I am very proud of the UC Berkley protesters
-
Laugh all you want, that's how it works. Unless you're a judge. Or perhaps a politician, they sometimes get involved even though that violates trias politica.
;P
Just along for the ride. "the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011) -
;P
Just along for the ride. "the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011) -
;P
Just along for the ride. "the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011) -
If your objective is to piss to me off, that is very possible, but this is not the way. I may at best get slightly annoyed. Throwing small objects at my head while I'm trying to concentrate works particularly well.
;P
Just along for the ride. "the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011) -
Slacker007 wrote:
The tried and they failed.
But the force was justified? In fact any force would have been justified in your opinion, no?
============================== Nothing to say.
I would say yes they were justified. But at the same time the founding fathers of the US were justified in rebelling. The same is true for the 'some' of the protestors. I say some, because with any protestors come the.... Dang what did PCU[^] call that group? Well, if you saw the movie you know what I mean. They jump on the Protest bandwagon. Again, not saying 'some' are not in the right. But if you protest and break the law you should expect an outlash. And one can't really gripe when it comes at them. With that said, it is somewhat sickening watching the video. I think the police were in the right to spray, but how they did it was not 'good'. Just like a soldier should not gloat about how many of the other side they have killed. It is their duty, but for such a 'dirty' duty to take pleasure in it looses the populaces faith in them doing their duty honorbly.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Slacker007 wrote:
If UC Davis owns the land the quad is on then it is private property
Apparently you don't understand the concept of public ownership.
Slacker007 wrote:
Force is always justified when someone is breaking the law and they won't stop.
No, it isn't. There was no justification for pepper-spraying the students. The cops could simply have picked them up and carried them away.
Slacker007 wrote:
Sure there is. They were enforcing the law.
Not good enough. Can you even cite the specific law? Again not all levels of force are acceptable under all circumstances. In these circumstances pepper spray is not acceptable.
Slacker007 wrote:
You have no bloody idea what torture is.
Of course I do. It's not complicated. In addition, you seem to have forgotten all about the 1st amendment - "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."
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
Majerus wrote:
No, it isn't. There was no justification for pepper-spraying the students. The cops could simply have picked them up and carried them away.
How would have that been possible? Any protest works under the assumption they are strong in numbers. They linked together so they could NOT be removed even by force. Thus they were sprayed. To be clear, how the officers sprayed them was not 'pretty'. However, the officers were in full right to spray them.
Majerus wrote:
In addition, you seem to have forgotten all about the 1st amendment - "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."
Congress did not make the law. The Dean asked for police assistance on the property she was responcible for. Just as I would ask for police assistance if you were camped on my lawn hooting an holloring. Again, the police handled it poorly. However, the police did need to handle it. There were deffinately better approaches. But to defend the protestors blindly is foolish. To me its like defending the burgler who gets shot by the home owner. They are in the right, but they should not be taking pleasure from it. However, there is no law against that. It is just very, very very UN-PC.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Majerus wrote:
No, it isn't. There was no justification for pepper-spraying the students. The cops could simply have picked them up and carried them away.
How would have that been possible? Any protest works under the assumption they are strong in numbers. They linked together so they could NOT be removed even by force. Thus they were sprayed. To be clear, how the officers sprayed them was not 'pretty'. However, the officers were in full right to spray them.
Majerus wrote:
In addition, you seem to have forgotten all about the 1st amendment - "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."
Congress did not make the law. The Dean asked for police assistance on the property she was responcible for. Just as I would ask for police assistance if you were camped on my lawn hooting an holloring. Again, the police handled it poorly. However, the police did need to handle it. There were deffinately better approaches. But to defend the protestors blindly is foolish. To me its like defending the burgler who gets shot by the home owner. They are in the right, but they should not be taking pleasure from it. However, there is no law against that. It is just very, very very UN-PC.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
They linked together so they could NOT be removed even by force.
Oh, sure those kids were just way too strong for those little cops to handle. They just HAD to use violence. :rolleyes:
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Congress did not make the law.
So what? I guess you've forgotten about the 14th amendment and the doctrine of incorporation.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Just as I would ask for police assistance if you were camped on my lawn hooting an holloring.
Hardly. They weren't "hooting and holloring" and it wasn't on private property.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
However, the police did need to handle it.
Why? What law were they breaking?
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
To me its like defending the burgler who gets shot by the home owner.
That's just plain bizarre. How is a peaceful protest like a burgler? It isn't.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
They linked together so they could NOT be removed even by force.
