# Stuff and Things > The Pub >  Man wearing sexually profane T-shirt arrested

## Trinnity

<lulz> what an idiot.... :Smiley ROFLMAO: 




> A man wearing a novelty t-shirt with a sexually charged message was   arrested Saturday after refusing a police order to leave a South   Carolina park due to “the shirt with that phrase on it,” according to  investigators.
> 
> Michael Miller, 50, was spotted “with a shirt that read ‘I May Not Be Mr. Right But I’ll Fuck You ‘Til He Shows Up,’” according to a Spartanburg Department of Public Safety report. As seen above, a shirt with that message sells for $19.99 at the Spencer’s gift store chain.When cops approached Miller and told him that he was not allowed to  wear the shirt in Spartanburg’s Barnet Park, he reportedly became irate  and “said he would wear the shirt any fucking where he wanted to.”
> 
> Miller  was then issued a trespass warning “from Barnet Park during the Rock  the Denim event,” a yearly concert that is devoted to raising awareness  of sexual violence against women.
>  After refusing to leave the park, Miller--who cursed at and gave the  finger to cops--was busted for disorderly conduct. He was released from  custody Saturday evening after posting a $262 bond.
> 
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

Deliberately antagonizing the cops wasn't the smartest move in the world, no, but it is the cops that are in the wrong, here. You can't kick someone out of a public park for a shirt. That's anti-free speech.

----------

Cap (04-24-2013)

----------


## Trinnity

Free speech doesn't mean "anything goes" in acceptable is civil society. So, I disagree with you. The t-shirt was highly offensive and should not be seen in public. It's indecent. This country's moral standards are too low and there's a price to be paid for that - an insensitivity and coarsening that's not_ benefiting anyone_.

----------

Irascible Crusader (04-25-2013)

----------


## lostbeyond

I think the T-shirt is funny, but the word "fuck" could probably have been replaced with a less sharp one.  :Smiley ROFLMAO:  Also, everyone wearing a T-shirt with funny text should think of their own personality first, and if can't match the T-shirt, then don't buy it.

----------

St James (04-23-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Free speech doesn't mean "anything goes" is acceptable is civil society. So, I disagree with you. The t-shirt was highly offensive and should not be seen in public. It's indecent. This country's moral standards are too low and there's a price to be paid for that - an insensitivity and coarsening that's not benefiting anyone.


And what happens when it is you in his position, with society placing some arbitrary standard of "decency" that doesn't include something you're wearing?

----------

kilgram (04-23-2013),The XL (04-23-2013)

----------


## The XL

> *Free speech doesn't mean "anything goes" is acceptable is civil society.* So, I disagree with you. The t-shirt was highly offensive and should not be seen in public. It's indecent. This country's moral standards are too low and there's a price to be paid for that - an insensitivity and coarsening that's not benefiting anyone.


Says who? That's a very arbitrary line you have drawn there.

Can you be kicked out of a park in the Winter, for, let's say, wearing a fur coat and rustling the jimmies of a couple of animal activists?

----------

kilgram (04-23-2013)

----------


## lostbeyond

Well I think the 1st amendment is violated here.  The 1st amendment was violated last year in California too, when the girls had the idea to form up a pyramid like at the cheerleader show, but totally naked, and they all as well as we guys who held the bottom row got disorderly conduct tickets.

----------


## patrickt

> Deliberately antagonizing the cops wasn't the smartest move in the world, no, but it is the cops that are in the wrong, here. You can't kick someone out of a public park for a shirt. That's anti-free speech.


Yes, you can. Legally. A park is open to the public but has, and is allowed to have, certain rules. What do you think your chances are of going on a "public" White House tour wearing a t-shirt that says, "President Obama is an Asshole"? What do you think your chances are of staying in a Berkeley Free Speech rally at the University wearing that t-shirt? 

A public park can have a rule of no alcohol. A public park can restrict speeches and protests. A public park can have dress codes. Nude dancing has been declared to be free speech but you can't dance nude in a public park or a City Council meeting. A public park, during special events such as the one in the article can have other rules such as paying for admission and no cameras.

The Constitution prohibits the making of any law abridging freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has held that commercial speech is less protected than political speech. Speech intended to sexually harass probably falls somewhere in between. A man from NAMBLA wearing a t-shirt saying, "Want to suck my penis little boy," at a children's swimming pool in a public park would probably not fair well.

It is pitiful how the concept of free speech is misinterpreted.

----------

Trinnity (04-23-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Yes, you can. Legally. A park is open to the public but has, and is allowed to have, certain rules. What do you think your chances are of going on a "public" White House tour wearing a t-shirt that says, "President Obama is an Asshole"? What do you think your chances are of staying in a Berkeley Free Speech rally at the University wearing that t-shirt? 
> 
> A public park can have a rule of no alcohol. A public park can restrict speeches and protests. A public park can have dress codes. Nude dancing has been declared to be free speech but you can't dance nude in a public park or a City Council meeting. A public park, during special events such as the one in the article can have other rules such as paying for admission and no cameras.
> 
> The Constitution prohibits the making of any law abridging freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has held that commercial speech is less protected than political speech. Speech intended to sexually harass probably falls somewhere in between. A man from NAMBLA wearing a t-shirt saying, "Want to suck my penis little boy," at a children's swimming pool in a public park would probably not fair well.
> 
> It is pitiful how the concept of free speech is misinterpreted.


Your argument seems to be that because it happens, it's okay. My argument is that it's not okay, even though it happens now. 

As far as your NAMBLA example goes, a NAMBLA member hanging around a childrens' swimming pool is there with intent to harm. A guy just walking through a park with a funny but crass t-shirt is not harming anyone, nor does he have intent to harm.

----------


## lostbeyond

> Yes, you can. Legally. A park is open to the public but has, and is allowed to have, certain rules. What do you think your chances are of going on a "public" White House tour wearing a t-shirt that says, "President Obama is an Asshole"? What do you think your chances are of staying in a Berkeley Free Speech rally at the University wearing that t-shirt? 
> 
> A public park can have a rule of no alcohol. A public park can restrict speeches and protests. A public park can have dress codes. Nude dancing has been declared to be free speech but you can't dance nude in a public park or a City Council meeting. A public park, during special events such as the one in the article can have other rules such as paying for admission and no cameras.
> 
> The Constitution prohibits the making of any law abridging freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has held that commercial speech is less protected than political speech. Speech intended to sexually harass probably falls somewhere in between. A man from NAMBLA wearing a t-shirt saying, "Want to suck my penis little boy," at a children's swimming pool in a public park would probably not fair well.
> 
> It is pitiful how the concept of free speech is misinterpreted.


Then why is it that gigantic highway billboards are allowed at many places with very offensive texts such as stuff like "Had an abortion? You are still a mother, only with your baby dead."(?) ... and the likes thereof.  Isn't the 1st amenment a law when it suits some bullies and not a law when it doesn't?

----------

Rain (04-23-2013)

----------


## countryboy

> Says who? That's a very arbitrary line you have drawn there.
> 
> Can you be kicked out of a park in the Winter, for, let's say, wearing a fur coat and rustling the jimmies of a couple of animal activists?


Apples and oranges. Parents should be able to take their children to a public park without having to worry about some moron wearing an over the top vulgar shirt.

Are you perfectly fine with small kids reading this shirt?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Apple's and oranges. Parents should be able to take their children to a public park without having to worry about some moron wearing an over the top vulgar shirt.
> 
> Are you perfectly fine with small kids reading this shirt?


I have yet to meet a small child who had any idea what such a message would even mean.

----------


## countryboy

> I have yet to meet a small child who had any idea what such a message would even mean.


Do you always have to play semantic games? How about a twelve or thirteen year old?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Do you always have to play semantic games? How about a twelve or thirteen year old?


In today's America, a twelve or thirteen year old has seen and heard far worse.

----------

The XL (04-23-2013)

----------


## countryboy

> In today's America, a twelve or thirteen year old has seen and heard far worse.


Which makes it perfectly fine in your mind? As far as I'm concerned, that's even more of a reason to try and set a good example for kids. Not that I necessarily agree with your assessment.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Which makes it perfectly fine in your mind? As far as I'm concerned, that's even more of a reason to try and set a good example for kids. Not that I necessarily agree with your assessment.


No, I don't think it's good to throw bad messages at kids, but if parents went back to being parents, the problem would fix itself. If parents were parents again, kids would grow up to look at that stuff and shrug, rather than take bad ideas from it. 

Of course, I still think that we have bigger culture issues affecting our kids than that guy's t-shirt, but whatevs.

I'll get back to this later. I haven't slept in two days, so I think I need a nap.

----------


## The XL

> Apples and oranges. Parents should be able to take their children to a public park without having to worry about some moron wearing an over the top vulgar shirt.
> 
> Are you perfectly fine with small kids reading this shirt?


It is what it is.  Free speech is free speech.

Kids super young won't know what it means anyway, and kids above a certain age are cursing with their friends, or at least hearing it at school, anyway.

----------


## The XL

> In today's America, a twelve or thirteen year old has seen and heard far worse.


Understatement of the century.

Lol at a modern day 13 year old being offended at something like that.

----------


## countryboy

> It is what it is.  Free speech is free speech.
> 
> Kids super young won't know what it means anyway, and kids above a certain age are cursing with their friends, or at least hearing it at school, anyway.


And you have the unmitigated gall to point a finger of blame for the ills of society at others? Unbuckingfelieveable.

----------


## Calypso Jones

THAT is so inappropriate. WHAT kind of man has so little respect for women and children that he would wear something like that? An hispanic??? One that ACTUALLY THINKS that making kissing noises, saying 'mommie' and thrusting his hips is gonna get some woman to turn around and respond positively to his advances? LOLOL. I pray you are joking. 

Oh... :Wink:  DID YA post the mug shot of the perp? an obama supporter i see.

----------


## Trinnity

> And what happens when it is you in his position, with society placing some arbitrary standard of "decency" that doesn't include something you're wearing?


I wouldn't wear anything rude, offensive or whatever. It's not in my nature. I'm a lady and I'd never wear something sexually suggestive, anything with a swear word, of anything remotely RUDE. It's called having manners.

----------


## Gemini

> Miller  was then issued a trespass warning from Barnet  Park during the Rock  the Denim event, a yearly concert that is devoted  to raising awareness  of sexual violence against women.




Cops have no right to dictate where the man may or may not travel when it comes to things like public parks.




> After refusing to leave the park, Miller--*who cursed at and gave the   finger to cops--was busted for disorderly conduct*. He was released from   custody Saturday evening after posting a $262 bond.




Cops playing intelligently for once.  They issued an unlawful order when he was perfectly okay to disregard.  But the cops baited him, and he was a fool and took the bait.  This has little to do with a first amendment issue.  But everything to do with disorderly conduct.

Cops provoked him, and like a real mouth breather, he took the bait.  Had he kept on walking, he probably would be just fine.  Don't get me wrong, I think the language on the shirt is deplorable and any decent person wouldn't be caught wearing such tripe.  But they did not arrest him for wearing the shirt, they arrested him for 'disorderly conduct' and were well within their bounds to do so as those who are charged to keep order and peace.  It just happens to be mighty convenient that he is an unlikeable bloke at the same time.

Bottom line?  Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. @The Real American Thinker.

----------


## Trinnity

> And what happens when it is you in his position, with society placing some arbitrary standard of "decency" that doesn't include something you're wearing?


 That's a specious argument. There's such a thing as community standards, and they are NOT arbitrary. Free speech is not a blanket excuse to be a public ass.

----------

Gemini (04-23-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

more likely he was drunk, stupid and looking for a fight.  I can't imagine a woman, any woman, even a woman within his sphere to respond positively to the message on his shirt.  Or that greasy dred do.

----------

Gemini (04-23-2013)

----------


## littlejohn

> Deliberately antagonizing the cops wasn't the smartest move in the world, no, but it is the cops that are in the wrong, here. You can't kick someone out of a public park for a shirt. That's anti-free speech.


Depending on his goal, it could have been really dumb, or really smart thing to do.

----------


## littlejohn

> Cop[SIZE=3]s have no right to dictate where the man may or may not travel when it comes to things like public parks.
> 
> 
> 
> Cops playing intelligently for once.  They issued an unlawful order when he was perfectly okay to disregard.  But the cops baited him, and he was a fool and took the bait.  This has little to do with a first amendment issue.  But everything to do with disorderly conduct.
> 
> Cops provoked him, and like a real mouth breather, he took the bait.  Had he kept on walking, he probably would be just fine.  Don't get me wrong, I think the language on the shirt is deplorable and any decent person wouldn't be caught wearing such tripe.  But they did not arrest him for wearing the shirt, they arrested him for 'disorderly conduct' and were well within their bounds to do so as those who are charged to keep order and peace.  It just happens to be mighty convenient that he is an unlikeable bloke at the same time.
> 
> Bottom line?  Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. @The Real American Thinker.


Not sure who was doing the baiting...hard to say who is the fisher and who is the fish in that situation.

----------


## Gemini

> Not sure who was doing the baiting...hard to say who is the fisher and who is the fish in that situation.


I am inclined to think it was the cops.  Because I see no profit for the man who was arrested.  Perhaps he'll file a lawsuit claiming it was racially based and score big.  I could see that potentially playing out given his race, and the current legal environment, coupled with the potential backing of certain liberal special interest groups.

----------


## garyo

It may be his 1st amendment right, it's my natural right not to be subjected to crudeness and if we want a better society then where do we start, certainly ignoring common decency is why we are where we are.

----------

countryboy (04-23-2013),Trinnity (04-23-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

The first amendment does not give you the right to be filthy or crude.    The only way America succeeds, alexis de Toqueville said,  is if we remain a moral people.   This guy falls way short o' that.

----------

Trinnity (04-23-2013)

----------


## Trinnity

> more likely he was drunk, stupid and looking for a fight.  I can't imagine a woman, any woman, even a woman within his sphere to respond positively to the message on his shirt.  Or that greasy dred do.


Look at his eyes....he looks perma-stoned.

----------


## countryboy

> The first amendment does not give you the right to be filthy or crude.    The only way America succeeds, alexis de Toqueville said,  is if we remain a moral people.   This guy falls way short o' that.


I am truly dismayed by the cavalier attitude of some, where morals are concerned.

----------


## The XL

> And you have the unmitigated gall to point a finger of blame for the ills of society at others? Unbuckingfelieveable.


Yes, I believe in both freedom and personal responsibility.

I know you don't fancy either, but some people do.

----------



----------


## The XL

So, Republican progressives, if the 1st Amendment can be attacked and chipped away arbitrarily, can the same be said for the second Amendment?  Cause the liberals will say gun control and the like are Constitutional, and will use the same line of logic you guys are using.

----------


## The XL

> I wouldn't wear anything rude, offensive or whatever. It's not in my nature. I'm a lady and I'd never wear something sexually suggestive, anything with a swear word, of anything remotely RUDE. It's called having manners.





> THAT is so inappropriate. WHAT kind of man  has so little respect for women and children that he would wear  something like that? An hispanic??? One that ACTUALLY THINKS that making  kissing noises, saying 'mommie' and thrusting his hips is gonna get  some woman to turn around and respond positively to his advances? LOLOL.  I pray you are joking. 
> 
> Oh... DID YA post the mug shot of the perp? an obama supporter i see.


It's not about what you'd do, respect, decency, whether you agree with it or not, etc.  It's about free speech.  The fact that it bothers you is irrelevant, a non issue.

----------

Gemini (04-23-2013)

----------


## countryboy

> Yes, I believe in both freedom and personal responsibility.
> 
> I know you don't fancy either, but some people do.


Nah, you believe in your perception, nothing more.

----------


## The XL

> Nah, you believe in your perception, nothing more.


Nope, in this instance, I clearly believe in both.  I believe in the mans right to wear this shirt, exercising his first Amendment right.  I also believe in peoples responsibilities to not be influenced and become criminals or degenerates because of the people around them.  

You, being the progressive that you are, think it's okay to criminalize free speech.

----------

Gemini (04-23-2013)

----------


## Guest

> Free speech doesn't mean "anything goes" in acceptable is civil society. So, I disagree with you. The t-shirt was highly offensive and should not be seen in public. It's indecent. This country's moral standards are too low and there's a price to be paid for that - an insensitivity and coarsening that's not_ benefiting anyone_.


I disagree with you.  You don't have to look at him.  You can avert your eyes.  I do it every day in New York.  He has a right as a consumer to purchase anything he chooses and the right to wear it.

If we dictate what is publicly acceptable or socially acceptable insofar as clothing, there may come a time where you can't wear a tshirt with Jesus on it in a public park because it offends atheists.

----------

The XL (04-23-2013)

----------


## Guest

> I am truly dismayed by the cavalier attitude of some, where morals are concerned.


And I'm dismayed by older people that they can't see the slippery slope they're about to fall down on this one.  Ban that tshirt and some liberal will come along and say they are offended by your NRA shirt or your Jesus shirt.

How about you just don't look at him OR as he passes tell him you think his shirt is rude?

----------

The XL (04-23-2013)

----------


## Guest

> I wouldn't wear anything rude, offensive or whatever. It's not in my nature. I'm a lady and I'd never wear something sexually suggestive, anything with a swear word, of anything remotely RUDE. It's called having manners.


And he's ill-mannered and therefore you'd never invite him in your home or befriend him.  Still his body and everything on it belongs to him.  Don't look at him.

----------


## The XL

> And I'm dismayed by older people that they can't see the slippery slope they're about to fall down on this one.  Ban that tshirt and some liberal will come along and say they are offended by your NRA shirt or your Jesus shirt.
> 
> How about you just don't look at him OR as he passes tell him you think his shirt is rude?


Most Republicans are big government progressives.  It's really that simple.  Countryboy is an example of a Republican progressive.  Your arguments for free speech, and liberty in general, will be ignored by him.

----------


## countryboy

> Nope, in this instance, I clearly believe in both.  I believe in the mans right to wear this shirt, exercising his first Amendment right.  I also believe in peoples responsibilities to not be influenced and become criminals or degenerates because of the people around them.  
> 
> You, being the progressive that you are, think it's okay to criminalize free speech.


You're only fooling fooling yourself with that bullshit. But if that's what it takes to make you feel better about yourself.....by all means, carry on.

----------


## countryboy

> Nope, in this instance, I clearly believe in both.  I believe in the mans right to wear this shirt, exercising his first Amendment right.  I also believe in peoples responsibilities to not be influenced and become criminals or degenerates because of the people around them.  
> 
> You, being the progressive that you are, think it's okay to criminalize free speech.


You're only fooling fooling yourself with that bullshit. But if that's what it takes to make you feel better about yourself.....by all means, carry on.

----------


## Guest

> You're only fooling fooling yourself with that bullshit. But if that's what it takes to make you feel better about yourself.....by all means, carry on.


He's pretty consistent in his views.  I mean, he fights with me even.

Why do you think that this man doesn't have a right to wear that tshirt if he bought it not stole it?

----------


## Guest

> Most Republicans are big government progressives.  It's really that simple.  Countryboy is an example of a Republican progressive.  Your arguments for free speech, and liberty in general, will be ignored by him.


Don't get me wrong.  I found that shirt offensive, but instead of throwing him in jail or making it illegal I'd have the balls to go tell him what I think of his shirt.

----------


## countryboy

> He's pretty consistent in his views.  I mean, he fights with me even.
> 
> Why do you think that this man doesn'thave a right to wear that tshirt if he bought it not stole it?


He's consistent alright, referring to me as a prog is laughable.....at best.  :Wink:

----------


## Archer

I don't like it and I disagree with it. It should be allowed! If it is a problem why is it sold?

I don't want somebody trying to arrest me for wearing my jacket or me kids getting in trouble for wearing a Jesus shirt.

----------

The XL (04-23-2013)

----------


## The XL

> You're only fooling fooling yourself with that bullshit. But if that's what it takes to make you feel better about yourself.....by all means, carry on.


You always say something like that when responding to me.  It's almost like you don't have a legitimate response.

Oh wait.  That's because you don't.

----------


## The XL

> He's consistent alright, referring to me as a prog is laughable.....at best.


Not really.  You support big government, ergo, you're a Republican progressive.

Quite simple, really.

----------


## The XL

> Don't get me wrong.  I found that shirt offensive, but instead of throwing him in jail or making it illegal I'd have the balls to go tell him what I think of his shirt.


And there is nothing wrong with that.

----------


## countryboy

Moral relativism.....ain't it grand?  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Guest

> I don't like it and I disagree with it. It should be allowed! If it is a problem why is it sold?
> 
> I don't want somebody trying to arrest me for wearing my jacket or me kids getting in trouble for wearing a Jesus shirt.


The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.  The moral people want this shirt banned from public because it's offensive.  Ten years ago those same people wanted the Patriot Act.  What they don't consider is what happens when the people making the decisions are different in beliefs than they are.  What about when liberals get to choose that Jesus tshirts are offensive to them or when Obama uses the Patriot Act to spy on Tea Partiers?

There is no such thing as being a little pregnant or just having a little censorship.

----------

Archer (04-23-2013),Gemini (04-23-2013)

----------


## countryboy

> Not really.  You support big government, ergo, you're a Republican progressive.
> 
> Quite simple, really.


Your pants are on fire. Speaking of simple.

----------


## Guest

> Moral relativism.....ain't it grand?


If you worked in the law and knew what precedence means you wouldn't consider it a moral relativism.  You'd see that it as your opportunity to protect your children's right to wear a tshirt that is religious or pro gun.

----------

Archer (04-23-2013)

----------


## Guest

> Your pants are on fire. Speaking of simple.


You're not so much a progressive-progressive, just a statist.  He shouldn't call you a progressive.

----------


## Archer

> If you worked in the law and knew what precedence means you wouldn't consider it a moral relativism.  You'd see that it as your opportunity to protect your children's right to wear a tshirt that is religious or pro gun.


Like this kid?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/west-virgin...6#.UXbgqbWG1EJ

----------


## patrickt

> Your argument seems to be that because it happens, it's okay. My argument is that it's not okay, even though it happens now. 
> 
> As far as your NAMBLA example goes, a NAMBLA member hanging around a childrens' swimming pool is there with intent to harm. A guy just walking through a park with a funny but crass t-shirt is not harming anyone, nor does he have intent to harm.


My argument is, quite simply, your first post was factually incorrect. Making shit up that you say I'm saying won't help your case. 

Your argument that a NAMBLA member at the pool is up to no good is wonderful. I suppose you'd pull out the "Up to no good" law.

----------


## patrickt

> Then why is it that gigantic highway billboards are allowed at many places with very offensive texts such as stuff like "Had an abortion? You are still a mother, only with your baby dead."(?) ... and the likes thereof.  Isn't the 1st amenment a law when it suits some bullies and not a law when it doesn't?


No. Lost. And stupidity isn't related to bullies. Those billboards are on private property and are there with the consent and approval of those responsible for the property. Now, if you erected a billboard next to those others without permission you'd be in trouble.

The man was not wearing his offensive t-shirt at a private party on private property.

----------


## patrickt

> Apples and oranges. Parents should be able to take their children to a public park without having to worry about some moron wearing an over the top vulgar shirt.
> 
> Are you perfectly fine with small kids reading this shirt?


