Alabama man arrested for slashing baby Trump Balloon .

a reply to: redmage

You're talking to someone who has been an ATS member (and lurker before that) for almost 20 years total, and I'm not gonna play your little "yes or no" games, kiddo.

So what ?

I’ve got 45 + years of adult experience in the real world and my reputation honesty and character are unquestioned. You’re making excuses .

If you look through my post when somebody ask me a question I answer because I’m not ashamed of my opinion like you are . If I missed it they can ask again and I’ll give them an answer .

To a point if I’m dealing with someone so decrepit they can’t answer questions and exchange. They can kiss my ass because their opinion isn’t worth hearing .

It’s not a game it’s a simple question with a painfully obvious answer . But you can’t give a answer because of your personal hatred for the man . That calls everything you say in the question because of bias and motive .

Are you honestly asking if I trust the Federal Government to responsibly handle a DNA database? LMAO

So with that flippant dismissive evasive reply you’re willing to risk sending children off into sexual slavery ?

Trump has no bearing on the answer to that question.

I do realize he’s the chief executive and those are his border policies don’t you ?

My answer

has been the same to that question since way before Trump even considered running for office, and the fact that he's in it right now has zero chance of of changing my mind.

^^^^ So you do have an answer let’s hear it .

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Fallingdown

they haven’t been violated but some people in this thread think they should have.

How? Destruction of property is not a right, nor is it protected speech.

If his Constitutional rights have not been violated why in the hell do you keep talking about rights violations, since this thread is, in fact, about Hoyt?

This has got to be one of the craziest arguments I have ever seen on ats

A person destroying public property has a right to be heard or its violating his first amendment rights.

Saying his opinion is null in void is a violation of those rights, but not listening to the man isnt a violation.

Somehow I guess the first amendment says all people have the right to not have their opinions called null and void by anyone, no matter what those opinions are or what law you break while expressing those opinions.

Meanwhile its ok to say you wont listen to people because you find their opinions irrelevant.

And anyone who doesnt agree with this is ganging up on the OP and has a personal vendetta against him.

Lol, this is EPIC!!

a reply to: Fallingdown

If you look through my post when somebody ask me a question I answer because I’m not ashamed of my opinion like you are

Except it took me asking you, directly, upwards of half a dozen or more times why he is a patriot for you to actually answer the question.

originally posted by: Grambler
Lol, this is EPIC!!

I know! Right? LMAO

a reply to: Fallingdown

You must be one of those newfangled "Big Government" conservatives who thinks more federal bureaucracy is a good thing, and that the Federal Government would surely be responsible with something like a DNA database because it's "for the children", and because TRUMP!!!

LMAO

a reply to: Grambler

or its violating his first amendment rights.

Still grasping at straws’s ?

Show me where I said that .

You’re just mad because I said I don’t watch your silly little YouTube channel that probably has a 10th of the following that your intellectual superior Dahboo7 does. I imagine you think that’s the greatest accomplishment in your life. It’s sad to see someone peak so early .

Here’s what’s hilarious and shows the same desperation on both of your parts.

I’ve been saving this for the proper time. Thanks for providing it .

I asked smidge if she would condemn people snatching red hats off of children’s heads as a violation of their First Amendment rights .

You defended her on this silly reply rambler . Is answering the question .

^^^ Read the bold again 😆

The right to peaceful freedom of expression comes in many forms: speech, a MAGA hat, a baby Trump balloon. They all apply, and Hoyt infringed on their 1st amendment rights when he destroyed their property which was a part of their peaceful protest. Sorry, but your understanding of the 1st is mistaken.

Yeah everybody has a right to peaceful assembly. But that’s not what I asked you smidge .

I asked will you condemn every liberal that stole red hats off of children and adults ?


This is got to be the easiest argument I’ve ever been in.

“Break a wall in your position is invalid” .

My God you can’t make that stupid up .

a reply to: Grambler

Yeah I said I was wrong on that. But you know it. You’re just angry because I made fun of your #ty little YouTube channel .

a reply to: Grambler

Do you understand the definition of the word irrelevant ?

a reply to: Fallingdown

I showed you over and over where you made the argument he has the right to be heard.

I dont know who the Dahboo guy is, if he is my intellectual superior, good for him, thats jot much of an accomplishment.

My channel is small, and is a small part of my life. I dont think its a big deal, I do it as a hobby.

You think everyone who is points out your argument that the first amendment says people have the right to be heard, or to not have peopkle say their statement is null and void is personally attacking you.

They are not, they are just pointing out you are wrong.

You can prve us all wrong simply.

Post the first amendment, show where it says everyone has the right to be heard, or to have no one say their argument is null and void.

Here let me post it for you.

