Man kicked out of town meeting for refusingto stand for Pledge

[rightwinger]

You can never remove protesters from any public event? Really?

I have the right to block traffic on 42nd and Lex and protest? Really?

He was not disrupting the meeting, he had a right to be there

 

[Dana7360]

Ibentoken said: ↑

Next time you're in a courtroom and the judge enters the room, remain seated. Let us know how that goes.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

The law affords judges the authority to make these determinations in their courtrooms, which is in no way related to citizens participating in a public forum where a mayor has no such authority.

The thing is, I've actually not stood up when a judge entered the court.

Not on purpose. I had papers and a case in my lap. By the time I took that stuff off my lap the stand up for the judge was already over.

No one had a problem with it. Including the judge.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You can never remove protesters from any public event? Really?

I have the right to block traffic on 42nd and Lex and protest? Really?

He was not disrupting the meeting, he had a right to be there

He was being a disruptive dick and as I said, he should have been escorted out.

He can be a dick in his own private space

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ibentoken said: ↑

Next time you're in a courtroom and the judge enters the room, remain seated. Let us know how that goes.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

The law affords judges the authority to make these determinations in their courtrooms, which is in no way related to citizens participating in a public forum where a mayor has no such authority.

The thing is, I've actually not stood up when a judge entered the court.

Not on purpose. I had papers and a case in my lap. By the time I took that stuff off my lap the stand up for the judge was already over.

No one had a problem with it. Including the judge.

Make sure to make a spectacle of it next time and alert the Judge that you have the right to sit.

hmmmkay

 

[Dana7360]

Ibentoken said: ↑

Next time you're in a courtroom and the judge enters the room, remain seated. Let us know how that goes.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

The law affords judges the authority to make these determinations in their courtrooms, which is in no way related to citizens participating in a public forum where a mayor has no such authority.

The thing is, I've actually not stood up when a judge entered the court.

Not on purpose. I had papers and a case in my lap. By the time I took that stuff off my lap the stand up for the judge was already over.

No one had a problem with it. Including the judge.

Make sure to make a spectacle of it next time and alert the Judge that you have the right to sit.

hmmmkay

The thing is, not standing for that pledge isn't making a spectacle. I've done it countless times and no problems have ever come from it. It's probably because most people aren't ignorant of the law and constitution. Everyone knows that the supreme court has ruled that people don't have to stand and take that pledge if they don't want to.

It's obvious to me that you don't like our constitution or our supreme court rulings. If you want to live in our society you have to go by the rules. One of the rules is that you can't force anyone to stand and take any pledge if that person doesn't want to.

You don't have to agree with it. You don't have to like it. You do have to accept it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ibentoken said: ↑

Next time you're in a courtroom and the judge enters the room, remain seated. Let us know how that goes.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

The law affords judges the authority to make these determinations in their courtrooms, which is in no way related to citizens participating in a public forum where a mayor has no such authority.

The thing is, I've actually not stood up when a judge entered the court.

Not on purpose. I had papers and a case in my lap. By the time I took that stuff off my lap the stand up for the judge was already over.

No one had a problem with it. Including the judge.

Make sure to make a spectacle of it next time and alert the Judge that you have the right to sit.

hmmmkay

The thing is, not standing for that pledge isn't making a spectacle. I've done it countless times and no problems have ever come from it. It's probably because most people aren't ignorant of the law and constitution. Everyone knows that the supreme court has ruled that people don't have to stand and take that pledge if they don't want to.

It's obvious to me that you don't like our constitution or our supreme court rulings. If you want to live in our society you have to go by the rules. One of the rules is that you can't force anyone to stand and take any pledge if that person doesn't want to.

You don't have to agree with it. You don't have to like it. You do have to accept it.

I don't like much of Progressive "Thought" which seeks to pervert our founding of Freedom from government into Freedom to mindlessly follow government.

Unless you're in a wheelchair, you stand for the pledge. If you're a "Conscientious objector" sit in the ******* hallway out of sight, out of mind.

If you want to make a spectacle of your conscientious objection to our tradition, please feel free to do it privately.

If you can't bring yourself to show the most basic respect, please stay the **** out

 

[Statistikhengst]

That mayor was wrong to kick him out of that meeting.

I personally won't stand, put my hand to my heart and pledge allegiance to a piece of cloth. It's ridiculous to me to make such a big deal of a piece of cloth. I wish people would have the same feeling for our nation and our people as they do a piece of cloth. If that pledge said allegiance to America not a piece of cloth, I would have different feelings about it.

I won't lie and say "under god" either. I don't believe in the christian god and there's no way I'm going to lie about it.

I have sat quietly countless times as other people said that pledge. No one has ever said one word about it to me much less kick me out of a public meeting because of it.

Tolerance goes two ways. People are demanding tolerance for the pledge but don't think they should have tolerance for those who want to sit quietly and not say it.

That mayor violated that man's first amendment right to sit quietly while that pledge was said. If I were that man I would find a good lawyer to sue the mayor and the city that it occurred.

Much like the respectful tolerance of sitting quietly and showing "tolerance" for those who wish to silently pray in school. I'm a bit curious how far this definition and observance of tolerance actually goes for those who express the need for it?

It's not the same thing. Having the freedom of expression to not salute the flag or stand for the pledge of allegiance is not the same as separation of church and state. Prayer in school violates the Constitution. Not standing for the pledge of allegiance is a constitutional right. Totally different things.

Except separation of church and state is not written in the Constitution, rather we find "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" is.

Neither are the words "Air Force" or "Nuclear Arsenal" and yet we have them. And we fund them.

However, the idea of a wall of separation between church and state is EXACTLY The reason why the colonies banded together to form a fledgling Republic and shake off the yoke of the English crown, since in England of that day, there was no separation of church and state. There was tryranny of Church and state feeding off of each other.

Think about it.

 

[Dana7360]

Good, get the **** out.

The Dem Party should have had a similar policy with this scumbag. Had Richardson kicked Obama in the ass, I would have voted for him

Indeed. A person who won't stand during the singing of the National Anthem, or refuses to recite the Pledge, or won't be man or woman enough to cover their heart when the Colors are presented - are scum.

This country and her people had better come to terms with their "feelings" about the United States and they had better do it quickly because their resolve is about to be tested mightily.

What do I tell these assholes? You hate this country so damned much? Get the **** out of it. But disrespect the flag in front of me and I will knock the shit out of you. punk ass clowns piss me off.

Excuse me but if you are violent and physically attack me, I'll be on the phone to the police to have you arrested and drag you to jail. It's called "assault and battery." I will show up in court to testify so that I make sure you're put in prison for your crime.

I will then find the best lawyer possible to sue you for everything you have.

I will win because the constitution protects everyone from people like you.

WAA WAAA WAAA WAAA....Typical Nazi liberal - you detest the law until you can use it against someone, I'kll say it again - disrespect the flag in front of me and I';; slap the shit out of you. I'll take my chances in a court of law, Nazi.

And you wonder why this country is going to hell............

That's your choice.

Since you're a man and I'm a woman. Your crime will not only be assault and battery but also assault/abuse on a women. My state has very strict laws about men beating up women.

So if you do make that very bad choice you will suffer the bad consequences.

I would call the police, have you arrested, then show up in court to make sure that you get the fullest extent of our law imposed on you. I will make sure you get the longest sentence possible for your crime so you spend many years in prison with billy bubba showing you exactly what they think of men who beat up women. It won't be pretty and I'l enjoy knowing that you're having to endure that for years.

I will then make sure you're homeless and penniless when you get out of prison.

I will sue you for everything you have. You won't be left with even one penny to your name. I'll take your home, your car and everything you own and have a smile on my face when I do it.

You see, the judge and police won't care about your "respect." Police and judges don't respect common criminals. Which is what you would be if you assaulted me. The police will haul you to jail and that judge will make sure you're in prison for as long as the law allows.

The judge in the civil case won't care one bit about your "respect" either. You violated the law and our constitution. The court will rule in my favor and I will financially destroy you. Along with taking as many years of your freedom from you that I can possibly take.

I will win every time. It's illegal to assault a person. It's another crime for a man to assault a woman. It's also illegal and unconstitutional to deny me of my first amendment right to not stand and say that pledge. You will have absolutely no legal ground to stand on. The judge will make it very clear to you that you must respect my rights. You have no right to assault me or violate my constitutional rights. The judge will also make it clear to you that I didn't break any laws or violate the constitution for not standing. That you're the criminal. Not me.

So you can assault me if you want but you will be nothing but a common criminal. I will make sure that the fullest extent of our laws are imposed on you and I take everything you have.

I'll be laughing at you as I do it while telling you that's what I think of your "respect."

I have absolutely no respect for criminals and people who violate our constitution. Neither does our justice system. Men who assault women don't get any respect from anyone in our nation.

 

[Dana7360]

Ibentoken said: ↑

Next time you're in a courtroom and the judge enters the room, remain seated. Let us know how that goes.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

The law affords judges the authority to make these determinations in their courtrooms, which is in no way related to citizens participating in a public forum where a mayor has no such authority.

The thing is, I've actually not stood up when a judge entered the court.

Not on purpose. I had papers and a case in my lap. By the time I took that stuff off my lap the stand up for the judge was already over.

No one had a problem with it. Including the judge.

Make sure to make a spectacle of it next time and alert the Judge that you have the right to sit.

hmmmkay

The thing is, not standing for that pledge isn't making a spectacle. I've done it countless times and no problems have ever come from it. It's probably because most people aren't ignorant of the law and constitution. Everyone knows that the supreme court has ruled that people don't have to stand and take that pledge if they don't want to.

It's obvious to me that you don't like our constitution or our supreme court rulings. If you want to live in our society you have to go by the rules. One of the rules is that you can't force anyone to stand and take any pledge if that person doesn't want to.

You don't have to agree with it. You don't have to like it. You do have to accept it.

I don't like much of Progressive "Thought" which seeks to pervert our founding of Freedom from government into Freedom to mindlessly follow government.

Unless you're in a wheelchair, you stand for the pledge. If you're a "Conscientious objector" sit in the ******* hallway out of sight, out of mind.

If you want to make a spectacle of your conscientious objection to our tradition, please feel free to do it privately.

If you can't bring yourself to show the most basic respect, please stay the **** out

If you tried to force me to stand and take that pledge you would be arrested. That's assault on a woman. Which is very illegal.

It doesn't matter whether you like progressive thought or not. What matters is that the laws and constitution of this nation give me the right to not stand and take that pledge.

Police don't like people who assault other people. Which is what you would be doing if you tried to force me to stand. Judges don't like people who assault people and violate the constitution.

You have no authority to tell me what to do, where to stand and what public meetings I can attend. Public is just that. Open to everyone. If you tried to deny me access to a public meeting you would be violating the law and constitution.

You would be nothing but a common criminal with a felony charge and years in prison.

I will be laughing at you the whole time.

You might want to check out my posted reply to randalflagg. I would apply it to you if you even dared to try to force me to stand and take the pledge.

The law and constitution are on my side. Not yours.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ibentoken said: ↑

Next time you're in a courtroom and the judge enters the room, remain seated. Let us know how that goes.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

The law affords judges the authority to make these determinations in their courtrooms, which is in no way related to citizens participating in a public forum where a mayor has no such authority.

The thing is, I've actually not stood up when a judge entered the court.

Not on purpose. I had papers and a case in my lap. By the time I took that stuff off my lap the stand up for the judge was already over.

No one had a problem with it. Including the judge.

Make sure to make a spectacle of it next time and alert the Judge that you have the right to sit.

hmmmkay

The thing is, not standing for that pledge isn't making a spectacle. I've done it countless times and no problems have ever come from it. It's probably because most people aren't ignorant of the law and constitution. Everyone knows that the supreme court has ruled that people don't have to stand and take that pledge if they don't want to.

It's obvious to me that you don't like our constitution or our supreme court rulings. If you want to live in our society you have to go by the rules. One of the rules is that you can't force anyone to stand and take any pledge if that person doesn't want to.

You don't have to agree with it. You don't have to like it. You do have to accept it.

I don't like much of Progressive "Thought" which seeks to pervert our founding of Freedom from government into Freedom to mindlessly follow government.

Unless you're in a wheelchair, you stand for the pledge. If you're a "Conscientious objector" sit in the ******* hallway out of sight, out of mind.

If you want to make a spectacle of your conscientious objection to our tradition, please feel free to do it privately.

If you can't bring yourself to show the most basic respect, please stay the **** out

If you tried to force me to stand and take that pledge you would be arrested. That's assault on a woman. Which is very illegal.

