Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin says bloodshed may be needed to protect conservatism

[Sky High]

I wonder if Trump saying that she was the Devil with extreme hate in her heart, or Alex Jones literally saying she is a demon has anything to do with statements like this. Somehow I don't see Hillary doing anything that would require a civil war.

these guys fail their arms and gums about for a living. last time it was the socialist, commie secret Muslim and now it's Satan himself. before it was FEMA death camps now.. IDK the end of the world or some crap like that.

[Independent voter]

The governor is going to attack a Ben & Jerry's.

[Garnier Fructis]

I find many things and many people alarming, among them people that make baseless accusations and chose to throw around words they dont know what mean. Now, if you can show me clinical evidence (the kind that is generated when someone is examined by a psychiatrist) as opposed to the rants and rambles of some pissed off internet denizen that qualifies him as a 'nutjob' then I'll remove the quotes. Until then, not happening.

Matt Bevin is hardly a pissed off internet denizen.

[PC2]

B-but BLM advocates for cop killing! That's not freedom of speech and they should be hung! These guys? Oh nah they're okay they're just exercising their god given rights

If a BLM supporter said they are going to slaughter corruption in law enforcement even if it takes physical bloodshed, it's not criminal. Ideas are not people.

[Seranthor]

Matt Bevin is hardly a pissed off internet denizen.

How about I try it this way, the uneducated 'diagnosis' of Bevin being a 'nutjob' by those in this thread mean nothing. Show me the assessment from a psychiatrist that has examined Bevin and if THEY say he's a 'nutjob' then I'll believe.

(hope that makes it more clear to you)

[Deleted]

It's perfectly fine to downplay BLM calling out for spilling police's blood.
It's perfectly fine to downplay Islamist calling for spilling west's blood.
It's perfectly fine to downplay feminists call for spilling men's blood.

It's outragoues to even say that consrervaties will be forced to spill blood.

Stay classy MMOChamp Gen-OT.

[Thage]

The US has freedom of speech rights. Threatening an idea is protected, as opposed to threatening specific people.

Technically, sedition and treason aren't covered by free speech. You can very much get in trouble for advocating violent rebellion against the government when the government has every reason to take that seriously (like, say, rapidly-growing political tensions and at least one recent example of an armed militia occupying federal property). It's not like some drunk Joe tweeting out the back of his pickup when it's an elected official making these statements on the record.

[Garnier Fructis]

How about I try it this way, the uneducated 'diagnosis' of Bevin being a 'nutjob' by those in this thread mean nothing. Show me the assessment from a psychiatrist that has examined Bevin and if THEY say he's a 'nutjob' then I'll believe.

(hope that makes it more clear to you)

First, what's clear is how completely asinine it is to ask for a clinical diagnosis of non-technical insult term.

Second, your whole angle here is a response to a choice of word and not the actual content of the original post you responded to, which was essentially that elected officials engaging in sedition should be charged for... sedition!

And instead of responding to that, you latched yourself onto the adjective 'nutjob' and argued against the position that we should charge elected official for being nutjobs. Which is not an argument anyone actually made. So your whole position is incoherent.

[Thage]

If a BLM supporter said they are going to slaughter corruption in law enforcement even if it takes physical bloodshed, it's not criminal. Ideas are not people.

If that person was advocating bloodshed, they could be hit with an incitement charge. Free speech doesn't cover threats of violence, veiled or otherwise, when it presents a real and present danger of being more than just someone having an angry Twitter rant.

[NED funded]

It's perfectly fine to downplay BLM calling out for spilling police's blood.
It's perfectly fine to downplay Islamist calling for spilling west's blood.
It's perfectly fine to downplay feminists call for spilling men's blood.

It's outragoues to even say that consrervaties will be forced to spill blood.

Stay classy MMOChamp Gen-OT.

The irony on this post is that is trying to downplay the claim.

[Seranthor]

First, what's clear is how completely asinine it is to ask for a clinical diagnosis of non-technical insult term.

Second, your whole angle here is a response to a choice of word and not the actual content of the original post you responded to, which was essentially that elected officials engaging in sedition should be charged for... sedition!

And instead of responding to that, you latched yourself onto the adjective 'nutjob' and argued against the position that we should charge elected official for being nutjobs. Which is not an argument anyone actually made. So your whole position is incoherent.

The intellectual dishonesty of you and the others in this thread that want to charge Bevin but give other politicians a pass for their actions is disgraceful and laughable. I DID respond, I was trying to be polite to you and the others, now that desire for politeness is gone. Hang them all, or not a one of them.

[Garnier Fructis]

The intellectual dishonesty of you and the others in this thread that want to charge Bevin but give other politicians a pass for their actions is disgraceful and laughable. I DID respond, I was trying to be polite to you and the others, now that desire for politeness is gone. Hang them all, or not a one of them.

You responded to a straw man. Now that it's been pointed out to you, you're throwing your toys out of the pram.

That's what's laughable. If this was really what you wanted to say, you should have said it in the first place instead of going on a weird tangent over a choice of word.

[Stormdash]

His quotes?

Yeah... not so much. Review Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

[fengosa]

It's perfectly fine to downplay BLM calling out for spilling police's blood.
It's perfectly fine to downplay Islamist calling for spilling west's blood.
It's perfectly fine to downplay feminists call for spilling men's blood.

It's outragoues to even say that consrervaties will be forced to spill blood.

Stay classy MMOChamp Gen-OT.

Find me a feminist politician who is openly advocating for the bloodshed of males and then we can talk about whether or not that's OK. Until then you're just pushing a false equivalency.

There really should be a campaign to get Belven to step down. There's no room in government for comments like that.

[Deleted]

Find me a feminist politician who is openly advocating for the bloodshed of males and then we can talk about whether or not that's OK. Until then you're just pushing a false equivalency.

There really should be a campaign to get Belven to step down. There's no room in government for comments like that.

Oh? So it's bad because he's a politican eh? Are you implying it's fine for feminist to say the damnest thing as long as they're not in position of power?

- - - Updated - - -

The irony on this post is that is trying to downplay the claim.

Im not downplaying anything. I just point out the hypocrisy.
Either it's free for all or nobody is allowed.
You can't have your cake and eat it.

[Fenixdown]

Well, to be fair, violence is what built the United States of America (the Revolutionary War wasn't exactly fought with peaceful banter) and what abolished slavery (the Civil War wasn't peaceful banter, either). While I don't agree with his stance or his views, he's not really inaccurate about what methods would be most effective in obtaining his desired results.

[darkwarrior42]

Im not downplaying anything. I just point out the hypocrisy.
Either it's free for all or nobody is allowed.
You can't have your cake and eat it.

Do you truly not see a difference between random citizens calling for bloodshed and the elected governor of a state calling for bloodshed? What is acceptable for one person may not be acceptable for another, based on their differing circumstances and positions.

[Dug]

Oh? So it's bad because he's a politican eh? Are you implying it's fine for feminist to say the damnest thing as long as they're not in position of power?

Do we jail every 12 year old on 4chan that goes "Kill all Jews, kek"? Shall we round up all the 15 year old feminists on Tumblr for the same?

[Deleted]

Do you truly not see a difference between random citizens calling for bloodshed and the elected governor of a state calling for bloodshed? What is acceptable for one person may not be acceptable for another, based on their differing circumstances and positions.

Equality is equality. No matter how well off you are or not.

- - - Updated - - -

Do we jail every 12 year old on 4chan that goes "Kill all Jews, kek"? Shall we round up all the 15 year old feminists on Tumblr for the same?

Seeing as we already do that I'd say sure, why not.
UK already does that.

[Stormdash]

Do you truly not see a difference between random citizens calling for bloodshed and the elected governor of a state calling for bloodshed? What is acceptable for one person may not be acceptable for another, based on their differing circumstances and positions.

He didn't "call for bloodshed" in any sense that falls outside that which is protected by very clear 1st Amendment case law. He didn't really "call for bloodshed" in any context, for that matter, being so couched behind hypothetical conditions and future events.