Big Media was responsible for the Capitol riot

originally posted by: gortex


As Chadwickus said , "Take responsibility for your own actions"

Yes, personal responsibility. Those who went to the capitol and were aggressive with police, should be jailed. They were wrong.

Now, how many people are we talking about, thousands?, tens of thousands? Wait, what? a few hundred? that doesn't sound like a violent insurrection, that sounds like a gaggle of #tards.

So are we to assume that since a few hundred people did something stupid that everyone who appears to be in the same political party is equally at fault? Please clarify.

a reply to: ADAMandEVIL

Naw mate that was Trump.

As we all watched him egg them on with our very own sky balls and then they went on to mob and riot on live TV.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: ADAMandEVIL

Naw mate that was Trump.

As we all watched him egg them on with our very own sky balls and then they went on to mob and riot on live TV.

we all know what was said. And none of it included "hurt police", "be violent", "break things", or "Kill Mike Pence".
Now if you have a link to a video of that happening, it would totally change the narrative here. If you don't have any new video, then you end up back to where Chadwickus and Gortex are. That personal responsibility is where the fault lies. Meaning, the one's who did bad things are to blame for the bad things that happened. You can't blame George Bush anymore than you can claim Trump for what other people do.

Are you aware of the message that Trump had with all of his gatherings? It wasn't one of violence and lawlessness, in fact, it was the polar opposite. If you are honest with yourself, that one is tough to reconcile when projecting the things you do.

a reply to: network dude

Im aware of what a watched take place on the TV in front of me that day network dude.

Same as the rest of the planet.

And all that transpired was at Trumps bequest.

The Man said what he said, and they people were there, and done what they done because of his words

Spell it anyway you wish but people seen what happened, and why.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: network dude

Im aware of what a watched take place on the TV in front of me that day network dude.

Same as the rest of the planet.

And all that transpired was at Trumps bequest.

The Man said what he said, and they people were there, and done what they done because of his words

Spell it anyway you wish but people seen what happened, and why.

I also saw what happened.

Can you explain what changed on that day that made people go from believing that Police deserve respect, violence is wrong, tearing things down and destroying property was wrong, but somehow, during Trump's speech, a group of angry people chose to go against the very things they held dear, and once they gained entry into the Capitol, they didn't know what to do next?

Because that is what I saw. And I also saw many more people NOT doing bad things, than I did people DOING bad things. HOW was it that only a few hundred were given orders to attack the capitol, but then none of those few were given any further instructions? Was the code Trump used to activate them flawed?

Nobody is denying that idiots did stupid things there on that day. But when you try to tie that to "everyone not on your side", it makes you look a bit dumb. Some who did bad things may have been Trump supporters, but that doesn't mean that you can blame anyone other than those who did stupid things. This is pretty basic reasoning, grade school type.

originally posted by: ADAMandEVIL

Ummm...

Saying:

Don't get me wrong here, suppression of hate, spam and trolling is absolutely necessary,

then saying:

Yet there is clear violation of free speech at present, running individual rights into the ground under a mountain of beaurocracy and legalese.

Is a total contradiction.

All 'suppression of hate, spam and trolling' is, is a clear violation of free speech.

All that is needed is making it clear that any and all comments/statements constituting real, actual threats of violence will be immediately referred for criminal prosecution.

originally posted by: CraftyArrow

originally posted by: musicismagic
One thing is for sure, President should never be responsible for the actions of them idiots that stormed that building.

Those were true patriots, some disguised as patriots.... no matter, to bad we didn’t see them drag Nancy, Pence and Chuck through the streets of DC. They deserve a firing squad.

It’s not over till the fat lady sings, the truth will come out.

Now, see? McDonald's has its uses.

a reply to: tanstaafl

It would appear that way if presented out of context like you have
Do you consider shutting down a mean person in your home violation of their free speech rights? Of course not. There's a limit to everything.
Thats why I mentioned, we need regulation, but we need to do it right.
Hate, spam and trolling are not legal exercise of free speech
They encroach on the rights of others nullifying their constitutional use
Free speech only goes so far until harm and damage is involved

originally posted by: ADAMandEVIL
a reply to: tanstaafl
It would appear that way if presented out of context like you have

Really?

Hate, spam and trolling are not legal exercise of free speech

Yes... they are. That is precisely the point.

They encroach on the rights of others nullifying their constitutional use

That statement makes ZERO sense whatsoever - but no, hate/spam/trolling doesn't 'encroach on the rights of others', regardless of what you mean by 'nullifying their constitutional use'...

Free speech only goes so far until harm and damage is involved

Actual real quantifiable harm and damage, yes, exactly.

Hurting someone's feelings because of mean tweets is not real, quantifiable harm or damage. It is a perceived harm to your precious feelz, that is all.

No one has a Right to not be offended or have their feelz hurt.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Have you fogotten about harassment, sir? There are more ways to do damage than physically.
Hate, spam and trolling are forms of harassmaent in the eyes of the law.

originally posted by: ADAMandEVIL
a reply to: tanstaafl
Have you fogotten about harassment, sir?

How does one harass someone online?

There are more ways to do damage than physically.

Yes, and there are laws to deal with real, actual harmful behavior.

Hate, spam and trolling are forms of harassmaent in the eyes of the law.

You don't know much about the law, do you?