Community | July 09, 2009 | 19 comments

Police arrest 26 AIDS activists at U.S. Capitol protest

Image
sickinjersey
The activists carried signs in support of money for needle exchange, HIV/AIDS housing and programs aimed at fighting AIDS. They chanted, "Fight global AIDS now!"
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Current Tonight,   HIV/AIDS Today
  2. tags:
    News News and Politics America Current Radio News 3 more
  3.     
    |

19 comments // Police arrest 26 AIDS activists at U.S. Capitol protest

  • regjoeschmo
    • 0
      regjoeschmo  
    • We have the right to assemble. Permits are a means to violate these rights. While many times they are not denied, the red tape it takes to even have a simple demonstration out in DC is extremly difficult. It is quite specific that as long as the actions are peaceful and cause no property damage, we have a constitutional right to protest.......

      Many laws nowadays are merely meant to impede our constitutional rights. It is sickening that we allow this to happen.

    • 2 years ago
  • NonaSuomi
    • 0
      NonaSuomi  
    • regjoeschmo:

      Nice troll, but you might want to read up on our constitution, or more specifically the Bill of Rights, since you seem to be figuratively waving it all over the damn place. You refer to the 'peaceable assembly' bit, which is first amendment, yes?

      These people did not have a permit to protest, and laws such as this are because there have been far too many "peaceable protests" in the past of our nation which have rapidly devolved into huge brawls. They do not restrict our rights: those people were more than welcome to protest once they had gone through the proper channels to make sure they weren't in violation of any other laws, etc.

      I'll give you that a few particular bits of legislaton (PATRIOT act anyone?) were unconstitutional crap, but they are the exceptions that prove the rule. Our laws are in place to protect the general population, not extort or control us. I mean, using a bit of hyperbole, I could your implicit definition of "peaceable assembly" to allow me to sit on the White House front lawn with a silenced .50 caliber handgun, so long as I remained "peaceable" about it, right? There's a reason for our laws and the way our government works the way it does, and while it may be bloated and corrupt sometimes, it still gets the job done.

      If you're so dissatisfied with our government and know so much about the US's founding douments, how about the Declaration of Independence, or the preamble to it, to be specific:

      "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

      So if you're fed up with the US government, go ahead and do what your right and responsibility is as a citizen and work to abolish, overthrow, and replace it. I'll just be waiting here to see your sorry self thrown in prison for sedition.

      tl;dr- put up or shut up, 'ya whiny faggot.

    • 2 years ago
  • regjoeschmo
    • 0
      regjoeschmo  
    • regjoeschmo:

      1) How is bringing a gun to the whitehouse peaceable??

      2) You sould research Sheriff Mack if you want to know how authorities should handle these protests......I was present on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war on k and 12th street when SDS chained themselves to desks in the middle of the intersection. SWAT lined up and we formed a human blockade so they could not get to these people and arrest them. We were threatened and yelled at by police as well as passersby, but stood our ground. SWAT walked away without incident......

      3) These laws are meant to prevent our ability to overthrow our govt. Just as our economy has been influenced to prevent us from being able to afford to attend these protests. This was mainly done because of the amount of activism in the 60s.....

      4) Look up the meaning of the word "troll" before you use it again.....

    • 2 years ago
  • NonaSuomi
    • 0
      NonaSuomi  
    • regjoeschmo:

      1.
      If I'm not shooting anyone then how am I *not* being peaceable? You're the one who loves the Bill of Right so much- why don't you tell me a little about that thing... what was it again? Oh yeah, the second amendment.

      2a.
      If you want me to look up some kook, tell me his REAL name, not his damn stage name. All I can find is some crackpot site, which gave me the name Richard Mack, who was apparently involved in this joke of a SCOTUS case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Mack_v._U.S.

      2b.
      >>Chained themselves to desks in the middle of an intersection

      Yeah, because FUCK TRAFFIC LAWS, right?

      3.
      And *this* is either batshit insanity or trolling.

      4.
      Here, I'll even help you- here's where you can find the definition of trolling that I'm working with. I assume you thought I meant the dude under the bridge in the Billy Goats Gruff, then? http://dictionary.on.nimp.com

    • 2 years ago
  • regjoeschmo
  • jubal
  • NonaSuomi
  • jubal
  • NonaSuomi
    • 0
      NonaSuomi  
    • regjoeschmo:

      See, this is the problem with text-only communication; it sort of gives everyone autism- that is, it's impossible to pick up on dry wit, tone of voice (i.e. "nonverbal cues") which would have told you that I was half joking with the latter bit of that post.
      The message I wanted to get across is still the same, but I intended it to be sarcastic wit and explaining it like this really kills the effect.

      Unrelated: if you're offended by people using strong language, perhaps the internet isn't the best place to hang out?

    • 2 years ago
  • regjoeschmo
  • NonaSuomi
    • 0
      NonaSuomi  
    • regjoeschmo:

      Then why are you making this "laws are evil" crap up and debating it? The laws of our government are in place to protect the populace, muzzle us. You are the one who seems to be debating things without substance here.

    • 2 years ago
  • jubal
    • 0
      jubal  
    • regjoeschmo:

      You posting on a thread that has to do with a sensitive subject, namely AIDS and activists, who are generally LGBT. So that is why I responded to your comments. I have a thick skin and am not easily offended, but your wit and sarcasm are not appropriate on this thread, and your use of derogatory words that could be construed as attacks on a minority group are probably not within the terms of use guidelines for Current.

      You called regjoeschmo a "whinny faggot". That is a personal attack. That is what got my panties in a bunch.

    • 2 years ago
  • NonaSuomi
    • 0
      NonaSuomi  
    • regjoeschmo:

      I understand, and to clarify: I have NO problem with LGBT at all- a few of my closest friends fall into those categories one way or another.

      Still, I gotta say I stand by my statement as it was: RJS was/is moaning about the US Gov't but is obviously just doing so 'cause he ain't got the stones to actually do anything about it. I'll be more careful about my word choice in the future, but it doesn't change the facts.

    • 2 years ago
  • regjoeschmo
  • NonaSuomi
  • sickinjersey
  • sickinjersey
  • pjacobs51
  • regjoeschmo
more from Community:

top videos