Mostly peaceful protesting

10,016 Views | 151 Replies | Last: 25 days ago by bear2034
sycasey
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 oski003 • 7:25a, 5/9/22
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
The bigger question still has not been answered here:

Do you think the right to peaceful demonstration should be abridged here? I don't care what the letter of the law says; we all know that many laws are selectively enforced and subject to interpretation. Do you think that protesters should be arrested if they try to protest Supreme Court decisions (or pending decisions)? Is that a good precedent to set for the country?


Protesters should be able to protest at courthouses and other public places, not harass people outside their homes.

The law BearForce quoted says you can't do it at the courthouse either. So you disagree with the law? Why make a distinction about homes versus places of business?

If public places are allowed, then you're cool with protesters coming up to them at restaurants and the like?


I am not cool with protestors coming up to individuals while eating at restaurants.
So there are some public places where you would say protesting is not allowed?


No, you asked me my opinion on what I think should and should not be allowed. Protesting is good. When it is harassment, it is not. I feel that protesting outside a judges house is almost always obvious harassment. Protesting outside abortion clinics is probably harassment as well. You now seem to be mixing my answer here with the discussion on constitutionality of laws that disallow protesting. They are different discussions.

"Harassment" is a pretty subjective judgment, isn't it?

Anyway, I would generally agree that if it rises to the level of harassment it should be disallowed. I'm not sure some peaceful protesters in the street outside a public figure's house clears that bar, so long as they're not preventing the residents from entering or leaving or disturbing everyone's sleep.
Reply Quote
1
oski003
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 sycasey • 7:30a, 5/9/22
sycasey said:
BearForce2 said:
sycasey said:
BearForce2 said:
sycasey said:
BearForce2 said:
sycasey said:

Your first post notes that there had already been protests at Kavanaugh's house in the past. That tells you that it's pretty easy to find information about Supreme Court justices.

No one needs to doxx them. They are public figures.


It's a criminal offense to picket or parade outside a justice's home. So far, the FBI, DOJ or any Democrat politician have not condemned the threatening protests including the President.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section1507&num=0&edition=prelim

So you think these protesters should be prosecuted, even if there is no violence to the protest? That's your position?

Absolutely.

Does the same apply to the Canadian trucker protests?
I don't know what the Canadian law says regarding trucker protests.

What about the trucker convoys that attempted to replicate the same actions in the US? I seem to recall you posting approvingly about those.

Should Pelosi protesters be prosecuted and jailed?

. I never agreed with these truckers' blocking the freeway, even if I may have had some sympathy for their cause, only because I don't like how the FDA has forced us to choose between no vaccine and mRNA delivered spike protein.
Reply Quote
2
oski003
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 sycasey • 7:31a, 5/9/22
sycasey said:
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
The bigger question still has not been answered here:

Do you think the right to peaceful demonstration should be abridged here? I don't care what the letter of the law says; we all know that many laws are selectively enforced and subject to interpretation. Do you think that protesters should be arrested if they try to protest Supreme Court decisions (or pending decisions)? Is that a good precedent to set for the country?


Protesters should be able to protest at courthouses and other public places, not harass people outside their homes.

The law BearForce quoted says you can't do it at the courthouse either. So you disagree with the law? Why make a distinction about homes versus places of business?

If public places are allowed, then you're cool with protesters coming up to them at restaurants and the like?


I am not cool with protestors coming up to individuals while eating at restaurants.
So there are some public places where you would say protesting is not allowed?


No, you asked me my opinion on what I think should and should not be allowed. Protesting is good. When it is harassment, it is not. I feel that protesting outside a judges house is almost always obvious harassment. Protesting outside abortion clinics is probably harassment as well. You now seem to be mixing my answer here with the discussion on constitutionality of laws that disallow protesting. They are different discussions.

"Harassment" is a pretty subjective judgment, isn't it?

Anyway, I would generally agree that if it rises to the level of harassment it should be disallowed. I'm not sure some peaceful protesters in the street outside a public figure's house clears that bar, so long as they're not preventing the residents from entering or leaving or disturbing everyone's sleep.
. When you go into a residential neighborhood and picket outside someone's home, you are already close to if not crossing the line.
Reply Quote
4
sycasey
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 oski003 • 8:23a, 5/9/22
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
The bigger question still has not been answered here:

Do you think the right to peaceful demonstration should be abridged here? I don't care what the letter of the law says; we all know that many laws are selectively enforced and subject to interpretation. Do you think that protesters should be arrested if they try to protest Supreme Court decisions (or pending decisions)? Is that a good precedent to set for the country?


Protesters should be able to protest at courthouses and other public places, not harass people outside their homes.

The law BearForce quoted says you can't do it at the courthouse either. So you disagree with the law? Why make a distinction about homes versus places of business?

If public places are allowed, then you're cool with protesters coming up to them at restaurants and the like?


I am not cool with protestors coming up to individuals while eating at restaurants.
So there are some public places where you would say protesting is not allowed?


No, you asked me my opinion on what I think should and should not be allowed. Protesting is good. When it is harassment, it is not. I feel that protesting outside a judges house is almost always obvious harassment. Protesting outside abortion clinics is probably harassment as well. You now seem to be mixing my answer here with the discussion on constitutionality of laws that disallow protesting. They are different discussions.

"Harassment" is a pretty subjective judgment, isn't it?

Anyway, I would generally agree that if it rises to the level of harassment it should be disallowed. I'm not sure some peaceful protesters in the street outside a public figure's house clears that bar, so long as they're not preventing the residents from entering or leaving or disturbing everyone's sleep.
. When you go into a residential neighborhood and picket outside someone's home, you are already close to if not crossing the line.

Close to, yes. But that seems to be the nature of a lot of protest actions; if it's not making certain people uncomfortable then it's not doing its job.
Reply Quote
5
calpoly
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 oski003 • 9:22a, 5/9/22
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
The bigger question still has not been answered here:

Do you think the right to peaceful demonstration should be abridged here? I don't care what the letter of the law says; we all know that many laws are selectively enforced and subject to interpretation. Do you think that protesters should be arrested if they try to protest Supreme Court decisions (or pending decisions)? Is that a good precedent to set for the country?


Protesters should be able to protest at courthouses and other public places, not harass people outside their homes.

The law BearForce quoted says you can't do it at the courthouse either. So you disagree with the law? Why make a distinction about homes versus places of business?

If public places are allowed, then you're cool with protesters coming up to them at restaurants and the like?


I am not cool with protestors coming up to individuals while eating at restaurants.
So there are some public places where you would say protesting is not allowed?


No, you asked me my opinion on what I think should and should not be allowed. Protesting is good. When it is harassment, it is not. I feel that protesting outside a judges house is almost always obvious harassment. Protesting outside abortion clinics is probably harassment as well. You now seem to be mixing my answer here with the discussion on constitutionality of laws that disallow protesting. They are different discussions.

"Harassment" is a pretty subjective judgment, isn't it?

Anyway, I would generally agree that if it rises to the level of harassment it should be disallowed. I'm not sure some peaceful protesters in the street outside a public figure's house clears that bar, so long as they're not preventing the residents from entering or leaving or disturbing everyone's sleep.
. When you go into a residential neighborhood and picket outside someone's home, you are already close to if not crossing the line.
Where was your outrage when anti-mask, anti-vaccine protesters picketed outside school board officials homes? Your outrage tends to be one sided.
Reply Quote
5
oski003
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 calpoly • 9:29a, 5/9/22
calpoly said:
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
The bigger question still has not been answered here:

Do you think the right to peaceful demonstration should be abridged here? I don't care what the letter of the law says; we all know that many laws are selectively enforced and subject to interpretation. Do you think that protesters should be arrested if they try to protest Supreme Court decisions (or pending decisions)? Is that a good precedent to set for the country?


Protesters should be able to protest at courthouses and other public places, not harass people outside their homes.

The law BearForce quoted says you can't do it at the courthouse either. So you disagree with the law? Why make a distinction about homes versus places of business?

If public places are allowed, then you're cool with protesters coming up to them at restaurants and the like?


I am not cool with protestors coming up to individuals while eating at restaurants.
So there are some public places where you would say protesting is not allowed?


No, you asked me my opinion on what I think should and should not be allowed. Protesting is good. When it is harassment, it is not. I feel that protesting outside a judges house is almost always obvious harassment. Protesting outside abortion clinics is probably harassment as well. You now seem to be mixing my answer here with the discussion on constitutionality of laws that disallow protesting. They are different discussions.

