Durham protestor arrested for her part in statue damage

[ROGER4314]

Am I wrong? Haven't we been saying for years that insane, Leftist fanatics are just that......insane fanatics? It's good that they have shed their cloaks of respectability and we see them as the thugs that they really are.

Flash

 

[AustinN4]

Look at the first 2 words of his post.

I read his post in full and it begins with a reference to combatting violence and ends with a reference to the destruction of s community. I saw no reference to violence against peaceful protest.

I am confused:

Lockhart's post was about flag burners, not violent protesters, at least the way I read it.

Responding to Lockhart, I said: “I don't like it either, but........
So you think violence is called for to protest an activity that courts have ruled is protected free speech?” Lockhart's post was about protesters butning flags, violence was not a factor that he expressed.

Then Dawico quoted me and said: “Fighting violence with swifter and stronger violence has always been the preferred method. I am not saying it is legal but it does work.”

To me, that implies violence against a flag burner excercising their protected 1st A right.

How is violence against protected free speech as defined by the SC not a problem?

But if you he didn't quote me, then his comment would stand on its own; although, I don't believe the appropriate response to violent protesters is violent counter protestors. It should be a LE response.

 

[Younggun]

I am confused:

Lockhart's post was about flag burners, not violent protesters, at least the way I read it.

Responding to Lockhart, I said: “I don't like it either, but........
So you think violence is called for to protest an activity that courts have ruled is protected free speech?” Lockhart's post was about protesters butning flags, violence was not a factor that he expressed.

Then Dawico quoted me and said: “Fighting violence with swifter and stronger violence has always been the preferred method. I am not saying it is legal but it does work.”

To me, that implies violence against a flag burner excercising their protected 1st A right.

How is violence against protected free speech as defined by the SC not a problem?

But if you he didn't quote me, then his comment would stand on its own; although, I don't believe the appropriate response to violent protesters is violent counter protestors. It should be a LE response.

I read his post in the context of Zincs quote, the quote Dawico references when he makes his post ends with a reference to Antifa. (so many references, lol)

Knowing him and taking the post as it is written I come to the conclusion that he is advocating against violent protesters. If he says otherwise I will not be able to defend his opinion. And in most situations I would say that tangling with violent protesters is probably not smart. But given the infinite variables I won't say that with any totality.


With that cleared up, if you go back and read my posts in full you will find that I have condemned violence against peaceful protest. I did make the comment that starting fires on a city street is illegal so I will clarify that I didn't not mean that as an excuse for violence. I only mean to say that setting anything on fire in the street or sidewalk is likely not protected by the 1A because of the general public risk it creates. This risk should be fought with a fire extinguisher, not violence. And for the risk to public safety, not the message or the act of flag burning itself.

And so I'm not now accused of being a liberal flag burning commie, I also despise people who burn the flag and sit during the National Anthem.

Hopefully I've covered all my bases. Will dawn the flame suit just in case.

 

[Dawico]

Just to clarify, I do not consider a person burning the flag as a violent protest and does not in itself condemn a violent response.

Looking back at my first quote of AustinN4 I must have read something incorrectly in his post.

 

[satx78247]

Except of course they are backed by the local, state, and federal government because you know, that whole Bill of Rights thing.

zincwarrior,

Be sure to tell everyone where the Bill of Rights protects violent rioting, committing arson, overturning vehicles, breaking windows, looting stores, tearing down privately-owned memorials (The statue in Durham belongs to the UDC & always has.) & assaulting other citizens.

Also, you might want to point out the part of The US CONSTITUTION that allows the federal courts to declare ANYTHING Unconstitutional.
(There is NO such portion of The Constitution & the Founding Fathers would be horrified that the federal courts have so exceeded their lawful authority.)

yours, satx

 

[AustinN4]

YG and Dawico, thank you both for your comments. I believe we 3 are on the same page.

 

[Younggun]

zincwarrior,

Be sure to tell everyone where the Bill of Rights protects violent rioting, committing arson, overturning vehicles, breaking windows, looting stores, tearing down privately-owned memorials (The statue in Durham belongs to the UDC & always has.) & assaulting other citizens.

Also, you might want to point out the part of The US CONSTITUTION that allows the federal courts to declare ANYTHING Unconstitutional.
(There is NO such portion of The Constitution & the Founding Fathers would be horrified that the federal courts have so exceeded their lawful authority.)

yours, satx

Article 3, Section 2.

 

[zincwarrior]

I am confused:

Lockhart's post was about flag burners, not violent protesters, at least the way I read it.

Responding to Lockhart, I said: “I don't like it either, but........
So you think violence is called for to protest an activity that courts have ruled is protected free speech?” Lockhart's post was about protesters butning flags, violence was not a factor that he expressed.

Then Dawico quoted me and said: “Fighting violence with swifter and stronger violence has always been the preferred method. I am not saying it is legal but it does work.”

To me, that implies violence against a flag burner excercising their protected 1st A right.

How is violence against protected free speech as defined by the SC not a problem?

But if you he didn't quote me, then his comment would stand on its own; although, I don't believe the appropriate response to violent protesters is violent counter protestors. It should be a LE response.

Exactly. If he and SATX are not advocating violence against those they disagree with then I apologize, but it appears they were doing so

Just to clarify, I do not consider a person burning the flag as a violent protest and does not in itself condemn a violent response.

Looking back at my first quote of AustinN4 I must have read something incorrectly in his post.

Ok Dawi I think there was some confusion. My apologies as I misinterpreted what you were saying. I think we're onside that violence against legal protesters, is bad.

I can never figure out what SATX is saying so this doesn't apply there.

 

[TAZ]

TAZ,

I presume that you won't be HURT when the whole bunch of leftist thugs go to NC State prison for several years??

yours, satx

Hell no. I'll be out buying a few beers in celebration of their trip to colorectal cleansing school.

Except of course they are backed by the local, state, and federal government because you know, that whole Bill of Rights thing.

The BOR protects peaceful assembly and most speech. Even that speech which is offensive to others. It does not protect violent thuggish behavior no matter who is doing it. Well it's how it was intended IMO. Tearing down a statue is not peaceful protesting. It's destruction of property.

Not directed at you Zinc. Beating someone who burns a flag, unless that person is burning YOUR flag or threatening to burn you with the flag or some similar threatening activity is the same thuggish behavior. It sux, I agree. People have died for the principles that flag represents. Heck I risked my life for the principles of that flag. I find it incredibly ironic that people desecrate a symbol of the document that protects their right to desecrate the symbol. But by God, I swore an oath to defend the Constitution and I will do so with every drop of blood in my veins, even if it means tolerating someone saying mean things.

 

[Younggun]

YG and Dawico, thank you both for your comments. I believe we 3 are on the same page.

The tough thing about having these discussions online is that by making a post too short you open yourself to having your stance misinterpreted by lack of precision.

By making a post to long you risk the reader losing interest and responding to only a paragraph leaving a large portion of your overall view overlooked giving the reader the impression that the first paragraph encompasses the totality of your stance which is then expanded to cover an entire spectrum of a given subject.

I've been guilty of both as a poster, and a reader.

 

[zincwarrior]

Also, you might want to point out the part of The US CONSTITUTION that allows the federal courts to declare ANYTHING Unconstitutional.
(There is NO such portion of The Constitution & the Founding Fathers would be horrified that the federal courts have so exceeded their lawful authority.)

Thats settled law for 200 years. If you disagree with it then I guess you agree that states are free to disregard the 2nd Amendment as it doesn't apply to them.

 

[zincwarrior]

Hell no. I'll be out buying a few beers in celebration of their trip to colorectal cleansing school.



The BOR protects peaceful assembly and most speech. Even that speech which is offensive to others. It does not protect violent thuggish behavior no matter who is doing it. Well it's how it was intended IMO. Tearing down a statue is not peaceful protesting. It's destruction of property.

Not directed at you Zinc. Beating someone who burns a flag, unless that person is burning YOUR flag or threatening to burn you with the flag or some similar threatening activity is the same thuggish behavior. It sux, I agree. People have died for the principles that flag represents. Heck I risked my life for the principles of that flag. I find it incredibly ironic that people desecrate a symbol of the document that protects their right to desecrate the symbol. But by God, I swore an oath to defend the Constitution and I will do so with every drop of blood in my veins, even if it means tolerating someone saying mean things.

TAZ we're in complete agreement.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Another problem is that the new version requires one to click on quoted posts, in order to see if a part of that post is bolded for emphasis.

 

[satx78247]

Article 3, Section 2.

Younggun,

Sadly for you & the rest of the folks who are IGNORANT of The Constitution, Article III, Section II does NOT specifically say that the federal courts can declare ANY law Unconstitutional. - That which is NOT SPECIFICALLY allowed is forbidden to the federal government by the TENTH AMENDMENT.

Jefferson, Mason & the other Founders would be horrified that you/any other citizen believes that the Constitution allows the federal courts to become DICTATORIAL.

yours, satx

 

[zincwarrior]

Younggun,

Sadly for you & the rest of the folks who are IGNORANT of The Constitution, Article III, Section II does NOT specifically say that the federal courts can declare ANY law Unconstitutional. - That which is NOT SPECIFICALLY allowed is forbidden to the federal government by the TENTH AMENDMENT.

Jefferson, Mason & the other Founders would be horrified that you/any other citizen believes that the Constitution allows the federal courts to become DICTATORIAL.

yours, satx

Again, you're going against 200 years of settled law back to Marbury vs. Madison. You're effectively arguing the states have the right to decide what rights apply to them, with no review. Thats cray cray.

