It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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

Trump suggests jail, loss of citizenship for burning U.S. flag

page: 44
82
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Men and women who served in the military fought for your rights. Those rights include the first amendment, which burning the flag is a part of. While I agree that it may be disrespectful and that many people who burn the flag do it as an act of hate, at the same time I do feel like if you don't stand behind something your government is doing then you should be allowed to exercise your freedom of speech and burn the flag to illustrate your point. Going to jail for doing it? Whats next, jail time for tweeting messages of disapproval about our great leader?




posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Love it. Trump gets liberals to defend free speech with a single tweet. If only the same could be said of other threats.

Make liberals great again.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 10:24 AM
link   
77 flags and 860 posts resulting from a suggestion. I'm trying to imagine the threads here in the future when president Trump begins implementing his agendas and fulfilling some of his campaign promises. Should be epic.

Perhaps we will see very serious shortages of coloring books and crayons in the first quarter of his presidency?




posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Love it. Trump gets liberals to defend free speech with a single tweet. If only the same could be said of other threats.

Make liberals great again.

Liberals have never assaulted free speech as much as conservatives love to pretend they have. There hasn't been a SINGLE law even WRITTEN, let alone voted on and passed by the government during Obama's tenure that restricted free speech. You should know that, but instead dupe to petty partisan shtick.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Yes there is freedom of speech fine but is there freedom of burning stuff in public spaces, not so sure about that one.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: JimTSpock
a reply to: SaturnFX

I said KKK not democrats. You said democrats. And no outlawing criminal organizations like the KKK or terrorist organizations like AQ or IS a dictatorship does not make.

If you ask people in the KKK, they will explain to you how the KKK is mostly about white pride and not actually racist, they will discuss organizations like the black panthers, etc. and how they have tons of pride groups for other races, they are just painted in a bad light due to their history
but the history of the KKK is the history of the democratic party. Both have their claws in the criminal racism and reprehensible actions.
To ban one and not the other is simply cherry picking based on history and is a form of silencing speech (since the KKK hasn't done anything except speak for decades now)



How about a fine for burning the flag for fire hazzard. My 2c.

Already in place, but not just flags. t-shirts, posters, etc etc..local ordinances typically have some sort of fine system for naked flames and burning overall without permits. you cant however differentiate between stuff unless its like..hazardous material.


In my country Australia they have outlawed some criminal biker gangs and I don't have a problem with that. As far as I know we aren't a dictatorship yet bro. lol. Let's not be overdramatic.

Some people think all biker gangs are criminal

Australia technically isn't a dictatorship yet. true.
but they do pass laws that in essence treat their entire population as children.
As a gamer, I know quite well about how Australia has decided to censor arts and entertainment from the lot of you...the endless attempts to ban more and more adult content, etc.

Technically you aren't a dictatorship yet. this is factually correct...give it a decade and then we can discuss the difference I suppose with murkier and murkier defining lines.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Love it. Trump gets liberals to defend free speech with a single tweet. If only the same could be said of other threats.

Make liberals great again.

Liberals have never assaulted free speech as much as conservatives love to pretend they have. There hasn't been a SINGLE law even WRITTEN, let alone voted on and passed by the government during Obama's tenure that restricted free speech. You should know that, but instead dupe to petty partisan shtick.

While true, I do find it kinda funny and ironic.

a year ago, progressives were mocking "freeze peach"...big names discussing how hate speech should be expanded to include lots of things, not just the most obvious. microaggressions and all sorts.

If there is a silver lining over the Trump presidency, it will be that liberals will once again remember what they did stand for in principle and realize how petty and disgusting they have become..the literal enemy they are meant to be fighting.

So, we will see. I kinda like that.."Make liberalism great again"..because at the moment, its a progressive cancer that has disenfranchised soo many left leaning traditionalists that it simply cant maintain itself.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Love it. Trump gets liberals to defend free speech with a single tweet. If only the same could be said of other threats.

Make liberals great again.

Liberals have never assaulted free speech as much as conservatives love to pretend they have.


Specifically..Everytime someone exercises their free speech calling BS on conservatives...Conservatives go all snowflake crying that someone called them on their BS and "oppressed" their free speech! It originates from a fundamental failure to understand what free speech actually is. It does not mean freedom from being challenged on what you say...it means the opposite. The founders wanted people to be free to challenge each-other and more so their leaders.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: SaturnFX
a year ago, progressives were mocking "freeze peach"...big names discussing how hate speech should be expanded to include lots of things, not just the most obvious. microaggressions and all sorts.

Discussion != Action. No matter how much you want to pretend it does. It's always moving the goal posts back with you guys. Y'all claim the left is infringing on the first. Then when called to produce a law you walk back to talking about discussions or thoughts an individual liberal may have had in passing like that is indicative of every liberal or something. Never any concrete proof of this assault on the first though. Just bitching and griping over and over again because people are saying they disapprove of the things other people say because they are offensive.

PS: if the discussion you just mentioned is enough to warrant "an attack on the 1st" like you claim then I sure hope that Trump's claims about locking up flag burners gets you all pissed off too.
edit on 30-11-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

Well I still think the KKK should be outlawed, that's my opinion. And no Australia will not be a dictatorship in 10 years or anytime soon, that is ridiculous with all due respect. We are too busy relaxing. Gaming we have a new rating thing and you can get everthing.
Despite what you think you might know about oz it's pretty laid back with lots of freedom bro. We have a constitution and democracy and all that. Best country in the world.

Just add that aussies don't seem to take politics that seriously where maybe americans really take it a bit too seriously sometimes IMO.
edit on 30-11-2016 by JimTSpock because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Trump got libs to tourn on Hillary in one tweet, I bet they'd be for it if only they knew Hillary is the one who proposed the law

“The flag of the United States is a unique symbol of national unity and represents the values of liberty, justice and equality, Abuse of the flag, it continued, causes more than pain and distress to the overwhelming majority of the American people and may amount to fighting words or a direct threat to the physical and emotional well-being of individuals.” If” - Bill Clinton



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: omniEther

They care more about what Trump says than what anyone on earth actually does.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: SaturnFX

Actually If i was president I would troll the hell out of people. Marines bust in the door. Its just a prank bro!

Launch empty nuclear bombs at random nations just to watch them panic, maybe have nasa redirect all the funds to create a gigantic space magnifying glass to burn entire cities like one does ants, etc..

heh...


its probably good neither you or I will ever become POTUS I suppose.


Lol. true..so true..lol.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It would be dishonest to suggest that the "SJW" concept, and the vile shouting down of people who disagree as being "racist", doesn't exist. No, its not legislation. It has nothing to do with actual justice because its social justice (which is just about the stupidest damn phrase I've ever heard).

Do we need a law outlawing phrases when there is an army of people in horned rim glasses to shout down and harass people instead?



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Irrelevant. That is all protected speech. In any case, currently the left is experiencing it from the Trumpeteers so take solace in the expression: "What comes around goes around."
edit on 30-11-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: SaturnFX
a year ago, progressives were mocking "freeze peach"...big names discussing how hate speech should be expanded to include lots of things, not just the most obvious. microaggressions and all sorts.

Discussion != Action.


Here is progressive icon Anita Sarkeesian trying to convince the freaking UN to expand what violence (against women) is to include being criticised

you go to a therapist to deal with emotions, you go to the UN and other places to enact legislation to trend it.
Yeah, tell me how discussions isn't the same as actions..sure mate.

oh..lookie there..just a discussion amirite
Cyber-Bullying law of 2015 pushed
Discussions by "pro"gressives are directly influencing actions
Arrested for Manspreading



No matter how much you want to pretend it does.

That time when I checked your illusion of innocence with reality. heh..good times..good times.


It's always moving the goal posts back with you guys. Y'all claim the left is infringing on the first.

You guys?
I am the left. the left you are discussing has gone soo far to the left, so on the outer fringes that they see anything short of full fledged socialism to be right wing.
you lost your way..most "pro"gressives have. this shift has been going on for years.