Oh, sure those kids were just way too strong for those little cops to handle. They just HAD to use violence. :rolleyes:
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Congress did not make the law.
So what? I guess you've forgotten about the 14th amendment and the doctrine of incorporation.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Just as I would ask for police assistance if you were camped on my lawn hooting an holloring.
Hardly. They weren't "hooting and holloring" and it wasn't on private property.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
However, the police did need to handle it.
Why? What law were they breaking?
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
To me its like defending the burgler who gets shot by the home owner.
That's just plain bizarre. How is a peaceful protest like a burgler? It isn't.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
Majerus wrote:
Oh, sure those kids were just way too strong for those little cops to handle. They just HAD to use violence. :rolleyes:
Again, power in numbers. If I group arms with five of my friends and we blockade the entrance to your work, I highly doubt you are going to be able to move me or any of my friends without using some sort of violence. That is the whole point of the arm chain. It forces authorities to resort to violence to restore order, thus makine the protestors seem heroic. It has been done before and it will be done again. In reality it makes neither party right nor wrong.
Majerus wrote:
Hardly. They weren't "hooting and holloring" and it wasn't on private property.
Schools are not 'owned' by the public even if it is a public school. The pentagon maybe a governement owned building, but that does not grant you access or the right to sit on the foot steps preventing people from entering.
Majerus wrote:
Why? What law were they breaking?
I could probablly come up with a few, but the simpliest is public disturbance. I am all for going against the machine. But don't bitch when the machine fights back. It should be expected. Fight the machine tactically. Many of the protests occurring around the country are a bunch of young'ins that havn't actually 'worked' a day in their life. Berkly included. What the frick do they have to bitch about? Again, not saying all. But it is clear there are many 'complainers' that have nothing to complain about.
Majerus wrote:
That's just plain bizarre. How is a peaceful protest like a burgler? It isn't.
OK instead of burgler lets use the term "Home Invader". On a last point, for every peaceful protest that remained 'peaceful' there are countless protests that started 'peaceful' but became violoent. And no, not because of law enforcement. Often protestors antagonize officers. In addition, these officers have often seen when things go bad. They are merely trying to stay a head of it. So there is not another "Kent State".
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Majerus wrote:
Oh, sure those kids were just way too strong for those little cops to handle. They just HAD to use violence. :rolleyes:
Again, power in numbers. If I group arms with five of my friends and we blockade the entrance to your work, I highly doubt you are going to be able to move me or any of my friends without using some sort of violence. That is the whole point of the arm chain. It forces authorities to resort to violence to restore order, thus makine the protestors seem heroic. It has been done before and it will be done again. In reality it makes neither party right nor wrong.
Majerus wrote:
Hardly. They weren't "hooting and holloring" and it wasn't on private property.
Schools are not 'owned' by the public even if it is a public school. The pentagon maybe a governement owned building, but that does not grant you access or the right to sit on the foot steps preventing people from entering.
Majerus wrote:
Why? What law were they breaking?
I could probablly come up with a few, but the simpliest is public disturbance. I am all for going against the machine. But don't bitch when the machine fights back. It should be expected. Fight the machine tactically. Many of the protests occurring around the country are a bunch of young'ins that havn't actually 'worked' a day in their life. Berkly included. What the frick do they have to bitch about? Again, not saying all. But it is clear there are many 'complainers' that have nothing to complain about.
Majerus wrote:
That's just plain bizarre. How is a peaceful protest like a burgler? It isn't.
OK instead of burgler lets use the term "Home Invader". On a last point, for every peaceful protest that remained 'peaceful' there are countless protests that started 'peaceful' but became violoent. And no, not because of law enforcement. Often protestors antagonize officers. In addition, these officers have often seen when things go bad. They are merely trying to stay a head of it. So there is not another "Kent State".
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
If I group arms with five of my friends and we blockade the entrance to your work, I highly doubt you are going to be able to move me or any of my friends without using some sort of violence
"Some sort of violence". Maybe, but 20 of my friends could easily remove you without resorting to pepper spray, or beatings or tasers.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Schools are not 'owned' by the public even if it is a public school.
Yeah, they are.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
The pentagon maybe a governement owned building, but that does not grant you access or the right to sit on the foot steps preventing people from entering.
The quad is not a building, no one was being obstructed, nor was it a building that has valid security needs.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
I could probablly come up with a few, but the simpliest is public disturbance.
Won't work. The 1st amendment is in effect. Speech is protected.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
But don't bitch when the machine fights back. It should be expected.
