• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Disability advocates arrested during health care protest at McConnell’s office

Harry Guerrilla said:
Ok, that still doesn't make it ok to act like an ass hat, because you're disabled.
Click to expand...

The same amendment that guarantees Christians the right to act like ass hats on abortion, gay marriage, and creationism is what makes it ok for disabled people to use their conditions to influence lawmakers into not making a law that could kill them.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Yeah, that's the point of the constitution. It tells you what rules congress can make. And if they make one that violates the constitution, then you don't have to follow that rule.

Seeing as the Amendment in question says



abridge - Legal Definition. v. To diminish, lessen, or restrict a legal right. To condense or shorten the whole of something, such as a book, and not merely a portion of it.

Who's not following the rules?
Click to expand...

Right, we can take this to absurdity or you can acknowledge that people can't just do anything they want.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
What is absurd are the lengths that the republican congress is trying to pass their wealthcare bill without input from the public.
Click to expand...

Never did I agree that the bill was right or good.
I disagree with people using their disability as a shield from behaving responsibly.
Other disabled people, actually hate that kind of ****.
 
First, the arrests were justified. They can protest but they can't legally block access the way they were doing.

This was civil disobedience. And I applaud the protesters for it. I am a big advocate of civil disobedience and they conducted it brilliantly in this case, particularly from a PR perspective. But arrest does go with the territory when engaging in civil disobedience. In fact it is often the goal.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
First, the arrests were justified. They can protest but they can't legally block access the way they were doing.

This was civil disobedience. And I applaud the protesters for it. I am a big advocate of civil disobedience and they conducted it brilliantly in this case, particularly from a PR perspective. But arrest does go with the territory when engaging in civil disobedience. In fact it is often the goal.
Click to expand...

That's what america has become, our handicapped have to step up and be society’s social conscience along with black folk and other unsubstantial people.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Peacefully Protesting a harmful law is not againist the law.
Click to expand...
iu
 
Henrin said:
So in your opinion do they have a right to block people from going in and out of their office?
Click to expand...

Yeah, they got a right to stand anywhere on non-restricted public property, lay anywhere they want, and say whatever they want. If it blocks people from moving about, oh well. Maybe they should make a gesture to hear the grievances, take steps toward rectifying the reason there are disabled people pretending to die on their floor.

I've had to watch three KKK parades march down my street in my lifetime, couldn't get out of my driveway. Are you saying I would've been justified just getting in my car and plowing em down? Because if you are, I got some modifications to make to my car, wait, I'll buy a truck for the next one. If they didn't want to get hit, they shouldn't have impeded my right to travel, right? Wrong! No matter how much I hate the bastards, I don't hate them more than I love what the Constitution stands for. And the reason they codified those inalienable rights, is specifically to protect people for when they become inconvenient to those wielding the power.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
It was civil disobedience.
Click to expand...

And that's great and all.
We all know how to behave and be polite in society, even when it comes to protesting.
The government has been well past being the "lawbreaker" and if this was the issue to protest them "lawbreaking" it was incredibly ****ty and counter productive.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
It was civil disobedience.
Click to expand...

Then your question is answered . . . it was illegal.

Whether or not they're correct about what they're protesting is an entirely separate matter.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's illegal to not follow a lawful order.
Click to expand...

a lawful order. Think I already covered that whole, can't make any laws that violate the first amendment. If I'm peacefully protesting on public property a cop can order me to stop til he's blue in the face. It's not a lawful order.
 
d0gbreath said:
"As you do to the least among you, you do unto me.". -JC
Click to expand...

Cuz Jesus never got angry and kicked people out of the temple....nah. Never happened. :)
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Yeah, they got a right to stand anywhere on non-restricted public property, lay anywhere they want, and say whatever they want. If it blocks people from moving about, oh well. Maybe they should make a gesture to hear the grievances, take steps toward rectifying the reason there are disabled people pretending to die on their floor.
Click to expand...

Under current law that is incorrect.

I've had to watch three KKK parades march down my street in my lifetime, couldn't get out of my driveway. Are you saying I would've been justified just getting in my car and plowing em down? Because if you are, I got some modifications to make to my car, wait, I'll buy a truck for the next one. If they didn't want to get hit, they shouldn't have impeded my right to travel, right? Wrong! No matter how much I hate the bastards, I don't hate them more than I love what the Constitution stands for. And the reason they codified those inalienable rights, is specifically to protect people for when they become inconvenient to those wielding the power.
Click to expand...

What? No, I am not suggesting anything even close to that. Where in the hell did you even get that nonsense?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
And that's great and all.
We all know how to behave and be polite in society, even when it comes to protesting.
The government has been well past being the "lawbreaker" and if this was the issue to protest them "lawbreaking" it was incredibly ****ty and counter productive.
Click to expand...

People disabilities are having their lives put at risk because of the cuts contained in the healthcare bill, and yet McConnell did not bother to hear the concerns of people affected by those cuts.

Civil disobedience was the option available to them.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
People disabilities are having their lives put at risk because of the cuts contained in the healthcare bill, and yet McConnell did not bother to hear the concerns of people affected by those cuts.

Civil disobedience was the option available to them.
Click to expand...

And it's against the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom