Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Brilliant rebuttal. (that was sarcasm if you missed it). Please, address my argument, don't resort to name calling.
The 1st amendment gives us the right to protest the government. If you have to get the permission of the government first that would give them the ability to say no, they can not do that.
You do not need to get anyone's permission to exercise your first amendment rights. Odd you would think that the thinking of an anarchist. I don't think you really do, you just have no argument left.
You do not need to lecture me on the meaning of the Constitution. I am all for freedom of speech/thought, but there is a right way to go about it. Heck taken to it's extreme interpretation, any speech, even yelling fire in a theater and/or inciting a riot resulting in death would be ok. Furthermore any weapon, including WMD's should be able to be owned by ordinary citizens to prevent government tyranny.
My point in bringing up legal protests/rallies was to illustrate that the Tea Party was not likely responsible for shutting down bridges, roadways, shopping malls etc., like the fools screaming kill cops.
Yet the poster I was addressing implied they were in some way comparable. I disagree unless the Tea Party people were intentionally engaged in the aforementioned activity.
BTW - If you ever want to have credibility or respect on a subject, using Wiki as your source will not do the trick.
Brilliant rebuttal. (that was sarcasm if you missed it). Please, address my argument, don't resort to name calling.
The 1st amendment gives us the right to protest the government. If you have to get the permission of the government first that would give them the ability to say no, they can not do that.
You do not need to get anyone's permission to exercise your first amendment rights. Odd you would think that the thinking of an anarchist. I don't think you really do, you just have no argument left.
Who called you names?
I'll address your argument - but I can already see how this is going to go down. You will reply with some version of: "No, that's not true." And "Because it's not right." Also "Because I said so." And maybe "No one is the boss of me!"
So here we go ... the first amendment is not absolute.
And of course the government can restrict your right to assemble. As long as they apply the same rules across the board - the definitely can.
This is like, first year, US History 101 stuff. It's pretty basic common knowledge.
You do not need to lecture me on the meaning of the Constitution. I am all for freedom of speech/thought, but there is a right way to go about it. Heck taken to it's extreme interpretation, any speech, even yelling fire in a theater and/or inciting a riot resulting in death would be ok. Furthermore any weapon, including WMD's should be able to be owned by ordinary citizens to prevent government tyranny.
My point in bringing up legal protests/rallies was to illustrate that the Tea Party was not likely responsible for shutting down bridges, roadways, shopping malls etc., like the fools screaming kill cops.
Yet the poster I was addressing implied they were in some way comparable. I disagree unless the Tea Party people were intentionally engaged in the aforementioned activity.
BTW - If you ever want to have credibility or respect on a subject, using Wiki as your source will not do the trick.
`
Tell me how it is wrong? Is it? No? It's an easy to access preliminary source. If you question it, please feel free to counter it.
Protesters do not need to get your permission on the right or wrong way to protest. I personally do not buy into the argument but many argued that the Tea Party shut down the government (can't be true as it never shut down).
Many did call for a shut down though. Personally I wish they had been more successful.
I'll address your argument - but I can already see how this is going to go down. You will reply with some version of: "No, that's not true." And "Because it's not right." Also "Because I said so." And maybe "No one is the boss of me!"
So here we go ... the first amendment is not absolute.
It isn't.
Quote:
And of course the government can restrict your right to assemble. As long as they apply the same rules across the board - the definitely can.
No they can not. That would mean they could shut it all down. They can not do that. Don't you think N.Y. would be doing just that if they could?
Quote:
This is like, first year, US History 101 stuff. It's pretty basic common knowledge.
Other lawsuits are pending, including a class-action claim stemming from the arrests of about 700 people while they marched on the Brooklyn Bridge roadway on Oct. 1, 2011.
How 'bout the guy in Berkeley who died 'cause he couldn't get to the hospital?
Sounds like it's past time for someone to start listening to the complaints of the people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
