billvon 2,426 #51 November 22, 2004 >People are not arrested in the U.S. for simply wearing the political >opponent's t-shirt, and to think it's true is naive. It is true. ---------------------------- HAMILTON, N.J. (AP) — A woman wearing a T-shirt with the words "President Bush You Killed My Son" and a picture of a soldier killed in Iraq was detained Thursday after she interrupted a campaign speech by First lady Laura Bush. . . . As shouts of "Four More Years" subsided, Niederer, standing in the middle of a crowd of some 700, continued to shout about the killing of her son. Secret Service and local police escorted her out of the event, handcuffed her and placed her in the back of a police van. --------------------------- 'Peace' T-shirt gets man arrested Thursday, March 6, 2003 NEW YORK (Reuters) -- A lawyer was arrested late Monday and charged with trespassing at a public mall in the state of New York after refusing to take off a T-shirt advocating peace that he had just purchased at the mall. ---------------------------------- Two Sue Feds Over Anti-Bush T-Shirt Arrest Associated Press September 15 2004 A couple arrested for wearing anti-Bush T-shirts to a July 4 presidential appearance filed a federal lawsuit on Tuesday alleging their First Amendment rights were violated. Nicole and Jeff Rank were removed from the event at the West Virginia Capitol in handcuffs after revealing T-shirts with President Bush's name crossed out on the front. Nicole Rank's shirt had the words "Love America, Hate Bush" on the back and Jeff Rank's said "Regime change starts at home." --------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydiverton 0 #52 November 22, 2004 QuoteQuote QuoteOn the plus side, Autobahns are fun if you have access to significant amounts of horsepower. Yes they are. 130 HP do it for me. I feel very comfortable at 220km/h (~135mph) as it's fast bellyflyer speed. I have to agree. because of this a trip to Dusseldorf costs me less time than Amsterdam (same distance) (Mitsubishi Sigma 3.0V6). But not everywhere in germany I found out last summer, stangest is I only got a letter with the question "who drove the car" Not how much it will cost. If I have to pay I also want my points in "flensburg"! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Using your droque to gain stability is a bad habit, Especially when you are jumping a sport rig Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ditch9276 0 #53 November 22, 2004 QuoteIf I have to pay I also want my points in "flensburg"! Oh yes! One of the oldest customer premium programms, like happy digits, payback, miles and more. But does this program really satisfied their point collectors? I don't know excatly! 200 km/h ( 125 mph) hmm no problem in just 10 seconds!!! I really love it on the autobahn, cruising with this speed around and have some fun! .The only rings that are worth wearing, are those of my 3-ring-system!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Merkur 1 #54 November 22, 2004 QuoteThe rest of this, about bombing an airport, I can't even say is coherent so I don't know what you're asking. Saying that someone should do something, and helping them do it, are two radically different things. And that is, what this airport thing is about. When I understand your point correctly (and thanks for your wishes, that I grasp your concept - that really supported the single braincell I just have - it's feeling so good now), you say that just saying, that someone should do something should be, and is legal in the U.S. - So why - in the airport case - it suddenly isn't any longer??? In the case of the KKK I neither thought no nor yes, I was just asking, because I am not just here to defend my point of view to the death but also to learn (this appears to be unusual in SC but I know at least two other people with the sam attitude). Regarding the T-shirt case(s). Well, probably the ones Billvon quoted are also all misunderstandings??? M.vSCR No.94 Don't dream your life - live your dream! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #55 November 22, 2004 QuoteQuotePeople are not arrested in the U.S. for simply wearing the political opponent's t-shirt, and to think it's true is naive. It is true. --------------------------- Come on Bill, you're smarter than this. They were arrested for disrupting campaign events or refusing to leave a premisis(sp?). They still would've been arrested if they wore a palin blue t-shirt. Just because they were wearing t-shirts doesn't mean they wre arrested for the t-shirts. Most arrests of this sort are for distrubing the peace or refusing to leave (tresspass). The t-shirt is a side-note (except in the mall case, where no government body was involved, and I don't understand as of yet).witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,426 #56 November 22, 2004 >Just because they were wearing t-shirts doesn't mean they wre arrested for the t-shirts. In the last case, they were welcomed at the event until they revealed anti-Bush T-shirts, at which point they were arrested. They didn't do anything else; they were arrested for wearing the T-shirt. I would not claim that this is widespread, nor is it accepted. However, it does happen - and if we accept it this time, then it will happen more and more often. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #57 November 22, 2004 Quote>People are not arrested in the U.S. for simply wearing the political >opponent's t-shirt, and to think it's true is naive. It is true. ---------------------------- HAMILTON, N.J. (AP) — A woman wearing a T-shirt with the words "President Bush You Killed My Son" and a picture of a soldier killed in Iraq was detained Thursday after she interrupted a campaign speech by First lady Laura Bush. . . . As shouts of "Four More Years" subsided, Niederer, standing in the middle of a crowd of some 700, continued to shout about the killing of her son. Secret Service and local police escorted her out of the event, handcuffed her and placed her in the back of a police van. Jeezum Crow, Bill! Can't you see where the very story you quoted said that the woman was SHOUTING ABOUT THE KILLING OF HER SON?! Might she not have been arrested for disturbing the peace? Do you think that if she'd been wearing a plain Walmart t-shirt she wouldn't have been just as arrested for doing what she did?! The "t-shirt-caused-the-arrest" claim is SPECIOUS. And the story you quoted gave you every reason to be expected to realize it. You are now substituting what you desire to be the reason for her arrest for the real reason. --------------------------- 'Peace' T-shirt gets man arrested Thursday, March 6, 2003 QuoteNEW YORK (Reuters) -- A lawyer was arrested late Monday and charged with trespassing at a public mall in the state of New York after refusing to take off a T-shirt advocating peace that he had just purchased at the mall. We certainly neeed more details about the claims made in this case. But the fact remains that a private business has a right to eject patrons if they do not accede to arbitrary standards. I've been thrown out of stores for being barefoot, despite the fact that there are NO laws or "health codes" that state I can't be barefoot in a store. I've got to like it or lump it, even though it's stupid, because those are the proprietors' rules... QuoteA couple arrested for wearing anti-Bush T-shirts to a July 4 presidential appearance filed a federal lawsuit on Tuesday alleging their First Amendment rights were violated. Nicole and Jeff Rank were removed from the event at the West Virginia Capitol in handcuffs after revealing T-shirts with President Bush's name crossed out on the front. Nicole Rank's shirt had the words "Love America, Hate Bush" on the back and Jeff Rank's said "Regime change starts at home." Once again, if this happened in a venue where display of such a shirt could have caused problems in the crowd, it becomes a "keeping-the-peace" issue. Obviously their intent was to stir up discord and trouble at a place where mostly the attendees were Bush supporters -- and the president was making an appearance. Do you think the authorities are foolish to attempt to prevent a riot in a crowd that appears before the president? -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #58 November 22, 2004 QuoteAnd that is, what this airport thing is about. When I understand your point correctly (and thanks for your wishes, that I grasp your concept - that really supported the single braincell I just have - it's feeling so good now), you say that just saying, that someone should do something should be, and is legal in the U.S. - So why - in the airport case - it suddenly isn't any longer??? I don't know if we've ever had the right to talk about bombs and stuff in an airport. That is far different from, say, publishing an editorial that says you wouldn't mind if someone bombed airports. Sure, that'd get you some attention from the FBI, but there's no law against stating you like the idea of people bombing airports. And saying so does not "aid" any people who DO bomb airports. The rule about talking about bombs in an airport is about talking about bombs while IN an airport. You can't do it, for security reasons. QuoteIn the case of the KKK I neither thought no nor yes, I was just asking, because I am not just here to defend my point of view to the death but also to learn (this appears to be unusual in SC but I know at least two other people with the sam attitude). I suspect you were hoping "yes," so that you could launch into, "See, PJ, you don't have freedom of speech in the U.S.!" What's wrong with being willing to MODIFY your viewpoint if something demonstrates that part or all of it is misconceived? You say you'll defend your viewpoint to the death. Does that mean you won't change it in the face of contradictory evidence or proof?? QuoteRegarding the T-shirt case(s). Well, probably the ones Billvon quoted are also all misunderstandings??? Clearly the first and most famous one was that lady who shouted that Bush killed her son (you know, the son who volunteered for military service and was taught how to fight and kill with weapons). She was not arrested simply for having an anti-Bush t-shirt, and to suggest so is to lie. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #59 November 22, 2004 QuoteOnce again, if this happened in a venue where display of such a shirt could have caused problems in the crowd, it becomes a "keeping-the-peace" issue. Dude...think about that statement for a few minutes. QuoteJeezum Crow, Bill! Can't you see where the very story you quoted said that the woman was SHOUTING ABOUT THE KILLING OF HER SON?! And did you see in the story where people were SHOUTING FOUR MORE YEARS. So, what you seem to be saying is, it's ok to shout, as long as your shouting isn't the opposite of what other people are shouting. Feel free to express your opinion in the same manner as others, as long as your opinion agrees with theirs. Go ahead and wear a pro-Bush tshirt, but don't wear an anti-Bush tshirt because that will piss people off and cause a problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #60 November 22, 2004 Quote>Just because they were wearing t-shirts doesn't mean they wre arrested for the t-shirts. In the last case, they were welcomed at the event until they revealed anti-Bush T-shirts, at which point they were arrested. They didn't do anything else; they were arrested for wearing the T-shirt. I would not claim that this is widespread, nor is it accepted. However, it does happen - and if we accept it this time, then it will happen more and more often. Wouldn't you say that the event can fairly be said to be for Bush supporters, and once someone makes it known they are there to oppose Bush, they are not welcome at the private event? Ejections for disruptors can and should happen as often as they occur, and there is nothing wrong with it. We are not talking about a public gathering of protestors for both sides. We are talking about a pro-Bush rally event, complete with an appearance by the president, right? Hardly the appropriate place to deliberately start a row among the attendees. If you're going to claim that protestors have just as much right to oppose someone at a private event, then I guess we could all just go right into the next PETA meeting and start chowing down on spare ribs in the middle of it, wearing furs? -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites christelsabine 1 #61 November 22, 2004 Quote We are talking about a pro-Bush rally event, complete with an appearance by the president, right? Oh yeah. That fully complies with thread's title. And it's all about PETA and stuff. Just my 2 Pfennige. 's gibt noch Millionen davon in D. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #62 November 22, 2004 QuoteQuoteOnce again, if this happened in a venue where display of such a shirt could have caused problems in the crowd, it becomes a "keeping-the-peace" issue. Dude...think about that statement for a few minutes. Think about what? If behavior can be construed to be a risk of inciting a riot or something similar, the police certainly have the power to step in and bring it to a halt. That is their responsibility! QuoteQuoteJeezum Crow, Bill! Can't you see where the very story you quoted said that the woman was SHOUTING ABOUT THE KILLING OF HER SON?! And did you see in the story where people were SHOUTING FOUR MORE YEARS. So, what you seem to be saying is, it's ok to shout, as long as your shouting isn't the opposite of what other people are shouting. Exactly, depending on the venue. This was not a place where it was agreed that both sides were free to appear. It was a pro-Bush event. Shouting is not the issue -- DISRUPTING is. If I went to a Rush concert and everyone was singing aloud with the band, and some dude came in wearing a "Rush Sucks" shirt and yelling loudly about how much Rush sucks, etc., you can expect him to be bounced by concert security, and it being a private event, and his behavior being disruptive, they'd be right to do so. You are willfully not seeing the difference between shouting supportive things in a crowd of supporters, and shouting negative things among the same crowd of supporters. The former will not cause problems, and the latter will. These are the kinds of problems that can escalate into violence and chaos, and it is the responsibility of the secret service, the FBI, the event organizers' security, and the local police to prevent such events from unfolding. QuoteFeel free to express your opinion in the same manner as others, as long as your opinion agrees with theirs. Go ahead and wear a pro-Bush tshirt, but don't wear an anti-Bush tshirt because that will piss people off and cause a problem. You are appearing desperate if you are trying to imply that only supportive expressions will be tolerated and allowed. Don't pretend that the right to protest against Bush has been done away with in this country -- at least not anywhere that is not a private pro-Bush function! Your claim is just so much ridiculous hyperbole not based in any fact. Kerry is not the president. Do you think that if 2,000 Kerry supporters were gathered to hear him speak, and two guys took off their jackets to reveal t-shirts that said, "Kerry is a horse-faced fascist leftist asshole" they would not be removed from the event??! Would that be the harbinger of the death of free speech that you seem to think it is when it's a Bush protestor ejected? -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #63 November 22, 2004 QuoteQuote We are talking about a pro-Bush rally event, complete with an appearance by the president, right? Oh yeah. That fully complies with thread's title. And it's all about PETA and stuff. Just my 2 Pfennige. 's gibt noch Millionen davon in D. What the hell does that have to do with anything? The thread has morphed from the original subject, and I am not the first nor the only one to be following the drift, so why single me out now? Your attention to this only as far as MY post is concerned makes it look pretty ridiculous. Nooo, threads can't drift; perish the thought! We've never seen that before. Give me a break. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #64 November 22, 2004 Wow....you're really missing it, man. If a Giants fan comes to Philly to the game wearing his jersey, should he be arrested? And as far as this happening at a Kerry rally, I would be and have been just as opposed to that treatment of people. QuoteYou are willfully not seeing the difference between shouting supportive things in a crowd of supporters, and shouting negative things among the same crowd of supporters. The former will not cause problems, and the latter will. These are the kinds of problems that can escalate into violence and chaos, and it is the responsibility of the secret service, the FBI, the event organizers' security, and the local police to prevent such events from unfolding. That statement is so completely fascist it's unreal. How do you think the American revolution began? It began because colonists protested and were set upon by British troops. Ever hear of the shot heard round the world? I am completely and willingly seeing the difference between shouting along with supporters and shouting dissent among a group of supporters. What you are willfully ignoring is the importance of protecting that dissentor's right to do that and how vital that is to freedom from oppression. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Merkur 1 #65 November 22, 2004 Quote What's wrong with being willing to MODIFY your viewpoint if something demonstrates that part or all of it is misconceived? You say you'll defend your viewpoint to the death. Does that mean you won't change it in the face of contradictory evidence or proof?? Stop - my not native English probably slipped here in the wrong ... but also ... construction (). The proper sentence probably should be: I'm not here to defend my point of view to the death. I'm also here to learn. And once again I was curious about that question - full stop - with no prepared yes or no reaction ready to launch. I still can't see, where security is compromised, when you - while being in an airport - state your opinion, that someone should blow this place up.vSCR No.94 Don't dream your life - live your dream! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,426 #66 November 22, 2004 >If you're going to claim that protestors have just as much right . . . . I'm not claiming that. You said "People are not arrested in the U.S. for simply wearing the political opponent's t-shirt." That's not true, since that has happened. That's my only point. >then I guess we could all just go right into the next PETA meeting >and start chowing down on spare ribs in the middle of it, wearing furs? If you want. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Falko 0 #67 November 22, 2004 Quoting you with bold font emphasis by me: QuoteOnce again, if this happened in a venue where display of such a shirt could have caused problems in the crowd, it becomes a "keeping-the-peace" issue. Obviously their intent was to stir up discord and trouble at a place where mostly the attendees were Bush supporters -- and the president was making an appearance. Do you think the authorities are foolish to attempt to prevent a riot in a crowd that appears before the president? Let me answer to this by quoting you from a few posts up: QuoteIf these positions are so weak, so wrong, why can't German society open up discourse and expose them as being so? Is it so dangerous to trust Germans with freedom? Replace "germans" with "americans". And then read again. Ich betrachte die Religion als Krankheit, als Quelle unnennbaren Elends für die menschliche Rasse. (Bertrand Russell, engl. Philosoph, 1872-1970) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Falko 0 #68 November 22, 2004 QuoteYou are willfully not seeing the difference between shouting supportive things in a crowd of supporters, and shouting negative things among the same crowd of supporters. The former will not cause problems, and the latter will. These are the kinds of problems that can escalate into violence and chaos, and it is the responsibility of the secret service, the FBI, the event organizers' security, and the local police to prevent such events from unfolding. Whow that's what I call a flip-flop! Are you really sure you know what you stand for? Are you for freedom of speech or not? Are you the same person who said QuoteOkay, SAYING something is illegal under German law [....] The notion of it is abhorrent to me. and even better QuoteYou can't compare our laws on freedom of thought, expression, association, and the press, to other countries like Germany. Sorry, in that sense, we're a lot more free -- and trusted. and on top of it all QuoteThe withholding of rights that actually do belong to someone is not tolerable. And finally QuoteBut I think you are going overboard in attempting to engage in prior restraint to preclude such actions. I have nothing to add. You said it all. This concludes the thread for me. Ich betrachte die Religion als Krankheit, als Quelle unnennbaren Elends für die menschliche Rasse. (Bertrand Russell, engl. Philosoph, 1872-1970) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #69 November 23, 2004 QuoteWow....you're really missing it, man. If a Giants fan comes to Philly to the game wearing his jersey, should he be arrested? And as far as this happening at a Kerry rally, I would be and have been just as opposed to that treatment of people. QuoteYou are willfully not seeing the difference between shouting supportive things in a crowd of supporters, and shouting negative things among the same crowd of supporters. The former will not cause problems, and the latter will. These are the kinds of problems that can escalate into violence and chaos, and it is the responsibility of the secret service, the FBI, the event organizers' security, and the local police to prevent such events from unfolding. That statement is so completely fascist it's unreal. How do you think the American revolution began? It began because colonists protested and were set upon by British troops. Ever hear of the shot heard round the world? I am completely and willingly seeing the difference between shouting along with supporters and shouting dissent among a group of supporters. What you are willfully ignoring is the importance of protecting that dissentor's right to do that and how vital that is to freedom from oppression. To suggest that it is unwise, dangerous and stupid to dissent in that venue in no way indicates a support for abolishing the right to dissent. And a person who is prohibited from dissenting at a privately scheduled political rally is NOT denied his right to dissent. He can have his own rally; print his own fliers; wear his own sandwich board; send his own emails... The claim that this is the end of free speech and dissent is absurd. And about the Giants fan in Philadelphia... Is the city of Philadelphia a private enclave in which the proprietors have proprietary rights? No? Then people are free to wear what they want and say what they want, even if it is unpopular. It may get them beat up. Their expression is absolutely no justification for some idiot sports fan zealot to beat them up, but the reality is that it might happen. You seem unwilling to acknowledge that at a private rally, people do not have the right to engage in disruptive behavior. You also seem unwilling to acknowledge that even in some public venues, the police must take action to prevent a situation from escalating into a riot, and that the catalyst sometimes is some straggler opponent of the overall group who puts himself in harm's way acts as a spark among gas fumes. Don't you realize that some perfectly legal actions can be construed rightly as disorderly conduct if done in the wrong place at the wrong time? -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #70 November 23, 2004 QuoteQuoteYou are willfully not seeing the difference between shouting supportive things in a crowd of supporters, and shouting negative things among the same crowd of supporters. The former will not cause problems, and the latter will. These are the kinds of problems that can escalate into violence and chaos, and it is the responsibility of the secret service, the FBI, the event organizers' security, and the local police to prevent such events from unfolding. Whow that's what I call a flip-flop! Are you really sure you know what you stand for? Are you for freedom of speech or not? Are you the same person who said QuoteOkay, SAYING something is illegal under German law [....] The notion of it is abhorrent to me. and even better QuoteYou can't compare our laws on freedom of thought, expression, association, and the press, to other countries like Germany. Sorry, in that sense, we're a lot more free -- and trusted. and on top of it all QuoteThe withholding of rights that actually do belong to someone is not tolerable. And finally QuoteBut I think you are going overboard in attempting to engage in prior restraint to preclude such actions. I have nothing to add. You said it all. This concludes the thread for me. I don't agree that the things you quoted of me disprove my other statements. I stand by what I said regarding freedom of speech earlier. I also stand by the notion that sometimes speech is rightly curtailed in certain venues when it serves a compelling public governmental interest. When a person shows up at a private function with the intention of disrupting it, freedom of speech does not even enter the picture. Freedom of speech is not something that is constitutionally protected in a private sense. An employer telling you that you may not discuss religion on company time or even on company property during your lunch hour has not run afoul of the First Amendment. This is a settled issue. Your alternative is, if you don't like it, quit. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Falko 0 #71 November 23, 2004 Add the following quote to the other 4: QuoteI also stand by the notion that sometimes speech is rightly curtailed in certain venues when it serves a compelling public governmental interest. You really contradict yourself in a fashion I find most exhilarating. You point your finger at germany but when it comes around and you have to acknowledge that more or less the same restrictions and proceedings are in place in the US, you suddenly "interpret it differently". Yeah sure. Maybe it's the US patriotic reflex that one can find often in these Forums? I can't help but jump on this because I'm sick and tired of some of the statements which imply that the US is the only authentic democracy in the world, and all the rest is somehow behind. I have some food for thought, just read it, let it sink in, and please switch on your irony detector: - Europeans don't live in caves. We DO have electricity. - We do enjoy the same rights and freedoms as you do in the US. Mileage may vary in both ways for several reasons, but we are free people. - BOOBIES (SCNR) on prime time TV. You're the parent, you're responsible for what your children may watch. - No beeps and gaps in Music Videos. It's art and it's free! - Germans are peace loving and much less violent in comparison to US statistics. An example in figures: 859 murders in the whole Republic of Germany in 2003 within a population of approx 82.000.000. (Source). Compare that to New York which is considered a rather "safe" city: 597 murders within 8.000.000 people. (Source). You do the math! - Did I say we don't live in caves? Come visit us, you might like it! You may even wear your "Bush sucks" T-Shirts wherever you go. edit4spelling edit2add: German statistics in english language Ich betrachte die Religion als Krankheit, als Quelle unnennbaren Elends für die menschliche Rasse. (Bertrand Russell, engl. Philosoph, 1872-1970) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #72 November 23, 2004 I think we can boil it down to, your rights should not be infringed when Jeffrey doesn't think they should be. But when it's something he doesn't care about, it's no problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #73 November 23, 2004 QuoteAdd the following quote to the other 4: QuoteI also stand by the notion that sometimes speech is rightly curtailed in certain venues when it serves a compelling public governmental interest. You really contradict yourself in a fashion I find most exhilarating. You point your finger at germany but when it comes around and you have to acknowledge that more or less the same restrictions and proceedings are in place in the US, you suddenly "interpret it differently". Yeah sure. You can think whatever you want to, as I know you are going to, but that doesn't make your assessment of me or my views correct. We are talking about limiting freedom of speech in a venue where it presents a danger (like "fire in a crowded theater") and also in a place where the proprietors do not have to suffer a disturbance in their scheduled event, NOT a government keeping a list of things that people are not allowed to talk about or advocate. What would happen if a guy came on a talk show and claimed he believed that the holocaust did not happen as it is widely believed? Would he be prosecuted? Well, he wouldn't be -- couldn't be -- prosecuted in the U.S. for that. Your country has become so paranoid of taking away people's rights that you take away people's rights in order to guard against it! QuoteI can't help but jump on this because I'm sick and tired of some of the statements which imply that the US is the only authentic democracy in the world, and all the rest is somehow behind. I can understand that. QuoteCome visit us, you might like it! You may even wear your "Bush sucks" T-Shirts wherever you go. I'm sure I could find things to like about a visit there, but I am also aware of things that would bother the shit out of me. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ditch9276 0 #74 November 23, 2004 A few questions to Jeffrey: Did you ever visited one of the european staates? Have you ever made a face to face discussion with any european, about politics or else? Or is everything you know about europe or espacilly germany from TV? Sorry, but often it seems like. Like someone who will pull a span out of the eye from his above without seeing the wooden board in front of his own head. Did you ever read the german constitution? No? Then take a look http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/ggeng.html First of all, and Falko has wrote it, we "the germans" are peace loving people, and we have another worth system like you in the us, we think in a few things different then you! Cause germany dosen't exist only since 1945! It's a country with a history of centuries, and not only 3, there're a few more. This long term history is displayed in laws and the daily life of each here in germany. There're traditions that are build through all this centuries and they couldn't and wouldn't remove. A personally and maybe hopefully tip for you is, lending from a mans diary, who lived over 3000 years ago in old china, he was called sun tzu, he also written the art of war, It was following "To build a correct meaning about something or someone, you've to use all information you can get, a meaning never can build in a day or in a week, sometimes in can't build during a complete life! And therefore, before build a meaning about something or someone, you've to collect and interpret all informations you can get. If you don't see the complete picture of this what you're thinking about, then take a step back and take another look!" The thoughts are free, My thoughts freely flower, The thoughts are free, My thoughts give me power. No scholar can map them, No hunter can trap them, No man can deny: The thoughts are free! I think as I please And this gives me pleasure, My conscience decrees, This right I must treasure; My thoughts will not cater To duke or dictator, No man can deny-- The thoughts are free! And if tyrants take me And throw me in prison My thoughts will burst free, Like blossoms in season. Foundations will crumble, The structure will tumble, And free men will cry: The thoughts are free! Neither trouble or pain Will ever touch me again. No good comes of fretting, My hope's in forgetting. Within myself still I can think as I will, But I laugh, do not cry: The thoughts are free! This is a translation from a about 800 years old song! And actually since today! How you can see, it's a little bit difficult to build a picture about the germans, in case that we've a history that goes over centuries and even milleniums away! Remember this! Stay safe, think peacefull .The only rings that are worth wearing, are those of my 3-ring-system!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites christelsabine 1 #75 November 23, 2004 Quote Stay safe, think peacefull Tell me, that's a nice midnight joke, it is, right? So much wasted engergy, wasted bandwidth, wasted time. There simply are people which never will understand. You know, the horse running around with blinders... OK. I was just talking for myself from outside. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 3 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
ditch9276 0 #53 November 22, 2004 QuoteIf I have to pay I also want my points in "flensburg"! Oh yes! One of the oldest customer premium programms, like happy digits, payback, miles and more. But does this program really satisfied their point collectors? I don't know excatly! 200 km/h ( 125 mph) hmm no problem in just 10 seconds!!! I really love it on the autobahn, cruising with this speed around and have some fun! .The only rings that are worth wearing, are those of my 3-ring-system!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Merkur 1 #54 November 22, 2004 QuoteThe rest of this, about bombing an airport, I can't even say is coherent so I don't know what you're asking. Saying that someone should do something, and helping them do it, are two radically different things. And that is, what this airport thing is about. When I understand your point correctly (and thanks for your wishes, that I grasp your concept - that really supported the single braincell I just have - it's feeling so good now), you say that just saying, that someone should do something should be, and is legal in the U.S. - So why - in the airport case - it suddenly isn't any longer??? In the case of the KKK I neither thought no nor yes, I was just asking, because I am not just here to defend my point of view to the death but also to learn (this appears to be unusual in SC but I know at least two other people with the sam attitude). Regarding the T-shirt case(s). Well, probably the ones Billvon quoted are also all misunderstandings??? M.vSCR No.94 Don't dream your life - live your dream! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #55 November 22, 2004 QuoteQuotePeople are not arrested in the U.S. for simply wearing the political opponent's t-shirt, and to think it's true is naive. It is true. --------------------------- Come on Bill, you're smarter than this. They were arrested for disrupting campaign events or refusing to leave a premisis(sp?). They still would've been arrested if they wore a palin blue t-shirt. Just because they were wearing t-shirts doesn't mean they wre arrested for the t-shirts. Most arrests of this sort are for distrubing the peace or refusing to leave (tresspass). The t-shirt is a side-note (except in the mall case, where no government body was involved, and I don't understand as of yet).witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #56 November 22, 2004 >Just because they were wearing t-shirts doesn't mean they wre arrested for the t-shirts. In the last case, they were welcomed at the event until they revealed anti-Bush T-shirts, at which point they were arrested. They didn't do anything else; they were arrested for wearing the T-shirt. I would not claim that this is widespread, nor is it accepted. However, it does happen - and if we accept it this time, then it will happen more and more often. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #57 November 22, 2004 Quote>People are not arrested in the U.S. for simply wearing the political >opponent's t-shirt, and to think it's true is naive. It is true. ---------------------------- HAMILTON, N.J. (AP) — A woman wearing a T-shirt with the words "President Bush You Killed My Son" and a picture of a soldier killed in Iraq was detained Thursday after she interrupted a campaign speech by First lady Laura Bush. . . . As shouts of "Four More Years" subsided, Niederer, standing in the middle of a crowd of some 700, continued to shout about the killing of her son. Secret Service and local police escorted her out of the event, handcuffed her and placed her in the back of a police van. Jeezum Crow, Bill! Can't you see where the very story you quoted said that the woman was SHOUTING ABOUT THE KILLING OF HER SON?! Might she not have been arrested for disturbing the peace? Do you think that if she'd been wearing a plain Walmart t-shirt she wouldn't have been just as arrested for doing what she did?! The "t-shirt-caused-the-arrest" claim is SPECIOUS. And the story you quoted gave you every reason to be expected to realize it. You are now substituting what you desire to be the reason for her arrest for the real reason. --------------------------- 'Peace' T-shirt gets man arrested Thursday, March 6, 2003 QuoteNEW YORK (Reuters) -- A lawyer was arrested late Monday and charged with trespassing at a public mall in the state of New York after refusing to take off a T-shirt advocating peace that he had just purchased at the mall. We certainly neeed more details about the claims made in this case. But the fact remains that a private business has a right to eject patrons if they do not accede to arbitrary standards. I've been thrown out of stores for being barefoot, despite the fact that there are NO laws or "health codes" that state I can't be barefoot in a store. I've got to like it or lump it, even though it's stupid, because those are the proprietors' rules... QuoteA couple arrested for wearing anti-Bush T-shirts to a July 4 presidential appearance filed a federal lawsuit on Tuesday alleging their First Amendment rights were violated. Nicole and Jeff Rank were removed from the event at the West Virginia Capitol in handcuffs after revealing T-shirts with President Bush's name crossed out on the front. Nicole Rank's shirt had the words "Love America, Hate Bush" on the back and Jeff Rank's said "Regime change starts at home." Once again, if this happened in a venue where display of such a shirt could have caused problems in the crowd, it becomes a "keeping-the-peace" issue. Obviously their intent was to stir up discord and trouble at a place where mostly the attendees were Bush supporters -- and the president was making an appearance. Do you think the authorities are foolish to attempt to prevent a riot in a crowd that appears before the president? -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #58 November 22, 2004 QuoteAnd that is, what this airport thing is about. When I understand your point correctly (and thanks for your wishes, that I grasp your concept - that really supported the single braincell I just have - it's feeling so good now), you say that just saying, that someone should do something should be, and is legal in the U.S. - So why - in the airport case - it suddenly isn't any longer??? I don't know if we've ever had the right to talk about bombs and stuff in an airport. That is far different from, say, publishing an editorial that says you wouldn't mind if someone bombed airports. Sure, that'd get you some attention from the FBI, but there's no law against stating you like the idea of people bombing airports. And saying so does not "aid" any people who DO bomb airports. The rule about talking about bombs in an airport is about talking about bombs while IN an airport. You can't do it, for security reasons. QuoteIn the case of the KKK I neither thought no nor yes, I was just asking, because I am not just here to defend my point of view to the death but also to learn (this appears to be unusual in SC but I know at least two other people with the sam attitude). I suspect you were hoping "yes," so that you could launch into, "See, PJ, you don't have freedom of speech in the U.S.!" What's wrong with being willing to MODIFY your viewpoint if something demonstrates that part or all of it is misconceived? You say you'll defend your viewpoint to the death. Does that mean you won't change it in the face of contradictory evidence or proof?? QuoteRegarding the T-shirt case(s). Well, probably the ones Billvon quoted are also all misunderstandings??? Clearly the first and most famous one was that lady who shouted that Bush killed her son (you know, the son who volunteered for military service and was taught how to fight and kill with weapons). She was not arrested simply for having an anti-Bush t-shirt, and to suggest so is to lie. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #59 November 22, 2004 QuoteOnce again, if this happened in a venue where display of such a shirt could have caused problems in the crowd, it becomes a "keeping-the-peace" issue. Dude...think about that statement for a few minutes. QuoteJeezum Crow, Bill! Can't you see where the very story you quoted said that the woman was SHOUTING ABOUT THE KILLING OF HER SON?! And did you see in the story where people were SHOUTING FOUR MORE YEARS. So, what you seem to be saying is, it's ok to shout, as long as your shouting isn't the opposite of what other people are shouting. Feel free to express your opinion in the same manner as others, as long as your opinion agrees with theirs. Go ahead and wear a pro-Bush tshirt, but don't wear an anti-Bush tshirt because that will piss people off and cause a problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #60 November 22, 2004 Quote>Just because they were wearing t-shirts doesn't mean they wre arrested for the t-shirts. In the last case, they were welcomed at the event until they revealed anti-Bush T-shirts, at which point they were arrested. They didn't do anything else; they were arrested for wearing the T-shirt. I would not claim that this is widespread, nor is it accepted. However, it does happen - and if we accept it this time, then it will happen more and more often. Wouldn't you say that the event can fairly be said to be for Bush supporters, and once someone makes it known they are there to oppose Bush, they are not welcome at the private event? Ejections for disruptors can and should happen as often as they occur, and there is nothing wrong with it. We are not talking about a public gathering of protestors for both sides. We are talking about a pro-Bush rally event, complete with an appearance by the president, right? Hardly the appropriate place to deliberately start a row among the attendees. If you're going to claim that protestors have just as much right to oppose someone at a private event, then I guess we could all just go right into the next PETA meeting and start chowing down on spare ribs in the middle of it, wearing furs? -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #61 November 22, 2004 Quote We are talking about a pro-Bush rally event, complete with an appearance by the president, right? Oh yeah. That fully complies with thread's title. And it's all about PETA and stuff. Just my 2 Pfennige. 's gibt noch Millionen davon in D. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #62 November 22, 2004 QuoteQuoteOnce again, if this happened in a venue where display of such a shirt could have caused problems in the crowd, it becomes a "keeping-the-peace" issue. Dude...think about that statement for a few minutes. Think about what? If behavior can be construed to be a risk of inciting a riot or something similar, the police certainly have the power to step in and bring it to a halt. That is their responsibility! QuoteQuoteJeezum Crow, Bill! Can't you see where the very story you quoted said that the woman was SHOUTING ABOUT THE KILLING OF HER SON?! And did you see in the story where people were SHOUTING FOUR MORE YEARS. So, what you seem to be saying is, it's ok to shout, as long as your shouting isn't the opposite of what other people are shouting. Exactly, depending on the venue. This was not a place where it was agreed that both sides were free to appear. It was a pro-Bush event. Shouting is not the issue -- DISRUPTING is. If I went to a Rush concert and everyone was singing aloud with the band, and some dude came in wearing a "Rush Sucks" shirt and yelling loudly about how much Rush sucks, etc., you can expect him to be bounced by concert security, and it being a private event, and his behavior being disruptive, they'd be right to do so. You are willfully not seeing the difference between shouting supportive things in a crowd of supporters, and shouting negative things among the same crowd of supporters. The former will not cause problems, and the latter will. These are the kinds of problems that can escalate into violence and chaos, and it is the responsibility of the secret service, the FBI, the event organizers' security, and the local police to prevent such events from unfolding. QuoteFeel free to express your opinion in the same manner as others, as long as your opinion agrees with theirs. Go ahead and wear a pro-Bush tshirt, but don't wear an anti-Bush tshirt because that will piss people off and cause a problem. You are appearing desperate if you are trying to imply that only supportive expressions will be tolerated and allowed. Don't pretend that the right to protest against Bush has been done away with in this country -- at least not anywhere that is not a private pro-Bush function! Your claim is just so much ridiculous hyperbole not based in any fact. Kerry is not the president. Do you think that if 2,000 Kerry supporters were gathered to hear him speak, and two guys took off their jackets to reveal t-shirts that said, "Kerry is a horse-faced fascist leftist asshole" they would not be removed from the event??! Would that be the harbinger of the death of free speech that you seem to think it is when it's a Bush protestor ejected? -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #63 November 22, 2004 QuoteQuote We are talking about a pro-Bush rally event, complete with an appearance by the president, right? Oh yeah. That fully complies with thread's title. And it's all about PETA and stuff. Just my 2 Pfennige. 's gibt noch Millionen davon in D. What the hell does that have to do with anything? The thread has morphed from the original subject, and I am not the first nor the only one to be following the drift, so why single me out now? Your attention to this only as far as MY post is concerned makes it look pretty ridiculous. Nooo, threads can't drift; perish the thought! We've never seen that before. Give me a break. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #64 November 22, 2004 Wow....you're really missing it, man. If a Giants fan comes to Philly to the game wearing his jersey, should he be arrested? And as far as this happening at a Kerry rally, I would be and have been just as opposed to that treatment of people. QuoteYou are willfully not seeing the difference between shouting supportive things in a crowd of supporters, and shouting negative things among the same crowd of supporters. The former will not cause problems, and the latter will. These are the kinds of problems that can escalate into violence and chaos, and it is the responsibility of the secret service, the FBI, the event organizers' security, and the local police to prevent such events from unfolding. That statement is so completely fascist it's unreal. How do you think the American revolution began? It began because colonists protested and were set upon by British troops. Ever hear of the shot heard round the world? I am completely and willingly seeing the difference between shouting along with supporters and shouting dissent among a group of supporters. What you are willfully ignoring is the importance of protecting that dissentor's right to do that and how vital that is to freedom from oppression. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Merkur 1 #65 November 22, 2004 Quote What's wrong with being willing to MODIFY your viewpoint if something demonstrates that part or all of it is misconceived? You say you'll defend your viewpoint to the death. Does that mean you won't change it in the face of contradictory evidence or proof?? Stop - my not native English probably slipped here in the wrong ... but also ... construction (). The proper sentence probably should be: I'm not here to defend my point of view to the death. I'm also here to learn. And once again I was curious about that question - full stop - with no prepared yes or no reaction ready to launch. I still can't see, where security is compromised, when you - while being in an airport - state your opinion, that someone should blow this place up.vSCR No.94 Don't dream your life - live your dream! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #66 November 22, 2004 >If you're going to claim that protestors have just as much right . . . . I'm not claiming that. You said "People are not arrested in the U.S. for simply wearing the political opponent's t-shirt." That's not true, since that has happened. That's my only point. >then I guess we could all just go right into the next PETA meeting >and start chowing down on spare ribs in the middle of it, wearing furs? If you want. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Falko 0 #67 November 22, 2004 Quoting you with bold font emphasis by me: QuoteOnce again, if this happened in a venue where display of such a shirt could have caused problems in the crowd, it becomes a "keeping-the-peace" issue. Obviously their intent was to stir up discord and trouble at a place where mostly the attendees were Bush supporters -- and the president was making an appearance. Do you think the authorities are foolish to attempt to prevent a riot in a crowd that appears before the president? Let me answer to this by quoting you from a few posts up: QuoteIf these positions are so weak, so wrong, why can't German society open up discourse and expose them as being so? Is it so dangerous to trust Germans with freedom? Replace "germans" with "americans". And then read again. Ich betrachte die Religion als Krankheit, als Quelle unnennbaren Elends für die menschliche Rasse. (Bertrand Russell, engl. Philosoph, 1872-1970) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Falko 0 #68 November 22, 2004 QuoteYou are willfully not seeing the difference between shouting supportive things in a crowd of supporters, and shouting negative things among the same crowd of supporters. The former will not cause problems, and the latter will. These are the kinds of problems that can escalate into violence and chaos, and it is the responsibility of the secret service, the FBI, the event organizers' security, and the local police to prevent such events from unfolding. Whow that's what I call a flip-flop! Are you really sure you know what you stand for? Are you for freedom of speech or not? Are you the same person who said QuoteOkay, SAYING something is illegal under German law [....] The notion of it is abhorrent to me. and even better QuoteYou can't compare our laws on freedom of thought, expression, association, and the press, to other countries like Germany. Sorry, in that sense, we're a lot more free -- and trusted. and on top of it all QuoteThe withholding of rights that actually do belong to someone is not tolerable. And finally QuoteBut I think you are going overboard in attempting to engage in prior restraint to preclude such actions. I have nothing to add. You said it all. This concludes the thread for me. Ich betrachte die Religion als Krankheit, als Quelle unnennbaren Elends für die menschliche Rasse. (Bertrand Russell, engl. Philosoph, 1872-1970) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #69 November 23, 2004 QuoteWow....you're really missing it, man. If a Giants fan comes to Philly to the game wearing his jersey, should he be arrested? And as far as this happening at a Kerry rally, I would be and have been just as opposed to that treatment of people. QuoteYou are willfully not seeing the difference between shouting supportive things in a crowd of supporters, and shouting negative things among the same crowd of supporters. The former will not cause problems, and the latter will. These are the kinds of problems that can escalate into violence and chaos, and it is the responsibility of the secret service, the FBI, the event organizers' security, and the local police to prevent such events from unfolding. That statement is so completely fascist it's unreal. How do you think the American revolution began? It began because colonists protested and were set upon by British troops. Ever hear of the shot heard round the world? I am completely and willingly seeing the difference between shouting along with supporters and shouting dissent among a group of supporters. What you are willfully ignoring is the importance of protecting that dissentor's right to do that and how vital that is to freedom from oppression. To suggest that it is unwise, dangerous and stupid to dissent in that venue in no way indicates a support for abolishing the right to dissent. And a person who is prohibited from dissenting at a privately scheduled political rally is NOT denied his right to dissent. He can have his own rally; print his own fliers; wear his own sandwich board; send his own emails... The claim that this is the end of free speech and dissent is absurd. And about the Giants fan in Philadelphia... Is the city of Philadelphia a private enclave in which the proprietors have proprietary rights? No? Then people are free to wear what they want and say what they want, even if it is unpopular. It may get them beat up. Their expression is absolutely no justification for some idiot sports fan zealot to beat them up, but the reality is that it might happen. You seem unwilling to acknowledge that at a private rally, people do not have the right to engage in disruptive behavior. You also seem unwilling to acknowledge that even in some public venues, the police must take action to prevent a situation from escalating into a riot, and that the catalyst sometimes is some straggler opponent of the overall group who puts himself in harm's way acts as a spark among gas fumes. Don't you realize that some perfectly legal actions can be construed rightly as disorderly conduct if done in the wrong place at the wrong time? -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #70 November 23, 2004 QuoteQuoteYou are willfully not seeing the difference between shouting supportive things in a crowd of supporters, and shouting negative things among the same crowd of supporters. The former will not cause problems, and the latter will. These are the kinds of problems that can escalate into violence and chaos, and it is the responsibility of the secret service, the FBI, the event organizers' security, and the local police to prevent such events from unfolding. Whow that's what I call a flip-flop! Are you really sure you know what you stand for? Are you for freedom of speech or not? Are you the same person who said QuoteOkay, SAYING something is illegal under German law [....] The notion of it is abhorrent to me. and even better QuoteYou can't compare our laws on freedom of thought, expression, association, and the press, to other countries like Germany. Sorry, in that sense, we're a lot more free -- and trusted. and on top of it all QuoteThe withholding of rights that actually do belong to someone is not tolerable. And finally QuoteBut I think you are going overboard in attempting to engage in prior restraint to preclude such actions. I have nothing to add. You said it all. This concludes the thread for me. I don't agree that the things you quoted of me disprove my other statements. I stand by what I said regarding freedom of speech earlier. I also stand by the notion that sometimes speech is rightly curtailed in certain venues when it serves a compelling public governmental interest. When a person shows up at a private function with the intention of disrupting it, freedom of speech does not even enter the picture. Freedom of speech is not something that is constitutionally protected in a private sense. An employer telling you that you may not discuss religion on company time or even on company property during your lunch hour has not run afoul of the First Amendment. This is a settled issue. Your alternative is, if you don't like it, quit. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Falko 0 #71 November 23, 2004 Add the following quote to the other 4: QuoteI also stand by the notion that sometimes speech is rightly curtailed in certain venues when it serves a compelling public governmental interest. You really contradict yourself in a fashion I find most exhilarating. You point your finger at germany but when it comes around and you have to acknowledge that more or less the same restrictions and proceedings are in place in the US, you suddenly "interpret it differently". Yeah sure. Maybe it's the US patriotic reflex that one can find often in these Forums? I can't help but jump on this because I'm sick and tired of some of the statements which imply that the US is the only authentic democracy in the world, and all the rest is somehow behind. I have some food for thought, just read it, let it sink in, and please switch on your irony detector: - Europeans don't live in caves. We DO have electricity. - We do enjoy the same rights and freedoms as you do in the US. Mileage may vary in both ways for several reasons, but we are free people. - BOOBIES (SCNR) on prime time TV. You're the parent, you're responsible for what your children may watch. - No beeps and gaps in Music Videos. It's art and it's free! - Germans are peace loving and much less violent in comparison to US statistics. An example in figures: 859 murders in the whole Republic of Germany in 2003 within a population of approx 82.000.000. (Source). Compare that to New York which is considered a rather "safe" city: 597 murders within 8.000.000 people. (Source). You do the math! - Did I say we don't live in caves? Come visit us, you might like it! You may even wear your "Bush sucks" T-Shirts wherever you go. edit4spelling edit2add: German statistics in english language Ich betrachte die Religion als Krankheit, als Quelle unnennbaren Elends für die menschliche Rasse. (Bertrand Russell, engl. Philosoph, 1872-1970) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #72 November 23, 2004 I think we can boil it down to, your rights should not be infringed when Jeffrey doesn't think they should be. But when it's something he doesn't care about, it's no problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #73 November 23, 2004 QuoteAdd the following quote to the other 4: QuoteI also stand by the notion that sometimes speech is rightly curtailed in certain venues when it serves a compelling public governmental interest. You really contradict yourself in a fashion I find most exhilarating. You point your finger at germany but when it comes around and you have to acknowledge that more or less the same restrictions and proceedings are in place in the US, you suddenly "interpret it differently". Yeah sure. You can think whatever you want to, as I know you are going to, but that doesn't make your assessment of me or my views correct. We are talking about limiting freedom of speech in a venue where it presents a danger (like "fire in a crowded theater") and also in a place where the proprietors do not have to suffer a disturbance in their scheduled event, NOT a government keeping a list of things that people are not allowed to talk about or advocate. What would happen if a guy came on a talk show and claimed he believed that the holocaust did not happen as it is widely believed? Would he be prosecuted? Well, he wouldn't be -- couldn't be -- prosecuted in the U.S. for that. Your country has become so paranoid of taking away people's rights that you take away people's rights in order to guard against it! QuoteI can't help but jump on this because I'm sick and tired of some of the statements which imply that the US is the only authentic democracy in the world, and all the rest is somehow behind. I can understand that. QuoteCome visit us, you might like it! You may even wear your "Bush sucks" T-Shirts wherever you go. I'm sure I could find things to like about a visit there, but I am also aware of things that would bother the shit out of me. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ditch9276 0 #74 November 23, 2004 A few questions to Jeffrey: Did you ever visited one of the european staates? Have you ever made a face to face discussion with any european, about politics or else? Or is everything you know about europe or espacilly germany from TV? Sorry, but often it seems like. Like someone who will pull a span out of the eye from his above without seeing the wooden board in front of his own head. Did you ever read the german constitution? No? Then take a look http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/ggeng.html First of all, and Falko has wrote it, we "the germans" are peace loving people, and we have another worth system like you in the us, we think in a few things different then you! Cause germany dosen't exist only since 1945! It's a country with a history of centuries, and not only 3, there're a few more. This long term history is displayed in laws and the daily life of each here in germany. There're traditions that are build through all this centuries and they couldn't and wouldn't remove. A personally and maybe hopefully tip for you is, lending from a mans diary, who lived over 3000 years ago in old china, he was called sun tzu, he also written the art of war, It was following "To build a correct meaning about something or someone, you've to use all information you can get, a meaning never can build in a day or in a week, sometimes in can't build during a complete life! And therefore, before build a meaning about something or someone, you've to collect and interpret all informations you can get. If you don't see the complete picture of this what you're thinking about, then take a step back and take another look!" The thoughts are free, My thoughts freely flower, The thoughts are free, My thoughts give me power. No scholar can map them, No hunter can trap them, No man can deny: The thoughts are free! I think as I please And this gives me pleasure, My conscience decrees, This right I must treasure; My thoughts will not cater To duke or dictator, No man can deny-- The thoughts are free! And if tyrants take me And throw me in prison My thoughts will burst free, Like blossoms in season. Foundations will crumble, The structure will tumble, And free men will cry: The thoughts are free! Neither trouble or pain Will ever touch me again. No good comes of fretting, My hope's in forgetting. Within myself still I can think as I will, But I laugh, do not cry: The thoughts are free! This is a translation from a about 800 years old song! And actually since today! How you can see, it's a little bit difficult to build a picture about the germans, in case that we've a history that goes over centuries and even milleniums away! Remember this! Stay safe, think peacefull .The only rings that are worth wearing, are those of my 3-ring-system!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #75 November 23, 2004 Quote Stay safe, think peacefull Tell me, that's a nice midnight joke, it is, right? So much wasted engergy, wasted bandwidth, wasted time. There simply are people which never will understand. You know, the horse running around with blinders... OK. I was just talking for myself from outside. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
