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.

 

Alabama man arrested for slashing baby Trump Balloon .

page: 34
36
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 09:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: redmage
a reply to: DBCowboy

It would just be more circles. You could state that the Constitution is the highest law of the land, and that unconstitutional laws were made to be broken, but then he would flip-flop back again and falsely claim that destroying other people's property was Hoyt's freedom of expression, and we'd be back to square one of his circular logic. LMAO


The worst thing I've been accused of is being rational and trying to rationalize.



Oh and "ego".

*shrugs*

Again, I did try.



Oh well.




posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 09:58 PM
link   
There is no constitutional right to be heard and no I don't live in Polk county although I do know some good folks from there that I served with in the military not that it any of your business.



posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Yeah, we've already established that he's not good at guessing where people live. LMAO

He's also been informed numerous times that there is no Constitutional right to be heard, but reading comprehension isn't his strong point either.



posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Ok

Now back to my question for both you and DC .

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 by anyone even those people that consider it their right to hear the position “?

A simple yes or no is all that’s needed I don’t want rationalization.

The proof that I’m right is everyone’s inability to answer yes or no .

So what do you say ?

The funny thing is both of you know the answer is yes. But you can’t admit it so I get it accused of trolling because of the position I’ve had since the first page .

I thought the slogan here was deny ignorance not whistle through the graveyard .

My God do you guys have any integrity ?



posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi


There is no constitutional right to be heard


That word game has been tried already. It’s why I reworded my statement to keep posers from playing semantics .


edit on 12-11-2019 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Grimpachi

Ok

Now back to my question for both you and DC .

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 by anyone even those people that consider it their right to hear the position “?

A simple yes or no is all that’s needed I don’t want rationalization.


Yep.

/thread



posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Is this your opinion ?

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 by anyone even the people that consider it their right to hear “?

Come on you present yourself as a constitutionalist ( which I now laugh at ) let’s hear your rationalize it because you know you’re wrong .

If you don’t answer honestly you’re a fraud .

Dude you should've read the whole thread. I’m going to wear you down with this until you shed your ego and be honest or you don’t really believe what you say .



posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown

You don't get to justify or validate your Constitutional rights by infringing upon the rights of others.

QED.



posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: DBCowboy
I’m going to wear you down with this until you shed your ego and be honest or you don’t really believe what you say .



Nah.

I'll just ignore you, since I'm under no obligation to read your posts.

(see what I did there?)



posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown




Their position/opinion/ expression shouldn’t be acknowledged by anyone even those people that consider it their right to hear the position “?


There are rights people have that are guaranteed by the constitution. I don't care if people think they have rights it only matters if they do or don't. No one has a right to hear no one has the right to be heard.

If anyone thinks they have a right to hear something they are wrong. Plain and simple.

I don't know why you have such a hard time understanding these things but if you don't believe it feel free to go complain to a cop or lawyer that you were not allowed to hear something and see where that gets you.



posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

So despite your position as a true constitutionalist and wanting to preserve everyone’s rights .

It only matters sometimes ?



That shows what you’re all about .

F***ing poser .

I just exposed you for the constitutionalist fraud you are. How do you sleep at night deceiving all these simple minded people ?

Good Lord I actually believed you meant what you said until now .

Oh well live and learn .

Do you actually believe in the Second Amendment or are you just pretending on that too ?



posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Actually you use that cop out because you’re under no obligation to be honest with anyone here .

As frivolous you are with first amendment rights. I bet you’re secretly in favor of the assault weapon buybacks .

After all you don’t stand behind the positions you claim you take to heart .

But thank you for giving me all of the screenshots to use .

Christ in your opinion if you pop a balloon you lose your first amendment rights . 🤦‍♂️


I’m glad you didn’t have a quill and ink when the bill of rights were penned . The name Benedict Arnold comes to mind . 🤔

Dude that’s humiliating for someone that claims to be a defender of the Bill of Rights .
edit on 12-11-2019 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

His convoluted question is the root of his trolling, and flawed circular logic.

"Is it your position that if someone breaks a law in the process of expressing their self or giving their opinion." is used as a false premise which assumes that destruction of others' property is a right that falls under freedom of expression, and, "Their position/opinion/ expression shouldn’t be acknowledged by anyone even those people that consider it their right to hear the position?" is used to claim that Hoyt is being "denied his rights" if he's not heard, and contains another conflation of the freedom of the press with the misused notion of a "right to hear".

It's nonsense from start to finish with false assumptions, yet he demands a "yes or no" as if it contains a simple and logically valid argument somewhere within it.

Basically, he's got no understanding of the Constitution at all, and the way he's formatted that sorry excuse for question proves it.
edit on 11/12/19 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Dude I’ve already told you they played that game about the right to be heard . Of course no one has the right to be heard but some people have the right to listen .

Do you deny that ?

You saying the same tired game the adults tried to play before .

So are you saying someone doesn’t have the right to be heard from people that want to hear their statement ?

Come on make the next reply I’ve already heard and I’m ready for instead of being honest .

Pick another position I’ve owned everyone that tried this .

You would know that if you didn’t live in Polk County .



posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage

The argument is flawed, in my opinion, because the OP is convoluting something that is very simple.

People had their 1st Amendment right to float the Trump balloon and protest.

Hoyt had NO RIGHT to infringe upon them.

There is NO RIGHT to infringe upon the rights of anyone else.

None.

Never.

It's simple. Using false equivalency, circular reasoning, just doesn't work.



posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

You ignore me because you’re under no obligation to be honest. I can’t wait I’m gonna use your position against you every time you pretend you’re a constitutionalist .

I love this thread you guys are giving me so much material .



posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Does that include Rosa parks, Martin Luther King , Union organizers and political prisoners ?

they broke laws and other people thought they were wrong. So is their position invalid or are you going to make exceptions to your staunch defense of the first amendment ? 🤦‍♂️

Who am I kidding. Your ego is too big so you’re going to make exceptions to your position . I can’t wait to use these screenshots the next time you pretend to defend the first amendment .

Your position is first amendment rights only apply when you say so. The position you represent is that you are a defender of everyone’s first amendment rights . You’ve been exposed .

Can you say poser ?



posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown




Of course no one has the right to be heard but some people have the right to listen .

Do you deny that ?


Yes/

There is no such thing as the right to listen.



So are you saying someone doesn’t have the right to be heard from people that want to hear their statement ?


There is no such thing as the right to be heard even from the people that want to listen.



Pick another position I’ve owned everyone that tried this .


NO, you have only come off as unhinged and ignorant.



You would know that if you didn’t live in Polk County .


Now I am curious why you have such an issue with Polk country. Did someone from there beat you up or maybe steal your girl?

If this was a movie it would be where you realize you're the bad guy.




posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

That was way too much to read. Especially when somebody’s probably said it before . ( you guys had the same points over and over )

Shorten it up a little bit and get back to me .




edit on 12-11-2019 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
The argument is flawed, in my opinion, because the OP is convoluting something that is very simple.


That's the way weak trolling works.

It's like asking...


Is it your position that tuna has fur, and you have a 1st amendment right?

Yes or no! It's a simple question! Why can't you give a straight answer! A simple yes or no is all that’s needed I don’t want rationalization.

The proof that I’m right is everyone’s inability to answer yes or no!


The question itself makes no logical sense, and it's designed to to bait with either answer.

If you say no, then you don't agree that the 1st amendment exists!

If you say yes, then your position is that tuna has fur!

It's just a really weak trolling effort by someone making themselves look very foolish.
edit on 11/12/19 by redmage because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
36
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join