GasBandit
Staff member
Armed family storm abandoned house, rescue family member, kill abductor. Good for them, I say. No charges to be filed against them. Even better, I say.
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
It is a little shocking to see vigilante justice unpunished. This case should come with a reward for the shooter though.
GasBandit
Staff member
In a time when the police abdicate their responsibilities, the citizen must look out for himself (and his loved ones).
It's not vigilante justice... legally anyway. They have a "defense of others" law on the books in that state, so they were legally able to kill him to save her. Considering she was stabbed several times by him, it is unlikely any court or jury would rule it anything other than defense of another.
GasBandit
Staff member
Pfft, like you'd see it if I did, ignorypants.
GasBandit
Staff member
When the government tells Texans there are water restrictions in place and they can't water the grass in their lawns, Texans just dig their own wells.
There was an entire episode of King of the Hill about something like this. Hank's lawn was starting to die because he couldn't water it due to water restrictions. Bobby ends up using Khan's water to keep it going.
On a more realistic note, I hope the residents of Austin like that rich people are fucking up their ground water to keep their lawns going.
GasBandit
Staff member
Most of my younger years were spent in places like El Paso, Albuquerque, and Colorado Springs. The concept of the importance of a lush, green lawn is one totally alien to me. I'm used to my front lawn consisting of interestingly colored rocks and bricks, and perhaps cacti if we want to get REALLY industrious.
I can't for the life of me understand why people want "lawns" anyway. I mean, I understand when someone wants to get all inventive and landscape something pretty with fountains, koi, pebbles, etc. But I don't get why someone would actually prefer water-intensive bladed grass when there are plenty of hardier alternatives that will hold the soil in place just as well.
--Patrick
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
Author of the PATRIOT Act goes to EU Parliament to admit Congress failed and the NSA is out of control.[DOUBLEPOST=1384414404,1384414242][/DOUBLEPOST]This is exactly the sort of thing I'm on about - A prime minister calling for permanent austerity while surrounded by gold.
GasBandit
Staff member
I'm not sure I see the facepalm. They are not committing the Republican Party to either side of the debate, you have freedom of speech, and these guys aren't hurting anybody. Why shouldn't they be afforded the same rights and priviledges as all others?
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
- Evelyn Beatrice Hall
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
- Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Freedom of speech also includes freedom of association, and it works both ways. The previous people decided they did not wish to be associated with them, and so they did not offer them a venue through which to speak.
GasBandit
Staff member
The leader of the republican party in the House to be seen actively assisting a group that supports making homosexuality illegal is a very self-destructive political action. What's next, is he going to go out and attend a Klan rally while he lights up a cigar with a 100 dollar bill?
One might discuss the political wisdom behind the action. Otherwise, I see it as a government agency being impartial in excercising their assigned functions. Which I believe is what they are supposed to be, providing the same services to all, regardless of political belief or persuasion as long as things stay within the limits of the law.
Yes it is.
Perhaps I should be more clear.
They're free to be scum as we're free to call them that. Saying that we can't say they're scum or that they are scum because of Freedom of Speech is false. That's not what Freedom of Speech is. It's not Freedom from Judgement of Speech.
When it comes to gay rights, alot of GoP members pretty much are a stone's throw away from WBC.
GasBandit
Staff member
That's quite an assertion to make, given that the central theme of the WBC's message seems to be that america deserves to perish in flames because of its tolerance of gay people. I don't think there's many people of any party outside the WBC family that espouse that, or even believe it privately.
Hence I did not say -Are members of WBC- .
I disagree. Freedom of speech is fine until saying something that's against the law. Otherwise, you stand a good chance of getting either a tyranny of the majority or a tyranny of the most vocal. Particularly if a government starts to function along those lines.
I think you are entirely within your rights to call them scum for what they say. But I don't think you can stop them from saying what they say. That's freedom of speech for me.
Freedom of speech ends when it causes actual harm... i.e. screaming fire in a crowded theater.
Wait, why is this a freedom of speech discussion in the first place?
No one's right to free speech is being suppressed in the story that GB linked to, and no one seems to be advocating that those anti-LGBT activists' right to free speech be suppressed in general (even Gil). Did someone's post get deleted?
No one's right to free speech is being suppressed in the story that GB linked to, and no one seems to be advocating that those anti-LGBT activists' right to free speech be suppressed in general (even Gil). Did someone's post get deleted?
Both of those are against the law, I think? That's what determines the limits of freedom of speech in my opinion, not the political correctness of what's being said.
I think freedom of speech is somewhat relevant to the topic at hand. Had the office of the Speaker refused the meeting space to the group in question on the grounds of their beliefs on the matter of LGBT rights, being a government agency that's supposed to be impartial and all, it might have been a violation of freedom of speech and an abuse of government authority. Hence, criticism of the decision to grant them a meeting space might not be very well founded when it comes to principles of good governance, even if it was somewhat politically dubious.
Last edited:
GasBandit
Staff member
"A stone's throw" would indicate at least a level of sympathy, however - which I don't think exists.
Well, not if the story is accurate. The venues they're describing aren't public assembly spaces, like say a city hall meeting space, they're office and indoor meeting spaces in DC that Congresspeople to whom that space is designated can make decisions about whom they wish to loan that space to on whatever basis they like that doesn't violate Congressional ethics laws (in theory).
If the Speaker told these people that they were not allowed in the Congressional observation decks or could not assemble in front of his building or on the DC Lawn or other similarly public spaces, that absolutely would be a violation of freedom of speech. But Congresspeople are under no obligation to lend their office meeting spaces to anyone.
I never said they should be stopped. I'm saying they can't defend the fact that they're scum by using Freedom of Speech.