                        nasch (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 4:27pm

                                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                        Well, nobody is talking about Obama and pot.

                                        There's one reason why Fox News is no longer obsessing over every little thing Obama does and never, ever letting anything go. And that is because he's out of office. If Clinton had been elected, they would probably still be talking about Benghazi every day.

                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                          icon
                                          Lostinlodos (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 4:46pm

                                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                          And I’d ignore that just like I ignored them during trump and Obama admins.
                                          I go out of my to not watch any cable news: they’re all generally talk show crap from 5est-midnight.
                                          So I never really got anything on the Benghazi story either way. Simply don’t know.

                                          I do know, on partly voted on, the situation in Ukraine.

                                          As for out of office, is trump not still a nightly headline? Out of office.

                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                          • icon
                                            nasch (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 5:29pm

                                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                            And I’d ignore that just like I ignored them during trump and Obama admins.

                                            Good for you (not sarcastic).

                                            As for out of office, is trump not still a nightly headline?

                                            I don't hear much about him other than from the late night shows now and then. And then mostly because of the possibility of him running again. I don't know if cable news is still talking about him; I don't watch them either.

                                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                            • icon
                                              bhull242 (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 2:03pm

                                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                              To my knowledge, he’s only discussed by MSM on cable when something new pops up (like him using the DOJ to spy on journalists or he holds a rally or personally appears on Fox), when responding to someone else bringing up something Trump related (like discussing something another public figure said), etc.

                                              Aside from the fact that, compared to most other ex-Presidents, Trump is significantly more active/vocal on political issues even after leaving office and actively seeks public attention far more (which necessarily leads to more coverage) and the fact that Trump—unlike most ex-Presidents—was a major public figure outside of politics long before he ever sought public office of any kind (which also generally means more coverage) and could plausibly seek the presidency again, the coverage of Trump since he left office has been comparable to that of other ex-Presidents within most cable news stations within this amount of time after the new President was sworn in.

                                              Basically, to the extent he is still being covered by cable news (except Fox News) in a way that is different from other former Presidents, it’s because Trump does his best to stay in the news and in politics despite being out-of-office, far more than any other ex-President. Any other coverage appears comparable to that of other out-of-office ex-Presidents within the first year of them having left office.

                                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                              • icon
                                                Lostinlodos (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 3:08pm

                                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                “ Aside from the fact that, compared to most other ex-Presidents, Trump is significantly more active/vocal”
                                                I don’t know about that. Obama never left the public forum.
                                                Neither did H Clinton since leaving as first
                                                Lady.

                                                I’m not sure how much he’s shown up anywhere it was general musing.

                                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                • icon
                                                  bhull242 (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 6:04pm

                                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                  H C is irrelevant (we’re talking ex-Presidents, not people related to ex-Presidents or anyone who used to be in the White House but left when next President was sworn in), and Obama didn’t comment on Trump while Trump was President until fairly late into Trump’s presidency.

                                                  But yeah, I figured that it was probably just a general musing. I was just giving my take as someone who does (on occasion) watch cable news.

                                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                • icon
                                                  PaulT (profile), 26 Jul 2021 @ 7:34am

                                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                  "Obama never left the public forum"

                                                  Lol... really? The man barely made comment unless he had to, probably because "fuck this guy" doesn't play well on the type of Fox show that attacked him mercilessly for mustard.

                                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • icon
                                    bhull242 (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 12:01pm

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                    “Admit what? The unproven allegations […]”
                                    That his son got a job he was completely unqualified for simply for being his son.

                                    “Admitted what?”
                                    He got the job because of daddy

                                    TBH, I don’t know if Hunter got that job because he is Joe Biden’s son. That is not implausible or even unlikely, but it’s not as obviously and/or necessarily true as you suggest based solely on publicly available evidence.

                                    Plus, regardless of what the motives of Hunter’s employers were when he was hired, that doesn’t mean that Joe Biden himself had anything to do with that decision or knew/knows what their motives were. It also doesn’t mean that Hunter himself knew/knows what their motives were.

                                    In order to admit something, you have to have—at the very least—known or at least believed that that thing is true or incredibly likely to be true. It should also be the case that the evidence is essentially undeniable before you demand someone else admits something, and either that person had previously denied that claim or the claim is personally damaging to that person. Neither is the case here.

                                    Mind telling me what Little B’s qualifications are to be on the board of any company!

                                    I don’t know, but then I have no idea what qualifications someone should have in order to be on the board of any company.

                                    I also don’t really care. Whether or not Hunter was hired because he was Joe Biden’s son isn’t really of any real concern to many people who don’t put down Biden over it. There may be denial that Biden himself applied pressure or something to get Hunter that job, but aside from that, this isn’t something that liberals tend to talk about. Even if it’s true, so what? Does that say anything about Joe Biden? No, it doesn’t.

                                    “COVID deaths before the election were really his fault”
                                    Who says [a]nyone in the US is at fault for pre[-]election covid deaths?

                                    Lots of people on both sides about lots of people in the US. Have you not been paying attention? People have been blaming Biden, Trump, various congresspersons, the Republican Party/leadership, various media outlets (esp. Fox News, OANN, and Newsmax), governors, local and state legislators, anti-vaxxers, anti-maskers, certain religious leaders, the CDC, Facebook, Twitter, etc. for pre-election COVID deaths. Not for all COVID deaths, but for a fair amount of them.

                                    “Do you think that admitting to something like that would stop the whining[?]”
                                    Probably. If he said ‘yep, my son got the job based on my name. Happens all the time. Here’s a short list from both parties’.
                                    Yes. I believe it would be a non[-]factor and over with.

                                    I love your optimism. I believe that people would use that to say, “See?! Why do you support Biden when he admits this?”

                                    Personally, I don’t see why it’s a factor to begin with. It’s not even like Biden has denied this claim, anyways, and, as you point out, it happens all the time and says nothing about Biden himself.

                                    “ Let's wait for evidence.”
                                    On the laptop? Yes.

                                    Until then, we will act as though it was false. It is also incredibly unlikely.

                                    I didn’t say it was true. Not once. Anywhere. I said is was possible.

                                    You didn’t explicitly say it was true, but it was a reasonable inference based on what you said, and it was implied by what you did say.

                                    And more likely than the plan pee-pee-gate.

                                    Most people don’t seriously believe that the pee-pee tape actually exists, so I have no idea how that’s relevant. “It’s more likely than this other thing that few people believe to be true but like to make jokes about all the time,” is an incredibly low bar.

                                    I said it was just as newsworthy as an obviously fake pile of documents created and paid for directly within the Clinton chain of command. If not more so.

                                    Assuming you’re talking about the Steele Dossier:

                                    1. That wasn’t “created […] within the Clinton chain of command,” nor did they initially fund it at all. It was created and initially funded by Republicans. The Clinton campaign later acquired that information and continued to fund it until it was completed.

                                    2. The allegations within the Steele Dossier were/are far more plausible than the allegation re:the laptop that was allegedly Hunter’s. It’s not “obviously false” like you claim.

                                    3. It’s also debated—even among liberals and other anti-Trump people—whether or not Buzzfeed should have published it when it did. Thus, the Steele Dossier isn’t assumed by even a majority of anti-Trump people to have been newsworthy at the time it was first publicized, so that’s not a great argument. Also, to be fair to Buzzfeed, …

                                    4. …the FBI were actually relying (in part) on the dossier in its investigations, which necessarily makes it more newsworthy. The same cannot be said of the laptop, which the DOJ explicitly said they were not investigating at that time.

                                    5. Even if that was Hunter’s laptop and the emails themselves are real, are what they are claimed to be, and we’re actually found on Hunter’s laptop, it doesn’t matter because we have publicly available evidence that proves that the claims actually or implied within the emails that actually have to do with Biden himself are demonstrably false. There was never any meeting as described, nor could there have been, based on publicly available information. Which definitely makes the laptop story even less plausible and less newsworthy.

                                    “Until that happens, the evidence is that Trump was a corrupt […]
                                    (Evidence not provided)

                                    I repeat: have you not been paying attention? One example is below, but he’s also used his position for personal profit (to make the Trump Organization money), abused his position to investigate enemies and interfere with investigations into allies, chose people to fill positions they were in no way qualified for, and oh so much more.

                                    “[…] nepotistic […]”
                                    (most politicians are)

                                    No, they aren’t. At least not like Trump was. I have never heard of a single case where a US President has hired his children and/or children-in-law to work in the White House as part of his administration, nor of any politician granting family members clearance that had previously been revoked or denied by the people responsible for vetting those who have clearance. And even among non-Presidents, in the US, it is still pretty rare and noteworthy when a politician gives a family member a job as part of the government.

                                    But even if you were right, that doesn’t make what Trump did okay.

                                    “ loser,”
                                    (disagree)

                                    You’re free to do so. Though, evidence does suggest that. His accomplishments as President that could be considered anything close to successes are tax cuts (which actually increased taxes for a lot of Americans and made the federal deficit much worse); getting out of the TPP (which I actually agree with, though not his reasons for doing so), the Paris Climate Agreement (which was a terrible idea), and the Iran nuclear deal (which was also bad); and one (arguably two) stimulus package(s) during the pandemic. He tried and failed to repeal, replace, or modify the ACA; he didn’t finish building the wall, and he was only able to build as much as he did through dubious means that did not receive approval from Congress; he tried and failed to stop the investigation into the Russia scandal; he didn’t “lock her up”; he tried and failed to stop or reduce illegal/undocumented immigration; he was impeached twice; he failed to get the popular vote in both the election he won and the one he lost; he lost an election for President in which he was the incumbent; he failed to repeal DACA; he consistently had the lowest approval rating of any President since such polls were done; the economy did better under his predecessor and wound up worse than it was when he started; our foreign relations went downhill under him; he tried and failed to overturn the election results repeatedly—both legally and not; and so on. If it was just a couple of those or he had more successes that major failures, that’d be one thing, but all-in-all, he was a loser.

                                    “…and that Biden had a nutty ex-NY mayor claim something about his son.”
                                    He claimed a lot of things. Some true, some false. Some as yet unknown.

                                    Mostly false. The fact is that Rudy Giuliani says false things more often than true things. He is not remotely credible.

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • icon
                                bhull242 (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 5:43pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                I’m complaining that Biden refuses to admit it and move on.

                                Although you later say that you’re referring to Hunter getting the job because his dad is Joe Biden, this is what the person you’re responding to was referring to:

                                On the flip side you have the son of the then Vice President, already known for a association alone position of management, and emails if potentially dirty dealings.

                                Now, I don’t know what you meant by “association alone position of management”, the “emails [o]f potentially dirty dealings” is clearly referencing the laptop story, not how Hunter got his job. And that was shown to be completely false (at least insofar as it relates to Joe Biden himself).

                                As far as Hunter getting the job because of who his dad was at the time, that’s certainly plausible (though I wouldn’t go so far as to say it is definitely the case), but that doesn’t mean Joe Biden or even Hunter Biden knew that or used Biden’s position to convince Burisma to give Hunter his position; it’s just as if not even more plausible that Burisma chose to hire Hunter of their own volition believing that it would give them an “in” with the then-VPOTUS without Hunter or Joe so much as implying anything of the sort. It’s also just as plausible that Hunter would have implied such a thing without Joe having anything to do with it.

                                In either of the latter two cases, there’d still be nothing for Biden to admit to. What would he even say? “Burisma thought that by hiring my son as a director, I would treat them differently in my position as Vice President—something that could be said about many companies hiring many children of people in power”? That’s not exactly groundbreaking, nor has any other politician in history ever said such a thing. It also tells us absolutely nothing about Biden or those politicians. It tells us about the companies, but that’s about it.

                                Regardless, and as I alluded to before, the idea that Hunter was only (or even primarily) hired on as a director because of his father is far from a foregone conclusion. It likely played a role, perhaps even a significant one, but despite his troubled past with drug addiction, Hunter actually did have plenty of qualifications.

                                He has a law degree from Yale, worked at a bank holding for two years (during which he rose to executive vice president), served at the Department of Commerce under Clinton and GWB with a focus on e-commerce, was a lobbyist for quite some time, was the vice-chairman of the board of directors for Amtrak, and has also been heavily involved with investment firms and venture capitalism, even becoming an interim CEO at one point as well as serving on boards of directors on several occasions.

                                All of this and other details can be found on the Wikipedia page for Hunter Biden, with the claims I’m referencing being sourced among several sources, including The New Yorker, USA Today, Politico, Vox, govinfo [dot] gov, CNN, Politifact, The New York Times, AP, CNBC, Wall Street Journal, NPR, BBC News, and Financial Times. I won’t put any links because a) it’s incredibly easy to find and b) I don’t want this to be caught in the spam filter because it contains a bunch of hyperlinks.

                                So, again, it’s far from a foregone conclusion that Hunter being Biden’s son was the only or even primary reason he was hired onto the board of directors for Burisma. He already had lots of experience serving on the board of directors for multiple organizations, after all. As such, and given that Biden would likely be unaware of the idea even if true, why should Biden “admit” to anything?

                                Nepotism of varying kinds and degrees is and has been a real problem among politicians of both parties. However, that Biden won’t “admit” that “Hunter only got the job with Burisma because of who his dad is” is not exactly surprising or aggravating, nor does it make much sense for him to do so. It likely isn’t strictly true, but even if it was, no other politician has ever done it and yet been treated like Biden has, and it’s likely that Biden would have no idea that that was the case, regardless. Plus, it says absolutely nothing about Joe Biden himself.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • icon
                                  Lostinlodos (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 8:06pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  I covered his previous jobs in a previous reply.
                                  Amtrak being a political appointment, the troubles of the bank he worked for, some during his charge, and lack of law practice.

                                  “ Nepotism of varying kinds and degrees is and has been a real problem ”
                                  We disagree, I don’t consider it a problem at all. Admit it for what it is and move along.

                                  Some of The most successful companies in the world are based on this very method, entire countries, some quite prosperous, are based on it. No reason to thumb our nose over it.

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • icon
                                bhull242 (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 5:49pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                If he admitted it up from, like Obama and pot, nobody would be discussing it today.

                                Considering the fact that a) most of the people who have been complaining about Hunter recently who were adults or teens at the time Biden was VP and Hunter was hired didn’t have anything to say about it until Trump and Rudy brought it up in an attempt to discredit Biden, and b) people did keep discussing Obama smoking pot throughout his Presidency (the frequency didn’t appear to decrease after he admitted it but rather after he left office), I have strong doubts about that, though I wish I had your optimism.

                                Then, of course, there’s the fact that there really isn’t anything to “admit” to.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • icon
                                  Lostinlodos (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 8:34pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  If pot carried on it wasn’t in mainstream news.

                                  I’m a bit annoyed how many times users her throw about FNC crap expecting me to understand when I don’t watch the station.

                                  Fox’s print news service Fox News Feed, is totally separate from the tv “Fox News Channel”. It will occasionally post a “host said” or “host interviewed” but I nearly always skip past that.

                                  The laptop is out of the FNF cycle, election fraud lasted a while but it’s been a long time since there was any claim about fraud in voting.

                                  Like I keep saying, my two primary reads are NYT (despite a short break do to ‘an error’ that shut down their feed behind a paywall) and FNF, the fox ‘print’ service. Which is a collation of local fox stations. Not FNC. And which as zero editorial link to the RMP services.
                                  Feel free to turn on a local fox station and look for anything positive about trump in the current cycle. You won’t find much from most of the stations.

                                  Video news comes from BBC and NHK. Occasionally I’ll watch CNN-I or AlJ.

                                  Personally, I’ve seen most stories like the Biden employment disappear when people say ‘sure, and…’

                                  Personally on the whole pussy thing I which trump was more ‘so what’ than ‘it’s not what I meant’
                                  10 years ago we would have ignored it as what it is: bullshite banter.
                                  And if he hit it hard day one, it’s unlikely people would be pretending it was anything but. That some people think he, again, a germaphobe, was actually doing that?
                                  He goes out of his way to not shake hands.

                                  The reality is Biden, H, has had jobs handed to him. Maybe he did well, maybe not. I don’t know.
                                  I wouldn’t be holding his bank position as a gold star though.
                                  There’s nothing wrong with being handed in my view. But when someone asked, say yes, and walk away.
                                  Story dies out quickly.

                                  I don’t know what you’d get out of fox l, what, 4-midnight, or MSNBC, most of the day… neither are news. They’re purely political commentary.
                                  I’ve given up on FNC by 2019 when it became Fox Trump Network. All Trump, all day.

                                  I’m no loyalist. I made my choices. I stand by there not being a better choice than what I made. You can disagree on things. I tend to agree with much of what you “disagree”’on. But I’m sure Clinton would have been worse for me, as an American.
                                  And right now I have no idea who the ‘real’ president is. The one behind the cardboard prop.