It doesn't matter whether you like progressive thought or not. What matters is that the laws and constitution of this nation give me the right to not stand and take that pledge.

Police don't like people who assault other people. Which is what you would be doing if you tried to force me to stand. Judges don't like people who assault people and violate the constitution.

You have no authority to tell me what to do, where to stand and what public meetings I can attend. Public is just that. Open to everyone. If you tried to deny me access to a public meeting you would be violating the law and constitution.

You would be nothing but a common criminal with a felony charge and years in prison.

I will be laughing at you the whole time.

You might want to check out my posted reply to randalflagg. I would apply it to you if you even dared to try to force me to stand and take the pledge.

The law and constitution are on my side. Not yours.

I'd never "force" you to do anything and I'd never assault you. Your nastiness and lack of civility will come back to you one day, I'm sure of it.

 

[Dana7360]

Ibentoken said: ↑

Next time you're in a courtroom and the judge enters the room, remain seated. Let us know how that goes.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

The law affords judges the authority to make these determinations in their courtrooms, which is in no way related to citizens participating in a public forum where a mayor has no such authority.

The thing is, I've actually not stood up when a judge entered the court.

Not on purpose. I had papers and a case in my lap. By the time I took that stuff off my lap the stand up for the judge was already over.

No one had a problem with it. Including the judge.

Make sure to make a spectacle of it next time and alert the Judge that you have the right to sit.

hmmmkay

The thing is, not standing for that pledge isn't making a spectacle. I've done it countless times and no problems have ever come from it. It's probably because most people aren't ignorant of the law and constitution. Everyone knows that the supreme court has ruled that people don't have to stand and take that pledge if they don't want to.

It's obvious to me that you don't like our constitution or our supreme court rulings. If you want to live in our society you have to go by the rules. One of the rules is that you can't force anyone to stand and take any pledge if that person doesn't want to.

You don't have to agree with it. You don't have to like it. You do have to accept it.

I don't like much of Progressive "Thought" which seeks to pervert our founding of Freedom from government into Freedom to mindlessly follow government.

Unless you're in a wheelchair, you stand for the pledge. If you're a "Conscientious objector" sit in the ******* hallway out of sight, out of mind.

If you want to make a spectacle of your conscientious objection to our tradition, please feel free to do it privately.

If you can't bring yourself to show the most basic respect, please stay the **** out

If you tried to force me to stand and take that pledge you would be arrested. That's assault on a woman. Which is very illegal.

It doesn't matter whether you like progressive thought or not. What matters is that the laws and constitution of this nation give me the right to not stand and take that pledge.

Police don't like people who assault other people. Which is what you would be doing if you tried to force me to stand. Judges don't like people who assault people and violate the constitution.

You have no authority to tell me what to do, where to stand and what public meetings I can attend. Public is just that. Open to everyone. If you tried to deny me access to a public meeting you would be violating the law and constitution.

You would be nothing but a common criminal with a felony charge and years in prison.

I will be laughing at you the whole time.

You might want to check out my posted reply to randalflagg. I would apply it to you if you even dared to try to force me to stand and take the pledge.

The law and constitution are on my side. Not yours.

I'd never "force" you to do anything and I'd never assault you. Your nastiness and lack of civility will come back to you one day, I'm sure of it.

Then what's the point of your post that I replied to?

Sitting quietly while others stand and take the pledge isn't be nasty or lacking in civility. In fact, it's constitutional. The person who would deny me that right is the person who is nasty and lacking in civility.

I've been doing it for decades and I have never, not even once, ever experienced anyone saying any comment or taking any action.

There's nothing to come back to me for not standing.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

[

Since you're a man and I'm a woman. Your crime will not only be assault and battery but also assault/abuse on a women. My state has very strict laws about men beating up women.

Your state does NOT have laws against a man beating up a woman I assure you. Any such law would be unconstitutional. In the eyes of the law , assault is assault, it matters not if it is a woman who assaults a man or the other way around, or a woman who assaults a woman or whatever.

There are no such laws which make it especially bad if a man beats up a woman.

Even domestic abuse laws are silent on the sex of the victim or perpetrator.

No big deal except that you profess to have a knowledge of the law, and you certainly do not.

 

[Dana7360]

[

Since you're a man and I'm a woman. Your crime will not only be assault and battery but also assault/abuse on a women. My state has very strict laws about men beating up women.

Your state does NOT have laws against a man beating up a woman I assure you. Any such law would be unconstitutional. In the eyes of the law , assault is assault, it matters not if it is a woman who assaults a man or the other way around, or a woman who assaults a woman or whatever.

There are no such laws which make it especially bad if a man beats up a woman.

Even domestic abuse laws are silent on the sex of the victim or perpetrator.

No big deal except that you profess to have a knowledge of the law, and you certainly do not.

[

Since you're a man and I'm a woman. Your crime will not only be assault and battery but also assault/abuse on a women. My state has very strict laws about men beating up women.

Your state does NOT have laws against a man beating up a woman I assure you. Any such law would be unconstitutional. In the eyes of the law , assault is assault, it matters not if it is a woman who assaults a man or the other way around, or a woman who assaults a woman or whatever.

There are no such laws which make it especially bad if a man beats up a woman.

Even domestic abuse laws are silent on the sex of the victim or perpetrator.

No big deal except that you profess to have a knowledge of the law, and you certainly do not.

You're right.

Someone attacking me in a public place isn't domestic abuse. I was thinking of domestic abuse laws. My mistake.

The regular assault charges would be applied.

Domestic abuse is a very serious crime in my state. Police are required to arrest anyone who commits the crime of domestic abuse. The state will try to prosecute the abuser even if the survivor doesn't press charges. It's a separate charge from assault. Both charges are applied in most cases.

No I don't have a law degree. Though I had to take a few law classes for the field in which I did get my degree.

I also have experienced domestic violence first hand so I know the laws for that crime in my state.

Everything else I posted is correct. That's exactly what would happen if randalflagg assaulted me. randalflagg would be facing first degree assault. I would tell him before he hit me that if he does, he will likely paralyze me since I have a very serious spine injury from an accident 5 years ago. If randalflagg hit me knowing this it would be first degree assault which requires a minimum of 93 months in prison. The maximum is 123 months in prison. I guarantee you, my lawyer and I would be making sure that randalflagg spent the maximum amount of time in prison for his crimes. Yes I would hire a lawyer to represent me to the police and the court to make sure that the fullest extent of the law is imposed on randalflagg.

I have a hard time believing you approve of a man assaulting a woman. Please don't tell me you're that hostile towards women who disagree with your views.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

[

Since you're a man and I'm a woman. Your crime will not only be assault and battery but also assault/abuse on a women. My state has very strict laws about men beating up women.

Your state does NOT have laws against a man beating up a woman I assure you. Any such law would be unconstitutional. In the eyes of the law , assault is assault, it matters not if it is a woman who assaults a man or the other way around, or a woman who assaults a woman or whatever.

There are no such laws which make it especially bad if a man beats up a woman.

Even domestic abuse laws are silent on the sex of the victim or perpetrator.

No big deal except that you profess to have a knowledge of the law, and you certainly do not.

[

Since you're a man and I'm a woman. Your crime will not only be assault and battery but also assault/abuse on a women. My state has very strict laws about men beating up women.

Your state does NOT have laws against a man beating up a woman I assure you. Any such law would be unconstitutional. In the eyes of the law , assault is assault, it matters not if it is a woman who assaults a man or the other way around, or a woman who assaults a woman or whatever.

There are no such laws which make it especially bad if a man beats up a woman.

Even domestic abuse laws are silent on the sex of the victim or perpetrator.

No big deal except that you profess to have a knowledge of the law, and you certainly do not.

You're right.

Someone attacking me in a public place isn't domestic abuse. I was thinking of domestic abuse laws. My mistake.

The regular assault charges would be applied.

Domestic abuse is a very serious crime in my state. Police are required to arrest anyone who commits the crime of domestic abuse. The state will try to prosecute the abuser even if the survivor doesn't press charges. It's a separate charge from assault. Both charges are applied in most cases.

No I don't have a law degree. Though I had to take a few law classes for the field in which I did get my degree.

I also have experienced domestic violence first hand so I know the laws for that crime in my state.

Everything else I posted is correct. That's exactly what would happen if randalflagg assaulted me. randalflagg would be facing first degree assault. I would tell him before he hit me that if he does, he will likely paralyze me since I have a very serious spine injury from an accident 5 years ago. If randalflagg hit me knowing this it would be first degree assault which requires a minimum of 93 months in prison. The maximum is 123 months in prison. I guarantee you, my lawyer and I would be making sure that randalflagg spent the maximum amount of time in prison for his crimes. Yes I would hire a lawyer to represent me to the police and the court to make sure that the fullest extent of the law is imposed on randalflagg.

I have a hard time believing you approve of a man assaulting a woman. Please don't tell me you're that hostile towards women who disagree with your views.

I absolutely do NOT approve of men hitting women. I was merely correcting you, there are no laws which give women special protection from assault. Even domestic abuse charges do not apply specifically to a man hitting a woman.

 

[Dana7360]

[

Since you're a man and I'm a woman. Your crime will not only be assault and battery but also assault/abuse on a women. My state has very strict laws about men beating up women.

Your state does NOT have laws against a man beating up a woman I assure you. Any such law would be unconstitutional. In the eyes of the law , assault is assault, it matters not if it is a woman who assaults a man or the other way around, or a woman who assaults a woman or whatever.

There are no such laws which make it especially bad if a man beats up a woman.

Even domestic abuse laws are silent on the sex of the victim or perpetrator.

No big deal except that you profess to have a knowledge of the law, and you certainly do not.

[

Since you're a man and I'm a woman. Your crime will not only be assault and battery but also assault/abuse on a women. My state has very strict laws about men beating up women.

Your state does NOT have laws against a man beating up a woman I assure you. Any such law would be unconstitutional. In the eyes of the law , assault is assault, it matters not if it is a woman who assaults a man or the other way around, or a woman who assaults a woman or whatever.

There are no such laws which make it especially bad if a man beats up a woman.

Even domestic abuse laws are silent on the sex of the victim or perpetrator.

No big deal except that you profess to have a knowledge of the law, and you certainly do not.

You're right.

Someone attacking me in a public place isn't domestic abuse. I was thinking of domestic abuse laws. My mistake.

The regular assault charges would be applied.

Domestic abuse is a very serious crime in my state. Police are required to arrest anyone who commits the crime of domestic abuse. The state will try to prosecute the abuser even if the survivor doesn't press charges. It's a separate charge from assault. Both charges are applied in most cases.

No I don't have a law degree. Though I had to take a few law classes for the field in which I did get my degree.

I also have experienced domestic violence first hand so I know the laws for that crime in my state.

Everything else I posted is correct. That's exactly what would happen if randalflagg assaulted me. randalflagg would be facing first degree assault. I would tell him before he hit me that if he does, he will likely paralyze me since I have a very serious spine injury from an accident 5 years ago. If randalflagg hit me knowing this it would be first degree assault which requires a minimum of 93 months in prison. The maximum is 123 months in prison. I guarantee you, my lawyer and I would be making sure that randalflagg spent the maximum amount of time in prison for his crimes. Yes I would hire a lawyer to represent me to the police and the court to make sure that the fullest extent of the law is imposed on randalflagg.

I have a hard time believing you approve of a man assaulting a woman. Please don't tell me you're that hostile towards women who disagree with your views.

I absolutely do NOT approve of men hitting women. I was merely correcting you, there are no laws which give women special protection from assault. Even domestic abuse charges do not apply specifically to a man hitting a woman.

I'm glad that I was right, you don't approve of men hitting women.

Yes domestic violence laws apply to men and women. However they were written because men usually do the hitting and up until the last 20 years or so, domestic violence wasn't treated very seriously. It took countless women being beaten within an inch of their lives and countless others who were murdered to get the laws we have now. It was only after the cries and demands of women in America that we have real domestic abuse laws now.

Yes women do hit men. I believe that the woman should face the same domestic violence charges as men. If they're going to be barbaric then they should face the same consequences as men.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

What good is a pledge if you are forced to give it?

Any pledge should by definition, be voluntary

Even if you don't agree with the pledge, you should show respect towards those who died to give you that right.

Why is it there such a big issue regarding standing for the pledge, "people shouldn't be forced into something", yet you will defend forcing someone into a decision over what health care they "should" carry. I find that concern of individual rights and freedom with regard to being "forced" into something quite laughable in comparison.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

In addition to being Constitutional, the ACA doesn't "force" anyone to do anything, where it is not government's place to compel citizens to "show respect."

So what you are saying is that if a young person doesn't feel like they actually NEED to carry healthcare, the Federal Government will not use the IRS to inquire through a tax form and levy an additional tax (or any financial penalty) as a direct result of his personal decision? Got any proof of that?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

That mayor was wrong to kick him out of that meeting.

I personally won't stand, put my hand to my heart and pledge allegiance to a piece of cloth. It's ridiculous to me to make such a big deal of a piece of cloth. I wish people would have the same feeling for our nation and our people as they do a piece of cloth. If that pledge said allegiance to America not a piece of cloth, I would have different feelings about it.

I won't lie and say "under god" either. I don't believe in the christian god and there's no way I'm going to lie about it.

I have sat quietly countless times as other people said that pledge. No one has ever said one word about it to me much less kick me out of a public meeting because of it.

Tolerance goes two ways. People are demanding tolerance for the pledge but don't think they should have tolerance for those who want to sit quietly and not say it.

That mayor violated that man's first amendment right to sit quietly while that pledge was said. If I were that man I would find a good lawyer to sue the mayor and the city that it occurred.

Much like the respectful tolerance of sitting quietly and showing "tolerance" for those who wish to silently pray in school. I'm a bit curious how far this definition and observance of tolerance actually goes for those who express the need for it?

It's not the same thing. Having the freedom of expression to not salute the flag or stand for the pledge of allegiance is not the same as separation of church and state. Prayer in school violates the Constitution. Not standing for the pledge of allegiance is a constitutional right. Totally different things.

Except separation of church and state is not written in the Constitution, rather we find "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" is.

So you support the State getting involved in Church?

To have an accurate understanding of the First Amendment with regard to "religion" you first have to have an understanding of what is meant by the word ESTABLISHMENT. Very few can actually get that interpretation historically accurate and correct. My first question to you is; Do you know the parameters that define government actually establishing religion? (hint - there has never been an establishment of religion that fulfills this definition yet this country). Then I will explain through supported historical documents what our Founders and Congress during that period in history actually said. I'd much rather people actually learn about the history of their country than look to some ideological website for some modern unsupported opinion

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

[

Since you're a man and I'm a woman. Your crime will not only be assault and battery but also assault/abuse on a women. My state has very strict laws about men beating up women.

Your state does NOT have laws against a man beating up a woman I assure you. Any such law would be unconstitutional. In the eyes of the law , assault is assault, it matters not if it is a woman who assaults a man or the other way around, or a woman who assaults a woman or whatever.

There are no such laws which make it especially bad if a man beats up a woman.

Even domestic abuse laws are silent on the sex of the victim or perpetrator.

No big deal except that you profess to have a knowledge of the law, and you certainly do not.

[

Since you're a man and I'm a woman. Your crime will not only be assault and battery but also assault/abuse on a women. My state has very strict laws about men beating up women.

Your state does NOT have laws against a man beating up a woman I assure you. Any such law would be unconstitutional. In the eyes of the law , assault is assault, it matters not if it is a woman who assaults a man or the other way around, or a woman who assaults a woman or whatever.

There are no such laws which make it especially bad if a man beats up a woman.

Even domestic abuse laws are silent on the sex of the victim or perpetrator.

No big deal except that you profess to have a knowledge of the law, and you certainly do not.

You're right.

Someone attacking me in a public place isn't domestic abuse. I was thinking of domestic abuse laws. My mistake.

The regular assault charges would be applied.

Domestic abuse is a very serious crime in my state. Police are required to arrest anyone who commits the crime of domestic abuse. The state will try to prosecute the abuser even if the survivor doesn't press charges. It's a separate charge from assault. Both charges are applied in most cases.

No I don't have a law degree. Though I had to take a few law classes for the field in which I did get my degree.

I also have experienced domestic violence first hand so I know the laws for that crime in my state.

Everything else I posted is correct. That's exactly what would happen if randalflagg assaulted me. randalflagg would be facing first degree assault. I would tell him before he hit me that if he does, he will likely paralyze me since I have a very serious spine injury from an accident 5 years ago. If randalflagg hit me knowing this it would be first degree assault which requires a minimum of 93 months in prison. The maximum is 123 months in prison. I guarantee you, my lawyer and I would be making sure that randalflagg spent the maximum amount of time in prison for his crimes. Yes I would hire a lawyer to represent me to the police and the court to make sure that the fullest extent of the law is imposed on randalflagg.

I have a hard time believing you approve of a man assaulting a woman. Please don't tell me you're that hostile towards women who disagree with your views.

I absolutely do NOT approve of men hitting women. I was merely correcting you, there are no laws which give women special protection from assault. Even domestic abuse charges do not apply specifically to a man hitting a woman.

I'm glad that I was right, you don't approve of men hitting women.

Yes domestic violence laws apply to men and women. However they were written because men usually do the hitting and up until the last 20 years or so, domestic violence wasn't treated very seriously. It took countless women being beaten within an inch of their lives and countless others who were murdered to get the laws we have now. It was only after the cries and demands of women in America that we have real domestic abuse laws now.

Yes women do hit men. I believe that the woman should face the same domestic violence charges as men. If they're going to be barbaric then they should face the same consequences as men.

I must say though that I fully approve of a man spanking his wife on occasion.

 

[Dana7360]

[

Since you're a man and I'm a woman. Your crime will not only be assault and battery but also assault/abuse on a women. My state has very strict laws about men beating up women.

Your state does NOT have laws against a man beating up a woman I assure you. Any such law would be unconstitutional. In the eyes of the law , assault is assault, it matters not if it is a woman who assaults a man or the other way around, or a woman who assaults a woman or whatever.

There are no such laws which make it especially bad if a man beats up a woman.

Even domestic abuse laws are silent on the sex of the victim or perpetrator.

No big deal except that you profess to have a knowledge of the law, and you certainly do not.

[

Since you're a man and I'm a woman. Your crime will not only be assault and battery but also assault/abuse on a women. My state has very strict laws about men beating up women.

Your state does NOT have laws against a man beating up a woman I assure you. Any such law would be unconstitutional. In the eyes of the law , assault is assault, it matters not if it is a woman who assaults a man or the other way around, or a woman who assaults a woman or whatever.

There are no such laws which make it especially bad if a man beats up a woman.

Even domestic abuse laws are silent on the sex of the victim or perpetrator.

No big deal except that you profess to have a knowledge of the law, and you certainly do not.

You're right.

Someone attacking me in a public place isn't domestic abuse. I was thinking of domestic abuse laws. My mistake.

The regular assault charges would be applied.

Domestic abuse is a very serious crime in my state. Police are required to arrest anyone who commits the crime of domestic abuse. The state will try to prosecute the abuser even if the survivor doesn't press charges. It's a separate charge from assault. Both charges are applied in most cases.

No I don't have a law degree. Though I had to take a few law classes for the field in which I did get my degree.

I also have experienced domestic violence first hand so I know the laws for that crime in my state.

Everything else I posted is correct. That's exactly what would happen if randalflagg assaulted me. randalflagg would be facing first degree assault. I would tell him before he hit me that if he does, he will likely paralyze me since I have a very serious spine injury from an accident 5 years ago. If randalflagg hit me knowing this it would be first degree assault which requires a minimum of 93 months in prison. The maximum is 123 months in prison. I guarantee you, my lawyer and I would be making sure that randalflagg spent the maximum amount of time in prison for his crimes. Yes I would hire a lawyer to represent me to the police and the court to make sure that the fullest extent of the law is imposed on randalflagg.

I have a hard time believing you approve of a man assaulting a woman. Please don't tell me you're that hostile towards women who disagree with your views.

I absolutely do NOT approve of men hitting women. I was merely correcting you, there are no laws which give women special protection from assault. Even domestic abuse charges do not apply specifically to a man hitting a woman.

I'm glad that I was right, you don't approve of men hitting women.

Yes domestic violence laws apply to men and women. However they were written because men usually do the hitting and up until the last 20 years or so, domestic violence wasn't treated very seriously. It took countless women being beaten within an inch of their lives and countless others who were murdered to get the laws we have now. It was only after the cries and demands of women in America that we have real domestic abuse laws now.

Yes women do hit men. I believe that the woman should face the same domestic violence charges as men. If they're going to be barbaric then they should face the same consequences as men.

I must say though that I fully approve of a man spanking his wife on occasion.

What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home and within the laws of our nation, is absolutely none of my business.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home and within the laws of our nation, is absolutely none of my business.

What do you have against threesomes?