- Joined
- Jan 16, 2019
- Messages
- 38,083
- Reaction score
- 55,557
- Location
- Near Boise, ID
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Squeeze that turnip!Hey now...everyone knows the real terrorists are parents at school board meetings.
I saw that.See post 24.
It's nice you have a window into the beliefs of maybe 70 million Americans. This Democrat doesn't believe in immoral, unethical and only rarely in 'illegal' means - conscientious objection is a real thing and occasionally morally and ethically correct.Why do democrats support breaking the law?
Because of their belief in this: The ends justify the means...no matter how immoral, unethical or illegal.
Right. This was just too easy. Try harder.Recent polling shows that 58% of democrats support protesting outside the homes of Supreme Court Justices. Recent events include a sharp rise in attacks on pro life health centers. Theses are both clearly violations of the law and yet the democrats support this and the current DOJ has done little to nothing to stop it. AG Garland did strengthen security at the homes of SCOTUS but not until after the failed assassination attempt on the life of a Justice. Why? The left was in support of the over 500 protest which mostly turned violent in the summer of 2020 and police were often told to not engage with the protest/rioters and were often the target of direct violent attacks. Why? Democrat DA's across the country have implemented policies which include no cash bail for violent crimes, refusal to prosecute many crimes of vandalism and theft in shops and businesses if the material stolen by one person is not more than $900. Repeat offenders are consistently arrested for more violent crimes while out awaiting trial or after receiving probation for previous crimes. Why does the left support open border policies? Illegal immigration means more violence, more drugs, and more unaccompanied minors susceptible to violence. Why?
Why does the left seem to encourage violence, theft, vandalism by those who are typically seen as democrat supporters?
Do you support protesters who block city intersections? If so, then you DO support immoral, unethical and illegal means.It's nice you have a window into the beliefs of maybe 70 million Americans. This Democrat doesn't believe in immoral, unethical and only rarely in 'illegal' means - conscientious objection is a real thing and occasionally morally and ethically correct.
What's immoral or unethical about it, so long as it's peaceful?Do you support protesters who block city intersections? If so, then you DO support immoral, unethical and illegal means.
I see you avoided the "illegal" part. Oh...wait. That's right, you are okay with the illegal stuff.What's immoral or unethical about it, so long as it's peaceful?
As long as they are on public property and otherwise obeying the law they're good as far as I'm concerned.Nor do I.
Nor do I support protesting outside anyone's private residence whether they are Government elected, appointed or a private citizen.
It's nice you have a window into the beliefs of maybe 70 million Americans. This Democrat doesn't believe in immoral, unethical and only rarely in 'illegal' means - conscientious objection is a real thing and occasionally morally and ethically correct.
You called blocking an intersection immoral and unethical. I asked why you believe that. You can answer if you want.I see you avoided the "illegal" part. Oh...wait. That's right, you are okay with the illegal stuff.
I was responding to your comment. Don't blame me that you expanded the list of offenses, and I addressed that idiotic talking point made by YOU.Do I need to remind you what this thread is all about? Or do you want to look at the thread title again?
LOL.... Do they also "almost" ALWAYS illegally jaywalk?The fact is, Democrat protesters almost ALWAYS illegally block intersections when they protest.
Do you recall the case of the American Nazi Party wanting to march in Skokie, Illinois? Did you disagree with that decision?As long as they are on public property and otherwise obeying the law they're good as far as I'm concerned.
No real decision was made, and settlement was negotiated that resulted in the demonstration being moved.Do you recall the case of the American Nazi Party wanting to march in Skokie, Illinois? Did you disagree with that decision?
Don’t evade. Would you support their right to march under those circumstances or not?No real decision was made, and settlement was negotiated that resulted in the demonstration being moved.
A. I'm not. I'm telling you what happened in the case, which you apparently didn't know or you wouldn't have used it for an example.Don’t evade. Would you support their right to march under those circumstances or not?
The Republicans and Conservatives all should be looking into a mirror before talking.Why do democrats support breaking the law?
For the same reasons Republicans support breaking the law.
Really quite simple.
No, I would not. There is a point where free speech crosses a line and becomes harassment, and I think goose-stepping past the homes of holocaust survivors waving Nazi flags crosses that line. They can can and should be allowed to make such demonstrates, but not when they’re specifically targeted to cause pain to others.A. I'm not. I'm telling you what happened in the case, which you apparently didn't know or you wouldn't have used it for an example.
2. yes, I would.
III. Would you?
As long as it's public property and otherwise law abiding the first amendment protects it. Common decency should prevent some of these things, and probably used to, but it's pretty much out the window these days.No, I would not. There is a point where free speech crosses a line and becomes harassment, and I think goose-stepping past the homes of holocaust survivors waving Nazi flags crosses that line. They can can and should be allowed to make such demonstrates, but not when they’re specifically targeted to cause pain to others.
It’s a biit like anti-abortion protesting. Those folks have every right to carry signs picturing bloody fetuses and shout “murder,” but I don’t think they have a right to do it while camped outside the home of a woman who recently returned from a clinic.
Recent polling shows that 58% of democrats support protesting outside the homes of Supreme Court Justices. Recent events include a sharp rise in attacks on pro life health centers. Theses are both clearly violations of the law and yet the democrats support this and the current DOJ has done little to nothing to stop it. AG Garland did strengthen security at the homes of SCOTUS but not until after the failed assassination attempt on the life of a Justice. Why? The left was in support of the over 500 protest which mostly turned violent in the summer of 2020 and police were often told to not engage with the protest/rioters and were often the target of direct violent attacks. Why? Democrat DA's across the country have implemented policies which include no cash bail for violent crimes, refusal to prosecute many crimes of vandalism and theft in shops and businesses if the material stolen by one person is not more than $900. Repeat offenders are consistently arrested for more violent crimes while out awaiting trial or after receiving probation for previous crimes. Why does the left support open border policies? Illegal immigration means more violence, more drugs, and more unaccompanied minors susceptible to violence. Why?
Why does the left seem to encourage violence, theft, vandalism by those who are typically seen as democrat supporters?
No, I would not. There is a point where free speech crosses a line and becomes harassment, and I think goose-stepping past the homes of holocaust survivors waving Nazi flags crosses that line. They can can and should be allowed to make such demonstrates, but not when they’re specifically targeted to cause pain to others.
It’s a biit like anti-abortion protesting. Those folks have every right to carry signs picturing bloody fetuses and shout “murder,” but I don’t think they have a right to do it while camped outside the home of a woman who recently returned from a clinic.
I think we agree that there are those for whom common decency means nothing.As long as it's public property and otherwise law abiding the first amendment protects it. Common decency should prevent some of these things, and probably used to, but it's pretty much out the window these days.
I personally wouldn't do it, but the law does not prohibit it. In fact, the Constitution expressly permits it.I think we agree that there are those for whom common decency means nothing.
I take it from your answer you would draw line at the abortion protest example I cited?
I think there’s a debate there. Despite the First Amendment, I cannot libel you because it’s deemed to cause you harm. One can argue the Nazi and abortion protest examples I’ve cited here could easily cause a level of mental anguish as to constitute real harm.I personally wouldn't do it, but the law does not prohibit it. In fact, the Constitution expressly permits it.
I don't think there's any debate.I think there’s a debate there. Despite the First Amendment, I cannot libel you because it’s deemed to cause you harm. One can argue the Nazi and abortion protest examples I’ve cited here could easily cause a level of mental anguish as to constitute real harm.
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?