You can mischaracterize my arguments all you like man. Doesn't mean it's true. Just because you say it's so doesn't mean it's so.
Go back to my 3rd or 4th post in this thread, LONG BEFORE YOU EVER BECAME INVOLVED. I said:
Vermithrax]
2. These confrontations escalated because the BLM agents set up a specific area for 1st amendment "free speech" protestors. This was supposed to be where they were "allowed" to exercise their first 1st amendment right. Are you familiar with the 1st amendment Rok? It guarantees you the right to peaceably assemble. Does the fact the federal agents specified a specific area where you can protest and then engaged in confrontation with people who did not follow this ridiculous rule not scare you? It fucking should dude. This is the issue that the Nevada governor has focused on and it's the issue that scares me the most.
The right to peacefully protest is what won African Americans and women their civil liberties. Are you comfortable with the government telling you where you can exercise this right?
Now please, answer this exact question. How exactly is this argument some sort of red herring when I've been saying it repeatedly since before you ever became involved in the thread?
Next you say this: "So, to answer your original question -- time/place/manner restrictions are not the exclusive jurisdiction of local authorities."
Can you please clarify this position? What authority supports this? A better set of questions would be this, which I have asked you several times already and which you still dodge, with misdirection of the argument. 1. Do you believe the federal agents of the BLM were within their authority to designate a specific area where the protestors were "allowed" to practice their 1st amendment rights, and 2. If you say yes, I'd like to know what authority supports this.
Sonya, I don't know how many times I can say this.....of all the things in this who ordeal, the idea that federal agents can come into a state and tell its citizens where they are allowed to exercise their free speech liberties is most alarming to me. You glossed over this concern by sweeping it aside and ambiguous and unspecific argument that there are restrictions to free speech, without every taking a specific position on what those restrictions are and if the BLM was operating within the parameters of established case law, or not.
I never changed position on my argument re: Bundy. You're trying to make my point over broad and you're taking my quotes out of context and say then connecting your own fantastical dots to once again misquote me as saying: "anyone can resist a court order". I never said. The silly part of this entire argument is that your misquote is actually correct. Anyone COULD resist a court order if they so chose. That however, is not what I said.
You once again try to confuse and misdirect the argument by misquoting me and twisting what was said to fit your own narrative by saying that I, "....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."
This is not the case at all. I did not and still do not think anyone should just thwart the law for any reason they feel is justified. I never said that. Why are you trying to "zoom out"
and make my comment apply to "anyone" when I have never been talking about anything other than what's gone on in this specific situation. To misconstrue what I said so blatantly is just your attempt at a straw man. I'm not ignorant to what you're attempting to do. You're trying to push the argument in the direction you want it to go and push me through to the conclusion you want like a rat in a maze. You think it's working, but it's not. I read papers all day of lawyers trying to do this exact shit to one another. I can recognize it when I see it. I saw what you were doing the moment you "asked for clarification before you respond".
I laid out for you specifically for you all the questionable shit that has gone on in this situation. I provided you with links that support what I said. You have not once addressed any of these issue because they are too specific and you have no information of substance to debunk any of it. Instead, you prefer to change the argument into something more broad and then try and win that argument.
Let's get back to the real issue at hand, shall we? You think what the people have done at the Bundy ranch is wrong and that they are just outlaws who are disobeying a lawful court order. You're not entirely wrong I suppose. What I have said all along and what I still say is that if you look at all the underyling shit that led up to all of this, it becomes pretty clear that there is a fly in the ointment here. Something stinks. If I were in their position, I would be furious. I do respect them for standing up to the feds because I think there's a lot of political shit going on here that they are falling victim to. I applaud them for not just succumbing to it. You can either agree with that or not. It makes no difference to me.
"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."
I don't care if you are rude or not. At the end of the day, we are all friends through the common interest of playing video games. Whether we see eye to eye or not on issues makes no difference to me, so long as we win when we play together. It also takes a great deal to offend me, to the point I'd say it'd probably be impossible for you to do it with words alone.
As for how the philosophy would play out in the real world....ummmm Dude....it just did. Do you even follow the news? The BLM has released all the cattle they took and pulled out but "vowed to continue their legal battle." Pardon me Sonya, but it seems to me that how it has played out for now is that Bundy won. I guess we'll see what happens next.