Be that as it may, when they overstep, I will bitch. They were wrong. The Chancellor has apologized(should be fired) and some cops have been put on administrative leave(shoud be fired).
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
OK instead of burgler lets use the term "Home Invader".
Whose home is being invaded?
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
On a last point, for every peaceful protest that remained 'peaceful' there are countless protests that started 'peaceful' but became violoent. And no, not because of law enforcement. Often protestors antagonize officers. In addition, these officers have often seen when things go bad. They are merely trying to stay a head of it. So there is not another "Kent State".
What's your point? Peaceful protests should be broken up with violence before they become violent? The dead at Kent State have no one to blame but themselves?
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Often protestors antagonize officers.
Does that justify a violent response by the cops? Of course not.
The Left - Taking shit for being right sin
-
I would say yes they were justified. But at the same time the founding fathers of the US were justified in rebelling. The same is true for the 'some' of the protestors. I say some, because with any protestors come the.... Dang what did PCU[^] call that group? Well, if you saw the movie you know what I mean. They jump on the Protest bandwagon. Again, not saying 'some' are not in the right. But if you protest and break the law you should expect an outlash. And one can't really gripe when it comes at them. With that said, it is somewhat sickening watching the video. I think the police were in the right to spray, but how they did it was not 'good'. Just like a soldier should not gloat about how many of the other side they have killed. It is their duty, but for such a 'dirty' duty to take pleasure in it looses the populaces faith in them doing their duty honorbly.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Pretty sure they weren't even protestors. They were just fans of the protestors who decided to try to prevent the police from doing their job. Me, I would just have opened a fire hydrant uphill from them and let the water run down to see how they like sitting in a puddle.
So I rounded up my camel Just to ask him for a smoke He handed me a Lucky, I said "Hey, you missed the joke." My Mu[sic] My Films My Windows Programs, etc.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
If I group arms with five of my friends and we blockade the entrance to your work, I highly doubt you are going to be able to move me or any of my friends without using some sort of violence
"Some sort of violence". Maybe, but 20 of my friends could easily remove you without resorting to pepper spray, or beatings or tasers.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Schools are not 'owned' by the public even if it is a public school.
Yeah, they are.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
The pentagon maybe a governement owned building, but that does not grant you access or the right to sit on the foot steps preventing people from entering.
The quad is not a building, no one was being obstructed, nor was it a building that has valid security needs.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
I could probablly come up with a few, but the simpliest is public disturbance.
Won't work. The 1st amendment is in effect. Speech is protected.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
But don't bitch when the machine fights back. It should be expected.
Be that as it may, when they overstep, I will bitch. They were wrong. The Chancellor has apologized(should be fired) and some cops have been put on administrative leave(shoud be fired).
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
OK instead of burgler lets use the term "Home Invader".
Whose home is being invaded?
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
On a last point, for every peaceful protest that remained 'peaceful' there are countless protests that started 'peaceful' but became violoent. And no, not because of law enforcement. Often protestors antagonize officers. In addition, these officers have often seen when things go bad. They are merely trying to stay a head of it. So there is not another "Kent State".
What's your point? Peaceful protests should be broken up with violence before they become violent? The dead at Kent State have no one to blame but themselves?
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Often protestors antagonize officers.
Does that justify a violent response by the cops? Of course not.
The Left - Taking shit for being right sin
Majerus wrote:
"Some sort of violence". Maybe, but 20 of my friends could easily remove you without resorting to pepper spray, or beatings or tasers.
Again, the point of a protest is power in numbers. So your example is flawed. The idea is to have more than an executive force can come up with. So if you can gather 20, then the job of the protestors is to get 100. You still going to move them non violently??
Majerus wrote:
Yeah, they are.
No, you should actually look at what 'public' property means. For example, if you own a house and there exists a sidewalk in your front walk, that is considered 'public property'. However, it is not 'owned' by the public but owned by you. This is basic ownership vs access rights. The 'public' can NOT own land. Go ask a lawyer if you do not believe me.
Majerus wrote:
The quad is not a building, no one was being obstructed, nor was it a building that has valid security needs.
What about the poor sap trying to relax?? Ok I am being silly here. But to say that no one was obstructed is ridiculous. Any protest always skrews crap up for some bystander. This is why MANY protests go to the city or dean BEFORE hand and actually inform them they will be 'screwing' things up. Yes they have their 1st ammendment protecting them. However, when it states "the right of the people peaceably to assemble", one must keep in mind this also means they (the protestors) can not be infringing on others (non protestors being the ones being protested or not) way of life. Therefore, if the protest prevents one from going about there normal day, they are not actually peacably assembling. The first amendment does NOT grant the right to protest. It does grant the right to assemble. Just don't mess with my day and you are OK. Read it again and again and again. You are one of many that miss this point. "Peacably" assemble != Protest
Majerus wrote:
Won't work. The 1st amendment is in effect. Speech is protected.
