Alabama man arrested for slashing baby Trump Balloon .

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Grambler

Id like to be in the court room when you tried to explain to a judge the first amendment means people have the right to be heard.

I might actually watch your YouTube channel if you tried to explain to your viewers that the first amendment means you’re not allowed to be heard .

Show me where I said that.

I said the first amendment doesnt say you have a right to be heard, not that it says you are not allowed to be heard.

I posted the first amendment; show me where it says you ahve a right to be heard.

You cant because it doesnt.

Meanwhile you keep claiming I wont answer your question when I have done so emphatically over and over.

Keep repeating the lies, maybe you can convince yourself they are true.

originally posted by: Fallingdown
If that’s not your position .

What is your position ?

Regarding what? Hoyt? He's a confused vandal whose illegal actions are unjustifiable.

Is this your position ?

“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 “.

Nope, that's not a quote of mine.

a reply to: Grambler

The answer is NOOOOOOO!!!!!!! That is not what I am saying.

Then you agree with me .

I am saying that any person can decide for whatever reason they want to not acknowledge another persons opinion

Then why aren’t you allowing me to do that ?

There is no first amendment right to be heard.

It’s your turn for the reading comprehension problem. I never said it was guaranteed to be heard. I said he was entitled to his right .

I am not saying "All people who break the law should not be heard from"

Again my point .

I am saying even if a person would think that, they have that right, and are not violating anyones first amendment right.

I agree my point was that his expression wasn’t canceled out . I never demand that everyone should listen to it .


Thank you for an honest answer I believe we met halfway. Now look at the crew you’ve been running with on this thread. None of them will answer honestly anything and they have all stood against both of our positions .

My apologies for being aggressive and mocking your YouTube channel. I rarely watch them but in all honesty I will check yours out .

I only do that in a pile on to keep people offguard .

a reply to: redmage

Hoyt's actions are just as unjustified as someone snatching a MAGA cap.

I would use the words "just as illegal," but yes, I will agree with the sentiment in that statement.

However, the bigger issue is not the destruction of a silly balloon. It is the constant attacks by those who, it seems, literally spend sleepless nights dreaming up ways to anger more people. It exists on both sides, but in unequal amounts.

Had this happened without the past three years of watching people attacked for wearing caps, Antifa burning, looting, and attacking people for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, people attacked for "looking like a Trump supporter," consistent efforts to find something, anything, to impeach Trump on while ignoring worse actions by political allies, Democrat leaders in Congress openly calling for violence, and precious little of this being even called out because it was all in the name of "protest," my attitude would be different. But it did not happen in such a vacuum... it happened likely as a direct result of someone having quite enough of that garbage shoved in his face and then seeing more of it in the one place he went to get away from it.

That is why I say it is understandable.

One can take the gentlest, most docile dog ever known, and spend three years poking it with a stick... and it will eventually bite. With most dogs, it would only take a couple months; I consider it a testament to the patience of the typical conservative in America that so few have snapped and gone the violence route. I know that will be an unpopular opinion, and I know that I will be informed in no uncertain terms that it shouldn't matter, but the simple fact is that it does matter.

If someone drives up to my house, I am not going to immediately judge them as a danger, because my first impression will be that someone came to see me for some reason, be it a visit, asking for directions, trying to sell something, etc. I will be civil with them. But there are some people who I will not be civil with... due to previous actions they have taken, I will likely open the door with firearm in hand and loudly tell them to get the (&(*&^*% off my land before I take away that choice to leave. The difference is the history between me and them, and likewise the difference in this case was likely the history between Hutchinson and activists protesting Trump.

That is human nature... no, more than that, it is animal nature. And it's been abused for three years. That, I believe, is the only reason anyone is defending Hutchinson at all. The law can say that he is guilty of destruction of property all it wants, but when others have gotten away with worse destruction of property for so long, that doesn't mean so much any more.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: Fallingdown
If that’s not your position .

What is your position ?

Regarding what? Hoyt? He's a confused vandal whose illegal actions are unjustifiable.

Is this your position ?

“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 “.

Nope, that's not a quote of mine.

^^^^^^ see what I mean gambler .

Doesn’t care in the least her only concern was that she’s been triggered .

originally posted by: Fallingdown
^^^^^^ see what I mean gambler .

Doesn’t care in the least her only concern was that she’s been triggered .

Again with the triggered bit. That's just you projecting, missy. LOL

I gave very simple and straightforward answers because you've continually shown that you can't comprehend or recall much beyond a basic "yes or no".

a reply to: Fallingdown

No we are not in agreement.

You said he had a right to be heard. You said saying we shouldnt hear from him because he broke the law was a first amendment right. Its not.

No one at all said you dont have the right to value this persons opinion, not that I saw.

You are free to listen to this man, or ignore him. You are also free to listen to me or anyone else on this thread, or ignore us.

This has nothing at all to do with the first amendment.

As far as runnng with a crew on this thread, I have no problem agreeing or disagreeing with people on one thread, then doing the opposite on another. I feel no need to stick to a partiuclar side. I have my own opinions, and people are free to agree with disagree with me.

