Irony alert: U.S. calls on Russia to respect peaceful protests

Originally posted by charles1952
The sad part for me is the inability of many posters to recognize the differences in the two situations.

Go ahead and argue that there are differences, but they don't matter because of A, B, and C. But to say you can't even see the differences removes any credibility you might have as a critical thinker.

By the way, here's my appeal to authority argument: if beezzer, Slayer69, seabag, and macman all told me my thinking was off I would take some time for serious re-examination. These guys are not idiots. I might not agree with them, but I would sure listen and re-think my position.

I must disagree.
I am but a Clown in ATS, here to waste time between things.

Please, don't take anything I say as anything more then a Right wing whack job that only wants to kill grandma, cook and eat babies and throw the poor and suffering out on their butts in the cold f the Christmas Night.
I am all that is evil in the world.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by macman
To peacefully assemble, YES.
To camp out on public property, NO.
No interfere with private businesses, NO.

Oh really? So you can only peacably assemble on property you own, and not public property?

And you consider yourself a defender of the Constitution? Jeez we are in real trouble here.

Camping out is not covered under peacefully assemble or protest.

Says who? You? Im glad you the one and only complete decider of what the Founding Fathers meant. You need to sersiously reevaluate your outlook on American freedoms. Somewhere else might be a better fit for you...might I suggest China?

I don't need to define this, as the law already does this.
Local laws, County laws and so on.
Love the fact that in one sentence you chastise in the idea I created the rule, that make your own.
I suggest Any European Country for you.

Ah OK, I see...so now you are saying local law should supercede the rights that are set out in the Constitution? So what if a local law tells you that you cannot own a firearm at all...I guess that would be just fine with you? What is the word for that again?.....

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by Jakes51
Protests are not intended to go on indefinitely either.

Says who? Who gets to decide how long the protest endures? I guess you would have told Ghandi to "just go home, you made your point!"

I gotta agree with Aching Knuckles.
If the morons with OWS want to protest to the end of time, so be it.

When they interfere with businesses, the right of the individual, camping in public spaces that are deemed for everyone to use with limits on camping, then the line has been crossed.

reply to post by aching_knuckles


Ya, that’s right!! Anybody who disagrees with OWS is a supporter of tyranny!!

Blah..bla…bla..bla!

I’ll put my record of defense of this country and our constitution up against anybody’s on here! Save your sob story and your attacks because the sympathy for OWS has long since faded (for me it was right around the time they took a dump on that cop car ).

OWS destroyed itself. Protesting is far different than occupying and destroying property. You’re dishonest if you choose not to recognize the difference.

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by macman
To peacefully assemble, YES.
To camp out on public property, NO.
No interfere with private businesses, NO.

Oh really? So you can only peacably assemble on property you own, and not public property?

And you consider yourself a defender of the Constitution? Jeez we are in real trouble here.

Camping out is not covered under peacefully assemble or protest.

Says who? You? Im glad you the one and only complete decider of what the Founding Fathers meant. You need to sersiously reevaluate your outlook on American freedoms. Somewhere else might be a better fit for you...might I suggest China?

I don't need to define this, as the law already does this.
Local laws, County laws and so on.
Love the fact that in one sentence you chastise in the idea I created the rule, that make your own.
I suggest Any European Country for you.

Ah OK, I see...so now you are saying local law should supercede the rights that are set out in the Constitution? So what if a local law tells you that you cannot own a firearm at all...I guess that would be just fine with you? What is the word for that again?.....

Nice use of the Alinsky style of arguing.

The right to peacefully assemble is not trampled on my the local law stating people can't camp over night in areas.
Basic 1+1 is the guide for this.

Try again.

Originally posted by charles1952
By the way, here's my appeal to authority argument: if beezzer, Slayer69, seabag, and macman all told me my thinking was off I would take some time for serious re-examination. These guys are not idiots. I might not agree with them, but I would sure listen and re-think my position.

I see...so if someone told you to give up your rights as an American citizen because they do not agree with your ideology, you "might not agree with them, but I would sure listen and re-think my position."? Well, you do that. I, however, will see their arguments as fallacious and bound to some blind allegiance to something I do not even recognize as being even remotely American.

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by charles1952
By the way, here's my appeal to authority argument: if beezzer, Slayer69, seabag, and macman all told me my thinking was off I would take some time for serious re-examination. These guys are not idiots. I might not agree with them, but I would sure listen and re-think my position.

I see...so if someone told you to give up your rights as an American citizen because they do not agree with your ideology, you "might not agree with them, but I would sure listen and re-think my position."? Well, you do that. I, however, will see their arguments as fallacious and bound to some blind allegiance to something I do not even recognize as being even remotely American.

Very funny retort.
In one hand, like every typical Liberal I have ever encountered, you preach tolerance. Until it comes to those with opposing view points, like a conservative.

Your retort is akin to poop telling vomit it stinks.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by macman
To peacefully assemble, YES.
To camp out on public property, NO.
No interfere with private businesses, NO.

Oh really? So you can only peacably assemble on property you own, and not public property?

And you consider yourself a defender of the Constitution? Jeez we are in real trouble here.

Camping out is not covered under peacefully assemble or protest.

Says who? You? Im glad you the one and only complete decider of what the Founding Fathers meant. You need to sersiously reevaluate your outlook on American freedoms. Somewhere else might be a better fit for you...might I suggest China?

I don't need to define this, as the law already does this.
Local laws, County laws and so on.
Love the fact that in one sentence you chastise in the idea I created the rule, that make your own.
I suggest Any European Country for you.

Ah OK, I see...so now you are saying local law should supercede the rights that are set out in the Constitution? So what if a local law tells you that you cannot own a firearm at all...I guess that would be just fine with you? What is the word for that again?.....

Nice use of the Alinsky style of arguing.

The right to peacefully assemble is not trampled on my the local law stating people can't camp over night in areas.
Basic 1+1 is the guide for this.

Try again.

You say it is not...but then you watch peacable assembly get trampled right in front of your eyes, and then make excuses for it. Whatever.

If you are a true believer in the Constitution, I can not even fathom how you could believe what you are saying.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by Jakes51
Protests are not intended to go on indefinitely either.

Says who? Who gets to decide how long the protest endures? I guess you would have told Ghandi to "just go home, you made your point!"

I gotta agree with Aching Knuckles.
If the morons with OWS want to protest to the end of time, so be it.

When they interfere with businesses, the right of the individual, camping in public spaces that are deemed for everyone to use with limits on camping, then the line has been crossed.

What you are saying is what I meant with that remark. I elaborate further about it in my originally remark. He chose to respond to that portion by itself. So you may have taken that out of context? I agree with your argument about public places, and about the OWS movement protesting till kingdom come if they so wish.

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by macman
To peacefully assemble, YES.
To camp out on public property, NO.
No interfere with private businesses, NO.

Oh really? So you can only peacably assemble on property you own, and not public property?

And you consider yourself a defender of the Constitution? Jeez we are in real trouble here.

Camping out is not covered under peacefully assemble or protest.

Says who? You? Im glad you the one and only complete decider of what the Founding Fathers meant. You need to sersiously reevaluate your outlook on American freedoms. Somewhere else might be a better fit for you...might I suggest China?

I don't need to define this, as the law already does this.
Local laws, County laws and so on.
Love the fact that in one sentence you chastise in the idea I created the rule, that make your own.
I suggest Any European Country for you.

Ah OK, I see...so now you are saying local law should supercede the rights that are set out in the Constitution? So what if a local law tells you that you cannot own a firearm at all...I guess that would be just fine with you? What is the word for that again?.....

Nice use of the Alinsky style of arguing.

The right to peacefully assemble is not trampled on my the local law stating people can't camp over night in areas.
Basic 1+1 is the guide for this.

Try again.

You say it is not...but then you watch peacable assembly get trampled right in front of your eyes, and then make excuses for it. Whatever.

