@Serraph105: It's hard to describe just how disgusted I am these last couple weeks. Politically, I'm in as cynical a mood as they come, and the knots people have twisted themselves into give me no doubt as to their insincerity.
LIVE: Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court confirmation hearings.
@mattbbpl said:
@Serraph105: It's hard to describe just how disgusted I am these last couple weeks. Politically, I'm in as cynical a mood as they come, and the knots people have twisted themselves into give me no doubt as to their insincerity.
I feel ya on that. People absolutely don't give a shit about what they have said they cared about for the last several years (and in politicians case, decades) or else they (constituents) wouldn't be standing for the shit republicans and Trump have been doing since they took office. Those lies are going to get them what they really want at the top levels of government for decades to come and decades after many of them are long dead at the expense of everyone else in the country and really the world given their actions regarding climate change.
On a note separate from the SCOTUS (sorta) I found an old note last night that I made of the people who urged Trump to back out of the Paris Climate Accords. I added to the note when each of them are up for re-election and getting to see who gets voted out over time. I really want to see these people gone from politics one way or another.
John Barrasso, Wyoming 2018
Roger Wicker, Mississippi 2018
Ted Cruz, Texas 2018
Mitch McConnell, Kentucky 2020
Thad Cochran, Mississippi 2020
John Cornyn, Texas 2020
Mike Enzi, Wyoming 2020
James Inhofe, Oklahoma 2020
David Perdue, Georgia 2020
Jim Risch, Idaho 2020
Pat Roberts, Kansas 2020
Mike Rounds, South Dakota 2020
Thom Tillis, North Carolina 2020
Mike Lee, Utah 2022
Roy Blunt, Missouri 2022
John Boozman, Arkansas 2022
Mike Crapo, Idaho 2022
Rand Paul, Kentucky 2022
Tim Scott, South Carolina 2022
Richard Shelby, Alabama 2022
XXX Orrin Hatch, Utah - done after 2018
XXX Luther Strange, Alabama already gone
@mattbbpl said:
@theone86: "Being disruptive is the point of protesting, otherwise it's just called talking."
Alternatively, they could choose to simply abstain from a national tradition, by kneeling for example, on a high profile stage. That would get their message out AND the opposing party would have no reason to complain.
That's un-American dude. So is shutting down a freeway. And showing up without a permit. And refusing to leave a bus seat. And occupying a café. And blocking contractors from disturbing your sacred lands. Do you think those American patriots just walked onto a British ship without permission and dumped property that wasn't theirs into the sea? No, they applied for a permit, designated a marching route, cleared it with the local authorities, and then bought the merchandise that they promptly destroyed, as was their right under English common law. Now, if everyone who has a problem with how the government functions could kindly shut up and never voice their concerns in any venue besides an internet forum, we'll just get back to doing something deeply unpopular that is sure to widen already deep fissures in our society. Don't like it, then vote for it (if we haven't already engineered a way to take away your vote by the next election). Grumble, grumble, something about federalism, the masses can't be trusted, but still yay for democracy!
@Jacanuk said:
@tryit said:
I think when the Muller report comes out many people are going to be shocked at how deep the Russian compromise goes.
That is my prediction
And your predictions are as the many others worth about as much as the paper you use at the toilet.
But what a absolute farce with those insane butch females in tha back yelling, they should perhaps try to work within the democracy instead of trying to behave like a kid and think yelling helps.
Wow way to show your hate. Homophobic as well as a tinge of misogyny. They GOP base.
@LJS9502_basic said:
@Jacanuk said:
@tryit said:
I think when the Muller report comes out many people are going to be shocked at how deep the Russian compromise goes.
That is my prediction
And your predictions are as the many others worth about as much as the paper you use at the toilet.
But what a absolute farce with those insane butch females in tha back yelling, they should perhaps try to work within the democracy instead of trying to behave like a kid and think yelling helps.
Wow way to show your hate. Homophobic as well as a tinge of misogyny. They GOP base.
