Lords of Death Forums Lords of Death Forums LoD General Discussion Shits gettin real yo

You've once again spouted off a bunch of garbage with no supporting facts. I've asked you how you know that Bundy is a part of any of these groups you've assigned him to, including the one that rapes little girls. You've provided no supporting evidence of any of these things you say, but said that it's up to me to look it up. I don't know what form of debate you've engaged in where someone can simply say "my argument is right and it's up to you to find evidence to support my arguments". What do they calls those debates anyway, "I win!"?

You've once again simply ignored all the supporting background information I've given you on this issue, hoping that by choosing not to acknowledge it, it doesn't exist.

You ever going to post anything of substance, or just keep repeating the same nonsense with no backup?

Can you please clarify the difference for me?

Also, you going to keep dodging the things I've already called you out on?

Civil disobedience is non-violent resistance. Sit-ins during the civil rights movement for example. Or people that lock arms and let the police carry them away.

Driving your ATV at a cop, blocking traffic, then kicking a dog... that is not civil disobedience.

You haven't called me out on anything else. Just used a shotgun, red herring approach where you essentially try and qualify your original position that anyone can resist a lawful court order with facts/arguments about how "shady" it was.

Yes, I have. I have asked you 3 times, and this will make 4, how do you support your position that federal agents had a right to designate specific area for protestors exercise their 1st amendment rights. You alluded to the fact that what was done was okay because there are certain limitations to 1st amendment rights. You have not revisited the issue since. Admittedly I didn't read every single free speech decision. I just read a few but it seemed to me that restrictions are reserved for local governments. In other words, it would have been up to the state, county or city to set such restrictions. Are you ever going to comment on this? This is the last thing from a red herring. I've been repeating this issue since the beginning of the thread and said it's the issue which concerns me most of all. I actually said those exact words, more than once.

"anyone can resist a lawful court order"

I never said this. As is typical with your response, you simply ignore what you don't like, like the two other things you said I said, which I did not, and to which you did not reply when I asked you to find where I said that. It's okay, this is typical lawyer tactics, I see it every day.

You've stated that you're okay with civil disobedience, then characterized what went down at the Bundy ranch as "not civil disobedience", but declined to be specific as to why one is different than the other.

We're not even arguing at this point.

But if I say, 'Fuck this I'm not paying these taxes,' and everyone else says, 'Fuck this, we aren't paying these taxes,' and the government tries to force us to pay by threatening our livelihoods, wouldn't we be justified in fighting for change? For some reason it feels like this has happened before but I can't quite put my finger on it, it must have happened before I was born or something, it must not have been important

What world do you live in that functions without taxes? Jesus man, let's keep the discussion in the real world here.

^ Troll.

I did respond already. It's a red herring. Because only speech qualifies for 1st Amendment protection. Driving your ATV at the cops, blocking traffic, interfering with a court order, and arguing with the cops does not qualify as speech. So, to answer your original question -- time/place/manner restrictions are not the exclusive jurisdiction of local authorities. But, the issue is a red herring because it has nothing to do with our conversation. Allow me to connect the dots...



But remember when I asked you to articulate a position? You said exactly that...



Then I asked you to clarify "what they had done." Remember that?



And you responded so perfectly...



So yeah, you did actually say that anyone can resist a court order. And no, this conversation has nothing to do with "free speech" because you already admitted that these people were interfering with a court order and breaking the law. But, your position is so retarded, that I knew you would eventually try and change it. That is why I included the bit about "only people that think and believe like you" are able to ignore court orders.

Because the second you figured out that your argument would justify virtually all criminal conduct, you would have to restrict "who" exactly can ignore the law, or under what circumstances. The rest of your posts are just an attempt to reshape your argument while maintaining some sort of illusion of victory.

And... as I predicted, let the retractions begin!



and compare your "new summary" to the summary I asked you to give earlier today:



Now, your position is that there are times when it is appropriate to resist a court order because the system has been abused by other people!

That is why I brought up the illegal aliens, the drunk driver, all that crap. Because eventually you would realize your position was ridiculous. Then you would start a shuckin'and'jiving--- trying to change your position. Because at your core, you don't want everyone ignoring the law. You only want people to ignore the law when they think and believe like you do... essentially, I knew you would eventually revert back to some position where only people of a similar political persuasion as yourself had a right to ignore the law.

But I used a "lawyer trick." Which was to make you actually articulate a position. You use a common tactic where you just talk a lot without making a point. It's like a boxing fighter trying to stay on the ropes... he can't get pinned down, so even though he's taking a lot of incoming fire, he can stay alive by keep moving. You do the same. Your "summary" or "position" is constantly changing. Go back and read your posts man, you are so all over the board it doesn't even make sense. At this point I'm beginning to wonder if you're coming off of a coke binge.

And the difference between civil disobedience and this jackasses is the violent nature of their protest. If they wanted to sit down in front of the trucks and let the cops carry them away -- peaceably -- then I've got no quarrel with that. You get to protest, the cops carry you away, no one is hurt and we can all go about our business.

Civil disobedience = passive resistance. What this guy did was violent action. You want to sit in front of the trucks and lock arms till the cops carry you away? No problem. You want to kick a dog in the face and assault cops? Go fuck yourself.

I'm not trying to be rude. Just read your prior posts and ask yourself, honestly, if you think they are consistent. There is no shame in having an emotional reaction and identifying with these people. Just take a little time to reflect on the conversation and if you really think about how that sort of philosophy plays out in the real world.

Obviously it wasn't important enough for you to pay attention in history class, lol. Finish this sentence for me, "No taxation without ...." Bonus points if you can finish the sentence and tell me how our present situation differs from English colonists in the 18th century.

Class dismissed.