|
So much for freedom of speech | by Kickstart | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
Um...is there a slightly less biased source | by thread_killer | 2005-08-16 07:22:11 |
|
Why certianly | by DesertRat66 | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
| I wholly disagree, and more. |
by Kickstart |
2005-08-16 08:58:16 |
She is not sullying her son's memory. She's CERTAINLY not making his life worthless. Sure, he may not have liked what she's doing, but that's not his choice, is it? It's hers what stands she chooses to take and what causes she chooses to support.
The things that's sullying her son's memory are the people who are working very, very hard to make sure that even if she had a good point (and I think she might have a couple, though not all are good) that it's hidden behind the lies and half-truths spouted in an attempt to discredit her.
What her son died for (ostensibly) was her and others' right to stand in a ditch in Crawford and protest legally. It's far too easy to squelch that and say it's fair, but turn around and claim that only war in a far off land is protecting the rights of individuals.
...
DR66...I'm extremely disappointed in you because of your statements above. I thought maybe the rights and freedoms guaranteed to Americans meant a little more to you, based on other posts you've made. I thought that you'd grown a little past the foolishness that you displayed in arguments years ago here.
Individual freedoms don't take a backseat to majority -opinion-. If you disagree, perhaps you'd feel fine about a free vote to banish personal weapon possession? I acknowledge the strawman argument in the previous sentence, but if you're going to claim a right under the Constitution, then you've really got to allow others to do the same.
Kickstart |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
No one is abridging her rights | by DesertRat66 | 2005-08-16 09:11:31 |
|
Way to bypass the point of my post. | by Kickstart | 2005-08-16 09:17:37 |
|
How is it their choice? | by JPaganel | 2005-08-16 09:25:18 |
|
There are? | by DesertRat66 | 2005-08-16 09:25:38 |
|
Protesting the protestors does not include | by Kickstart | 2005-08-16 09:30:41 |
|
What is he under arrest for exactly? | by hyzenthlay | 2005-08-16 10:00:12 |
|
Criminal Mischief | by DesertRat66 | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
Uh...he attached a pipe to his truck | by Kickstart | 2005-08-16 10:07:55 |
|
I see no mention of a pipe | by DesertRat66 | 2005-08-16 10:12:13 |
|
Not welded to the front | by Kickstart | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
Take a look at this. These are normal in that | by classic_jon | 2005-08-16 10:26:52 |
|
Take a look at my other post on this | by Kickstart | 2005-08-16 10:29:11 |
|
I saw the other post after this and responded to | by classic_jon | 2005-08-16 11:14:07 |
|
No penalty for lying in court. | by VivianC | 2005-08-16 13:15:08 |
|
So you're saying... | by Kickstart | 2005-08-16 13:28:10 |
|
So are the crosses on public property or private? | by hyzenthlay | 2005-08-16 10:12:06 |
|
Criminal Mischief is a catch all | by DesertRat66 | 2005-08-16 10:14:08 |
|
I like how you make an effort to portray yourself | by Peace_man | 2005-08-16 10:28:52 |
|
Why does that matter? | by Kickstart | 2005-08-16 10:24:34 |
|
If he did that with the chains then I would hope | by classic_jon | 2005-08-16 10:40:31 |
|
Can anyone find confirmation... | by VivianC | 2005-08-16 12:52:18 |
|
Start of the news cycle... | by Kickstart | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
Found an American source | by VivianC | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
But no mention of pipes or chains. (n/t) | by VivianC | 2005-08-16 13:16:38 |
|
Yes. | by hyzenthlay | 2005-08-16 10:54:29 |
