It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Ohio Rally Trump Attacker Identified - Featured In BLM / ISIS Video!

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 09:22 PM
a reply to: Signals

Apologies for the thread drift. I'll step out as to not cause any further.

posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 09:26 PM
a reply to: DBCowboy

Just to be clear, those tactics you speak of "epitomize the left" and we can therefore conclude Trump is a Leftist?

posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 09:27 PM
a reply to: Gryphon66

The foudners recognized that unalienable rights are things you have and come from an agency other than mankind, elsewise if mankind betstows it, then mankind can also take it away.

That is the intent of putting them in that category. Mankind can only seek to oppress, as we saw.

posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 09:32 PM
a reply to: ketsuko

Of course our RIGHTS are whatever left wingers say they are.

We're 'wrong'!
edit on 12-3-2016 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 09:35 PM
a reply to: neo96

Secularists prefer to recognize no higher power than the state, so of course, you are right. The state can give and take rights as it sees fit. And we should all thank our lucky stars we live in a "benevolent" state that thus far has not seen fit to "re-educate" us for being recalcitrant for refusing to fall in line with our pregressive "betters."

I wish I were fully joking.

But last night, the protest reminded me of this:

They control the past. People readily believe that anyone they want is Hitler or going to be. And so, they attempt to control the future.

posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 09:39 PM
a reply to: ketsuko

Secular is such a funny word. They really arent.

They deify the state, and worship at the alter of statolatry.

They have become the new church. proselytizing the masses in to the light, and death, and resurrection, and ever lasting life.

Their dogma is the father, son, and holy ghost.

I am not joking either.

They are the very thing they despise.
edit on 12-3-2016 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 10:08 PM

originally posted by: Gryphon66
No one's free speech was disrupted. The event was FREE AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

Since you are being redundant, I will follow suit.

1) A rally means the discussion is intended to be focused towards *one* topic. In this case, Trump's nomination.
2) The public was welcome to join in on the rally with several expectations:
a) They would stay in their seated area
b) They would not interrupt the speaker
c) They would not threaten other rally attendees

Members of the PUBLIC went in.

With the above expectations.

When Mr. Trump saw that he might be faced with too many people for his goons to rough up as he normally instructs them to, he fled.

So he should have stayed and... what? Had his security pull out guns? Overseen a grande melee in the auditorium? Are you advocating violence? I thought that was what upset Trump dissenters.

No one "shut down free speech" [from] Mr. Trump.

Did Trump get to speak? Did the rally attendees get to hear from Trump?

Yes, yes, we all know that you and others here want to make anyone left of you on the ideological scale into fascists ... because only you and yours have rights ... free speech, assembly, press, etc.

No need to put words in my mouth. Stick to the facts. I have replied to you in the past that the protesters have every right to express themselves so long as it does not interfere with the free speech of others. These protesters planned out disruption ahead of time, pre-meditated censure.

Mr. Trump is ON THE RECORD as opposing all of these. So if you're looking for a "fascist figure" ... you might key in on the guy who demands that his followers all raise their right hands to him in a loyalty salute.

Don't look to me to defend Trump on anything, by the way. I'm more interested in pointing out the fascistic brown-shirt activities of the left.
edit on 12-3-2016 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 10:49 PM

posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 11:08 PM
a reply to: Konduit

Funny as hell Bernie video

posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 11:15 PM
a reply to: Konduit

I almost didn't click the link, thinking I'd already seen the all videos available. Almost peed my pants laughing when it popped up.

posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 11:49 PM

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ketsuko

No, no one denied "free speech." No one denied "the right to assemble."

The First Amendment prevents the Government from passing laws that destroy your Free Speech.

You and I, as all other citizens, are free to disagree with each other, fight with each other, talk over each other, "flip the bird" at each other ... et. al.

Freedom of Speech means that the GOVERNMENT will not shut either you or me down.

Your "freedom of speech" as well as mine, as well as any other person's is limited by a very prevalent factor ... everyone else around us who may or may not agree with us.

As to the rest of your post ... you're doing what you always do ... telling me what I believe with not a single bit of backup from anything I've said. These "disruptive elements" had the right to be there, to carry their own signs, and it doesn't matter how much you want to try to spin it ... DONALD TRUMP CHICKENED OUT.

And I am so very bored with your insinuations about me. You're not any good at innuendo. You're as authoritarian as they come.

Quote my support for the protesters. Quote where I said I agree with these folks who protested.

I've said only a few things over and over:

Admission was open to the public.

All Americans have the rights to speak and to assemble.

You can try to twist those facts into whatever pretzel suits you Kets.

Funny the Government is composed od elected officials th ePEOPLE elect so without th epeople then there would be no government. So protecting free speech IS protecting it against th e people as well.

posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 12:03 AM
WOW this video of the agent provocateur, it's one thing to protest, quite another to go around stirring up the volatility.

posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 12:08 AM
a reply to: yuppa

Let's break this latest down ...

The government is composed of elected officials. Check.

These officials are elected by the people. Check.

Without the people (i.e. the American population) there would be no government. A bit ridiculous but still factual. Check.


"Protecting free speech is protecting it against the people as well."

First, the Constitution does not say the government will "protect free speech."

Secondly, if the Government is "protecting" free speech against the People which you've just established actually make up said government, then who are they protecting free speech from, precisely?

Third, for godssake, read the Constititution before you talk about it.

Here's the First Amendment:

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.

Now, notice the first part there ... "Congress shall make no law" ... that means that the Federal Government (and by the extension of the 14th Amendment and various SCOTUS rulings) and the State and local governments SHALL NOT MAKE LAWS abridging the freedom of speech.

Our speech is "free" because government can't legislate our "Freedom" away from us.

Mr. Trump's cowardice in refusing to make his speech in front of less than faithful crowd of sycophants is NOT a repression of free speech by anyone, except perhaps, in the strictest sense, Mr. Trump's own fear may have prevented him.

He's not known for reacting very well to even the slightest criticism, you may have noticed.

posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 12:16 AM
a reply to: Gryphon66

SO its cowardly to avoid confrontation and possible violence? Using that line of thought then MLK was a coward for not going to speak directly to the KKK right? Anyone who avoids confrontation in your eyes is a coward right?

posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 12:20 AM
As usual there are a bunch of completely wrong statements being made about the nature and history of free speech protections in the US. You'd think as much as people like to blabber about it, they'd bother to educate themselves.

- The Founding Fathers didn't give us the protections we have now. Read a freakin' history book. Start with 1798 and the Alien and Sedition Acts and then read up on the Comstock Act of 1873, the Sedition Act of 1918, the Smith Act, etc. We have a very long history of illiberal authoritarian right-wingers trying to stifle free speech.

- The First Amendment doesn't protect Donald Trump from being protested against nor does it protect protesters from being removed from his rallies. Completely irrelevant in both cases.

Donald Trump opens every rally now by attacking the media that are there to cover the event. He's also stated that he will "open up libel laws" so that when newspapers publish "purposefully negative" articles, "we can sue and get lots of money." In 1984, Trump sued the Chicago Tribune and architecture critic Paul Gapp for libel because Gapp criticized a building proposal as "one of the silliest things anyone could inflict on New York or any other city." Donald Trump is anti-Freedom of the Press. That's an inescapable fact. He's also all about filing frivolous lawsuits to control the speech of others (ex-wives, business rivals, comedians, whoever).

Then there's his multiple anti-Freedom of Religion statements about targeting citizens for surveillance based on religious affiliation. Speaking of which, he's also expressed his support of domestic surveillance/spying on numerous occasions.

Anyone who supports Trump and claims to care about protecting civil liberties is either too ignorant or too stupid to be taken seriously. I'm sure this will offend some of you. Oh well, sue me.

posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 12:24 AM

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Gryphon66

SO its cowardly to avoid confrontation and possible violence? Using that line of thought then MLK was a coward for not going to speak directly to the KKK right? Anyone who avoids confrontation in your eyes is a coward right?

1. Nope. It's cowardly to sell oneself (as Trump does) as the great populist champion of the common people of the United States and then be terrified to speak in front of the 60 or 70% of them that think you're nothing more than a privileged buffoon because you're lived such a sheltered existence that you can't accept that you can't just "FIRE" everyone you don't like.

2. How do you know MLK didn't speak to the KKK?

3. No, indeed, I applaud those who avoid confrontation in general, and that's not what Donald Trump does in his rallies nor what he did last night. He likes to puff up and play the Big Dog when he's got Secret Service and his own private goon squad to back up his hateful tirades, but when he might have to actually stand in front of people that his thugs can't intimidate, he runs like a dog.

Hope that clears it up for you.


posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 12:48 AM
a reply to: Gryphon66

You are wrong.

It was guarded by Secret Service. Period.

Obama made it against the law to impede or disrupt any event guarded by Secret Service.

H.R. 347, benignly titled the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act, passed the House 399-3. Such a lopsided vote suggests that nobody in Congress is bothered by this, on either side of the aisle. When President Obama signed it on March 8, almost nobody seems to have cared.

Simply put, the way the bill will “improve” public grounds is by moving all those unsightly protesters elsewhere. The law purports to update an old law, Section 1752 of Title 18 of the United States Code, that restricted areas around the president, vice president, or any others under the protection of the Secret Service. The original law was enacted in 1971 and amended in 2006. At first blush, the big change here is that while the old law made it a federal offense to "willfully and knowingly" enter a restricted space, now prosecutors need only show that you did it "knowingly"—that you knew the area was restricted, even if you didn’t know it was illegal to enter the space. This has been characterized in some quarters as a small technical change that hardly warrants an arched eyebrow, much less a protest. tml
edit on 13-3-2016 by Deny Arrogance because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 12:53 AM
a reply to: theantediluvian

In case you haven't figured it out, or even cared to acknowledge it, this is the same argument used by Hitler supporters to justify the Brownshirts in 1930's Germany, who regularly crashed peaceful protests and used violence to shut down political speech. This is a dark road to travel.

Free speech is one thing, but when a mob crashes a private venue with the intent to disrupt and engage in an altercation, it is no longer a peaceful protest.

Here's an example of the "peaceful protest" the Bernie Brownshirt Brigade was engaged in Chicago.

Wheelchair Bound Trump Supporter Accosted by Protestors

#ing disgusting. This is your future America.

edit on 13-3-2016 by Konduit because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 01:01 AM
a reply to: Deny Arrogance

First of all, Obama doesn't make laws ... that's the job of Congress, at least, allegedly.

Second of all, the entire venue wasn't "restricted" space. (BTW, your link is broken.)

Third, why don't you get your own facts straight before starting out a response with "You are wrong."

(Makes you seem kinda squirrelly.)

posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 01:11 AM
a reply to: Gryphon66

You are wrong again.

The president signs bills into law as Obama did this law.

You might consider a remedial grade school level course in civics.

And that brings us to the real problem with the change to the old protest law. Instead of turning on a designated place, the protest ban turns on what persons and spaces are deemed to warrant Secret Service protection. It’s a perfect circle: The people who believe they are important enough to warrant protest can now shield themselves from protestors. No wonder the Occupy supporters are worried. In the spirit of “free speech zones,” this law creates another space in which protesters are free to be nowhere near the people they are protesting.

Another attempt to post the link to slate.


top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in