Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Undercard Jamoke

Members
  • Content Count

    3,296
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Undercard Jamoke

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Favourite Wrestler
    John Morrison/Maryse
  • Favourite Music
    Elvis Presley
  • Occupation
    Lord of Mordor
  • Favourite Wrestling Company
    WCW
  • Orientation
    Straight
  • Ethnicity
    Saiyan
  • Favourite TV Show
    Game of Thrones

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. The primary issue President was elected to help alleviate was the issue of illegal immigration. Stopping and or seriously reducing illegal immigration would greatly improve the United States both socially and economically. Specifically regarding crime, non-assimilation, and driving down wages. Withdrawing from conflicts such as Syria (and having an America First view of foreign policy in general), putting American businesses first stopping harmful international free trade practices, and restrictive travel bans on countries which pose a serious security risk are all beneficial policies purposed/campaigned by the President. If the President were to enact his purposed policies on these issues just to name a few it would be greatly beneficial to the U.S.. The President and his purposed polices have a lot to offer the country.
  2. Franklin Pierce is routinely ranked as one of the worst President's ever: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States Hence why nobody really ever speaks well of the guy or mentions him.
  3. According to U.S. caselaw "hate speech" is not a recognized exception to the first amendment of the United States constitution." You are incorrect that "hate speech" exists as a valid exception to the first amendment, that exception does not exist. None of this disputes what Gen said? Like, he isn't even referring to US laws or anything saying hate speech exists. Someone could go down the street and with a handspeaker and easily say nasty racist things. That would be hate or hateful speech even if US law doesn't say it is. Not rocket science. What he or anyone else personally finds to be "hate speech" (whatever that is) doesn't matter, the law matters and according to U.S. law "hate speech" isn't a valid restriction upon speech. "Hate speech" exceptions do not exist in U.S. law. Again, we don't care. Neato. But "hate speech" isn't a thing.
  4. According to U.S. caselaw "hate speech" is not a recognized exception to the first amendment of the United States constitution." You are incorrect that "hate speech" exists as a valid exception to the first amendment, that exception does not exist. None of this disputes what Gen said? Like, he isn't even referring to US laws or anything saying hate speech exists. Someone could go down the street and with a handspeaker and easily say nasty racist things. That would be hate or hateful speech even if US law doesn't say it is. Not rocket science. What he or anyone else personally finds to be "hate speech" (whatever that is) doesn't matter, the law matters and according to U.S. law "hate speech" isn't a valid restriction upon speech. "Hate speech" exceptions do not exist in U.S. law.
  5. According to U.S. caselaw "hate speech" is not a recognized exception to the first amendment of the United States constitution." You are incorrect that "hate speech" exists as a valid exception to the first amendment, that exception does not exist.
  6. That's just a nonsensical statement. Hate speech doesn't exist? What does that even pretend to mean? "Hate speech"...language that is full of hate, or promotes hateful ideals. How is that "not a thing"? Surely you might want to rethink that dumb comment. Not that I'm surprised (based on things you've said in the past)...but, Christ. There is no hate speech exception to the first amendment. So no, hate speech is not a thing legally. Hence people you may think are "bigoted" are free to express their opinions.
  7. Explicitly advocating/encouraging illegal activities is not the same as having a lawful opinion which you disagree with or may find offensive. What? Literally replace "I'm going to shoot up a school." with "I am going to take to my country back for white people by getting rid of everybody else." and you have a Nazi. How the hell is that an opinion? That is a threat, they both are. Threats are opinions? You're trying to do this "I see everything objectively" thing but it really isn't working. You're smarter than this. Vague statement, but if "getting ride of everybody else" means advocating the U.S. take lawful steps toward enacting specific desired immigration/deportation/citizenship policies then no that would not be the same as advocating explicit illegal violence. Explicitly advocating/encouraging illegal activities is not the same as having a lawful opinion which you disagree with or may find offensive. It's not a lawful "opinion" though. In the United States "bigoted" opinions are indeed lawful.
  8. Explicitly advocating/encouraging illegal activities is not the same as having a lawful opinion which you disagree with or may find offensive.
  9. Consequences are usually none violent, i.e. losing your job, disassociation from organizations, breaking up of business deals and personal relationships or simply not listening/ignoring. If you include physical violence against someone who has done nothing else other than peacefully express their opinion, then yes, you are the bad guy. Killing/assaulting people due to nothing else other than "I'm offended!" is nonsensical and shortsighted when other peaceful legal measures are available. Condoning such violence opens up the avenue of violence as a legitimate means to silence any opinion anyone thinks is detrimental to society which is obviously very terrible for a coherent/peaceful society. Also "hate speech" is not a thing.
  10. I would probably call them violent since assaulting people who have done nothing but express opinions you deem to be "bigoted" is very arbitrary standard and not to mention very illegal.
  11. The problem I have with anti-SJWs is that many of them are too quick on the trigger, and see SJW propaganda/influence where there isn't any. Meaning, they see what they want to see. Very similar to how many SJWs see racism/sexism/inequality where there isn't any. The knee-jerk behavior is the same - they just represent different sides of the coin. Horseshoeing different groups together just because you might disagree with them is a lazy and sloppy way of thinking.
  12. No, they're really not. Both are extremist interpretations of a religion. The only major difference is that one exists in the United States, where your average citizen is capable of seeing that they're complete nutcases...and the other exists in a region where people have been under siege for their entire lives, and have no way to judge was is true and what is bullshit. The reason why the Westboro Baptist Church isn't in the same class as ISIS, is because everyone treats them like a joke, and they aren't able to draw new members as a result. If you dropped a faction like the WBC into a region where people were desperate enough to feed off their bullshit, hateful rhetoric...they would easily grow into a much darker entity than they already are. And that was never what I was saying to begin with...it wasn't meant to be a literal comparison of the WNC to ISIS. I was just saying that ISIS does not represent the Islamic religion...they represent a fringe group of people who misinterpret that religion...just as the WBC does. Hence, your comments about "the religion of peace" are horse shit. ISIS does represent Islam and they really don't misrepresent the ideology that much at all. The Koran and Hadith are filled with verses supporting the actions of ISIS. Muhammad was a warlord who participated in battles and had people killed. Islam is violent and ISIS is very Islamic.
  13. See...saying shit like this is why people don't like you or take you seriously, Jamoke. What you're saying there is basically the equivalent of saying that Westboro Baptist Church represents all Christians. You've just been so heavily conditioned to think that it's okay to talk shit about the Islamic/Muslim faith...but it isn't. You sound ignorant when you do it. The Westboro Baptist Church and Islamism are not equivalent. Those are two wildly different scenarios.
  14. Not political. At least, not until Trump makes an embarrassing statement on it. The driver did by allegedly shouting Allah akbar.
×
×
  • Create New...