Liberal hysteria

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Liberal hysteria

Post #1

Post by Elijah John »

Chuck Schumer just threatened Supreme Court justices Gorsuch and Kavanagh over an abortion case they are hearing. Saying they will "pay the price" and "will release the whirlwind" and "you won't know what hit you".

https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/03/04/ ... the-price/

Scroll down..

For debate.

1) Are such threats legal? Or are they covered under "free speech"?

2) Is this hysterical rhetoric a sign of desperation from liberal Democrats?

3) And who in the world does Chuck Schumer think he is, what gives him the right to threaten Supreme Court justices?

Chief justice Roberts issued a stern rebuke. I wonder if that is all that is likely to happen, legally.
Last edited by Elijah John on Thu Mar 05, 2020 1:08 am, edited 2 times in total.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: Liberal hysteria

Post #11

Post by Bust Nak »

Late reply, didn't realise you responded.
Elijah John wrote: Thu Mar 05, 2020 4:48 pm Because Supreme Court justices are not elected officials.
Yes, so how do they get their post? It's not by killing a current Justice, is it?
Perhaps to a reasonable person like yourself, but to Antifah extremists who have been known to commit violence in the name of "protest", or a BLM extremist. First of all Schumer has no business threatening SCJ at all, secondly he should know the incendiary potential of his words, and should weigh them far more carefully.
Seems to me like he weighted them just right, incendiary enough to lure those on the right to expose their hypocrisy re: threats are bad except when Trump makes it, not incendiary enough to incite any violence.
So critiquing threats to the Supreme Court as dangerous to Democracy (if allowed to stand) is merely "opinion"?
Yes.
And citing President Trump as the real threat without any supporting evidence is not??
No, that's also an opinion.
Is that the way we do business in a Democracy, threaten when we don't get our way?
Depends, threaten to vote people out? Absolutely.
And harass, assemble on peoples lawn with bullhorns? Nefarious ends justifying nefarious means? Vote? Fair, harass and attempt to intimdate? No way. Schumer's words sounded far more like the latter.
Seems rather mild in comparison to the tactics of the right.
That's a laugh, coming from someone who is defending the "non-parisan" Chuck Schumer, who along with Adam Schiff and co exemplify extreme political bias.
Opinion noted.
Even IF, (big "if") that is what he was attempting, intimidation has no place in a Democracy. A third world Banana Republic maybe, but not in a civilized Democracy.
In which case welcome to the third world banana Republic of America.
And there are no Left-wing extremists on their list?? Are you sure about that?
Don't know. Presumably there are?
It was a Bernie Sanders supporter who tried to kill Republicans at a softball game, and seriously wounded Rep Steve Scalise. It was CNN and co who attempted to smear the Covington Catholics kids and were sued for their efforts, and the Black Hebrew Israelites commited murder in Baltimore recently...shall I continue?
By all means, and still the right is more of a terrorist threat. Says it all really.
So threatening Supreme Court Justices by name and attempting to intimidate them is "going high" according to the Democrat party?? Or is that just their Senate Minority leaders idea of Democrat ethics.
Yep.
You mean abortion on demand? I call that baby killing and infanticide. Abortion kills baby women too. Yeah, real positive.
There is no denying that it's a positive for society as a whole pragmatically, regardless of how you feel about it morally.
For that to work, you have to tighten the border. Democrats stand for wide open borders, free tuition for illegal aliens, and free health care for them. That helps the alien at the expense of the American taxpayer, but not the American middle class, working class.
All the more reason for more leftist style worker protection.
Bernie Sanders himself is on record saying that illegal immigration depresses wages for the American worker. Bernie has gone even further to the Left.
Still my favorite candidate.
Democrats have given up on the average American citizen, and instead of attempting to win them back, they are attempting to import more and more immigrants.
Mere immigrants or illegal immigrants?
I ask you the same question I would ask any current Democrat candidate while they advocate wide-open borders. Where does it stop?
The status quo before Trump took over, how does that sound?

koko

Re: Liberal hysteria

Post #12

Post by koko »

open borders ... That helps the alien at the expense of the American taxpayer, but not the American middle class, working class.

Funny how we keep seeing allegations here that Democrats want open borders when it was Reagan and Bush who opened the borders. Then they attempted to grant blanket amnesty. While it is true that Republican conservatives stopped Bush from doing so, it is no small coincidence that they are from the same party. Further, Republicans like Trump refuse to prosecute Republican capitalists who hire illegals. Blame should go to them more than anyone else.

Black Hebrew Israelites commited murder in Baltimore recently

As religious conservatives they are likelier to be Republican. However, I will gladly believe they should be included among Democrats if the linkage can be proven.

abortion
Margaret Sanger's principle financiers were all Republican: Rockefeller, Bush, and Gamble. Google for more details.




As a non partsian middle-of-the-roader I have criticized both parties and extremism. In my experience I have always found the far right to be more radical in its extremism. Yes, we recently had violence in the streets. But nobody has presented any evidence that the Democratic party has endorsed any of it. Same with the unproven allegations that Antifa or BLM have promoted any of it. By contrast, we have seen proof that right wingers have been found to instigate troubles and that police have committed criminal violence. No liberals there so far as I know.

Post Reply