The Truth About Ron Paul - Part 2

budlover13

budlover13

King Tut
NoDrama said:
Verbal Abuse is NOT A CRIME!! The only time it could possibly be considered a crime is when it threatens Physical violence, is used as part of a history of harrassment or is blackmail. Just going by someone and calling them a stupid piece of shit is NOT a crime. Might get you punched in the face though, Bigots beware!
Click to expand...
Unfortunately it's unConstitutionally considered "disturbing the peace" nowadays.
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
budlover13 said:
Unfortunately it's unConstitutionally considered "disturbing the peace" nowadays.
Click to expand...
yeah they can find a way to charge you, but I was wrong thinking that it was a charge called "verbal abuse"..I thought someone I knew was taken to jail for that, but my wife told me he had raised his hand at her..
 
Windsblow

Windsblow

Well-Known Member
We are talking about States issues when it come to Verbal abuse so it really moot. But London you can't press charges on some one for calling you names your just playing game at this point.

Just because the Feds can intimidate States doesn't mean they actually have the right to...... It's called Subsidized subordination nothing more. You take Federal subsidies out of the equation and the Fed would be calling the State house asking permission before they even thought about coming to town.
 
sync0s

sync0s

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
I think harrasment would work...
Click to expand...
Civil law, not criminial

harassment (either harris-meant or huh-rass-meant) n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may vary, including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone to quit a job or grant sexual favors, apply illegal pressure to collect a bill, or merely gain sadistic pleasure from making someone fearful or anxious. Such activities may be the basis for a lawsuit if due to discrimination based on race or sex, a violation on the statutory limitations on collection agencies, involve revenge by an ex-spouse, or be shown to be a form of blackmail ("I'll stop bothering you, if you'll go to bed with me"). The victim may file a petition for a "stay away" (restraining) order, intended to prevent contact by the offensive party. A systematic pattern of harassment by an employee against another worker may subject the employer to a lawsuit for failure to protect the worker. (See: harass, sexual harassment)
Click to expand...
Plus, I hardly think that would actually hold up in court. As you can see by the legal definition, you would have to prove that it was "constant."
 
C

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
The 'law' that allows the government to do whatever they want when you say bad words is called the 'fighting words doctrine'. It is constitutional law, more of a theory of how to look at cases and not a law in so much as it being illegal to grow marijuana or murder people. It does allow implementation of laws that do so, however.
 
budlover13

budlover13

King Tut
londonfog said:
Don't know..I just wish people would understand that bigotry can be very harmful...How is it helpful ??? and how can some actually think this guy didn't pass unfair sentences on the bench..come on keep it reAL
Click to expand...
Bigotry is never good imo. At least this judge had the common courtesy to make his beliefs known instead of continuing to rule from the bench. If there were no "PC"ness such as has resulted from the Civil Rights act then he would've been free to voice his opinion and most likely would have since he did it anyway. Meaning he could've been removed from the bench even sooner. Just because the Civil Rights act is in place doesn't mean that bigotry ends. It just makes it more likely to operate behind the scenes where nobody can see the cause of these strange rulings that come out of our courts. Let the bigots spout their hate. See how long they last.
 
Windsblow

Windsblow

Well-Known Member
Carthoris said:
The 'law' that allows the government to do whatever they want when you say bad words is called the 'fighting words doctrine'. It is constitutional law, more of a theory of how to look at cases and not a law in so much as it being illegal to grow marijuana or murder people. It does allow implementation of laws that do so, however.
Click to expand...
I will have to look into that as I am not totally sure what you mean. Interesting though.
 
budlover13

budlover13

King Tut
Windsblow said:
We are talking about States issues when it come to Verbal abuse so it really moot. But London you can't press charges on some one for calling you names your just playing game at this point.

