General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Sky News Australia
comments

Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Army general suspended for tweeting a response to First Lady Jill Biden" video.

Seems fair enough. If you are taking the public purse you can’t publicly criticise it.
5
@Rk-fd9iv Yes it's weird people can comment and say the most slanderous things about Presidents Trump and Biden and yet mention the C word and all hell breaks loose. Bloody stupid.
2
@StopListenThink That makes no sense at all as the First Lady position is unpaid. Criticism of a SCOTUS decision is however free speech.
1
@Rk-fd9iv No, not at all. Do you understand free speech rights under the US constitution? Criticism of the SCOTUS is fair game. Criticise your employer and they have a right to dismiss you. I mean this is just US constitutional law 101, nothing hard to understand at all.
1
@Rk-fd9iv What is mildly amusing is your lack of knowledge of your own constitution. I'm not even American and understand the First lady position is not an elected or paid position. Yes absolutely hilarious.
1
@Rk-fd9iv As an opinion I have no issue, you were just factually wrong with the need for her to go.
1
@Rk-fd9iv Of course you have a right to critise your government and the Supreme Court, and as I said this free speech right is not however absolute.
1
@Rk-fd9iv No factually wrong again. As a Federal employee your free speech rights are not unlimited. This is the opinion of your own SCOTUS which earlier you were defending. So which is it?
1
@Rk-fd9iv So now you are critiquing the SCOTUS. You and Jill are now in the same class.
1
@Rk-fd9iv No the SCOTUS interpretes the law.
1
@Rk-fd9iv So you are making the law. I thought that was what the Legislative did.
1
@Rk-fd9iv That may be your opinion but flies in the face of legal opinion delivered by SCOTUS. You seem terribly confused is it OK to critise the SCOTUS or not?
1
@Rk-fd9iv Yep totally agree. However free speech rights are not absolute and this is the legal opinion of the SCOTUS not mine. There are defamation and libel laws that have stood up to the scrutiny of the courts and employers have rights to.
1
@Rk-fd9iv No it's not wrong as you have not shown any evidence or facts, only your uninformed opinion. I accept in your uninformed opinion you think it's unfair, however that is not legal precedent.
1
@Rk-fd9iv Seems reasonable to me.
1
@Rk-fd9iv Once again the SCOTUS has on numerous occasions determined that free speech rights under the constitution are not absolute. Following is a case history; Rankin v McPherson 1987 Lane v Franks 2014 Broadrick v Oklahoma 1973 Garcetti v Ceballos 2007 Connick v Myers 1983 In all of these cases public employees claimed their first amendment rights were inhibited and the SCOTUS decided otherwise. Not only is my opinion reasonable it is backed by the legal opinion of your own SCOTUS.
1
@Rk-fd9iv Once again it is not my understanding of the US constitution it is your own SCOTUS understanding of the constitution. I provided case law examples that clearly show my opinion is more than reasonable. You have merely shown an emotional response, which I fully understand.
1
@Rk-fd9iv Once again it is not what I say the US constitution says it is what your own SCOTUS says it does, and I cited numerous case law where they agree with my more than reasonable opinion. What are you not getting about this.?
1
@Rk-fd9iv Your made up example is just fiction. I referenced actual real case law.
1
@Rk-fd9iv Yes I have no problem with that. Laws are written and sometimes these laws are contested. Sometimes law is contested as unconstitutional in front of the SCOTUS, and as I have proven beyond all reasonable doubt, through references to numerous case law examples, the SCOTUS has ruled on numerous occasions the right to free speech is not absolute for government employees. Therefore it is quite reasonable for me to assert "it seems reasonable to me". You have provided no evidence to the contrary.
1
@Rk-fd9iv we are specifically discussing secular US law and its constitution. I agree with you the bible is very clear about homossexuality, and not so clear on other issues. You have confused religious dogma with secular law. This is very dangerous.
1
@Rk-fd9iv You are correct there are numerous churchs both Christian and non Christian that allow gay/lesbian marriage in the US. I agree with your assertion about what the bible says, however for someone who places no authority on what the bible says, it is a pointless analogy. In secular law we have a clear and well defined legal system. Over 60000 odd religions and Christian sects can't agree on anything.
1
@Rk-fd9iv That’s fine I have no objection to your opinion as it is just that merely opinion. My opinion is different and I have backed my opinion with facts. And the facts are numerous case law determinations by the SCOTUS prove beyond doubt that 1st amendments rights under the US constitution are not absolute, particularly in the case of federal employees. It is just a fact. Hence my assertion that it is reasonable to sack him is a reasonable opinion. Does a CIA agent have 1st amendment rights to disclose information that risks national security? Of course not. You are arguing a lost cause, you are just plain wrong.
1
@Rk-fd9iv So now in a desperate attempt to justify your factless opinion you have created a strawman argument. I never even remotely suggested or claimed the executive branch has absolute power. Your comment is thus illogical gibberish, and discounted as such. Your comment however that free speech is absolute has been crushed under the weight of numerous SCOTUS rulings saying otherwise.
1
@Rk-fd9iv Great and that is your opinion, lacking in reality as it is. Once again the opinion of the SCOTUS is free speech is not absolute for federal employees and my opinion is fair and reasonable considering SCOTUS case law rulings.
1
@Rk-fd9iv And once again I didn’t say it did, only that my opinion is reasonable based on those decisions.
1
@Rk-fd9iv And again that’s your opinion which is reasonable, but what is not reasonable is your opinion that my comment was unreasonable as I backed my opinion with fact, it doesn’t matter you don’t agree with SCOTUS rulings on free speech the fact is they happened and repeated rulings have shown limits on free speech is not an abuse of power. My opinion is sound.
1
@Rk-fd9iv And you are still missing the point. I have backed my opinion with reality. Actual case law that is undisputed. Time and time again the SCOTUS has determined federal employees free speech rights are not absolute, making my opinion not just reasonable but quite sound. I understand you disagree with the numerous SCOTUS rulings on this, which of course you are entitled to do. You and Jill Biden are the same on this. Your opinion that free speech is absolute has been shown by me with undisputed factual evidence to be completely wrong.
1
@Rk-fd9iv In your opinion, which is not backed by reality or the most senior legal opinion in the US. My opinion however is supported by the SCOTUS. I understand you think it's unconstitutional in your opinion however the reality is the SCOTUS has on multiple occasions disagreed with you and agreed with me. That makes my opinion reasonable and your opinion just a biased political rant. Sorry this is nothing personal just the facts.
1
@Rk-fd9iv Your question is what is ridiculous and yes the Federal government can standdown its entire workforce and has a couple of times in recent history.
1
@Rk-fd9iv In actual fact the SCOTUS has established through case law, that the Federal government has even tighter controls on free speech for military personnel. This is just uncontroversial legal opinion determined by the SCOTUS. You are 0 to 9 at the bottom of the ninth. You better have a big hitter up next, because you have not made any inroads to my comment "it seems reasonable to me" which is backed by numerous legal precedent.
1
Dk Dk, Rk, Once again as this seems unable to get through to you. It is not my opinion that free speech rights are not absolute it is the opinion of the most senior American judges. It is proven by multiple SCOTUS rulings saying exactly that. I am shocked that as an Australian I have a greater understanding of how your system of government works, in regard to the separation of powers being the judiciary and the legislative. If this is an example of the American education system it is very troubling. Neither of you have any understanding of the word “reasonable” look it up in a dictionary and stop with the nonsensical rants.
1
@Rk-fd9iv You are just making up ridiculous hypothetical rubbish in another nonsensical rant. I have made my point perfectly clear, have you got anything of substance or a serious point to make? otherwise leave it at that.
1
@Rk-fd9iv I answered your question, you just didn’t like the answer.
1
@Rk-fd9iv You have no understanding of law. A constitutional right is a law and as such is a social construct. It is idiotic to talk of law as an absolute. It is all open to interpretation and change. Don’t they teach you this at school?
1
@Rk-fd9iv What a ridiculous statement. To suggest a law once written is infallible is totally absurd. You say your an atheist but you sound like the Christian Taliban.
1
@Rk-fd9iv All law constructed by humans is flawed and open to interpretation. Again you say your an atheist but you sound like a religious fundamentalist.
1
@Dkokay It is not what I think, it is what your SCOTUS has decided in numerous instances of case law. Once again free speech rights are not absolute according to US law.
1
@Rk-fd9iv Once again your right to exist has been established under secular laws. There is nothing controversial about this concept.
1
@Rk-fd9iv No that's exactly how laws work, and we have judges, juries and a court system to interpret them. What do you think happens in a court of law?
1
@Rk-fd9iv You are once again completely wrong. Nothing in the US legal system is based on Judeo-Christian values. Name one unique Judeo-Christian value expressed in US law?
1
@Rk-fd9iv Anybody who talks in absolutes as yourself is perfectly described as Christian Taliban. The 1st and 2nd amendments are just that, amendments to the original constitution which by your own logic should never have been changed. That argument is just nonsensical gibberish. You have just argued an amendment to the constitution which was a change should never be changed. WTF do you even read back to yourself what you have written.
1
@Rk-fd9iv I didn’t say Christianity had not influenced western civilisation it most definitely has, but almost universally in a bad way. It is you who has just accepted the myth of judeo-Christian history. Slavery was made illegal through secular laws. The Christian bible still says it’s ok.
1
@Rk-fd9iv Yes 40 million is a correct figure, and you are fooling yourself if you think it is limited to non Christian countries.
1
@Rk-fd9iv Slavery has existed in virtually all cultures since the beginning of human history. Jews and Christians have a book they claim is infallible that explicitly advocates for and has rules for slavery. What point are you trying to make other than supporting my argument.
1
@Rk-fd9iv And your point about China being a secular country that has a terrible human rights record is what?
1
@Rk-fd9iv To assert that only Christian countries pursued the end of slavery is a misnomer as during the enlightenment virtually all countries had significant amounts of their people religious. Once again secular laws made slavery illegal. Christian law still says it’s ok and has specific guidelines on how to do it.
1
@Rk-fd9iv You made a comment about your 1st and 2nd amendment rights which I do envy as my country Australia lacks a bill of rights. I personally think constitutional free speech rights is very important as long as it has controls. As well being a soldier for 35 years nobody enjoys a good automatic rifle than I do, however like anything with some controls.
1
@Rk-fd9iv Phillipines is 90% Catholic or at least christian and has an estimated 780000 people in slavery. Do you do any research before commenting?
1
@Rk-fd9iv One again secular legislation outlawed slavery. Christians still have on the books laws advocating and encouraging slavery. Read a bible. Exodus and Leviticus.
1
@Rk-fd9iv Yes I already agreed China is a despicable country for human rights that is a result of a diabolical political dogma. It has little to do if any with its secularism. I could point of the data from Sweden which is one of the most secular countries in the world, which proves the opposite of your observation.
1
@Rk-fd9iv Yes we agree on that. I have stuff dissapear sometimes and can't work out why as it doesn't seem to breach youtube guidelines. Sometimes I think it is the channel censoring comments.
1
@Rk-fd9iv Yep your right about the China comment. It is frustrating, but this platform while giving the impression of being an open and public space is in fact a privately owned company and has its own rights under US law and and as such I must respect its own free speech rights. It has been an enjoyable discussion about quite a few subjects. I will add I have the utmost respect for Americans and the US. A few years ago just before I retired I worked with your Marines on an operation and found them thoroughly professional and easy to work with. It was nice to argue/discuss with you different stuff without it resorting to stupid personal attacks. We both had a go at each other a bit but it didn't get ugly. Good luck to you.
1
@Dkokay yes, very annoying. Read my comments to RK. Good luck to you to.
1
@Rk-fd9iv Simple, don't use it. Again this has been tested in the courts and your opinion loses. You are wrong on both counts.
1
@Rk-fd9iv The same court that decided women have a no right under the constitution to bodily autonomy also decided under the constitution that black men can't marry white women. Then years later changed its mind. I mean what aren't you getting about this?
1
@Rk-fd9iv That's all you have been doing for a week is whinging and complaining. I merely accept that youtube has rules for its use and they can sometimes be annoying. You on the otherhand have shown absolutely no consistency or logic in your argument.
1
@Rk-fd9iv Resoundingly Yes. The woman's body always takes priority over an unborn.
1
@Rk-fd9iv Nah, human rights are a social construct and can be changed at whim.
1
@Rk-fd9iv Depends on your interpretation of the bill of rights. It's hilarious you insist on your free speech and access to automatic weapons and then deny a woman bodily autonomy.
1
@Rk-fd9iv Absolutely ridiculous comment about the drafting of the constitution. All men created equal while half of them owned slaves. It is a ludicrous comment.
1
@Rk-fd9iv Big cheeses? Are you invoking some sort of god concept?
1
@Rk-fd9iv Once again if you don't like youtubes rules don't use it. It is a free market.
1
@Rk-fd9iv It's not the women's fault a child is unable to live outside the womb. You need to show some consistency with your call for human rights. Apparently all you want to do is control women's bodies and deny them rights as long as you can own shitloads of guns. Hypocrisy at it finest.
1
@Rk-fd9iv Not in 90% Christian dominated Philippines where 780000 people are in slavery.
1
@Rk-fd9iv why is a women's rights superseded by a foetus?
1
@Rk-fd9iv Yeah that inquisition was such a example of free speech tolerance by Catholics.
1
@Rk-fd9iv And again the Christian bible still maintains, advocates for and allows slavery. Secular legislation outlawed slavery
1
@Rk-fd9iv So in conclusion you are wrong on all counts. Free speech rights are not absolute. Secular legislation outlawed slavery. Slavery still exists and does so in Christian countries. And philanthropy is not exclusive to religious people.
1
@Rk-fd9iv No you were proved factually wrong on all the points you raised, all you did was attempt to side track issues one after the other, in a vain attempt to justify your poor argument.
1
@Rk-fd9iv Yes. Facts made up in your imagination.
1