1st Amendment vs. Bumper Sticker "FU Trump and FU You for Voting for Him"

[RoshawnMarkwees]

It's a public highway, not a private road. Just as vehicles need registrations and licenses there are other rules to follow, decency laws included. If she wants to complain about trump she needs to choose different language out of respect of others, including those who agree with the sentiment while objecting to the language.
Just another stupid, spoiled poor-sport.

 

[Chuz Life]

Nobody has the right to incite a riot or even to attempt it.

 

[monkrules]

rush limpbough, hannity, and all the other big Hate Radio fucks insult millions of their perceived "enemies" 24/7. They're not honest enough to use the direct language the lady in the truck did, but the radio haters' language is even more hateful and divisive and insulting. Yet, you never hear right wingers whining about their language or intent, even though the meaning is far worse, far more divisive, and deeply disturbing.

These hate-filled radio hacks are nothing but treasonous trouble-makers.

So now you're saying that phrasing things in mature, diplomatic ways is less admirable than crude visual assaults delivered in a cowardly fashion that allows you to avoid having to hear the responses? Tells us a lot about you. Dumbass.

You can turn the radio to another station. It's a little hard to turn a truck ahead of you in traffic off. If you're so very fond of "direct language", I cordially invite you to grow a pair and at least use it to people's faces.

If you think Rush and hannity phrase "things in mature, diplomatic ways" then you're an imbecile.

And that says a lot about you. Dumbass.

 

[Yarddog]

No, it's NOT a free speech issue. I'm sick and damned tired of hearing people shout, "First Amendment!" to try to justify doing whatever they want, whenever they want, with no recognition of the rights of other people and demanding that there be no consequences whatsoever.

This is why communities have disorderly conduct laws: to delineate the point where your "freedom of speech" starts infringing on everyone else's freedoms.

Be sick and tired of it all you wish, but that doesn't change the fact that having a swear on your truck isn't aganist the law. It's tacky and vulgar, but shouldn't be aganist the law in the my opinion. Also, you're freedom isn't being infringed upon b/c you read curse words in public. Truck Nutz are crass as well. Should they be made illegal as well?

Okay, what part of there being a law against it, cited very carefully by the sheriff, are you not understanding? Are you so simple-minded that you think the Constitution is the ONLY set of laws in this country?

You're welcome to think it SHOULDN'T be against the law, if you wish, but unless you live in THAT community and can convince enough other people to agree with you that there's some compelling reason to allow others to make life miserable for them with their crass, boorish behavior, your thoughts on the subject don't amount to a fart in a wind tunnel. I think you'll find that most people don't wish to live in a chaotic free-for-all where the rules are made by the most uncivilized among us.

While we're sharing our thoughts, I think it says a lot about you that you don't value, or even seem to be aware of, any freedom to live peacefully without being visually and aurally assaulted every time you leave your house by those who cannot gain attention by any means other than behaving like primitives.

As for your false analogy of "all crass behavior must be illegalized, or none can be", I think you would find, if you had any mature, civilized behavior in you, that it is not only possible for communities to draw lines of what they will and will not tolerate, but that they do so on a regular basis, and have every right to. It's like we live in a society, instead of an anarchy, or something.

You’re in no position to refer to others as ‘simple-minded’ given the stupidity of this post.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the validity of state and local laws are subject to Constitutional case law, in this case First Amendment jurisprudence – where the speech expressed on the bumper sticker is clearly entitled to Constitutional protections.

That you and others on the right hostile to the rule of law oppose that speech on subjective, partisan grounds doesn’t ‘justify’ prosecuting speech that you oppose.

Its not being Hostile to the rule of law to discuss what the limits of that law is. Did you know that communities do have anti- obscenity regulations? I'm sure this is not the first time in history for being called on something displayed on a vehicle.
Its not PARTISAN to oppose the words FUCK YOU on the back of a window, its pretty universal, the fact that you are pretending because you don't like Trump, now that is PARTISAN.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Okay, what part of there being a law against it, cited very carefully by the sheriff, are you not understanding? Are you so simple-minded that you think the Constitution is the ONLY set of laws in this country?

Yeah, and upon further thought decided not to charge the person with disorderly conduct. My guess is b/c it likely would have been challenged in court and they would've lost.

You're welcome to think it SHOULDN'T be against the law, if you wish, but unless you live in THAT community and can convince enough other people to agree with you that there's some compelling reason to allow others to make life miserable for them with their crass, boorish behavior, your thoughts on the subject don't amount to a fart in a wind tunnel. I think you'll find that most people don't wish to live in a chaotic free-for-all where the rules are made by the most uncivilized among us.

I don't live there and I suppose my thoughts on the matter do amount to a fart in the wind; however, unless you live there, so do yours.

While we're sharing our thoughts, I think it says a lot about you that you don't value, or even seem to be aware of, any freedom to live peacefully without being visually and aurally assaulted every time you leave your house by those who cannot gain attention by any means other than behaving like primitives.

As for your false analogy of "all crass behavior must be illegalized, or none can be", I think you would find, if you had any mature, civilized behavior in you, that it is not only possible for communities to draw lines of what they will and will not tolerate, but that they do so on a regular basis, and have every right to. It's like we live in a society, instead of an anarchy, or something.

Visually and aurally assaulted?! Bless your overly-dramatic heart! Oh, noes!! A sticker on a car visually assaulted me!? Call the police!

I'M not the one who feels the need to drive a moving billboard expressing my butthurt over politics, hon. Speaking of overly-dramatic . . .

 

[Cecilie1200]

A sheriff went looking for a truck with a profane anti-Trump sticker. He found controversy instead.

Texas penal code describes disorderly conduct as “intentionally or knowingly [using] abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of peace.” Making “an offensive gesture or display in a public place” is also prohibited if “the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of peace.”


But the ACLU cited a 1971 Supreme Court decision, Cohen v. California, in which the high court overturned a man’s disturbing-the-peace conviction after he’d gone to a courthouse in Los Angeles wearing a jacket that said “F‑‑k the Draft.”

=====================
I don't agree that the environment in a CA courtroom is the same as displaying an obscene advertisement on a car sticker in public and especially on roadways with moving traffic (and children in cars who could be exposed). I believe the best way to address these cases are locally, between the people complaining who are directly affected.

I agree with the Sheriff in resolving complaints that the obscene sticker was causing disruption of the peace, distraction to drivers, and a nuisance to the local residents.

If someone advertised an obscene message on a car, or had an obscene reference on a license plate, this would not be allowed. Kids can be exposed to the obscenity without a way to "change the channel" or avoid the source. Obscene words in public broadcasts such as radio/TV are not allowed during regular hours, though some restrictions are relaxed for late night.

I also agree that the drivers/displayers of the bumper sticker have the right to free speech and to seek permission to exercise their rights. But if the residents around them say no, that's not welcome, they have the right to refuse being imposed upon as well. You can't just walk into a public place and make obscene gestures or statements, or other people will complain; someone will have to ask the person to resolve the issue civilly and not disturb others with the obscene language used.

I agree with both sides, and would have asked them to resolve it mutually.
The way this case ended, the authorities found open warrants on the driver and pursued an arrest for that.

They still didn't resolve the root issue. I think it is up to the people affected locally to decide if it is disruptive or not. In these case, too many people complained to authorities, so apparently it was considered disruptive and a breach of the peace.

The Sheriff handled it respectfully as possible, and only sought to communicate the complaints to the driver to request they resolve it. The driver refused, so they found another way around it.

Are you from here ? Really, this was nothing but a clever way to collect a warrant on the woman. Honestly, hi do believe the sheriff saying he was concerned for the drivers safety. But in the end they just wanted the warrant . And New Braunsfels can not be a good place to have a number sticker like that.

Since he's an elected official, I think he had more than a passing interest in the fact that numerous potential voters were complaining.

 

[Crixus]

A sheriff went looking for a truck with a profane anti-Trump sticker. He found controversy instead.

Texas penal code describes disorderly conduct as “intentionally or knowingly [using] abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of peace.” Making “an offensive gesture or display in a public place” is also prohibited if “the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of peace.”


But the ACLU cited a 1971 Supreme Court decision, Cohen v. California, in which the high court overturned a man’s disturbing-the-peace conviction after he’d gone to a courthouse in Los Angeles wearing a jacket that said “F‑‑k the Draft.”

=====================
I don't agree that the environment in a CA courtroom is the same as displaying an obscene advertisement on a car sticker in public and especially on roadways with moving traffic (and children in cars who could be exposed). I believe the best way to address these cases are locally, between the people complaining who are directly affected.

I agree with the Sheriff in resolving complaints that the obscene sticker was causing disruption of the peace, distraction to drivers, and a nuisance to the local residents.

If someone advertised an obscene message on a car, or had an obscene reference on a license plate, this would not be allowed. Kids can be exposed to the obscenity without a way to "change the channel" or avoid the source. Obscene words in public broadcasts such as radio/TV are not allowed during regular hours, though some restrictions are relaxed for late night.

I also agree that the drivers/displayers of the bumper sticker have the right to free speech and to seek permission to exercise their rights. But if the residents around them say no, that's not welcome, they have the right to refuse being imposed upon as well. You can't just walk into a public place and make obscene gestures or statements, or other people will complain; someone will have to ask the person to resolve the issue civilly and not disturb others with the obscene language used.

I agree with both sides, and would have asked them to resolve it mutually.
The way this case ended, the authorities found open warrants on the driver and pursued an arrest for that.

They still didn't resolve the root issue. I think it is up to the people affected locally to decide if it is disruptive or not. In these case, too many people complained to authorities, so apparently it was considered disruptive and a breach of the peace.

The Sheriff handled it respectfully as possible, and only sought to communicate the complaints to the driver to request they resolve it. The driver refused, so they found another way around it.

Are you from here ? Really, this was nothing but a clever way to collect a warrant on the woman. Honestly, hi do believe the sheriff saying he was concerned for the drivers safety. But in the end they just wanted the warrant . And New Braunsfels can not be a good place to have a number sticker like that.

Since he's an elected official, I think he had more than a passing interest in the fact that numerous potential voters were complaining.

True, it in these parts the cops, even the pro, anti trump guys know that the road she is on is a great place to get shot for a ton less then a bumper sticker. Still, whatever.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Needless to say, if the same bumper sticker was being displayed saying the same thing with the exact same words, except referring to Clinton, there’d be no issue, and no threat of prosecution.

That's needless to say because it's bullshit, and there's never any need to say bullshit.

I don't doubt for a second that there would be a lot of people who would find that just as offensive and unacceptable. Much as I don't like the Clintons, I don't particularly care to tolerate public tantrums about them in any form.

I say let them speak their bullshit, jus that we don’t shield them from the consequences of that speech. Wonder if she will take it off?

This doesn’t make any sense.

What ‘consequences’ – that the owner of the bumper sticker be subject to criminal prosecution or be subject to violent physical attack by Trump supporters.

If someone should be allowed to engage in unpopular political speech, they should be allowed to do so with impunity, absent any ‘consequences.’

In this case, that she be subject to legal consequences for being a public nuisance. If she had the courage of her convictions - which she manifestly does not - and actually spoke her feelings directly to people, she could reasonably expect the consequences of getting told off.

And no, you do NOT have the right to do as you please "absent consequences". Bad shit happens when you do bad shit, whether you have a legal right to do so or not. DO try to remember that EVERYONE has rights, not just you. The world is not your playground and does not exist for you to run wild in. There are other humans around you.

Maybe consider the possibility that just because you have a right to be an obnoxious asshole doesn't mean you SHOULD.

 

[Crixus]

Needless to say, if the same bumper sticker was being displayed saying the same thing with the exact same words, except referring to Clinton, there’d be no issue, and no threat of prosecution.

That's needless to say because it's bullshit, and there's never any need to say bullshit.

I don't doubt for a second that there would be a lot of people who would find that just as offensive and unacceptable. Much as I don't like the Clintons, I don't particularly care to tolerate public tantrums about them in any form.

I say let them speak their bullshit, jus that we don’t shield them from the consequences of that speech. Wonder if she will take it off?

This doesn’t make any sense.

What ‘consequences’ – that the owner of the bumper sticker be subject to criminal prosecution or be subject to violent physical attack by Trump supporters.

If someone should be allowed to engage in unpopular political speech, they should be allowed to do so with impunity, absent any ‘consequences.’

In this case, that she be subject to legal consequences for being a public nuisance. If she had the courage of her convictions - which she manifestly does not - and actually spoke her feelings directly to people, she could reasonably expect the consequences of getting told off.

And no, you do NOT have the right to do as you please "absent consequences". Bad shit happens when you do bad shit, whether you have a legal right to do so or not. DO try to remember that EVERYONE has rights, not just you. The world is not your playground and does not exist for you to run wild in. There are other humans around you.

Maybe consider the possibility that just because you have a right to be an obnoxious asshole doesn't mean you SHOULD.

Meh? How about those whole window rebel flags? Ban them to? She also had an arrest warrant for fraud. I’m thinking that had more to do with getting in touch with her then her safety.

 

[mdk]

Okay, what part of there being a law against it, cited very carefully by the sheriff, are you not understanding? Are you so simple-minded that you think the Constitution is the ONLY set of laws in this country?

Yeah, and upon further thought decided not to charge the person with disorderly conduct. My guess is b/c it likely would have been challenged in court and they would've lost.

You're welcome to think it SHOULDN'T be against the law, if you wish, but unless you live in THAT community and can convince enough other people to agree with you that there's some compelling reason to allow others to make life miserable for them with their crass, boorish behavior, your thoughts on the subject don't amount to a fart in a wind tunnel. I think you'll find that most people don't wish to live in a chaotic free-for-all where the rules are made by the most uncivilized among us.

I don't live there and I suppose my thoughts on the matter do amount to a fart in the wind; however, unless you live there, so do yours.

While we're sharing our thoughts, I think it says a lot about you that you don't value, or even seem to be aware of, any freedom to live peacefully without being visually and aurally assaulted every time you leave your house by those who cannot gain attention by any means other than behaving like primitives.

As for your false analogy of "all crass behavior must be illegalized, or none can be", I think you would find, if you had any mature, civilized behavior in you, that it is not only possible for communities to draw lines of what they will and will not tolerate, but that they do so on a regular basis, and have every right to. It's like we live in a society, instead of an anarchy, or something.

Visually and aurally assaulted?! Bless your overly-dramatic heart! Oh, noes!! A sticker on a car visually assaulted me!? Call the police!

I'M not the one who feels the need to drive a moving billboard expressing my butthurt over politics, hon. Speaking of overly-dramatic . . .

Me neither. I am glad you're not as well. Calling the police about is pretty butthurt, though.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, it's NOT a free speech issue. I'm sick and damned tired of hearing people shout, "First Amendment!" to try to justify doing whatever they want, whenever they want, with no recognition of the rights of other people and demanding that there be no consequences whatsoever.

This is why communities have disorderly conduct laws: to delineate the point where your "freedom of speech" starts infringing on everyone else's freedoms.

Be sick and tired of it all you wish, but that doesn't change the fact that having a swear on your truck isn't aganist the law. It's tacky and vulgar, but shouldn't be aganist the law in the my opinion. Also, you're freedom isn't being infringed upon b/c you read curse words in public. Truck Nutz are crass as well. Should they be made illegal as well?

Okay, what part of there being a law against it, cited very carefully by the sheriff, are you not understanding? Are you so simple-minded that you think the Constitution is the ONLY set of laws in this country?

