[Ratm]

Originally posted by dodo_nutter:
someone in the police obviously lied

No! it can't be!! A Cop that actually lies? If they could do this in front of a camera I wonder what else they could possibly do when the cameras are not around.

[Jansar]

Originally posted by Sock Puppet Theater:
I suppose if he had been protesting for your side you'd be calling him the "lowest of the low too", eh?

Yes I would. I would be embarrassed to have my party represented by a bunch of freakin' protesters. I'm no hypocrite.

Originally posted by Sock Puppet Theater:
Certainly we need to lock these people up for exercising their first amendment rights. Lock them up forever and ever. They're a serious threat, up there with child rapists.

Certainly I was also being ridiculous, too, but at the same time, protesters are still trash.

[Ratm]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Ah thanks for the info Sy.

Well now I have more respect for the fellow. He was at least MAKING AN ATTEMPT to not be AS obnoxious as I originally thought.

Now, did the police know about this before they arrested him?

Did you watch the video? Because it's all there. Yes they knew. All you have to do was read the information a bit more carefully and you would have understood that that was just explained to you. That's what the other poster was trying to make you understand. What's wrong with you? You remind me of zealot on speed. The sad thing is is in your attempt to protect and defend the right, you're ignoring things that would normally be obvious to you. Example this thread... fanaticism at it's best.


his account of the incident.
http://www.bikesagainstbush.com/blog..._8-31-2004.mp3
Interview found over at Macaddict. Discussion going on over there also.
http://macaddict.com/phpBB2/viewtopi...60b9c57e71a62e

[Mr. Bob]

Listen people, the guy was spraying chalk across NYC. He sprayed �I Love NYC� before, he should have got ticked for that.

Now, in the appropriate places, I do not mind if kids draw hopscotch fields on the sidewalk or street. In front of their home, hell even in front of my home. But, riding a bike that would spray anything people typed on the internet is just pound foolish.

What if people typed profanity on his website, and the remarks were sprayed on the street? Next, after a protest is done, it should be cleaned up in a day, at most two. This would have taken time to wash off. What if it did not rain for a week, or two. It may have stayed there until a few storms. Granted it was not permanent, but lasting more then a day, is lasting too long.

Guy should have gotten a sign just like anyone else. What he wanted to do was to SPAM his ideas to as many people as possible. That is not the idea of a protest. The basic idea of a protest is to show how many people back something. If there are 250,000 people with signs, then 250,000 have said idea. If one guy is spamming hundreds of signs across NYC, he is not protesting, he is just doing the equivalent of sending �HATE BUSH� emails out to thousands of people. Get this yabo in the proper perspective.

Guy is either stupid, or a genius. Stupid to believe, that what he was doing was not wrong. Or a genius, because while saying �it washes out after a few days�, when the popo did their job and arrested him, he could look like a martyr in front of 250,000 protesters, who while hating Bush, would me more included to take his side.

Protesting, fine, but if your marks of protest last for an extra day after the protest, it is defacement. If you are not protesting, and letting SPAM protest for you, you demean the right that allows you to protest in the first place. All of you people defending him have no real point what so ever. Just admit the guy is the monkey that he is, doing so has noting to to with this election.

[Ratm]

Originally posted by Jansar:
I'm no hypocrite.

Yes you are. You won't admit it but you are. Like all of us when it comes to the things we're most passionate about.

[Ratm]

Originally posted by Mr. Bob:
Listen people, the guy was spraying chalk across NYC. He sprayed �I Love NYC� before, he should have got ticked for that.

Now, in the appropriate places, I do not mind if kids draw hopscotch fields on the sidewalk or street. In front of their home, hell even in front of my home. But, riding a bike that would spray anything people typed on the internet is just pound foolish.

You make it sound as if he was blanketing the entire city in chalk. It's chalk. Property owners and city works would have had it clean that afternoon. This is NYC we're talking about and not some hick town in the sticks. The city allows artist to draw entire murals on the city streets in the summer time, so a couple of words is nothing compared. And they use pastels and that's something more dense than chalk.

