• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

What stupid ass thing did Donald tweet this week?

 
 
 
bilby said:
fast said:
Change his mind? I hope not. People talk about fighting to death to defend the freedom of speech, and that's fine, but if they aren't going to defend my right to speak with my fists, then I don't think I need them fighting for any rights to speak with BIC lighters and matches. Because the flag is symbolic of our cherished freedoms, we should protect it, for which it stands. It's backwards liberal logic to regard it as merely a rag yet hold it in such high esteem that they'll defend people's right to burn it but not defend it from those who would. Speak your mind, but speak with your words and signs, not actions. Interpreting the burning of the flag as a form of expression is as a gross misrepresentation as is regarding the pulling of a trigger as a form of getting ones message across. Speak (SPEAK) your mind, and say (SAY) what what you will, but it's asinine to think BURNING buildings, people, and beloved national symbols is something that ought to be protected.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about burning buildings or people?

If I own a piece of fabric, and I chose to burn it, than I should be free to do so. If it has a Stars and Stripes or a Union Jack, or any other flag on it, that freedom to dispose of my own property as I choose should not suddenly be taken from me.

Burning a flag should only ever be illegal where it would be equally illegal to burn a bedsheet - where the item burned belongs to someone else; or where it causes a fire or health hazard, for example. What a piece of cloth symbolizes TO YOU is irrelevant to ME if it's MY piece of cloth. You don't gain ownership in, or any say over the use of, my property just because you declare that it is of symbolic significance to you.

Next you will be saying I can't eat bacon because it's against YOUR religion.
Click to expand...


You can't eat bacon because it is against my religion.


Sorry, just could not resist.
 
BH said:
bilby said:
Who said anything about burning buildings or people?

If I own a piece of fabric, and I chose to burn it, than I should be free to do so. If it has a Stars and Stripes or a Union Jack, or any other flag on it, that freedom to dispose of my own property as I choose should not suddenly be taken from me.

Burning a flag should only ever be illegal where it would be equally illegal to burn a bedsheet - where the item burned belongs to someone else; or where it causes a fire or health hazard, for example. What a piece of cloth symbolizes TO YOU is irrelevant to ME if it's MY piece of cloth. You don't gain ownership in, or any say over the use of, my property just because you declare that it is of symbolic significance to you.

Next you will be saying I can't eat bacon because it's against YOUR religion.
Click to expand...


You can't eat bacon because it is against my religion.


Sorry, just could not resist.
Click to expand...

This just proves we need laws punishing people who say you can't eat bacon because it's againt their religion.
 
fast said:
James Brown said:
In my opinion, she was wrong about that. And as I recall, after receiving criticism about it, the bill went nowhere and was withdrawn.

Will Donald Trump change his mind about the issue? Hard to say. On the one hand, he changes his mind about a lot of things. On the other hand, for those things that he's specifically criticized about, he never mentions again. That, or he gets Pence to declare, "He never said that."
Click to expand...
Change his mind? I hope not. People talk about fighting to death to defend the freedom of speech, and that's fine, but if they aren't going to defend my right to speak with my fists,
Click to expand...
If you are defending your person or some else from physical danger or banging on something to make some music, then fine. Otherwise, wtf are you babbling about?
 
dismal said:
jonatha said:
I don't believe the issue with the historical practice was that the cross was burned on the *owner's* lawn :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Ok. So what?
Click to expand...

So you are welcome to burn whatever possessions you have on your own property, as long as you don't cause a fire hazard that might endanger other people's property, and as long as you don't expect a third party to compensate you for your losses (eg. arson).

For some reason, you seem to imagine that I would object to your doing so in some circumstances; But I really don't, and nor should anyone else.
 
dismal said:
BH said:
You can't eat bacon because it is against my religion.


Sorry, just could not resist.
Click to expand...

This just proves we need laws punishing people who say you can't eat bacon because it's againt their religion.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't.

It just means that we need laws to prevent lawmakers from passing legislation that says "none of the people can eat bacon because it is against the religion of some of the people". And we have exactly such laws enshrined in the constitutions of many nations, including both mine and yours.

People can say any stupid shit they like - they can even call for laws against eating bacon, or burning flags. But it is the duty of those who care about living in a civilized society to point out to those people that they are calling for something that is immoral and fucking stupid, that they are calling for legislation that is both immoral and unconstitutional, and that they should be deeply ashamed by their stupidity on that subject.

Of course it shouldn't be illegal to be a stupid fuckwit. It just needs to be unconstitutional to enshrine stupid fuckwittery into law - and fortunately, it already is.
 
OK, fine. But some laws outlawing long winded pedantry might help.
 
dismal said:
AthenaAwakened said:
dismal, what are you on about? you want to burn a cross on your own yard? OK. That's strange and backwards and makes no sense but OK
Click to expand...

It's not as simple as that. It depends on my intent.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._Black
Click to expand...

No, it does not. The Virginia law in that case only banned burning "a cross on the property of another, a highway or other public place", and the SCOTUS even struck down that one as unconstitutional.
 
Until proven otherwise, I am going to assume Trump's plan is to continue to use his own 757 and charge the taxpayer for it.
 
Axulus said:
In regards to his recent tweet about canceling the Boeing order to design and build two new Air Force One planes, why that is an awful idea
Click to expand...

What's also stupid and disturbing about it is it's possible his tweet was a thinskinned response to some mildly critical remarks by the Boeing CEO.
 
blastula said:
Axulus said:
In regards to his recent tweet about canceling the Boeing order to design and build two new Air Force One planes, why that is an awful idea
Click to expand...

What's also stupid and disturbing about it is it's possible his tweet was a thinskinned response to some mildly critical remarks by the Boeing CEO.
Click to expand...
It's good that he's so well demonstrating his petty, unstable mob boss mentality so early on.
 
Axulus said:
In regards to his recent tweet about canceling the Boeing order to design and build two new Air Force One planes, why that is an awful idea
Click to expand...
While contractors can definitely get out of hand with pricing, I'm wondering just how much Trump thinks an EMP proof, nuclear war capable military control center that can fly should cost.
 
Let's look at the Boeing tweet shall we?

"Boeing is building a brand new 747 Air Force One for future presidents, but costs are out of control, more than $4 billion. Cancel order!"
Click to expand...

From PolitiFact

The company is actually building two planes, not one. As for the price tag, Trump has more of a point. The project’s current cost is $3.73 billion, which is within shouting distance of Trump’s "more than $4 billion." That’s a projection over 12 years. Also, that figure is an amount that could rise as time goes on.

However, Trump glosses over some important context. National-security requirements, not Boeing, have been the primary driver of high costs. Experts say the costs are broadly in line considering the high-tech and security requirements of a presidential plane.

The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details, so we rate it Half True.
Click to expand...

PolitiFact is being kind. the tweet sounds like one plane costs $4,000,000,000 and not over time, but at point of purchase.

Presidents don't get to pull figures outta their asses and they don't get to throw figures around out of context. Governments and markets around the world move on what the POTUS says.

Sorry Donald. the truth not only hurts, it fucking matters.
 
Chuck Jones is union president for Carrier employees. He said something critical of Trump. So of course mr. thinkskin has to tweet at him now.

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 22h22 hours ago Chuck Jones, who is President of United Steelworkers 1999, has done a terrible job representing workers. No wonder companies flee country!

15,725 replies 10,982 retweets 40,515 likes

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump If United Steelworkers 1999 was any good, they would have kept those jobs in Indiana. Spend more time working-less time talking. Reduce dues

5:56 PM - 7 Dec 2016



The man is not right in the head.

Brian Stelter Verified account ‏@brianstelter 21h21 hours ago Trump's tweet saying Chuck Jones "has done a terrible job representing workers" came 20 min after Jones was interviewed on CNN.




But remember, Clinton was just as bad!
 
Trump's plane doesn't meet the requirements for the president's plane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom