Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Tallpine on May 19, 2013, 05:07:22 PM
-
2A supporter ejected from hearing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEQJ5HsLZ6E
-
I didn't watch your link, but I saw what I think is the same video elsewhere..
Were the people cheering his removal from the room? If so, I'm even more thoroughly disgusted.
Also, why do I get the general sense that the spiffier the uniform an agent of a government wears, the less they give a crap about other people's rights or even common decency?
-
I didn't watch your link, but I saw what I think is the same video elsewhere..
Were the people cheering his removal from the room? If so, I'm even more thoroughly disgusted.
Also, why do I get the general sense that the spiffier the uniform an agent of a government wears, the less they give a crap about other people's rights or even common decency?
I'm not sure ... the site where I found the link seemed to think they crowd was applauding the man who was being removed. =|
-
I'm not sure ... the site where I found the link seemed to think they crowd was applauding the man who was being removed. =|
that was my read as well.
his right to free speech was not abused. he just was denied the right to speak there, i thought they were a bit quick to pull that trigger but he was getting a lil loud and bug eyed
he handled being tossed well. did not play into their hands
-
i thought they were a bit quick to pull that trigger
The Senator was at least being honest and upfront about what he thought of his constituents subjects.
That level of candor is rarely seen.
-
his right to free speech was not abused. he just was denied the right to speak there
"...and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Since the first is incorporated, they sure as hell did. I did not here him yell, threaten or berate his "betters" in strong, clear voice so that he could be heard. He wasn't even looking at them, he's looking down at his prepared statement (that he is reading).
It wasn't how he said it, it was what he said that the NJ Senator didn't like and had him tossed on the flimsiest of pretexts.
-
"YOU'RE out of order! The whole freakin' system is out of order!" --Homer Simpson (I know he was quoting movie lines, but it sounds better in Homer's voice)
-
"...and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Since the first is incorporated, they sure as hell did. I did not here him yell, threaten or berate his "betters" in strong, clear voice so that he could be heard. He wasn't even looking at them, he's looking down at his prepared statement (that he is reading).
It wasn't how he said it, it was what he said that the NJ Senator didn't like and had him tossed on the flimsiest of pretexts.
your perspective is different from mine. oddly even the member of his own group who posted the link acknowledges "he got loud"
ymmv
-
your perspective is different from mine. oddly even the member of his own group who posted the link acknowledges "he got loud"
ymmv
Gosh, I hope that his slightly elevated volume and inflections didn't scare anyone, what with the importance of the message he was speaking.
I think he was very well prepared and dare I say, eloquent. The problem is that in these days, truth is an offense and those who are on the wrong side of truth will use any means to silence the truth.
-
as he got excited his eloquence waned. when they get loud and start repeating themselves its all down hill. he reminded me of the guy who got told to sit down shut up or get out at the middle school orientation. its sad i agreed with them both but as they started to lose it i found myself wishing they'd shut up, or at least cool out a bit. in both cases i was disappointed.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpVdtwDSg9c
-
i've seen worse
no disrespect to the gentleman from jersey for his position was sound. he just got a lil carried away. a modicum of self control is a good thing when public speaking
-
I don't see the part where he got loud. I could see it seems like he was getting upset but he was completely calm.
It seems to me that they were clapping for him, and they were booing the guy telling him he was out of order.
-
no? even folks from the group he represents acknowledge him getting loud
-
Didn't sound that loud to me.
-
he wasn't. they were looking for a reason, and he gave it to them. twice. second time was when he responded to the "keep it on the bill" remark. he woulda been smart to stick to his planned remarks rather than argue with the chair.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
-
he wasn't. they were looking for a reason, and he gave it to them. twice. second time was when he responded to the "keep it on the bill" remark. he woulda been smart to stick to his planned remarks rather than argue with the chair.
It all depends ofn your point of view. Do you see them as civil servants or civil masters?
-
It all depends ofn your point of view. Do you see them as civil servants or civil masters?
