03 Jul 22
@averagejoe1 saidSo a guy who made a death threat got arrested. Good.
Marauder, in liberal-exe, cherry picks facts, ignored desth threat on Kavanaugh , guy was arrested. He will say where is the evidence while the evidence is laying on a table. “Why, that is no more believable than Hunter’s laptop.!!!!”
When everyone reads marauder’s prose on the forum, he makes it real flowerdy so that you will overlook very basic facts.
That’s why you have AvJoe! 🎓
What does that have to do with peaceful protests?
03 Jul 22
@no1marauder saidSo glib, Marauder. You should reach The Art of Debate. You have implied or said more than once that the judge protests are peaceful, or some other lib-faked word. But intent to murder?? Get with it, you sound like Sonhouse.
So a guy who made a death threat got arrested. Good.
What does that have to do with peaceful protests?
It is federal and state law to protest like that. Trump would be kicking ass, they would NOT be there right now.
Get with it. The Roe was about the letter of the law, not the emotion of the moment. You gettin' a bit emotional to be a law man. Lib.
03 Jul 22
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidYou're ranting and raving as usual and accusing others of being "emotional"?
So glib, Marauder. You should reach The Art of Debate. You have implied or said more than once that the judge protests are peaceful, or some other lib-faked word. But intent to murder?? Get with it, you sound like Sonhouse.
It is federal and state law to protest like that. Trump would be kicking ass, they would NOT be there right now.
Get with it. The ...[text shortened]... ter of the law, not the emotion of the moment. You gettin' a bit emotional to be a law man. Lib.
I suggest you read my first post AGAIN. The law is unconstitutional and if it was applied as written, cops would have had to break up every demonstration done in front of the SCOTUS building or any other federal courthouse for the last 70 years.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147482
03 Jul 22
@no1marauder saidwhen was this law ruled unconstitutional? oh it wasnt, you just made that up didnt you little liar boy?
You're ranting and raving as usual and accusing others of being "emotional"?
I suggest you read my first post AGAIN. The law is unconstitutional and if it was applied as written, cops would have had to break up every demonstration done in front of the SCOTUS building or any other federal courthouse for the last 70 years.
03 Jul 22
2 edits
@mott-the-hoople saidDid I say it was "ruled unconstitutional", anus?
when was this law ruled unconstitutional? oh it wasnt, you just made that up didnt you little liar boy?
Here's the law:
"Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt."
https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-1507.html
So all demonstrators in front of the SCOTUS and all Federal Courthouses for the last 70+ years should have been arrested? Get real.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147482
03 Jul 22
@no1marauder saidso you suggest we can pick and choose which laws we abide by? 😳
Did I say it was "ruled unconstitutional", anus?
Here's the law:
"Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, [b]pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or ...[text shortened]... f the SCOTUS and all Federal Courthouses for the last 70+ years should have been arrested? Get real.
04 Jul 22
2 edits
@no1marauder saidThere is where you are difficult to read. You will make a statement as if it is in stone. Hey, you ask for proof/links all the time. Average Joe hereby asks you to show where it is written in stone that the law of which you speak is unconstitutional.
You're ranting and raving as usual and accusing others of being "emotional"?
I suggest you read my first post AGAIN. The law is unconstitutional and if it was applied as written, cops would have had to break up every demonstration done in front of the SCOTUS building or any other federal courthouse for the last 70 years.
It is a law. You opine that it is unconstitutional. You will recall that averagejoe thinks that my having to pay for a stranger's college tuition when my son just paid his off (would be) .......Unconstitutional. Only my opinion. I could be wrong?
It is your OPINION that it is unconstitutional. At the moment, it is not.
Wearing me out with this falderal, Marauder. You just SAY things. You just say things. Why would I read your post again?,,,,Why, when it is based on a falsehood.
04 Jul 22
@no1marauder saidActually you were even more specific than that, by using no qualifications. “ It Is Unconstitutional “. We’re killing you Maudie.
Did I say it was "ruled unconstitutional", anus?
Here's the law:
"Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, [b]pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or ...[text shortened]... f the SCOTUS and all Federal Courthouses for the last 70+ years should have been arrested? Get real.
04 Jul 22
@mott-the-hoople saidDid you see where he wants us to skip Game Of Thorns and re read his post.?
so you suggest we can pick and choose which laws we abide by? 😳
04 Jul 22
@AverageJoe1
This is when he disappears, does it all the time. Hell, Suzianne admits defeat more often than he does.
04 Jul 22
@jj-adams saidUnless your a vote counter or election official from Georgia or N Carolina in the year that republicans lose the presidency obviously
Forming an angry mob outside someone's home and putting them in fear doesn't fall under peaceful assembly.
04 Jul 22
@averagejoe1 saidMaybe you can sit around getting drunk and posting on here 24/7 but some of us have what is called "a life".
@AverageJoe1
This is when he disappears, does it all the time. Hell, Suzianne admits defeat more often than he does.
Both you and Mott are ducking the point of my argument i.e. that if the law was enforced as written, every single demonstrator outside of the SCOTUS or any other Federal Court building would have to be arrested. It's abundantly clear it has never been enforced in such a manner against peaceful protesters, so why should it be now? Imagine if police had started arresting everybody at the annual March for Life which culminates at the SCOTUS building last January 21; what do you think Fox News would have had to say about that?
04 Jul 22
1 edit
@no1marauder saidA lot of 'if' this and that, but the issue is what is the law, and is it being broken, and more importantly, why does not the AG do something about it. Maybe arrest everyone, it that is what it takes. Why does the president not enforce the law, pick up the phone, call Merrick Garland? My overall point is how liberal you liberals treat law-breaking. Note that there is no discussion about how to treat this problem of tramps disrupting our society, our judges, our laws. You and they just accept it as riot du'jour.
Maybe you can sit around getting drunk and posting on here 24/7 but some of us have what is called "a life".
Both you and Mott are ducking the point of my argument i.e. that if the law was enforced as written, every single demonstrator outside of the SCOTUS or any other Federal Court building would have to be arrested. It's abundantly clear it has never been enforced ...[text shortened]... at the SCOTUS building last January 21; what do you think Fox News would have had to say about that?
So, you are saying that there are too many of 'them'. (brrrrr) to arrest. Creepy stuff. Do I detect a Mob Mentality in you, Marauder? Do you not respect the law.??
And funny you say above we dont have a life. You must spend HOURS on this thing, just with your plethora of meaningless links alone. How about friendly conversation, with one rule, that people leave other people the hell alone. Libs simply cannot leave people alone.
I am going to play golf. Happy fourth for sure. I am wild with Freedom. (You have never written that word).
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147482
04 Jul 22
@no1marauder saida man trying to kill a scotus justice at his home is “peaceful”. you are an idiot in the worst degree
Maybe you can sit around getting drunk and posting on here 24/7 but some of us have what is called "a life".
Both you and Mott are ducking the point of my argument i.e. that if the law was enforced as written, every single demonstrator outside of the SCOTUS or any other Federal Court building would have to be arrested. It's abundantly clear it has never been enforced ...[text shortened]... at the SCOTUS building last January 21; what do you think Fox News would have had to say about that?
04 Jul 22
2 edits
@averagejoe1 saidNo, you idiot, I'm saying the law violates the People's right, enshrined in the First Amendment (but preexisting it of course) "peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
A lot of 'if' this and that, but the issue is what is the law, and is it being broken, and more importantly, why does not the AG do something about it. Maybe arrest everyone, it that is what it takes. Why does the president not enforce the law, pick up the phone, call Merrick Garland? My overall point is how liberal you liberals treat law-breaking. Note that there is n ...[text shortened]... g to play golf. Happy fourth for sure. I am wild with Freedom. (You have never written that word).
I'm saying no AG has ever enforced it in the way right wing nuts suddenly want it enforced i.e. to have police break up peaceful demonstrations with force and arrest people - because they knew it to be unconstitutional.
And I'm saying right wing nuts are blatant hypocrites because they would hardly support enforcement of that law against demonstrators they are ideologically in agreement with like the March for Life.
I'm not going to keep explaining it; if that is too much for you to understand, go back to school.
"Wild with freedom" BUT you want peaceful demonstrators arrested. You don't even know what the word "freedom" means.