Alabama man arrested for slashing baby Trump Balloon .

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

So what happened? Did anyone get verbally suplexed?

It started off with him asking me what sexual acts I perform on my boyfriend, and if as a fat guy I am jealous of Michael Moore

He then shifted his position the entire time, from saying he never changed his position of page one, he never intended to say there was a right for Hoyt to be heard, saying he never said hoyts first amendment rights were violated, admitting he did say it but admitted he was wrong, admitted after he said he was wrong he again accused people of violating his first amendment rights, and finally saying obviously if I concede the first amendment gives people the right to free speech, this obviously means they have a right to be heard


Oh and then he threatened to make my life a living hell on the coming months

As for me, I was handsome and charming as always

a reply to: Grambler

Wow.

You and I will go back and forth but I'd never bring your boyfriend into the mix, that's just wrong.





J/K, homie, sounds like I missed the fun. Damn United, always making me late for the good stuff.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Who are we kidding, no real man would date me

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Honestly if you are interested the video is posted on the top of page 37

Start at 36 minutes

It’s basically a waste of time though

It had all the insanity of the discussion on this thread mixed in with some rather uninteresting name calling

a reply to: Grambler

I'll check it out for laughs.

Edit: Check your PMs.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Grambler

I'll check it out for laughs.

I think one of the debaters reverted back to high school for opening tactics. Went for the classic "yOuR BiG gAy".

Nice.

I kinda feel bad... Seems like we had a confused old man on our hands, type that could have been taken advantage of for some home shopping network deals or email scams had Grambler wanted to exploit the situation.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I was waiting for the 'yo mamma' jokes next.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I was waiting for the 'yo mamma' jokes next.

I mean.... We should be thankful he didn't tap into his inner chi for that level of sick burns.

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: bastion

Truth be told. My favorite part about the whole incident was the video he posted it .

He said do any of the other Trump supporters “have any balls” .

Pure redneck I can relate to that.


But apparently that’s the problem many people had on the thread they don’t have any .

Ahh I've not seen the video but don't see popping a balloon as something that requires balls of brass, it's the kind of behavior kids grow out of before they reach age seven in normal childhood development milestones this side of the pond and failure to do so would be an indicator of personality disorder or retardation.

Only read the first couple of pages but all I saw was people pointing out the law and just because someone doesn't like something doesn't give someone the legal right to destroy it, society/ciivilisation would collapse pretty quickly if that was the case.

Plus just to play Devil's Advocate isn't the GoFundMe so he doesn't have to face responsibility for his actions and others pay his legal fees/fines is socialist/collectivist welfare which I thought Republicans were meant to hate.

The only thing that could make this sh#tshow even more epic, is Fallingofhismeds was the balloon popper

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Stuttering beard stubble open sweat glands and chairs collapsing you should’ve been there .

Good times

Dbl

a reply to: Grambler

started off with him asking me what sexual acts I perform on my boyfriend, and if as a fat guy I am jealous of Michael Moore

You never did give an honest answer there either .

I told you exactly what was going to go on why do you pretend you’re surprised ?

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Stuttering beard stubble open sweat glands and chairs collapsing you should’ve been there .

Good times

I don't always agree to Grambler, but the guy makes a stand up effort to have good discussions with people... Which is what ATS is supposed to be about.

You used the opportunity in an interview to just make personal attacks. What few "points" you had fell flat on their face (almost every participant in this thread already pointed this out precious to the video).

And you made personal attacks while hiding behind the screen and not doing video. Even if you had shown your face, I'd be willing to bet most members would stick to the topic and not go after you as a person, because it has nothing to do with the discussion.

You're truly delusional if you think you did anything besides show your ass. It's one of the most embarrassing things I've seen transpire from member interactions. It was high school drivel, or the kind of interaction I'd expect to see an online gamer deliver to an opponent.

If I were you, and intended on being taken seriously at any point going forward... I'd own up to it. Most of this community is kind to those that own their words and actions.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I don't always agree to Grambler, but the guy makes a stand up effort to have good discussions with people... Which is what ATS is supposed to be about.

You used the opportunity in an interview to just make personal attacks. What few "points" you had fell flat on their face (almost every participant in this thread already pointed this out precious to the video)

First off he didn’t make a stand up effort issued a challenge then imposed conditions after conditions on it. I made the effort to meet him. I mentioned this to you before but maybe you should read the thread before you flap your gums .

I made it clear what I was going to do. If it hurt your feelings or his he shouldn’t of come .



He challenged me to meet him In comments on his channel I accepted he didn’t show. I offered him his choice of three different forums. I even started a thread on one and linked it he refused.

So on top of every attempt I made I’ve finally excepted his new conditions of a video chat . I made all the effort sunshine .

In the video he lied when he said he didn’t agree with me .( do you want to see those screenshots too)?

I had to painstakingly word this . Because being the scoundrel he is his only defense was the take the phrase “ right to be heard “ literally and repeat over and over nobody has the right to be heard while ignoring the content of my position .

He trolled for 30 pages because he knew I was right and couldn’t admit it .

