- 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
5
Posted on 11/23/25 at 7:48 am to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:I suspect that this was “done now“ because these individuals (like the majority of the population) believe that Trump is violating the law off the coast of Venezuela, and they think that members of the US military should think about that.
They should simply come out and (remind soldiers/sailors of the UCMJ) every year in every administration so that all will know the rules.
Why do it now and in Trump's administration? They had no bad intentions in doing this did they?
Posted on 11/23/25 at 7:49 am to RFK
quote:The implication of the messaging was oppositional to your innuendo.
Also because an elected lawmaker telling troops to follow the law that already exists (UCMJ) which prohibits following unlawful orders, is not sedition.
You are claiming in such cases that Courts do not recognize innuendo or implication can be defamatory if it reasonably leads the public to a false conclusion about the target?
Posted on 11/23/25 at 7:49 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:The horror
They clearly tell people to be on the legal side of the law and Constitution.
Posted on 11/23/25 at 7:49 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Why?
They clearly tell people to be on the legal side of the law and Constitution.
Posted on 11/23/25 at 7:49 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
The implication of the messaging was oppositional
Opposition only to illegality.
You can try to change what they said all you want, but that still remains.
What is the problem with being opposed to illegality?
Posted on 11/23/25 at 7:50 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Good Lord that is obtuse.
Opposition only to illegality.
Posted on 11/23/25 at 7:51 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Why?
What's your problem with telling people to follow the law and Constitution?
Posted on 11/23/25 at 7:51 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Good Lord that is obtuse.
it is not.
It's literally what they said.
You're trying to imply an obtuse result, still, ignoring their words.
Posted on 11/23/25 at 7:52 am to NC_Tigah
quote:Are we now shifting the conversation from (a) whether the tweet was criminal to (b) Trump filing some hypothetical civil tort/defamation lawsuit against its authors?
You are claiming in such cases that Courts do not recognize innuendo or implication can be defamatory if it reasonably leads the public to a false conclusion about the target?
Talk about your mobile goal posts.
Posted on 11/23/25 at 7:52 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
They clearly tell people to be on the legal side of the law and Constitution.
After they clearly said Trump was on the wrong side.
Posted on 11/23/25 at 7:52 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Like pedophilia?
What is the problem with being opposed to illegality?
Two childcare facilities are in competition.
The owner of one places a sign in the public space in front of his competitor's location saying
"BEWARE!
PEDOPHILIA is illegal!
Get PEDOPHILES out
of this Day Care business!"
The sign does not say there actually are pedophiles in the business.
It "simply says" get them out if they are there.
None the less it destroys the business.
You are claiming in such cases that Courts do not recognize innuendo or implication can be defamatory if it reasonably leads the public to a false conclusion about the target?
Posted on 11/23/25 at 7:53 am to SallysHuman
quote:Please quote/link any such assertion. TIA.
They clearly tell people to be on the legal side of the law and Constitution.quote:
After they clearly said Trump was on the wrong side.
Posted on 11/23/25 at 7:54 am to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:On what basis?
Trump filing some hypothetical civil tort/defamation lawsuit against its authors?
Posted on 11/23/25 at 7:55 am to NC_Tigah
quote:Apparently, we all HAVE completely moved the goal post in this discussion.
You are claiming in such cases that Courts do not recognize innuendo or implication can be defamatory if it reasonably leads the public to a false conclusion about the target?
Point of interest. That normally happens when someone implicitly concedes that they lost the original argument.
Posted on 11/23/25 at 7:56 am to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
Please quote/link any such assertion. TIA.
I already have. How about this time you go find the full text of their PSA and we can nitpick it together.
Posted on 11/23/25 at 7:57 am to NC_Tigah
quote:I’ve no idea
Trump filing some hypothetical civil tort/defamation lawsuit against its authors?quote:
On what basis?
I’m not the poster who keeps raising the issue of civil liability for defamation in a thread discussing the question of whether Kelly is guilty of the crime of sedition.
Posted on 11/23/25 at 7:58 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:What was the implicit reason they said it?
It's literally what they said.
Posted on 11/23/25 at 7:59 am to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
I’ve no idea
Posted on 11/23/25 at 8:01 am to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:So now you are claiming Courts do not recognize innuendo or implication in criminal cases?
Apparently, we all HAVE completely moved the goal post in this discussion.
Page 4 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News