Greetings and Felicitations,

Ramona Man Defends his Right to Drive Pickup Through Anti-War Protest

Where does the first amemdment end? I have always heard the statement that your rights stop at the end of my nose. Would this qualify or not?

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

__________________

Because he has the right to say what he wants, but not destroy other people's property/hurt people?

Duh?

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

Yeah, that's pretty ignorant.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

I don't know. Were the protesters preventing him from driving down the street? If so, I'd say he was well within his rights.

__________________
During the journey we commonly forget its goal. Almost every profession is chosen as a means to an end but continued as an end in itself. Forgetting our objectives is the most frequent act of stupidity.
-Friedrich Nietzsche, The Wanderer and his Shadow

All good socialists have villas in Southern France. That's not the point.
-Eurosocialist

So this hit and run wasn't a hit and run after all - it was just some driver using his 'right' to drive down the street unprevented?

I don't think preventing others from their rights is a right at all. But this does fit the model of a pro-war activist, violence and all...

Wow, I hadn't heard about this, and it's only 20 minutes up the road from me. Then again, I haven't had the news on today...

What "model" are you talking about?

Right, because antiwar protesters are incapable of violence.

__________________

The model of being pro-killing and death and destruction and violence.

You said "pro-war activist". That suggests some type of protester (as would the phrase "anti=war activist), and that such a protester would use violence and, death and destruction in support of their cause.

Do you have examples of this happening?

I'm against the war too, but I think most pro-war folks genuinely believe that Iraq was complicit in 9/11, and thus deserving of retribution. I disagree with this, but I share their wish to hunt down and tear to shreds those who kill innocent Americans, and I don't see that that's a murderous viewpoint.

__________________

This thread is the example. This guy was pissed off at the anti war activists because he's pro war right? So he used the violent act of driving through the crowd. He claims it's his right to free speech to do so. It seems like the perfect way for a pro war activist to act.

Why would anyone still believe those lies?

I think it is a murderous viewpoint to believe lies and want hunt down and tear to shreds innocent people.

Yes, I'm pretty sure it is.

I agree that it's a murderous viewpoint to want to hunt down and tear to shreds innocent people. I do however believe that that's what we should do to those who kill innocent Americans, and is a viewpoint I share with pro-war folks, though they happen to be woefully misdirected.

__________________