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                              icon
                              Lostinlodos (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 12:43pm

                              Re: Re: Re:

                              What is it about that story that makes you think that it's a "gotcha" moment to mention it? I mean, the sex worker part is

                              Trump supporters weren’t racist he only ones to jump on stories.
                              The whole Russia Russia Russia folder was obviously bull.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • icon
                                PaulT (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 1:05pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                "Trump supporters weren’t racist he only ones to jump on stories."

                                OK, despite the evidence over decades to the contrary, he only hired white supremacists rather than agreeing openly with their positions. That's not really better.

                                "The whole Russia Russia Russia folder was obviously bull."

                                Then why all the warrants and convictions? Mueller stopped short of directly accusing Trump of "collusion" because he didn't feel comfortable that there was a distinct charge to bring, but that doesn't invalidate that evidence. You're literally attacking Biden on less evidence.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • icon
                                bhull242 (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 2:16pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                What is it about that story that makes you think that it's a "gotcha" moment to mention it? I mean, the sex worker part is

                                You’re the one who brought it up in the first place. No one was treating it like a “gotcha” moment.

                                Trump supporters weren’t racist he only ones to jump on stories.

                                1. I won’t speak with regards to all Trump supporters, but many of them were, in fact, racist. A lot of them were pretty vocally so, like David Duke.

                                2. Even if true, that doesn’t really help your case… I mean, that doesn’t make Trump look any better.

                                The whole Russia Russia Russia folder was obviously bull.

                                Tell that to Robert Mueller, the people who worked with Mueller in investigating such things, various prosecutors, the judges, and all the people who were convicted of or pled guilty to charges stemming from the Mueller report and relating to “[t]he whole Russia Russia Russia folder” and similar evidence/claims.

                                Seriously, even if parts of the Steele Dossier were completely wrong, a lot of it has been shown to be true, and people have been imprisoned in part because of those parts that were true or at least close to true.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • icon
                                  Lostinlodos (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 3:14pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  1) it’s not many, it’s a handful.

                                  Both parties have fringe freaks. Both parties have also been moving to pull them into the fold lately.
                                  I don’t agree with it on either side and would person like to see both fringes cut out completely.
                                  There’s loud resistance to the likes of the “squad” by Dems.
                                  And there’s growing, but not growing enough, resistance to Q by Reps.

                                  Should they be more active in denouncing them? Yes, both parties!
                                  But neither fringe makes up any level of voting.

                                  The problem isn’t Republican La being Q, it’s not dismissing them enough in public.

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • icon
                                    bhull242 (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 6:16pm

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                    The “squad” huh? Again, what makes them comparable to the likes of MTG, who spouts conspiracy theories with no evidence and repeatedly makes antisemitic claims? Or Matt Gaetz, or Trump, etc.

                                    I’m not saying that there aren’t “fringe freaks” on both sides, but there is a difference between the most extreme elements of each side among those that actually hold office (as opposed to people merely running for office or have not been elected or appointed to some public office), and how extremist or bigoted statements or people in office are treated by other elected officials from their respective parties.

                                    Now, feel free to give explicit examples of fringe Democrats who hold office not being held accountable in the same vein as MTG or Gaetz or Jim Jordan, but as it is, this is a false equivalence.

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • icon
                                      Lostinlodos (profile), 26 Jul 2021 @ 12:05am

                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                      “ and repeatedly makes antisemitic claims”
                                      Have you listened to the anti Israel shite from the squad?

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      • icon
                                        PaulT (profile), 26 Jul 2021 @ 7:43am

                                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                        "Have you listened to the anti Israel shite from the squad?"

                                        Oh, you're one of those people who are so stupid that they think that criticising the actions of the government of Israel is the same as an anti-semetic attack on the Jewish people. Quelle surprise...

                                        try getting your news from. places that deal with facts and evidence at least occasionally, it will help you when you talk to better informed people with arguments based in the real world.

                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                        • icon
                                          Lostinlodos (profile), 26 Jul 2021 @ 12:48pm

                                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                          I believe I’m better informed than most on this.
                                          Let’s see: terrorist government in the north. Terrorist government in the south.
                                          Innocent people dead.
                                          That’s very different than supporting Iran who demands the destruction of Israel completely.

                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          Toom1275 (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 12:10pm

                          Re:

                          • why did a witness admit that they lied the emails were legit in because he was bribed with an American visa if he did so?

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        PaulT (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 11:15am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equat

                        "Your hypothetical conveniently left out that the son was also a crackhead which makes the scenario far more believable"

                        No, it means that political activists working for the twice-impeached corrupt, incompetent former president flailing wildly to retain his position after causing the deaths of hundred of thousands of Americans happening to get the laptop just before said election but failing to give any details is still suspicious.

                        You're literally ignoring the part of the story that's fantasy.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        bhull242 (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 3:19pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equat

                        Your hypothetical conveniently left out that the son was also a crackhead which makes the scenario far more believable.

                        Not at all. By which I mean that it doesn’t make the scenario significantly more believable.

                        High crackhead breaks laptop, takes laptop to computer repairman, crackhead completely forgets entire incident. Not very far fetched once you include that whole crackhead part.

                        So many problems.

                        1. Yes, Hunter was—at least at one point—addicted to crack cocaine. However, by all accounts, he appears to have been staying clean for quite some time. Drug addicts can overcome their addiction, and it’s been long enough since the last known instance of him having used the stuff that his past addiction is no longer all that convincing.

                        2. Even if that is plausible, that in no way explains how or why he and his laptop would end up all the way across the country from his home and workplace to where the computer repair shop is.

                        3. It also doesn’t explain how he not only did that but also got back home, all while still sufficiently high that he’d no longer remember any of it later.

                        4. Even if true, how didn’t he notice the fact that he is now missing one laptop. Even assuming—without conceding—that everything else you said about how someone high on crack would behave and would later forget what happened while high once the effects wear off, once he’s not high, I’m pretty sure that he’d notice that his laptop is gone. Even if he no longer remembered the details of how his laptop broke and so he went to drop it off at a computer repair shop across the country from his residence and then came all the way back, he’d still notice that he had a laptop before that time period and that it was no longer in his possession after that time period. He’d also probably remember that he did get high at some point before (even if it is just immediately before) this period of blackout. He would also the fact that some money went missing to cover the costs of travel to and from that area. At that point, he could reasonably track those expenses to learn about the plane ride and what the destination was, infer that the laptop went missing in that area, and either report it as missing to law enforcement or ask around at places he likely would have been at some point. He may not recall the entire incident, but he’d recall enough to infer that he lost his laptop across the country from his residence during a time period.

                        5. This in no way explains why the laptop would still have such evidence on it in the way the repairman claimed it was so that he could access it. The way the emails were allegedly stored on the laptop would have required active steps on Hunter’s part that make no sense to perform, crackhead or not, and he would have had to have done so years before the laptop ended up in that repair shop.

                        6. This is related to 4 and 5: Hunter would surely notice that a laptop that he knew contained incriminating evidence was missing and would have tried his best to find or retrieve said laptop. He would also have had means at his disposal to do a decent job of doing so.

                        7. That’s not exactly how crack works, anyways. Didn’t you ever learn about the differences between various drugs? I had to—twice—in health class.

                        And that is just a non-exhaustive list of the problems with that part of the story you were referring to and the parts about Hunter’s actions. There are still a number of other problems with the whole deal, none of which would be remotely helped by saying, “Hunter was on crack.” Here are just a few:

                        • Why did the computer repairman decide to investigate the laptop in the first place? Keep in mind that—according to the story—he had no idea it was Hunter’s laptop until after he started investigating its contents beyond what was necessary to repair it, and the laptop had already been repaired by then. Additionally, doing so is unethical and potentially illegal (or unlawful), so why would he risk doing so with a random laptop some guy he didn’t recognize had dropped off just because the guy didn’t show up to pick it up?

                        • According to the story, once the repairman found the incriminating emails, the first person he chose to contact regarding this information was… Rudy Giuliani. Why not take it to the press or law enforcement first? Ensuring that only Trump’s personal attorney—already known for being biased and untrustworthy—and himself—also a known Trump supporter—would be the first people to know about this makes no sense.

                        • Why weren’t the emails that allegedly came from the laptop presented as they originally were? Without the metadata from the emails, there is no way of verifying their authenticity. And this had to have been an active step.

                        • Why did the two wait to go public with the emails for so long?

                        • Why was no one from the New York Post willing to sign their names to the article?

                        • Even if every part of the story is true, that just means that Hunter and/or the guy he was emailing were lying. Soon after the story became publicly known, Biden released proof of the fact that the meeting described in those emails did not actually happen. And keep in mind that that was the only part of this story that could be remotely damaging to Joe Biden; everything else was about Hunter and the guy he was emailing. And this wasn’t something that was hidden or not found for some time; this would have been publicly available to anyone who submitted a request for the information to the White House (something that should have been done before the story was published), and Biden presented this evidence pretty soon after the story was made public.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          Lostinlodos (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 4:14pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not e

                          “laptop would end up all the way across the country from his home and workplace to where the computer repair shop is”actually that’s quite common. Either your not a tech or you did have enough throughput form companies.
                          I could be off a bit one way or another but multiple shops and locations,
                          About half what came n was under a company name. And/or a company bill.
                          So a random person handed a laptop drops it off before a meeting and forgets about it 5 days later before returning home? He himself drops it off and forgot about it before moving on?

                          Someone’s laptop being abandoned half way across the country? Common enough. And for anyone in that income range,
                          It’s more an oh well than an oh no.
                          Keep in mind the vast majority of computer users think their log in password is enough to keep their data safe.

                          “ he’d no longer remember any of it later.”
                          “ Even if true, how didn’t he notice the fact that he is now missing one laptop.”
                          He himself has said it may have been his. That he didn’t remember. That… I fully buy.
                          Many businesses people carry more than one at the same time. Others swap out various laptops.
                          When you a flipping through dozens on a regular basis, misplacing one isn’t that likely to be an issue.

                          “The way the emails were allegedly stored“
                          I actually missed this part. But if saved on the drive… that doesn’t require extra steps.
                          If you have offline access enabled almost every major email application saves email as unencrypted html files.
                          I’ve actually used that to recover a customer’s emails for them when they got Locke out of a disposable account online but still had access via the app. I simply loaded up namechange and set it to swap .em to .mht and done.
                          Every email in a Microsoft compatible format.
                          A quick run through mht2pdf and done.
                          Mht is Microsoft’s web archive format. But all email apps us one of a half dozen semi-open formats.

                          “ Why did the computer repairman decide to investigate the laptop in the first place? ”
                          Abandoned property law.
                          From the up-n-up side, he could be looking for transferable software licenses.
                          From the not so well mannered side, maybe he’s just a voyeur. It’s legal regardless. unethical, but I’m most places legal.

                          “ first person he chose to contact regarding this information was… Rudy Giuliani. Why not take it to the press or law enforcement first?”
                          He likely believed the press would bury it… or disappear it.
                          Given the whole mess with Clinton on the tarmac not long ago, maybe he didn’t trust federal law.
                          Maybe he’s a boxer and didn’t initially want to get caught up explaining. Embarrassment and all.

                          “ Without the metadata from the emails, there is no way of verifying their authenticity. And this had to have been an active step.”
                          Active yes. Not necessarily intentional.
                          Again, I missed the whole (where the were found) file aspect of the story. I do know from various conversion transfers that striping metadata isn’t hard to do. On purpose or by accident.

                          “ Why did the two wait”
                          Don’t know. Maybe they thought they had a silver bullet?

                          “ Why was no one from the New York Post willing to sign their names to the article?”
                          Ask them? Fear of reprisals if Biden was elected? Sounds like a logical fear to me.

                          “Biden released proof of the fact that the meeting described in those emails did not actually happen“
                          Contradicted as far as I’m aware, by Sec Src logs and travel records. But I don’t know for sure.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            bhull242 (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 6:57pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does n

                            Someone’s laptop being abandoned half way across the country? Common enough. And for anyone in that income range,
                            It’s more an oh well than an oh no.
                            Keep in mind the vast majority of computer users think their log in password is enough to keep their data safe.

                            First off, it’s all the way across the country, not half.

                            And while you are correct about people’s lax attitudes regarding security (I know from experience; I’m actually well aware of the tech aspect and work in tech), you overestimate Hunter’s income at that time, at least compared to his expenses.

                            But if saved on the drive… that doesn’t require extra steps.

                            That’s what I mean. That is something you have to explicitly enable. If you are involved in shady practices, why would you ever do this?

                            “ Why did the computer repairman decide to investigate the laptop in the first place? ”
                            Abandoned property law.
                            From the up-n-up side, he could be looking for transferable software licenses.
                            From the not so well mannered side, maybe he’s just a voyeur. It’s legal regardless. unethical, but I’m most places legal.

                            Still not something I would say is advisable or something I think that a guy who I would be willing to trust not to have intentionally altered the data to suit his purposes would do. As you said, it is unethical to do so even if it is legal, so if you’re willing to do that, I have no reason to trust you on what you found.

                            You’d be better off wiping the hard drive.

                            He himself has said it may have been his. That he didn’t remember.

                            [Citation needed]

                            “ first person he chose to contact regarding this information was… Rudy Giuliani. Why not take it to the press or law enforcement first?”
                            He likely believed the press would bury it… or disappear it.
                            Given the whole mess with Clinton on the tarmac not long ago, maybe he didn’t trust federal law.
                            Maybe he’s a boxer and didn’t initially want to get caught up explaining. Embarrassment and all.

                            No idea what you mean about “the whole mess with Clinton on the tarmac not long ago” or how it would give anyone a dim view of federal law enforcement, nor what being a boxer has to do with anything, but

                            1) He still could have sent it to a pro-Trump outlet first, or at least sent copies of the data to the press (it’s not hard to copy the entire contents of a hard drive without messing with the data), and

                            2) this doesn’t make it any less suspicious. If anything, that’s actually kinda worse.

                            “ Without the metadata from the emails, there is no way of verifying their authenticity. And this had to have been an active step.”
                            Active yes. Not necessarily intentional.
                            Again, I missed the whole (where the were found) file aspect of the story. I do know from various conversion transfers that striping metadata isn’t hard to do. On purpose or by accident.

                            Hard to do? No. That said, someone who is able to open a laptop that isn’t his and that has even a modicum of security (no matter how bad it was) should know how to avoid doing so and how important it is to preserve it when presenting it as irrefutable evidence.

                            Additionally, you’re also missing a key point in all this: even if it is Hunter’s laptop, and that Hunter himself dropped it off, without that metadata, we have no reason to believe that the emails ever were on the actual laptop to begin with or that they weren’t altered in the process. Given that the known chain of custody is 1) a computer repairman who is well known to be a firm Trump supporter and 2) Rudy Giuliani, a lawyer for Trump who is well known to distort the truth to serve his interests, I have zero reason to believe that the emails were actually found on the laptop and said what we’re told they said.

                            “ Why did the two wait”
                            Don’t know. Maybe they thought they had a silver bullet?

                            That’s not a good reason. It’s a terrible reason. It shows that they weren’t actually concerned with the contents because they thought they were bad for the country but because they only cared about taking out Biden. This does not inspire confidence in people that they did not tamper with the emails to make Biden look bad.

                            “ Why was no one from the New York Post willing to sign their names to the article?”
                            Ask them? Fear of reprisals if Biden was elected? Sounds like a logical fear to me.

                            Not at all. The executive branch of the federal government has no power to do anything like that, so Biden would not have additional options for reprisal against the NYP if he was elected vs if he was not.

                            Furthermore, there is no logical reason for them to fear reprisal at all a) if they didn’t harbor serious doubts about whether the story was true b) that would be mitigated by the author not signing their name to it (the NYP as a whole would be just as culpable/vulnerable, and through subpoenas or discovery, the identity of the author could be uncovered anyways).

                            So no, that is not a logical fear. That may actually be the reason, but there is nothing logical about it.

                            “Biden released proof of the fact that the meeting described in those emails did not actually happen“
                            Contradicted as far as I’m aware, by Sec Src logs and travel records. But I don’t know for sure.

                            Au contraire, that was part of the proof that the meeting didn’t take place, not something that contradicted the offered proof. But feel free to actually provide a source that proves otherwise.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              Lostinlodos (profile), 26 Jul 2021 @ 12:34am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal do

                              “ it’s all the way across the country, not half.”
                              And still a fraction of the difference I’ve seen paid for and picked up, and abandoned.

                              What’s the expense of sending someone to pick up a forgotten ‘secured’ laptop vs the cost of the laptop.
                              I’d say it’s fairly damn close.

                              I’ve also a long history in tech. And this laptop’s alleged trip is far from the longest I’ve see.
                              Working in Triangle park I regularly had laptops from every continent. Except one. But nobody lives there.

                              And working in small shops in Georgia and Illinois prior to that stuff from California, Nevada, Washington… wasn’t uncommon.
                              The distance of travel is well within norms. For a random low level employee who simply fucked up. Twice.

                              “ That’s what I mean. That is something you have to explicitly enable”
                              Again I am not aware of the source situation of the files.
                              However, no, it’s not something wou need enable.
                              Microsoft outlook, and Mail, both save to disk unless you turn it off.
                              So does exchange.
                              Off windows Apple Mail, Thunderbird, FireMail… all do so as well.

                              “ Still not something I would say is advisable”
                              Nor I. But I’ve worked with people who went fishing.
                              Below me,l, under me, I don’t take it. Nuke the drive. Start over.
                              But I’ve worked under companies that license fish. I never stayed long when I became aware of it.
                              It’s one of the many places where my idea of private property works out better for general society.
                              Not my data. BC wipe.

                              Every tech has looked once, even I. Without permission.
                              It’s literally something everyone will try ~once~.
                              But for some… it’s a thrill. They’re sick and need help. But it’s still legal in most cases of a situation such as in discussion.

                              Citation
                              https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hunter-biden-admits-laptop-certainly-could-be-his/ar-BB1ffd 3R

                              Tarmac:
                              https://www.the-sun.com/news/3079610/bill-clinton-loretta-lynch-tarmac-meeting/

                              “ because they only cared about taking out Biden.”
                              Not supporting it. But makes sense. Politicians suck.
                              The rest I haven’t read personally. It’s he said she said and could be wrong. I’ll look for it.

                              My point over all is unlikely? Yes. Improbable? No
                              And given how fast anti-Trump gets covered with no actual personal fact checking, this story being completely buried… shows partnership considerations.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 12:03pm

          Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct.

          Whose morals? Yours? Morals are not absolute, regardless of what you've been taught.

          Law vs. morality: a false dichotomy.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          ECA (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 3:14pm

          Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct.

          Laws started with morality.
          Then the LAWS had to cover everything we created, supposedly to protect the consumer. then they Leaned Back the other way, NOT in favor of the consumer.
          The one with the biggest pockets Wins?

          Morality= BE NICE TO EACH OTHER, Dammit.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 5:56pm

          Re: Technically legal is the best kind of legal

          "The law vs morality. Compromises must be made."

          Do you want to know, how I know you don't understand how the First Amendment works?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 5:11am

          Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct.

          "tldr: We could protect both free speech and the children."

          Technically...not really. If you are allowed to swear in public then it's hard to make the case that you aren't allowed to write it in your front yard either.

          And if you aren't allowed to swear in public...you have a precedent where offensive speech is under government censorship.

          In practice, of course, it's usually the landlord (private property owner) which tells you to take the fucking sign down (from their property) with the law staying right out of it.

          In the OP judge Bundy has made an interesting judgment which appears to have no backing in law, unless Ms. Dick completes the signs with printouts from lemonparty.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          bhull242 (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 6:57am

          Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct.

          “Legal does not [equal] morally correct,” is a completely accurate statement, but everything else you said suggests you don’t understand what that means.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:04am

      I am very supportive of free speech, but where do we draw the line?

      At the place where legal speech turns into illegal speech.

      I sympathize with the parents who don’t want their kids to see swear words. But that shouldn’t let them infringe the rights of others. The speech is legal; someone else’s feelings about that don’t get to say otherwise.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:18am

      It's four letters, not a literally magic word

      I don't feel like explaining to little six year olds that see that sign what the word DUCK spelled with a F means, thank you.

      Ooh, I've got some bad news for you if your kids are going to be interacting with society at all...

      Either you'll explain it or someone else will because 'little TImmy/Suzy never hearing the word 'fuck''' is not a viable option for anyone who isn't insanely sheltered from birth to death.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:24am

      Re:

      I don't feel like explaining to little six year olds that see that sign what the word DUCK spelled with a F means, thank you.

      Our village idiot Koby will be by shortly to explain how much he disagrees with you because freeze peach.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Samuel Abram (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 1:14pm

        Re: Re:

        Though in this case, Koby would be right because it's actual government censorship and not private website moderation.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 9:29pm

        Re: Re:

        The irony of a gal who flippantly refers to one of the most important founding principles of the USA as “freeze peach” calling Koby an idiot… hoo boy.

        “Freeze peach” is one of those Leftist newspeak terms you hear and you know with utter certainty you’re dealing with a sniveling anti-American degenerate oxygen thief coward. (Very often a White kid with dreadlocks.)

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:09pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          If the pants on head fits. Or in your case the pillowcase...

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2021 @ 6:10am

          Re: Re: Re:

          “Freeze peach” is one of those Leftist newspeak terms you hear and you know with utter certainty you’re dealing with a sniveling anti-American degenerate oxygen thief coward.

          You seem triggered, snowflake...

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 6:30am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "The irony of a gal"

          Interesting... The user didn't provide any personally identifying information, and as far as I can tell their writing style isn't as obnoxiously and uniquely ignorant as to identify them unlike OOTB/whoever their current attempt to get around the spam filter is. So, it's interesting that you know who this AC is down to their gender and comment history.

          "“Freeze peach” is one of those Leftist newspeak terms you hear"

          No, it's something that's used to mock the type of idiot who claims to be for free speech while demanding that their political opponents don't have it.

          "(Very often a White kid with dreadlocks.)"

          The real world is easier to deal with if you adjust to reality and not invent strawmen to attack at every opportunity. You might learn something occasionally, let alone actually be able to communicate with other people without being so depressingly angry all the time about people correctly noting that you have no real argument.

          Go on, try it. Address the actual ideas someone states, and don't immediately default to the cartoon you've been sold to you by people who profit from your impotent and unfounded outrage. You might become a better person for it.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:43am

      Re:

      I don't feel like explaining to little six year olds that see that sign what the word DUCK spelled with a F means, thank you.

      It's really not that hard. First of all, most kids won't care, won't notice, and it won't matter. For the few that do, you can easily say "that's a curse word that means something not nice," and the kids will forget about it and move on. At least that's been my experience.

      Hiding it doesn't help. Teaching kids that it's impolite does.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        DebbyS (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 12:38pm

        Re: Re: Mike Masnick's comment

        I would suggest not saying "...a curse word that means something not nice". Instead, for a youngster, "It's a word describing something boring that sleepy adults do" and look bored while explaining that. Don't lie really, and don't make a big deal of it or risk sparking the child's unwanted attention at this time. If the child knows the parent is generally honest -- because it's true! -- later on (say, 8 years later) the subject can be approached in more detail w/o calling a perfectly, natural activity "not nice" (or nasty, forbidden, warped, god hates it, etc.).

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Lostinlodos (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 3:50pm

        Re: Re:

        Or tell them the truth of what it means, the history, and why it’s considered such a powerful negative word.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      cpt kangarooski, 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:52am

      Re:

      It's not obscene language.

      For obscenity you must test for whether 1) an average person, applying contemporary community standards would find the sign to appeal to the prurient interest, 2) whether it depicts or describes in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct as specifically defined in law; and 3) whether the sign, taken as a whole, lacks serious political value (there are other things too, but here it's clearly political).

      Here it fails on 1, fails on 2 ("fuck" has a lot of meanings, not all sexual), and fails on 3. Conclusion: it's no more obscene than this comment, a booklet providing you with instructions on setting up and programming a VCR, or the US Constitution. It is arguably less obscene than the Bible (due to the inclusion of the Song of Solomon).

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 12:50pm

      Re: Ahem

      Ahem

      Fuck your feelings

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      TaboToka (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 1:12pm

      Re:

      I don't feel like explaining to little six year olds

      Ahh this old chestnut. Here's your answer: old enough to ask, old enough to know (age appropriate). If the little six year olds are asking what that word is, I'd be surprised they're looking at the signs, but there you go. When mine were 6, they were more interested in reading books or playing with toys in the car.

      cover up the obscene language.

      There's lots of caselaw on this, but let's ignore all that because reasons. I ask you, who is to determine which language is obscene?

      Let's try an experiment. Which of the following words do you think are obscene:

      • Stuffed
      • Wichser
      • Git
      • Screwed
      • Groom
      • Smush
      • Merde
      • Prick
      • Piss
      • Crippled
      • Damn
      • Bastard
      • Fecker
      • Jesu s

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 1:41pm

        You forgot “moist”.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Lostinlodos (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 4:42pm

          Re:

          Moist? Wet? Seriously how can that be used offensively, Even in reference to a specific body part.
          Should that not be a compliment?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            nasch (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 5:00pm

            Re: Re:

            Moist? Wet? Seriously how can that be used offensively

            It's a reference to this phenomenon:

            https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/why-do-people-hate-the-word-moist

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Lostinlodos (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 6:28pm

              Re: Re: Re:

              Ok,
              So that’s actually a thing lol. Locker room never crossed my mind. To each their own.

              So that’s two that totally stumped me.
              Think I did well with the rest.

              I love linguistics. Word etymology.
              Language in general.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 7:34am

            Re: Re:

            "Seriously how can that be used offensively, Even in reference to a specific body part. "

            Context.

            There's an old story on how a bunch of game developers at some point tried to make their online children's game perfectly proof against trolls and "offensive" language while still allowing communication. They had dozens of expert consultants replacing every type of offensive word or grammar considered possible as a euphemism. Then they sat a bunch of teens down to test it.

            They knew they'd lost when a fourteen year old, within minutes, pounded out the sentence "I want to shove my giraffe up your kitten".

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Lostinlodos (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 4:41pm

        Re: Re:

        Stuffed tends to imply forced anal sex

        Wichser is Dutch, British equivalent is wanker. Though the slang refers to jacking off the intent is more “stop wasting time {by jacking off}.”

        Git, from get, means idiot

        Screwed, again is generally accepted as a sexual term, get fucked, fucked, but actually has roots in the act of literally being screwed, a term from early assembly lines. As in, having a screw or rivet fastened to you.

        Groom comes from the act of grooming in one sense and is generally used as a solo verb for acclimating someone else o something. Such as with child grooming.
        But, as a directed insult it cooks from old Goth based languages such as old Norse and Icelandic. Ghrom, and gromar, Where it means to be a a manservant.

        Smush I’m not familiar with and am having trouble finding.

        Merde crap? Another I’m not familiar with.

        Prick from pricken from prich. Use as a word for penis dates back centuries. As a term for people it comes from the male sex drive. Single minded, begot simple minded.
        Somewhere that got twisted into the modern rude, bad, etc.

        Piss locally offensive. From Pissin, from pissen, from pis’on to wet, make wet, or to water.

        Crippled, physically injured. Not sure the entomology.

        Damn: from damnin. As a verb to damnate. More generally to be in a point of damnation

        Bastard: out of wedlock. From bastred, without.

        Or from baster (broken), as bastarde, illegitimate,

        Fecker is a localised version of fuck.
        But on its own means size or force. Comes from Fech.

        Jesu s a mythological figure. A convergence of various half human gods or heroes of the time. All who sacrificed their life for the survival of humans.
        Though some of the aspects of it, birth-death-rebirth, come from Isis which itself comes from many earlier west Asian and North African believes.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 11:23pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Stuffed tends to imply forced anal sex"

          Erm, not really, unless you're doing something very strange with a chicken or implying that when someone says they're stuffed about a dinner then they were doing something else very wrong.

          "Wichser is Dutch, British equivalent is wanker"

          So, a word that's used in multiple contexts and can even be a joking term of endearment?

          Half the other words you list have many similar non-sexual meanings and if you focus on the sexual one over and above the others, that says more about you than it does someone questioning whether they count as obscene.

          "Merde crap? Another I’m not familiar with."

          Merde is French for shit.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Lostinlodos (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 12:37am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Stuffed, as in get stuffed, is a well know slang for forced anal sex.

            Verify your target:
            I didn’t make the list. I pointed out the stupidity of being offended by any of it.

            Let’s go to the root of the article: and not the less than accurate movie docu version.

            Fuck, is directly descendent from Fuche. First attributed in print to 1404. A shortened version of fluchend. Which is early Dutch English for be Filleted.
            Based on a punishment method of spearing a person on vertical triangle and allowing the body to split.
            That itself probably, by majority opinion, comes from the Aramaic term, in Latin letters, phuc, divide. Which comes from the Arc-sumi word phu-ch-n. Or phc’n. To spread, or divide. As found in the Epic of Gilgamesh.
            .

            When it comes to short WoT reply’s I don’t care about typos and autocorrect. (I don't give a fuck)

            But when it comes to linguistic history, I take rod in my secondary master’s. Mythology has long been a personal passion..

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Lostinlodos (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 12:40am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Speaking of fuck
              Fuck you autocorrect

              *rod pride.
              How the hell that’s mistyped… but wherever.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 6:05am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "Stuffed, as in get stuffed, is a well know slang for forced anal sex."

              So, if you add a word that wasn't in the original description and make an assumption based on that extra word, it's offensive? Context is still a thing. you're clutching pearls every time you see a copy of Stuff magazine or link to the website of that name, you're being disingenuous again.

              "When it comes to short WoT reply’s I don’t care about typos and autocorrect. (I don't give a fuck)"

              Whereas, the word "fuck" on its own is considered offensive to many people without context.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Lostinlodos (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 12:08pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                I didn’t say it was offensive. None of those words should be offensive, including fuck. People need to move on from such thin skin reactions.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  PaulT (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 2:01pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Someone agreeing that those words weren't offensive by themselves would go with the original implication saying exactly that and move on. You chose to individually nit pick every definition, and even admit you were too lazy to search for the ones you didn't immediately recognise.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Lostinlodos (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 2:34pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    ‘I pointed out the stupidity of being offended by it’.

                    Words are only powerful if you allow them to be.
                    There are words I won’t say like c**r, n k*, etc. Racial abuse terms.

                    But the list posted is quite dry and stupid.
                    I have fairly quick reply to most of that list. I did look up one I didn’t know: couldn’t find the other one quickly so ignored it.

                    Don’t be so uptight. I was having fun with a generic ‘omg look’ list.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 6:32pm

      Re:

      You're actually not supportive of free speech at all and in the future you should refrain from making that false claim.

      If you don't want kids to ask you tough questions don't have kids. I'd imagine most kids have heard the word fuck by age 6 anyways. Maybe talk with them about it before they go to school and start using it not understanding what it means.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Tanner Andrews (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 3:55am

      Re:

      I don't feel like explaining to little six year olds that see that sign what the word DUCK spelled with a F means, thank you

      Lots of lawyers do not feel like explaining to ignorant Jersey judges what Cohen v. State of California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) means, either, but the file is going to land on some lawyer's desk and he is going to have to do it anyway.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      bhull242 (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 10:39am

      Re:

      From my experience, when a kid finds a new word, swear word or not, they have one of four reactions:

      1. They ignore it entirely.

      2. They ask someone what it means.

      3. They look it up (online, in a dictionary, or in an encyclopedia).

      4. They use it—frequently or sparingly—in a similar context as how they learned it.

      1 is pretty straightforward: since they don’t ask about, learn the definition of, or use it, there is nothing to handle. It’s basically as if they never learned the word. If they ignore it, you don’t need to worry about it.

      Those in 2 are generally satisfied with anything along the lines of, “It’s a bad word,” “Never use that word,” or “I’ll tell you when your older.” Those that aren’t will generally stop asking eventually and possibly go into 3. Either way, no need for you to explain what the word means at all. You should probably not say, “I don’t know,” or ignore them, as that will lead them to persist or ask someone else, or transition to 4. Other than that, though, it’s fairly straightforward.

      Similarly, those in 4 will generally stop if told to by an authority figure. They may then ask what it means (transitioning to 2) but they generally don’t keep asking once told it’s a bad word or something. Again, no need to explain its definition.

      As for 3, there is naturally no need for you to tell them what it means if they are successful in their search. If they give up before that, they’ll go into 1 or 2, maybe 4, but those can be addressed accordingly. Now, you may reasonably not like the idea of them succeeding, but the specific problem of you having to explain what it means would be nonexistent. Plus, kids aren’t going to be traumatized by learning the definition of the ‘F’ word; they might be grossed out, bored, or curious about the act it describes (which you should be able to handle the same way you would when a child asks where babies come from), but generally they can handle it. This category is relatively rare, anyways.

      So, really, it’s not difficult to handle a kid who learns the ‘F’ word. And, frankly, no matter how hard you try, it’s fairly likely that they’ll see or hear it somewhere by middle school or junior high (likely earlier), so you should learn how to handle it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Lostinlodos (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 3:41pm

      Re:

      Actually, do you have or know anyone that has kids? That’s not far off from what they really do say. Lol.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 9:59am

    The judge, while handing down his ruling and sentencing, rhetorically asked if a balance could be found between the homeowner’s freedom of speech and a mother having to explain what the f-word means to their child.

