Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
19April1775

So Solak is ok?

Recommended Posts

Haven't heard much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My bad. I see he put something <else> up just a couple hours ago about the weirdo that went after him.

Edited.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was on Binghamton Now AT 9:30.  He sounded OK.

He thanked Kate Newcomb for saving him from the violent mob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, PeteMoss said:

He was on Binghamton Now AT 9:30.  He sounded OK.

He thanked Kate Newcomb for saving him from the violent mob.

Ok good. I was real busy today. Saw early this am he reported he got into a struggle over his phone while filming the lunatics last night. I didn't have time to keep up with it. Sometimes injuries don't show up until the adrenaline has subsided so I was hoping that didn't happen to him.  Thanks Pete.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What in the christ happened at the county office building/chambers last night? My twitter feed was blowing up with lunatics from PLOT acting disorderly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mr. Met said:

What in the christ happened at the county office building/chambers last night? My twitter feed was blowing up with lunatics from PLOT acting disorderly. 

First. For everyones learning I urge you all and John to research the origins of the word "ANARCHY". It means self rule, absence of government. On the political spectrum it is very far right. A noble goal but because of human nature it can't work. 

I know John knows these people are hard left, total government rule, because he has used the term "MARXIST" to describe them often. He should not use both words to describe these radical leftists. Just a pet peeve of mine to keep some integrity in the language.

So with that background Mr. Met.:

A bunch of lunatic leftists, who have ZERO respect for the Constitution, flooded the County Office Building to protest the new local law that gives a whole bunch of jobs under the public safety umbrella, special treatment, for just being who they are, despite the fact there are plenty of laws that protect them the same way they protect us.

VERY IMPORTANT POINT FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND:

The people who attacked John Solak last night are using the 1st Amendment of the Constitution to rip apart the Constitution. You can see the strategy in all the College radical videos throughout the Country. They are using a bait and switch strategy to bring down our Constitution.

This is the principle reason why the law enforcement on scene should have started knocking heads and carting these losers off within 5 minutes tops. They are enemies of America. They want to bring in Marxist and Communist ideologies to America while pretending to support the Constitution. Free speech rules don't apply if you are working outside the Constitution while pretending to be for the Constitution. Our local law enforcement does not understand our enemy yet. This incident helped.

 

 

 

   

 

        

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PeteMoss said:

He was on Binghamton Now AT 9:30.  He sounded OK.

He thanked Kate Newcomb for saving him from the violent mob.

In a room full of swinging dicks dressed in uniform, she was the only person with a set of balls. Good job, Captain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2019 at 3:52 PM, 19April1775 said:

First. For everyones learning I urge you all and John to research the origins of the word "ANARCHY". It means self rule, absence of government. On the political spectrum it is very far right. A noble goal but because of human nature it can't work. 

I know John knows these people are hard left, total government rule, because he has used the term "MARXIST" to describe them often. He should not use both words to describe these radical leftists. Just a pet peeve of mine to keep some integrity in the language.

So with that background Mr. Met.:

A bunch of lunatic leftists, who have ZERO respect for the Constitution, flooded the County Office Building to protest the new local law that gives a whole bunch of jobs under the public safety umbrella, special treatment, for just being who they are, despite the fact there are plenty of laws that protect them the same way they protect us.

VERY IMPORTANT POINT FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND:

The people who attacked John Solak last night are using the 1st Amendment of the Constitution to rip apart the Constitution. You can see the strategy in all the College radical videos throughout the Country. They are using a bait and switch strategy to bring down our Constitution.

This is the principle reason why the law enforcement on scene should have started knocking heads and carting these losers off within 5 minutes tops. They are enemies of America. They want to bring in Marxist and Communist ideologies to America while pretending to support the Constitution. Free speech rules don't apply if you are working outside the Constitution while pretending to be for the Constitution. Our local law enforcement does not understand our enemy yet. This incident helped.

 

 

 

   

 

        

What 1775 is trying to say is that he supports a police state with the power to arrest anyone that "annoys" a police officer or other first responder. He supports the suppression of freedom of speech by having the government trample on a persons civil liberties. The people were protesting against a proposal that would severely erode peoples rights, all in the name of protecting first responders. Never mind the fact that there are already a multitude of laws that protect them, this was as far right-wing as you could get.

In other words, it's just a fascist supporting fascist ideologies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, binghamtonian said:

What 1775 is trying to say is that he supports a police state with the power to arrest anyone that "annoys" a police officer or other first responder. He supports the suppression of freedom of speech by having the government trample on a persons civil liberties. The people were protesting against a proposal that would severely erode peoples rights, all in the name of protecting first responders. Never mind the fact that there are already a multitude of laws that protect them, this was as far right-wing as you could get.

In other words, it's just a fascist supporting fascist ideologies. 

This is so typical of liberals.  Add a work/phrase that the writer did not use and then write a repudiation based on that word.

Nowhere does 1775 use the word "annoy" or "annoys"

Also you interpret his words.  "What 1775 is trying to say".  He says what he says.  I understand it.  Why do you need to interpret it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you even know why they were protesting? How about you educate yourself first as to what the protest were. They were protesting the wording of the legislation that they tried to pass. The word annoy comes from that legislation.

Oh I know you know what he was saying, fascists tend to support other fascists. Isn't that right Pete? Or should I call you Pepe wearing the Nazi uniform guy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ He's right. The legislation says annoy. Soooo the next time a mayor hangs something like a cost of war counter he can be arrested for annoying the rest of us! :) lol I'm kidding you know.

ANNOY is too vague. Look at Binghamtonian! His moniker suggests he's annoyed 24/7! And well gee, if I'm not the most annoying person here! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PeteMoss said:

This is so typical of liberals.  Add a work/phrase that the writer did not use and then write a repudiation based on that word.

Nowhere does 1775 use the word "annoy" or "annoys"

Also you interpret his words.  "What 1775 is trying to say".  He says what he says.  I understand it.  Why do you need to interpret it?

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, binghamtonian said:

Do you even know why they were protesting? How about you educate yourself first as to what the protest were. They were protesting the wording of the legislation that they tried to pass. The word annoy comes from that legislation.

Oh I know you know what he was saying, fascists tend to support other fascists. Isn't that right Pete? Or should I call you Pepe wearing the Nazi uniform guy?

Fascism is a left wing ideology. Neither Pete or I are left wingers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only people acting like "Nazis" were the demonstrators...…………….nothing more than young college "sheeple" following along to their "Leaders".

Nobody takes these people seriously...…………………….zip tie them and haul them away!

And,  if they were even remotely interested in having a "discussion" about the resolution, why is it that NONE of them stayed after the meeting after they were invited by the Chairman to do so??

They are not interested in "discussion", only disruption!

I'm thinking it is probably because they are not capable of having a normal discussion.

And just to clarify...………..the State Penal Law that is already "on the books" does not protect emergency workers employed by independent contractors (Superior, UVES, BVES, etc.) OR volunteers firefighters / first responders. It only protects Government employees.

Also not aware of ANY Court / Judge who has ruled that the State law is unconstitutional.

Oh that's right, it was the ACLU / NYCLU...…………….well then no need for any further discussion...……….these left-wingers have already made the decision...…..case closed!

Hey I know, let's ask the SPLC...….their a reputable group.

CLOWNS..................LOL!!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2019 at 3:52 PM, 19April1775 said:

First. For everyones learning I urge you all and John to research the origins of the word "ANARCHY". It means self rule, absence of government. On the political spectrum it is very far right. A noble goal but because of human nature it can't work. 

I know John knows these people are hard left, total government rule, because he has used the term "MARXIST" to describe them often. He should not use both words to describe these radical leftists. Just a pet peeve of mine to keep some integrity in the language.

So with that background Mr. Met.:

A bunch of lunatic leftists, who have ZERO respect for the Constitution, flooded the County Office Building to protest the new local law that gives a whole bunch of jobs under the public safety umbrella, special treatment, for just being who they are, despite the fact there are plenty of laws that protect them the same way they protect us.

VERY IMPORTANT POINT FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND:

The people who attacked John Solak last night are using the 1st Amendment of the Constitution to rip apart the Constitution. You can see the strategy in all the College radical videos throughout the Country. They are using a bait and switch strategy to bring down our Constitution.

This is the principle reason why the law enforcement on scene should have started knocking heads and carting these losers off within 5 minutes tops. They are enemies of America. They want to bring in Marxist and Communist ideologies to America while pretending to support the Constitution. Free speech rules don't apply if you are working outside the Constitution while pretending to be for the Constitution. Our local law enforcement does not understand our enemy yet. This incident helped.

 

 

 

   

 

        

Thanks for the heads up and info sir!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2019 at 8:53 AM, binghamtonian said:

What 1775 is trying to say is that he supports a police state with the power to arrest anyone that "annoys" a police officer or other first responder. He supports the suppression of freedom of speech by having the government trample on a persons civil liberties. The people were protesting against a proposal that would severely erode peoples rights, all in the name of protecting first responders. Never mind the fact that there are already a multitude of laws that protect them, this was as far right-wing as you could get.

In other words, it's just a fascist supporting fascist ideologies. 

I think '75 has made it clear in other posts that he sees why this is a problem. He just doesn't like the protesters, either. Neither do I.

 

2 hours ago, WyattEarp62 said:

Also not aware of ANY Court / Judge who has ruled that the State law is unconstitutional.

Oh that's right, it was the ACLU / NYCLU...…………….well then no need for any further discussion...……….these left-wingers have already made the decision...…..case closed!

With respect, Wyatt, if you're not aware of this, you haven't looked. Poorly-written New York harassment statutes have been repeatedly rejected by the state and federal courts as unconstitutional for over three decades, because language criminalizing "annoyance" is inherently a vague and overbroad violation of the First Amendment.

See Vives v. City of New York ("where speech is regulated or proscribed based on its content, the scope of the effected speech must be clearly defined"), People v. DuPont ("it is not clear what is meant by communication ‘in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm’ to another person"), People v. Dietze ("any proscription of pure speech must be sharply limited to words which, by their utterance alone, inflict injury or tend naturally to evoke immediate violence"), Schlager v. Phillips (“utterly repugnant to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and also unconstitutional for vagueness"), People v. Golb ("unconstitutional under both the State and Federal Constitutions, and we vacate defendants’ convictions on these counts").

This is remedial constitutional law, and the NYCLU is only correctly citing settled law. Conservatives are supposed to be the champions of constitutional originalism and of the revolution. Akshar and Reynolds should be ashamed of their ignorance. This is worse than the already-stricken statutes, because it argues not that the state should arrest private citizens for annoying other private citizens, but that the state should arrest people for annoying the state. As far as I'm concerned, this borders on treason and is the kind of disgusting overreach I'd expect from a big-government liberal Democrat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bingoloid said:

With respect, Wyatt, if you're not aware of this, you haven't looked. Poorly-written New York harassment statutes have been repeatedly rejected by the state and federal courts as unconstitutional for over three decades, because language criminalizing "annoyance" is inherently a vague and overbroad violation of the First Amendment.

See Vives v. City of New York ("where speech is regulated or proscribed based on its content, the scope of the effected speech must be clearly defined"), People v. DuPont ("it is not clear what is meant by communication ‘in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm’ to another person"), People v. Dietze ("any proscription of pure speech must be sharply limited to words which, by their utterance alone, inflict injury or tend naturally to evoke immediate violence"), Schlager v. Phillips (“utterly repugnant to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and also unconstitutional for vagueness"), People v. Golb ("unconstitutional under both the State and Federal Constitutions, and we vacate defendants’ convictions on these counts").

This is remedial constitutional law, and the NYCLU is only correctly citing settled law. Conservatives are supposed to be the champions of constitutional originalism and of the revolution. Akshar and Reynolds should be ashamed of their ignorance. This is worse than the already-stricken statutes, because it argues not that the state should arrest private citizens for annoying other private citizens, but that the state should arrest people for annoying the state. As far as I'm concerned, this borders on treason and is the kind of disgusting overreach I'd expect from a big-government liberal Democrat.

Thanks for those. I kept meaning to ask which you were citing because I've been too lazy lately. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2019 at 11:36 AM, ginger said:

^ He's right. The legislation says annoy. Soooo the next time a mayor hangs something like a cost of war counter he can be arrested for annoying the rest of us! :) lol I'm kidding you know.

ANNOY is too vague. Look at Binghamtonian! His moniker suggests he's annoyed 24/7! And well gee, if I'm not the most annoying person here! :)

Oh ginger, you are most certainly not the most annoying person here. Not by a mile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2019 at 12:17 PM, 19April1775 said:

Fascism is a left wing ideology. Neither Pete or I are left wingers.

You can't be this stupid. Nevermind, you are. You're also supportive of fascist leanings, because you're a right-winger and fascism is right wing ideology.

Seriously, how do you function ever day with that warped mind of yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, binghamtonian said:

Oh ginger, you are most certainly not the most annoying person here. Not by a mile.

 I guess I'll have to try harder...KIDDING, I'm kidding...:) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×