Why is Harris Supporting Certain “Insurrectionists” when Democrats Jail other “Insurrectionists”?

[pknopp]

Are you really this fucking stupid? ARE YOU REALLY THIS FUCKING STUPID???

Know Your Rights | Protesters’ Rights | ACLU

The First Amendment protects your right to assemble and express your views through protest. However, police and other government officials are allowed to place certain narrow restrictions on the exercise of speech rights. Make sure you’re prepared by brushing up on your rights before heading out...

www.aclu.org

• Your rights are strongest in what are known as “traditional public forums,” such as streets, sidewalks, and parks. You also likely have the right to speak out on other public property, like plazas in front of government buildings, as long as you are not blocking access to the government building or interfering with other purposes the property was designed for.

Yes you are that fucking stupid.

No clue what your argument is or how it applies to what I said.

 

[airplanemechanic]

No clue what your argument is or how it applies to what I said.

Try to keep up, dumbass. You said this:

Sec 27. Any member of either House of the general Assembly, shall have liberty to dissent from, and protest against, any act or resolve which he may think injurious to the public or to any individual, and to have the reasons for his dissent entered on the journals.

Perhaps you can point out the exclusions to us.

You are saying protesters have a right to stop gov't proceedings because "house rules don't overrride the constitution." And I showed that these people had no RIGHT to stop gov't proceedings with a fucking protest. If these stupid fucking democrats have the right to stop gov't proceedings with a protest then so did the J6 republicans.

Dumbfuck. I have to remember the stupidity of the fucking liberals on this forum who will make a fucking argument and then pretend they didn't when you call them out on their fucking stupidity.

The gov't ABSOLUTELY can squelch free speech if it interferes with gov't business:

• Private property owners can set rules for speech on their property. The government may not restrict your speech if it is taking place on your own property or with the consent of the property owner.

That protest was on gov't property on gov't time. The gov't can squelch it just like a homeowner can.

 

[22lcidw]

Her bringing race into it when it has no bearing just shows how libs will forgive - no, defend! - unacceptable action if the perpetrator is black. Whities? Eh. This is the type of double standard and anti-white racism that will continue to sweep the nation unless we stop it.

They are winning. All of the social justice could have been dealt in a different manner. Saying this is not politicized is a nation killer. Anyway, the consolation is in the end we will all lose.

 

[pknopp]

Try to keep up, dumbass. You said this:



You are saying protesters have a right to stop gov't proceedings because "house rules don't overrride the constitution." And I showed that these people had no RIGHT to stop gov't proceedings with a fucking protest.

Dumbfuck. I have to remember the stupidity of the fucking liberals on this forum who will make a fucking argument and then pretend they didn't when you call them out on their fucking stupidity.

I posted the Tennessee Constitution that notes the elected officials have a right to protest actions they do not agree with. You want to put definitions in there that do not exist. Protest is not defined by those being protested against.

 

[Lisa558]

They are winning. All of the social justice could have been dealt in a different manner. Saying this is not politicized is a nation killer. Anyway, the consolation is in the end we will all lose.

That’s not much consolation.

We simply cannot allow the DA of a far-left city try to “get” the primary opponent in the upcoming presidential election by indicting him for spending his own money, and thus having the useful idiots think he committed some awful felony, 34 of them in fact.

I’m not sure how we stop this travesty, though. We really need an American president who speaks out against a weaponized government - instead of smirking when asked about it. Disgusting.

 

[Lisa558]

I posted the Tennessee Constitution that notes the elected officials have a right to protest actions they do not agree with. You want to put definitions in there that do not exist. Protest is not defined by those being protested against.

Yes, they have a right to protest on the street. They do not have the right to disrupt an official proceeding with a pre-arranged and organized revolt.

 

[pknopp]

That’s not much consolation.

We simply cannot allow the DA of a far-left city try to “get” the primary opponent in the upcoming presidential election by indicting him for spending his own money, and thus having the useful idiots think he committed some awful felony, 34 of them in fact.

