liberal vs conservatives

Harvey Weinstein must have arrived at the conclusion that there's only one way to keep her mouth shut...

She's ignorant, and obviously a very, very troubled person. I hope she gets the help she seems to so desperately need.

Unfortunately for her, it's been getting worse, not better,..

In my opinion:

If not for the fact that her mental and emotional age seem to be frozen at roughly age 12 (judging by her twitter post), *this* should be a crime. This is treason, a betrayal of allegiance. Not high Treason, but treason nonetheless.

Weinstein should be taken to a landfill and have his brains blown out.

You have a point.
As to rapists,.. I'd prefer locking them up in 'pound-them-in-the-ass-prison' rather than offering an quick and easy way out.

No, this is not treason. Rose McGowan is protected by her first amendment right. If she were a representative of the US government or was giving sensitive government information to Iran, then you'd have an argument.

Her statement is on par with Donald Trump's own...

"Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

It is a betrayal of allegiance, one definition of treason. You don't have to agree.

How is it a betrayal of allegiance?

"Dear #Iran, The USA has disrespected your country, your flag, your people. 52% of us humbly apologize. We want peace with your nation. We are being held hostage by a terrorist regime. We do not know how to escape. Please do not kill us. #Soleimani"

I don't agree with her at all but I don't have to sacrifice her stupidity to fuel my political partisan bias. The closest thing to "treason" is saying "We are being held hostage by a terrorist regime"

It is not treason to call the President of the United States a terrorist.

She is free and welcome to dissent. She has not been appointed to speak for 52%. Freedom of speech does not empower one to speak to a foreign power on behalf of the country, even in what amounts to an open letter.

The term treason is usually used today in association with impeachment. It may have other legal or criminal definitions. A dictionary definition (I think I used Dictionary.com in my original comment, but it may have been Lexico.com) does include a violation of allegiance.

As I previously stated, this is my opinion: an appeal to a foreign power, made under the pretense of having the power and legitimate authority to speak on behalf of a majority, with the tone of a penitent child speaking to an elder, while enjoying the rights, freedoms and protections provided by the "terrorist regime" is unquestionably disloyal and a violation of allegiance.

Perhaps you would prefer that I had used "treacherous."

Your argument was that this /should/ be a crime because it is treason. You've already established that it is not a crime in the post I originally replied to. But you seem to think it should be is the main source of my disagreement. Not the definition.

Dictionary.com or Lexico.com is not a bad definition. However, the constitution defines treason as;

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Pleading to Iran for mercy is not treason nor should it ever be. It is not illegal for people to speak on behalf of others. Furthermore, because she has no authority, her expressed opinions carry no legal weight.

You can certainly contest whom she is referring to when she says "We are being held hostage by a terrorist regime. We do not know how to escape." You seem to believe it to be the United States government, whereas my interpretation is the Trump Administration. If she were referring to the United States government, as a whole, then you might have something. However, it is her right as an American citizen to call the Trump Administration a terrorist regime in the tone of a penitent child.

I would prefer those who claim to believe in the principles freedom of speech not use it as a political tool to silence opposing perspectives. No matter how ridiculous and ignorant they are. And yes, that includes the idiot liberals who do the exact same thing.

Many things occur that carry real world weight, regardless of their legality. The lack of legal weight of her opinions do not mean they are not damaging to the legal efforts of the elected government. Free speech can be limited, and has been by SCOTUS. I don't think any of us should be permitted to use our rights and freedoms to game and undermine the system, though seems to happen daily. I recognize that by current law, her behavior is not illegal. In my opinion, she is entitled to direct her opinions to the Trump Administration, but addressing Iran directly is inappropriate and should carry consequences as big as her mouth.

Replying to your comment below, I think we're defending against opposite dangers. You seem to fear that any type of accountability for free speech, while denying that free speech is ever problematic. Perhaps you don't feel that way, but that is what is coming across. I am not advocating for speech police. I see a gradient here, one where people who speak irresponsibly have some sort of consequence to discourage it. If speech police is a 10 and our current system is a 2, I'd like to see a 3 or 4.

As for whether my mindset is liberal or conservative, that depends on whose mindset it is being compared to.

She did not undermine the system. She did not address Iran directly. The fact you want to change the law to silence her shows me that you're comfortable with the government controlling her words at everyone's expense. A typical liberal mindset pretending to be a conservative.

This is much more of deserving treason, and nothing is done about it!
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2018/05/04/kerry-quietly-seeking-salvage-iran-deal-helped-craft/2fTkGON7xvaNbO0YbHECUL/story.html

Also, a month or so ago, sappy c**t Pelosi's reassured the UN with: We're still in it.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/02/pelosi-to-climate-conference-were-still-in-paris-agreement-074756

Lynch both of them too,...and using the same rope to make it more interesting.

You all can talk the talk, can you walk the walk?

Here, go ahead, I'd love to hear cowards opinion on this....

Another piece of shit gone, which is good news. And yet another progressive cuddling up to a murderous human who kills innocent people. No surprise there. And she's a piece of garbage. They're too dumb to realize that if these terror groups attacked us, they'd be the first to go.

I am willing to accept that, perhaps, her current level of retarded/stunted/arrested functioning is the product of the abuse she suffered at the hands of Weinstein and the drugs she used to cope with it. Though for her safety, it might be best if she moved to Iran. That way she would be safe from their attacks >wink<.

It was a cowardly post, but I give her credit for deleting it.

There was no remorse. She's trying to pretend she didn't say it.

Maybe you are right.

Looks like conservatives (some) are looking for war

I have been absolutely stunned by the preponderance of ignorance being displayed on this site,it is shocking...
simply shocking...

You are one of the most ignorant here. Posting your smug photos 24/7 as if you are smarter and above everyone else. You are fooling no one. Stop being so condescending. I usually ignore your type, but someone should have told you off way before your ego got so inflated.

if I do not know,or am unsure,i state as much,clearly and openly.

I thank you for your perception of who you think I am.
it is...interesting...

as a gutter rat,at least I have the self-awareness to realize how much I do not know.
and remain silent on matters I am ignorant of,can you say the same my dear?

/reads your opinions....
it appears you cannot.
good day ma'am.

I tend to stick to facts whereas you tend to stick to stupid pictorials and condescending verbiage. I also do not act as if I am above others. Your aloofness is so obvious in the way you speak to others.

your presumptions about me,my motivations,my intent are exactly that:presumptions.

this site is infected with muppets,nazis and alt-right retards.
these are the people I find entertaining,and why I come here to slap them around.
it's FUN!

however,if someone engages with me like an actual human being and not a knuckledragging know-nothing,i always respond in kind.
I have interacted with many here on imgflip quite productively.
many here have earned my respect by engaging as a human,and I quite enjoy our interactions.

I do not know you.
and I do not presume to know you.
this is our first interaction,and I would not deem so arrogant to assume anything about you.

maybe you could offer the same in return?
you do not know me.
my politics,nor my level of education and/or experience.

everything you have surmised about me is solely based on your own observations,heavily influenced by your own biases and predjudices.

the choice is yours how we proceed.
are you a human being?
or a muppet?

And, you are the most foolish muppet of all. Now, I choose to go back to ignoring you. I said all I cared to say. But, do try to get help for your narcissistic personality disorder.

Traditional conservative beliefs include a strong national defense. If you're stunned by the ignorance here, you should stop being a part of it.

*hint* it doesn't.

you obviously have zero idea what you are talking about.

Ordering an attack on a US embassy isn't exactly the thing someone does if they want to keep breathing. Attacking an embassy is the same as attacking the country. It could be considered an act of war, especially since it was ordered by an Iranian military leader and not a terrorist group.

you have no idea what you are talking about mike,so please just stop.

regurgitating media talking points will garner you no points with me.

the situation is complicated,goes back over almost 80 years,and I have commented some on other threads.
but sniping these quick talking point quips reveals just how little you understand about this situation.
that's all you are really doing here..showing me how much you DON'T know.