Again, you need to read the 1st ammendment closer. It grants "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." "Peacably Assemble" != Protest "Petition" != Protest
Majerus wrote:
Be that as it may, when they
-
Pretty sure they weren't even protestors. They were just fans of the protestors who decided to try to prevent the police from doing their job. Me, I would just have opened a fire hydrant uphill from them and let the water run down to see how they like sitting in a puddle.
So I rounded up my camel Just to ask him for a smoke He handed me a Lucky, I said "Hey, you missed the joke." My Mu[sic] My Films My Windows Programs, etc.
By doing so they became protestors and were also causing public disturbance. Your tactic would have been more acceptable. As I said in other posts "how" the force was executed was wrong. Not wether force should have been executed.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Majerus wrote:
"Some sort of violence". Maybe, but 20 of my friends could easily remove you without resorting to pepper spray, or beatings or tasers.
Again, the point of a protest is power in numbers. So your example is flawed. The idea is to have more than an executive force can come up with. So if you can gather 20, then the job of the protestors is to get 100. You still going to move them non violently??
Majerus wrote:
Yeah, they are.
No, you should actually look at what 'public' property means. For example, if you own a house and there exists a sidewalk in your front walk, that is considered 'public property'. However, it is not 'owned' by the public but owned by you. This is basic ownership vs access rights. The 'public' can NOT own land. Go ask a lawyer if you do not believe me.
Majerus wrote:
The quad is not a building, no one was being obstructed, nor was it a building that has valid security needs.
What about the poor sap trying to relax?? Ok I am being silly here. But to say that no one was obstructed is ridiculous. Any protest always skrews crap up for some bystander. This is why MANY protests go to the city or dean BEFORE hand and actually inform them they will be 'screwing' things up. Yes they have their 1st ammendment protecting them. However, when it states "the right of the people peaceably to assemble", one must keep in mind this also means they (the protestors) can not be infringing on others (non protestors being the ones being protested or not) way of life. Therefore, if the protest prevents one from going about there normal day, they are not actually peacably assembling. The first amendment does NOT grant the right to protest. It does grant the right to assemble. Just don't mess with my day and you are OK. Read it again and again and again. You are one of many that miss this point. "Peacably" assemble != Protest
Majerus wrote:
Won't work. The 1st amendment is in effect. Speech is protected.
Again, you need to read the 1st ammendment closer. It grants "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." "Peacably Assemble" != Protest "Petition" != Protest
Majerus wrote:
Be that as it may, when they
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
So your example is flawed.
My example is not flawed, it was you who provided the example. You now provide another example. I could still do it. One protester at a time, if necessary. But we are not talking about some hypothetical, we are talking about the quad at UC-Davis. There weren't 100 protesters, maybe 2 dozen.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
you should actually look at what 'public' property means
I know what it means and we are not talking about the sidewalk in front of your house. We are talking about a state school.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
The 'public' can NOT own land
Of course it can. And it does. Who owns all of that Federal land? We do.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
can not be infringing on others (non protestors being the ones being protested or not) way of life.
No, it doesn't. The right to protest is not contigent on whether or not it is convienent for others.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
if the protest prevents one from going about there normal day, they are not actually peacably assembling.
You have no basis for that belief.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
"Peacably Assemble" != Protest
"Petition" != ProtestFalse. Again the constitution does not require that the speech not inconvienence others.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
in masses in designated areas
Absurd. I am aware of the creating of "free speech zones" in other contexts. But that again is absurd. You are demanding that whenever one wants to protest against the powerful one must get permission from them first. They will decide how, when and where I may protest.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Anyones. It doesn't matter
Of course it matters. When protesters gather in the quad whose house are they invading?
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Yes. I have seen cases where the officers are afraid for their lives.
No, you said "antagonize". Where does fear come into the equation?
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
does not mean it could not escalate to that point.
-
Viscious police brutality[^] The protesters' response to this disgusting behavior is to be admired. "Shame on you!". And at the end of the confrontation - “We are willing to give you a brief moment of peace so that you may take your weapons and your friends and go. Please do not return.” Police: 0 - Protesters: 1 million.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
Just saw a picture on FB that has all of the officers contact info. That bad boy is sure to go viral. And its good. The cop that did that should be violated in ways only a "friendly" cell mate can accomplish. ;P Yeah, we may be debating on issues in this thread but as I said how this went down was horrible. The fact that it did go 'down' was expected and can't really bitch about it (the fact they got a violent responce).
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
By doing so they became protestors and were also causing public disturbance. Your tactic would have been more acceptable. As I said in other posts "how" the force was executed was wrong. Not wether force should have been executed.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
So your example is flawed.
My example is not flawed, it was you who provided the example. You now provide another example. I could still do it. One protester at a time, if necessary. But we are not talking about some hypothetical, we are talking about the quad at UC-Davis. There weren't 100 protesters, maybe 2 dozen.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
you should actually look at what 'public' property means
I know what it means and we are not talking about the sidewalk in front of your house. We are talking about a state school.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
The 'public' can NOT own land
Of course it can. And it does. Who owns all of that Federal land? We do.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
can not be infringing on others (non protestors being the ones being protested or not) way of life.
No, it doesn't. The right to protest is not contigent on whether or not it is convienent for others.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
if the protest prevents one from going about there normal day, they are not actually peacably assembling.
You have no basis for that belief.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
"Peacably Assemble" != Protest
"Petition" != ProtestFalse. Again the constitution does not require that the speech not inconvienence others.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
in masses in designated areas
Absurd. I am aware of the creating of "free speech zones" in other contexts. But that again is absurd. You are demanding that whenever one wants to protest against the powerful one must get permission from them first. They will decide how, when and where I may protest.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Anyones. It doesn't matter
Of course it matters. When protesters gather in the quad whose house are they invading?
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Yes. I have seen cases where the officers are afraid for their lives.
No, you said "antagonize". Where does fear come into the equation?
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
does not mean it could not escalate to that point.
Majerus wrote:
I know what it means and we are not talking about the sidewalk in front of your house. We are talking about a state school.
And the State school is owned by the state. Not citizens of the state.
Majerus wrote:
Of course it can. And it does. Who owns all of that Federal land? We do.
Wrong. The Federal government owns it. Are you saying you are the federal governement??
Majerus wrote:
No, it doesn't. The right to protest is not contigent on whether or not it is convienent for others.
Actually it does. Again, the first ammendment says nothing about 'protest'. It says groups can "Peacably" assemble. If they are infringing on others way of life, that is not "Peacably".
Majerus wrote:
You have no basis for that belief.
Not a belief. It is a definition. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/peaceable[^]
Majerus wrote:
False. Again the constitution does not require that the speech not inconvienence others.
You should really read things more carefully. It actually does. Peacably means to not disturb.
Majerus wrote:
Absurd. I am aware of the creating of "free speech zones" in other contexts. But that again is absurd. You are demanding that whenever one wants to protest against the powerful one must get permission from them first. They will decide how, when and where I may protest.
Its not absurd. This is the world we live in. People right now are posting comparisons on the Tea Party (which I do not support) not being violently acted upon vs. these students. What do you think the difference is? They actually got approval. Granted, the aproval is more a formality (atleast IMO), for if it is not granted the protest will still likely take place. And possibly be even more stronger (leaders of the movement will publisize how the opporessors are denying them the "RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE PEASABLY"). BUT, when it is approved the rest of society can adapt and continue to function. I take it you have not actually been invloved in any movements or you would understand this
-
Majerus wrote:
I know what it means and we are not talking about the sidewalk in front of your house. We are talking about a state school.
And the State school is owned by the state. Not citizens of the state.
Majerus wrote:
Of course it can. And it does. Who owns all of that Federal land? We do.
Wrong. The Federal government owns it. Are you saying you are the federal governement??
Majerus wrote:
No, it doesn't. The right to protest is not contigent on whether or not it is convienent for others.
Actually it does. Again, the first ammendment says nothing about 'protest'. It says groups can "Peacably" assemble. If they are infringing on others way of life, that is not "Peacably".
Majerus wrote:
You have no basis for that belief.
Not a belief. It is a definition. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/peaceable[^]
Majerus wrote:
False. Again the constitution does not require that the speech not inconvienence others.
You should really read things more carefully. It actually does. Peacably means to not disturb.
Majerus wrote:
Absurd. I am aware of the creating of "free speech zones" in other contexts. But that again is absurd. You are demanding that whenever one wants to protest against the powerful one must get permission from them first. They will decide how, when and where I may protest.