Just because the Feds can intimidate States doesn't mean they actually have the right to...... It's called Subsidized subordination nothing more. You take Federal subsidies out of the equation and the Fed would be calling the State house asking permission before they even thought about coming to town.
Click to expand...
Ca. PC 415: "[a]ny person who uses offensive words in a public place which are inherently likely to produce a violent reaction" to "[a]ny person who uses offensive words in a public place which are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction."4

Thing is, that's a STATE law, not Federal.

http://www.shouselaw.com/disturbing-peace.html#overview
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
budlover13 said:
Bigotry is never good imo. At least this judge had the common courtesy to make his beliefs known instead of continuing to rule from the bench. If there were no "PC"ness such as has resulted from the Civil Rights act then he would've been free to voice his opinion and most likely would have since he did it anyway. Meaning he could've been removed from the bench even sooner. Just because the Civil Rights act is in place doesn't mean that bigotry ends. It just makes it more likely to operate behind the scenes where nobody can see the cause of these strange rulings that come out of our courts. Let the bigots spout their hate. See how long they last.
Click to expand...
I'm confused are you saying it would have been better to not have a Civil Rights Act ???
 
budlover13

budlover13

King Tut
londonfog said:
I'm confused are you saying it would have been better to not have a Civil Rights Act ???
Click to expand...
i am saying that while the Civil Rights act greatly curbed blatant, open bigotry towards some ethnicities(primarily black at least in the beginning) it at the same time didn't create but empowered/emboldened bigotry in the other direction. You know, two wrongs don't make a right? i'm not going to be so egotistical to claim that i have a perfect solution to the problems that were occuring when the legislation was passed but i will be so bold as to say that there MUST have been a better way to handle it.

But if anything it concreted in the bigotry that was already there.
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
budlover13 said:
i am saying that while the Civil Rights act greatly curbed blatant, open bigotry towards some ethnicities(primarily black at least in the beginning) it at the same time didn't create but empowered/emboldened bigotry in the other direction. You know, two wrongs don't make a right? i'm not going to be so egotistical to claim that i have a perfect solution to the problems that were occuring when the legislation was passed but i will be so bold as to say that there MUST have been a better way to handle it.

But if anything it concreted in the bigotry that was already there.
Click to expand...
What would have been a better way ????? and yes some people you can't change, but you can make laws to change what they do or suffer the consequence...and this country is much better then it was when I was not allowed to eat at the same restaurant as some
 
C

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
budlover13

budlover13

King Tut
londonfog said:
What would have been a better way ????? and yes some people you can't change, but you can make laws to change what they do or suffer the consequence...and this country is much better then it was when I was not allowed to eat at the same restaurant as some
Click to expand...
Like i said, i'm not so egotistical as to think that i alone could solve a problem that has been going on for all time. Are you?
 
sync0s

sync0s

Well-Known Member
hope Congress, before they adjourn will take into very serious Consideration the necessary Amendments of the Constitution. Those whom I call the best - the most judicious & disinterested Federalists, who wish for the perpetual Union, Liberty & Happiness of the States & their respective Citizens, many of them if not all are anxiously expecting them. They wish to see a Line drawn as clearly as may be, between the federal Powers vested in Congress and the distinct Sovereignty of the several States upon which the private & personal Rights of the Citizens depend. Without such Distinction there will be Danger of the Constitution issuing imperceptibly and gradually into a consolidated Government over all the States: which, although it may be wished for by some was reprobated in the Idea by the highest Advocates for the Constitution as it stood without Amendments. I am fully persuaded that the population of the U S living different Climates, of different Education and Manners, and possessed of different Habits & feelings under one consolidated Government can not long remain free, or indeed remain under any kind of Government but despotism - Samuel Adams
Click to expand...
mean, my friend, to let you know how deeply I am impressed with a sense of the importance of Amendments; that the good people may clearly see the distinction, for there is a distinction, between the federal powers vested in Congress and the sovereign authority belonging to the several States, which is the Palladium (the protection) of the private and personal rights of the citizens. - Samuel Adams
Click to expand...
But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States.- Alexander Hamilton
Click to expand...
But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm... But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity.
Click to expand...
There is a reason it is called the United States of America.
 
sync0s

sync0s

Well-Known Member
One more:

It has been observed, that "education has a greater influence on manners, than human laws can have." Human laws excite fears and apprehensions, least crimes committed may be detected and punished: But a virtuous education is calculated to reach and influence the heart, and to prevent crimes. - Samuel Adams
Click to expand...
Education stops bigotry. Not laws.
 
C

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
What would have been a better way ????? and yes some people you can't change, but you can make laws to change what they do or suffer the consequence...and this country is much better then it was when I was not allowed to eat at the same restaurant as some
Click to expand...
I admire your honestly, hell, I like you. You can come over my house and fuck my sister. I would still let you drink at my bar, London. You might be a commie heathen bastard, but at least you use real words and go for complete sentences.

[video=youtube;lhY3EDjxExA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhY3EDjxExA&feature=player_detailpage#t=106s[/video]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top