FUCKING HYPS

10/15/2005 8:22:43 PM

Jigga what?

10/15/2005 8:26:14 PM

Quote :

"Anybody here think a land owner has a right to put up a forty-foot statue of a penis by the highway for all drivers to see? According to 30thAnnZ's absolute rights theory, the government should NEVER restrict that."

Hey, if it's their money and their land then let 'em build whate'er they want.

10/15/2005 8:26:25 PM

I'm sorry, if the Hippies have the right to block traffic and protest what they call capitalism (I call it liberty) then I guess anyone else that wnats to protest the status quo should have the right to do so.

10/15/2005 9:02:39 PM

^

So we're comparing Hippies to Nazis now?

Whatever happened to obscenity laws? The Supreme Court itself said, basically, "we'll know obscenity when we see it."

OK -- let's see, we sent millions of Americans to fight Nazis. Thousands died, many more injured. Obviously we consider it to be a pretty obscene and dangerous ideology.

I don't recall any major World Wars fought to stop Woodstock.

So how about it? We cover porno magazines in convienence stores, but Nazis can march in the streets on the public dime.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make a goddamned bit of sense.

[Edited on October 15, 2005 at 9:07 PM. Reason : foo]

10/15/2005 9:07:41 PM

Uh, how many people died fighting the communists?

Or didn't you know modern hippies are often attempting to spread communist ideals and systems?

[Edited on October 15, 2005 at 9:10 PM. Reason : .]

10/15/2005 9:09:36 PM

^

OK. So if they are marching for communist ideology, that shouldn't be allowed either.

10/15/2005 9:10:55 PM

Wow, just wow. Perhaps St. Patrick's day should be cancelled because the Irish were part of the British Empire and waged war against us in 1812?

That is absurd ot think that anyone that doesn't like the status quo should be silenced. And who gets to decide what is against the status quo and thus illegal? George Bush?

10/15/2005 9:16:48 PM

^^ HAHAHAHAHA

so you think it would be ok for the government to decide what kind of marches are ok and what aren't. you think the government would be good to decide that "we don't like nazis, we won't let them publicly assemble. we don't like faggots either, lets not let them. we don't like left-handed hippies, they aren't allowed either. we don't like democrats protesting the president..."

the city already didn't allow this group a permit to march. they assembled on the sidewalks.

there is no law that says groups can't form on public property.

basically you think that should be restricted. nice form rights restriction.

pull your head out, you're probably getting low on oxygen by now.

[Edited on October 15, 2005 at 9:27 PM. Reason : *]

10/15/2005 9:25:49 PM

ROBERT BYRD APPROVES OF THIS THREAD

FUCKING HYPOCRITES

10/15/2005 10:11:54 PM

Quote :

"we don't like faggots either, lets not let them"

Uh -- I think you need to learn just WTF you're talking about.

The government did exactly that for a LONG TIME. They used to raid gay clubs with the police. That led to the Stonewall riots, which began the gay rights movement. I can still think of jurisdictions where zoning laws prevent the explicit designation of gay clubs.

I am very sure that, prior to the statutory liberation of gays, it was quite illegal for them to "gather" in the same sense as these men. In fact, until very recently, it was officially illegal for consenting gay men to have sex behind closed doors, in the privacy of their own homes.

So I'm a little curious as to where, exactly, you're going with this argument. You're asking me if I think the government should be able to single out certain groups as public entities? Then my answer is: yes, the government can do that, it has done that, and it will always do that. Public decency laws are one of the primary functions of civil government.

We're talking about _public_ decency, here. Being decent in public. One doesn't expect that naturists are allowed to gather, in the buff, in public. So too one might expect that gathering publically -- for any reason, official or not -- as a Nazi function is also "indecent."

And until some decades ago, homosexuality and gays endured the same treatment as "indecent." It took acts of civil and non-civil disobedience for them to get real, _statutory_ relief from those restrictions -- and then it was a matter of community acceptance of gays. And even today, there are communities which are not so accepting.

So -- again, I hate to burst your bubble. Public decency laws aren't exactly fascism, noone has an absolute right to free speech or assembly. These are pretty well-established concepts.

10/15/2005 10:40:59 PM

Quote :

"That is absurd ot think that anyone that doesn't like the status quo should be silenced. And who gets to decide what is against the status quo and thus illegal? George Bush?"

They aren't being silenced. We're talking about "assembly" here, such that it requires some level of police protection.

I'm not arguing, for instance, that they shouldn't be allowed to print their views in magazines or hold cocktail parties at their homes. Just that they shouldn't be allowed -- as a matter of civil ordinance -- to gather in any capacity for the sake of _demonstrating_.

Read that word: demonstrating. They are DEMONSTRATING, which has the purpose of being SEEN. Therefore we are talking about a distinctive category of speech.

Plus, this "status quo" argument is just asinine. Naturists don't like the status quo either, HOW DARE the government tell them they can't run around naked in public!?

10/15/2005 10:45:06 PM

Quote :

"Keith White, a black resident, criticized city officials for initially allowing the march."

10/15/2005 10:48:24 PM

I dunno about the rest of y'all, but I'm not a big fan of public decency laws

10/15/2005 11:08:12 PM

the point is, YOU THINK THE GOVERNMENT IS RESPONSIBLE AND JUST ENOUGH TO RESTRICT CERTAIN GROUPS AND NOT OTHERS.

i am not faithful in giving the government the power to decide what is and what isn't okay for me to protest against or for.

neo-nazis marching and waving signs and flags is not the same thing as naked people buttfucking eachother at the intersection of avent ferry and gorman.

if they want to go out and prove how fucking idiotic they are, more power to them. you can't restrict ANYONE from standing on a sidewalk.

[Edited on October 15, 2005 at 11:14 PM. Reason : *]

10/15/2005 11:12:44 PM

^

I'm still a little curious about this logic you're using:

So you're saying that, in our society, nudity (I don't know where the "butt-fucking" part came from) should be statutorially _MORE_ offensive than displays of Nazi ideology?

And more so, I don't understand your complaint that the government should not be "given" the power to restrict assembly -- the government already does have and has always had that power.

Public decency law is already in effect, everywhere. I am just suggesting that it should be applied, quite logically, to these scumbags. You're making some kind of constitutional argument that doesn't apply, because there's no constitutional issue to discuss. It's settled law that the people don't have an absolute right to assembly.

[Edited on October 15, 2005 at 11:19 PM. Reason : foo]

10/15/2005 11:18:47 PM

CAN YOU FUCKING READ?

THEY DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO KEEP ANYONE OFF A SIDEWALK. THEY DON'T HAVE THE POWER TO KEEP FUCKING NAMBLA FROM CONGREGATING ON PUBLIC LAND.

IF YOU GO ON A SIDEWALK WITH A SIGN THAT SAID HITLER RULES, AND A NUDE WOMAN STOOD NEXT TO YOU, WHICH FUCKING ONE IS GOING TO GET CARTED OFF?

DISPLAYING ANY TEXT BUT PROFANITY IS PROTECTED SPEECH.

THEY ISSUE PERMITS FOR MARCHING IN THE STREET BECAUSE IT USES UP A FUCKING STREET.

YOU FUCKING DOUCHEBAG.

[Edited on October 15, 2005 at 11:21 PM. Reason : *]

10/15/2005 11:20:25 PM

Quote :

"So you're saying that, in our society, nudity (I don't know where the "butt-fucking" part came from) should be statutorially _MORE_ offensive than displays of Nazi ideology?"

Neither one should be illegal.

But anyways, ideology shouldn't even be considered by the government. Ever.

10/15/2005 11:24:09 PM

^^

I am pretty sure holding up a sign that says "Hitler Rules" would get you carted off eventually, because it would be an instance of "disturbing the peace" -- unless you think people would walk by and ignore it.

The government issues permits for marching because some groups require actual protection. You may be informed that the municipal government actually has to provide law and order, it's one of their chief duties. So to allow a "march" which is potentially disruptive certainly is a larger matter than just "taking up a street."

[Edited on October 15, 2005 at 11:29 PM. Reason : foo]

10/15/2005 11:29:10 PM

Ok, so, Smoker4, because our government oppresed minorities in the past we have no right to complain when it does so in the future? Our point was not that their is no precedent for the government engaging in oppressive tactics but that it was wrong when it did so.

Also, I don't see the overwealming indecency of Nazi's holding a rally. It is offensive, to be sure, but since when do we have the right to not be offended? Buttsex is obviously offensive on sight, but Nazis are not offensive at all without context (swasticas have other meanings). As such, a Parent would be free to tell his children whatever he wanted in the case of Nazis, something he cannot quite do in the case of public buttsex.

Holding up a sign is not violence per-se. Offensive, sure, stupid, definitely. But I don't think it is too much to ask a rational human being to be able to contain his anger in public sufficiently to avoid attacking people and property UNRELATED to the Nazi stimulus.

[Edited on October 15, 2005 at 11:33 PM. Reason : .]

10/15/2005 11:30:06 PM

Quote :

"I am pretty sure holding up a sign that says "Hitler Rules" would get you carted off eventually, because it would be an instance of "disturbing the peace" -- unless you think people would walk by and ignore it."

That's silly.

Vague laws like that are almost always bad.

10/15/2005 11:31:09 PM

GoldenViper:

I get your point.

But I take a different stance here: I mean, it's one thing to say that we as adults can withstand the viewpoints of Nazis.

But if I'm a parent with my kids, and the Nazis are screaming their epithets and ideology in a public street, that's a different matter. It's basically the same reason we restrict pornography, even in private stores: because there are simply some people who should never be exposed to it, even incidentally; namely, children.

The state DOES have a compelling interest to provide a decent public environment for a wide variety of people, including kids. And the community should be able to decide that.

I don't even think it's a matter of ideology, so much as taste. Again, it's not as though the government is wholly restricting ideology, they are just restricting one instance of its display.

More so, states' rights exist for this reason: different communities have different standards. Homosexuality is more accepted in Provincetown, MA than in Kansas City.

10/15/2005 11:33:49 PM

Quote :

"Ok, so, Smoker4, because our government oppresed minorities in the past we have no right to complain when it does so in the future? Our point was not that their is no precedent for the government engaging in oppressive tactics but that it was wrong when it did so."

No, you're confusing my argument. I am not saying it was RIGHT for the government to have statutory limitations against public displays of homosexuality. I am just saying that it was not UNCONSTITUTIONAL for them to do that.

As to whether the government SHOULD ever restrict public groups, see my previous comment.

Quote :

"Also, I don't see the overwealming indecency of Nazi's holding a rally. It is offensive, to be sure, but since when do we have the right to not be offended? Buttsex is obviously offensive on sight, but Nazis are not offensive at all without context (swasticas have other meanings). As such, a Parent would be free to tell his children whatever he wanted in the case of Nazis, something he cannot quite do in the case of public buttsex."

Well, that's just a matter of your opinion. Again, public decency is a matter of taste, and it's up to a given community to decide that.

And for the record, I don't think I've made any references to public buttsex in this thread (although I did mention a 40-foot penis).

Quote :

"Holding up a sign is not violence per-se. Offensive, sure, stupid, definitely. But I don't think it is too much to ask a rational human being to be able to contain his anger in public sufficiently to avoid attacking people and property UNRELATED to the Nazi stimulus"

Kids are not "rational human beings" in the sense you're thinking of; a lot of public decency laws are therefore aimed at them.

The principal argument against indecency on TV is often contradicted by the logic that a parent can change the channel. And yet, a parent cannot as easily "change the channel" when he's walking around in public -- especially with ad hoc gatherings in public commons.

10/15/2005 11:39:01 PM

I heard that icecream sales and crime were correlated... maybe we should ban icecream?

10/15/2005 11:41:20 PM

Eh, I think we should just ban kids.

Then Smoker4's public decency argument goes out the window.

10/15/2005 11:48:47 PM

Quote :

"Consider the fact that your idea of racism may be very different from the accepted definition."

yeah, I know. Wlfpk4Life is crazy to think that whites aren't the only ones who can be racist.

10/15/2005 11:51:23 PM

Here's what the NSM guys want: http://www.nsm88.com/25points/25pointsengl.html

10/15/2005 11:59:15 PM

The whites are the head-racists. They're the only ones that matter if they are racist or not, all the other racists take their queues from them. It's like a beautiful water-ballet, that's not really all that beautiful (maybe performed by a bunch of deformed fat chicks or something).

10/15/2005 11:59:53 PM

Quote :

"As to whether the government SHOULD ever restrict public groups, see my previous comment."

Which was? I'm lazy.

Quote :

"Kids are not "rational human beings" in the sense you're thinking of; a lot of public decency laws are therefore aimed at them."

I covered that. You cannot broadcast on television items which are offensive per-se. Nudity, sex, etc. Nazi's are not offensive per-se. You must have had prior education to even recognize them as anything but a marching band of cancer patients that forgot their instruments.

And you misunderstood our argument. We were not saying that restrictions against free expression were unconstitutional, far from it. We were arguing that they were wrong on multiple levels of morality.
First, it violated a fundamental human right to be heard.
Second, it violated the principle of equality before the law because other people are allowed to protest, just not people that the government disagrees with.

10/16/2005 12:04:53 AM

http://whitepowerchat.com/nsm88forum/index.php

Haha... check out how the opposing views forum totally pwns the other ones in post count

10/16/2005 12:07:31 AM

It really sucks when i realize that every major mobilization is mobilized against Capitalism! When are the libertarians going to start marching and chanting? Oh, right, too busy making money. Damn utility functions!!!

10/16/2005 12:16:54 AM

for me the issue isn't whether or not to allow nazis to demonstrate. It's whether or not we're going to spend tax payer money protecting them from the many people who then want to kick their ass. If you're going around waving a nazi flag shouting out racists comments, I don't think it's the responsibility of the city to make sure you don't get punched in the face. I'm guessing that's what set off these riots, people wanted to get at the nazis but couldn't because of police protection, so they vented their anger in other ways.

10/16/2005 12:36:22 AM

It wasn't just a "Nazi Rally". It was a dozen folks from the "American Nazi Party" trying to hold a march to protest black gang violence against whites in that city. The mayor did not give them a permit to march.

What happened afterwards was gangs taking advantage of a protest and turning it into a riot. Most of the violence and destruction was caused by gangs.

10/16/2005 1:19:01 AM

After reading a few of the links here: http://news.google.com/?ned=us&ncl=http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Nazi_March.html&hl=en

I still don't get the timeline of what happened, some of those reports seem to conflict with each other.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/15/nazi.march/ CNN has a video of their news report.

The AP report ends like this:

Quote :

"Keith White, a black resident, criticized city officials for allowing the march in the first place. "They let them come here and expect this not to happen?" said White, 29. A spokesman for the National Socialist Movement blamed police for losing control of the situation. "

Which is true. The police should have either stopped the white supermacists from marching through the black neighborhood, or prepared for a riot from the beginning.

The mayor (a black guy) had this to say "When the rioting began, Ford tried to negotiate with those involved, but "they weren't interested in that." He said people in the crowd swore at him and wanted to know why he was protecting the Nazis.

They were mostly "gang members who had real or imagined grievances and took it as an opportunity to speak in their own way," Ford said.

"I was chagrined that there were obvious mothers and children in the crowd with them," he said."

It's still not clear to me though how many people in the crowd were actually involved in the rioting, how long did the rioting occur after the white supremacists left, what initial police escort were the white supremacists given, and if they have a permit to march, at the time the march initially started.

In any case, the blacks really dropped the ball big time. No matter how pissed off they were, destroying someone's business was a dumb thing to do, even if it was just the gang members. Hopefully this will prompt the black community to weed out gangs in their area, because it makes them all look bad. I don't blame them for throwing rocks, but destroying private property was a stupid thing to do.

10/16/2005 2:04:36 AM

HOLY TOLEDO!

10/16/2005 2:55:33 AM

NIGGERS WILL BE NIGGERS

CRACKERS WILL BE CRACKERS

10/16/2005 8:16:49 AM

Quote :

"or me the issue isn't whether or not to allow nazis to demonstrate. It's whether or not we're going to spend tax payer money protecting them from the many people who then want to kick their ass."

You are missing the reasoning here. First, the Nazis can take care of themselves (I'm sure at least half of them were carrying concealled weapons, it is their life long dream to kill a black man in self defense).

As such, the police protection was NOT to protect the Nazis but the black people who were angry. You see, yelling Nazi slogans is not justifiable assault in the legal sense (you cannot assault someone just because you disagree with them). As such, if anything started, odds are it would be the blacks who were the original agressor and thus the criminal in this instance and elligible for arrest. After this stunt, if the police did nothing to keep the two groups separated, we would end up with a jail (and probably morgue) full of black people.