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

Huh, thats strange. I dont see anywhere in there where people have a right to be heard, or to not have anyone say their statement is null and void.

I have rarely seen someone be proved so obviously wrong, while at the same time so arrogantly claiming they are right

originally posted by: redmage
a reply to: Fallingdown

You must be one of those newfangled "Big Government" conservatives who thinks more federal bureaucracy is a good thing, and that the Federal Government would surely be responsible with something like a DNA database because it's "for the children", and because TRUMP!!!

LMAO

No I’m one of those old-fashioned kind of guys who thinks protecting children is the most important thing on earth .

You’re for just throwing them away like a piece of trash .

a reply to: Grambler

TLDR

So your position is if you break a law in the process of expressing yourself or giving your opinion.

Your position/opinion/ expression shouldn’t be acknowledged .

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Grambler

Yeah I said I was wrong on that. But you know it. You’re just angry because I made fun of your #ty little YouTube channel .

So within a matter of an hour, you went from claiming a poster saying they found hoyts statement null and void to be violating his first amend right, to now saying niope, it didnt.

Hahahahaha!

Hey, if I held your views on this thread, Id admit I was wrong as fast as possible as well.

I dont care that you made fun of my channel, I make fun of it far more than you do.

a reply to: Grambler

TLDR

Can you answer a question on topic and to the point ?

“So your position is if you break a law in the process of expressing yourself or giving your opinion.

Your position/opinion/ expression shouldn’t be acknowledged “.

Come on let’s get this over with put yourself on record yes or no .

a reply to: Fallingdown

You should really check into taking a reading comprehension course at your local community college, because you're continually missing the mark.

Naturally, it's been about 5 more pages so you've circled back to your MAGA hat nonsense that's been addressed multiple times. The answer is still the same, and hasn't changed regardless of how many ways you attempt to re-phrase the same concern. LOL

Would you spend 12 pages condemning this guy’s actions like you did Hoyts ?

originally posted by: redmage
If there were a thread dedicated to it, I had the time, and someone was misguided enough to repeatedly attempt to justify that criminal activity... then it's quite possible that I would.

And yes, when you ask again (if this reaches 25 pages)... the answer will still be the same. LOL

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Grambler

TLDR

So your position is if you break a law in the process of expressing yourself or giving your opinion.

Your position/opinion/ expression shouldn’t be acknowledged .

I have no right to have people acknowledge my expressions, regardless if I break the law or not.

You have chosen to not to acknowledge my expressions, by refusing to even listen to them. Thats perfectly fine, you have a right to listen to what you want.

No where in the first amendment does it say anyone has the right to have their opinions heard.

a reply to: redmage

Yes I circle back to the question you have an answered after being posed repeatedly .

You don’t miss the point you just find ways to avoid it .

Here’s the question pay attention to the wording .

Will you condemn liberals for tearing MAGA hats off of children’s head as a violation of the First Amendment rights .

Here’s your standard reply that you rephrased ....

The right to peaceful freedom of expression comes in many forms: speech, a MAGA hat, a baby Trump balloon. They all apply, and Hoyt infringed on their 1st amendment rights when he destroyed their property which was a part of their peaceful protest. Sorry, but your understanding of the 1st is mistaken.

Nowhere in there does it condemn liberals for violating peoples rights by stealing MAGA hats.

I also detest your position on exploitation of children .

Round and round we go! LOL

originally posted by: Fallingdown
Will you condemn liberals for tearing MAGA hats off of children’s head as a violation of the First Amendment rights .

Already been done, and naturally you missed it just like everything else. LOL

originally posted by: redmage
There's no excuse for violence, or destruction of others' property from either side.

Here's a clue... ^ that is a condemnation. Furthermore, 3 post up also I quoted that not only would I condemn it, but I'd possibly spend 12 pages condemning it.

I also detest your position on exploitation of children .

Wow, another straw man argument. Why am I not surprised. LMAO

So being against big government, and not trusting them to responsibly handle something like a DNA database is a "detestable position on exploitation of children" in your world?

a reply to: Fallingdown

Nowhere in there does it condemn liberals for violating peoples rights by stealing MAGA hats.

No, it says the right to expression includes flying a baby Trump balloon and wearing a MAGA hat. It doesn't condone violence.

As has been stated. Pay attention.

a reply to: Fallingdown

You’re just angry because I made fun of your #ty little YouTube channel .

I rarely agree with Grambler (except in this thread)) but I might actually watch his YT channel just to give him a view. On mute, of course, so he still gets to speak, but so I don't have to hear it.

a reply to: redmage

Round and round we go! LOL

Round and round indeed. That's the point.

Obscure the original argument, move the goalposts, change the argument when your original argument fails.

That's why the whole stuff about Trump's supposed accomplishments and children at the border are irrelevant.