I have said probably half a dozen times now...it doesnt MATTER what OPINION is regarding the OP. Think about it for a second. I have said a few hundred posts ago and on several occasions that all that assclown had to do was take his merry band of jackasses a 100 yards to the public sidewalk as they were asked (very politely I might add) and none of this would have been an issue. But thats the point...he WANTED it to be an issue. Notice...none of the other clowns followed his lead and got arrested. Just him. Aint 'civil disobedience' a fun thing. And waving the 'press pass' like he was acting in the capacity of a member of the press...priceless.
SO for the record. I think he is an asshole. A smarmy little asshole. Do I believe in peoples right to free speech? Sure...absolutely. Just follow a few basic rules. I also believe the UT has a right to enforce their rules (and I think people that cling to this idiotic notion that the UT is a 'public' institution and therefore THEIRS to do whatever they want, whenever, and however they want are either intentionally foolish or simply that badly deluded and probably dont have as firm a grasp on the law and constitution as they like to think they have).
With regard to the libertarian party...this comes up every time someone brings up the whole "what is a 'real' libertarian argument. Ive told you why I take the libertarian position. I am for individial, state, and federal rights, in that order. I believe we need SOME government...just responsible government. I believe we need a fiscally responsible government.
But I am not for anarchy and like it or not...when you take a position in opposition to the law you will be punished. Try going 105 on the highway at 3 am...see if you dont get a ticket. Now try to go to court and fight it by saying its your right to go 105 provided you dont hurt anyone. Good luck with that. then post your hatred for the nazi police force for ticketing you and the communist regime that dared enforce the law.
I say again...ask yourself WHY the Libertarian party has NO ELECTED REPRESENTATION. When is a party not a Party?
Last edited by VanceMack; 08-17-10 at 05:09 PM.
I ask yet AGAIN... why do all you 'real' libertarians think the Libertarian party has NO ELECTED REPRESENTATION. When is a party not a Party?
You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
I can't speak with regards to the Autobahn. I've never driven it or even seen it. It may well be safe to drive at such speeds, I simply don't know.
Assuming you're addressing me as a 'real' libertarian, probably similar to the reasons why gays don't have the right to marry--misconceptions and bigotry.
Texas StatutesSec. 51.209. UNAUTHORIZED PERSONS; REFUSAL OF ENTRY, EJECTION, IDENTIFICATION. The governing board of a state institution of higher education or its authorized representatives may refuse to allow persons having no legitimate business to enter on property under the board's control, and may eject any undesirable person from the property on his refusal to leave peaceably on request. Identification may be required of any person on the property.
Acts 1971, 62nd Leg., p. 3072, ch. 1024, art. 1, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1971.
Also note the effective date of the law: 9/1/1971 - it has nothing to do with free speech zones. It's the law in Texas (and has been for 2 generations) that if the governing board (or their representative - in this case, UTPD) asks you to leave, you have to leave. Period. I know of no jurisdiction in the country that would consider a political protest for which no permit has been issued to be "legitimate business."
It doesn't matter if you are praying to Thor in the middle of a grassy area with no one else around you. It doesn't matter if you are "exercising your right to free speech." It doesn't matter if you are there gathering information as a journalist. If they ask you to leave and you refuse, you are subject to arrest and prosecution under Title 3, Ch. 51. If you feel that your removal was a violation of your rights, then your recourse is to pursue the matter in civil court. However, as Plaintiff, the burden of proof is on you, not the University as Respondent. The burden of proof in such a case would be a pretty high bar to clear.
Tax & Spend > Borrow & Spend. But it seems that now we must tax and NOT spend.
I reject your reality, and substitute my own.