On 12/10/22 8:11 PM, Micky DuPree wrote:
> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
>> MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:
>
>>> [Stacey Abrams] hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of
>>> government. That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to
>>> start. (And even if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no
>>> sign that she's maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot
>>> insurrection could have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)
>>
>> No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
>> calls voter suppression.
>
> Voter suppression I've head before,

Now *that's* a Freudian slip!

and some of it is just plain common
> sense. Why are the long lines to vote always in majority-minority
> districts? Why do voter roll purges of valid voters disproportionately
> disenfranchise minority voters? In a state where elections could turn
> on less than a percent of the vote, even small attempts at suppression
> could be a determining factor. More than that, though. People who are
> eligible to vote and registered to vote deserve to have their say even
> if it doesn't change the election outcome. One-person-one-vote is the
> atomic building block of free and fair elections.
>
> Another sharp distinction between Abrams and Trump is that she didn't go
> into semi-exile to piss and moan, but redoubled her efforts to get out
> the vote in the next election. Trump just does his tired rallies to the
> same MAGA base as before, which isn't going to help him with his lower
> vote problem. He doesn't care about getting more votes the next time,
> because he doesn't care about winning by the rules.
>
>
>> To me I think it's the height of idiocy that states are allowed to set
>> their own rules for a federal election but then I'm a Canadian and
>> you're an American and there are historical reasons for each
>> countries' election practices.
>
> I agree that there should be some minimum standards nationwide, but it's
> actually not a bad thing that it's so difficult to try to "hack" the
> whole nation during an election.
>
>
>> Despite the fact that I'm a long standing 'reality TV buff' (to the
>> point of seeking out and watching foreign Survivors and Big Brothers)
>> I still can't believe I watched 3 seasons of the Apprentice since
>> while I'd heard of him before that show (I also used to watch pro
>> wrestling but gave it up over how the WWF/WWE folks abused their
>> female "managers") it wasn't in good terms.
>
> I'll repeat what TV critic Aaron Barnhart said back when _The Apprentice_
> was still new. "What's second prize? Two jobs with Donald Trump?"
>
> -Micky
>

On 12/10/22 11:30 PM, Micky DuPree wrote:
> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 04:13:28 +0000 (UTC),
>> MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:
>
>>> Not so ironic. It's the heirs to the Dixiecrats (some of whom are
>>> still alive) that are using Republican state legislatures, funded and
>>> aimed by such guiding lights as ALEC, who have been waiting to pounce
>>> on the overturning of _Roe_ to enshrine abortion prohibitions in
>>> state law.
>>
>> No no no - the Dixiecrats WEREN'T Republicans - they were definitely
>> Democrats who rejected the racial equality provisions introduced by
>> Democrat presidents like Truman, JFK and LBJ. There's no way you can
>> link them to the GOP.
>
> They linked themselves to the GOP. They did so publicly and sometimes
> with much ado. C'mon, you can't have missed the great migration of the
> Dixiecrats (both elected officials and their constituencies) to the
> Republican Party. This isn't ancient history. Some of them are still
> alive today.
>
> Take Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina as the prototype, the
> exemplar of the breed. He even ran for president on the Dixiecrat Party
> ticket in the 1948 election. But in 1964, after the civil rights
> agitation of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, Thurmond changed his
> affiliation to the Republican Party and campaigned for Republican Barry
> Goldwater for president in 1964.
>
> Now, it didn't happen all at once, but five Southern states went for
> Goldwater. The so-called "southern strategy" appealed to the
> Dixiecrats, and by Reagan's election as president in 1980, a lot of
> Southerners had changed their party affiliation to the GOP, and you
> didn't see Eisenhower-style moderate Republicans anymore. The
> ideological heirs, and sometimes the actual literal heirs to the
> Dixiecrats were the modern Republican Party. Trump saw that better
> than the neo-cons, who deluded themselves into thinking that it was
> their party.
>
> The "party of Lincoln" became the party of Lincoln's assassins.
>
>
>> If you want to damn Nixon for anything he should be damned far more
>> for his "Southern Strategy" than his relatively small part in
>> Watergate which while terrible wasn't as terrible as the Southern
>> Strategy which hurt his party more than it helped it and especially in
>> the way it legitimized people like Wallace and Farbus and their ilk.
>
> What I damn Nixon for more than anything else is double-dealing with the
> South Vietnamese behind the back of the U.S. government in order to get
> elected. He was an amoral criminal through and through, putting himself
> above the good of the country.
>
>
>> 1968 was one of the closest US elections in history (while 1972 was
>> one of the greatest landslides) and while it's possible NOT making
>> Nixon's devil's deal with that crew RMN wouldn't have won in 68, it
>> set the GOP on a very bad path.
>
> It often paid off for them, though.

Excellent summation. Spot on.

Micky DuPree <MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply> wrote:
>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 20:24:14 -0800, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
>>> In article <cvWgL.43469$c6W2.39935@fx41.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>>>> On 11/27/2022 10:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>>>>> In article <hs78ohhu9bdjb6oth0kf77m9kggjd1i4nl@4ax.com>,
>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Which was perfectly reasonable for [Abrams] to do since the
>>>>>> changes made in our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done
>>>>>> solely to help elect Republicans.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but
>>>>> it's not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect
>>>>> Democrats?
>>>>
>>>> Trying to keep people from voting is antithetical to a democracy.
>>>
>>> Well, when the California legislature changed the state's voting laws
>>> to legalize ballot harvesting-- something that's illegal pretty much
>>> everywhere else because it's like rolling out the red carpet for
>>> voter fraud-- and said right out loud that the reason for the change
>>> was to help Democrat voter turnout, I must have missed the howls of
>>> outrage from the likes of Stacey Abrams and the boxes of talking
>>> heads on CNN and MSNBC bemoaning this partisan attack on the
>>> democratic process, and the think-pieces in the New York Times
>>> speculating that this marks the beginning of the fall of the
>>> republic.
>>
>> If they were actually engaged in voter fraud then they should be
>> arrested and put in jail.
>
>So much attention devoted to something that still hasn't been proven to
>happen. California is not hell-bent on stifling Republican voting. It
>used to be gerrymandered, but they voted in favor of independent
>redistricting a while back.

For congressional districts or for state legislative districts?

Implementing redistricting after the 2020 census, my state superpacked a
downstate district. In the primary, two incumbant Republicans ran
against each other, Rodney Davis (recognizeable as a conservative) and
Mary Miller (totally off the wall insane racist). Guess which one got
nominated and therefore elected in November?

>Has a red state done the same? (Serious question.)

Uh, Iowa?

Micky DuPree <MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply> wrote:
>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>>Sun, 27 Nov 2022 04:13:28 +0000 (UTC), Micky DuPree wrote:

>>>Not so ironic. It's the heirs to the Dixiecrats (some of whom are
>>>still alive) that are using Republican state legislatures, funded and
>>>aimed by such guiding lights as ALEC, who have been waiting to pounce
>>>on the overturning of _Roe_ to enshrine abortion prohibitions in
>>>state law.

>>No no no - the Dixiecrats WEREN'T Republicans - they were definitely
>>Democrats who rejected the racial equality provisions introduced by
>>Democrat presidents like Truman, JFK and LBJ. There's no way you can
>>link them to the GOP.

DuPree-splaining alert!

>They linked themselves to the GOP. They did so publicly and sometimes
>with much ado. C'mon, you can't have missed the great migration of the
>Dixiecrats (both elected officials and their constituencies) to the
>Republican Party. This isn't ancient history. Some of them are still
>alive today.

Gee, DuPree. H.G. knows more about recent American history than you do.
He stated it CORRECTLY. The Dixiecrats were Democrats, for the most
post. They changed their affiliation to the Republican Party and were no
longer being referred to as Dixiecrats. There was a massive re-alignment
of politics in the 1960s. Goldwater's refusal to vote for all of the
Johnson-era civil rights legislation forced a significant number of
black voters who had been Republicans -- you know, the party that was
traditionally for individual liberty going back to its founding -- and
became Democrats. The Dixiecrats in Congress that wanted to maintain
suppression of the black electorate in their home states became
affiliated with the Republican party, which became an odd mix of racists
and moderates but continued to lead the Democratic Party in support of
issues of individual liberty like women's rights.

It is not a matter of dispute that they had been Democrats and then
became Republicans. H.G. got it right. You got it wrong.

>Take Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina as the prototype, the
>exemplar of the breed. He even ran for president on the Dixiecrat Party
>ticket in the 1948 election.

Jesus fucking Christ. There was a split in the Democratic Party that
year and, yes, there was a third-party formed for the presidential
eleciton. They opposed Truman, who had ordered integration of the armed
forces. Thurmond won four states (plus got an elector from another
state). All states were part of the Confederacy during the Civil War but
Truman still won other states from the former Confederacy.

After 1948, politicians in this alignment wishing to retain
discrimination in law generally took over the Democratic Party in far
more states than Thurmond won. There really was no southern Republican
Party for the most part.

This is indisputable well-known history. The Dixiecrats (and those who
came later who were sympathetic to de jure segregation) were absolutely
positively Democrats prior to Johnson twisting enough arms to get the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed. Johnson correctly predicted that the
Democratic Party would thereafter lose the South. The parties realigned
as anticipated.

You got it wrong. H.G. got it right.

>But in 1964, after the civil rights agitation of Presidents Kennedy and
>Johnson, Thurmond changed his affiliation to the Republican Party and
>campaigned for Republican Barry Goldwater for president in 1964.

They changed party affiliation from Democratic to Republican. None of
the major southern politicians were still maintaining the split in the
Democratic party from 1948. They took over the Democratic Party after
the split in 1948. You got it very very wrong.

>. . .

On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 18:03:44 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>This is indisputable well-known history. The Dixiecrats (and those who
>came later who were sympathetic to de jure segregation) were absolutely
>positively Democrats prior to Johnson twisting enough arms to get the
>Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed. Johnson correctly predicted that the
>Democratic Party would thereafter lose the South. The parties realigned
>as anticipated.
>
>You got it wrong. H.G. got it right.

I would guess I'm probably quite a bit older than her - one of my
grandfathers (the Canadian one) ran twice (unsuccessfully) for the
Canadian Parliament. (I met one former prime minister and several high
muckymucks as a result - this is my preteen years we're discussing).

