[VIDEO] ~ Breaking: Adam Kokesh & others arrested & abused for dancing...

[Tank]

You just want to cause problems or you don't have common sence

I'm not the one causing problems, and nor were the people peacefully and silently dancing. Also, I'm not usually one to criticize somebody's spelling, but since you want to insult me I have no problem pointing out that "sense" is spelled with an "s" not a "c." The reason you shouldn't go around insulting people on the internet, other than the fact that insulting people anywhere is rude, is that you inevitably make yourself look stupid. Such as questioning someone's common sense while continually spelling it wrong.

It don't matter how you spell it, you still ain't got it

 

[Sunshine]

And what about the person who suffers from St. Vitus Dance?

What about his or her rights?

Sorry, I couldn't help it.

This 'demonstration' is mild compared to the 60s. Surely there are some of those old 'sit ins and love ins' floating around on Youtube somewhere.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

But if someone did accidently become in danger of being harmed by the dancers it would be the governments fault for allowing it.

Would it be wrong to dance in a public library?

No, it would be the person who put the other person in danger's fault. However, that wasn't case, so your hypothetical is once again not applicable.

A public library is a completely different animal. For one they're funded locally so they would be governed by a different set of laws and/or rules.

How exactly is a library different?


PS - Most local libraries are in fact at least partially funded with state and federal funds

Well it depends on the library, but there's a difference in what state or locally funded institutions can do versus what federal institutions can do. The same way the Constitution differs in relation to the federal and state governments.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Kinda funny.

Did they need to have permits to demonstrate on federal property?

If they did, tuff titties

If not this is yet another form a tyranny.

I don't recall the Constitution stating we need permits to demonstrate.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You just want to cause problems or you don't have common sence

I'm not the one causing problems, and nor were the people peacefully and silently dancing. Also, I'm not usually one to criticize somebody's spelling, but since you want to insult me I have no problem pointing out that "sense" is spelled with an "s" not a "c." The reason you shouldn't go around insulting people on the internet, other than the fact that insulting people anywhere is rude, is that you inevitably make yourself look stupid. Such as questioning someone's common sense while continually spelling it wrong.

It don't matter how you spell it, you still ain't got it

Says the guy who can't spell.

 

[TheBrain]

No, it would be the person who put the other person in danger's fault. However, that wasn't case, so your hypothetical is once again not applicable.

A public library is a completely different animal. For one they're funded locally so they would be governed by a different set of laws and/or rules.

How exactly is a library different?


PS - Most local libraries are in fact at least partially funded with state and federal funds

Well it depends on the library, but there's a difference in what state or locally funded institutions can do versus what federal institutions can do. The same way the Constitution differs in relation to the federal and state governments.

LOLWUT? THere is NO difference between what the federal government can do in terms of your rights, and what a local or state government can do in terms of your rights.

God, some people are just stupid.

 

[Tank]

Why don't you dance in a federal courtroom during a trial?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

How exactly is a library different?


PS - Most local libraries are in fact at least partially funded with state and federal funds

Well it depends on the library, but there's a difference in what state or locally funded institutions can do versus what federal institutions can do. The same way the Constitution differs in relation to the federal and state governments.

LOLWUT? THere is NO difference between what the federal government can do in terms of your rights, and what a local or state government can do in terms of your rights.

God, some people are just stupid.

Yes, some people are. Like those who can't read the 10th Amendment.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Kinda funny.

Did they need to have permits to demonstrate on federal property?

If they did, tuff titties

If not this is yet another form a tyranny.

I don't recall the Constitution stating we need permits to demonstrate.

I do recall the states having rights to their own laws.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Why don't you dance in a federal courtroom during a trial?

Why don't you make a sensible argument?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Kinda funny.

Did they need to have permits to demonstrate on federal property?

If they did, tuff titties

If not this is yet another form a tyranny.

I don't recall the Constitution stating we need permits to demonstrate.

I do recall the states having rights to their own laws.

Certainly. Not applicable when discussing Washington, D.C., however.

 

[TheBrain]

Well it depends on the library, but there's a difference in what state or locally funded institutions can do versus what federal institutions can do. The same way the Constitution differs in relation to the federal and state governments.

LOLWUT? THere is NO difference between what the federal government can do in terms of your rights, and what a local or state government can do in teYourms of your rights.

God, some people are just stupid.

Yes, some people are. Like those who can't read the 10th Amendment.

You're an idiot, the 10th doesn't give states the right to violate your 1st Amendment rights in instances where you actually have those rights. LOL

Federal parks, just as local libraries , have the ability to set RULES of behavior on their grounds. Setting those rules does not violate your first amendment rights, because in fact you not only do not have to go to those places, you don't have a right to . Just as with any other privilege extended by the government you have to follow certain guidelines to enjoy them.

DUMB FUCK

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

LOLWUT? THere is NO difference between what the federal government can do in terms of your rights, and what a local or state government can do in teYourms of your rights.

God, some people are just stupid.

Yes, some people are. Like those who can't read the 10th Amendment.

You're an idiot, the 10th doesn't give states the right to violate your 1st Amendment rights in instances where you actually have those rights. LOL

Federal parks, just as local libraries , have the ability to set RULES of behavior on their grounds. Setting those rules does not violate your first amendment rights, because in fact you not only do not have to go to those places, you don't have a right to . Just as with any other privilege extended by the government you have to follow certain guidelines to enjoy them.

DUMB FUCK

Rude.

 

[TheBrain]

Yes, some people are. Like those who can't read the 10th Amendment.

You're an idiot, the 10th doesn't give states the right to violate your 1st Amendment rights in instances where you actually have those rights. LOL

Federal parks, just as local libraries , have the ability to set RULES of behavior on their grounds. Setting those rules does not violate your first amendment rights, because in fact you not only do not have to go to those places, you don't have a right to . Just as with any other privilege extended by the government you have to follow certain guidelines to enjoy them.

DUMB FUCK

Rude.

No what's rude is puking your stupidity all over a thread like you have any idea what you are talking about when there might be people on here who are actually curious as to what their rights actually are.

You do NOT have a right to dance , even silently, at a federal park, because you don't have a right to even be at that federal park.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You're an idiot, the 10th doesn't give states the right to violate your 1st Amendment rights in instances where you actually have those rights. LOL

Federal parks, just as local libraries , have the ability to set RULES of behavior on their grounds. Setting those rules does not violate your first amendment rights, because in fact you not only do not have to go to those places, you don't have a right to . Just as with any other privilege extended by the government you have to follow certain guidelines to enjoy them.

DUMB FUCK

Rude.

No what's rude is puking your stupidity all over a thread like you have any idea what you are talking about when there might be people on here who are actually curious as to what their rights actually are.

You do NOT have a right to dance , even silently, at a federal park, because you don't have a right to even be at that federal park.

Taxpayers don't have a right to be at a publicly funded federal temple. Right. You got me.

 

[TheBrain]

Rude.

No what's rude is puking your stupidity all over a thread like you have any idea what you are talking about when there might be people on here who are actually curious as to what their rights actually are.

You do NOT have a right to dance , even silently, at a federal park, because you don't have a right to even be at that federal park.

Taxpayers don't have a right to be at a publicly funded federal temple. Right. You got me.

No, you in fact don't have a right to be there. Please show me where you do have the right.

Do you remember directly after 9/11 when they shut down federal and state parks? How did they abridge our rights like that? Oh, that's right, because you don't have that right.

You are stupid


PS . Show up at the White House and demand your right to get in, see how that works out for you.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No what's rude is puking your stupidity all over a thread like you have any idea what you are talking about when there might be people on here who are actually curious as to what their rights actually are.

You do NOT have a right to dance , even silently, at a federal park, because you don't have a right to even be at that federal park.

Taxpayers don't have a right to be at a publicly funded federal temple. Right. You got me.

No, you in fact don't have a right to be there. Please show me where you do have the right.

Do you remember directly after 9/11 when they shut down federal and state parks? How did they abridge our rights like that? Oh, that's right, because you don't have that right.

You are stupid


PS . Show up at the White House and demand your right to get in, see how that works out for you.

You're confusing public property for private property, which isn't surprising given that the existence public property confuses the principle of property in the first place.

Oh, and the fact that the government regularly abridges our rights is not proof that those rights don't exist.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I don't recall the Constitution stating we need permits to demonstrate.

I do recall the states having rights to their own laws.

Certainly. Not applicable when discussing Washington, D.C., however.

Yes it is.

They have their own laws themselves.

Try acting the fool in court, in the Senate, and any federal building.

 

[Sunshine]

No what's rude is puking your stupidity all over a thread like you have any idea what you are talking about when there might be people on here who are actually curious as to what their rights actually are.

You do NOT have a right to dance , even silently, at a federal park, because you don't have a right to even be at that federal park.

Taxpayers don't have a right to be at a publicly funded federal temple. Right. You got me.

No, you in fact don't have a right to be there. Please show me where you do have the right.

Do you remember directly after 9/11 when they shut down federal and state parks? How did they abridge our rights like that? Oh, that's right, because you don't have that right.

You are stupid


PS . Show up at the White House and demand your right to get in, see how that works out for you.

You most assuredly do have the right to enter a public building within the scope of the guidelines that apply to each of those places. The government can regulate every right we have here in the US, even entering public buildings. Therefore, you are not privy to EVERY place in EVERY public building.

 

[TheBrain]

Taxpayers don't have a right to be at a publicly funded federal temple. Right. You got me.

No, you in fact don't have a right to be there. Please show me where you do have the right.

Do you remember directly after 9/11 when they shut down federal and state parks? How did they abridge our rights like that? Oh, that's right, because you don't have that right.

You are stupid


PS . Show up at the White House and demand your right to get in, see how that works out for you.

You're confusing public property for private property, which isn't surprising given that the existence public property confuses the principle of property in the first place.

Oh, and the fact that the government regularly abridges our rights is not proof that those rights don't exist.

damn, you're stupid. Where did I mention ANYTHING about private property?