- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 12,879
- Reaction score
- 2,707
- Location
- New England
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Transportation, damn, first it was medical facilities and medications and now transportation that you need society for. This thing keeps snowballing on you doesn't it. I wonder if there is anything else you need society for...............hmmm........................
No. In this case I'm advocating running them down. In terms of the NG I had advocated bayoneting. They aren't worth the cost of the bullets necessary to shoot them.
Where do you see anything about transportation?
If there was a way to get those medications and services without ANY involvement in society, I'd have been up for it a long time ago.
What a pathetic decision.
It was the protestors responsibility to listen to the bullhorn. Singular or not.
Nor do Officers have to repeatedly give warnings. The protestors should have listened the first time.
I hope this is appealed, any class action stayed until, and overturned.
Beef and if you take the first amendment fully to the states you have take them all which means the gun laws in NY are illegal.
:dohThe Judges ruling confirms that the 1% do not own the judicial system. Which even if the lawsuit is won by the protesters all that it will prove is that they were wrong. The victory goes to the US for proving that the protesters are creating a false message.
so u agree I should not need a license to own a hand gun.They are: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The people that own Corporations are people. BTW I do not support person-hood for Corporations never have never will. But then I wasnt even talking about Corporations., what i was talking about is the fact that despite the accusation by the protesters that the judicial system is bought and paid for and works only for the wealthy, the case that they filed was ruled on in a fair equal legal manner. Which indicates a working justice system, which can those people in those Corporation to justice.:doh
Right...... Corporations are people... :roll:
If they aren't remaining peaceful, then I rescind my argument. So far, I have only seen the police (members of a government organization) being the aggressors in this conflict.
Were you thinking of teleportation to get your medications and medical services to you?
No. I was planning on getting myself to them, not the other way around.
You rely on society and therefore directly support that society with taxes, payments to those dirty slimy immoral people, and you help support the system you despise. You may not like it which is fine, but you are sacrificing all your morals each and every day to support it if we are to take your authoritarianism seriously.
so u agree I should not need a license to own a hand gun.
A corporation now these days is considered a person.The people that own Corporations are people.
Sure.what i was talking about is the fact that despite the accusation by the protesters that the judicial system is bought and paid for and works only for the wealthy, the case that they filed was ruled on in a fair equal legal manner. Which indicates a working justice system, which can those people in those Corporation to justice.
Yes, we agree on this point.A corporation now these days is considered a person.
Ben a Jerry are people. Ben & Jerry's is not a person.
You were not, but the accusation comes from many in the OWS movement. The judges ruling only assumes that a few officers violated the protesters rights. It is a far cry form Corporations and the 1% manipulating the system in their favor. if it were true that the Government and the judicial system were in control by Corporations and the 1% no judge would have made such a ruling. Especially right now when there is the appearance of the movement dying or at least returning to its small numbered fringe reality. Plus OWS likes to claim that the media is under control of Corporations and the 1% yet we keep hearing about OWS. Perhaps OWS is stretching the truth? Wouldnt that dishonesty just aid those that they are protesting against?Sure.
I was never accusing the justice system of being rigged. However in SOME CASES the justice system fails miserably.
Well its a fact that it isEPlus OWS likes to claim that the media is under control of Corporations
Not really not anymore.and the 1% yet we keep hearing about OWS.
What truth? What that the media is owned and ran by corporations? That isnt a lie at all... IT iss....Perhaps OWS is stretching the truth? Wouldnt that dishonesty just aid those that they are protesting against?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
What does any of that have to do with keeping off the road? There are plenty of things you cannot do while you are also exercising free speech.
So its only free speech and peaceful in verified and accepted "zones"?
<image snipped>
Thats some great "freedom" there...
What does any of that have to do with keeping off the road? There are plenty of things you cannot do while you are also exercising free speech.
If you want to see it that way, yes. You can't claim freedom of speech when yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded theater either. Oh my, all your rights are gone! :mrgreen:
You do realize that argument was devised to support the unconstitutional Alien and Sedition acts that allowed imprisonment of people who spoke out against the US Government, right?
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), was a United States Supreme Court decision that upheld the Espionage Act of 1917 and concluded that a defendant did not have a First Amendment right to express freedom of speech against the draft during World War I. Ultimately, the case established the "clear and present danger" test, which lasted until 1969 when protection for speech was raised in Brandenburg v. Ohio to "Imminent lawless action".
Source
The fact that it's their Constitutional right to protest. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.
Except that's a bit of a reframe. The right is to peacefully assemble. Now, unless you are going to assert that common traffic law should be overturned because it hinders the right to free speech or assemblage, it's a law you have to follow to get to the peaceful assembly right.
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?