PubliusInfinitum
Rookie
- Aug 18, 2008
- 6,805
- 729
- 0
- Banned
- #101
I'm curious, how did the cop/guard get labeled an Obama supporter? I can't tell by looking at him myself.
Well that serves reason... because his looks have nothing to do with it.
First: there is no law which prevents the man's poster...
Second: the Cop was implementing his police powers to enforce a law which was not in effect.
Third: where one tries to enforce a law which does not exist, using authority which requires that the law tbe enforced, the only potential conclusion is that the officer was acting upon a SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION... thus his reasoning was based not upon an objective, readily definable instrument... ergo he was reacting to something that he felt was inappropriate... thus demonstrating his feelings that the BOY King could not be a Socialist, as the poster expressed, because HE doesn't feel that HE's A SOCIALIST, and supporting a socialist would actually, in point of fact, indicate otherwise.
It's not a complex calculation, just one well beyond the intellectual means of a Critical, Unfit, Neg-reppin' Thug; such as yourself.
The video simply demonstrates a rancid abuse of the power advanced on a public trust. The Cop seemed like a nice enough guy... but he should be stripped of his badge and shoudl forfeit any pension which a generation of Public service which he would have otherwise earned.
You're wrong in addition to being a whiner.
ROFLMNAO... Golly... I'm "WRONG"? Now that tends to indicate that there's some correction to be advanced...
Now let's examine the argument to see if we can spot such a correction...
All school and municipal property have laws that govern what may and may not be erected on publicly owned property.
Wow... well that seems so reasonable... and if I'd made a statement which implied that there were no rules regarding what can 'be erected on publicly owned property'... that would be a stunning point...
Why under such conditions Ravi's point would be lucid, cogent and otherwise well reasoned... It would be tantamount to a rhetorical MIRACLE!
Sadly.... There is nothing in my statement which so much as speaks to what can and can't be erected on publicly owned property... let alone an assertion that declares such to not be the case...
In the Video, the officer was REPEATELD AND SPECIFICALLY asked to cite the regulation which prohibits an individual from holding such a sign...
The officer made it incontestably clear that he was ignorant of ANY regulation, law, local ordinance, supervosiry prohibition or any OTHER such regulation which prohibited an individual from holding such a sign... the only point the officer made was that the sign had a picture on it when he foolishly implied that the picture made the sign illegal, thus providing him with the means to arrest the disply of same.
Now there is no ordinance which prohibits a person from holding a sign with a picture on it... as such a law would be demonstrably unconstitutional and would likely not stand scrutiny at the most local of courts... and certainly would not be sustained at the appelate level, where Judges are typically less inclined to subject their records to the admonition by higher judicial authority.
So we find that the Critical, Unfit, Neg-reppin' Thug was factually incorrect in her assertion; her argument being irrational, lacking lucidity, cogency, sound reasoning and logical validity... which would explain why the dumbass felt compelled to run and neg-rep the post for the 6th 150 point slam against my meager rep means in just under two weeks...
Which ironically, demonstrates the same fascist tendencies as the cop in the video...
Now my favorite part in the whole thing... is that THE DUMBASS WASN'T NEAR BRIGHT ENOUGH TO RECOGNIZE ANY OF IT!