Taxachusetts opens up war against those who oppose Abortion

Libhater said:
Even as all eyes are on Louisiana for daring to display the Ten Commandments in schools, the Left's Paganism
is getting a shot in the blue state of Taxachusetts.

That's because the state has proudly unveiled a taxpayer-funded campaign of Public Service Announcement ("PSAs")
aimed at destroying pregnancy centers that oppose abortion.

Using taxpayer funds to push a pagan belief system and aggressively punish those who oppose it violates the First
Amendment as the Founders envisioned it and the Supreme Court understood it.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...ics_who_oppose_the_sacrament_of_abortion.html

These immoral evil pagan anti Lifers need to be horse whipped, or to be more precise......(D)onkey Whipped!
Click to expand...
The 1st amendment does not apply to the States.
However, the Constitution of the State of Massachusetts 1st part, Art III and VII, do. This tax is unconstitutional.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Changing the words when quoting someone's post is a violation of TOS, rule 16.
Click to expand...
Nope. Changing the meaning is wrong, but using standard newsprint convention to clarify unclear babbling for general readability is perfectly acceptable. I used square brackets to denote the specific word replacement and to alert the reader that I changed your gibberish to make it readable. The quotation includes the one-click button that anyone can use to instantly see what you vomited in your post and just how much they should appreciate my efforts on their behalf.

So stop whining like a fucking baby. Nobody is going to believe that I somehow altered your post.

Poor Richard Saunders said:
But let's look at how you are moving the goal posts as you misquote me.
Click to expand...
No goalposts were moved. Only your dishonesty was revealed in a very public way that you find insufferable.

You, however, are in the process of shifting goalposts by doing exactly what I said you would do, i.e. first dogpile on other leftists' claims of protestors violently attacking people and deserving multi-year sentences, and then when you are caught without any such evidence, you dishonestly pivot to a new definition of "violence" that means "entering a public building" and "loitering" ... and then claiming that the multi-year sentences are warranted simply because they were conservatives who illegaly exercised their 1st Amendment rights to DARE to protest a stolen election.
 
IBDaMann said:
Nope. Changing the meaning is wrong, but using standard newsprint convention to clarify unclear babbling for general readability is perfectly acceptable. I used square brackets to denote the specific word replacement and to alert the reader that I changed your gibberish to make it readable. The quotation includes the one-click button that anyone can use to instantly see what you vomited in your post and just how much they should appreciate my efforts on their behalf.

So stop whining like a fucking baby. Nobody is going to believe that I somehow altered your post.


No goalposts were moved. Only your dishonesty was revealed in a very public way that you find insufferable.

You, however, are in the process of shifting goalposts by doing exactly what I said you would do, i.e. first dogpile on other leftists' claims of protestors violently attacking people and deserving multi-year sentences, and then when you are caught without any such evidence, you dishonestly pivot to a new definition of "violence" that means "entering a public building" and "loitering" ... and then claiming that the multi-year sentences are warranted simply because they were conservatives who illegaly exercised their 1st Amendment rights to DARE to protest a stolen election.
Click to expand...
Entering a building is not destruction of property. Breaking a window is not entering a building. Breaking a window is destruction of property.

Destruction of property is a crime of violence under US law. The video clearly shows Dominic Pezzola committing a violent crime under US law. You were shown a video of him committing that violent crime and pretend his act was not violent.

Spraying police officers with a fire extinguisher is assault. Assault is a violent crime under US law. Nicholas Brockhoff was convicted of using a dangerous weapon while assaulting police officers. You have been shown a video of Nicholas Brockhoff spraying a fire extinguisher at police who had to retreat from it and you pretend his crime was not assault.

You failed to address the violent attack in the video I reposted a link to.

You have clearly moved the goal posts.
Your original post -
IBDaMann said:
Nonsequitur. The only violence at the otherwise peaceful Jan 6th protest was at the hands of DNC infiltrators who perpetrated violence on cue. This is easily verified by noting that none of the people perpetrating violence on any video were ever arrested and arraigned, and there is absolutely no video of any violence from those who were arrested and imprisoned.
Click to expand...
You use the word violence 4 times. There is nothing in your statement that restricts the meaning of violence to anything other than its general meaning which under US law includes destruction of property or any assault.

When presented with a video of someone breaking a window, you first moved the goalposts here.
IBDaMann said:
Because you are being disingenuous. My point is that the law, and the legal system, is being abused to punish conservatives per an evil leftist agenda, and your response is that the abuse and prosecutorial overreach is perfectly legitimate because it's the legal definition of "violence" that is being stretched.
Click to expand...
IBDaMann said:
The left are the ones insisting that "violence" means violently aggressive assault/attacks ... but then want it to include breaking glass.
Click to expand...
People can take notice that you are claiming the legal definition of violence is being stretched. Yet when we look at the actual law, it is you that is attempting to twist and stretch the legal definition to not mean what it says.

www.law.cornell.edu

18 U.S. Code § 16 - Crime of violence defined

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu
The term “crime of violence” means—
(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or ...

Based on the actual law, no one on the left is stretching the law to include destruction of property in the definition of violence. That definition has existed in the law since 1984.
Since the meaning in the law is that destruction of property is a crime of violence maybe you should take these words to heart.
Changing the meaning is wrong - IBDaMann - 6/25/2024


 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Entering a building is not destruction of property. Breaking a window is not entering a building. Breaking a window is destruction of property.

Destruction of property is a crime of violence under US law. The video clearly shows Dominic Pezzola committing a violent crime under US law. You were shown a video of him committing that violent crime and pretend his act was not violent.

Spraying police officers with a fire extinguisher is assault. Assault is a violent crime under US law. Nicholas Brockhoff was convicted of using a dangerous weapon while assaulting police officers. You have been shown a video of Nicholas Brockhoff spraying a fire extinguisher at police who had to retreat from it and you pretend his crime was not assault.

You failed to address the violent attack in the video I reposted a link to.

You have clearly moved the goal posts.
Your original post -

You use the word violence 4 times. There is nothing in your statement that restricts the meaning of violence to anything other than its general meaning which under US law includes destruction of property or any assault.

When presented with a video of someone breaking a window, you first moved the goalposts here.


People can take notice that you are claiming the legal definition of violence is being stretched. Yet when we look at the actual law, it is you that is attempting to twist and stretch the legal definition to not mean what it says.

www.law.cornell.edu

18 U.S. Code § 16 - Crime of violence defined

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu
The term “crime of violence” means—
(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or ...

Based on the actual law, no one on the left is stretching the law to include destruction of property in the definition of violence. That definition has existed in the law since 1984.
Since the meaning in the law is that destruction of property is a crime of violence maybe you should take these words to heart.
Changing the meaning is wrong - IBDaMann - 6/25/2024
Click to expand...
So Democrats were again violent. What else is new?
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Mantra 2
Mantra 6
Mantra 10
Mantra 15
Mantra 16
Mantra 20
Mantra 21d
Mantra 24
Mantra 23
Mantra 39

Changing the words when quoting someone's post is a violation of TOS, rule 16.

But let's look at how you are moving the goal posts as you misquote me.
Here is your original request. Everyone is free to follow it to it's source and see the responses showing videos with violence.

When shown a video of Dominic Pezzola breaking a window of the US Capitol this was your response.

Any violence is not defined as only "violent assault." Any assault is considered a crime of violence under US law. Property damage is a crime of violence under US law.

The law clearly defines violence as attacking property and has defined it as such since 1984
Title 18 PART I CHAPTER 1 § 16
The term "crime of violence" means—

(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or

(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.

You admitted that the video shows Dominic Pezzola breaking a window but claimed that "destruction of furniture" isn't violence


Breaking a window is violence. It clearly fits within the definition of "any violence." Your attempt to now claim you meant only violent assault at this late date only shows how disingenuous you are in your arguments. When shown a video of someone swinging a table leg at police officers, you claim he is merely pointing it at them. When shown a video of someone spraying police officers with a fire extinguisher you claim it isn't assault. You admit someone threw a pylon at police officers but claim it isn't assault. When shown a police cam video of someone on top of a police officer on the ground you claim he is just pointing his finger at the officer. At this point your goal posts have been moved so far they are barely visible from where you started in asking for videos showing "any violence." You have failed to even address the other 2 videos I presented to you that show people attacking police officers.

Here is one of those videos that clearly shows a violent assault on police officers that you claim doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Looks mostly peaceful to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top