Paul Pelosi attacked in home invasion

#1,301
#1,301
ButchPlz said:
Rolling in sharing a third of the story about those protests is something you probably ought to avoid. How about you get back to reminding us all how Biden is single-handedly saving us from inflation and high fuel prices.

After all, you guys are great pals at the dementia club!
Click to expand...

I'm not seeing you reply with a statute or court decision or legitimate argument against any of the points in my post. If all you have are personal insults, then you got nothing. Beat it, Butch. You're just being pesky.
 
#1,302
#1,302
Vol Main said:
I'm not seeing you reply with a statute or court decision or legitimate argument against any of the points in my post. If all you have are personal insults, then you got nothing. Beat it, Butch. You're just being pesky.
Click to expand...
Is threatening speech Constitutionally covered?

And you say I'm pesky? Old man, all you have in life is posting fabricated stories on the Internet. Who is actually pesky? Are you actually proud of yourself?
 
#1,303
#1,303
ButchPlz said:
Is threatening speech Constitutionally covered?

And you say I'm pesky? Old man, all you have in life is posting fabricated stories on the Internet. Who is actually pesky? Are you actually proud of yourself?
Click to expand...

You keep trying to divert attention away from the subject with foolish personal comments about me. I'm not the subject of this thread, but for some reason you seem to think
I am. That means you got nothing, so why don't you pour yourself a nice tall glass of STFU?
 
#1,304
#1,304
Vol Main said:
What law prohibits peaceful demonstrations outside the residence of a USSC Justice? Please give me the statute and court decisions on that. Also, the statement is from the Press Secretary. She represents Biden, but she is not Biden. Furthermore, her statement supported peaceful demonstrations. She emphasized the right to demonstrate peacefully. That right is written into the U.S. Constitution. Are you trying to argue against it, or are you just spouting off with one of your recklessly inaccurate cheap shots?
Click to expand...
Title 18, Section 1507, of the U.S. Code
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Vol Main
#1,305
#1,305
kiddiedoc said:
So, nobody saw the video.
No alarms went off at 2 a.m.
There was no security on patrol.
You've heard the 911 call.
Bruh was in his underpants.
Somebody opened the door for the police.
The attacker was able to wrestle a hammer away from PP with the police standing a few feet away and then beat him in the head before they could take action.
Click to expand...
You’ve heard the 911 call?
 
#1,306
#1,306
ButchPlz said:
Is threatening speech Constitutionally covered?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

No, though admittedly it is sometimes a tough line to draw. Its like Justice Potter said about obscenity -- you know it when you see it. And so for example when you take the totality of what Trump said leading up to and on 1/6, combined with his inaction as it occurred, you can say he is responsible for the violence despite having "skated the line" trying not to be too obvious about it.

Similar to his comments I posted above regarding Pelosi incident. Strongly insinuating its true without asserting it, specifically.

At some point you have to take a step back and ask about all the facts and circumstances to try to draw a conclusion as to what the intent is -- is the speaker intending to, for example, encourage violence? Or in the most recent case is he, based on all the circumstances, backing a baseless conspiracy theory in an effort to undermine the real story -- political violence -- and to disclaim any responsibility for doing so?

The right wingers can debate here all they want a bunch of word-for-word hair splitting on this. But in doing so all they do is enable Trump's weak rhetorical tactic of implying, but not outright saying. When all the while, based on all the circumstances, everyone knows exactly what he's saying, exactly what he's promoting. Either now, or on 1/6.
 
#1,307
#1,307
Vol Main said:
You keep trying to divert attention away from the subject with foolish personal comments about me. I'm not the subject of this thread, but for some reason you seem to think
I am. That means you got nothing, so why don't you pour yourself a nice tall glass of STFU?
Click to expand...
I asked you a specific question relevant to the topic about threatening speech.

