Blaidd Drwg wrote:look at you equivocating about the 1st amendment!...now your failure is complete.
There are already plenty of limitations on the 1st Amendment, and I didn't say the Muslim shouldn't have been convicted.
he was at a costumed parade..
..a public family function, not a political protest. Being a huge asshole.
but further, in light of the Danish cartoonists this is legit social protest.
here's a HUGE towelhead for your troubles.
You are barking up the wrong tree. I happily participated in "Everybody Draw Muhammed Day." The Danish newspaper and South Park were completely within their rights to depict Muhammed.
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.
Grandpa's Spells wrote:
1. Zombie-man deserved an ass-beating.
???
It's possible that I'm misunderstanding the facts, but Zombie-man's intent was to publicly insult people who disagree with him to their faces. This is called "being a huge asshole."
It's also called "freedom of navigation". Use it or lose it. There's really no difference between not having a freedom and having a freedom and never exercising it because of the people that don't want you to have that freedom in the first place.
Grandpa's Spells wrote:
1. Zombie-man deserved an ass-beating.
???
It's possible that I'm misunderstanding the facts, but Zombie-man's intent was to publicly insult people who disagree with him to their faces. This is called "being a huge asshole."
It's also called "freedom of navigation". Use it or lose it. There's really no difference between not having a freedom and having a freedom and never exercising it because of the people that don't want you to have that freedom in the first place.
Oh please. Nobody is infringing on his right to say things. You're getting worked up because of the Muslim angle. If a drunk in a bar walked up and called another man's date a war pig, nobody would be surprised if he got his ass beat for it.
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.
Grandpa's Spells wrote: You're getting worked up because of the Muslim angle.
Pretty much. They've got it into their head that throwing a tantrum will get them what the law won't, and that needs to be rectified. Unfortunately, that means offending some good decent people along the way. However, the attacker in this case was neither.
Grandpa's Spells wrote: You're getting worked up because of the Muslim angle.
They've got it into their head that throwing a tantrum will get them what the law won't, and that needs to be rectified.
You gotta be kidding me. You don't get a lot of Islamists immigrating to the Great Satan. When it comes to demanding the right to impose religious values on others in this country, Fundy Christians are the heavyweight champions. Muslims here almost universally just keep their heads down here compared to Christians and (on foreign policy) neocon Jews.
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.
Grandpa's Spells wrote: If a drunk in a bar walked up and called another man's date a war pig, nobody would be surprised if he got his ass beat for it.
Yes. But is would still be an assault charge and not a lecture on cultural sensitivity to men who like great big fat bitches.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill
Grandpa's Spells wrote: If a drunk in a bar walked up and called another man's date a war pig, nobody would be surprised if he got his ass beat for it.
Yes. But is would still be an assault charge and not a lecture on cultural sensitivity to men who like great big fat bitches.
1. Zombie-man deserved an ass-beating. 2. Ass-beater probably should have been convicted. 3. All parties described in that story are assholes.
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.
Grandpa's Spells wrote: You're getting worked up because of the Muslim angle.
They've got it into their head that throwing a tantrum will get them what the law won't, and that needs to be rectified.
You gotta be kidding me. You don't get a lot of Islamists immigrating to the Great Satan. When it comes to demanding the right to impose religious values on others in this country, Fundy Christians are the heavyweight champions.
Yep, that's we you'll never see this on TV. Christians would never put up with it.
Grandpa's Spells wrote: If a drunk in a bar walked up and called another man's date a war pig, nobody would be surprised if he got his ass beat for it.
Yes. But is would still be an assault charge and not a lecture on cultural sensitivity to men who like great big fat bitches.
=D> =D> =D> =D>
Kazuya Mishima wrote:they can pry the bacon from my cold dead hand.
Grandpa's Spells wrote: If a drunk in a bar walked up and called another man's date a war pig, nobody would be surprised if he got his ass beat for it.
Yes. But is would still be an assault charge and not a lecture on cultural sensitivity to men who like great big fat bitches.
=D> =D> =D> =D>
Judges never lecture people for being assholes?
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
Talked about this case with a former State Supreme Court Justice, her take is that this judge has a serious screw loose.
Legally what was this guy the victim of? I thought the judge decided there wasn't enough evidence-- did the judge throw out evidence that he shouldn't have?
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
Talked about this case with a former State Supreme Court Justice, her take is that this judge has a serious screw loose.
Legally what was this guy the victim of? I thought the judge decided there wasn't enough evidence-- did the judge throw out evidence that he shouldn't have?
Oh..let's do that then....
Judges don't berate WITNESSES to ALLEGED CRIMES against them about the plaintiff's feelings.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill
Talked about this case with a former State Supreme Court Justice, her take is that this judge has a serious screw loose.
Legally what was this guy the victim of? I thought the judge decided there wasn't enough evidence-- did the judge throw out evidence that he shouldn't have?
Oh..let's do that then....
Judges don't berate WITNESSES to ALLEGED CRIMES against them about the plaintiff's feelings.
There was not enough evidence to convict the Muslim guy of either assault or harrasment-- if I'm reading the RCP article correctly, he admitted what he did and admitted he was ignorant of the law. What lecture does someone who cops to their responsibility deserve? There is, however, evidence that Perce is a lying sack of shit who fabricated his story and created a national stir that turned to be much ado about nothing. Rant deserved his lecture.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
Turdacious wrote:
There was not enough evidence to convict the Muslim guy of either assault or harrasment-- if I'm reading the RCP article correctly, he admitted what he did and admitted he was ignorant of the law.
Not enough evidence to convict DOES NOT EQUAL berate the victim.
Kazuya Mishima wrote:they can pry the bacon from my cold dead hand.
Turdacious wrote:
There was not enough evidence to convict the Muslim guy of either assault or harrasment-- if I'm reading the RCP article correctly, he admitted what he did and admitted he was ignorant of the law.
Not enough evidence to convict DOES NOT EQUAL berate the victim.
What if the 'victim' is a lying sack of shit?
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
Turdacious wrote:
There was not enough evidence to convict the Muslim guy of either assault or harrasment-- if I'm reading the RCP article correctly, he admitted what he did and admitted he was ignorant of the law.
Not enough evidence to convict DOES NOT EQUAL berate the victim.
What if the 'victim' is a lying sack of shit?
It's highly unprofessional. You watch too much TV, fer reals.
Kazuya Mishima wrote:they can pry the bacon from my cold dead hand.
Turd supports sharia law in America. He hates mom, Jesus, and apple pie.
"That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy.
It is our job to see that it stays there." - George Orwell
Beside the fact he berated the victum he also went on to tell him what would happen if he lived in a Jawa shit hole.
" Hey, your Dis Honor we don't live in a Jawa fuckhole like the defendent and his ass spawn comes from and since besdies forgetting what country you live in you also seem to have forgot the law. As long as I do not threaten to harm him or yell FIRE! in a croweded building I can say whatever I want to this sub human dirt woshipping ass fucker and it's against the law for him to strike me so do your fucking job and uphold the law." is what the Victum should have said.
I might feel my country is under attack when a cocksucking Lib spouts off a bunch of anti American shit but I can't beat his ass so a fucking Dirthead needs to keep his hands in his pockets and deal with it.
"God forbid we tell the savages to go fuck themselves." Batboy
