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.
originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
Some of you say you denounce the violence and in the same breath make excuses for the protest. Either they are wrong or they are not. Which is it?
In more important news: hello shiny new border!
Because apparently the protestors are the ones being violent? How do you differentiate between the violent protestors with the peaceful ones when the threat of violence protest stopped it from happening?
originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: neo96
Quote where there's any kind of restriction on what people can assemble about.
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
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.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
Some of you say you denounce the violence and in the same breath make excuses for the protest. Either they are wrong or they are not. Which is it?
In more important news: hello shiny new border!
You are wrong if you are claiming that every single person protesting is violent.
originally posted by: ketsuko
originally posted by: kaylaluv
originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
Some of you say you denounce the violence and in the same breath make excuses for the protest. Either they are wrong or they are not. Which is it?
In more important news: hello shiny new border!
You are wrong if you are claiming that every single person protesting is violent.
So, in your view, if a riot contains one peaceful person, it's all OK? The police should just stand back out of respect for that single canary?
originally posted by: DBCowboy
I think we can all agree that the threats made to Coulter and her backers infringed on her rights to speak freely.
But, of course, the usual crowd will find a way to even disagree with this.
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert
Sure you wouldn't rather protest this private citizen and imitate Berkeley ?
It actually works for them.
Well sort of.
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: DBCowboy
I think we can all agree that the threats made to Coulter and her backers infringed on her rights to speak freely.
But, of course, the usual crowd will find a way to even disagree with this.
How can threats infringe on her rights?
She could have still spoke at Berkely.
She chose not to.
originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: Deaf Alien
It was rhetorical, what I am trying to say is how can we know about something that hasn't happened yet? All we do know is that a violent threat stopped it from happening.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
I think we can all agree that the threats made to Coulter and her backers infringed on her rights to speak freely.
But, of course, the usual crowd will find a way to even disagree with this.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: Teikiatsu
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: neo96
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: neo96
originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: neo96
What do you call people meeting together holding up signs and talking to each other? Come on man.
Idiotic.
Bad spelling.,
Bad art.
Incoherent
Mumbo jumbo.
With talking points.
And they don't talk to other people.
They talk AT people.
Huge difference.
I don't think the Tea Party is going to be there Neo.
Oh I was talking about Occupy Wall Street,Black lives matter,La Raza,ANTIFA.,
Sounded like you were talking about the Tea Party ... or a Trump rally.
/shrug
Spoken like someone who has never been to either type of event.
Spoken like someone who denies anything that disagrees with their agenda.