- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Vivek gets community noted
Posted on 6/3/23 at 7:43 pm to TigerOnTheMountain
Posted on 6/3/23 at 7:43 pm to TigerOnTheMountain
quote:
What he means is Twitter users won’t stop correcting the Trump campaign’s lying and he’s very upset about it. Poor little fella.
How even dare they!!!!
0
Posted on 6/3/23 at 7:44 pm to NDIrish88
Probably the first of many against all candidates.
Posted on 6/3/23 at 8:05 pm to DesScorp
quote:
DeSantis bent the knee in this one.
The bill passed both House and Senate unanimously.
quote:
It criminalizes any criticism or protest of Israel or Judaism.
Quote the section of the law that does this
Posted on 6/3/23 at 8:07 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
This tweet is worded to suggest that Desantis passed the bill by himself for his donors. Simply not true. The legislature passed it by a hefty margin.
"hefty margin" being literally unanimous
RDS couldn't do shite if he wanted to
Posted on 6/3/23 at 8:25 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Im coming to this conclusion.
Vivek is a stooge who is deep-throating Trump so he can get a cabinet position if he were to be re-elected. I wouldn't be surprised if all of his donations are going to Trump's campaign.
This post was edited on 6/3/23 at 8:30 pm
Posted on 6/3/23 at 8:25 pm to KAGTASTIC
quote:
KAGTASTIC
9 posts since and no response...
Posted on 6/3/23 at 8:29 pm to Taxing Authority
It doesn’t matter…
Narrative set
Heels dug in
Narrative set
Heels dug in
Posted on 6/3/23 at 8:39 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Im coming to this conclusion.
I like what I've heard so far, but a couple of interviews isn't enough to form a valid opinion about him. He's not a serious candidate, but based on what I've heard I'd like to see him in a cabinet position. Apparently it won't be with a DeSantis administration.
As for the law, it's not as bad as the hysterics, but nor is it completely divorced from a hate law, which I don't care for. Either harassment is illegal or it's not, and extra penalties for special reasons just creates special classes. I voted for Trump and I criticize him where I think it's valid, I'll do the same for DeSantis.
Posted on 6/3/23 at 8:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Quote the section of the law that does this
quote:
(2) A person may not willfully and maliciously harass or intimidate
another person based on the person’s wearing or displaying of any indicia
relating to any religious or ethnic heritage.
Do you know what that means? Do you know how commie lib Judge Lola Rodriguez in Miami-Dade is going to interpret that? I don't, so let me know.
quote:
(1)(a) Whoever, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters the campus of a state university or Florida College System institution for the purpose of threatening or intimidating another person, and is warned
by the state university or Florida College System institution to depart and refuses to do so, commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
Take a stab at this one, while you're at it. If I went to a college campus holding a sign saying, "There are only two genders," some kid would want the cops called on me for threatening them.
This post was edited on 6/3/23 at 8:58 pm
Posted on 6/3/23 at 10:27 pm to Youngeen Ace
So it is private property.
And the law requires intent to harasss so your example is shite.
Now it could be a bad idea because it could be abused, but your issues with it are meritless
And the law requires intent to harasss so your example is shite.
quote:
willfully & maliciously harassing, threatening, or intimidating another person
Now it could be a bad idea because it could be abused, but your issues with it are meritless
Posted on 6/3/23 at 10:29 pm to Youngeen Ace
quote:
Durrr just a private property bill bro" is the MK Ultra cope they pushed from the beginning. The lemmings still spit it out on command.
You are illiterate
Posted on 6/4/23 at 4:31 am to Youngeen Ace
quote:How exactly do you see that "carry" occurring?
Twitter will carry
Posted on 6/4/23 at 4:41 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
How exactly do you see that "carry" occurring?
"Not being able to lie" is an incredibly strange thing to be upset about.
Posted on 6/4/23 at 4:56 am to pankReb
quote:Oh, there is no inability to lie.
"Not being able to lie" is an incredibly strange thing to be upset about.
Twitter's Community Notes don't censure the lie. They simply call it out as such, with factual citations.
Posted on 6/4/23 at 6:36 am to BengalOnTheBay
quote:
(2) A person may not willfully and maliciously harass or intimidate
another person based on the person’s wearing or displaying of any indicia
relating to any religious or ethnic heritage.
Does not
quote:
criminalizes any criticism or protest of Israel or Judaism.
Thank you for proving my point.
quote:
Do you know how commie lib Judge Lola Rodriguez in Miami-Dade is going to interpret that?
Your racist hypothetical can apply to a number of laws that existed prior to this one being passed unanimously by the Florida lesiglature.
quote:
If I went to a college campus holding a sign saying, "There are only two genders," some kid would want the cops called on me for threatening them.
And they would be laughed at.
Posted on 6/4/23 at 6:59 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Does notquote:
criminalizes any criticism or protest of Israel or Judaism.
If I yelled, "frick you Jew, I wish the Nazis would have gassed every one of you" to someone wearing a Star of David, would that fall under this law? That would seem extremely malicious based on them wearing a Star of David. I could also say similar things about someone wearing a cross or a hijab or any number of other things.
quote:
Your racist hypothetical can apply to a number of laws that existed prior to this one being passed unanimously by the Florida lesiglature.
The only thing racist are crazy liberal judges, but that is certainly true, and my main criticism of the law: we don't need more vague and nebulous laws, particularly based on "hate crimes."
quote:
And they would be laughed at.
You clearly haven't been on a college campus in the last 5 years.
Posted on 6/4/23 at 7:04 am to NDIrish88
Poovek Ramaswampy is a smelly grifter. Not to be trusted. Will suck off orange man to try to get in his admin.
You know whose side he’s working on when you see Loomer defend him
You know whose side he’s working on when you see Loomer defend him
This post was edited on 6/4/23 at 7:14 am
Posted on 6/4/23 at 7:06 am to BengalOnTheBay
quote:
we don't need more vague and nebulous laws, particularly based on "hate crimes."
Agree. This law DOESN’T criminalize hate speech as the more hysterical are claiming, but it clearly falls in the hate speech category. I don’t care if it passed unanimously, it’s not something a conservative should be in favor of IMO.
If you can’t criticize a candidate you support they’re just going to be tempted to blow in the political winds because they know your vote is sewn up.
Posted on 6/4/23 at 7:49 am to NC_Tigah
Yeah that’s….that’s my point
Posted on 6/4/23 at 8:08 am to BengalOnTheBay
quote:\
"frick you Jew, I wish the Nazis would have gassed every one of you" to someone wearing a Star of David, would that fall under this law?
It could fall under a number of laws, including possibly this one, depending on the surrounding context/behaviors.
quote:
The only thing racist are crazy liberal judges
And you just so happened to choose a latino name for your hypothetical crazy liberal judge, when there are plenty of white ones.
quote:
e don't need more vague and nebulous laws, particularly based on "hate crimes."
Take it up with the Florida legislature, not RDS. This was passed UNANIMOUSLY. RDS's role was symbolic only. He couldn't have stopped this law if he wanted to (and only hyper-emotional politicians veto laws that can't be vetoed).
quote:
You clearly haven't been on a college campus in the last 5 years.
Wrong
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News