USA Bill to make [disruptive] Protesting an "Act of 'Economic' Terrorism"

[Canpinter]

Shit you're right that's on long freeways and highways. In cities exits are much closer than that. My bad.

And it depends. Are you literally holding me at gunpoint, or did you just bar my door?

you really think forcing you to stay somewhere isn't a form of violence? so the people that keep kids locked in cages their basement haven't done something violent unless they actually physically push them in there or threaten?

[Sinyc]

So they can't protest in any way that would actually make anyone notice them protesting? Gotcha.

Seems legit.

You don't need to stand in the middle of a highway to "Get noticed". All that does is makes people pissed off at you for being a jackass. They don't give a **** about your cause at that point.

If you want to protest, keep it legal and stay off property that common sense would dictate you don't be on. Also, don't destroy anything.

That said, I am sure this bill is BS and not well thought out.

[Berengil]

Republicans are drifting closer and closer toward absolute fascism. At some point, the people need to rise up against this.

And yes, protests are meant to be disruptive. That's how they get the point across, they force people to pay attention. It really is a first world privilege to cry about disruptive protesting.

They can go f themselves. That's my attitude towards anyone who gets in my way/disrupts my plans/wastes my time.

By doing this, they are ensuring 1 thing: that I will vote for politicians who oppose everything the protesters stand for.

[Dadwen]

Republicans are drifting closer and closer toward absolute fascism. At some point, the people need to rise up against this.

And yes, protests are meant to be disruptive. That's how they get the point across, they force people to pay attention. It really is a first world privilege to cry about disruptive protesting.

I think if we start seeing more of these type of protests I think you'll start to see more and more people rise up for laws against it, first it was BLM then some anti trump protesters (years and years ago I think it was some oil protesters in the 80 or 90's), next someone protesting some movie they don't like and someone will get killed over it (blocked emergency services, some half asleep truck driver plowing into the cars) and I think you'll then see the up-cry from both sides trying to put a stop to it.

[Belize]

you really think forcing you to stay somewhere isn't a form of violence? so the people that keep kids locked in cages their basement haven't done something violent unless they actually physically push them in there or threaten?

And you said I'm comparing apples to oranges?

Anyways, if the kid got in there willingly in the first place, no, it's technically not violent.

[Dadwen]

Keep strawmanning friend. You go get those evil traffic causing protesters. You'll show them I'm sure. Maybe you'll vanquish your fear of it too.

so far you've not disproved anything anyone has put out about you're crappy very lame excuses about going around etc etc and this is the best comeback you can come up with thanks, I'll mark it down as you're out of ideas.

[Canpinter]

And you said I'm comparing apples to oranges?

Anyways, if the kid got in there willingly in the first place, no, it's technically not violent.

your entire argument comes down to semantics that forcing someone to sit there for however long you decided inst "technically" violent, it is a violent act by any reasonable definition and the fact you retreat to semantics shows how intellectually dishonest you are.

[Dadwen]

your entire argument comes down to semantics that forcing someone to sit there for however long you decided inst "technically" violent, it is a violent act by any reasonable definition and the fact you retreat to semantics shows how intellectually dishonest you are.

his arguments went to shit about 2 pages back....

[Belize]

your entire argument comes down to semantics that forcing someone to sit there for however long you decided inst "technically" violent

And your entire argument rests on the assumption that being stuck in traffic due to someone else equals violence. Which is a retarded position to begin with.

Because, believe it or not, it matters in the eyes of the law. Hence why there's a distinction between 'murder' and 'manslaughter'.
However, considering how willing you guys seem to cut away other's rights, I assume you don't really care about the law.

[Orlong]

It isn't two freedoms being impeded. Taking it more time to get to work, is not limiting your freedom.

It is when you lose hours on your paycheck that you werent at work for, and it is when youre written up or fired for being late

[Canpinter]

his arguments went to shit about 2 pages back....

im just waiting for him to say you can leave you just cant take your car with you so its not technically keeping you there.

[Underverse]

I support this. And I'm a center-leftie.

Protest all you like. Stand on the sidewalk in front of whoever you're mad at. Conduct a mass letter-writing campaign. If you want to march, get a permit like everyone else.

The point being: stay the f out of my way and don't make me waste 1 freaking second on your problem ..... unless I choose to.

I think this is a reasonable sentiment. But there's a difference between being against something, and asking the government to enforce laws against something that you're against. The latter has far greater costs associated with it.

[Canpinter]

And your entire argument rests on the assumption that being stuck in traffic due to someone else equals violence. Which is a retarded position to begin with.

only when they intend to keep me stuck there INTENT matters.

- - - Updated - - -

I think this is a reasonable sentiment. But there's a difference between being against something, and asking the government to enforce laws against something that you're against. The latter has far greater costs associated with it.

is the law could be used perfectly i would support this bill but im actually against it because its to broad

[Dadwen]

im just waiting for him to say you can leave you just cant take your car with you so its not technically keeping you there.

ya someone tried that argument earlier in the thread, so what about some 80 old person with a heart issue, they are suppose to just walk off, or a lady I used to work with, she's retired but had no legs below the knee, she's suppose to walk off..... (I guess she can hobble with her walker but it's take a year for her to get anywhere)

[Canpinter]

'.
However, considering how willing you guys seem to cut away other's rights, I assume you don't really care about the law.

yes supporting my right to free travel cuts away others rights to hold me hostage.

- - - Updated - - -

again i will ask would you support the KKKs right to intentional block access to polling station in a predominantly black area by protesting if the residents could still go vote an hours drive away?

[Dadwen]

can you imagine how many here more would be supporting stopping these blockers, if it was a bunch of KKK member in the news blocking access to black Church or if some religious nuts were blocking all traffic to a planned parent hood place (granted I'm sure Belize would tell the pregnant girl to just walk a few miles to it, it's no biggie)

[Belize]

only when they intend to keep me stuck there INTENT matters.

Except creating traffic is not violent, regardless of intent.

[Dextroden]

No, it's not violent.

Illegal, but not violent.

I don't see how. They're expressing their freedom to protest in a nonviolent way. That's perfectly fine.

[Underverse]

Except creating traffic is not violent, regardless of intent.

This is true, and also irrelevant.

[Belize]

yes supporting my right to free travel cuts away others rights to hold me hostage.

- - - Updated - - -

again i will ask would you support the KKKs right to intentional block access to polling station in a predominantly black area by protesting if the residents could still go vote an hours drive away?

Stopping someone from voting is, again, unconstitutional. Which is why I'm also against things like voter ID laws.

- - - Updated - - -

This is true, and also irrelevant.

It's absolutely relevant when their entire argument is based on the principle that causing traffic is somehow committing an act of violence against them.