Political memes, Posters, Funny Pics, Etc.

[Col Hogan]

Common sense 1A controls....

Do common sense controls apply to the rest of the amendments?

Apparently...I keep hearing someone’s “common sense” being shoved down law-abiding gun owners throats by certain politicians, so why not in this case???

[HI54UNI]

So, he’s a punk...but blocking someone on Twitter does not impact that person’s 1A rights...they still get to post what ever they want...

blocking a person's ability to publicly speak to the POTUS on Twitter doesn't impact that person's 1A rights?

So if I start interrupting a president's speech and they remove me from the event are they blocking my ability to publicly speak to POTUS? Doesn't that impact my 1A rights?

[kalm]

blocking a person's ability to publicly speak to the POTUS on Twitter doesn't impact that person's 1A rights?

So if I start interrupting a president's speech and they remove me from the event are they blocking my ability to publicly speak to POTUS? Doesn't that impact my 1A rights?

1). The plaintiffs weren’t interrupting the presidents speech.

2). Define interrupting. It might be different in a place like NK.

[HI54UNI]

So if I start interrupting a president's speech and they remove me from the event are they blocking my ability to publicly speak to POTUS? Doesn't that impact my 1A rights?

1). The plaintiffs weren’t interrupting the presidents speech.

2). Define interrupting. It might be different in a place like NK.

[Ibanez]

blocking a person's ability to publicly speak to the POTUS on Twitter doesn't impact that person's 1A rights?

So if I start interrupting a president's speech and they remove me from the event are they blocking my ability to publicly speak to POTUS? Doesn't that impact my 1A rights?

Asking a president a question on a public forum isn't the same as interrupting his speech. I agree there are limits - but I thought we could all agree that listening to dissenting opinions is one of the great things about 1A. The president SHOULD hear from people, even if he doesn't agree.


And those people should be mindful/respectful of how they disagree with someone.

[Ibanez]

1). The plaintiffs weren’t interrupting the presidents speech.

2). Define interrupting. It might be different in a place like NK.

Terrible post. But she has the right to say it.

[89Hen]

So, he’s a punk...but blocking someone on Twitter does not impact that person’s 1A rights...they still get to post what ever they want...

blocking a person's ability to publicly speak to the POTUS on Twitter doesn't impact that person's 1A rights?

No

[Baldy]

blocking a person's ability to publicly speak to the POTUS on Twitter doesn't impact that person's 1A rights?

No

This. He can still say whatever he wishes, but the POTUS has the right not to listen.

[kalm]

1). The plaintiffs weren’t interrupting the presidents speech.

2). Define interrupting. It might be different in a place like NK.

That’s interrupting?

[GrizFanStuckInUtah]

That’s interrupting?

I am now more than certain that "Idiocracy" is a documentary, not a comedy.

[CitadelGrad]

So, he’s a punk...but blocking someone on Twitter does not impact that person’s 1A rights...they still get to post what ever they want...

blocking a person's ability to publicly speak to the POTUS on Twitter doesn't impact that person's 1A rights?

No. Their right to free speech does not obligate Trump to listen to them.

[HI54UNI]

Terrible post. But she has the right to say it.

And no one is stopping her from saying it. POTUS doesn't have to to listen.

I'm an elected official. I had a pissed off mother call me at 12:30 a.m. one time. I told her that I would be happy to talk to her during the day but that I was not talking to her at that time. Should I have had to listen to her then? Did I violate her 1A rights? The public has the right to attend our school board meetings but does not have the right to speak at them. Is that violating the public's 1A rights? What makes Twitter different?

[BDKJMU]

So, he’s a punk...but blocking someone on Twitter does not impact that person’s 1A rights...they still get to post what ever they want...

blocking a person's ability to publicly speak to the POTUS on Twitter doesn't impact that person's 1A rights?

No

This. He can still say whatever he wishes, but the POTUS has the right not to listen.

No. Their right to free speech does not obligate Trump to listen to them.

No. There is no constitutional right not to be blocked on twitter..

[Skjellyfetti]

Blocking on Twitter isn't about making Trump read their tweets. His newsfeed (or whatever it's called on Twitter) controls what tweets he sees based on who he follows. No one is saying he has to follow every American citizen.

Blocking removes access for viewing his tweets. They're ofticial public statements by the POTUS.

But, again - it's a really stupid debate. And if SCOTUS has to weigh in - it's a sure sign of the demise of the Republic.

[HI54UNI]

Blocking on Twitter isn't about making Trump read their tweets. His newsfeed (or whatever it's called on Twitter) controls what tweets he sees based on who he follows. No one is saying he has to follow every American citizen.

Blocking removes access for viewing his tweets. They're ofticial public statements by the POTUS.

But, again - it's a really stupid debate. And if SCOTUS has to weigh in - it's a sure sign of the demise of the Republic.

I agree it's a stupid debate. Should have been laughed out of court when it was filed.

[89Hen]

They're ofticial public statements by the POTUS.

Maybe ofticial, but not official.

[kalm]

Blocking on Twitter isn't about making Trump read their tweets. His newsfeed (or whatever it's called on Twitter) controls what tweets he sees based on who he follows. No one is saying he has to follow every American citizen.

Blocking removes access for viewing his tweets. They're ofticial public statements by the POTUS.

But, again - it's a really stupid debate. And if SCOTUS has to weigh in - it's a sure sign of the demise of the Republic.

All of this.

[Ibanez]

Blocking on Twitter isn't about making Trump read their tweets. His newsfeed (or whatever it's called on Twitter) controls what tweets he sees based on who he follows. No one is saying he has to follow every American citizen.

Blocking removes access for viewing his tweets. They're ofticial public statements by the POTUS.

But, again - it's a really stupid debate. And if SCOTUS has to weigh in - it's a sure sign of the demise of the Republic.

Completely stupid but I agree.

[GannonFan]

But, again - it's a really stupid debate. And if SCOTUS has to weigh in - it's a sure sign of the demise of the Republic.

I actually don't think it's a stupid debate. It's new technology (well, newish, obviously Twitter's been around for several years, but obviously not used as this present President uses it), and I see no problem with SCOTUS extending the Constitution to address new technologies. I'm sure people were moping about the SCOTUS having to get involved in the telegraph when they did, but there are always curmudgeons out there.

Oh, and stop this "demise of the Republic" crap. It's that kind of apocalyptic tripe that gets us into more trouble than we really are. You sound like Obama when he warned that voting for Trump meant the end of the Republic. We'll all still be here well after Trump's time in the White House is over. America's much more resilient than people give it credit for.

[89Hen]

You sound like Obama when he warned that voting for Trump meant the end of the Republic. We'll all still be here well after Trump's time in the White House is over.

Not only here, but wealthier, happier and more safe.

[GrizFanStuckInUtah]

I can only imagine wearing that shirt here in Utah

[89Hen]

Looks like a henway.

[kalm]

But, again - it's a really stupid debate. And if SCOTUS has to weigh in - it's a sure sign of the demise of the Republic.

I actually don't think it's a stupid debate. It's new technology (well, newish, obviously Twitter's been around for several years, but obviously not used as this present President uses it), and I see no problem with SCOTUS extending the Constitution to address new technologies. I'm sure people were moping about the SCOTUS having to get involved in the telegraph when they did, but there are always curmudgeons out there.

Oh, and stop this "demise of the Republic" crap. It's that kind of apocalyptic tripe that gets us into more trouble than we really are. You sound like Obama when he warned that voting for Trump meant the end of the Republic. We'll all still be here well after Trump's time in the White House is over. America's much more resilient than people give it credit for.

Did you miss the laughing emoji?

[GannonFan]

I actually don't think it's a stupid debate. It's new technology (well, newish, obviously Twitter's been around for several years, but obviously not used as this present President uses it), and I see no problem with SCOTUS extending the Constitution to address new technologies. I'm sure people were moping about the SCOTUS having to get involved in the telegraph when they did, but there are always curmudgeons out there.

Oh, and stop this "demise of the Republic" crap. It's that kind of apocalyptic tripe that gets us into more trouble than we really are. You sound like Obama when he warned that voting for Trump meant the end of the Republic. We'll all still be here well after Trump's time in the White House is over. America's much more resilient than people give it credit for.

Did you miss the laughing emoji?

He can put any emoji there he wants, but he has enough posts on here (and in the 100+ plus thread) for me to realize that he's serious about the demise of the Republic. Only JSO has been more vociferous (and voluminous) in that regard.

[kalm]

Did you miss the laughing emoji?

He can put any emoji there he wants, but he has enough posts on here (and in the 100+ plus thread) for me to realize that he's serious about the demise of the Republic. Only JSO has been more vociferous (and voluminous) in that regard.

Ok.