|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> So, was Trump right? /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1504060618 Message started by raydawg on 08/29/17 at 19:36:58 |
|
Title: So, was Trump right? Post by raydawg on 08/29/17 at 19:36:58 Seems he might have been, looks like evil was present on both sides. He called it like it was, but sadly folks even tried to turn into another opportunity to inflame emotions..... That is sad :-[ http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/29/charlottesville-violence-homeland-security-242140 |
|
Title: Re: So, was Trump right? Post by T And T Garage on 08/29/17 at 21:34:17 Which side fired a gun at a protester? Your story is is not telling the whole truth. Oh, and I stick to my belief that there are no good nazis. |
|
Title: Re: So, was Trump right? Post by Eegore on 08/30/17 at 06:12:10 I don't think too many people think that one side was passive and assaulted for simply standing around. Trump indicated both parties are responsible, which could be true, but what I've seen is that the indication that White Supremacists are good guys. I'm fine with people having ideology, I don't get all hurt about white guys saying they should rule over other races (no more than I do when Muslim radicals indicate all non-Muslims are to be exterminated) however I don't think its healthy or realistic. To me Nazi, Neo-Nazi, basically any extremism isn't represented by good guys. |
|
Title: Re: So, was Trump right? Post by raydawg on 08/30/17 at 09:08:49 1030323A2730550 wrote:
No, anything, even food, in extremes, will make you fat and unable to participate in society in a normal manner, often leaving it up to another do do what you should be doing.... Booze, ditto. These are obvious examples. However, its a little harder to see where beliefs, to an extreme, so rigid it judges things, assigning value to them in a prejudicial way, that often is accompanied by physical danger/threats, to others. Look how the radical environmentalism spawned such, with burning and damaging SUV's and bobby trapping trees to kill and maim loggers. I think the debate now is, should we allow folks to demonstrate. On its face, it seems a direct assault on free speech, but you could say that about yelling fire in a theater too. When speech impacts the safety of others, that is a mitigating circumstance that needs to be considered. Gathering in mass really is encroaching on other freedoms, when it impacts the lives of others. Look at how some demonstration shut down port, roadway, etc. Why does the privileged of some, hold others captive? Is "war" extremism? Is the USA, bad then? |
|
Title: Re: So, was Trump right? Post by T And T Garage on 08/30/17 at 09:18:52 55465E43465040270 wrote:
You are severely over exaggerating. |
|
Title: Re: So, was Trump right? Post by Eegore on 08/30/17 at 09:39:47 Should we allow folks to demonstrate? No. Since the potential for something bad to happen exists we need to remove a basic right from everyone. Wont somebody please think of the children! Yelling fire in a theatre is not free speech. Not being prosecuted for appropriate displays of your opinion is. This very thread is an example of free speech. "Gathering in mass really is encroaching on other freedoms, when it impacts the lives of others." I'd like an example as well, and referencing things that are already illegal like shutting down roads without permit/through excess protest doesn't count because its already addressed. How are people held "captive" and its not being addressed? Are you in a location where protesters can restrict others without consequence? Theres no laws against holding people "captive" by definition? Im not even going to address the "is war extremism" thing, its a whole other discussion with huge amounts of variables an opinions. |
|
Title: Re: So, was Trump right? Post by raydawg on 08/30/17 at 09:45:42 I'm sorry, Eggore, was this your answer to allowing demonstrations? No. Since the potential for something bad to happen exists we need to remove a basic right from everyone. Wont somebody please think of the children! |
|
Title: Re: So, was Trump right? Post by T And T Garage on 08/30/17 at 09:54:49 54475F42475141260 wrote:
LOL - (not to speak for Eegore, but) you don't get sarcasm, do you? |
|
