Should I post my collection of posts that give liberals nightmares?

Barbarous

"Even in England which has "freedom of the press" there is an exception.. the press are forbidden from attacking the Queen (and to some degree the other Royals). To do so is a crime."

I take it from this phrase you are referring to the laws of England & Wales rather than the individual country of England? There is no separate judicial system purely for England. The United Kingdom is made up of 4 separate countries, namely England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland. Scotland & N.I. have separate legal systems from England & Wales, however none of the 4 countries have any laws against the press reporting anything about the Royal family as would be patently obvious if you tried visiting UK & read any of the tabloid press. Please get your "facts" right & stop spreading fake news.

graygriffin

@Frederick:

it is a crime called SEDITION to attack the president of the United States.

Can you point to a law or piece of legislation that backs up your statement? There have been a number of times that what you are asserting was true, but no longer.

The Sedition Act of 1789, made it illegal to make "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" about the President or Congress. However,
this law was allowed to expire at the end of John Adams's term as President in 1801. It, along with the other acts commonly referred to as the Alien and Sedition Acts, were one reason why Thomas Jefferson and his Democratic-Republican Party was able to beat the Federalist Party in the election of 1800.
The Sedition Act of 1918 also outlawed criticizing the United States Government. Like the Sedition Act of 1789, it is no longer law (it was repealed in 1921)

Now there are laws relating to advocating the overthrowing of the United States Government, referred to as seditious conspiracy. Attacking and criticizing the President does not mean that the individual is arguing for the overthrowing of the US governemnt.

As far as I know, the only people that can be punished for attacking the President of the United States are members of the military. According to Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UMCJ),

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Members of the armed forces that are not officers can be punished under the more broad Article 134,

Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

You really have two problems with your argument.

The Supreme Court of the United States held in Brandenburg v. Ohio, that the First Amendment protects inflammatory speech unless it was "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Basically, the person has to be inciting or encourage a riot or doing something similar to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Is Representative Adam Shiff intending to start a riot or something similar? He's not, and as such, he has the ability to criticize the President because of his First Amendment right of Freedom of Speech.
Representative Adam Shiff (and all other federal Representatives and Senators) are protected from most legal actions while Members of Congress by the Constitution. Article I, section 6 states that Members of Congress are protected from protected from arrests, except in cases of "treason, felony and breach of the peace." Furthermore, they cannot be punished for what they say on in any speech or debate in the house of which they are a member. Although you might be able to argue that he can be arrested for speech not made on the House floor, attempting to do so would probably bring about a lot of criticism from both sides of the aisle in both houses of Congress if someone tried to do so.
As stated above, there is no law barring civilians (meaning individuals not currently serving in the military) from criticizing the President or any other government official (elected or not).

grevmo

@Frederick:

How did I do for my first political post? :crazy2:

As a moderate conservative, debate judge, and former debate coach, my answer to this question is: if this is the way you present your arguments, you would never pick up one of my ballots. Your facts need evidence. You call opinions facts. And you speak with such a heavy bias that even your facts are so far bent as to be unusable as arguments. I would even go so far as to say, with an argument like this, you'd never make it past prelims. Allow me to elucidate…

If anybody is a liberal.. I will either convert them to being at least moderate and perhaps republican or conservative…
or their heads will explode from the pressure of me stirring up all the shit that is in their liberal skulls.

Well, first, you need to establish a valid argument. And in order to do that, you should not be coming in with your guns blazing. You should be coming in to have a conversation, but this statement, along with your opening salvo that you want to "expose how awful and vile the liberals are" immediately weakens your argument. You need to separate yourself from the argument, and make it just a series of statements, not a slanderously biased rant.

I will dig up my comments from months ago.. and have new ones. In fact, I rarely offer my OPINIONS, I stick to facts, which drives people NUTS.

I've seen conservatives get just as angry when they are argued against. But no, you did not stick to facts.

I would also like to set up the definition of fact, against which I will be analyzing your case. A fact is "a piece of information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article." As such, it may be true (the more common definition of fact being "a thing that is indisputably the case"), or false. In short, a fact is a piece of data. Believe me when I say, this definition is more generous to you, because I won't be requiring your data to be true, in order to accept that it is a fact. But I will point out when it is not.

I don't yet know where I should begin… The most recent travesty affected me personally.

Calling something a travesty makes it an opinion. And while opinions are necessary to persuasive argument, you can't say you leave opinions out, and then begin with a statement like that, and expect people to belive you throughout. You're setting yourself up for failure.

I commented on Democratic Representative Adam Shiff's Facebook page.

Because this is testimonial, it must be accepted as fact.

I chastised him for attacking Trump constantly.

That you chastized him is a testimonial fact.
That you believe he "constantly" attacks Trump is an opinion.

I reminded him that during a CAMPAIGN it is fair to attack a CANDIDATE.

This is a fact, though it borders on opinion because it is hard to concretely define what is "fair."

but after an election, it is a crime called SEDITION to attack the president of the United States.

This is a fact, but it is false. The sedition act, which made it illegal to criticize the president during war time, was passed in 1918 and repealed in 1921. And while the Supreme Court at the time upheld the act, it is very likely that today's justices would not rule in its favor, based on more recent decisions.

After the election, politics need to end, so that the process of actual governing can begin.

While I agree wholeheartedly, this is an opinion.

In other countries, attacking the leader would get one put in prison, or even shot.

This is a fact, but it does not work in your favor. The First Amendment of the US Constitution is where it is, because the founding fathers believed it protected our most sacred rights: freedom of religion, speech, and peacable assembly, or to petition the government for redress of grievances. Other than the articles themselves, which establish the government, no other law is higher than the first amendment. No presidential order, no congressional legislation, no court decision, not even the other amendments, may supercede the First. It is our most sacred law. The founding fathers placed it so because they had seen too many of their countrymen fined, arrested, beaten, and even killed because they spoke out against King George, Parliament, the colonial governors, or even the Lord Mayors or military leaders of the British Empire. We in the US preserve and protect the right to speak out against the government. In fact, it is not just a right, but it is our duty as members of a republic to not only share what we believe with regards to the government, but to inform the representatives themselves what we believe of their work, whether they should continue to do as they have, or change their behavior. And it is the duty of the media to report what the government is doing, especially in times of scandal, so that the people are rightfully informed and can develop intelligent opinions. It is what makes a republic work! To silence the media or the people is to cripple the republic, and to take the power out of the hands of the people where it rightfully belongs. As Albert Einstein said, "the state is for the people, not the people for the state."

Even in England which has "freedom of the press" there is an exception.. the press are forbidden from attacking the Queen (and to some degree the other Royals). To do so is a crime.

This fact, again, works against your thesis. Not only does the US protect speech as a sacred right, but the founding fathers so firmly believed in the right to speak out against the government that it is a large part of why it is unconstitutional for any US Citizen to hold a title of nobility (article 1 section 9). Any American who has been benighted by the Queen only holds an honorary title. The founding fathers firmly believed that no human being was above reproach, and therefore none should be so far above the law that they could not be reproached.

It is ironic that decades ago, there were fairly credible news programs.

This is an opinion.

In fact, believe it or not, CNN used to be the most credible news outlet in the world!

Without evidence, this is an opinion. The evidence needed: when was it so. According to what source was CNN demonstrated to be so credible?

Now it is fake news, the Clinton News Network of liberal propaganda, and frankly equivalent to a terrorist organization.

This is an opinion, and a strongly biased one at that.

Instead of REPORTING the news, they do little more than fan the flames of anarchy and anti-US sentiments.

This is also a strongly biased opinion.

Again, decades ago, there were credible news programs,

This needs evidence to be a fact.

and then came along programs that parodied the real news such as John Stewart's "Daily Show".

This is acceptably a fact. "The Daily Show" was intended to be comedy, and yes, it did at once point begin to exist.

That show began as being a funny comedy.

Fact.

but then people started preferring to watch the parodies of news (fake news) to real news.

I would say this needs evidence, but the use of what has become a propaganda term, "fake news", makes it opinion.

Most mainstream news media are now a group of ignorant, nihilistic talking heads.

This is an opinion.

I went on to point out that Adam Schiff and his liberal cronies don't care about the welfare of the USA.

This is neither fact nor opinion; it is speculation.

but instead care about covering their own asses, and pandering to the liberal populaces

Speculation.

to keep their worthless asses

Opinion.

in power sitting on a soft leather chair in the halls of Congress.

Speculation.

So much for the first paragraph. Onward! ====================================================================

Does my comment sound reasonable?

Not really, no.

It didn't to Adam Schiff and Facebook.

Speculation. Yes, your account was closed; but you do not know that it was Schiff who did it. It could have been based on a complaint by any user who was offended by your words, or just wanted to silence you. (Which, by the way, appears to be what you hope to do to Schiff. Hence, why I think your statement does not sound reasonable; you seem to be asking to do exactly what you are complaining they did to you.)

The very next day after posting that, my facebook account that I had for 10 years was not just suspended, but permanently disabled with no warning, no explanation, and no opportunity to refute or appeal the punishment.

As a testimonial, I cannot refute this as fact.

I can't even access my OWN comments from that account, to retrieve 10 years of comments and posts and my friends list.

Testimonial fact.

Talk about censorship!

Opinion, unless you have a court ruling declaring it as such.

The way Facebook works now is.. if you dare to say anything that means anything.. you are risking having your account permanently terminated!

Opinion. While there is truth beneath this statement, it is hyperbolically exaggerated.

All facebook wants is all your email addresses, phone numbers, real names, family members names, photos, addresses, cell phone numbers, work history, hobbies..

Speculative, but it's more likely to be false than true. Facebook's primary duty is to the owners of it's more than 20 million shares of stock. It's goal is to make money for them. But facebook does not make money through it's account holders; you are actually its product! Facebook sells you, the user, to its real money makers: advertisers! That's right, you and I and our accounts are the things sitting on the shelves in the Facebook store, to be picked up and sold to its customers, the people placing suggested posts and memetic virii on your wall, and yes, even harvesting general use data from your account. The advertisers are Facebook's end users. We are merely the resource which it uses to make that money. And so, just like in the produce section at the grocery, if the customer finds something which they believe to be rotten, Facebook will dutifully expel it from the sales floor. And that means, if a customer finds your posts to be too politically charged, or too offensive, then yes, they will use the influence of their banking accounts to have Facebook shut you down.

and they DO even sometimes ask for social security numbers as a form of identification

Is this anecdotal? Has this happened to you, or is it hearsay?

(which is a felony).

This is a fact, but it is generally false. Federal Law only says that certain agencies may not require your SSN in order to do business. State agencies must disclose whether it is required or not, and why it is required. Private agencies are not so restricted, at the federal level. Of course, you are required to disclose your SSN when startiong a financial action or making some other action to be reported to the IRS, such as begining a new employment. Some states make it illegal to request your SSN, but not all.

They are like the NSA which collects data on people.

Opinion.

Facebook they directly or indirectly supplies this information to anybody who will pay for it, including telemarketers, advertisers, government, information services that sell your information for big $$$, etc.

As I said above, those are Facebook's end users. You are the product they are selling. It is up to you to decide whether you want to continue to be said product, or to close your account. No one is forcing you to be a Facebook account holder.

This is not my opinion, it is a fact, because I get phone calls and snail mail in my post box addressed to names that I only use on Facebook.

Yes, but it does not support your case.

By the way, name one other social networking site OTHER than Facebook which requires one to provide real names, phone numbers, etc.

Google Plus, unless they've changed their initial opinion. There was quite the stink about it, in their early years. (And by the way, I am not using my real name on Facebook, and there is no penalty being meted against me. Facebook does not have my phone number. And my attached email uses yet another alias.)

There isn't one.

I just disproved this fact.

That is absurd for many reasons.

Opinion.

one reason is if you have a common name such as "John Smith" or "Jose Menendez" there is little chance that anybody could ever find you on Facebook.

This is a fact.

Also, if you had a name such as "Englebert Kleppers" then you have no anonymity at all.

This is also a fact.

In the past, I used to tell people that they were crazy to ever give out their real names, real phone numbers, real addresses, where they work, and pictures of their families.

As a testimonial, this is a fact. And again, I wholeheartedly agree with the opinion you used to share, but it remains an opinion.

That opens the door to all sorts of disasters such as past relationships coming back to haunt the person..

This is a fact.

people in the workplace interfering with one's family life,

Or losing jobs; I actually lost a job because of social media - and not Facebook.

children being put in jeopardy from enemies of their parents, blackmail, impersonation, identity theft, etc.

This is a fact.

And thus ends your second paragraph. ====================================================================

So there you have it, why I, as a debate judge, would not vote in favor of your case, torn down to the micro level. And again, remember that I am a conservative, so I actually lean towards your opinion of liberals. However, I find myself pushing more and more to the center as I see that conservatives are really much the same.

So let me close with this: was there a point to your statement, other than to decry liberals as infectuous pustules, begging to be lanced and sanitzied? Because if that's all it was, then there really is no value to your thesis in the first place. All you're doing is essentially sticking out your tongue at liberals and saying, "Nyah, nyah, poo on you!" There's nothing you're really persuading towards, no point which you wish anyone to believe which isn't already widely held ("Censorship is bad!"), to which you can actually persuade anyone. There simply is no such thing as widespread persuasion to convince someone that their political beliefs are bad and must be abandoned, short of persecution and criminalization, such as has been done by the worst dictators in history, and that is more a persuasion of action, not a persuasion of belief. If anything, it drives those opponents further into their beliefs as they now see the opposition to which they are to be driven as evil and oppressive.

grevmo

@bob5678:

Are you triggered because your president is a failure? Either way we win. He gets impeached for being a traitor and colluding with Russia = win. He sticks around loses a war in Syria and North Korea and Iran and causes the economy to collapse = win.

Uh, no.

I'm sticking to my guns on what I was saying throughout September and October of 2016: No matter whether Clinton or Trump wins, the American people will lose. And while I can't provide evidence that we would have lost under Hillary, I can certainly point to evidence that with Trump, We The People are losing.

Even with the Syrian action: I approve that Trump listened to the American people and took action (he stated a few days ago that he had no intention of responding to Assad's use of chemical weapons; it's an internal matter and their problem - but the American people cried out and he changed his mind, and bombed an air field), but I strongly disapprove that he called a Syrian government ally to affirm his action before he took it, and that his so-called attack was as impotent as a 110-year-old man who's never heard of Viagra. The airport was up and running the next day, so all we did was waste 59 rather expensive missiles, and reinforced Daesh's view of American incompetence.

strangeloop

Grevmo, nobody cares that you're a "debate judge". On the internet, a wise man once said, everyone is equal behind the keyboard. For example, I could bring up that I have a PhD in statistics, but I don't because it's irrelevant.

The fact that you keep clinging on to your meaningless claim as a means of presenting yourself as an authority shows how little you actually understand about how debate on the internet actually works and also how empty your platitudes on fact vs. opinion really are.

@grevmo:

I strongly disapprove that he called a Syrian government ally to affirm his action before he took it, and that his so-called attack was as impotent as a 110-year-old man who's never heard of Viagra.

You'd risk war with Russia just because you'd like to think of America as Team America, World Police punishing evil doers across the globe? South Park parodied this for a reason, and that's because the idea that we have the moral authority to mete out punishment, consequences be damned, anywhere on the globe at any time – that idea is flat out retarded. It's not just retarded, it's insane. America is done playing the world police, despite what you neocon warmongers would like. As a country, we simply do not have the resources or moral authority to play that role.

Dene

deleted

magentas

The topic was "Should I post my collection of posts that give liberals nightmares?"

So far, all you have done is give us nightmares that anyone would be stupid enough to believe the crap you do.

grevmo

@strangeloop:

Grevmo, nobody cares that you're a "debate judge". On the internet, a wise man once said, everyone is equal behind the keyboard. For example, I could bring up that I have a PhD in statistics, but I don't because it's irrelevant.

The fact that you keep clinging on to your meaningless claim as a means of presenting yourself as an authority shows how little you actually understand about how debate on the internet actually works and also how empty your platitudes on fact vs. opinion really are.

I've been an internet user since CARL was actually a series of libraries exclusively in Colorado. I know how it works, and I will continue to establish experience-based authority based when it is appropriate to do so. For example, if you were sharing statistics, then your PhD would have value for citation, and I would respect what you have to say more in that field. But in this case, you're just piling things higher and deeper, so citing your doctorate has no real-world value. Ironically, whereas I cited my experience because it was germane to the topic, you cited yours to be a bully.

@grevmo:

I strongly disapprove that he called a Syrian government ally to affirm his action before he took it, and that his so-called attack was as impotent as a 110-year-old man who's never heard of Viagra.

You'd risk war with Russia just because you'd like to think of America as Team America, World Police punishing evil doers across the globe? South Park parodied this for a reason, and that's because the idea that we have the moral authority to mete out punishment, consequences be damned, anywhere on the globe at any time – that idea is flat out retarded. It's not just retarded, it's insane. America is done playing the world police, despite what you neocon warmongers would like. As a country, we simply do not have the resources or moral authority to play that role.

No, but I believe that it is our responsibility to clean up our messes. Daesh exists because we created it, and is now terrorizing people around the world, but most especially in the Middle East. The civil war in Syria is not our business, per se, but Assad's use of chemical weapons is; he wouldn't have those weapons if we hadn't forced them out of Iraq. Saddam Hussein sent Assad those missiles in the eleventh hour before Dubya's deadline, in a too-little-too-late gesture to keep Bush from invading.

As for Trump's actions, there's such a thing as operational security, and Trump seems to understand it about as poorly as Obama.

strangeloop

@grevmo:

I've been an internet user since CARL was actually a series of libraries exclusively in Colorado. I know how it works, and I will continue to establish experience-based authority based when it is appropriate to do so.

Your degree in "debate judging" is absolutely irrelevant to the topic at hand. You being a "debate judge" has less than zero bearing on your claim that Frederick's substitutes opinion for fact. In fact, it makes your claim look weak as fuck, because it's a blatant and classic appeal to authority fallacy. Surely as a "debate judge" you should know that.

For example, if you were sharing statistics, then your PhD would have value for citation, and I would respect what you have to say more in that field.

Then you'd be a fool. Anyone on the internet can claim to have a PhD. I mean, I do, but you have no way of knowing that I'm telling the truth. That is why credentials are completely irrelevant doubly so on the internet, even more than they already are in real life. Accept an argument because it makes sense, not because someone claims to be an expert on it.

Ironically, whereas I cited my experience because it was germane to the topic, you cited yours to be a bully.

lol you must really be new to the internet.

@grevmo:

No, but I believe that it is our responsibility to clean up our messes. Daesh exists because we created it, and is now terrorizing people around the world, but most especially in the Middle East. The civil war in Syria is not our business, per se, but Assad's use of chemical weapons is; he wouldn't have those weapons if we hadn't forced them out of Iraq. Saddam Hussein sent Assad those missiles in the eleventh hour before Dubya's deadline, in a too-little-too-late gesture to keep Bush from invading.

Even if I were to accept the argument the Assad wouldn't have chemical weapons if not for the U.S., this is almost completely irrelevant to your earlier statement about not informing Russia of the attack. You talk about national responsibility, yet in just the previous breath, lambast Trump for not purposely provoking Russia? Russia is not our enemy, and unlike the U.S., did not create and support ISIS as you noted. There is no good reason for the U.S. to antagonize Russia.

grevmo

@strangeloop:

Your degree in "debate judging" is absolutely irrelevant to the topic at hand. You being a "debate judge" has less than zero bearing on your claim that Frederick's substitutes opinion for fact. In fact, it makes your claim look weak as fuck, because it's a blatant and classic appeal to authority fallacy. Surely as a "debate judge" you should know that.

I haven't claimed to have a degree in anything. My degrees are not germane to the topic, so I haven't discussed them.
The fallacy is "appeal to inappropriate authority, like quoting Carl Sagan in his discussions on theology, when he was an astrophysicist, or claiming to understand how debate works, when your degree is in statistics.

Then you'd be a fool. Anyone on the internet can claim to have a PhD. I mean, I do, but you have no way of knowing that I'm telling the truth. That is why credentials are completely irrelevant doubly so on the internet, even more than they already are in real life. Accept an argument because it makes sense, not because someone claims to be an expert on it.

I prefer to go by the maxim, "trust, but verify." And which of us are you calling the liar? Me, in which case you're committing an ad hominem fallacy, or yourself, in which case, there's no further value in discussing this with you.

lol you must really be new to the internet.

More ad hominem attacks? Nope, there is no further value in discussing anything with you, as all you're going to do is troll. Good day.