Jeremy Joseph Christian shouts as he is arraigned in Multnomah County Circuit Court in Portland, Ore, Tuesday. Photo: AP
world

Suspect in fatal Portland attack yells about 'free speech' at hearing

80 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2017.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

80 Comments
Login to comment

Insane, whacko.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Trump supporter.

3 ( +11 / -8 )

He's a Trump supporter and? So if you support Hillary and you go around attacking the police, smash windows of businesses and assault and commit physical acts against people, are the politicians to blame or do we just give a pass to the perpetrators?

-24 ( +1 / -25 )

So if you support Hillary and you go around attacking the police, smash windows of businesses and assault and commit physical acts against people, are the politicians to blame or do we just give a pass to the perpetrators?

You're equating murder and prejudice with vandalism? Seriously?

7 ( +11 / -4 )

Trump supporter whose actions were typical of a Trump supporter, could only have been carried out by a Trump supporter and were inspired by Trump's anti-Muslim rhetoric. Sorry but there is no escaping the facts.

6 ( +13 / -7 )

Pretty sad to see how easily it was for this Bernie Sanders supporter to fall completely into insanity.

Its anti-Trump tirades on Facebook complete the picture

-15 ( +2 / -17 )

You're equating murder and prejudice with vandalism? Seriously?

No. A plain reading of what Bass wrote is to compare violence to violence. The Left and the Media plays the game of equating anything crazy by someone they can tie to a Republican, conservative, Christian White male, etc with all likewise affiliated individuals. But when a Liberal, Muslim, or Socialist does something despicable it is considered to be an isolated incident and not reflective of others within the group. It is of course hypocritical and a double standard but such is the power of tribalism among those members of "the Resistance".

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

If this nutter is so keen on free speech why did he stab those who expressed views he disagreed with?

18 ( +18 / -0 )

Right wing terrorist.

15 ( +16 / -1 )

You're equating murder and prejudice with vandalism? Seriously?

violence is violence, don't conflate, meditate.

-16 ( +1 / -17 )

"Free speech or die, Portland. You got no safe place. This is America - get out if you don't like free speech."

Brought to you straight out of Trump's playbook.

11 ( +15 / -4 )

It does not matter whether Christian was/is a Trump supporter. The real issue is that hateful individuals like him feel empowered to act, whether that is by verbally expressing their ignorance or physically expressing it. These people have seen the president normalize this type of behavior, which has made them feel they can follow suit.

Anti-Muslim incidents increased more than 50 percent in the United States last year, it said.

It is no coincidence that the above statistic correlates with Trump's campaign.

He's a Trump supporter and? So if you support Hillary and you go around attacking the police, smash windows of businesses and assault and commit physical acts against people, are the politicians to blame or do we just give a pass to the perpetrators?

This is a false equivalence not only because murder is far from vandalism, but also because Hillary never acted in a manner that indicated vandalism was acceptable. Trump, on the other hand, constantly indicates that hate, bigotry, and violence were acceptable. So, no you don't blame the politicians when they are not responsible. That's not the case with Trump though.

13 ( +14 / -1 )

Lock him up for the rest of his miserable life.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

If all violence is the same and all violence is bad, then I suppose you two are against the war on terrorism.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Well. He can yell anything he wants to, right? It just has nothing to do with anything. If he really believed in free speech, he could have expressed that right and used it in all kinds of ways without killing people. And he is going to be charged and probably convicted of murder. ... which has nothing to do with free speech.

Not really much interesting here. America has many such people who just can't seem to control themselves short of killing others.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

"Death to the enemies of America. Leave this country if you hate our freedoms. ... You call it terrorism. I call it patriotism.”

The contradiction escapes him.

The guy is probably going to argue an insanity defense to avoid a death sentence.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

So which playbook is Kathy Griffin out of? (I notice no thread about THAT).

Trump had nothing to do with this whatsoever. A Bernie bro who did all he could to make Trump look bad. He was actually reported to the police by Trump supporters because they didnt buy his story that he was one of them.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/05/update-portland-killer-voted-bernie-reported-trump-supporters-police-nothing-video/

-13 ( +3 / -16 )

Trump had nothing to do with this whatsoever.

See my 11:03 post for why this is an incorrect statement.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Trump, on the other hand, constantly indicates that hate, bigotry, and violence were acceptable. 

Any proof of this?

Trump condemned the stabbings on Monday, calling them"unacceptable." "The victims were standing up to hate and intolerance. Our prayers are w/ them," he said on Twitter.

-17 ( +1 / -18 )

Wow, most of these comments are uniformed and rely on the big media not telling the whole truth in its stories.

The TRUTH is that left-wing sites like Heavy.com and Buzzfeed almost immediately reported on his Facebook posts, including taking screen shots, and they show:

He said he voted for Bernie Sanders, and would like to "rip" Clinton and Trump "limb from limb." He blamed Clinton for wrecking Honduras and then refusing its refugees.

In an interview, a friend said he's a pagan, and on his Fb, he says he wants a #monotheistgenocide and that he hates "monotheists," the "cretins" who worship "Tetragrammaton/Yahweh/Allah." He says there are "good Jews," but he hates "Zionists," and he wrote a long screed against people who support Israel. He says people who do should also support separate areas of the U.S. for racist whites, black separatists, Asian-Americans and Native Americans, and that part of California should be given back to Mexico. And then, he adds, the "normal people" who don't mind people different from them can also have their own part of the country. That is not a "white separatist" view. And Jeremy Christian was also caught on tape the day before this incident ranting on a bus. A news station, KATU, has it on its web site. In he accuses the bus driver of being either a Christian or a Muslim, and threatens to "stab (him) too."

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

Any proof of this?

Its called evidence. Look at what he spewed on the campaign trail.

Trump condemned the stabbings on Monday

The stabbing s happened on Friday. Trump had to be shamed into making a comment on them and he only did so on Monday, and not from his twitter account. His account has far more followers than the POTUS account, not to mention he constantly uses his personal account for things he deems important.

12 ( +13 / -1 )

Some of you guys might want to look into who actually did the things that Trump's environment or whatever is blamed for.

Like when the gay guy did anti gay graffiti on a church to try to show Trump is anti LGBT. Or when racial slurs were spraypainted by a black guy trying to show Trump as racist. Or when an Israeli teen was actually the one making the bomb threatening calls to the synagogues that the media was blaming Trump for not disavowing.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/23/israeli-police-arrest-man-over-bomb-threats-to-us-jewish-targets

The tweet/article of blame goes viral, while the actual result at the conclusion of investigation is buried when it doesnt suit the narrative.

-14 ( +2 / -16 )

So Trump said these words: hate, bigotry and violence are acceptable? I must have missed that and I am sure he would not have been elected if he did.

All you got is that it took him time over a holiday weekend to get more information so that he could respond and that he used his less popular Twitter account when he said it is UNacceptable? pretty weak argument.

-14 ( +1 / -15 )

Blacklabel,

I see your post has been downvoted a few times already, just for telling the truth. What a morally sick world we're living in right now when the plain truth gets downvoted, just for blind political goals.

No, this guy was on the liberal end of most of his views, and that was why he wanted to go to a free speech march, where he was also turned away by conservatives since he brought a baseball bat. He was ranting on a bus the day before (which was caught on video) that Christians had protested metal shows he was involved in in the 1990's and he believed in "free speech" - including threatening speech in his mind. He threatened people the day before who were concerned about his violent ranting.

-12 ( +3 / -15 )

I think the worst implication to come from this incident is that you might be killed if you attempt to stand up for those who are vulnerable and suffering from uncivilised abuse. This could have wide ranging implications for the future and could cause a permanent shift in American ethical and moral values. Therefore this is an act of terrorism as it is also attacking the culture of America

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Trump had to be shamed into making a comment

He needed time to get all the information. The media tried to shame Trump into apologizing for his supporters harassing the synagogues before. Because he waited to gather the information first, we found that Trump supporters didnt even do it and his apology was unnecessary.

I think the President handled this issue very carefully and professionally. He could have tweeted out something about this guy not being his supporter like the fake media was pushing, but he restrained himself and used the POTUS account for an official denouncement of hate and violence.

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

What a morally sick world we're living in right now when the plain truth gets downvoted, just for blind political goals.

I appreciate the truth but those on the far right here tend to shy away from it.

No, this guy was on the liberal end of most of his views

I rest my case.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

He wanted to go to a "free speech" rally - where he was turned away and possibly turned into police (there's video of that) for having a baseball bat. Anyone could show up at that rally. There's no evidence he has any ties to anyone right-wing.

He is liberal in his views (including liking that Bernie Sanders might be an atheist and might have expanded the legalization of marijuana and taken "In God We Trust" off of American money) and apparently wanted to go to a free speech rally because traditionally liberals have defended free speech in America!

That's not so much lately, but the ACLU did say that some conservative/right-wing protests that had been planned for Portland this week shouldn't be cancelled because of this attack.

-12 ( +1 / -13 )

Oh yes, and in his posts on Facebook, he also wrote about opposing the controversial oil pipelines that people on the left mostly oppose.

-12 ( +1 / -13 )

The fact that he could transition from being a far left Bernie Bro to a far right White nationalist is not all that surprising for me. The two extreme ends of the political spectrum have always been closer to eachother than they are to the centre. Think of a shoehorn rather than a straight line, where extreme socialism and fascism occupy both end points.

Our current political culture is quite poisonous and polarised but I hope everyone can at least agree that violence is never justified and the right to free speech must be protected even if what is being said makes us uncomfortable.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Yeah, that well known liberal trope of nazi salutes, racism and murder.

No wonder the US is heading for civil war :-(

5 ( +6 / -1 )

He needed time to get all the information

So he waits to get all the information when hate crime occur but not when he's spewing about national security, inauguration crowds, the "fake news," etc. And that means he handled this professionally.

Right. Got it.

The media reported the fact that Christian was not a supporter of Trump. But nice try.

Additionally, you failed to respond to the main point of my argument.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

So Trump said these words: hate, bigotry and violence are acceptable? I must have missed that and I am sure he would not have been elected if he did

Actions speak louder than words.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

People should read his Facebook comments for themselves and put aside politics! The TRUTH is what needs to be defended, not some political goals.

heavy.com/news/2017/05/jeremy-christians-facebook-page-racist/

https://www.buzzfeed.com/juliareinstein/portland-suspect?utm_term=.jmnAqN954#.cjOMj15K2

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Actions speak louder than words.

Nice catchphrase, I think I learned that in elementary. Ok, so what ACTIONS has Trump done to show that hate is acceptable? Bigotry? Violence? (and dont tell me removing people from his rallies is violence, please)

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Since you don't seem to remember:

http://mashable.com/2016/03/12/trump-rally-incite-violence/#lriLYWvVpiqn

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_584f2ccae4b0bd9c3dfe5566

Oh so we are back to what he SAID now? I thought we had moved on to his ACTIONS?

The media reported the fact that Christian was not a supporter of Trump. But nice try.

Additionally, you failed to respond to the main point of my argument.

Oh sure, eventually once the evidence came out. Then it went to the bottom of the page. It was front page news when they assumed he was a Trump supporter. I thought I got all your main points, what did I miss to address?

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

The I'm Nice catchphrase, I think I learned that in elementary

Perhaps you remember it from elementary school, but you clearly didn't learn it.

See my 12:40 post above yours? It answers this:

Ok, so what ACTIONS has Trump done to show that hate is acceptable? Bigotry? Violence?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

M3M3M3,

He is on the left, if you look at his comments and listen to his rants.

He has never transitioned to being a "white nationalist," except in the liberal press, where being "anti-Muslim" for any reason is "racist," and being anti-Christian - which he also is - doesn't count. But the truth is, he's made it clear that he's anti-Jewish, anti-Christian, and anti-Muslim.

And he called for a separate part of the country for RACIST whites. He's rabidly anti-Israel and anti-Zionist - He's clearly been listening to "BDS."

What he wrote about separatism was actually sarcastic, saying that people who support Israel should also support segregated parts of the U.S. for different groupls like racist whites, black separatists, Native Americans, and part of the country should be given back to Mexico. And he also there should be a part of the country for people of different backgrounds - "normal people" - to live together. He makes it clear that he supports multiculturalism.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

All you got is that it took him time over a holiday weekend to get more information so that he could respond and that he used his less popular Twitter account when he said it is UNacceptable? pretty weak argument.

Erm no, that's not all. There's also the pesky issue of inciting violence at his rallies. In case you missed it, that case is moving forward.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/27/us/a-trump-campaign-rally-led-to-shoving-and-legal-wrangling-too.html?_r=0

A white nationalist assaulted a black protester at a Trump rally.

Why do white nationalists support Trump? Does it have anything to do with his proposed Muslim bans or disparaging comments about Latinos?

Why did it take him over a week to reject David Duke's endorsement? I'm sure he was just waiting to get all the facts on David Duke. Further, never heard a peep from the Trumpster about the Mosque shooting in Canada or the Indians murdered in a Kansas bar.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Takeda and Toasted:

Thanks for the assist.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

He is on the left, if you look at his comments and listen to his rants.

He has never transitioned to being a "white nationalist," except in the liberal press, where being "anti-Muslim" for any reason is "racist," and being anti-Christian - which he also is - doesn't count. But the truth is, he's made it clear that he's anti-Jewish, anti-Christian, and anti-Muslim.

And he called for a separate part of the country for RACIST whites. He's rabidly anti-Israel and anti-Zionist - He's clearly been listening to "BDS."

What he wrote about separatism was actually sarcastic, saying that people who support Israel should also support segregated parts of the U.S. for different groupls like racist whites, black separatists, Native Americans, and part of the country should be given back to Mexico. And he also there should be a part of the country for people of different backgrounds - "normal people" - to live together. He makes it clear that he supports multiculturalism.

He's all over the place "politically". This is not a sane man, they are the ramblings of a terrorist.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

We can talk once he is found guilty, then that is acceptable proof of the violence claim.

You really don't understand how the legal system works. Being found guilty and being guilty are not the same thing. Or, are you saying O.J. isn't guilty of murder because he was found innocent?

What would it take for you to not defend Trump? Everything the dude does you seem to be able to justify.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

What would it take for you to not defend Trump? Everything the dude does you seem to be able to justify.

I think Trump put it best: "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters"

8 ( +8 / -0 )

You really don't understand how the legal system works. Being found guilty and being guilty are not the same thing. Or, are you saying O.J. isn't guilty of murder because he was found innocent?

So the legal system has changed where people are found not guilty but it doesnt matter what the court/judge/jury says when it suits your narrative for them to be guilty anyway?

Someone give me one example of Trump being found guilty in a court of bigotry, racism, sex crimes or violence? If he is constantly promoting this as you guys say, he must have been found guilty and punished at some point, right? Innocent until proven guilty isnt it? That is why OJ and Hillary among others got away with what they did, the presumption of innocence. Somehow Trump gets presumption of guilt, which is unfair and unAmerican.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Defending this man is pretty hard work.

Wouldnt be so hard if you guys could stay on one topic for a minute. Now we are back to shooting people in the street and celebrating Muslims again?

For THIS story: Killer was NOT Trump supporter. Yet people saying Trump supports hate, bigotry and violence so he still has at least some responsibility for this specific case. I simply asked for proof of what Trump did to cause this specific person to murder 2 people as some of you and the media are trying to push. How is Trump in any way even related to this case?

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

For THIS story: Killer was NOT Trump supporter.

Maybe not, but he was a Muslim-hater, and in Trump's America, that's an acceptable position to take.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

Psychotic pansy with a weapon. If he'd had a gun, he would have killed two dozen. Worthless piece of trash.

How ironic that this man's name is Christian.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

So the legal system has changed where people are found not guilty but it doesnt matter what the court/judge/jury says when it suits your narrative for them to be guilty anyway?

First, the court is the same as the judge.

Second, guilt in criminal cases requires the prosecution shows the defendant committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. It's the highest evidentiary standard. In civil court, the plaintiff is required to demonstrate the defendants actions by a perponderance of the evidence. If the prosecutor doesn't do the job well, there is a not guilty verdict. If the police violate the defendants due process rights, their is a dismissal. Can you see how a guilty person can be found not guilty now?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

California, doesn't speak for the rest of the US, thankfully.

Neither do Trump enablers.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Now I get why he says that he's been treated so unfairly! Because the people are actually believing what he says. How unfair!

I said he is prone to hyperbole which is not a good thing. But every.single.word that is tweeted or said by him, his staff or his family is dissected, parsed, examined, searched for alternate meaning, negative intent, motive or in a way to twist it to mean something else. Every-single-word. This was never done to anyone else.

The entire immigration policy is tied up in the court not because it is illegal or not within the Presidential powers but because liberal judges dont want to read what is on the paper. Instead they want to try to dissect intentions or motives that have nothing to do with the order made or the law that determines it. Trump is proving to not be very good at politics, I can agree with that. But he was elected because he isnt a politician, so he wasnt expected to be. Just needs to figure out how to get things done in a political partisan system and I think he will.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

I said he is prone to hyperbole which is not a good thing. But every.single.word that is tweeted or said by him, his staff or his family is dissected, parsed, examined, searched for alternate meaning, negative intent, motive or in a way to twist it to mean something else. Every-single-word. This was never done to anyone else.

Say what? The same thing happens to literally every president. Every. Single. One.

The difference is that the overwhelming majority of presidents don't say as many things that can be criticized as this one does.

Trump is proving to not be very good at politics, I can agree with that. But he was elected because he isnt a politician, so he wasnt expected to be.

And now you see what happens when you elect someone who isn't good at politics - people point out how he sucks at it.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

The entire immigration policy is tied up in the court not because it is illegal or not within the Presidential powers but because liberal judges dont want to read what is on the paper.

If there were no legal basis for challenging these executive orders, the suits would have been thrown out. This means the executive orders may be illegal and outside the president's powers. Full stop.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

The entire immigration policy is tied up in the court not because it is illegal or not within the Presidential powers but because liberal judges dont want to read what is on the paper. Instead they want to try to dissect intentions or motives that have nothing to do with the order made or the law that determines it.

I've read the text of the Federal Court decisions in both the Washington and Hawaii cases dealing with the executive orders. The judges clearly read what was on the paper (the orders, which I have also read, are not particularly long) and clearly applied the relevant law, which really allowed them to reach no other conclusions than the ones they did (plural because there were different orders and different fact situations at play in each case). Which specific parts of the judgments do you think were in error and what legal errors did the judges make in applying what laws?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

This means the executive orders may be illegal and outside the president's powers. Full stop.

Not necessarily, it can also mean that you have a loose liberal court judge that feels he can challenge a sitting president because of the ruling that is fully constitutional and feels to do so because the judge hates that ruling. Anyway, let's see what happens when it gets to the Supreme Court.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

@theeastistired.

You wrote that Christian is a True-supporter. Any proof? I don't think he is. Here is my proof.

"Writing for Willamette Week, Corey Pein said he interviewed Christian during the march, and the alleged killer chanted the n-word and threw Nazi salutes. Pein writes that amid Christian’s rants about Jews on Facebook, he expressed support for Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein for president."

I won't be surprised is you don't reply.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Not necessarily, it can also mean that you have a loose liberal court judge that feels he can challenge a sitting president because of the ruling that is fully constitutional and feels to do so because the judge hates that ruling

First, try reading my post before retorting:

*This means the executive orders may be illegal and outside the president's powers.*

Second, Appeals court judges hate to be overturned by the SCOTUS.

Third, appellate judges, by and large, leave their politics at the door of the courtroom.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

The main focus of this article is "this" nut job. Free speech does not give you the right to harass or verbally threaten others.

And since we always seem to go down that path, the rhetoric that Trump is spewing- what he said on his campaign trail, what he tweets online, his policies that he pushes for, all show he is not very nice to Muslims, unless you are from Saudi Arabia that is...

Regardless of if you voted for the guy or even like him, there is no fake news when it comes to his tweets, recorded broadcasts and policies. Saying things like "Well what he meant was..." is EXACTLY what he said. And if not, keep his phone/computer away from him and tell him to keep his mouth shut, because no one is at fault when it comes to his own words and actions.

There are things that can be argued over and speculated on, but this is not one of them.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Not necessarily, it can also mean that you have a loose liberal court judge that feels he can challenge a sitting president because of the ruling that is fully constitutional and feels to do so because the judge hates that ruling. Anyway, let's see what happens when it gets to the Supreme Court.

Actually you would need to have 5 loose liberal court justices (3 at the Federal Court of Appeal, two at the trial division), two of whom were Republican nominees, all conspiring to destroy the constitution because they hate America (or whatever you think motivates them).

Read the decisions, the government had no legal legs to stand on, that is why they lost, not because of some made up liberal judge conspiracy. In the Hawaii case the government's only argument was that immigration related decisions by the executive, even if they violate the constitution, were not reviewable by any judicial authority at all. To find in favor of the government the court would have had to thrown away decades worth of precedent from the Supreme Court of the United States which clearly establishes that such decisions are subject to judicial review (and lower courts are not able to overturn Supreme Court cases on their own), not to mention ignoring the whole concept of checks and balances on which American democracy is founded.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Second, Appeals court judges hate to be overturned by the SCOTUS. 

And yet they do quite frequently. So how's that forced gender bathroom rule going?

Third, appellate judges, by and large, leave their politics at the door of the courtroom.

Yeah, if that were only true.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

 So how's that forced gender bathroom rule going?

Do you mean the bigoted law driven by fear that requires bigger government so as to dictate how a person identifies their gender? The law that is rabidly supported by all those open-minded, compassionate conservatives?

Yeah, if that were only true.

Prove it's not. What's your evidence?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

You wrote that Christian is a True-supporter. Any proof? I don't think he is. Here is my proof.

well, let's just look at what the nut wrote:

Bernie Sanders was the President I wanted. He voiced my heart and mind. The one who spoke about the way America should gone. Away from the Military and Prison Industrial Complexes. The Trump is who America needs now that Bernie got ripped off. In a pick your poison election, I would have voted for his fast poison vs. your slow poison.

https://www.facebook.com/jeremy.christian.581/posts/1367688523294791

reluctant Trump supporter? Sure, but a Trump supporter indeed.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Do you mean the bigoted law driven by fear that requires bigger government so as to dictate how a person identifies their gender?

How is it bigoted, you use the rest of the sex you were assigned with by birth, simple as that. That's not bigoted. As the average woman how they feel about using the same restroom or changing facilities with a man, bet you the majority of them wouldn't agree with it.

The law that is rabidly supported by all those open-minded, compassionate conservatives?

Has nothing to do with being open-minded, has everything to do with privacy, sensitivity and common sense.

Prove it's not. What's your evidence?

http://dailysignal.com/2016/09/04/how-liberal-judges-took-control-of-70-percent-of-us-appeals-courts/

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

you use the rest of the sex you were assigned with by birth, simple as that.

If it were as simple as that, we wouldn't have the issues we have right now in regards to the issue. And trying to boil the issue down into a binary issue doesn't help solve it.

As the average woman how they feel about using the same restroom or changing facilities with a man, bet you the majority of them wouldn't agree with it.

The question is whether or not the person that wants to share their restroom is a man or not.

Has nothing to do with being open-minded, has everything to do with privacy, sensitivity and common sense.

Says the supposedly compassionate right. Yeah right. Compassionate.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

If it were as simple as that, we wouldn't have the issues we have right now in regards to the issue. And trying to boil the issue down into a binary issue doesn't help solve it.

Well, apparently the majority of the people don't want it, if they have a universal restroom alongside the boys and girls, I'm ok with that though.

The question is whether or not the person that wants to share their restroom is a man or not.

That shall be dictated by the sex you were born with.

Says the supposedly compassionate right. Yeah right. Compassionate.

Has nothing to do with being compassionate and if you must, yes, I'm compassionate when it comes to the privacy and safety of children

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

@Takeda.Shingen. Need to improve your critical reading skills. Christian wrote that Bernie Sanders has his heart and mind. That's support. He referred to both Hillary and Trump as poison, one fast and one slow. But the kicker is that he said he would have voted for Trump---he didn't say he did. But he did state that he hates Hillary and loves Bernie. Nice try.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

How is it that unabashedly conservative news outlets are not part of the MSM and don't spew fake news?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

he said he would have voted for Trump

Trump supporter!!! Then why didn't he. Criminal record?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

two poisons

Yes, good point. Both Trump and Christian are both poison. One hates and one acts on it.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Sam was actually referring to Trump and Christian as poisonous people. Trump is a very hateful person and rants and rants about how the evil Mexicans and Muslims are ruining the USA because according to the typical Trump voter the USA was a gift to the white people by the flying Jesus zombie.

Sanders is not a hateful vindictive person. Some of his ideas might not be realistic. But at least he is not a psychopath like Trump and Trump's hitman (Christian) is. At least Sanders would have an operational white house by now. Trump can't even get people hired to fill the executive positions (in the hundreds) and it shows Trump's extreme incompetence. Even GWB could get those positions filled.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

the kicker is that he said he would have voted for Trump---he didn't say he did.

If he says he would have voted for him, then that means he's a Trump supporter.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

If he says he would have voted for him, then that means he's a Trump supporter.

He sure fought (and killed) for Trump

0 ( +1 / -1 )

We should keep in mind that this guy is clearly crazy, so I wouldn't look to him to provide examples for much of anything except how a crazy person acts.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@SuperLib. Yes, that's it! Christian is a nut and no one---not Trump, not Clinton, no the Tooth Fairy---is responsible for his disgusting violence other than Christian.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Today  10:26 am JST

theeastisred wrote:

"Trump supporter whose actions were typical of a Trump supporter, could only have been carried out by a Trump supporter and were inspired by Trump's anti-Muslim rhetoric. Sorry but there is no escaping the facts."

I award you the Irony Cross 1st Class with Oak Leaves, etc., etc., etc.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Folks, he's just a "Looser". Ignore him. Don't bother wasting time writing about him, period. Move on. If you wish to write about something, write about those who sprung to the defense of the Women.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

This man ought to be pitied rather than hated. Is pity to be condemned?

I am reminded of a Russian film I saw which had been banned in the Soviet Union. It was about Soviet partisans. Normally, films centered on partisans' heroic resistance to the Nazi invaders would be praised. This one failed in the last few minutes due to a kind of flashback technique used by the film maker. After ambushing a Nazi truck convoy a pre-teen partisan found a portrait of Adolf Hitler in the wreckage. Upon picking it up and looking at it, the portrait of Hitler began reverting to younger and younger images until it reached that of Hitler as a baby. An innocent. As Soviet doctrine would have Hitler portrayed as an un-human monster, the film was banned.

So, rather than trying to understand what was really behind the reported incident, should we just go ahead and execute the man?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The heroes who intervened were exercising their right to free speech, and they got stabbed for it. So who's really the one who hated free speech?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If "free" speech means one's right to say whatever, wherever, however, whenever and to whomever one pleases, then the assaillant was exercising his right of "free" speech.

However, if freedom and "free" speech are defined by community agreement (law) and designed to protect the community at large, then individuals are required to accept constraints on their own behavior. Community members should be able to enjoy freedom TO do things (as the assaillant might argue), but they must also be able to enjoy freedom FROM things (such as what the assaillant did).

The assaillant is obviously someone who chose to remove himself from the larger community by refusing to accept voluntary constraints. The fact that he has done time in prison would seem to prove this. By denying the most fundamental of freedoms - life - to two men, he has forfeited his own freedom.

For an interesting treatment of notions of freedom held by people in colonial America - which are still evident today - I recommend "Albion's Seed" by David Hackett Fischer.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites