Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Easy E wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
On a lighter note, we had 8 years of the great "Thanks Obama" meme. What will replace it?

I propose "Gracias Trump!" I admit, it needs work.

I personally favor "All praise to Glorious Leader!"

Okay, here are some attempts...





I don;t know. It just doesn't seem to have the same.... staying power?

"Make [insert object] Great Again!", in an angry fist shaking kind of way?


Thanks Obama!



Make Cheetos Great Again!

 Easy E wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
On a lighter note, we had 8 years of the great "Thanks Obama" meme. What will replace it?

I propose "Gracias Trump!" I admit, it needs work.

I personally favor "All praise to Glorious Leader!"

Okay, here are some attempts...





I don;t know. It just doesn't seem to have the same.... staying power?

'Alternative ______' and 'But Hillary's Emails!' are pretty strong contenders, I'd say...

 jasper76 wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Free speech also has exclusions, however, when public safety is an issue and happens to be false, ex. Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater. See Schenck vs. U.S.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
For the record, Free Speech is only the government trying to shut you up. Other people can do whatever they like within the limits of the law to shut you up or take-away your platform.

Feel free to test the limits of Free Speech at your own workplace for a fun time at the HR office. Private entities can and do limit free speech all the time.

Free speech may indeed have consequences - but they should fall within the rule of law.

As I said. Other people can do whatever they want to try and stop you, within the limits of the law. The rioters are not a first amendment issue at all, but are in fact just a common run of the mill law enforcement issue.

 d-usa wrote:


"Make [insert object] Great Again!", in an angry fist shaking kind of way?


Thanks Obama!



Make Cheetos Great Again!

Okay this is a much better idea.

@Easy E: It's a whole lot more than a law enforcement issue to people like me who think that freedom of speech and freedom of peaceful assembly are fundamental liberal values.

But yes, it is also a law enforcement issue, I grant you that.

 Stevefamine wrote:
He's doing extremely well so far in office with campaign promises. Two weeks in and we're seeing some solid work being done by the President of the United States.

I'm looking forward to seeing how he managers to get the funding for the wall. I would be extremely disappointed if the 'Build the Wall" was just to get elected.

The UC Berkeley riot was interesting. Antifa are making the actual college students look terrible.

By "solid work" do you mean all the executive actions he has taken thus far? Because none of that is solid and up to the whims and discretion of whoever happens to be president. Every one of his decrees can be done away with in one instant with a new president. It strikes me as odd, that the people who applaud his use of EO's, the very people who hated Obama's use of them, don't see that none of what Trump has done thus far really means much and is actually kind of totally unnecessary. Unlike Obama when he signed most of his, Trump has control of both houses. He could codify his decrees so they might actually last. Obama, in pretty much every instance I can think of him signing an EO, tried to get legislation passed or rely on congress to do so first, and only did so as a last resort. Dream Babies? Because congress couldn't pass comprehensive legislation. Gun stuff? Again, congress wouldn't act. Obama tried to play the long legacy game for fixes he believed in (I actually like that Obama cared about what people generations from now will think of him), and resorted to the band aid when it didn't work. Trump seems more concerned with the here and now, not caring or unable to see what might happen down the road. If you like Trumps decrees, fair enough, you are getting what you want right now. But you will be bitching about them when Trump is gone and the Dems take back control.

We also are not free to slander and libel which we all unfortunately do too frequently. It's one of the reasons we have such a problem with the "free" discourse of ideas.

It would seem that we could use a good dose of Grandma's wisdom of "if you don't have nuthin nice to say, don't say nuthin at all"

One thing I am not looking forward too is Sunday as I am worried that I won't be able to avoid seeing protests and political statements galore while trying to enjoy the Falcons pasting the Patriots. (Look already breaking Grandma's heart )

I do get a bit tired of various groups trying to take advantage of the chance to get wider media exposure due to coverage of unrelated and supposedly apolitical events.

 jasper76 wrote:
@Easy E: It's a whole lot more than a law enforcement issue to people like me who think that freedom of speech and freedom of peaceful assembly are fundamental liberal values.

But yes, it is also a law enforcement issue, I grant you that.

Individuals trying to silence people is not a Constitutional Issue or indeed covered by the Constitution at all. It is a common misconception.

Now, as a societal/cultural issue we may feel different about it; but culture is not the Constitution.



Anyway, thanks to everyone with the meme ideas I can't believe I didn't think about some of those.
--"Make American great Again!" could go with so many pictures.
--"But her Emails!" could be brilliant in the right context.
--"All Praise Glorious Leader!" I can see being hilarious
--"Alternative Facts!" is also brilliant.