Often times I am alone in what I think, there was a thread today where some of the very people on this thread disagreed with me (as did most everyone) I would rather have it that way.

I dont think they have avoided your own topic questions.

And I also dont think you need to apologize at all for anything you said about my youtube channel.

I never take any insults personally on ATS, and actually enjoy the banter even when its insulting to me (sometimes especially when it is)

a reply to: Liquesence

What is a legitimate protest?

The president was there. It comes with the territory. And, the right to do it.

The President was there, yes, but not as President. He was making no campaign speeches, no political speeches, no public spectacle... he was sitting in his little box watching a ball game. No one went there to see Donald Trump; they went there to watch the "game of the century." This was not a political venue.

This "protest" was being used to destroy the enjoyment of thousands upon thousands of people who had no interest in politics at that time. It was not being aimed just at Donald Trump, not even at his supporters, but at everyone who went there to watch the game. Add in probably hundreds of thousands watching on TV.

That is an illegitimate protest. It is no different than blocking a major highway and causing people to be late for work, holding up emergency vehicles, and in general inconveniencing everyone around just to tick them off. It would be akin to protesting a manufacturing plant in front of a hamburger joint three miles away because someone saw the owner of the manufacturing plant buying a hamburger there. No. That's just not right.

If someone wants to speak out at a Trump rally, OK. They'll be removed by security, I'll consider them a fool, but I will also defend their right to speak out (as long as they do not use violence). If Trump is giving a press conference in the Rose Garden and people want to assemble outside the White House and protest without violence, OK, not a big deal. Those are political events and are subject to political protest. But when that someone decides that they are going to hound someone constantly, 24 hours a day, and it doesn't matter who it inconveniences or who gets hurt, that goes beyond legitimate IMO. That mysterious "right to protest" that is supposedly written somewhere in the Constitution (which I have never found yet) is not a right to stalk someone, and certainly not a right to involve me without my consent.

TheRedneck

a reply to: redmage

Actually it even shows in your reply .

Do you really think the tired Internet ad hominem “projection” is effected ? 🤦‍♂️

You wouldn’t last a hour on any other site . SMH

Now that we’ve had all our fun. Tell me what your position is ?

If it’s not this position you’re in agreement with me .

“So is it your position that if someone breaks a law in the process of expressing their self or giving their opinion.

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

a reply to: Grambler

I said he had the right to be heard I didn’t say people had to listen .

I quit reading on your first sentence .

Because I’m sure the rest was more of the same .

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Grambler

I said he had the right to be heard

Circling back 'round again to this old chestnut, yet spent the last few pages denying making this claim. lol

No one has "the right to be heard". By definition, being heard requires other people listening, and no one should be forced to listen to anyone.

a reply to: redmage

So you’re saying he doesn’t have the right to be heard ?

Is that your final answer .

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Grambler

I said he had the right to be heard I didn’t say people had to listen .

I quit reading on your first sentence .

Because I’m sure the rest was more of the same .

Explain how this man has a right to be heard, but not a right to be listened to.

That is nonsensical.

he has the right to speak, not the right to be heard or listened to, whatever you say the distinction between those two is.

Show me anywhere in the first amendment where it mentions a right to be heard.

a reply to: Fallingdown

Final answer. Yes, there is no "right to be heard".

a reply to: redmage

Explain why no one has the right to be heard ?

People that don’t wanna hear it don’t listen people that do want to hear it do listen .

a reply to: redmage

No one has "the right to be heard". By definition, being heard requires other people listening, and no one should be forced to listen to anyone.

Absolutely correct.

So why are these protestors allowed to force people to listen to them by 'ambushing' them in a non-political sporting event where leaving means abandoning a very expensive ticket? Some of those tickets were a few thousand dollars a seat.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

They likely had the privilege to be on that property through obtaining a permit to demonstrate at that location and time, but a privilege is not the same as a right, and no one was forced to stand in front of them listening.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Are you being sarcastic or do you actually understand that Babel ?

Is it a play on words ?

Is it a technicality on my whole position ?

You I’ll listen to .

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: redmage

No one has "the right to be heard". By definition, being heard requires other people listening, and no one should be forced to listen to anyone.

Absolutely correct.

So why are these protestors allowed to force people to listen to them by 'ambushing' them in a non-political sporting event where leaving means abandoning a very expensive ticket? Some of those tickets were a few thousand dollars a seat.

TheRedneck

You dont have to listen to them. If its private property such as inside a sporting venure, the owners of the venue have a right to kick them out.

But you as an annoyed attendee do not have that right, or the right to damage their property.

Much like I can be annoyed by someone talking on a phone in a movie, but I dont have the right to kick them out or break their phone, even though we all know it is understood to be violating all rules of civility we have for a person to talk thorugh a movie.

Im as sick of the anti trump crowd as anyone. But if we start making exceptions for allowing censorship or destruction of property for these protestors, then we have no right to complain when they make those same sort of censorious demands.

a reply to: redmage

Now I understand you’re presenting a genetic fallacy .

Go look that up