The kids aren't the issue. The issue is the people responsible for the park decided it was inappropriate. What TRAT or Lost think is irrelevant.

----------


## Gemini

I guess I'm only going to remind people that he wasn't arrested for his shirt, but for disorderly conduct.  The shirt was the instigator of the problem, not the problem itself.

Guy was jailed because he opted to behave in a problematic way - which is largely dubious if you ask me.  We all know why he was thrown in jail, it was for his shirt, but the reason given for was the 'disorderly conduct'.  The shirt is in bad taste obviously, but had the cops not bothered him, he wouldn't be in jail.

But the guy was likely looking for a fight, he was wearing this at the same place as this women's rally gig afterall.  Really, the cops should only intervene if it looks like blows are going to exchange.  Bickering never killed anybody.

He has every right in the world to show up and behave like a moron so long as he isn't hurting anybody, and those at the womens rally have every right to rail on this waste of skin so long as they do not harm him.

Kind of a waste of time for the cops really.  Think about it this way, if I see something offensive of TV I don't call the police and demand they take it off the air.  I'd call the network, and berate them for allowing such filth to be peddled on air where my kids have easy access to it.  But really, knowing myself, I'd either change the channel or just turn it off - no cops involved because they were not needed.

----------


## patrickt

Gemini: "Cops have no right to dictate where the man may or may not travel when it comes to things like public parks."

That's true. But, the people responsible for the park do have that right. It would be quite legal or proper for them to say, "Remove the shirt or remove yourself from the park."

----------


## Guest

> Like this kid?
> http://abcnews.go.com/US/west-virgin...6#.UXbgqbWG1EJ


Exactly!

----------


## Archer

Was there an ordinance that was violated.

----------


## Guest

> My argument is, quite simply, your first post was factually incorrect. Making shit up that you say I'm saying won't help your case. 
> 
> Your argument that a NAMBLA member at the pool is up to no good is wonderful. I suppose you'd pull out the "Up to no good" law.


Cops do every day.  Why should he be any different?

----------


## patrickt

Rina: "I disagree with you. You don't have to look at him. You can avert your eyes. I do it every day in New York. He has a right as a consumer to purchase anything he chooses and the right to wear it."

He does not have a right to wear it when and where he wishes. You may choose to avert your eyes but the property managers are not required to.

----------


## kilgram

> Apples and oranges. Parents should be able to take their children to a public park without having to worry about some moron wearing an over the top vulgar shirt.
> 
> Are you perfectly fine with small kids reading this shirt?


They don't care or even they don't understand that.

And if they read that, what? Children should live in a burble?

----------


## St James

> I think the T-shirt is funny, but the word "fuck" could probably have been replaced with a less sharp one.  Also, everyone wearing a T-shirt with funny text should think of their own personality first, and if can't match the T-shirt, then don't buy it.


I should buy two

----------


## Gemini

> That's true. But, the people responsible for the park do have that right. It would be quite legal or proper for them to say, "Remove the shirt or remove yourself from the park."


If the park is public property he has just as much right to be there as anybody else does, regardless of his heinous apparel.  Now had the park been rented and given some type of temporary exclusivity to its admittance I'd agree entirely.  If it was private property I'd agree entirely.  But as it turns out it was a public park.

Had this happened in a mall and he refused to leave, than trespassing could easily be on the list.  But as it stands, he is eating fairly bogus charges against him.

Do we know if it was rented and custody of the park was exchanged at all?

----------

Rain (04-23-2013)

----------


## Archer

> They don't care or even they don't understand that.
> 
> And if they read that, what? Children should live in a burble?


There was a time when people chose to do as they wished and the consequences came from the community. There was a time when you could refuse to serve people, rent to shady people, refuse to hire people. Communities would black list people ant they would come into compliance or move.

----------



----------


## patrickt

> And I'm dismayed by older people that they can't see the slippery slope they're about to fall down on this one.  Ban that tshirt and some liberal will come along and say they are offended by your NRA shirt or your Jesus shirt.
> 
> How about you just don't look at him OR as he passes tell him you think his shirt is rude?


I'm shocked at your specious slippery slope argument. This isn't an issue of some liberal or some conservative. It's a matter of the person in charge of the property making a decision about the management of our parks and recreation areas.

I know it's hard to believe, slippery slope and all, but our Parks Department had rules against alcoholic drinks in the parks and pools. You could be asked to leave the facility and/or written a ticket. You won't believe this but they also didn't allow nude sunbathing or skinny dipping in the City Pool.

Oh, the horrors of the slippery slope.

----------


## St James

some people are just waaaaaaaaaaaaay too sensitive and emotional.  it wasn't a shirt about hanging jews or blacks

----------

kilgram (04-24-2013)

----------


## Archer

> some people are just waaaaaaaaaaaaay too sensitive and emotional.  it wasn't a shirt about hanging jews or blacks


And if it were I would feel no different. Sure the guy may have gotten his arse beat over it but so what.

----------

St James (04-23-2013)

----------


## Gemini

> some people are just waaaaaaaaaaaaay too sensitive and emotional.  it wasn't a shirt about hanging jews or blacks


Even if it were, he should be allowed to wear it without penalty.  Let social stigma take its toll.

----------

Rain (04-23-2013),St James (04-23-2013)

----------


## The XL

> Your pants are on fire. Speaking of simple.


Nope, my pants are fine, thank you very much.

You're proven to be against free speech.  You're a Republican progressive.

So simple that I figured you'd see it too, but apparently not.

----------


## patrickt

> He's pretty consistent in his views.  I mean, he fights with me even.
> 
> Why do you think that this man doesn't have a right to wear that tshirt if he bought it not stole it?


He has a right to wear it. No one but you with your nonsense has said he has no right to wear it. If he wants to host his grandmothers birthday party in his home and wear the shirt he's free do. He can even walk down the street wearing that shirt. He can walk in front of the Women's Crisis Center wearing that t-shirt till he gets his ass kicked.

No one has said, Rina, he has no right to wear the t-shirt. But, if he goes into a mall he can be told to remove the t-shirt or himself. If he wears it to court, guess what will happen? Oh, the slippery slope. Oh, wait, it isn't a slippery slope.

----------

countryboy (04-23-2013)

----------


## Gemini

> There was a time when people chose to do as they wished and the consequences came from the community. There was a time when you could refuse to serve people, rent to shady people, refuse to hire people. Communities would black list people ant they would come into compliance or move.


Ah the good old days...

----------

St James (04-23-2013)

----------


## Archer

> I'm shocked at your specious slippery slope argument. This isn't an issue of some liberal or some conservative. It's a matter of the person in charge of the property making a decision about the management of our parks and recreation areas.
> 
> I know it's hard to believe, slippery slope and all, but our Parks Department had rules against alcoholic drinks in the parks and pools. You could be asked to leave the facility and/or written a ticket. You won't believe this but they also didn't allow nude sunbathing or skinny dipping in the City Pool.
> 
> Oh, the horrors of the slippery slope.


Was this a violation of a specific ordinance or harassment because he was black? Seen plenty of white kids wearing shirts supporting POT which is illegal but last time I checked fucking was a legal activity and people settle all the time for a lesser screw.

----------


## patrickt

> I don't like it and I disagree with it. It should be allowed! If it is a problem why is it sold?
> 
> I don't want somebody trying to arrest me for wearing my jacket or me kids getting in trouble for wearing a Jesus shirt.


It is allowed. It was not allowed there. It would not be allowed in my home. It is certainly allowed.

----------


## The XL

> You're not so much a progressive-progressive, just a statist.  He shouldn't call you a progressive.


Big government Republican statist, Republican progressive.

Same thing.

----------


## patrickt

> Cops do every day.  Why should he be any different?


What an incredibly stupid response, Rina. I expect better of you but love can make you blind.

----------


## The XL

> He has a right to wear it. No one but you with your nonsense has said he has no right to wear it. If he wants to host his grandmothers birthday party in his home and wear the shirt he's free do. He can even walk down the street wearing that shirt. He can walk in front of the Women's Crisis Center wearing that t-shirt till he gets his ass kicked.
> 
> No one has said, Rina, he has no right to wear the t-shirt. But, if he goes into a mall he can be told to remove the t-shirt or himself. If he wears it to court, guess what will happen? Oh, the slippery slope. Oh, wait, it isn't a slippery slope.


A mall is private property, a totally different situation entirely.

----------



----------


## Archer

> Ah the good old days...


Thats is why there were no gays in my school! Hell one of my best friends was gay but in the closet. Dated girls and everything... He always a little tender but never showed any feelings for other males. Crap we used to go to the races together.

----------


## Archer

> It is allowed. It was not allowed there. It would not be allowed in my home. It is certainly allowed.


Was there a specific ordinance violated? Personally I think an ass kicking would fix it.

----------


## patrickt

> If the park is public property he has just as much right to be there as anybody else does, regardless of his heinous apparel.  Now had the park been rented and given some type of temporary exclusivity to its admittance I'd agree entirely.  If it was private property I'd agree entirely.  But as it turns out it was a public park.
> 
> Had this happened in a mall and he refused to leave, than trespassing could easily be on the list.  But as it stands, he is eating fairly bogus charges against him.
> 
> Do we know if it was rented and custody of the park was exchanged at all?


At last someone is bright enough to make a relevant point. There was a concert but absent that the Parks and Recreation Department still has, in your words, custody of the park. They have a responsibility to manage the park in a way to make it pleasant and accessible to the most people. If they choose to ban alcoholic beverages, they can. If they want to ban nude sunbathing, they can. If they want to ban dogs off leash they can. In our city we did have a city ordinance saying that the Parks and Rec Department were charged with making these rules but that wasn't legally necessary.

But, consider, what is the definition of public property?

----------


## Guest

> No. Lost. And stupidity isn't related to bullies. Those billboards are on private property and are there with the consent and approval of those responsible for the property. Now, if you erected a billboard next to those others without permission you'd be in trouble.
> 
> The man was not wearing his offensive t-shirt at a private party on private property.


Right he was wearing it in a park that all of our tax dollars--maybe even his--paid for.

----------


## Guest

> Rina: "I disagree with you. You don't have to look at him. You can avert your eyes. I do it every day in New York. He has a right as a consumer to purchase anything he chooses and the right to wear it."
> 
> He does not have a right to wear it when and where he wishes. You may choose to avert your eyes but the property managers are not required to.


The property managers of what?  A park?  Sorry, but we've upheld this in the courts that we are allowed to wear clothing that other people find offensive, pat.  Thank the "Absolute Homo" tshirt dispute for that one.

----------


## littlejohn

> The first amendment does not give you the right to be filthy or crude.


I recall hearing that same argument from the Muslims when the infamous "movie" came out. 

Not defending the Moslims, just sayin'

----------



----------


## Guest

> What an incredibly stupid response, Rina. I expect better of you but love can make you blind.


Love doesn't make lawyers blind, @patrickt.  We'd have to have hearts, and you know we don't.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (04-23-2013)

----------


## Archer

Still - can anybody show me a specific ordinance that was violated?

----------


## Maximatic

It's a problem because of were he was. He has as much say over what may be said in a _public_ park as any cop. Once we say that something is owned equally, by everyone, we can't then turn around and say that some people have a greater claim on that thing than anyone else. Those two statements contradict each other. They can't both be true. 

So who owns the park? If the agents of government are the ones with the ultimate claim on it and say over what happens in it, then it is not a public park, it is a government park.

If it really is owned equally, by everyone, then how do we adjudicate disputes over it? By vote? Then it's not owned equally, by everyone, but by the biggest group that agrees on some policy regarding it.

Saying that something is owned equally, by everyone is stupid. I'm not even sure it's coherent. It's definitely a recipe for conflict.

----------

Gemini (04-23-2013),Rain (04-23-2013)

----------


## Guest

> Still - can anybody show me a specific ordinance that was violated?


Cops don't need a specific ordinance when they have "resisting arrest".  That can mean anything now--and does.  You don't even need to be in the process of an actual criminal act anymore.

----------


## The XL

Cops do whatever the fuck they want and get away with it.

It's really infuriating.

----------

Rain (04-23-2013),Sinestro/Green Arrow (04-23-2013),St James (04-23-2013)

----------


## Archer

> Cops don't need a specific ordinance when they have "resisting arrest".  That can mean anything now--and does.  You don't even need to be in the process of an actual criminal act anymore.


If there was no ordinance they it is a clear case of harassment and possibly racially motivated. They had no cause to approach the man unless we are in a police state.

----------



----------


## Dan40

> Your argument seems to be that because it happens, it's okay. My argument is that it's not okay, even though it happens now. 
> 
> As far as your NAMBLA example goes, a NAMBLA member hanging around a childrens' swimming pool is there with intent to harm. A guy just walking through a park with a funny but crass t-shirt is not harming anyone, nor does he have intent to harm.


How is it that we don't get to decide what offensive speech is, but you liberals get to decide what someone's INTENT is?


And the stupid asshole was wearing his offensive T at WHAT kind of event at the park?

*"a yearly concert that is devoted to raising awareness  of sexual violence against women."*

----------


## littlejohn

> If we dictate what is publicly acceptable or socially acceptable insofar as clothing, there may come a time where you can't wear a tshirt with Jesus on it in a public park because it offends atheists.


yep, even though there are some uncomfortable side effects, free speech pretty much has to mean *free* speech.

----------

Gemini (04-23-2013),Rain (04-23-2013),The XL (04-23-2013)

----------


## Maximatic

> Cops don't need a specific ordinance when they have "resisting arrest".  That can mean anything now--and does.  You don't even need to be in the process of an actual criminal act anymore.


They assume everyone they come in contact with is in the process of being arrested.

----------



----------


## The XL

> yep, even though there are some uncomfortable side effects, free speech pretty much has to mean *free* speech.


Thank you.  At least some people on here are pro freedom.

----------

Rain (04-23-2013)

----------


## Maximatic

> Cops do whatever the fuck they want and get away with it.
> 
> It's really infuriating.


Their employer has a monopoly. Their actions are consequenceless.

----------



----------


## Guest

> Was this a violation of a specific ordinance or harassment because he was black? Seen plenty of white kids wearing shirts supporting POT which is illegal but last time I checked fucking was a legal activity and people settle all the time for a lesser screw.


 @Archer, 

if I had a sock account I would rep you twice for this post, so I'm hoping Trina will do it.

----------

Archer (04-23-2013)

----------


## littlejohn

> But, consider, what is the definition of public property?


I dont know of any. they used to have that in England ( the commons ) but have not seen it here. (US)

----------


## Maximatic

> But, consider, what is the definition of public property?


It means it's owned by the public.

----------


## St James

> If there was no ordinance they it is a clear case of harassment and possibly racially motivated. They had no cause to approach the man unless we are in a police state.


we are.....................

----------


## Gemini

@patrickt




> At last someone is bright enough to make a relevant point. There was a concert but absent that the *Parks and Recreation Department* still has, in your words, custody of the park. They have a responsibility to manage the park in a way to make it pleasant and accessible to the most people. If they choose to ban alcoholic beverages, they can. If they want to ban nude sunbathing, they can. If they want to ban dogs off leash they can. In our city we did have a city ordinance saying that the Parks and Rec Department were charged with making these rules but that wasn't legally necessary.


Is this a government entity?  If so, than this man may have a fantastic lawsuit on his hands if he finds a lawyer willing to go to task for him.




> But, consider, what is the definition of public property?


To my humble understanding - which is quite limited, it is land that not not owned by any private entity or government but is maintained by somebody.  Public land would be the equivalent of the grassy knoll outside of town.  This is just a maintained grassy knoll.  If this thing is owned by the government than they have the obligation to either make contracts leasing it for whatever time is appropriate and thereby grant exclusivity to the lessee who may do what they like within the bounds of the contract.

If no contract is signed, it is like a bunch of high school kids having band practice on my lawn, only I wouldn't have power to accuse them of trespassing because it is "public owned".

----------



----------


## Guest

> @patrickt
> 
> Is this a government entity?  If so, than this man may have a fantastic lawsuit on his hands if he finds a lawyer willing to go to task for him.


There are unlimited attorneys who would take this pro bono.




> To my humble understanding - which is quite limited, it is land that not not owned by any private entity or government but is maintained by somebody.  Public land would be the equivalent of the grassy knoll outside of town.  This is just a maintained grassy knoll.  If this thing is owned by the government than they have the obligation to either make contracts leasing it for whatever time is appropriate and thereby grant exclusivity to the lessee who may do what they like within the bounds of the contract.


Public property is property maintained by local or federal government, maintained by the taxpayer, and for public use.




> If no contract is signed, it is like a bunch of high school kids having band practice on my lawn, only I wouldn't have power to accuse them of trespassing because it is "public owned".


You are required to have a permit for a large gathering because the "use" of that property can cause distress to that land and/or require clean up.

----------


## Gemini

Some days I wonder why I want to go into medicine, I could do okay as a lawyer perhaps, and there is an abundance of work available too.

----------


## Guest

> Some days I wonder why I want to go into medicine, I could do okay as a lawyer perhaps, and there is an abundance of work available too.


It's addictive.  If you go into criminal or constitutional law you become changed forever.  You must understand that for entertainment value, no one compares to listening to the "alleged" criminal speaking about motivations and the "whys" of what they allegedly may have done.

----------


## Gemini

> There are unlimited attorneys who would take this pro bono.
> 
> Public property is property maintained by local or federal government, maintained by the taxpayer, and for public use.


So basically, because of police ignorance and simple brute thinking, this guy could easily have a cha-ching lawsuit correct?




> You are required to have a permit for a large gathering because the "use" of that property can cause distress to that land and/or require clean up.


Okay, so a permit is issued, does that mean that no others can be allowed on the property?  Does it grant exclusivity to the grounds to the permit holders?  I'm not asking out of imbecility, I'm asking out of curiosity because I am not a lawyer but would like to know the answer to it.  Because I'm thinking that unless this permit magically gives the holder of it master of the domain regarding traffic, the cops just screwed themselves BIG TIME.  IF this guy has the sense of mind to go to a lawyer and make noise about it.

----------


## Gemini

> It's addictive.  If you go into criminal or constitutional law you become changed forever.  You must understand that for entertainment value, no one compares to listening to the "alleged" criminal speaking about motivations and the "whys" of what they allegedly may have done.


Law has its fascinations I admit.  But for some reason I just don't think I could do it in good conscience.

----------


## The XL

I originally went to college in hopes of becoming a lawyer,  but quickly changed my mind because I could not come to terms with the fact that I would participating and profiting from a system that mostly prays on non violent drug offenders.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> It's not about what you'd do, respect, decency, whether you agree with it or not, etc. It's about free speech. The fact that it bothers you is irrelevant, a non issue.


yeah.  it does matter.   Your rights end at my nose.

----------


## Maximatic

> It's addictive.  If you go into criminal or constitutional law you become changed forever.  You must understand that for entertainment value, no one compares to listening to the "alleged" criminal speaking about motivations and the "whys" of what they allegedly may have done.


I ain't sayin he did it, but I'd understand.

----------


## Gemini

> yeah.  it does matter.   Your rights end at my nose.


That's just the thing, it wasn't harming anybody, it is certainly a social eyesore but remains harmless.  He should never have been jailed.

Scorned fiercely by his peers of course, but not jailed.

----------


## Trinnity

> In today's America, a twelve or thirteen year old has seen and heard far worse.


Says who? Do you think all parents let their kids be exposed to filth? What they  have or haven't seen/heard is no excuse for public indecency such as that t-shirt. Funny how when we're young adults some of us don't care about these things, but when we have children we see things differently. There are many things one cannot care about until one can relate to them on a personal level. 

As humans, we're often short-sighted. The very minute you have that baby home with you, you and your wife become mamma and papa grizzly bears; wait and see and remember I told you. 
 :Love1:

----------

Rain (04-23-2013),Sinestro/Green Arrow (04-23-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

You have rights and freedom, yes.  But with that comes responsibilities.   You think you can do as you please, be as filthy as you please and other people have to bear with it?   Other people have rights too and it is incumbent upon you to be observant of THEIR rights also.

----------

countryboy (04-23-2013)

----------


## Trinnity

> It's not about what you'd do, respect, decency, whether you agree with it or not, etc.  It's about free speech.  The fact that it bothers you is irrelevant, a non issue.


It's not irrelevent at all. It's about common decency. That shirt was not decent and not for in public. If you cannot see that, I can't help you, sir.

----------


## Guest

> So basically, because of police ignorance and simple brute thinking, this guy could easily have a cha-ching lawsuit correct?


Yes, unless they can make a charge stick for resisting arrest or disturbing the police.




> Okay, so a permit is issued, does that mean that no others can be allowed on the property?  Does it grant exclusivity to the grounds to the permit holders?  I'm not asking out of imbecility, I'm asking out of curiosity because I am not a lawyer but would like to know the answer to it.  Because I'm thinking that unless this permit magically gives the holder of it master of the domain regarding traffic, the cops just screwed themselves BIG TIME.  IF this guy has the sense of mind to go to a lawyer and make noise about it.


Large gatherings require a permit.  The rest of us don't as individuals.

----------


## Maximatic

> It's not irrelevent at all. It's about common decency. That shirt was not decent and not for in public. If you cannot see that, I can't help you, sir.


We're talking about apprehending a guy and trowing him in a cage. Does wearing a tshirt warrant that? Should your sense of decency, even if correct have any bearing on what another person wears in NEUTRAL territory?

----------


## Guest

> yeah.  it does matter.   Your rights end at my nose.


Who did he touch?  Did I miss something in the article?

----------

The XL (04-23-2013)

----------


## Guest

> You have rights and freedom, yes.  But with that comes responsibilities.   You think you can do as you please, be as filthy as you please and other people have to bear with it?   Other people have rights too and it is incumbent upon you to be observant of THEIR rights also.


Hence why public censure is a tool for this sort of thing.  The second you let the government do it, they'll use that same precedence when someone complains about what you're wearing.

----------


## Guest

> It's not irrelevent at all. It's about common decency. That shirt was not decent and not for in public. If you cannot see that, I can't help you, sir.


I don't mind it as much as the "I <3 Abortion" tshirts.  I'm offended by those and say in passing to women wearing them: "Thanks for being a heartless twat".

They have free speech, I have free speech.  If someone wore that tshirt around me, I'd either ignore him entirely or say: "Nice shirt, asshole.  Do you visit your mother wearing it?"

----------


## Calypso Jones

I'm talking about my personal space...my eyes, my ears, my senses, my security, DECENCY.   They threw 14 year old in jail for wearing an NRA tee shirt.  I haven't seen anyone posting in that topic about his first amendment rights.

the dirty dude did more than just wear a tee.  He wore it in an improper venue. did he not?   Disruptive, disturbing the peace, inciting.   He did not obey the officers and he was disrespectful.    Look at him.  You want to invite him over to your place?

----------

countryboy (04-23-2013)

----------


## Maximatic

> yeah.  it does matter.   Your rights end at my nose.


What about my torso? Do your rights extend around my torso?

----------

The XL (04-23-2013)

----------


## The XL

> yeah.  it does matter.   Your rights end at my nose.


And this doesn't directly affect you whatsoever, so your rights are not infringed upon, at all.

----------



----------


## Maximatic

> I'm talking about my personal space...my eyes, my ears, my senses, my security, DECENCY.   They threw 14 year old in jail for wearing an NRA tee shirt.  I haven't seen anyone posting in that topic about his first amendment rights.
> 
> the dirty dude did more than just wear a tee.  He wore it in an improper venue. did he not?   Disruptive, disturbing the peace, inciting.   He did not obey the officers and he was disrespectful.    Look at him.  You want to invite him over to your place?


So you're mad because this conversation is taking place in the wrong thread. There, there, Calypso. It'll be alright.

----------



----------


## The XL

> It's not irrelevent at all. It's about common decency. That shirt was not decent and not for in public. If you cannot see that, I can't help you, sir.


This will come off rudely, but whatever.

Who cares if it bothers you?  Who cares if it's indecent?  It means shit.  The guy has a right to exercise his free speech, and you and the others, are frankly no different than the liberals who think it's okay to fuck with the second Amendment with gun control and things of the like.

It's not okay, and I'll call a progressive out for trying to ruin the Constitution and our rights, Democrat or Republican , regular user or admin.

----------


## The XL

I don't ever want to hear you progressive Republicans complain about gun control when the left pushes it, because you've shown here in this thread that the Constitution means squat to you, and you intend to liberally interpret it and desecrate the 1st Amendment in the same manner the left does the 2nd Amendment.

Freedom hating progressives, the lot of you.

----------

GrassrootsConservative (04-23-2013)

----------


## GrassrootsConservative

> I don't ever want to hear you progressive Republicans complain about gun control when the left pushes it, because you've shown here in this thread that the Constitution means squat to you, and you intend to liberally interpret it and desecrate the 1st Amendment in the same manner the left does the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Freedom hating progressives, the lot of you.


I must say I agree with you, XL, I am shocked at the stance of certain fellow Conservatives on this issue.

I think the shirt is funny, and if that man got a job and bought it with his own money, then good for him. 

It's OBVIOUSLY meant to be a humorous shirt.

----------

Rain (04-23-2013),Sinestro/Green Arrow (04-23-2013),The XL (04-23-2013)

----------


## Guest

> I'm talking about my personal space...my eyes, my ears, my senses, my security, DECENCY.   They threw 14 year old in jail for wearing an NRA tee shirt.  I haven't seen anyone posting in that topic about his first amendment rights.


Your senses and my senses don't govern or dictate the lives of others.  Nor does the eyes, ears, and senses of others dictate your life.  And I posted about that on the other site (14 year old).  

People with too much plastic surgery is weird.  People with tattoos on their face make me wince.  People with large moles on their face make me want to look away.  My senses are mine and I need to learn to live on this planet with other people and keep my senses and thoughts to myself.




> the dirty dude did more than just wear a tee.  He wore it in an improper venue. did he not?   Disruptive, disturbing the peace, inciting.   He did not obey the officers and he was disrespectful.    Look at him.  You want to invite him over to your place?


No, my place is my private property where I can say: Dude, don't come in wearing that.

This is public property.

----------

Gemini (04-23-2013),GrassrootsConservative (04-23-2013),The XL (04-23-2013)

----------


## The XL

Fuck it, we should arrest ugly people for invading my eyes.

Lmfao.  Unbelievable.

----------



----------


## Calypso Jones

why don't you be realistic.   One does not have the right to do WHATEVER it is they want to do.  WITH RIGHTs come REsPONSIBILITIES>   If you don't understand that then there is something missing in your psyche.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> yeah.  it does matter.   Your rights end at my nose.


This guy's shirt doesn't come close to touching your nose.

----------

GrassrootsConservative (04-23-2013)

----------


## Guest

Yeh, I gotta say I'm amazed by the people on this thread.  Are guns the only liberty people care about?  Freedom is messy (Thanks Grok).  It's uncomfortable, it's sometimes unreasonable when we feel others have too much of it, but ultimately its about individuals having rights over their own bodies and no ones rights, beliefs, absence of beliefs, affiliations, etc having any more weight than anyone else's.

If you don't like his shirt.  Don't look at it.

----------


## Calypso Jones

well rina.  Would it have been okay if he'd come onto that public property naked with that message scrawled on  his behind?   AND drunk and disorderly?

 He DOES have the right to do that doesn't he?    There were women and children.  I pose that the problem is HIS rather than anyone elses.

----------


## The XL

> why don't you be realistic.   One does not have the right to do WHATEVER it is they want to do.  WITH RIGHTs come REsPONSIBILITIES>   If you don't understand that then there is something missing in your psyche.


I don't have a responsibility to not offend you.  That's your problem.

Truthfully, your points of view usually are ridiculous and annoy me.  Should I have the right to call the police on you and have you thrown in prison?

----------


## The XL

> Yeh, I gotta say I'm amazed by the people on this thread.  Are guns the only liberty people care about?  Freedom is messy (Thanks Grok).  It's uncomfortable, it's sometimes unreasonable when we feel others have too much of it, but ultimately its about individuals having rights over their own bodies and no ones rights, beliefs, absence of beliefs, affiliations, etc having any more weight than anyone else's.
> 
> If you don't like his shirt.  Don't look at it.


It's like I've said since the beginning.  Republicans are big government progressives who just want to use government force in different areas than liberals.

----------


## Guest

> why don't you be realistic.   One does not have the right to do WHATEVER it is they want to do.  WITH RIGHTs come REsPONSIBILITIES>   If you don't understand that then there is something missing in your psyche.


WRONG.  We have the right to do whatever we want to do with our bodies, property, and lives as long as we don't physically do harm to another person or usurp their right to do with their body and property what they want.

Only my parents get to have an opinion on my life and that is because they are invited to have one because they raised me and nurtured me.  Not you, not XL, not TRAT, not Max, not anyone else has any authority over me--and guess what?  This goes both ways, I can't run your life, either.

Huzzah.

----------


## Calypso Jones

Maybe this will help the morally challenged.

*Which types of speech are not protected by the First Amendment?*
Although different scholars view unprotected speech in different ways, there are basically nine categories:

ObscenityFighting wordsDefamation (includes libel, slander)Child pornographyPerjuryBlackmailIncitement to imminent lawless actionTrue threatsSolicitations to commit crimesSome experts also would add treason, if committed verbally, to that list. Plagiarism of copyrighted material is also not protected.

----------


## Guest

> It's like I've said since the beginning.  Republicans are big government progressives who just want to use government force in different areas than liberals.


I know...sometimes I think they're the lesser of two evils, then I am smacked on the nose.

----------


## Gemini

> why don't you be realistic.   One does not have the right to do WHATEVER it is they want to do.  WITH RIGHTs come REsPONSIBILITIES....


While you are correct, you are not seeing the far reaching effects of the overstep of power that was displayed unlawfully by police perpetrators.

The man didn't behave unlawfully and he was jailed for it and was well within his rights to wear what he wore, where he wore it.  Selectively enforcing the constitution is just as damning and not enforcing it at all.

It wasn't your front lawn, it was a park.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> why don't you be realistic.   One does not have the right to do WHATEVER it is they want to do.  WITH RIGHTs come REsPONSIBILITIES>   If you don't understand that then there is something missing in your psyche.

----------


## Guest

> Maybe this will help the morally challenged.
> 
> *Which types of speech are not protected by the First Amendment?*
> Although different scholars view unprotected speech in different ways, there are basically nine categories:
> ObscenityFighting wordsDefamation (includes libel, slander)Child pornographyPerjuryBlackmailIncitement to imminent lawless actionTrue threatsSolicitations to commit crimes Some experts also would add treason, if committed verbally, to that list. Plagiarism of copyrighted material is also not protected.


Link please.  Also, please cite all the cases where these came up and or laws.  These alterations didn't happen in a vacuum.  

And please remember this day when some progressives are telling you that you only have the right to a hunting rifle because the Constitution is a living document.

----------


## The XL

> I know...sometimes I think they're the lesser of two evils, then I am smacked on the nose.


They're worse.  At least the liberals are honest.

----------


## Guest

> well rina.  Would it have been okay if he'd come onto that public property naked with that message scrawled on  his behind?   AND drunk and disorderly?


We have laws against nudity, so it would be dependent upon whether that public property is a designated area for it or not.  We don't have laws about what clothing people consider obscene.

What about fur?  Some people have a moral issue with fur and leather.  Should they be allowed to try to make laws having people arrested for wearing it?  Can you wear a fur coat to counter a PETA protest?




> He DOES have the right to do that doesn't he?    There were women and children.  I pose that the problem is HIS rather than anyone elses.


No, we have nudity laws.  We don't have bad taste in clothing laws.

----------


## The XL

I find @Calypso Jones criticisms of the President vulgar, untruthful, and offensive.  She should go to jail.

Am I doing the anti free speech Nazi Germany Progressive Republican act right?

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (04-23-2013)

----------


## GrassrootsConservative

> It's like I've said since the beginning.  Republicans are big government progressives who just want to use government force in different areas than liberals.


Hey man we're not all that bad. Look at the libertarian sect of Republicanism right now and you'll see we're not like those other monsters.

Ron & Rand are the best examples of this.

----------


## Gemini

> Maybe this will help the morally challenged.
> 
> *Which types of speech are not protected by the First Amendment?*
> Although different scholars view unprotected speech in different ways, there are basically nine categories:
> ObscenityFighting wordsDefamation (includes libel, slander)Child pornographyPerjuryBlackmailIncitement to imminent lawless actionTrue threatsSolicitations to commit crimes Some experts also would add treason, if committed verbally, to that list. Plagiarism of copyrighted material is also not protected.


Um...child pornography is a crime, not related to free speech, because there is an obvious victim not endowed with the ability to provide informed consent - the child.

Basically, for the most part, these 'scholars' are imbeciles seeking to make an approved code of speech.  Which is why I don't agree with hate speech laws - they infringe on free speech because 'hatefulness' is entirely subjective.

Fighting words?  This only comes into play when actual physical fighting gets done.  Words cannot cause physical harm.

Incitement to lawless action?  Don't blame the speaker, blame and prosecute the rioters.  And please spare me the rant about Manson...

Obscenity?  This should not be governed at all as it is entirely subjectively to the will of the hearer.  I should be able to call any black person a porch monkey and get away Scot free without legal reprisals, just as he should be able to call me a cracker and have nothing legal come of it.  Social stigma is another matter entirely.

Overall, this list is easy to tear apart.

----------


## The XL

> Hey man we're not all that bad. Look at the libertarian sect of Republicanism right now and you'll see we're not like those other monsters.
> 
> Ron & Rand are the best examples of this.


Their is a libertarian branch of the party, this is true, and I respect and usually agree with that part of the party, but 80% of the party is made up of Neocon progressives like you see in this thread.

You're what, 21 if I remember correctly?  I'm 24.  Us and the other young people make up most of the libertarian side of the party.  Our hands are tied until the 50+ year olds of the party get old and die.

Until then, it will be a party dominated by progressive statists.

----------

GrassrootsConservative (04-23-2013)

----------


## Guest

> I find @Calypso Jones criticisms of the President vulgar, untruthful, and offensive.  She should go to jail.
> 
> Am I doing the anti free speech Nazi Germany Progressive Republican act right?


It is NO DIFFERENT than those asstards who say that the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover assault rifles.  Yes, dude, it does.  

For the record, free speech doesn't cover child pornography because other people's rights (the child's) are infringed.  Solicitation is a crime--duh, that's obvious as to why.  

ARGH!

----------

The XL (04-23-2013)

----------


## The XL

> It is NO DIFFERENT than those asstards who say that the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover assault rifles.  Yes, dude, it does.  
> 
> For the record, free speech doesn't cover child pornography because other people's rights (the child's) are infringed.  Solicitation is a crime--duh, that's obvious as to why.  
> 
> ARGH!


Exactly.

----------


## Guest

> why don't you be realistic.   One does not have the right to do WHATEVER it is they want to do.  WITH RIGHTs come REsPONSIBILITIES>   If you don't understand that then there is something missing in your psyche.


_Personal_ responsibility.  If the government enforces that "responsibility" then it stops being a right.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Um...child pornography is a crime, not related to free speech, because there is an obvious victim not endowed with the ability to provide informed consent - the child.
> 
> Basically, for the most part, these 'scholars' are imbeciles seeking to make an approved code of speech. Which is why I don't agree with hate speech laws - they infringe on free speech because 'hatefulness' is entirely subjective.
> 
> Fighting words? This only comes into play when actual physical fighting gets done. Words cannot cause physical harm.
> 
> Incitement to lawless action? Don't blame the speaker, blame and prosecute the rioters. And please spare me the rant about Manson...
> 
> Obscenity? This should not be governed at all as it is entirely subjectively to the will of the hearer. I should be able to call any black person a porch monkey and get away Scot free without legal reprisals, just as he should be able to call me a cracker and have nothing legal come of it. Social stigma is another matter entirely.
> ...



Dude.  Do you think i make this stuff up??  Don't take it up with me.  Take it up with the supreme court.

----------


## Calypso Jones

This is why we are doomed to failure.  The fact that the concept of rights with responsibilities is so foreign to half the country.

----------

countryboy (04-23-2013)

----------


## Gemini

> We have laws against nudity, so it would be dependent upon whether that public property is a designated area for it or not.  We don't have laws about what clothing people consider obscene.
> 
> What about fur?  Some people have a moral issue with fur and leather.  Should they be allowed to try to make laws having people arrested for wearing it?  Can you wear a fur coat to counter a PETA protest?
> 
> No, we have nudity laws.  We don't have bad taste in clothing laws.


Personally, I don't think we should even have nudity laws, when winter comes knocking they'll figure it out, and when mosquitoes come biting, they'll figure it out.  Not to mention I don't think a single place of business will let you in(unless it is THAT kind of business) without appropriate attire.  And with all the gadgetry of the modern day we'd be hard pressed to enjoy life without the benefits of pockets.

Social norming is a powerful force and one that is not to be ignored as is practicality.  Really, laws governing this are largely unnecessary.  A few kids with a pellet gun will solve this problem.  And with jury nullification available to free the pellet gunners, this type of law is largely just a waste of time.

----------

The XL (04-23-2013)

----------


## The XL

Supreme Court?  You mean the bunch of random cats who rule in favor whatever they and their stringpullers feel without taking the Constitution into account?  Those guys?

Yeh, I don't really give a shit what the current SC says.  They do a pretty horrible job of interpreting the Constitution.

----------

Gemini (04-23-2013)

----------


## Guest

> Dude.  Do you think i make this stuff up??  Don't take it up with me.  Take it up with the supreme court.


I can't believe you would compare a child being raped on film and camera to a tshirt that offends you.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> I find @Calypso Jones criticisms of the President vulgar, untruthful, and offensive. She should go to jail.
> 
> Am I doing the anti free speech Nazi Germany Progressive Republican act right?



no..you're doing the anti-god, child rights, anti-family pre-WWII and the current US political climate LEFT.

----------


## Guest

> Supreme Court?  You mean the bunch of random cats who rule in favor whatever they and their stringpullers feel without taking the Constitution into account?  Those guys?
> 
> Yeh, I don't really give a shit what the current SC says.  They do a pretty horrible job of interpreting the Constitution.



I'd say to them, wait til it rules on gun control like it did on Obamacare, but I don't want gun control anymore than I want Trinnity and Calypso to get their way on this tshirt thing.

----------


## The XL

> This is why we are doomed to failure.  The fact that the concept of rights with responsibilities is so foreign to half the country.


No, we're screwed because people like you attack the Constitution, and confuse your jimmies being rustled with "responsibility"

I don't have the responsibility to not offend you.  That's your problem.  Just like it's my problem when my brain fries reading half the insane shit you write.

----------


## Gemini

> Dude.  Do you think i make this stuff up??  Don't take it up with me.  Take it up with the supreme court.


Like I said earlier, a bunch of imbeciles put together the list.

----------

The XL (04-23-2013)

----------


## The XL

> no..you're doing the anti-god, child rights, anti-family pre-WWII and the current US political climate LEFT.


The anti God anti family nonsense is incoherent babble, and the childs rights are not being infringed upon by this man simply exercising his 1st Amendment right

Try again.  And try to make some goddamn sense this time.

----------


## The XL

> I'd say to them, wait til it rules on gun control like it did on Obamacare, but I don't want gun control anymore than I want Trinnity and Calypso to get their way on this tshirt thing.


Fuck it, an outright gun ban will be Constitutional if the SC declares it so.

Right, statists?

----------


## Calypso Jones

> I'd say to them, wait til it rules on gun control like it did on Obamacare, but I don't want gun control anymore than I want Trinnity and Calypso to get their way on this tshirt thing.



I am not getting my way on this t-shirt. I don't think we have the whole story and it's more than the T-shirt. But i will tell you. I don't want to see that t-shirt in my proximity and i do not want my kids or grandkids to see that t-shirt worn by that lowlife (or anyone for that matter) because it is NOT acceptable.

was that derelict showing respect for other peoples' rights?  no.  he was not.   He can wear what he wants but he was picking a fight, making others uncomfortable, showing the law and everyone else that he can do as he pleases...and you can't.  No one can.  There are laws.  There are standards of decency.  One or the other oughta take care of most things.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> This guy's shirt doesn't come close to touching your nose.





> I am not getting my way on this t-shirt. I don't think we have the whole story and it's more than the T-shirt. But i will tell you. I don't want to see that t-shirt in my proximity and i do not want my kids or grandkids to see that t-shirt worn by that lowlife (or anyone for that matter) because it is NOT acceptable.
> 
> was that derelict showing respect for other peoples' rights?  no.  he was not.   He can wear what he wants but he was picking a fight, making others uncomfortable, showing the law and everyone else that he can do as he pleases...and you can't.  No one can.  There are laws.  There are standards of decency.  One or the other oughta take care of most things.


Well, I hope you'll refrain from wearing anything Christian or engaging in overt displays of Christianity, should this nation ever become majority atheist or Muslim.

----------


## Calypso Jones

aren't we there now?

----------


## Calypso Jones

man shows up at a Stop Domestic Violence gathering in the park. Cops say no you can't come in here in that.  He sez he will go any f'ing where he wants in that shirt.  etc etc etc.

Seems to me he has a problem with domestic violence....as in...he engages in it or got his butt kicked for engaging in it. Trouble maker.  

And you guys are defending him over victims and supporters of stopping domestic violence.   I'm thinking you're on the wrong side of this issue.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> man shows up at a Stop Domestic Violence gathering in the park. Cops say no you can't come in here in that.  He sez he will go any f'ing where he wants in that shirt.  etc etc etc.
> 
> Seems to me he has a problem with domestic violence....as in...he engages in it or got his butt kicked for engaging in it. Trouble maker.  
> 
> And you guys are defending him over victims and supporters of stopping domestic violence.   I'm thinking you're on the wrong side of this issue.


Did he commit domestic violence over anyone in that park?

----------



----------


## Guest

> I am not getting my way on this t-shirt. I don't think we have the whole story and it's more than the T-shirt. But i will tell you. I don't want to see that t-shirt in my proximity and i do not want my kids or grandkids to see that t-shirt worn by that lowlife (or anyone for that matter) because it is NOT acceptable.


It's not and public shaming works.  I would 100% tell someone the shirt is filth and that he's filth.  If enough people did that we don't need a law.




> was that derelict showing respect for other peoples' rights?  no.  he was not.   He can wear what he wants but he was picking a fight, making others uncomfortable, showing the law and everyone else that he can do as he pleases...and you can't.  No one can.  There are laws.  There are standards of decency.  One or the other oughta take care of most things.


Do you like the progressive's standard of decency?  Do you particularly like the criminalization of speech?  Should people go to jail like that guy in your backyard in Chesterfield for calling a guy a ******?  I don't.  We as a society can handle this.  These things are not what the law is supposed to be used for.

----------

Gemini (04-24-2013),Rain (04-23-2013)

----------


## Guest

> aren't we there now?


Do you like the liberals trying to tell kids they can't wear religious shirts or shirt supporting the 2nd amendment?  I don't.  I think they can stuff it.

----------


## Calypso Jones

I am not saying make a law.  You saw what the exceptions are to first amendment rights.  I didn't do that.     I don't think the police were out of their purview to tell him to leave in that venue and under those circumstances.    I'm absolutely fine with what happened.  MOST people understand what is unacceptable, some don't.   perhaps when a young man shows up with a tee shirt on which there are skeletons performing every sexual position then decent men should take him out behind the woodshed and burn his butt up.   okay?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> It's not and public shaming works.  I would 100% tell someone the shirt is filth and that he's filth.  If enough people did that we don't need a law.
> 
> Do you like the progressive's standard of decency?  Do you particularly like the criminalization of speech?  Should people go to jail like that guy in your backyard in Chesterfield for calling a guy a ******?  I don't.  We as a society can handle this.  These things are not what the law is supposed to be used for.


Where in Chesterfield? Henrico is black county, and so are certain parts of Chesterfield. Well...maybe half of Chesterfield.

----------


## chippygirl

I would have hated to have to explain that to my 9 year old grandson if he had seen it but it did make me LOL when I read it.  Maybe not appropriate to wear in a park where children would be able to read it.  A bit of discretion and respect may have been overlooked in this instance.

----------

Rain (04-23-2013)

----------


## Maximatic

> why don't you be realistic.   One does not have the right to do WHATEVER it is they want to do.  WITH RIGHTs come REsPONSIBILITIES>   If you don't understand that then there is something missing in your psyche.


That's a platitude. How does it apply to this situation? At what point does his "responsibility" to consider your sensibilities become your right to decide what kind of clothes he will wear? Why have you not addressed the issue of this having happened on "public" property? Why are you such a collectivist?

You know what? Screw this situation. Where's that other thread you were talking about?

----------



----------


## Calypso Jones

this is unbelievable.

----------


## Calypso Jones

http://www.freedomforum.org/packages...edomSpeech.htm

you guys act as if i am arbitrarily making rules and laws.   Take a look at the above.   It's my opinion that if you have to explain something so basic then .......

----------


## Maximatic

> this is unbelievable.


Why don't you just tell me where the other thread is so I can paste my comments there.

----------


## Calypso Jones

It's not all that hard to find, Max.

But here.  Bon Appetit

http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...ighlight=Shirt

----------


## Network

I can't read these 18 pages, but I hope it was about circumcision.

----------



----------


## Maximatic

> It's not all that hard to find, Max.
> 
> But here.  Bon Appetit
> 
> http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...ighlight=Shirt


It wasn't very satisfying. There were no opponents to respond to.

----------


## Maximatic

> I can't read these 18 pages, but I hope it was about circumcision.


All 18 pages are Calypso trying to make collectivist arguments, in favor of the initiation of force, here that she can't make in the other thread.

----------



----------


## countryboy

> You're not so much a progressive-progressive, just a statist.  He shouldn't call you a progressive.


I'm no statist. Please quit your lying. Why do you people insist on lying to make your point. You really lose credibility when you do that. Why do you  think so many actual conservatives are reluctant to team up with radical LIBertarians?

----------


## GrassrootsConservative

> I'm no statist. Please quit your lying. Why do you people insist on lying to make your point. You really lose credibility when you do that. Why do you  think so many actual conservatives are reluctant to team up with radical LIBertarians?


We're not radical we're rational.

----------

The XL (04-23-2013)

----------


## The XL

> I'm no statist. Please quit your lying. Why do you people insist on lying to make your point. You really lose credibility when you do that. Why do you  think so many actual conservatives are reluctant to team up with radical LIBertarians?


Freedom is radical to you.  Which is why you're a statist.

----------

St James (04-24-2013)

----------


## Roadmaster

> Free speech doesn't mean "anything goes" in acceptable is civil society. So, I disagree with you. The t-shirt was highly offensive and should not be seen in public. It's indecent. This country's moral standards are too low and there's a price to be paid for that - an insensitivity and coarsening that's not_ benefiting anyone_.


 I don't think he should have been arrested but because children don't need to see this, he should have been asked to leave. If he were only around adults, that's a different story.

----------


## Rain

> I wouldn't wear anything rude, offensive or whatever. It's not in my nature. I'm a lady and I'd never wear something sexually suggestive, anything with a swear word, of anything remotely RUDE. It's called having manners.


That lacy teddy and lavender hair is kinda sexually suggestive. :Sofa:

----------



----------


## countryboy

> You have rights and freedom, yes.  But with that comes responsibilities.   You think you can do as you please, be as filthy as you please and other people have to bear with it?   Other people have rights too and it is incumbent upon you to be observant of THEIR rights also.


LIBertarians don't give a flying fuck about the rights of those who disagree with them.

----------


## countryboy

> Yeh, I gotta say I'm amazed by the people on this thread.  Are guns the only liberty people care about?  Freedom is messy (Thanks Grok).  It's uncomfortable, it's sometimes unreasonable when we feel others have too much of it, but ultimately its about individuals having rights over their own bodies and no ones rights, beliefs, absence inof beliefs, affiliations, etc having any more weight than anyone else's.
> 
> If you don't like his shirt.  Don't look at it.


And I should have to cover the eyes of my granddaughters?

----------


## Maximatic

> And I should have to cover the eyes of my granddaughters?


Yes. You have an implicit contract with your granddaughters. They expect that, when they are in your care, you will protect them from things that may be harmful to them. If you think that seeing distasteful things like what is written on that shirt will harm them, it would be better for you to either not take them to another person's property where you think they may be exposed to such a thing, or try to gently cause them to not see it when you do, than it would be for you to use force against people to prevent them from wearing such clothing on their own property.

A "public" park is, after all, as much that guy's property as it is yours.

----------



----------


## Maximatic

> LIBertarians don't give a flying fuck about the rights of those who disagree with them.


Hmm... What a strange lie.

----------

Rain (04-23-2013)

----------


## Archer

> I am not getting my way on this t-shirt. I don't think we have the whole story and it's more than the T-shirt. But i will tell you. I don't want to see that t-shirt in my proximity and i do not want my kids or grandkids to see that t-shirt worn by that lowlife (or anyone for that matter) because it is NOT acceptable.
> 
> was that derelict showing respect for other peoples' rights?  no.  he was not.   He can wear what he wants but he was picking a fight, making others uncomfortable, showing the law and everyone else that he can do as he pleases...and you can't.  No one can.  There are laws.  There are standards of decency.  One or the other oughta take care of most things.


And that is where the community comes in. The guy needed his ass beat. The community has always set the standards and it was not until recent times that courts tried to revoke the rights of community.

Social deviance used to come at a high price.

----------


## Rain

> Their is a libertarian branch of the party, this is true, and I respect and usually agree with that part of the party, but 80% of the party is made up of Neocon progressives like you see in this thread.
> 
> You're what, 21 if I remember correctly?  I'm 24.  Us and the other young people make up most of the libertarian side of the party. * Our hands are tied until the 50+ year olds of the party get old and die.*
> 
> Until then, it will be a party dominated by progressive statists.


OUCH @The XL!  I was libertarian and believed in REAL freedom when you were -24!  Damned generalizations again!  OOOPS, I'm not a republican though; maybe you weren't referring to me.

----------



----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> LIBertarians don't give a flying fuck about the rights of those who disagree with them.


That's no more true than the misguided assertion that you are a statist.

----------


## kilgram

> LIBertarians don't give a flying fuck about the rights of those who disagree with them.


Nonsense. What rights? The rights to restrict freedom to others. That is not a right.

There is no right to not feel offended.

----------


## kilgram

> Nope, my pants are fine, thank you very much.
> 
> You're proven to be against free speech.  You're a Republican progressive.
> 
> So simple that I figured you'd see it too, but apparently not.


Reactionary Republican Statist.

I am Progressive. And you, too.

----------


## St James

> Freedom is radical to you.  Which is why you're a statist.


yep, chained by numbers.

----------


## patrickt

> Nonsense. What rights? The rights to restrict freedom to others. That is not a right.
> 
> There is no right to not feel offended.


The left insists there is a right to not be offended. Anything that offends a leftist has to be remedied. I think it's hilarious but for a leftist, the t-shirt doesn't have to actually be offensive to anyone to demand action. If it makes them feel offended, absent any offensive material, that's enough.

----------


## Trinnity

> It's not about what you'd do, respect, decency, whether you agree with it or not, etc.  It's about free speech.  The fact that it bothers you is irrelevant, a non issue.


With all due respect, get your head out of the clouds and join us in the real world. Free speech is not limitless.

It's like this site...you all have a lot of freedom to express yourselves. But it's not a free-for-all and  you pretty much know where the lines are.

----------


## Guest

> I'm no statist. Please quit your lying. Why do you people insist on lying to make your point. You really lose credibility when you do that. Why do you  think so many actual conservatives are reluctant to team up with radical LIBertarians?


Because you believe in the state, trust it to the point where you defend it to me like it's a newborn babe, incapable of wrongdoing and if I question it you have labeled me "nuts" in the past, ie "statist".  You're just a statist who doesn't like gun control.

What's wrong with being a statist?  If you think there is something wrong with it, don't be one.  




> LIBertarians don't give a flying fuck about the rights of those who disagree with them.


Not true, @countryboy, I don't like that shirt anymore than you do.  I just think ahead to the time where I'm in a public park wearing my "Extreme Faith" shirt or my "Fuck the TSA" shirt.  What is obscene to you "sexual things" is not to others (although it is to me, too), but if you allow anyone to dictate what words they find too obscene to have on clothing or what images are too obscene to have on clothing it sets a precedence and then EVERYONE can weigh in.

We protect all rights even if we don't agree with them because someday it will come back around to you.  I want the rights for myself and whatever grandchildren I may have to wear Jesus tshirts.




> And I should have to cover the eyes of my granddaughters?


 Depends on whether or not they can read, I imagine.  It can also be a teaching moment since they will at some point encounter those words.  My mother would tell me that "classless people" do those things and I didn't want to be classless.

Moreover, you can shame the person and say: Children shouldn't have to see this.




> And that is where the community comes in. The guy  needed his ass beat. The community has always set the standards and it  was not until recent times that courts tried to revoke the rights of  community.
> 
> Social deviance used to come at a high price.


Yep.

----------


## Guest

> With all due respect, get your head out of the clouds and join us in the real world. Free speech is not limitless.


No, you can't harm other people with it, and that "harm" is judged by collective laws that benchmark that harm "pornography, conspiracy, treason".  However, even some of those I am shaky on.  Listen to @Calypso Jones talk about Obama daily.  Don't think that with a name like "the politics forums" and her rants on Obama that some of these bots are crawling for that reason.

Should they be?  No.  She's exercising her free speech.  Chris Matthews would call what Calypso says "hate speech"...is it?




> It's like this site...you all have a lot of freedom to express yourselves. But it's not a free-for-all and  you pretty much know where the lines are.


 @Trinnity,

this is a private website run by you.  You make the rules here and we post here or not based upon whether or not we are still having fun posting or if it is still worthwhile with them.  That is the social contract we all have with each other posting here.

In this instance, this is a public park that the man was in.  His taxes, my taxes, your taxes, etc. paid for that park.  Public demonstrations are public demonstrations, meaning you cannot bar someone from it, nor should you be able to dictate someone else's clothing choices when you aren't paying for them.

The word "fuck" does not  mean the same in the UK that it does here.  "Fanny" is a horrible curse word there.  I'm not offended by that word, but you are.  There are words I'm offended by that other people are not.  I don't like the C word or the N word.  I've heard both on here.  Heck, I've heard people on this thread use the N word and while that offends me...I'm not crying about it.  I understand that I can only control what goes on in my home and my property.

I have a right not to be molested when I leave my home, I have a right to not be harmed, but I don't have the right to not dictate what other people say or wear.

There is a Massachusetts town that fines you for saying "shit".  I think that's absurd.  I'd think it was absurd if they fined you for the word "******".

People have the right to wear Confederate flag tshirts no matter what black people think about it.  Black people have the right to tell them what they think about it.

Society can handle this.  When you guys start talking "Supreme Court" honestly you scare the shit out of me.  SCOTUS members have indicated that if gun control came to them they would treat it like speech.  Hell, they think its okay to tax you for Obamacare.

The SCOTUS is not infallible.

----------

Rain (04-24-2013),Sinestro/Green Arrow (04-24-2013),Trinnity (04-24-2013)

----------


## Dan40

> Because you believe in the state, trust it to the point where you defend it to me like it's a newborn babe, incapable of wrongdoing and if I question it you have labeled me "nuts" in the past, ie "statist".  You're just a statist who doesn't like gun control.
> 
> What's wrong with being a statist?  If you think there is something wrong with it, don't be one.  
> 
> 
> 
> Not true, @countryboy, *I don't like that shirt anymore than you do.  I just think ahead to the time where I'm in a public park wearing my "Extreme Faith" shirt or my "Fuck the TSA" shirt.  What is obscene to you "sexual things" is not to others (although it is to me, too), but if you allow anyone to dictate what words they find too obscene to have on clothing or what images are too obscene to have on clothing it* sets a precedence and then EVERYONE can weigh in.
> 
> We protect all rights even if we don't agree with them because someday it will come back around to you.  I want the rights for myself and whatever grandchildren I may have to wear Jesus tshirts.
> ...


Its not Free Speech, its freedom of expression.  His T is expression, not speech.

"*I don't like that shirt anymore than you do.  I just think ahead  to the time where I'm in a public park wearing my "Extreme Faith" shirt  or my "Fuck the TSA" shirt.  What is obscene to you "sexual things" is  not to others (although it is to me, too), but if you allow anyone to  dictate what words they find too obscene to have on clothing or what  images are too obscene to have on clothing it"* 

And following your logic, if I want to belong to a club that does not allow blacks or gays, is my freedom of speech and expression protected?  Why would gays or blacks want to belong to such a club?  So they aren't being hurt by not being included.  Why isn't there a WHITE Congressional Caucus?  Why are there no White legislators meetings?  Where is Affirmative Action for white males?

Why is the first amendment inviolate, but the second amendment is open to interpretation by all?

Your freedom to swing your arms ENDS at my nose.  Your freedom to express yourself ends when I'm insulted.  Do you wear a fuck n---ers  T to a NAACP meeting?  And where is the NAAWP?

----------

Calypso Jones (04-24-2013),Common (04-27-2013)

----------


## Guest

> And following your logic, if I want to belong to a club that does not allow blacks or gays, is my freedom of speech and expression protected?  Why would gays or blacks want to belong to such a club?  So they aren't being hurt by not being included.  Why isn't there a WHITE Congressional Caucus?  Why are there no White legislators meetings?  Where is Affirmative Action for white males?


My honest opinion @Dan40 is that, yes, clubs should be allowed to exclude whomever.  It's their building, funds, etc.  The rest of us should use social pressure to stop them from being dicks by castigating them and boycotting.

----------


## kilgram

> The left insists there is a right to not be offended. Anything that offends a leftist has to be remedied. I think it's hilarious but for a leftist, the t-shirt doesn't have to actually be offensive to anyone to demand action. If it makes them feel offended, absent any offensive material, that's enough.


LOL The left? Why do you talk about left? There is no leftist in the government and as the only leftist in this forum you already know my position, and I think that is shared by most of the leftist.

----------


## Trinnity

Rinny, these are gray areas and community standards are in play as well - also a gray area. You make good points, but like I said - it's a gray area. People are gonna disagree about things like his t-shirt. People should use some reasonable discretion - and he should't have worn a t-shirt like that in a public park where there are children - it would be more acceptable at a party of adults in a backyard or in a house.... 

He was a dumbass for wearing it in public and then getting pissy with the cops. It makes me uncomfortable when  cops ramp up a situation and then they "have you". But if you ask me, he walked right into it, like a dumbass would.

I wouldn't have done something like that. I would however, wear my gun on my hip in a public place if I has a decent reason to and that's legal. The cops wouldn't like it, but it is lawful and as long as I wasn't drunk in public, waving it around or acting weird - they'd have NO CAUSE to bother me. Now I'm prolly not ever gonna win an argument with you (a lawyer, because you can pick apart whatever I say, most likely, since law and debate are your trained skills) but I think you get the point I'm making here.

----------


## Guest

@Trinnity,

I do agree that it is inappropriate.  I just think "we the people" need to handle these things on our own.  I would (and have) told people what I think of their shirt, their actions, and the shit that comes out of their mouths around children.

I shocked my marine husband when I was in law school because I almost got into a fight with two chicks who were making fun of an old lady who asked them politely to quit cursing so loudly.

I handled the situation myself without cops--although they might have been called on ME had I handled it further.

----------


## Trinnity

> @Trinnity,
> 
> I do agree that it is inappropriate.  I just think "we the people" need to handle these things on our own.  I would (and have) told people what I think of their shirt, their actions, and the shit that comes out of their mouths around children.
> 
> I shocked my marine husband when I was in law school because I almost got into a fight with two chicks who were making fun of an old lady who asked them politely to quit cursing so loudly.
> 
> I handled the situation myself without cops--although they might have been called on ME had I handled it further.


Yeah, you get in the middle of anything these days and you may be assaulted, sued, or arrested for communicating threats. How's that for free speech rights?

----------


## Trinnity

> The SCOTUS is not infallible.


The SCOTUS sucks and cannot be trusted to uphold the Constitution these days.

----------


## Guest

> Yeah, you get in the middle of anything these days and you may be assaulted, sued, or arrested for communicating threats. How's that for free speech rights?


I was having this conversation with a client that I think people need to quit being wusses and getting the cops involved OR those cops need the power to show up, stop events, decide if someone even SHOULD be arrested, etc.

----------


## Calypso Jones

If at all possible do not call the cops.  Look who calls the cops anymore.   Idiots call 911 cause their dealer cheated them or McD's ran out of chicken nuggets.       Calling cops only fund lawyers and the courts.

----------



----------


## The XL

> OUCH @The XL!  I was libertarian and believed in REAL freedom when you were -24!  Damned generalizations again!  OOOPS, I'm not a republican though; maybe you weren't referring to me.


There are a few like you, and I respect the hell out of guys like you.  Stay alive til 120, please.  

It wasn't really a generalization though, I was looking at the numbers, and older folk overwhelmingly vote statist.

----------

Rain (04-24-2013)

----------


## The XL

> LIBertarians don't give a flying fuck about the rights of those who disagree with them.


You don't have the right to be not offended.

Tough shit.

----------



----------


## The XL

> With all due respect, get your head out of the clouds and join us in the real world. Free speech is not limitless.
> 
> It's like this site...you all have a lot of freedom to express yourselves. But it's not a free-for-all and  you pretty much know where the lines are.


Nonsense.  This site is not a right, it is owned privately and guidelines can be set by the owner accordingly.  Wearing something in public is a totally different situation.

You are no different than those who want to destroy the second Amendment, your target is just the first Amendment.

----------



----------


## Dan40

> My honest opinion @Dan40 is that, yes, clubs should be allowed to exclude whomever.  It's their building, funds, etc.  The rest of us should use social pressure to stop them from being dicks by castigating them and boycotting.


WHY should you use "SOCIAL PRESSURE?"  Its none of your business.

----------


## The XL

Small government conservatives, huh guys?

What a crock of shit.

----------


## Dan40

> Small government conservatives, huh guys?
> 
> What *a crock of shit.*



"*a crock of shit."

I see that as your singular area of expertise.*

----------

countryboy (04-24-2013)

----------


## The XL

> "*a crock of shit."
> 
> I see that as your singular area of expertise.*


Except I've been 100% accurate in what I've said, and been true to my beliefs.

You guys are the ones who always talk small government and the Constitution, yet you have no problem pissing on the 1st Amendment when it makes you a little uncomfortable, no different than the liberals who want to destroy the 2nd Amendment because guns scare them, ergo, you guys are the ones full of shit.

The difference between me and you is, I can actually defend my arguments and stay consistent, whereas you guys can do neither.  You just talk small government, you don't believe in small government, and you don't vote for politicians who defend the Constitution.

Progressives, the lot of you.  No different than liberals, really.

----------

GrassrootsConservative (04-24-2013)

----------


## Dan40

> Except I've been 100% accurate in what I've said, and been true to my beliefs.
> 
> You guys are the ones who always talk small government and the Constitution, yet you have no problem pissing on the 1st Amendment when it makes you a little uncomfortable, no different than the liberals who want to destroy the 2nd Amendment because guns scare them, ergo, you guys are the ones full of shit.
> 
> The difference between me and you is, I can actually defend my arguments and stay consistent, whereas you guys can do neither.  You just talk small government, you don't believe in small government, and you don't vote for politicians who defend the Constitution.
> 
> Progressives, the lot of you.  No different than liberals, really.


PROGRESSIVES???  Once again you prove your completely shallow and gullible positions, and show, as always, that you are clueless to the real world.

Prove your statements?  BULLSHIT!  Where is the list of conspiracies done by the govt against the American people.  Who was indited?  When?  Who was prosecuted?  When?  Who was found Guilty?  WHEN?  Who was ever even accused by any official body?

Answers, No one, EVER!  But conspiracy idiots have been shitting their diapers for more decades than I've been alive.  What have they PROVED?  They smell bad, nothing else.

----------


## countryboy

> PROGRESSIVES???  Once again you prove your completely shallow and gullible positions, and show, as always, that you are clueless to the real world.
> 
> Prove your statements?  BULLSHIT!  Where is the list of conspiracies done by the govt against the American people.  Who was indited?  When?  Who was prosecuted?  When?  Who was found Guilty?  WHEN?  Who was ever even accused by any official body?
> 
> Answers, No one, EVER!  But conspiracy idiots have been shitting their diapers for more decades than I've been alive.  What have they PROVED?  They smell bad, nothing else.


Fucking libs won't be happy until they've completely destroyed civil society.

----------

Trinnity (04-24-2013)

----------


## Trinnity

> You are no different than those who want to destroy the second Amendment, your target is just the first Amendment.


Bull. How dare you tell me who and what I am?

----------


## The XL

> Bull.


Not really, it's quite simple to understand.

You want to desecrate the first Amendment when it comes to speech or expression that makes you uncomfortable, just like the left wants gun control and things of the like because they are afraid of guns and think it will lower crime.

It's pretty clear cut, actually.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Nonsense.  This site is not a right, it is owned privately and guidelines can be set by the owner accordingly.  Wearing something in public is a totally different situation.
> 
> You are no different than those who want to destroy the second Amendment, your target is just the first Amendment.


You're stepping out of line now, bro. You've mischaracterized @Trinnity, and she doesn'tdeserve that criticism. Save it for someone else.

----------


## countryboy

Contrary to popular lib belief, repeating a lie over and over while declaring yourself the smartest person in the world, doesn't make it true.  :Wink: 

In fact.....

----------


## countryboy

> You're stepping out of line now, bro. You've mischaracterized @Trinnity, and she doesn'tdeserve that criticism. Save it for someone else.


Now? WTF?

----------


## Gemini

Basically, if you like the constitution, you gotta accept the irritating parts of it too - that includes people using it to be belligerent and obnoxious so long as they aren't harming anybody or their property.  

But really all of our rights stem from the 2nd amendment because of its power to enable us the rest of them.  The power to inflict harm is a great caution to all who would trespass your natural rights.

If you are going to defend the constitution, you got to defend all of it.  It isn't a pie that you can love in slices.  It is more like a desirable, well mixed drink with a few 'floaties' in it.  Gotta take the good with the bad sometimes.

----------

Rain (04-24-2013),The XL (04-24-2013)

----------


## The XL

> PROGRESSIVES???  Once again you prove your completely shallow and gullible positions, and show, as always, that you are clueless to the real world.
> 
> Prove your statements?  BULLSHIT!  Where is the list of conspiracies done by the govt against the American people.  Who was indited?  When?  Who was prosecuted?  When?  Who was found Guilty?  WHEN?  Who was ever even accused by any official body?
> 
> Answers, No one, EVER!  But conspiracy idiots have been shitting their diapers for more decades than I've been alive.  What have they PROVED?  They smell bad, nothing else.


You're totally off topic, but I'll entertain your rant anyway *personal attack removed*
Northwoods and Gulf of Tonkin.  Look them up, declassified.  One was a planned false flag that was stopped by Kennedy, who shortly after died with a bullet in head an a ridiculous theory explaining his death, and one was a lie to get us into war, which is even more henious when you consider the fact that there was a draft.  They forced people to die off a lie.

Prosecuted?  Ha!  Why would their be prosecutions?  They are above the law.

*personal attack removed*

----------


## The XL

> You're stepping out of line now, bro. You've mischaracterized @Trinnity, and she doesn'tdeserve that criticism. Save it for someone else.


No, I'm not.  She clearly wants to limit the 1st Amendment.  She's written as much.

I'll criticize whoever I please, thank you very much, even people I happen to like.  I don't play favorites.

----------


## The XL

> Contrary to popular lib belief, repeating a lie over and over while declaring yourself the smartest person in the world, doesn't make it true. 
> 
> In fact.....


Except I've defended my positions, whereas, you just bitch and complain.

----------


## The XL

> Fucking libs won't be happy until they've completely destroyed civil society.


I'm just making the case for freedom and the Constitution.  I wouldn't expect a big government statist like you to understand.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Basically, if you like the constitution, you gotta accept the irritating parts of it too - that includes people using it to be belligerent and obnoxious so long as they aren't harming anybody or their property.  
> 
> But really all of our rights stem from the 2nd amendment because of its power to enable us the rest of them.  The power to inflict harm is a great caution to all who would trespass your natural rights.
> 
> If you are going to defend the constitution, you got to defend all of it.  It isn't a pie that you can love in slices.  It is more like a desirable, well mixed drink with a few 'floaties' in it.  Gotta take the good with the bad sometimes.


I disagree. I think the first amendment is the strongest. It's the only one the gov't can't truly limit.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Now? WTF?


What?

----------


## The XL

> Basically, if you like the constitution, you gotta accept the irritating parts of it too - that includes people using it to be belligerent and obnoxious so long as they aren't harming anybody or their property.  
> 
> But really all of our rights stem from the 2nd amendment because of its power to enable us the rest of them.  The power to inflict harm is a great caution to all who would trespass your natural rights.
> 
> If you are going to defend the constitution, you got to defend all of it.  It isn't a pie that you can love in slices.  It is more like a desirable, well mixed drink with a few 'floaties' in it.  Gotta take the good with the bad sometimes.


Well said.

----------


## countryboy

> Except I've defended my positions, whereas, you just bitch and complain.


That's true, you've defended your positions with your own delusional perceptions. So fucking what. Lots of libs do that, you're in "good" company.

----------


## Trinnity

> Not really, it's quite simple to understand.
> 
> You want to desecrate the first Amendment when it comes to speech or expression that makes you uncomfortable, just like the left wants gun control and things of the like because they are afraid of guns and think it will lower crime.
> 
> It's pretty clear cut, actually.


You're entitled to criticize me on this site, and I have the entitlement to say you're wrong and impudent. And I am insulted, sir.

----------



----------


## The XL

> That's true, you've defended your positions with your own delusional perceptions. So fucking what. Lots of libs do that, you're in "good" company.


Right, more posts filled with nothing from you, why am I not surprised?

I've clearly shown how you statists want to destroy the first amendment, like the liberals want to destroy the second.  

Instead of accusing me of rambling and being full of it, why not try and defend your position?  Oh, that's right.......you can't.

----------


## countryboy

> I'm just making the case for freedom and the Constitution.  I wouldn't expect a big government statist like you to understand.


Actually, you're not even making sense, let alone a case for anything. Grow up.

----------


## The XL

> You're entitled to criticize me on this site, and I have the entitlement to say you're wrong and impudent. And I am insulted, sir.


Yes, you do have the right.  However, I've defended my assertion, whereas you've merely stated that I'm wrong without a real explanation.  That's likely because you don't have one.

Pointing out something is not impudence, it's a calling a spade a spade.  If you want to censor speech or expression in a public area because something makes you feel uncomfortable, you clearly don't have much love for the first Amendment.

----------


## The XL

> Actually, you're not even making sense, let alone a case for anything. Grow up.


I've made a pretty clear case by defending the 1st Amendment, actually.

----------


## The XL

The same people defending this are the same people who will get up in arms and call liberals and Obama a Marxist America hater when they push for gun control.

It's a joke, really.

----------


## countryboy

> I've made a pretty clear case by defending the 1st Amendment, actually.


Yes, you're a legend in your own mind (and a couple others).

----------


## Trinnity

> Yes, you do have the right.  However, I've defended my assertion, whereas you've merely stated that I'm wrong without a real explanation.  That's likely because you don't have one.
> 
> Pointing out something is not impudence, it's a calling a spade a spade.  If you want to censor speech or expression in a public area because something makes you feel uncomfortable, you clearly don't have much love for the first Amendment.


Liberal parameters of free speech on this site is not a right, it's a privilege happily granted and fostered by ME. I've made my position clear (community standards) and explained exactly why. I won't dignify your lack of wisdom and prudence by reiterating it. You're a rude little cuss, ya know that?

I do NOT like you very much right now. 
I am offended by your youthful arrogance, short-sightedness, and bad manners.

----------

Calypso Jones (04-24-2013)

----------


## The XL

> Liberal parameters of free speech on this site is not a right, it's a privilege happily granted and fostered by ME. I've made my position clear (community standards) and explained exactly why. I won't dignify your lack of wisdom and prudence by reiterating it. You're a rude little cuss, ya know that?
> 
> I do NOT like you very much right now. 
> I am offended by your youthful arrogance, short-sightedness, and bad manners.


I'm not talking about this site, you're free to oversee it any way you see fit.  I'm speaking of the incident in question.

You can ban or infract me if you wish, it's whatever.  If I believe someone is attacking an Amendment, I'll point it out, whether they run the site or not, like I would any other member.  If that isn't acceptable, then do whatever you have to do.

----------


## Guest

> WHY should you use "SOCIAL PRESSURE?"  Its none of your business.


Because I just made it my business as a consumer.  They want to sell to me, they need to meet my demands and one of them is to quit being a bunch of dicks.

----------


## The XL

> Yes, you're a legend in your own mind (and a couple others).


You make no posts of substance.  You're a joke.  I've made my position clear and backed up my assertions.  You've done nothing but whine and make empty posts.

----------


## Guest

> PROGRESSIVES???  Once again you prove your completely shallow and gullible positions, and show, as always, that you are clueless to the real world.


What did you think of Bill Clinton as a president?

I rest my case.




> Fucking libs won't be happy until they've completely destroyed civil society.


I agree, so quit acting like them.  Or else tell that kid in the NRA tshirt to go fuck himself.

----------



----------


## Gemini

> I disagree. I think the first amendment is the strongest. It's the only one the gov't can't truly limit.


They can't truly limit it, but they can easily kill/threaten/jail you if it were not for the 2nd amendment possibilities that keep them in check.

Free people are armed.  Unarmed people are simply potential slaves or victims to those who are armed.

----------



----------


## Guest

> Basically, if you like the constitution, you gotta accept the irritating parts of it too - that includes people using it to be belligerent and obnoxious so long as they aren't harming anybody or their property.  
> 
> But really all of our rights stem from the 2nd amendment because of its power to enable us the rest of them.  The power to inflict harm is a great caution to all who would trespass your natural rights.
> 
> If you are going to defend the constitution, you got to defend all of it.  It isn't a pie that you can love in slices.  It is more like a desirable, well mixed drink with a few 'floaties' in it.  Gotta take the good with the bad sometimes.


^^^^^  This

Look guys, my husband died defending that assholes right to wear that goddamn shirt. He felt strongly that even assholes should be allowed to have rights and say uncomfortable things.

All of you need to remember that there are people dying for all our of rights, not just the ones we want.  Respect them and their lives by not acting like a bunch of babies.

----------

Rain (04-24-2013),Sinestro/Green Arrow (04-24-2013)

----------


## countryboy

> You make no posts of substance.  You're a joke.  I've made my position clear and backed up my assertions.  You've done nothing but whine and make empty posts.


Why should I waste my time in a battle of "wits" with a rude know-it-all punk kid?

----------


## Guest

> No, I'm not.  She clearly wants to limit the 1st Amendment.  She's written as much.
> 
> I'll criticize whoever I please, thank you very much, even people I happen to like.  I don't play favorites.


LOL, this is true.  Trina and I play favorites though.  I like @Trinnity and @Calypso Jones even though I think they're wrong on this issue and acting like liberals do when Christian kids where Jesus shirts to schools.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (04-24-2013)

----------


## Gemini

> Yes, you're a legend in your own mind (and a couple others).


 @countryboy

So just what exactly is your point then?  What is your idea that you champion?  Because all I've seen is poor discourse thus far, and no concrete case for why the 1st amendment doesn't apply in this instance.

Condescension only works if the other guy is wrong.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (04-24-2013),The XL (04-24-2013)

----------


## The XL

> Why should I waste my time in a battle of "wits" with a rude know-it-all punk kid?


You're wasting your own time by making replies that have no substance in them.

This "punk kid" has more respect for freedom and the Constitution than you ever will.

----------


## Guest

> That's true, you've defended your positions with your own delusional perceptions. So fucking what. Lots of libs do that, you're in "good" company.


Lots of libs also want to remove speech they don't like, so you're in good company.   :Big Grin:

----------

The XL (04-24-2013)

----------


## The XL

> Lots of libs also want to remove speech they don't like, so you're in good company.


Ain't that the truth.

----------



----------


## Guest

> @countryboy
> 
> So just what exactly is your point then?  What is your idea that you champion?  Because all I've seen is poor discourse thus far, and no concrete case for why the 1st amendment doesn't apply in this instance.
> 
> Condescension only works if the other guy is wrong.


Yes, I agree.

I do want to say to @The XL, @Trinnity ( I won't say @Calypso Jones because she could give fucks --its why I like her) that sometimes we all in the heat of the moment say things that are upsetting because we're upset.  Try to understand why, but also realize that temperance with friends gets you farther than anger.

Okay, ...that's my peace card for the day.

Back to the fray.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (04-24-2013)

----------


## Guest

> Why should I waste my time in a battle of "wits" with a rude know-it-all punk kid?


You've been rude to me before, maybe you don't realize it, but you have.  I just don't call you out on it because you're less rude than @patrickt who never challenges what I have to say he just talks shit about my profession.

----------


## Trinnity

> I'm not talking about this site, you're free to oversee it any way you see fit.  I'm speaking of the incident in question.
> 
> You can ban or infract me if you wish, it's whatever.  If I believe someone is attacking an Amendment, I'll point it out, whether they run the site or not, like I would any other member.  If that isn't acceptable, then do whatever you have to do.


I'm not interested in banning you or infracting you. Don't be dramatic.

----------


## Guest

> Yes, you do have the right.  However, I've defended my assertion, whereas you've merely stated that I'm wrong without a real explanation.  That's likely because you don't have one.
> 
> Pointing out something is not impudence, it's a calling a spade a spade.  If you want to censor speech or expression in a public area because something makes you feel uncomfortable, you clearly don't have much love for the first Amendment.


Sometimes it is about how you say it, Boo.   :Wink:

----------


## The XL

> LOL, this is true.  Trina and I play favorites though.  I like @Trinnity and @Calypso Jones even though I think they're wrong on this issue and acting like liberals do when Christian kids where Jesus shirts to schools.


I've gone after you before, and you're obviously my favorite on here.

I don't believe in playing favorites.  Holding something back merely because you like someone better is insincere to your beliefs, and frankly, to the person in question.

----------


## Guest

> I'm not interested in banning you or infracting you. Don't be dramatic.


Where's the spirit of Rodney King when we need him now?   :Big Grin:

----------


## Maximatic

> Condescension only works if the other guy is wrong.


Classic. You should immortalize this in Gemini's best of.

----------


## The XL

> Sometimes it is about how you say it, Boo.


Maybe.  I'm bad at wording stuff nicely, though.

----------



----------


## Gemini

> Sometimes it is about how you say it, Boo.


 @The XL gets to be Megamind-




Cue to :16.

----------

The XL (04-24-2013)

----------


## Gemini

> Classic. You should immortalize this in Gemini's best of.


I wasn't aware I had a running total.  Hmmm...my vanity is perking its ugly head right now.. @Maximatic

----------


## Guest

> I've gone after you before, and you're obviously my favorite on here.


I am??   :Love1:  :Love1: 




> I don't believe in playing favorites.  Holding something back merely because you like someone better is insincere to your beliefs, and frankly, to the person in question.


Yesssss, but...I think the same as you and yet...I've yet to insult Trinnity.  I probably am even more extreme on this issue since you're a minarchist and I am off the charts in thinking we don't need government at all just public censure and tomato throwing.

I have a soft touch and you're Labronning her.   :Big Grin:

----------


## Trinnity

The man has a 1A right to wear the shirt. There are however community standards that are set by the community and are apparently legal. He was asked to remove it or turn it inside out. Instead of asking if there was a local legal consideration against it, or just walking away, he chose to pick a fight with the police. If I understand the situation correctly he was arrested for disturbing the peace. 

In life, you pick your battles. This one was not worth fighting. I just think he acted like a fool and it was in poor taste in the first place. It's nothing like the NRA t-shirt. The other one was obscene. I stand on this and that's that. That does not make me against the first amendment in any way.

----------

countryboy (04-24-2013)

----------


## Guest

> The man has a 1A right to wear the shirt. There are however community standards that are set by the community and are apparently legal. He was asked to remove it or turn it inside out. Instead of asking if there was a local legal consideration against it, or just walking away, he chose to pick a fight with the police. If I understand the situation correctly he was arrested for disturbing the peace.


He chose to argue with the police over his right to wear the shirt.  That's not picking a fight with police or else I should be arrested every time I walk through the precinct doors.




> In you pick your battles. This one was not worth fighting. I just think he acted like a fool and it was in poor taste in the first place. It's nothing like the NRA t-shirt. The other one was obscene. I stand on this and that's that.


They asked him to turn it inside out because it was a classroom distraction.  The boy chose not to.  To people who are piss your pants scared of guns and think they're the stuff of child killing, they would find the NRA shirt obscene, too.

Whose standard do we use?  Theirs?  Ours?

----------


## Gemini

> The man has a 1A right to wear the shirt. There are however community standards that are set by the community and are apparently legal. He was asked to remove it or turn it inside out. Instead of asking if there was a local legal consideration against it, or just walking away, he chose to pick a fight with the police. If I understand the situation correctly he was arrested for disturbing the peace. 
> 
> In you pick your battles. This one was not worth fighting. I just think he acted like a fool and it was in poor taste in the first place. It's nothing like the NRA t-shirt. The other one was obscene. I stand on this and that's that.


He was arrested for disorderly conduct, it had nothing to do with the shirt as I mentioned way back when...

Still I think the charges are bogus and the guy has a fairly solid case unless the police manage to make a resisting arrest charge stick as @Rina_Dragonborn said.

This isn't a first amendment issue.  But hey, whatever, we all like to fight about it apparently. :Thinking:

----------

Trinnity (04-24-2013)

----------


## Guest

> He was arrested for disorderly conduct, it had nothing to do with the shirt as I mentioned way back when...
> 
> Still I think the charges are bogus and the guy has a fairly solid case unless the police manage to make a resisting arrest charge stick as @Rina_Dragonborn said.
> 
> This isn't a first amendment issue.  But hey, whatever, we all like to fight about it apparently.



Disorderly conduct and resisting arrest are two of the charges police use when they can't charge you with anything else.

----------

GrassrootsConservative (04-24-2013),The XL (04-24-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> They can't truly limit it, but they can easily kill/threaten/jail you if it were not for the 2nd amendment possibilities that keep them in check.
> 
> Free people are armed.  Unarmed people are simply potential slaves or victims to those who are armed.


As other countries show, the government can eliminate your ability to take advantage of the second amendment. As other countries also show, even in such cases as that the first amendment lives on and is the only way you can get the second back.

The founders were deliberate in making speech the FIRST amendment.

----------


## Gemini

> Disorderly conduct and resisting arrest are two of the charges police use when they can't charge you with anything else.


That is why those charges should not exist, they are foolish laws.  Used only to impose evil.  Because really, what kind of criminal isn't going to resist arrest?  It is just retarded that they even exist in the the books at all.

----------

Trinnity (04-24-2013)

----------


## Gemini

> As other countries show, the government can eliminate your ability to take advantage of the second amendment. As other countries also show, even in such cases as that the first amendment lives on and is the only way you can get the second back.
> 
> The founders were deliberate in making speech the FIRST amendment.


USSR had a whole gulag full of people that could use their first amendment - but only in the gulag.  Had they the second amendment, they probably wouldn't have had a gulag full of people.

First amendment might be important, and even listed first.  But its importance pales in comparison to the second amendment because the second enables all other rights to be possible, but that is my opinion @The Real American Thinker

----------

Trinnity (04-24-2013)

----------


## countryboy

> @countryboy
> 
> So just what exactly is your point then?  What is your idea that you champion?  Because all I've seen is poor discourse thus far, and no concrete case for why the 1st amendment doesn't apply in this instance.
> 
> Condescension only works if the other guy is wrong.


I'm not sure the 1st amendment doesn't apply here, and I've never said as much. What I have done is express my disgust at such a vulgar shirt being worn where children are present , and ask questions about why certain rude individuals feel this is perfectly fine. I've also reveled in the poetic justice rendered against this dumbass. 

Furthermore, you mistake disgust, and utter contempt, for condescension.

----------


## Guest

> That is why those charges should not exist, they are foolish laws.  Used only to impose evil.  Because really, what kind of criminal isn't going to resist arrest?  It is just retarded that they even exist in the the books at all.


Hey cops have unions and lobbyists, too.

----------


## Gemini

@countryboy




> I'm not sure the 1st amendment doesn't apply here, and I've never said as much. What I have done is express my disgust at such a vulgar shirt being worn where children are present , and ask questions about why certain rude individuals feel this is perfectly fine. I've also reveled in the poetic justice rendered against this dumbass.


*Social justice* may have been rendered, and I'll agree with you there.  The guy opted to play a stupid game, and won a stupid prize for his efforts.  His shirt is appalling and he should be socially stigmatized for it.  

But* lawful justice* just had a stroke when you consider our rights and our constitution.




> Furthermore, you mistake disgust, and utter contempt, for condescension.


Depends on who you ask really.

----------



----------


## Gemini

> Hey cops have unions and lobbyists, too.


I know.  But that particular eyesore of a topic I'll just avoid for blood pressure's sake.

----------


## Guest

> I'm not sure the 1st amendment doesn't apply here, and I've never said as much. What I have done is express my disgust at such a vulgar shirt being worn where children are present , and ask questions about why certain rude individuals feel this is perfectly fine. I've also reveled in the poetic justice rendered against this dumbass.


No, @countryboy, no one on this thread has said that the shirt was fine.  I don't think it's fine.  Even @The XL doesn't think the shirt is "fine".  Ask him before assuming he does.

We don't think the government should decide what shirt is fine.  Our community will decide it and make known what is acceptable.




> Furthermore, you mistake disgust, and utter contempt, for condescension.


They look kinda similar.

----------


## Trinnity

> He chose to argue with the police over his  right to wear the shirt.  That's not picking a fight with police or else  I should be arrested every time I walk through the precinct doors.


Did he? IDK....I'd have to go back an look at the op again....




> They asked him to turn it inside out because it was a classroom  distraction.  The boy chose not to.


No. It was fine til lunchtime when one teacher made issue of it. Til then, no one cared.




> To people who are piss your pants  scared of guns and think they're the stuff of child killing, they would  find the NRA shirt obscene, too.


As you said on another thread, people are like that in Russia. That's not the case here. As a society we're a gun culture and used to guns. 




> Whose standard do we use?  Theirs?  Ours?


I don't know. I've made my position clear and I've said this is a gray area in the 1a realm. What would you have of me?
 @Rina_Dragonborn

----------


## The XL

> No, @countryboy, no one on this thread has said that the shirt was fine.  I don't think it's fine.  Even @The XL doesn't think the shirt is "fine".  Ask him before assuming he does.
> 
> We don't think the government should decide what shirt is fine.  Our community will decide it and make known what is acceptable.
> 
> 
> 
> They look kinda similar.


There are a lot of things I don't agree with and/or engage in that I defend, because I believe in freedom.

----------


## Gemini

> I don't know. I've made my position clear and I've said this is a gray area in the 1a realm. What would you have of me?


What gray area? @Trinnity?

It wasn't child porn or anything, it was crude language, nothing more.  Don't get me wrong here, the guy deserves a good and proper ethnic pounding for being stupid.

But if we allow laws to be enforced or ignored based off of our feelings alone, then we may as well hang up the constitution and get back to despotism.

----------



----------


## Guest

> There are a lot of things I don't agree with and/or engage in that I defend, because I believe in freedom.


I know, Mr. Binks.  You are anti-drug and pro-health but defend the right not to be kidnapped for making a bad choice.  I like that about you.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (04-24-2013),The XL (04-24-2013)

----------


## Guest

> What gray area? @Trinnity?
> 
> It wasn't child porn or anything, it was crude language, nothing more.  Don't get me wrong here, the guy deserves a good and proper ethnic pounding for being stupid.
> 
> But if we allow laws to be enforced or ignored based off of our feelings alone, then we may as well hang up the constitution and get back to despotism.


Well said, Sir.  Well said.

----------


## countryboy

> @countryboy
> 
> 
> 
> *Social justice* may have been rendered, and I'll agree with you there.  The guy opted to play a stupid game, and won a stupid prize for his efforts.  His shirt is appalling and he should be socially stigmatized for it.  
> 
> But* lawful justice* just had a stroke when you consider our rights and our constitution.


i would call it poetic justice but, six of one, half a dozen of the other.




> Depends on who you ask really.


Ummm, no. When I've stated the meaning I've poured into *my own* words, I'm pretty much the only authority.

----------


## Archer

Back and forth! All this is because the government got in the peoples business and started dictating morals. There is no longer such a thing as a social pariah! The mores are becoming no more and deviance is no longer allowed to be blacklisted.

Screw Amerika.

----------


## Guest

> I don't know. I've made my position clear and I've said this is a gray area in the 1a realm. What would you have of me?


To realize that we have power without government force?   :Smile: 

I have a friend from back home who could give fucks about the law, BUT he hates having me or his mother disappointed in him.  When I want him to do something --actually, _not_ do something I use Catholic guilt on him.

Works far better than a law.  As Jesus said, _I will place the laws upon your heart_.  Best place for them, really.

----------

Archer (04-24-2013)

----------


## Gemini

> To realize that we have power without government force?  
> 
> I have a friend from back home who could give fucks about the law, BUT he hates having me or his mother disappointed in him.  When I want him to do something --actually, _not_ do something I use Catholic guilt on him.
> 
> Works far better than a law.  As Jesus said, _I will place the laws upon your heart_.  Best place for them, really.


Religion = Free law enforcement by consent and enforced by guilt and shame.

Most effective system ever devised.  And man is not the author of it.

----------

Archer (04-24-2013)

----------


## Archer

> Religion = Free law enforcement by consent and enforced by guilt and shame.
> 
> Most effective system ever devised.  And man is not the author of it.


Sadly our government does not allow you to do that. You could lose your business or go to jail.

----------



----------


## Gemini

@countryboy



> i would call it poetic justice but, six of one, half a dozen of the other.


Hardly, it was social justice, but a lawful abomination as per our rights and legal system.  Thinking otherwise is admitting ignorance to the laws and their purposes.




> Ummm, no. When I've stated the meaning I've poured into *my own* words, I'm pretty much the only authority.


Perception is reality.  I think it is safe to say that I am not the only one who thinks you're trying to be condescending, but failing miserably and should abandon the task.

----------

The XL (04-24-2013)

----------


## Guest

> Ummm, no. When I've stated the meaning I've poured into *my own* words, I'm pretty much the only authority.


No, other people's perceptions of our actions and intentions is what matters in a dialogue.  If someone feels you are acting ______________ they will respond accordingly in spite of your intentions and feelings.  Hence the importance of making yourself perfectly clear.

----------


## countryboy

> @countryboy
> 
> 
> Hardly, it was social justice, but a lawful abomination as per our rights and legal system.  Thinking otherwise is admitting ignorance to the laws and their purposes.
> 
> 
> 
> Perception is reality.  I think it is safe to say that I am not the only one who thinks you're trying to be condescending, but failing miserably and should abandon the task.


Perception is reality? Wow. Aaaaand, hive mentality is reality as well? Who knew?

So, if I perceive certain individuals on this board to be know-it-all pricks, they are? Maybe you have a point after all. Then again.....

----------


## Guest

> Perception is reality? Wow. Aaaaand, hive mentality is reality as well? Who knew?
> 
> So, if I perceive certain individuals on this board to be know-it-all pricks, they are? Maybe you have a point after all. Then again.....


Exactly!  If you're coming off as a know-it-all prick no one listens to you, do they?  

It's why I try to be a little softer in my approach (except with cops)

----------


## countryboy

> No, other people's perceptions of our actions and intentions is what matters in a dialogue.  If someone feels you are acting ______________ they will respond accordingly in spite of your intentions and feelings.  Hence the importance of making yourself perfectly clear.