    I've heard lots of kids using the word, even kids that looked to be under 10. I think most children already know what it means.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      DebbyS (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 12:42pm

      Re: ...most children already know what it mean

      Most children, if they "know" the word, know it is one that upsets adults and so is fair game to use. Adults can easily be smarter than children and should practice that, in a gentle manner, at every opportunity. There's a reason kids want adults to be upset. Figure it out, neutralize it (with love and respect) and win the round.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      TaboToka (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 1:13pm

      Re:

      How else are we going to clutch our pearls and cry, "Won't something think of the children?" as we faint on the couch.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:01am

    Can't wait to see this one going up the ladder of law.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Pixelation, 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:07am

    "Fuck Biden" Eew!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:14am

    Only one thing to say really:

    Fuck Judge Gary Bundy and Mayor Signorello.

    Hopefully the homeowner has the funds to appeal this and a higher court who actually knows the relevant laws gives this ruling and judge the hearty benchslap they deserve.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:18am

    Fuck cheer

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Miles (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:21am

    Is it illegal to shout F#%k in a crowded theater?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      TaboToka (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 1:15pm

      Re:

      It is 100% legal to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater, as long as you believe there's a fire.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        sumgai (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 2:56pm

        Re: Re:

        Yes, you won't be faced with a criminal charge of illegal speech. But believing there really was a fire won't get you out of facing the consequences for what happens after said speech.

        Knowing there was a fire and alerting others to it will only likely earn you a "Get out of jail free" card, not a guarantee.

        Old proverb: For every speech, there is an equal and opposite consequence. Sometimes it's only criticism, sometimes it's much less palatable. And no, salt will not be provided, you must bring your own.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          nasch (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 7:59pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Knowing there was a fire and alerting others to it will only likely earn you a "Get out of jail free" card, not a guarantee.

          What could you possibly be convicted of for yelling fire in a building that is actually on fire?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            sumgai (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 9:46pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Probably 30 years ago, maybe longer, I gave up on predicting what a smart lawyer could come up with vis-a-vis a civil cause of action (a tort, if you will). Please don't press me further, my sense of reality is already fragile as it is.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2021 @ 4:51am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            What could you possibly be convicted of for yelling fire in a building that is actually on fire?

            A judge with a bone to grind, a prosecutor with a quota to fill. Give them enough time and resources, plus a team of lawyers that pound the table in just the right way, I'm sure they'll think of something.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2021 @ 5:01am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Well obviously YOU set the fire and burned those extra 97 million votes for Trump instead of watching the latest Rob Schneider movie.....

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    NoahVail (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:26am

    a 2021 New Jersey town that's located in a state best known for mob violence, corrupt politicians, and residents considered only slightly less terrible than Philadelphians.

    I take strong issue with this assertion. New Jersey, where a FU followed by forcing your car into a guardrail is considered a polite hello (looking at you Brunswick), is a far more terrible place than Philly could ever hope be.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Philippe, 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:29am

    Such fine citizens and neighbour

    You have such fine citizens and a good neighbours that they have to plaster their property with profanity to advertize their political views.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:32am

      Their speech is legal. How you feel about their speech⁠—and about them⁠—is irrelevant.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Glen, 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:35am

      Re: Such fine citizens and neighbour

      So?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 6:10am

      Re: Such fine citizens and neighbour

      "You have such fine citizens and a good neighbours..."

      Well, no. From what we've seen so far the Trump cult consists of outright deplorable people if anything.

      "...that they have to plaster their property with profanity to advertize their personal worth as human beings."

      Fixed That For You.

      If you have issues with a political figure then you can certainly plaster your property with whatever you like to show where you stand. How you make your views known is how others discover whether they want to hear what you have to say or not.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:35am

    owner's displeasure with the current regime

    Tim, you probably shouldn't be using the word regime with the current president. TFG, yes, but considering the dictionary definition:

    re·gime

    noun

    1. a government, especially an authoritarian one. "ideological opponents of the regime"

    I wouldn't call the Biden admin "authoritarian", but that would be a perfect definition of the Trump admin.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Dan (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:36am

    I don't see this as unreasonable

    First off, I'm an independent.

    I don't see a problem with taking these down. The ordinance may have been written poorly, but that is another issue. The signage at issue, certainly lacks political value. You don't just show your dislike for a politician in this way and leave it at that. That will convince no one. You need the "why". Use a few brain cells and actually make an argument.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:38am

      The signage at issue, certainly lacks political value. You don't just show your dislike for a politician in this way and leave it at that.

      What makes “fuck Biden” any less political than “fuck Biden because he isn’t Trump”? Be specific in your reasoning.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Dan (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 11:10am

        Re:

        To convince anyone to change their political affiliation (aka. "the goal"), you need to provide specific reasoning why a politician is a poor choice. Niether of your examples is compelling. Having said that, it makes much less of a difference now then it used to, seeing that most of the sheeple are of the, "party is all, screw the country" variety.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 11:24am

          Neither example has to be “compelling”. “Fuck Biden” is a political statement. So is “fuck Trump”. Whether they come with reasons attached is irrelevant. I see no reason to censor such speech⁠—regardless of why people say it.

          And for disclosure purposes: I voted for Biden. Dissenting speech is legal, and I encourage dissent⁠—even if I don’t necessarily agree with it. Dissent against the government is political speech, and it can be expressed as simply as “fuck Biden”.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Dan (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 11:53am

            Re:

            Apparently it does have to be compelling, judging by the outcome. We'll see how the appeal goes.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 12:01pm

              Apparently it does have to be compelling

              This is what the law in question says:

              The word "obscene" shall mean any material, communication or performance which the average person applying contemporary community standards existing within the municipality, would find, when considered as a whole:

              a. Appeals to the prurient interest;

              b. Depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct as hereinafter specifically defined, or depicts or exhibits offensive nakedness as hereinafter specifically defined; and

              c. Lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

              At no point does the law say the political message must be “compelling” to avoid being obscene. It says that the message must lack “political … value”. I would say that “fuck Biden”, offensive as it may be to some, absolutely has political value.

              This ruling will be overturned on appeal. Of that, I have little doubt⁠—especially in the wake of the “fuck cheer” case.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Dan (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 1:14pm

                Re:

                I suppose in the land of "believe whatever the hell you want", I have had to adjust my standards for credibility of one's conviction.

                Most only have a political opinion because some politician gave it to them. Said politician only has that particular opinion to cater to their party's lunatic fringe, in the pursuit of the ever so precious 51st percentile of vote. Actual knowledge, or common sense isn't even a consideration anymore, for the professional political view. They're just being a lemming.

                You're confusing the letter of the law regarding political speech, with the intent of actual political speech. This isn't about free speech. This is about a free audience for drivel. Audiences aren't free, or a right. Trump found that out really quick. "This Trump internet portal costs money to run? Shut that shit down." This is another example. An appeal costs money. They will have to spend some to continue.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 1:39pm

                  You're confusing the letter of the law regarding political speech, with the intent of actual political speech.

                  No, I’m not. A political message can be as short as two words⁠—“fuck Biden”⁠—or the length of an essay. All that message needs to do is express a political opinion or stance. Is “fuck Biden” more or less political than “fuck the draft”?

                  This isn't about free speech.

                  Except it is.

                  This is about a free audience for drivel.

                  No one is obligated to look at the signs or do anything that would expose themselves to those signs. Whether the signs garner an audience is irrelevant; the speech remains protected no matter how many people see it.

                  An appeal costs money. They will have to spend some to continue.

                  So what? Some people believe their principles⁠—and the law⁠—are more important than money. In this case, an appeal would be the right thing to do regardless of the costs.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Dan (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 7:25pm

                    Re:

                    You missed the point... They're going to have to spend money for the appeal, before I give their argument any merit beyond post election sour grapes. And I don't think free speech is as free as it used to be. A whole segment of the population has been indoctrinated. Both sides to a certain extent, but the worst stormed the Capital. Their speech may not be as free [anymore], as you believe it to be.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 7:33pm

                      They're going to have to spend money for the appeal, before I give their argument any merit beyond post election sour grapes.

                      Just so we’re clear: You don’t believe their argument has any merit because you don’t agree with their speech, despite all the actual caselaw and precedent going their way outside of this one wayward ruling, and you’re not willing to even consider their argument unless they pay for an appeal?

                      Dude, I voted for Biden, and even I think they should’ve won this case. What the fuck does that say about you.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Samuel Abram (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 6:22am

                        Re:

                        Dude, I voted for Biden, and even I think they should’ve won this case.

                        Same here. I voted for Biden, and I do think Judge Bundy should not have ruled as he should in this case. There's a difference between disliking the speech and thinking it should be penalized by the government.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      bhull242 (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 7:33pm

                      Re: Re:

                      Legally speaking, you’re just plain wrong.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2021 @ 11:21am

          Re: Re:

          Given that this person chose a two-word sign as their message medium, what makes you think it was intended to convince anyone? I suspect it to be purely expressive, in which case it does an admirable job of showing me who I don't want to talk to.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:43am

      Re: I don't see this as unreasonable

      You don't just show your dislike for a politician in this way and leave it at that.

      This has nothing to do with disliking a politician. They do it to show off their degree of stupidity in a futile attempt to do something they call 'owning the libs.'

      'Owning the libs' just a contest between themselves to see who can be the biggest asshole.

      The word Fuck is incidental.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:58am

      Re: I don't see this as unreasonable

      I don't see a problem with taking these down. The ordinance may have been written poorly, but that is another issue. The signage at issue, certainly lacks political value. You don't just show your dislike for a politician in this way and leave it at that.

      Would you have a problem, legally speaking, if the homeowner was standing in their yard and shouted the words at every passer-by?

      If so, why? If not, then why would it be a problem to put it on a sign if it's not a problem to say?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Dan (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 11:13am

        Re: Re: I don't see this as unreasonable

        A person shouting in their front yard is going to tire. They won't be there for long. (Less then a day.)

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 11:33am

          Re: Re: Re: I don't see this as unreasonable

          So if they remove the sign every night, and replace it every morning, it would be fine?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Dan (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 11:56am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't see this as unreasonable

            If a person has that much conviction to do that, so be it. The patriot takes down their flag every day at sunset, don't they? Go big, or go home.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        DebbyS (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 12:56pm

        Re: Re: I don't see this as unreasonable

        Someone standing on their own property and screaming political insults, or playing loud acid rock music, or testing new mega speakers for their car, or slaughtering a fearful cow or... at any time of day, is potentially disturbing the peace and neighbors have the right to summon the police. If the screamer/player/tester/butcher drives a loud car or motorcycle at midnight down "their" street, call the police on that, too (not that they'll come; police need more sleep than neighborhoods sometimes). The s/p/t/b may decide to sue the busybodies and may get a "goodman" lawyer with big promises... but some video and a local TV report about the noise will trump the claims against the busybodies. So, Noisy, choose with care your hill to die on.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 1:45pm

          Re: Re: Re: I don't see this as unreasonable

          Where I live, the noise ordinance is "if it can be heard 150 feet away, it's too loud." And even then, that noise level is only unlawful when sustained, and during certain hours of the night. I'm fairly certain it would be quite easy to not be that loud.

          In any case though, it's not about volume. It's "do you consider it appropriate for the government to tell someone that they can't speak certain words within earshot of another person?" and if you do, why? Which words, and why those words? And if you don't, and the words can be spoken without issue, then why can't they be on a sign?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 11:01am

      Re: I don't see this as unreasonable

      Yeah, this isn't about disliking a politician.

      It's about a group of people who are competing to be the biggest asshole so they can 'trigger' liberals. Nothing more, nothing less.

      Using the word fuck is just incidental.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 11:04am

        It's about a group of people who are competing to be the biggest asshole so they can 'trigger' liberals. Nothing more, nothing less.

        And their speech is still legal.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 11:16am

          Re:

          Agreed.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Dan (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 11:29am

          Re:

          I see 2 problems with the "their speech is still legal" argument for signage, in cases like this.

          1) A HOA is not a state actor. 1st Amendment restrictions don't apply.
          2) You agreed to their rules when you bought the house.

          Moral of the story... Don't buy where there is a HOA, if you don't want to deal with their bullshit.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 11:31am

            That would be relevant if an HOA was involved in this case.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Dan (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 11:58am

              Re:

              That is the ONLY thing in their favor here. If it was an HOA, they wouldn't have a prayer.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                z! (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 12:19pm

                Re: Re:

                If it was an HOA, they wouldn't have a prayer.

                Well, no. HOA's are not immune from the Constitution, no matter how much they may think they are. And including unconstitutional clauses in a contract does not make them enforceable.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 12:54pm

                  Re: Re: Re:

                  And to which part of government do HOAs belong, because constitution defines whet the government can do, and does not apply to private entities.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 6:50am

                  Re: Re: Re:

                  "HOA's are not immune from the Constitution, no matter how much they may think they are."

                  I hope you were just getting confused there; A Home Owners Association is most definitely not covered by any article of the constitution which contains the words "Congress shall make no law...".

                  As a private entity they're very free to set up a standard Code Of Conduct and as long as that code doesn't touch on race, religion sexual orientation or purely illegal requirements it can contain just about any demand a signee must adhere to.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2021 @ 7:50pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    IIRC that depends. If they do enough governmenty things, like provide roads and security and stuff, they can legally be considered government for some purposes. (And keep in mind also that some cities require HOAs for any new developments - a government mandate that a group exists probably impacts the determination on whether what the group does can be considered government action.)

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 3:41am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      "If they do enough governmenty things, like provide roads and security and stuff, they can legally be considered government for some purposes."

                      That's not how it works. For a private entity to be considered "government" it must in many aspects be considered a direct extension of government. That's not exactly easy to swing.

                      Barring a direct formalized chain of command putting the body politic in ultimate charge of said private entity that entity can not under any law be considered part of government.

                      Even military contractors under almost permanent indenture still aren't "government".

                      "...some cities require HOAs for any new developments..."

                      A state can demand that homeowners form an association, yes. That doesn't make that HOA a government entity.
                      This...isn't really rocket science.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 11:54am

            Re: Re:

            Roselle Park Municipal Court is not an HOA

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Dan (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 11:21am

        Re: Re: I don't see this as unreasonable

        Exactly my point. It's like those a-holes you used to see on the internet chat boards that used a swastika as their icon, claiming "it meant other things before WWII", when it fact their true purpose for using it was for self-notoriety via "shock value".

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 6:58am

          Re: Re: Re: I don't see this as unreasonable

          "It's like those a-holes you used to see on the internet chat boards that used a swastika as their icon, claiming "it meant other things before WWII"..."

          Has to be noted though that their use of the Swastika, winged odal, confederate flag, or other symbol of hate is still fully legal - as in the use of them can not be banned by a government entity.

          Chat boards being private property the argument of those deplorable fuckwits are most often still countered by a hearty "Enjoy the tender caress of our banhammer. See you never!" from the moderators and owners who aren't beholden to 1A.

          Now, a person's front yard? That is the property of that person. They're the ones setting the rules for what constitutes acceptable behavior. They're free to set up a sign containing whatever they like which doesn't directly conflict law. And the law is very much on the side of saying or writing the word "Fuck".

          The alternative, by extension, is...not good.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 11:46am

      You should

      That it might not involve a compelling argument does not make it no longer a political statement, sometimes all you feel like is making clear that you really don't like a particular politician and the fact that that may not be terribly convincing really shouldn't matter in a case like this.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Dan (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 12:04pm

        Re: You should

        But the lack of that makes it pointless. Which is what I see is the judges main point of reasoning here. I'm only saying that I can see where the judge is coming from.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 12:08pm

          the lack of that makes it pointless

          So what? It’s still political speech and it’s still protected speech. The judge was wrong to rule that it wasn’t.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 12:27pm

          Re: Re: You should

          'Pointless' to you but again the fact that it may not be a particularly compelling piece of political commentary does not mean that it isn't political commentary.

          By the argument of 'non-nuanced political statements don't count and therefore aren't protected speech' a town could issue a flat out ban of signs that comprise nothing more than a politician's name and the year they are running for election since all such signs do is show support for said politician but includes no argument in favor of them, and really those signs are just eyesores so they're better off prohibited anyway.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 3:41pm

          Re: Re: You should

          Oh I can see where the judge is coming from. He’s still fundamentally wrong though.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      JasonC (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 12:21pm

      Re: I don't see this as unreasonable

      Violating someone's Constitutional rights is certainly unreasonable.

      You should read the various links within the article and educate yourself on why this is protected speech, and the precedents handed down by SCOTUS over the years.