Is it hate, or is he accurately describing the situation?
@Fuhrer_D said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@Jacanuk said:
@tryit said:
I think when the Muller report comes out many people are going to be shocked at how deep the Russian compromise goes.
That is my prediction
And your predictions are as the many others worth about as much as the paper you use at the toilet.
But what a absolute farce with those insane butch females in tha back yelling, they should perhaps try to work within the democracy instead of trying to behave like a kid and think yelling helps.
Wow way to show your hate. Homophobic as well as a tinge of misogyny. They GOP base.
Is it hate, or is he accurately describing the situation?
its mostly just inaccurate but where it is wrong its filled with silly useless hate
@JimB said:
This is the liberal answer to everything. Disrupt or destroy.
LOL the conservatives started that way before...........
Just wanted to share this photo of a protester today:
:D
@JimB said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@JimB said:
This is the liberal answer to everything. Disrupt or destroy.
LOL the conservatives started that way before...........
When did conservatives disrupt hearings and bring in protesters to aid in the disruption?
Note the terms disrupt or destroy. Then recall the hearings in Congress during the last administration. Your words always are turned against you. It's so simple and easy.
@JimB said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@JimB said:
This is the liberal answer to everything. Disrupt or destroy.
LOL the conservatives started that way before...........
When did conservatives disrupt hearings and bring in protesters to aid in the disruption?
you would have more success if you where a bit more honest.
where there protesters there? yes
was the hearings disrupted by democrats? yes
was the hearing disrupted by protesters? yes
did democrats bring in the protesters? no
no need to take truth to the level of a lie just for effect. it wil backfire on you as it always does
@tryit said:
@JimB said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@JimB said:
This is the liberal answer to everything. Disrupt or destroy.
LOL the conservatives started that way before...........
When did conservatives disrupt hearings and bring in protesters to aid in the disruption?
you would have more success if you where a bit more honest.
where there protesters there? yes
was the hearings disrupted by democrats? yes
was the hearing disrupted by protesters? yes
did democrats bring in the protesters? no
no need to take truth to the level of a lie just for effect. it wil backfire on you as it always does
Many of the demonstrators were paid. This was all coordinated by the Democratic senators headed by Chuck Schumer.
The lie is you are trying to ignore the truth. Dick Durbin said as much.
@JimB said:
@tryit said:
@JimB said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
LOL the conservatives started that way before...........
When did conservatives disrupt hearings and bring in protesters to aid in the disruption?
you would have more success if you where a bit more honest.
where there protesters there? yes
was the hearings disrupted by democrats? yes
was the hearing disrupted by protesters? yes
did democrats bring in the protesters? no
no need to take truth to the level of a lie just for effect. it wil backfire on you as it always does
Many of the demonstrators were paid. This was all coordinated by the Democratic senators headed by Chuck Schumer.
The lie is you are trying to ignore the truth. Dick Durbin said as much.
A. provide evidence that they were paid
B. provide evidence that the money came from Chuck Schumer
otherwise its horseshit
and something else for the love of god THINK before you post something.
Think about what the other person is thinking when they read what you say and try to predict their response, can you do that?
@JimB said:
@tryit said:
you would have more success if you where a bit more honest.
where there protesters there? yes
was the hearings disrupted by democrats? yes
was the hearing disrupted by protesters? yes
did democrats bring in the protesters? no
no need to take truth to the level of a lie just for effect. it wil backfire on you as it always does
Many of the demonstrators were paid. This was all coordinated by the Democratic senators headed by Chuck Schumer.
The lie is you are trying to ignore the truth. Dick Durbin said as much.
Link? You do know many Americans are disgusted with the current situation. Trump has been protested several times. He's at a very low approval rating. He ONLY has his base at this point.
@theone86 said:
@Jacanuk said:
@Serraph105 said:
lol okay, protests are no longer part of the democratic process. People get mad at crap politicians and yell shit at them. I too hope they vote out the crappy republicans, but voicing your opinion is part of the process whether you agree with them or not. Fucking deal with it.
A protest is not standing up and screaming obscenities and yelling "nananananana you cant speak nanananan i am 4 years old nananana"
And voicing your opinion" during a hearing is not democracy at work,
Remember there are still laws in this country and being disruptive in the public is not excusable with "oh duuuuuuuuuuuuude but i am just protesting maaaaaannnnnnnnnn"
Being disruptive is the point of protesting, otherwise it's just called talking.
No, that is not protesting, being disruptive is being disruptive.
But good try.
Protesting is like the march on Washington, where they gathered outside the white house or congress and got their point across.
Run into a hearing for the supreme court yelling obscenities is just being disruptive and have nothing to do with a protest., but I do know you guys on the ultra far left have that problem, since it´s not the first time you think violence or preventing people from speaking and actively advocating for dictatorship
@Jacanuk said:
@theone86 said:
Being disruptive is the point of protesting, otherwise it's just called talking.
No, that is not protesting, being disruptive is being disruptive.
But good try.
Protesting is like the march on Washington, where they gathered outside the white house or congress and got their point across.
Run into a hearing for the supreme court yelling obscenities is just being disruptive and have nothing to do with a protest., but I do know you guys on the ultra far left have that problem, since it´s not the first time you think violence or preventing people from speaking and actively advocating for dictatorship
Let's talk about something more important than protesters. What about the hiding of documentation that is NOT legally classified?
@Jacanuk said:
@theone86 said:
@Jacanuk said:
@Serraph105 said:
lol okay, protests are no longer part of the democratic process. People get mad at crap politicians and yell shit at them. I too hope they vote out the crappy republicans, but voicing your opinion is part of the process whether you agree with them or not. Fucking deal with it.
A protest is not standing up and screaming obscenities and yelling "nananananana you cant speak nanananan i am 4 years old nananana"
And voicing your opinion" during a hearing is not democracy at work,
Remember there are still laws in this country and being disruptive in the public is not excusable with "oh duuuuuuuuuuuuude but i am just protesting maaaaaannnnnnnnnn"
Being disruptive is the point of protesting, otherwise it's just called talking.
No, that is not protesting, being disruptive is being disruptive.
But good try.
Protesting is like the march on Washington, where they gathered outside the white house or congress and got their point across.
Run into a hearing for the supreme court yelling obscenities is just being disruptive and have nothing to do with a protest., but I do know you guys on the ultra far left have that problem, since it´s not the first time you think violence or preventing people from speaking and actively advocating for dictatorship
“Indeed, this is the purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront an issue.”-Martin Luther King, Jr.
Protests are meant to create disruption. They are meant to shut down the normal operation of society because that is precisely what has led to the unacceptable circumstances to begin with. Telling protesters not to be disruptive is telling them not to protest at all, which isn't surprising coming from someone who doesn't want their concerns addressed to begin with.
@LJS9502_basic said:
@Jacanuk said:
@theone86 said:
Being disruptive is the point of protesting, otherwise it's just called talking.
No, that is not protesting, being disruptive is being disruptive.
But good try.
Protesting is like the march on Washington, where they gathered outside the white house or congress and got their point across.
Run into a hearing for the supreme court yelling obscenities is just being disruptive and have nothing to do with a protest., but I do know you guys on the ultra far left have that problem, since it´s not the first time you think violence or preventing people from speaking and actively advocating for dictatorship
Let's talk about something more important than protesters. What about the hiding of documentation that is NOT legally classified?
You mean the Booker thing, well if the committee has deemed it confidential it´s confidential.
Also, it´s fun to watch the Democrats try everything they can to delay this so they can get on the other side of the mid-terms and get their pick.
But what an absolute disgrace they have been
@Jacanuk said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@Jacanuk said:
@theone86 said:
Being disruptive is the point of protesting, otherwise it's just called talking.
No, that is not protesting, being disruptive is being disruptive.
But good try.
Protesting is like the march on Washington, where they gathered outside the white house or congress and got their point across.
Run into a hearing for the supreme court yelling obscenities is just being disruptive and have nothing to do with a protest., but I do know you guys on the ultra far left have that problem, since it´s not the first time you think violence or preventing people from speaking and actively advocating for dictatorship
Let's talk about something more important than protesters. What about the hiding of documentation that is NOT legally classified?
You mean the Booker thing, well if the committee has deemed it confidential it´s confidential.
Also, it´s fun to watch the Democrats try everything they can to delay this so they can get on the other side of the mid-terms and get their pick.
But what an absolute disgrace they have been
The committee didn't. Also no that does not make it confidential.
@theone86 said:
“Indeed, this is the purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront an issue.”-Martin Luther King, Jr.
Protests are meant to create disruption. They are meant to shut down the normal operation of society because that is precisely what has led to the unacceptable circumstances to begin with. Telling protesters not to be disruptive is telling them not to protest at all, which isn't surprising coming from someone who doesn't want their concerns addressed to begin with.
Again no protest is not meant to cause disruptiveness just for being disruptive.
But let me ask you a question, if I came to your work, stood with a bullhorn over you the entire day and yelled "nanananananananananananananana Theone is a ultra far left anarchist nanananananananan" would I protest or just be disruptive
@Jacanuk said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@Jacanuk said:
@theone86 said:
Being disruptive is the point of protesting, otherwise it's just called talking.
No, that is not protesting, being disruptive is being disruptive.
But good try.
Protesting is like the march on Washington, where they gathered outside the white house or congress and got their point across.
Run into a hearing for the supreme court yelling obscenities is just being disruptive and have nothing to do with a protest., but I do know you guys on the ultra far left have that problem, since it´s not the first time you think violence or preventing people from speaking and actively advocating for dictatorship
Let's talk about something more important than protesters. What about the hiding of documentation that is NOT legally classified?
You mean the Booker thing, well if the committee has deemed it confidential it´s confidential.
Also, it´s fun to watch the Democrats try everything they can to delay this so they can get on the other side of the mid-terms and get their pick.
But what an absolute disgrace they have been
If that ain't the pot calling the kettle black...
Not only did Republicans unapologetically deny President Obama his rightful nomination, they also pulled the same tactics of asking for documents with Ruth Bader Ginsberg. And asking for a thorough process is not delaying. We wouldn't have to delay if Republicans would just be transparent and find a way to release the relevant documents instead of trying to cover them up. What are they hiding? Maybe Kavanaugh is a secret Kenyan! We need his long form, can't go forward without it.
@Jacanuk said:
@theone86 said:
“Indeed, this is the purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront an issue.”-Martin Luther King, Jr.
Protests are meant to create disruption. They are meant to shut down the normal operation of society because that is precisely what has led to the unacceptable circumstances to begin with. Telling protesters not to be disruptive is telling them not to protest at all, which isn't surprising coming from someone who doesn't want their concerns addressed to begin with.
Again no protest is not meant to cause disruptiveness just for being disruptive.
But let me ask you a question, if I came to your work, stood with a bullhorn over you the entire day and yelled "nanananananananananananananana Theone is a ultra far left anarchist nanananananananan" would I protest or just be disruptive
Well, as we already established, protests are disruptive, so both. I don't work in a government position, though, so I don't know what you would hope to accomplish. You don't get workplace privacy when you're an elected public servant.
@Jacanuk said:
@theone86 said:
“Indeed, this is the purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront an issue.”-Martin Luther King, Jr.
Protests are meant to create disruption. They are meant to shut down the normal operation of society because that is precisely what has led to the unacceptable circumstances to begin with. Telling protesters not to be disruptive is telling them not to protest at all, which isn't surprising coming from someone who doesn't want their concerns addressed to begin with.
Again no protest is not meant to cause disruptiveness just for being disruptive.
But let me ask you a question, if I came to your work, stood with a bullhorn over you the entire day and yelled "nanananananananananananananana Theone is a ultra far left anarchist nanananananananan" would I protest or just be disruptive
are you saying women being disruptive because they are afraid they will not have a medical choice regarding abortion is 'being disruptive for just being disruptive'?
and you expect us to believe you think that? seriously?
@theone86 said:
@Jacanuk said:
@theone86 said:
“Indeed, this is the purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront an issue.”-Martin Luther King, Jr.
Protests are meant to create disruption. They are meant to shut down the normal operation of society because that is precisely what has led to the unacceptable circumstances to begin with. Telling protesters not to be disruptive is telling them not to protest at all, which isn't surprising coming from someone who doesn't want their concerns addressed to begin with.
Again no protest is not meant to cause disruptiveness just for being disruptive.
But let me ask you a question, if I came to your work, stood with a bullhorn over you the entire day and yelled "nanananananananananananananana Theone is a ultra far left anarchist nanananananananan" would I protest or just be disruptive
Well, as we already established, protests are disruptive, so both. I don't work in a government position, though, so I don't know what you would hope to accomplish. You don't get workplace privacy when you're an elected public servant.
Well, that is absolute nonsense, there are still laws and rules in place which is why you just can´t walk into your senator's office and yell crazy things.
And who cares what the goal is, you said protest is being disruptive, so you would be ok with someone disrupting your work.
@Jacanuk said:
@theone86 said:
@Jacanuk said:
@theone86 said:
“Indeed, this is the purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront an issue.”-Martin Luther King, Jr.
Protests are meant to create disruption. They are meant to shut down the normal operation of society because that is precisely what has led to the unacceptable circumstances to begin with. Telling protesters not to be disruptive is telling them not to protest at all, which isn't surprising coming from someone who doesn't want their concerns addressed to begin with.
Again no protest is not meant to cause disruptiveness just for being disruptive.
But let me ask you a question, if I came to your work, stood with a bullhorn over you the entire day and yelled "nanananananananananananananana Theone is a ultra far left anarchist nanananananananan" would I protest or just be disruptive
Well, as we already established, protests are disruptive, so both. I don't work in a government position, though, so I don't know what you would hope to accomplish. You don't get workplace privacy when you're an elected public servant.
Well, that is absolute nonsense, there are still laws and rules in place which is why you just can´t walk into your senator's office and yell crazy things.
And who cares what the goal is, you said protest is being disruptive, so you would be ok with someone disrupting your work.
protesting is not for following the law, its supposed to be disruptive.
stop bitching
@Jacanuk said:
@tryit: You have confused anarchy with protesting.
But go look both words up, because you are clearly in favour of the first.
Sorry but no I do not.
protesting within legal limits only doesnt even make logical sense. The entire point of protesting is because all other 'legal' venues have failed. That is the entire point!
but regardless, stop being so sensitive about it
@tryit said:
@Jacanuk said:
@tryit: You have confused anarchy with protesting.
But go look both words up, because you are clearly in favour of the first.
Sorry but no I do not.
protesting within legal limits only doesnt even make logical sense. The entire point of protesting is because all other 'legal' venues have failed. That is the entire point!
but regardless, stop being so sensitive about it
Well, now you say within legal limits before you said
protesting is not for following the law,
@Jacanuk said:
@tryit said:
@Jacanuk said:
@tryit: You have confused anarchy with protesting.
But go look both words up, because you are clearly in favour of the first.
