They are going after Coney Barrett now

16,713 Views | 173 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by fka ftc
BusterAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Carolin_Gallego • 2:56p, 6/9/22
AG
Carolin_Gallego said:
Sorry. IMHO that is not a threat of violence. The argument against Schumer is partisan pearl clutching. Nothing more.
Funny.

That is not a threat of violence, but Trump telling people to march to the capitol to protest peacefully is an incitement of sedition.

Got it.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms … disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

--Thomas Jefferson
Reply Quote
12
Carolin_Gallego
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ChemEAg08 • 2:57p, 6/9/22
ChemEAg08 said:
Carolin_Gallego said:
ChemEAg08 said:
Carolin_Gallego said:
Sorry. IMHO that is not a threat of violence. The argument against Schumer is partisan pearl clutching. Nothing more.


A large group of people let into the capital by the capital police. peacefully walking through the capitol, with no weapons and peacefully left.

That is also not a threat of violence.




You have a false narrative in direct contradiction with photographic and video evidence.


Overdramatized by your leftist media. And infiltrated with the same BLM anarchists to try to make Trump supporters look bad.

Ok now do BLM "protests". Significantly more people died in those riots than the Capitol protest (which was 1 protest who was shot by police).

Capitol protesters should get the same amount of punishment as BLM protesters got, which is none.

You are being a useful idiot for the left and openly want to destroy this country. You are the enemy.

A June 22, 2020 article from The Washington Post tallied over 14,000 arrests made since May 27. The Hill reported over 17,000 arrests had been made in the first two weeks of protests.

Who's the idiot and enemy?
We believe progress is made through MORE discussion, not LESS, and we believe that to be true even if the topics are uncomfortable and we occasionally disagree with one another. - TexAgs
The name-calling technique making false associations is a child's game. The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject a person and their argument on this false basis.
Reply Quote
1
Marcus Brutus
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Carolin_Gallego • 2:58p, 6/9/22
Honestly though man, at this point, Im not interested in debating you and your fellow Marxists. I want to defeat you by hook or crook, by peaceful means or otherwise.

There is no reconciliation to be had with your kind.

Post what you want. Believe what you want.
Reply Quote
14
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Carolin_Gallego • 3:01p, 6/9/22
Carolin_Gallego said:
javajaws said:
Serious question: can a SCOTUS judge sue the DOJ for failure to enforce the law (for protesters protesting at their house, etc)?
They are protesting in their neighborhoods and not staying stationary in front of the judge's houses. That is legal.
This is 100% illegal. It is meant to intimidate and influence the Court.
Reply Quote
11
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Carolin_Gallego • 3:02p, 6/9/22
AG
From The Hill article.

Quote:
Both the demonstrations and their coverage were intensely polarizing, and despite most Black Lives Matter protests having been overwhelmingly nonviolent, some violence and property destruction took place, and law enforcement in many areas responded with force. Tens of thousands of demonstrators and activists were arrested, and hundreds hit with more serious charges by federal and local prosecutors.

According to a Washington Post review of data on more than 2,600 people detained in 15 cities, those arrested over the course of the past five months were "a diverse, young group of people who demonstrated close to home and were charged largely with nonviolent crimes."
Cherry pick much?
Reply Quote
15
Carolin_Gallego
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Marcus Brutus • 3:04p, 6/9/22
Marcus Brutus said:
Post what you want. Believe what you want.
Thanks!
We believe progress is made through MORE discussion, not LESS, and we believe that to be true even if the topics are uncomfortable and we occasionally disagree with one another. - TexAgs
The name-calling technique making false associations is a child's game. The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject a person and their argument on this false basis.
Reply Quote
Crocker91
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:05p, 6/9/22
AG


Seems to be the direction we're being pushed.
Reply Quote
PatriotAg02
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:11p, 6/9/22
AG
Cutting off Molech's supply gets them all in a tizzy
Reply Quote
11
CanyonAg77
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Carolin_Gallego • 3:13p, 6/9/22
AG
Carolin_Gallego said:
javajaws said:
Serious question: can a SCOTUS judge sue the DOJ for failure to enforce the law (for protesters protesting at their house, etc)?
They are protesting in their neighborhoods and not staying stationary in front of the judge's houses. That is legal.
https://dailycaller.com/2021/09/13/abortion-protest-kavanaugh-home-maryland-activists/

Quote:
Protestors stand outside the Kavanaugh home. Photo by the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Obviously staying stationary.



Standing still:

Reply Quote
9
javajaws
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Carolin_Gallego • 3:14p, 6/9/22
AG
Carolin_Gallego said:
Marcus Brutus said:
Post what you want. Believe what you want.
Thanks!
We reserve the right to classify all of your posts under "fantasy and science fiction" though!
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin
Reply Quote
9
Carolin_Gallego
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 3:16p, 6/9/22
aggiehawg said:
From The Hill article.

Quote:
Both the demonstrations and their coverage were intensely polarizing, and despite most Black Lives Matter protests having been overwhelmingly nonviolent, some violence and property destruction took place, and law enforcement in many areas responded with force. Tens of thousands of demonstrators and activists were arrested, and hundreds hit with more serious charges by federal and local prosecutors.

According to a Washington Post review of data on more than 2,600 people detained in 15 cities, those arrested over the course of the past five months were "a diverse, young group of people who demonstrated close to home and were charged largely with nonviolent crimes."
Cherry pick much?
From the Post article.
Quote:
Officials have arrested more than 14,000 people across 49 cities nationwide since May 27, according to a Washington Post tally of data provided by police departments and included in media reports. Thousands were arrested for low-level offenses, including curfew violations and failure to disperse.

Roughly 80 federal charges, including murder and throwing molotov cocktails at police vehicles, reveal no evidence of an antifa plot. Four people who identify with the far-right extremist "boogaloo" movement are among those facing the most serious federal charges.
No, I like being here shooting fish in the barrel.

ETA the nail in the coffin
Quote:
In the first two weeks, police arrested more than 17,000 people in the 50 largest cities that had organized protests, according to a Post survey of news releases, arrest reports and aggregate data provided by police.

We believe progress is made through MORE discussion, not LESS, and we believe that to be true even if the topics are uncomfortable and we occasionally disagree with one another. - TexAgs
The name-calling technique making false associations is a child's game. The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject a person and their argument on this false basis.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Marcus Brutus • 3:19p, 6/9/22
AG
Marcus Brutus said:
Honestly though man, at this point, Im not interested in debating you and your fellow Marxists. I want to defeat you by hook or crook, by peaceful means or otherwise.

There is no reconciliation to be had with your kind.

Post what you want. Believe what you want.
Amen. I'm way past debating/negotiating.

None of that should matter at this point.
Reply Quote
9
Bobaloo
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:29p, 6/9/22
I hope SCOTUS sticks to the leaked draft if for no other reason than to watch the left burn. GLORIOUS!
Reply Quote
6
Carolin_Gallego
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CanyonAg77 • 3:32p, 6/9/22
CanyonAg77 said:
Carolin_Gallego said:
javajaws said:
Serious question: can a SCOTUS judge sue the DOJ for failure to enforce the law (for protesters protesting at their house, etc)?
They are protesting in their neighborhoods and not staying stationary in front of the judge's houses. That is legal.
https://dailycaller.com/2021/09/13/abortion-protest-kavanaugh-home-maryland-activists/

Quote:
Protestors stand outside the Kavanaugh home. Photo by the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Obviously staying stationary.



Standing still:

My statement says that people can be stationary, but can not remain stationary and camp out in front of the justice's homes, which they are not.
We believe progress is made through MORE discussion, not LESS, and we believe that to be true even if the topics are uncomfortable and we occasionally disagree with one another. - TexAgs
The name-calling technique making false associations is a child's game. The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject a person and their argument on this false basis.
Reply Quote
1
cevans_40
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Carolin_Gallego • 3:35p, 6/9/22
AG
Carolin_Gallego said:
CanyonAg77 said:
Carolin_Gallego said:
javajaws said:
Serious question: can a SCOTUS judge sue the DOJ for failure to enforce the law (for protesters protesting at their house, etc)?
They are protesting in their neighborhoods and not staying stationary in front of the judge's houses. That is legal.
https://dailycaller.com/2021/09/13/abortion-protest-kavanaugh-home-maryland-activists/

Quote:
Protestors stand outside the Kavanaugh home. Photo by the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Obviously staying stationary.



Standing still:

My statement says that people can be stationary, but can not remain stationary and camp out in front of the justice's homes, which they are not.

Your statement says a lot about you. That's for sure.
Reply Quote
15
barbacoa taco
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:36p, 6/9/22
AG
Standing outside a justice's home (or any politician's home) and protesting on public land is perfectly legal and protected activity under the First Amendment. The second they trespass, they have crossed a line. You dont have to like this but the pearl clutching over it is really stupid and cringey.

Threats of violence or acts in furtherance of violence are illegal and immoral and whoever does that should be arrested and have the book thrown at them.

Pretty easy to distinguish between the two, anyone who cant do that is either a liar or a simpleton.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
javajaws
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cevans_40 • 3:37p, 6/9/22
AG
cevans_40 said:
Carolin_Gallego said:
CanyonAg77 said:
Carolin_Gallego said:
javajaws said:
Serious question: can a SCOTUS judge sue the DOJ for failure to enforce the law (for protesters protesting at their house, etc)?
They are protesting in their neighborhoods and not staying stationary in front of the judge's houses. That is legal.
https://dailycaller.com/2021/09/13/abortion-protest-kavanaugh-home-maryland-activists/

Quote:
Protestors stand outside the Kavanaugh home. Photo by the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Obviously staying stationary.



Standing still:

My statement says that people can be stationary, but can not remain stationary and camp out in front of the justice's homes, which they are not.

Your statement says a lot about you. That's for sure.
Not uncommon with liberals. Take the plain meaning of something then distort it until it means what you want. It's how they operate. Pure fantasy.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin
Reply Quote
7
Ag with kids
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to barbacoa taco • 3:38p, 6/9/22
AG
larry culpepper said:
Standing outside a justice's home and protesting on public land is perfectly legal and protected activity under the First Amendment. The second they trespass, they have crossed a line. You dont have to like this but the pearl clutching over it is really stupid and cringey.

Threats of violence or acts in furtherance of violence are illegal and immoral and whoever does that should be arrested and have the book thrown at them.

Pretty easy to distinguish between the two, anyone who cant do that is either a liar or a simpleton.
Tell that to the legislators that passed a law making just that illegal.
Reply Quote
24
Carolin_Gallego
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cevans_40 • 3:38p, 6/9/22
cevans_40 said:
Carolin_Gallego said:
CanyonAg77 said:
Carolin_Gallego said:
javajaws said:
Serious question: can a SCOTUS judge sue the DOJ for failure to enforce the law (for protesters protesting at their house, etc)?
They are protesting in their neighborhoods and not staying stationary in front of the judge's houses. That is legal.
https://dailycaller.com/2021/09/13/abortion-protest-kavanaugh-home-maryland-activists/

Quote:
Protestors stand outside the Kavanaugh home. Photo by the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Obviously staying stationary.



Standing still:

My statement says that people can be stationary, but can not remain stationary and camp out in front of the justice's homes, which they are not.

Your statement says a lot about you. That's for sure.
Thank you. I think yours does too.
We believe progress is made through MORE discussion, not LESS, and we believe that to be true even if the topics are uncomfortable and we occasionally disagree with one another. - TexAgs
The name-calling technique making false associations is a child's game. The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject a person and their argument on this false basis.
Reply Quote
1
Sims
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to barbacoa taco • 3:40p, 6/9/22
AG
larry culpepper said:
Standing outside a justice's home (or any politician's home) and protesting on public land is perfectly legal and protected activity under the First Amendment. The second they trespass, they have crossed a line. You dont have to like this but the pearl clutching over it is really stupid and cringey.

Threats of violence or acts in furtherance of violence are illegal and immoral and whoever does that should be arrested and have the book thrown at them.

Pretty easy to distinguish between the two, anyone who cant do that is either a liar or a simpleton.
Well, no. You're wrong.
Reply Quote
20
Gigem314
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Carolin_Gallego • 3:40p, 6/9/22
AG
Carolin_Gallego said:
Sorry. IMHO that is not a threat of violence. The argument against Schumer is partisan pearl clutching. Nothing more.
Says the person that keeps clinching their pearls over Jan 6th.
Reply Quote
14
javajaws
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to barbacoa taco • 3:40p, 6/9/22
AG
larry culpepper said:
Standing outside a justice's home (or any politician's home) and protesting on public land is perfectly legal and protected activity under the First Amendment. The second they trespass, they have crossed a line. You dont have to like this but the pearl clutching over it is really stupid and cringey.

