Is this the 1st administration in history to be OK with chants of "DEATH TO AMERICA"?

https://www.jpost.com/international/article-797321
The US flag was set on fire to calls of "Death to America" during the pro-Palestinian worldwide protest in New York City on Monday, according to footage released by journalists, activists, and pro-Palestinian organizations.

Question! Is Biden's lack of action on this worth the Michigan votes? Won't he lose votes from other people for being 100% perfectly OK with our own citizens threatening death to the country? How is that not terrorism? Is this the world lefties want? (seems that way)
IMO only 2 words can describe this abhorrent behavior from our current administration : SICK & DISGUSTING
discuss!

 

What action against the 1st Amendment are you proposing? Sick and disgusting? Yes. Illegal? How?

 

So incitement of violence is OK then? so then by YOUR logic Trump was in his right to say everything he said? I knew somebody was gonna pull the Freedom of Speech card, (funny how YOU PEOPLE only believe in SELECTIVE freedom of speech), FYI (that isn't real freedom of speech so make up your mind, got it?)

 

For incitement of violence to be illegal, it has to be a specific threat. There wasn't one here. Funny how YOU PEOPLE like to project your own hypocrisy onto others. I knew you wouldn't have an actual, rational defense.

 

One person at a protest said “death to America and Israel”. He should be arrested for destroying someone else’s property but you don’t seem to be taking issue with that — or you didn’t make it that far in the article.

What do you think Biden should do to this one individual over their speech and if I can find a single instance of anyone saying “Death to America” while dear leader was in office will you also condemn him?

 

So you defend "DEATH TO AMERICA" chant? Seems like you don't think its a very big deal
Whoever thought we'd have Americans supporting a chant like that
D I S G U S T I N G !

 

The citizens chanting this are likewise repulsive. City dwellers are this countries large problem.

 

Can you give us the definition of hate speech or speech inciting violence?

 

UH OH, looks like you got em in a catch 22. I'm intrigued to see the response

 

I appreciate your desire to talk to yourself in the mirror, but feel free to join the thread.

 

More serious than that is blocking traffic on bridges and other locations. If this is allowed to continue, someone will end up dying because an ambulance cannot make it through, the police will not be able to respond to an emergency or firemen will be unable to respond to a fire. If that happens, the whole bunch of them should be convicted of man slaughter.

 

My definition would be (and I think this is probably the way the law sees it) that speech rises to the level of inciting violence when it either proposes a specific act or violence against a specific person or heavily suggests such an act and the speaker refrains from acting when others act on that speech in a violent manner, despite having the opportunity to do so. Why do you disagree?

 

This I can get behind.

 

is Trump guilty then, I think we can say both instances were disgusting, I would not hire any involved to be our President

but really, other than Charles Manson, have never seen anyone but those participating charged with a crime in most instances

if any do commit crimes though, charge them

 

what matters is SELECTIVE FREE speech (which should not be a thing), you either have free speech or you don't. The left wants to control what speech is allowed and what isn't so when it comes to Trump, its tricky, because they want to make sure HIS speech is not FREE
Either way you look at it, it looks really, really bad for your little blue buddies

 

Still polishing that mirror, I see.

 

still have no real rebuttals, i see

 

Yes. Again, you need to stop having your arguments with your bathroom mirror.

My turn to . . . what? The topic isn't too much for me, but it is clearly too much for you. You, so far, have not actually been willing to discuss anything with anyone regarding the "topic."

 

What law was violated. If action is to be taken a law must be violated. Did it incite violence? If so there may be a case, but this would also be bad for Candidate Trump who said "We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore,". Law needs to be consistent.

 

Are you comparing "we fight like hell" (which I can find a video of at least 50 instances wehre politicians on both sides have used that PHRASE) to "DEATH TO AMERICA"?
really?
sorry dude, can't take you seriously at this point but thankyou for the bump
keep up the good work!

 

The flag burning could potentially be illegal, if they were burning someone else's flag or were doing so in a reckless manner that posed a danger. I guess I just feel like being charitable today.

 

I thought the left was YUGE on being against hate speech. I'm old enough to remember when AG Loretta Lynch said she would prosecute people who said mean things about Musims. How many people have lost their jobs because they gave their opinion on LGB issues?

Hey libs, be honest. What would my life expectancy be if I marched through NYC burning blm and pride flags or drew pictures of Mohammad?

 

Burning your own flags or burning those belonging to others? You'd probably be fine, if they are your own flags. Or at least as fine as if you went to my hometown and tried to walk from one side to the other in a dress and waving a pride flag. Or, you know, just had dark skin.

 

Please keep your race hustling garbage out of my thread . Also, if you insist on shoving it in, at last show examples. Show me the latest story from 2024 where someone black got attacked by a white person for walking down the street while black.
Ready, GO!!!!!

 

I mention this because I grew up in a sundown town. Look up the term if you want. But since, for the first time, you are actually interested in coming back to the topic if your own thread . . . can we do that now or is that still not allowed?