Irony alert: U.S. calls on Russia to respect peaceful protests

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

I agree with those on here who are defending state and local laws about where you can assemble.

So then, technically, you agree that the Bill of Rights can be superceded by your local Town Mayor. That is lunacy to me.

I didn't say that.

The Bill of Rights did.

The Bill of Rights DOES NOT allow your local mayor to overwrite your rights as given. Are you serious? Are you just arguing to be facetious?

No government law, local or federal, may take away your basic human freedoms as outlined in the Bill of Rights. That is why they are there. Jeez, really? I honestly cant believe you. You are even referencing the Constitution in an attempt to show how your rights can be given away?

Im just speechless at the level of conditioning. You realize that the court decisions that forced such restrictions as permits were added later, right? Do you believe the Founding Fathers believed protestors needed a permit?
Or that the power structures that be wanted this right limited, especially after the Civil Rights movement?

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl
Let's say I'd like to stage a peaceful protest on the median of I-20 going through Atlanta. It's public property. By your logic, that would be perfectly fine, right? I can camp out there on the median indefinitely, as long as I am peaceful? Why could't I camp out in the actually MIDDLE of the interstate, if I wanted to? It's my right as a citizen to peacefully assemble wherever I want, as long as it's public property, right?

Yes. If you can get a march on I-20 going, without using violence to stop traffic, then it is fair game.

Um, no!!!!
Then the mob tramples on the rights of others.
No longer a peaceful protest.

you DO NOT have a RIGHT to drive fast on I-20. That is what local laws regulate it as, and it is therefore a PRIVILEGE granted to you.

you DO have a RIGHT to peacably assemble on I-20. The fact that people cant grasp this concept as Americans frightens and upsets me. YOU ARE ALL ARGUING IN FAVOR OF YOUR SERVITUTDE! DONT YOU SEE? If the Founding Fathers were alive they would laugh at you.

SO clueless.

Again, at the very basic level. Once the rights of others are trampled on by the protest, then it is in violation.
The use of the freeway is the rights of others. Once the mob stops others from using it, you have your violation.

And no, I agree in favor of the rights of the individual.
You want the rules bent or broken to achieve the holier then thou outcome.
BIG difference.

Disagree. Those people still have the right to use the highway during the protest, it will just slow them down.

Once again, you have the RIGHT to be ON the highway, the SPEED at which you travel on the highway is the PRIVILEGE which is GRANTED to you.

Calling me clueless doesnt make your point more valid.

I assume that you identify as Conservative and for less government. So why are you arguing for more Government over the Individual right now? It makes no sense. You are arguing against your own ideology.

No, no I am not.
There are rules and laws set forth by the State and Cities deeming the use of the freeway if for motorized vehicles.
If applying your logic, then since the sidewalk is public space, I can drive my car down it, if only at a slow speed.
No, does not compute any way you try it.

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

I agree with those on here who are defending state and local laws about where you can assemble.

So then, technically, you agree that the Bill of Rights can be superceded by your local Town Mayor. That is lunacy to me.

I didn't say that.

The Bill of Rights did.

The Bill of Rights DOES NOT allow your local mayor to overwrite your rights as given. Are you serious? Are you just arguing to be facetious?

No government law, local or federal, may take away your basic human freedoms as outlined in the Bill of Rights. That is why they are there. Jeez, really? I honestly cant believe you. You are even referencing the Constitution in an attempt to show how your rights can be given away?

Im just speechless at the level of conditioning.

What does the Bill of Rights state, verbatim?

reply to post by aching_knuckles


I'm speechless that you think the Bill of Rights gives you the absolute right to do whatever you want wherever you want to do it.

Needless to say, the courts have consistently held a view different from yours.

Here's something from the ACLU:
www.aclu-wa.org...

Public parks are our most traditional public forums. Currently, state park regulations may require reservations or permits for large demonstrations and rallies or for the use of sound equipment. Apply for a permit from the city, county, or state parks department well in advance of the event. If your permit is denied, you must be told why and be provided an opportunity to appeal the denial.

The government may limit demonstrations of extremely long duration, if the regulations are designed to ensure that the park is not unduly monopolized or damaged. For example, the court approved of a National Park Service regulation prohibiting demonstrators from sleeping overnight in Lafayette Park across from the White House4. Late night demonstrations may also be curtailed if the park is closed to the public after a certain time.

You have the RIGHT to assemble. You just must follow the local laws when you assemble.

I'm sorry you are not getting this. Anyone else want to chime in to help me get the point across?

reply to post by GeorgiaGirl


What does the Bill Of Rights state, verbatim?
It is written in basic English, the last time I checked.

reply to post by SLAYER69


you did see that faux news showed greek protests not russian ones...?
for the sheeples

no i guess you didn't

PROPAGANDA ALERT: FOX News Shows Violent Greek Clashes As Russia Protests (RT – Video)

www.infiniteunknown.net...

