Goodbye Donald Trump

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
I'm not all to familiar with Oregon's Firearm Laws, but if I lived there, & I were Dan Ryan, I would be quite prepared, & if they came again for the 8th. time, there would be no doubt who they were.....we'd have their dead bodies strewn about my home to attest to their identities. Also, we would all agree, they will never vandalize my home ever again......my home is my property......trespassers beware.........Trespassers who enter my home will be shot................period. ..
..
Essentially, in Oregon you may use deadly force if you reasonably believe you are in imminent danger of death or serious physical injury. Generally, you may not use deadly force to merely protect personal property from theft or damage.

Someone breaking into your home is generally regarded as a serious threat, and the use of deadly force is accepted. On the other hand, mere vandalism or the theft of something is not.

The reasonableness of using deadly force must be objectively reasonable, and so you have to be right. The police, prosecutors, and potentially a jury must find the decision to be reasonable.

People armed for self defense need to have a good working knowledge of the law or they can find themselves on the wrong side of a homicide charge.

With rights comes responsibility.
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
Essentially, in Oregon you may use deadly force if you reasonably believe you are in imminent danger of death or serious physical injury. Generally, you may not use deadly force to merely protect personal property from theft or damage.

Someone breaking into your home is generally regarded as a serious threat, and the use of deadly force is accepted. On the other hand, mere vandalism or the theft of something is not.

The reasonableness of using deadly force must be objectively reasonable, and so you have to be right. The police, prosecutors, and potentially a jury must find the decision to be reasonable.

People armed for self defense need to have a good working knowledge of the law or they can find themselves on the wrong side of a homicide charge.

With rights comes responsibility.
I agree 100%..........killing an intruder/trespasser for killing sake is just murder. But, killing someone in self-defense because you felt that if left unhindered, your life, & the lives of your loved ones, would probably be at extreme risk (fatal). Anyone entering my home uninvited would potentially be such a threat....
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
The other thing that is objectively false is to assert that Antifa only commits violence in self defense. No. They will INITIATE violence at the mere presence of groups or individuals they don’t like.
I don't remember ever saying that members of Antifa only commit violence in self-defense(straw man). I DID say that they prepared themselves for violence. And, that they choose NOT to be verbally abused, spat at, beaten, intimidated, or threatened, like those members in the Civil Rights marches. If you are claiming, that Antifa members preemptively attack any White racists hate groups on sight(not simply, "the mere presence of groups or individuals they don’t like."), then lets see the evidence(arrests, charges, photos, videos, unbiased accounts, etc.). If what I've said is " objectively false" , then it must also be " obviously false". Therefore, the evidence should also be obvious. I've looked, and it is not that obvious. Having a chuckle is also not evidence. 🙂

You certainly look at Antifa through rose colored glasses. In nine months of rioting in Portland, the Proud Boys and another group called Patriot Prayer showed up twice. Antifa terrorists were present for all of the insurrection, assaults, and property destruction EVERY night, not just on those two days.
The police, the media, the press, the agitators on both sides, and many onlookers were also present. Your point? If you are saying that Antifa is guilty of vandalism and violence by simply being present, then I disagree. They clearly stand out in the crowd, so the evidence of this should be easy to present. Especially, the claim that you made, about Antifa setting a fire outside of a councilman's home(Wheeler), and their vandalism and rioting. The media had no problem interviewing them in their own homes, so they are not that clandestine.

I am certainly not denying that there exist more than a likelihood of violence erupting, when fascist neo-Nazis, White National Supremist, meet anyone willing to stand up to them. We have seen violence erupt at pro/anti abortion demonstrations. At BLM, and at animal activist demonstrations. Should we also label these people as social terrorists? Simply because the potential for violence exists? Maybe we should just abolish our 1st Amendment right to assembly to redress grievances, because of the potential for violence? Of course, then we would have a fascist Government, with the Proud Boys as leaders. I don't think so!

These hate groups feed off of the ignorance and egos of insecure, weak-minded, socially disenfranchised, malcontented, and hate-filled angry Whites. Their message only masterbates their ego, and gives them a false sense of ethnic and social superiority, privilege, and exclusivity. Antifa actively demonstrates its opposition to these kind of messages. By standing up face to face with these cowards., They make counter speeches, take photos and names, and expose the true identities and criminalities of most of these non-patriots. Free Speech is NOT an absolute right. "Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action", by groups who DO actually advocate fear and violence to bring about political reform, ARE NOT PROTECTED!!

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/970/incitement-to-imminent-lawless-action

I look at Antifa through very clear, and unfiltered glasses. I do not skirt around the point, by making insinuations, inferences, and implications. I am not in denial, that there is no potential for violence with any confrontation between Antifa and The Proud Boys. Or, with any other hate groups. But I am certainly NOT in denial, to believe that Antifa is nothing more than just another anarchist left-wing terrorist group. If they are, we need more of them! You seem to be talking about everything about them, except their cause.

I dare you to go to a protest where they are present and just stand peacefully on the sidelines, not saying anything bad to anyone, but while wearing a MAGA hat. I dare you. Don’t deflect by saying you wouldn’t wear a MAGA hat because that is not the point.

Antifa will assault you.
Deflect? Really Seth? Do you think that Antifa simply demonstrates for their own sake? They are only at rallies attended by the good ole bigots. If I were there, I would be wearing everything they had(including their MAGA hat), and standing on the front line. I certainly won't be on the sidelines, simply watching. That is what most apathetic indifferent Whites have been doing for decades. They simply look for excuses to justify NOT getting involved. Antifa people would need to submit to be beaten to a pulp, or killed, before these people might get involved. But the minute they defend themselves, they are branded as subversive terrorists. It reminds me of the British labeling Africans as rebel terrorists, for refusing to have their land stolen from them. And, simply fighting back! Some Whites would say, "Well, the violence was caused by them, for just being there, they should have known what would happen." Apathetic logic!
 
Last edited:

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
But I believe we must not go so overboard that we violate the 1st Amendment. If we can ban objectionable speech, then we can label anything the majority disagrees with as “objectionable” and ban it.

Accordingly, I will support the right of any group to speak of their beliefs - from anarchists and communists, to openly racist white groups - as long as they are not openly calling for violence.
These people are not disseminating a new algorithm for social harmony. Or, promoting a new virtual technology. Their message is clear and simple. Underneath all the wink-wink and nudge-nudge, the message is, "We Whites are superior to you lot", "This is OUR country, not yours. You are only guests", "Our rules only apply to you lot, NOT us", "You must obey us, or accidents can happen, A LOT!!". And, "Morality is what we Whites say it is".

We have tests to determine the nature of when free speech is protected. It is certainly my opinion, that these sorts of speeches should not be protected. But, if this speech IS protected, then surely the opposing speech should also be protected.


I'm sure all these groups have legal advice, regarding just how close to the line they can go, without crossing it. But their meaning is very clear. And, without any ambiguity.

I'm sure that these racists, bigots, supremist, and criminal really give a shit about the rights of the people that they intimidate, murder, lynch, rob, and rape. But I agree, that it can be a slippery slope.

rump is not paying Rudi Giuliani!
Just one more lawsuit to the list.
 

Auggie

Active member
These people are not disseminating a new algorithm for social harmony. Or, promoting a new virtual technology. Their message is clear and simple. Underneath all the wink-wink and nudge-nudge, the message is, "We Whites are superior to you lot", "This is OUR country, not yours. You are only guests", "Our rules only apply to you lot, NOT us", "You must obey us, or accidents can happen, A LOT!!". And, "Morality is what we Whites say it is".

We have tests to determine the nature of when free speech is protected. It is certainly my opinion, that these sorts of speeches should not be protected. But, if this speech IS protected, then surely the opposing speech should also be protected.


I'm sure all these groups have legal advice, regarding just how close to the line they can go, without crossing it. But their meaning is very clear. And, without any ambiguity.

I'm sure that these racists, bigots, supremist, and criminal really give a shit about the rights of the people that they intimidate, murder, lynch, rob, and rape. But I agree, that it can be a slippery slope.
The limits on the 1st amendment is speech that would lead to 'imminent lawlessness'. Trump's speech for his followers to 'march down Pennsylvania' could be classed as that.
 

pinkeye

Wonder woman
I was watching Colbert interviewing Mr Comey, former FBI Chief.

Very interesting indeed. COMEY, having had as little contact as he could manage, after meeting Trump, said he should NOT BE PROSECUTED for anything for a few years, BECAUSE that would guarantee he remained at the front of attention.
He said, after meeting, and getting to know TRUMP... ( he IS a talented man, Mr Comey)
the worst thing would to prolong indefinitely, Trump's presence in the national press, via the inevitable opportunities it would provide him with , and it would be better to ignore him on charges laid during his presidency, and CONCENTRATE on bringing him to account for the things he did, BEFORE he became the PREZ.

Having heard him, I agree.

I don't want to see that CREEP TRUMP ever again.
I was watching Colbert interviewing Mr Comey, former FBI Chief.

Very interesting indeed. COMEY, having had as little contact as he could manage, after meeting Trump, said he should NOT BE PROSECUTED for anything for a few years, BECAUSE that would guarantee he remained at the front of attention.
He said, after meeting, and getting to know TRUMP... ( he IS a talented man, Mr Comey)
the worst thing would to prolong indefinitely, Trump's presence in the national press, via the inevitable opportunities it would provide him with , and it would be better to ignore him on charges laid during his presidency, and CONCENTRATE on bringing him to account for the things he did, BEFORE he became the PREZ.

Having heard him, I agree.

I don't want to see that CREEP TRUMP ever again.
Just want to repeat this post I made earlier. A small part of that interview was shown on our News today.

Comey is , I believe, giving an honest assessment here. He is very concerned about actions that just provide Trump with more opportunities to use the media.

He is cautioning patience...and see's a grave danger in enabling Trump to remain on our screens.
 

pinkeye

Wonder woman
No, never.............I see the demon-rat Progressive, Leftist Liberals as Terrorists, & the Right-Wing, Pro-Second Amendment Conservatives as Free Fighters.

I don't condone the hate & vileness of the demonrat Party, & the Marxist Communist Anarchists they support.

In the end it's a matter of prospective................One man's Terrorist, is another man's Freedom Fighter.




..
That does NOT apply to TRUMP.
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
...........He is cautioning patience...and see's a grave danger in enabling Trump to remain on our screens.
@pinkeye

It's called 'Freedom of Speech'.

Every American has the Right to Free Speech, a Right no government can take from us!

In America, unlike many other countries that say they have "Free Speech', but actually stifle & ban "FREE SPEECH", in America Americans believe that our American Freedom of Speech means virtually just about anything must be permitted......Even hateful speech......words that by their very nature often offend & deeply hurt.

The United States Supreme Court has unanimously ruled many times that there is No Hate Speech Exception in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.......Americas Sacred "Law of the Land"........

So therefore America accepts, & must continue to accept the speech we all hate to hear, no matter how hurtful or hateful it may be.

Chief Justice John Roberts stated:
“Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain,”

“On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”

Source: https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/2017/06/22/why-protect-speech-we-dont-want-to-hear-we-need-to-hear-it/



..
 
Last edited:

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Just want to repeat this post I made earlier. A small part of that interview was shown on our News today.

Comey is , I believe, giving an honest assessment here. He is very concerned about actions that just provide Trump with more opportunities to use the media.

He is cautioning patience...and see's a grave danger in enabling Trump to remain on our screens.
I regard Comey as a disgrace to his/my profession.

He has a boy-scout face and well practiced slick demeanor, but I can see through him like a glass window.
 

greggerypeccary

Active member
If Mr T**** is convicted, there's then an option to hold a separate vote on whether he should be allowed to have another crack at the presidency.

Again, unlike his actual conviction, the Senate vote on whether he could run again would not need two-thirds of the Senate vote to go through — it would only need a simple majority.

With the Democrats recently taking back control over the Senate, it's fairly likely they'd vote to block him from going for a second term.
 
Top