I expect Dakka Dakka to get to work on these stat!

 Lord of Deeds wrote:
We also are not free to slander and libel which we all unfortunately do too frequently. It's one of the reasons we have such a problem with the "free" discourse of ideas.

It would seem that we could use a good dose of Grandma's wisdom of "if you don't have nuthin nice to say, don't say nuthin at all"

One thing I am not looking forward too is Sunday as I am worried that I won't be able to avoid seeing protests and political statements galore while trying to enjoy the Falcons pasting the Patriots. (Look already breaking Grandma's heart )

I do get a bit tired of various groups trying to take advantage of the chance to get wider media exposure due to coverage of unrelated and supposedly apolitical events.

And I just realized that this is Super Bowl weekend. Oh, I know, the only sport that matters just had their all star game and is in mid season.

 Lord of Deeds wrote:
One thing I am not looking forward too is Sunday as I am worried that I won't be able to avoid seeing protests and political statements galore while trying to enjoy the Falcons pasting the Patriots. (Look already breaking Grandma's heart )

I do get a bit tired of various groups trying to take advantage of the chance to get wider media exposure due to coverage of unrelated and supposedly apolitical events.

I'm sure more pious lectures from celebrity millionaires will work out great for the Democrats

 jasper76 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
And since NY doesn't like to take second place to California, even in riots against free speech:
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/02/03/violent-protests-nyu-new-york-city-gavin-mcinnes-vice-media

I had to google that guy. Same alma mater as my brother! I don't read a lot of Vice. Is it particularly right wing?

Vice is not particularly right wing, more "counter culture" in general, they do have some pretty good stuff, however McInnes doesn't have a relationship with them anymore, he's moved on to becoming a professional controversy generator/troll like Yiannopolous, a part of their livelyhood is generating exactly this kind of reaction, which also appears to be missed in the conversation.

The existence of provocateurs does not justify violence.

First Amendment rights don't vanish when someone says something you disagree with...in fact, that's when it's actually meaningful.

I'm not saying that it does justify violence, but lets also realize that expecting people not to take the bait is being unrealistic given the kinds of things these guys engage in.

If I leave a brand new Charger or Escalade, tricked out to the 9's, running and unlocked with the keys in the ignition in an area of town known for intense gang violence and car theft and go off telling people about how nice my car is and how the keys are just sitting there unattended, I shouldn't be surprised when my car gets stolen, less so when I expect it to get stolen so I can turn around and say terrible things about the people who live in that part of town. Doesn't make it right to steal the car, but I also basically went out of my way to ensure that possibility would come to pass with ulterior motives, and few will have any sympathy.

Lets also realize that some of the things these people have engaged in have gone well beyond simple "free speech" and well into direct and intentional direct personal harassment & attacks, doxxing, etc, in addition to racist/sexist/anti-semitic comments that get people real hot and bothered.

 Easy E wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
@Easy E: It's a whole lot more than a law enforcement issue to people like me who think that freedom of speech and freedom of peaceful assembly are fundamental liberal values.

But yes, it is also a law enforcement issue, I grant you that.

Individuals trying to silence people is not a Constitutional Issue or indeed covered by the Constitution at all. It is a common misconception.

Serious question: can't you sue an individual or group for violating your Constitutional rights?

 jasper76 wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
@Easy E: It's a whole lot more than a law enforcement issue to people like me who think that freedom of speech and freedom of peaceful assembly are fundamental liberal values.

But yes, it is also a law enforcement issue, I grant you that.

Individuals trying to silence people is not a Constitutional Issue or indeed covered by the Constitution at all. It is a common misconception.

Serious question: can't you sue an individual or group for violating your Constitutional rights?

You can, but you don't have a case unless it's the govt. that is trying to silence you. The constitution limits what the federal govt. can do, not what private citizens or corporations can do. If they do so violently, it isn't a violation of rights, but a civil matter. I think this whole conversation about "free speech" is a total mislabeling about what "freedom of speech" actually means and its intention. It was primarily about the press speaking out against the govt. "If I had to choose between government without newspapers, and newspapers without government, I wouldn't hesitate to choose the latter."--Thomas Jefferson. Read some of the papers from back then. They weren't exactly kind to him. He knew what was going on.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
@Easy E: It's a whole lot more than a law enforcement issue to people like me who think that freedom of speech and freedom of peaceful assembly are fundamental liberal values.

But yes, it is also a law enforcement issue, I grant you that.

Individuals trying to silence people is not a Constitutional Issue or indeed covered by the Constitution at all. It is a common misconception.