      I'd suggest you start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California

      It doesn't matter whether the sign lacks political 'value' in your eyes. It's expressive speech and 110% protected by the 1A. Speech doesn't need to be a compelling argument to be protected.

      Just like "Fuck the Draft."

      As a fellow independent, your position and ignorance on this subject is embarrassing.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 12:52pm

      Re: It’s number one for a reason.

      Allow me to rebut your entire post in three words.

      The First Amendment

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      TaboToka (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 1:21pm

      Re: I don't see this as unreasonable

      First off, I'm an independent.

      Why do some people see the need to loudly proclaim they're disavowing being a republican (cough) I mean stating they're independent?

      I'm about as far left as you can get and I don't go around starting off all my arguments with "First, I'm as left as you can get without swimming to Hawaii"

      Maybe it's just me.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 6:44am

      Re: I don't see this as unreasonable

      "I don't see a problem with taking these down."

      There is a free speech issue at hand. Consider the precedent of, say, swearing in public? Combined with the fact that the law as such does not allow for it what we have is a judge who issues a blatantly unconstitutional directive from his pulpit - and setting the precedent that bad language merits government interference.

      "The signage at issue, certainly lacks political value."

      Well, the only value I can see is that it serves to inform the neighborhood of the general demeanor of the resident. But that's not exactly worthless in itself.

      "You don't just show your dislike for a politician in this way and leave it at that."

      You most certainly can. It certainly won't serve to convince others of anything, but you certainly can do it that way. And lamentably, for some 30% of the US citizenry that's enough.

      The people kissing the ring of Dear Leader are the same people who cheered GWB and Cheney when they tried to advocate for torture and start a war of aggression. Beyond "owning the libs", fear of the other, and holding daily Two Minutes Hate sessions visavi the current icon of adversity they don't have an agenda.

      These people have been in it for decades purely in order to feed their grievance addiction. Nothing more. That's the start and end of their "politics". Someone to hate, eventually replaced by someone to hate even more.

      "Fuck Biden" is the summary of their political platform, the same way it used to be "Fuck Obama" and "Fuck Clinton".

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Tanner Andrews (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 5:03am

      Re: I don't see this as unreasonable

      You don't just show your dislike for a politician in this way and leave it at that. That will convince no one.

      The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees. In City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43 (1994) they said that expression in yard signs is unique because of the way it identifies the speaker. Id. at 55. The identity of the speaker is important, they said, _id. at 56fn14, citing Aristotle, 2 Rhetoric Bk 1 Ch 2. A yard sign ``may not afford the same opportunities for conveying complex ideas as do other media'', Gilleo at 55, but its mere presence is part of the message.

      You might consider an anti-war sign in a veteran's yard, id. at 56, or a sign saying no more than ``Vote for [Challenger]'' in the yard of one of the mayor's children. Closer to home, you might consider a sign promoting socialism in the yard of a wealthy person, Gilleo at 57, or a sign saying ``socialism sucks - biden blows'' in the yard of a person benefitting from federal mortgage assistance.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Shel10 (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 11:06am

    less terrible than Philadelphians.

    I resent your statement about Philadelphians. Therefore, you have the opportunity to fuck yourself.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 11:16am

    which would be taken by literally nobody to mean the property owner is suggesting someone should engage in a sexual act with the current President.

    Not even an elderphile would take it that way? He's old enough that he should be appealing...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Bloof (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 12:20pm

    What a stupid hill to die on for all involved.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    DebbyS (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 12:31pm

    Here's an idea...

    Think of it as practice toward how the Dems will us the Repubs' own actions (in reaction to Jan 6 and defending the destructive perps) to destroy that political. Jill Biden and some of her good friends gather and make some very artistic yard signs using the same verbiage as in the original "illegal" signs. They might add the ability to cover up parts of some words, but leave that up to the homeowner. Along with reporters (and Secret Service, of course), the ladies approach the homeowner and give her replacement signs, affirming her correct use of the First Amendment.

    Ms. Biden will go on to say something like "Of course, I'm the most recent one for many years to have f'd Joe Biden, and it's always been great fun. I guess it's sad that you will never get that chance, but, hey, you can exercise... your First Amendment rights, you should have no fear to do that and Americans should support you like we Bidens do." Maybe add something about #45 probably turning up to use the occasion to promote himself, but I'm sure Ms. Biden will be very careful in her choice of words... and Repubs will rush to insult her but yet again look like spoiled children. But that's just my idea! I voted Green, so whatever happens I know will be interesting.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 1:00pm

    "there’s no place for profanity by a school and school children"

    Please to install monitoring devices in all homes with children so you can make sure no parent exposes their child to worse. Make sure you monitor them online to make sure they children are not exposed to profanity online.

    "The judge, while handing down his ruling and sentencing, rhetorically asked if a balance could be found between the homeowner’s freedom of speech and a mother having to explain what the f-word means to their child."

    Nope. There is no balance, there is just rampant morality run amuck form the bench.
    I once again bring up my when a Judge blows a 1st Amendment ruling in this way, they need to be off the bench until someone figures out if they had a stroke because they've forgotten the bedrock of the nation.

    Something something Jersey Shore... your arguments are moot.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    sumgai (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 2:42pm

    We do have some problems here

    First, what if the whole community agrees that "X" is immoral, obscene and offensive in the extreme, and should be made illegal?

    Second, where is it written that all communities must have the same standards? Come to that...

    Third, when the Supremes use the word "community", do they really mean the whole country, where they hold final say? Or are they using the common term, thus speaking to myriad small enclaves of society, and hoping that no one objects too loudly? (The Amish and Mennonites might have a few words on the topic, for example.)

    In that light, I went out and researched what the Constitution had to say about obscenity, morals, offensiveness in public, and other such tidbits. It turns out that.. well fuck it, I'll just give you the link, and you can have as much fun as I did:

    https://time.com/4700835/sex-and-the-constitution/

    Don't let that link's title put you off, it's really all about "muh feelz", from 245 years ago up until today.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Chozen (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:37pm

    What a horrendous legal interpretation?

    "when considered as a whole"

    "these signs would need to violate all three clauses to be considered obscene"

    Asinine simply asinine! So something purely prurient that does have a political or artistic value wouldn't be obscene? This is just another example of this pathetic blog writers making up their own rules.

    "when considered as a whole" means to take all factors into account that doesn't mean that one single factor cant sway the entire decision on its own.

    It's like sports judging. Take boxing for example considered as a whole rounds a scored based on "clean punching, effective aggressiveness, ring generalship, and defense."

    That doesn't mean the the fighter that wins the most of the 4 wins the round. A fighter can be so dominate in clean punching that the other criteria don't matter.

    "Considered as a whole" does not mean all boxes must be checked. Jesus Christ how does this tripe get through.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2021 @ 1:31am

      Re:

      Dude, you don't even know the difference between a public house and public housing.

      Idiot.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        icon
        Chozen (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 7:30pm

        Re: Re:

        Dude, you dont even know the difference between a 21st century pub and a 16th century public house. It was common that a public house by law had to offer a certain amount of rooms and/or beds for rent to be granted a license.

        Children children children. Mike has made you into a bunch of children.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Toom1275 (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 8:09pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          [Projects facts not in the evidence]

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2021 @ 10:29pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Dude, you dont even know the difference between a 21st century pub and a 16th century public house. It was common that a public house by law had to offer a certain amount of rooms and/or beds for rent to be granted a license.

          And how is this even relevant to conflating public house with public housing? No matter the amount of rooms a pub has to rent, it will never be a public housing.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            icon
            Chozen (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 6:52am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "And how is this even relevant to conflating public house with public housing?"

            No you are conflating centuries. Using the wrong term for the wrong century. You confused a 21st century pub with 16th century public houses which were the public housing of their time and usually had to offer some set number of rooms/beds to be licensed.

            Now you are too ignorant to recognize you mistake.

            The original poster who may be you had the mistake pointed out immediately.

            "Although, I would ask whether the AC you responded to means accommodation or if he meant "public house" as in "pub"."

            You used the ancient word "public house" with the 21st century meaning for "pub" which are two differnt things.

            A modern pub evolved from the medieval-renaissance "public house" but they are not the same. If you use the older term you imply the older definition.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 11:29pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          So, you defence for being an idiot before is that you were using some legal definition of the term rather than the clearly intended colloquial term?

          That might not be the defence you think it is, especially as you used that "mistake" to launch into nonsense about how people aren't allowed to ask party guests to leave their own homes without a contract and police backup.

          Even if you were right, you were still hilariously wrong immediately afterwards.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 6:06am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "Even if you were right, you were still hilariously wrong immediately afterwards."

            Well, at least Baghdad Bob stays true to form;

            1) Starts off by claiming expertise in area X.
            2) Proves he hasn't a clue about area X.
            3) Gets put on the spot and immediately lies about what he said or otherwise deflects blame while breaking out the ad homs.

            Most village idiots would be getting a clue by now.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 6:19am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Dude, you dont even know the difference between a 21st century pub and a 16th century public house. "

          So...after failing to present Munn as the be-all, end-all argument as to why Facebook ought to be considered public property you now want to present an even older failing argument which also doesn't show anything you want it to show?

          A Pub still isn't required to perform the same process of eviction a landlord needs to, no matter how many irrelevant examples to the contrary you try to showcase.

          "Children children children."

          Every accusation, a confession with you, isn't it?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2021 @ 1:15pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          It was common that a public house by law had to offer a certain amount of rooms and/or beds for rent to be granted a license.

          Public House

          A pub (short for public house) is an establishment licensed to serve alcoholic drinks for consumption on the premises. The term public house first appeared in the late 17th century, and was used to differentiate private houses from those which were, quite literally, open to the public as 'alehouses', 'taverns' and 'inns'.

          Public Housing

          Public housing is a form of housing tenure in which the property is usually owned by a government authority, either central or local.

          There should still be no confusion between the two. Just because a "pub" could also have rooms to rent, it can no way be construed as property owned by the government.

          Idiot.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            icon
            Chozen (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 7:20am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Oh look he is using Wikipedia again. You are again using 21st century definitions. A 21st century Pub evolved from a public house but they are not the same thing anymore.

            "After the Restoration in Great Britain there was a trend toward more extensive, better controlled drinking premises, and magistrates, who supervised licensing matters, started to insist that licensed premises should be equipped with stabling (previously confined to inns) and lodgings."
            https://beerandbrewing.com/dictionary/9qVj08mAiJ/

            I don't see too many Pubs these days that offer stabling and lodging. But in the days of true public houses lodging had to be offered to be licensed. Now zip it.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 7:44am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "You are again using 21st century definitions. A 21st century Pub evolved from a public house but they are not the same thing anymore."

              And will you look at that, we actually live in the 21st century, not the 16th.

              "I don't see too many Pubs these days that offer stabling and lodging. But in the days of true public houses lodging had to be offered to be licensed. Now zip it."

              So your assertion is that you win as 16th century british law gives you the argument as to why a social platform moderating a post should be held to the same standards as a landlord evicting a tenant?

              I think we've all seen you shooting your own argument in the crotch a few times now, but that one takes it just a few steps further.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                icon
                Chozen (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 11:35am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "So your assertion is that you win as 16th century british law gives you the argument as to why a social platform moderating a post should be held to the same standards as a landlord evicting a tenant?"

                I'm not the one who used the bull$^$^ example!

                The truth is an individual is allowed to use force on another when force is not being used against them or another. So the examples are moot. That entire thread was bad example after bad example because fundamentally it cant be justified legally.

                It doesn't matter if they are a customer, tenant, guest etc. etc. if they entered your property legally you cannot use physical force to kick them out. You can be like a bouncer at a dive bar and take the risk but that doesn't make it legal.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  bhull242 (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 8:15pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  I'm not the one who used the bull$^$^ example!

                  To be frank, I’m honestly lost on this.

                  The truth is an individual is allowed to use force on another when force is not being used against them or another.

                  Absolutely true, at least with regards to removing someone from your private property when they refuse to leave despite having no legal right to be there without your permission. But what does this have to do with Facebook?

                  That entire thread was bad example after bad example because fundamentally it cant be justified legally.

                  Wait, wha—

                  It doesn't matter if they are a customer, tenant, guest etc. etc. if they entered your property legally you cannot use physical force to kick them out. You can be like a bouncer at a dive bar and take the risk but that doesn't make it legal.

                  Whoa, slow down there! I can’t take that kind of whiplash!

                  Literally two sentences earlier, you said the exact opposite! Make up your mind!

                  …At any rate, if someone is trespassing on your private property and refuses to leave when asked, in every state, the law explicitly says that you—as the property owner—are permitted to use force to remove them if you see fit, regardless of whether they gained entry legally or illegally, as long as the amount of force is appropriate. That still means that you can drag someone who is not using force from your property, but you couldn’t beat them up unless they started fighting (assuming legal entry and that they aren’t breaking the law by stealing or vandalizing your property or something; illegal entry is a completely different story). What is considered appropriate force depends not only on the context (including whether they entered legally or illegally, how much force—if any—they use, whether they were committing any crimes (besides trespassing) while on your property, the threat you perceived that they posed, etc.) but which state you’re in, but the basics are pretty much the same in all of them.

                  So yes, you legally can “be like a bouncer at a dive bar” (or any other bar) and legally use physical force to kick them out, so long as you don’t go overboard. It is absolutely, 100% legal.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2021 @ 10:12am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Oh look he is using Wikipedia again. You are again using 21st century definitions. A 21st century Pub evolved from a public house but they are not the same thing anymore.

              You are still the idiot who is trying to conflate public house with public housing. Notice the difference in spelling?

              Please locate one example of "public housing" that was used to describe a "pub, inn or tavern". And the term "public housing" has to be explicitly used instead of "public house". And it can come from any century.

              I'll wait.

              Also, as a side point, even Wikipedia has a notice for people like you who do not seem to understand the difference between the words "house" and "housing":

              "Public house" redirects here. It is not to be confused with Public housing.

              But yet, here you are, still confusing the two.

              Now zip it.

              Why? Tired of me calling out your stupidity?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Lostinlodos (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 12:53pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              “ I don't see too many Pubs these days that offer stabling and lodging.”
              Someone hasn’t visited me he American south west. Or much of Northern Europe, or Russia. Or China. Or Japan.

              Bars with lodging exist all over the world. In some areas in large numbers.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                nasch (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 1:58pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Bars with lodging exist all over the world.

                When was the last time you saw a bar with a stable?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Lostinlodos (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 2:25pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  The winter before covid in northern Arizona.
                  Just south of Page. Us 89. Burgers were $6. Room for $30. I didn’t stay but they did have stables attached. Likely for canyon riders is my guess.

                  They’re popular enough for them to still be around. BBB, beer barbecue, and bed.

                  No, it’s not 1930, or 1830… but they do exist.east of the SN range they’re easy enough to find if you go looking for them.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    PaulT (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 2:34pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Oh, I hope to be allowed to travel again to the point where I can see such strange things. I'm getting itchy just not being able to confidently book a regular film festival I used to go to when the tickets go on sale tomorrow, let alone see a stable at a bar. But, that specific point isn't central to the argument being made by the person he was replying to.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                PaulT (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 2:08pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Bear in mind that the person above is not arguing the definition of pub in good faith. He's trying to backtrack from his assertion in other threads that since you need to jump through legal hoops to evict long term tenants from rented accommodation, you need to do the same to eject an unruly guest from a pub or private home.

                He's just trying to avoid responsibility that he misunderstood the term "public house" when he first read it, and launched in completely the wrong direction in response.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Lostinlodos (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 2:47pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Ah, understood.
                  Legal issues.

                  Didn’t mean to misdirect your discussion, I just happen to like such “inn” locations. By whatever name it uses. Pub, saloon, inn, bbb, wayside… a hidden gem in travel.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    PaulT (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 3:22pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    All of those things sound good, and I hope to return to travel soon in order to see them. Until then, just be aware that in a response to this specific user with reference to "pub", we're talking about a particular argument that doesn't hold water.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      Lostinlodos (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 4:00pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Hoped we can get vacation travel ID worked out so we can start doing so. Looking forward to those “passports”. Shows I used my brain. And I don’t have to worry about copying my vax card or bringing it along or whatever.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        PaulT (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 11:17am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        "Hoped we can get vacation travel ID worked out so we can start doing so. Looking forward to those “passports”."

                        Sadly, not only is there a lot of opposition, they voted the same way you did. Choose better next time, and maybe there will be less of their element preventing you from achieving your aims.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          Lostinlodos (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 12:37pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          Some yes, some no. The R party is not unified on this.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2021 @ 12:57pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            The R party ...

                            There is no longer an R party, it has been replaced by the Q party.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              PaulT (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 1:06pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              Sadly true to a degree... but the slide began under that name and they haven't exactly done much to disassociate themselves.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              Lostinlodos (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 1:39pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              Absolutely not.
                              And the majority of the party really should do something to blast the Chihuahua leg humper net freaks from their legs.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2021 @ 1:53pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                The fact that the likes of MTG and LB and all the others who are still loud and proud about Qanon, crazy conspiracy theories, openly racist, sex traffickers, etc., etc., etc., and they are still not only gladly accepted, but are encouraged as part of the R party, basically means that the R party condones their attitudes and actions.

                                Hence, the R party is now the Q party.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • icon
                                PaulT (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 2:16pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                "And the majority of the party really should do something to blast the Chihuahua leg humper net freaks from their legs."

                                ...and until they do we'll assume that they're happy with the white supremacists, sex traffickers, sexual abusers and Q followers within their ranks. When Al Franken was accused of sexual misconduct way before he was elected, he was forced to resign. When Trump boasted about it, you voted him president. Until something changes, that's really all we need to know...

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • icon
                                  Lostinlodos (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 3:54pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  “ and until they do we'll assume that they're happy with the…”
                                  Ok. So the Democrats are black suprematists who agrees with violently removing the white race. I got you.

                                  “ When Trump boasted about it,”
                                  See, you just don’t get it. Trump, backstage, in a jovial conversation, mad a derogatory quip and that was it.
                                  It’s braggadocio. Nothing more.

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • identicon
                                    Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2021 @ 8:55pm

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                    See, you just don’t get it. Trump, backstage, in a jovial conversation, mad a derogatory quip and that was it.
                                    It’s braggadocio. Nothing more.

                                    Even if it was, that doesn't make it acceptable behavior. We should expect and demand better from our leaders.

                                    I mean, seriously, why would you not call him out on that, even if you support him on everything else?

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • identicon
                                    Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2021 @ 11:41pm

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                    So the Democrats are black suprematists who agrees with violently removing the white race.

                                    Care to cite an example?

                                    I mean it is easy for anybody to talk about how awful MTG, Gaetz, Boebert, Gym Jordan, and all of the other Qanon freaks because there exists 100s of examples of how awful they are.

                                    But, please do point us to some specific examples fo democrats being black supremacists wanting to violently remove the white race.

                                    In other words, you have spoken like a true racist!!

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • icon
                                      Lostinlodos (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 12:37am

                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                      No, because it’s incorrect. Just like the claim that all Republicans are white suprematists becaof a tiny minority of the vote.

                                      Calling the Republican Party the q party is as realistic as calling the Dems the NOI party.

                                      Don’t like a fraction of a fraction being thrown at you? Keep that in mind then.

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      • identicon
                                        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2021 @ 11:36am

                                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                        Just like the claim that all Republicans are white suprematists becaof a tiny minority of the vote.

                                        What you fail to realize, is that all of the normal "conservative" republicans are being pushed out in favor of the Q freaks, racists, sexual predators, etc.

                                        Just look at what happened to Liz Cheney, she got pushed out of her position because she told the truth about the election lie.

                                        Trump will back whatever candidate that is going to primary against her, and what do you want to guess it will be another election liar, Qanon crazy?

                                        Also look at the loudest voices of the R party, Gaetz, Gym, Boebert, MTG, etc. The republicans will always be the party of Q until they decide that the sexual predators, Qanons, conspiracy theorists, election liars, are no longer welcome.

                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                        • icon
                                          Lostinlodos (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 12:20pm

                                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                          Cheney Was ousted for voting to convict trump for inciting a riot without evidence.

                                          You may not like him but “peacefully” is very different than “who says a protest needs to be peaceful”.

                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                          • icon
                                            Stephen T. Stone (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 12:46pm

                                            Re: "inciting a riot without evidence"

                                            The following are quotes from Donald Trump himself; they come from his speech on the 6th of January, just before the insurrection:

                                            Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore and that's what this is all about. And to use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with: We will stop the steal.

                                            We will not let them silence your voices. We're not going to let it happen, I'm not going to let it happen.

                                            We're gathered together in the heart of our nation's capital for one very, very basic and simple reason: To save our democracy.

                                            You're stronger, you're smarter, you've got more going than anybody. And they try and demean everybody having to do with us. And you're the real people, you're the people that built this nation. You're not the people that tore down our nation.

                                            Republicans are, Republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It's like a boxer. And we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. And we're going to have to fight much harder.

                                            [Y]ou'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.

                                            We will not be intimidated into accepting the hoaxes and the lies that we've been forced to believe.

                                            You will have an illegitimate president. That's what you'll have. And we can't let that happen.

                                            The radical left knows exactly what they're doing. They're ruthless and it's time that somebody did something about it.

                                            The Republicans have to get tougher. You're not going to have a Republican Party if you don't get tougher. They want to play so straight. They want to play so, sir, yes, the United States. The Constitution doesn't allow me to send them back to the States. Well, I say, yes it does, because the Constitution says you have to protect our country and you have to protect our Constitution, and you can't vote on fraud. And fraud breaks up everything, doesn't it? When you catch somebody in a fraud, you're allowed to go by very different rules.

                                            We must stop the steal and then we must ensure that such outrageous election fraud never happens again, can never be allowed to happen again.

                                            The Democrats are hopeless — they never vote for anything. Not even one vote. But we're going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our help. We're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.

                                            Now, I’m sure you want to mention all the times he brought up marching peacefully and whatnot. Don’t bother; I’ve skimmed enough of the transcript to know those parts exist. Instead, I want you to read each of those quotes, and notice some of the verbs/verbal phrases he uses: “stop”, “save”, “fight”, “take back”, “get tougher”, “show strength”, “protect”. Then look at the overall gist of those quotes: “we’re fighting to stop the steal”, “we have to get tougher on the fraudsters”, “we’re here to save democracy”, “we need to do something about this”.

                                            He isn’t explicitly calling for violence, no. But between his planting the idea that his “patriots” must stop the steal by showing strength and doing “something” about the Democrats/“weak Republicans” to save the country, his talking for months about how the election would be fraudulent only if he lost, and his continual(ly rebuked) efforts to overturn an election he lost both electorally and popularly, those quotes⁠—his words⁠—become a form of his mob boss–esque stochastic terrorism. He didn’t need to directly call for violence; all he needed to do is make his wishes known and let his followers do the rest.

                                            Take a bunch of people who have already been manipulated by right-wing media and Donald Trump into believing the election would be/was stolen. Tell them that the literal last line of defense against the stolen election is a Vice President who has already sworn himself to the duty of his office (i.e., to confirm Joe Biden as the President-elect). Gin them up further by referring to them as true patriots, telling them to toughen up and show strength, and implying that they alone can save American democracy itself. What do you get as a result of all that?

                                            You get an insurrection.

                                            (And yes, I will repost this as often as is necessary.)

                                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                            • icon
                                              Lostinlodos (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 2:45pm

                                              Re: Re: "inciting a riot without evidence"

                                              Well, all I see is a protest that spun out of control with no direct influence from Trump.
                                              A protest like many over two years that turned into a riot.

                                              Every time someone calls the capital riot an insurrection: I’ll post this:
                                              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOtXjfFD3M8
                                              But my video is just peaceful protesting right?
                                              https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SjVe7usakQ4
                                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ_XQxQn-7E

                                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                              • icon
                                                Stephen T. Stone (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 3:45pm

                                                A riot is a riot, no matter the reason. But the events of the 6th of January were an insurrection; the people who stormed the Capitol did so with the intent of disrupting the certification of votes. They attempted to subvert democracy by stopping the process by which Congress would certify Joe Biden as the rightful, lawful, and actual winner of the 2020 presidential election. Some of them even went so far as to chant for the hanging of the sitting Vice President, who was tasked with certifying the vote count and sworn to his duty by the Constitution.

                                                You can throw all the “leftist” riots you want in my face. They’re ultimately irrelevant. Biden didn’t encourage those people to do any of that, explicitly or implicitly. No Democratic politician or pundit did. And none of those riots attempted to stop an election result from being certified.

                                                Martin Luther King Jr. called riots “the language of the unheard”. What were the unheard saying with the riots you bring up? “We’re tired of racial injustice. We’re tired of cops killing Black people with no accountability. We’re so fucking tired of all this bullshit, and nobody in power seems to care.” And as has been pointed out multiple times before (which you have ignored every time), the protests from which those riots spawned were largely peaceful before police intervention. And the riots were not nearly as widespread as you and your conservative brethren want us to think they are. (No, America as a whole was not “burning”. No, entire cities were not “burned to the ground”.)

                                                Contrast that with the unheard of the insurrection. Their message was one of false justice: “Donald Trump won the election! We have to stop the steal! We’re the only people who can save the country from communist social justice attack helicopters!” They rioted because their guy lost fair and square, but their guy had said⁠—for months leading up to the election and basically every day since the election⁠—the election was “stolen”.

                                                As I said before, Trump didn’t have to directly ask his followers to riot. All he needed to do was say “you’re the only people who can stop this bullshit” and gin them up further with language designed to inflame their grievances and make them feel empowered. With that done, he needed only to step aside while the mob he fomented marched on their target⁠—all with his implicit approval.

                                                To this day, Donald Trump continues to tell his Big Lie⁠—the same lie that he told months before the 2020 election, the same lie he trotted out before even the 2016 election(!), the same lie that continues to split the country despite its obviously being a lie (a conclusion with which even you agree). He continues to foment unrest and anger and fear in his cult-like political base; he wants people to think democracy is dead so the GOP can cheat even more⁠—especially if they grab more power in the midterm elections. Donald Trump is a fascist, and without stronger repudiation from the same party that denies Congress even the chance to vote on important legislation such as voting rights bills, the party looks more and more like a party of fascists as well.

                                                And so do his supporters, whose thirst for “liberal” blood⁠—whose longing to inflict suffering upon their political “enemies” regardless of the cost⁠—is driving the creeping fascism of the Republican party and American conservatism in general. Combine that with the long-standing push by the Religious Right to turn America into a Christian theocracy and…well, it’s not hard to see how the GOP is anything but fascist at this point, “moderates” like Liz Cheney notwithstanding.

                                                The events of the 6th of January were an insurrection. Every attempt to whitewash those events as a “riot” or refuse the truth of what the video clearly shows (a violent mob trying to stop democracy in action) is a victory for Donald Trump. Every time you say the insurrection was anything but, you both embolden fascists and deny an actual objective truth.

                                                Don’t be a sucker. Be better than a fascist bootlicker, Lostcause. Call Trump and his cohorts for what they are⁠—fascists⁠—and the insurrection for what it is: a trial run for an actual fascist takeover of the United States government. Modern American conservatives don’t want a president to govern them, Lostcause⁠—they want a king, an emperor, a god to rule over them…and, more important, to make the “other” suffer.

                                                The ouroboros of fascism always eats itself. How long do you think it’ll be before you’re the “other”⁠—an “undesirable”, if you will⁠—in the eyes of those you helped put in power⁠? How long do you think they’ll let you live under their rule?

                                                If that question makes you uncomfortable, too bad. You voted for a fascist. And he’d sooner kill you than thank you if he thought it would put him back in power.

                                                Are you with fascism, or are you against it?

                                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                                  icon
                                                  Lostinlodos (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 5:07pm

                                                  Re:

                                                  “ intent of disrupting the certification of votes. They attempted to subvert democracy by stopping the process by which Congress would certify Joe Biden ”
                                                  They went with the demand to be heard. It wasn’t right but it wasn’t an attempt to overthrow the government, it was an attempt to demand accountability.
                                                  Right or wrong on the belief.

                                                  You want to discuss subversion… be cautious with that term. Look at what Texas Democrats just did. They attempted to stop the Democratic process. Is that not the same result by different means?

                                                  “ No Democratic politician or pundit did. ”
                                                  You almost had a logical thought. But then you went and destroyed it.
                                                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCT2qCBdao8
                                                  For a start.
                                                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mn1br0MQFG4
                                                  ???
                                                  Let’s not forget Madonna and her murderous rampage speech.

                                                  “ largely peaceful before police intervention”
                                                  And as I’ve pointed out that intervention was (almost, can’t say what I don’t know) always warranted.
                                                  Be it violence, law, threats….

                                                  “And the riots were not nearly as widespread as you and your conservative brethren want us to think they are.“
                                                  Just most major cities.
                                                  Portland is in ruins.
                                                  Chicago’s most historic shopping district was devastated.
                                                  Hundred+ year old monuments are destroyed. People are dead.
                                                  How many people did the capital rioters kill? Look that up closely.
                                                  No what’s the BLM death toll.
                                                  You do not address murder, manslaughter, and justified defence, as a group, with hundreds of millions of dollars of destruction and hundreds dead.

                                                  Unheard of?
                                                  What about June 1873? That riot has a name. The Pensilvania Mutiny.
                                                  July 2nd 1915
                                                  March 1 1954
                                                  July 24 1998

                                                  “ Congress”
                                                  Is divided.
                                                  The “rights” bill is not a solution. It has total disregard to what it can do to weaken security and federalises elections. That would further disenfranchise all the under-18 voters in state elections and local elections by requiring federal rules.

                                                  If the dems would actually act American and vote American, like secure the border, not paying ransoms to nuke freaks, and not supporting an environmental group (Paris) that allows the worst to stay the worst.
                                                  Not shut down oil and coal until we have actual replacements.
                                                  Not create a continuous loop of poverty by raising the taxes on goods and services to the point where the lower income can no longer make it.

                                                  I don’t like the religious right. But at the moment they offered a better choice. Who the hell knows who’s running the country today? It’s definitely not Biden. I knew before the election he wouldn’t be the president. Now even the over sappy love puppy CNN can’t hold him together for a town hall while leading him through the answers.

                                                  And if the Hillary machine was willing to fix the system to crush someone on her own platform ticket, was she really worthy of office either?

                                                  Obama was a beacon of hope in 08. By 12 it was obvious the D machine was crushing his vision.
                                                  By 14 there was nothing left that I worked so hard to put into office.

                                                  I hope someone worth voting for runs in 24. But I’m not holding my breath.

                                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                  • identicon
                                                    Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2021 @ 5:20pm

                                                    Re: Re:

                                                    It wasn’t right but it wasn’t an attempt to overthrow the government, it was an attempt to demand accountability.

                                                    Do you realize how many of the Jan 6 domestic terrorists had admitted on video and social media that their reason for being at the capitol was to "overthrow the capital", "overthrow the government" in favor of Trump?

                                                    So how can you not call it an attempt to overthrow the government, when the people who actually participated in the insurrection admitted to the very fact that they were there to overthrow the government?

                                                    BTW, how's the weather there in LA-LA land, or whatever you call your alternate reality?

                                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                  • icon
                                                    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 6:06pm

                                                    I’ve better things to do after this, so this is my last reply to you.

                                                    it wasn’t an attempt to overthrow the government

                                                    A not-zero number of insurrectionists literally chanted “hang Mike Pence” while inside the Capitol, likely knowing that a hangman’s gallows waited outside. Mike Pence, then the Vice President, was tasked with certifying the vote counts and the final result of the presidential election. If a violent mob chanting for the hanging of the man tasked with completing the most vital task in American democracy isn’t either an attempt to prevent American democracy from going forward or a threat to make that attempt should they find the Vice President, what the fuck else would you call it.

                                                    Look at what Texas Democrats just did. They attempted to stop the [d]emocratic process. Is that not the same result by different means?

                                                    No. They didn’t leave Texas to subvert American democracy by way of stopping an election from being certified. They left Texas to deny quorum to the Texas legislature so several bills the Texas Democrats felt were bullshit⁠—primarily a voting restrictions bill⁠—couldn’t be passed along partisan lines. I may or may not agree with their tactics, but I sure as shit believe in their intent.

                                                    [Chris Cuomo video]

                                                    Two things.

                                                    1. He’s right, you know.

                                                    2. When he talks about “polite and peaceful” protests, he is not referring to the idea of violent protests. He is referring to how conservatives view any “leftist” protest regardless of any violence. To a conservative, people marching in the streets for racial justice are “impolite” and should learn “the right way” to protest. (Spoilers: there is no “right way”; just ask Colin Kaepernick.)

                                                    [Maxine Waters video]

                                                    Not that I agree with the way she worded what she said, but I agree with the general sentiment: If the system fails the people it’s supposed to serve, people should keep saying the system failed until the system is corrected. And by the by, “confrontational” doesn’t necessarily mean “violent”⁠.

                                                    intervention was (almost, can’t say what I don’t know) always warranted

                                                    No, it wasn’t. And⁠—as numerous other commenters and I have said before⁠—police intervention in largely peaceful protests were the root cause of those protests turning violent far more often than not. Showing up to a peaceful protest wearing SWAT gear and driving MRAPs is not going to inspire a reaction of “hey, they’re just here to help” from protestors who are protesting against police violence/brutality.

