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.

 

Alex Jones Arrested In New York

page: 7
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Alex Jones is not complex. He needs controversy to keep the money flowing into his organization and his own pocket.


Alex does not seem to be getting rich but maybe you have insight into why he allows people to freely copy his material to as many as they like once they bought or acquired his videos or interviews?


It is his job basically.


That's a pretty stupid way for a intelligent well informed person such as Alex to try make a living.


Everything he does is about power and money. Alex would have been really angry had he not been arrested.


Where is the evidence that everything he does is about power and how does he prove that he has power by getting arrested or giving away the material he has worked so hard to put together? I just do not understand your arguments here.


What is most amazing about Jones is how many people allow him to define their lives based on his exaggerations and lies.


Which exaggeration and or lies are we referring to here and who is he being compared to? Do you spend as much time to attack obvious criminals such as Jnr Bush and people like Rove?


It's pretty sad actually. He must be really charismatic and skilled at manipulating people.


Maybe people just look at the world and what he has said and are slowly discovering that he told them what was going to happen today YEARS ago? Why do you so desperately want to believe that his supporters are stupid and aid him because they have been taken in? How many Americans is stupid by that measure considering how they were taken in by Neo-con lies to attack a innocent country such as Iraq? Maybe you wish to argue that all Americans are stupid for believing either Jones or Jnr Bush?


The number of people who believe in Jones is so tiny I would have been surprised if Geraldo would have acted any differently.


I have actually spent some time listening to Alex interview state officials and the like and it's just how few people are still calling him crazy now that so many officials are starting to tell the truth...


You have to have an audience to stay on the air. Geraldo attracts millions of viewers.


Geraldo does not attract anyone as they just have to switch on their tv and channel hop to find it by accident. Do you honestly believe that Alex would not have as great or far greater viewer numbers had he been on national TV? Care to try get Alex on the air?


Jones attracts a few anarchists and angry young people between keg parties.


I think you will be surprised to find just how many people tune in to his few hours on air.
Want to make a guesstimate before we go get some numbers?

Stellar

[edit on 11-9-2007 by StellarX]




posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   
cosign on your post, stellar. quite the namesake



They chose not to and brought down their own problems. I have no sympathy for them.


AJ did in fact apply for a permit, and was denied.

I doubt your sympathy would help anyways.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   
So is he still in jail, or did he get released yet?

That was good to know, that there are policemen who support the cause. I feel so bad for the people who serve the public in NY, they've had such a hard six years.

[edit on 11-9-2007 by AmethystSD]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by scientist
could you agree that on this same token (civil rights) without the protests, the public outcry and eventual changes, would not have happened as quick, if at all? I mean, it was the images in papers, magazines and on TV that really put things into perspective. If no one was protesting in the streets, and trying to do it all legally, who the hell would have cared? It was the public that ultimately decided, and they may not have if it were not for the public displays and protests - a majority of which were NOT done on permits.


Sure that would be a pretty fair statement. Like I said changing laws ect is a multiple discipline kinda thing. Can't just do one thing. I would say that the civil rights movement was destined to succeed. It had the full backing of one side and even a good portion of the opposing side. Sorta of like Gandi and India. When you get a majority of a population working towards a common goal things progress rapidly.

Am I still a foe? JK


[edit on 11-9-2007 by pavil]



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Has Alex been sent to death row yet? How about Gitmo? Actually he belongs in "the nearest nut house". Right next to Sean Penn, Rosie the elephant, Charlie Sheehan, and anyone esle who thinks 911 was an inside job.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by lightworker12
First of all one or two sentences in my post were conjecture, the rest is 100% solid fact about the law and the fact that he had those filming people.

1) He had no ID. In some cases, this is enough to warrant an arrest if there are no other means of identifying the person.

2) All of the protestors could have been arrested because their protest was illegal and had no permit (before you say that such a law is facist, I invite you to look into how large groups of people gathering in the busiest parts of NYC can clog up sidewalks and streets, aka big transit problems).

3) The above two make the arrest legally warranted, and this part is conjecture. Knowing the material of Jones and the crowd he was with, there is strong circumstancial evidence that he probably made a bigger deal out of the initial police encounter than was at all needed, and lead to his arrest. We know what he preaches, so it is likely that he accused the police of singling him out and made a fuss about a police state, when in fact the officer's conduct was perfectly acceptable and warranted.

[edit on 9-9-2007 by lightworker12]

[edit on 9-9-2007 by lightworker12]


First of all having to have a permit to film somewhere is a stupid law in the first place. that law in itself should let you see how much they try to control us. we cant even video tape on a certian place on earth without a PERMIT HELLO WAKE UP. i was born into this earth the same as everyone else why should i have to be told where i am aloud to film something. the NWO is real and has been slowly but surely taking over and if you cant see that i pity you. We are living in a dictatorial police state and you need to wake up and open your eyes.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than
those who falsely believe they are free."

-Johann Wolfgang von Goethe



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by astmonster
 


can mods delete this guys post. i thought ATS was strict about people making fun of people. if you dont have something to add to this discussion. just shut your mouth. we dont want to hear your BS. all you want to do is poke fun at us. you need to do some research. and post something worth posting



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by xHADEEZx
First of all having to have a permit to film somewhere is a stupid law in the first place. that law in itself should let you see how much they try to control us.


Just because you think a law is "stupid" does not give you the right to ignore it without consequences. Just try drinking and driving and use that logic to the judge. If you think a law is wrong, then go about constructive ways of changing / repealing it.

The post you want the moderators to delete, while caustic, wasn't directed at anyone in particular in this discussion. I know it's hard to keep a civil tone. I do find it funny that you want to censor someone for being objectional in your opinion, though. Seems odd to me considering the topic of discussion.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
Sure that would be a pretty fair statement.

Am I still a foe? JK


apology accepted


lol...

[edit on 12-9-2007 by scientist]



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by xHADEEZx
 


You can copy past one of the moderator signatures at the bottom of this page into the 'to' box in your member center U2U facility and file a official complaint by adding the 'single post' weblink you opened from the top of the offending posters post...

This might be why so few people complain i suppose....

In this instance i don't think such ignorant comments is worth complaining about and if you do not like what his saying it's much better for you and everyone else to engage the person in discussion..

Hope that was helpful...

Stellar



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
Just because you think a law is "stupid" does not give you the right to ignore it without consequences.


No one is saying that there should not be consequences for some actions and the question here is if consequences are warranted for this type of non-violent action.


Just try drinking and driving and use that logic to the judge.


Don't compare apple's and oranges and expect to make a point. Alex Jones did not endanger any one's life and until you can reveal to me how society derives greater benefit from drunken drivers than from anything Alex Jones or Geraldo has to say i will ignore such 'examples'.


If you think a law is wrong, then go about constructive ways of changing / repealing it.


And you think getting arrested for doing something non-violent in the public interest is not constructive in terms of driving a police state point home?


The post you want the moderators to delete, while caustic, wasn't directed at anyone in particular in this discussion.


It was simply just another show of ignorance from the usual type of suspects.


I know it's hard to keep a civil tone. I do find it funny that you want to censor someone for being objectional in your opinion, though. Seems odd to me considering the topic of discussion.


What did that person add to the discussion beside making slanderous remarks about the type of people that under US law could very well sue him?
Free speech is the ideal but do we really want people clogging up ATS threads with such unreasoned comments?

I suppose we must waste more time and engage them?


Originally posted by astmonster
Has Alex been sent to death row yet?


No, and world civilized nations all around the world frown on that inhuman practice.


How about Gitmo?


I suppose if you torture people in other countries it makes your country look less like a fascist human right abusing sponsor of imperial terrorism and general aggression?


Actually he belongs in "the nearest nut house".


By listening to some of his outbursts i can see where you are coming from but i would ask you to spend a few dozen hours listening to his interviews with prominent American state, military and intelligence officials to see just how calm and collected he is the vast majority of the time...


Right next to Sean Penn, Rosie the elephant,


Rosie the elephant? Are you older than ten?


Charlie Sheehan, and anyone esle who thinks 911 was an inside job


I don't think any of them expressly said ( feel free to correct me) that it was a inside job and that they are on the whole just saying that the administration had a good idea of what could happen and still failed to prevent it. It is now widely acknowledge that Condoleeza Rice admitted that they expected planes to be hijacked but they thought it would only be 'hostage' situations....

There are DOZENS of such statements that proves that agencies within the US administration must have known or were involved so i do not have much patience with those who still want to indulge in name calling because they don't like what the truth tells them about their country.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 



The other poster did infact say it was a stupid law. That does not change the fact that it is a law. You do not get to pick which laws you feel like obeying. That was my point.




I wasn't comparing alex jones to drunk driving. I was just showcasing the logic of someone's opinon of a "stupid law", disobeying it, and how that looks to the legal system.



And you think getting arrested for doing something non-violent in the public interest is not constructive in terms of driving a police state point home? .....It was simply just another show of ignorance from the usual type of suspects. .....What did that person add to the discussion beside making slanderous remarks about the type of people that under US law could very well sue him? ...What did that person add to the discussion beside making slanderous remarks about the type of people that under US law could very well sue him?
Free speech is the ideal but do we really want people clogging up ATS threads with such unreasoned comments?


Not particularly effective for my taste. If indeed it is a "Police state" wouldn't be incarcerated by said State being pretty darn awful. You imply by "Police State" that you wouldn't have any rights, so why just sacrifice yourself that way. Fight the Power, if that is the case.

I don't think that person really stepped outside the T & C's compared to what others have said. It was not a personal attack on a specific ATS'er.

There was nothing slanderous in what he said that a court of law would uphold. Please feel free to forward it to the celebrities mentioned and see what happens.

I'll grant you it didn't add to the discussion, but my point is valid. You want to support Alex Jones right to expression, yet you feel this persons comments deserving of censoring while staying within the "law" of ATS. That's a double standard to me.

I have heard far worse statements then the one made and no action has been deemed necessary by the staff of ATS, that's all I am saying.

[edit on 12-9-2007 by pavil]



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by xHADEEZx
First of all having to have a permit to film somewhere is a stupid law in the first place. that law in itself should let you see how much they try to control us.


Just because you think a law is "stupid" does not give you the right to ignore it without consequences. Just try drinking and driving and use that logic to the judge. If you think a law is wrong, then go about constructive ways of changing / repealing it.

The post you want the moderators to delete, while caustic, wasn't directed at anyone in particular in this discussion. I know it's hard to keep a civil tone. I do find it funny that you want to censor someone for being objectional in your opinion, though. Seems odd to me considering the topic of discussion.


WHERE in my post did i say anything about to "ignore the law without consequences" I simply said that it is a STUPID law. I said nothing about not obeying the LAW. You need to READ post again because you obviously didnt read it the first time.



"The post you want the moderators to delete, while caustic, wasn't directed at anyone in particular in this discussion"

Your right it was directed at EVERYONE who has the right to think for them self and not believe everything we hear on tv and in the news.

"I do find it funny that you want to censor someone for being objectional in your opinion"


This person gave nothing to this discussion except for targeting everyone on here for having there own beliefs.

YOU NEED TO GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR MOUTH.


[edit on 12-9-2007 by xHADEEZx]



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Remember everything Hitler did was legal, An unjust law is just that, following it is your consent to it.

I'm a free man as is Mr. Jones, The Constitution insures certain unalienable rights, born to us, not given, No man, No majority, and no government can tread on these rights, The constitution makes this very clear.

Mr. Jones hurt no one nor did he tread on anyone rights by doing what he did.

Agree with him or disagree that is your right, but what he did was his right as it is yours also.


Live and let live, and the world would be a much better place.


[edit on 12-9-2007 by C0le]



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by xHADEEZx
 



Alex jones was arrested for not following the law that you have described as "stupid". I thought we were referencing his arrest in this discussion. If you inferred that I was stating you would do the same, my apologies.


That post wasn't directed at anyone and wasn't outside of the T &C's of this website as far as I have seen them carried out. I have heard far worse leveled at people. That you are offended by it is not this issue. There are many offensive things that people say and do. There are many comments on this site that do not per se add to the discussions at hand, would you just delete them all? It's not like I am of big fan of the comments he made, but I don't see the need to censor that comment.




YOU NEED TO GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR MOUTH.


Temper, temper, it sounds like you are yelling at an individual now and targeting me for my beliefs. See the problem here?



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
The other poster did infact say it was a stupid law. That does not change the fact that it is a law. You do not get to pick which laws you feel like obeying. That was my point.


You DO get to pick which laws you obey and those that do not have a way of landing up in jail...


I wasn't comparing alex jones to drunk driving. I was just showcasing the logic of someone's opinon of a "stupid law", disobeying it, and how that looks to the legal system.


You introduced some pretty bad examples that is not the norm and never has been. People who protest the simple against such odds are normally quite reasonable with very reasonable demands and to assume irrationality is entirely self serving and normally in defense of tyranny.


Not particularly effective for my taste. If indeed it is a "Police state" wouldn't be incarcerated by said State being pretty darn awful.


Well he did not in fact break any law worth calling a law so locking im up for very long will just draw the type of attention Alex expected. The fact is Americans will not take gladly to a police state and they are not fighting it very actively because it's still managing to do what it needs done without having to put itself in too bad a light.


You imply by "Police State" that you wouldn't have any rights, so why just sacrifice yourself that way. Fight the Power, if that is the case.


People have rights in police states and as long as they stick to them they are not harmed and may in fact live the type of lives most people on Earth can and do put up with in exchange for security, food and shelter.


I don't think that person really stepped outside the T & C's compared to what others have said. It was not a personal attack on a specific ATS'er.


Fine...


There was nothing slanderous in what he said that a court of law would uphold. Please feel free to forward it to the celebrities mentioned and see what happens.





I'll grant you it didn't add to the discussion, but my point is valid. You want to support Alex Jones right to expression, yet you feel this persons comments deserving of censoring while staying within the "law" of ATS. That's a double standard to me.


I want the person to add something to the discussion or stay out of it until he manages that particular feat.


I have heard far worse statements then the one made and no action has been deemed necessary by the staff of ATS, that's all I am saying.


Me too so i did not ask for moderators to intervene.


Stellar



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Terapin
IMHO Geraldo is an even bigger idiot who's sole motivation is self promotion.
If you are in the business of making a film you absolutely MUST acquire a permit, and this rule is not just for New York but can be found in most major cities and even some small towns.


And thus a very good reason to get angry about...


Tourists are generally exempt so long as they are not staging big productions. Alex Jones was well aware that a permit was required for his film crew.


So what type of tourist can use such equipment without a 'permit', interstate, inter county or foreigners only?


There are several reasons why permitting is important. Film production often tends to draw a crowd and interferes with the normal flow of the city.


Not a Alex Jones production and frankly no one in their right mind tries to do a major production WITHOUT a permit so as to keep all on onlookers at bay; it's not to keep the 'flow' going but to make production possible at all.


Unobstructed sidewalks and streets are important to traffic flow and the right of citizens to go about their daily lives such as going to work, or shopping.


There are more important things to liberty than the 'freedom' to go to work and shopping and it's strange that you would mention to two things that are good for the capitalist class...


This is also the reason why permits are needed for any protest. It is not a matter of impinging on your right to free speech,


Oh come on? What percentage of permits are granted and why are the smallest protest most likely to get permits?


it is about public safety and city functionality.


If they city does not function so perfectly for a day that's bad for capitalism, NOT the people. If they really want cities to work better they should and could have made the roads wider while spending far more on public transportation and the like.


Lets say for example that an anti Martian group wanted to stage a protest, and it just so happened that a large conference of Martian residents just so happened to be in the city at the time. Permitting would ensure that proper police protection would be present to prevent any violence and to make sure that the traffic flowed properly.


It's interesting that you can't seem to pick even one good , to say nothing of realistic, example as to why we need permits.


I have often seen protests taking place on subjects that I disagree with, yet they were orderly and well policed to prevent any problems.


And i am sure you felt very threatened and really liked the police protection, right? It's interesting how those with the most to lose always like others to defend their standing for them.


It is the same reason why permits and regulations are in place around reproductive health clinics. Free speech is great, but when it infringes on others rights it needs to be regulated


Preventing people from speedily entering a health center is obviously in the wider public interest but again i am not talking about crazy people who want to kill doctors and women for exercising their rights to choose.


Alex Jones made the choice NOT to get the required permit even though he was fully aware of it's requirement and reasons.


Well he tried but given the subject matter of his films it's no surprise that he did not get one.


He made the choice to participate in an action that was unlawful. He must therefore be held responsible for his actions.


And we should change the laws that prevents people from producing the type of news we should be seeing on our screens. Does CNN need to get a permit every time they tell a lie about what happens in NY while filming there?


Originally posted by Terapin
Marge, can I and a bunch of friends, say about 50, stage a protest on the high price of Kippers, in front of your house. We would be chanting slogans, and marching back and fourth for a few days. Holding signs and publicly eating sardines in protest.


What would be the point? I mean what is the reasoning behind the protest beside protesting for the sake of protest? Having a particular economic vested interest that is not shared by wider community does NOT give you any obvious right to disrupt a person's ability to rest in private. This is just another bad example.


Since you think free speech means say whatever you want, when ever you want, where ever you want, then I guess you wouldn't mind at all.


That's not what she said or what Alex was doing by protesting at a workplace in a city.....


My guess is that their permit was not granted because they filed too late, had no organised group nor plans, and simply didn't read the form instructions.


Thanks for telling us what you wish to believe.


NYC often grants permits on all sorts of silly subjects. It isn't about the denial of free speech. It is about making sure that a group of protesters do not interfere with other citizens rights along the way.


Name a few and then tell me why such silly protest went ahead while Alex was prevented from doing his job? May it have something to do with the possible effectiveness and truth contained?
NOWHERE in the bill of rights or constitution does it say that you can not interfere with the activities of fellow citizens while on city or public property and that's the case for a reason. You are NOT protected from having to consider the ideas of others and asking for such protection speaks volumes as to what type of country you want to live in.


We will start our protest outside your house around 2 AM if that is OK with you, as that is the best time for Kipper Protesting according to our organizations handbook.


And that is a clear public disturbance with no redeeming qualities as it's a private residence and no one is awake to be informed. Frankly your examples are as bad as your reasoning in general.


We may even fill the street with dumped high priced kippers like a mass die off. That would smell heavenly.


Creating a health hazard and danger to citizens using the road will probably not qualify you for special protections and especially not when the action is entirely self interested. Alex is not telling us that they are picking on just him but that they are picking on millions and preparing to do so to the rest of us. You need to understand that not all 'disturbances' are equal and that we certainly need to protect those who are trying to say something that is in Everyone interest to hear. Unlike the Kipper, and other dumb, protest ideas the wider public is served and while that is the case and violence comes from only the police and paramilitary state and country militias we need to protect the right to protest of even the dumbest group because the state is bound to abuse any rules we try make to reign in the rights of those we want on the streets.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
No I wouldn't demonstrate as I feel that is a "feel good" measure for those who do the demonstrating. There are process to follow to get legislation and laws changed in this country, I would do those if I really was intent on "making a difference". Ever hear of petition drives ect...?


All well and good but remember the system is designed to prevent anything you want done from happening; you are after one of us average people...


Please show me an instance where some group is denied their right to protest.


Your kidding, right?


They may be limited where they protest but even the KKK and Nazi's still can protest.


You misunderstand as the government LOVES when racist bigots and hate spewing fools in general protests to incite hatred and violence. It's the people who preach peace ( look what happened to Malcolm X when he started preaching 'love' and unity) that gets killed or sidelined as soon as possible. It is these type of misunderstandings that results in people like you telling the rest of us that protest does not 'help' presuming somehow that Nazi's on the street means everyone has free speech.


Only those who do not even apply for a permit are the one's who cry wolf.


Nonsense and you MUST know this.


The "I'm above that law because I don't like it" train of thought goes nowhere with me. You work within the system to repeal and change laws and do civil disobedience if you want, just doing civil disobedience gets you nowhere IMO.


If the patriot two act passes your citizenship will get revoked for 'behaving' in a 'suspect' manner and i wonder how you will appeal such laws while locked up in some third world CIA torture cell. Your just wrong to presume that every and all battle's are won by taking it to very courts that are by nature there to defend the rights of them, not us. I am ALL for dual track approaches but one can not go to court without supporters waiting to take to the streets if the courts does not uphold decency.


If you are intent of violating laws to show your oppostiion, be prepared to suffer the consequences.


The paramilitary police and state forces in the US have long ago proven that they are quite adept at making people pay dearly for violating 'the law' so there is no reason to inform us about this.


People do that every day in America. That is their choice.


Thanks.


Originally posted by pavil
The other poster did infact say it was a stupid law. That does not change the fact that it is a law. You do not get to pick which laws you feel like obeying. That was my point.


Well i think you might have to and that was the exact type of laws the ANC and hundreds of other liberation movements had to break to achieve freedom while getting thrown in jail was the least of their worries.


I wasn't comparing alex jones to drunk driving. I was just showcasing the logic of someone's opinon of a "stupid law", disobeying it, and how that looks to the legal system.


I think this is a double quote but that example is still as bad as ever


Not particularly effective for my taste. If indeed it is a "Police state" wouldn't be incarcerated by said State being pretty darn awful.


Well no because the struggle for democracy is at quite a advanced point in the US and white people with a relatively large following have a pretty good chance of not experiencing anything too aweful while arrested or detained.


You imply by "Police State" that you wouldn't have any rights, so why just sacrifice yourself that way. Fight the Power, if that is the case.


US citizens, especially white rich folk, still have plenty of rights and the police state have always focused it's attention on attacking and suppressing the poor and marginalized while isolating and 're-educating' or buying off those in the upper classes. I don't understand this notion that people do not have rights in a police state. Where did you get that idea from and why do you think people would in the US or other pretty democratic systems would put up with such open abuses of power?


I'll grant you it didn't add to the discussion, but my point is valid. You want to support Alex Jones right to expression, yet you feel this persons comments deserving of censoring while staying within the "law" of ATS. That's a double standard to me.


You seem to be forgetting the fact that there is a context to every act and clearly Alex is doing something of note while that poster did nothing but spew nonsense and ignorance. What has Alex said and done to make him seem as deserving of sanction as poster in question? Have Alex not contributed something to our understand of who we are dealing with in our fight against the satanistic globalist ( i don't believe in Satan but the term does suit these people) new world order?


I have heard far worse statements then the one made and no action has been deemed necessary by the staff of ATS, that's all I am saying.


Right and i sometimes wonder why the staff sanctions those contributions i deem accurate but 'impolite' while ignoring far worse violations by those who spout racism and hatred while lying and or misrepresenting history.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Man, you sure like to quote....


Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by pavil

Please show me an instance where some group is denied their right to protest.


Your kidding, right?
No actually, I'm not. Please show me groups that have been denied their right to protest. By that I mean have applied to protest and do so in a peaceful manner. Since you seem to think there are lots of them why don't you show me seven ok? Should be easy enough for you.



You seem to be forgetting the fact that there is a context to every act and clearly Alex is doing something of note while that poster did nothing but spew nonsense and ignorance. What has Alex said and done to make him seem as deserving of sanction as poster in question? Have Alex not contributed something to our understand of who we are dealing with in our fight against the satanistic globalist ( i don't believe in Satan but the term does suit these people) new world order?


Oh I see now. As long as someone is doing something of note, however and by whom that is determined I'm not sure of, it is automatically deemed more worthy of protection of their free speech. How silly of me, I thought they applied equally to all. I stand corrected.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

Man, you sure like to quote....


I don't but what i am supposed to do when people don't want to learn.



No actually, I'm not. Please show me groups that have been denied their right to protest.


Since your claim is so patently ludicrous i am not going to address it with sources and will instead let common sense prevail by presuming my fellow members to have some of it.

www.peacecouncil.net...


By that I mean have applied to protest and do so in a peaceful manner.


As if anyone gets a permit when they state they are going to be violent? Are you being serious? Would you argue against the fact that it's the police and paramilitary units that almost always starts the violence?


Since you seem to think there are lots of them why don't you show me seven ok? Should be easy enough for you.


The fact that you think less than seven permits have been denied makes a mockery of common sense and reality in general. I had the idea that you might just have a different opinion but it's now clear that you are just here to disrupt and pretend that all is well with the "law".


Oh I see now. As long as someone is doing something of note, however and by whom that is determined I'm not sure of,


The greater public good? I mean what did the poster before introduce that were worthy of being discussed? Did he make any claims about reality as we know it?


it is automatically deemed more worthy of protection of their free speech.


More worthy of our protection, yes, The other poster is clearly the type of person few of us would mind having locked up if we eventually fail to prevent dictatorship and police rule. The reason i am not very worried about sycophants is that they will just parrot the media propaganda line and thus gain protection from the type of excess those who love free speech will face.


How silly of me, I thought they applied equally to all. I stand corrected.


People like him do not require our protection as they are already looking out for 'number one' and will probably say anything with a gun pointed at them. I will concentrate on protecting those who want to improve the world and if you wish you can continue focusing your attention on protecting those who wish to destroy it.

Stellar



new topics




 
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join