You're just mad because like every leftist, you've got nothing but politics. Literally. Likely saddled with debt, solidly alone and so attached to political personalities that don't care about you and never will (actually, it's more likely that they hate you and are happy to sacrifice your well-being for their gain), a slave to the "system" you like to bitch about.... if you're an old man that's still proud of that, I feel less irritated by your "peskiness" and more sad for the state you wallow in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#1,308
#1,308
Vol Main said:
What law prohibits peaceful demonstrations outside the residence of a USSC Justice? Please give me the statute and court decisions on that. Also, the statement is from the Press Secretary. She represents Biden, but she is not Biden. Furthermore, her statement supported peaceful demonstrations. She emphasized the right to demonstrate peacefully. That right is written into the U.S. Constitution. Are you trying to argue against it, or are you just spouting off with one of your recklessly inaccurate cheap shots?
Click to expand...


“To be clear, it is a criminal offense to picket or parade near a residence of a federal judge for the purpose of influencing the outcome of a judicial proceeding. It is not a defense that the behavior is nonviolent. When a statutory crime does not necessarily involve forcible conduct, the fact that people commit it “peacefully” is irrelevant”

Or in another term, deter intimidation to a federal judge to persuade a certain verdict.

Don’t confuse the right to protest at your place of work, community with the residence of a Justice. Your 1st Amendment need not apply there.
 
Last edited:
#1,311
#1,311
Majors said:
“To be clear, it is a criminal offense to picket or parade near a residence of a federal judge for the purpose of influencing the outcome of a judicial proceeding. It is not a defense that the behavior is nonviolent. When a statutory crime does not necessarily involve forcible conduct, the fact that people commit it “peacefully” is irrelevant”

Or in another term, deter intimidation to a federal judge to persuade a certain verdict.

Don’t confuse the right to protest at your place of work, community with the residence of a Justice. Your 1st Amendment need not apply there.
Click to expand...

The 1st amendment applies depending on the party.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, davethevol and Majors
#1,313
#1,313
BowlBrother85 said:
That was a dumb thing for the Mayor of San Francisco to say. I wouldn't expect anything better than that from Newsom, though. He has been as ineffective as it gets at reducing crime in his city.

However, Fox News needs to pick a lane on the subject of whether or not political rhetoric creating a toxic climate, is to blame when a high profile member of Congress is targeted for a violent attack by someone with a history of mental illness. To say that Fox News has been all over the road on the subject, in the last 6 years, would be an understatement.

Sean Hannity Blames ‘Dehumanizing’ Democrats for Congress Shooting

^^^ There is a video contained in this link of Sean Hannity using the platform of his show to blame Democrats and liberal celebrities for the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise in 2017.

This is what he said, verbatim ...

"When Democrats continue to dehumanize Republicans and paint them as monsters day in and day out, year in and year out, well the climate around the country, it becomes more than toxic, and the tragic results, of course, follow."

-- Sean Hannity, Fox News, June 14, 2017
Click to expand...
As has every other news network. It really isn't that hard to link clips that prove a partisan stance pro or con to another party or their mouthpieces.

It isn't unique to FOX or CNN or any of the others. You, much like those you love to call out here, just like to ignore it or just emphasize with greater importance when the other side does it.
 
#1,314
#1,314
KB5252 said:
As has every other news network. It really isn't that hard to link clips that prove a partisan stance pro or con to another party or their mouthpieces.

It isn't unique to FOX or CNN or any of the others. You, much like those you love to call out here, just like to ignore it or just emphasize with greater importance when the other side does it.
Click to expand...


Fox, however, has been particularly disjointed in taking any kind of cohesive position. I would imagine that every single commentator at Fox does in fact agree that people who are vulnerable and easily manipulated are to some degree or another susceptible to being goaded into irrational and even criminal action by a politician or political rhetoric.

But they are stuck with the fact that THE PRIME offender on this is Trump and his team, and they have to walk this very thin line between saying they are against rhetoric which causes this kind of violence, and even against lies and misinformation because it feeds it, but they dare not admit that Trump is the most damnable culprit for it. When its obvious to everyone that he is.
 
#1,315
#1,315
whodeycin85 said:
Waiting for the video to be released after elections...then the truth will come out...
Click to expand...
I love this line of thinking. LOL.

Nobody ever explains what DePape had to gain by giving the police such a detailed confession of a premeditated break-in, which will likely land him in administrative segregation at San Quentin for the rest of his life. Gays can't be housed there in general pop. They end up dead too fast. There is no way that DePape signed up for such a miserable life, just because he wants to assist the Pelosi's in a cover up. This is so stupid.
 
#1,316
#1,316
It’s funny that the Dims excuse about releasing the body cam footage or security cam footage is because it’s a pending investigation. But when drug lord, wife beating George Floyd got smashed it was all over TV.

I’ll tell ya why, peter loving Paul let the dude in or was in the car with him and they got into a fight because the pink hammer Duracell batteries died and couldn’t find new ones. Sh!t got out of hand after that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Orangeburst, davethevol and 1 other person
#1,317
#1,317
lawgator1 said:
Fox, however, has been particularly disjointed in taking any kind of cohesive position. I would imagine that every single commentator at Fox does in fact agree that people who are vulnerable and easily manipulated are to some degree or another susceptible to being goaded into irrational and even criminal action by a politician or political rhetoric.

But they are stuck with the fact that THE PRIME offender on this is Trump and his team, and they have to walk this very thin line between saying they are against rhetoric which causes this kind of violence, and even against lies and misinformation because it feeds it, but they dare not admit that Trump is the most damnable culprit for it. When its obvious to everyone that he is.
Click to expand...
That's interesting, it seems that Fox was early hours to condemn J6. Now find me where the liberal station of your choice has condemned riots, looting, liberal city murders, justices assassination attempts or I'll take Rand Paul 6 broken ribs? I would even take retraction by the major liberal networks for stoking Russian Collusion for 3 years knowing it was misinformation as you stated. Like I said yesterday, you haven't missed anything you just chose to ignore it by your side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol and ButchPlz
#1,318
#1,318
lawgator1 said:
Fox, however, has been particularly disjointed in taking any kind of cohesive position. I would imagine that every single commentator at Fox does in fact agree that people who are vulnerable and easily manipulated are to some degree or another susceptible to being goaded into irrational and even criminal action by a politician or political rhetoric.

But they are stuck with the fact that THE PRIME offender on this is Trump and his team, and they have to walk this very thin line between saying they are against rhetoric which causes this kind of violence, and even against lies and misinformation because it feeds it, but they dare not admit that Trump is the most damnable culprit for it. When its obvious to everyone that he is.
Click to expand...

This isn't about Trump. Sorry
 
  • Like
Reactions: ButchPlz
#1,320
#1,320
Majors said:
That's interesting, it seems that Fox was early hours to condemn J6. Now find me where the liberal station of your choice has condemned riots, looting, liberal city murders, justices assassination attempts or I'll take Rand Paul 6 broken ribs? I would even take retraction by the major liberal networks for stoking Russian Collusion for 3 years knowing it was misinformation as you stated. Like I said yesterday, you haven't missed anything you just chose to ignore it by your side.
Click to expand...

1) Fox has at times minimized it.

2) Fox has not said Trump was at fault for causing it, or allowing it to continue.
 
#1,323
#1,323
Well, once they actually release this to the public everything should be cleared up right? Capital police were not watching (Nancy was away) so no one witnessed it but surely they have a recording of it? It says According to sources, an officer was monitoring the feeds and saw police lights on a dark street outside the Pelosi's residence. When going through surveillance footage, the officer saw the alleged attack on Oct. 28, when DePape allegedly struck Paul Pelosi, people briefed on the incident said, according to the report.
US Capitol Police officers weren't watching live home security cameras when Paul Pelosi was attacked
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#1,324
#1,324
lawgator1 said:
1) Fox has at times minimized it.

2) Fox has not said Trump was at fault for causing it, or allowing it to continue.
Click to expand...
Minimize? Is there a timeframe that needs to be established to appease those like yourself? Just curious as there are other pressing issues in today current world that require attention as well.
The J6 committee can't even say he did anything. So why does Fox. Not sure we want to peel back the layers on J6 because that would require cross examination to those on the left that are pointing fingers.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top