Title: Re: So, was Trump right? Post by Eegore on 08/30/17 at 10:16:51 Its a sarcastic reply, I really didn't think you would recommend creating an entire legal statute that criminalizes public gatherings in place of the laws that already address criminal activity during legal protests. Did you even think of what "Not allow" entails? Federal enforcement or does each state come up with ways to stop protesters? Water cannons? Up tear-gas supply chains by %1200 to local law enforcement agencies? Drones for rural areas in case some church group gathers in the park to protest GMO's in the local agriculture? |
|
Title: Re: So, was Trump right? Post by raydawg on 08/30/17 at 10:40:04 5474767E6374110 wrote:
OK, cool..... Just wanted to make sure. No, as I stated, it seems an affront to a granted freedom. I am just putting out fodder. Could not freedom of expression, be lent to the confederate flag, statues, etc, as well? Who get to decide what is, and isn't? Based on what, hurt feelings, etc? Is owing a gun a granted freedom that is now popular to place constraints upon, because of some folks using it, a gun, to cause harm to others? Are these folks, gun owners, expected to give up "their" rights for what others see as a societal good, necessity? If these demonstrations spawn activities that are, as you say, already illegal, like property damage and physical harm, etc, how is that different than what a gun does? Do we not already have laws against criminal gun use? Why are the new laws we want to use to hopefully address gun violence, punitive, or impinging on the rights of legal and lawful gun owners? Could we not say then, you can demonstrate, but it can be no more than 6 people gathered, at any one time. Banners and flags must be small enough they don't interfere with motorist, or pedestrians, etc. And you must show your face, etc. Who get to decide these things? The party in power? Judges? Who? And if we don't like it, we what, resist, rebel, and extend our right to try and tear down what the opposition built? Rinse, and repeat? Or......restrict freedom of speech by controlling what you can, and can not say, under the guise of a social awareness program of the likes of Political Correctness in our schools, media, and public arena, and even into the private sector.... Gee, that sounds so, uh, nazi like ;D ( that was my sarcasm ) |
|
Title: Re: So, was Trump right? Post by Eegore on 08/30/17 at 10:47:43 Who get to decide these things? The party in power? Judges? Who? We do. Our local government voted on the restriction of capacity magazines and we ran a recall and elected both voting parties out of office. We didn't go stand in a park waving flags, or complain on Twitter about how we disagree with recent legislature - we used the current system in place to remove people who acted against their constituents. |
|
Title: Re: So, was Trump right? Post by raydawg on 08/30/17 at 11:14:51 0B2B29213C2B4E0 wrote:
I love it..... To think our founding fathers drafted a system that gave a vehicle to allow local folks input. Kinda like Dorthy didn't have to go all the way to Oz, huh ;) |
|
Title: Re: So, was Trump right? Post by raydawg on 08/30/17 at 11:33:05 Just to clarify your reply, you are saying local citizens have the right to live how they desire, and elect politicians that represent, and promote, those ideas and desires, correct? |
|
Title: Re: So, was Trump right? Post by T And T Garage on 08/30/17 at 11:38:21 293A223F3A2C3C5B0 wrote:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjoMQJf5vKI[/media] |
|
Title: Re: So, was Trump right? Post by Eegore on 08/30/17 at 12:13:25 I didn't say anything about rights. I was just answering the question of who decides, you tossed in choices that weren't accurate where I live. Party in power and Judges are part of it but not exclusive. I'm still waiting for an answer about "Gathering in mass really is encroaching on other freedoms, when it impacts the lives of others." Even if the impact is positive like registering sex offenders? Also interested in if demonstrators hold people "Captive" using the proper definition of that word where you live, without laws directing otherwise. You stated: I think the debate now is, should we allow folks to demonstrate |
|
Title: Re: So, was Trump right? Post by T And T Garage on 08/30/17 at 12:22:58 6747454D5047220 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: So, was Trump right? Post by verslagen1 on 08/30/17 at 12:24:40 What we are seeing is huge demonstrations with people being trucked in to support one thing or another. Demonstrations normally are to incite the residents to support a cause/convince the administration to vote a certain way. What if demonstrations were limited to residents? demo's in cities limited to city/county residents. demo's in state capitols limited to state residents. demo's in the US capitols would be not limited in any way. |
|
Title: Re: So, was Trump right? Post by raydawg on 08/30/17 at 12:31:47 624240485542270 wrote:
Sorry, off to work now, but a quick answer is if you look at the video that took place Oregon, folks were trapped in traffic, etc. I call that being held against your will. In Seattle, these crowds have been greatly disturbing businesses, and targeting their demonstrations at peak commerce times, etc. I recall seeing a video of a woman with small children in her car, panic, and hit demonstrators as she tried to flee, a few years ago, wrong place, at the wrong time.... |
|
Title: Re: So, was Trump right? Post by T And T Garage on 08/30/17 at 12:38:06 564552534C4147454E11200 wrote:
You could never enforce that. Freedom of speech can't be contained within borders of cities, counties or states. If I hear there's a march in a neighboring city protesting facism, I'm there. At the same time, if Wisconsin nazis want to march with the Illinois nazis, go right ahead - I'll be there with my sign standing against them (as they might be against me at my rally). It's no different than having all my friends in Milwaukee come down to Chicago for the Toys For Tots Ride in December. Riding for a cause across borders. |
|
Title: Re: So, was Trump right? Post by T And T Garage on 08/30/17 at 12:39:18 5B48504D485E4E290 wrote:
Sorry, off to work now, but a quick answer is if you look at the video that took place Oregon, folks were trapped in traffic, etc. I call that being held against your will. In Seattle, these crowds have been greatly disturbing businesses, and targeting their demonstrations at peak commerce times, etc. I recall seeing a video of a woman with small children in her car, panic, and hit demonstrators as she tried to flee, a few years ago, wrong place, at the wrong time... [/quote] -1 |
|
Title: Re: So, was Trump right? Post by verslagen1 on 08/30/17 at 12:43:43 627C73727F627964160 wrote:
You could never enforce that. Freedom of speech can't be contained within borders of cities, counties or states. If I hear there's a march in a neighboring city protesting facism, I'm there. At the same time, if Wisconsin nazis want to march with the Illinois nazis, go right ahead - I'll be there with my sign standing against them (as they might be against me at my rally). It's no different than having all my friends in Milwaukee come down to Chicago for the Toys For Tots Ride in December. Riding for a cause across borders.[/quote] And yet you can except w/out question that police can set up barricades and check for weapons. SMH. |
|
Title: Re: So, was Trump right? Post by T And T Garage on 08/30/17 at 12:56:07 756671706F6264666D32030 wrote:
Did I say that? Where? Hey, I'm no sheriff joe (wait, he does that with people who look foreign)....LOL I accept (but sometimes question) what's constitutional. I question (and have to accept) things I believe to be unconstitutional (helmet laws, seat belt laws, legal drinking age, etc.) I have no opinion of being stopped for weapons - that's never happened to me. I have, however, gone through more than one barricade set up for finding drunk drivers. I have almost no problem with that. It's a waste of time IMO, but it does net a few drunks on the road. |
|
Title: Re: So, was Trump right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/30/17 at 15:31:35 And it's illegal |
|
Title: Re: So, was Trump right? Post by raydawg on 08/30/17 at 17:12:42 A yep...... unlawful search and seizure amendment |
|
Title: Re: So, was Trump right? Post by Eegore on 08/31/17 at 05:48:26 "Sorry, off to work now, but a quick answer is if you look at the video that took place Oregon, folks were trapped in traffic, etc. I call that being held against your will. In Seattle, these crowds have been greatly disturbing businesses, and targeting their demonstrations at peak commerce times, etc. I recall seeing a video of a woman with small children in her car, panic, and hit demonstrators as she tried to flee, a few years ago, wrong place, at the wrong time...." That part I specifically indicated about "Without laws directing otherwise" I would like to see addressed. In the examples you stated are there no laws about mass gatherings stopping traffic? Impeding business? Vehicular manslaughter? Or maybe there are laws/statutes/ordinance that need to be examined and methods of enforcement adjusted to be effective. |
