Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Small town politics, ain't it great


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great Page: <<   < prev  6 7 8 9 [10]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Small town politics, ain't it great - 7/14/2009 3:31:01 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

If i know the cross is burning, it wouldnt be out of sight, now would it. unless you are indicating that i would burn a cross. however, in plain site.. since we must be SO exact.. of any group of people who may see it and find it offensive... you cant burn a cross.


Not true. I can burn one right now in my front yard if I like, in view of the neighbors and anyone happening to drive down my street, and it would be completely legal as long as I wasn't doing it with the intent to intimidate any of them.

And whether they find it offensive doesn't enter into the equation at all. The fact that people are offended by it does not make it illegal... for pretty much the same reason that the fact that people are offended by seeing the flag flying upside down does not make it illegal. Offending people is not against the law. As we keep trying to tell you, but you don't seem to believe for some reason.



The point is that given our politcally correct society and the history of cross burnings your intent will be assumed and you will have a helluva time proving to a jury of your "innocent" intent.

(in reply to ThatDamnedPanda)
Profile   Post #: 181
RE: Small town politics, ain't it great - 7/14/2009 3:47:42 PM   
ThatDamnedPanda


Posts: 6060
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

If i know the cross is burning, it wouldnt be out of sight, now would it. unless you are indicating that i would burn a cross. however, in plain site.. since we must be SO exact.. of any group of people who may see it and find it offensive... you cant burn a cross.


Not true. I can burn one right now in my front yard if I like, in view of the neighbors and anyone happening to drive down my street, and it would be completely legal as long as I wasn't doing it with the intent to intimidate any of them.

And whether they find it offensive doesn't enter into the equation at all. The fact that people are offended by it does not make it illegal... for pretty much the same reason that the fact that people are offended by seeing the flag flying upside down does not make it illegal. Offending people is not against the law. As we keep trying to tell you, but you don't seem to believe for some reason.



The point is that given our politcally correct society and the history of cross burnings your intent will be assumed and you will have a helluva time proving to a jury of your "innocent" intent.


That's certainly a risk I would be taking, but it would depend upon a lot of factors, such the municipality in which i was torching these crosses, the specific neighborhood i lived in, and even my personal background. There was a guy in Georgia or someplace a few years ago who got arrested for burning a cross on his lawn, and after they questioned him, they let him go. Said he was just drunk, and as pissed as they were at him, they couldn't legally charge him because there was nothing about him to suggest he was the sort of person to commit a racially-based hate crime. I think they said something to the effect of, "It's not illegal for morons to drink alcohol."

And in fact, one of the test cases in which the Supreme Court established the precedent for this about 16 or 17 years ago happened just a few miles from my house, in St. Paul, Minnesota. Given that, I think it's very doubtful I'd be charged, and inconceivable that I'd be prosecuted unless there were some sort of aggravating factors at play. I probably wouldn't be too popular with the neighbors, but they think I'm weird anyway, and at any rate I wouldn't be arrested for it.


_____________________________

Panda, panda, burning bright
In the forest of the night
What immortal hand or eye
Made you all black and white and roly-poly like that?


(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 182
RE: Small town politics, ain't it great - 7/14/2009 3:50:45 PM   
slaveboyforyou


Posts: 3607
Joined: 1/6/2005
From: Arkansas, U.S.A.
Status: offline
quote:

quote:

If i know the cross is burning, it wouldnt be out of sight, now would it. unless you are indicating that i would burn a cross. however, in plain site.. since we must be SO exact.. of any group of people who may see it and find it offensive... you cant burn a cross.

and i asked a simple question.... what rights are endowned to me just by the fact that i am here.

i have already said the flag issue will be settled by the courts. think a bit broader for a moment.


It doesn't have to be out of sight, as Panda said. I never claimed that it had to be. If you reside inside a city, you're more than likely going to have to deal with city codes on setting fires. But that is a seperate issue.

The answer to your simple question. You have the same rights as everyone else. You don't have the right to NOT BE OFFENDED. It's very simple to understand, if you'd stop trying to believe that that the majority has a right to impose it's will on others. We don't live in a democracy ruled by the majority. We live in a Constitutional Republic governed by the rule of law.

