Was 2020 election stolen or not?

[LV426]

No such thing as an "inherent threat."

Yes there is, it is the basis of many "stand your ground" laws.

Stand your ground only applies to a person making aggressive moves toward you that could cause harm

A Nazi's mere existence is intended to cause harm to me, so they are perpetually an imminent threat.

Again, you are spreading lies and disinformation just like those claiming election fraud.

No I'm not, Flash. This is a legal interpretation of self defense laws that are applied evenly. If a Black man, by his mere existence, justifies deadly force from police officers because they feel their safety is threatened by that man's presence, then the same applies to citizens.

You should be ashamed of such misleading lies. This is not a free speech case. The article clearly states "while recognizing that the First Amendment protects the mother's right to display the flag,.."

Yeah, however, the judges said "in spite of that, you have to give up your flag if you want to see your kid".

So that is quite literally FIVE JUDGES ordering someone to remove their Confederate Flag....which is precisely what you claimed never happened.

This is a child custody case and the conditions of the home are an important factor. If the woman had the flag when she was first granted custody there has been no "change" in the conditions of the home and would not be an issue. But the flag was placed there after granting custody. Don't confuse free speech with child custody issues.

What does a flag have to do with child welfare? Is this the same argument for keeping Confederate monuments up?

 

[evince]

Anti American like this stupid fucking cunt?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html

Three million more living breathing Americans voted for Hilary



You just hate democracy

 

[LV426]

You are willing to be deceptive to try to win an argument even when you know you are wrong.

You said this was a lie:

5. A judge can prohibit a person from flying a Confederate flag.

Then I posted this which is precisely what you said above was a lie:

Judge Orders New York Woman to Remove Confederate Flag or Risk Custody of Biracial Child
https://www.newsweek.com/judge-orde...rate-flag-risk-custody-biracial-child-1590881

And then you tried to move the goalposts to make this a First Amendment issue, after having to eat a plate of shit by reading 5 judges ordering someone to remove their Confederate Flag:

This is not a free speech case.

Doesn't fucking matter because you have 5 judges unanimously doing exactly the thing you said was a lie.

You didn't say "5. A judge can prohibit a person from flying a Confederate flag in free speech cases", you just said, blanket statement, that it was a lie that judges could order Confederate Flags to be removed.

Clearly they can, and they did.

So you're saying that a judge CAN order flags down, so long as it's part of a court order for something else, and that isn't a First Amendment violation?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[evince]

LV, as a young woman, tends to see the world mostly in emotional terms, not coldly logical terms. She wants you to share her angst at the assholes pushing the Big Lie, not have you explain why they are assholes.

QED

The classic "undisciplined mind of a human being".

What the fuck Dutch



Eat shit you misogynous dick lips

 

[LV426]

Don't confuse free speech with child custody issues.

If you're going to move the bar, at least be subtle about it.

They ordered the flag down in spite of the First Amendment, which proves my case that a judge can order you to not fly a Confederate Flag.

At what point does it cross from being a 1A issue to a child welfare issue? What is the Legal threshold? Or is this just a specious argument you're making?

 

[LV426]

What the fuck Dutch

Eat shit you misogynous dick lips

If he's this much of a misogynist on JPP to someone he thinks is a woman, can you imagine how much of a prick he is to the actual, real women in his life?

 

[Flash]

If you're going to move the bar, at least be subtle about it.

They ordered the flag down in spite of the First Amendment, which proves my case that a judge can order you to not fly a Confederate Flag.

At what point does it cross from being a 1A issue to a child welfare issue? What is the Legal threshold? Or is this just a specious argument you're making?

The woman only had to remove the flag to retain custody of the child because he was biracial. If the custody issue did not exist they could not order her to remove the flag.

So, my point still stands. A person has the right to display a Confederate (or any other) flag under the 1st Amendment.

A person has the right to wear a Nazi uniform and as long as they are not threatening and peaceful you have no right to harm them as there is no such thing as an "inherent threat." Stand your ground means if a person is approaching you in a threatening matter you are not required to give ground to prevent a conflict (as required in some states).

The case was never a free speech case because displaying the flag was not an issue. Only when they were evaluating her for child custody did it become an issue.

In one court case a woman was granted custody of her child. Afterward, her boyfriend moved into the house. In order to keep the child the judge ordered her to either marry the boyfriend or remove him from the house and take the child to the church of her choice. The court threw out the religious requirement but upheld the live-in boyfriend order--because conditions changed.

If we all lived in your world none of us would have any freedoms if you disagreed with the content.

 

[LV426]

The woman only had to remove the flag to retain custody of the child because he was biracial.

Ah, so the flag represents something, then?

You've been saying it doesn't. That it's "just a flag."

Now you seem to be changing your argument again.

So, this woman was ordered by five judges to remove her racist flag because it puts the child's welfare into danger/question.

But how could a flag do that if it's just a flag, like you had been saying for years?

Remember? You and I got into a long argument about how the flag doesn't represent anything, doesn't cause harm, doesn't mean anything other than being a flag.

You threw that whole argument away for this new one that tries to make a distinction between a judge ordering someone to remove a flag, and a judge ordering someone to remove a flag.

 

[LV426]

So, my point still stands. A person has the right to display a Confederate (or any other) flag under the 1st Amendment.

It doesn't matter the reason for removing the flag, what matters is that the flag was removed.

The only way your argument can now make sense is if you agree that the Confederate Flag is more than "just a flag".

Remember, you had been arguing for years that it's just a flag and can't be representative of racism because it means different things to different people, it can't pose a physical threat, it can't harm anyone.

THAT WHOLE ARGUMENT OF YOURS IS NOW INVALIDATED BY YOUR NEW ONE.

So a judge can most definitely order you to remove a Confederate Flag if it is putting someone's welfare or safety at risk, which is what the judges said in this case.

And again, YOU SAID BEFORE that a flag could never do that.

But now your new argument hinges on the flag actually causing harm or threatening someone's welfare.

You just fucked your entire argument over because you have a personal hatred for me.

 

[LV426]

The case was never a free speech case because displaying the flag was not an issue. Only when they were evaluating her for child custody did it become an issue.

The 1A doesn't go away simply because it's inconvenient for your argument.

The 1A doesn't go away because of something unrelated.

Now, the problem you face is that you can't pretend that the Confederate Flag doesn't pose harm or a threat because you're arguing that it does for the sake of your 1A/not-1A-but-1A argument.

You said before that a flag could never harm anyone.

Now you're saying it can.

So you completely flip-flopped on your position just to try and spite me.

 

[evince]

If he's this much of a misogynist on JPP to someone he thinks is a woman, can you imagine how much of a prick he is to the actual, real women in his life?

He has been showing sign after sign that his head and heart are in the wrong place


One type of Russo bot hole is one that pretends to be left and then begins undermining the left when they do have control


Trashing the left candidate


Undermining the Democratic party and democratic unity

 

[LV426]

He has been showing sign after sign that his head and heart are in the wrong place
One type of Russo bot hole is one that pretends to be left and then begins undermining the left when they do have control
Trashing the left candidate
Undermining the Democratic party and democratic unity

He thinks he's entitled to things but the problem is that he did nothing to earn that entitlement.

He couldn't even do the bare minimum in 2020 and vote for Biden to prevent Trump.

He was performative with his vote because he knew that there would be more responsible people who would do the right thing and vote for Biden.

Then he condescends to those people who did the work to get Trump out of office FOR HIM.

So yeah...I'm pretty resentful over that.

 

[Flash]

Ah, so the flag represents something, then?

You've been saying it doesn't. That it's "just a flag."

Now you seem to be changing your argument again.

So, this woman was ordered by five judges to remove her racist flag because it puts the child's welfare into danger/question.

But how could a flag do that if it's just a flag, like you had been saying for years?

Remember? You and I got into a long argument about how the flag doesn't represent anything, doesn't cause harm, doesn't mean anything other than being a flag.

You threw that whole argument away for this new one that tries to make a distinction between a judge ordering someone to remove a flag, and a judge ordering someone to remove a flag.

I didn't change the argument, you just have a hard time understanding legal principles. They said she had every right to display the flag, but she does not have the right to the custody of her child if the home conditions are hostile, unsafe, etc. If the kid was white there was no problem.

She has the constitutional right to display the flag which seems to be a point you refuse to acknowledge. The condition of her home for child custody purposes is a different matter. She has the right to own a TV but if she constantly forced the child to watch KKK videos that could affect her custody.

You refuse to admit she (everybody) has the right to display whatever flag and symbol they choose.

 

[evince]

He thinks he's entitled to things but the problem is that he did nothing to earn that entitlement.

He couldn't even do the bare minimum in 2020 and vote for Biden to prevent Trump.

He was performative with his vote because he knew that there would be more responsible people who would do the right thing and vote for Biden.

Then he condescends to those people who did the work to get Trump out of office FOR HIM.

So yeah...I'm pretty resentful over that.

Who did he say he voted for ?

 

[evince]

I didn't change the argument, you just have a hard time understanding legal principles. They said she had every right to display the flag, but she does not have the right to the custody of her child if the home conditions are hostile, unsafe, etc. If the kid was white there was no problem.

She has the constitutional right to display the flag which seems to be a point you refuse to acknowledge. The condition of her home for child custody purposes is a different matter. She has the right to own a TV but if she constantly forced the child to watch KKK videos that could affect her custody.

You refuse to admit she (everybody) has the right to display whatever flag and symbol they choose.

The court determined THAT FLAG would harm her foster child


So a court said that flag can harm people

 

[LV426]

I didn't change the argument, you just have a hard time understanding legal principles.

No, you said for years that the Confederate Flag could cause no harm because it's just a flag.

Then you completely flip-flopped on that principle to argue that a judge removing a Confederate Flag was done, not because of the 1A, but because the flag causes harm.

So now we have to go all the way back to 2019 to re-litigate your insistence THEN that a Confederate Flag could not be removed just because someone is negatively affected by it.

This has nothing to do with legal principles...this has to do with YOUR PERSONAL PRINCIPLES that are now in conflict with themselves.

but she does not have the right to the custody of her child if the home conditions are hostile, unsafe, etc.

So you're saying the Confederate Flag does cause harm.

You should tell the Flash from 2019 that, because he didn't believe me when I said it at the time and tried to gaslight me into thinking there's nothing harmful about the Confederate Flag.

Turns out there's quite a lot that is hurtful about it, so much that 5 judges agreed it should be removed in order to prevent harm.

She has the constitutional right to display the flag which seems to be a point you refuse to acknowledge.

I did acknowledge it, but in doing so, YOU ACKNOWLEDGED that the Confederate Flag causes harm, after arguing for years that it couldn't.

I would just like a little consistency in your arguments...is that too much to ask?

You refuse to admit she (everybody) has the right to display whatever flag and symbol they choose.

NO! You don't have that right, clearly, since these judges are saying that flying that flag will cause someone harm.

You said two years ago that a flag couldn't do that, and now you're arguing the opposite position purely out of spite.

 

[Flash]

The 1A doesn't go away simply because it's inconvenient for your argument.

The 1A doesn't go away because of something unrelated.

Now, the problem you face is that you can't pretend that the Confederate Flag doesn't pose harm or a threat because you're arguing that it does for the sake of your 1A/not-1A-but-1A argument.

You said before that a flag could never harm anyone.

Now you're saying it can.

So you completely flip-flopped on your position just to try and spite me.

My position, and that of the court in her case, is that the first amendment protects our right to display any flag we choose. That is not my position but that established by courts throughout our history.

If 300 million Americans choose to display the Confederate flag they are all within their constitutional rights.

If 1,000 families have child custody disputes their 1st Amendment views are not relevant to the child's welfare. If she wants to teach the kid to dislike others because of their skin color she is free to do so unless it creates conflict with the child's father and creates negative conditions in the home.

If I want to display a Confederate flag in a neighborhood of black people I am free do to so as long as I exhibit no actions threatening those neighbors. And no, the Confederate flag is not an "inherent threat."

 

[Flash]

The court determined THAT FLAG would harm her foster child

So a court said that flag can harm people

The court said she has the constitutional right to display that flag. A child she has custody does not apply to all other U. S. residents.

 

[LV426]

You refuse to admit she (everybody) has the right to display whatever flag and symbol they choose.

Not if that symbol or flag causes harm, which the 5 judges in this case determined it did.

So if it causes harm to a kid, it also causes harm to adults.

 

[LV426]

My position, and that of the court in her case, is that the first amendment protects our right to display any flag we choose."

NO!

That is not the position in the case.

The position is that flag causes harm, therefore it must be removed.

So if 5 judges agree that the Confederate Flag causes harm, then that means you do not have an absolute Constitutional Right to fly that flag.

Remember, YOU SAID THE FLAG DIDN'T CAUSE HARM.

NOW YOU'RE SAYING IT DOES.