|
Title: Re: So, was Trump right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/31/17 at 05:53:41 Corner someone and then get hurt.. And blame them. Put me on the jury, please. Is a Law needed to tell us what is right? You're walking down the sidewalk and two guys decide to block your path. No matter which way you turn, one blocks your path. Do you have the Right to break a jaw or fold a knee backwards? I would support you if you did. Surround a mother and her kids? You're begging for it. And deserve it. |
|
Title: Re: So, was Trump right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/31/17 at 09:35:40 We had situation in St Louis last week. Some group was protesting whatever the latest little thing to piss someone off.... and they were doing the current fad of blocking traffic. It was a small protest as protest goes these days and some guy turns the corner and gets behind them. All the details haven't come out but a camera on a building shows him turning, coming behind them, honking, the crowd descends on his car, a couple people start pounding on it, he accelerates, knocks a few down (no serious injuries) and tears off. He doesn't stop for a cop until a few blocks later. He's arrested and charged now The protestors are telling one story, he's telling another and the video seems to support him. Sorry, but that dude is F'd. His life will be hell. If he escapes jail, he'll certainly get license suspended etc.. Now, I have no idea yet if he did it on purpose or not, but if we're going to let people block traffic and bang on cars, I can't see prosecuting for accidents. Note: this is NOT the same situation as Charlottesville so don't anyone try to equate these two events. |
|
Title: Re: So, was Trump right? Post by raydawg on 08/31/17 at 09:49:04 4F6F6D65786F0A0 wrote:
Yes there are laws..... However, it seems that by demonstrators very nature, they want attention, would you agree? They then use their collective size, a real herd mentality, to do whatever they deem necessary to get their attention, and that is to do things that break those laws. That is why I draw a parallel, of an activity, that has the propensity, to cause harm and damage, to others, by its very nature, with maybe putting more restrictions on it like the popular thought more gun control, ladled upon legal gun owners, will control gun crime. Should we put limits of size, etc, on demonstrations using the same reasoning? |
|
Title: Re: So, was Trump right? Post by T And T Garage on 08/31/17 at 09:49:30 0E3C3B2A2D3C2B14382B32590 wrote:
Where were the cops? In Chicago, I've seen people get arrested on the spot for blocking a street. The protesters you mention were breaking the law. The guy made a dumb decision and hurt someone. Stupidity on both sides. Unless the guy in the car did it on purpose, he's not F'd. If the video supports his claim, then it will do just that. And if it's a good enough video, maybe some of the protesters will be questioned and charged. |
|
Title: Re: So, was Trump right? Post by Eegore on 08/31/17 at 09:50:02 "I think the debate now is, should we allow folks to demonstrate" Again the examples being provided are as far as I know already addressed by current laws. Why is there a debate on if people should be allowed to demonstrate? Very little of what has been presented as a possible argument for debate is an issue already covered by current laws. |
|
Title: Re: So, was Trump right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/31/17 at 10:20:50 We have immigration laws yet we have millions of illegals and now cities passing local laws refusing to folowing federal guidelines. Protest mobs attack and destroy property with impunity. If laws aren't enforced across the board, what good are they? Civil disobedience should come with a cost. That's one test to validate it's legitimacy. |
|
Title: Re: So, was Trump right? Post by T And T Garage on 08/31/17 at 10:46:28 4E7C7B6A6D7C6B54786B72190 wrote:
"Civil disobedience should come with a cost." Really? Hmmm... What thug used civil disobedience in the past?... who was that guy?..... Oh yeah, Dr. King! Oh, and that other thug.... what's his name?.... Oh yeah - Gandhi! SMH |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |