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.
Aside from this being a massive bureaucratic CF poorly implemented by ill directed personnel just trying to do what they were told to do by equally ill directed people it was aimed at the wrong countries. Why were Saudi Arabia and United Arab emirates left out? I smell powerful oil corruption behind all of this nonsense.
Aside from this being a massive bureaucratic CF poorly implemented by ill directed personnel just trying to do what they were told to do by equally ill directed people it was aimed at the wrong countries. Why were Saudi Arabia and United Arab emirates left out? I smell powerful oil corruption behind all of this nonsense.
Yupp, out of all the countries that should be banned, Saudi Arabia and UAE should be on top of the list
Besides its LA, have you ever seen LA traffic, it was hardly a blip on the unmoving radar.
People's right to protest, is more important than yours not to be inconvenienced. One is in the constitution btw, care to guess which one?
And guess what, you right ends when it infringes upon mine. It's okay. They will figure it out. One or two of them get mowed down by a trucker, or shot or just plain knocked the F out.
And this is from the ACLU website. Ad guess what isn't covered under the 1A ?
Limitations on Action Demonstrators who engage in civil disobedience – defined as non-violent unlawful action as a form of protest – are not protected under the First Amendment. People who engage in civil disobedience should be prepared to be arrested or fined as part of their protest activity. If you endanger others while protesting, you can be arrested. A protest that blocks vehicular or pedestrian traffic is illegal without a permit. You do not have the right to block a building entrance or physically harass people. The general rule is that free speech activity cannot take place on private property, including shopping malls, without consent of the property owner. You do not have the right to remain on private property after being told to leave by the owner.
And guess what, you right ends when it infringes upon mine. It's okay. They will figure it out. One or two of them get mowed down by a trucker, or shot or just plain knocked the F out.
Dude you walked right into this one.
Please show me where in the constitution it says you have the "RIGHT" (your word btw) to not be inconvenienced? Or to avoid being in traffic?
And your responses, are evidence of your lack of knowledge of law, logic and the constitution. You cannot deprive someone of their life, assault them, etc just because you are INCONVENIENCED.
Quote:
And this is from the ACLU website. Ad guess what isn't covered under the 1A ?
Limitations on Action Demonstrators who engage in civil disobedience – defined as non-violent unlawful action as a form of protest – are not protected under the First Amendment. People who engage in civil disobedience should be prepared to be arrested or fined as part of their protest activity. If you endanger others while protesting, you can be arrested. A protest that blocks vehicular or pedestrian traffic is illegal without a permit. You do not have the right to block a building entrance or physically harass people. The general rule is that free speech activity cannot take place on private property, including shopping malls, without consent of the property owner. You do not have the right to remain on private property after being told to leave by the owner.
Wait you think a public airport is private property? Really? What makes you think that?
Anyway, if a protestor is impeding traffic to pedestrians or on a road way, they are still entitled to an actual RIGHT, due process. Which means a PO (not you) can arrest them at worst and attempt to charge them with "pedestrian interference" which is a misdemeanor at worst.
Both my mother and aunt worked for Sun which was in the north tower but not very far up.
It is a small, unique club that you guys belong too not that I think anyone wants that membership.
Well, about 15,000 of us got out before the buildings went down. I don't think everyone realizes that.
However, there is a closed 9/11 support group on Facebook that I visit from time to time. We all have some PTSD stuff to varying degrees, as I am sure your mom and aunt do.
If they are ever interested in checking in there, DM me.
Aside from this being a massive bureaucratic CF poorly implemented by ill directed personnel just trying to do what they were told to do by equally ill directed people it was aimed at the wrong countries. Why were Saudi Arabia and United Arab emirates left out? I smell powerful oil corruption behind all of this nonsense.
The Defense Department and Iraqi diplomats are trying to find a way to exempt Iraqi military pilots from President Trump’s executive order on immigration and allow them to continue training in the United States with the Air Force.
Please show me where in the constitution it says you have the "RIGHT" (your word btw) to not be inconvenienced? Or to avoid being in traffic?
And your responses, are evidence of your lack of knowledge of law, logic and the constitution. You cannot deprive someone of their life, assault them, etc just because you are INCONVENIENCED.
Wait you think a public airport is private property? Really? What makes you think that?
Anyway, if a protestor is impeding traffic to pedestrians or on a road way, they are still entitled to an actual RIGHT, due process. Which means a PO (not you) can arrest them at worst and attempt to charge them with "pedestrian interference" which is a misdemeanor at worst.
But nice try though
Will see...more and more of the so called protesters that block traffic, buildings, impede people from going to work, etc , when they start getting arrested, pepper sprayed, tazed or worse they might figure it out. Blocking a freeway for instance is not an inconvience , it is breaking the law. You said it yourself. Either way, people will grow tired of it.
Please explain to me why the left is in such opposition to a 120 day hold on people traveling into our country from certain countries that have high terrorist ties ? Why are the SJW’s are going ballistic over 109 people out of 325,000 have been affected ? If this hold, and that is what it is could possible avoid another Beltway Sniper (s) (21 killed), another Boston Bomber (3killed) , Another San Bernardino (14 killed), another Orlando nightclub attack(49 killed), or possible another 9/11 (3000 killed)
If one could go back in time before 9/11 and implement this temporary hold, which would prevent it ever happening , would you still be opposed to it? And don’t bring up the fact that Saudi travelers are not on the list. I am aware of that. And that list was made by Obama’s security council. My question still stands though. And if you would not of opposed it, why do you now ? Many other countries have already have something like this in place, Saudi Arabia being one of them. Germany is sending refugees back to Greece. Why is the left coming unglued over this here ?
This is not a restriction. This is a ban. Why do you avoid calling it what it is?
Also, it is a detainment authority EO for those with green cards and visas, who have citizenship rights granted to them by those papers. Or they are supposed to.
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.