And you're judging the situation based on your vast network of top secret spies and foreign relations contacts..... No, you're basing your opinion on the news releases from the government and what's being reported by the media....just like the rest of us.

The general was reported to have been the instigator of the embassy attack. We killed the shit out of him. If you'd like to divulge some additional information that you've obtained from your classified sources - feel free to do so. Just repeating "you're wrong" isn't going to do it. You may as well throw a "drumpf" into your argument if that's all you've got.

because I will take some of that action everyday,all day.

it is not my job to educate you mike.
that is YOUR job as an informed citizen.

i am not anti-trump,i am critical.
as i was of Obama and bush etc etc.

and all you are showing me is how much you do not know,and how very little you understand.

do what you want homie.
i am not here to change your mind.
i am just pointing out your ignorance.

cry,whine and throw a tantrum all you want.

i am not making a counter-argument,i am simply pointing out that YOUR argument is state-sponsored propaganda.

the only cure for ignorance,is knowledge.
what you are sharing is propaganda.

sorry if that bothers you,but that is a simple fact.
#crymore

And yet, your only response so far is to say "you're wrong", which isn't so much an argument as a deflection. If you'd care to supply alternative facts (and sources), then I might consider your argument.

what is there to talk about?

you are literally regurgitating propaganda talking points with little,or no,critical examination.

basically:soleimani is a bad dude,who has done bad stuff and orchestrated the embassy bombing attack.(with zero evidence)

that's it.when you reduce your argument down,that is all that is left.
and is EXACTLY what Pompeo has been peddling across media platforms.
so well done mike..you have been vomiting talking points as an argument.

i have offered no argument for you to consider.
i am simply pointing to the glaring fact that your argument is state sponsored propaganda.which you have freely admitted.

and we have played this game before when you attempted to make the claim that the Nazis were socialists,and i kindly offered a source and you quickly dismissed that source.

we both know that any source that i offer will be treated with the same contempt.you are far too invested in being "right" than to even consider *gasp* that you may just be ignorant on the complex histories and moving parts in regards to this assassination.

i have offered no argument to be dissected.
YOU have.
the complex histories between the US and Iran goes back 80 years,and i do not feel inclined to impart a history lesson on a meme site.i have commented on a few threads today where i offer a few points of consideration (feel free to check them out) ,but even those are only pale offerings in contrast to this complicated issue.

and it is very complicated mike.
not "he was a bad dude"

If you’re the one saying “You’re wrong”, you should post sources to back up your claims. Nobody’s going to look up anything on Google just because you say they’re wrong. It’s up to you to show them the light

I am specifically pointing to the usage of state propaganda as an argument as not being an argument at all,but state propaganda.

how can I be expected to have an argument/discussion until that glaring fact is addressed first?
my issue isn't with mike,but rather his stubborn clinging to a narrative fed by the state to excuse a bad military/foreign policy decision.

my tactic of pushing and needling was a tactical choice based on previous engagements with mike.which has become obvious I have failed spectacularly.
but I didn't just randomly choose that avenue.

my opinions are already suspect from mike's perspective.
mike comes from a particularly partisan perspective,and in the past,any source or link I have shared has been quickly dismissed with prejudice.
so I chose a different tactic.
one in which I didn't attempt to debunk the propaganda,but rather challenge mike's pride,and confidence in that propaganda.

this is the same tactic I use with my brother in law.
he too,will attack the source rather than examine his partisan beliefs.
so I will push HIM,directly.
which forces him to hit the "googles"..not because I have shown him the light,but rather because he becomes determined to make me eat crow....and in the process..comes to the "light" on his own accord.

now that "light" he comes to may differ from mine,and in that I am absolutely fine with,but that is when the real discussion can actually commence.

now it has become apparent this tactic has been an utter,and complete,failure,but that was the thinking behind my commentary.

I am fail.

but if you are interested,max Blumenthal at the grayzone has done a pretty amazing job at laying not only the history,but the politics,on this situation.there are many others but I think max has done the best work thus far (my opinion,of course).

*and thanks for commenting my friend.it revealed just how thoroughly I had failed and maybe needed to be addressed.

lol.
thanks for that man.
what an absolute shit day for me.

mike is an ok dude,he reminds me of my brother in law.
they post the same stuff,and I am such an ass I have to come in and kick their Lincoln logs down.

oh look!
I think mike's girlfriend just broke up with me.
so sad,we didn't even get the chance to finger f**k yet.

No Problem And Here's Wishing You A Better Tomorrow Man

I have no wish to intrude upon your argument. Still, embassies are treated as national territory. An attack on an embassy can be considered an act of war just as an attack on a vessel or the nation itself. If this guy ordered or orchestrated the attack, the response was justified as a mid-level response. I have no information that he did, other than what has been reported.

Please do not assume that I am urging war. I am saying only that an attack on an embassy requires a response.

As for the ad hominems, that is not my fight.

It's Not My Fight Either So Don't Worry It's Cool😎

I Was Just Talking To My Friend Because Michael Tried To Start Something With Me A Couple Of Days Ago ,My Meme About Polygamist Being Terrorist
[ You Know Muslims]
Well He Brought Up Mormons And I Quote Him "I Don't Think There's Ever Been A Mormon Terrorist" So I Gave Him An Example From 160 Years Or Ago And As Far As I'm Concerned He Got Pissy At Me Because I Used His Word EVER Which Has No Time Limit To Show An Example

My Intentions Are To Make A Funny Because We All Need A Good Laugh Even About Serious Issues Like Politics I Feel Like He Just Wanted To Play Gotcha And Get His Ego Stroked And I Don't Play That Game With Anyone

And Mike I Hope You The Best And Many Upvotes
And As Far As I'm Concerned Anything Said Between Us Can Be Water Under The Bridge ✌😋

that's a solid point,you are correct.

however,the situation had been dealt with already.
the claims against Soleimani have not been verified or corroborated.
while the dem leadership cries and clutches their offended pearls,they voted in the NDAA which gave the president the power to do what they are pretending to be so offended about.

as I have stated,complicated situation,and I could go on for a very long time laying it all out.
but when people just gargle up talking points,wave their made in china flag and shit down all critical thought.why would I?
we saw this right before the Iraq war,remember?
just a bunch of jingoistic,hyper-national masturbation.

know what bothers me the most?
back in 2003 we didn't know what we know now.
and to watch people just blindly swallow whatever is being shoveled into their face with no hesitation,no critical thought...is extremely disturbing to me.

and to see the same knee-jerk responses.
the same "if you're not with us,you're against us" mentality.
that to question the narrative must mean you hate America.
that to suggest caution,and incredulity equates hating trump.
and not what it actually is: thoughtful patience,tempered by experience.we have been here before.

you a smart fella mate,check out max blumenthals work at the gray zone.
I think he lays it out best..the entire tapestry.

not the propaganda drivel being shoved down out throats.

watching trump's reactions over the past few days has confirmed my suspicions that he was out of his depth,and listened to the wrong people.i do not think trump full understood the implications of this action.but the people he entrusted surely did..and they wanted this..

kinda feeling bad for the prez.
both the bush and obama administrations had their chances with Soleimani.bush even had more solid reason to go after him,but their administrations understood the cost would be too high.

but,trump chose to surround himself with neo-cons.
and neo-cons have been itching for war with iran for over 20 years.
they got their wars in:iraq,sudan,libya,afghanistan,syria
iran is the last on the list.

and they may have just succeeded.
we shall see...how this will play out I do not know.
I am just familiar with the history.