Dancing Hippies at the Jefferson Memorial... what could go wrong w/ that?

[Zero Sum 305]

i guess it a POV thing. i see the douche bag dancers looking stupid.

and the dancers should be ashamed of themselves if anyone was harmed while they played dumbass games

some people like to enjoy an outting with there family at a memorial & have no desire to be involved in or witness an act of idiocy by some morons...using the uk as an example for how to respond to anything dealing with enforcement of the law.

Yet Westboro lunatics have their Freedom of Speech protected at military funerals. Go figure.

[Vi-Jay 218]

some people like to enjoy an outting with there family at a memorial & have no desire to be involved in or witness an act of idiocy by some morons...using the uk as an example for how to respond to anything dealing with enforcement of the law.

While they are doing the family daytrip, can they stop and all take a sh!t on FD's lawn? A group sh!t?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yet Westboro lunatics have their Freedom of Speech protected at military funerals. Go figure.

Indeed.

[SMOKE 1,426]

Looking or behaving "stupid" isn't a crime.

if i were you. i'd be thankful of that.

Yet Westboro lunatics have their Freedom of Speech protected at military funerals. Go figure.

i agree...but, i think its allowed 500-1000 feet away from the site...not sure someone will probably check me on that.

Edited May 31, 2011 by SMOKE

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

From the ruling it appears that the Jefferson Memorial is not a public place, its government property that is to be used to illustrate the government's view of Thomas Jefferson. The dancing does not match the government view, hence it is banned.

That probably means group prayer is also banned etc.

Edited May 31, 2011 by Sousuke

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

if i were you. i'd be thankful of that.

You know... I posted that knowing full well that you'd say something like that. Never let it be said that subtlety is your strong suit.

You see - here's a problem, you advance the idea that blind adherence to a law and to a police officer's commands in enforcing that law is and should be paramount - above common sense, above any other consideration.

Yet that blind adherence doesn't seem to extend to obeying the "laws" of this site. Calling someone stupid is a TOS violation (please let's not go around the houses on that point - your inference implies the word and to suggest otherwise would be dishonest). The reason I'm bringing this up is that presumably you feel that the Terms of Service are stupid and that they shouldn't get in your way of behaving as you want to. You may be right, others may agree with you that the TOS is restrictive and that enforcement of it is equally restrictive. But it is the "law" so to speak, so why not obey?

[Vi-Jay 218]

What if the family car broke down while they were headed to the hospitol, bcoz they were all suffering food poisoning?

Would you let them take a sh!t on your lawn?

[Vi-Jay 218]

Anyone?

Edited May 31, 2011 by Vi-Jay

[SMOKE 1,426]

You know... I posted that knowing full well that you'd say something like that. Never let it be said that subtlety is your strong suit.

You see - here's a problem, you advance the idea that blind adherence to a law and to a police officer's commands in enforcing that law is and should be paramount - above common sense, above any other consideration.

Yet that blind adherence doesn't seem to extend to obeying the "laws" of this site. Calling someone stupid is a TOS violation (please let's not go around the houses on that point - your inference implies the word and to suggest otherwise would be dishonest). The reason I'm bringing this up is that presumably you feel that the Terms of Service are stupid and that they shouldn't get in your way of behaving as you want to. You may be right, others may agree with you that the TOS is restrictive and that enforcement of it is equally restrictive. But it is the "law" so to speak, so why not obey?

so right off the bat you admit to baiting. then tell me i'm violating the TOS.

i'm about as subtle as a bat to the teeth. always have been always will be.

no the reason you brought it up is you feel stupid for posting the comment & you're embarrassed i picked the low hanging fruit. *insert pity emoticon*

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

so right off the bat you admit to baiting. then tell me i'm violating the TOS.

i'm about as subtle as a bat to the teeth. always have been always will be.

no the reason you brought it up is you feel stupid for posting the comment & you're embarrassed i picked the low hanging fruit. *insert pity emoticon*

I'm afraid not. The point was simply that you (and most people) are selective about the rules you're willing to adhere to. Just because someone in a uniform tells you to do something, doesn't mean you're obliged to obey.

Blind obedience to authority is naive.

[Vi-Jay 218]

I'm afraid not. The point was simply that you (and most people) are selective about the rules you're willing to adhere to. Just because someone in a uniform tells you to do something, doesn't mean you're obliged to obey.

Blind obedience to authority is naive.

Have you ever disobeyed a police directive?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Have you ever disobeyed a police directive?

Yes. No I was not arrested.

[Vi-Jay 218]

Yes. No I was not arrested.

Do tell!

You are suddenly becoming more interesting.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Do tell!

You are suddenly becoming more interesting.

No, let's stick to the subject at hand.

[Ban Hammer 13,550]

i don't disagree. but, the man needs to accept the consequences of his actions. lobby to change the law & you might get somewhere. be an idiot & go to jail.