                                                    Just most major cities.

                                                    [citation needed]

                                                    Portland is in ruins.

                                                    Really~? The entire city of Portland was burned to the ground, and no one is living there now~? Nothing remains of the whole entire city of Portland, Oregon⁠—absolutely nothing at all whatsoever⁠—except “ruins”~?

                                                    I don’t know whether you think I’m intellectually disabled or as gullible as you are. Neither option speaks well of you.

                                                    Chicago’s most historic shopping district was devastated.

                                                    Yes, yes, you’re pissed that property was hurt. We don’t care about your fetish here, fam.

                                                    Hundred+ year old monuments are destroyed.

                                                    If they were monuments to racists, bigots, and traitors to the United States⁠—i.e., monuments to the Confederacy⁠—I don’t give a fuck. Losers don’t get participation trophies, and bigots don’t deserve monuments. I’ll need a citation for anything else.

                                                    People are dead.

                                                    How many people died as a direct and attributable cause of the riots you’re talking about? Be specific.

                                                    How many people did the capital rioters kill? Look that up closely.

                                                    Technically? Zero. Ashley Babbit was killed by Capitol Police while trying to reach members of Congress that the police were protecting. Officer Brian Sicknick died of two strokes, and he died the day after the insurrection. The other three deaths that day were not caused by any direct and intentional actions on the part of the insurrectionists. And two police officers committed suicide after the insurrection.

                                                    But here’s the question that’ll gnaw at you tonight: If the insurrection hadn’t happened, how many of those people would still be alive today?

                                                    No, the insurrectionists didn’t directly kill anybody. But their actions still led to seven deaths. That nobody can be charged for those deaths is…unsatisfying, but it doesn’t make the insurrection any less violent than it was.

                                                    No[w] what’s the BLM death toll.

                                                    By all means: Tell me exactly how many people are known to have been killed through intentional and direct actions attributable specifically and exclusively to the Movement for Black Lives.

                                                    I’ll wait.

                                                    The “rights” bill is not a solution.

                                                    Neither is trying to prevent people of color and poor people from voting. But try telling that to the Republicans who keep pushing (and passing!) laws that do exactly that.

                                                    If the dems would actually act American and vote American

                                                    And there is one of the telltale signs of an American conservative fascist: the “othering” of those deemed insufficiently unpatriotic.

                                                    See, I’ve no doubt that Republicans love America. But they love a fantasy version of it. They love the America where evil immigrants don’t simultaneously take jobs away from “real Americans” and subsist on tons of welfare, where Black people “know their place”, where queers stay in the closet and women stay in the kitchen between pregnancies.

                                                    They love the America where slavery was only an oopsie-daisy and racism ended when a Black man was shot in the fucking face. They love the America where the Founding Fathers were demigods instead of bigots, slaveowners, and⁠—verifiably, in the case of Thomas Jefferson⁠—rapists. They love the America where poverty is a moral failing and economic inequality is caused by laziness instead of unregulated capitalistic greed.

                                                    Conservatives would absolutely love America if it wasn’t the real America. That’s why they’ve done everything they can to punish the poor and the marginalized while they reward the greedy and the sinful. And anyone who disagrees with their policies⁠—anyone who protests against inequality, who believes immigration and diversity are net positives, who thinks we need to do more to ease suffering rather than increase it⁠—is “un-American”.

                                                    That you see Democrats as “un-American” for not going along with the entirety of the Republican/conservative platform is your problem, Lostcause. And by the by, if the Dems did do that, you know what that would make the government? A one-party government. You think shit is bad now? Let conservatives rule the roost without dissent, and you’ll see how much worse things can get.

                                                    Not create a continuous loop of poverty by raising the taxes on goods and services to the point where the lower income can no longer make it.

                                                    Democrats don’t generally support raising taxes on anyone but the wealthiest Americans. That the wealthiest Americans still find loopholes is both a failing of government in general and the work of Republicans whose own personal greed ultimately drives the party’s reverence of the obscenely wealthy.

                                                    I don’t like the religious right. But at the moment they offered a better choice.

                                                    Living in a Christian theocracy is a “better” choice than living in a country with religious freedom? What the fuck are you smoking and where the fuck did you buy it from.

                                                    I knew before the election he wouldn’t be the president.

                                                    I’m sorry to disappoint you, but he is the current sitting President of the United States, regardless of whether you like that fact. (And Biden wasn’t my first choice, either, but he’s still better than another four years of Donald fucking Trump.)

                                                    And if the Hillary machine was willing to fix the system to crush someone on her own platform ticket, was she really worthy of office either?

                                                    She was still a better option than Trump.

                                                    Obama was a beacon of hope in 08. By 12 it was obvious the D machine was crushing his vision.

                                                    ahahaha, you think the Dems did that shit

                                                    No, what crushed his “vision” was Mitch McConnell⁠—who famously said in 2010, after Republicans took control of the Senate, that he would do everything in his power to make Obama a “one-term president”. Mitch failed in doing that, but throughout the back half of Obama’s first term and the entirety of his second term, McConnell and his Republican cronies did everything in their power to stop the Obama agenda from getting anywhere. Democrats didn’t crush the Obama vision⁠—Republicans did, and they did it with brutal efficiency. Hell, you wanna know why Obama had to use so many executive actions after the 2010 midterms⁠—and why Trump largely had to do the same during his term? It was because Congress was, and still is, fucking broken.

                                                    I hope someone worth voting for runs in 24. But I’m not holding my breath.

                                                    No, please, hold your breath until 2024.

                                                    I insist.

                                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                    • icon
                                                      Lostinlodos (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 10:17pm

                                                      Re:

                                                      https://leakedreality.com/video/6828/rioters-looting-complete-destruction-at-stores-in-minneapolis?c omment_to_load=192234| https://rumble.com/vftlhp-rioters-assault-police-after-vandalizing-monument-in-washington-d.c..html| https://rumble.com/vftlhp-rioters-assault-police-after-vandalizing-monument-in-washington-d.c..html| https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xkmxrf| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axgHPbEJ4fw

                                                      1. No, I don’t know. Not as far as I believe.

                                                      2. Who says…

                                                      Police intervention was because they did something in violation of law.

                                                      https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=portland+destruction&FORM=HDRSC2&PC=APPL

                                                      “Yes, yes, you’re pissed that property was hurt.”
                                                      Did they break the law when they
                                                      Damaged property
                                                      Broke into stores
                                                      Took items from within that property
                                                      Set buildings on fire
                                                      Set cars on fire
                                                      Shot people randomly
                                                      Damage historical landmarks that had nothing to do with race?

                                                      “Losers don’t get participation trophies, and bigots don’t deserve monuments”
                                                      Just because you can only see one aspect of something doesn’t mean all the other’s don’t exist.
                                                      Just because you don’t care about all the others doesn’t mean the rest of existence agrees with your narrow blinder tunnel perception.

                                                      “how many of those people would still be alive today?”
                                                      One, that we can be sure of.
                                                      A veteran murdered by a cop for filming the riots from a distant corner.
                                                      I guess your happy she got killed? You don’t seam to care if a person isn’t black.

                                                      “I’ll wait”
                                                      Well more than 1,

                                                      https://abcnews.go.com/US/small-town-police-chief-killed-officers-cities-wounded/story?id=71017820

                                                      So we’re already over your “insurrection”.

                                                      “Neither is trying to prevent people of color and poor people from voting.”
                                                      Oh, ID laws.? Yep, stop people who generally have ids from voting by requiring them to verify who they are.
                                                      Sure, those IDs should be free. To all. But since the Dems won’t do anything to secure voting further… we have no social aspect in these laws.

                                                      “And there is one of the telltale signs “
                                                      Such as you call anyone not in total complete agreement with you.

                                                      illegal immigrants don’t simultaneously take jobs away from American citizens and legal immigrants and subsist on tons of welfare

                                                      “Black people “know their place”,”
                                                      What the fuck are you talking about.

                                                      “where queers stay in the closet”
                                                      Oh, like above, that less than 1% or neo-nazi-Christian-Arian-shites.
                                                      Gotcha.

                                                      “women stay in the kitchen between pregnancies.”
                                                      ???
                                                      You’ve lost it. Totally mental. Who: …??

                                                      “They love the America where slavery was only an oopsie-daisy and racism ended when a Black man was shot in the fucking face. “
                                                      That’s same tiny less than 1%. Ohkay.

                                                      “They love the America where the Founding Fathers were demigods instead of bigots, slaveowners, and⁠—verifiably, in the case of Thomas Jefferson⁠—rapists. “
                                                      ..or look at the positives along with the negatives.
                                                      Something you yourself said you can’t do.

                                                      “They love the America where poverty is a moral failing”
                                                      Says who in the last 20 years.

                                                      “economic inequality is caused by laziness instead of unregulated capitalistic greed.”
                                                      Or, by a method of non-income taxation that slowly inflates the price of living just above the minimum income line call to pay for social services, that more people need to survive the artificial price, that pushes more people over the edge, that raises the price……

                                                      “Conservatives would absolutely love America if it wasn’t the real America.”
                                                      Agreed! But I’m not a conservative. And the Dems are not saints.
                                                      Both parties have their own entrenched way of holding down the bottom.
                                                      The right does it with religion, the left with crazed financial systems.

                                                      “anyone who protests against inequality,”
                                                      Protest, don’t break the law

                                                      “who believes immigration and diversity are net positives,”
                                                      The vast majority of republicans consider this fact.
                                                      Demanding they do so legally makes them racist?

                                                      “who thinks we need to do more to ease suffering rather than increase it⁠”
                                                      How much could a billion dollar investment do to help the poor? I wonder, but they sent it to a genocidal dictator instead.

                                                      “That you see Democrats as “un-American” for not going along with the entirety of the Republican…”
                                                      I don’t. You assume that because you care more about finding things “between the line” that doesn’t exist and grouping people into categories based on a single belief, the rest be damned.

                                                      I had minimal issue with sanders. Aside from the green new steal most of his platform was sound.
                                                      But they handed us a rich white person intent on hurting everyone above the poverty line (except the Uber rich).
                                                      It to mention twice supporting genocide. Ukraine (actually kill ethnic Russians) and Iran (wants to kill Jews).

                                                      “Democrats don’t generally support raising” … income tax.
                                                      Rather they raise sales tax, excise tax, service tax. Anything other than income tax.
                                                      The invent city requirements and then charge for complying. Parking. Housing. Etc.
                                                      Ever notice how expensive things are in a blue city vs driving 20/30 miles away?
                                                      That’s exactly what I’m talking about above.

                                                      “but the wealthiest Americans. That the wealthiest Americans still find loopholes is both a failing of government in general …”

                                                      And you may want to look at tax law. How many of those loopholes you bring up were passed by Democrats.
                                                      The Republicans tend to put forward plans that would, yes, lower taxes across the board, AND close loopholes.
                                                      Dems just want higher taxes.

                                                      “Living in a Christian theocracy “
                                                      We don’t.

                                                      “I’m sorry to disappoint you, but he is the current sitting President of the United States”
                                                      In name. Not in act.

                                                      “She was still a better option than Trump.”
                                                      You’re entitled to your opinion, I’m entitled to mine.

                                                      “ahahaha, you think the Dems did that shit”
                                                      Obama didn’t run on shutting down every fossil file service in the country. He didn’t run on outsourcing jobs with tax credits. He didn’t run on wide open borders. He didn’t run on tax everyone.

                                                      “Democrats didn’t crush the Obama vision⁠—Republicans did”
                                                      Not without help from entrenched dems.
                                                      I blame them, and the figurehead they drove to the top in 16. Not Obama. And not the general Dem or Rep members.

                                                      That 16 offered us the same thing 08 did, someone not buried in the Washington muck, and a long time politician?

                                                      I insist.
                                                      Good. Luckily, I don’t have to abide by it.

                                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                          • identicon
                                            Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2021 @ 1:46pm

                                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                            Cheney Was ousted for voting to convict trump for inciting a riot without evidence.

                                            From the article that I linked to in the above comment:

                                            Republicans dumped GOP Rep. Liz Cheney from her House leadership post Wednesday for her persistent repudiation of Donald Trump’s election falsehoods, underscoring the hold the defeated and twice-impeached former president retains on his party.

                                            Again, until the R party can get rid of its ring leader Trump, and all the Qanon crazies, sexual predators, racists, and just plain garbage people, they will remain the Q party. In fact, I doubt the republican party will ever recover and the "Cheney" / "Romney" / sensible conservatives will create their own party. (Not that I agree with any of them, but at least there are a few who still have some morals and ethics, haven't knelt at the altar of Trump, and don't believe in the alternate reality that most of the GQP live in)

                                            You may not like him but “peacefully” is very different than “who says a protest needs to be peaceful”.

                                            There was nothing peaceful about the 1/6 insurrection, Trump was the lead instigator, and other prominent republicans agree (even if they did flip flop later).

                                            GOP’s McConnell: Trump morally responsible for Jan. 6 attack

                                            Sen. Lindsey Graham blames Trump for Capitol riots and says the president needs to 'understand that his actions were the problem'

                                            I'm sure I could find more, but those two should suffice.

                                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                            • icon
                                              Lostinlodos (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 3:05pm

                                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                              Your basing your assertion on an op-Ed. An opinion.
                                              The public comments all EDO the same thing. Voting to convict for incitement without direct incitement was a violation of her duty. And as such she was removed.

                                              Quoting a few R trump haters doesn’t change that.

                                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                              • identicon
                                                Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2021 @ 5:14pm

                                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                Voting to convict for incitement without direct incitement was a violation of her duty.

                                                And there you go, thinking her duty was to Trump and not the constitution. She did her duty, by upholding her oath to country and the constitution. She put country over party, and country over Trump.

                                                Almost all other Rs were too spineless to uphold their oath.

                                                Quoting a few R trump haters doesn’t change that.

                                                What kind of crack are you smoking?

                                                Lindsey Graham is one of Trump's most loyal lapdogs.

                                                And it sure does seem that Trump has McConnell's backing as well.

                                                So calling them Trump haters is just your way of denying reality. See also, my comment about the many R's who live in an alternate reality, which apparently includes you.

                                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                              • icon
                                                Lostinlodos (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 6:42pm

                                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                McConnell backs nobody but himself.
                                                Oh, and he didn’t find the claims rose to impeachable offences.

                                                Sasse? Never Trump
                                                Collins? Nt
                                                Mit? Nt

                                                Two more are in variable states that require more than just Republican faithful to win.
                                                Toomey, and Cassidy.

                                                The votes were political, not factual.

                                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                              • icon
                                                bhull242 (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 7:24pm

                                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                Voting to convict for incitement without direct incitement was a violation of her duty.

                                                But she didn’t vote to convict Trump. She voted to impeach (i.e. indict) him. There’s a huge difference between the two. The latter has a very low burden of proof, for example. A vote to impeach doesn’t mean “he’s definitely guilty and should be punished”, but that there’s enough evidence to move to the Senate for a trial.

                                                Also, you misunderstand the difference between impeachment—a political process—and a criminal or civil court case—which is a legal one. The former is not actually required to hold to the same standards as the latter, including regarding speech. As such, there is no need to prove direct incitement. (Also, it’s not impossible that he could be said to have directly incited the crowd, so that part of the premise is equally flawed.)

                                                And as such she was removed.

                                                Except she wasn’t removed soon after the impeachment. In fact, McCarthy explicitly refused to do so even when many House Republicans asked him to. Instead, they waited months later to do so. If that was the actual reason for her removal, this chain of events makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

                                                It only makes sense if there was another reason for her removal over things between then and when she was ousted. To claim otherwise would be to ignore a ton of context.

                                                Quoting a few R trump haters doesn’t change that.

                                                “Trump haters”? You mean Lindsay Graham and Mitch McConnell? Did you actually read the article, or did you just see that it was an op-ed and dismiss it? Because no one in their right minds would call Graham or McConnell “Trump haters”.

                                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      • icon
                                        bhull242 (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 3:32pm

                                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                        We’re just asking for an example of an elected Democrat who has been publicly black supremacist and not been denounced and/or punished immediately by other Democratic leaders. That’s what would need to happen before this is even close to a true equivalence.

                                        But it’d actually have to go further. They’d have to be some sort of conspiracy theorist on top of that.

                                        Why? Because MTG, Gaetz, Jordan, et al are vocally conspiracy theorists but (with just one or two exceptions), almost no Republican politicians or Republican leaders have denounced or punished them for any of the crazy thing they’ve said or done. They also hold elected positions in government.

                                        This suggests that the R party doesn’t consider being a conspiracy theorist (or a white supremacist, or even both) to be a disqualification for being a government official within their party.

                                        While I don’t agree with calling the R party the Q party for other reasons, you should still present evidence for your points. They’ve presented examples to support their view, so your counters should match theirs to be effective.

                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                        • icon
                                          Lostinlodos (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 4:18pm

                                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                          Well, the ties to the NOI are well document.
                                          The response has always been “in context” excuses but in context always makes the entirety of the statement worse.

                                          My point isn’t that the dems are black power.
                                          My point is that both sides have fringes and calling the whole of a party based on that fringe is inaccurate.

                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                          • icon
                                            bhull242 (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 7:07pm

                                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                            I’m not asking about fringes in the party in general. I’m asking about comparable fringes who are in office that are treated similarly by other elected officials of the same party for each party.

                                            I’m also not saying you’re wrong per se. Just that you failed to prove your claim.

                                            You were provided with explicit examples. All I’m saying is that, to counter that, you need to give explicit examples at least as good as the ones presented. You’re being too vague and broad for that to be an effective counterargument.

                                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      • icon
                                        PaulT (profile), 26 Jul 2021 @ 8:05am

                                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                        "Just like the claim that all Republicans are white suprematists becaof a tiny minority of the vote."

                                        No, because of a non-tiny number of elected representatives that hold those views. Your "side" may appeal to the knuckledraggers, but those aren't the people in question here.

                                        Please try to keep up and understand that others are talking facts here that can't be rejected by a "no u" or misrepresentation of the arguments...

                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • icon
                                    PaulT (profile), 26 Jul 2021 @ 8:03am

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                    "So the Democrats are black suprematists who agrees with violently removing the white race. I got you."

                                    Which elected officials hold that stance? Which of them are as prominent in the party as the white supremacists hand picked by Trump to serve in his administration?

                                    "Trump, backstage, in a jovial conversation, mad a derogatory quip and that was it."

                                    If only it were the single quip, but you do see the double standard and why one party is more involved with removing the scum from its ranks than the other?

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            PaulT (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 1:08pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            Unified, no, but there's not exactly a push to disassociate those people from the mainstream party. In fact, they seem to be pushing out less objectionable members.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Chozen (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 10:45pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  No if you remember correctly the sites 4 stooges were trying to come up with some kind of example where property rights allowed a person to use physical force to remove someone. We went from in a restaurant, in a bar, in your home, in a public house. You couldn't get through your thick skulls that its never legal to use force to remove person who entered legally unless force is being used upon you or in defense of someone else.

                  No matter what examples you can think of its never legal.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2021 @ 12:39am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    We went from in a restaurant, in a bar, in your home, in a public house. You couldn't get through your thick skulls that its never legal to use force to remove person who entered legally unless force is being used upon you or in defense of someone else.

                    No matter what examples you can think of its never legal.

                    Completely wrong, again, you idiot.

                    Once you tell somebody who is on your private property that they are no longer welcome on your private property, then you can use whatever force necessary to remove them. It's called trespassing.

                    Five seconds on google came up with this Texas law:

                    Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 9.41. Protection of One's Own Property

                    (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
                    (emphasis added)

                    And I am sure there are plenty of other states with something similar. Hell, the pro 2A states probably allow you to shoot somebody once you tell them they are trespassing.

                    So, wrong again.

                    Are you getting tired of constantly being schooled here?

                    Also, at some point you should just quit digging as each new comment just reenforces that you are an idiot who knows nothing about that of which you speak.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      Lostinlodos (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 1:02am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Ability to shoot is not just red states.
                      The difference is in blue states you tend to have to give fair warning first. Red states tend to be shoot on site no warning.

                      The funny aspect of that is red states tend to have less cases of trespassing.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Lostinlodos (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 12:59am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Wait, what?

                    I don’t know where you live but it is 100% legal to drag a person kicking and screaming from private property in nearly every part of the US.

                    Ow, that ability is limited by permanence doctrine. But depending on the state that’s from 2 weeks to 90 days.

                    Permanence is a thorn in the side of extended/long-term lodging.
                    It why some states only have a few dozen (Cali) and some states have thousands (Nevada, Wisconsin…)

                    Until that point is crossed I can youse whatever method of physical removal I want within equal force law.
                    That means I can only guide the drunk crying meltdown to the door, the the fist swinging drunk maniac can be all but dragged by the hair.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    PaulT (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 11:21am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    "We went from in a restaurant, in a bar, in your home, in a public house"

                    None of which had anything to do with your whining that you couldn't eject a renter from the property in the middle of the night with no prior warning. Those examples are pretty much on par with each other in terms of invitation vs recourse to ejecting a disruptive presence.

                    "You couldn't get through your thick skulls that its never legal to use force to remove person who entered legally unless force is being used upon you or in defense of someone else."

                    Because that's literally not true? It doesn't matter how they entered to my knowledge, as soon as they refuse to leave they are trespassing. Are you going to argue that you need to fill in contracts to eject trespassers who had a temporary invitation to your home?

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    bhull242 (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 3:55pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Nope! That’s just flat-out wrong.

                    While the details vary from state to state (specifically regarding warnings and what is or isn’t reasonable force in certain situations), once a person, who is physically on property you—as a private citizen/resident or as a private corporation/organization—own, refuses to leave after being told to leave, they become a trespasser who no longer has any legal right to be there, and you are legally allowed to use whatever force you see fit (within reason) to physically remove that person from your property (as well as any of their possessions that are also on your property as you see fit). It doesn’t matter whether or not they ever had a legal right to be there to begin with or even if you personally invited them. While that can change what amount of force is permissible (unlawful entry, threats or violence against you or someone else, and the presence of firearms for the trespasser to use will generally allow more force—even lethal force—to be used against the trespasser), there is essentially always some amount of physical force that you can use to evict a trespasser.

                    That’s not to say there are no exceptions to that rule (depending on the time they were there unlawfully, for example), but the fact is that not only is it not never justified to use physical force to remove an unresisting but noncompliant person from your property, almost the exact opposite is true: usually, you can do so (at least as long as fair warning is given, though that depends on the state).

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 3:12am

      "Considered as a whole" does not mean all boxes must be checked.

      “Close enough” only works in horseshoes, hand grenades, and moneyshots in porn. When the law is involved, all boxes must be checked⁠—doubly so when the law involves speech. So yes, speech that is “purely prurient” but “does have a political or artistic value” wouldn’t qualify as obscene. It might offend people, but that alone isn’t enough to allow government censorship.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        icon
        Chozen (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 7:14am

        Re:

        "So yes, speech that is “purely prurient” but “does have a political or artistic value” wouldn’t qualify as obscene."

        So a picture of Joe Biden on his knees fellating Xi Jinping would not be obscene as it has serious political value?

        We all get the metaphor and the serious political meaning of the metaphor but that doesn't mean such a picture isn't obscene.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2021 @ 2:19pm

          Re: Re:

          “So something purely prurient that does have a political or artistic value wouldn't be obscene?”

          By definition if it’s purely prurient it wouldn’t have political or artistic value. I’m sorry no seven year old were around to explain the concept to you. It would save you the self inflicted public humiliation.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            icon
            Chozen (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 7:28pm

            Re: Re: Re:

            Oh child I already gave you an example. Biden on his knees fellating Xi. That is purely prurient but also a clear political metaphor.

            Why is this site populated with children. Oh thats right Mike is a "L"ibertarian but runs his site like an authoritarian.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              nasch (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 8:01pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re:

              That is purely prurient but also a clear political metaphor.

              If it's partly political, then it cannot be purely prurient. That's what "purely" means.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                icon
                Chozen (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 8:59pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                It is 100% prurient. It is a prurient metaphor, child.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Stephen T. Stone (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 3:29am

                  A sexualized image can be both prurient and political. To be “purely prurient”, it can’t be political. That’s the difference between, say, Pam Anderson posing naked for Playboy and Pam Anderson posing naked for PETA.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2021 @ 5:58am

              Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Oh child

              Why do you have to call people child?

              Are you some sick fuck with pedo fantasies?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              bhull242 (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 11:15am

              Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Technically, “purely prurient” could either mean:

              1. Only serves prurient interests and has no other value, meaning, interpretation, or purpose; or

              2. Cannot be interpreted to not be significantly prurient.

              The way you’re using the term suggests you mean definition 2. The others are using definition 1, which necessarily excludes anything that has even the slightest amount of political and/or artistic value. It’s unclear which is meant in the relevant law, but regardless, both of the following are true:

              • Under definition 1, something cannot both be purely prurient and have some artistic and/or political value. Therefore, anything that has artistic and/or political value would not be “obscene” under the relevant law no matter how prurient.

              • Under definition 2, something can both be purely prurient and have some artistic and/or political value. If that’s the case, then under a plain reading of the relevant law, such a thing would not be obscene.

              Either way, something that has artistic and/or political value would not be obscene under this law, regardless of how prurient it is. We can argue whether or not that ought to be the case under the law, or whether the law should change, but this is about what the law actually says, not what we want it to say.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          bhull242 (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 11:03am

          Re: Re:

          It’d depend on the context, but generally, that wouldn’t be “obscene”, at least as the term is explicitly defined in this particular statute.

          You have to understand that the legal definition of “obscene” is distinct from the colloquial definition we generally use.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2021 @ 6:13am

      Re:

      "Considered as a whole" does not mean all boxes must be checked. Jesus Christ how does this tripe get through.

      I'd suggest looking up the word 'whole.'

      HTH

      '

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 7:16am

      Re:

      ""Considered as a whole" does not mean all boxes must be checked. "

      It actually does considering that it's what the law says.

      Then again you've tried to argue that putting a comment on Facebook should be considered similar to renting a damn apartment or house so I'm not exactly surprised at your kindergarten-level of legal logic.

      "It's like sports judging."

      It really isn't. And even the example breaks down given that the analogy you insist on here would be said sports judge deciding that a fist missing by three inches should still be considered a "hit".

      Honestly, Baghdad Bob...you really need to stop trying to argue from assumed authority.
      I mean, don't get me wrong; it's usually pretty amusing to watch you clown around. Aside from making readers snicker and smirk at you I don't really see these masochistic exercises of yours doing you much good.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        icon
        Chozen (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 12:50pm

        Re: Re:

        "It actually does considering that it's what the law says."

        That is not what the law says. You are taking the word "whole" and ignoring the word "considered."

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        icon
        Chozen (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 12:55pm

        Re: Re:

        "Honestly, Baghdad Bob...you really need to stop trying to argue from assumed authority.
        I mean, don't get me wrong; it's usually pretty amusing to watch you clown around. Aside from making readers snicker and smirk at you I don't really see these masochistic exercises of yours doing you much good."

        I never claim to be an authority just smarter than you, which isn't saying much. I don't make these absolutist religious arguments. I operate in the real world which is very grey, even on constitutional issues. Its very easy to give examples that falsify your absolutist religious arguments because your arguments have to be correct 100% of the time.

        You make simplistic absolutist statements like 'The government cant force a private company to host speech' all I have to do is give the examples where they alredy do.

        That is your problem. You are blinded by religion. I recognize that I'm dealing with a religious zealot. Not someone engaging on actual thought.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2021 @ 5:52am

          Re: Re: Re:

          That is your problem. You are blinded by religion. I recognize that I'm dealing with a religious zealot. Not someone engaging on actual thought.

          Whoooo boy! You should run a drive-in with that kind of projection.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 6:38am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "I don't make these absolutist religious arguments."

          Law is a religion to you? No, Baghdad Bob, the issue we're having is that you think law is subject to your personal opinion. It's not. When it says "and" it means all points must apply and when it says "when considered as a whole" nothing else is suggested or implied. Wording of law is absolutist and if you think otherwise I advice you never to sign any contracts without competent legal counsel.

          "I never claim to be an authority just smarter than you..."

          I would never be daft enough to try to compare a platform owner or pub owner evicting patrons with a landlord evicting tenants. Nor was I the gormless lackwit who doubled down on it.

          "I operate in the real world which is very grey..."

          Not where legal issues are concerned and particularly so not where the law has been quite clearly spelled out. The only gray area left is the bit where a presumptive claimant offers to deal in equity and good faith rather than rely on the contract body.
          Which you'd know if you in fact "operated" in any area where you need more than a handshake to close a deal.

          "You make simplistic absolutist statements like 'The government cant force a private company to host speech' all I have to do is give the examples where they alredy do. "

          You have failed to provide a single example so far which wasn't based on a false premise...but by all means keep bragging about all the "proof" you can deliver about Russel's Teapot.

          "That is your problem. You are blinded by religion."

          Ah, since you've got absolutely nothing except ad hom you fall back on spurious rhetoric and marginalization? True to form, Baghdad Bob, true to form.

          I can only hope for your sake that you're just trolling here, because in that real world you describe you end up wondering what happened when the repo men come help you with your personal bankruptcy.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          bhull242 (profile), 25 Jul 2021 @ 8:34pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I don't make these absolutist religious arguments.

          […] your absolutist religious arguments […]

          You are blinded by religion. I recognize that I'm dealing with a religious zealot.

          Based on statements like these, you clearly have no idea what “religion” is.

          I operate in the real world which is very grey, even on constitutional issues.

          Morally? Yes. Legally…? Not so much. At least not in this area. Some parts of the law really are pretty straightforward, and this particular case isn’t in a grey area legally speaking.

          Its very easy to give examples that falsify your absolutist [] arguments because your arguments have to be correct 100% of the time.

          Assuming they’re absolute statements, then yes, it should be fairly easy to disprove them by simply giving counterexamples… if there are any counterexamples, that is.

          Oh, but what am I saying? Surely you’re about to give us a counterexample if you’re so confident you’re right!

          You make simplistic absolutist statements like 'The government cant force a private company to host speech' all I have to do is give the examples where they alredy do.

          …Yes… That is indeed how you would refute an absolute statement… Now, what about those examples?

          That is your problem. You are blinded by religion. I recognize that I'm dealing with a religious zealot. Not someone engaging on actual thought.

          Uh, no. That’s not it at all. You can’t just say, “That’s an absolute statement, so all I need is to provide one counterexample to refute it,” then immediately conclude by saying that’s their problem and finishing off with an ad hominem. You do still need to actually provide that counterexample.

          As far as the specific statement you reference, there are some exceptions regarding disclosure in commercial and legal settings, but that has nothing to do with Facebook, so while that technically means the absolute statement is wrong, the main point still stands.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      bhull242 (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 10:59am

      Re:

      So something purely prurient that does have a political or artistic value wouldn't be obscene?

      That is correct. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the people who wrote the local codes.

      This is just another example of this pathetic blog writers making up their own rules.

      Actually, it’s a plain reading of the laws at issue. Do you not understand what “and” means?

      "when considered as a whole" means to take all factors into account that doesn't mean that one single factor cant sway the entire decision on its own.

      That applies in, say, the “fair-use” test, where the values are weighed against each other and was explicitly defined as such, or where the factors are connected by the word “or”. In this case, we have a conjunction of factors, not just a list of factors or a disjunction of factors. That means that all of the factors have to be met.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Shaun Wilson (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 2:50am

    The closest any of the signs come to the "purient interest" standard of the law (and to be clear it is still well off) is the "Socialism sucks, Biden blows" sign - in that I could see a bunch of 10 year old boys pointing to the sign and gigling after having it explained by an older kid. Even this is a stretch, along the lines of "rational basis review" where anything even cocievable (even if irrational) counts.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Dank710 (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 5:33am

    No laws agaisnt being white trash

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    mechtheist (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 7:03am

    What about the children?

    I was born in 1958, so back in the early '60's I was definitely a children, I lived in a small Texas farming community, went to a Catholic School, my mother made sure we only went to movies cleared by the Catholic Church's rating system's cleanest rating, it was AI, 'A' came with some I, II, III IIII subcategories if I remember correctly, which were listed in every Sunday's bulletin. Needless to say, this was a pretty sheltered existence, not very far removed from Mayberryesqueville, and I can't remember how young I was when most kids I knew used 'fuck' regularly but it was maybe 2nd grade. Do most folks simply forget what it was like when they were kids? If merely seeing the word 'fuck' somehow traumatized a kid, then virtually every kid today would require massive doses of Thorazine.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 7:35am

      Re: What about the children?

      "If merely seeing the word 'fuck' somehow traumatized a kid, then virtually every kid today would require massive doses of Thorazine."

      Yes, well...I posit that were your parents from the early 60's to meet the current crop of american evangelicals the first thing they'd be greeted with would be a "Repent, Sinners!!".

      American puritanism hasn't aged well.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Skylos (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 10:27am

    Definition of Fuck

    Its contextual, padowan. In this case, it is an imperative verb that means "Invalidate and dismiss with anger".

    Now, is that really SO HARD to explain?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories
.

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.