Abrams calls for removal of Confederate faces off Stone Mountain

[Sparko]

Wrong, I'm not against free speech of any kind, I'm just pointing out how you conservatives automatically come to the defense of the white supremacists racists in your conservative party and automatically attack, condemn and assign the guilt of instigator to the counter protesters that stand against them. You weren't there, you don't know, yet, like Trump himself, that is what you do.

We haven't defended racism or white supremacy have we Jimmy? We defended their right to free speech even though we disagree with them. We have ONLY been against the violence. ON BOTH SIDES. The right and left are both guilty of this at Charlottesville and other places. The KKK came ready for a fight, and the Antifa gave it to them. Both sides were wrong in the violence. well all three since the BLM was there too fighting.

And you just defended using violence in your last post! You claimed speech was a form of violence with the implication that it is OK to use violence in return to stop it!

And Tassman has been arguing that free speech doesn't include hate speech. Well in fact, it does. So yeah, you guys have been against free speech.

[Psychic Missile]

As you've been reading on Wikipedia, the case against Black was dismissed because the law forced citizens accused of breaking it to prove their innocence rather than force the government to prove their guilt. In the majority ruling, it was agreed that burning a cross for intimidation purposes is illegal. Here's a case of a man sentenced for cross burning in a federal court 12 years after that decision.

[seer]

As you've been reading on Wikipedia, the case against Black was dismissed because the law forced citizens accused of breaking it to prove their innocence rather than force the government to prove their guilt. In the majority ruling, it was agreed that burning a cross for intimidation purposes is illegal. Here's a case of a man sentenced for cross burning in a federal court 12 years after that decision.

Apples and oranges, in your link the men went to the man's house and burnt the cross in his driveway. If they had did it on their own property there would have been no issue.

[rogue06]

And yet the MSM somehow managed to continuously misquote him. The vaunted New York Times, the supposed paper of record, "heard what Trump said...live and unedited" and yet still misquoted him on not one, not two, but five separate occasions and had to sheepishly issue five different retractions.

And who on God's green earth cares a whit what David Duke has to say? I mean, how many people follow what Duke says? Aside from the media maybe two or three hundred -- if even that? Moreover, no one seemed to care when the communist party^[1] announced their enthusiastic support of Hillary for president, or Obama before her^[2]. Compared to the communists the number of folks that the Klan has terrorized and killed is like comparing a thimble to a swimming pool.








1. You know, the folks who produced such folks as Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Who are responsible for slaughtering over a hundred million people trying to implement their policies.

2. The Democrats have swung so far to the left in recent years that the communist party no longer bothers to run a candidate for president any longer being more than happy to support the Democrat nominee.

[Sparko]

I think Tassman is a wonderful guy and I support him completely!



There, now you must be an alt-right, conservative, racist, bigot, homophobe, Christian like me because I praised you.

[Darth Executor]

Note that Duke likes Trump because of his good immigration policy rather than because Trump said anything white supremacist whereas he likes Ellison because he is openly anti-semitic (like many muslims/democrats). The "he knows" in his tweet refers to "he knows about Jews".

[Sparko]

Z4sPLlK.jpg

[Jedidiah]

Burning a cross for the purpose of intimidation is illegal in the US.

But not on your own private property as part of a KKK gathering. Just because they are slime does not make their actions illegal.

[rogue06]

But not on your own private property as part of a KKK gathering. Just because they are slime does not make their actions illegal.

The whole "for the purpose of intimidation" is the key here. It is still legal to do it at their rallies and such.

[Psychic Missile]

Apples and oranges, in your link the men went to the man's house and burnt the cross in his driveway. If they had did it on their own property there would have been no issue.

It doesn't matter where it happens, it matters if the intent was to intimidate. That's what the supreme court said and that what the law says.

[Psychic Missile]

But not on your own private property as part of a KKK gathering. Just because they are slime does not make their actions illegal.

Sure, as long as the KKK members aren't trying to intimidate someone.

[Bill the Cat]

As you've been reading on Wikipedia, the case against Black was dismissed because the law forced citizens accused of breaking it to prove their innocence rather than force the government to prove their guilt. In the majority ruling, it was agreed that burning a cross for intimidation purposes is illegal. Here's a case of a man sentenced for cross burning in a federal court 12 years after that decision.

I was actually giving the info to clear up what you said. You're welcome.

[Sparko]

It doesn't matter where it happens, it matters if the intent was to intimidate. That's what the supreme court said and that what the law says.

So then you would say that this is illegal then and the people doing it should be arrested?

[seer]

It doesn't matter where it happens, it matters if the intent was to intimidate. That's what the supreme court said and that what the law says.

No Psychic cross burning is legal, period - that is what the Court said. In your one case they went to the man's house. And I would say that all cross burning have a bad intent.

[One Bad Pig]

No Psychic cross burning is legal, period - that is what the Court said.

Why is Psychic cross burning not legal?!? How could a Court say such a thing?