The problem is you're thinking broadly about the law. The law isn't broad. Laws can't be vague. They have to specifically spell out what is and isn't permitted or prohibited. You don't seem to understand that. The 5th and 1st Amendments are VERY specific. You have a right to express your opinion, and the state cannot remove your property without due process. What part of that do you not understand? You can make all these ridiculous analogies until the cows come home. It doesn't apply to this particular incident. Like I said, the law is not broad or vague. If this man decides to take this to court, I can pretty much guarantee you he will win. I imagine some settlement will be made with the city before it gets that far.

< Message edited by slaveboyforyou -- 7/14/2009 3:51:42 PM >

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 183
RE: Small town politics, ain't it great - 7/14/2009 4:06:41 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		the intent is subjective. if at the time you are burning your cross, a black person happens to walk by.. try and convince anyone your intent wasnt racial.

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/10/canton_man_says_crossburning_w.html

might wanna rethink that, Panda



_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to ThatDamnedPanda)
Profile   Post #: 184
RE: Small town politics, ain't it great - 7/14/2009 4:11:36 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		White men had the "right" to own slaves... until the collective decided otherwise.

Businesses could pay women less than men for the same job.. until the government said.. uh uh.

Segregation was considered legal... until they were told not anymore.

So while you sit there and believe the individual rights of anyone is above the rights of the group.... some of us know better.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 185
RE: Small town politics, ain't it great - 7/14/2009 4:25:51 PM   
slaveboyforyou


Posts: 3607
Joined: 1/6/2005
From: Arkansas, U.S.A.
Status: offline
quote:

White men had the "right" to own slaves... until the collective decided otherwise.


Wrong. "The collective" didn't decide anything on this issue. It came about from the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. It was passed during the Civil War, so the Southern Senators and Representatives weren't present for the debate. After the war, it was a requirement for Southern states to ratify the Amendment in order to return to the Union. So it was brought about by the rule of law, not by the "collective." The majority probably wouldn't have voted for such a law. Southern citizens certainly wouldn't have. Sorry, you're wrong on your history here.

quote:

Businesses could pay women less than men for the same job.. until the government said.. uh uh.


They still can. We never passed the ERA. You can't discriminate against women or minorities in hiring or promotions, but pay is a different matter. Women still make less for the same job in many instances.

quote:

Segregation was considered legal... until they were told not anymore.


Yeah, it required an act of law. The Supreme Court decision Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka in 1954 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Again; the rule of law, not the majority decided this. The majority never voted on either; it wouldn't have happened if they had.

quote:

So while you sit there and believe the individual rights of anyone is above the rights of the group.... some of us know better.


Apparently you don't know better, because you've been wrong on every one of your points.





< Message edited by slaveboyforyou -- 7/14/2009 4:28:08 PM >

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 186
RE: Small town politics, ain't it great - 7/14/2009 4:32:15 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

Wrong. "The collective" didn't decide anything on this issue. It came about from the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. It was passed during the Civil War, so the Southern Senators and Representatives weren't present for the debate. After the war, it was a requirement for Southern states to ratify the Amendment in order to return to the Union. So it was brought about by the rule of law, not by the "collective." The majority probably wouldn't have voted for such a law. Southern citizens certainly wouldn't have. Sorry, you're wrong on your history here.


The Government is a collective of individuals elected by the people.

The Equal Pay Act requires that men and women be given equal pay for equal work in the same establishment. The jobs need not be identical, but they must be substantially equal. It is job content, not job titles, that determines whether jobs are substantially equal. Specifically, the EPA provides:

http://www.eeoc.gov/types/epa.html

quote:

Yeah, it required an act of law. The Supreme Court decision Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka in 1954 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Again; the rule of law, not the majority decided this. The majority never voted on either; it wouldn't have happened if they had.


again, a law passed by the collective group of people elected to their positions by we the people

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to slaveboyforyou)
Profile   Post #: 187
RE: Small town politics, ain't it great - 7/14/2009 4:35:56 PM   
slaveboyforyou


Posts: 3607
Joined: 1/6/2005
From: Arkansas, U.S.A.
Status: offline
quote:

again, a law passed by the collective group of people elected to their positions by we the people


Brown vs. Board of Education isn't a law that was passed. It's a Supreme Court decision that set a precedent. It was an interpretation of the Constitution that went against what the majority wanted in Topeka, Kansas.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 188
RE: Small town politics, ain't it great - 7/14/2009 4:36:56 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		And who appoints that Board but the people we placed in power to do so.

one day i will learn how to spell.. lol



< Message edited by tazzygirl -- 7/14/2009 4:41:54 PM >

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to slaveboyforyou)
Profile   Post #: 189
RE: Small town politics, ain't it great - 7/14/2009 4:48:27 PM   
slaveboyforyou


Posts: 3607
Joined: 1/6/2005
From: Arkansas, U.S.A.
Status: offline
quote:

And who appoints that Board but the people we placed in power to do so.

one day i will learn how to spell.. lol


The Board of Education lost. So the will of the majority was thwarted. Segregation was the will of the majority in the states where it was imposed. Again, the law protected the miniority. The law is supposed to do that; it's why the Founders didn't want a democracy. Specifically; they did not want mob rule, which is the excuse you and others are making for the taking of this man's flag by the police.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 190
RE: Small town politics, ain't it great - 7/14/2009 4:55:18 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		We have appointed leaders, giving up the rights of our votes into their care. They make decisions, we hope, based upon the will of the people. It may not always be the case, that it WILL be the will of the people. They will often look inwards to their own morals before looking outwards towards us. But, the Power of the Congress, The Supreme Court, the Presidency, and even Local Governments is the power we, as a group of citizens, gave them. In essence, they are the collective, speaking for all of us.

This.. again.. has nothing to do with the flag incident... let me repeat that.. it has NOTHING to do with the flag incident.

This was all born out of the statement that someone made about how the rights of the individual will always supercede the majority.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to slaveboyforyou)
Profile   Post #: 191
RE: Small town politics, ain't it great - 7/14/2009 6:29:55 PM   
ThatDamnedPanda


Posts: 6060
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

the intent is subjective. if at the time you are burning your cross, a black person happens to walk by.. try and convince anyone your intent wasnt racial.

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/10/canton_man_says_crossburning_w.html

might wanna rethink that, Panda




Not at all. According to the article, there was prior history between these people. It sounds like this wasn't the first time the guy had harrassed the couple, which apparently was all the court needed to determine that his intent in burning the cross was to intimidate them. And rightly so. This case seems to be a textbook example of what the Supreme Court meant when they said it was not illegal to burn a cross except when the intent was to intimidate. If anything, it strengthens my point - doesn't weaken it at all, I'm afraid.


_____________________________

Panda, panda, burning bright
In the forest of the night
What immortal hand or eye
Made you all black and white and roly-poly like that?


(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 192
RE: Small town politics, ain't it great - 7/14/2009 6:49:48 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		It came down to he said, she said. The article offered no proof that he had or hadnt. And i wouldnt be so sure that the other party would not lie to prove their point. Depends on how well off you are, i suppose. The intent to do something is always easier to prove than the intent to NOT do something, ya know?

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to ThatDamnedPanda)
Profile   Post #: 193
RE: Small town politics, ain't it great - 7/14/2009 9:42:40 PM   
Arpig


Posts: 9930
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: Increasingly further from reality
Status: offline
quote:

Now, explain what i am endowed with by the mere presence of my existance.

never mind, I decided to answer this challenge a few posts further down.

< Message edited by Arpig -- 7/14/2009 10:20:34 PM >

_____________________________

Big man! Pig Man!
Ha Ha...Charade you are!

Why do they leave out the letter b on "Garage Sale" signs?

CM's #1 All-Time Also-Ran


(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 194
RE: Small town politics, ain't it great - 7/14/2009 9:50:01 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

He expressed his opinion... and he was arrested for that. if you burn a cross, you will be arrested for that. if you say the wrong thing about a public official you will be arrested for that. im sure we can come up with others.



         The thing you always have to keep in mind, Tazzy, is that my right to express myself by swinging a fist, comes to an abrupt end at the tip of somebody's nose.  Threats are a no-no.  So is putting people at risk of injury, and telling utter lies.  They can put you away for those sorts of things, or take every penny in your pocket.

      

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 195
RE: Small town politics, ain't it great - 7/14/2009 9:52:35 PM   
Arpig


Posts: 9930
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: Increasingly further from reality
Status: offline
quote:

White men had the "right" to own slaves... until the collective decided otherwise.

Drunk or not, I am responding to this.
You are wrong, nobody had the right to own "slaves". They had the right to own "property", and they still do. What changed is that people are no longer considered property. The right to own property was in no way infringed, the definition of what constituted property was changed.

For the record, the right to own property is not one of the rights I consider inherent and inalienable.

_____________________________

Big man! Pig Man!
Ha Ha...Charade you are!

Why do they leave out the letter b on "Garage Sale" signs?

CM's #1 All-Time Also-Ran


(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 196
RE: Small town politics, ain't it great - 7/14/2009 10:18:52 PM   
Arpig


Posts: 9930
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: Increasingly further from reality
Status: offline 		Alright, having read through this all, I will answer the challenge now, however I reserve the right to amend my list of inherent rights when fully sober. These inherent and inalienable rights are as follows, in general order of importance (think of it as a typical Letterman top ten...not actually that funny).
 
1) The right to life. Nobody, including a government has the right to deprive anybody of their life once they are born. Thus no death penalty, ever.

2) The right to liberty. Liberty here means that ones inherent rights are sacrosanct, it does not mean physical liberty to move about. Imprisonment does not remove one's right to liberty.

3) The right to worship the deity of one's choice. A person's religious beliefs are between them and the deity of thier choice, and nobody has the authority to interfere with such. Note I said their beliefs, if they act upon their beliefs they may run afoul of the law or other peoples' rights.

4) The right to choose those who will govern. The exact method of the choosing will vary, but you have the right to choose your own government.

5) The right to express oneself. This covers expression through the spoken word, the written word, through artistic depictions, and symbolic gestures, etc.
 
6) The right of free asembly. You can gather together with others of like mind for any lawful purpose. Period. You do not need a permit to do so. This particular right is not generally recognised, and even where it is technically recognised it is often ignored.

7) The right to pursue your life in peace. This does not mean you have the right not to be bothered, it means that others cannot interfere with your life unduly.

8) The right to due process. The authorities cannot act against you except through the commonly accepted channels and processes. They cannot act against you in an arbitry manner.

9) The right to defend oneself. In the US this equates to the right to bare arms, as well as the pretty much universal legal defense of self-defense.

10) The right to be treated equally before the law and society. This right prevents discriminatory practices based on damn near any criteria you can concieve of.
 
And finally the one overiding and immutable universal human right....the right to fuck up.

Anyhow, I hope that will satisfy you tazzy. All these rights may not be recognised in whatever juridiction you live in, but that does not in any way alter the fact that you are entitled to them. These are the rights you have by the mere fact of your existance, and until all people of the world have these basic rights recognised we have work to do. And the first place to do that work is to insure that these rights are observed in those places where they are recognised.
 

< Message edited by Arpig -- 7/14/2009 10:24:03 PM >

_____________________________

Big man! Pig Man!
Ha Ha...Charade you are!

Why do they leave out the letter b on "Garage Sale" signs?

CM's #1 All-Time Also-Ran


(in reply to Arpig)
Profile   Post #: 197
RE: Small town politics, ain't it great - 7/16/2009 4:13:06 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		An update on the flag issue...

http://www.wbay.com/global/story.asp?s=10733151

http://www.peshtigotimes.net/?id=11964

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Arpig)
Profile   Post #: 198
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 8 9 [10]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Small town politics, ain't it great Page: <<   < prev  6 7 8 9 [10]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125