Alabama man arrested for slashing baby Trump Balloon .

a reply to: Fallingdown

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

I don't agree with your position. I don't think what he did should be compared to any of he instances you are using.

I don't think what he did was right in any way. He wasn't fighting tyranny, or someone oppressing him, he destroyed property of another citizen who had a different opinion.

All of your examples are citizens going up against structure of power oppressing them, not other citizens.

A closer example would be he did what ANTIFA does... Lashing out perceived injustices on regular people who have nothing to do with decision making.

I kept laughing every time you said he had the right to be heard. Your reasoning was so convoluted.

The craziest part was you actually said DB violated Hoyt's rights. I had thought before you didn't understand the constitution but in that video you proved beyond a doubt that you don't understand the constitution.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I consider his position going up against a socialist movement that could lead to a centralized government and excessive taxation. Pretty much the same thing the tea party members fought for .

What is your position ?


Is your position that if anyone 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 “? :

originally posted by: Fallingdown
Why are you leaving them out every time you try to use civil rights when my intent was only that laws were broken

Because not all laws broken are equal. There are felonies, misdemeanors, and even various degrees of each. Furthermore, no one gets to claim that the 1st amendment gives them the right to destroy other people's property as a form of freedom of expression.

Trying to draw false equivalencies like you have been doing is absurd, and you acknowledged that fact when Grambler brought up serial killers last night on youtube.

a reply to: Fallingdown

I consider his position going up against a socialist movement that could lead to a centralized government and excessive taxation. Pretty much the same thing the tea party members fought for .

Then what is your position ?

Someone having an anti Trump balloon doesn't mean they're a socialist, it means they don't like Trump. That's like if someone has a MAGA hat and someone calls them a fascist.

Is your position that if anyone breaks a law in the process of expressing their self or giving their opinion.

If they destroy property in the process, yes. There are plenty of ways to voice your opinion, you don't have to destroy property to do it.

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

Everyone heard his position, we're just saying he's a tool for how he went about it. The thread talks about it, the media talks about it, and the court will acknowledge it when they determine his punishment.

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: DBCowboy

It’s not stupid.

It was designed to make a statement and it worked .

We’re talking about it right now .

What statement did he make? Will his actions have any impact on politics, civil liberties, changing laws, cause the democrats to change their political manifesto.

A bunch of morons with nothing better to do spent $4000 to fly a balloon that did nothing than advertise their own stupidity and are known as 'slacktivists' who do these things mainly to post self congratulating pictures of themselves on facebook or instragram.

Another moron thought bursting said balloon was a meaningful political act and lacked the mental capacity to realise he'd look just as much if not more of an idiot than the people flying the Trump balloon and transform what was bad PR/photos of the trump balloon crowd into the perfect PR of playing poor innocents against cliched moonshine drinking guy who thinks he's John Wayne.

My prediction is this will not change US politics, law, civil liberties or geo-politics one iota and no one will even remember this ever happened within a couple of weeks.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Someone having an anti Trump balloon doesn't mean they're a socialist, it means they don't like Trump. That's like if someone has a MAGA hat and someone calls them a fascist.

I didn’t ask for your opinion. Those were my views are you denying me my first amendment right ? The Tories didn’t approve of the protest in Boston either .

If they destroy property in the process, yes. There are plenty of ways to voice your opinion, you don't have to destroy property to do it.

You made no distinction except the fact that if they destroy property their positions shouldn’t be acknowledged. That means you consider all 60 members of the Boston tea party criminals. You would want to see great patriots in jail ?

I’ve been through this for pages your next reply is Hoyt’s actions don’t compare to the members of the Boston tea party.

Just so you know they do in my eyes .

Everyone heard his position, we're just saying he's a tool for how he went about it. The thread talks about it, the media talks about it,

So the Boston tea party members were just tools ?

You’ve got no position .

All you’ve been doing is yeah but, yeah but, yeah but, yeah but .

and the court will acknowledge it when they determine his punishment.

I have no idea why you think you can wheel that comment like a hammer. I said basically the same thing in the OP .

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

Your current position is rights apply to some people but not others.

Your view on the constitution is scary .

originally posted by: Fallingdown
I’ve been through this for pages your next reply is Hoyt’s actions don’t compare to the members of the Boston tea party.

Just so you know they do in my eyes .

The Boston Tea Party protesters strongly opposed the taxes in the Tea Act of May 10, 1773. Something that actually existed.

You feel that Hoyt's actions are justified for going up against a what you call a "socialist" movement that you feel "could lead" to a centralized government and excessive taxation.

It's not even close to the same thing the tea party members fought for .

They fought against something real (the Tea Act of May 10, 1773), not a hypothetical assumption of taxes that don't actually exist.

Trying to compare Hoyt to the Boston Tea Party is laughable.

a reply to: Fallingdown

Your current position is rights apply to some people but not others.

No, that's your position.

You think that someone should be able to destroy someone's property as long as you agree with their position.

Mine is that no one can do that. Everyone has equal rights, meaning they can't use theirs to infringe on someone else's.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Fallingdown

I consider his position going up against a socialist movement that could lead to a centralized government and excessive taxation. Pretty much the same thing the tea party members fought for .

Then what is your position ?

Someone having an anti Trump balloon doesn't mean they're a socialist, it means they don't like Trump. That's like if someone has a MAGA hat and someone calls them a fascist.

Is your position that if anyone breaks a law in the process of expressing their self or giving their opinion.

If they destroy property in the process, yes. There are plenty of ways to voice your opinion, you don't have to destroy property to do it.

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

Everyone heard his position, we're just saying he's a tool for how he went about it. The thread talks about it, the media talks about it, and the court will acknowledge it when they determine his punishment.

BTW I would like to point something out that’s been happening repeatedly on this thread by the great victors in the conversation . Lol

^^^^^^^ In this post you said he doesn’t have the right to his opinion or expression ( I should’ve said be heard so you guys can pretend you won on semantics 😆) if he destroys property .



“Yes”

In this post you said he did have the right .

Quit flip-flopping .

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Your position now is if he damages something he doesn’t have the right. That means you’re selectively applying the first amendment .

Like I said that’s scary .

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Your position now is if he damages something he doesn’t have the right. That means you’re selectively applying the first amendment .

Like I said that’s scary .

So does ANTIFA have the right to destroy property as part of expression? I don't think so, because it infringes on the rights of others.

Does this guy or any political extremist have the right to destroy someone's property as part of their expression? No.

Pretty simple.

a reply to: Fallingdown

The position is that damaging someone elses' property is not a right, and that you continually show your lack of understanding when it comes to the first amendment by suggesting that such illegality should be considered freedom of expression.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

So does ANTIFA have the right to destroy property as part of expression?

Yes unlike you I don’t selectively apply constitutional rights and when I say something I mean it .

But I agree with you that they should be arrested and pay a price . ( don’t see much of that happening but that’s for another thread )

Does this guy or any political extremist have the right to destroy someone's property as part of their expression? No.

How about if ANTIFA spray paint’s over someone’s trump sign. They would be denying that person‘s rights while destroying their property . ( it’s a simple statement don’t rationalize it by saying the property wasn’t destroyed it was deep faced ) Should they lose all of their first amendment rights guaranteed in the constitution ?

It’s not simple you selectively apply the first amendment. I stick to my guns .

BTW i’ve seen the same people on here. I’m skipping over the replies but I am reasonably sure they’re making the same inaccurate lies. It’s all explained in this post ....

Semantics and misrepresentation

Just to be clear I’m still not gonna reply to them.

I figure why bother ?

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
So does ANTIFA have the right to destroy property as part of expression?

originally posted by: Fallingdown
Yes unlike you I don’t selectively apply constitutional rights and when I say something I mean it .

There's the problem. You're wrong. No one is "selectively applying constitutional rights" because what you describe is not a constitutional right.

