What Message Does The Proud Boys Heavy Sentencing Send?

[JustOneWay]

How did he do that?

He didn't.

 

[Arcangl86]

Some call it revisionism, some call it the liberal agenda. They support gay pride and abortion. He was on the justice committee to do what he could to block conservatives with their traditional view of the constitution.

I'm sorry, how exactly is that turning the Constitution to toilet paper?

 

[JustOneWay]

Some call it revisionism, some call it the liberal agenda. They support gay pride and abortion. He was on the justice committee to do what he could to block conservatives with their traditional view of the constitution.

Gay pride and abortion do not appear in the Constitution. You should read it sometime.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Biden turned our constitution into toilet paper. It would appear that not everyone agrees with what the Constitution says.

Your disagreements with the Biden Administration's policies does not justify the attack on Mike Pence or any call to try him for his "disloyalty" to Trump. (While demonstrating his loyalty to the Constitution.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

Gay pride and abortion do not appear in the Constitution. You should read it sometime.

(Neither does "God".)

 

[essentialsaltes]

Some call it revisionism, some call it the liberal agenda. They support gay pride and abortion. He was on the justice committee to do what he could to block conservatives with their traditional view of the constitution.

What part of the constitution gets 'toilet papered' by accepting homosexuality or abortion? The rest of your comment is about a liberal view versus a conservative view of the constitution. That's just differences of opinion. Nothing destructive to the document itself.

 

[JustOneWay]

What makes you think I think that?

You make a valid point. For the way thing were or the way they should be. But that is not the world we live in now.

I was in sales and it comes down to making a decision if we are going to get the job done or live in fantasy land.

I gave up hope when Kennedy was shot.
We thought he could make a difference.
We thought this could be a better world.

You've been hopeless for 50 years? Sorry to hear.

 

[Diamond72]

You've been hopeless for 50 years? Sorry to hear.

My hope is in Jesus, not the American Government.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

The intent is to prevent this from happening again. They wanted to fight the charges and now they are sentenced to twice as much time as they were offered in a plea deal. They are using laws that go back to the civil war.

For starters, don't hire a president, that told his solders to fight like hell, or you won't have a country anymore. Which got them in trouble. Stop watching news station, that knowingly allow their news people lie to the public. Fire everyone that new Trump was lying about his claims of election fraud. And didn't stop these lies.

 

[FireDragon76]

Some call it revisionism, some call it the liberal agenda. They support gay pride and abortion. He was on the justice committee to do what he could to block conservatives with their traditional view of the constitution.

The Constitution protects peoples rights and freedom of expression . How exactly are abortion rights and gay rights incompatible with that?

 

[Diamond72]

The Constitution protects peoples rights and freedom of expression . How exactly are abortion rights and gay rights incompatible with that?

Where have you been? This has already been settled in the court. You have to sell them a cake. But you do not have to decorate it for them. We do not have to support them in what they are doing. WE do not have to approve. WE can take a stand for the truth and what is good, right, pure and true. We do not have a right to judge them and their sin because as Jesus said: Let him that is without sin throw the first stone. If we started throwing stones no one would be left, we would all destroy each other.

We all have rights that should be defended. They want me to defend their rights but they are not willing to defend mine. They do not want me to persecute them, but they think it if fine for them to persecute me

 

[Arcangl86]

Where have you been? This has already been settled in the court. You have to sell them a cake. But you do not have to decorate it for them. We do not have to support them in what they are doing. WE do not have to approve. WE can take a stand for the truth and what is good, right, pure and true. We do not have a right to judge them and their sin because as Jesus said: Let him that is without sin throw the first stone. If we started throwing stones no one would be left, we would all destroy each other.

We all have rights that should be defended. They want me to defend their rights but they are not willing to defend mine. They do not want me to persecute them, but they think it if fine for them to persecute me

And what does this have to do with Biden "turning the Constitution into toilet paper?" Especially since the laws you are so concerned about were state not federal.

 

[Diamond72]

Your disagreements with the Biden Administration's policies does not justify the attack on Mike Pence

In your opinion, when are people justified to attack? What right does a war-monger government have to attack and persecute people who are clearly less of a warmonger than they are? The government is here to serve us. We are not here to serve the Government. As Reagan said in his farewell address: ""I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts."

 

[Diamond72]

And what does this have to do with Biden "turning the Constitution into toilet paper?"

I am not going to explain the difference between a liberal and a conservative. You are going to have to figure that tour on your own. I can tell you what chatbot says about it.

Liberal View of the Constitution:

1. Living Document: Liberals often view the Constitution as a "living document" that should adapt to changing societal needs and values. They argue that the framers intended the Constitution to be flexible and open to interpretation, allowing for the expansion of rights and government powers as circumstances evolve.
2. Broad Interpretation: Liberals tend to favor a broad interpretation of the Constitution's text, including the Bill of Rights. They believe that the Constitution should be read expansively to protect individual rights and promote social justice, even if the text itself does not explicitly address certain issues.
3. Emphasis on Equal Protection: Liberals emphasize the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and argue that it should be used to combat discrimination and promote equality, particularly in areas such as civil rights, gender equality, and LGBTQ+ rights.
4. Government as a Positive Force: Liberals often see a more active role for the government in addressing societal problems, such as healthcare, education, and environmental protection. They argue that the Constitution should be interpreted to empower the government to address these issues.

Conservative View of the Constitution:

1. Originalism and Textualism: Conservatives often adhere to originalism and textualism, which means interpreting the Constitution based on its original intent or the plain meaning of the text. They argue that the Constitution should be understood as it was at the time of its adoption.
2. Limited Government: Conservatives generally advocate for a limited role of the federal government and emphasize states' rights. They believe that the Constitution's primary purpose is to restrict government power and protect individual liberties.
3. Second Amendment: Conservatives tend to strongly support the Second Amendment and the individual right to bear arms, arguing that it is a fundamental constitutional right.
4. Property Rights and Economic Freedom: Conservatives often stress the protection of property rights and economic freedom, interpreting the Constitution in a way that limits government interference in the economy.
5. Traditional Values: Some conservatives argue that the Constitution should be interpreted in line with traditional moral and social values, particularly in areas like marriage, family, and religious freedom.

It's essential to recognize that not all liberals or conservatives hold the same views on these issues, and there are many shades of opinion within each ideology. Additionally, legal scholars and judges may have varying approaches to constitutional interpretation, and court decisions can shape the evolution of constitutional law over time.

 

[Arcangl86]

I am not going to explain the difference between a liberal and a conservative. You are going to have to figure that tour on your own. I can tell you what chatbot says about it.

Liberal View of the Constitution:

1. Living Document: Liberals often view the Constitution as a "living document" that should adapt to changing societal needs and values. They argue that the framers intended the Constitution to be flexible and open to interpretation, allowing for the expansion of rights and government powers as circumstances evolve.
2. Broad Interpretation: Liberals tend to favor a broad interpretation of the Constitution's text, including the Bill of Rights. They believe that the Constitution should be read expansively to protect individual rights and promote social justice, even if the text itself does not explicitly address certain issues.
3. Emphasis on Equal Protection: Liberals emphasize the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and argue that it should be used to combat discrimination and promote equality, particularly in areas such as civil rights, gender equality, and LGBTQ+ rights.
4. Government as a Positive Force: Liberals often see a more active role for the government in addressing societal problems, such as healthcare, education, and environmental protection. They argue that the Constitution should be interpreted to empower the government to address these issues.

Conservative View of the Constitution:

1. Originalism and Textualism: Conservatives often adhere to originalism and textualism, which means interpreting the Constitution based on its original intent or the plain meaning of the text. They argue that the Constitution should be understood as it was at the time of its adoption.
2. Limited Government: Conservatives generally advocate for a limited role of the federal government and emphasize states' rights. They believe that the Constitution's primary purpose is to restrict government power and protect individual liberties.
3. Second Amendment: Conservatives tend to strongly support the Second Amendment and the individual right to bear arms, arguing that it is a fundamental constitutional right.
4. Property Rights and Economic Freedom: Conservatives often stress the protection of property rights and economic freedom, interpreting the Constitution in a way that limits government interference in the economy.
5. Traditional Values: Some conservatives argue that the Constitution should be interpreted in line with traditional moral and social values, particularly in areas like marriage, family, and religious freedom.

It's essential to recognize that not all liberals or conservatives hold the same views on these issues, and there are many shades of opinion within each ideology. Additionally, legal scholars and judges may have varying approaches to constitutional interpretation, and court decisions can shape the evolution of constitutional law over time.

I didn't ask you to define the difference between a liberal and a conservative interpretation of the Constitution. I asked how Biden was "turning the constitution into toilet paper." That implies showing contempt for the document, not simply having a different understanding of how to interpret it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

In your opinion, when are people justified to attack?

My opinion is irrelevant. There is settled law on the matter. The Constitution guarantees the right to petition of grievances. Petitions do not come with weapons, violence, or threats to kill people. Are you claiming there is a "right" to murder the VP (or perform extra-judicial execution) in *any* circumstance.

What right does a war-monger government have to attack and persecute people who are clearly less of a warmonger than they are?

What part of Mike Pence and the 117th Congress are "warmongers" and even if they were how does that justify a violent attack.

And now we move to cheep political philosophy...

The government is here to serve us. We are not here to serve the Government. As Reagan said in his farewell address: ""I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts."

I'm starting to see your (and others problem). This sort of nonsense rhertoric about limiting government make the government the "enemy" despite the claim that government serves us.

(Also, the physics is horrible, Mr. Reagan. Shame on you.)

 

[essentialsaltes]

Where have you been? This has already been settled in the court. You have to sell them a cake. But you do not have to decorate it for them.

Biden did nothing to make this happen or not happen.

 

[wing2000]

Pence should have been convicted as a traitor against his own administration and against himself. We are told that a new governent is coming.

VP Pence took an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution (as does every elected official) . Apparently, you believe loyalty to "his own administration and against himself" takes precedence over the oath he took.


As Judge Luttig, the conservative judge from whom VP Pence sought counsel, wrote on Twitter the day prior to January 6th :

“The only responsibility and power of the Vice President under the Constitution is to faithfully count the electoral college votes as they have been cast,” Judge Luttig wrote.

“The Constitution does not empower the vice president to alter in any way the votes that have been cast, either by rejecting certain votes or otherwise,” Judge Luttig continued.

 

[Diamond72]

VP Pence took an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution (as does every elected official) . Apparently, you believe loyalty to "his own administration and against himself" takes precedence over the oath he took.

Apparently, you believe in a different constitution than the one I believe in. That is exactly what Pence did not do is defend the Constitution. He violated the oath he took. They did not need Pence to do what he did. They could have done it without him. If anyone is to blame for what happened that day, it was Pence.

 

[Diamond72]

“The only responsibility and power of the Vice President under the Constitution is to faithfully count the electoral college votes as they have been cast,” Judge Luttig wrote.

That is exactly the point. There was a question as to the count. He could have remained neutral. He could have said I cannot verify the count one way or the other. If anyone stirred up the pot, it was Pence.