If you are a true believer in the Constitution, I can not even fathom how you could believe what you are saying.

No, relating one thing you speak of to another is 1+ spoon. It is not the same.
Camping out does not fall under peacefully assemble.

The use of force during the OWS crap has been gone over, time and time again, in many of threads here.

The assembly violates the rights of others, then it is not peacefully assembling and needs to end.
Your rights stop where mine begin, and vice versa.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by charles1952
By the way, here's my appeal to authority argument: if beezzer, Slayer69, seabag, and macman all told me my thinking was off I would take some time for serious re-examination. These guys are not idiots. I might not agree with them, but I would sure listen and re-think my position.

I see...so if someone told you to give up your rights as an American citizen because they do not agree with your ideology, you "might not agree with them, but I would sure listen and re-think my position."? Well, you do that. I, however, will see their arguments as fallacious and bound to some blind allegiance to something I do not even recognize as being even remotely American.

Very funny retort.
In one hand, like every typical Liberal I have ever encountered, you preach tolerance. Until it comes to those with opposing view points, like a conservative.

Your retort is akin to poop telling vomit it stinks.

Ah, so now I am a liberal?

No, I am an American. If Tea Partiers want to demonstrate for months on end, let them. If Communists want to, let them. If Nazis want to, let them.

What I will not stand for is anti-American citizen and Bill of Rights speech that tells me that the basic rights that I have, which have been handed down for over 200 years, do not exist or only exist subject to local laws and regulations. That is not what the Founding Fathers meant, and the fact that you are arguing against it, and now just trying to be insulting, just shows that you seriously lack the basic concepts of freedom.

The Founding Fathers gave right to everyone, even those you dont agree with. If you cant handle that, maybe you cant handle America.

Is the brutality less severe here in the US than it is in other countries? Yes, but it is besides the point, it honestly is if you think about it. We are supposed to be the example of freedom and human rights not an example of do as I say not as I do.

If someone were to assault a person with their feet and then I were to assault a person with my fists do I get to compare the two and claim my crime isn't assault because I used less force? No, and I'd be laughed out of court straight to a jail cell.

I honestly think some of you do not fully realize what you are saying, you don't have to agree with a movement to disagree with the tactics used against it.

Our Constitution is being shat on by the people who are judging other nations "handling" of their protesters while they condone the same tactics just to a lesser degree here in the land of the free.

Originally posted by aching_knuckles


You say it is not...but then you watch peacable assembly get trampled right in front of your eyes, and then make excuses for it. Whatever.

If you are a true believer in the Constitution, I can not even fathom how you could believe what you are saying.

Please read the very first post on page 3 of this thread (my post) and justify that for us.

Who is the hypocrite?

OWS completely trampled that man's right to protest peacefully. Where is your outrage????

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Irony alert: U.S. calls on Russia to respect peaceful protests

The United States called Friday on both Russian authorities and protesters to remain peaceful as opponents of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin prepared major weekend demonstrations against his rule.

Putin has angrily accused the United States of inciting the protests after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton raised concerns about the fairness of parliamentary elections that Putin’s party won but with a reduced majority.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said that the United States supported the right to peaceful protest in Russia as it does “anywhere in the world.”

They really are a bunch of funny people aren't they?

How the hell did you get so many stars and flags so far?

You side with the stance of a typical anti-US moron by saying "ha, how ironic" regarding the US asking for Russia to be lenient on its protesters yet you forget that the US allowed OWS idiots to camp on public property for months.

How hypocritical of you.

This proves that a large section of ATS seems to be nothing more than mindless sheep out to attack anything that resembles democracy, especially if it's US-based. How many fo you sheep will flock to the nearest airports and boats to leave America if you hate it so much and go live in Burma where you will get on very well with a dictatorial regime that hates America as much as you do?

Baa! Baa!

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by charles1952
By the way, here's my appeal to authority argument: if beezzer, Slayer69, seabag, and macman all told me my thinking was off I would take some time for serious re-examination. These guys are not idiots. I might not agree with them, but I would sure listen and re-think my position.

