Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/6/05 06:17 PM, Proteas wrote: I would like to point out that it was a Christian Youth Party that the topic starter was talking about the cops coming to to investigate a disturbance of the peace.
Anybody else find anything wrong with that?

Not really. Christians are people too, Proteas.. :o

At 2/6/05 06:45 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 2/6/05 06:17 PM, Proteas wrote: Anybody else find anything wrong with that?

Not really. Christians are people too, Proteas.. :o

I understand that, but what I don't understand is how a party that involves unreasonably loud music and alchohol being served to minors is considered a "Christian Youth Party."

They must be an offshoot of the Church of Christ I guess.

At 2/6/05 06:36 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote: Acting like an immature crybaby won't get you far in life.

Then stop

Understand that the law is there for a reason.

Yeah, because it was written, not because it's just. If you think any given law is automatically correct that's not a good sign for you.

And yes, you are a whiner.

No

You know what? What may be normal in your neighborhood isn't neccessarily normal in others. Don't tell everybody else here that noise laws are rediculous just because your used to being around loud obnoxious sound sorces

I wasn't born used to it, it took time :|. The point is even before I was, I never let it bother me. And yes noise laws are rediculus, again, "EARPLUGS", do you get it now?

At 2/7/05 02:01 AM, JerkClock wrote:

:And yes noise laws are rediculus, again, "EARPLUGS", do you get it now?

If you get rid of noise laws, then you'd better dump assault and battery. If you keep me up while I'm trying to sleep, it won't be pretty.

At 2/7/05 02:01 AM, JerkClock wrote:

At 2/6/05 06:36 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote: Acting like an immature crybaby won't get you far in life.

Then stop

wahh wahhh. Go back to general.

Understand that the law is there for a reason.

Yeah, because it was written, not because it's just.

Your sense of justice differs from the majority; this is democracy. Deal with it or move.

If you think any given law is automatically correct that's not a good sign for you.

Oh, gunna bring "correctness" into it now? Morally correct, legally correct, logically correct?

On any level, YOU lose.

I wasn't born used to it, it took time :|.

And look at what an asshole it made you.

The point is even before I was, I never let it bother me.

Because it would be hypocritical to be against something you yourself advocate and unquestionably adhere to. You aren't so stupid as to preach against something you practice, right?

And yes noise laws are rediculus, again, "EARPLUGS", do you get it now?

Move. Do you get it now? Your argument has no feet to stand on. Since majority rules in my favor in this case, YOU lose.... yet again.

Deal with it seems to be your only recourse (read: "earplugs") and my official response is MOVE. Once again, the neighbor's right to peace and quiet supercedes your right to party loud.

Deal with it.

Judging from the amount of information people get from the evening news, I would hardly classify the US as being "too political." If anything, people think they're too political in America. Seriously, the nightly recap is hardly a well of insight into the political climate, there are far too many people in this country who are media sheep.

That being said, noise laws are perfectly acceptable. Loud music playing every once in a while, like maybe once or twice every couple months is fine, but every night? That's a hazard to your health. Besides which, how much noise do you really need to make? People have argued that there is no right to not be disturbed by too much noise. It can be equally said, then, that there is no right to make more noise than is reasonable. Seriously, there is no necessity at all to make so much noise that it wakes up people next door.

At 2/7/05 02:40 AM, -LazyDrunk- wrote: .

:.

Your sense of justice differs from the majority; this is democracy. Deal with it or move.

No, it's a republic where elected officials make the laws for us. They don't neccessarily listen to the "majority". If they did the FCC would be abolished and the 3rd parties would get a fair chance.

Oh, gunna bring "correctness" into it now? Morally correct, legally correct, logically correct?

On any level, YOU lose.

Prove it then, you've failed.

Deal with it seems to be your only recourse (read: "earplugs") and my official response is MOVE. Once again, the neighbor's right to peace and quiet supercedes your right to party loud.

Deal with it.

As it is I live in a bad area, I don't really have that problem to begin with, but I also don't give a shit. I'm against the principle of the matter. If you want the so called "right to peace" you shouldn't live in a so called "free" country. I say so called because while we're supposed to be free, we have asinine laws like this. A lot of them in fact.

At 2/7/05 03:08 AM, JerkClock wrote: Blah blah I know you're right blah blah blah

Prove it then, you've failed.

Hold a party that wakes your neighbors up.

Don't you get it yet?

Deal with it seems to be your only recourse (read: "earplugs") and my official response is MOVE. Once again, the neighbor's right to peace and quiet supercedes your right to party loud.

Deal with it.

As it is I live in a bad area, I don't really have that problem to begin with, but I also don't give a shit.

Again, you're in the minority, deal with it.
I'm going to keep telling you that until you realize it's the truth. If you don't want to except it, that's your own personal agenda. YOUR ignorance is not my problem.

If you want the so called "right to peace" you shouldn't live in a so called "free" country.

durrr....

I say so called because while we're supposed to be free, we have asinine laws like this. A lot of them in fact.

Start a rebellion. It's why we have the right to keep and bear arms. Start a militia. Do something other than use the avenues granted to you by this "so-called" free state.

Do society a favor and don't breed.

At 2/7/05 03:18 AM, -LazyDrunk- wrote:

Hold a party that wakes your neighbors up.

Saying that doesn't prove that a "right not to be disturbed" is a right. If you want freedom you have to put up with hardships, if you want peace, you can live in Moscow, you'll get plenty of peace there.

Again, you're in the minority, deal with it.

You have failed to prove this to be the case.

If you want the so called "right to peace" you shouldn't live in a so called "free" country.

durrr....

If you realise this, Moscow is waiting... and no one is forcing you not to go there.

::

Start a rebellion. It's why we have the right to keep and bear arms. Start a militia. Do something other than use the avenues granted to you by this "so-called" free state.

Not as easy as it sounds kid, if Thomas Jefferson had his way, we'd have one every 60 years, because he feared morons would overrun our country with frivilous laws and the governmentt would grow too strong to overthrow. He was right apparently.

At 2/7/05 03:29 AM, JerkClock wrote:

At 2/7/05 03:18 AM, -LazyDrunk- wrote:

Hold a party that wakes your neighbors up.

Saying that doesn't prove that a "right not to be disturbed" is a right.

Tell it to the cops when they swing by to investigate.

If you want freedom you have to put up with hardships, if you want peace, you can live in Moscow, you'll get plenty of peace there.

Viva la Revolucion, eh?

Your point is idiotic at best. I've already told you why, and you come blabbing back that Moscow is the place for the majority of Americans.

Again, you're in the minority, deal with it.

You have failed to prove this to be the case.

Noise laws are still in effect, aren't they? Or did you change that already via your revolution into a new freedom where partying overrules all?

If you want the so called "right to peace" you shouldn't live in a so called "free" country.

durrr....

If you realise this, Moscow is waiting... and no one is forcing you not to go there.

I'm free to go there. But I want freedom. So I should move there?

You do realize the irony in your pseudo-argument, right?

...No, you can't because you've proven it time and time again.

Not as easy as it sounds kid, if Thomas Jefferson had his way, we'd have one every 60 years, because he feared morons would overrun our country with frivilous laws and the governmentt would grow too strong to overthrow. He was right apparently.

You'll be hardpressed to find support for the immaturity your argument suggests. Give me a scenerio where loud noise and/or underage drinking in a neighborhood setting serves a purpose to the beneficiality of our American society. Can you do that?

Without noise laws in effect, people who make a difference in this country wouldn't be able to get a comfortable nights sleep, thus effecting them at their jobs, at home, or at school.

Not everyone is a ClockCrew member. Some people actually contribute to society.

...and frivilous laws are shit like this:

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=227490

At 2/7/05 03:42 AM, -LazyDrunk- wrote:

Your point is idiotic at best. I've already told you why

No it's not and no you haven't, the point is freedom comes with hardships, you completely missed it.

:.

Noise laws are still in effect, aren't they?

Prove them to be just, you still fail to do so.

I'm free to go there. But I want freedom.

No you don't, you want peace, you said so yourself.

:::. Give me a scenerio where loud noise and/or underage drinking in a neighborhood setting serves a purpose to the beneficiality of our American society.

Freedom, just like if we were allowed to show nudity on the air or say "Fuck" on the air it would be new "Freedoms".

Without noise laws in effect, people who make a difference in this country wouldn't be able to get a comfortable nights sleep, thus effecting them at their jobs, at home, or at school.

Let me put it this way, If you're that busy you''ll stay awake and be able to do your job, if you're that tired you can sleep through anything at home, and you'll have plenty of sleepless nights studying for school. I know due to personal experience.

...and frivilous laws are shit like this:

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=227490

That's fivilous lawSUITS, not frivilous laws. Big difference.

Let's put this another way, should at be illegal to call people at night? What if they're not sleeping? But wait, if they're not the next door neighbor might hear the ring(especially if they both have their windows open. Your car makes noise, turing the engine on may wake your neighbors up too. Should it be illegal to drive at night? What about the car alarm going off at 2:00am? Should Car alarms be illegal? What about trains? They can wake people up from miles away.

The state has a compelling interest in allowing people to sleep at night, and that is the overriding factor in this issue. People do not perform at their best, and the state has a definate interest in its citizens being able to perform their duties in society to the best of their ability.

At 2/7/05 04:25 AM, JerkClock wrote:

At 2/7/05 03:42 AM, -LazyDrunk- wrote:

Your point is idiotic at best. I've already told you why

No it's not and no you haven't, the point is freedom comes with hardships, you completely missed it.

And one of those hardships is you not being able to disrupt others' lives.

.

Noise laws are still in effect, aren't they?

Prove them to be just, you still fail to do so.

OMG TEH STALL!!!!!!!!11

. Give me a scenerio where loud noise and/or underage drinking in a neighborhood setting serves a purpose to the beneficiality of our American society.

Freedom, just like if we were allowed to show nudity on the air or say "Fuck" on the air it would be new "Freedoms".

Or freedom to sacrifice children to heathen gods. Or marry siblings. Or smoke crack. Or drive drunk. Or. . . well, you name it.

Laws, like the ones that're being disgust, are just in the sense that they serve the majority. The majority being people who don't like being woke at 2am by loud music and drunken shenanigans.

Without noise laws in effect, people who make a difference in this country wouldn't be able to get a comfortable nights sleep, thus effecting them at their jobs, at home, or at school.

Let me put it this way, If you're that busy you''ll stay awake and be able to do your job, if you're that tired you can sleep through anything at home, and you'll have plenty of sleepless nights studying for school. I know due to personal experience.

I know also. And I've also ran into problems at my job when I can't get enough sleep due to rowdy neighbors. I work with heavy machinery and other dangerous shit, so when I come into work groggy cuz some dipfuck didn't have the decency or respect to tone it down on a Tuesday night, I get pretty pissed. One slip could fuck me up for life. My awareness is almost solely dependant on what kind of sleep I get. This is why my right to peace and quiet is favored by the majority, and the legislature, over your right to "freedom to do whatever"

...and frivilous laws are shit like this:

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=227490

That's fivilous lawSUITS, not frivilous laws. Big difference.

Did you know there is a law that allows lawsuits like this to be heard in court? Don't be so dense.

Let's put this another way, should at be illegal to call people at night?

Actually, I think it is, if it's past a certain hour and not directly beneficial to the person you're calling.

But wait, if they're not the next door neighbor might hear the ring(especially if they both have their windows open.

If a phone is ringing late at night, odds are there is a good, legitimate reason for it.

Your car makes noise, turing the engine on may wake your neighbors up too. Should it be illegal to drive at night?

Driving at night is necessary. Squealing your tires and revving the engine is not. The same applies to parties. Quiet, unraucous parties are exceptable, while loud, disruptive ones aren't.

What about trains? They can wake people up from miles away.

Trains were there when they moved. They knew trains are loud. If they were residents before the train, the city council would've taken a vote and hearing on the issue before instituting the tracks and train.

Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing now?

At 2/7/05 04:31 AM, Gunter45 wrote: The state has a compelling interest in allowing people to sleep at night, and that is the overriding factor in this issue. People do not perform at their best, and the state has a definate interest in its citizens being able to perform their duties in society to the best of their ability.

He doesn't understand that because he doesn't have a real job where what he does matters. It's an easy argument for a bum.

At 2/7/05 04:47 AM, -LazyDrunk- wrote:

And one of those hardships is you not being able to disrupt others' lives.

No that's a restrictions, restrictions = not freedom.

. Give me a scenerio where loud noise and/or underage drinking in a neighborhood setting serves a purpose to the beneficiality of our American society.

Entertainment, society doesn't need to be just productive yet boring.

Or freedom to sacrifice children to heathen gods. Or marry siblings. Or smoke crack. Or drive drunk. Or. . . well, you name it.

Okay

1. Just no, and I mean no drug laws are just at all:

a. The only victim is the one doing it

b. don't give me that DWI Bullshit about drugs, DWI is illegal without them and it's not stopping people, so the drug laws won't stop any DWI's

c. Keeping drugs exclusively on the black market expands it, giving drug cartels more murders to commit and osama bin laden a big source of income

2. Saying fuck, and making noise are in no way anywhere near as heinous as murder and drunk driving. They're not even malacious deeds

Laws, like the ones that're being disgust, are just in the sense that they serve the majority. The majority being people who don't like being woke at 2am by loud music and drunken shenanigans.

Just because the majority don't like being woke up doesn't mean they all in unisom want there to be laws regulating it. There are plenty of things that annoy me, but I don't write my congressman about them, I either put up or take care of the problem myself.

I know also. And I've also ran into problems at my job when I can't get enough sleep due to rowdy neighbors. I work with heavy machinery and other dangerous shit, so when I come into work groggy cuz some dipfuck didn't have the decency or respect to tone it down on a Tuesday night, I get pretty pissed. One slip could fuck me up for life. My awareness is almost solely dependant on what kind of sleep I get. This is why my right to peace and quiet is favored by the majority, and the legislature, over your right to "freedom to do whatever"

You have still failed to prove the majority supports the law. Or for that matter why the fact that you're too stupid to use earplugs means a law is neccessary. Are they really that hard to find, or home-make for that matter?

::

Did you know there is a law that allows lawsuits like this to be heard in court?

No, but it's just as stupid as the noise laws. A man saying, "I didn't know to press the break, so I'm sueing honda for the crash" is actually in some ways less frivilous than the noise laws being passed because people don't know how to plug their ears. At least if you lose, say 5 hours of sleep you aren't going to be crippled for life.

Actually, I think it is, if it's past a certain hour and not directly beneficial to the person you're calling.

Sad day for america.

If a phone is ringing late at night, odds are there is a good, legitimate reason for it.

What if they just want to chit-chat with someone they know is always up late?(night shift worker for instance)

Driving at night is necessary. Squealing your tires and revving the engine is not.

But the start up still makes a lot of noise.

.

Trains were there when they moved. They knew trains are loud. If they were residents before the train, the city council would've taken a vote and hearing on the issue before instituting the tracks and train.

Ah so noise is perfectedly acceptable when the city council(the law) says so, but not when they don't. This effectively proves my point that you think the law is always right no matter what.

Okay, okay. Let's just go out on a limb and say that to have total freedom, and be true to the term, we would have to live in anarchy. Let's face it - our government is set up with the laws (as with pretty much any government) to restrict you on everything you do.

Now let's consider a country where you can't buy alcohol. Sucks balls. How about another that won't let you pray to Zeus. That won't do. What about a country that forbids you to kill somebody else. DAMN! Oh, wait. That's a pretty good one. Let's go with that.

For the most part, the laws beset upon us grant (and I use the term loosely) us the right to do anything so long as it doesn't fuck up anything for somebody else. I say for the most part because of things like drugs.

Which is a lot like our international policy as well. If we think you're screwing around with somebody else, then we're going to put a stop to it. Who says it's right? Well... Our government. Doesn't mean it is, but that's just how our country has been for a few hundred years.

If you want to change it, find a bunch of people who can agree with what you got going on and run for every office you can think of and do it the right way. Or just write your congressman the same damn letter every day and hope that he/she reads them.

At 2/7/05 07:47 AM, breachgnome wrote: Stuff

Or better yet, do away with the 2 party system and let the libertarians take over(idealistic I know)

It is true. In America everyone loves to complain about their society and stands up for their cause.

I forgot about this topic and stopped reading halfway down the second page.

The cops break up teen drinking parties because when they are in town they disturb the people living in that area and when they are out in the middle of nowhere dumbass teens try to drive home after getting smashed. That sounds like a damn good reason for it to be illegal to me but apparently Jerk clock enjoys being kept awake at night and getting plowed into.

Most laws exist for very good reasons and most of the people who wine about them are just pissed off because it prevents them from doing something that takes away the personal freedom of another. As Ben Franklin said "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." You can't claim you have the right to do something when it takes away someone else's rights.

At 2/7/05 11:58 AM, BeFell wrote:
The cops break up teen drinking parties because when they are in town they disturb the people living in that area and when they are out in the middle of nowhere dumbass teens try to drive home after getting smashed. That sounds like a damn good reason for it to be illegal to me but apparently Jerk clock enjoys being kept awake at night and getting plowed into.

So in order to hate something I have to want it to be against the law? Idiot, no I don't. I just don't believe outlawing it is the answer(hello earplugs?).

Most laws exist for very good reasons and most of the people who wine about them are just pissed off because it prevents them from doing something that takes away the personal freedom of another. As Ben Franklin said "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." You can't claim you have the right to do something when it takes away someone else's rights.

Right not to be woken up is not a right, a right not to see nudity on the TV is not a right, a right not to hear "fuck" is not a right. What you said right there is the most common excuse people have for whining to the legislature about problems that really are no big deal, or you can solve on your own to begin with. If you won't those "rights", Russia will give all of them and many more, and you can't tell me you don't want to because you like being free, you made it clear you do not. You like having peace, drug regulations, and alchohol restrictions instead. You made that clear.

At 2/7/05 10:54 AM, Dr_Killbydeath wrote: It is true. In America everyone loves to complain about their society and stands up for their cause.

Not everyone, just most people. Just watch BeFell and BarferPro post. They're at opposite ends but both very whiney about society.

TOPIC: AMERICA IS WAY TOO POLITICAL
----------------------------------------------------------

No shit!

At 2/7/05 02:13 PM, JerkClock wrote:
So in order to hate something I have to want it to be against the law? Idiot, no I don't. I just don't believe outlawing it is the answer(hello earplugs?).

Since you seem to love your little earplugs analogy so well, I'll lay this whole thing out for you:

What are earplugs, and why are they needed?
They are a means to suppress the noise coming from somewhere (in this case, YOU and YOUR parties)

What else can perform the function of earplugs?
Many things. Including, but not limited to: headphones, static noise, soundproof glass, legislation.

*gasp*

So, while many of these options provide temporary solutions, only one is affordable, practical, and long-term.

Can you guess which one?

Apparently, enough people got sick of your shit (being obnoxiously loud and unbearably rowdy) to bring it up to the powers that be to have your privileges removed. Yes, privileges. Privilege. Got it yet? Privilege. As BeFell quoted Ben Franklin before: "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

Think about that analogy for a second.

I'm serious.

Think about it.

Have you got it yet?

Keep trying, dumb ass. Don't rebut with "OMG IT"S LIEK SOOOO OUR FREEDOM TO DO WHATEVER REGARDLESS OF CONSEQUENCES BECAUSE MY PARENTS WERE HIPPIES AND NEVER TAUGHT ME ANYTHING BUT PARTY AND BE FREE CUZ FREEDOM IS LIKE, FREEDOM MAN. OMG HOW ISN'T FREEDOM WHAT AMERICA IS BASED ON???/// MAN YOU NEED EARPLUGS MAN CUZ YOU ARE FREE TO DO THAT SO GO DO IT!!!!111one

And thus the flaming begins.

You're a 21 year old child. You will not be able to contribute anything to America with the attitude you present. Jump in front of a trucking truck, because you are free to do it. Nobody's stopping you. Hell, I'll push ya if you don't think you have the balls to do it yourself. You FAIL at life.

One day, I hope you wake up and realize how much of your, your family's, society's and my time you've wasted with your immaturity and lack of general comprehension. Fuckers like yourself shouldn't breed. If any woman would dare procreate with you, the child would most likely FAIL at life, not unlike his father. Would you want your child to be a failure? You probably would, because it's "his freedom to do whatever".

Grow up.

At 2/7/05 02:13 PM, JerkClock wrote:

At 2/7/05 11:58 AM, BeFell wrote:
The cops break up teen drinking parties because when they are in town they disturb the people living in that area and when they are out in the middle of nowhere dumbass teens try to drive home after getting smashed. That sounds like a damn good reason for it to be illegal to me but apparently Jerk clock enjoys being kept awake at night and getting plowed into.

So in order to hate something I have to want it to be against the law? Idiot, no I don't. I just don't believe outlawing it is the answer(hello earplugs?).

What? You are pretty fucking stupid. Why should you be forced to wear earplugs when they just have to turn down their music? Just because you don't think you are entitled to something as reasonable as peace and quiet at 2am that doesn't mean there are a lot of people who disagree with you. Where we live in a democracy that means that if a lot of people feel noise restrictions are reasonable then it can become a law.

Hell lets just follow through with the world you would like to have. If people are making too much noise I'll just walk over there and shoot them. Hell if you don't mind disturbing people with noise then you shouldn't mind being disturbed by bullets.

Most laws exist for very good reasons and most of the people who wine about them are just pissed off because it prevents them from doing something that takes away the personal freedom of another. As Ben Franklin said "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." You can't claim you have the right to do something when it takes away someone else's rights.

Right not to be woken up is not a right, a right not to see nudity on the TV is not a right, a right not to hear "fuck" is not a right. What you said right there is the most common excuse people have for whining to the legislature about problems that really are no big deal, or you can solve on your own to begin with. If you won't those "rights", Russia will give all of them and many more, and you can't tell me you don't want to because you like being free, you made it clear you do not. You like having peace, drug regulations, and alchohol restrictions instead. You made that clear.

The right to play loud music and keep me awake at night is not a right. You are bitching and moaning because other people are taking away your rights while giving no consideration to what they might be entitled to. Why should I put earplugs in when you could just shut the fuck up? Why should I risk my life driving on a road with intoxicated drivers when you could just not drink? It is commonly accepted logic that the needs of the many outway the needs of the few or the one. And a lot more people benefit from having a good nights sleep and going to work the next morning than if you were allowed to party all night and spend the day sleeping off a hangover.