Additionally, little things like states willfully violating federal law, the Bill of Rights, and the constituion would have no judicial review. Alternatively your argument supports that, if HRC had won she could have decided voting for President is no longer required, because, you know no review by the courts.

 

[Younggun]

Younggun,

Sadly for you & the rest of the folks who are IGNORANT of The Constitution, Article III, Section II does NOT specifically say that the federal courts can declare ANY law Unconstitutional. - That which is NOT SPECIFICALLY allowed is forbidden to the federal government by the TENTH AMENDMENT.

Jefferson, Mason & the other Founders would be horrified that you/any other citizen believes that the Constitution allows the federal courts to become DICTATORIAL.

yours, satx

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents

I conclude from reading this that a law in violation of the constitution constitutes an irreconcilable variance and in such cases the court rules the lower law (Constitution being the highest law in the land) invalid (unconstituional).

This does not imply in any way that SCOTUS can become dictatorial as it gives SCOTUS no power to write or create law, only to rule on laws passed. Your statement is hyperbolic at best.

I do thank you for your response as it lead me to increase my understanding of the history and role SCOTUS plays in our government.

 

[satx78247]

zincwarrior,

I make NO apology for being a TENTH AMENDMENT GUY or that I'm a fanatic on the federal government interfering in the local affairs of cities/counties/parishes/States UNLESS there is an OBVIOUS federal issue at stake.

Speaking of Hillary ROTTEN Clinton, how would you like it if some loony federal judge decided to throw-out enough votes in some of the States that voted for President Trump on some specious basis & then awarded those States' electoral votes to HRC??

Personally, I think that it was UNWISE to have ever allowed Marbury vs. Madison to stand, EXCEPT as a single/NON-judicial precedent case about the few low-ranking federal officials, who were directly involved.
Marbury was an extralegal POWER GRAB by the SCOTUS & the vast majority of legal experts of the 19th century agreed.

yours, satx

 

[satx78247]

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78



I conclude from reading this that a law in violation of the constitution constitutes an irreconcilable variance and in such cases the court rules the lower law (Constitution being the highest law in the land) invalid (unconstituional).

This does not imply in any way that SCOTUS can become dictatorial as it gives SCOTUS no power to write or create law, only to rule on laws passed. Your statement is hyperbolic at best.

I do thank you for your response as it lead me to increase my understanding of the history and role SCOTUS plays in our government.

Younggun,

NOT hyperbolic at all. - Given your reading of Article III, the SCOTUS can strike down or "reinterpret" (so that the law becomes what the 9 Justices want it to say, as in the Obamacare decision) ANY law, on any or no Constitutional basis.
("Finding" a "right to privacy", that NEVER existed before, to require abortion on demand, in the case of Roe vs. Wade being one such case of judicial overreach.)

yours, satx

 

[Younggun]

zincwarrior,

I make NO apology for being a TENTH AMENDMENT GUY or that I'm a fanatic on the federal government interfering in the local affairs of cities/counties/parishes/States UNLESS there is an OBVIOUS federal issue at stake.

Speaking of Hillary ROTTEN Clinton, how would you like it if some loony federal judge decided to throw-out enough votes in some of the States that voted for President Trump on some specious basis & then award those States' electoral votes to HRC??

Personally, I think that it was UNWISE to have ever allowed Marbury vs. Madison to stand, EXCEPT as a single/NON-judicial precedent case about the few low-ranking federal officials, who were directly involved.
Marbury was an extralegal POWER GRAB by the SCOTUS & the vast majority of legal experts of the 19th century agreed.

yours, satx

Then you must start working towards the repeal of the 14th amendment which gives equal protection to all citizens.

[qoute]All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.[/quote]

An amendment that was ratified as intended per rules laid out by the founders in Article 5 of the constitution. Ignoring the 14th amendment as it stand is to go against the system of government the founders of this nation created. In order to follow your ideology on this subject, we would be forced to trample directly on the Constitution as written by the founders and declare the system the created a failure.

 

[Younggun]

Younggun,

NOT hyperbolic at all. - Given your reading of Article III, the SCOTUS can strike down or "reinterpret" (so that the law becomes what the 9 Justices want it to say, as in the Obamacare decision) ANY law, on any or no Constitutional basis.
("Finding" a "right to privacy", that NEVER existed before, to require abortion on demand, in the case of Roe vs. Wade being one such case of judicial overreach.)

yours, satx

There is no reading that implies ruling be made with no constitutional basis. Please point out the part of Article 3 I'm misreading, or tell my what part of Hamilton's writing I misread. Otherwise, I'm reading your statements as opinion based not on what is written, but on your preference to how things should be without regard to what is actually prescribed in our founding documents.