[Zimphire]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...p;section=news

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Protests -- and arrests -- began in New York on Thursday, days before the start of the Republican convention, where President Bush will be nominated for re-election in a city that voted overwhelmingly for his opponent four years ago.

I hope they get jail time and it goes on their records.

They have no respect for anything. Not even themselves. What a bunch of punks.

[BlackGriffen]

Oh, no! The n00dity! They're degrading this country's moral base to the point that it's going to fall apart!

It may be illegal, but it was non-violent. As long as they keep it non-violent, at least toward other people and property, I'm cool. They can prance around nekkid, march, sing, hold up signs, self-flagellate, burn their own flags, hang Bush in effigy, self immolate, whatever, as long as they respect the persons and property around them.

Seriously, if a bunch of people getting undressed is the worst we see, I'll be very happy. I don't want stupid anarchist nutjobs giving peaceful protestors a bad name.

BlackGriffen

P.S. Yes, KarlG, I know that they're not technically anarchists.

[Capt.McDuff]

Great, so it's OK with you if they break the law?

[Zimphire]

Of course!

Quit being so closed minded!

Peace love and all that breaking the law/rebel without a clue stuff.

[tie]

Originally posted by Capt.McDuff:
Great, so it's OK with you if they break the law?

It isn't very serious, so no I don't really care. They can jaywalk, too, and I won't care. What's the big deal? Their whole point is to gain attention, and you're just giving it to them.

[Zimphire]

Making fun of them is giving them attention. But they aren't seeing my attention from this place.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Capt.McDuff:
Great, so it's OK with you if they break the law?

As long as they don't do harm to other people or their property, I don't really care. Sure, they'll be busted for it, but it's a harmless offense, so *shrug*.

BG

[villalobos]

Originally posted by Capt.McDuff:
Great, so it's OK with you if they break the law?

I guess you have never ever driven above the speed limit on your life?

[villalobos]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...p;section=news


I hope they get jail time and it goes on their records.

They have no respect for anything. Not even themselves. What a bunch of punks. [/B]

ah c'mon, the banner is funny, and so right at the same time.

[eklipse]

The arrest have already began

You need reducated - again.

[ebuddy]

Yeah, the banners are funny indeed. You've got one banner saying; "Stop Aids" right next to the one that says; "Drop the debt". Should we drop the debt by say...scrapping the projected $15Billion for Bush's proposed funding of Aids programs here and abroad? You can be opposed to the war, but some of these folks who like to spout off about the debt and spending are just absurd IMHO. Well, at least they're thinking about it now.

[Millennium]

What's up with the naked protests anyway? It says absolutely nothing, except possibly "I'm an attention whore!", and that adds absolutely nothing to a protest. It's illegal anyway, and the First Amendment doesn't protect you from other crimes.

That's just it: the protestors seem to think that people on The Other Side are ignoring them. We aren't. We just happen to still disagree with you.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by eklipse:
The arrest have already began

You need reducated - again.

Since when is "reducated" a word eklipse?

I think you mean "reeducated"

Before being a grammar nazi, you really need to look at your post before hitting submit.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Millennium:
What's up with the naked protests anyway? It says absolutely nothing, except possibly "I'm an attention whore!", and that adds absolutely nothing to a protest. It's illegal anyway, and the First Amendment doesn't protect you from other crimes.

That's just it: the protestors seem to think that people on The Other Side are ignoring them. We aren't. We just happen to still disagree with you.

They WANT to be attention whores. That is why they DO IT. It makes them feel important.

They don't CARE if it doesn't help their cause.

It makes them feel important. That is why a lot of these people do this. They care less about the "cause"

You'll find most of these people are deluded with self important silliness.

All this does is make society LOATH them and associate them with their "cause"

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Millennium:
........That's just it: the protestors seem to think that people on The Other Side are ignoring them. We aren't. We just happen to still disagree with you.

[Sven G]

OK, so how could those protesters become rebels with a cause? As long as most people don't give a fùck about improving the world outside of the merely egoistic, private sphere, they'll of course be isolated, and thus prone to making only a theatre (or little more) of their protests.

Without a minimum of "cross-class" (or cross-whatever) solidarity, there isn't much more that can be done, in today's depressing context!

[PacHead]

No big surprise here people. The loony, wacko, extreme, non-law abiding, criminal, leftist-thug protesters are doing what they do best.

The RNC hasn't even started yet, and so far, more people have been arrested at the RNC than the total amount of people arrested at the DNC, and that event is ancient history already. What does this tell people about which side is worse ?

And these geniuses need to do something different besides just getting naked. This is New York City and not many gives a crap about a couple of naked idiots from out of town. And how getting naked is a useful protest against anything is beyond me. I suggest they utilize better looking leftists though, and not the unattractive leftists who got naked the other day.

NYC will act like a huge magnet, which will draw wackos from practically the whole world, and certainly from around the USA. A freak magnet, which will attract all sorts of idiots and not just anti-Bush protesters. New York has enough with it's own weirdos, we don't need no hillbilly weirdos and wannabe anarchists from out of town, coming here and messing things up.

Let the freak show begin.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by PacHead:
No big surprise here people. The loony, wacko, extreme, non-law abiding, criminal, leftist-thug protesters are doing what they do best.

Yep. And actually serving a good purpose, namely driving moderate and conservative Democrats over to the Republicans.

The RNC hasn't even started yet, and so far, more people have been arrested at the RNC than the total amount of people arrested at the DNC, and that event is ancient history already. What does this tell people about which side is worse ?

The funny thing is, it's not even 'sides'. Does anyone really believe it was right-wing groups causing all the trouble in Boston? The sham-left just shows up any place they know cameras will be rolling. Their aim is simply to manufacture their own conflicts. When inevitably that artificial conflict has to be dealt with, they claim that this is 'oppression' and they ham it up while the cameras are rolling. It’s just the organized equivalent of you, I or anyone going out into the middle of a street right this minute, and plopping our asses in the middle of it and blocking traffic. Then when a cop HAS to come along and remove us, we can yell “Look everybody! It’s fascism! It’s because of my political beliefs! Wahhh!”

These types actually think everyone else is as dumb as they are not to see through that. And it doesn't seem to matter to them if they have to pull their stunts at the DNC, RNC, or the local KFC.

Anyway, I think it's hilarious that the sham-left doesn't realize that no one else is really swayed by their antics outside of other far leftists. They aren't changing anyone's mind on anything, well, at least not in the direction they intend. The people that they directly block/throw things at/make their lives/jobs/getting around that much harder, certainly don’t find these people, nor their annoying antics endearing.

[tie]

I don't think New York is handling things very well, and will end up causing more disruptions than necessary. They don't want to let the protestors hold a rally in Central Park. So what's going to happen, and where are all the protestors going to go?

[macvillage.net]

I'm curious who the real attention whores are.

Bush choose NYC so he can parade 9/11 families up on stage with him. Making 9/11 a political issue.

Otherwise, why would a republican choose a Democrat state? Traditionally you do these things on your home turf.

Personally I'm a bit pissed, if you look at all the businesses in NYC who have to close down, and all the people who need to take the day off becauses they won't be able to get in/out of the city... the cost of the rediculus security (at any point you can see 30+ officers, and 10+ national guard) yet they insist... NYC will still make money off the deal.


This should be disruption Austin Texas... where the economy is worthless anyway.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by tie:
I don't think New York is handling things very well, and will end up causing more disruptions than necessary. They don't want to let the protestors hold a rally in Central Park. So what's going to happen, and where are all the protestors going to go?

Central Park would make an excellent free-speech zone: it's big enough to hold everyone relatively comfortably (as well as a park can, at any rate, which is still better than most streets). It's also highly visible, symbolically if not physically. At the same time, it also prevents disruption of the events or the traffic around them, which provides a line between protected speech and unprotected disruption of the event or the daily lives of people around it.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Central Park would make an excellent free-speech zone: it's big enough to hold everyone relatively comfortably (as well as a park can, at any rate, which is still better than most streets). It's also highly visible, symbolically if not physically. At the same time, it also prevents disruption of the events or the traffic around them, which provides a line between protected speech and unprotected disruption of the event or the daily lives of people around it.

But the RNC requested no large protest zones from it's host city (as it always had). So they couldn't do that.

[Capt.McDuff]

The people have a right to protest. But they do not have a right to protest in the spot they choose.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Capt.McDuff:
The people have a right to protest. But they do not have a right to protest in the spot they choose.

Wow. Do you smile when you spit on the constitution?

The US has had to endure the likes of the KKK marching freely because the courts say you can't prohibit where they do it (provided it's law abiding).

[Sven G]

Again, the problem seems to be: to protest for what? Protests done just because they "must" be done, without developing any real alternatives in parallel, remain ineffective. No vision, no ideals - no new world in sight.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
The US has had to endure the likes of the KKK marching freely because the courts say you can't prohibit where they do it (provided it's law abiding).

Absolutely not true. Groups have to apply for parade permits to hold rallies and marches inside of most municipalities. One way areas have sought to keep radical knuckleheads such as the KKK from showing up and basically pretending their ‘freedom of speech’ gives them the right to hold a town hostage, is to deny them such permits.

A perfect example would be the Klan doesn’t have any ‘right’ to show up on MLK day anywhere and parade around trying to incite violence. (Which that most certainly would).

On the other side of the spectrum, radical knucklehead leftists whose aim it is to incite violence and be disruptive to everything they disagree with, don’t have any ‘right’ to hijack any place they chose, at any time they choose either.

This is part of the arrogance of radical knuckleheads of either stripe, they always think their right to ‘free speech’ trumps everyone else’s rights, and they purposefully waste an inordinate amount of time (most of it other people’s) scraping against the outer fringe limits where their rights start infringing on others. After they cross the line and are dealt with accordingly, they love to whine that they are victims.

Do sham-leftists have the right to use Central Park as individuals like anyone else? Sure. Do they have the right to hi-jack it en-mass and use it as their private rallying-grounds without the City’s permission? F*** no. The same would hold true for the KKK or any other group of knuckleheads who had it in mind to pretend that hi-jacking public property was their ‘right’.

[phoenixboy70]

[Mr. Bob]

: breaths large sigh :

Some people seem to not have an idea about how to do a civilized protest. The whole point is to get your ideas across, and at the same time show the number of people who agree with said ideas.

Its simple.

Get a whole bunch of people (write a website or something) describing your views. Then, assemble them together in a designated area, that was legally attained. Have a speaker (usually the person who organized said event), and let him talk. People can show their support in any civilized epithet they find necessary (hold lighters, clap, whatever).

The speaker gets his point across, and then people see the numbers of those in aggeeance. Hopefully, the speaker is somewhat knowledgeable in the English language, and can get his point across without using swear words, or overall foolhardy remarks. It would also help if his opinions were not ignorant, but that last part is not a requirement in today’s democracy.

This is a civilized protest. I will listen to what these people say.

However, these other people are immature, and because they are acting immature, obviously it is easy to follow an axiom that their ideas are, also, immature.

Young idiotic kids have problems keeping their clothes on. If you are a young kid in an adult body, it would behoove you to read a few books, and get educated.

I do not listen to foolish protests. If you want me to listen to you, act like someone worth listening too. These people failed at just that. Remember, body language explains what you are saying too. These people said.

We want AIDS cured, and also believe that human decency has no place in America’s cities.

Many of the protesters at the RNC are just the same. People patting themselves with gunpowder, people sneaking in fake guns, etc.

If these are the people that hate Bush, if anything, it shows that pro-Kerry voters are not the people who should have their vote counted. Overall, it shows that a rather large portion of Kerry’s support base have substantial problems with making good decisions.

If I was Kerry, I would tell these people, that they are fools, and to just stay home. But, your average American will eat this **** with a spoon.

Now, the worst part of this Election is that it will end. And, for the first time since the Civil War, America will be heavily divided by ideological beliefs.

When November ends, half of the nation will be very pissed. What is really screwed up, if Bush does win, Kerry would, in all honesty have enough support to make his own goddamn country, and split the nation in Half. The same thing goes for Bush if Kerry wins.

I have yet to see an Election, where two sides fiendishly hate either candidate in the way they do now. And really, it is not healthy.

But, oh well. 228 years, I guess it’s not that bad huh. Countries have lasted less, right?

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Absolutely not true. Groups have to apply for parade permits to hold rallies and marches inside of most municipalities. One way areas have sought to keep radical knuckleheads such as the KKK from showing up and basically pretending their ‘freedom of speech’ gives them the right to hold a town hostage, is to deny them such permits.

A perfect example would be the Klan doesn’t have any ‘right’ to show up on MLK day anywhere and parade around trying to incite violence. (Which that most certainly would).

On the other side of the spectrum, radical knucklehead leftists whose aim it is to incite violence and be disruptive to everything they disagree with, don’t have any ‘right’ to hijack any place they chose, at any time they choose either.

This is part of the arrogance of radical knuckleheads of either stripe, they always think their right to ‘free speech’ trumps everyone else’s rights, and they purposefully waste an inordinate amount of time (most of it other people’s) scraping against the outer fringe limits where their rights start infringing on others. After they cross the line and are dealt with accordingly, they love to whine that they are victims.

Do sham-leftists have the right to use Central Park as individuals like anyone else? Sure. Do they have the right to hi-jack it en-mass and use it as their private rallying-grounds without the City’s permission? F*** no. The same would hold true for the KKK or any other group of knuckleheads who had it in mind to pretend that hi-jacking public property was their ‘right’.

Don't know where you've been, but as long as it's non-confrontational (can't interfere with another event), and law abiding... they can't be denied a permit, regardless of their beliefs.

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:

That's nothing. There have been 30+ watching 1 corner.

"Haven't been that many nyc police working together since they shoved a broomstick up a guys ass."

[Mr. Bob]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Wow. Do you smile when you spit on the constitution?

The US has had to endure the likes of the KKK marching freely because the courts say you can't prohibit where they do it (provided it's law abiding).

You are confusing freedom, with anarchy.

Part of being a civilized nation (something that America is not yet, but is getting close to being) means having rules.

Roads have stop lights, to regulate the flow of traffic. Without them, nobody gets anywhere, and the system breaks down.

If people protest whenever they want, however they want, they dilute free speech. Everyone would start yelling about “whatever” “whenever”. Requiring a permit, also makes people get organized. It is the stoplight in free speech. Without it, nobody gets anywhere, and the system breaks down.

Imagine, for a moment, if everyone starts protesting wherever they wanted, how ever they wanted. That would not be free speech. That would be chaos. Imagine walking down the street, having 1000’s of individual people yelling into megaphones about something different. Ideas get mixed, and become incohesive ramble. That is not free speech, its dribble.

Do not confuse freedom with anarchy. Anarchy is what mankind has overcame. Liberty can only come when freedom is used responsibility. The biggest problem with America today, is people attain liberty by denying freedom from others.

You want to be heard, good. America allows you the ability to be heard. Because it is not as easy as “whipping off your underwear” only means that it is worth that much more.

[Capt.McDuff]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Wow. Do you smile when you spit on the constitution?

The First Amendment guarantees that the government won't restrict speech within reason, however, it states nothing about where the right to speak can be had or denied.

I believe the vast majority of people have the right not to be harassed or interfered with by a small group of protesters. If a protest is going to disrupt even one other person's day then it's a mob and not a protest and thus should not be covered by the First.

[rambo47]

In NYC you can be denied a permit for a protest, rally, or other event if there is an undue risk of violence. Completely a judgement call by those in government issuing the permits, so yes, they can deny a permit any time they want.

Want to do something positive? How about voter awareness campaigns. Influence an election and you've done something positive and concrete. Your group will gain instant credibility and next time you want to be heard people will actually listen.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Capt.McDuff:
The First Amendment guarantees that the government won't restrict speech within reason, however, it states nothing about where the right to speak can be had or denied.

Iraq and Communist Russia had the same thing... you can say what you want in jail.

And the law doesn't say law enforcement can't retaliate for your use of freedom of speach.


It's a double standard to say it exists.... then not allow it.

[Capt.McDuff]

What double standard? The public at large has more of a right to live and go about their day in peace then someone has the right to scream in my ear, block my way, prevent me from going about my business.

Sorry, that doesn't wash. The right to speech ends when it interferes with my rights.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Don't know where you've been, but as long as it's non-confrontational (can't interfere with another event), and law abiding... they can't be denied a permit, regardless of their beliefs.

Once again, you need to get to the real world, and not just spout nonsense from your own little make-believe world.

Go read the parade/assembly permit requirements that most municipalities have. Most of them clearly explain that the 1st Amendment doesn’t grant anyone any ‘right’ to disrupt the general public safety, nor commerce of their areas. The municipalities have the right to decide that a proposed group gathering will unduly disrupt their public interests, safety and commerce, and therefore deny the permit. For example, the one for Beverly Hills.

Parade or Assembly Permits
The right to peacefully demonstrate is afforded to all persons and protected by the First Amendment. This constitutional privilege does not, however, allow demonstrators to block a sidewalk, prevent ingress or egress into a business or building, break any law, or in general, disrupt the public’s peace.
In order to conduct a parade or assembly in the City of Beverly Hills, a permit is required.

Also, municipalities can require that groups (usually defined as 25 or more people) submit to sound financial responsibility to CLEAN UP any mess or damage incurred on a city’s public property as a result of their gathering. So who is it exactly, that has arranged to pay for the damage that a huge crowd of protestors will level on Central Park? Who is it that stepped up to take responsibility to pay for damage done purposefully by the more fringe-element knuckleheads? I’m willing to bet good money not a single group stepped up with any such realistic commitment.

What self-centered people who think they’re the only ones with rights always fail to see, is that the city IS protecting people’s rights- the rights of citizens to use THEIR own park without having thousands of people hijack it every time they disagree with something. The rights of those citizens to expect and have public safety in their park. The rights of those citizens not to have their streets, commerce, businesses blocked, and property trashed without due compensation.

Subsequently, the city has not issued a permit for the use of the park by protest groups. Therefore it would seem that any organized group of 25 or more people will go there at their own risk of being arrested. (Which is of course what many of them are seeking anyway.) And of course anyone disrupting the public safety will be arrested in any circumstance, but far be it from them not to pretend that it’s due to ‘fascism’.

[osiris]

Originally posted by Capt.McDuff:
What double standard? The public at large has more of a right to live and go about their day in peace then someone has the right to scream in my ear, block my way, prevent me from going about my business.

Sorry, that doesn't wash. The right to speech ends when it interferes with my rights.

Great, you should move to China where the freedom of speech & the right to protest are more suitable for your needs.

But I am sorry if the protestors scream in your ear and block your way, disrupt your life, etc., it's a small price to pay for freedom. So get a beer, relax, and enjoy the show.

[version]

The protest seems to have gone well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3610394.stm

[Spheric Harlot]

Once again, I find conservative Americans' views on practical democracy and political activism/protest rather...alien.

Anyone remember that thread where jcadam, an American GI stationed in Germany, flew off the handle because a couple of picketers had the nerve to make themselves heard as well as seen?

oioioioioi...

[dgs212]

Originally posted by Mr. Bob:
You are confusing freedom, with anarchy.

Do not confuse freedom with anarchy. Anarchy is what mankind has overcame. Liberty can only come when freedom is used responsibility. The biggest problem with America today, is people attain liberty by denying freedom from others.

And you're confusing anarchy and chaos. While common usage has equated the two, in fact anarchy simply means "without rulers," not "without rules" or "without order."

That is, everyone has an equal say in the governing process, i.e. no elected officials, everyone votes on every issue, etc.

[Capt.McDuff]

Originally posted by osiris:
But I am sorry if the protestors scream in your ear and block your way, disrupt your life, etc., it's a small price to pay for freedom. So get a beer, relax, and enjoy the show.

It's simply not acceptable to have my day ruined by a bunch of screaming thugs blocking traffic. My rights to move unhindered supercede those of someone's right to block my way.

The First Amendment does not guarantee the right to be heard anyone one chooses.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Once again, I find conservative Americans' views on practical democracy and political activism/protest rather...alien.

Anyone remember that thread where jcadam, an American GI stationed in Germany, flew off the handle because a couple of picketers had the nerve to make themselves heard as well as seen?

oioioioioi...

I don't think you are reading our posts. I don't care WHAT they do as long as they don't break the law, and don't interfere with the daily lives of people that do have a life.

I don't think anyone here is saying we should take away their right of free speech.

Notice, the Right never acted like this during THEIR convention.

And we are supposed to be the backwoods, redneck, YEEHAW types.

I think it's turned sides here.

[ambush]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...p;section=news


I hope they get jail time and it goes on their records.

They have no respect for anything. Not even themselves. What a bunch of punks. [/B]

You made a mistake in the title. It's a ridiculously simple grammar rule.

begun

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Once again, you need to get to the real world, and not just spout nonsense from your own little make-believe world.

Go read the parade/assembly permit requirements that most municipalities have. Most of them clearly explain that the 1st Amendment doesn’t grant anyone any ‘right’ to disrupt the general public safety, nor commerce of their areas. The municipalities have the right to decide that a proposed group gathering will unduly disrupt their public interests, safety and commerce, and therefore deny the permit. For example, the one for Beverly Hills.

There are also towns who still have an ancient law on the books requiring silence during good friday.

Doesn't meant ehy can legally enforce it.

In NYC, a woman can be arrested for wearing shorts.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I don't care WHAT they do as long as they don't break the law, and don't interfere with the daily lives of people that do have a life.

These are two separate, different things.

A certain number of people exercising their right to peaceful assembly will INHERENTLY interfere with the daily life of SOMEBODY - be it a panhandler in a park, or you on your way to work, or municipal officers involved with permits/organization.

It's one of those terrible, terrible things about freedom and liberty that you just have to deal with.

These demonstrations are publicly announced way ahead of time - keep yourself informed, and you can easily plan such that you will be on time for appointments.

Whiners.

-s*

[Capt.McDuff]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
A certain number of people exercising their right to peaceful assembly will INHERENTLY interfere with the daily life of SOMEBODY - be it a panhandler in a park, or you on your way to work, or municipal officers involved with permits/organization.

No, it should not. If it interferes with my ability to move about freely then it's not a peaceful assembly. It's a mob.

It's one of those terrible, terrible things about freedom and liberty that you just have to deal with.

No, we don't have to deal with it.

These demonstrations are publicly announced way ahead of time - keep yourself informed, and you can easily plan such that you will be on time for appointments.

Why should I be the one to be inconvenienced because someone else feels the need to trample all over my rights?

[MindFad]

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Capt.McDuff:
Why should I be the one to be inconvenienced because someone else feels the need to trample all over my rights?

The toughest thing to understand about freedom and liberty and rights and such things is that they apply to others, as well.

Your pathetic inability to adapt and simply leave home twenty minutes earlier should be allowed to trample all over tens of thousands' guaranteed right to peaceful assembly and political protest?

Or are you just gonna come right out and say that you wouldn't care if you happened to agree with their message?

-s*

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
These are two separate, different things.

A certain number of people exercising their right to peaceful assembly will INHERENTLY interfere with the daily life of SOMEBODY - be it a panhandler in a park, or you on your way to work, or municipal officers involved with permits/organization.

And those certain number of people will have to DEAL WITH the fact that the people whose lives they interfere with have rights too.

It’s one of those terrible, terrible things about freedom being a TWO WAY STREET, not the one lane, one-way street that selfish knuckleheads always want it to be so that it's only self-serving.

By the way, are there are no laws in Germany stopping groups like Nazis or KKK-types from assembling and marching at will?

[Capt.McDuff]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
The toughest thing to understand about freedom and liberty and rights and such things is that they apply to others, as well.

It seems the toughest thing for you to realize is that liberty and freedom are not absolutes. Those rights have limits and when those rights interfere with someone else's right to liberty and freedom then those rights cease to be rights.

Your pathetic inability to adapt and simply leave home twenty minutes earlier should be allowed to trample all over tens of thousands' guaranteed right to peaceful assembly and political protest?

You really don't get it, do you?

How about I park my car in front of your driveway, unannounced, and stop you from going anywhere? How about I block access to your street so if you are dying from a heart attack then medical personnel cannot reach you in time? How about I parade around the block, dropping trash all over the place, and make you pay to clean it up?

[Capt.McDuff]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:


By the way, are there are no laws in Germany stopping groups like Nazis or KKK-types from assembling and marching at will?

Isn't it ironic, doncha think?