What if people typed profanity on his website, and the remarks were sprayed on the street? Next, after a protest is done, it should be cleaned up in a day, at most two. This would have taken time to wash off. What if it did not rain for a week, or two. It may have stayed there until a few storms. Granted it was not permanent, but lasting more then a day, is lasting too long.

You see that little phone he had. Well he can control what gets printed or the info that's sent to him is done so by a person who's weeded out inappropriate material. He's not going to give the powers that be any reason to prevent him from doing his thing
.

Guy should have gotten a sign just like anyone else. What he wanted to do was to SPAM his ideas to as many people as possible. That is not the idea of a protest. The basic idea of a protest is to show how many people back something. If there are 250,000 people with signs, then 250,000 have said idea. If one guy is spamming hundreds of signs across NYC, he is not protesting, he is just doing the equivalent of sending �HATE BUSH� emails out to thousands of people. Get this yabo in the proper perspective.

There is so much that's wrong with this it's not even worth it. I'll just say it's your personal opinion and he's free to do what ever the heck he want's because this is the land of the free and home of the...

Guy is either stupid, or a genius. Stupid to believe, that what he was doing was not wrong. Or a genius, because while saying �it washes out after a few days�, when the popo did their job and arrested him, he could look like a martyr in front of 250,000 protesters, who while hating Bush, would me more included to take his side.

There is no law saying that he can't write chalk all over the floor. It's not permanent non destructive and there for not a crime!. Do you people hear yourselves? It's f**king chalk!. It's not the material he's using that's the issue but how it's distributed that scares the sh*t out of you.

Protesting, fine, but if your marks of protest last for an extra day after the protest, it is defacement. If you are not protesting, and letting SPAM protest for you, you demean the right that allows you to protest in the first place. All of you people defending him have no real point what so ever. Just admit the guy is the monkey that he is, doing so has noting to to with this election.

You along with all the other zealots are the reasons why this country is going down the tubes. No compassion left in this country. They are your brothers and sisters but you refer to them as if they were your enemy. It's exactly what I'd come to expect from greedy, power hungry, capitalists.

[Mr. Bob]

Originally posted by Ratm:
rant

Okay buddy. Ummm, yeah. Medication running just a bit low?

How about this, take off the Chey hat, get a breath of fresh air, and relax. I urge you to re-read my post, and at least try to come up with some constructive, not profane, points.

Not everyone who dislikes people SPAMing ideas to others hates America. Not everyone who hates public defacement hates America. If anything, saying...

�They are your brothers and sisters but you refer to them as if they were your enemy. It's exactly what I'd come to expect from greedy, power hungry, capitalists.�

means you really enjoyed the readings of Marx, or are just really, really young.

Not wanting to see chalk signs everywhere is not �greedy, power hungry, or even capitalist...�. Not sure where economic ideology comes into play to this thread anyway.

And trust me, I believe in the whole, �care for your fellow Americans� idea, which is why the deciding factor of my internal organs belongs to Uncle Sam. However, if my brother, or my friend started spraying chalk all over my home, I would beat his ass too.

[Lefterer Guy]

This thread is officially the single dumbest thing I've ever read.

Liberals: He was arrested for speaking his mind!!!!

Conservatives: He was a scumbag that was vandalizing the city!!!!

The Truth: He was using chalk, which is legal when used to create street decorations. However, by automating the process he overstepping what he was allowed to do within reason. If anything, he should be charged with unlicensed advertisement, much like IBM was with their guerilla marketing for Linux that used the same chalk and some stencils to make little images of Tux, the linux mascot, enmasse.

To the people in this thread: you are allowed to have opinions based on other things than your political beliefs. Pretend he was printing recipes all over the streets or maybe a list of all the desserts he likes. What he was writing is irrelevant to all the points being argued here.

But for the record, the bike as an invention was really cool and the messages he was printing weren't too shabby either.

[Chinasaur]

Typical. I see the "left" posters posting about issues that concern them such as Free Speech, support of the Constitution, police abuse...and I see "right" posters attacking them.

I never see the "right" discussing dispassionately about the issues..they simply attack people for their beliefs, calling them girlymen (as if anyone other than a 3rd grader thinks "girlyman" is an insult), and saying "serves them right" when people's rights are abused standing up for the Bill of Rights, Constitution, the Truth, etc.

Stop attacking. Quit hiding behind attacks and come out and talk about the issues. Bliindly defending someone (Dem/GOP) is not the way to ensure freedom. Quelling free speech simply because they disagree with you is the road to Facism.

A Republican, Theodore Roosevelt said this -

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

--Republican President Theodore Roosevelt


I would also remind the Republicans that Teddy Roosevelt put almost 1/5th of this country under protection (Parks, Monuments) during his Presidencey. According to National Geographic, Roosevelt placed approximately 230 million acres of land under public protection. As President, he established 150 National Forests including the Ocala and Choctawhatchee National Forests in Florida, 51 Federal Bird Reservations including Pelican Island plus nine others, 18 National Monuments, perhaps the most notable of which is the Grand Canyon in Arizona, and 5 National Parks.. That's approx ~83,400 acres PER DAY of his time in office.

What has happened to the "right's" concern for this country?

[Millennium]

What are the laws in NYC about chalking up the sidewalks? Honest question; I don't know. But the answer means everything in a case like this.

If chalking the sidewalks is illegal, then the First Amendment won't save you from prosecution, even if you're chalking political slogans, because the speech isn't the crime. It's just like the classic -and often misunderstood- example of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater: the speech isn't the crime, inciting a panic is, and if you can show that this isn't what you were doing (for example, if there really was a fire in the theater) then the law can't touch you.

If, on the other hand, chalking the sidewalks is legal, then there was no reason to arrest this man.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ringo:
All the legal observers with videocameras that are swarming the streets. Lawsuits will follow with lots of footage from both sides. Wait a few weeks.

several of the legal observers were arrested, too, I believe.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Millennium:
What are the laws in NYC about chalking up the sidewalks? Honest question; I don't know. But the answer means everything in a case like this.

If chalking the sidewalks is illegal, then the First Amendment won't save you from prosecution, even if you're chalking political slogans, because the speech isn't the crime. It's just like the classic -and often misunderstood- example of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater: the speech isn't the crime, inciting a panic is, and if you can show that this isn't what you were doing (for example, if there really was a fire in the theater) then the law can't touch you.

If, on the other hand, chalking the sidewalks is legal, then there was no reason to arrest this man.

I used to live in NYC...believe me, without the convention there, the police would not have bothered, even if it were on the books. They look the other way at crack deals. They have much bigger fish to fry, under normal conditions.

of course, every once in a while they break a guys teeth out while sodomizing him with a plunger handle.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Chinasaur:
Typical. I see the "left" posters posting about issues that concern them such as Free Speech, support of the Constitution, police abuse...and I see "right" posters attacking them.

modus operandi....the right never produce cogent arguments or discuss issues. If an issue is brought up, they attack the poster, because they're much too afraid to address the argument.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Lefterer Guy:
The Truth: He was using chalk, which is legal when used to create street decorations. However, by automating the process he overstepping what he was allowed to do within reason. If anything, he should be charged with unlicensed advertisement, much like IBM was with their guerilla marketing for Linux that used the same chalk and some stencils to make little images of Tux, the linux mascot, enmasse.

To use another example, MSN once had a marketing campaign where they put static-stickers (those bits of plastic film that stick to cmooth surfaces but leave no marks when peeled off) of the MSN butterfly all over town.

But for the record, the bike as an invention was really cool and the messages he was printing weren't too shabby either.

The messages are debatable, but I think we can all agree that the invention was ridiculously cool.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Millennium:
What are the laws in NYC about chalking up the sidewalks? Honest question; I don't know. But the answer means everything in a case like this.

If chalking the sidewalks is illegal, then the First Amendment won't save you from prosecution, even if you're chalking political slogans, because the speech isn't the crime. It's just like the classic -and often misunderstood- example of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater: the speech isn't the crime, inciting a panic is, and if you can show that this isn't what you were doing (for example, if there really was a fire in the theater) then the law can't touch you.

