On 1/29/13 11:26 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 1/29/2013 10:20 AM, ESAD wrote:
On 1/29/13 9:39 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 1/29/2013 8:24 AM, ESAD wrote:
On 1/29/13 8:17 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
A reporter asked Michael Bloomberg if any of the five armed guards
around him had more than 7 bullets in any of their weapons and if he
was
going to disarm them. Bloomberg sent those armed thugs after the
reporter, chasing him down the street, intimidating and bullying him,
and asking for his "date of birth". Well there you go Mr. Bloomberg,
you are the reason we need a Second Amendment!


The real story is that one of right-wing assholes from the right-wing
Talk Radio Network confronted and harassed Bloomberg, and his security
guards did what they were supposed to do.

Nice try, though. You probably listen to TRN between listening to
Savage, Limbaugh, and the rest of the assholes when Fox is running
commercials.

I actually watched the video, they intimidated him and chased him down
the street, far more than their job or protecting... They went on the
offensive... That's what the second amendment is for, stupid.


Freedom of the press refers to freedom to publish or broadcast, not
freedom to annoy.

He didn't break the law, they went on the offensive.


I didn't comment on whether he broke the law. I commented on freedom of
the press. Your boy's annoying Bloomberg had nothing to do with the 2nd
Amendment. His question might have, but not his behavior. There's no
constitutional right to annoy. Got it now?

In article ,
says...

On 1/29/13 11:26 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 1/29/2013 10:20 AM, ESAD wrote:
On 1/29/13 9:39 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 1/29/2013 8:24 AM, ESAD wrote:
On 1/29/13 8:17 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
A reporter asked Michael Bloomberg if any of the five armed guards
around him had more than 7 bullets in any of their weapons and if he
was
going to disarm them. Bloomberg sent those armed thugs after the
reporter, chasing him down the street, intimidating and bullying him,
and asking for his "date of birth". Well there you go Mr. Bloomberg,
you are the reason we need a Second Amendment!


The real story is that one of right-wing assholes from the right-wing
Talk Radio Network confronted and harassed Bloomberg, and his security
guards did what they were supposed to do.

Nice try, though. You probably listen to TRN between listening to
Savage, Limbaugh, and the rest of the assholes when Fox is running
commercials.

I actually watched the video, they intimidated him and chased him down
the street, far more than their job or protecting... They went on the
offensive... That's what the second amendment is for, stupid.


Freedom of the press refers to freedom to publish or broadcast, not
freedom to annoy.

He didn't break the law, they went on the offensive.


I didn't comment on whether he broke the law. I commented on freedom of
the press. Your boy's annoying Bloomberg had nothing to do with the 2nd
Amendment. His question might have, but not his behavior. There's no
constitutional right to annoy. Got it now?

And the dumb little **** is wrong, there are laws against harassment.

On 1/29/2013 1:17 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:43:41 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:




And the dumb little **** is wrong, there are laws against harassment.

Therein lies the question. When does lawful protest become harassment?
Would you feel the same way if these were "occupy" people asking about
Bloombergs financial holdings and fiscal policies?
How about the war protestors who screamed horrible things at Bush and
Cheney? (or LBJ and Nixon for that matter)


Double standard.. I really consider the compliant media to be about the
most disgusting anti American activity I am aware of..

On 1/29/13 1:49 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 1/29/2013 1:17 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:43:41 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:




And the dumb little **** is wrong, there are laws against harassment.

Therein lies the question. When does lawful protest become harassment?
Would you feel the same way if these were "occupy" people asking about
Bloombergs financial holdings and fiscal policies?
How about the war protestors who screamed horrible things at Bush and
Cheney? (or LBJ and Nixon for that matter)


Double standard.. I really consider the compliant media to be about the
most disgusting anti American activity I am aware of..

That's because you're not very...aware.

In article ,
says...

On 1/29/13 1:49 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 1/29/2013 1:17 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:43:41 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:




And the dumb little **** is wrong, there are laws against harassment.

Therein lies the question. When does lawful protest become harassment?
Would you feel the same way if these were "occupy" people asking about
Bloombergs financial holdings and fiscal policies?
How about the war protestors who screamed horrible things at Bush and
Cheney? (or LBJ and Nixon for that matter)


Double standard.. I really consider the compliant media to be about the
most disgusting anti American activity I am aware of..

That's because you're not very...aware.

Or bright. Or have enough energy to learn anything. Or get a job.

In article ,
says...

On 1/29/2013 1:17 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:43:41 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:




And the dumb little **** is wrong, there are laws against harassment.

Therein lies the question. When does lawful protest become harassment?
Would you feel the same way if these were "occupy" people asking about
Bloombergs financial holdings and fiscal policies?
How about the war protestors who screamed horrible things at Bush and
Cheney? (or LBJ and Nixon for that matter)


Double standard.. I really consider the compliant media to be about the
most disgusting anti American activity I am aware of..

You stupid idiot!! You sound more idiotic that the McCarthy witch hunts!
Do you even know what constitutes harassment? I guess not.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:43:41 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:




And the dumb little **** is wrong, there are laws against harassment.

Therein lies the question. When does lawful protest become harassment?
Would you feel the same way if these were "occupy" people asking about
Bloombergs financial holdings and fiscal policies?

Uh, they weren't asking, they were harassing.

How about the war protestors who screamed horrible things at Bush and
Cheney? (or LBJ and Nixon for that matter)

Many hundreds of them got arrested for various things, such as unlawful
assembly, disorderly conduct, etc. But still, as I said, there are laws
against harassment. There are two definitive types, civil and criminal
harassment. Generally, criminal harassment entails intentionally
targeting someone else with behavior that is meant to alarm, annoy,
torment or terrorize them. That's what happened in this particular case.

On 1/29/2013 2:55 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 14:27:56 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:43:41 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:




And the dumb little **** is wrong, there are laws against harassment.

Therein lies the question. When does lawful protest become harassment?
Would you feel the same way if these were "occupy" people asking about
Bloombergs financial holdings and fiscal policies?

Uh, they weren't asking, they were harassing.

... and the "occupy" people weren't?



The occupy people were raping, killing, and selling dope...

On 1/29/13 4:19 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 1/29/2013 2:55 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 14:27:56 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:43:41 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:




And the dumb little **** is wrong, there are laws against harassment.

Therein lies the question. When does lawful protest become harassment?
Would you feel the same way if these were "occupy" people asking about
Bloombergs financial holdings and fiscal policies?

Uh, they weren't asking, they were harassing.

... and the "occupy" people weren't?



The occupy people were raping, killing, and selling dope...


I know thinking things through is difficult for you, but you started
this thread by whining about someone harassing the mayor of new york,
then you said it was ok because the 2nd amendment allowed it, then you
went off on another bat**** crazy tangent elsewhere about how I was
about to "reveal" something about you, and now you are raving about "the
occupy people."

You need to ask your doctor to adjust your psychotropic drugs, eh...

On 1/29/2013 4:33 PM, ESAD wrote:

then you said it was ok because the 2nd amendment allowed it,

Never, ever said anything even remotely like that..