Sorry but no I do not.
protesting within legal limits only doesnt even make logical sense. The entire point of protesting is because all other 'legal' venues have failed. That is the entire point!
but regardless, stop being so sensitive about it
Well, now you say within legal limits before you said
protesting is not for following the law,
I dont follow what you are saying, I just dont understand the combination of words sorry.
but what I said is accurate, protesting is NOT for following the law. that doesnt mean you cant follow the law, but its not a requirement which is why I said it exactly like I said it
protesting within legal limits only doesnt even make logical sense (implying that yes you can protest under legal limits but you dont have to in order for it to be a righteous protest)
@tryit said:
I dont follow what you are saying, I just dont understand the combination of words sorry.
but what I said is accurate, protesting is NOT for following the law. that doesnt mean you cant follow the law, but its not a requirement which is why I said it exactly like I said it
protesting within legal limits only doesnt even make logical sense (implying that yes you can protest under legal limits but you dont have to in order for it to be a righteous protest)
I am saying that in those 2 posts you have taken 2 positions.
One Protesting is "NOT" following the law
And one "Protesting should happen within the law"
The first is anarchy the second is a democracy. So which one is it?
@Jacanuk said:
@theone86 said:
@Jacanuk said:
@theone86 said:
“Indeed, this is the purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront an issue.”-Martin Luther King, Jr.
Protests are meant to create disruption. They are meant to shut down the normal operation of society because that is precisely what has led to the unacceptable circumstances to begin with. Telling protesters not to be disruptive is telling them not to protest at all, which isn't surprising coming from someone who doesn't want their concerns addressed to begin with.
Again no protest is not meant to cause disruptiveness just for being disruptive.
But let me ask you a question, if I came to your work, stood with a bullhorn over you the entire day and yelled "nanananananananananananananana Theone is a ultra far left anarchist nanananananananan" would I protest or just be disruptive
Well, as we already established, protests are disruptive, so both. I don't work in a government position, though, so I don't know what you would hope to accomplish. You don't get workplace privacy when you're an elected public servant.
Well, that is absolute nonsense, there are still laws and rules in place which is why you just can´t walk into your senator's office and yell crazy things.
And who cares what the goal is, you said protest is being disruptive, so you would be ok with someone disrupting your work.
Every word that comes out of your mouth is absolute nonsense, so I would think you'd be used to it by now.
Protests are meant to break rules. Protests are meant to disrupt. If protests abided by the rules then they wouldn't accomplish their goal, which is to force a discussion on an issue that's being ignored.
Things are different when you're elected public servant. If I ignore a customer, at worst we lose some business. If a congressperson ignores the people that they're making decisions about, it's a dereliction of their duty and can have wide-ranging effects. Like I said, you don't get workplace privacy when you're a public servant.
@theone86 said:
Every word that comes out of your mouth is absolute nonsense, so I would think you'd be used to it by now.
Protests are meant to break rules. Protests are meant to disrupt. If protests abided by the rules then they wouldn't accomplish their goal, which is to force a discussion on an issue that's being ignored.
Things are different when you're elected public servant. If I ignore a customer, at worst we lose some business. If a congressperson ignores the people that they're making decisions about, it's a dereliction of their duty and can have wide-ranging effects. Like I said, you don't get workplace privacy when you're a public servant.
You may want to head back to school and study some more.
Protests are a way of expressing the freedom of speech, you know the 1st amendment. It´s not about being disruptive or causing civil unrest, that is a whole other ball game.
Which is also why the police have the legal tools to prevent "protests" if they are deemed to cause civil unrest or are disruptive. Not to mention that protests need permits in most cases and while you can do it without a permit, you are then subject to the letter of the law.
So please do yourself a favour and stop reading the leftist anarchist bible and try to open an actual book and learn how society works.
@Jacanuk said:
@theone86 said:
Every word that comes out of your mouth is absolute nonsense, so I would think you'd be used to it by now.
Protests are meant to break rules. Protests are meant to disrupt. If protests abided by the rules then they wouldn't accomplish their goal, which is to force a discussion on an issue that's being ignored.
Things are different when you're elected public servant. If I ignore a customer, at worst we lose some business. If a congressperson ignores the people that they're making decisions about, it's a dereliction of their duty and can have wide-ranging effects. Like I said, you don't get workplace privacy when you're a public servant.
You may want to head back to school and study some more.
Protests are a way of expressing the freedom of speech, you know the 1st amendment. It´s not about being disruptive or causing civil unrest, that is a whole other ball game.
completely and totally absolutely unbelievably wrong.
logically speaking one does not get permission before you protest the very people are you protesting against, that is absurd logic
You CAN but its far from a requirement for it to be a protest.
Way to go Cory Booker for not following the rules that republicans threw out years ago! I hope he faces no consequences for this and it serves to piss off republicans.
@Jacanuk said:
@theone86 said:
Every word that comes out of your mouth is absolute nonsense, so I would think you'd be used to it by now.
Protests are meant to break rules. Protests are meant to disrupt. If protests abided by the rules then they wouldn't accomplish their goal, which is to force a discussion on an issue that's being ignored.
Things are different when you're elected public servant. If I ignore a customer, at worst we lose some business. If a congressperson ignores the people that they're making decisions about, it's a dereliction of their duty and can have wide-ranging effects. Like I said, you don't get workplace privacy when you're a public servant.
You may want to head back to school and study some more.
Protests are a way of expressing the freedom of speech, you know the 1st amendment. It´s not about being disruptive or causing civil unrest, that is a whole other ball game.
Which is also why the police have the legal tools to prevent "protests" if they are deemed to cause civil unrest or are disruptive. Not to mention that protests need permits in most cases and while you can do it without a permit, you are then subject to the letter of the law.
So please do yourself a favour and stop reading the leftist anarchist bible and try to open an actual book and learn how society works.
Right, which is why our founding fathers filed for protests and bought a bunch of tea before they dumped it into the harbor. Protests have always been about disruption. Everyone who's undertaken a protest in history has said they were about disruption. Like I said, if they were just about doing everything within the confines of the law and never inconveniencing anyone they wouldn't be protests, they'd just be speech.
LOL, how society works, says the guy who thinks that legislators inventing rules that apply to the opposite party but not to them is "how society works."
@theone86 said:
@Jacanuk said:
@theone86 said:
Every word that comes out of your mouth is absolute nonsense, so I would think you'd be used to it by now.
Protests are meant to break rules. Protests are meant to disrupt. If protests abided by the rules then they wouldn't accomplish their goal, which is to force a discussion on an issue that's being ignored.
Things are different when you're elected public servant. If I ignore a customer, at worst we lose some business. If a congressperson ignores the people that they're making decisions about, it's a dereliction of their duty and can have wide-ranging effects. Like I said, you don't get workplace privacy when you're a public servant.
You may want to head back to school and study some more.
Protests are a way of expressing the freedom of speech, you know the 1st amendment. It´s not about being disruptive or causing civil unrest, that is a whole other ball game.
Which is also why the police have the legal tools to prevent "protests" if they are deemed to cause civil unrest or are disruptive. Not to mention that protests need permits in most cases and while you can do it without a permit, you are then subject to the letter of the law.
So please do yourself a favour and stop reading the leftist anarchist bible and try to open an actual book and learn how society works.
Right, which is why our founding fathers filed for protests and bought a bunch of tea before they dumped it into the harbor. Protests have always been about disruption. Everyone who's undertaken a protest in history has said they were about disruption. Like I said, if they were just about doing everything within the confines of the law and never inconveniencing anyone they wouldn't be protests, they'd just be speech.
LOL, how society works, says the guy who thinks that legislators inventing rules that apply to the opposite party but not to them is "how society works."
They bought the tea? I thought they just took it off some ships and dumped it without paying for it.
EDIT. My bad, I missed the obvious sarcasm.
@mattbbpl said:
@Serraph105: "They bought the tea? I thought they just took it off some ships and dumped it without paying for it."
Dude... Lol.
I misread it. If I had a gif for slack cutting I would post that right now.
@theone86 said:
Right, which is why our founding fathers filed for protests and bought a bunch of tea before they dumped it into the harbor. Protests have always been about disruption. Everyone who's undertaken a protest in history has said they were about disruption. Like I said, if they were just about doing everything within the confines of the law and never inconveniencing anyone they wouldn't be protests, they'd just be speech.
LOL, how society works, says the guy who thinks that legislators inventing rules that apply to the opposite party but not to them is "how society works."
You are comparing apples and oranges here and also it seems like you clearly are saying Protest = anarchy.
So good to know you are ANTIFA supporter.
@Jacanuk said:
It´s not about being disruptive or causing civil unrest,
That's exactly what a protest is.............
@N30F3N1X said:
Boohoo the meanie president wants to appoint a guy I don't want appointed, better do something stupid and largely inconsequential for anyone but me to show how much I disapprove of them, that'll show them who the boss is
I suggest a dictatorship for you since you seem more comfortable in that environment...........remember thinking for one's self is bad,
@LJS9502_basic said:
@N30F3N1X said:
Boohoo the meanie president wants to appoint a guy I don't want appointed, better do something stupid and largely inconsequential for anyone but me to show how much I disapprove of them, that'll show them who the boss is
I suggest a dictatorship for you since you seem more comfortable in that environment...........remember thinking for one's self is bad,
The only one in here who advocate that kind is you so the irony is hopefully not lost on you.
@Jacanuk said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@N30F3N1X said:
Boohoo the meanie president wants to appoint a guy I don't want appointed, better do something stupid and largely inconsequential for anyone but me to show how much I disapprove of them, that'll show them who the boss is
I suggest a dictatorship for you since you seem more comfortable in that environment...........remember thinking for one's self is bad,
The only one in here who advocate that kind is you so the irony is hopefully not lost on you.
No you support that. And so does this dude. I support the country and the Constitution..........not a cult of personality.
@LJS9502_basic said:
@N30F3N1X said:
Boohoo the meanie president wants to appoint a guy I don't want appointed, better do something stupid and largely inconsequential for anyone but me to show how much I disapprove of them, that'll show them who the boss is
I suggest a dictatorship for you since you seem more comfortable in that environment...........remember thinking for one's self is bad,
You've got it backwards, you're the one who would be better suited with a boot up his ass and one on his head, I'm the guy who advocates small government here
@N30F3N1X said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@N30F3N1X said:
Boohoo the meanie president wants to appoint a guy I don't want appointed, better do something stupid and largely inconsequential for anyone but me to show how much I disapprove of them, that'll show them who the boss is
I suggest a dictatorship for you since you seem more comfortable in that environment...........remember thinking for one's self is bad,
You've got it backwards, you're the one who would be better suited with a boot up his ass and one on his head, I'm the guy who advocates small government here
Well you're definitely advocating the censorship of opposing ideologies.........
@Jacanuk said:
@theone86 said:
Right, which is why our founding fathers filed for protests and bought a bunch of tea before they dumped it into the harbor. Protests have always been about disruption. Everyone who's undertaken a protest in history has said they were about disruption. Like I said, if they were just about doing everything within the confines of the law and never inconveniencing anyone they wouldn't be protests, they'd just be speech.
LOL, how society works, says the guy who thinks that legislators inventing rules that apply to the opposite party but not to them is "how society works."
You are comparing apples and oranges here and also it seems like you clearly are saying Protest = anarchy.
So good to know you are ANTIFA supporter.
I don't know how you ever became a lawyer with logic like that. If I knew what state you practiced law in I'd try to get you disbarred for incompetence.
@Serraph105 said:
Way to go Cory Booker for not following the rules that republicans threw out years ago! I hope he faces no consequences for this and it serves to piss off republicans.
Can anyone tell us why these were classified? What pertinent information in these emails caused them to be withheld from the hearings?
@LJS9502_basic: No leftie... dont talk about censorship that's what your side lives for.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment