Middle east outcome

[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...

[Kenyth]

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

For you SC, I'll make an exception! Do you like black or pink lace better? I'm warning you, I don't wax the bikini line!

[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...

[SmokinDVM]

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...

OK, how about this...

All eye-witness accounts of the incidents described NO ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES. LEO gets involved simply because they either personally don't like the people, or have been told to aggressively suppress them.
Either way, they should get some extra jack-boot wax out of the deal, if nothing else.

[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.