Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Inconvenient lefties
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 20:15:21 -0400
Organization: Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgah'nagl Fhtagn.
Lines: 99
Message-ID: <uunfqr$v4iv$1@dont-email.me>
References: <utks3h$35980$1@dont-email.me>
 <17c2951988fe8093$63098$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>
 <uuj8q0$3rjq1$2@dont-email.me>
 <17c2cf26c4db72b2$7802$1100308$44d50e60@news.newsdemon.com>
 <uXidnTi_y4kvBpD7nZ2dnZfqn_EAAAAA@giganews.com> <uum1h8$juqp$1@dont-email.me>
 <atropos-E5C583.12321104042024@news.giganews.com>
Reply-To: fredp1571@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2024 00:15:24 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dfcafe902cfc4b5681de4315fb4f1626";
	logging-data="1020511"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18B99bQHaYY6FHdjFGT40vi"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Y0ANqveyl8ejonPW2JEQH/0T9oc=
In-Reply-To: <atropos-E5C583.12321104042024@news.giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5764

On 4/4/24 3:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <uum1h8$juqp$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 4/3/24 2:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Apr 3, 2024 at 8:36:11 AM PDT, "moviePig" <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/3/2024 5:50 AM, FPP wrote:
>>>>>    On 4/2/24 5:52 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>    On 4/2/2024 1:16 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>>    BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>    Mar 27, 2024 at 3:58:45 PM PDT, moviePig <never@nothere.com>:
>>>>>>>>>    3/27/2024 6:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>    Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>    BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why is it that burning the American flag is protected speech,
>>>>>>>>>>>> but if you burn an Alphabet Mafia rainbow flag, you can get
>>>>>>>>>>>> arrested for a hate crime?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You mean a flag that does not belong to you, not your own flag.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, I mean any rainbow flag. If you go buy one yourself, then take
>>>>>>>>>> it to an anti-troon protest and burn it, it's a hate crime.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But if you buy an American flag and take it to an Antifa riot and
>>>>>>>>>> burn it, protected speech.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The former action is one of hate, the latter is one of protest.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://ibb.co/0FpvG4S
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> moviePig is unparseable here. Is he stating that protestors protest
>>>>>>> against their friends and not their enemies? I'm so confused.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm here to help.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In general, people who burn an American flag do so in protest of their
>>>>>> own government's actions and policies, while those who burn a rainbow
>>>>>> flag do so to express their hate of queers.
>>>>>    
>>>>> If you own it, you can burn it.
>>>>
>>>> But not at a gay-pride march under laws against hate speech.
>>>
>>> There are no laws against hate speech in the United States. If any
>>> legislature should pass such a law, it would be unconstitutional.
> 
>> That was in the old Constitution. You know... the one Roberts, Alito,
>> IKavanaugh, and Barret swore up and down they would go by.
>> And then didn't.
>>
>> Settled law, my ass. Alito quoted a 17th century Witch Hunter in his
>> draft opinion on Roe (Dobbs).
> 
> Did he? That's awesome!
> 
>> Fuck this Illegitimate Supreme Court of Religious Fanatics.
> 
> This Supreme Court has reinforced free speech over government control
> and sanction at nearly every opportunity, so regardless of whether
> you're mentally fucking them or not (shudder), don't look for them to
> suddenly embrace the notion of carving out a heretofore never before
> noticed exception to the 1st Amendment and allow the government to start
> suddenly punishing people for 'hate speech'.
> 

This Supreme Court is illegitimate.  Filled with perjurers and corrupt 
grifters.

And your approval of them embracing a 17th century witch hunter tells us 
everything we need to know how you feel about rape - because that's what 
they were justifying, and you were applauding.

Rape.

> Alito chose to quote from Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th-century English jurist whose writings and reasonings have caused enduring damage to women for hundreds of years.
> 
> The so-called marital rape exemption — the legal notion that a married woman cannot be raped by her husband — traces to Hale. So does a long-used instruction to jurors to be skeptical of reports of rape.

Thanny... lover of rape justification.  Who would have thunk it?

> Alito’s opinion resurrects Hale, a judge who was considered misogynistic even by his era’s notably low standards. Hale once wrote a long letter to his grandchildren, dispensing life advice, in which he veered into a screed against women, describing them as “chargeable unprofitable people” who “know the ready way to consume an estate, and to ruin a family quickly.” 

Thanny... ever the Ladies Man!

 >> Settled law, my ass. Alito quoted a 17th century Witch Hunter in his
 >> draft opinion on Roe (Dobbs).
 >
 > Did he? That's awesome!

Well said!
-- 
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC 
Bible  25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0