Schumer declares an open armed revolt against the SCOTUS.

Author: Greyparrot

Posts

Total: 62
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,555
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@oromagi
GP should justify his insertion of "revolt" and particularly "armed" into the story.  If GP can't show where Chuck Schumer called for the use of weapons against the Supreme Court, then GP must:

  • apologize to his fellow DARTers for authoring fake news and
  • request that the Mods take down this partisan accusation as inflammatory, defamatory and false.

Nope, free speech is important, this is clearly an opinion

ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,333
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Censuring GP for something Schumer did = logic
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@oromagi
Let's be sure to notice that the speech only seems threatening when stripped of context:
That speech was even more threatening when placed in context!

How can people calling themselves American keep such people in office?
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Greyparrot
Hopefully, if you are not high on the autism scale, and if you are, I apologize in advance, you can clearly see the rhetoric as a call to action for a few crazy people waiting for a reason to act.
ad hominem.  The only person talking about armed revolt is GP, which is a deliberate manipulation of the truth.

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,573
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@oromagi
Lol, the 3rd person shtick is old dude, autism or not.

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,573
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ethang5
Are you talking about the crowd?
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes! Did you see those triggered sjw's? Cringe-worthy.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,333
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@oromagi
can u answer post 27, forgot to ping
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Greyparrot
@Discipulus_Didicit
--> @oromagi
Here is the exact quote which, we should note, GP carefully fails to cite:

It is possible that this was not "careful failure to cite" and instead mere projection on GPs part, he believing that an "armed revolt" is the option that he would favor if the positions were reversed and therefore that it is reasonable to assume this to be the option anyone else who might disagree with the Supreme Court should favor.

It is also possible that he is merely prone to childlike exaggeration. Consider previous quotes of his such as "Mexicans are doing to us the same thing that Europeans did to Native Americans"

He also has an outrageously strong black-and-white mentality, to the point where he incorrectly interpreted my pointing out that there was no evidence of a Mexican plot to commit genocide against anyone as me being in favor of open immigration policies.

Actually now that I think back on that incident his insistance on holding to that interpratation even after being corrected makes me think you are probably right, he probably is intentionally twisting the truth rather than simply misunderstanding it in some way.

<br>


The little I know of GP is that he pulls quotes from some scary sources, argues that Putin's Russia is a model of secular nationalism that should be exported to (over) Western Democracies (hence his love of Trump), and his profile pic used to be a portrait of SS Gruppenfuhrer Heinz Reinefarth: deathcamp commander and the ratfink of Nuremberg.    All of that seems more consistent with a guy who more fantasizes than fears  armed revolution.   But honestly I have no idea what his intentions are.  He's fun to play mafia with because he's such a black box.  I think of GP as a GRU bot-in-exile but for all I know he could be a deep state liberal operative, fighting nationalism by making nationalism look dumb.

  • Could GP be merely projecting his own violent outlook?  sure
  • Could GP be just exaggerating childishly? yes
  • Does GP suffer from a black/white mentality?  don't know
My point is that the notion of armed revolt is not explicit or implicit in Schumer's speech, not even the Fox News and Infowars versions suggest armed revolt.  GP argues that he free to interpret whirlwind as euphemism for violence and he is free to do so, but we should note that the talk of armed revolt is not from the source he sites, rather it begins and ends with GP's OP.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,573
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@oromagi
Will you FUCKING stop pinging me if you are going to talk in the 3rd person?

You are crossing the line from being childishly annoying to harassment.

oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@ILikePie5
Interesting. What “price” will Kavanaugh and Gorsuch pay considering they were mentioned by name. Can you say what the price they will pay? It’s not directed to Senate Republicans or Legislatures. It was directed directly towards the two justices. In your opinion what is the price the justices would pay, cause normally when people say you’re going to pay, that’s a threat"

pay the price [verb]

  1. To incur the negative consequences of one's decision.

Synonyms
  • pay the penalty, pay the piper
I think Schumer meant "pay the price" literally, in it's actual dictionary sense rather than one of it's many possible figurative senses.  Just as sometimes (most times) when the Boss says he has to terminate an employee, he does not mean he intends to kill that employee, Schumer meant that Republicans would incur the negative consequences of overturning abortion (and in the next sentence identified those consequences as electoral failure in November) and did not mean that he intends to kill Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.


Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
Oro:

The little I know of GP...
But honestly I have no idea...
I think of GP as...
My point is that...

GP:

Stop talking in third person

DD: 

DD thinks that GP does not know what the phrase "third person" means.
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@oromagi
My point is that the notion of armed revolt is not explicit or implicit in Schumer's speech

Okay well my point is that the sky is blue at noon on a clear day and grass is green in the springtime in a temperate climate.

Let's call it a tie.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Greyparrot
Autism maybe. People who converse in the 3rd person have been known to have mild autism.
ad-hom.  In fact, I address the audience for clarity in the back and forth of forums.  I don't know if you've ever noticed it but  if I keep calling you "you," and you keep calling me "you,"  pretty often the pronouns get muddled and readers can't tell who is who.  I refer to you in the third person not for any anti-social purpose but for a social one: clarity of authorship.




oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Dr.Franklin
--> @oromagi
Nope, free speech is important, this is clearly an opinion
How does apologizing for promulgating fake news infringe on GP's right to free speech?

Hint: it doesn't
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@ethang5

That speech was even more threatening when placed in context!
how so?
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,573
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@oromagi
You know what, go get fucked troll.

I have never had to block anyone before on this site, but consider yourself the rare exception.


oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Lol, the 3rd person shtick is old dude, autism or not.
non-sequitur.

oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11

--> @oromagi
You know what, go get fucked troll.

I have never had to block anyone before on this site, but consider yourself the rare exception.

/thread
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@oromagi
That speech was even more threatening when placed in context!

how so?
Why do you think Schumer needed to mention supreme court justices specifically? Why those two?

I was on your side till you posted the context, when you did, I saw GP had been correct.

Schumer is actually warning the court not to vote in a way he (and his left wing rabble) doesn't like! And calling out justices by name! Is that not alarming to you?

How can the supreme court be "wrong" when their purpose is to settle right and wrong?

There is no ruling on a matter of law interpretation that the SCOTUS cannot make.

Schumer threatened our democracy. Our system of government. He should be arrested.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,573
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ethang5
In order to believe the SCOTUS knew Schumer's threats were not personal,

You would have to call Chief Justice Roberts a liar for writing:

“Justices know, that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, but they are also dangerous.”

Why would a chief justice purposely use the word dangerous?
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
Because Schumer's comments were dangerous.

This should make clear to everyone that those justices on the left will not decide issues on the merit of law, but on political ideology.

ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,333
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@oromagi
I think Schumer meant "pay the price" literally, in it's actual dictionary sense rather than one of it's many possible figurative senses.  Just as sometimes (most times) when the Boss says he has to terminate an employee, he does not mean he intends to kill that employee, Schumer meant that Republicans would incur the negative consequences of overturning abortion (and in the next sentence identified those consequences as electoral failure in November) and did not mean that he intends to kill Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.

That’s not what I asked. Schumer mentioned by name that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch would pay the price. It’s a simple question really. What price are they going to pay? He didn’t say Republicans are going to pay the price, the 2 justices are.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,333
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Oro is arguing semantics with you. He fails to argue my questions, instead just dodging them cause he knows he’s wrong.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,573
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
I gave up having a dialogue with him when he decided to keep trolling me in the 3rd person.

No normal person refuses to uses the 2nd person in a typical back and forth dialogue.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,333
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
No normal person refuses to uses the 2nd person in a typical back and forth dialogue.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone not use 2nd person in back and forth dialogue
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,573
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
That's why I suspected autism or Aspergers, as those are the kinds of people that will address you as if you are not even in the room in the 3rd person. For whatever reason, he decided to keep pinging me and to talk to me in the 3rd person.

Annoying at first, then just flat out harassment when I told him explicitly to stop.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,333
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
I think he should leave debate mode in the debate section.
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,555
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@oromagi
You wanted the mods to take it down
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Shoofly is the only one who has released a whirlwind. He might wait until there is a Supreme Court decision by firing all his guns into space. Since he can work himself up just in the hearing phase of this case, who knows what winds will blow from the Senate blowhard when there is a decision? This is nothing but premature efactulation, and he'd be better off just keeping it in his pants.