"Harassment" is a pretty subjective judgment, isn't it?

Anyway, I would generally agree that if it rises to the level of harassment it should be disallowed. I'm not sure some peaceful protesters in the street outside a public figure's house clears that bar, so long as they're not preventing the residents from entering or leaving or disturbing everyone's sleep.
. When you go into a residential neighborhood and picket outside someone's home, you are already close to if not crossing the line.
Where was your outrage when anti-mask, anti-vaccine protesters picketed outside school board officials homes? Your outrage tends to be one sided.
There is no outrage here. I am just giving some objective perspective on the First Amendment.. Please note I believe that Roe vs Wade is good public policy and do not wish it to be overturned. Thanks.
Reply Quote
2
BearForce2
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:52p, 5/9/22


Maybe Schumer should run, he sure knows how to incite an erection, I mean, insurrection.
Reply Quote
3
cbbass1
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 BearForce2 • 3:28p, 5/9/22
BearForce2 said:
sycasey said:

Your first post notes that there had already been protests at Kavanaugh's house in the past. That tells you that it's pretty easy to find information about Supreme Court justices.

No one needs to doxx them. They are public figures.


It's a criminal offense to picket or parade outside a justice's home. So far, the FBI, DOJ or any Democrat politician have not condemned the threatening protests including the President.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section1507&num=0&edition=prelim
John Roberts and the GOP SCOTUS appointees are politicians in robes. They've been transforming the U.S. legal system into something no longer recognizable as America.

Did they think that they could take our Freedoms and our Right to Privacy away, and who knows what else, and everyone would just be OK with it? Did they think that they could take away a woman's right to manage her own pregnancy, and everyone would just shrug their shoulders & go back to work?

These guys have been paid very well to do exactly what they're doing, which is turning America into a corporate-controlled fascist state. All rights & privileges are for Capital, while Labor gets nothing but work, low wages & salaries, no privacy, no Freedom of Speech, and no more free press. Corporations are now "people", and money is now "speech" (that's Citizens United).

All politicians need to be accountable, at some level, to The Governed -- We The People.

To the protesters at Beer Bong Brett's house, all I can say is, "What took you so long?"

And to Beer Bong Brett, John Roberts, and all the other SCOTUS politicians in robes, I think Harry Truman said it best: "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Anyone smart enough to protest these political operatives is smart enough to know that any assault or violence or death threats against these people are counterproductive. Let no harm come to them or their families. But DO show them how angry and upset you are that they've given up on small-d democracy and the American Dream.
Reply Quote
1
dajo9
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:51p, 5/9/22
American Vermin
Reply Quote
5
BearForce2
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 dajo9 • 7:21p, 5/9/22
Let's see the video evidence.



The protesters were chanting, "No Uterus, No opinion!"

This would disqualify opinions from most here on this site.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
NVBear78
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 cbbass1 • 7:46p, 5/9/22
cbbass1 said:
BearForce2 said:
sycasey said:

Your first post notes that there had already been protests at Kavanaugh's house in the past. That tells you that it's pretty easy to find information about Supreme Court justices.

No one needs to doxx them. They are public figures.


It's a criminal offense to picket or parade outside a justice's home. So far, the FBI, DOJ or any Democrat politician have not condemned the threatening protests including the President.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section1507&num=0&edition=prelim
John Roberts and the GOP SCOTUS appointees are politicians in robes. They've been transforming the U.S. legal system into something no longer recognizable as America.

Did they think that they could take our Freedoms and our Right to Privacy away, and who knows what else, and everyone would just be OK with it? Did they think that they could take away a woman's right to manage her own pregnancy, and everyone would just shrug their shoulders & go back to work?

These guys have been paid very well to do exactly what they're doing, which is turning America into a corporate-controlled fascist state. All rights & privileges are for Capital, while Labor gets nothing but work, low wages & salaries, no privacy, no Freedom of Speech, and no more free press. Corporations are now "people", and money is now "speech" (that's Citizens United).

All politicians need to be accountable, at some level, to The Governed -- We The People.

To the protesters at Beer Bong Brett's house, all I can say is, "What took you so long?"

And to Beer Bong Brett, John Roberts, and all the other SCOTUS politicians in robes, I think Harry Truman said it best: "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Anyone smart enough to protest these political operatives is smart enough to know that any assault or violence or death threats against these people are counterproductive. Let no harm come to them or their families. But DO show them how angry and upset you are that they've given up on small-d democracy and the American Dream.


Wow
Reply Quote
3
oski003
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 dajo9 • 8:38p, 5/9/22
dajo9 said:


The Supreme Court doesn't condone this behavior. Neither do I.
Reply Quote
4
dajo9
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 oski003 • 3:59a, 5/10/22
oski003 said:
dajo9 said:


The Supreme Court doesn't condone this behavior. Neither do I.


The Supreme Court doesn't protect private citizens against this behavior either
American Vermin
Reply Quote
5
dajo9
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:48a, 5/10/22
We have no right to privacy. That's what the Supreme Court believes.
American Vermin
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
dajo9
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:53a, 5/10/22
American Vermin
Reply Quote
5
oski003
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 dajo9 • 5:15a, 5/10/22
dajo9 said:
oski003 said:
dajo9 said:


The Supreme Court doesn't condone this behavior. Neither do I.


The Supreme Court doesn't protect private citizens against this behavior either


That's the job of the other two branches.
Reply Quote
2
dajo9
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 oski003 • 5:59a, 5/10/22
oski003 said:
dajo9 said:
oski003 said:
dajo9 said:


The Supreme Court doesn't condone this behavior. Neither do I.


The Supreme Court doesn't protect private citizens against this behavior either


That's the job of the other two branches.


What laws were broken when that activity is protected under the 1st amendment by the Supreme Court?
American Vermin
Reply Quote
3
oski003
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 dajo9 • 6:05a, 5/10/22
dajo9 said:
oski003 said:
dajo9 said:
oski003 said:
dajo9 said:


The Supreme Court doesn't condone this behavior. Neither do I.


The Supreme Court doesn't protect private citizens against this behavior either


That's the job of the other two branches.


What laws were broken when that activity is protected under the 1st amendment by the Supreme Court?


That activity is not protected under the 1st amendment. Laws must just be narrowly tailored. You should study this.

https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/topics/freedom-of-assembly/abortion-protests-buffer-zones/
Reply Quote
2
dajo9
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 oski003 • 6:17a, 5/10/22
oski003 said:
dajo9 said:
oski003 said:
dajo9 said:
oski003 said:
dajo9 said:


The Supreme Court doesn't condone this behavior. Neither do I.


The Supreme Court doesn't protect private citizens against this behavior either


That's the job of the other two branches.


What laws were broken when that activity is protected under the 1st amendment by the Supreme Court?


That activity is not protected under the 1st amendment. Laws must just be narrowly tailored. You should study this.

https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/topics/freedom-of-assembly/abortion-protests-buffer-zones/


What laws were broken that the Supreme Court wouldn't strike down? None.
American Vermin
Reply Quote
3
oski003
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 dajo9 • 7:07a, 5/10/22
dajo9 said:
oski003 said:
dajo9 said:
oski003 said:
dajo9 said:
oski003 said:
dajo9 said:


The Supreme Court doesn't condone this behavior. Neither do I.


The Supreme Court doesn't protect private citizens against this behavior either


That's the job of the other two branches.


What laws were broken when that activity is protected under the 1st amendment by the Supreme Court?


That activity is not protected under the 1st amendment. Laws must just be narrowly tailored. You should study this.

https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/topics/freedom-of-assembly/abortion-protests-buffer-zones/


What laws were broken that the Supreme Court wouldn't strike down? None.


Skinner's twitter includes several obvious crimes in any jurisdiction if you click on the link. Regardless, here is a law protecting children of abortion workers from stalking and harassment.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0601-0650/sb_606_cfa_20130522_152332_sen_floor.html

I already posted several state laws that protect clinics without unnecessarily restricting free speech. The onus is on local law enforcement to protect the clinics and states to legislate constitutional laws protecting the clinics and those seeking abortion. I don't condone the behavior of the radical pro-lifers at all, but the legislature can't make sweeping rules that protect legal activities to better protect against the illegal ones (where the protestors break the law).
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
BearForce2
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:33p, 5/10/22


She encourages this type of behavior outside of judges' homes but only if they're conservative appointed judges, otherwise, it's illegal activity.