My other (American) grandfather on our monthly trips to see them in
Bellingham, WA loaded me up with magazines and books mostly on current
affairs, chemistry and electronics. He hoped to make an electrical
engineer out of me - he failed - but hopefully he's up there somewhere
and taking pride to see my son today (who is pretty much everything he
hoped I'd be).

I'm also a 25 year alumnus of soc.history.what-if which is a newsgroup
dealing both in actual history and counter-factuals. You get called
out quite quickly there if you don't have your facts straight and
often get referred to useful links and books. (They consider it a
success if somebody says their advice got the person to make a library
trip and do some reading before their next posting)

I don't pretend to be Mister "Hears all and Knows all" but read a lot
and have a good memory for trivia.

A local school for years ran trivia contests as fund raisers and on
this one occasion we had a tiebreak and I got put up against our
federal member of parliament and the question was to name all the
Canadian prime ministers from the very beginning to the present day. I
lost because I duplicate named a 1920s era prime minister who had two
non-consecutive terms (somewhat like Grover Cleveland who I believe
was the only US president who did so) else he and I probably would
have made it to the present day.

[I've joked several times here that I've said about politicians "I
hope they live to 150 but in a long and dignified retirement not in
office" and it was that member of parliament I said it to his face -
he knew I supported the other party - after his heart attack)

I have no doubt Mickey will have learned a LOT more by the time she
gets to be my age - and even if she doesn't always have her facts
straight is witty, entertaining and USUALLY civil and non-abusive
(unlike some I could name here) so while she's said some things I've
considered killfiling for have never seriously thought about it.

I actually rather like her even though we usually disagree on most
everything!

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:

> Part of the problem with US politics in the Trump era is that
> extremism on both sides have come to the fore and centrism of all
> sorts is withering.

It may be easy to get that impression, but if it were true, Joe Biden
wouldn't be president, and Trump-endorsed candidates would have swept
the midterms. That doesn't mean that Trumpism and his attendant
election denying aren't still a problem, but neither does it say that
"centrism of all sorts is withering."

-Micky

If there�s one thing the Washington political class admires, it�s a
shameless fund raiser.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is currently in the capital,
putting on a master class in separating starstruck sycophants from
their our cash. It�s no wonder the folks whose careers are paid for
with panhandled proceeds are treating him like a rock star. He�s a man
after their own hearts, and he�s about to talk them out of another $45
billion.

If the latest donation, more than enough to erect a border wall, build
1,000 high schools or 50 hospitals, or buy every man, woman, and child
in the U.S. a $130 Christmas present, goes through, it will bring the
total we�ve given to help Ukraine turn back the Russian invasion to
about $100 billion. You can�t blame Zelensky for asking, but you should
be able to question your representatives for writing the check. It�s
our money, and we don�t even have it.

In a jaw-dropping display of just how out of touch he is, Senate
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell declared that funding Ukraine�s defense
is America�s top priority. He and a bipartisan pack of lawmakers fawned
over the sweatshirt-clad Zelensky on Wednesday like teenagers clamoring
for a selfie with their favorite Instagram influencer. Zelensky even
endured a kiss from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, which certainly merits
some degree of compensation.

It�s like Pelosi wanted to kiss his hand as if Zelensky was
Jesus or a mob boss or a combo of both?
pic.twitter.com/VIPnpVthDM

� Lidia Curanaj (@LidiaNews) December 22, 2022

Americans don�t want Russia to annex Ukraine. They detest Vladimir
Putin and they sympathize with Ukraine. But they also know we have a
$30 trillion national debt and are in no position to underwrite the
defense of another country in which we don�t have a direct national
interest. They know, from the 20-year Afghanistan debacle, what mission
creep feels like. And they would prefer to see Zelensky nudged toward a
peaceful negotiation with Moscow rather than treated as a U.S. proxy in
the prelude to World War III.

Most people keeping score at home can see that the only way this ends
peacefully is with Russia keeping Crimea and the two countries reaching
some sort of compromise on Ukraine�s ethnic Russian regions along its
eastern border. Even if that happened tomorrow, a sympathetic West
would no doubt pony up to help rebuild Zelensky�s bomb-ravaged nation.
But giving Ukraine more cash and weapons now is a sure-fire way to
guarantee this war kills more people, wrecks more cities, and
potentially metastasizes into a nuclear war.

Zelensky is not wrong to want to repel Russia. His nation has put up a
courageous fight against a more powerful adversary, and his leadership
deserves credit. It�s his right to pass the hat around the globe, even
if his sense of entitlement can be grating. However, if the television
actor now playing Winston Churchill had to rely solely upon Ukraine�s
own treasure, he might be more amenable to striking a peace deal.

Showering Zelensky with our grandchildren�s money is nearly as bad for
our nation�s future as it is for his. A peace deal would save not only
Ukrainian lives, but American dollars. Then again, when has the
Washington ruling class ever cared about that?

--
Let's go Brandon!

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:

> On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 18:03:44 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>> This is indisputable well-known history. The Dixiecrats (and those
>> who came later who were sympathetic to de jure segregation) were
>> absolutely positively Democrats prior to Johnson twisting enough arms
>> to get the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed. Johnson correctly
>> predicted that the Democratic Party would thereafter lose the South.
>> The parties realigned as anticipated.
>>
>> You got it wrong. H.G. got it right.

I never disputed that the Dixiecrats were Democrats. But those
particular Democrats turned into Republicans over time, which is why the
modern GOP is their ideological heir. C'mon, this is a classic
internet troll provocation: "The Democrats invented the KKK, so they're
the REAL racists," not bothering to note the shift in party allegiance
in the mid-20th century, nor recognizing that the ccntemporary KKK is
now GOP through and through.

> I would guess I'm probably quite a bit older than her - one of my
> grandfathers (the Canadian one) ran twice (unsuccessfully) for the
> Canadian Parliament.

We're probably separated by only a year. I remember watching the 1964
presidential election returns and asking my mother questions about it.
You do come off as older, about which I'll not elaborate further.

-Micky

Micky DuPree <MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply> wrote:
>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>>Sun, 11 Dec 2022 18:03:44 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

>>>This is indisputable well-known history. The Dixiecrats (and those
>>>who came later who were sympathetic to de jure segregation) were
>>>absolutely positively Democrats prior to Johnson twisting enough arms
>>>to get the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed. Johnson correctly
>>>predicted that the Democratic Party would thereafter lose the South.
>>>The parties realigned as anticipated.

>>>You got it wrong. H.G. got it right.

Oh, look. Micky DuPree, who reads everything I write despite having kill
filed me, is addressing me by piggybacking on H.G.'s article. Will her
immature behavior continue throughout the rest of this followup? Let's
see:

>I never disputed that the Dixiecrats were Democrats.

Not so ironic. It's the heirs to the Dixiecrats (some of whom
are still alive) that are using Republican state legislatures,
funded and aimed by such guiding lights as ALEC, who have been
waiting to pounce on the overturning of _Roe_ to enshrine abortion
prohibitions in state law.

-- Micky DuPree wrote on Sun, 27 Nov 2022 04:13:28 +0000 (UTC)

That would be Micky DuPree backpedalling.

In the part you didn't quote, I explained that the Dixicrat Party was a
split in the Democratic Party in certain Southern states but they then
took over the Democratic Party in those states in the next few years.
The Republican Party simply was not an option in the South at the time.

>But those particular Democrats turned into Republicans over time, which
>is why the modern GOP is their ideological heir.

In another part of the followup you didn't quote, I explained the
re-alignment of the political parties after Goldwater voted against
civil rights legislation. A significant number of black voters (where
they could vote) switched from the Republican Party to the Democratic
Party. Then southern Democratic politicians largely joined the
Republican Party.

>C'mon, this is a classic internet troll provocation: "The Democrats
>invented the KKK, so they're the REAL racists," not bothering to note
>the shift in party allegiance in the mid-20th century,

Another enormous lie. I wrote all that. You failed to quote it. Quote
editing in order to set up a straw man is particularly immature
behavior.

>nor recognizing that the ccntemporary KKK is now GOP through and through.

I said nothing about the KKK, but as long as you're bringing it up, the
pro speech decision Brandenburg v. Ohio, which incidentally sided with
the KKK, was written by the Republican majority on the Supreme Court.
The purpose was to protect the liberty of civil rights leaders to speak
freely, so they couldn't be held responsible for property damage or
worse by any criminal element in the civil rights movement if police
think they'd given a speech that was too inflamatory.

>>. . .

On Sat, 24 Dec 2022 18:39:03 +0000 (UTC),
MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:

>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 18:03:44 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>> This is indisputable well-known history. The Dixiecrats (and those
>>> who came later who were sympathetic to de jure segregation) were
>>> absolutely positively Democrats prior to Johnson twisting enough arms
>>> to get the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed. Johnson correctly
>>> predicted that the Democratic Party would thereafter lose the South.
>>> The parties realigned as anticipated.
>>>
>>> You got it wrong. H.G. got it right.
>
>I never disputed that the Dixiecrats were Democrats. But those
>particular Democrats turned into Republicans over time, which is why the
>modern GOP is their ideological heir. C'mon, this is a classic
>internet troll provocation: "The Democrats invented the KKK, so they're
>the REAL racists," not bothering to note the shift in party allegiance
>in the mid-20th century, nor recognizing that the ccntemporary KKK is
>now GOP through and through.

Yup and frankly the two things I >HOPE< Richard Nixon will be
excoriated forever for far beyond his mishandling of a certain breakin
are (a) his "Southern Strategy" - which probably won him the 1968
election and that and 1960 were the two closest presidential races
since WW2 - my whole point is that that "strategy" largely undid a lot
of LBJ's 1964 Civil Rights Act de facto (and some might argue de jure)
and (b) killing Project Apollo which strongly hurt space exploration
by at least 15-20 years if not more. (Bear in mind that I was one of
those 12 year olds who hoped that that wouldn't be just science
fiction - which I had then just discovered - but the reality by the
time I turned 46 in 2001 - although I knew the scene with the flight
attendants was too funny for words)
>
>> I would guess I'm probably quite a bit older than her - one of my
>> grandfathers (the Canadian one) ran twice (unsuccessfully) for the
>> Canadian Parliament.
>
>We're probably separated by only a year. I remember watching the 1964
>presidential election returns and asking my mother questions about it.
>You do come off as older, about which I'll not elaborate further.

My grandfather was a federal candidate in 1965 and 1968 and my mother,
brother and I were part of his campaign photos. (This made for an
interesting scene at our wedding reception since the brother of my
wife's favorite uncle was a sitting member for the other party - and
we got married about 6 weeks before a general election. Needless to
say my grandfather and the politician buried the hatchet and toasted
the two of us)

On Sun, 25 Dec 2022 01:46:41 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>I said nothing about the KKK, but as long as you're bringing it up, the
>pro speech decision Brandenburg v. Ohio, which incidentally sided with
>the KKK, was written by the Republican majority on the Supreme Court.
>The purpose was to protect the liberty of civil rights leaders to speak
>freely, so they couldn't be held responsible for property damage or
>worse by any criminal element in the civil rights movement if police
>think they'd given a speech that was too inflamatory.

So what is the difference between this and what we used to call
"inciting to riot"?

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Sun, 25 Dec 2022 01:46:41 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

>>I said nothing about the KKK, but as long as you're bringing it up, the
>>pro speech decision Brandenburg v. Ohio, which incidentally sided with
>>the KKK, was written by the Republican majority on the Supreme Court.
>>The purpose was to protect the liberty of civil rights leaders to speak
>>freely, so they couldn't be held responsible for property damage or
>>worse by any criminal element in the civil rights movement if police
>>think they'd given a speech that was too inflamatory.

>So what is the difference between this and what we used to call
>"inciting to riot"?

These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the
constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not
permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of
force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed
to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely
to incite or produce such action.

That's key language from the decision. Inciting imminent lawless action
such as a riot IS NOT protected speech.

The Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Statute (1919) which criminalizes speech
with extremist rhetoric advocating crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful
methods of terrorism to accomplish industrial or political reform on
state security grounds alone is unconstitutional. The only speech that
may be criminalized is that which is described in the imminent lawless
action test in the Brandenburg decision.

On Tue, 27 Dec 2022 17:03:59 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>Sun, 25 Dec 2022 01:46:41 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>
>>So what is the difference between this and what we used to call
>>"inciting to riot"?
>
> These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the
> constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not
> permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of
> force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed
> to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely
> to incite or produce such action.
>
>That's key language from the decision. Inciting imminent lawless action
>such as a riot IS NOT protected speech.

Thanks - I knew 'inciting to riot' was not OK under the law but
figured it had to be there in black + white somewhere.

One presumes there's also been a legal definition somewhere on the
general subject of the definition of 'imminent' (no I'm not asking for
a cite)

>The Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Statute (1919) which criminalizes speech
>with extremist rhetoric advocating crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful
>methods of terrorism to accomplish industrial or political reform on
>state security grounds alone is unconstitutional. The only speech that
>may be criminalized is that which is described in the imminent lawless
>action test in the Brandenburg decision.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Tue, 27 Dec 2022 17:03:59 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>Sun, 25 Dec 2022 01:46:41 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

>>>So what is the difference between this and what we used to call
>>>"inciting to riot"?

>> These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the
>> constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not
>> permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of
>> force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed
>> to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely
>> to incite or produce such action.

>>That's key language from the decision. Inciting imminent lawless action
>>such as a riot IS NOT protected speech.

>Thanks - I knew 'inciting to riot' was not OK under the law but
>figured it had to be there in black + white somewhere.

>One presumes there's also been a legal definition somewhere on the
>general subject of the definition of 'imminent' (no I'm not asking for
>a cite)

In decisions, the vast majority of words in the English language do not
also have legal definitions, so that's to be interpreted from context.

Brandenburg clearly applied to criminal laws under which some of those
who organized the January 6 riots were prosecuted.

>>The Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Statute (1919) which criminalizes speech
>>with extremist rhetoric advocating crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful
>>methods of terrorism to accomplish industrial or political reform on
>>state security grounds alone is unconstitutional. The only speech that
>>may be criminalized is that which is described in the imminent lawless
>>action test in the Brandenburg decision.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Dec 2022 17:03:59 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>> Sun, 25 Dec 2022 01:46:41 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>
>>> So what is the difference between this and what we used to call
>>> "inciting to riot"?
>>
>> These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the
>> constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not
>> permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of
>> force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed
>> to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely
>> to incite or produce such action.
>>
>> That's key language from the decision. Inciting imminent lawless action
>> such as a riot IS NOT protected speech.
>
> Thanks - I knew 'inciting to riot' was not OK under the law but
> figured it had to be there in black + white somewhere.
>
> One presumes there's also been a legal definition somewhere on the
> general subject of the definition of 'imminent' (no I'm not asking for
> a cite)

Subsequent court rulings have held the 'imminent' element of the test
requires that the lawless action follow directly on to the speech inciting
it. Even as brief a period as 15 minutes elapsing between the speech and
the crime is enough to render the speech protected and not covered under
Brandenburg.

So, for example, all those who continue to insist that Trump's rally can
legally be sanctioned as incitement for the January 6th fracas are talking
out of their ass. (Not to mention, nowhere in Trump's speech did he exhort
anyone to commit any kind of crime or lawless action in the first place.)

BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>Tue, 27 Dec 2022 17:03:59 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>Sun, 25 Dec 2022 01:46:41 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

>>>>So what is the difference between this and what we used to call
>>>>"inciting to riot"?

>>>These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the
>>>constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not
>>>permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of
>>>force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed
>>>to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely
>>>to incite or produce such action.

>>>That's key language from the decision. Inciting imminent lawless action
>>>such as a riot IS NOT protected speech.

>>Thanks - I knew 'inciting to riot' was not OK under the law but
>>figured it had to be there in black + white somewhere.

>>One presumes there's also been a legal definition somewhere on the
>>general subject of the definition of 'imminent' (no I'm not asking for
>>a cite)

>Subsequent court rulings have held the 'imminent' element of the test
>requires that the lawless action follow directly on to the speech inciting
>it. Even as brief a period as 15 minutes elapsing between the speech and
>the crime is enough to render the speech protected and not covered under
>Brandenburg.

Fine. I'm wrong. There is a legal definition.

>So, for example, all those who continue to insist that Trump's rally can
>legally be sanctioned as incitement for the January 6th fracas are talking
>out of their ass. (Not to mention, nowhere in Trump's speech did he exhort
>anyone to commit any kind of crime or lawless action in the first place.)

I've never been one of those. Trump's speeches at rallies are generally
along the lines of "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" stopping
short of crossing the line.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>> Tue, 27 Dec 2022 17:03:59 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>> Sun, 25 Dec 2022 01:46:41 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>
>>>>> So what is the difference between this and what we used to call
>>>>> "inciting to riot"?
>
>>>> These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the
>>>> constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not
>>>> permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of
>>>> force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed
>>>> to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely
>>>> to incite or produce such action.
>
>>>> That's key language from the decision. Inciting imminent lawless action
>>>> such as a riot IS NOT protected speech.
>
>>> Thanks - I knew 'inciting to riot' was not OK under the law but
>>> figured it had to be there in black + white somewhere.
>
>>> One presumes there's also been a legal definition somewhere on the
>>> general subject of the definition of 'imminent' (no I'm not asking for
>>> a cite)
>
>> Subsequent court rulings have held the 'imminent' element of the test
>> requires that the lawless action follow directly on to the speech inciting
>> it. Even as brief a period as 15 minutes elapsing between the speech and
>> the crime is enough to render the speech protected and not covered under
>> Brandenburg.
>
> Fine. I'm wrong. There is a legal definition.

The speaker and the mob also have to be in each other's presence. So no
prosecuting someone for giving a speech on TV when someone on the other
side of the country smashes a window.

>> So, for example, all those who continue to insist that Trump's rally can
>> legally be sanctioned as incitement for the January 6th fracas are talking
>> out of their ass. (Not to mention, nowhere in Trump's speech did he exhort
>> anyone to commit any kind of crime or lawless action in the first place.)
>
> I've never been one of those. Trump's speeches at rallies are generally
> along the lines of "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" stopping
> short of crossing the line.
>

On 12/27/2022 3:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>> Tue, 27 Dec 2022 17:03:59 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> Sun, 25 Dec 2022 01:46:41 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>
>>>>>> So what is the difference between this and what we used to call
>>>>>> "inciting to riot"?
>>
>>>>> These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the
>>>>> constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not
>>>>> permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of
>>>>> force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed
>>>>> to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely
>>>>> to incite or produce such action.
>>
>>>>> That's key language from the decision. Inciting imminent lawless action
>>>>> such as a riot IS NOT protected speech.
>>
>>>> Thanks - I knew 'inciting to riot' was not OK under the law but
>>>> figured it had to be there in black + white somewhere.
>>
>>>> One presumes there's also been a legal definition somewhere on the
>>>> general subject of the definition of 'imminent' (no I'm not asking for
>>>> a cite)
>>
>>> Subsequent court rulings have held the 'imminent' element of the test
>>> requires that the lawless action follow directly on to the speech inciting
>>> it. Even as brief a period as 15 minutes elapsing between the speech and
>>> the crime is enough to render the speech protected and not covered under
>>> Brandenburg.
>>
>> Fine. I'm wrong. There is a legal definition.
>
> The speaker and the mob also have to be in each other's presence. So no
> prosecuting someone for giving a speech on TV when someone on the other
> side of the country smashes a window.
> ...

Would that "presence" be line-of-sight? Earshot? Skype?...

BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>Tue, 27 Dec 2022 17:03:59 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>>>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>Sun, 25 Dec 2022 01:46:41 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

>>>>>>So what is the difference between this and what we used to call
>>>>>>"inciting to riot"?

>>>>>These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the
>>>>>constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not
>>>>>permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of
>>>>>force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed
>>>>>to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely
>>>>>to incite or produce such action.

>>>>>That's key language from the decision. Inciting imminent lawless action
>>>>>such as a riot IS NOT protected speech.

>>>>Thanks - I knew 'inciting to riot' was not OK under the law but
>>>>figured it had to be there in black + white somewhere.

>>>>One presumes there's also been a legal definition somewhere on the
>>>>general subject of the definition of 'imminent' (no I'm not asking for
>>>>a cite)

>>>Subsequent court rulings have held the 'imminent' element of the test
>>>requires that the lawless action follow directly on to the speech inciting
>>>it. Even as brief a period as 15 minutes elapsing between the speech and
>>>the crime is enough to render the speech protected and not covered under
>>>Brandenburg.

>>Fine. I'm wrong. There is a legal definition.

>The speaker and the mob also have to be in each other's presence. So no
>prosecuting someone for giving a speech on TV when someone on the other
>side of the country smashes a window.

but but but

I have smashed things after watching truly awful tv! How is the
television writer not criminally liable for that bad script? Or the
network programming executive or studio executive for demanding changes
that turn a good script into shit?

>>>So, for example, all those who continue to insist that Trump's rally can
>>>legally be sanctioned as incitement for the January 6th fracas are talking
>>>out of their ass. (Not to mention, nowhere in Trump's speech did he exhort
>>>anyone to commit any kind of crime or lawless action in the first place.)

>>I've never been one of those. Trump's speeches at rallies are generally
>>along the lines of "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" stopping
>>short of crossing the line.

On 12/27/22 2:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>> Tue, 27 Dec 2022 17:03:59 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> Sun, 25 Dec 2022 01:46:41 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>
>>>>>> So what is the difference between this and what we used to call
>>>>>> "inciting to riot"?
>>
>>>>> These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the
>>>>> constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not
>>>>> permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of
>>>>> force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed
>>>>> to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely
>>>>> to incite or produce such action.
>>
>>>>> That's key language from the decision. Inciting imminent lawless action
>>>>> such as a riot IS NOT protected speech.
>>
>>>> Thanks - I knew 'inciting to riot' was not OK under the law but
>>>> figured it had to be there in black + white somewhere.
>>
>>>> One presumes there's also been a legal definition somewhere on the
>>>> general subject of the definition of 'imminent' (no I'm not asking for
>>>> a cite)
>>
>>> Subsequent court rulings have held the 'imminent' element of the test
>>> requires that the lawless action follow directly on to the speech inciting
>>> it. Even as brief a period as 15 minutes elapsing between the speech and
>>> the crime is enough to render the speech protected and not covered under
>>> Brandenburg.
>>
>> Fine. I'm wrong. There is a legal definition.
>
> The speaker and the mob also have to be in each other's presence. So no
> prosecuting someone for giving a speech on TV when someone on the other
> side of the country smashes a window.

Again, you can't possibly be a lawyer.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/189/brandenburg-v-ohio

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the Supreme Court
established that speech advocating illegal conduct is protected under
the First Amendment unless the speech is likely to incite “imminent
lawless action.”

Thus a guy saying "Everyone should smash windows in protest!" is calling
for imminent lawless action and wouldn't be protected, making what you
said a pile of shit because of this qualifier.

>>> So, for example, all those who continue to insist that Trump's rally can
>>> legally

be sanctioned as incitement for the January 6th fracas are talking
>>> out of their ass. (Not to mention, nowhere in Trump's speech did he exhort
>>> anyone to commit any kind of crime or lawless action in the first place.)
>>
>> I've never been one of those. Trump's speeches at rallies are generally
>> along the lines of "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" stopping
>> short of crossing the line.

You're either stupid or lying. Perhaps you'll recall this gem:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/02/01/trump-i-ll-pay-for-protester-beatings

Trump: ‘Knock the Crap Out’ of Protesters, I'll Pay Legal Fees

That's inciting violence and hence is illegal. Clearly you've been
programmed by the Oath Keepers to think differently. I'm sure
everything will be fine when you get a chance to move to one of the
"free states." What a pathetic excuse for a piece of dog shit you
turned out to be.

On 12/27/22 2:38 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 12/27/2022 3:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>> Tue, 27 Dec 2022 17:03:59 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman
>>>>> <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>> Sun, 25 Dec 2022 01:46:41 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman
>>>>>>> <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>
>>>>>>> So what is the difference between this and what we used to call
>>>>>>> "inciting to riot"?
>>>
>>>>>> These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the
>>>>>> constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not
>>>>>> permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of
>>>>>> force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed
>>>>>> to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely
>>>>>> to incite or produce such action.
>>>
>>>>>> That's key language from the decision. Inciting imminent lawless
>>>>>> action
>>>>>> such as a riot IS NOT protected speech.
>>>
>>>>> Thanks - I knew 'inciting to riot' was not OK under the law but
>>>>> figured it had to be there in black + white somewhere.
>>>
>>>>> One presumes there's also been a legal definition somewhere on the
>>>>> general subject of the definition of 'imminent' (no I'm not asking for
>>>>> a cite)
>>>
>>>> Subsequent court rulings have held the 'imminent' element of the test
>>>> requires that the lawless action follow directly on to the speech
>>>> inciting
>>>> it. Even as brief a period as 15 minutes elapsing between the speech
>>>> and
>>>> the crime is enough to render the speech protected and not covered
>>>> under
>>>> Brandenburg.
>>>
>>> Fine. I'm wrong. There is a legal definition.
>>
>> The speaker and the mob also have to be in each other's presence. So no
>> prosecuting someone for giving a speech on TV when someone on the other
>> side of the country smashes a window.
>> ...
>
> Would that "presence" be line-of-sight?  Earshot?  Skype?...

Don't bother, he's erroneous. Or lying, who really gives a shit which.

President Joe Biden delivered the White House�s Christmas address Thursday
evening and failed to mention Jesus by name or say Christ while doing so.

�How silently, how silently, the wondrous Gift is given,� Biden began. �There
is a certain stillness at the center of the Christmas story. A silent night
when all the world goes quiet and all the glamour, all the noise, everything
that divides us, everything that pits us against one another, everything �
everything that seems so important but really isn�t, this all fades away in
stillness of the winter�s evening.�

Biden then referred to Jesus Christ as �a child Christians believe to be the
son of God,� but failed to actually mention his name.

�And we look to the sky, to a lone star, shining brighter than all the rest,
guiding us to the birth of a child � a child Christians believe to be the son
of God; miraculously now, here among us on Earth, bringing hope, love and
peace and joy to the world,� Biden said. �Yes, it�s a story that�s 2,000
years old, but it�s still very much alive today. Just look into the eyes of a
child on Christmas morning, or listen to the laughter of a family together
this holiday season after years � after years of being apart.�

The president has repeatedly claimed he is a �devout Catholic,� despite his
support for leftist policies that go against church teachings, such as
abortion. Pope Francis has referred to Biden�s statements on his faith and
his stance on abortion as an �incoherence.�

Biden stressed unity in his address, which comes after 18 Senate Republicans
joined with Democrats to pass a massive omnibus spending bill that is loaded
with earmarks, carveouts, and favors for numerous lawmakers, including $1.2
million for �LGBTQIA+ Pride Centers.� The bill also provides almost half a
billion dollars for border security in several Middle Eastern and North
African countries.

--
Let's go Brandon!

On Wed, 28 Dec 2022 04:30:48 -0500, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
wrote:

>Biden stressed unity in his address, which comes after 18 Senate Republicans
>joined with Democrats to pass a massive omnibus spending bill that is loaded
>with earmarks, carveouts, and favors for numerous lawmakers, including $1.2
>million for “LGBTQIA+ Pride Centers.” The bill also provides almost half a
>billion dollars for border security in several Middle Eastern and North
>African countries.

As opposed to in the United States of America?

https://rumble.com/v23pjai-katie-hobbs-giggles-when-asked-to-swear-i-will-support-the-constitution.html

https://youtu.be/ZxVZpdXeC5Y

Democrat Katie Hobbs, who was sworn in as Arizona's 24th governor on Monday,
giggled while taking her oath, triggering criticism across social media.

Video shows Hobbs repeating her oath, pausing and looking away before
repeating, the phrase "do solemnly swear."

When it came to the section "that I will support the Constitution," Hobbs
again paused and snickered, urging others to "stop" while laughing. She
eventually repeated the line.

Her reaction generated a significant amount of criticism across social media.

"Katie Hobbs bursting out laughing when she is asked to repeat her support
and defense of the Constitution," Tyler Bowyer, a "7th Generation Arizonan
and conservative activist," remarked as others deemed the moment "childish"
and a "criminal travesty."

"This is really hard to watch all I can say," one said, as another added that
it is "shameful this is even happening."

Absolutely appalling.
-- RAM (Richard Armande Mills) (@RAMRANTS) January 2, 2023

Childish.
-- Brian Glenn (@brianglenntv) January 2, 2023

A criminal travesty.
-- Wiley_Knows (@wiley_knows) January 2, 2023

Shameful
-- Sherrie Parvino (@SherrieVP) January 2, 2023

WATCH: Katie Hobbs literally bursts into snickering and outright
laughter on-camera when swearing oath to the Constitution as Governor
of Arizona

This is what they REALLY think of you and the Constitution...
pic.twitter.com/Vuq5q6AUzO

-- Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) January 2, 2023

Katie Hobbs laughs and stammers while taking the oath of office
pic.twitter.com/3SDTflRudT
-- The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) January 2, 2023

Her swearing-in comes more than a week after an Arizona District Court Judge
ruled against Hobbs' Republican challenger Kari Lake, ultimately upholding
Hobbs' victory.

--
Let's go Brandon!

On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 05:18:18 -0800, Ubiquitous wrote:

> https://rumble.com/v23pjai-katie-hobbs-giggles-when-asked-to-swear-i-will-support-the-constitution.html

Rumble is not a free speech site because it requires
sign-in to see the comments.

> https://youtu.be/ZxVZpdXeC5Y

Also not a free speech site, but is ahead of rumble
because it does not require sign-in to see comments.

>
> Democrat Katie Hobbs, who was sworn in as Arizona's 24th governor on Monday,
> giggled while taking her oath, triggering criticism across social media.
>
> Video shows Hobbs repeating her oath, pausing and looking away before
> repeating, the phrase "do solemnly swear."
>
> When it came to the section "that I will support the Constitution," Hobbs
> again paused and snickered, urging others to "stop" while laughing. She
> eventually repeated the line.

This reads like a Three Stooges reference from Disorder
In The Court (1936):

Judge: Do you solemnly swear...

Curly: No, but I know all the words!

This is one of their more well known shorts because
it's one of their four public domain shorts.

>
> Her reaction generated a significant amount of criticism across social media.
>
> "Katie Hobbs bursting out laughing when she is asked to repeat her support
> and defense of the Constitution," Tyler Bowyer, a "7th Generation Arizonan
> and conservative activist," remarked as others deemed the moment "childish"
> and a "criminal travesty."
>
> "This is really hard to watch all I can say," one said, as another added that
> it is "shameful this is even happening."
>
> Absolutely appalling.
>
> Childish.
>
> A criminal travesty.
>
> Shameful

Apparently, not Stooges fans.