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

I agree with those on here who are defending state and local laws about where you can assemble.

So then, technically, you agree that the Bill of Rights can be superceded by your local Town Mayor. That is lunacy to me.

I didn't say that.

The Bill of Rights did.

The Bill of Rights DOES NOT allow your local mayor to overwrite your rights as given. Are you serious? Are you just arguing to be facetious?

No government law, local or federal, may take away your basic human freedoms as outlined in the Bill of Rights. That is why they are there. Jeez, really? I honestly cant believe you. You are even referencing the Constitution in an attempt to show how your rights can be given away?

Im just speechless at the level of conditioning.

What does the Bill of Rights state, verbatim?

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. (bold mine)
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

1) 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.

........I am going to skip to 10 to make a point.............................

10)The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

______________________________________________________________________

Look VERY, VERY Carefully at the last 4 words. Those are the words they want you to forget. OR TO THE PEOPLE. That means that if the government makes an unconstitutional law, the powers to reserve your rights falls on YOU. A law that takes away your rights is an unconstitutional one, I dont care how many 20th century judges were paid off to make you think otherwise. This goes for speech, guns, assembly, everything. The fact that people cant grasp this is seriously bothering me. If your freedoms are subject to the whims of every local official, and whether they feel like issuing you a permit or not, then you do not have rights and freedoms. Im sorry that you feel that your rights can be given away so easily as just signed off on by some lawyer over a hundred years after the rights were initially given......but I find it hilarious you are now using the ACLU as sources to try and defend what you are saying. Interesting.

This is like arguing with a brick wall, you cant get through. I have already wasted an afternoon that should have been productive, I am done here, I wish good luck.

reply to post by GeorgiaGirl


you trust the courts?

Two-thirds of the internees were U.S. citizens by birth. The Northern California affiliate of the ACLU courageously led the ACLU's fight on behalf of the Japanese-Americans and handled the two principal cases before the Supreme Court, Hirabayashi v. United States (1943) and Korematsu v. United States (1944). Although the ACLU lost both those cases, the cause was just.

www.aclu.org...


this will be you

reply to post by aching_knuckles


"or to the people."

I imagine most people DO want protests such as the OWS style protests to be regulated. Weren't the people of NY disgusted by what was happening in their neighborhoods?

You just made my case for me.

A majority of the people DON'T approve of these types of behaviors. So we have local and state laws restricting where, when, and how. CONGRESS hasn't made these laws....the states and THE PEOPLE have.

One thing that might not be getting the attention that it should is the principle that the Constitution is what the Supreme Court interprets it to be.

You can look at free speech as an absolute, but we still have slander and libel laws that are enforced. Similar case with the right to protest. The Court has held that reasonable time and place restrictions are allowable under the Constitution.

To argue with this means arguing with our entire system of law as far back as you care to go. It's not always a good thing, but it's what we've had for at least a couple of hundred years.

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl
reply to post by aching_knuckles

 

"or to the people."

I imagine most people DO want protests such as the OWS style protests to be regulated. Weren't the people of NY disgusted by what was happening in their neighborhoods?

You just made my case for me.

A majority of the people DON'T approve of these types of behaviors. So we have local and state laws restricting where, when, and how. CONGRESS hasn't made these laws....the states and THE PEOPLE have.

Again, this is not mob rule. The fact that SOME want protests is enough that protests should continue. Im sorry you cant grasp this.

This is the price of freedom. Im sorry you hate freedom so much.

reply to post by GeorgiaGirl

I imagine most people DO want protests such as the OWS style protests to be regulated. Weren't the people of NY disgusted by what was happening in their neighborhoods?

'Occupy' movement energized by large NY protests

www.gmanetwork.com...
just the facts mam just the facts

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

I agree with those on here who are defending state and local laws about where you can assemble.

So then, technically, you agree that the Bill of Rights can be superceded by your local Town Mayor. That is lunacy to me.

I didn't say that.

The Bill of Rights did.

The Bill of Rights DOES NOT allow your local mayor to overwrite your rights as given. Are you serious? Are you just arguing to be facetious?

No government law, local or federal, may take away your basic human freedoms as outlined in the Bill of Rights. That is why they are there. Jeez, really? I honestly cant believe you. You are even referencing the Constitution in an attempt to show how your rights can be given away?

Im just speechless at the level of conditioning.

What does the Bill of Rights state, verbatim?

1) 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.

........I am going to skip to 10 to make a point.............................

10)The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Ok, word by word and line by line.
1) Congress shale make no law........

Congress is the definer.

respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Doesn't need anymore.

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.

Doesn't need anymore.


10)The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

SO, states rights past the rules as defined by either documents.
If the state deems the area as not allowing camping, it is lawful.

The US is the KING of hypocrisy.

Kinda like Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize for continuing all the wars and starting new ones in Libya and Pakistan...

Or condemning other countries for using torture...

Or saying that the Geneva Conventions dont apply to the United States...

Or "promoting" Democracy when the US government has a consistent history of overthrowing democracies...

This list could go on forever.

Like WOW.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

I agree with those on here who are defending state and local laws about where you can assemble.

So then, technically, you agree that the Bill of Rights can be superceded by your local Town Mayor. That is lunacy to me.

I didn't say that.

The Bill of Rights did.

The Bill of Rights DOES NOT allow your local mayor to overwrite your rights as given. Are you serious? Are you just arguing to be facetious?

No government law, local or federal, may take away your basic human freedoms as outlined in the Bill of Rights. That is why they are there. Jeez, really? I honestly cant believe you. You are even referencing the Constitution in an attempt to show how your rights can be given away?

Im just speechless at the level of conditioning.

What does the Bill of Rights state, verbatim?

1) 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.

........I am going to skip to 10 to make a point.............................

10)The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Ok, word by word and line by line.
1) Congress shale make no law........

Congress is the definer.

respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Doesn't need anymore.

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.

Doesn't need anymore.


10)The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

SO, states rights past the rules as defined by either documents.
If the state deems the area as not allowing camping, it is lawful.

Im sorry that you feel that the rights granted to you have been given away. Only you can give away your rights, and by acknowledging and following these unconstitutional laws passed by state and local agencies, you have willingly given your rights away.

If your state made a law that the governor was now the king, and all the laws were changed to make it feudalism again, would you acquiesce? Or would you call it unconstitutional and fight it?

What?

Russia, China and a whole host of other countries called the US out on all of that.
Yet they too carried out the very same activities in spades.

It's an ugly world and would be much worse if the US/West kept fighting with hand tied around it's Testicles.

reply to post by aching_knuckles


How is that "mob rule"? And didn't you just argue that the people should be the ones to decide what we will and will not allow in our states and communities?

I will defend the OWS crowd's right to protest. They have the right to protest, and in fact were not arrested for protesting. Did you get that? They were not arrested for the ACT of protesting or because of their MESSAGE. They could go down to a public park every single day and protest, if they'd like to. NO ONE is saying they can't protest. But there are limitations to where, when, and how. The MANNER in which they were protesting is the problem.

The reason there are limitations to where, when, and how one can protest is that the people in these communities have decided where, when, and how. If the people want to change these laws, a candidate should campaign on that issue and get elected to public office, at which time they can CHANGE the laws. If people want to elect leaders who make it legal to camp in the park and crap on cop cars, then we CAN. (I won't be voting for that candidate, however).

Could I come to your house and stand on the public street in front of it and make so much noise that you can't sleep, night after night? Is that okay? No, it isn't.

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

you did see that faux news showed greek protests not russian ones...?
for the sheeples

no i guess you didn't

Yeah..

I'll take your word on it.
Unlike you, I don't waste my time watching FOX News

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

I agree with those on here who are defending state and local laws about where you can assemble.

So then, technically, you agree that the Bill of Rights can be superceded by your local Town Mayor. That is lunacy to me.

I didn't say that.

The Bill of Rights did.

The Bill of Rights DOES NOT allow your local mayor to overwrite your rights as given. Are you serious? Are you just arguing to be facetious?

No government law, local or federal, may take away your basic human freedoms as outlined in the Bill of Rights. That is why they are there. Jeez, really? I honestly cant believe you. You are even referencing the Constitution in an attempt to show how your rights can be given away?

Im just speechless at the level of conditioning.

What does the Bill of Rights state, verbatim?

1) 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.

........I am going to skip to 10 to make a point.............................

10)The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Ok, word by word and line by line.
1) Congress shale make no law........

Congress is the definer.

respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Doesn't need anymore.

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.

Doesn't need anymore.


10)The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

SO, states rights past the rules as defined by either documents.
If the state deems the area as not allowing camping, it is lawful.

Im sorry that you feel that the rights granted to you have been given away. Only you can give away your rights, and by acknowledging and following these unconstitutional laws passed by state and local agencies, you have willingly given your rights away.

If your state made a law that the governor was now the king, and all the laws were changed to make it feudalism again, would you acquiesce? Or would you call it unconstitutional and fight it?

So, atleast you have seen how it is created.
The best thing about States Rights? I don't have to live in a State Like NY, NJ or CA.
I can live in a State with opposing view points.
Thems are the breaks.

reply to post by aching_knuckles

If your state made a law that the governor was now the king, and all the laws were changed to make it feudalism again, would you acquiesce? Or would you call it unconstitutional and fight it?

Good try. But the Constitution limits the states' abilities to do what you suggested:

Section. 10.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

And this one:

Section. 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

So no, I am not worried that the states will do what you suggested.