Then when called to produce a law you walk back to talking about discussions or thoughts an individual liberal may have had in passing like that is indicative of every liberal or something.

we must wait for dystopian marxism before speaking out against it?
Oh I think not..the roadsigns are soo gigantic that you have to be blind to not see it...and yes, lots of progressives are willfully blind.


PS: if the discussion you just mentioned is enough to warrant "an attack on the 1st" like you claim then I sure hope that Trump's claims about locking up flag burners gets you all pissed off too.

Yep. I have been quite outspoken against this in this thread.

I know I am in the right here, because commies and fascists both from the respective horseshoe sides are angry at me..when you get both fringe opposing you because you are too far the other way, then you know you hit the happy medium
edit on 30-11-2016 by SaturnFX because: added another link



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

I'm sorry. I thought we were talking about the US and ITS laws not the UN. Stop changing the subject to suit your needs.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SaturnFX

I'm sorry. I thought we were talking about the US and ITS laws not the UN. Stop changing the subject to suit your needs.

Arrested for manspreading

I accept your unconditional surrender.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX
How about debunking propaganda instead?
Were Two Men Arrested for Manspreading in New York?

The Gothamist article was cited by Breitbart, National Review, Newsweek, and Britain's Independent. One of the earliest articles about the PROP report appeared on Vice, and no mention was made of the purported manspreading arrests. Lost in the widespread aggregation of a controversial claim pertaining to an already contentious issue (manspreading) was a more contextually relevant portion of the Gothamist piece.

The site cited PROP director Robert Gangi and explained the source of the 117 "vignettes" that appeared in the report on Broken Windows policing. Gangi told Gothamist that the claims were compiled from various sources and "were usually based on court testimony — and occasionally on conversations with defendants and lawyers, or reviewing lawsuits or news reports":

The two men had outstanding warrants for other Broken Windows charges, namely, being in a park after closing and public urination, and their arrests brought them out of the pool of 1.2 million New York fugitives who missed court dates or failed to pay fines for low-level offenses. The MTA's rules of conduct only prohibit taking up more than one seat when it interferes with the functioning of the train or the "comfort of other passengers." Nevertheless, the judge, instead of dismissing the midnight manspreading charge outright, issued what's known as an ACD, a decision meaning all the charges will be thrown out if the defendant doesn't get arrested for a certain amount of time.

So while multiple outlets reported upon New York City's first manspreading arrests, those articles all traced back to a single Gothamist article. The original article was predicated upon a report released by a group advocating against the New York Police Department's controversial use of "Broken Windows" policing, and it comprised a potpourri of reports, anecdotes, and other datapoints of unspecified origin.

Missing from all claims about the manspreading arrests were the specific criminal codes under which the men were purportedly charged, the date of the infractions in question (or whether "recently" was in the last week, month or year), the names of the men charged, their ages, where the incident may have occurred, or any other information attesting to the fact two men were arrested in New York City at any point in history for quality of life crimes related to manspreading. Moreover, the original claim specified that the two men purportedly arrested for manspreading both had outstanding warrants, which in and of itself is cause to be ordered to appear in court and rarely culminates in being let go with just a warning. And, as New York magazine observed of this news:

Gothamist points out that it's against the MTA code of conduct to "occupy more than one seat when to do so would interfere or tend to interfere with the comfort of other passengers," but it's highly doubtful the train was actually crowded after midnight.

It's possible that two unnamed men were arrested in New York City for manspreading, but no details about the claim were made available in the original report or any of the many later repetitions of it. The scant informationsuggested that the men were arrested not for manspreading but for arrest warrants already active at the time they came to the attention of the NYPD.

Looks like this is a gray area and things aren't so cut and dry as you are trying to pretend. Also, this issue was WAAAAAY overhyped.
edit on 30-11-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

I wouldn't worry about it. He's just pandering to the people that voted for him.

Do I agree with burning the American flag? Not really, but like many things I don't agree with, I respect ones right to express themselves under their freedom of speech. As should EVERY American.



new topics

top topics



 
82
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join