10/16/2005 9:19:49 AM

there were about 20 nazis there and about 500 people counter-demonstarting. Many of those people were apparantly in gangs (which means they probably also had guns). I seriously don't think it would have been the black people getting killed. I mean, maybe a couple would have. But I'm sure ALL of the nazis would have ended up dead or seriously fucked up. It's pretty clear the police were protecting the nazis, not the black people. Also, in a crowd that size if people started firing gunshots, it would be very difficult to figure out who shot who.

Quote :

"Ford said the protesters were mainly male gang members in their 20s. He said the protests were not triggered by race relations, but on gang mentality. "Most of them were gang members in full colors," the mayor said. "Their anger was based on some longstanding things, but also that we had allowed the (Nazi) walk to occur in the first place," Ford said."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20051016-07283000-bc-us-neonazi.xml

[Edited on October 16, 2005 at 10:23 AM. Reason : quote]

10/16/2005 10:16:49 AM

True, but it would also be very easy for the Nazis to take cover and fire indiscriminantly into the mass of counter-demonstraters. Every shot would take a life as it is difficult to hide 500 people but nothing for 20 to duck behind common objects.

That said, the Nazis practice shooting properly everyday. The Black Gangsters can't hit shit because they're holding their guns fucking sideways.

10/16/2005 10:47:08 AM

Quote :

"just admit youre a racist piece of shit, why else would any of you care?"

[/thread]

10/16/2005 11:03:28 AM

mathfreak...your a racist piece of sh$%

10/16/2005 11:22:20 AM

^^^ you're right, 500 people (mostly gang members) don't stand a chance against 20 nazis. The police were obviously protecting the 500 people.

10/16/2005 11:47:40 AM

Quote :

" HOLY TOLEDO!"

ahahahha i think i just pissed my pants

10/16/2005 1:07:00 PM

10/16/2005 1:40:21 PM

woah, how did we get talking about capitalism in here?

Quote :

"hey PinkAndBlack how about this: don't even try and act like jesse helms is worse than your buddy robert byrd. FUCKING HYP"

I think he's a piece of shit too. YES, ALL PEOPLE WHO DONT LIKE THE REPUBLICANS ARE IN FACT DEMOCRATS PEOPLE. THEY SUPPORT ALL MEMBERS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. THERE IS NO OTHER CHOICE.

fucking political binary.



[Edited on October 16, 2005 at 1:50 PM. Reason : .]

10/16/2005 1:46:47 PM

Quote :

"That said, the Nazis practice shooting properly everyday. The Black Gangsters can't hit shit because they're holding their guns fucking sideways."

Eh, I'm thinking your average gangster has at least as much experience and skill kicking ass as your average Neo-Nazi.

Anyways, regardless of who would have won, a fucking gun battle like that would have made Toledo look really bad.

10/16/2005 3:07:22 PM

heres a hypothetical situation

a riot breaks out in downtown durham for similar reasons

are the rioters:
a) stupid black youth doing what they always do
or
b) rioters in what happens to be a predominantly black area so it makes sense that a riot in the area has a lot of black people and people of all colors will conform to mob mentallity given the right atmoshpere and encouragment

10/16/2005 4:43:57 PM

It's gotta be (a) if I learned anything in Niggonometry.

10/16/2005 4:52:13 PM

Maybe the police should have acted when white residents received death threats from black members of the neighborhood telling them to leave or be killed. That was the basis of the National Socialists' presence there--the police and city officials had no desire to get involved in the situation. So if you think only one side of the incident was racist you're either niave or a supporter of violent racism against whites. The riot could have been avoided had the police responded to the original threats.

And if you think that people deserve to be attacked for holding a view different than your own than you have no concept of our rights in America. You don't have to like what someone says but it doesn't give you the right to inflict physical harm. If you want a place like that please move to another country, we would rather not have those who would violate the rights of others.

10/16/2005 5:13:49 PM

so if a bunch of people were having a pro-jihad rally and expressing their views, it would be ok? would you be surprised if people started attacking the marchers? Smoker is right because you CAN NOT run into a crowded theater and yell "Fire!"

incase you didn't know, Nazis killed more Americans than islamo-facists. their very ideology was that they "needed breathing room" and that "war is vitality". and there was this little thing about race somewhere in there too.


also, i am getting sociopathically tired of seeing the Swastika in the hands of neanderthals. neanderthals that call themselves "Aryan". they are NOT "Aryan" they are "White", "Nordic", and everything else, but not "Aryan".

10/16/2005 8:01:54 PM