If, on the other hand, chalking the sidewalks is legal, then there was no reason to arrest this man.

You are right that it is more complicated than just saying First Amendment like some kind of mantra. Free speech law is full of apparent inconsistencies and balances between free speech and public order. For example, it is legal to gather on a sidewalk to protest, but not if the sidewalk is in front of a post office. Or it is legal to put a poster on a tree, but not a poster on telephone pole.

Without researching both specific first amendment constitutional law to do with street chalkings as well as state law and local New York ordinances, I really wouldn't like to guess who is right, and who is wrong. I could see the potential for argument on both sides.

It may be that the state has a law or ordinance against putting markings on the streets for safety reasons. They might confuse or obscure the official street markings, or the people painting them might obstruct the street or otherwise cause a hazard. Alternatively, it might be that there is law to support the idea that non-permanent street markings are protected. I really don't know without research and it doesn't make much sense to just guess.

One thing that I will say is that the analogies people have drawn to advertizing are almost certainly a red herring. Commercial speech is considerably less protected than non-commercial (i.e. political) speech. The rules are quite different.

[ringo]

I think it's more than a little ironic that the Right spent last night ranting about the Transformational Power Of Liberty, yet seem to oppose all forms of protest, including legal protest, on this board. Does the constitution mean anything, or is it only meaningful when your leadership wants to use it to push their agenda? I think some of you need to think about what those American flags in your sigs mean...if you think jailing people for practicing legal forms of public dissent is the right thing to do, you're missing the point of a Democracy and should really consider moving to a country with stricter controls over individual expression.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by Millennium:
What are the laws in NYC about chalking up the sidewalks? Honest question; I don't know. But the answer means everything in a case like this.

If chalking the sidewalks is illegal, then the First Amendment won't save you from prosecution, even if you're chalking political slogans, because the speech isn't the crime. It's just like the classic -and often misunderstood- example of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater: the speech isn't the crime, inciting a panic is, and if you can show that this isn't what you were doing (for example, if there really was a fire in the theater) then the law can't touch you.

If, on the other hand, chalking the sidewalks is legal, then there was no reason to arrest this man.

From the guys website which most people here didn't even bother to read before posting:

New York's Graffiti Laws

First, I would like to preface this with the fact that at the time of my arrest I had made no markings on the street or sidewalk. I was giving an interview to a journalist, describing my invention and the goals of the Bikes Against Bush project.

Now, let's take a look at NY State's definition of graffiti:


TITLE I. OFFENSES INVOLVING DAMAGE TO AND INTRUSION UPON PROPERTY
ARTICLE 145. CRIMINAL MISCHIEF AND RELATED OFFENSES
NY CLS Penal � 145.60 (2004)

� 145.60. Making graffiti

1. For purposes of this section, the term "graffiti" shall mean the etching, painting, covering, drawing upon or otherwise placing of a mark upon public or private property with intent to damage such property.


The tricky part here is that an "intent to damage such property" must be established. That would be very hard to do considering that my invention uses water-soluble chalk which does not damage or deface property. Chalk writing is generally permitted and there are no laws prohibiting the sale of sidewalk chalk as an "instrument of graffiti."
Now let's look at NY State Law regarding "possession of graffiti instruments":


� 145.65. Possession of graffiti instruments
A person is guilty of possession of graffiti instruments when he possesses any tool, instrument, article, substance, solution or other compound designed or commonly used to etch, paint, cover, draw upon or otherwise place a mark upon a piece of property which that person has no permission or authority to etch, paint, cover, draw upon or otherwise mark, under circumstances evincing an intent to use same in order to damage such property.


Again, "intent to damage such property" must be established. Using a solution of water and chalk that biodegrades naturally and washes away cleanly with water can hardly be considered to damage property.

Again, like someone else put it, the "right" is just attacking without discussing the basic issue and debating the facts.

[Spliffdaddy]

looks like he was guilty according to the law.

[davesimondotcom]

I love it when people do something illegal, get arrested, then blame the President for it...

I heard a caller into a local radio show last night blame Ashcroft and the PATRIOT Act for Tommy Chong being arrested. Never mind the fact he was selling bongs on the internet. Sure, that's illegal, but it's the PATRIOT act that made him do it.

Blah blah blah.

Don't like Bush? Fine. Blog about it. Start 500 threads on an obscure internet forum about how evil he and his plan for world domination is. Nobody will arrest you.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Ah thanks for the info Sy.

Well now I have more respect for the fellow. He was at least MAKING AN ATTEMPT to not be AS obnoxious as I originally thought.

Now, did the police know about this before they arrested him?

As I had been saying all along. I told you to actually watch the video where he tells them all about how the chalk is biodegradable and washes off with water.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
looks like he was guilty according to the law.

Nope. Like he says, the "intent to damage" must be established. Clearly, using a biodegradable chalk is not "intent to damage" since it can easily be washed away. If it were paint, he would be guilty. It's not, so he is not.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
As I had been saying all along. I told you to actually watch the video where he tells them all about how the chalk is biodegradable and washes off with water.

MrJingle, HIM saying one thing is a bit different than the actual facts. Understand?

I wanted facts. Not here-say.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You are right that it is more complicated than just saying First Amendment like some kind of mantra. Free speech law is full of apparent inconsistencies and balances between free speech and public order. For example, it is legal to gather on a sidewalk to protest, but not if the sidewalk is in front of a post office. Or it is legal to put a poster on a tree, but not a poster on telephone pole.

Without researching both specific first amendment constitutional law to do with street chalkings as well as state law and local New York ordinances, I really wouldn't like to guess who is right, and who is wrong. I could see the potential for argument on both sides.

It may be that the state has a law or ordinance against putting markings on the streets for safety reasons. They might confuse or obscure the official street markings, or the people painting them might obstruct the street or otherwise cause a hazard. Alternatively, it might be that there is law to support the idea that non-permanent street markings are protected. I really don't know without research and it doesn't make much sense to just guess.

One thing that I will say is that the analogies people have drawn to advertizing are almost certainly a red herring. Commercial speech is considerably less protected than non-commercial (i.e. political) speech. The rules are quite different.

Is there a law against riding a bike on certain sidewalks? Just curious.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
Nope. Like he says, the "intent to damage" must be established. Clearly, using a biodegradable chalk is not "intent to damage" since it can easily be washed away. If it were paint, he would be guilty. It's not, so he is not.

And it has been pointed out that the police had every right to arrest him. That doesn't mean he is guilty. That is what the court system is for.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
MrJingle, HIM saying one thing is a bit different than the actual facts. Understand?

I wanted facts. Not here-say.

And how is this any different than what I said? It's not "fact" any more than what I pointed out earlier:

quote:
It seems to be that this chalk is a bit different than the local $1 sidewalk chalk.
I believe that he chose the chalk because it was water degradable. It degrades on its own in 30 days assuming there's no water is what I got from it. In the video, he said that it had disappeared in 2 days but maybe you don't believe him (which I can understand). And a quote from his site:

quote:
Bikes Against Bush will utilize a water-soluble chalk mixture. It is the same material used for marking athletic fields. It is environmentally safe and removes easily with water, or naturally biodegrades within 15 days. Thus, while the messages may have the appearance of graffiti, this is certainly not an attempt to damage or deface property.


I also remember that he switched to a difference chalk because one was more soluble than his original, I'll see if I can find it. But again, I suppose you have to take anything he says with a grain of salt.

As for him not putting the chalk on the sidewalk during the video, I think the point is that they had to see him actually applying the chalk to arrest him, which they didn't. According to the video, the chalk was already there, and of course wasn't done while the police were there. The reason they were able to arrest him was because a policeman said that he saw him actually chalk the sidewalk, which he didn't. I don't know the law, so maybe they can just arrest if he isn't actually in the act of doing it.

And yet you thank him for "info" that was available for you to read since the beginning of this topic if you had clicked the link, watched the movie, and read his website. You started your attacks simply because you didn't understand the full story and weren't familiar with the "facts" of the incidence. Like I said before, if you had actually investigated on your own before making assumptions you may have taken a different opinion. As it stands, you and many others consider him a leftist "thug" who got what he deserved based upon a total lack of understanding of the NY graffiti laws and the type of substance used to write on the sidewalk.

So, instead of ad hominem attacks on the "left" why not argue the issue with some facts?

[Zimphire]

MrJingles, after seeing PROOF of what that stuff was, I am content. I no longer care about the situation.

Why are you trying to now make up an argument just to be arguing?

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
And it has been pointed out that the police had every right to arrest him. That doesn't mean he is guilty. That is what the court system is for.

Yet again, the facts do not support your argument. If it was so clear cut, why did they have to call in a Sergeant and a Captain? And, in the video, Ron Reagan is asking the Captain why this guy was being arrested. The Captain says "criminal mischief" and for marking on the sidewalk with paint. He also says the officers told him they saw him write on the sidewalk which was a lie. So, under what "right" did the officers have to arrest him? Using paint on the sidewalk? Nope, it was chalk and he told them that. He even offered to use a hose to get rid of it immediately. Because they saw him deface the sidewalk? Nope, because they didn't and there are videos and witnesses and camera crews who can substantiate this.

This guy was another example of the NYPD arresting people without facts and asking questions later. Search any news site and you will find articles of innocent people being arrested and held for over 36 hours. A judge just fined the city for these tactics:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in638348.shtml

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
MrJingles, after seeing PROOF of what that stuff was, I am content. I no longer care about the situation.

Why are you trying to now make up an argument just to be arguing?

Not arguing. Pointing out the facts of the incident.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
Not arguing. Pointing out the facts of the incident.

LAWL! Facts I am not arguing. So yes, you are just TRYING to find something to argue about.

Go to Australia with your new wife again or something productive please.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
LAWL! Facts I am not arguing. So yes, you are just TRYING to find something to argue about.

Go to Australia with your new wife again or something productive please.

Never been to Australia with my wife. We are going to Atlantic City this weekend so I guess that will have to count. Have a great weekend, I know I will.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
Never been to Australia with my wife. We are going to Atlantic City this weekend so I guess that will have to count. Have a great weekend, I know I will.

[Lefterer Guy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
MrJingles, after seeing PROOF of what that stuff was, I am content. I no longer care about the situation.

Why are you trying to now make up an argument just to be arguing?

He's saying the he was right and you were wrong. He even pasted in some text that proves that what he said was not here-say, but a first-hand account. He's not trying to stir up an argument on a point that's already settled, he's trying to drill the point home that you need to apologize for accusing him of passing here-say as fact. The problem with you, Zim, is that even when you're wrong, you act like you were never loud or indignant beforehand.

[Zimphire]

As far as him being "right" about him writing on the street?

Tell me. Who did all of this?



THAT is what I was arguing about with HIM.

As far as the CHALK content, I said I didn't KNOW. That I wasn't going to take HIS word for it until I got more information. That is all.

He was arguing that I was wrong!!11 When that wasn't even my stance.

[Lefterer Guy]

Wow, arguing that someone's wrong without even knowing their stance. Does it feel a little different to be on the receiving end of such conduct?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lefterer Guy:
Wow, arguing that someone's wrong without even knowing their stance. Does it feel a little different to be on the receiving end of such conduct?

What are you going on about now? Are you too just trying to start an argument from nothing?

This was ended above, but you still have to fan the flames eh.

[Chinasaur]

Bush sends the country to war over a lie, and you are all hot and bothered about chalk. Same people get all hot and bothered about Clinton's BJ/lie in office but turn a blind eye to Bush's lies.

Typical.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Chinasaur:
Bush sends the country to war over a lie, .... but turn a blind eye to Bush's lies.

Typical.

Tell us Chinasaur. What did Bush LIE about. I require PROOF that he lied as well.

I'll be waiting for your response.

[ringo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
And it has been pointed out that the police had every right to arrest him. That doesn't mean he is guilty. That is what the court system is for.

