I don't think Locke was an anarchist either.
I don't think Locke was an anarchist either.
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Enlighten us, should be fun.
Congratulations America
By opposing illegal liberal protest. If it was conservatives illegally protesting Loki really wouldn't have an issue with the police stopping them.
the last time we talked about conservative protests were the tea party loons, loki wasted a good bit of effort defending the group as a whole while writing out the racists and morons as fringe groups (look how that turned out).
Now you're likely thinking about the Oregon fucknuts, which were guilty of far more than protesting, everything between b&e and grand theft auto. Thats a far cry from a van worth of people standing in the middle of a two lane road.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 02-14-2017 at 02:22 AM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Tea party was actually an exemplary protest. They got their permits where needed, THEY CLEANED UP THEIR SHIT (almost no leftist protests do this) and they didn't do stupid shit like block traffic. And you know what? The Republicans smashed the Democrats in the midterms. Protests done right can be successful.
As far as the Oregon fucknuts? I have no complaint about calling them idiots and useless morons that deserved to get shot. If I was calling the shots I'd of had armed forces go in far sooner. You don't have the right to defy the law of the land, they should have been given a chance to surrender and then taken out.
The key difference between Oregon and Tea Party? One broke the law and the other followed it.
The key similarity between Oregon and these yahoos in the middle of the street? They both broke the law. I'm not a complicated man. I believe in the right to protest I don't believe in the right to break the law for your cause. While I may not *support* leftist protests that follow the law, I would defend their right to do so.
Where I say Loki is a hypocrite is that he things illegal protest should be condoned because 'we don't want a police state' or whatever that shit means. Earlier I used the example of an abortion clinic. Same can apply to protesting other medical places, schools, or funerals. You don't have the right to impede traffic or business. Period. And a society that doesn't defend the rights of people to freely carry out their business is a society ruled by the mob.
Locke wasn't a fan of tyrannical government. The government has to live up to its side of the social contract. If it doesn't, you have the full right to push it in the right direction, using force if necessary. He would err on the side of too many rights rather than too few. And he wouldn't let laws get in the way of challenging a government acting inappropriately.
You might have missed the root of the word liberal: it's liberty. A liberal supports maximal liberty unless there's a damn good reason not to. Inconveniencing people in the same way they're regularly inconvenienced is not it. Your insistence on order over liberty in all but the most extreme cases puts you on the conservative side of the spectrum.
Hope is the denial of reality
You really need to invest in a dictionary. I don't think the word "hypocrite" means what you think it does.
Hope is the denial of reality
You've tried making this claim before and were called on it, why try again?
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3421585.html
See Lewk, not complaining about that while complaining about the current protests make you a hypocrite.
Hope is the denial of reality
They didn't even block the highway and I don't think their protest was illegal... That being said even if you do find a conservative one that fits the bill - they should also be arrested. And for each one you find on the right I'm positive I can find 4-5 times as many on the left.
Blocking the road doesn't challenge the government it challenges those you are incovneniencing. I believe in liberty buy not the right to hurt others. This illegal protest hurt others without challenging the government and if it is allowed to happen gives carte blanch for anyone to hurt others. No that is never right and is a damn good reason not to.
If you want to challenge the government fine do so. Protest outside Pennsylvania Avenue in DC, outside the States governors office etc etc not blocking a toad. You can even protest at the side of the road just don't block it.
Maybe it cause I just woke up, but did you just try to claim an inconvenience is a hurt, and that hurt allows anyone to hurt anyone anyhow? Ignoring how ridiculously stupid that is. The rest of your post is hilariously ignorant of how successful protests work. Even the nonviolent aspects of the civil rights movement knew the usefulness of public inconvenience to get the government to react.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Obviously to the law and order nuts highways are sacred places that never may be used in protest of anything. Also, demonstrations in support of something they don't endorse are merely massive attempts at breaking the anti-littering regulations.
Congratulations America
So you have no problem if the KKK wants to permanently picket a black church they pick out of the hat? How about if a bunch of anti-Islamist decide to block traffic going to the counties only Mosque? Or how about a bunch of people with a grudge on some guy just don't let him park in his driveway anymore by blocking it? Which of these are you good with?
Either you believe in the rule of law and believe the police should stop illegal blocking of traffic, harassment etc or you don't. The cause *SHOULD NEVER MATTER* when it comes to enforcing the law. What I hate is the blatant hypocrisy from the left about this.
You good with people blocking access to abortion facilities? How about stopping kids from getting to school?
Um, this kind of stuff happens all the time, especially in Texas...Only you guys do it with guns. http://www.dallasnews.com/news/news/...nter-of-irving
Hope is the denial of reality
You good with the second amendment ?
Congratulations America
Tell me what the people being blocked from moving were doing, do you know or do you care?
For all you know someone could have been on their way to a job interview and failed to get the job as they were late due to this.
Quite probably some will have been on their way to work and could potentially lose their job due to this.
Someone might have been on their way to see a doctor with a medical issue.
For all you know someone could have been on their way to meet with their wife and see the birth of their child and miss supporting their wife and the birth of a child due to this.
Someone might have just been spending precious family time not at work with their children and trying to have a nice day.
Who the fuck knows because you don't care. Yes stopping people from going about their lives is a hurt which is why it should be minimised.
No that hurt allows the police to enforce the law by clearing the barricade. Not to hurt anyone anyhow.and that hurt allows anyone to hurt anyone anyhow?
As do terrorists. It doesn't stop the Police being on the side of law abiding citizens and being employed to clear away these protestors if they break the law.The rest of your post is hilariously ignorant of how successful protests work. Even the nonviolent aspects of the civil rights movement knew the usefulness of public inconvenience to get the government to react.
No if the law is followed and permits are gained then the roads can be used and detours will happen etc but then people won't be trapped by a couple of shitheads blocking them.
Who said this? I recall saying protestors should either clear their own litter or be invoiced for somebody else doing so.Also, demonstrations in support of something they don't endorse are merely massive attempts at breaking the anti-littering regulations.
Thank you for completely undermining your own point, did you even read the article?
"Big Daddy Infidel" sounds like a stereotypical Texan redneck moron but guess what? He's stood on the sidewalk not in the middle of the road!
That's right, they blocked traffic going into the mosque. Oh wait, they didn't, the worshippers were able to stream in and out of the mosque all afternoon rarely coming within 100 feet of the protestors who were stood on the sidewalk nearby.
The fact you find protestors gathering on a sidewalk over 100 feet away from what they're protesting is equivalent to protestors standing in the middle of the highway blocking traffic and trapping people in their vehicles unable to move to be remotely comparable says more about you than me.
I believe in an appropriate level of response. Morons like you and rand advocating for a hulk smash approach are what feed the media coverage, its what encourages these protesters to continue. If the actions of these people, which amount to little more than a traffic accident delay, are seen as childish than treat them like children. You don't compare them to and treat them like terrorists.
Unbelievable how some people can be so ignorant of history.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Not advocating for a hulk smash approach. The appropriate level of response is to stop any criminals who are illegally blocking the flow of traffic and allow people to go about their lives. If the protesters want to protest on the sidewalks then so long as they're not blocking pedestrian or wheelchair traffic then there's no issue with that.
A traffic delay implies traffic is still moving but slowly. These morons were BLOCKING the road. Traffic wasn't delayed it was stopped.
Do you believe the response Lewk posted was correct?
convenient how you dropped the word accident. I commonly see 2 car accidents shut down 7+ miles of our interstate system before. Thats 5+ lanes, compared to the 2 lanes in the above video. Which do you think is more spontaneous, unpredictable, lengthy, and deadly?
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
There is nothing bizarre or autocratic in saying you have the right to freely assemble and protest but do so on the pavement. Especially for small disorganised protests like this [as opposed to large ones that get permits to use the roads].
The response you quoted that it is not acceptable to block a mosque, picket a black church or harass a neighbour? Yes I do. I don't often agree with him but here he is talking sense.
Because accidents and deliberate actions are different?convenient how you dropped the word accident. I commonly see 2 car accidents shut down 7+ miles of our interstate system before. Which do you think is more spontaneous, unpredictable, lengthy, and deadly?
For one thing when accidents happen the Police work as fast as they reasonably can to clear the accident and reopen the highway as soon as is reasonably possible. Delays are caused by either human injury, dangerous debris, the need to gather evidence or something along those lines. Not waiting until everyone decides they've had enough and want to go home of their own accord.
Secondly if someone deliberately causes a major car crash that shuts down your interstate system then I think the appropriate response in that instance would be not just clearing them out of the way as was done here but a more serious punishment if not jail time. Yes I would think a deliberate car crash would be a criminal offence, accidents happen but are you suggesting to deliberately do that would not be a criminal offence?
Can you stop playing at being a dumbass for one thread? Do you think the only response Lewk posted, the one in the video, was appropriate?
This is why discussions with you go no where. You think the world exists as this solely black and white experience.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Lewk has posted a lot of responses in this thread, I was referring to the one you quoted last.
Do you mean the Police's actions in the opening post rather than Lewk's post? That wasn't clear at all. Yes I have already said that was appropriate, they took the necessary action - no more, no less - to restore law and order and the free flow of traffic. I have asked you what else you'd have preferred them to do to clear the traffic and allow the vehicles to start moving again and you've not given any realistic alternatives other than petty attempts at point scoring like pointing to the tram that doesn't move because the Police are guiding the oncoming traffic through the other direction first.
If you don't want the Police to clear you off the roads, don't stand on the roads. Stand on the pavement or acquire a road permit. Simples.
The opening post was lewk's postIts the only time he's shown a response.
Are you reading the same thread? You're confusing content, posts, and ignoring responses to questions already answered. Context has been an issue for you before.
yeah... no. This is where you conflict with your hulk smash approach. You did understand that the officers aren't actually going to turn green right?
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Every time we press the Reply button then that is a response. That's what the word means. That's why the button is named reply, so we can respond to each other. Lewk posted a response about blocking mosques etc that you quoted, you didn't quote the video there so yes I thought you meant the response you were quoting and not the video you were not quoting. That's why we have quote functions too, so we can get a context of what the other one is talking about.
As for your turn green remarks I have no idea what you're trying to get at. The Police cleared the road and started guiding oncoming traffic to safely move. I suspect they'll shortly afterwards stop that traffic, start guiding the other direction and continue until traffic returns to normal and normal road conditions are restored without the need for traffic cops like we see on the video.
Does the Brexitanian still continue this nonsense about the highway code being more important than human rights, constitutions and/or international treaties? It seemed like it, but I couldn't be bothered reading through all the nonsense he writes.
Congratulations America
If you can find a single "human right, constitution and/or international treaty" that gives a right to assemble in the middle of a highway I'd love to see it.
Oh, what isn't permitted is forbidden now? Where's the law that states they can't?
Congratulations America
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote