But to install the software located on the CD, you've gotta accept the EULA - End User License Agreement.
No, you don't. Where did you get that idiotic idea? Oh, right you read it when MS wrote it down. Hot tip sparky, just because somebody says something does not in any way make it true.
You own the physical medium, but you do not own the software it contains.
In fact you do own *that copy* of the software. You can't make additional copies and sell them, due to copyright law, but other than that, yes you do own it and can do more or less whatever the hell you want to with it.
Well, I can anyhow. You've apparently bought into the entirely retarded idea that criminal organizations are free to impose any sort of demands on you at a whim and you're somehow magically bound by them. The fact is that nobody is bound by the deluded crap MS puts in their EULAs unless they choose to bind themselves.
Which is true, and a specific rebuttal to what its parent claimed. In response, you ranted emotionally. ("one of the worst presidents we've ever had by any metric you'd care to name"... You can say that while keeping a straight face?)
Yet you were entirely unable to come up with any metric to refute my simple statement of fact. That's really pretty telling about your complete lack of knowledge of the issue. Perhaps you should keep quiet while people who actually pay attention are speaking?
Hey, disagree with Reagan all you want, there are plenty of valid criticisms, but keep a brain in your head while you do it.
Yes, there are a mass of valid criticisms. There really are no valid positive results of the Reagan presidency. If you're so convinced there are actually any, then name them so I can destroy your feeble attempt at an argument.
I won't bother rebutting the flaming conspiracy theories you hint at unless you want to embarass yourself by spelling them out.
Ummmm... most of that is covered under the heading of "Iran Contra". You might want to look at the major actual documented real life actions of his administration and demonstrate some basic knowledge of historical events before you start whining about "conspiracy theories". I mean, seriously, Sparky, you do know that they were actually caught red handed conspiring against this nation, don't you? Feel free to go look it up.
Given the fact that he was one of the worst presidents we've ever had by any metric you'd care to name, and that he was a drooling vegetable while his administration was committing various acts of treason, including major funding, arming, and training of terrorists (you know, the ones we're now at "war" with) as well as cocaine dealing, you might want to replace that with a sane statement.
Contrary to what you may believe, religious organizations that participate in political advocacy are indeed taxed.
No, I think you're confused between what the law is and what is actually happening.
Large numbers of churches engaged in political campaigning in the last 2 elections. Now for them to actually be investigated for that would require the executive branch. Guess who they were campaigning for?
2. While the ACLU does do a good job protecting certain rights, the ACLU does a shitty job protecting other rights. When was the last time the ACLU defended people's 2nd Amendment Rights?
The problem I have with this argument is that the NRA is bigger and wealthier than the ACLU. The NRA is way on top of 2nd amendment issues. With a smaller budget, the ACLU is guarding the other 9... well maybe 7 or so amendments in the bill of rights.
Given that there is already a bigger more powerful organization tasked strictly with defense of the 2nd don't you think it's reasonable that the ACLU would leave those fights to the NRA and concentrate their limited resources on the larger problem space they're tasked with?
i? And it's not just because of this article [rmchronicle.com]. As a lowercase-"l" libertarian I'm concerned about a Hillary Clinton vs. Rudy Giuliani race in '08, talk about a rock and a hard place./i.
OK, let's talk about a rock and a hard place.
You get them in the hard place and I'll bring the rocks.
Don't you realize that if you start taxing churches, you legitimize their stake in government?? I'd think that's the last thing you'd want.
Dude, what?!?
They already have a special privileged status due to their tax exemption. This tax free money is increasingly being used for political campaigning. Making them pay their share would remove the ability to use churches as an end run around the laws on that.
Where do you get the idea that *removing* their privileged status would grant them greater privilege?
No rational person in the world would refer to obvious and inconclusive propaganda sites as the one you mention, and give it more credit than the writings of several scholars, among which is the Berkeley professor I mentioned previously
In the first place, the site I referenced is by a scholar. In the second place, your entire argument appears to be an example of the logical fallacy known as Appeal to authority. It's funny that you refer to well documented research as propaganda though. You really should actually go look up that word and try thinking in future.
About the historical validity of the Bible, everything mentioned in it has been historically verified, except for the miracles, some would say, and some events like the mass murder of children etc., according to scholar reviews (The Biblical Archaelology Review among others). That they haven't been verified doesn't mean they didn't happen!
You're such an idiotic liar. Everything huh?
The fact that there is no evidence whatsoever for that slaughter *or anything else in the bible related to Jesus* certainly indicates that believing in it is silly. Lack of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but it does put it in the same class as the tooth fairy and the invisible pink unicorn. You obviously are so desperate to keep your delusions that no amount of reason could get through to you. One can't be reasoned out of a position reason didn't get you in to, and there is no way for your sort of faith to be reached by reason, so talking to you is pointless. You're really just a pretty poor troll.
You're being irrational from the beginning, get a grip on yourself!
You're the one starting from the assumption that your imaginary invisible friend is real. You aren't capable of making that sort of judgement about others until you clean up that deep flaw in your character.
what I reasonably suggest is that you cannot, by any rational means, prove that God doesn't exist,
That's true. Now as soon as anybody can provide any sane evidence for his existence it would then become reasonable to even entertain the idea. Until then it isn't. Again, you're starting from what you want to demonstrate. That's known as "begging the question" which is another logical fallacy. Seriously, Sparky, just deal with the fact that you're deluded. If that makes you happy, then good for you. But as long as you keep spouting ridiculous lies I'll call you on them.
that faith is nothing to be afraid of, if it's exercised critically,,/i>
That's a contradiction. You either have faith in something or you think critically about it. That's what faith is. The belief in the absence of any rational reason. Faith is always used to manipulate the weak (who are the ones who need it) to work against their own interests and to hurt others. It's a simple case of looking at history. Religion has *always* been used for evil. Any rare isolated examples to the contrary you come up with are just that rare and isolated.
and finally,now that I have answered all these questions to you, you no longer have the right to claim that you don't know these things.,/i>
In the first place you didn't answer any questions. In the second place, just because you tell idiotic lies doesn't mean I'm stupid enough to believe you.
After you made it evident that pure hatred is the root of all of your conviction...
Laughable. Love, honor and integrity are the root of my convictions. It's why I'm so opposed to religion because it is the antithesis of all that. No organization in the history of the world has done more evil than Christianity and I defy you to try and come up with one. Good luck with that. You have 2000 years of torture, murder, and misery. What do you have to put against that?
That's an outright lie. You should know better since the last time we discussed this. Stop consuming this propaganda!
So you're saying that they never stopped spreading their faith by torture and murder? I'm sure there are isolated incidents of that still, but as entities, the Christian churches don't use torture and murder to spread the faith any longer. The Catholic Church officially banned the practice in the 1920s. So, I'm really not sure what the heck you're trying to say here.
You are partially correct in this, the problem is that any alternative is far worse.
You mean free thinking people not controlled by fears of fairy tale monsters torturing them for eternity? Yes, I can see why you'd consider that a bad thing. It's disgusting that you do, but I understand.
You continuously try to prove that pigs can fly and every other claim that makes no sense, as it is based on absolutely nothing but your own convictions and wishes.I have demonstrated this fact repeatedly, yet you still insist.
You have yet to demonstrate anything except that you're desperate to have an invisible magical friend.
I don't know what can make you think reasonably and you give me no help.
That's because I am being reasonable. You desperately need to believe in something so you assume it must be the truth merely because you want it to be and so reasonable arguments run off you like water off a duck.
Your hatred against Christians is misguided; many of them are to blame for some of the things you say, yet none of them in general is responsible for your problems regarding reality.
Given their current assault on the constitution and the fundamental basis of this country, you could not be more wrong if you tried.
I really have no hope for you though. You've bought into propaganda spread by evil men in order to control you and you're just kissing your chains. I pity you, but I feel much more for the decent people in the world who have to deal with the consequences of your unwillingness or inability to think clearly.
Darby, you seem to think that you're the only rational or sane person on earth. You're wrong.
Not in any way shape or form. Your post was factually incorrect and obviously so at that. It demonstrated a complete lack of rationality. Just because you're wrong and I called you on it doesn't mean that everyone else in the world is as well. Stand up for yourself and your own statements without making up nonsense like that.
Here we go again. Unless you specify exactly where my lie is, I will refrain from answering to your provocative and insulting "arguments".
I did specifically demonstrate a few lies. Perhaps reading comprehension is another of your flaws?
By the way, could you possibly think of any reason that an excerpt of an article on the matter by Berkeley professor of history Alice Whealey disappeared from the page a month ago? The specific excerpt states that the general consensus among scholars is that Josephus did in fact mention Jesus in his writings.
Well, if that happened and that is what it said, then I'd imagine that it was removed because it isn't true. The single offhand mention of Jesus in Josephus writings is generally considered to have been added in long after the fact. Probably a marginal note that was added to the main text later. So, no, that doesn't constitute evidence of anything. Given that fact that there were earthquakes, mass murder of male babies, censuses and the like mentioned in the bible as well as various other major events which according to *every* historical record never happened, it seems pretty desperate for you to cling to a discredited offhand mention with no magical connotations.
One more thing: what's the evidence that supports that the FSM, whose existence you claim is supported by more evidence than Jesus', exists?
The chart, baby. Number of pirates versus average global temperatures. That is far more solid evidence than exists for your Jesus.
Anyone who asserts that this quote is true has no relation whatsoever to reason, science and, in the end, reality.
Just because the voices in your head told you so, or do you actually have anything to back up your delusions? Save yourself the trouble, I know you don't. If anyone had any they would have brought it up by now.
Even ardent atheists admit that Jesus is a historic person.
Even Newton believed in numerology and astrology. You really should take a basic logic class. It wouldn't be so trivial to debunk your fallacious arguments then.
You're wrong again, the propaganda you adhere to leads to a dead-end.
Right, the voices in your head told you I'm wrong;-) You might actually want to look up what propaganda is and pay attention to why you're the one fooled by it and repeating it.
Can I interpret this as you hating the Christians?
They declared war on liberty in America, so when attacked, I generally dislike the ones who attack me and my way of life. It's called common sense.
You apparently hate them for "lying", as you put it, that they observe and learn things about their life that you're unable to.
Buying into a silly fairy tale does not constitute "learning" in any way shape or form.
What seems obvious to you has numerous times proven completely false, illogical or merely fantasy.
When would that have been?
Base your assumptions, conclusions and line of thought on a solid basis, not your emotional urges, and you'll learn how the things that you regard as "fairy tales" and equivalent to logical exercises, like the FSM, are much more important than that.
That's so laughable coming from a person who's defending believing in idiotic fairy tales without one single scrap of evidence. You're the only one working from emotio
All you have done is personally attack people all day long.
Factually incorrect. I demonstrated their arguments to be shit and then laid into them for posting such stupid crap. Big difference, Sparky.
This guy was an idiot PLAIN and SIMPLE.
No, he is a citizen engaging in lawful activities. He did nothing wrong, and you have yet to demonstrate anything he did that was illegal, unethical, immoral or unreasonable. So you have an opinion that's demonstrably wrong yet you keep repeating it as if it will magically become sane. Sorry, Sparky, but it won't.
The store has the RIGHT to ASK for the receipt. You have the right to REFUSE to show them the receipt.
Yep, so that happened and all was well until....
At that point, to the store employee it was a bit suspicious. The individual in question though kept on walking, the employee pursued them, the guy just got in the car. At that point, no matter what way you want to try to spin it, it LOOKS SUSPICIOUS.
Lie all you like, idiot, it does not look suspicious to avoid harassment. I would keep on walking as well. As would anyone else who didn't want to be bothered by some fucking loser digging through his property. The fact that you consider avoiding harassment by douchebags to be suspicious behavior speaks only about you. Not about him or any of the other rational people around.
A normal person (not committing SHOPLIFTING) wouldn't behave in this manner. If you think its perfectly fine, then I CHALLENGE you to try the same thing, see how far you get.
I do it all the time and have never been bothered. Perhaps because the employees where I've done it were actually trained in the fucking applicable laws and knew that they had no right to do a damn thing to me. Too bad you're to stupid to understand that fact.
Under shop keepers privilege, this guy has given them enough of a REASON, to think something is not right.
See, here's where you once again prove yourself to be a lying fool. Not agreeing to have his property searched does not in any way constitute reasonable cause to suspect a person of anything. Maybe you should go read some of the other posts where people linked to the fucking statutes and precedents which say exactly that. Oh yeah, then you'd be informed and wouldn't post ludicrous bullshit like that.
If the guy was SOOOOOOOO couragous, why didn't he duke it out with the employee and defend his rights? Nope he got in the car and tried to flee the scene like.. your favourite WORD.. a coward!:)
You truly are deeply stupid. Beating up some stupid shithead isn't courage. Going about your business when you've done nothing wrong and just want to get on with your day is not cowardice. You clearly don't have even the most basic understanding of those concepts.
There is nothing difficult about this, you know it and I know it, the guy handled this all wrong, ticked off the police and I'm willing to bet his blog entry is probably not the full story with the police either.
Nothing difficult, that's true. He acted in a perfectly legal, ethical, moral, and reasonable manner and was harassed by criminals. Those are the facts. You have yet to do shit to deny a single one of those facts, yet you keep trying to claim that you're magically correct even when every fact is counter to your position.
The guy was an IDIOT and got what he deserved.
So, let me get this straight. You think that acting in a lawful, reasonable, ethical manner *deserves* an arrest.?!?
Wow, you're truly a sick fascist little fucker, aren't you?
Damn I'd like to slap your mom for not aborting your dumb ass.
but it remains true the the fellow went into the store voluntarily, knowing their policy in this matter, and that substantially shifts responsibility towards him.
No, it shifts nothing. Not one inch. They have a policy which he *is not subject to*. Nor am I. Nor is anybody who chooses not to be subject to it. That's important.
I mean, there are so many more important civil rights issues to be worried about, this barely makes the radar of importance.
Sure, but that isn't what's important. The fact that even though it was a trivial right he was defending, he *still* ended up in jail for the crime of standing up for his right.
Compare this to, say, Martin Luther King's marches and boycotts or the events surrounding Little Rock Central High School they've been talking about today and I think you see just how petty it really is.
Petty, much like what section of a bus you sit in. However the fact remains, and it is of paramount imortance, that no matter how petty the right is, *he was arrested for the sole crime of daring to stick his head up to defend his right*.
That fact demonstrates that this is comparable to the civil rights movement. In some ways the triviality makes it even more important. If you can't exercise your simplest rights without being locked in a cage, then you don't really have any rights at all.
The entire escalation was the result of choices HE made.
Bullshit. He did *nothing* wrong. That is a fact and was testified to by all involved. Both the store and the cop did do things which were wrong *and illegal*.
God damn, Dude. Why are you so desperate to blame the fucking victim when there is not one single fact that backs up anything remotely approaching your position?!? WTF is wrong with you?
Well, unless you count the phrase "In God We Trust" on the US dollar bill. Or the fact that, throughout government, people take oaths on the Christian bible. Or the fact that the phrase "On Nation, Under God" exists in the Pledge of Allegiance (though, thankfully, for the most part, people are no longer being *forced* to recite it). Or...
You do know that that crap was added to our money and the pledge of allegiance by radical extremist nutjobs in right about the last 50 years, right? It's only that recently that we've been dragged so far from our founding principles by those hate mongering extremists.
If any Christian is doing exactly as you described, that's against the teaching of Jesus. He said that a person should decide himself whether he wants to follow Him or not.
So there are very few to no Christians in the world then? You do know that since they stopped spreading their faith by torture and murder that it's all about getting the little kids when they're too young to be able to decide about that, and then brainwash them, right?
The way Christians will totally contradict themselves and then just doublethink it away is a truly frightening example of the depth of delusion.
Well, after 2000 years of Christianity, things have come around and now it is a non-violent religion.
No, that's not true at all. Christianity is what it's always been. It's just that there are pretty much zero Christians left. They've pretty much all rejected their faith and just taken a new one but still call it the same thing.
Rest assured, a true Christian would murder you with big fucking rocks for a variety of trivial offenses. The Bible is absolutely clear on that point. If they're not willing to do that, then they are not Christians, plain and simple. Just ask Jesus.
The United States of America were more of less founded by people who were persucted because they dared to disagree with the established churches in their home countries, weren't they?
Kind of sort of.
For the most part the "Christians" who came to America due to "religious persecution" were the most extreme nutballs who were the ones doing the persecuting. They wanted to enforce their extremist interpretation of their fairy tales on everyone else around them. Sanity was coming back after a couple thousand years of brutal, murderous, savage, inhuman religious rule and so decent people were not particularly eager to see those monsters bring back the atrocities they were working so hard to do, so they left to go bring their evil to a new place.
Luckily, there were some great people here as well who were the ones who actually wrote the Constitution specifically to prevent insane evil nutters from shoving their ignorant hatred into the laws of a free society.
So, with the contempt for integrity and honesty typical of that sort, they have engaged in a campaign of revisionist history to deceive people into thinking they were the victims rather than the perpetrators. This campaign of deceit continues to this day with various lies Christians like to tell about how the founding fathers were Christians, America was founded on Christian principles, etc. Additionally, they actively work to subvert the basis of our nation through various sleazy scams like ID, putting crap about god on our money and in the pledge of allegiance (and then calling maintaining the actions of extremist radicals "conservative") as well as various other assaults on liberty, truth and common sense.
The problem with the teaching of Jesus is that it's true.
Sure it is. Remember things are true or false based solely on what you wish was true. No sanity, evidence or even common sense required.
I can prove that the airplanes you say don't exist,
I'd like to see you try. It's much easier for you to just lie though. Saves time on thinking.
that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is irrelevant and most likely fiction (it has every possible quality that justifies it being a human-made contraption),
Yet the unassailable fact is that there is as much *or more* evidence for the FSM than there is for Jesus the man, let alone the loony fairy tales.
yet I cannot say that what Jesus said is a lie or fiction.
However, you can say with complete accuracy that there is no evidence whatsoever that there ever was a Jesus or that he said anything, let alone the various old fairy tales edited together by scum with a vicious agenda which constitutes the bible.
You see, that's why a lot of people hate Christians. So many of you guys lie all the fucking time about really obvious stuff.
Wow... a real live crazy person!!! Who let you out of the looney bin?
and then....
Too bad you can't debate things in a sane manner without resorting to name calling and death threats.
So, name calling is a bad thing you're saying..... Well, rational thinking obviously isn't your strong suit.
So it's already obvious that you don't have a leg to stand on since you just open up with personal attacks. You'll note that any "names" I called you were names that you earned and you were called such as the *conclusion* of the argument, not as part of it. The fact is that you *are* incorrect and you are lying about it. Those 2 things taken together make you a liar. You see how that's different than me calling you "fat ass" when I haven't the foggiest idea what you look like? That would be a personal attack. Demonstrating that you're lying and then calling you a liar based on that fact *is* rational thinking, Sparky. I'm sorry it's such a struggle for you.
Now you say he was acting reasonable.
He was. He bought things and then left the store. He was under no obligation whatsoever to show the guy at the door anything. You have failed to demonstrate anything the least bit unreasonable about a person going about their own business in a legal manner. You keep claiming that it is unreasonable, yet you keep failing to do anything to forward that (idiotic and completely unreasonable) point.
You think you are a reasonable person, prove it. Instead of name calling, take your foot out of your mouth and explain how that employee is supposed to differentiate between how that customer acted and a shop lifter?
If he sees him stealing something. If not, then he's shit out of luck. It is not the customer's job to jump through hoops to make the store happy. You seem to think that anything a store wants to do is ok and anything a citizen chooses not to involve himself in at the store's command is unreasonable. That is a completely insane position except in fascist countries.
So, my foot was never in my mouth. You just don't understand anything about "reasonableness" and more importantly the actual law.
He entered the store of his own accord, he was aware of the stores policy of checking receipts on the way out, if he didn't like that, he didn't have to shop there.
But their policy isn't in any way enforceable. While it's not illegal for them to try, it's not in any way his responsibility to comply with that policy whether or not he chooses to shop there. Sorry, but you keep thinking that they have some right to demand that. They do not. That is at least one of the fundamental flaws in your reasoning.
Now pull your head out of your butt and make at least a feeble attempt to make a point that doesn't involve believing in fascism or being too ignorant to know the law, or just STFU since you have yet to make a single reasonable point. You are factually incorrect. Deal with it.
btw. if you could clarify the death threat thing, reading your comments, definately looks like a death threat.
Well, then once again you're demonstrating you lack of even basic critical thinking skills. I merely said that given how dumb and cowardly you've *proven* yourself to be, repeatedly, it would be a win for the nation at large if you weren't in it. Feel free to remove yourself. Odds are, given the type of person you've shown yourself to be, it would be the only worthwhile thing you'll ever do. I'm totally contemptuous of your cowardly nature, but that does not in any way constitute a death threat. But then, cowardice and ignorance are major constituents of your character as you've demonstrated at every turn in this discussion.
Seems like you are throwing the coward label around for some reason, perhaps you have some kind of internal issue?:)
No, it's quite simple. This man stood up for basic rights. Trivial ones, sure, but rights nonetheless. He even got arrested for what
No. Only idiots "know" you can be searched by entering a public business.
Sane people who aren't batshit insane know that this is absolutely false. We also have the benefit of being correct. You're a batshit insane idiot *and wrong.
Now, go away and quit spouting idiotic lies that you're too cowardly to realize aren't true.
Weak willed boot licking scum like you really piss me off. The only way they will ever have those rights is due to cowardly fools *like you*. You think they already have these rights. You've already lost the battle without doing a damn thing to defend yourself. You just pulled a goatse at the first sign of trouble.
I'm sickened just talking to somebody as utterly lacking in any sort of integrity as you have proven yourself to be.
Remember, in this case, Righi *called* the cops in the first place. I don't believe it's going too far for the police to establish the identity of the person who placed the complaint.
OK, but he *did* identify himself. Now, that's minus 5 on reading comprehension and your entire post is rendered utterly without value.
You all keep missing the point entirely! THIS ***WASN'T*** a big deal until the guy insisted on aggravating the situation, first by unreasonably refusing to adhere to store policy and then for pointlessly involving an officer.
Look, there's no reason to make up idiotic lies.
He *perfectly reasonably* opted not to take part in some stupid ritual the store wanted. There is nothing *at all* unreasonable about that. He is neither an employee, nor is he the property of CC. Given those facts, come, tell us all how choosing to walk out of a store with your legally purchased property without being harassed is "unreasonable".
That's what I thought, liar. See, you told a really stupid obvious lie. Why would you do that unless you wanted to look like a fool in front of everybody?
and then for pointlessly involving an officer.
He was being held captive against his will. Do you have a more reasonable use for the police than preventing criminal actions such as these? Given that the store personnel were in the middle of committing a crime against him and his family and a rather severe one at that, it's quite clear that there was nothing pointless about involving the police. His only reasonable alternative at that point would have been to disable or kill the criminals holding him hostage. The cop would have gotten involved than anyhow, so clearly there was nothing pointless. You clearly don't have much in the way of critical thinking skills or even much in the way of basic common sense if you have to go that far outside the bounds of sanity to make your "point" even seem to make sense to yourself. And as you proved above, you don't have any credibility either.
GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEADS: this CANNOT be reasonably compared to the civil rights movement. AT ALL.
Actually, you're missing the point, so I hope nobody is stupid enough to put any idiotic thing you say in their heads. Showing or not showing a receipt while leaving a store *is* pretty trivial in the grand scheme of things. Now, stay with me, Sparky. It's a trivial thing. And he ended up in jail and nobody, not the cop, not the store manager and sure as shit not you have given one sane reason how that could have been allowed to happen.
The fact that an innocent patriot was put in jail for the simple act of standing up for a *trivial* right makes it very much comparable to the civil rights movement because we are rapidly losing what ground was gained there. Or are you going to make the insane claim that where in particular you sit on a bus is somehow sooo much more important than being able to go about your business unharassed?
The fact that you're too stupid to understand the difference between standing up for something which is trivial in the grand scheme of things is very different from *being arrested* for doing the above. But, you've failed utterly to understand any of the facts or issues, so your ignorance isn't surprising. Your militant death grip on your ignorance when you're so clearly and absolutely incorrect is both sad and pathetic though.
Stop trivializing the civil rights movement by bringing it up in the context of this moron's hysterical little tantrum!
You're the only one trivializing it, Sparky. Seriously, try using your brain, don't just regurgitate the shit you've been fed.
A huge number of you all have proven thay you desperately need a huge dose of perspective. Try urgently to at least RENT a clue if you simply cannot afford to buy one.
Given that you are the one defending the *illegal* arrest of a man who did *nothing* except exercise his rights, it's obvious that *you* are completely without a sense of perspective, and that it is you who don't have the first fucking clue what you're talking about.
Is it really an essential liberty to not have to show your receipt as you exit a store? I think not.
Then you do not have the first fucking clue what liberty is, so your opinion on the matter is completely without value.
Is it a currently granted liberty according to the law? It would appear so.
Yep you do not know anything at all about the subject, yet you're too big of a fool to just keep your mouth shut on the subject.
Liberty is not granted by the law. The fundamental idea behind this country is that you have all liberties by default. It's pathetic how many cowardly idiots like you there are in this country who think they have no rights until big mommy government says we do. The fact that you think like that proves that you've already abdicated your responsibilities as a citizen.
You're absolutely wrong. The fact that you're so wrong on something so simple and obvious shows your complete contempt for any sort of liberty. You are a subject, not a citizen and don't ever bother pretending otherwise until you grow a pair. You have *proven* that to be a fact of your own free will, so whining about being called what you are will only be met with contempt.
There are going to be cops that will habitually abuse their position and those are the ones we should stand up against; the ones that are genuinely trying to help us out deserve our cooperation.
And the fact that this cop arrested him *foe exercising his rights in a perfectly valid manner* proves absolutely that he is the former sort of cop and not the latter.
Your argument falls completely apart due to that if you actually spend a second thinking about it.
Slashdot Mirror
But to install the software located on the CD, you've gotta accept the EULA - End User License Agreement.
No, you don't. Where did you get that idiotic idea? Oh, right you read it when MS wrote it down.
Hot tip sparky, just because somebody says something does not in any way make it true.
You own the physical medium, but you do not own the software it contains.
In fact you do own *that copy* of the software. You can't make additional copies and sell them, due to copyright law, but other than that, yes you do own it and can do more or less whatever the hell you want to with it.
Well, I can anyhow. You've apparently bought into the entirely retarded idea that criminal organizations are free to impose any sort of demands on you at a whim and you're somehow magically bound by them.
The fact is that nobody is bound by the deluded crap MS puts in their EULAs unless they choose to bind themselves.
Why would you make such a stupid decision?
Which is true, and a specific rebuttal to what its parent claimed. In response, you ranted emotionally. ("one of the worst presidents we've ever had by any metric you'd care to name"... You can say that while keeping a straight face?)
Yet you were entirely unable to come up with any metric to refute my simple statement of fact. That's really pretty telling about your complete lack of knowledge of the issue. Perhaps you should keep quiet while people who actually pay attention are speaking?
Hey, disagree with Reagan all you want, there are plenty of valid criticisms, but keep a brain in your head while you do it.
Yes, there are a mass of valid criticisms. There really are no valid positive results of the Reagan presidency.
If you're so convinced there are actually any, then name them so I can destroy your feeble attempt at an argument.
I won't bother rebutting the flaming conspiracy theories you hint at unless you want to embarass yourself by spelling them out.
Ummmm... most of that is covered under the heading of "Iran Contra". You might want to look at the major actual documented real life actions of his administration and demonstrate some basic knowledge of historical events before you start whining about "conspiracy theories". I mean, seriously, Sparky, you do know that they were actually caught red handed conspiring against this nation, don't you? Feel free to go look it up.
he man had a good brain and used it.
Given the fact that he was one of the worst presidents we've ever had by any metric you'd care to name, and that he was a drooling vegetable while his administration was committing various acts of treason, including major funding, arming, and training of terrorists (you know, the ones we're now at "war" with) as well as cocaine dealing, you might want to replace that with a sane statement.
.Maybe there's some meds they can give him.
KCN perhaps?
Contrary to what you may believe, religious organizations that participate in political advocacy are indeed taxed.
No, I think you're confused between what the law is and what is actually happening.
Large numbers of churches engaged in political campaigning in the last 2 elections. Now for them to actually be investigated for that would require the executive branch. Guess who they were campaigning for?
2. While the ACLU does do a good job protecting certain rights, the ACLU does a shitty job protecting other rights. When was the last time the ACLU defended people's 2nd Amendment Rights?
The problem I have with this argument is that the NRA is bigger and wealthier than the ACLU. The NRA is way on top of 2nd amendment issues. With a smaller budget, the ACLU is guarding the other 9... well maybe 7 or so amendments in the bill of rights.
Given that there is already a bigger more powerful organization tasked strictly with defense of the 2nd don't you think it's reasonable that the ACLU would leave those fights to the NRA and concentrate their limited resources on the larger problem space they're tasked with?
i?
;-)
And it's not just because of this article [rmchronicle.com]. As a lowercase-"l" libertarian I'm concerned about a Hillary Clinton vs. Rudy Giuliani race in '08, talk about a rock and a hard place./i.
OK, let's talk about a rock and a hard place.
You get them in the hard place and I'll bring the rocks.
See, problem solved
Don't you realize that if you start taxing churches, you legitimize their stake in government?? I'd think that's the last thing you'd want.
Dude, what?!?
They already have a special privileged status due to their tax exemption. This tax free money is increasingly being used for political campaigning.
Making them pay their share would remove the ability to use churches as an end run around the laws on that.
Where do you get the idea that *removing* their privileged status would grant them greater privilege?
No rational person in the world would refer to obvious and inconclusive propaganda sites as the one you mention, and give it more credit than the writings of several scholars, among which is the Berkeley professor I mentioned previously
,/i>
In the first place, the site I referenced is by a scholar. In the second place, your entire argument appears to be an example of the logical fallacy known as Appeal to authority.
It's funny that you refer to well documented research as propaganda though. You really should actually go look up that word and try thinking in future.
About the historical validity of the Bible, everything mentioned in it has been historically verified, except for the miracles, some would say, and some events like the mass murder of children etc., according to scholar reviews (The Biblical Archaelology Review among others). That they haven't been verified doesn't mean they didn't happen!
You're such an idiotic liar.
Everything huh?
The fact that there is no evidence whatsoever for that slaughter *or anything else in the bible related to Jesus* certainly indicates that believing in it is silly. Lack of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but it does put it in the same class as the tooth fairy and the invisible pink unicorn. You obviously are so desperate to keep your delusions that no amount of reason could get through to you. One can't be reasoned out of a position reason didn't get you in to, and there is no way for your sort of faith to be reached by reason, so talking to you is pointless.
You're really just a pretty poor troll.
You're being irrational from the beginning, get a grip on yourself!
You're the one starting from the assumption that your imaginary invisible friend is real. You aren't capable of making that sort of judgement about others until you clean up that deep flaw in your character.
what I reasonably suggest is that you cannot, by any rational means, prove that God doesn't exist,
That's true. Now as soon as anybody can provide any sane evidence for his existence it would then become reasonable to even entertain the idea. Until then it isn't. Again, you're starting from what you want to demonstrate. That's known as "begging the question" which is another logical fallacy.
Seriously, Sparky, just deal with the fact that you're deluded. If that makes you happy, then good for you. But as long as you keep spouting ridiculous lies I'll call you on them.
that faith is nothing to be afraid of, if it's exercised critically,
That's a contradiction. You either have faith in something or you think critically about it. That's what faith is. The belief in the absence of any rational reason.
Faith is always used to manipulate the weak (who are the ones who need it) to work against their own interests and to hurt others. It's a simple case of looking at history. Religion has *always* been used for evil. Any rare isolated examples to the contrary you come up with are just that rare and isolated.
and finally,now that I have answered all these questions to you, you no longer have the right to claim that you don't know these things.,/i>
In the first place you didn't answer any questions. In the second place, just because you tell idiotic lies doesn't mean I'm stupid enough to believe you.
After you made it evident that pure hatred is the root of all of your conviction...
Laughable. Love, honor and integrity are the root of my convictions. It's why I'm so opposed to religion because it is the antithesis of all that. No organization in the history of the world has done more evil than Christianity and I defy you to try and come up with one. Good luck with that. You have 2000 years of torture, murder, and misery. What do you have to put against that?
That's an outright lie. You should know better since the last time we discussed this. Stop consuming this propaganda!
So you're saying that they never stopped spreading their faith by torture and murder? I'm sure there are isolated incidents of that still, but as entities, the Christian churches don't use torture and murder to spread the faith any longer. The Catholic Church officially banned the practice in the 1920s. So, I'm really not sure what the heck you're trying to say here.
You are partially correct in this, the problem is that any alternative is far worse.
You mean free thinking people not controlled by fears of fairy tale monsters torturing them for eternity? Yes, I can see why you'd consider that a bad thing. It's disgusting that you do, but I understand.
You continuously try to prove that pigs can fly and every other claim that makes no sense, as it is based on absolutely nothing but your own convictions and wishes.I have demonstrated this fact repeatedly, yet you still insist.
You have yet to demonstrate anything except that you're desperate to have an invisible magical friend.
I don't know what can make you think reasonably and you give me no help.
That's because I am being reasonable. You desperately need to believe in something so you assume it must be the truth merely because you want it to be and so reasonable arguments run off you like water off a duck.
Your hatred against Christians is misguided; many of them are to blame for some of the things you say, yet none of them in general is responsible for your problems regarding reality.
Given their current assault on the constitution and the fundamental basis of this country, you could not be more wrong if you tried.
I really have no hope for you though. You've bought into propaganda spread by evil men in order to control you and you're just kissing your chains. I pity you, but I feel much more for the decent people in the world who have to deal with the consequences of your unwillingness or inability to think clearly.
Darby, you seem to think that you're the only rational or sane person on earth. You're wrong.
;-)
Not in any way shape or form. Your post was factually incorrect and obviously so at that. It demonstrated a complete lack of rationality. Just because you're wrong and I called you on it doesn't mean that everyone else in the world is as well. Stand up for yourself and your own statements without making up nonsense like that.
Here we go again. Unless you specify exactly where my lie is, I will refrain from answering to your provocative and insulting "arguments".
I did specifically demonstrate a few lies. Perhaps reading comprehension is another of your flaws?
By the way, could you possibly think of any reason that an excerpt of an article on the matter by Berkeley professor of history Alice Whealey disappeared from the page a month ago? The specific excerpt states that the general consensus among scholars is that Josephus did in fact mention Jesus in his writings.
Well, if that happened and that is what it said, then I'd imagine that it was removed because it isn't true.
The single offhand mention of Jesus in Josephus writings is generally considered to have been added in long after the fact. Probably a marginal note that was added to the main text later. So, no, that doesn't constitute evidence of anything. Given that fact that there were earthquakes, mass murder of male babies, censuses and the like mentioned in the bible as well as various other major events which according to *every* historical record never happened, it seems pretty desperate for you to cling to a discredited offhand mention with no magical connotations.
Here's a well researched article which demonstrates the desperation of your silly belief.
One more thing: what's the evidence that supports that the FSM, whose existence you claim is supported by more evidence than Jesus', exists?
The chart, baby. Number of pirates versus average global temperatures. That is far more solid evidence than exists for your Jesus.
Anyone who asserts that this quote is true has no relation whatsoever to reason, science and, in the end, reality.
Just because the voices in your head told you so, or do you actually have anything to back up your delusions? Save yourself the trouble, I know you don't. If anyone had any they would have brought it up by now.
Even ardent atheists admit that Jesus is a historic person.
Even Newton believed in numerology and astrology. You really should take a basic logic class. It wouldn't be so trivial to debunk your fallacious arguments then.
You're wrong again, the propaganda you adhere to leads to a dead-end.
Right, the voices in your head told you I'm wrong
You might actually want to look up what propaganda is and pay attention to why you're the one fooled by it and repeating it.
Can I interpret this as you hating the Christians?
They declared war on liberty in America, so when attacked, I generally dislike the ones who attack me and my way of life. It's called common sense.
You apparently hate them for "lying", as you put it, that they observe and learn things about their life that you're unable to.
Buying into a silly fairy tale does not constitute "learning" in any way shape or form.
What seems obvious to you has numerous times proven completely false, illogical or merely fantasy.
When would that have been?
Base your assumptions, conclusions and line of thought on a solid basis, not your emotional urges, and you'll learn how the things that you regard as "fairy tales" and equivalent to logical exercises, like the FSM, are much more important than that.
That's so laughable coming from a person who's defending believing in idiotic fairy tales without one single scrap of evidence. You're the only one working from emotio
All you have done is personally attack people all day long.
:)
Factually incorrect.
I demonstrated their arguments to be shit and then laid into them for posting such stupid crap. Big difference, Sparky.
This guy was an idiot PLAIN and SIMPLE.
No, he is a citizen engaging in lawful activities. He did nothing wrong, and you have yet to demonstrate anything he did that was illegal, unethical, immoral or unreasonable. So you have an opinion that's demonstrably wrong yet you keep repeating it as if it will magically become sane. Sorry, Sparky, but it won't.
The store has the RIGHT to ASK for the receipt. You have the right to REFUSE to show them the receipt.
Yep, so that happened and all was well until....
At that point, to the store employee it was a bit suspicious. The individual in question though kept on walking, the employee pursued them, the guy just got in the car. At that point, no matter what way you want to try to spin it, it LOOKS SUSPICIOUS.
Lie all you like, idiot, it does not look suspicious to avoid harassment. I would keep on walking as well. As would anyone else who didn't want to be bothered by some fucking loser digging through his property.
The fact that you consider avoiding harassment by douchebags to be suspicious behavior speaks only about you. Not about him or any of the other rational people around.
A normal person (not committing SHOPLIFTING) wouldn't behave in this manner. If you think its perfectly fine, then I CHALLENGE you to try the same thing, see how far you get.
I do it all the time and have never been bothered. Perhaps because the employees where I've done it were actually trained in the fucking applicable laws and knew that they had no right to do a damn thing to me. Too bad you're to stupid to understand that fact.
Under shop keepers privilege, this guy has given them enough of a REASON, to think something is not right.
See, here's where you once again prove yourself to be a lying fool. Not agreeing to have his property searched does not in any way constitute reasonable cause to suspect a person of anything. Maybe you should go read some of the other posts where people linked to the fucking statutes and precedents which say exactly that.
Oh yeah, then you'd be informed and wouldn't post ludicrous bullshit like that.
If the guy was SOOOOOOOO couragous, why didn't he duke it out with the employee and defend his rights? Nope he got in the car and tried to flee the scene like.. your favourite WORD.. a coward!
You truly are deeply stupid. Beating up some stupid shithead isn't courage. Going about your business when you've done nothing wrong and just want to get on with your day is not cowardice. You clearly don't have even the most basic understanding of those concepts.
There is nothing difficult about this, you know it and I know it, the guy handled this all wrong, ticked off the police and I'm willing to bet his blog entry is probably not the full story with the police either.
Nothing difficult, that's true. He acted in a perfectly legal, ethical, moral, and reasonable manner and was harassed by criminals. Those are the facts. You have yet to do shit to deny a single one of those facts, yet you keep trying to claim that you're magically correct even when every fact is counter to your position.
The guy was an IDIOT and got what he deserved.
So, let me get this straight. You think that acting in a lawful, reasonable, ethical manner *deserves* an arrest.?!?
Wow, you're truly a sick fascist little fucker, aren't you?
Damn I'd like to slap your mom for not aborting your dumb ass.
but it remains true the the fellow went into the store voluntarily, knowing their policy in this matter, and that substantially shifts responsibility towards him.
No, it shifts nothing. Not one inch.
They have a policy which he *is not subject to*. Nor am I. Nor is anybody who chooses not to be subject to it. That's important.
I mean, there are so many more important civil rights issues to be worried about, this barely makes the radar of importance.
Sure, but that isn't what's important. The fact that even though it was a trivial right he was defending, he *still* ended up in jail for the crime of standing up for his right.
Compare this to, say, Martin Luther King's marches and boycotts or the events surrounding Little Rock Central High School they've been talking about today and I think you see just how petty it really is.
Petty, much like what section of a bus you sit in. However the fact remains, and it is of paramount imortance, that no matter how petty the right is, *he was arrested for the sole crime of daring to stick his head up to defend his right*.
That fact demonstrates that this is comparable to the civil rights movement. In some ways the triviality makes it even more important. If you can't exercise your simplest rights without being locked in a cage, then you don't really have any rights at all.
The entire escalation was the result of choices HE made.
Bullshit.
He did *nothing* wrong. That is a fact and was testified to by all involved.
Both the store and the cop did do things which were wrong *and illegal*.
God damn, Dude. Why are you so desperate to blame the fucking victim when there is not one single fact that backs up anything remotely approaching your position?!?
WTF is wrong with you?
Well, unless you count the phrase "In God We Trust" on the US dollar bill. Or the fact that, throughout government, people take oaths on the Christian bible. Or the fact that the phrase "On Nation, Under God" exists in the Pledge of Allegiance (though, thankfully, for the most part, people are no longer being *forced* to recite it). Or...
You do know that that crap was added to our money and the pledge of allegiance by radical extremist nutjobs in right about the last 50 years, right?
It's only that recently that we've been dragged so far from our founding principles by those hate mongering extremists.
If any Christian is doing exactly as you described, that's against the teaching of Jesus. He said that a person should decide himself whether he wants to follow Him or not.
So there are very few to no Christians in the world then?
You do know that since they stopped spreading their faith by torture and murder that it's all about getting the little kids when they're too young to be able to decide about that, and then brainwash them, right?
The way Christians will totally contradict themselves and then just doublethink it away is a truly frightening example of the depth of delusion.
Well, after 2000 years of Christianity, things have come around and now it is a non-violent religion.
No, that's not true at all. Christianity is what it's always been. It's just that there are pretty much zero Christians left. They've pretty much all rejected their faith and just taken a new one but still call it the same thing.
Rest assured, a true Christian would murder you with big fucking rocks for a variety of trivial offenses. The Bible is absolutely clear on that point.
If they're not willing to do that, then they are not Christians, plain and simple. Just ask Jesus.
The United States of America were more of less founded by people who were persucted because they dared to disagree with the established churches in their home countries, weren't they?
Kind of sort of.
For the most part the "Christians" who came to America due to "religious persecution" were the most extreme nutballs who were the ones doing the persecuting. They wanted to enforce their extremist interpretation of their fairy tales on everyone else around them. Sanity was coming back after a couple thousand years of brutal, murderous, savage, inhuman religious rule and so decent people were not particularly eager to see those monsters bring back the atrocities they were working so hard to do, so they left to go bring their evil to a new place.
Luckily, there were some great people here as well who were the ones who actually wrote the Constitution specifically to prevent insane evil nutters from shoving their ignorant hatred into the laws of a free society.
So, with the contempt for integrity and honesty typical of that sort, they have engaged in a campaign of revisionist history to deceive people into thinking they were the victims rather than the perpetrators. This campaign of deceit continues to this day with various lies Christians like to tell about how the founding fathers were Christians, America was founded on Christian principles, etc. Additionally, they actively work to subvert the basis of our nation through various sleazy scams like ID, putting crap about god on our money and in the pledge of allegiance (and then calling maintaining the actions of extremist radicals "conservative") as well as various other assaults on liberty, truth and common sense.
The problem with the teaching of Jesus is that it's true.
Sure it is. Remember things are true or false based solely on what you wish was true. No sanity, evidence or even common sense required.
I can prove that the airplanes you say don't exist,
I'd like to see you try. It's much easier for you to just lie though. Saves time on thinking.
that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is irrelevant and most likely fiction (it has every possible quality that justifies it being a human-made contraption),
Yet the unassailable fact is that there is as much *or more* evidence for the FSM than there is for Jesus the man, let alone the loony fairy tales.
yet I cannot say that what Jesus said is a lie or fiction.
However, you can say with complete accuracy that there is no evidence whatsoever that there ever was a Jesus or that he said anything, let alone the various old fairy tales edited together by scum with a vicious agenda which constitutes the bible.
You see, that's why a lot of people hate Christians. So many of you guys lie all the fucking time about really obvious stuff.
Wow... a real live crazy person!!! Who let you out of the looney bin?
:)
and then....
Too bad you can't debate things in a sane manner without resorting to name calling and death threats.
So, name calling is a bad thing you're saying..... Well, rational thinking obviously isn't your strong suit.
So it's already obvious that you don't have a leg to stand on since you just open up with personal attacks.
You'll note that any "names" I called you were names that you earned and you were called such as the *conclusion* of the argument, not as part of it. The fact is that you *are* incorrect and you are lying about it. Those 2 things taken together make you a liar. You see how that's different than me calling you "fat ass" when I haven't the foggiest idea what you look like? That would be a personal attack. Demonstrating that you're lying and then calling you a liar based on that fact *is* rational thinking, Sparky. I'm sorry it's such a struggle for you.
Now you say he was acting reasonable.
He was. He bought things and then left the store. He was under no obligation whatsoever to show the guy at the door anything.
You have failed to demonstrate anything the least bit unreasonable about a person going about their own business in a legal manner. You keep claiming that it is unreasonable, yet you keep failing to do anything to forward that (idiotic and completely unreasonable) point.
You think you are a reasonable person, prove it. Instead of name calling, take your foot out of your mouth and explain how that employee is supposed to differentiate between how that customer acted and a shop lifter?
If he sees him stealing something. If not, then he's shit out of luck. It is not the customer's job to jump through hoops to make the store happy.
You seem to think that anything a store wants to do is ok and anything a citizen chooses not to involve himself in at the store's command is unreasonable.
That is a completely insane position except in fascist countries.
So, my foot was never in my mouth. You just don't understand anything about "reasonableness" and more importantly the actual law.
He entered the store of his own accord, he was aware of the stores policy of checking receipts on the way out, if he didn't like that, he didn't have to shop there.
But their policy isn't in any way enforceable. While it's not illegal for them to try, it's not in any way his responsibility to comply with that policy whether or not he chooses to shop there. Sorry, but you keep thinking that they have some right to demand that. They do not. That is at least one of the fundamental flaws in your reasoning.
Now pull your head out of your butt and make at least a feeble attempt to make a point that doesn't involve believing in fascism or being too ignorant to know the law, or just STFU since you have yet to make a single reasonable point.
You are factually incorrect. Deal with it.
btw. if you could clarify the death threat thing, reading your comments, definately looks like a death threat.
Well, then once again you're demonstrating you lack of even basic critical thinking skills.
I merely said that given how dumb and cowardly you've *proven* yourself to be, repeatedly, it would be a win for the nation at large if you weren't in it. Feel free to remove yourself. Odds are, given the type of person you've shown yourself to be, it would be the only worthwhile thing you'll ever do.
I'm totally contemptuous of your cowardly nature, but that does not in any way constitute a death threat. But then, cowardice and ignorance are major constituents of your character as you've demonstrated at every turn in this discussion.
Seems like you are throwing the coward label around for some reason, perhaps you have some kind of internal issue?
No, it's quite simple. This man stood up for basic rights. Trivial ones, sure, but rights nonetheless. He even got arrested for what
We all know you can be searched.
No. Only idiots "know" you can be searched by entering a public business.
Sane people who aren't batshit insane know that this is absolutely false. We also have the benefit of being correct.
You're a batshit insane idiot *and wrong.
Now, go away and quit spouting idiotic lies that you're too cowardly to realize aren't true.
Weak willed boot licking scum like you really piss me off. The only way they will ever have those rights is due to cowardly fools *like you*. You think they already have these rights. You've already lost the battle without doing a damn thing to defend yourself. You just pulled a goatse at the first sign of trouble.
I'm sickened just talking to somebody as utterly lacking in any sort of integrity as you have proven yourself to be.
Now, go die in a fire you fucking cowardly worm.
Remember, in this case, Righi *called* the cops in the first place. I don't believe it's going too far for the police to establish the identity of the person who placed the complaint.
OK, but he *did* identify himself.
Now, that's minus 5 on reading comprehension and your entire post is rendered utterly without value.
You all keep missing the point entirely! THIS ***WASN'T*** a big deal until the guy insisted on aggravating the situation, first by unreasonably refusing to adhere to store policy and then for pointlessly involving an officer.
Look, there's no reason to make up idiotic lies.
He *perfectly reasonably* opted not to take part in some stupid ritual the store wanted. There is nothing *at all* unreasonable about that. He is neither an employee, nor is he the property of CC. Given those facts, come, tell us all how choosing to walk out of a store with your legally purchased property without being harassed is "unreasonable".
That's what I thought, liar.
See, you told a really stupid obvious lie. Why would you do that unless you wanted to look like a fool in front of everybody?
and then for pointlessly involving an officer.
He was being held captive against his will. Do you have a more reasonable use for the police than preventing criminal actions such as these?
Given that the store personnel were in the middle of committing a crime against him and his family and a rather severe one at that, it's quite clear that there was nothing pointless about involving the police. His only reasonable alternative at that point would have been to disable or kill the criminals holding him hostage. The cop would have gotten involved than anyhow, so clearly there was nothing pointless.
You clearly don't have much in the way of critical thinking skills or even much in the way of basic common sense if you have to go that far outside the bounds of sanity to make your "point" even seem to make sense to yourself.
And as you proved above, you don't have any credibility either.
GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEADS: this CANNOT be reasonably compared to the civil rights movement. AT ALL.
Actually, you're missing the point, so I hope nobody is stupid enough to put any idiotic thing you say in their heads.
Showing or not showing a receipt while leaving a store *is* pretty trivial in the grand scheme of things.
Now, stay with me, Sparky.
It's a trivial thing. And he ended up in jail and nobody, not the cop, not the store manager and sure as shit not you have given one sane reason how that could have been allowed to happen.
The fact that an innocent patriot was put in jail for the simple act of standing up for a *trivial* right makes it very much comparable to the civil rights movement because we are rapidly losing what ground was gained there. Or are you going to make the insane claim that where in particular you sit on a bus is somehow sooo much more important than being able to go about your business unharassed?
The fact that you're too stupid to understand the difference between standing up for something which is trivial in the grand scheme of things is very different from *being arrested* for doing the above.
But, you've failed utterly to understand any of the facts or issues, so your ignorance isn't surprising. Your militant death grip on your ignorance when you're so clearly and absolutely incorrect is both sad and pathetic though.
Stop trivializing the civil rights movement by bringing it up in the context of this moron's hysterical little tantrum!
You're the only one trivializing it, Sparky. Seriously, try using your brain, don't just regurgitate the shit you've been fed.
A huge number of you all have proven thay you desperately need a huge dose of perspective. Try urgently to at least RENT a clue if you simply cannot afford to buy one.
Given that you are the one defending the *illegal* arrest of a man who did *nothing* except exercise his rights, it's obvious that *you* are completely without a sense of perspective, and that it is you who don't have the first fucking clue what you're talking about.
Is it really an essential liberty to not have to show your receipt as you exit a store? I think not.
Then you do not have the first fucking clue what liberty is, so your opinion on the matter is completely without value.
Is it a currently granted liberty according to the law? It would appear so.
Yep you do not know anything at all about the subject, yet you're too big of a fool to just keep your mouth shut on the subject.
Liberty is not granted by the law. The fundamental idea behind this country is that you have all liberties by default. It's pathetic how many cowardly idiots like you there are in this country who think they have no rights until big mommy government says we do. The fact that you think like that proves that you've already abdicated your responsibilities as a citizen.
You're absolutely wrong. The fact that you're so wrong on something so simple and obvious shows your complete contempt for any sort of liberty. You are a subject, not a citizen and don't ever bother pretending otherwise until you grow a pair. You have *proven* that to be a fact of your own free will, so whining about being called what you are will only be met with contempt.
There are going to be cops that will habitually abuse their position and those are the ones we should stand up against; the ones that are genuinely trying to help us out deserve our cooperation.
And the fact that this cop arrested him *foe exercising his rights in a perfectly valid manner* proves absolutely that he is the former sort of cop and not the latter.
Your argument falls completely apart due to that if you actually spend a second thinking about it.