You're welcome to think it SHOULDN'T be against the law, if you wish, but unless you live in THAT community and can convince enough other people to agree with you that there's some compelling reason to allow others to make life miserable for them with their crass, boorish behavior, your thoughts on the subject don't amount to a fart in a wind tunnel. I think you'll find that most people don't wish to live in a chaotic free-for-all where the rules are made by the most uncivilized among us.

While we're sharing our thoughts, I think it says a lot about you that you don't value, or even seem to be aware of, any freedom to live peacefully without being visually and aurally assaulted every time you leave your house by those who cannot gain attention by any means other than behaving like primitives.

As for your false analogy of "all crass behavior must be illegalized, or none can be", I think you would find, if you had any mature, civilized behavior in you, that it is not only possible for communities to draw lines of what they will and will not tolerate, but that they do so on a regular basis, and have every right to. It's like we live in a society, instead of an anarchy, or something.

You’re in no position to refer to others as ‘simple-minded’ given the stupidity of this post.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the validity of state and local laws are subject to Constitutional case law, in this case First Amendment jurisprudence – where the speech expressed on the bumper sticker is clearly entitled to Constitutional protections.

That you and others on the right hostile to the rule of law oppose that speech on subjective, partisan grounds doesn’t ‘justify’ prosecuting speech that you oppose.

There is no point in time that I am, or ever will be, interested in YOUR view of what is and isn't simple-minded.

Oh noes! Clayton doesn't approve! *yawn*

While the Constitution IS the supreme law, it isn't the only law. I hope this won't be too big a shock to your system - actually, I'm kidding. I don't really care - but our country has always recognized the need for lesser laws to draw boundary lines between the rights of individuals. At no time in US history has it EVER been considered Unconstitutional to limit one person's freedoms at the point where they infringe on those of other people. And like it or not, YOU are not the sole arbiter of where that line is.

If you can find a judge anywhere who thinks that big signs on vehicles containing obscenities are Constitutionally protected, then you just go on and run with that. Let us know how that works out.

And spare me your faux-rage on behalf of the "rule of law", when what you're railing against IS a law, and you just don't happen to like it. Surprisingly, no one believes that the measure of an law's Constitutionality is "whether or not Clayton likes it".

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's a public highway, not a private road. Just as vehicles need registrations and licenses there are other rules to follow, decency laws included. If she wants to complain about trump she needs to choose different language out of respect of others, including those who agree with the sentiment while objecting to the language.
Just another stupid, spoiled poor-sport.

What an amazing, outrageous concept: thinking about other people and decent behavior instead of just your own hurt feewings.

I doubt it will ever catch on in this society.

 

[Cecilie1200]

rush limpbough, hannity, and all the other big Hate Radio fucks insult millions of their perceived "enemies" 24/7. They're not honest enough to use the direct language the lady in the truck did, but the radio haters' language is even more hateful and divisive and insulting. Yet, you never hear right wingers whining about their language or intent, even though the meaning is far worse, far more divisive, and deeply disturbing.

These hate-filled radio hacks are nothing but treasonous trouble-makers.

So now you're saying that phrasing things in mature, diplomatic ways is less admirable than crude visual assaults delivered in a cowardly fashion that allows you to avoid having to hear the responses? Tells us a lot about you. Dumbass.

You can turn the radio to another station. It's a little hard to turn a truck ahead of you in traffic off. If you're so very fond of "direct language", I cordially invite you to grow a pair and at least use it to people's faces.

If you think Rush and hannity phrase "things in mature, diplomatic ways" then you're an imbecile.

And that says a lot about you. Dumbass.

Compared to you, my 9-year-old is a Rhodes scholar, so I find it highly doubtful you would know mature and diplomatic if it crawled up your pants leg and bit you on the left ass cheek.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Fuck the people that voted for him. Fuck em all to hell.

Fuck the cops that wish to be fascist assholes too.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A sheriff went looking for a truck with a profane anti-Trump sticker. He found controversy instead.

Texas penal code describes disorderly conduct as “intentionally or knowingly [using] abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of peace.” Making “an offensive gesture or display in a public place” is also prohibited if “the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of peace.”


But the ACLU cited a 1971 Supreme Court decision, Cohen v. California, in which the high court overturned a man’s disturbing-the-peace conviction after he’d gone to a courthouse in Los Angeles wearing a jacket that said “F‑‑k the Draft.”

=====================
I don't agree that the environment in a CA courtroom is the same as displaying an obscene advertisement on a car sticker in public and especially on roadways with moving traffic (and children in cars who could be exposed). I believe the best way to address these cases are locally, between the people complaining who are directly affected.

I agree with the Sheriff in resolving complaints that the obscene sticker was causing disruption of the peace, distraction to drivers, and a nuisance to the local residents.

If someone advertised an obscene message on a car, or had an obscene reference on a license plate, this would not be allowed. Kids can be exposed to the obscenity without a way to "change the channel" or avoid the source. Obscene words in public broadcasts such as radio/TV are not allowed during regular hours, though some restrictions are relaxed for late night.

I also agree that the drivers/displayers of the bumper sticker have the right to free speech and to seek permission to exercise their rights. But if the residents around them say no, that's not welcome, they have the right to refuse being imposed upon as well. You can't just walk into a public place and make obscene gestures or statements, or other people will complain; someone will have to ask the person to resolve the issue civilly and not disturb others with the obscene language used.

I agree with both sides, and would have asked them to resolve it mutually.
The way this case ended, the authorities found open warrants on the driver and pursued an arrest for that.

They still didn't resolve the root issue. I think it is up to the people affected locally to decide if it is disruptive or not. In these case, too many people complained to authorities, so apparently it was considered disruptive and a breach of the peace.

The Sheriff handled it respectfully as possible, and only sought to communicate the complaints to the driver to request they resolve it. The driver refused, so they found another way around it.

Are you from here ? Really, this was nothing but a clever way to collect a warrant on the woman. Honestly, hi do believe the sheriff saying he was concerned for the drivers safety. But in the end they just wanted the warrant . And New Braunsfels can not be a good place to have a number sticker like that.

Since he's an elected official, I think he had more than a passing interest in the fact that numerous potential voters were complaining.

True, it in these parts the cops, even the pro, anti trump guys know that the road she is on is a great place to get shot for a ton less then a bumper sticker. Still, whatever.

Could be. Whatever the sheriff's motivations, I'm going to come down on his side of the argument. I'm old-fashioned enough to think that adults should give judicious thought to their behavior before enacting it, rather than just storming around like out-of-control children.

 

[HenryBHough]

And the driver will (for a very short time) be astounded when the distracted operator of something with about sixteen wheels accidentally drives over it. Ah well, cause an accident; deserve to be at least maimed; better, killed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Needless to say, if the same bumper sticker was being displayed saying the same thing with the exact same words, except referring to Clinton, there’d be no issue, and no threat of prosecution.

That's needless to say because it's bullshit, and there's never any need to say bullshit.

I don't doubt for a second that there would be a lot of people who would find that just as offensive and unacceptable. Much as I don't like the Clintons, I don't particularly care to tolerate public tantrums about them in any form.

I say let them speak their bullshit, jus that we don’t shield them from the consequences of that speech. Wonder if she will take it off?

This doesn’t make any sense.

What ‘consequences’ – that the owner of the bumper sticker be subject to criminal prosecution or be subject to violent physical attack by Trump supporters.

If someone should be allowed to engage in unpopular political speech, they should be allowed to do so with impunity, absent any ‘consequences.’

In this case, that she be subject to legal consequences for being a public nuisance. If she had the courage of her convictions - which she manifestly does not - and actually spoke her feelings directly to people, she could reasonably expect the consequences of getting told off.

And no, you do NOT have the right to do as you please "absent consequences". Bad shit happens when you do bad shit, whether you have a legal right to do so or not. DO try to remember that EVERYONE has rights, not just you. The world is not your playground and does not exist for you to run wild in. There are other humans around you.

Maybe consider the possibility that just because you have a right to be an obnoxious asshole doesn't mean you SHOULD.

