Middle east outcome

[SmokinDVM]

Nope - not condoning LEO's from cracking heads, but I'm also not really fond of people like the Westboro Baptist church that protests soldier's funerals or the gay community (even though I may SOMEWHAT agree with some of their message - their way of presenting it turns me off). And to point at those people and say they have the freedom of speech... Or the American Nazi Party that wants to protest in the midst of a largely jewish community... That's absolutely, positively looking for trouble...

Just like those liberals who are TRYING to get arrested by pushing the limits to the absolute outside of the bounds of reasonableness. Forming a human pyramid of naked men, with the exception of thong underwear, is WELL outside of the bounds of reasonableness - I don't care WHO you are. I don't want to look at that nonsense - and are you suggesting that I am forced to in the name of "freedom of speech"?

In the current state of heigthened fears over terrorist attacks on our infrastructure - I believe there has to be a sense of reasonableness with protesting high value "targets" (politicians). If you don't understand that - I'm not EVER going to make you understand...

We're at a different point in history. Back in the 40's, 50's and even into the 60's, Americans wouldn't EVEN THINK of acting like some are acting now. It wasn't proper respect for the office or for the institution that is the US. That seems to have been thrown out the window in favor of "freedom of speech". So it seems the pendulum is swinging MORE in the favor of freedoms that weren't even dreamed of 20, 30 or 40 years ago.... Do you also condone the use of an American flag as a door mat - or burned because people disagree with the policies of the government (which, by the way, was a "protected" expression of free speech)???

And you complain the freedom of speech is being taken away??? Seems to me it's more prevalant than it was in the past...

Whether or not we agree with the Westboro freaks, or the gay community, or even the nazis is irrelevant. What is, is that they have a right to have their points, or protests, heard, or more accurately, have a right to voice them. None of these groups, however, has any relationship with a public official who just doesn't want to be exposed to a dissenting viewpoint. As long as they're not inciting to riot, or trespassing, etc., they have every right.

As far as the human pyramid, disgusting as it may be, is still a valid expression of free speech. If you don't like the message, don't listen, or look, whichever the case may be. NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO WATCH.

Please stop with this fear of "turrists" bullshit. It's a complete smokescreen. Non of those "high value" targets, are in any more danger than at any other time in our history. I know they would like you to think that, as it puffs up their head even more.

Maybe it's got something do to with DESERVING respect. It really needs to be earned. BTW, disrespecting public officials is a VERY long held tradition in this Country.

Flag burning, or its use as a doormat, is all protected speech. Do I personally burn flags, no, but I support the rights of those who might.

Protection of free speech means protection of possibly offensive speech. If it wasn't offensive, it wouldn't need protection. That was the point of the First Amendment.

I don't think free speech is more prevalent, the protestors are just better organized. And, in the case of this admin, they've created more of them.

[Kenyth]

As far as the human pyramid, disgusting as it may be, is still a valid expression of free speech. If you don't like the message, don't listen, or look, whichever the case may be. NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO WATCH.

Protection of free speech means protection of possibly offensive speech. If it wasn't offensive, it wouldn't need protection. That was the point of the First Amendment.

Valid? Saying, "I objec to the Iraq war and the treatment of POW's by the US military! I think we're wrong and should pull out our troops immediately!", to whomever will listen, is a valid expression of free speech. Writing it on a placard or billboard, or advertising it in the media is a valid expression of free speech. Strutting around near naked in public doing stupid human tricks isn't free speech. It's using shock factor and breaking ordinances or committing misdemeanors to get attention. The fact that it's in plain view in public, forces people to see it. That's the whole point of something like that. To force people to take notice of you and shock or appall them enough to remember you. If you subscribe to this tactic of attention whoring, you'd better be willing to take your lumps. I've little sympathy.

[SmokinDVM]

Valid? Saying, "I objec to the Iraq war and the treatment of POW's by the US military! I think we're wrong and should pull out our troops immediately!", to whomever will listen, is a valid expression of free speech. Writing it on a placard or billboard, or advertising it in the media is a valid expression of free speech. Strutting around near naked in public doing stupid human tricks isn't free speech. It's using shock factor and breaking ordinances or committing misdemeanors to get attention. The fact that it's in plain view in public, forces people to see it. That's the whole point of something like that. To force people to take notice of you and shock or appall them enough to remember you. If you subscribe to this tactic of attention whoring, you'd better be willing to take your lumps. I've little sympathy.

Again, BECAUSE IT OFFENDS YOU, DOESN'T MEAN IT ISN'T FREE SPEECH.

If it was all white bread and milk toast, there would be no need for the protection of free speech. Life isn't all warm and fuzzy, get used to it.