At 2/7/05 02:35 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote:

What are earplugs, and why are they needed?
They are a means to suppress the noise coming from somewhere (in this case, YOU and YOUR parties)

What else can perform the function of earplugs?
Many things. Including, but not limited to: headphones, static noise, soundproof glass, legislation.

You acknowledge all this yet you still wish to push your bullshit on other people, sad really.

Apparently, enough people got sick of your shit (being obnoxiously loud and unbearably rowdy)

I'm not having any problem as I said above, I'm against the principle of the matter

You're a 21 year old child.

You're an 18 year old child, are you actually stupid enough to think people won't notice this? In fact, you're probably 5 but pretending to be 18.

:What? You are pretty fucking stupid. Why should you be forced to wear earplugs when they just have to turn down their music?

The point is there are non-legislative solutions, but assholes like you wish to restrict the freedoms of others instead.

:Hell lets just follow through with the world you would like to have. If people are making too much noise I'll just walk over there and shoot them. Hell if you don't mind disturbing people with noise then you shouldn't mind being disturbed by bullets.

You are drawing a totally unreasonable comparison, loud noise is not(as said above in the thread) anything like killing people. If you walk over and ask them politely to be quiet and they don't, then they probably deserve to get their asses kicked. Not shot though, and it still doesn't mean you pass laws about it, if we outlaw every annoyance out there we'll pretty much have nothing left to do. Almost everything out there annoys somebody, but that's not a reason to regulate everything.

:The right to play loud music and keep me awake at night is not a right.

Yes it is, a lack of restriction is a right.

:Why should I put earplugs in when you could just shut the fuck up?

Because it's supposed to be a "free" country, not a country where we get, "peace and quiet".

:Why should I risk my life driving on a road with intoxicated drivers when you could just not drink?

Who the fuck said drunk driving should be legal? No one? That's right moron. No one.

:It is commonly accepted logic that the needs of the many outway the needs of the few or the one.

NO:

http://www.bartleby.com/65/fa/fascism.html

:Fascism, especially in its early stages, is obliged to be antitheoretical and frankly opportunistic in order to appeal to many diverse groups. Nevertheless, a few key concepts are basic to it. First and most important is the glorification of the state and the total subordination of the individual to it. The state is defined as an organic whole into which individuals must be absorbed for their own and the state’s benefit. This “total state” is absolute in its methods and unlimited by law in its control and direction of its citizens.

At 2/7/05 02:59 PM, JerkClock wrote:
More childish bullshit.

Get a clue.

At 2/7/05 03:04 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote:

At 2/7/05 02:59 PM, JerkClock wrote:
More childish bullshit.

Get a clue.

Agreed.

..and ya know what? Because I know your just gunna respond with "OMG no i'm sooooo not childish, look at me!" I'll tell you the secret as to why.

<p align="center">LOGIC.<p/>

Google it and check out what it is, and how it should affect your decision-making process.

JerkClock, wouldn't making drunk driving illegal infringe upon the right to drive? It's a freedom. I mean, it's their right to drive.

Don't get so angry when someone takes your ridiculous extreme and shows you just how dumb it is.

They finally fall

At 2/7/05 03:15 PM, Maus wrote: JerkClock, wouldn't making drunk driving illegal infringe upon the right to drive? It's a freedom. I mean, it's their right to drive.

Yeah, but I don't think anyone believes you should have that right(except drunk drivers). Drunk driving is much more serious than being a nuissance though. It's like comparing flicking someone's ear, to stabing them.

My point is this, we don't need laws to cover every little thing that annoys us, especially when there are non-legislative solutions to them. Is a person wrong for deliberatly disturbing people at night if they are to politely knock on his door and ask him not to? Yeah, does this mean we need laws for it? No, you can plug your ears. You can't however just wear a blastsuit at all times in anticipation of a drunk driver veering of the road and into you/your house.

Don't get so angry when someone takes your ridiculous extreme and shows you just how dumb it is.

Well it's more because he tried to say I had issue with cops and stuff when it was clear I didn't.