Meh? How about those whole window rebel flags? Ban them to? She also had an arrest warrant for fraud. I’m thinking that had more to do with getting in touch with her then her safety.

Okay, let me say this again slowly: this isn't about one person's particular opinions. Public nuisance laws are decided by the people of a particular community, either through direct election or by way of their elected representatives. I personally wouldn't vote to draw the line there, but that doesn't mean I don't think a community has the right to do so, if they wish.

Doesn't really matter to me what the sheriff's motives are. I've already said that. Point is, he does have the law on his side, and apparently more than one good reason to go after her.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Okay, what part of there being a law against it, cited very carefully by the sheriff, are you not understanding? Are you so simple-minded that you think the Constitution is the ONLY set of laws in this country?

Yeah, and upon further thought decided not to charge the person with disorderly conduct. My guess is b/c it likely would have been challenged in court and they would've lost.

You're welcome to think it SHOULDN'T be against the law, if you wish, but unless you live in THAT community and can convince enough other people to agree with you that there's some compelling reason to allow others to make life miserable for them with their crass, boorish behavior, your thoughts on the subject don't amount to a fart in a wind tunnel. I think you'll find that most people don't wish to live in a chaotic free-for-all where the rules are made by the most uncivilized among us.

I don't live there and I suppose my thoughts on the matter do amount to a fart in the wind; however, unless you live there, so do yours.

While we're sharing our thoughts, I think it says a lot about you that you don't value, or even seem to be aware of, any freedom to live peacefully without being visually and aurally assaulted every time you leave your house by those who cannot gain attention by any means other than behaving like primitives.

As for your false analogy of "all crass behavior must be illegalized, or none can be", I think you would find, if you had any mature, civilized behavior in you, that it is not only possible for communities to draw lines of what they will and will not tolerate, but that they do so on a regular basis, and have every right to. It's like we live in a society, instead of an anarchy, or something.

Visually and aurally assaulted?! Bless your overly-dramatic heart! Oh, noes!! A sticker on a car visually assaulted me!? Call the police!

I'M not the one who feels the need to drive a moving billboard expressing my butthurt over politics, hon. Speaking of overly-dramatic . . .

Me neither. I am glad you're not as well. Calling the police about is pretty butthurt, though.

Seems like a fairly calm, rational, adult thing to do, actually. That IS what the laws and law enforcers are for, after all, and that is how adults handle situations.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Fuck the people that voted for him. Fuck em all to hell.

Fuck the cops that wish to be fascist assholes too.

And fuck the idiots who think "fascist" means "people who don't give me my way!"

 

[monkrules]

rush limpbough, hannity, and all the other big Hate Radio fucks insult millions of their perceived "enemies" 24/7. They're not honest enough to use the direct language the lady in the truck did, but the radio haters' language is even more hateful and divisive and insulting. Yet, you never hear right wingers whining about their language or intent, even though the meaning is far worse, far more divisive, and deeply disturbing.

These hate-filled radio hacks are nothing but treasonous trouble-makers.

So now you're saying that phrasing things in mature, diplomatic ways is less admirable than crude visual assaults delivered in a cowardly fashion that allows you to avoid having to hear the responses? Tells us a lot about you. Dumbass.

You can turn the radio to another station. It's a little hard to turn a truck ahead of you in traffic off. If you're so very fond of "direct language", I cordially invite you to grow a pair and at least use it to people's faces.

If you think Rush and hannity phrase "things in mature, diplomatic ways" then you're an imbecile.

And that says a lot about you. Dumbass.

Compared to you, my 9-year-old is a Rhodes scholar, so I find it highly doubtful you would know mature and diplomatic if it crawled up your pants leg and bit you on the left ass cheek.

I read one other exchange you’re having with another member. It’s clear that you’re an arrogant, delusional POS who thinks she’s better than everyone else on the board. It’s a total waste of time trying to ‘talk’ someone like you. Hope you’re more attractive in person. Lotsa luck with that. Lol...