I have no interest in defending any of my above positions with you. I just explained myself. The only thing I want to hear is an answer to the following .

So is this what you think ?


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 the position “?

I ask you this question yesterday and you disappeared ?!

Please answer my question and then tell me how I fell flat on my face .

After all as you said good discussions are what ATS is all about. I will add honesty too so yes or no ?

a reply to: Fallingdown

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 the position “?

You have the right of free speech and expression until it impedes someones else's rights.

This guy could have used any means you and I have to speak or express himself.... Instead, he destroyed someone's property, which is against the law.

He's now answering for said offenses.

I haven't understood your point(s) about how this case has anything in common with those who fought for civil rights though.... Or how this guys rights were ever in question.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

So you agreed he has the first amendment right to his expression. Look this nonsense could’ve all been over on page 1. I am a little disappointed in you for scolding me. Are you saying I was the only person trolling on this thread ?

Me: Hoyt has the right to be *heard . ( *figuratively not literally )

Every troll on this thread for 20 pages : nobody has the right to be heard that would imply you have to listen . They just completely ignored the intent of my position play semantics .

Hell he even tried to push that position last night knowing damn good and well that the issue had been settled . I said over and over nobody has to listen .

I made one offhand remark on a comment from smidge that she was denying Hoyts constitutional rights. That became the Babblers other main point even though I admitted I was wrong . He repeated it regularly as a definitive statement Watch the video he did the same thing last night . 🤦‍♂️

The only time any of them were honest was when I push them into a corner with that question. They knew what my intent was from the beginning that question forced them to answer honestly. Other than not one bit of honesty was returned for two nights .

That’s why I couldn’t take him seriously and just decided to mess with his head last night on the video . You said he made such an effort well let’s see him make another effort and come to my platform I bet he won’t .

I haven't understood your point(s) about how this case has anything in common with those who fought for civil rights though

Civil rights had nothing to do with my position that’s your narrative not mine. I was just pointing out that laws were broken and peoples positions ended up accomplishing great things .

Everybody wants to say Rosa parks Rosa parks Rosa parks . God I wish I wouldn’t have used her as an example it certainly would’ve prevented a lot of narrowminded views and purposefully misrepresentation of my intent .

Union organizers

Boston tea party members

Occupiers at wounded knee

I’m not comparing their deeds to Hoyt’s. The only comparison I’m trying to show is that they broke the law and still accomplished great things . Will Hoyt’s actions lead to great things? I seriously doubt it but you never know.

My point all along has been that just because a law is broken doesn’t mean it invalidates what the person stands for .

What happened last night was I blundered into two social cliques . DC shocked me because he couldn’t be honest I had a much higher opinion of him until last night . Babbler I already had figured out but apparently nobody else does .

Smidge, babbler and those other two dolts we’re only on the thread to troll after the first few pages. They didn’t care what I had to say they were just offended that I said it .

And I don’t back down everyone better get used to that here .

Here’s the post I replied to .



Here’s my reply .



My position is pretty simple to understand if you don’t purposefully misconstrued it .

I’ll look we’re having a pretty decent discussion this wouldn’t of been allowed over the last few days. If I elaborated on a post like this .

Smidge would be saying “lol another circular argument no one has the right to be heard” .

Babbler would be saying “you said Hoyts first amendment rights were violated “

Both of which I explained above and acknowledged where I was wrong. That didn’t matter to either of them.

But I know .....

originally posted by: Fallingdown
Me: Hoyt has the right to be *heard . ( *figuratively not literally )

Yet when you argue that his rights were/are being infringed, it's not figuratively. So once again you're lying.

originally posted by: Fallingdown
They just completely ignored the intent of my position play semantics .

Nope, they pointed out that your reasoning is flawed, and that his rights were not being infringed because no one has the "right to be heard".

No one has the right to be heard, and destruction of someone else's property is not covered by the 1st amendment just because you falsely want to claim that it falls under his freedom of expression.

a reply to: Fallingdown

So you agreed he has the first amendment right to his expression.

Yes, but he didn't have the right to destroy someones property... And he should be punished for that, just as any other political extremist should who destroys property.

What he did was wrong. He has nothing in common with those who fought or civil rights.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Yes, but he didn't have the right to destroy someones property... And he should be punished for that,

I don’t even understand how you could consider that a valid argument .

From my OP ......

Hat’s off Hoyt do what needs to be done and be willing to take the consequences

I’m pretty sure you brought that up yesterday and I posted the same quote .

just as any other political extremist should who destroys property.

So you think all 60 members of the Boston tea party should’ve been sentence to incarceration on one of the kings prisonships . They were political extremist who destroyed other peoples property . Meaning the investors of the British East Indian company .

What he did was wrong. He has nothing in common with those who fought or civil rights.

I agree he has nothing in common with the civil rights leaders with the exception that they both broke laws .

What about the union leaders, miners during the coal wars in bloody Harlan County , members of the Boston tea party for example ? They all broke laws do you not admire what they did ?

Why are you leaving them out every time you try to use civil rights when my intent was only that laws were broken ?


As a matter of fact you agreed with my position why are you even debating me now ?