Liste des Groupes | Revenir à ra tv |
In article <uum1h8$juqp$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>This Supreme Court is illegitimate. Filled with perjurers and corrupt grifters.
wrote:
On 4/3/24 2:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:On Apr 3, 2024 at 8:36:11 AM PDT, "moviePig" <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>On 4/3/2024 5:50 AM, FPP wrote:On 4/2/24 5:52 PM, moviePig wrote:On 4/2/2024 1:16 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:Mar 27, 2024 at 3:58:45 PM PDT, moviePig <never@nothere.com>:3/27/2024 6:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:>>If you own it, you can burn it.>>Why is it that burning the American flag is protected speech,
but if you burn an Alphabet Mafia rainbow flag, you can get
arrested for a hate crime?>You mean a flag that does not belong to you, not your own flag.>No, I mean any rainbow flag. If you go buy one yourself, then take
it to an anti-troon protest and burn it, it's a hate crime.>But if you buy an American flag and take it to an Antifa riot and
burn it, protected speech.>The former action is one of hate, the latter is one of protest.https://ibb.co/0FpvG4S>
moviePig is unparseable here. Is he stating that protestors protest
against their friends and not their enemies? I'm so confused.
I'm here to help.
>
In general, people who burn an American flag do so in protest of their
own government's actions and policies, while those who burn a rainbow
flag do so to express their hate of queers.
But not at a gay-pride march under laws against hate speech.
There are no laws against hate speech in the United States. If any
legislature should pass such a law, it would be unconstitutional.That was in the old Constitution. You know... the one Roberts, Alito,Did he? That's awesome!
IKavanaugh, and Barret swore up and down they would go by.
And then didn't.
>
Settled law, my ass. Alito quoted a 17th century Witch Hunter in his
draft opinion on Roe (Dobbs).
Fuck this Illegitimate Supreme Court of Religious Fanatics.This Supreme Court has reinforced free speech over government control
and sanction at nearly every opportunity, so regardless of whether
you're mentally fucking them or not (shudder), don't look for them to
suddenly embrace the notion of carving out a heretofore never before
noticed exception to the 1st Amendment and allow the government to start
suddenly punishing people for 'hate speech'.
Alito chose to quote from Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th-century English jurist whose writings and reasonings have caused enduring damage to women for hundreds of years.Thanny... lover of rape justification. Who would have thunk it?
The so-called marital rape exemption — the legal notion that a married woman cannot be raped by her husband — traces to Hale. So does a long-used instruction to jurors to be skeptical of reports of rape.
Alito’s opinion resurrects Hale, a judge who was considered misogynistic even by his era’s notably low standards. Hale once wrote a long letter to his grandchildren, dispensing life advice, in which he veered into a screed against women, describing them as “chargeable unprofitable people” who “know the ready way to consume an estate, and to ruin a family quickly.”Thanny... ever the Ladies Man!
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.