I made this into a poll because I'm curious if those on the left and right will see this case differently.
There is a surprising story out of Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania that seems the perfect storm of religious tensions. You begin with Ernie Perce, an atheist who marched as a zombie Mohammad in the Mechanicsburg Halloween parade. Then you add Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim who stepped off a curb and reportedly attacked Perce for insulting the Prophet. Then you have a judge (Judge Mark Martin) who threw out the criminal charges against Elbayomy and ridiculed the victim, Perce. The Judge identifies himself as a Muslim and says that Perce conduct is not what the First Amendment is supposed to protect.
Justice was not served in this case, the victim's 1st amendment rights were ignored in favor of Islamic religious tradition.
I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian." - Henry Ford
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges; When the Republic is at its most corrupt the laws are most numerous. - Publius Cornelius Tacitus
The "victim" got his right to speak as he wished. Should the harassment charge been thrown out? Not based on personal feelings of the judge, but because there wasn't really any harassment. I personally thought the charge was lame as well after watching that video. Perce is an idiot.
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
Gee, just the other day you guys were suggesting that it was okay for someone to stalk an editorial writer on a campus, confirm their identity, and then assault them for writing an article that suggested that teabaggers were bigots... All of a sudden "You just can't assault another person for any reason other than to protect someone else or yourself..period."....
I'm having trouble keeping up with what the Right thinks is justification for assault from one day to the next....
LadyJazzer wrote: Gee, just the other day you guys were suggesting that it was okay for someone to stalk an editorial writer, confirm their identity, and then assault them for writing an article that suggested that teabaggers were bigots... All of a sudden "You just can't assault another person for any reason other than to protect someone else or yourself..period."....
I'm having trouble keeping up with what the Right thinks is justification for assault from one day to the next....
Who specifically are "you guys"? Maybe a link to the thread...?
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
I believe it was PS... I consider him one of "you guys"... Are we going to play the game now of "Oh, *I* didn't say that...someone else did"...(when several of you chimed in to support that bullcrap?)
LadyJazzer wrote: I believe it was PS... I consider him one of "you guys"... Are we going to play the game now of "Oh, *I* didn't say that...someone else did"...(when several of you chimed in to support that bullcrap?)
You love to lump people into one big basket.... that's a very bad habit of yours. I also don't believe PS would advocate assaulting someone as you've implied. It shouldn't be too hard to find the thread unless you made it up.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
And, once again, I don't care if you believe it or not...
Okay, so since we're playing little semantic games, let's slightly reword it:
Gee, just the other day someone on the Right was suggesting that it was okay for someone to stalk an editorial writer on a campus, confirm their identity, and then assault them for writing an article that suggested that teabaggers were bigots... All of a sudden "You just can't assault another person for any reason other than to protect someone else or yourself..period."....
I'm having trouble keeping up with what the Right thinks is justification for assault from one day to the next....
LadyJazzer wrote: And, once again, I don't care if you believe it or not...
Okay, so since we're playing little semantic games, let's slightly reword it:
Gee, just the other day someone on the Right was suggesting that it was okay for someone to stalk an editorial writer on a campus, confirm their identity, and then assault them for writing an article that suggested that teabaggers were bigots... All of a sudden "You just can't assault another person for any reason other than to protect someone else or yourself..period."....
I'm having trouble keeping up with what the Right thinks is justification for assault from one day to the next....
There.. Is that generic enough for you?
Sucks when you get caught up in a lie....better luck next time.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