I've pretty much given up even attempting to make myself "perfectly clear" to certain individuals around here. It is an exercise in futility.

----------


## Gemini

@countryboy



> Perception is reality? Wow. Aaaaand, hive mentality is reality as well? Who knew?


Childish retort.




> So, if I perceive certain individuals on this board to be know-it-all pricks, they are?


...to you.  And only you.




> Maybe you have a point after all. Then again.....


When out of ammunition...fling poo.  The modus operandi of the mentally inept...are you practicing or is this the real show?

----------


## Guest

> I've pretty much given up even attempting to make myself "perfectly clear" to certain individuals around here. It is an exercise in futility.


LOL, oh @countryboy I could take an informal poll about you and @The XL and no one would say that either of you are trying.  If this thread is your definition of trying then I need to buy you a new dictionary.

You guys have a weird thing and assume the worst of each other.  All of the rest of us can see it.  Why can't you?

----------


## countryboy

> @countryboy
> 
> 
> Childish retort.
> 
> 
> 
> ...to you.  And only you.
> 
> ...


Please forgive me for attempting to mentally spar with such an obviously superior intellect.  :Jackoff:

----------


## countryboy

> LOL, oh @countryboy I could take an informal poll about you and @The XL and no one would say that either of you are trying.  If this thread is your definition of trying then I need to buy you a new dictionary.
> 
> You guys have a weird thing and assume the worst of each other.  All of the rest of us can see it.  Why can't you?


You misunderstand me my dear, I gave up long before this thread, and not only with the xs.  :Wink:

----------


## Gemini

> Please forgive me for attempting to mentally spar with such an obviously superior intellect.


That would require the attempt to spar to actually register first.

/condescension.

See what I'm saying now?

----------


## The XL

> Please forgive me for attempting to mentally spar with such an obviously superior intellect.


It wouldn't be the first time.

----------


## The XL

Countryboy made no real post that wasn't an insult, a complain, or things of the like.  Which is really quite amazing when you consider the length of the thread and the amount of posts he made.

----------


## Guest

> You misunderstand me my dear, I gave up long before this thread, and not only with the xs.


Why?

The people who are inside a tornado cannot see what it looks like from the outside and do not have that perspective.  Neither of you are bad people and have a lot in common.  You don't see it.  The rest of us see it.

----------


## Guest

> Countryboy made no real post that wasn't an insult, a complain, or things of the like.  Which is really quite amazing when you consider the length of the thread and the amount of posts he made.


Oh dear...   :Stirthepot: 



 :Smile:

----------


## The XL

Aside from us experiencing a death in the family recently, I see nothing in common with countryboy.  I'm sure he feels the same.

----------


## Guest

> Aside from us experiencing a death in the family recently, I see nothing in common with countryboy.  I'm sure he feels the same.





You have that in common too     :Big Grin: 




You know I love ya!

----------


## Guest

> LIBertarians don't give a flying fuck about the rights of those who disagree with them.


^^This is what I mean by you do it, too.  

1.  Ron Paul didn't insult you.  The XL did.
2. You never explained that by allowing you to say what you want and wear what you want with the money you purchase they are infringing on your freedom

That escalates the conflict, but doesn't improve the dialogue.

Nor did XL calling you a progressive...**cough cough**

----------


## The XL

I called him a Republican progressive.  It's a little different, but mostly the same.  Like coke vs pepsi.

----------



----------


## Guest

> I called him a Republican progressive.  It's a little different, but mostly the same.  Like coke vs pepsi.


LOL...How about Coke vs Tab?  I like Pepsi.

----------


## Trinnity

> What gray area? @Trinnity?
> 
> It wasn't child porn or anything, it was crude language, nothing more.  Don't get me wrong here, the guy deserves a good and proper ethnic pounding for being stupid.
> 
> But if we allow laws to be enforced or ignored based off of our feelings alone, then we may as well hang up the constitution and get back to despotism.


I don't know. For me, the t-shirt was inappropriate for a park where there are kids. I don't have all the answers, never said I did.

----------


## Calypso Jones

It is inappropriate and i guess we have to have the exceptions to the rule of the first amendment.  The first amendment does not mean you have The Right to express yourself ANY way you want.  You HAVE to respect the rights of other people...like the right to go out in public and not be assaulted by filthy talk or actions or t-shirts.   There are limits. Whether you want to admit that or not.  Now maybe the rest of us recognize the inappropriateness of this man's attire and actions...but he didn't.

----------


## Guest

> It is inappropriate and i guess we have to have the exceptions to the rule of the first amendment.  The first amendment does not mean you have The Right to express yourself ANY way you want.


You have the right to express yourself any way you want.  You don't have the right to involve people in a crime with your speech (pornography) or to do physical harm (yell fire) with your speech.




> You HAVE to respect the rights of other people...like the right to go out in public and not be assaulted by filthy talk or actions or t-shirts.


No, that is not true.  That sets your rights over someone else's.  You have the right not to look at the shirt or look at it.  Filth and obscenity is in the eye of the beholder.

What if you're right about Obama and not me?  What if someday we're a Muslim nation and they say you don't have the right to walk around uncovered because the sight of your body and face offends men?




> There are limits. Whether you want to admit that or not.  Now maybe the rest of us recognize the inappropriateness of this man's attire and actions...but he didn't.


And others didn't.  You could take a poll of men and a lot of them would say that's a cool shirt.  I didn't like it, so I won't wear it.  I would also say something to someone wearing it, deny them a job if they applied wearing it, and/or refuse to serve them if I owned an establishment and they walked in wearing it.

----------


## The XL

I saw a guy wearing a Boston Celtics Jersey yesterday.

Dude should be imprisoned for offending me and not respecting my rights.

----------


## Guest

> I saw a guy wearing a Boston Celtics Jersey yesterday.
> 
> Dude should be imprisoned for offending me and not respecting my rights.


Especially in New York!

----------

The XL (04-24-2013)

----------


## GrassrootsConservative

> It is inappropriate and i guess we have to have the exceptions to the rule of the first amendment.  The first amendment does not mean you have The Right to express yourself ANY way you want.  You HAVE to respect the rights of other people...like the right to go out in public and not be assaulted by filthy talk or actions or t-shirts.   There are limits. Whether you want to admit that or not.  Now maybe the rest of us recognize the inappropriateness of this man's attire and actions...but he didn't.


So you want an amendment to the first amendment? 
Would that make it the 2nd amendment or the 2nd first amendment?  :Thinking:

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (04-24-2013)

----------


## Maximatic

> like the right to go out in public and not be assaulted by filthy talk or actions or t-shirts.


You have a right to not be assaulted by tshirts. You don't have a right to make someone else wear what you want them to wear, or prevent them from wearing what they want to wear, ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY.

----------



----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> It is inappropriate and i guess we have to have the exceptions to the rule of the first amendment.  The first amendment does not mean you have The Right to express yourself ANY way you want.  You HAVE to respect the rights of other people...like the right to go out in public and not be assaulted by filthy talk or actions or t-shirts.   There are limits. Whether you want to admit that or not.  Now maybe the rest of us recognize the inappropriateness of this man's attire and actions...but he didn't.


Everything you do offends at least one person, which is why your first amendment rights are not subject to whether or not they are offensive.

----------

The XL (04-24-2013)

----------


## Roadmaster

> What if someday we're a Muslim nation and they say you don't have the right to walk around uncovered because the sight of your body and face offends men?


 Are you willing to let this happen?

----------


## Guest

> Are you willing to let this happen?


Does it seem like I am based on what you're reading on this thread?   :Smile:

----------


## Roadmaster

> Does it seem like I am based on what you're reading on this thread?


I just think it's funny because the Muslims think we are weak.

----------


## Archer

> I just think it's funny because the Muslims think we are weak.


We are weak as a society.

----------


## Roadmaster

> We are weak as a society.


  No not really only portions of our society are weak.

----------


## Guest

> We are weak as a society.


We are weak as a society because we've been bred to be.  Look at all the people on this thread, strong personalities who believe the government should do what they can?

----------


## Cap

It's fucking bullshit.  This guy needs a fucking lawyer.

----------


## Archer

> No not really only portions of our society are weak.


We are weak as we do not have one voice.

----------


## Calypso Jones

we never have.  But regardless.  I don't get it.  Don't you guys have wives and children that you need to protect from idiocy such as this??

----------


## Guest

> It's fucking bullshit.  This guy needs a fucking lawyer.


Yes, and if I wasn't so greedy dammit these would be the cases I would take.

::weeps in hands::

_I've become so awful this past month!_

----------


## Guest

> we never have.  But regardless.  I don't get it.  Don't you guys have wives and children that you need to protect from idiocy such as this??


Miz @Calypso Jones, are you telling me...strong woman that you are that you would see a man wearing this shirt and not give him a piece of your mind?

I saw a man with a similar tshirt on the subway.  I just looked at the shirt, looked at him with a disgusted look, and said "That wouldn't even be cool on a 14 year old".

He was embarassed and I killed the buzz of his shirt.  I doubt he wore it again.

----------

GrassrootsConservative (04-24-2013)

----------


## Dan40

> You're totally off topic, but I'll entertain your rant anyway, you senile, thoughtless old man.
> 
> Northwoods and Gulf of Tonkin.  Look them up, declassified.  One was a planned false flag that was stopped by Kennedy, who shortly after died with a bullet in head an a ridiculous theory explaining his death, and one was a lie to get us into war, which is even more henious when you consider the fact that there was a draft.  They forced people to die off a lie.
> 
> Prosecuted?  Ha!  Why would their be prosecutions?  They are above the law.
> 
> Watch it when you step to me, boy.  You know nothing.


You are an immature and inexperienced know nothing that is so gullible that you believe whatever bullshit is told to you.

Tonkin happened and was real.  Northwoods, by your own admission, NEVER HAPPENED.  If you HAD any experience in anything but bed wetting, you'd understand the explanation I gave you about Northwoods.  The military GAMES every possibility.  Including fighting our closest friends and a civil war here.  If we had to invade Canada, we HAVE the plans laid out NOW.  To idiots like you, that means we are going to invade Canada.  But it ONLY means we know how we'd do it IF we ever HAD to do it.  That long range in depth CONTINGENCY thinking and planning is obviously way beyond you meager ability to comprehend.

And what a wimp ass whine, no one has been prosecuted because THEY"RE [whoever the fuck THEY are] above the law.  Your gullibility and paranoia is beyond measure.

*"Watch it when you step to me, boy.  You know nothing."*

That, coming from a microbe-minded idiot, was funny, and grammatical.

----------


## The XL

Are you serious?  They were itching for war with Cuba, and the only thing that stopped it was Kennedy not being completely insane.

You admitted Tonkin was real, so tell me, why was no one prosecuted for that, boy?

I'm a grown man.  If anyone is wetting their bed, it's you, old timer.

----------



----------


## Archer

> we never have.  But regardless.  I don't get it.  Don't you guys have wives and children that you need to protect from idiocy such as this??


And a whooped ass takes care of it.

----------



----------


## Guest

> And a whooped ass takes care of it.


Damn straight, homey!

: :Highfive:

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> we never have.  But regardless.  I don't get it.  Don't you guys have wives and children that you need to protect from idiocy such as this??


Children, sure, but I don't need to strip that man of his right to wear what he wants to protect my children. I'd kneel and take my daughter's hand, point to the man, and say, "See, hon? That's what an asshole looks like."

Wife...lol. My wife doesn't need protection from a guy wearing a shirt and minding his own business. Hell, knowing her, she'd probably find it funny.

----------

kilgram (04-25-2013)

----------


## kilgram

> Children, sure, but I don't need to strip that man of his right to wear what he wants to protect my children. I'd kneel and take my daughter's hand, point to the man, and say, "See, hon? That's what an asshole looks like."
> 
> Wife...lol. My wife doesn't need protection from a guy wearing a shirt and minding his own business. Hell, knowing her, she'd probably find it funny.


Exactly. That nonsense of protection of children is the best reason to remove rights with terrorism.

----------


## Dan40

> Children, sure, but I don't need to strip that man of his right to wear what he wants to protect my children. I'd kneel and take my daughter's hand, point to the man, and say, "See, hon? That's what an asshole looks like."
> 
> Wife...lol. My wife doesn't need protection from a guy wearing a shirt and minding his own business. Hell, knowing her, she'd probably find it funny.


The lunatic world of liberals.  And the 100% adherence to the 1ST Amendment, NO MATTER WHAT!

You're in a restaurant with your wife and 2 little girls.  A clown at the next table is talking just loud enough to be clearly heard at your table.  He is fuck this, motherfuck that, cocksucker him, sonofabitch her, and on and on.  I'm assuming you leave the restaurant in order to protect his inviolate rights?

----------

Common (04-25-2013)

----------


## Archer

> The lunatic world of liberals.  And the 100% adherence to the 1ST Amendment, NO MATTER WHAT!
> 
> You're in a restaurant with your wife and 2 little girls.  A clown at the next table is talking just loud enough to be clearly heard at your table.  He is fuck this, motherfuck that, cocksucker him, sonofabitch her, and on and on.  I'm assuming you leave the restaurant in order to protect his inviolate rights?


You take it up with the manager or just ask them to tone it down.

----------


## Guest

> You take it up with the manager or just ask them to tone it down.


You'd think he'd get the difference between private versus public.  Any manager can ask someone to leave a private establishment at any time.

----------

Archer (04-25-2013)

----------


## Dan40

> You'd think he'd get the difference between private versus public.  Any manager can ask someone to leave a private establishment at any time.


Pay attention

"clown at the next table is talking *just* loud enough to be clearly heard at your table."

Not making a scene, not disturbing the peace, just exercising his right to be disgusting.

And did you miss WHAT event was happening when the ass wore his T?

_” a yearly concert that is devoted to raising awareness  of sexual violence against women."
_
That's where he CHOSE to make a statement with his T.

Did you miss that extenuating FACT in your uncontrolled zealotry?

----------


## Gemini

@Dan40



> The lunatic world of liberals.  And the 100% adherence to the 1ST Amendment, NO MATTER WHAT!
> 
> You're in a restaurant with your wife and 2 little girls.  A clown at the next table is talking just loud enough to be clearly heard at your table.  He is fuck this, motherfuck that, cocksucker him, sonofabitch her, and on and on.  I'm assuming you leave the restaurant in order to protect his inviolate rights?


His rights end when private property is concerned, if a manager is informed and decides to remove the person, no rights have been violated.  On a public street though, he can piss and moan all day and there should be nothing anybody can do about it.

That is the whole point of these rights man - to do things to make people uncomfortable.

----------


## Gemini

> Pay attention
> 
> "clown at the next table is talking *just* loud enough to be clearly heard at your table."
> 
> Not making a scene, not disturbing the peace, just exercising his right to be disgusting.
> 
> And did you miss WHAT event was happening when the ass wore his T?
> 
> _ a yearly concert that is devoted to raising awareness  of sexual violence against women."
> ...


The process is the exact same regardless of whether or not a scene is made.  The manager has the authority regarding entry of his business.  No rights being violated.  

Calm down and have a sandwich or something.  Sheesh.. @Dan40

----------

Archer (04-25-2013),The XL (04-25-2013)

----------


## Dan40

> The process is the exact same regardless of whether or not a scene is made.  The manager has the authority regarding entry of his business.  No rights being violated.  
> 
> Calm down and have a sandwich or something.  Sheesh.. @Dan40


I can't enjoy my sandwich with the foulmouthed rude bastard at the next table, and neither could you.

----------


## GrassrootsConservative

> I can't enjoy my sandwich with the foulmouthed rude bastard at the next table, and neither could you.


Why not? They're just words. It's not like your kid is going to die if he hears the word "cocksucker."

----------


## Guest

> I can't enjoy my sandwich with the foulmouthed rude bastard at the next table, and neither could you.


Lucky for you it is private property and you can complain and have them thrown out...or eat THEN get a refund.

----------

Gemini (04-25-2013)

----------


## Archer

> I can't enjoy my sandwich with the foulmouthed rude bastard at the next table, and neither could you.


Then leave and use dollar votes! Get everyone you know to vote with you.

----------

Gemini (04-25-2013)

----------


## The XL

> I can't enjoy my sandwich with the foulmouthed rude bastard at the next table, and neither could you.


Complain to the manager, and if he doesn't accommodate, don't give them your business next time.

Simple.

----------

Gemini (04-25-2013)

----------


## Dan40

> Complain to the manager, and if he doesn't accommodate, don't give them your business next time.
> 
> Simple.


Simple?  You mean SURRENDER!  What about my rights?  Inexperienced wimps.

----------


## GrassrootsConservative

> Simple?  You mean SURRENDER!  What about my rights?  Inexperienced wimps.


I hope you're kidding. Your rights don't dictate what other people can and cannot say.

----------


## The XL

> Simple?  You mean SURRENDER!  What about my rights?  Inexperienced wimps.


You have no speech rights on private property.   

Are you serious right now?  This is laughable.  I really hope you're trolling, for your sake.

----------


## Dan40

> I hope you're kidding. Your rights don't dictate what other people can and cannot say.


Are you telling me I don't have the free speech RIGHT to tell the rude ass what I think of him and to STFU?

----------


## Guest

> Simple?  You mean SURRENDER!  What about my rights?  Inexperienced wimps.


So you own the restaurant now?  You can dictate what happens on someone else's private property?

----------


## Guest

> You have no speech rights on private property.   
> 
> Are you serious right now?  This is laughable.  I really hope you're trolling, for your sake.


I don't think he is.

----------


## Guest

> Are you telling me I don't have the free speech RIGHT to tell the rude ass what I think of him and to STFU?


Yes, you have that right.

----------


## Gemini

@Dan40

The problem-




> I can't enjoy my sandwich with the foulmouthed rude bastard at the next table, and neither could you.


You are entirely correct.

The solutions-




> Rina_Dragonborn
> 
> Lucky for you it is private property and you can complain and have them thrown out...or eat THEN get a refund.





> Archer
> 
> Then leave and use dollar votes! Get everyone you know to vote with you.





> The XL
> 
> Complain to the manager, and if he doesn't accommodate, don't give them your business next time.
> 
> Simple.


The market processes and property rights, along with societal scorn will take care of this in 99% of cases.  Nobody like to be hated on indefinitely and will likely conform or leave to alleviate this pressure.  What about this do you not understand?

----------



----------


## The XL

> Are you telling me I don't have the free speech RIGHT to tell the rude ass what I think of him and to STFU?


I can't believe you cannot grasp the difference between public and private property.

This is amazing.  Normally, I'd condescendingly elaborate on how ridiculous this is, but I don't want to waste a potential infraction on the likes of you.

----------


## Gemini

> I can't believe you cannot grasp the difference between public and private property.
> 
> This is amazing.  Normally, I'd condescendingly elaborate on how ridiculous this is, but I don't want to waste a potential infraction on the likes of you.


 @The XL 

Well if you don't...I sure might.  This is ridiculous.

----------



----------


## The XL

> @The XL 
> 
> Well if you don't...I sure might.  This is ridiculous.


I've already made Dan look like a complete fool many times in this thread, so I guess I can let someone else do the honors.

Have at it.

----------


## Gemini

> I've already made Dan look like a complete fool many times in this thread, so I guess I can let someone else do the honors.
> 
> Have at it.


That being said, I feel it may be a wasted effort.  And stroking my own ego isn't high on this day's priority list.  Although tooling on some unwitting fool is a guilty and unChristlike pastime of mine, I think I'll have to abstain.

I gotta math test to take.  Blarg...

----------

The XL (04-25-2013)

----------


## Guest

> That being said, I feel it may be a wasted effort.  And stroking my own ego isn't high on this day's priority list.  Although tooling on some unwitting fool is a guilty and unChristlike pastime of mine, I think I'll have to abstain.
> 
> I gotta math test to take.  Blarg...


Good luck, homeboy.

----------

Gemini (04-25-2013)

----------


## Karl

Damn 330 some posts take me hours to read all this?

----------


## Archer

> Are you telling me I don't have the free speech RIGHT to tell the rude ass what I think of him and to STFU?


Yes you do! Speak up as they may not even realize.

----------


## Dan40

> I've already made Dan look like a complete fool many times in this thread, so I guess I can let someone else do the honors.
> 
> Have at it.


Another example of the immature dream world you inhabit.  Reality is going to ruin your life.
I'm completely conversant with the difference between public and private property.  The incident I described could happen equally on either.  A dinner in a restaurant, a picnic in a public park.  No difference.

That you allowed your shallow prejudicial thinking to decide I don't know private from public is just another in your endless list of stupid mistakes.

----------


## Guest

> Another example of the immature dream world you inhabit.  Reality is going to ruin your life.
> I'm completely conversant with the difference between public and private property.  The incident I described could happen equally on either.  A dinner in a restaurant, a picnic in a public park.  No difference.


There is a difference in the approach.  In a private establishment the individual can be expelled quite easily by the owner.  In a park, you can tell him/her they're being asses, but then they can tell you to fuck off.

Freedom is messy.

----------


## Gemini

> Another example of the immature dream world you inhabit.  Reality is going to ruin your life.
> I'm completely conversant with the difference between public and private property.  The incident I described could happen equally on either.  A dinner in a restaurant, a picnic in a public park.  No difference.


Big difference, on my front lawn, I can level a shotgun at him and blow him away if he gets crusty.  If at a diner I can complain, and the manager can toss his hide out.  In a park however, we can both show each other just how short our profane vocabulary really is.

It isn't whether or not it can happen anywhere, it is whether the guy was lawfully arrested or not.  In this case?  I would bet not given the lamer charge they put against him.




> That you allowed your shallow prejudicial thinking to decide I don't know private from public is just another in your endless list of stupid mistakes.


Well...aren't you just a ray of sunshine?  Here to brighten up our day are you?

As noted before - condescension is only valid if the other guy is wrong @Dan40

----------



----------


## Common

Id bet a buck that someone called 911 on their cell that this guy was walking around the park in a profane shirt and it was offensive to a parent with young daughters that were old enough to read.
    The police are obligated to respond to the 911 call. Id bet if we could get right into the reality of the confrontation. The cops told the guy look buddy people with kids are a little upset with your shirt could you take out side the park for us, I bet the guy got mouthy loud and refused verbal warnings and continued until it became a disorderly person issue. 
     So who is right, this guy in a public park where families and kids congregate walking around his vulgar shirt or the parents that dont want their kids reading that crap while they and their dad play frisbee. I dont know you make the call.

----------


## Dan40

> Big difference, on my front lawn, I can level a shotgun at him and blow him away if he gets crusty.  If at a diner I can complain, and the manager can toss his hide out.  In a park however, we can both show each other just how short our profane vocabulary really is.
> 
> It isn't whether or not it can happen anywhere, it is whether the guy was lawfully arrested or not.  In this case?  I would bet not given the lamer charge they put against him.
> 
> 
> 
> Well...aren't you just a ray of sunshine?  Here to brighten up our day are you?
> 
> As noted before - condescension is only valid if the other guy is wrong @Dan40


He was arrested, NOT, because of his T.  He was arrested for disorderly conduct when he got belligerent with the police when they asked him to cover or reverse his T at the  a yearly concert that is devoted to raising awareness  of sexual violence against women. 

A clear case can be made that that T in that setting was akin to yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater.  Had it been a concert for disgruntled bachelors, his T would likely been mild to unremarkable.

He went there to be disruptive and the police ruined his non free speech plans.

Nothing is free, including free speech.  Everything carries responsibility, even tho many idiots don't understand what that word means.

----------


## The XL

You're seriously equating this to yelling fire in a crowded theater?

Lmfao.  I can't.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (04-25-2013)

----------


## Guest

> A clear case can be made that that T in that setting was akin to yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater.  Had it been a concert for disgruntled bachelors, his T would likely been mild to unremarkable.


Right, because of the mass stampede it would cause out of the park with people being killed and trampled in the process.  Sure.

----------


## Dan40

> You're seriously equating this to yelling fire in a crowded theater?
> 
> Lmfao.  I can't.


Leave it to a tiny mind to try to pick the fly shit out of the pepper.

----------


## The XL

> Leave it to a tiny mind to try to pick the fly shit out of the pepper.


Dan, you seriously don't know how fucking stupid you've made yourself look in this thread and the Tsarnaev thread, do you?

It's okay.  I notice.  Other smart people notice, too.  

The 14 year old liberal that just signed up has better debating skills than you.  And at least he has a chance to grow out of statism.  I can't say the same for you.

----------

Gemini (04-25-2013)

----------


## Maximatic

Damn, this thread just keeps going.

----------


## The XL

> Damn, this thread just keeps going.


Certain statists hate the 1st Amendment that much, sadly.

----------


## Gemini

@Dan40



> He was arrested, NOT, because of his T.  He was arrested for disorderly conduct when he got belligerent with the police when they asked him to cover or reverse his T at the  a yearly concert that is devoted to raising awareness  of sexual violence against women.


Does not matter at all.  Bogus and lame charges, the lot of them.  The man was well within his rights to do as he did and be unmolested for doing so.  Scorned of course, and obligatory berating is warranted, but not being locked up by jackbooted mouth breathers.




> A clear case can be made that that T in that setting was akin to yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater.  Had it been a concert for disgruntled bachelors, his T would likely been mild to unremarkable.







> He went there to be disruptive and the police ruined his non free speech plans.


Incorrect, the police use a lame charge to disrupt his free speech, every cop involved should be fired.




> Nothing is free, including free speech.  Everything carries responsibility, even tho many idiots don't understand what that word means.


This is more correct than perhaps you realize.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (04-25-2013),The XL (04-25-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> The lunatic world of liberals.  And the 100% adherence to the 1ST Amendment, NO MATTER WHAT!


Actually, that's supposed to be the "lunatic world" of conservatives, as it is conservatives that claim to be totally constitutional and pro-founders.




> You're in a restaurant with your wife and 2 little girls.  A clown at the next table is talking just loud enough to be clearly heard at your table.  He is fuck this, motherfuck that, cocksucker him, sonofabitch her, and on and on.  I'm assuming you leave the restaurant in order to protect his inviolate rights?


No, I'll tell him to stop being a dick and show a little respect.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Actually, that's supposed to be the "lunatic world" of conservatives, as it is conservatives that claim to be totally constitutional and pro-founders.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'll tell him to stop being a dick and show a little respect.


How many people in the Constitutional ratification generation do you think believed free speech meant unlimited speech?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> How many people in the Constitutional ratification generation do you think believed free speech meant unlimited speech?


*shrug* No clue. I know Adams didn't, as he arrested, tried, convicted, and booted someone out of the country for calling him a bald nincompoop, but I doubt most of them agreed with him.

----------


## Guest

> How many people in the Constitutional ratification generation do you think believed free speech meant unlimited speech?


That's loaded.  Let's ask if they would want the government to dictate what you wear.  Solicitation of crime, child porn, and a dirty tshirt are too different things.  Two of those endanger lives, the other one annoys people.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> That's loaded.  Let's ask if they would want the government to dictate what you wear.  Solicitation of crime, child porn, and a dirty tshirt are too different things.  Two of those endanger lives, the other one annoys people.


I think that obscenity existed in those days just like it does today, and they arrested people who displayed it publicly.  I just wonder if TRAT would walk his (future) kids through an Occupy mob and tell them everything they see is perfectly fine to display in public.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I think that obscenity existed in those days just like it does today, and they arrested people who displayed it publicly.  I just wonder if TRAT would walk his (future) kids through an Occupy mob and tell them everything they see is perfectly fine to display in public.


Probably not. I won't overly expose my children to anything political until they are old enough to decide what political ideology they think is best.

----------


## Guest

> I think that obscenity existed in those days just like it does today, and they arrested people who displayed it publicly.  I just wonder if TRAT would walk his (future) kids through an Occupy mob and tell them everything they see is perfectly fine to display in public.


Thomas Jefferson smoked weed off his back porch and had sex with his wife's half sister.  George also had some yard children and it's quite possible from John Adams dirty (and romantic) letters to his wife that they had premarital sex.

I'm not sure these guys were all that uptight.

----------


## Gemini

@Trinnity

You've made a monster of a thread here.  Who knew it would generate so much traffic?

----------


## The XL

SaintMike is against free speech too?

That's a fuckin shocker.

----------


## Trinnity

> @Trinnity
> 
> You've made a monster of a thread here.  Who knew it would generate so much traffic?


@Gemini

Who knew? I sure didn't.  :Smilie Thud:

----------


## Dan40

> Dan, you seriously don't know how fucking stupid you've made yourself look in this thread and the Tsarnaev thread, do you?
> 
> It's okay.  I notice.  Other smart people notice, too.  
> 
> The 14 year old liberal that just signed up has better debating skills than you.  And at least he has a chance to grow out of statism.  I can't say the same for you.


You're obviously an expert in stupidity,,,,,,,,your own.

You don't have a clue what freedom of speech even means.  Shallow minded fools like yourself wrongly believe that it means that you have a right to INSULT anyone at anytime you wish.

THERE IS NO RIGHT TO DO SO.

Freedom of Speech means that THE GOVERNMENT may not arrest or prosecute you for speaking _against the government._  It can however arrest and prosecute you for promoting revolution and/or sedition. Or threatening the life of an elected official.

*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance
*
That's the 1st Amendment.  Had you EVER read it before?  Do you have a clue what it means?

Let me give you some LEGAL exceptions to it.

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words". Fighting words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend[s] *to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight,* so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction".

Along with fighting words, speech might be unprotected if it either intentionally, *knowingly, or recklessly inflicts severe emotional distress.*

These are what applies in the situation in this thread.  the man was attempting to disrupt a concert given for the benefit of women.  He WAS disturbing the peace.

Just as the !st Baptist church had NO RIGHT to disrupt the private family, or govt, burials of troops.  They were allowed to do their protesting from a distance.

What if the benefit concert was for the United Negro College Fund?  Would it be acceptable for some buffoon to wear a T to that that said, "******s are proof that Indians fucked buffalos?"

That is incitement just as in this thread's case.

You immature neophytes don't know crap about your country.

Our Bill of Rights WAS/IS designed to protect us FROM the government.  It was in no way EVER intended to disallow us protection from each other.

And bunky, the 1ST amendment makes no distinction between public and private property.  We are not allowed to physically or verbally attack one another on either.

You don't like what I'm saying about you.  You have the option of complaining to the mod.  As do I.  I don't have any free speech right to insult you any more than you have any free speech right to insult me.  The govt is not involved.

----------


## Trinnity

* 

PLEASE folks, ease up on the personal attacks/insults. *

----------


## Archer

> You're obviously an expert in stupidity,,,,,,,,your own.
> 
> You don't have a clue what freedom of speech even means.  Shallow minded fools like yourself wrongly believe that it means that you have a right to INSULT anyone at anytime you wish.
> 
> THERE IS NO RIGHT TO DO SO.
> 
> Freedom of Speech means that THE GOVERNMENT may not arrest or prosecute you for speaking _against the government._  It can however arrest and prosecute you for promoting revolution and/or sedition. Or threatening the life of an elected official.
> 
> *Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance
> ...


Would you not consider that shirt an act of defiance against the establishment? A political protest of sorts?

----------


## Dan40

> Would you not consider that shirt an act of defiance against the establishment? A political protest of sorts?


No, a sidewalk would know that it was designed to provoke women at a women's event.  Or the man was a mindless idiot.  There was NO other purpose.

----------


## Archer

> No, a sidewalk would know that it was designed to provoke women at a women's event.  Or the man was a mindless idiot.  There was NO other purpose.


Perhaps it was thoughtless perhaps intentional. 

There is a real double standard you know.

----------


## Dan40

> Perhaps it was thoughtless perhaps intentional. 
> 
> There is a real double standard you know.


Doesn't

_"Or the man was a mindless idiot."
_
Cover that?

----------


## Archer

> Doesn't
> 
> _"Or the man was a mindless idiot."
> _
> Cover that?


So he is a democrat! We have mindless idiots running this country.

----------


## The XL

> You're obviously an expert in stupidity,,,,,,,,your own.
> 
> You don't have a clue what freedom of speech even means.  Shallow minded fools like yourself wrongly believe that it means that you have a right to INSULT anyone at anytime you wish.
> 
> THERE IS NO RIGHT TO DO SO.
> 
> Freedom of Speech means that THE GOVERNMENT may not arrest or prosecute you for speaking _against the government._  It can however arrest and prosecute you for promoting revolution and/or sedition. Or threatening the life of an elected official.
> 
> *Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance
> ...


Offensive speech is clearly Constitutional.  You offend me all the time, but I don't think I have I right to get you thrown in jail.

Don't give me a ruling from the 1900s or 2000s, please.  the government has been usurped.  The courts and legislators don't follow the Constitution anymore.  

Will you agree with the courts when they say gun control is Constitutional?  Because it's coming.

Where is the verbal attack here?  There is no threat on the shirt.  

Are you kidding me?  I'm defending the backbone of this country, the 1st Amendment.  You are the one who has no regard for what the Constitution stands for.

----------


## Gemini

@Dan40



> You're obviously an expert in stupidity,,,,,,,,your own.
> 
> You don't have a clue what freedom of speech even means.  Shallow minded fools like yourself wrongly believe that it means that you have a right to INSULT anyone at anytime you wish.
> 
> THERE IS NO RIGHT TO DO SO.
> 
> Freedom of Speech means that THE GOVERNMENT may not arrest or prosecute you for speaking _against the government._  It can however arrest and prosecute you for promoting revolution and/or sedition. Or threatening the life of an elected official.
> 
> *Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance
> ...


When citing law, it is wise to make sure you are not blending *civil* law, with *criminal* law.  Both have legal force, but only one gets to throw you in the dungeon.  If I call you dirty words, there isn't really harm being done.  You can however file a civil suit against me at your leisure.

Now if I punch you, you can not only have jackbooted thugs pummel me and imprison me, but you can also sue for damages.

But speaking to you in a manner you may not like is far from a criminal offense. _Very far from it indeed_.

----------


## Dan40

> @Dan40
> 
> 
> When citing law, it is wise to make sure you are not blending *civil* law, with *criminal* law.  Both have legal force, but only one gets to throw you in the dungeon.  If I call you dirty words, there isn't really harm being done.  You can however file a civil suit against me at your leisure.
> 
> Now if I punch you, you can not only have jackbooted thugs pummel me and imprison me, but you can also sue for damages.
> 
> But speaking to you in a manner you may not like is far from a criminal offense. _Very far from it indeed_.


*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance*

THAT IS THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

*In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words". Fighting words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction".

Along with fighting words, speech might be unprotected if it either intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly inflicts severe emotional distress.
*
THOSE ARE SOME EXCEPTIONS TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

I did not mix any civil and criminal law. Open your mind to reality.

The FIRST AMENDMENT is designed to protect US from the Government.  It does NOT endow any right to say anything anywhere to anybody.  
And it has two sides, the flip side is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.  That is the most and most necessary restriction to FREE SPEECH.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> *Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance*
> 
> THAT IS THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
> 
> *In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words". Fighting words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction".
> 
> Along with fighting words, speech might be unprotected if it either intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly inflicts severe emotional distress.
> *
> THOSE ARE SOME EXCEPTIONS TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
> ...


The Supreme Court is not infallible. They ruled that Obamacare is constitutional. Do you agree?

----------

Gemini (04-26-2013)

----------


## Dan40

> The Supreme Court is not infallible. They ruled that Obamacare is constitutional. Do you agree?


They ruled that part of it was acceptable as a TAX.  And they found the Medicaid expansion rules unconstitutional.

I made no claim about the SCOTUS.  I responded to a post that erroneously claimed I was mixing civil and criminal law.

obamacare, in my opinion is not constitutional.  That does not negate every SCOTUS ruling throughout history.  They've been right and wrong [or left, same thing]

obamacare will self destruct, or the USA will.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> They ruled that part of it was acceptable as a TAX.  And they found the Medicaid expansion rules unconstitutional.
> 
> I made no claim about the SCOTUS.  I responded to a post that erroneously claimed I was mixing civil and criminal law.
> 
> obamacare, in my opinion is not constitutional.  That does not negate every SCOTUS ruling throughout history.  They've been right and wrong [or left, same thing]
> 
> obamacare will self destruct, or the USA will.


So if they have been right and wrong, whose to say they are right on the "fighting words" exception to the first amendment?

----------


## Gemini

@Dan40




> THOSE ARE SOME EXCEPTIONS TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT.


Than you don't truly believe in free speech if you subscribe to it personally.  Not really a surprise.  This may also surprise you that I do not pay heed to the malignant decisions of 9 morons who sit on the thrones in the Ivory Tower while wearing funny looking dresses.

Their 'interpretation' is false.  Anybody who is awake knows this.




> Open your mind to reality.


*Strike one.*




> The FIRST AMENDMENT is designed to protect US from the Government.  It does NOT endow any right to say anything anywhere to anybody.


Actually, it does - where are the limits listed in the constitution?  Many don't like it though and pass laws to that effect - unconstitutional laws.  Unconstitutional laws are not laws, thus being null and void, without lawful effect.




> And it has two sides, the flip side is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.  That is the most and most necessary restriction to FREE SPEECH.


Responsibility is not a restriction of free speech, it is the consequence of it.  There is a stark difference between the two.

----------

GrassrootsConservative (04-26-2013),Sinestro/Green Arrow (04-26-2013)

----------


## Dan40

> @Dan40
> 
> 
> 
> Than you don't truly believe in free speech if you subscribe to it personally.  Not really a surprise.  This may also surprise you that I do not pay heed to the malignant decisions of 9 morons who sit on the thrones in the Ivory Tower while wearing funny looking dresses.
> 
> Their 'interpretation' is false.  Anybody who is awake knows this.
> 
> 
> ...


Strike three, you don't know your ass from first base.

----------


## Guest

> Perhaps it was thoughtless perhaps intentional. 
> 
> There is a real double standard you know.


Or maybe he was protesting them?

----------


## Dan40

> So if they have been right and wrong, whose to say they are right on the "fighting words" exception to the first amendment?


Its the law until its changed.  Even you should have been able to deduce that.

Abortion was once a felony, now its a hobby.  Was the SCOTUS right or wrong there?

When I was in the service in the south, men that I would be in combat with, men who would cover my back, were NOT allowed to ride in the same car as me, unless they were driving and I was sitting the back.  Chauffeur, OK.  Equal, against the law.  Was the SCOTUS wrong to uphold that change?

----------


## Guest

> Its the law until its changed.  Even you should have been able to deduce that.
> 
> Abortion was once a felony, now its a hobby.  Was the SCOTUS right or wrong there?
> 
> When I was in the service in the south, men that I would be in combat with, men who would cover my back, were NOT allowed to ride in the same car as me, unless they were driving and I was sitting the back.  Chauffeur, OK.  Equal, against the law.  Was the SCOTUS wrong to uphold that change?


The Constitution doesn't say that blacks couldn't be in the same car as you, Dan.  Wtff are you talking about?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Its the law until its changed.  Even you should have been able to deduce that.
> 
> Abortion was once a felony, now its a hobby.  Was the SCOTUS right or wrong there?
> 
> When I was in the service in the south, men that I would be in combat with, men who would cover my back, were NOT allowed to ride in the same car as me, unless they were driving and I was sitting the back.  Chauffeur, OK.  Equal, against the law.  Was the SCOTUS wrong to uphold that change?


Uh...what are you talking about? As Rina pointed out, the constitution never said blacks couldn't ride in the same car as you.

----------


## Gemini

@Dan40



> Strike three, you don't know your ass from first base.


Interesting, you are more than willing to take the bait and fling excrement, but all to quick to avoid the refutation presented to you.  I'm going to ask you to alter your typical(?) behavior for a moment.

How about you address the point?  The one presented in post 388.

It is quite purposeless for you to ready your mental arsenal against me.  It is akin to bringing a whiffle bat against a castle wall and expecting to breach the castle....but by all means - surprise me.

----------



----------


## Dan40

> The Constitution doesn't say that blacks couldn't be in the same car as you, Dan.  Wtff are you talking about?


See you closed minded dumb ass.  Such laws DID exist in this country in my lifetime.  A black could NOT ride in a car with a white unless the black was a chauffeur.  A black could NOT have a drink with me in a bar.  He was not allowed in the bar at all.  He had to go to a 'blue' bar that served only blacks.  He could not use the same restroom as a white, the same drinking fountain as a white.  Some southern CITIES did not allow ANY blacks IN their city.  Not to live, not to work, not to visit.  NO BLACKS ALLOWED, period.  I lived that, I grew up in the north, went to school with blacks, played sports with blacks,  When I went to the south for military training I was cultured shocked and morally shocked.  But it was reality.  Its part of why I keep telling you to throw off preconceived notions and look for reality.  You don't have to like reality, but you will always live in it.  Better to be aware.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> See you closed minded dumb ass.  Such laws DID exist in this country in my lifetime.  A black could NOT ride in a car with a white unless the black was a chauffeur.  A black could NOT have a drink with me in a bar.  He was not allowed in the bar at all.  He had to go to a 'blue' bar that served only blacks.  He could not use the same restroom as a white, the same drinking fountain as a white.  Some southern CITIES did not allow ANY blacks IN their city.  Not to live, not to work, not to visit.  NO BLACKS ALLOWED, period.  I lived that, I grew up in the north, went to school with blacks, played sports with blacks,  When I went to the south for military training I was cultured shocked and morally shocked.  But it was reality.  Its part of why I keep telling you to throw off preconceived notions and look for reality.  You don't have to like reality, but you will always live in it.  Better to be aware.


I know you're old and your eyes don't work as well as they used to, but she and I both said that it was not _constitutional_ to make those laws. We did not say that those laws did not exist.

----------

Gemini (04-27-2013)

----------


## Gemini

> See you closed minded dumb ass.  Such laws DID exist in this country in my lifetime.  A black could NOT ride in a car with a white unless the black was a chauffeur.  A black could NOT have a drink with me in a bar.  He was not allowed in the bar at all.  He had to go to a 'blue' bar that served only blacks.  He could not use the same restroom as a white, the same drinking fountain as a white.  Some southern CITIES did not allow ANY blacks IN their city.  Not to live, not to work, not to visit.  NO BLACKS ALLOWED, period.  I lived that, I grew up in the north, went to school with blacks, played sports with blacks,  When I went to the south for military training I was cultured shocked and morally shocked.  But it was reality.  Its part of why I keep telling you to throw off preconceived notions and look for reality.  You don't have to like reality, but you will always live in it.  Better to be aware.


You're missing the point.  @Rina_Dragonborn mentioned the _constitution_, not the supposed 'law' of the area.  Thus rendering your tirade moot @Dan40  But really, you gotta get over it.  That was then, this is now.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (04-27-2013)

----------


## Guest

> See you closed minded dumb ass.  Such laws DID exist in this country in my lifetime.  A black could NOT ride in a car with a white unless the black was a chauffeur.  A black could NOT have a drink with me in a bar.  He was not allowed in the bar at all.  He had to go to a 'blue' bar that served only blacks.  He could not use the same restroom as a white, the same drinking fountain as a white.  Some southern CITIES did not allow ANY blacks IN their city.  Not to live, not to work, not to visit.  NO BLACKS ALLOWED, period.  I lived that, I grew up in the north, went to school with blacks, played sports with blacks,  When I went to the south for military training I was cultured shocked and morally shocked.  But it was reality.  Its part of why I keep telling you to throw off preconceived notions and look for reality.  You don't have to like reality, but you will always live in it.  Better to be aware.


If only I could put this in my signature line to revel in it.

Do you see @Francesco the master of grouch at work?  He has no point or argument of any sense but he is adept at the tactic of grouch and deflection.  You must first cut through your opponent's tactics to see their true character.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> If only I could put this in my signature line to revel in it.
> 
> Do you see @Francesco the master of grouch at work?  He has no point or argument of any sense but he is adept at the tactic of grouch and deflection.  You must first cut through your opponent's tactics to see their true character.


I gotta say, nothing amused me more than Dan criticizing my insults as not being flavorful enough.

----------


## Gemini

@Rina_Dragonborn


> If only I could put this in my signature line to revel in it.
> 
> Do you see @Francesco the master of grouch at work?  He has no point or argument of any sense but he is adept at the tactic of grouch and deflection.  You must first cut through your opponent's tactics to see their true character.


It can get tedious dealing with them though.  However, they are not opponents, the august state of "opponent" means they actually provide some opposition that requires effort to circumvent.  And their defeat may provide some stimulatory elation of the mind.

Begin condescension-

I/we have yet to see such opposition arrive.  And since opposition has yet to arrive, elation via victorious discourse has yet to be achieved because no battle has been won - it could never have occurred in the first place given the contenders in question.  @Dan40 has arrived to this battle of wits unarmed.  

-End of condescension.

----------


## Francesco

> See you closed minded dumb ass.  Such laws DID exist in this country in my lifetime.  A black could NOT ride in a car with a white unless the black was a chauffeur.  A black could NOT have a drink with me in a bar.  He was not allowed in the bar at all.  He had to go to a 'blue' bar that served only blacks.  He could not use the same restroom as a white, the same drinking fountain as a white.  Some southern CITIES did not allow ANY blacks IN their city.  Not to live, not to work, not to visit.  NO BLACKS ALLOWED, period.  I lived that, I grew up in the north, went to school with blacks, played sports with blacks,  When I went to the south for military training I was cultured shocked and morally shocked.  But it was reality.  Its part of why I keep telling you to throw off preconceived notions and look for reality.  You don't have to like reality, but you will always live in it.  Better to be aware.


Hey there Dan40 remember me? I'm like herpes I just keep coming back

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (04-27-2013),The XL (04-27-2013)

----------


## Guest

> Hey there Dan40 remember me? I'm like herpes I just keep coming back

----------


## Francesco

Guns don't kill people but they sure do help

----------


## The XL



----------



----------


## The XL

> Guns don't kill people but they sure do help


Reading Dan40s stuff is so maddening, it makes me want to OD on vodka and die.

Guns don't kill people, Dan40 kills people.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (04-27-2013)

----------


## Guest

> @Rina_Dragonborn
> 
> It can get tedious dealing with them though.  However, they are not opponents, the august state of "opponent" means they actually provide some opposition that requires effort to circumvent.  And their defeat may provide some stimulatory elation of the mind.
> 
> Begin condescension-
> 
> I/we have yet to see such opposition arrive.  And since opposition has yet to arrive, elation via victorious discourse has yet to be achieved because no battle has been won - it could never have occurred in the first place given the contenders in question.  @Dan40 has arrived to this battle of wits unarmed.  
> 
> -End of condescension.


 @Gemini

you are entirely correct.  Fighting @Dan40 is like humping a doorknob--it makes no sense and it hurts.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (04-27-2013),The XL (04-27-2013)

----------


## Francesco

Yes! I'm in good spirits

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (04-27-2013)

----------


## Archer

> Guns don't kill people but they sure do help


They only help when used for that purpose or negligently.

----------


## Francesco

> @Gemini
> 
> you are entirely correct.  Fighting @Dan40 is like humping a doorknob--it makes no sense and it hurts.


Humping a door knob? Well if your clothes are off and you have an orifice near your groin big enough, then it might not hurt at all.

----------


## Gemini

> They only help when used for that purpose or negligently.


Well, so does a sharpened pencil.  But whatever...

----------



----------


## Francesco

> They only help when used for that purpose or negligently.


Yes because the purpose of .50 caliber sniper is for whale hunting of course

----------


## Guest

> Well, so does a sharpened pencil.  But whatever...


Yes, my ninja skills are high enough that I can kill with pencils...and my mind.  _*cue spooky music*_

----------


## Guest

> Yes of course because the purpose of .50 caliber sniper is for whale hunting of course


Moose actually.  The only problem is that if you miss there is a 2 ton angry animal with gigantic horns coming after you...that can SWIM.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (04-27-2013)

----------


## Francesco

And I suppose the automatic grenade launcher which is perfectly legal to obtain is for duck hunting? You know, so you have a better chance of hitting the duck. Why oh why didn't dick Cheney shoot one of his colleagues in the face with one of those

----------


## The XL

Having a grenade launcher in Duck Hunt the video game for the Nintendo would have been awesome.

----------


## Archer

> Yes because the purpose of .50 caliber sniper is for whale hunting of course


So we go from guns in general to a specific weapon. A .50 in civilian hands is a toy for the range and a mine is bigger than yours thing. How many US civilians have killed other US civilians with their 50s?

----------


## Guest

> And I suppose the automatic grenade launcher which is perfectly legal to obtain is for duck hunting? You know, so you have a better chance of hitting the duck. Why oh why didn't dick Cheney shoot one of his colleagues in the face with one of those


You can get the launcher, try to get a grenade....it is for badassery appearance only.  And he didn't shoot his friend in the face with a grenade because he would have actually died and then he'd have no one else to shoot the next year.

----------


## Guest

> Having a grenade launcher in Duck Hunt the video game for the Nintendo would have been awesome.


Dude...

----------


## Archer

> And I suppose the automatic grenade launcher which is perfectly legal to obtain is for duck hunting? You know, so you have a better chance of hitting the duck. Why oh why didn't dick Cheney shoot one of his colleagues in the face with one of those


And how many of those are out there? How many US civvies have been killed by other civvies with them?

----------


## Dan40

> Hey there Dan40 remember me? I'm like herpes I just keep coming back


I bow to your expertise in the field of social and sexually transmitted diseases.  Was there anything else, other than your problem, you wished to discuss?

----------


## Gemini

> Yes, my ninja skills are high enough that I can kill with pencils...and my mind.  _*cue spooky music*_






A personal favorite.

----------



----------


## Guest

> I bow to your expertise in the field of social and sexually transmitted diseases.  Was there anything else, other than your problem, you wished to discuss?


You two could try talking about the Constitution, but you seem to have no clue what that is.  Perhaps, you can discuss which Crayola pack is the best?

----------


## Francesco

> So we go from guns in general to a specific weapon. A .50 in civilian hands is a toy for the range and a mine is bigger than yours thing. How many US civilians have killed other US civilians with their 50s?


I was referring to anti personnel guns in general, using a gun to hunt in my opinion is no big deal.having a gun made specifically for the use of killing other humans makes me sick.

----------


## Gemini

> I bow to your expertise in the field of social and sexually transmitted diseases.  Was there anything else, other than your problem, you wished to discuss?


I thought you had abandoned the thread.  Interesting.  

This larva may have some potential after all @Rina_Dragonborn & @The XL.

----------


## Francesco

> I bow to your expertise in the field of social and sexually transmitted diseases.  Was there anything else, other than your problem, you wished to discuss?


My problem? I wasn't informed I had one. I'll leave the topic picking up to you, anything in particular?

----------


## Dan40

> Reading Dan40s stuff is so maddening, it makes me want to OD on vodka and die.
> 
> Guns don't kill people, Dan40 kills people.


Probably the only person on this forum that actually HAS!

----------


## Archer

> I was referring to anti personnel guns in general, using a gun to hunt in my opinion is no big deal.having a gun made specifically for the use of killing other humans makes me sick.


I like to hunt with a short clip AK. It is less powerful than my hunting handgun. The 50 is not particularly designed for people it was designed to be used against light/med armor and embedded combatants. In its civilian form it is a long range big game weapon.

EDIT: I personally think the 50 is a danger in the wrong hands because of the range and energy of the round.

----------


## Guest

> I was referring to anti personnel guns in general, using a gun to hunt in my opinion is no big deal.having a gun made specifically for the use of killing other humans makes me sick.


What about swords?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Hey there Dan40 remember me? I'm like herpes I just keep coming back


Oh, snap, this kid's a genius!

----------


## Guest

> I thought you had abandoned the thread.  Interesting.  
> 
> This larva may have some potential after all @Rina_Dragonborn & @The XL.


Told ya.

----------


## Francesco

> What about swords?


You don't see to many of those around do you? Besides if everyone had swords its almost impossible to get killed by a stray lead bullet isn't now? See the problem isn't the guns it's the people, people are to stupid to be trusted with guns, especially with these pathetic gun laws "oh sure lets make background checks not a requirement for private gun owners who sell their guns at gun shows. It's okay, in fact lets not bother with the fact that Mexican cartels go to these gun shows (they have criminal histories) and by a assault rifles and other deadly weapons without being stopped once, only for cash. Then they hop on over the boarder where they can continue to shoot, kill, and have sex with whores, until their testicles are singing oh come all ye faithful."

----------


## Archer

> Probably the only person on this forum that actually HAS!


Yeah it is a rush to feel the life drain from a body as you crush their throat ain't it @Dan40  :Smile:

----------


## Gemini

> EDIT: I personally think the 50 is a danger in the wrong hands because of the range and energy of the round.


This also applies to pencils, small arms, ATV's, cars, nuclear weapons, silverware, and various forms of cutlery. 

Implementation of violence is irrelevant, but the person doing the violence.  All to often we get hung up on the object as if it has sentience.

----------


## Francesco

> Oh, snap, this kid's a genius!


Is that sarcasm I detect?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Probably the only person on this forum that actually HAS!


Is that supposed to make me feel inferior? 'Cause it really doesn't. I've whooped my fair share of asses, but I have never killed a person, nor do I want to.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Is that sarcasm I detect?


Not at all, my young Padawan. It is praise of the highest order.

----------


## Archer

> You don't see to many of those around do you? Besides if everyone had swords its almost impossible to get killed by a stray lead bullet isn't now? See the problem isn't the guns it's the people, people are to stupid to be trusted with guns, especially with these pathetic gun laws "oh sure lets make background checks not a requirement for private gun owners who sell their guns at gun shows. It's okay, in fact lets not bother with the fact that Mexican cartels go to these gun shows (they have criminal histories) and by a assault rifles and other deadly weapons without being stopped once, only for cash. Then they hop on over the boarder where they can continue to shoot, kill, and have sex with whores, until their testicles are singing oh come all ye faithful."


Dud the tone is kind of hot there but I agree. Sad thing is if it were up to me people would have to pass a competency test before they could get out of school, drive or even touch a gun. Poll tests would come back as well.

----------


## Francesco

> Probably the only person on this forum that actually HAS!


Oh man! I feel like such a wussy for having a moral and ethical background. Please mister! Spare me

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (04-27-2013)

----------


## Francesco

> Dud the tone is kind of hot there but I agree. Sad thing is if it were up to me people would have to pass a competency test before they could get out of school, drive or even touch a gun. Poll tests would come back as well.


Thank you, finally we can agree on something, and sorry about the hot tone

----------


## Gemini

> Told ya.


Well this thing is still in its larval stage.  I am not going to get my hopes up.

----------


## Francesco

> Not at all, my young Padawan. It is praise of the highest order.


My highest possible level of appraisal and gratitude is extended towards you.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (04-27-2013)

----------


## Guest

> You don't see to many of those around do you?


I meant that their whole purpose was for killing humans.  Projectiles, were not.  Hence, why I asked you if you had a problem with swords.




> Besides if everyone had swords its almost impossible to get killed by a stray lead bullet isn't now?


I would love to go back to a time of swords and sandals!




> See the problem isn't the guns it's the people, people are to stupid to be trusted with guns, especially with these pathetic gun laws "oh sure lets make background checks not a requirement for private gun owners who sell their guns at gun shows. It's okay, in fact lets not bother with the fact that Mexican cartels go to these gun shows (they have criminal histories) and by a assault rifles and other deadly weapons without being stopped once, only for cash. Then they hop on over the boarder where they can continue to shoot, kill, and have sex with whores, until their testicles are singing oh come all ye faithful."


Mexican drug cartels don't go to gun shows.  This is something that I do know something about in my line of work.  They buy from international arms dealers--and, obviously, the US federal government.

----------


## Guest

> Well this thing is still in its larval stage.  I am not going to get my hopes up.


I was once in a larval stage.  All it took was a hunky Marine with green eyes get me to want to listen.  :sigh:  Ohhhh, he was a cutie, he was.

----------


## Archer

> This also applies to pencils, small arms, ATV's, cars, nuclear weapons, silverware, and various forms of cutlery. 
> 
> Implementation of violence is irrelevant, but the person doing the violence.  All to often we get hung up on the object as if it has sentience.


Not trying to be a smart ass here but how much do you know about a 50 BMG FMJ? 10-15K pounds of energy. The round is so heavy that after passing through a tree it can kill for another mile.

----------


## Archer

> Mexican drug cartels don't go to gun shows.  This is something that I do know something about in my line of work.  They buy from international arms dealers--and, obviously, the US federal government.


Yup thank you Obummer!

----------


## Francesco

> I meant that their whole purpose was for killing humans.  Projectiles, were not.  Hence, why I asked you if you had a problem with swords.
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to go back to a time of swords and sandals!
> 
> 
> 
> Mexican drug cartels don't go to gun shows.  This is something that I do know something about in my line of work.  They buy from international arms dealers--and, obviously, the US federal government.


Actually they don't but they do hang around them outside in border states, you don't need to do a background check if you're a private owner, so they can buy the guns hands down no questions asked

----------


## Dan40

> Yeah it is a rush to feel the life drain from a body as you crush their throat ain't it @Dan40


Never did that.  Gunfire only.  No garrotes, no knives, no choke holds.  I knew HOW, never had the opportunity.  Don't feel any lack for it.

----------


## Archer

> Thank you, finally we can agree on something, and sorry about the hot tone


No problem at all. Just remember it is about your argument not you.

----------


## Archer

> Never did that.  Gunfire only.  No garrotes, no knives, no choke holds.  I knew HOW, never had the opportunity.  Don't feel any lack for it.


I really would hate to have to shoot a person. It just seems so impersonal. Would not bother me but it is...

----------


## Gemini

> Not trying to be a smart ass here but how much do you know about a 50 BMG FMJ? 10-15K pounds of energy. The round is so heavy that after passing through a tree it can kill for another mile.


Exact ballistics?  Nothing.  But personal experience in the USMC infantry endowed a deep respect for firepower and weaponry of all types and sizes.

I have as much respect for an old kung fu teacher as I do the Barrett Light .50 - because both are equally dangerous when pointed at you with malice in mind.

----------


## Guest

> Actually they don't but they do hang around them outside in border states, you don't need to do a background check if you're a private owner, so they can buy the guns hands down no questions asked


I don't need a background check to buy magic mushrooms, either.  That's just the way of the world, sometimes.  If you want something, you'll find a way to get it.  If you want something and you have a million dollars or more, flunkies will get it for you.

----------


## Francesco

> I don't need a background check to buy magic mushrooms, either.  That's just the way of the world, sometimes.  If you want something, you'll find a way to get it.  If you want something and you have a million dollars or more, flunkies will get it for you.


I don't agree with that logic but let's agree to disagree

----------


## Archer

> Exact ballistics?  Nothing.  But personal experience in the USMC infantry endowed a deep respect for firepower and weaponry of all types and sizes.
> 
> I have as much respect for an old kung fu teacher as I do the Barrett Light .50 - because both are equally dangerous when pointed at you with malice in mind.


Yeah. My point was a BMG needs to be treated with respect. You know there is some dumb ass out there hunting deer with them near homes.

----------


## Guest

> Yeah. My point was a BMG needs to be treated with respect. You know there is some dumb ass out there hunting deer with them near homes.


My husband brought the AK moose hunting.  You want to shoot at a bull moose with a regular rifle and not do lethal damage?

----------


## Francesco

So the debate never really happened

----------


## Gemini

> Yeah. My point was a BMG needs to be treated with respect. You know there is some dumb ass out there hunting deer with them near homes.


I am more worried about people of equal mental caliber writing laws concerning them.  Far more damage has been done by foolish men in power with pens, than some country bumpkin with a large bore rifle.

----------

Archer (04-27-2013),usfan (04-27-2013)

----------


## Guest

> So the debate never really happened


No, that's how he debates you.  Instead of actually responding to what you've said, he calls you a moron or a bozo and then proceeds off dancing down the yellow brick road with the straw man he just made.

----------

Gemini (04-27-2013)

----------


## Archer

> My husband brought the AK moose hunting.  You want to shoot at a bull moose with a regular rifle and not do lethal damage?


AK for Moose? Give me a 270 or 06 first.

----------

usfan (04-27-2013)

----------


## usfan

> AK for Moose? Give me a 270 or 06 first.


yeah.. an ak would probably just piss him off..

----------



----------


## Archer

> yeah.. an ak would probably just piss him off..


Unless you have a high cap clip and a 454 on your hip! Hamburger.

----------


## usfan

> No, that's how he debates you.  Instead of actually responding to what you've said, he calls you a moron or a bozo and then proceeds off dancing down the yellow brick road with the straw man he just made.


I know the feeling.  I provide lengthy arguments, with numbered points & clear  reasoning, only to have the challengers run like rabbits, or deflect with off topic tangents.

Perhaps i can engage your new protege in some mental gymnastics... but it will have to be later.. i've got to work, now   :Frown:

----------



----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> So the debate never really happened


That is @Dan40's way. He doesn't debate you, your positions, or anything remotely close to them. He'll build up an elaborate strawman and argue relentlessly against it, then proclaim victory. But really, all he's interested in is throwing insults like a petulant child.

----------


## Gemini

> That is @Dan40's way. He doesn't debate you, your positions, or anything remotely close to them. He'll build up an elaborate strawman and argue relentlessly against it, then proclaim victory. But really, all he's interested in is throwing insults like a petulant child.


And in some cases, just pretend he wasn't spoken too.  He has yet to respond to me after challenge.

----------



----------


## Guest

> That is @Dan40's way. He doesn't debate you, your positions, or anything remotely close to them. He'll build up an elaborate strawman and argue relentlessly against it, then proclaim victory. But really, all he's interested in is throwing insults like a petulant child.


Trina, that's what I said...except I like it when he calls me a moron or bozo.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (04-27-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> And in some cases, just pretend he wasn't spoken too.  He has yet to respond to me after challenge.


Same here.

----------


## Gemini

> Same here.


I guess the clan chased him away.  Tough to survive here when you're okay with statism.  Ironically proving several points in the process.  People will often change their behavior or leave because of social pressure and scorn - Like Dan40.

I wonder if he'll see that now?

----------


## Guest

> I guess the clan chased him away.  Tough to survive here when you're okay with statism.  Ironically proving several points in the process.  People will often change their behavior or leave because of social pressure and scorn - Like Dan40.
> 
> I wonder if he'll see that now?


Exactly.  Public scorn works wonders.  This thread exemplified it.

----------


## Dan40

> I really would hate to have to shoot a person. It just seems so impersonal. Would not bother me but it is...


You don't shoot "persons."  You kill the enemy.  If you shoot persons, you take that home with you.  Maybe for the rest of your life.  Better to forget dead enemies.

----------


## Dan40

> You two could try talking about the Constitution, but you seem to have no clue what that is.  Perhaps, you can discuss which Crayola pack is the best?


Since I actually quote the Constitution and copy and paste parts here since you obviously are totally unfamiliar with anything it does say.  This just another error in your endless, erroneous childish dribble.
But DO keep trying, you may accidentally say something intelligent.

----------


## Archer

> You don't shoot "persons."  You kill the enemy.  If you shoot persons, you take that home with you.  Maybe for the rest of your life.  Better to forget dead enemies.


I am a bit of a sociopath and I must humanize people. I understand your point but I have no qualms killing a person, enemy or not, as long as it is a means to an end. The Army said I was too willing and... well... nuff said about that.

----------


## Guest

> Since I actually quote the Constitution and copy and paste parts here since you obviously are totally unfamiliar with anything it does say.  This just another error in your endless, erroneous childish dribble.
> But DO keep trying, you may accidentally say something intelligent.


Then paste the part of the Constitution where it talks about black people or conceded you're playing fast and loose between the words "legislation" and "constitutional" earlier.

----------


## Dan40

> Then paste the part of the Constitution where it talks about black people or conceded you're playing fast and loose between the words "legislation" and "constitutional" earlier.



Again you are filtering what you read through your ideological cement mind filter.

I made no claim about the Constitutional laws about blacks.  I simply told you how it once was in my short lifetime.  If you AGAIN want to deny reality and block it out like it did not happen, your choice.  There is obviously much of reality that you cannot handle and need to hide away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_..._United_States

Racial segregation in the United States, as a general term, included the racial segregation or hypersegregation of facilities, services, and opportunities such as housing, medical care, education, employment, and transportation along racial lines. The expression refers primarily to the legally or socially enforced separation of African Americans from other races, but can more loosely refer to voluntary separation, and also to separation of other racial or ethnic minorities from the majority mainstream society and communities.

Racial segregation in the United States has meant the physical separation and provision of separate facilities (especially during the Jim Crow era), but it can also refer to other manifestations of racial discrimination such as separation of roles within an institution, such as the United States Armed Forces up to the 1950s when black units were typically separated from white units but were led by white officers.

Racial segregation in the United States can be divided into de jure and de facto segregation. De jure segregation, sanctioned or enforced by force of law, 

In the South

After the end of Reconstruction, which followed from the Compromise of 1877, the new Democratic governments in the South instituted state laws to separate black and white racial groups, submitting African-Americans to de facto second-class citizenship and enforcing white supremacy. Collectively, these state laws were called the Jim Crow system, after the name of a stereotypical 1830s black minstrel show character.[32]

Racial segregation became the law in most parts of the American South until the American Civil Rights Movement. These laws, known as Jim Crow laws, were similar to apartheid legislation in the forced segregation of facilities and services to African Americans and White Americans, and prohibition of intermarriage. Some similarities between the situation in the Southern United States and South Africa under apartheid were:

    The races were kept separate, with separate schools, hotels, bars, hospitals, toilets, parks, even telephone booths, and separate sections in libraries, cinemas, and restaurants, the latter often with separate ticket windows and counters. (See List of Jim Crow laws in the South from NPS.gov.)
    State laws prohibiting interracial marriage ("miscegenation") had been enforced throughout the South and in many Northern states since the Colonial era. During Reconstruction, such laws were repealed in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida and South Carolina. In all these states such laws were reinstated after the Democratic "Redeemers" came to power._ The Supreme Court declared such laws constitutional in 1883. This verdict was overturned only in 1967 by Loving v. Virginia.[33]_
    The voting rights of blacks were systematically restricted or denied through suffrage laws, such as the introduction of poll taxes and literacy tests. Loopholes, such as the grandfather clause and the understanding clause protected the voting rights of white people who were unable to pay the tax or pass the literacy test. Only whites could vote in the Democratic Party primary contests.[33] Where and when black people did manage to vote in numbers, their votes were negated by systematic gerrymander of electoral boundaries.


All REAL babycakes and I lived through it.  Saw it with these old eyes

----------


## Guest

Overturned laws, not the Bill of Rights.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Thomas Jefferson smoked weed off his back porch and had sex with his wife's half sister.  George also had some yard children and it's quite possible from John Adams dirty (and romantic) letters to his wife that they had premarital sex.
> 
> I'm not sure these guys were all that uptight.


I wasn't talking about the founding fathers.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I wasn't talking about the founding fathers.


Who were you referring to?

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Who were you referring to?


My post referred to the generation that ratified the Constitution, not the celebrities Rina thinks represents that generation.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> My post referred to the generation that ratified the Constitution, not the celebrities Rina thinks represents that generation.


Those "celebrities" did represent that generation, though. You had Federalists and Anti-Federalists, central bankers and anti-central bankers, supporters of social justice like Thomas Paine and opposition to social justice, Christians and Deists, and Deist Christians, atheists and agnostics, the pro-war and the anti-war. Hell, I can't think of any body that better represents the generation it came from than the founding fathers of our nation.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Those "celebrities" did represent that generation, though. You had Federalists and Anti-Federalists, central bankers and anti-central bankers, supporters of social justice like Thomas Paine and opposition to social justice, Christians and Deists, and Deist Christians, atheists and agnostics, the pro-war and the anti-war. Hell, I can't think of any body that better represents the generation it came from than the founding fathers of our nation.


I would take the axiom of morality that existed in that day, celebrity or not, over what we have today in a snap.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I would take the axiom of morality that existed in that day, celebrity or not, over what we have today in a snap.


There's precious little difference.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> There's precious little difference.


Bullshit.

----------

Archer (04-28-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Bullshit.


Compelling argument. I'm convinced. You've converted me.

----------


## Archer

> There's precious little difference.


The application of moral law greatly differs. Men have always been trash but we at least used to control that trash that man is.

----------


## Dan40

> Overturned laws, not the Bill of Rights.


Over and over and over again, your cement brain filter negates any possibility of a sentient thought.

I made NO CLAIM that the conditions that held sway in the south were contained in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.  However the conditions I experienced DID take place WHILE the Constitution with the Bill of Rights was in place.  And of course you will also have some lame ass stupid comment about some of the authors of the Constitution were PROPERTY OWNERS.  Included among the property they OWNED were people.  People as property owners were also included in authoring the Declaration of Independence, as well.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> The application of moral law greatly differs. Men have always been trash but we at least used to control that trash that man is.


I don't think so. It seems to me, looking at statistics, that the only reason we seem more immoral now is because we have a larger population and everything - _EVERYTHING_ - is public.

----------

