Master Thread Dance Your Cares Away/Fraggle/Law Abiding Citizens
- Thread starter Bryan74b
- Start date
Master Threads
These stupid people will not admit that they are in a liberal death cult. They cannot deal with anyone that doesn’t believe every single thing they do.
Supposedly fired a missile at af1 during his first term in Hawaii area
Alaska?
Supposedly near or from Whidbey Island off the coast of Washington state. Also, supposedly on his first summit meeting with rocket man. Of, could have been complete bullshit. We are never told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Of course - right when AF1 was in the area headed to Korea
Lots of Q posts regarding Red October
www.whidbeynewstimes.com
There was a mysterious object seen over Whidbey Island that appeared to be a missile launch, but the military confirmed it was not a missile. The object was captured by a weather camera, and experts suggested it could have been something else entirely, as there are no missile capabilities at the nearby naval base.
Military
Patch
Lots of Q posts regarding Red October
Curious photo fueling speculation | Whidbey News-Times
Base says no rockets were launched on Whidbey
www.whidbeynewstimes.com
There was a mysterious object seen over Whidbey Island that appeared to be a missile launch, but the military confirmed it was not a missile. The object was captured by a weather camera, and experts suggested it could have been something else entirely, as there are no missile capabilities at the nearby naval base.
Overview of the Whidbey Island Incident
In June 2018, a mysterious object was photographed over Whidbey Island, Washington, leading to speculation that it was a missile launch. The image, captured by a weather camera, showed a bright streak in the sky that resembled a rocket's exhaust.Key Details
Object Description
- Time of Observation: Approximately 3:56 a.m. on June 10, 2018
- Location: Over Whidbey Island, near a naval air station
- Appearance: The object appeared to be ascending, similar to a missile launch
Official Responses
- Naval Air Station Whidbey Island: Officials stated there were no missile capabilities at the base and denied any missile launch occurred.
- Meteorologist Insights: Cliff Mass, a professor at the University of Washington, noted that while the object looked like a missile, there were no confirmed military operations in the area at that time.
Speculations and Theories
- Possible Explanations: Theories included atmospheric phenomena or an object moving towards the camera, creating an optical illusion.
- Public Reaction: The incident sparked significant online debate and curiosity among local residents and observers.
Cowboy1stn10
Elite
Imagine not knowing the difference between imports and exports.
Again, why libs can't admit they're wrong on anything. First they know their base won't accept it. Two, everything else unravels. That is why they are more dangerous now than ever, it's slipping away. Also why we have to win in 26 and 28
The idea that one "can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater" as a test for limiting free speech has been largely debunked for several reasons. The original legal context was weak and later overturned, and the popular phrase misrepresents the actual quote.
Misrepresentation of the original quote
The popular summary often leaves out two key qualifications from the original 1919 opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v. United States.
- The original quote: Holmes actually wrote: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic".
- The crucial difference: The word "falsely" is almost always omitted, changing the meaning entirely. It is a vital and protected exercise of free speech to yell "fire" if there is a real fire. The original quote also specified that the false cry must cause a panic, connecting the speech to a specific harmful outcome.
The Schenck decision, which created the "clear and present danger" test, was overturned by a later Supreme Court ruling.
- The Schenck case: In 1919, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of socialist Charles Schenck for distributing anti-draft pamphlets, ruling that his actions posed a "clear and present danger" to the war effort. Holmes' theater analogy was used to justify this limit on speech.
- The overturning of Schenck: In 1969, the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio replaced the "clear and present danger" test with the stricter "imminent lawless action" test. This new standard ruled that the government can only limit speech if it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action".
Legal scholars note that Holmes' phrase was a non-binding illustration, or dictum, rather than a formal legal rule. The analogy resonated with the public because false fire alarms were a known danger that caused multiple deaths in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. However, it is not a legal standard for restricting speech.
What is and isn't protected
Yelling "fire" in a theater may not be a First Amendment issue at all, but rather a violation of other laws.
- Unprotected speech: If a person falsely yells "fire" to cause panic, they could be charged with crimes like disorderly conduct or reckless endangerment. If someone is killed in the stampede, it could even lead to involuntary manslaughter charges.
- Protected speech: Free speech rights do protect a person who yells "fire" in the sincere belief that there is a fire. The law's focus is on the speaker's intent and the direct, likely consequences of their words, not just the words themselves.
Seems very CIA to me
Shrek
Poster
Gays and trannies are just (((satan)))'s useful idiots. It doesn't exist in animals. It's a myth. Only times gay acts can be found in animals is after they've been in captivity by humans and gone insane. They're both forms of mental illness, and it's a movement Utah's governor is part of.
Similar threads