I see...so if someone told you to give up your rights as an American citizen because they do not agree with your ideology, you "might not agree with them, but I would sure listen and re-think my position."? Well, you do that. I, however, will see their arguments as fallacious and bound to some blind allegiance to something I do not even recognize as being even remotely American.

Very funny retort.
In one hand, like every typical Liberal I have ever encountered, you preach tolerance. Until it comes to those with opposing view points, like a conservative.

Your retort is akin to poop telling vomit it stinks.

Ah, so now I am a liberal?

No, I am an American. If Tea Partiers want to demonstrate for months on end, let them. If Communists want to, let them. If Nazis want to, let them.

What I will not stand for is anti-American citizen and Bill of Rights speech that tells me that the basic rights that I have, which have been handed down for over 200 years, do not exist or only exist subject to local laws and regulations. That is not what the Founding Fathers meant, and the fact that you are arguing against it, and now just trying to be insulting, just shows that you seriously lack the basic concepts of freedom.

The Founding Fathers gave right to everyone, even those you dont agree with. If you cant handle that, maybe you cant handle America.

Hence the reason why I am all for protests and assembling.
When the rights of the individual are encroached by the protesters, then the protest needs to go bye bye.

Again, your retort is basically offering 1+ spoon = SSPLFFTT!

A simple test, if I may.
Are you for the Govt taxing the rich more so then others?
Are you for centralized Govt?
Are you for Govt intrusion of private property?
and finally, who would make a better widget, a private company or the Govt?

Just wondering.

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by aching_knuckles


You say it is not...but then you watch peacable assembly get trampled right in front of your eyes, and then make excuses for it. Whatever.

If you are a true believer in the Constitution, I can not even fathom how you could believe what you are saying.

Please read the very first post on page 3 of this thread (my post) and justify that for us.

Who is the hypocrite?

OWS completely trampled that man's right to protest peacefully. Where is your outrage????

edit on 11-12-2011 by seabag because: (no reason given)

Yes, you are right. So now what...all OWS protests are immediately nullified because of 5 d-bags? I dont know what you want me to say....that counter proteestors rights were violated, and had I been standing there, I would have said so.

reply to post by seabag


That was one man and no one knows whether he was part of Occupy or not. To use that one incedent over and over to demonize thousands is just stupid.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by charles1952
By the way, here's my appeal to authority argument: if beezzer, Slayer69, seabag, and macman all told me my thinking was off I would take some time for serious re-examination. These guys are not idiots. I might not agree with them, but I would sure listen and re-think my position.

I see...so if someone told you to give up your rights as an American citizen because they do not agree with your ideology, you "might not agree with them, but I would sure listen and re-think my position."? Well, you do that. I, however, will see their arguments as fallacious and bound to some blind allegiance to something I do not even recognize as being even remotely American.

Very funny retort.
In one hand, like every typical Liberal I have ever encountered, you preach tolerance. Until it comes to those with opposing view points, like a conservative.

Your retort is akin to poop telling vomit it stinks.

Ah, so now I am a liberal?

No, I am an American. If Tea Partiers want to demonstrate for months on end, let them. If Communists want to, let them. If Nazis want to, let them.

What I will not stand for is anti-American citizen and Bill of Rights speech that tells me that the basic rights that I have, which have been handed down for over 200 years, do not exist or only exist subject to local laws and regulations. That is not what the Founding Fathers meant, and the fact that you are arguing against it, and now just trying to be insulting, just shows that you seriously lack the basic concepts of freedom.

The Founding Fathers gave right to everyone, even those you dont agree with. If you cant handle that, maybe you cant handle America.

Hence the reason why I am all for protests and assembling.
When the rights of the individual are encroached by the protesters, then the protest needs to go bye bye.

Again, your retort is basically offering 1+ spoon = SSPLFFTT!

A simple test, if I may.
Are you for the Govt taxing the rich more so then others?
Are you for centralized Govt?
Are you for Govt intrusion of private property?
and finally, who would make a better widget, a private company or the Govt?

Just wondering.

What does this have to do with the issue at hand? Quit deflecting and using nonsense terms such as "spoon +1" to make it seem your point point is extrememly logical and well thought out. It is obvious it is not, if you need to know how I feel about everything else in order to justify your thought on what I feel about this. That kind of thinking is extremely low brow and 1 dimensional.

Take this issue at face, no other factors. What if those were Tea Partiers there camping for months, against Obama, would you have decided they needed their skulls cracked? If not, why?

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by charles1952
By the way, here's my appeal to authority argument: if beezzer, Slayer69, seabag, and macman all told me my thinking was off I would take some time for serious re-examination. These guys are not idiots. I might not agree with them, but I would sure listen and re-think my position.

I see...so if someone told you to give up your rights as an American citizen because they do not agree with your ideology, you "might not agree with them, but I would sure listen and re-think my position."? Well, you do that. I, however, will see their arguments as fallacious and bound to some blind allegiance to something I do not even recognize as being even remotely American.

Very funny retort.
In one hand, like every typical Liberal I have ever encountered, you preach tolerance. Until it comes to those with opposing view points, like a conservative.

Your retort is akin to poop telling vomit it stinks.

Ah, so now I am a liberal?

No, I am an American. If Tea Partiers want to demonstrate for months on end, let them. If Communists want to, let them. If Nazis want to, let them.

What I will not stand for is anti-American citizen and Bill of Rights speech that tells me that the basic rights that I have, which have been handed down for over 200 years, do not exist or only exist subject to local laws and regulations. That is not what the Founding Fathers meant, and the fact that you are arguing against it, and now just trying to be insulting, just shows that you seriously lack the basic concepts of freedom.

The Founding Fathers gave right to everyone, even those you dont agree with. If you cant handle that, maybe you cant handle America.

Hence the reason why I am all for protests and assembling.
When the rights of the individual are encroached by the protesters, then the protest needs to go bye bye.

Again, your retort is basically offering 1+ spoon = SSPLFFTT!

A simple test, if I may.
Are you for the Govt taxing the rich more so then others?
Are you for centralized Govt?
Are you for Govt intrusion of private property?
and finally, who would make a better widget, a private company or the Govt?

Just wondering.

What does this have to do with the issue at hand? Quit deflecting and using nonsense terms such as "spoon +1" to make it seem your point point is extrememly logical and well thought out. It is obvious it is not, if you need to know how I feel about everything else in order to justify your thought on what I feel about this. That kind of thinking is extremely low brow and 1 dimensional.

edit on 11-12-2011 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)

I was trying to understand you, as an ATS'er.
But, no sweat off my butt.
Liberal it looks and sounds.....Liberal it is.

Originally posted by curious7

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Irony alert: U.S. calls on Russia to respect peaceful protests

The United States called Friday on both Russian authorities and protesters to remain peaceful as opponents of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin prepared major weekend demonstrations against his rule.

Putin has angrily accused the United States of inciting the protests after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton raised concerns about the fairness of parliamentary elections that Putin’s party won but with a reduced majority.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said that the United States supported the right to peaceful protest in Russia as it does “anywhere in the world.”

They really are a bunch of funny people aren't they?

How the hell did you get so many stars and flags so far?

You side with the stance of a typical anti-US moron by saying "ha, how ironic" regarding the US asking for Russia to be lenient on its protesters yet you forget that the US allowed OWS idiots to camp on public property for months.

How hypocritical of you.

This proves that a large section of ATS seems to be nothing more than mindless sheep out to attack anything that resembles democracy, especially if it's US-based. How many fo you sheep will flock to the nearest airports and boats to leave America if you hate it so much and go live in Burma where you will get on very well with a dictatorial regime that hates America as much as you do?

Baa! Baa!

Insulting speech and calling people "sheep" doesnt make your point more valid...especially when you are arguing for limiting freedoms, then calling others "sheep".