Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Violent threats against the president are OK now?
Author Message
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 48,694
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 774
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #21
RE: Violent threats against the president are OK now?
(03-20-2017 11:57 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Pfft...just like your claim of all the articles about the supposedly horribly biased Debo Adegbile, which you never produced, you failed again.

As I have said over and over, the horrible bias and despicable conduct that Adegbile displayed was in accepting rather than calling out the rabble-rousers who tried and apparently succeeded in getting a proper judgement overturned with their extra-legal activities. And virtually every article written about him supports that. Do you have one that describes him calling them out? No, of course not, because he didn't. His error is one of omission, not commission. So any article that discusses that period of time but does not describe his calling them out supports the claim. As an attorney, his conduct violated the code of ethics. And obviously enough senators--including some democrats--agreed with that assessment.

The difference between us is not that I haven't produced evidence, but that you don't consider that conduct worthy of contempt. Very simple, do you admit or deny that he failed to call out the rabble-rousers?

Quote:No, that review does not pan the movie for not making it more clear as you intimated. He says that the film does not fit the controversy. Which is EXACTLY what you've been trying...and continually failing...to do.

I probably chose my words poorly. My intent was to say that the criticism was that they didn't bash Bush sufficiently to suit many critics. If I said it inartfully, or you misinterpreted my comments, I apologize. What I wrote first was from memory, then looking back over a few quotes clarified my recollection.

Quote:And of course they would show Bush because the movie is a 2006 faux documentary of how an assassination would effect a post 9/11 world!

The movie could have been made with footage of an actor playing a generic president if that had been their intent. It wasn't, because obviously that wasn't their intent.
(This post was last modified: 03-20-2017 12:23 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
03-20-2017 12:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Brookes Owl Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,686
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 87
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:

The Parliament AwardsCrappiesDonators
Post: #22
RE: Violent threats against the president are OK now?
Is Snoop Dogg really the example you want to use? There is no way that is a threat against the president. No reasonable judge or jury would perceive that as an intention to do the president harm or to incite others to do so. It's incredibly disappointing to me that this is the level of respect given the office, but I think at least a little of what's going on there is how Trump is behaving while occupying it.
03-20-2017 12:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
VA49er Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,584
Joined: Dec 2004
Reputation: 219
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
Post: #23
RE: Violent threats against the president are OK now?
(03-20-2017 12:40 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Is Snoop Dogg really the example you want to use? There is no way that is a threat against the president. No reasonable judge or jury would perceive that as an intention to do the president harm or to incite others to do so. It's incredibly disappointing to me that this is the level of respect given the office, but I think at least a little of what's going on there is how Trump is behaving while occupying it.

That's still an excuse. There should be no threats against the life of any POTUS ever. Doesn't matter which side.
03-20-2017 03:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stinkfist Online
Hop: no capacity
*

Posts: 24,831
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 622
I Root For: my StL Blues
Location: who knows?
Post: #24
RE: Violent threats against the president are OK now?
(03-20-2017 03:15 PM)VA49er Wrote:  
(03-20-2017 12:40 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Is Snoop Dogg really the example you want to use? There is no way that is a threat against the president. No reasonable judge or jury would perceive that as an intention to do the president harm or to incite others to do so. It's incredibly disappointing to me that this is the level of respect given the office, but I think at least a little of what's going on there is how Trump is behaving while occupying it.

That's still an excuse. There should be no threats against the life of any POTUS ever. Doesn't matter which side.

you're arguing "FIRE"

this is different.....or is it???

IMO, it's the same as Dee Snyder/Black Sabbath/etc.....having to defend...

if it goes to that level of control, you might as well pig **** maddow....
(This post was last modified: 03-20-2017 03:37 PM by stinkfist.)
03-20-2017 03:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Brookes Owl Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,686
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 87
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:

The Parliament AwardsCrappiesDonators
Post: #25
RE: Violent threats against the president are OK now?
(03-20-2017 03:15 PM)VA49er Wrote:  
(03-20-2017 12:40 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Is Snoop Dogg really the example you want to use? There is no way that is a threat against the president. No reasonable judge or jury would perceive that as an intention to do the president harm or to incite others to do so. It's incredibly disappointing to me that this is the level of respect given the office, but I think at least a little of what's going on there is how Trump is behaving while occupying it.

That's still an excuse. There should be no threats against the life of any POTUS ever. Doesn't matter which side.

But that's not what I'm talking about. If there are REAL threats, they should be investigated and, if warranted, prosecuted. I'm unaware of any credible threats that have gone unanswered. But Snoop, for example, is not REMOTELY a credible threat. And my point, which you highlighted, is that disrespectful, albeit LEGAL behavior, is probably a little bit the result of the way the president is conducting himself in office.
03-20-2017 03:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2017 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.