There must be some underlying instinct or something about freedom of movement. People get really upset when they can't get where they want when they want at the speed they want.
Dumbfvcks blocked golden gate bridge too?
- Thread starter DeangeloVickers
- Start date
As opposed to the underlying instinct of others to support terrorist groups enough to lay in front of traffic.
How long can I impede your ability to travel before I’m violating your rights?
I guess. It's just crazy to me how upset we get about having our travel impeded. I notice it myself when I get stuck in traffic. It's irrational.
You equate 'want' and 'need' as if they are interchangeable. They aren't. You equate unforeseen circumstances that might cause a delay with intentional acts designed to cause a delay. That's intellectually dishonest. You think your rights to protest outweigh my rights to travel freely.
I would say blocking a bridge is taking it too far. When an action is taken too far, don't be shocked when the reaction is the same level or more.
It has way more to do with not tolerating stupid, selfish people. These fvcking people, for literally no reason, have decided to take it upon themselves to interrupt people's day for hours at a time and put them in harms way.
When PETA decides to throw a cup of blood on a little kid walking out of McDonald's, people aren't upset about it because his clothes got stained. It's because they are dumb selfish ass holes who have taken it upon themselves to discomfort others...again...for no reason at all.
Yet someone texting and driving causing a major accident on a bridge that backs up traffic for hours doesn't illicit the responses in this thread.
Justifying the actions of these pieces of garbage is just a tiny fraction above sitting on the bridge yourself. Congratulations on aligning yourself with human scum.
Thanks for the comparison. In both cases the people need to go to jail and be held accountable.
It's pretty effective alright, but not in "raising awareness" - more like raising hatred against your cause.
Nice job on trolling all these responses by the way....top shelf obtuseness going on here.
Well, with regards to my Freedom of Movement, protesters do not have a First Amendment right to harass other members of the public. For example, there is no right to block another person's freedom of movement in the public way, and then force them to listen to an unwanted message (or be stuck parked in traffic).
If I'm trying to walk into my office building, does a protester have the right to stand in front of the door and prevent me from entering because they want me to hear their message?
We haven't discussed this. Start a thread. I'd love to participate in that one.
There's no point in taking this any further. You really are a troll.
The resident liberals are reading this going, "He's not with us." LOL
The International Bill of Human Rights is an informal name given to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted in 1948), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) with its two Optional Protocols, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966).
Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads:
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
-----
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The doctrine of the right to travel actually encompasses three separate rights, of which two have been notable for the uncertainty of their textual support. The first is the right of a citizen to move freely between states, a right venerable for its longevity, but still lacking a clear doctrinal basis.1 The second, expressly addressed by the first sentence of Article IV, provides a citizen of one state who is temporarily visiting another state the Privileges and Immunities of a citizen of the latter state.2 The third is the right of a new arrival to a state, who establishes citizenship in that state, to enjoy the same rights and benefits as other state citizens. This right is most often invoked in challenges to durational residency requirements, which require that persons reside in a state for a specified period before taking advantage of the benefits of that state’s citizenship.
Footnotes
- Jump to essay-1Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). For the purposes of this case, we need not identify the source of [the right to travel] in the text of the Constitution. The right of ‘free ingress and regress to and from’ neighboring states which was expressly mentioned in the text of the Articles of Confederation, may simply have been ‘conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger Union the Constitution created.’ Id. at 501 (citations omitted).
- Jump to essay-2Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 168 (1869) (without some provision . . . removing from citizens of each State the disabilities of alienage in other States, and giving them equality of privilege with citizens of those States, the Republic would have constituted little more than a league of States; it would not have constituted the Union which now exists.).
So, when the Captain turns on the seatbelt sign preventing me from moving around the cabin, he's infringing upon my rights?
~signed
CLUB215
This CHUB is NOT trolling.
C'mon, this has been the clear and demonstrated playbook of the left. Disruption and violence is their MO, be it shutting down a speaker, burning private and governmental buildings, or what happened yesterday. He's actually being very honest, unfortunately.
This is what we are up against.
C'mon, this has been the clear and demonstrated playbook of the left. Disruption and violence is their MO, be it shutting down a speaker, burning private and governmental buildings, or what happened yesterday. He's actually being very honest, unfortunately.
This is what we are up against.
Sadly, this isn't a left or right issue. It's a dumb, uneducated, mob-mentality issue.
It's the MO of dumba$$ery.
Nobody here agrees with you. Those weirdo liberal protesters can protest on the grass. F them for blocking traffic and I don't care if they get hit by a semi for doing so. Your stupid take on this is idiotic.
trig·gered
/ˈtriɡərd/
adjective
1. (of a mechanism) activated by a trigger.
"a triggered alarm"
2. (of a response) caused by particular action.
laugh at someone/something
phrasal verb with laugh verb [ I ]
1. to show that you think someone or something is stupid:
"CLUB215 is ridiculous. Everyone is laughing at him."
I don't care if I'm the only one with my view point. The mob usually isn't right
Have you ever been stopped in traffic due to protesters? Why does this bother you so much?
Link to where I said I was bothered? Last time I checked this was an off-topic message board thread where we discuss random crap. I'm entertained.
Let's break it down:
- Find the message board: It's like finding a special place where people talk online.
- Look for a topic you like: Just like choosing your favorite game to play, you pick a conversation that you're interested in.
- Read what others say: This is like listening to what your friends are talking about. You see what others have already written.
- Type your message: When you want to join in, you type what you want to say in a special box. It's like talking, but you're using your keyboard instead of your voice.
- Click 'Send': After you finish typing, you press a button that says "Send" or "Post".
- Wait for replies: Just like waiting for your friends to respond when you talk to them, you wait for other people to read what you wrote and reply back to you.
- Read the replies: When people reply to your message, you read what they say.
- Respond if you want: If you have something else to say, you can type another message and send it.
Last edited:
Ironic that you’re trolling everyone here in a thread about a bridge.
What if they blocked internet traffic (cyberattack) vs car traffic? Would you also protect their right to protest?
Ok so say another group of idiots decides to protest again today and more pieces of shit decide to do it the next day. It's really not ok and I feel like if it were pro Isreal protesters blocking the road our contrarian would feel different.
So the college students and their professors and administration who encourage or allow for speakers to be harassed and shutdown are uneducated?
Miseducated sure, uneducated no.
And yes, despite the left's voluminous past and ongoing tactics of public mayhem there is 1/6 we can always point to.