Pfft. The apologists never cease to amaze me. What part of "Law Enforcement" don't you understand?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by ringo:
Pfft. The apologists never cease to amaze me. What part of "Law Enforcement" don't you understand?

What part of it don't you understand?

If the Police think someone is doing something wrong, they have the authority to arrest said person. That doesn't mean said person is automatically guilty.

This is a everyday occurrence. And it has NOTHING to do with the Bush administration.\

I am not apologizing for the Police. I am not saying what they did was RIGHT. But they do have the RIGHT to do what they did. Understand?

[Chinasaur]

Zim,

1. Yellowcake uranium..in front of congress and american people.
2. Iraq posing an "imminent threat"
3. ANY type of WMD
4. Being able to field said WMD's within 45 minutes
5. Knight-Ridder reports that the authors (of WMD study) also found no conclusive evidence to support White House claims that Saddam Hussein was cooperating with Al Qaeda or would have transferred chemical, biological or nuclear weapons to the terrorist group � another major justification for the war.
6. In a speech for war veterans in Tennessee on Monday (August 27, 2002), Mr Cheney argued that the danger of Saddam Hussein developing weapons of mass destruction was a mortal threat, and made it clear that leaving the problem to some future administration was not an option.
7. Finally, the House of Representatives report on misleading statements by Bush and his administration - http://homepage.mac.com/chinasaur/ReportonIraq.pdf
8. Oh yeah...his arrest for drunk driving. He "conveniently" forgot to mention that until right before last election.

Those who have eyes see, those who don't don't.

Have a good Labor Day weekend.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Is there a law against riding a bike on certain sidewalks? Just curious.

Maybe. I really don't know. Those kind of laws are probably just municipal ordinances.

[ringo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
If the Police think someone is doing something wrong, they have the authority to arrest said person.

If the police see someone *breaking the law* they have the right to arrest them, that's why it's called *law enforcement*, not *maybe something wrong enforcement*. We've already established that he wasn't breaking any law, just like many of the other protesters who were arrested for *not* breaking the law. The type of speech and assembly that many protesters tried to enjoy over the last few days is exactly the kind of speech the founding fathers sought to protect. How on earth can you stand behind a candidate that believes in the "transformatonal power of liberty" and maintain that the police have the right to take the most basic political liberty away without a legal reason to do so?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Chinasaur:
Zim,

1. Yellowcake uranium..in front of congress and american people.
2. Iraq posing an "imminent threat"
3. ANY type of WMD
4. Being able to field said WMD's within 45 minutes
5. Knight-Ridder reports that the authors (of WMD study) also found no conclusive evidence to support White House claims that Saddam Hussein was cooperating with Al Qaeda or would have transferred chemical, biological or nuclear weapons to the terrorist group � another major justification for the war.
6. In a speech for war veterans in Tennessee on Monday (August 27, 2002), Mr Cheney argued that the danger of Saddam Hussein developing weapons of mass destruction was a mortal threat, and made it clear that leaving the problem to some future administration was not an option.
7. Finally, the House of Representatives report on misleading statements by Bush and his administration - http://homepage.mac.com/chinasaur/ReportonIraq.pdf

Those who have eyes see, those who don't don't.

Have a good Labor Day weekend.

Again, I said lies and prove they were lies.

These aren't lies. As a lot of people believed it to be true when it was said.

Lieing is knowing something is false, and trying to pass it off as the truth. Unless you can show where Bush knew what he said was false. You are just posting FUD and lying yourself.

Thanks for playing. Come back when you have a clue.

[Chinasaur]

You know Zim.. I feel sorry for you pal.

You refuse to even acknowledge anyone's side if they have a point of view contrary to your own. You are vicious and mean in your treatment of other people. You would be howling bloody murder if somebody treated you the way you treat people here.

You don't debate. You mock, ridicule, refuse to discuss and make noise and bluster instead of coherent discussion.

Peace.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by ringo:
If the police see someone *breaking the law* they have the right to arrest them, that's why it's called *law enforcement*, not *maybe something wrong enforcement*. We've already established that he wasn't breaking any law, just like many of the other protesters who were arrested for *not* breaking the law. The type of speech and assembly that many protesters tried to enjoy over the last few days is exactly the kind of speech the founding fathers sought to protect. How on earth can you stand behind a candidate that believes in the "transformatonal power of liberty" and maintain that the police have the right to take the most basic political liberty away without a legal reason to do so?

Law enforcement officers are empowered to use their discretion. That can include arresting someone who they believe may be breaking the law. They don't hold mini trials and break out the law books before arresting you. They use their common sense, training, and with that make a decision.

If the cop is clearly wrong, then more than likely the prosecutor will decide not to press charges. If it is more debatable, then it could concievably go to a magistrate or trial. I think the phrase "don't make a federal case out of it" applies. You are blowing this hugely out of proportion.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Chinasaur:
You know Zim.. I feel sorry for you pal.

Don't. There is no need to.

You refuse to even acknowledge anyone's side if they have a point of view contrary to your own.

How is me showing you that they weren't lying me doing this? Try to be at least "on topic"

You are vicious and mean in your treatment of other people. You would be howling bloody murder if somebody treated you the way you treat people here.

Vicious and mean? Your kidding me! And people do treat me like crap in here. 90% of the time I don't say a word to anyone.

You don't debate. You mock, ridicule, refuse to discuss and make noise and bluster instead of coherent discussion.

Peace.

No Chinasaur, I knew what you were going to post and say. You pretty much repeated what many in here have said, and been debunked too.

All the "Bush lied, people died" people have since stopped saying it because none of them could point to an actual lie.

So your little plan didn't work, and then your came and attacked me because of it.

Way to go!

Next time hopefully you wont be so eager to call people liars without having the facts.

What I get from you is, it's ok to call people liars, but it's NOT ok for someone to point out that you are falsely accusing them of it.

Sure thing.

[Chinasaur]

Slimey,

It's not being blown out of proportion. A cop arresting this guy when he wasn't actively engaged in anything..HAD done it, but not in view that day. You saying that this cop had nothing better to do than arrest him?

This indicates an "attitude" of supression among the police that is tantamount to Facism. Supressing free speech by arbitrary arrest. Sure it will get thrown out if wrong, but you miss the point..

The message got out... Disagree with us and you will go to jail for no good reason and there is nothing you can do about it and nobody to stop us.

That is not a Democracy. That is Facism.

[Chinasaur]

Zimphire,

You didn't show me anything. YOU didn't prove anything. Just you posting post after post rebutting people with nothing more than your words as if the weight of your posts equals some kind of proff somewhere. You just say "he didn't lie and you have no proof". You are not proof of anything and your word means nothing, just like mine.

You use specious set piece areguments and knock them down as if that is proof. Nobody but you believes what you say.

You attacked me first. Don't play the injured Klingon..you don't do it very well ~

Last post. Lest I get sucked into a flamebait war with you.

DOH..too late.

And you are absolutely, positively right on one thing.

"King of Nothingness"

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Chinasaur:
Zimphire,

You attacked me first. Don't play the injured Klingon..you don't do it very well ~

Last post. Lest I get sucked into a flamebait war with you.

China let me point out to you that showing you were you were wrong at accusing Bush of lying is NOT attacking you.

If you feel you are being attacked. MAYBE internet forums aren't for you.

[Zimphire]

Sorry I replied BEFORE you edited it

Originally posted by Chinasaur:
Zimphire,

You didn't show me anything. YOU didn't prove anything. Just you posting post after post rebutting people with nothing more than your words as if the weight of your posts equals some kind of proff somewhere. You just say "he didn't lie and you have no proof". You are not proof of anything and your word means nothing, just like mine.

I showed you your claims of Bush lying was false.

You use specious set piece areguments and knock them down as if that is proof. Nobody but you believes what you say.

Nobody? You are using a voodooism. Speak for yourself.

Unless you can prove that Bush knew ahead of time said information was wrong, you have no case.

Understand?

Unless of course you have a habit of knee-jerking and calling people liars without proof.

Then that is YOUR problem. Not Bush's.