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.

 

Trump advocates banning protests

page: 4
37
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

It's not.

It's what they call a 'free society' when only one point of view (usually shouted over someone else) gets told.

because in their deluded little world they think that's what democracy looks like.
edit on 5-9-2018 by neo96 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: underwerks




peaceably

you are so right
just not in the way you intend to be


Speech you don’t agree with isn’t violence. I realize that’s lost on a lot of people around here.

you are correct again
just not in the way you intend

I posted the code of conduct for congressional galleries earlier in this thread perhaps you should read it

it is back to what you posted earlier that peaceable word
that is not lost on you is it?


Again, how were they not peaceable?

I’m sure you have examples of some sort of violence being carried out. Let’s see them.

Had they simply followed the code of conduct for the gallery this would not be an issue. Admission to the gallery is not a right, is it?

Why would violence be needed to not be peaceable?


What types of speech do you classify as violent?


He's not saying any is. Just that there are places where rules supersede free speech.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

From your link


The police said in a statement on Tuesday that they had "responded to numerous incidents of unlawful demonstration activities within the Senate Office Buildings today that were associated with the first day of hearings held by the Senate Judiciary Committee." The statement said 61 people had been removed and charged with disorderly conduct in one Senate office building and that nine more were removed from another office building "for unlawful demonstration activities" and charged with "crowding, obstructing or incommoding."

Hmmmm
I don't think any of that is covered by a peaceable right to assemble or any petition to redress grievances.
But I could be wrong...


There is a fine line between protest and disrupting other people's speech and activities. The demonstrations at the hearing fall into the latter.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: underwerks




peaceably

you are so right
just not in the way you intend to be


Speech you don’t agree with isn’t violence. I realize that’s lost on a lot of people around here.

you are correct again
just not in the way you intend

I posted the code of conduct for congressional galleries earlier in this thread perhaps you should read it

it is back to what you posted earlier that peaceable word
that is not lost on you is it?


Again, how were they not peaceable?

I’m sure you have examples of some sort of violence being carried out. Let’s see them.

Had they simply followed the code of conduct for the gallery this would not be an issue. Admission to the gallery is not a right, is it?

Why would violence be needed to not be peaceable?


What types of speech do you classify as violent?


He's not saying any is. Just that there are places where rules supersede free speech.


It was a loaded question, along the lines of "Have you stopped beating your wife?



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: underwerks




peaceably

you are so right
just not in the way you intend to be


Speech you don’t agree with isn’t violence. I realize that’s lost on a lot of people around here.

you are correct again
just not in the way you intend

I posted the code of conduct for congressional galleries earlier in this thread perhaps you should read it

it is back to what you posted earlier that peaceable word
that is not lost on you is it?


Again, how were they not peaceable?

I’m sure you have examples of some sort of violence being carried out. Let’s see them.

Had they simply followed the code of conduct for the gallery this would not be an issue. Admission to the gallery is not a right, is it?

Why would violence be needed to not be peaceable?


What types of speech do you classify as violent?

I do not, but violent and not peaceable are not the same thing. You wouldn't be mistakenly conflating the two?


The SCOTUS has defined some speech as unprotected tho....
www.law.cornell.edu...


Fighting words are, as first defined by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), words which "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. ... Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: shooterbrody

It's not.

It's what they call a 'free society' when only one point of view (usually shouted over someone else) gets told.

because in their deluded little world they think that's what democracy looks like.

"they" seem to live in an angry sad world



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

From your link


The police said in a statement on Tuesday that they had "responded to numerous incidents of unlawful demonstration activities within the Senate Office Buildings today that were associated with the first day of hearings held by the Senate Judiciary Committee." The statement said 61 people had been removed and charged with disorderly conduct in one Senate office building and that nine more were removed from another office building "for unlawful demonstration activities" and charged with "crowding, obstructing or incommoding."

Hmmmm
I don't think any of that is covered by a peaceable right to assemble or any petition to redress grievances.
But I could be wrong...


There is a fine line between protest and disrupting other people's speech and activities. The demonstrations at the hearing fall into the latter.

I would submit there is not right to free speech in that venue for those in the gallery; just as there is not right to free speech in a theater or event hall. Admittance is issued with the understanding that no disruptions will be tolerated and one can be ejected.
Perhaps that is lost on some.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

The world of Orwell.

And the Ministry of Truth and Justice come to tell us how right their behavior is using INGSOC.


edit on 5-9-2018 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I'm sorry what anti-liberal talking point are you deflecting about now, Neo? It's hard to keep up with how you change topics at the drop-of-a hat when the topic you previously just brought up doesn't round out how you'd hoped. Is this post supposed to be about the Steele dossier? I was under the impression you were whining about liberal protestors being paid by Soros directly to protest the Kavanaugh hearings. Did you drop that line of reasoning because you realized there was no evidence for that claim?



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: underwerks




peaceably

you are so right
just not in the way you intend to be


Speech you don’t agree with isn’t violence. I realize that’s lost on a lot of people around here.

you are correct again
just not in the way you intend

I posted the code of conduct for congressional galleries earlier in this thread perhaps you should read it

it is back to what you posted earlier that peaceable word
that is not lost on you is it?


Again, how were they not peaceable?

I’m sure you have examples of some sort of violence being carried out. Let’s see them.

Had they simply followed the code of conduct for the gallery this would not be an issue. Admission to the gallery is not a right, is it?

Why would violence be needed to not be peaceable?


What types of speech do you classify as violent?


He's not saying any is. Just that there are places where rules supersede free speech.


Interpreting Trump's meaning.

It should not need to be interpreted.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody


I would submit there is not right to free speech in that venue for those in the gallery; just as there is not right to free speech in a theater or event hall. Admittance is issued with the understanding that no disruptions will be tolerated and one can be ejected. Perhaps that is lost on some.


Yea, I dare someone to have a protest on their next flight while in the air.

Whomever would like to take that challenge, be sure to have someone else report to us the results.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: shooterbrody

The world of Orwell.

And the Ministry of Truth and Justice come to tell us how right their behavior is using INGSOC.


Twitter has held that monster at bay for the time being.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: underwerks




peaceably

you are so right
just not in the way you intend to be


Speech you don’t agree with isn’t violence. I realize that’s lost on a lot of people around here.

you are correct again
just not in the way you intend

I posted the code of conduct for congressional galleries earlier in this thread perhaps you should read it

it is back to what you posted earlier that peaceable word
that is not lost on you is it?


Again, how were they not peaceable?

I’m sure you have examples of some sort of violence being carried out. Let’s see them.

Had they simply followed the code of conduct for the gallery this would not be an issue. Admission to the gallery is not a right, is it?

Why would violence be needed to not be peaceable?


What types of speech do you classify as violent?


He's not saying any is. Just that there are places where rules supersede free speech.


Interpreting Trump's meaning.

It should not need to be interpreted.


I was referring to ShooterBrody's point, not Trump's.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: shooterbrody

The world of Orwell.

And the Ministry of Truth and Justice come to tell us how right their behavior is using INGSOC.


Its interesting how you invoke government totalitarianism imagery against liberals, who are the minority party in the government right now. It's like you don't truly understand the context of the things you say.
edit on 5-9-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: shooterbrody


I would submit there is not right to free speech in that venue for those in the gallery; just as there is not right to free speech in a theater or event hall. Admittance is issued with the understanding that no disruptions will be tolerated and one can be ejected. Perhaps that is lost on some.


Yea, I dare someone to have a protest on their next flight while in the air.

Whomever would like to take that challenge, be sure to have someone else report to us the results.

That would be another good example.
I don't think leos would tolerate any kind of protest near any airfield post 9/11.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: UKTruth
Quite correctly the fat, ugly people protesting at the Kavanaugh hearings were in fact thrown out.

I would humbly suggest that if those physical attributes were grounds for removal, they'd be playing "Hail to the Chief" for Mike Pence. Why not stick to what's relevant?


It's not the reason they were thrown out, but they were, in fact, fat and ugly. I suppose it should be given some thought as to whether attractive people should be given more leeway...
Ahhh...now I understand Fox News viewers!


Well, it is true that FOX do get more of a pass for their fake news because their presenters are more attractive. Only makes sense.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




I was under the impression you were whining about liberal protestors being paid by Soros directly to protest the Kavanaugh hearings.




After Hurricane Harvey hit, Islamist activist Linda Sarsour put out a call for donations. But instead of the money going to hurricane victims, it was actually being directed to the Texas Organizing Project Education Fund. TOP is a spinoff of ACORN, a disgraced organization shut down in the wake of scandals involving embezzlement and internal cover-ups, and was backed by Hungarian anti-Semitic billionaire George Soros who continues to invest his ill-gotten wealth into a war against the Jewish State.


www.frontpagemag.com...




Even Women's March leader Muslim Linda Sarsour was there and she was the first protester to be carried out by police.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Take the blinders off.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Ok so we are back to the original off topic deflection? Let me mark my conversation road map appropriately real quick so I don't get lost again.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Keep ignoring the elephant in the room.

www.fayobserver.com...

There's a long history of it.

The funeral snip show is the whip cream on what we ALL know, but some just don't want to admit.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Keep ignoring the elephant in the room.

Heh. Says the guy deflecting from the thread topic of this: "Trump advocates banning protests", to talk about a completely different thread with it's own already ongoing conversation.

Of course you have to use your favorite fallacy that JUST because someone isn't talking about something at that particular minute that means they are ignoring it and don't want to ever look at it.



new topics




 
37
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join