Reply Quote
3
1 edit
dajo9
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 BearForce2 • 4:41p, 5/10/22
BearForce2 said:


She encourage this type of behavior outside of judges' homes but only if they're conservative appointed judges, otherwise, it's illegal activity.



You've got it backwards. It's the Supreme Court that allows protests outside the homes of those they don't like.
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
oski003
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 dajo9 • 5:59p, 5/10/22
dajo9 said:
BearForce2 said:


She encourage this type of behavior outside of judges' homes but only if they're conservative appointed judges, otherwise, it's illegal activity.



You've got it backwards. It's the Supreme Court that allows protests outside the homes of those they don't like.


ZOMG. How is this possible? L.A. expanded the distance from the existing law of 100 feet! The ACLU isn't happy about the curbing of free speech.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-09-14/la-city-council-passes-strict-law-over-protesting-outside-residences%3f_amp=true
Reply Quote
2
NVBear78
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:40p, 5/10/22
The libs here obviously are spot on about the protesting issue and so protestors need to be lining up outside Kagen and Sotomayors house every time they are on the opposite side from them. It's the future!
Reply Quote
4
sycasey
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 NVBear78 • 9:56p, 5/10/22
NVBear78 said:
The libs here obviously are spot on about the protesting issue and so protestors need to be lining up outside Kagen and Sotomayors house every time they are on the opposite side from them. It's the future!

Plenty of liberal politicians get people protesting outside their houses all the time. This is nothing new. As long as no one gets violent it's fine.
Reply Quote
6
Eastern Oregon Bear
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 sycasey • 10:21p, 5/10/22
sycasey said:
NVBear78 said:
The libs here obviously are spot on about the protesting issue and so protestors need to be lining up outside Kagen and Sotomayors house every time they are on the opposite side from them. It's the future!

Plenty of liberal politicians get people protesting outside their houses all the time. This is nothing new. As long as no one gets violent it's fine.
I remember someone (probably BearForce2) being absolutely gleeful about someone vandalizing Nancy Pelosi's house on one occasion and about someone taking a dump on her driveway another time.

Note: I am not equating NVBear with BearForce2. NVBear has principles and I respect that, even if I disagree with him on numerous things.
Reply Quote
1
sycasey
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 Eastern Oregon Bear • 10:23p, 5/10/22
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
sycasey said:
NVBear78 said:
The libs here obviously are spot on about the protesting issue and so protestors need to be lining up outside Kagen and Sotomayors house every time they are on the opposite side from them. It's the future!

Plenty of liberal politicians get people protesting outside their houses all the time. This is nothing new. As long as no one gets violent it's fine.
I remember someone (probably BearForce2) being absolutely gleeful about someone vandalizing Nancy Pelosi's house on one occasion and about someone taking a dump on her driveway another time.

Yes, and he also gleefully reported on the trucker convoys that were disturbing residential neighborhoods (among other things).
Reply Quote
3
BearForce2
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 Eastern Oregon Bear • 12:10a, 5/11/22
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
sycasey said:
NVBear78 said:
The libs here obviously are spot on about the protesting issue and so protestors need to be lining up outside Kagen and Sotomayors house every time they are on the opposite side from them. It's the future!

Plenty of liberal politicians get people protesting outside their houses all the time. This is nothing new. As long as no one gets violent it's fine.
I remember someone (probably BearForce2) being absolutely gleeful about someone vandalizing Nancy Pelosi's house on one occasion and about someone taking a dump on her driveway another time.

Note: I am not equating NVBear with BearForce2. NVBear has principles and I respect that, even if I disagree with him on numerous things.

You could easily find the post and link. I posted many times about turd on the streets of S.F. though.

Speaking of Pelosi.....here's a quote from her today in Congress:

"When you're home thinking about [what $40 billion to Ukraine] is all about, just think about 'when I was hungry, you fed me' from the Gospel of Matthew."
Reply Quote
2
2 edits
BearForce2
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 sycasey • 12:19a, 5/11/22
sycasey said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
sycasey said:
NVBear78 said:
The libs here obviously are spot on about the protesting issue and so protestors need to be lining up outside Kagen and Sotomayors house every time they are on the opposite side from them. It's the future!

Plenty of liberal politicians get people protesting outside their houses all the time. This is nothing new. As long as no one gets violent it's fine.
I remember someone (probably BearForce2) being absolutely gleeful about someone vandalizing Nancy Pelosi's house on one occasion and about someone taking a dump on her driveway another time.

Yes, and he also gleefully reported on the trucker convoys that were disturbing residential neighborhoods (among other things).

I probably didn't, that's why you didn't post any links. By any chance, do you want to know what the password was to Hunter Biden's laptop?
Reply Quote
2
BearForce2
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 sycasey • 12:30a, 5/11/22
sycasey said:
NVBear78 said:
The libs here obviously are spot on about the protesting issue and so protestors need to be lining up outside Kagen and Sotomayors house every time they are on the opposite side from them. It's the future!

Plenty of liberal politicians get people protesting outside their houses all the time. This is nothing new. As long as no one gets violent it's fine.

They do?
Reply Quote
2
cbbass1
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 BearForce2 • 2:13a, 5/11/22
BearForce2 said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
NVBear78 said:
I find the doxxing of Supreme Court Justices extremely troubling
How do you feel about the doxxing of liberal politicians?


"I think there's a lot of passion."
I fail to see any problem here. What, exactly, would you expect Biden or Psaki to condemn?

Don't we celebrate our [remaining] Freedoms on July 4th?

Let me refresh your memories. It goes like this:
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.
Looks to me like we have a peaceful assembly of concerned citizens, petitioning their Government for a redress of their grievances.

If you think this is close to, or over, the "line", you might want to check in with Dr. Christine Blasey Ford or AOC.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/19/christine-blasey-ford-brett-kavanaugh-sexual-assault-accuser-threats

Peaceful assemblies and petitioning the Government for the redress of grievances are protected speech under OUR First Amendment. The peaceful protests at the SCOTUS justice's homes are unmistakably clear examples of exactly that.

Democracy depends on Free Speech. Limiting the Free Speech rights of U.S. Citizens is a slippery slope.

Harassment and threats are NOT protected by the Constitution at all. They're illegal.
Reply Quote
1
cbbass1
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 oski003 • 2:24a, 5/11/22
oski003 said:
Saying that it is okay to harass supreme court justices because nut jobs harass abortion clinics is an unfortunate extremist liberal view.
I don't think that anyone is saying that it's OK to harass.

Peaceful protest is not harassment.
Reply Quote
oski003
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 cbbass1 • 6:17a, 5/11/22
cbbass1 said:
oski003 said:
Saying that it is okay to harass supreme court justices because nut jobs harass abortion clinics is an unfortunate extremist liberal view.
I don't think that anyone is saying that it's OK to harass.

Peaceful protest is not harassment.


Going up to someone's house and yelling, "**** You" into a megaphone is harassment. Regardless I am okay with the police not arresting them, assuming this is a one day thing.
Reply Quote
2
Anarchistbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:02a, 5/11/22
Good news. The same group protested outside of Pelosi's house last night so harmony has been restored.

Pro-abortion activists turned their vitriol on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and blamed her and the Democratic leadership for the expected overturn of the landmark Roe v. Wade decision.

A small group of protesters demonstrated outside Pelosi's palatial mansion in San Francisco, California, on Tuesday.

"We're here because Nancy Pelosi and the whole leadership of the Democratic party has been complicit, complicit with the fascist Republican party that warns to not only only eliminate abortion rights, but gay marriage, trans rights, and a whole slew, a whole slew of rights!" said the protest leader on her bullhorn.
Reply Quote
3
NVBear78
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 cbbass1 • 10:10a, 5/11/22
cbbass1 said:
oski003 said:
Saying that it is okay to harass supreme court justices because nut jobs harass abortion clinics is an unfortunate extremist liberal view.
I don't think that anyone is saying that it's OK to harass.

Peaceful protest is not harassment.


I really hate the idea of protestors at people's houses from the left or the right and of course violence against people or property by anyone is not right. Here was another example I saw today regarding the Supreme Court:

"The journalist for Rewire, Caroline Reilly, appeared to suggest more violence after a pro-life group's office was firebombed in Wisconsin over the weekend...

"More of this. May these people never know a moment of peace or safety until they rot in the ground," she wrote in a since-deleted Twitter post on Sunday."
Reply Quote
3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.