So you want to abolish the 1st amendment then? Just say that.
You're being absurd... But I expect absurdities from someone who thinks that what BLM and ANTIFA are doing is constitutionally protected.
I am a person that grew up on a farm, I started working at 7 years old on chores, and continued to work all my life until I retired at 70. I guess that is the reason I find it amazing that the streets are always filled with protesters whining about something. Why are the not at work? Where I live, there are signs out all over that businesses want workers.
Then dont act like the problem is VIOLENT protest.
The problem for you is just PROTEST
How can we keep the 1st amendment and not allow protests? Enlighten me.
I don't want to prevent football players from taking a knee during the anthem, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with what they are doing.
I'm not on the left, therefore when I don't agree with what someone legally partakes in, I don't try to prevent them from doing it. Just like when someone voices opinions I disagree with, I don't try to prevent them from being able to voice them.
It's called "respecting a person's rights"... You all should give it a try sometime.
WTF?
Are you trying to start a pissing war with me?
ffs, chill out.
Right....as long as people don't break the law....right?
You replied to me first.
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
I mean it shouldn't be too hard to say you agree with a founding father but then again..... :shrug:
What is your point?
I made my opinions on protesting crystal clear. I realize that you don't like my political beliefs and want to create a "gotcha" moment and find something to criticize me with, but it's not going to happen. I respect people's rights, but I don't respect people committing acts of violence and trying to claim it's their right to do so. I may disagree with what someone says, but I respect that they have a right to say it.
anything else?
Yes. Do you support protests if they break the law?
I do not support the use of violence, destruction of property, theft, arson, etc...
I don't have a problem with jaywalking, protesting without a permit, trespassing on public property, etc...
Clear enough for you?
.
How about violating a law that is immoral
:roll:Are you calling what's taking place a revolution?
If you have something specific in mind, then let's hear it.
There’s a difference between observing and drawing bias based conclusions.Not hatred, just an observer of what is happening.
Why do you assume they don't have jobs or should be at work instead?I am a person that grew up on a farm, I started working at 7 years old on chores, and continued to work all my life until I retired at 70. I guess that is the reason I find it amazing that the streets are always filled with protesters whining about something. Why are the not at work? Where I live, there are signs out all over that businesses want workers.
:roll:
I'm saying that from the perspective of the British and Loyalists, the revolting Colonists were... revolting. They were a bunch of ungrateful backwater lowlifes who should have kept their mouths shut, obeyed the law, and did what the governors told them to do. Instead, they destroyed a bunch of property, told King George to get lost, took up arms, shot a bunch of British troops, and waged open war.
I'd also point out that all this "ooooh, riots are bad!" is basically just bull**** by people who think that it's more important to bow to white grievance than to fix racist injustices. When protest is 100% peaceful, the protesters are blasted as being anti-American, ungrateful, uncivil, and so on -- the same criticism are used, no matter what protest tactics are actually in effect. Meanwhile, those same "law & order" types completely ignore examples of right-wing terrorism, or police using brutal tactics against peaceful protesters.
I.e. When it comes to bad-faith criticisms of protests, I'm over it.
Forcing black people to sit in the back of the bus
Forcing black people to see a monument to someone who fought to keep them a slave when they go to the park
I wouldn't have a problem with a black person sitting in the front of a bus today if doing so were illegal. That's because such a law would be unjust and violating it would not be an act of violence, theft, or destruction of property.
Nobody has the right not to be offended. Statues and monuments are public property, paid for by the citizens of that state, county or city.
A person or group of people can oppose their existence and protest to have a statue or monument removed, but they do not have the right to destroy, deface, or remove them themselves. There are legal mechanisms in place to address such things, and ultimately it will be up to the citizens of that jurisdiction to decide democratically whether a monument stays or goes.
.
More importantly how important do you think the right to peacefully assemble is in America? Should we repeal the 1st amendment to save a few buildings or should we try to adress the grievances of the protesters instead of calling them all anarchists?
I do have the right to be offended. If that statue was pornographic I certainly do have the right to be offended.
There were legal means to remove jim crow laws too. People just got tired of waiting for them to work. I am glad they are tired of looking at Confederate monuments now.
People all over the world work, that's not some awesome "American" thing.
To me, protecting our freedoms for which the country was founded on, is a very "American" thing to do.
I didn't say you didn't have a right to be offended... I said a person does not have the right "to not to be offended". In other words, if you are offended by something, that's not a violation of your rights.
So yes, you have every right to be offended by a pornographic statue, but the existence of that statue isn't violating your rights.
False comparison... Comparing laws that mistreat a certain group of people based on their race, is not the same as monuments or statues that mistreat nobody.
As I said, nobody has the right "not to be offended".
One of my very best friends is a straight black man that didnt have to "fight" for his "rights".You speak as a white straight man who has never has to fight for your rights.
This is white privilege folks
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?