I’m not sure how we stop this travesty, though. We really need an American president who speaks out against a weaponized government - instead of smirking when asked about it. Disgusting.

Yes, maybe you should find someone who doesn't call those condemning that SOB's.

 

[pknopp]

Yes, they have a right to protest on the street.

Rejected. It says "protest". There are no qualifiers.

 

[Marener]

That’s not much consolation.

We simply cannot allow the DA of a far-left city try to “get” the primary opponent in the upcoming presidential election by indicting him for spending his own money, and thus having the useful idiots think he committed some awful felony, 34 of them in fact.

I’m not sure how we stop this travesty, though. We really need an American president who speaks out against a weaponized government - instead of smirking when asked about it. Disgusting.

What’s ironic about this story is that at its heart is Trump illegally colluding with media to censor information damaging to his campaign.

Which, you know, is what conservatives have been wailing and moaning about for years now.

 

[Lisa558]

Yes, maybe you should find someone who doesn't call those condemning that SOB's.

Huh? I remember Biden called Doocey an SOB, but not sure what else you’re talking about.

 

[pknopp]

Huh? I remember Biden called Doocey an SOB, but not sure what else you’re talking about.

Yes you do. Why lie?

 

[Lisa558]

What’s ironic about this story is that at its heart is Trump illegally colluding with media to censor information damaging to his campaign.

Which, you know, is what conservatives have been wailing and moaning about for years now.

OMG! This idiot ^^^ comes up with this after the FBI colluded with the media to hide the Biden Family Corruption?!

That’s it. I‘m done with this jerk. Noboby could be this much of a hypocrite. He has GOT to be a paid troll.

 

[Lisa558]

Yes you do. Why lie?

I have no idea, but I see you’re doing hat leftist thing again: call a Republican a liar.

 

[Lisa558]

Rejected. It says "protest". There are no qualifiers.

It also says you can’t disrupt an official proceeding. Don’t play dumb. You’re defending these “law-makers” for doing the very same thing that the 1/6 protestors did and were jailed without a trial.

 

[Marener]

This idiot ^^^ comes up with this after the FBI colluded with the media to hide the Biden Family Corruption?!

Which didn’t actually happen. The people who know about this testified that this didn’t happen. It’s under oath. It’s a fact.

Not to mention it remains a mystery what “corruption” youre even talking about.

Meanwhile, Trump had his media buddies spending money to suppress stories of his infidelity which would harm his campaign. It was illegal.

 

[pknopp]

It also says you can’t disrupt an official proceeding.

Where in the Constitution does it say that? It doesn't.

Don’t play dumb. You’re defending these “law-makers” for doing the very same thing that the 1/6 protestors did and were jailed without a trial.

No one was jailed without a trial outside of the normal process. Many are held before their trial starts.

 

[Care4all]

The color of the insurrectionists were of the African race. Nothing else. They were criminals as per Prog standards of approaching government buildings that produce legislation.

Nope. What the protesters in Tennessee did, was legal, what the 1/6 rioters did by beating up police, bashing in Windows and doors and pepper spraying cops to break in, was illegal.

 

[Lisa558]

Nope. What the protesters in Tennessee did, was legal, what the 1/6 rioters did by beating up police, bashing in Windows and doors and pepper spraying cops to break in, was illegal.

They were charged and convicted of impeding an official proceeding, which is exactly what the TN protestors did, including the reps. They should all be put in jail for a year, awaiting their trials.

 

[Care4all]

They were charged and convicted of impeding an official proceeding, which is exactly what the TN protestors did, including the reps. They should all be put in jail for a year, awaiting their trials.

Not under the Tennessee Constitution, which was posted several times.

 

[Care4all]

It is a whole lot more than staging a protest when you pull out a bull horn and interrupt and then prevent the proceedings in a state legislature.

What official proceedings? Were they legislating a new law? Were they having a hearing on a new prospective judge? Were they officially transferring power between a new and old governor? What were these official proceeding for the continuance of government?