Racist in Chief

[SOCALHUSKER]

A decent Forbes article written about the situation.

I find one major fault with his so-called First Amendment defense against disorderly conduct. Try flipping the bird or verbally berating a judge in his courtroom. I'm sure you'll be slapped with a fine and a nice stay at the crossbar hotel for exercising your First Amendment right. The charge will be contempt, which is disorderly conduct in a courtroom.

 

So you believe those in so-called "authority" positions are out of bounds as far as exercising your freedom of speech? Why? If that isn't what you meant, shouldn't you then find fault in a system that allows those in authority to act like they are?

 

How is it infringing upon a judge's rights if you flip him the bird or berate him? There is neither violence nor the threat of violence in either of those actions. To say that it interferes with his authority/right to perform his job of obtaining justice is to also say that each individual brought to his court voluntarily consented to his authority, thus giving him permission to do so. Do you really believe that to be true?

[carlfense]

A decent Forbes article written about the situation.

I find one major fault with his so-called First Amendment defense against disorderly conduct. Try flipping the bird or verbally berating a judge in his courtroom. I'm sure you'll be slapped with a fine and a nice stay at the crossbar hotel for exercising your First Amendment right. The charge will be contempt, which is disorderly conduct in a courtroom.

 

So you believe those in so-called "authority" positions are out of bounds as far as exercising your freedom of speech? Why? If that isn't what you meant, shouldn't you then find fault in a system that allows those in authority to act like they are?

 

How is it infringing upon a judge's rights if you flip him the bird or berate him? There is neither violence nor the threat of violence in either of those actions. To say that it interferes with his authority/right to perform his job of obtaining justice is to also say that each individual brought to his court voluntarily consented to his authority, thus giving him permission to do so. Do you really believe that to be true?

 

Judges as people aren't out of bounds for exercising your freedom of speech. You can say just about anything you want to a judge (short of anything qualifying as disorderly conduct or terroristic threats) if they are not in court and wearing the black robe. The whole contempt of court thing is merely for the respect of the position, not the man.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Judges as people aren't out of bounds for exercising your freedom of speech. You can say just about anything you want to a judge (short of anything qualifying as disorderly conduct or terroristic threats) if they are not in court and wearing the black robe. The whole contempt of court thing is merely for the respect of the position, not the man.

What is disorderly conduct, except a catch-all statute for those in a position of authority? Threats of violence are essentially violence, so why are cops and judges allowed to make them? Isn't that contradictory to the same law they use to bust people?

 

Also, what if you don't respect his position? What about being a judge demands respect?

[carlfense]

Judges as people aren't out of bounds for exercising your freedom of speech. You can say just about anything you want to a judge (short of anything qualifying as disorderly conduct or terroristic threats) if they are not in court and wearing the black robe. The whole contempt of court thing is merely for the respect of the position, not the man.

What is disorderly conduct, except a catch-all statute for those in a position of authority? Threats of violence are essentially violence, so why are cops and judges allowed to make them? Isn't that contradictory to the same law they use to bust people?

 

Also, what if you don't respect his position? What about being a judge demands respect?

 

The position demands and requires respect so that disputes can be resolved in an orderly, efficient, and largely fair manner. Do you really think that two people in a heated dispute would resolve their differences without someone who ensures that they play nice? (Since this summer I'm in court at least 3 days a week I'll answer that for you . . . 90% of the people there would be more likely to punch each other than they would be to reason with each other.)

 

It's very clear that you take a very philosophical approach to all of this. That's well and good so far as theories go. However, the real world doesn't usually fit into philosophical expectations.

[rawhide-jr]

The position demands and requires respect so that disputes can be resolved in an orderly, efficient, and largely fair manner. Do you really think that two people in a heated dispute would resolve their differences without someone who ensures that they play nice? (Since this summer I'm in court at least 3 days a week I'll answer that for you . . . 90% of the people there would be more likely to punch each other than they would be to reason with each other.)

 

It's very clear that you take a very philosophical approach to all of this. That's well and good so far as theories go. However, the real world doesn't usually fit into philosophical expectations.

 

 

Without respect for authority we'd have total anarchy... Who's going to take court or the law in general seriously if you could say "f#*k it" and do whatever you wanted without any fear of punishment?

[Chef K]

Race relations, racism, racial profiling, gay rights, illegal immigration, etc... All a cop out for those refusing to look at the true problem plaguing society, the disregard and deterioration of individual liberty.

 

Just curious, how is gay rights like the right to marry a deterioration of individual liberty?

[Touchdown Tommie]

I am not surprised at all that the race card has been played here. I think it is absolutely f-ing ridiculous that people play the race card so quickly. Gates has some issues, but to call Obama a racist b/c he made a comment is going a little overboard. Should Obama stayed out of it? Probably or he should have at least chose his words better. Let's not forget all of the "logical" statements the previous president made.

[SOCALHUSKER]

The position demands and requires respect so that disputes can be resolved in an orderly, efficient, and largely fair manner. Do you really think that two people in a heated dispute would resolve their differences without someone who ensures that they play nice? (Since this summer I'm in court at least 3 days a week I'll answer that for you . . . 90% of the people there would be more likely to punch each other than they would be to reason with each other.)

 

It's very clear that you take a very philosophical approach to all of this. That's well and good so far as theories go. However, the real world doesn't usually fit into philosophical expectations.

 

 

Without respect for authority we'd have total anarchy... Who's going to take court or the law in general seriously if you could say "f#*k it" and do whatever you wanted without any fear of punishment?

 

Which is exactly what we do want? A society without rulers. You simply don't understand the definition of anarchy.

 

Please read Market for Liberty, or just peruse the anarcho-capitalism thread for a wide rage of solutions to what you deem would be a society that could say "f@ck it, without fear of punishment." No, freedom can't happen overnight, but it will happen and when it does the only way to ensure that it holds up is to be educated.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Race relations, racism, racial profiling, gay rights, illegal immigration, etc... All a cop out for those refusing to look at the true problem plaguing society, the disregard and deterioration of individual liberty.

 

Just curious, how is gay rights like the right to marry a deterioration of individual liberty?

 

I didn't say gay rights is a deterioration of liberty, I said it is just a cop out way of trying to classifying what is really happening, which is the deterioration of individual rights.

[SOCALHUSKER]

I am not surprised at all that the race card has been played here. I think it is absolutely f-ing ridiculous that people play the race card so quickly. Gates has some issues, but to call Obama a racist b/c he made a comment is going a little overboard. Should Obama stayed out of it? Probably or he should have at least chose his words better. Let's not forget all of the "logical" statements the previous president made.

 

Nor am I.

[rawhide-jr]

The position demands and requires respect so that disputes can be resolved in an orderly, efficient, and largely fair manner. Do you really think that two people in a heated dispute would resolve their differences without someone who ensures that they play nice? (Since this summer I'm in court at least 3 days a week I'll answer that for you . . . 90% of the people there would be more likely to punch each other than they would be to reason with each other.)

 

It's very clear that you take a very philosophical approach to all of this. That's well and good so far as theories go. However, the real world doesn't usually fit into philosophical expectations.

 

 

Without respect for authority we'd have total anarchy... Who's going to take court or the law in general seriously if you could say "f#*k it" and do whatever you wanted without any fear of punishment?

 

Which is exactly what we do want? A society without rulers. You simply don't understand the definition of anarchy.

 

Please read Market for Liberty, or just peruse the anarcho-capitalism thread for a wide rage of solutions to what you deem would be a society that could say "f@ck it, without fear of punishment." No, freedom can't happen overnight, but it will happen and when it does the only way to ensure that it holds up is to be educated.

 

I am fairly well educated and read that book in college in my Poli-Sci 101 class as a freshman... I don't share the author's opinion, nor do I share yours... That doesn't make me uneducated, it's me exercising my freedom to think your opinion sucks. If you don't like that, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

The system we have has worked for many years. Yes, we desparately needed changes (ie Women/Minority Rights, flush out dirty cops, politicians, etc.)... If you think a government is corrupt then change it.. If you think a police officer or other public official wronged you, then complain...

 

And no, you shouldn't be able to obstruct an officer's investigation or tell a judge to "eat it" at will... If that were the case, it would be useless to have either of them, as no one would respect authority... It's not about respecting the man, it's about respecting the Law... The Law is what keeps most people on the civil side of the chaos we live in today...

[carlfense]

The position demands and requires respect so that disputes can be resolved in an orderly, efficient, and largely fair manner. Do you really think that two people in a heated dispute would resolve their differences without someone who ensures that they play nice? (Since this summer I'm in court at least 3 days a week I'll answer that for you . . . 90% of the people there would be more likely to punch each other than they would be to reason with each other.)

 

It's very clear that you take a very philosophical approach to all of this. That's well and good so far as theories go. However, the real world doesn't usually fit into philosophical expectations.

 

 

Without respect for authority we'd have total anarchy... Who's going to take court or the law in general seriously if you could say "f#*k it" and do whatever you wanted without any fear of punishment?

 

Which is exactly what we do want? A society without rulers. You simply don't understand the definition of anarchy.

 

Please read Market for Liberty, or just peruse the anarcho-capitalism thread for a wide rage of solutions to what you deem would be a society that could say "f@ck it, without fear of punishment." No, freedom can't happen overnight, but it will happen and when it does the only way to ensure that it holds up is to be educated.

 

I am fairly well educated and read that book in college in my Poli-Sci 101 class as a freshman... I don't share the author's opinion, nor do I share yours... That doesn't make me uneducated, it's me exercising my freedom to think your opinion sucks. If you don't like that, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

The system we have has worked for many years. Yes, we desparately needed changes (ie Women/Minority Rights, flush out dirty cops, politicians, etc.)... If you think a government is corrupt then change it.. If you think a police officer or other public official wronged you, then complain...

 

And no, you shouldn't be able to obstruct an officer's investigation or tell a judge to "eat it" at will... If that were the case, it would be useless to have either of them, as no one would respect authority... It's not about respecting the man, it's about respecting the Law... The Law is what keeps most people on the civil side of the chaos we live in today...

 

[SOCALHUSKER]

The position demands and requires respect so that disputes can be resolved in an orderly, efficient, and largely fair manner. Do you really think that two people in a heated dispute would resolve their differences without someone who ensures that they play nice? (Since this summer I'm in court at least 3 days a week I'll answer that for you . . . 90% of the people there would be more likely to punch each other than they would be to reason with each other.)

 

It's very clear that you take a very philosophical approach to all of this. That's well and good so far as theories go. However, the real world doesn't usually fit into philosophical expectations.

 

 

Without respect for authority we'd have total anarchy... Who's going to take court or the law in general seriously if you could say "f#*k it" and do whatever you wanted without any fear of punishment?

 

Which is exactly what we do want? A society without rulers. You simply don't understand the definition of anarchy.

 

Please read Market for Liberty, or just peruse the anarcho-capitalism thread for a wide rage of solutions to what you deem would be a society that could say "f@ck it, without fear of punishment." No, freedom can't happen overnight, but it will happen and when it does the only way to ensure that it holds up is to be educated.

 

I am fairly well educated and read that book in college in my Poli-Sci 101 class as a freshman... I don't share the author's opinion, nor do I share yours... That doesn't make me uneducated, it's me exercising my freedom to think your opinion sucks. If you don't like that, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

The system we have has worked for many years. Yes, we desparately needed changes (ie Women/Minority Rights, flush out dirty cops, politicians, etc.)... If you think a government is corrupt then change it.. If you think a police officer or other public official wronged you, then complain...

 

And no, you shouldn't be able to obstruct an officer's investigation or tell a judge to "eat it" at will... If that were the case, it would be useless to have either of them, as no one would respect authority... It's not about respecting the man, it's about respecting the Law... The Law is what keeps most people on the civil side of the chaos we live in today...

Great argument. You disagree, so I am wrong. Nice!! And that's fine, you don't have to agree with anything I say, but for someone who's claims to be so educated you seem to lack both simple argumentative skills and a basic grasp of history.

 

What proof do you have that for many years the system has worked? I guess if you consider stealing from and enslaving the productive member s of society, engaging and funding war after war, piling up astronomical debt, debasing a currency and a deterioration of freedom to be success, then you hit the jackpot. However, since none of those characteristics constitute success, I think you better retool your thought process and your argument.

 

Aren't you a cop? Do you consider theft, fraud, coercion and murder to be crimes? If you do, how can you validate the existence of government? Maybe, as long as your paycheck keeps coming from the "real" workers of society's pockets, you can see past it or try to justify all those injustices, but as someone who values human life, property and freedom I cannot.

 

And as for THE LAW!! You really should read up on it!!

[rawhide-jr]

.... And somehow I'll still sleep well tonight....

[SOCALHUSKER]

That's pretty amazing. I too sleep well every night, knowing that I don't rob the people blind I claim to protect I also bought a new Tempur-Pedic... it works wonders!!

 

And actually it might even work for someone with your conscience.