Serious question: can't you sue an individual or group for violating your Constitutional rights?

Not if done in a private capacity in an otherwise legal manner. You can't sue a newspaper for not printing your letter to the editor, you can't sue Facebook for taking down a racist rant post advocating for the slaughter of a particular demographic, you can't sue a store for not allowing firearms inside, etc.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
Probably not until we hear outrage about his threat to send 'the Feds' into Chicago.

Everyone remember how routine military training exercises were actually a cover for Obama to put us all in FEMA death camps?

There have been other times where federal law enforcement will legally flood a city. We have buttload of them right now in Houston. I can see them and hear the helicopters.

Bush did that in New Orleans, didn't he?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
Probably not until we hear outrage about his threat to send 'the Feds' into Chicago.

Everyone remember how routine military training exercises were actually a cover for Obama to put us all in FEMA death camps?

There have been other times where federal law enforcement will legally flood a city. We have buttload of them right now in Houston. I can see them and hear the helicopters.

Bush did that in New Orleans, didn't he?

No.

 Easy E wrote:
For the record, Free Speech is only the government trying to shut you up. Other people can do whatever they like within the limits of the law to shut you up or take-away your platform.

Feel free to test the limits of Free Speech at your own workplace for a fun time at the HR office. Private entities can and do limit free speech all the time.

Let me embolden the part of your sentence that matters:

Other people can do whatever they like within the limits of the law to shut you up or take-away your platform.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord of Deeds wrote:
We also are not free to slander and libel which we all unfortunately do too frequently. It's one of the reasons we have such a problem with the "free" discourse of ideas.

It would seem that we could use a good dose of Grandma's wisdom of "if you don't have nuthin nice to say, don't say nuthin at all"

One thing I am not looking forward too is Sunday as I am worried that I won't be able to avoid seeing protests and political statements galore while trying to enjoy the Falcons pasting the Patriots. (Look already breaking Grandma's heart )

I do get a bit tired of various groups trying to take advantage of the chance to get wider media exposure due to coverage of unrelated and supposedly apolitical events.

Truth is an excellent defense to those allegations.

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
Probably not until we hear outrage about his threat to send 'the Feds' into Chicago.

Everyone remember how routine military training exercises were actually a cover for Obama to put us all in FEMA death camps?

There have been other times where federal law enforcement will legally flood a city. We have buttload of them right now in Houston. I can see them and hear the helicopters.

Bush did that in New Orleans, didn't he?

No.

Whembly is correct here. You might be thinking about when he flew over it a week after it happened in a helicopter and said "you're doing a heck of a job, Brownie".

 jasper76 wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Free speech also has exclusions, however, when public safety is an issue and happens to be false, ex. Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater. See Schenck vs. U.S.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
For the record, Free Speech is only the government trying to shut you up. Other people can do whatever they like within the limits of the law to shut you up or take-away your platform.

Feel free to test the limits of Free Speech at your own workplace for a fun time at the HR office. Private entities can and do limit free speech all the time.

Free speech may indeed have consequences - but they should fall within the rule of law. Thug rule and vigilantism do not fall within the rule of law.

That is why the police go and arrest rioters.

 Easy E wrote:
Anyway, thanks to everyone with the meme ideas I can't believe I didn't think about some of those.
--"Make American great Again!" could go with so many pictures.
--"But her Emails!" could be brilliant in the right context.
--"All Praise Glorious Leader!" I can see being hilarious
--"Alternative Facts!" is also brilliant.

I'd like to put forward; "But Obama". I'm already seeing a trend where, when Trump does something horrible, someone will start a sentence with "But Obama" shortly thereafter.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
Probably not until we hear outrage about his threat to send 'the Feds' into Chicago.

Everyone remember how routine military training exercises were actually a cover for Obama to put us all in FEMA death camps?

There have been other times where federal law enforcement will legally flood a city. We have buttload of them right now in Houston. I can see them and hear the helicopters.

Bush did that in New Orleans, didn't he?

Different agencies. I believe those were military/guard. I meant more flooding an area with various police agencies. That is within federal purview.
Marching bluecoats down main street, not so much.

These riots are so counterproductive too. Really, even the peaceful demonstrations are.

They turn people like Milo Y. from obscure internet provocateurs I to full-fledged celebrities.

Although this Gavin McInnes guy is pretty harsh on the eyes...I don't thi K he's gonna catch on with the groupies.

