1 posted on
06/26/2013 10:54:46 AM PDT by
Nachum
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
To: Nachum
3 posted on
06/26/2013 10:57:20 AM PDT by
frogjerk
(We are conservatives. Not libertarians, not "fiscal conservatives", not moderates)
To: Nachum
Shouldn’t the charge be petty vandalism, and the sentence or fine related to the cost of scrubbing the sidewalks?
To: Nachum
Pelosi’s inlaws can steal hundreds of Millions of dollars and walk, but a peon spends his life in prison for protesting.
Justice, Obama style
5 posted on
06/26/2013 10:58:27 AM PDT by
American in Israel
(A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)
To: Nachum
Have to say that the third world is looking freer and freer compared to the USSA.
To: Nachum
“A judge has barred his attorney from mentioning freedom of speech during trial.”
What do you call an attorney with an IQ if less than 50?
Your Honor.
7 posted on
06/26/2013 11:00:01 AM PDT by
MichaelCorleone
(Jesus Christ is not a religion. He's the Truth.)
To: Nachum
Don’t for a second believe that this story, and today’s Supreme Court ruling are not related.
To: Nachum
He criticized a bank? That should be a capital offense!
10 posted on
06/26/2013 11:03:15 AM PDT by
MrBambaLaMamba
(Obama lies, smokes, blasphemes, eats pork, reads your mail, eavesdrops and drinks during Ramadan)
To: Nachum
You guys are really in trouble.
11 posted on
06/26/2013 11:06:02 AM PDT by
Slyfox
(Without the Right to Life, all other rights are meaningless.)
To: Nachum
Bank of America, the massive conglomerate that received $45 billion in interest-free loans from the US government in 2008-2009 in a bid to keep it solvent after bad bets went south. Interest-free loans? I think they meant loans that ended up costing Bank of America $4.5 billion.
ProPublica
13 posted on
06/26/2013 11:07:15 AM PDT by
Toddsterpatriot
(Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
To: Nachum
14 posted on
06/26/2013 11:08:09 AM PDT by
MNDude
(Sorry for typos. Probably written on a smartphone, and I have big clumsy fingers.)
To: Nachum
Oh good lord. He used sidewalk chalk, make him clean it up.
Maybe a few hours of cleaning up trash, but thirteen years?
15 posted on
06/26/2013 11:10:13 AM PDT by
svcw
(Stand or die)
To: Nachum
I can see why the judge’s ruling make sense. The case is about vandalism, not about the actual message. So the free speech argument is irrelevant.
If the law is written in such a way that the punishments for water-soluble chalk graffiti are too harsh, that is not an issue for the court to address. I do think the judge should use discretion in handing out the least harsh punishment allowed by law in this case, but still, he is within his judicial authority.
What am I missing here? If I am wrong, please explain why, without resorting to accusations of my being a troll or a closet fascist, which would only demonstrate the accuser’s inability to engage in rational discussion.
If I am wrong, enlighten me.
16 posted on
06/26/2013 11:10:17 AM PDT by
Maceman
(Just say "NO" to tyranny.)
To: Nachum
To: Nachum
This is the type of case which demands jury nullification.
19 posted on
06/26/2013 11:12:17 AM PDT by
KarlInOhio
(This message has been recorded but not approved by Obama's StasiNet. Read it at your peril.)
To: Nachum
Maybe he can use the Crayola defense.
20 posted on
06/26/2013 11:16:03 AM PDT by
stayathomemom
(Beware of kittens modifying your posts.)
To: Nachum
I’m torn. Part of me says this “judge” is way out of bounds because this does appear to be an obvious free speech issue. The other part of me sees that this is probably one of those damned OWS protesters (anti-bigbank) and I’d like to see him rot in jail because he’s stupid.
It’s a toss-up.
21 posted on
06/26/2013 11:16:07 AM PDT by
Cyber Liberty
(I am a dissident. Will you join me? My name is John....)
To: Nachum
A judge has barred his attorney from mentioning freedom of speech during trial.
Just let that one sink in for a moment...
To: Nachum
To: Nachum
...that a judge had opted to prevent Olson’s attorney from "mentioning the First Amendment, free speech, free expression, public forum, expressive conduct, or political speech during the trial,”...Now that is ironic.
To: Nachum
Anarcho-tyranny in action, plain and simple.
38 posted on
06/26/2013 12:07:46 PM PDT by
FreedomPoster
(Islam delenda est)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson