(05-30-2024, 10:53 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (05-30-2024, 10:28 AM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]Who's property is it then? Maybe their local government should only charge the gay community for keeping that flag painted on a public street and not everyone in that local community. If his tax dollars helped pay for it, then he's just expressing his opinion for his purchase.
I hope someone donuts the hell out of the next one too. Because they'll repaint again, using tax dollars which The People will soon get tired of and force these people out of office that are frivolously spending a budget meant for other more important line items.
Not to mention the tax dollars being wasted on a man hunt for this Patriot.
The only way people learn is through pain. Physical, mental or financial.
It's the same reason why the democrats will lose this upcoming election. Pain..
Suppose someone applies to the local government for a permit to paint a temporary picture on the sidewalk. Maybe the guy is an artist and he wants to paint a picture of the city, or a mountain, or anything. He receives the permit and proceeds to do his painting on the sidewalk. Now you come along, and you say, "I don't like this painting. It offends me." And you proceed to take out a can of spray paint and vandalize the sidewalk painting.
Do you think you have a right to do that?
If it's purchased with my tax dollars, yes..
Where I wouldn't have a problem is if the funds for that painting was donated and not frivolously spent from the budget. I may not agree with the message, but at least I know that my tax dollars didn't purchase it and I can disagree with the message using my voice and not my Goodyears..
(05-30-2024, 11:00 AM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ] (05-30-2024, 10:53 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Suppose someone applies to the local government for a permit to paint a temporary picture on the sidewalk. Maybe the guy is an artist and he wants to paint a picture of the city, or a mountain, or anything. He receives the permit and proceeds to do his painting on the sidewalk. Now you come along, and you say, "I don't like this painting. It offends me." And you proceed to take out a can of spray paint and vandalize the sidewalk painting.
Do you think you have a right to do that?
If it's purchased with my tax dollars, yes..
Where I wouldn't have a problem is if the funds for that painting was donated and not frivolously spent from the budget. I may not agree with the message, but at least I know that my tax dollars didn't purchase it and I can disagree with the message using my voice and not my Goodyears..
So if the Pride flag was painted using private funds, would you still endorse vandalizing it?
(05-30-2024, 11:06 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (05-30-2024, 11:00 AM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]If it's purchased with my tax dollars, yes..
Where I wouldn't have a problem is if the funds for that painting was donated and not frivolously spent from the budget. I may not agree with the message, but at least I know that my tax dollars didn't purchase it and I can disagree with the message using my voice and not my Goodyears..
So if the Pride flag was painted using private funds, would you still endorse vandalizing it?
No, I wouldn’t.. Not saying I wouldn't lol at it, cause I'd lol my [BLEEP] off. If a private citizen wants to waste their money, who am I to stop them? But when you spend everyone's tax dollars on it..
![[Image: SfGJh.jpg]](https://s12.gifyu.com/images/SfGJh.jpg)
How about this one? How come that case against that non-binary piece of [BLEEP] she-male wanna be wasn't classified as a Hate Crime? It clearly left a manifesto that was supposed to have been held confidential until it was leaked out. A manifesto against straight, white, Christian heterosexual children.
Or we don't call that a hate crime for the simple reason that the non binary scumbag demon was simply in the minority for not being a straight Christian heterosexual?
Our taxes are not to be treated as a cafeteria plan for purchasing agendas and a spade needs to be called a spade. I'm done playing pretend and it looks like so is the rest of the country.
(05-30-2024, 11:19 AM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ] (05-30-2024, 11:06 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]So if the Pride flag was painted using private funds, would you still endorse vandalizing it?
No, I wouldn’t.. Not saying I wouldn't lol at it, cause I'd lol my [BLEEP] off. If a private citizen wants to waste their money, who am I to stop them? But when you spend everyone's tax dollars on it..
How about this one? How come that case against that non-binary piece of [BLEEP] she-male wanna be wasn't classified as a Hate Crime? It clearly left a manifesto that was supposed to have been held confidential until it was leaked out. A manifesto against straight, white, Christian heterosexual children.
Or we don't call that a hate crime for the simple reason that the non binary scumbag demon was simply in the minority for not being a straight Christian heterosexual?
Our taxes are not to be treated as a cafeteria plan for purchasing agendas and a spade needs to be called a spade. I'm done playing pretend and it looks like so is the rest of the country.
I don't think there should be "hate crimes." A crime is a crime. We shouldn't be weighing in the motive.
Suppose someone commits a murder.
"I didn't kill him because he's gay. I killed him because I don't like the way he chews his food." Is that less of a crime? Not to me.
(05-30-2024, 11:27 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (05-30-2024, 11:19 AM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]No, I wouldn’t.. Not saying I wouldn't lol at it, cause I'd lol my [BLEEP] off. If a private citizen wants to waste their money, who am I to stop them? But when you spend everyone's tax dollars on it..
How about this one? How come that case against that non-binary piece of [BLEEP] she-male wanna be wasn't classified as a Hate Crime? It clearly left a manifesto that was supposed to have been held confidential until it was leaked out. A manifesto against straight, white, Christian heterosexual children.
Or we don't call that a hate crime for the simple reason that the non binary scumbag demon was simply in the minority for not being a straight Christian heterosexual?
Our taxes are not to be treated as a cafeteria plan for purchasing agendas and a spade needs to be called a spade. I'm done playing pretend and it looks like so is the rest of the country.
I don't think there should be "hate crimes." A crime is a crime. We shouldn't be weighing in the motive.
Suppose someone commits a murder.
"I didn't kill him because he's gay. I killed him because I don't like the way he chews his food." Is that less of a crime? Not to me.
I don't think there should be hate crimes either. But we don't live in that country.
The theory is that if someone attacks a person for being gay or black or muslim or whatever, the attacker is a danger to every gay person or every black person, or every muslim, and that's a bigger deal than most attackers who are usually just settling personal feuds.
But yeah the theory should equally apply to whites and Christians if someone ever attacked for that reason.
(05-30-2024, 12:32 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The theory is that if someone attacks a person for being gay or black or muslim or whatever, the attacker is a danger to every gay person or every black person, or every muslim, and that's a bigger deal than most attackers who are usually just settling personal feuds.
But yeah the theory should equally apply to whites and Christians if someone ever attacked for that reason.
What if they attack them because they don't like the way they chew their food? Are they a greater danger to every person who chews their food a certain way? Or because they were wearing a red shirt? Are they a greater danger to everyone who is wearing a red shirt?
To me, it's the action that defines the crime. Not the thought behind it. Intentional murder is intentional murder, no matter the motive. If I'm in a bar, and I punch someone in the face because they're a Buffalo Bills fan, and someone else punches someone in the face because they are gay, it's the same crime and should have the same punishment.
(05-30-2024, 12:51 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (05-30-2024, 12:32 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The theory is that if someone attacks a person for being gay or black or muslim or whatever, the attacker is a danger to every gay person or every black person, or every muslim, and that's a bigger deal than most attackers who are usually just settling personal feuds.
But yeah the theory should equally apply to whites and Christians if someone ever attacked for that reason.
What if they attack them because they don't like the way they chew their food? Are they a greater danger to every person who chews their food a certain way? Or because they were wearing a red shirt? Are they a greater danger to everyone who is wearing a red shirt?
To me, it's the action that defines the crime. Not the thought behind it. Intentional murder is intentional murder, no matter the motive. If I'm in a bar, and I punch someone in the face because they're a Buffalo Bills fan, and someone else punches someone in the face because they are gay, it's the same crime and should have the same punishment.
One is a great deed done for the rest of us decent, moral people. The other is just gay.
(05-30-2024, 12:51 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (05-30-2024, 12:32 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The theory is that if someone attacks a person for being gay or black or muslim or whatever, the attacker is a danger to every gay person or every black person, or every muslim, and that's a bigger deal than most attackers who are usually just settling personal feuds.
But yeah the theory should equally apply to whites and Christians if someone ever attacked for that reason.
What if they attack them because they don't like the way they chew their food? Are they a greater danger to every person who chews their food a certain way? Or because they were wearing a red shirt? Are they a greater danger to everyone who is wearing a red shirt?
To me, it's the action that defines the crime. Not the thought behind it. Intentional murder is intentional murder, no matter the motive. If I'm in a bar, and I punch someone in the face because they're a Buffalo Bills fan, and someone else punches someone in the face because they are gay, it's the same crime and should have the same punishment.
This is one of the few times when you and I agree.
(05-30-2024, 09:55 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-30-2024, 09:47 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]I don't endorse flag-burning. For one thing, it's incredibly counter-productive. But what I do endorse is the Constitution, which allows people to burn an American flag. When it comes to the conflict between free speech and offending people, I side with free speech.
Not minding it is endorsing it when it comes to this topic, commie.
The commies were the ones who suppressed free speech. I don't approve of it but I'll fight the government if they try to prevent it.
(05-30-2024, 02:06 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (05-30-2024, 09:55 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Not minding it is endorsing it when it comes to this topic, commie.
The commies were the ones who suppressed free speech. I don't approve of it but I'll fight the government if they try to prevent it.
So just out of curiosity, would you consider desecrating a tax payer purchased painted pride flag on a public road a hate crime? Also deserving of a tax payer manhunt?
Or would you consider it a simple act of vandalism as an expression of free speech? Such as throwing paint on statues of our Founding Fathers around various parts of our country, that also now seems as an expression of free speech..
Just curious, no "gotchya" or digs.. Just genuine curiosity.
(05-30-2024, 02:21 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ] (05-30-2024, 02:06 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]The commies were the ones who suppressed free speech. I don't approve of it but I'll fight the government if they try to prevent it.
So just out of curiosity, would you consider desecrating a tax payer purchased painted pride flag on a public road a hate crime? Also deserving of a tax payer manhunt?
Or would you consider it a simple act of vandalism as an expression of free speech? Such as throwing paint on statues of our Founding Fathers around various parts of our country, that also now seems as an expression of free speech..
Just curious, no "gotchya" or digs.. Just genuine curiosity.
I think you burning "your" flag is fine, even in public (but not on private property unless the owner permit it). I think you burning "our" flag is vandalism. I don't think the burnouts were a hate crime though they could be considered vandalism, the same as if someone threw paint on it, or those statues you mentioned. I don't really support vandalism as an act of protest, but this particular one was humorous and not the same as burning a police station. Those people should get jail time, this guy might warrant a traffic ticket but certainly not anything more.
(05-30-2024, 04:41 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (05-30-2024, 02:21 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]So just out of curiosity, would you consider desecrating a tax payer purchased painted pride flag on a public road a hate crime? Also deserving of a tax payer manhunt?
Or would you consider it a simple act of vandalism as an expression of free speech? Such as throwing paint on statues of our Founding Fathers around various parts of our country, that also now seems as an expression of free speech..
Just curious, no "gotchya" or digs.. Just genuine curiosity.
I think you burning "your" flag is fine, even in public (but not on private property unless the owner permit it). I think you burning "our" flag is vandalism. I don't think the burnouts were a hate crime though they could be considered vandalism, the same as if someone threw paint on it, or those statues you mentioned. I don't really support vandalism as an act of protest, but this particular one was humorous and not the same as burning a police station. Those people should get jail time, this guy might warrant a traffic ticket but certainly not anything more.
Right. For most acts of vandalism, a fine is enough punishment. No need for jail, usually.
(05-30-2024, 04:41 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (05-30-2024, 02:21 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]So just out of curiosity, would you consider desecrating a tax payer purchased painted pride flag on a public road a hate crime? Also deserving of a tax payer manhunt?
Or would you consider it a simple act of vandalism as an expression of free speech? Such as throwing paint on statues of our Founding Fathers around various parts of our country, that also now seems as an expression of free speech..
Just curious, no "gotchya" or digs.. Just genuine curiosity.
I think you burning "your" flag is fine, even in public (but not on private property unless the owner permit it). I think you burning "our" flag is vandalism. I don't think the burnouts were a hate crime though they could be considered vandalism, the same as if someone threw paint on it, or those statues you mentioned. I don't really support vandalism as an act of protest, but this particular one was humorous and not the same as burning a police station. Those people should get jail time, this guy might warrant a traffic ticket but certainly not anything more.
To me, the burnouts don't even rise to a vandalism charge, simply because government should never allow public property to be used as a billboard in support of any political, religious or sexual agenda. If one group is allowed to paint a gay pride flag, shouldn't another group be permitted matching space for their own message declaring homosexuality to be an abomination?
It's a motor vehicle violation and nothing more.
The ancient Greeks, inventors of democracy, would elect their officials to one year terms. Each officials' finances were audited at the beginning and end of their term. If anything was amiss, they would be tried and executed.