Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Tenhigh said:

Its weird that you keep going back to the legality of it.  I never said it was illegal,  I said it was that lack of civility that is generally a problem in our country.  For somw reason you seem to be willing to dip a toe in the water, but refuse to jump in. 


It is rude and a lack of civility to protest individual people, but on the list of problems with this country, that doesn’t crack the top 20, at least.

 

EDIT: Secretary Mayor Pete says it better than I did:

 

 

Edited by ChiGoose
Posted
1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:


It is rude and a lack of civility to protest individual people, but on the list of problems with this country, that doesn’t crack the top 20, at least.


Lack of civility is an issue that every individual can address however. 
 

Unlike your your top 20. 
 

 

Posted
2 hours ago, ChiGoose said:


It is rude and a lack of civility to protest individual people, but on the list of problems with this country, that doesn’t crack the top 20, at least.

 

EDIT: Secretary Mayor Pete says it better than I did:

 

 

 

 

 

These pieces of ***t talking about "right to privacy" is friggin laughable and embarrassing considering they want you vaccinated or fired if you aren't, wanted and likely did use Google to track your movements during their lockdowns you had no choice in - oh and werent allowed to peacefully protest, and want you to turn over your social media posts in order to buy a gun.   

 

 

Gtfo these communist losers.   

 

 

They have no clue the kind of damage they've not just done to their own party but the country as a whole. 

 

Send them to the sun.  They have no business being anywhere near power.  

Posted
5 hours ago, ChiGoose said:


It is rude and a lack of civility to protest individual people, but on the list of problems with this country, that doesn’t crack the top 20, at least.

 

EDIT: Secretary Mayor Pete says it better than I did:

 

 

Just because something is legal doesn't make it civil.  You rightly cite a poster saying all Ds are terrible,  but refuse to just say that harassing people in restaurants is not civil.  Why is that?

Posted
46 minutes ago, Tenhigh said:

Just because something is legal doesn't make it civil.  You rightly cite a poster saying all Ds are terrible,  but refuse to just say that harassing people in restaurants is not civil.  Why is that?


Funny how the cult doesn’t even realize what Conald and the cult did to Kaepernick…

 

 

 

 

Posted
1 hour ago, Tenhigh said:

Just because something is legal doesn't make it civil.  You rightly cite a poster saying all Ds are terrible,  but refuse to just say that harassing people in restaurants is not civil.  Why is that?


Harassing people in a restaurant is uncivil. Chasing someone into the bathroom is uncivil. 
 

Though, in this case, the protesters were outside the restaurant and Brett reportedly never saw them. Seems like important context. 

Posted
7 hours ago, ChiGoose said:


It is rude and a lack of civility to protest individual people, but on the list of problems with this country, that doesn’t crack the top 20, at least.

 

EDIT: Secretary Mayor Pete says it better than I did:

 

 

You don’t give yourself enough credit.  Mayor P gave a very pedestrian response to a question teed up by what appears to be a talking head who walks in lockstep with him ideologically.   
 

If these comments reflects a Master’s Class on the subject, much of undergrad must be focused on not eating the glue sticks at recess. 

 

Posted
2 hours ago, BillStime said:


Funny how the cult doesn’t even realize what Conald and the cult did to Kaepernick…

 

 

 

 

Great add as usual,  Billsy. You are really doing the lord's work, you should be proud. 

  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Posted
1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:


Harassing people in a restaurant is uncivil. Chasing someone into the bathroom is uncivil. 
 

Though, in this case, the protesters were outside the restaurant and Brett reportedly never saw them. Seems like important context. 

It is context, and its not as bad as it could have been.  But its pretty clear that their intent is to harass Kavanagh wherever he goes.   These are the same people that are sending people to the private residences of the justice. 

Posted
23 minutes ago, BillStime said:


Facts hurt 

Wow, great take buddy!  It's this kind if insight that makes you so well respected around here. Keep it up!

Posted
35 minutes ago, Tenhigh said:

It is context, and its not as bad as it could have been.  But its pretty clear that their intent is to harass Kavanagh wherever he goes.   These are the same people that are sending people to the private residences of the justice. 

 

So long as they stay on public property and do not threaten him, then it may be in bad taste, but he's a public figure and should not be surprised by it.

 

The moment they step onto his, or other private property, or they threaten him with harm, they should be arrested.

  • Dislike 1
Posted

This whole public harassment thing bothers me. I dont think it’s an effective means of political protest. These people protesting the court would be better off spending their time working to towards political change at the state level. Screaming at a justice might make them feel better but that’s about it. 
 

I don’t recall these types of harassment a decade or two ago. People on the right are just fine with anti abortionists forming mobs and screaming at girls and women visiting abortion clinics. Mobs carrying assault weapons and guns into state capitols. Death threats to politicians and public officials seem common now. On the left, they like to scream at people at restaurants and protest in front of justices homes. Just because you can do something or it’s legal doesn’t make it right. I think it’s all wrong and leading to a decline in our society. I think part of it is the “look at me” factor on social media. 
 

if you want to protest, stand on the side of the street and hold a sign. Peacefully march and hold rallies in public space. Persuade others to support your position. Write letters to politicians and business owners to form alliances to change laws. It’s all more effective than harassment.  

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
17 minutes ago, Andy1 said:

This whole public harassment thing bothers me. I dont think it’s an effective means of political protest. These people protesting the court would be better off spending their time working to towards political change at the state level. Screaming at a justice might make them feel better but that’s about it. 
 

I don’t recall these types of harassment a decade or two ago. People on the right are just fine with anti abortionists forming mobs and screaming at girls and women visiting abortion clinics. Mobs carrying assault weapons and guns into state capitols. Death threats to politicians and public officials seem common now. On the left, they like to scream at people at restaurants and protest in front of justices homes. Just because you can do something or it’s legal doesn’t make it right. I think it’s all wrong and leading to a decline in our society. I think part of it is the “look at me” factor on social media. 
 

if you want to protest, stand on the side of the street and hold a sign. Peacefully march and hold rallies in public space. Persuade others to support your position. Write letters to politicians and business owners to form alliances to change laws. It’s all more effective than harassment.  

I don’t recall SCOTUS candidates blatantly lying to Congress either….well except pretty much ACB, KAV, ALITO, GORSUCH AND THOMAS….

Posted
40 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

So long as they stay on public property and do not threaten him, then it may be in bad taste, but he's a public figure and should not be surprised by it.

 

The moment they step onto his, or other private property, or they threaten him with harm, they should be arrested.

You have honestly got to be kidding me. There is zero justification for this kind of activity and NOBODY should defend it. 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted (edited)

Well, that was just a matter of time when this discussion would gain traction. In a town hall meeting here in Lubbock last Thursday, US Representative Jodey Arrington (R-Lubbock) first thanked the SCOTUS for confirming that abortion rulings should be left to the individual states. However, just a few minutes later he stated that he would work on federal legislation to ban abortion in the US, hoping that his efforts would gain more traction after expected gains for the GOP in the 2022 elections.

 

Giving the power back to the states now seems just like a lip service by some Republicans.

Edited by DrW
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Eyeroll 1
Posted
20 minutes ago, DrW said:

Well, that was just a matter of time when this discussion would gain traction. In a town hall meeting here in Lubbock last Thursday, US Representative Jodey Arrington (R-Lubbock) first thanked the SCOTUS for confirming that abortion rulings should be left to the individual states. However, just a few minutes later he stated that he would work on federal legislation to ban abortion in the US, hoping that his efforts would gain more traction after expected gains for the GOP in the 2022 elections.

 

Giving the power back to the states now seems just like a lip service by some Republicans.

May I politely suggest you just let the issue play itself out now? The American people will work it out. 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
×
×
  • Create New...