Its not absurd. This is the world we live in. People right now are posting comparisons on the Tea Party (which I do not support) not being violently acted upon vs. these students. What do you think the difference is? They actually got approval. Granted, the aproval is more a formality (atleast IMO), for if it is not granted the protest will still likely take place. And possibly be even more stronger (leaders of the movement will publisize how the opporessors are denying them the "RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE PEASABLY"). BUT, when it is approved the rest of society can adapt and continue to function. I take it you have not actually been invloved in any movements or you would understand this
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
owned by the state. Not citizens of the state.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Are you saying you are the federal governement??
The citizens of the state ARE the state. Yes, we ARE the govenment. Or to put it another way - The government - at whatever level are our representatives. If I own an apartment building and hire a management company to manage the building - they do not own it, I do.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
You should really read things more carefully. It actually does. Peacably means to not disturb.
Context is everything: In this context "Peaceably" means non-violent. For example, abortion clinics are routinely protested by large groups and they are not gassed by the police. They are considered "Peaceable". The convienence of bystanders (or even patients of the clinic) is not considered.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
This is the world we live in.
Oh, I agree with you to a certain extent. We do live in a country where free speech is routinely suppressed when it inconviences the powerful. The teabagger protests where not subject to this kind of violence because they did not threaten to powerful.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
House or land, I still have the right to blast you if you are present on my property and I have requested you leave.
It public property - in this case state property - owned by the citizens of that state collectively. Pissing off a cop does not equal fear. Pre-emptive violence is not acceptable. You can't jput an abusive husband in jail because he might beat his wife. You can't do it until he actually does beat her.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
But if a citizen antognizes and officer they will be punished as the officer as the authority to do so.
He doesn't have the authority to do so. Where is the law that says "If you shoot the finger at a cop, the cop is permitted to beat the shit out of you."?
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
-
Majerus wrote:
I know what it means and we are not talking about the sidewalk in front of your house. We are talking about a state school.
And the State school is owned by the state. Not citizens of the state.
Majerus wrote:
Of course it can. And it does. Who owns all of that Federal land? We do.
Wrong. The Federal government owns it. Are you saying you are the federal governement??
Majerus wrote:
No, it doesn't. The right to protest is not contigent on whether or not it is convienent for others.
Actually it does. Again, the first ammendment says nothing about 'protest'. It says groups can "Peacably" assemble. If they are infringing on others way of life, that is not "Peacably".
Majerus wrote:
You have no basis for that belief.
Not a belief. It is a definition. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/peaceable[^]
Majerus wrote:
False. Again the constitution does not require that the speech not inconvienence others.
You should really read things more carefully. It actually does. Peacably means to not disturb.
Majerus wrote:
Absurd. I am aware of the creating of "free speech zones" in other contexts. But that again is absurd. You are demanding that whenever one wants to protest against the powerful one must get permission from them first. They will decide how, when and where I may protest.
Its not absurd. This is the world we live in. People right now are posting comparisons on the Tea Party (which I do not support) not being violently acted upon vs. these students. What do you think the difference is? They actually got approval. Granted, the aproval is more a formality (atleast IMO), for if it is not granted the protest will still likely take place. And possibly be even more stronger (leaders of the movement will publisize how the opporessors are denying them the "RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE PEASABLY"). BUT, when it is approved the rest of society can adapt and continue to function. I take it you have not actually been invloved in any movements or you would understand this
you do realize that you are going now where fast with this person, right? once, I realized I was debating with a troll, I dropped off. Took me a while, but look at their profile. :)
Just along for the ride. "the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011) -
you do realize that you are going now where fast with this person, right? once, I realized I was debating with a troll, I dropped off. Took me a while, but look at their profile. :)
Just along for the ride. "the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011)Yeah, at first I was thinking he has some logic. But his 'logic' now seems to have gone in full circle. Thaks for the Heads up :) But sometimes thats what the BR is for right. Smacking around trolls so they stay out of the clean forums ;P
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Yeah, at first I was thinking he has some logic. But his 'logic' now seems to have gone in full circle. Thaks for the Heads up :) But sometimes thats what the BR is for right. Smacking around trolls so they stay out of the clean forums ;P
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
But sometimes thats what the BR is for right. Smacking around trolls so they stay out of the clean forums
Whenever I hang out for too long in the backroom I start to feel a bit dirty. Trolls do a very good job of getting raw emotions out of people for the wrong reasons. I know better but I still allowed this person to fish me up...this time. :)
Just along for the ride. "the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011)