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.

 

Adam Kokesh Body Slammed for Dancing at Jefferson Memorial

page: 38
197
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal
reply to post by Umbra Sideralis
 


It is because police meet civil disobedience with violence. It is no different than what happened in the 1960's when protesters were beaten, had dogs turned loose on them, and were arrested for the crime of sitting.


I get that and I understand the face of what they are protesting... But equating the institution of segragation and
the freedom to dance anywhere is not the same IMO, they are similar in that they challenge the status quo and that they illicit authoritarian response. Aside from that, I am not sure what the practical point is besides instigation and documentation of the resulting response.
edit on 31-5-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 31 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by stephinrazin
 


What would Jason Lucas do? What about Tavistock?



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Anybody know of this?



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
How about Godlike productions?



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
I wish a documentary would follow a police officer like this through their daily lives at work and then at home. I then wish the police officer that treats people like cattle and applies abusive/unjustified force against people for inane stupid laws was then subjected to the same disgust and hatred for civility from a police officer outside of his own jurisdiction (because we know they can get away with murder inside their turf).



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
dcist.com...


The D.C.-based libertarian blogosphere is up in arms today over the Saturday night arrest of D.C. resident Brooke Oberwetter at the Jefferson Memorial. The story goes like this: a group of about 20 nerdy libertarian wonk types gathered at midnight on Saturday for a sort of flash mob at the memorial to celebrate the birthday of their favorite founding father. They gathered at the memorial, each with an iPod, to dance together while wearing headphones.





Balko writes: Of course, the real irony here is that all of this happened at the Jefferson Memorial, in observance of Jefferson's birthday. Go out to celebrate the birth of the most hardcore, anti-authoritarian of the Founding Fathers, get hauled off in handcuffs. The photo's almost poetry, isn't it? One of history's most articulate critics of abuse of state authority looks on as a park police cop uses his elbow to push a female arrestee into one of said critic's memorial pillars.





posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal
So are you saying that this Vet was being disrespectful by dancing?

You do realize that this guy has been overseas and has fought "for our freedoms" right?


And that gives him the right to intentionally break a law?

Like the retired Vet who put up a flagpole after he signed the homeowners agreement specifying size.

What part of being military gives you the right to break laws?



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal
They were protesting an appeals court ruling.



They were illegally protesting.

There are ways to protest legally.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


According to the surpreme law of the land, there is no such thing as "illegally protesting", and to hell with any statutes passed that say any different. I spit on the fools that accepted government entities to introduce permits and licenses to exercise our natural rights. If I could go back in time and slap them all upside the head personally, I would.
edit on Tue, 31 May 2011 16:45:34 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by MrWendal
They were protesting an appeals court ruling.



They were illegally protesting.

There are ways to protest legally.


So lets say I wish to protest the slaughter of women and children by the government, you believe I have to have permission? that's not protesting, thats begging for scraps of fat-back

First, this nation has made vice a crime, eating ice cream, woofing down doughnuts, sipping a 40 at the park after dark, and now it seems the vice of celebration, none of which harms anyone but perhaps the person doing it.

Heres a few words from someone I could suppose you have never read.


Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property.
Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another.



Unless this clear distinction between vices and crimes be made and recognized by the laws, there can be on earth no such thing as individual right, liberty, or property; no such things as the right of one man to the control of his own person and property, and the corresponding and coequal rights of another man to the control of his own person and property.


His name --- Lysander Spooner
Vices are not Crimes


Spooner attained his greatest fame as a figure in the abolitionist movement. His most famous work, a book titled The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, was published in 1845 to great acclaim among many abolitionists but criticism from others. Spooner's book contributed to a controversy within the abolitionist movement over whether the United States Constitution supported the institution of slavery.



From the publication of this book until 1861, Spooner actively campaigned against slavery. He published subsequent pamphlets on Jury Nullification and other legal defenses for escaped slaves and offered his legal services, often free of charge, to fugitives. In the late 1850s, copies of his book were distributed to members of Congress sparking some debate over their contents. Even Senator Albert Gallatin Brown of Mississippi, a slavery proponent, praised the argument's intellectual rigor and conceded it was the most formidable legal challenge he had seen from the abolitionists to date.


Yea yea yea its a wikilink
edit on 31-5-2011 by NuroSlam because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by MrWendal
So are you saying that this Vet was being disrespectful by dancing?

You do realize that this guy has been overseas and has fought "for our freedoms" right?


And that gives him the right to intentionally break a law?

Like the retired Vet who put up a flagpole after he signed the homeowners agreement specifying size.

What part of being military gives you the right to break laws?



What if that law is to execute all mexicans found within 15 feet of a home depot? The fact that something is a law does NOT make it legitimate



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Does anyone know the law, they are using to arrest these people?



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Theliesdestroyed
Does anyone know the law, they are using to arrest these people?


Demonstrating without a permit

twitter.com...#!/TJDanceParty/status/74576178438090752
edit on 31-5-2011 by NuroSlam because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Aisling
 





They've got guts, that's for sure. What stood out to me in the video was the smile on Rumsfeld's face, and his wife too. They don't seem to have a care in the world.


Or maybe they are embarrassed? Some people smile when they are embarrassed.

Or maybe they are used to crazy people like this and they think it's funny. -just a thought



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red
But equating the institution of segragation and
the freedom to dance anywhere is not the same IMO, they are similar in that they challenge the status quo and that they illicit authoritarian response. Aside from that, I am not sure what the practical point is besides instigation and documentation of the resulting response.


The Practical point of Dancing?

Dancing is like making art of any kind or making love. An expression of joy, of being alive.

Do you not dance? How does it make you feel? Dancing with someone is a way to make a personal connection,
experience the feel of that persons body, their essence. Dancing alone for the sheer joy of feeling your body move.

What a sad country where dancing is a crime.








edit on 31-5-2011 by whaaa because: PTPTPT



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa

Originally posted by Janky Red
But equating the institution of segragation and
the freedom to dance anywhere is not the same IMO, they are similar in that they challenge the status quo and that they illicit authoritarian response. Aside from that, I am not sure what the practical point is besides instigation and documentation of the resulting response.


The Practical point of Dancing?

Dancing is like making art of any kind or making love. An expression of joy, of being alive.

Do you not dance? How does it make you feel? Dancing with someone is a way to make a personal connection,
experience the feel of that persons body, their essence. Dancing alone for the sheer joy of feeling your body move.


No my point Whaaa, my point is trying to equate the substance of this protest to the TEA PARTY and the CIVIL RIGHTS movement




Boston Tea Party.


Rosa Parks and the Civil Rights Movements.


Both brought about with the intent to rile people up and open their eyes.


Both broke established laws at the time.


Advocates for nudity, total free speech could manufacture similar responses, however I would not validate them with the same intensity as the real Tea Party or Rosa Parks and MLK

I already agreed that the response was way off the charts, that is not what I am speaking of

People should be free to dance


edit on 31-5-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


So where does it end? With only dancing and making art in government approved areas with monitors to make sure it stays in the prescribed protocol. Protest and demonstrate on state approved reservation away from sensitive souls that might be offended. Creeping 1984.... There's the connection to the Tea party and Rosa Parks.

You of anyone else, I would expect to see the big picture here. I'm disappointed in both you and Anne.

Perhaps the prospect of fascism is just to uncomfortable to contemplate. I can understand that.

Lemon Fresh and I have had many altercations but I am honored and proud to stand with him on this constitutional issue and feel betrayed by those I once considered my friends.

In the immortal words of John Lee Hooker may he RIP......."It's in him, and it's got to come out...Let that boy boogie woogie!!!"



edit on 31-5-2011 by whaaa because: time to wake up!!



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by brewing
If this was China you guys probably wouldn't see this Dude for 20 years. Why doesn't he go protest human rights and the incarceration of political prisoners over there? IMO...that a lot more important than the right to dance at a at a U.S. memorial. Awww right....I forgot, they don't allow you to video such things over there much less post them on YouTube. Stupid me...ain't gonna get much publicity out of that now is he?


Newsflash: This is not China, this is the United States of America.

And it also sounds as if you have never heard of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, more specifically the First Amendment.

Being a public place, and the right peacefully assemble, and freedom of expression, and freedom of speech, even symbolic speech.

You know, all that stuff.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
obamas creature janet set these rules in stone and endorses the manner in which they are enforced....so whay do the obamaites still act like he is doing nothing wrong...anddont giv me that bush crud...hes been gone two years and his people arent in the power seat



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
I'm disappointed in both you and Anne.


Why? This is not about personal feelings. I love to see people dance.

But - everyone has their personal wants. What if people didn't want to wear clothes? I personally don't care - - but many would.

That isn't how society works. Society has to have laws.

It is 100% reasonable to say "this is a memorial - we want it solemn and peaceful". Because many people do feel that way about memorials.

Just because you don't feel that way about a memorial - - does not make it wrong for those who do.

I think your self-entitlement is misplaced.



new topics

top topics



 
197
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join