Shock factor, breaking ordinances, committing misdemeanors? Oh, those are most definitely worse than lies leading to the deaths of thousands, torture, and on and on. It's interesting to know that you're more concerned with a few guys wearing thongs, than anything that might ACTUALLY HURT SOMEONE.

[Kenyth]

Again, BECAUSE IT OFFENDS YOU, DOESN'T MEAN IT ISN'T FREE SPEECH.

If it was all white bread and milk toast, there would be no need for the protection of free speech. Life isn't all warm and fuzzy, get used to it.

Shock factor, breaking ordinances, committing misdemeanors? Oh, those are most definitely worse than lies leading to the deaths of thousands, torture, and on and on. It's interesting to know that you're more concerned with a few guys wearing thongs, than anything that might ACTUALLY HURT SOMEONE.

Nope, I am concerned with point one AND point two! I did not say one was more important than the other. The occurance of one does not excuse the other. They are mutually exclusive events. I use my right to vote to attend to points regarding leadership, and support local law enforcement actions to attend to points regarding public disturbances. I accept that my power to change things on points regarding government decisions is limited. I also accept that those in power may treat me unfairly in the pursuit of what they feel are the community's best interests. I don't waggle my dick in public as some sort of media based weapon to make up for it. Only in private to impress the ladies.

[SmokinDVM]

Nope, I am concerned with point one AND point two! I did not say one was more important than the other. The occurance of one does not excuse the other. They are mutually exclusive events. I use my right to vote to attend to points regarding leadership, and support local law enforcement actions to attend to points regarding public disturbances. I accept that my power to change things on points regarding government decisions is limited. I also accept that those in power may treat me unfairly in the pursuit of what they feel are the community's best interests. I don't waggle my dick in public as some sort of media based weapon to make up for it. Only in private to impress the ladies.

The highlighted statement has me very worried.
What about being treated "unfairly", I'll use that here to replace "violate my rights", by those in power, in the pursuit of what they feel are in their OWN best interests?

And, where you waggle it, as long as it's covered with something, is your RIGHT. I won't pay much attention, cause I ain't shopping. Maybe those guys that can't look away, and that it makes soo nervous, need to take a deep reflective look at themselves?

[Kenyth]

The highlighted statement has me very worried.
What about being treated "unfairly", I'll use that here to replace "violate my rights", by those in power, in the pursuit of what they feel are in their OWN best interests?

And, where you waggle it, as long as it's covered with something, is your RIGHT. I won't pay much attention, cause I ain't shopping. Maybe those guys that can't look away, and that it makes soo nervous, need to take a deep reflective look at themselves?

As well you should be worried. People have been worried about the same thing to some degree since time immemorial. It's getting better though. You primarily get fined for indiscetions these days and not put in the stocks in town square to be pelted by rotten vegetables or worse. You seem to take the fact that I accept it, as me condoning it. That's not the case. I simply accept that it will happen to some extent. If the incident is severe enough to warrant it, I will fight it. I am a simple family man. Only one person who can't afford to be the revolutionary. Now, can I be part of a group cause that will help where it matters? Of course I can! A much more effective use of my time and money than drinking a few beers, putting on a G-string, and imitating a cheerleading squad.

I disagree about the right to "waggle". Waggling my dick in public without repercussion is NOT my right. I'm sure I could come up with innumerable laws and ordinances from various cultures to support that. What do you use to support your point of view that you have the right to run around naked, except your opinion?

[SuperChuck]

A much more effective use of my time and money than drinking a few beers, putting on a G-string, and imitating a cheerleading squad.

Guess I should just cross you off my Halloween party list, then...

[WhiteWidow]

I'm going to assume that in most places, it would be illegal or at least get you a ticket to go around in public with nothing but underwear on. So the fact that you're not supposed to naked in the first place would override the fact that you are protesting. Or can we do whatever we want as long as we're "making a statement?" I think pot should be legal, does that mean I can go out in public and fire up a big joint in front of everybody? Man, they'd throw me jail in a heartbeat.

I hate people who get "offended" at every little thing as much as anyone, but I think when the party in question is doing something against the law in the first place, then yeah, they're probably going to get hassled.

Also, I'm wondering how you can feel that their is no terrorist threat? Let's see, in the last 10 years the WTC was attacked twice, OK City, US embassy in Africa, Spain, London, the USS Cole have all happened, and that's just the ones I can think of right now.

No, I don't run around all day in "fear" that we are all going to die (hell, I live at a university, they sure won't blow that up) but I think with all the attacks, it can be classified as a "threat." (not just to us, but to the world)

Now someone will probably tell me, "terrorist attacks have always happened, fighting them won't do any good, etc., etc.," but that is basically the same thing as saying you shouldn't weed your yard because there will just be another weed, or arresting Al Capone was a waste of time because we still have crime today.

[SuperChuck]

I'm going to assume that in most places, it would be illegal or at least get you a ticket to go around in public with nothing but underwear on. So the fact that you're not supposed to naked in the first place would override the fact that you are protesting. Or can we do whatever we want as long as we're "making a statement?"

Yeah, I'd think that's probably illegal and would probably result in some temporary detainment and maybe a fine. A protester should understand this and accept responsibility for the act.

Similarly, the famous Boston Tea Party was quite illegal and the Sons of Liberty would have had to face severe punishment if they were arrested. I imagine most of those protesters would have accepted the responsibility for their actions (even if they were to be hanged).

I think pot should be legal, does that mean I can go out in public and fire up a big joint in front of everybody? Man, they'd throw me jail in a heartbeat.

That could even be your protest. A lot of protesters protest by performing an illegal act. However, you shouldn't be shocked when you're arrested. Sometimes being a martyr helps your cause.

Also, I'm wondering how you can feel that their is no terrorist threat? Let's see, in the last 10 years the WTC was attacked twice, OK City, US embassy in Africa, Spain, London, the USS Cole have all happened, and that's just the ones I can think of right now.

I don't feel there was more of a terror threat on Sept. 12 than the was on Sept. 10.
I don't feel the threat of terrorism should change my life, my rights, or my liberties.
I feel that if things do change, that the terrorists have won.

I believe in the New Hampshire motto: "Life Free or Die". I believe we often forget that second half. To be free means to have some degree of danger. If we hide indoors or allow our government carte blanc to spy on us, we may be safe, but we will certainly not be free. If we choose to be free, we must accept that we will never be safe.

A couple weeks ago in India, the day after several trains were bombed during rush hour, people were piling on to the trains to go to work. BBC interviewed one of them and his response was quite simple: life goes on as it did before; we will not allow terrorists to make us afraid. To me, that's courage.

[SmokinDVM]

Yeah, I'd think that's probably illegal and would probably result in some temporary detainment and maybe a fine. A protester should understand this and accept responsibility for the act.

Similarly, the famous Boston Tea Party was quite illegal and the Sons of Liberty would have had to face severe punishment if they were arrested. I imagine most of those protesters would have accepted the responsibility for their actions (even if they were to be hanged).


That could even be your protest. A lot of protesters protest by performing an illegal act. However, you shouldn't be shocked when you're arrested. Sometimes being a martyr helps your cause.


I don't feel there was more of a terror threat on Sept. 12 than the was on Sept. 10.
I don't feel the threat of terrorism should change my life, my rights, or my liberties.
I feel that if things do change, that the terrorists have won.

I believe in the New Hampshire motto: "Life Free or Die". I believe we often forget that second half. To be free means to have some degree of danger. If we hide indoors or allow our government carte blanc to spy on us, we may be safe, but we will certainly not be free. If we choose to be free, we must accept that we will never be safe.

A couple weeks ago in India, the day after several trains were bombed during rush hour, people were piling on to the trains to go to work. BBC interviewed one of them and his response was quite simple: life goes on as it did before; we will not allow terrorists to make us afraid. To me, that's courage.

They should be arrested, IF THEY ARE ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING ILLEGAL. I doubt most of these people were.

To the rest of your post, and especially the NH motto

[ggiese]

They should be arrested, IF THEY ARE ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING ILLEGAL. I doubt most of these people were.

That would imply you don't know, "doubting" most of these people were... I wouldn't want to bank on it. That's an awfully dangerous limb to be hanging out on...

[WhiteWidow]

I don't feel there was more of a terror threat on Sept. 12 than the was on Sept. 10.
I don't feel the threat of terrorism should change my life, my rights, or my liberties.
I feel that if things do change, that the terrorists have won.

I agree with this, it is unfortunate such a tradgedy had to occur right in front of us for it to become a priority, though.

[SuperChuck]

Protection of free speech means protection of possibly offensive speech. If it wasn't offensive, it wouldn't need protection. That was the point of the First Amendment.

There's a good quote I can't find, so I'll paraphrase it. I want to attribute it to Jefferson, but I might be wrong. Basically:

Freedom of speech isn't for you, it's for those with whom you disagree.

It's real easy to defend your own freedom to say what you believe, but it's really hard to remember that the guy you disagree with has that same freedom.

Should peaceful protests be broken up and protesters arrested? No.
Does it happen? Yes.
Has it happened since the Vietnam Era? Yes.

Do some protesters want to be arrested? Yes.

Sometimes it furthers your cause. Think about Martin Luther King, Jr. I doubt we'd be taking Jan 15th off every year if he was never arrested.

I was just listening to a lady in England who refused to pay taxes to protest something. They threw her in jail. When a politician had her freed, she wanted to go back. She was knowingly breaking the law and felt she should face the consequence of her action. Without going to jail, she ceased to be protesting, she was just getting away with not paying taxes.