Reply With Quote
You are told what and how to think by conservative talk radio.
Where did you learn the word POTUS? Another conservative talk radio listener that repeats what he hears on conservative talk radio with no mind of his own.The 60s were different. That antiwar crowd was principled -- they were antiwar even when the POTUS had a (D.) after his name.
EDIT> And that 60's crowd is now the 1%.
You are told what and how to think by conservative talk radio.
WC, you're all about the Cons ution, right? Tell me, which of these are SPECIFICALLY PROTECTED by the Cons ution?
a) Freedom of assembly
b) Freedom of movement
Why have you become such an ignorant ?
Until you read this, I suggest you stop talking out your ass.
This is the first time that I have done such a thing. I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt over and over again, but more than any other poster on this board (and I am including yoni, darrin, boutons, and nbadan in this statement) you have fallen deep down the rabbit hole. It is ridiculous.
The sit ins at the counter take away the right of movement of others wanting to use that counter space... Using your own words here, those people are roaches and you have no sympathy for them.can take away the free right of movement away from others, then I have no sympathy for them. They are like roaches when they cross that line against other peoples freedoms.
So...
What are the enforcers of law suppose to do when they impede the "b) Freedom of movement" of others?
WC, I dare you to find TWO libertarians who agree with this. Go ahead, look at all your libertarian blogs and find me TWO that support what happened here. I bet you can't find them.
And "ignorant "? Did you even ing WATCH the video? I know you didn't from your responses... now that's ignorance.
You tell me WC. Does anything go? Would just putting a bullet in their legs have been ok? After all, it would've moved them out of the way right?
Not a far stretch at all if you knew anything about living in some areas in the south in the 1960s.
What's funny is, what did the police think they accomplished? There will most likely be 2x the amt of people showing up next weekend, and if they use violence, 4x as many the next weekend.
But I guess in WC's world, joining a sit-in protest or a picket line immediately volunteers oneself for pepper spraying, baton beatings and other police brutality.
Throughout all the text that acknowledges individual rights, the Libertarian Platform also specifically states:
Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes.
Then let them break out more roach spray.
I'm pretty sure blasting people with pepper spray infringes on their rights to peaceably assemble.
In fact, I'm pretty sure people wanting to move through that crowd infringes on their right to peaceably assemble, doesn't it? The Cons ution doesn't limit where assemblies can be held if it's public property. Sure, there are laws and ordinances, but are those Cons utionally protected?
I'd say that the right to peaceably assemble has more Cons utional backing the right to freedom of movement.
You're ing disgusting WC. Tell me, what do you know of these people that makes them roaches? Who's the ing biased one now? There's professors, teachers, mothers, fathers, daughters and sons in that crowd. And yet, you choose to call them the roaches, instead of the policemen who sprayed them without even first trying to remove them physically. You're a real piece of work.
I know they are interfering with the rights of others. They seem to think they are above the rights of others. Just like a roach, they are unwanted. Like it or not, the Bill of Rights has realistic limitations.
What about their right to peaceably assemble? That's protected by the Cons ution, is it not? Where are the rights to walk wherever you please outlined in the Cons ution?
And who cares if they're unwanted? What the does that matter?
They have broken the "peace" when they infringe on other people's rights.
The people who are assembling, by logical deduction, are having their rights broken first.
The people's freedom of movement, by logical deduction, can not be blocked until people have already started to assemble.
Therefore, by logical deduction, the people have assembled peacefully before people's right to movement has been offended.
Therefore, by logical deduction, the assemblers are the ones to have their rights infringed upon first.
We disagree. Sidewalks are for walking. Not for building human fences on.
Does the Cons ution say anything about sidewalks WC?
Parks are for walking too. Can't exercise freedom of speech there, either. Can't do it in buildings, parks, sidewalks, or areas of commerce. Obviously can't do it in a field where anything is being grown or cattle are grazing.
Yep. That pretty much spells it out. No protesting. Not allowed.
Good point Cry. WC, what public areas are specifically designed for assembling?
I see you two will try any angle to allow some people to violate the free movement of others. Wow... just how bull headed can you get?
I suppose there was no way they could protest without blocking public access, right?
Don't you see, they had clear intent of ing with other innocent people. How you can defend this s , is beyond me.
Can you name a place that they can protest without being arrested and pepper sprayed for obstructing commerce or blocking a thoroughfare? By all means, name one.
Waterfront park, Portland, OR.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions