- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
So according to my leftist acquaintance, the burning of all of the Teslas
Posted on 3/26/25 at 7:06 am
Posted on 3/26/25 at 7:06 am
Is just an example of "serious vandalism". That's a direct quote.
Posted on 3/26/25 at 7:07 am to RoosterCogburn585
quote:
Is just an example of "serious vandalism". That's a direct quote.
But... the pollution? Aren't they concerned about climate change? Cow farts? Plastic Straws? Combustion Engines?
Posted on 3/26/25 at 7:17 am to SallysHuman
Well, see it's different we the person is aligned with someone they don't like. Then the pollution actually doesnt count.
Posted on 3/26/25 at 7:18 am to RoosterCogburn585
When a wacko lights fire to an abortion clinic it's called terrorism and hate crime. But another wacko burns a Tesla it's free speech.
This post was edited on 3/26/25 at 7:18 am
Posted on 3/26/25 at 7:20 am to RoosterCogburn585
Examples of "excessive free speech" lol
Posted on 3/26/25 at 7:23 am to Asharad
quote:Has anyone in the entire country asserted that burning someone else’s vehicle is protected by the First Amendment?
When a wacko lights fire to an abortion clinic it's called terrorism and hate crime. But another wacko burns a Tesla it's free speech.
As far as I can tell, they only debate is about what crime to charge: vandalism or arson.
I don’t even see much of a debate there. If you key the vehicle, it is vandalism. If you burn it, it is arson.
This post was edited on 3/26/25 at 7:25 am
Posted on 3/26/25 at 7:24 am to AggieHank86
quote:those aren't the only option
vandalism or arson
Posted on 3/26/25 at 7:29 am to AggieHank86
Definition of terrorism from FEMA "the use of force or violence against persons or property in violation of the criminal laws of the United States for purposes of intimidation, coercion, or ransom". Pretty sure that fits it too a tee.
Posted on 3/26/25 at 7:31 am to RoosterCogburn585
He should read the definition of domestic terrorism.
That’s exactly what it is. Using fear and violence to influence political outcomes (my paraphrase).
That’s exactly what it is. Using fear and violence to influence political outcomes (my paraphrase).
This post was edited on 3/26/25 at 7:32 am
Posted on 3/26/25 at 7:33 am to BobBoucher
I didnt remember the abortion clinic terrorism thing. I asked him if that should stopped being referred to as terrorism and just be serious vandalism.
Posted on 3/26/25 at 7:34 am to RoosterCogburn585
Your friend would have you jailed if they knew you didn't tow 100% of the leftist mantra. You know this, right?
Posted on 3/26/25 at 7:36 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Has anyone in the entire country asserted that burning someone else’s vehicle is protected by the First Amendment?
Yes, the Democrat Party has.

Posted on 3/26/25 at 7:36 am to RoosterCogburn585
Your acquaintance is just an example of "serious retardation"
Posted on 3/26/25 at 7:38 am to RoosterCogburn585
quote:
"serious vandalism".
Nope, unfortunately for them this fits the definition of terrorism and could fall into the category of environmental terrorism as well... I hope they are caught and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law...
Posted on 3/26/25 at 7:39 am to RoosterCogburn585
quote:Definition of terrorism from TDPT "the use of force or violence against persons or property in violation of the criminal laws of the United States in toddleresque fits of emotional pique".
Definition of terrorism from FEMA "the use of force or violence against persons or property in violation of the criminal laws of the United States for purposes of intimidation, coercion, or ransom".
Posted on 3/26/25 at 7:41 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Has anyone in the entire country asserted that burning someone else’s vehicle is protected by the First Amendment?
Above the fray DishonestHank here to stump for his pals. Cant make this stuff up
Posted on 3/26/25 at 7:42 am to RoosterCogburn585
Hard truth is a percentage of the left wants to do actual harm to the MAGA base, they just want someone else to do it for them because they can’t do it themselves.
The polls during Covid proved it, more than half wanted the right locked up if they didn’t submit and their children removed from the homes of people they disagreed with.
The only chance we have to fix it without actual violence is if USAID/DOGE stops the flow of incendiary media to the DNC base and the “expert” class stops telling them the world is going to end if we don’t get the right out of the way so we can fix climate change / racism / patriarchy/ etc.
At the moment the left has successfully scapegoated and lightning rodded the right with their base by blaming them for everything wrong in their life whether true or imagined and pitting two groups against each other has always been the most effective way to maintain power.
The polls during Covid proved it, more than half wanted the right locked up if they didn’t submit and their children removed from the homes of people they disagreed with.
The only chance we have to fix it without actual violence is if USAID/DOGE stops the flow of incendiary media to the DNC base and the “expert” class stops telling them the world is going to end if we don’t get the right out of the way so we can fix climate change / racism / patriarchy/ etc.
At the moment the left has successfully scapegoated and lightning rodded the right with their base by blaming them for everything wrong in their life whether true or imagined and pitting two groups against each other has always been the most effective way to maintain power.
Posted on 3/26/25 at 7:45 am to AggieHank86
quote:
As far as I can tell, they only debate is about what crime to charge: vandalism or arson.
Some arsonists just like to light fires. Some do it because they’re paid. An activist lights a fire against a perceived political opponent and now we have a terrorist.
Terrorism is the third obvious charge that you conveniently ignored, counselor.
This post was edited on 3/26/25 at 7:49 am
Posted on 3/26/25 at 7:50 am to Asharad
quote:
those aren't the only option
And soon they will vandalise the wrong Tesla and find out.
It's not very smart or even rationale behavoir
Posted on 3/26/25 at 7:50 am to DawgCountry
quote:So, you think that I am DEFENDING the Tesla vandals/arsonists, by asserting that their actions do NOT constitute protected free speech?
Has anyone in the entire country asserted that burning someone else’s vehicle is protected by the First Amendment?quote:
Above the fray DishonestHank here to stump for his pals. Cant make this stuff up
Serious question: Were you dropped on your head as a child ... repeatedly?
Popular
Back to top