Threats of violence or acts in furtherance of violence are illegal and immoral and whoever does that should be arrested and have the book thrown at them.

Pretty easy to distinguish between the two, anyone who cant do that is either a liar or a simpleton.
Once again, wrong.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507
Quote:
Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Next?
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin
Reply Quote
17
Rapier108
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to barbacoa taco • 3:41p, 6/9/22
larry culpepper said:
Standing outside a justice's home (or any politician's home) and protesting on public land is perfectly legal and protected activity under the First Amendment.
As usual, you are 100% wrong. It is against federal law.

The DOJ is not enforcing it because it threats of violence against conservatives is something your party is fine with.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
Reply Quote
20
Rockdoc
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Carolin_Gallego • 3:41p, 6/9/22
AG
How many fires did they start? His many businesses did they destroy? That's a start for you. We'll wait.
Reply Quote
9
Carolin_Gallego
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to javajaws • 3:42p, 6/9/22
javajaws said:
larry culpepper said:
Standing outside a justice's home (or any politician's home) and protesting on public land is perfectly legal and protected activity under the First Amendment. The second they trespass, they have crossed a line. You dont have to like this but the pearl clutching over it is really stupid and cringey.

Threats of violence or acts in furtherance of violence are illegal and immoral and whoever does that should be arrested and have the book thrown at them.

Pretty easy to distinguish between the two, anyone who cant do that is either a liar or a simpleton.
Once again, wrong.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507
Quote:
Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Next?
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/

Quote:
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.

Next?
We believe progress is made through MORE discussion, not LESS, and we believe that to be true even if the topics are uncomfortable and we occasionally disagree with one another. - TexAgs
The name-calling technique making false associations is a child's game. The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject a person and their argument on this false basis.
Reply Quote
2
Gigem314
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to javajaws • 3:43p, 6/9/22
AG
javajaws said:
larry culpepper said:
Standing outside a justice's home (or any politician's home) and protesting on public land is perfectly legal and protected activity under the First Amendment. The second they trespass, they have crossed a line. You dont have to like this but the pearl clutching over it is really stupid and cringey.

Threats of violence or acts in furtherance of violence are illegal and immoral and whoever does that should be arrested and have the book thrown at them.

Pretty easy to distinguish between the two, anyone who cant do that is either a liar or a simpleton.
Once again, wrong.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507
Quote:
Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Next?
Exactly. Pretty easy to distinguish. Anyone who cant do that is either a liar or a simpleton...or at least that's what larry says.
Reply Quote
8
javajaws
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:44p, 6/9/22
AG
Don't you liberals get tired of being wrong all the time? Why don't you try using actual facts to construct an argument for a change. SOMETIMES the facts are actually on your side...just not this time. Admit you are wrong and go make some cookies or something to help your bruised ego.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin
Reply Quote
12
rausr
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:46p, 6/9/22
AG
Quote:
"I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history"
Reply Quote
2
Ag with kids
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Carolin_Gallego • 3:46p, 6/9/22
AG
Carolin_Gallego said:
javajaws said:
larry culpepper said:
Standing outside a justice's home (or any politician's home) and protesting on public land is perfectly legal and protected activity under the First Amendment. The second they trespass, they have crossed a line. You dont have to like this but the pearl clutching over it is really stupid and cringey.

Threats of violence or acts in furtherance of violence are illegal and immoral and whoever does that should be arrested and have the book thrown at them.

Pretty easy to distinguish between the two, anyone who cant do that is either a liar or a simpleton.
Once again, wrong.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507
Quote:
Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Next?
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/

Quote:
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.

Next?
Interesting.

I guess all those laws that restrict time and place of a lot of speech (permitting, etc) and have been ruled constitutional by SCOTUS are actually UNconstitutional since Keith declares it...
Reply Quote
3
Ukraine Gas Expert
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:46p, 6/9/22
AG

Reply Quote
javajaws
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Carolin_Gallego • 3:47p, 6/9/22
AG
Carolin_Gallego said:
javajaws said:
larry culpepper said:
Standing outside a justice's home (or any politician's home) and protesting on public land is perfectly legal and protected activity under the First Amendment. The second they trespass, they have crossed a line. You dont have to like this but the pearl clutching over it is really stupid and cringey.

Threats of violence or acts in furtherance of violence are illegal and immoral and whoever does that should be arrested and have the book thrown at them.

Pretty easy to distinguish between the two, anyone who cant do that is either a liar or a simpleton.
Once again, wrong.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507
Quote:
Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Next?
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/

Quote:
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.

Next?

If you are saying the first can't be restricted, then certainly the second one can't either!


https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/

Quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin
Reply Quote
9
FIDO95
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to barbacoa taco • 3:48p, 6/9/22
AG
larry culpepper said:
Standing outside a justice's home (or any politician's home) and protesting on public land is perfectly legal and protected activity under the First Amendment. The second they trespass, they have crossed a line. You dont have to like this but the pearl clutching over it is really stupid and cringey.

Threats of violence or acts in furtherance of violence are illegal and immoral and whoever does that should be arrested and have the book thrown at them.

Pretty easy to distinguish between the two, anyone who cant do that is either a liar or a simpleton.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/11/protest-justice-home-illegal/

I would think the Washington Post would be part of your echo chamber. Did you research your opinion before you tried to list it heat as fact? Truth is, I don't expect you to be swayed by legal experts. We are, as in the words you Yuri Bezmenov, it the "crisis phase". Some people are just too far gone to recognize the reality of the world around them.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
5
Carolin_Gallego
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Gigem314 • 3:48p, 6/9/22
Gigem314 said:
javajaws said:
larry culpepper said:
Standing outside a justice's home (or any politician's home) and protesting on public land is perfectly legal and protected activity under the First Amendment. The second they trespass, they have crossed a line. You dont have to like this but the pearl clutching over it is really stupid and cringey.

Threats of violence or acts in furtherance of violence are illegal and immoral and whoever does that should be arrested and have the book thrown at them.

Pretty easy to distinguish between the two, anyone who cant do that is either a liar or a simpleton.
Once again, wrong.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507
Quote:
Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Next?
Exactly. Pretty easy to distinguish. Anyone who cant do that is either a liar or a simpleton...or at least that's what larry says.
It's pretty easy to distinguish that the strictest interpretation of that Congressional law would violate Constitutional law.
We believe progress is made through MORE discussion, not LESS, and we believe that to be true even if the topics are uncomfortable and we occasionally disagree with one another. - TexAgs
The name-calling technique making false associations is a child's game. The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject a person and their argument on this false basis.
Reply Quote
1
Sims
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Carolin_Gallego • 3:49p, 6/9/22
AG
Carolin_Gallego said:
Gigem314 said:
javajaws said:
larry culpepper said:
Standing outside a justice's home (or any politician's home) and protesting on public land is perfectly legal and protected activity under the First Amendment. The second they trespass, they have crossed a line. You dont have to like this but the pearl clutching over it is really stupid and cringey.

Threats of violence or acts in furtherance of violence are illegal and immoral and whoever does that should be arrested and have the book thrown at them.

Pretty easy to distinguish between the two, anyone who cant do that is either a liar or a simpleton.
Once again, wrong.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507
Quote:
Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Next?
Exactly. Pretty easy to distinguish. Anyone who cant do that is either a liar or a simpleton...or at least that's what larry says.
It's pretty easy to distinguish that the strictest interpretation of that Congressional law would violate Constitutional law.
Case in point, "shall not be infringed."
Reply Quote
8
Gigem314
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Carolin_Gallego • 3:53p, 6/9/22
AG
Carolin_Gallego said:
Gigem314 said:
javajaws said:
larry culpepper said:
Standing outside a justice's home (or any politician's home) and protesting on public land is perfectly legal and protected activity under the First Amendment. The second they trespass, they have crossed a line. You dont have to like this but the pearl clutching over it is really stupid and cringey.

Threats of violence or acts in furtherance of violence are illegal and immoral and whoever does that should be arrested and have the book thrown at them.

Pretty easy to distinguish between the two, anyone who cant do that is either a liar or a simpleton.
Once again, wrong.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507
Quote:
Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Next?
Exactly. Pretty easy to distinguish. Anyone who cant do that is either a liar or a simpleton...or at least that's what larry says.
It's pretty easy to distinguish that the strictest interpretation of that Congressional law would violate Constitutional law.
Now do the Second Amendment
Reply Quote
5
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.