Alabama man arrested for slashing baby Trump Balloon .

a reply to: vonclod

You said nobody said that .

Don’t worry I won’t besmirch your first amendment rights for been WRONG!

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Meaning?

Look your post over, then read mine, then do it again, slowly.

So what if you get yelled at?

They tend to do it as a crowd.

Reeducated - just no

Just yes. Someone explaining to me that there are 52+ genders, despite basic biology, is an attempt at reeducation.

Doxxed - assaulted? One is a crime - I'm not sure about the other, but it might be if it leads to violence

Even non-violent doxxings have lead to people losing their jobs. Might as well be assault at that point.

Tell me something - are you offended by the coverage the right has been receiving? Is the coverage itself a crime?

Prior to the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, it would have been a crime.

a reply to: Fallingdown
Nope, did Liquisence say he should be denied his right to speak?, I don't think he/she did, just that they them self was not interested in listening.

a reply to: Fallingdown

You either failed to understand my statement, or are intentionally mischaracterizing it.

I didn't say he lost his First Amendment rights, I just said his message is null and void because of the reason(s) upon which he acted, which was being butthurt and trying to "stick it to the lefties."

Big difference.

He has the right to speak all he wants, but not the right to destroy property in the process, because that is not speech; nevertheless, his message is still #.

a reply to: vonclod

That’s not what you said quit squirming .

Did you dress him down for an improper statement ?

I know let’s see if you really believe what you’re saying.

Here’s his post go tell him how wrong he is .

Null and void

a reply to: Fallingdown

The only thing wrong is your misconceptions of the 1st amendment.

You seems to think that freedom of expression gives him the right to deny others of their 1st amendment rights, and that's not how the 1st amendment works.

Addendum, case in point:

“I got so fired up when I rolled by the balloon and I rolled my window down and I said something to them and I figured they saw me. I figured only way I was going to get close enough to that balloon was to blend in. [So I] went and bought me an Alabama shirt and walked up like I was just walking to the game and like I was going to take a picture with [the balloon]," he said. “I was so fired up, man. I was shaking, I was so mad.”

I watch the news every night. I watch Fox News every night. Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity are my favorite two anchors,” he said. “I see this stuff going on out west and up north and all other places. I get so mad about people not taking a stand. The left wants to kind of use religion against you like you shouldn’t act like this and stuff, but I’ll tell you this — the Devil knows the Bible as good as we do.”

“It comes a point when you gotta take a stand. We don’t have two parties anymore. We have good vs. evil,” he replied.

Wapo

He was triggered and deluded that this is taking a stand against good and evil.

He destroyed private property. His message is null and void, but he is free to express it.

a reply to: Liquesence

No I understood what you posted and what you said just now. Your view of the constitution is that people you think are butthurt shouldn’t have rights .

Gotcha that makes a lot of sense . 🤦‍♂️

a reply to: Fallingdown
Not squirming, don't care to go around in circles..enjoy trolling your own thread

a reply to: Liquesence

So ?

a reply to: Liquesence

I watch the news every night. I watch Fox News every night. Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity are my favorite two anchors,”

Oh lord, this fool actually thought editorial entertainers are "news anchors". SMH

They're no more "anchors" than Rachel Maddow. People can no longer tell the difference between a news anchor like Shep Smith, and an editorial infotainment host.

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Liquesence

No I understood what you posted and what you said just now.

Then you intentionally mischaraterized it to support the argument you're trying to make.

Your view of the constitution is that people you think are butthurt shouldn’t have rights .

He has the right to speech.

Destruction of property is neither speech nor free expression, nor is it protected; therefore he doesn't not have that right.

What part of destruction of property is not protected speech or expression do you not understand?

For the nth time, what makes his actions patriotic?

a reply to: redmage

Nope never said that .

originally posted by: Fallingdown
Your view of the constitution is that people you think are butthurt shouldn’t have rights .

No, you simply don't understand what the 1st amendment means, and are arguing nonsense because you've decided that it means something completely different. The 1st amendment doesn't grant the right to destroy other peoples' property.

a reply to: Liquesence

I give up trying to have an actual conversation with you guys.

So get ready .

I didn’t mischaracterize anything. I said Hoyt’s entitled to his rights that’s the end of my statement. You can read into my position your own agenda if you want but it just makes you look desperate .

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: redmage

Nope never said that .

Hoyt said that.

Pay attention.

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Liquesence



I didn’t mischaracterize anything. I said Hoyt’s entitled to his rights that’s the end of my statement. You can read into my position your own agenda if you want but it just makes you look desperate .

You did if you say you understood what I said but still claim I said he doesn't have the right to speech.

He does not have the right to destroy private property; that is not speech.

Again:

What makes his actions patriotic?

originally posted by: Fallingdown
Nope never said that .

You claimed I denied his rights in this post.

So yes, you seems to think that freedom of expression gives him the right to deny others of their 1st amendment rights, and that's not how the 1st amendment works.

a reply to: redmage

Never said it anyone had the right to destroy things. I said you have the right to exercise it right or left but you might have to pay some consequences.


You think tearing off Trump supporters hats is OK .

Yet you try to lecture me .

Pffffft

a reply to: Liquesence

We’re back to my original reply to that nonsense .

So?