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: 6
37
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Every time a Trump hater begins to say something.

Just shout over them.

That's what free society is all about.



It’d be easier if you could just carry them out on a stretcher, huh?





posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:55 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

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.



It’s interesting to see the ATS free speech brigade argue in favor of laws controlling speech.

Thanks.


Pointing out scotus decisions is in no way arguing in favor of them.
Thanks



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: olaru12
They can have my protest when they pry it from my cold dead hands.

Be careful what you say here. Conservatives in charge of the government have fired on liberal protesters in the past. For instance, the last time the US had a totally corrupt President that actively hated on liberals and protestors, this happened.


Um, have you forgotten how the Tea Party was treated by the media?



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: shooterbrody

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.



It’s interesting to see the ATS free speech brigade argue in favor of laws controlling speech.

Thanks.


Pointing out scotus decisions is in no way arguing in favor of them.
Thanks


You used it to defend your point, so in this context, yes it is.

You’re welcome.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Indeed, you are here to say things that aren't so.

How is it not true that blacks weren't ejected during Civil Rights protests? What history revisionism are you trying to sell here?


You NEED this to be about race otherwise any debate you're in falls apart, kinda like this one.

*eye roll*. Typical conservative attack post. "RAWR! You're a liberal and I know EVERYTHING about how you think!" Grow up.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: angeldoll

Please by all means educate me.


Here ya go...... It takes a while, but I promise you it's worth it.

constitutionus.com...

That in no way represents what you posted.
There is no constitutional right that protects the behavior those criminals displayed which is why they were arrested for such behavior.
I challenge you to source otherwise.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Trumps statement:


You don’t even know what side the protesters are on


Pretty much says it all about where he’s coming from.




posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: neo96
Every time a Trump hater begins to say something.

Just shout over them.

That's what free society is all about.



It’d be easier if you could just carry them out on a stretcher, huh?



Quite a leap.

Why so violent?



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Thejoncrichton

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: olaru12
They can have my protest when they pry it from my cold dead hands.

Be careful what you say here. Conservatives in charge of the government have fired on liberal protesters in the past. For instance, the last time the US had a totally corrupt President that actively hated on liberals and protestors, this happened.


Um, have you forgotten how the Tea Party was treated by the media?

Got any cases where Tea Party members where shot by the government? Because I can't think of any. Besides the Tea Party has become the Freedumb Caucus and is very much establishment now. I think you meant to refer to the Occupy Wall Street protests. Now THAT was a protest vilified by everyone. Though, no government forces shot them either.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Thejoncrichton

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: olaru12
They can have my protest when they pry it from my cold dead hands.

Be careful what you say here. Conservatives in charge of the government have fired on liberal protesters in the past. For instance, the last time the US had a totally corrupt President that actively hated on liberals and protestors, this happened.


Um, have you forgotten how the Tea Party was treated by the media?


He was trolling.

Had to go back to 1969.

And conveniently ignored recent history.

Congressman getting shot at by his side.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Indeed, you are here to say things that aren't so.

How is it not true that blacks weren't ejected during Civil Rights protests? What history revisionism are you trying to sell here?


You NEED this to be about race otherwise any debate you're in falls apart, kinda like this one.

*eye roll*. Typical conservative attack post. "RAWR! You're a liberal and I know EVERYTHING about how you think!" Grow up.


I think your need to bring up race in this thread illustrates my point quite nicely.

If not, then maybe you should stop being obtuse and say what you mean.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

I already have said what I mean. The point of what I said is to let you draw your own conclusions. Seeing as how you got triggered for me talking about historical racism I see that you came to a certain conclusion that you didn't enjoy. Hence the personal attacks and ad hominems against me.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: neo96
Every time a Trump hater begins to say something.

Just shout over them.

That's what free society is all about.



It’d be easier if you could just carry them out on a stretcher, huh?



Quite a leap.

Why so violent?



Just using Trumps own words.

If you have a problem with them, I’d suggest looking in his direction.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: projectvxn

I already have said what I mean. The point of what I said is to let you draw your own conclusions. Seeing as how you got triggered for me talking about historical racism I see that you came to a certain conclusion that you didn't enjoy. Hence the personal attacks and ad hominems against me.


You just admitted to trolling.

Nice job.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm playing devils advocate. I want a moderate justice, and this guy seems a little too far to the right.

As for Trump, no shortage of dumb things said by him.

But this story is hyperbole. In context he is talking about the Senate Floor, which has always had these rules.

I've still yet to see how Trump looks like a dictator, though if he eventually really started abusing powers and pushing that direction, it would be because his two predecessor's laid the ground work. Obama really went to town with that by breaking records on how many whistle blowers and journalists his administration went after with the espionage act.

If anyone holds a flame to him on that we need to be worried.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 01:05 PM
link   
It could also be seen as the shouters are infringing upon the rights of the people at the hearing.

Since when is infringing upon others individual rights a supported thing?



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Well if we're judging people by what they say.

We came.

We saw.

He died.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy




Since when is infringing upon others individual rights a supported thing?


Since the left lost the last election, and the ability to stack the Scotus to their preferred ideology.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker


I've still yet to see how Trump looks like a dictator, though if he eventually really started abusing powers and pushing that direction, it would be because his two predecessor's laid the ground work.


No, it would be because he chose to do that. Whether other people laid some kind of nebulous groundwork to get us there is beside the point.

We shouldn’t have people in our government (especially as president) that see that as an option. Under any circumstances.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 01:09 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

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.



It’s interesting to see the ATS free speech brigade argue in favor of laws controlling speech.

Thanks.


Pointing out scotus decisions is in no way arguing in favor of them.
Thanks


You used it to defend your point, so in this context, yes it is.

You’re welcome.

No i did not.
The scotus rulings in no way have anything to do with speech not protected in the congressional gallery.
Funny you confused the two tho...







 
37
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join