It's not anyone's constitutional right to destroy the property of others.

Learn the Constitution.

OK, against my better judgement, I will again not keep my big trap shut when I should keep it shut. Why? Probably because I just watched 40 minutes of the train wreck Grambler put up for us and now my brain hurts.

Can we approach this logically? Just for yucks...

Hoyt Hutchinson was attending a football game where Donald Trump also was in attendance. A group of protestors then decided to rent and fly a "Trump Baby" balloon to protest Trump during the ball game. Hutchinson saw the balloon and I assume out of anger at the game being politicized, took out a knife, charged the balloon, and cut it open. Those are the facts of the matter. Now let's consider whose rights were violated and who was violating them.

It is illegal to destroy private property. There is no doubt that Hutchinson's actions were illegal.

It is also illegal to protest without owner approval on private property. This protest was not sanctioned by the NCAA, the SEC, the University of Alabama (who owns the stadium), nor the Louisiana State University. Therefore the actions of the protestors were illegal. The owners of the venue had even previously made it clear that they did not consider Trump's attendance to be germane to the game and would expel anyone who tried to start a protest as well as revoking their tickets. During the live TV coverage, there was not a single shot of President Trump aired.

What does the First Amendment say?

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.

Hoyt Hutchinson is not a member of Congress. Hoyt Hutchinson passed no law. Therefore, Hoyt Hutchinson did not violate the First Amendment. He simply committed the crime of vandalism and was arrested.

No one on this message board (to my knowledge) is a member of Congress. Certainly, no one on this message board passed a law stopping anyone's freedom of speech. Therefore, no one on this message board has violated the First Amendment.

The police who arrested Hoyt Hutchinson did not pass a law restricting his freedom of speech, and are by definition not members of Congress. Therefore the police acted properly in arresting Hoyt Hutchinson.

As far as I know, the protestors were not expelled from the grounds despite violating the law. If they were not, then the police (or campus security) did err in not equally enforcing the law. Both parties had violated the law; both parties should face punishment for their violations equally.

Now, as to this "right to be heard": No one has the right to be heard, because that forces others to listen to them; no right can infringe on the rights of another, else it is not a right. There is, however, a right to listen... this is the purpose behind freedom of the press. One has the right to listen to whatever arguments each side makes and then decide their position for themselves. That is not a right to be heard, because it does not fall on the one speaking, but it is a right to listen.

This whole argument over rights is just silly, and that video, frankly, hurt my brain. One guy got fed up because other people tried to push an agenda no one wanted to see at that time and place. Here's a hint; it's going to happen again until people learn respect for others, and the next time it might not be just the balloon that gets a new orifice.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Hoyt Hutchinson was attending a football game where Donald Trump also was in attendance...

Just to note, Hoyt wasn't attending the game at all. He left home with the sole purpose of going out to "make a scene", and "get rowdy".

a reply to: TheRedneck

I agree with most of what you said except the right to listen part.

There is no constitutional right to listen. There is no law against it either. If it was a constitutional right then people could force their way into auditoriums and such of speakers they wanted to hear and the police wouldn't be able to stop them.

I am also not sure you are right about the protestors since they do have the right to assemble and the right to free speech. If it is one person or a group shouldn't matter each one has those rights. I also read they dd have a permit to be there.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Great post loved it with one small detail I would like to elaborate on .

For some reason over the last 29 pages I can’t make my point be heard on this .

“"right to be heard"

By no means was I implying everyone had to listen to him or that he had the right to be heard by everyone. It was just some loose words on my part.

But just about everyone took advantage of that despite my clarifications. There were a couple reasonable people but not many .

I back came here to make a correction on some of my earlier statements when I said his first amendment rights shouldn’t be denied. Again that was loose words bad grammar take your pick .

Because of the semantics being played on this thread I had to make my reply precise I also had to re-post it exactly so I didn’t make an error someone could play games with .

Here is my exact position and my answer is no .

Is your position that if anyone 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 “?