 Pendix wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Anyway, thanks to everyone with the meme ideas I can't believe I didn't think about some of those.
--"Make American great Again!" could go with so many pictures.
--"But her Emails!" could be brilliant in the right context.
--"All Praise Glorious Leader!" I can see being hilarious
--"Alternative Facts!" is also brilliant.

I'd like to put forward; "But Obama". I'm already seeing a trend where, when Trump does something horrible, someone will start a sentence with "But Obama" shortly thereafter.

To do it right it needs to include either "bigly" or "very very" and preferably both.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Free speech also has exclusions, however, when public safety is an issue and happens to be false, ex. Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater. See Schenck vs. U.S.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
For the record, Free Speech is only the government trying to shut you up. Other people can do whatever they like within the limits of the law to shut you up or take-away your platform.

Feel free to test the limits of Free Speech at your own workplace for a fun time at the HR office. Private entities can and do limit free speech all the time.

Free speech may indeed have consequences - but they should fall within the rule of law. Thug rule and vigilantism do not fall within the rule of law.

That is why the police go and arrest rioters.

Wasn't it only like 1 person who got arrested over the UC Berkeley riots? I could be the victim of fake news here.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
Probably not until we hear outrage about his threat to send 'the Feds' into Chicago.

Everyone remember how routine military training exercises were actually a cover for Obama to put us all in FEMA death camps?

There have been other times where federal law enforcement will legally flood a city. We have buttload of them right now in Houston. I can see them and hear the helicopters.

Bush did that in New Orleans, didn't he?

Different agencies. I believe those were military/guard. I meant more flooding an area with various police agencies. That is within federal purview.
Marching bluecoats down main street, not so much.

And I would argue that marching the guard down the streets immediately is exactly what should have happened. Not with guns though. Just sandbags and cash, like we did in Iraq.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
Probably not until we hear outrage about his threat to send 'the Feds' into Chicago.

Everyone remember how routine military training exercises were actually a cover for Obama to put us all in FEMA death camps?

There have been other times where federal law enforcement will legally flood a city. We have buttload of them right now in Houston. I can see them and hear the helicopters.

Bush did that in New Orleans, didn't he?

Different agencies. I believe those were military/guard. I meant more flooding an area with various police agencies. That is within federal purview.
Marching bluecoats down main street, not so much.

And I would argue that marching the guard down the streets immediately is exactly what should have happened. Not with guns though. Just sandbags and cash, like we did in Iraq.

Indeed, but the Governor and Mayor refused Bush's offer...

 jasper76 wrote:
These riots are so counterproductive too. Really, even the peaceful demonstrations are.

They turn people like Milo Y. from obscure internet provocateurs I to full-fledged celebrities.

Although this Gavin McInnes guy is pretty harsh on the eyes...I don't thi K he's gonna catch on with the groupies.

Milo wasn't exactly obscure. He was discussed even here in Dakka many times. Whembly followed him on Facebook or twitter because he was funny. Was he not "mainstream kitchen table" famous, no. Probably not. Neither is my senator, John Thune. Should he be because he says gak stain stupid stuff? Yes. Infamous.

 jasper76 wrote:

Wasn't it only like 1 person who got arrested over the UC Berkeley riots? I could be the victim of fake news here.

It looks like it may be up to three people.

http://abc7news.com/news/3-arrested-in-violent-protest-at-uc-berkeley/1734579/

 Frazzled wrote:
And since NY doesn't like to take second place to California, even in riots against free speech:
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/02/03/violent-protests-nyu-new-york-city-gavin-mcinnes-vice-media

Semi-related: I knew a guy in Oakland whose dream was one day to buy a shotgun and move to Philly. He also said the Princess Bride was a terrible film.

I guess I'm saying that, anecdotally, there seems to be this mythologizing of the East Coast out here as a violent place full of tough guys.

 whembly wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
Probably not until we hear outrage about his threat to send 'the Feds' into Chicago.

Everyone remember how routine military training exercises were actually a cover for Obama to put us all in FEMA death camps?

There have been other times where federal law enforcement will legally flood a city. We have buttload of them right now in Houston. I can see them and hear the helicopters.

Bush did that in New Orleans, didn't he?

Different agencies. I believe those were military/guard. I meant more flooding an area with various police agencies. That is within federal purview.
Marching bluecoats down main street, not so much.

And I would argue that marching the guard down the streets immediately is exactly what should have happened. Not with guns though. Just sandbags and cash, like we did in Iraq.

Indeed, but the Governor and Mayor refused Bush's offer...

Bad on them. They are both out of office too. Good. Also isn't Nagin up in court for something? When you send in troops to clean something up it shouldn't be an "offer". More of a demand situation. Troops follow orders, not suggestions.