Hmmmm. Eyeballs need cleaning. I read that as "do you see them as civil servants or evil masters?" [tinfoil]
-
Hmmmm. Eyeballs need cleaning. I read that as "do you see them as civil servants or evil masters?" [tinfoil]
I think your eyeballs are working just fine ;)
-
Wow, imagine what would have happened had he stood up and said "Give me liberty or give me death !"
-
Wow, imagine what would have happened had he stood up and said "Give me liberty or give me death Don't taze me Bro !"
FIFY
-
when you get invited to speak in that type of forum you need to know the rules. he handled their booting him well.
its like a forum when they boot you your first amendment rights are not violated
-
No. It is not a interwebz forum. It's the .gov. The one place where the Founders and the Supremes have stated over and over again that you have the right to be heard and not made to go away.
-
No. It is not a interwebz forum. It's the .gov. The one place where the Founders and the Supremes have stated over and over again that you have the right to be heard and not made to go away.
could you point to that supreme court ruling? and explain how it might apply here
-
could you point to that supreme court ruling? and explain how it might apply here
So because congress didn't make a law it's okay ???
-
congress? i was asking for help finding the supreme court ruling he referred to
on gets "invited" to speak at legislative hearings
he got uninvited
he could still go outside say anything he wanted
-
congress? i was asking for help finding the supreme court ruling he referred to
on gets "invited" to speak at legislative hearings
he got uninvited
he could still go outside say anything he wanted
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.
-
when you get invited to speak in that type of forum you need to know the rules. he handled their booting him well.
its like a forum when they boot you your first amendment rights are not violated
An internet forum is privately owned. The GOVERNMENT, under the constitution, MUST guarantee your right to be heard.
-
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.
so you can't find that ruling either?
i liked what he said too. but as soon as he got warned "stay on the bill" he screwed up arguing with the chair. it gave them all they needed to have him removed
he'd have been wiser not to rise to the bait and continue his remarks
perhaps he learned for next time
-
Here you go. (http://bit.ly/13FGN5e)
1st Amendment Incorporation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlow_v._New_York
Specific Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances:
Incorporation is suggested in Edwards v. South Carolina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._South_Carolina), 372 U.S. 229 (1963) and is essentially the basis of Romer v. Evans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans), 517 U.S. 620 (1996).
-
Here you go. (http://bit.ly/13FGN5e)
Right to petition for redress of grievances:
Incorporation is suggested in Edwards v. South Carolina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._South_Carolina), 372 U.S. 229 (1963) and is essentially the basis of Romer v. Evans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans), 517 U.S. 620 (1996).
and how do you envision that applying here?
-
Try this one. (http://bit.ly/YXwifv)
Or there's this one. (http://bit.ly/14OiGUs)
-
so then you acknowledge his first amendment right was not violated?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
-
so then you acknowledge his first amendment right was not violated?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
I'm having a hard time with this "we have no rights unless the supreme court grants them" concept.
-
As am I, Tallpine.
As am I. =|
-
so then you acknowledge his first amendment right was not violated?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
How was it not violated?
-
his right to speak was not infringed. his right to speak there after being ruled out of order did/does not exist. he was free however to talk in the hall the parking lot in his car on the way home.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
-
Which qualifies as "petitioning the government...", how again?
-
his right to speak was not infringed. his right to speak there after being ruled out of order did/does not exist. he was free however to talk in the hall the parking lot in his car on the way home.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
Are you sure about that? Have they been designated 1st amendment zones? :facepalm:
So all the opposing side has to do is rule you out of order and you are no longer allowed to present your views on the bill that is being discussed? I don't think the 1st amendment said you are only allowed to present your views as long as the ones in control agree with them. What exactly did he say that was so out of order that he was required to leave?
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech,...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?
I rewatched the video again, I am finding it really hard to find out where he gets loud. Does get the crazy lady eyes going though. Are you talking about the part where he says, "I am on the bill, and I will be heard."? That is the only part where his voice gets more assertive, but certainly not loud or shouting or anything.
What does he say after the guy says, "You are out of order and I will ask you to leave."?
-
The LEO doing the ejecting does have a spiffy uniform though.