Pulled over for an offensive bumper sticker!

[Matt Collins]

http://www.newschannel5.com/global/story.asp?s=12033374


"It's sort of what the judge said about the pornography, 'I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it,'" said Dickson police chief Ricky Chandler about enforcing TN state law


.

[Matt Collins]

Bump.

[rp08orbust]

The state owns your bumper. You rent it, and the entire car, from the state of TN.

[DaisyFL]

I find Obama bumper stickers offensive.

[payme_rick]

"I'm pulling you over for an offensive window-sticker..."

"Uhm, really? The one saying "Tennessee State Trooper Supporter"? that's the only one I have!"

"Yah, well if you'll notice I'm a police officer, and by not having a sticker that also supports Tennesee Police Officers, I am offended..."

[MelissaWV]

What is with the period...




.




.




.

[squarepusher]

What is with the period...




.




.




.

its to separate his comments, from his signature

.

;)

.

[wrestlingwes_8]

For what its worth at least the officer admitted he shouldn't have pulled her over. Still was a douche bag move though...

[coyote_sprit]

If a woman wants to call herself a bitch where's it offense to anyone but the woman?

[Matt Collins]

What is with the period...

.It's to keep the text of my post from getting jumbled with my signature. To make it more visually appealing.

[MelissaWV]

It's to keep the text of my post from getting jumbled with my signature. To make it more visually appealing.

The way you do it kind of looks dirty ;) There are other ways. I seriously thought it was dirt on my monitor the first time :(












.

[Matt Collins]

The way you do it kind of looks dirty ;) There are other ways. I seriously thought it was dirt on my monitor the first time :(
.How do you get your period to be invisible?

[MelissaWV]

How do you get your period to be invisible?

It's white :)

[pcosmar]

I can't believe people are talking about their periods.

:p

[MelissaWV]

I can't believe people are talking about their periods.

:p


Well Matt Collins is having trouble with his, and it's causing problems all over the place :(

[Danke]

I can't believe people are talking about their periods.

:p

Unlike Matt, at least MelissaWV knows how to hide hers.

[angelatc]

I found out you can turn off signatures in the user settings.

[InterestedParticipant]

Just love the propaganda of the Simulacrum. Got any more stories fed into the propaganda machine meant to demoralize us? Am I supposed to feel FEAR now, was that the point of this story? Guess I better go rip off all those bumper stickers on the back of my 1967 VW Bug :)

By the way, can someone please point me to the part in the US Constitution where it grants me the right to Free Speech? I keep everyone saying "Constitutional Rights", but I can't find any. OMG, they've taken away all my "Constitutional Rights".... or worse yet, I never had any "Constitutional Rights". We're doomed, I tell ya, doomed.

[MelissaWV]

The Constitution grants no such thing... but it does purport to protect rights via various Amendments.

The story is informational. Read it, or don't, much like fear-mongering "everything is a vector" threads :)

[BlackTerrel]

Cop was a tool but at least he was nice enough not to write her a ticket.

Edit: I wonder if the "B**** on Board." was good looking? I've had friends tell me they've had cops pull them over for some BS reason and then hit on them

[InterestedParticipant]

The Constitution grants no such thing... but it does purport to protect rights via various Amendments.

The story is informational. Read it, or don't, much like fear-mongering "everything is a vector" threads :)
Pointing out how vectoring is employed inside the Simulacrum to manipulate the public is to expose the system and liberate those who are able to unveil the techniques.

WRT the Constitution, I was mocking the story, and the use of the meaningless term "Constitutional Rights", which is an oxymoron and an abomination of our system and an insult to the DOI.

[Matt Collins]

Pointing out how vectoring is employed inside the Simulacrum to manipulate the public is to expose the system and liberate those who are able to unveil the techniques.

http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn12/Evilpens/its-a-conspiracy.jpg
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:



Your paranoia psychobabble is obnoxious.


.

[InterestedParticipant]

Your paranoia psychobabble is obnoxious.
Spending endless effort chasing ones tail in: a never ending trail of media propaganda, fictitious squabbles between controlled-actors, and meaningless political follies will get achieve nothing other than perhaps a little trivial notoriety for yourself. But the simulacrum is designed to exhaust you, while rendering all of your activity moot. You can continue to keep your head neatly fixed on the back of the walls cave, but whether you like it or not, there are many here who appreciate being shown the light and are actually finding that reality, as painful as it might be, actually can dispel fear and insecurity.

I realize that in warfare there are casualties that one must leave behind. Perhaps you should add me to your ignore list if you cannot bear such discussion.

[Matt Collins]

I realize that in warfare there are casualties that one must leave behind. Perhaps you should add me to your ignore list if you cannot bear such discussion.Your discussion doesn't even make sense, isn't rational, and is nothing more than paranoid psychobabble most of the time. :rolleyes:

[LibForestPaul]

Why was this story reported?
Has this occurred in the past?
Why is it occurring now?
Is it meant to enrage libertarians?
Is it meant to placate the masses by showing how just the police are, offering a mere citation as long as she obeyed?

[Promontorium]

It's the law's fault, and ultimately the legislatures, and citizens of TN's fault. Allow a law like "anything offensive is illegal" and this is just a friendly run in. If cops really wanted to go all out, they could collapse the justice system by pulling over everyone.

Making laws against emotions. :(

[InterestedParticipant]

Your discussion doesn't even make sense, isn't rational, and is nothing more than paranoid psychobabble most of the time. :rolleyes:
And your role here is to promote yourself up the political simulacrum ladder, as if that will somehow impact anyone's liberty. No wonder you find my commentary threatening, for it negatively impacts your ability to achieve your goal.

[InterestedParticipant]

Why was this story reported?
Has this occurred in the past?
Why is it occurring now?
Is it meant to enrage libertarians?
Is it meant to placate the masses by showing how just the police are, offering a mere citation as long as she obeyed?
To generate fear, and to try to convince the masses that their unalienable rights are vanishing.


It's the law's fault, and ultimately the legislatures, and citizens of TN's fault. Allow a law like "anything offensive is illegal" and this is just a friendly run in. If cops really wanted to go all out, they could collapse the justice system by pulling over everyone.

Making laws against emotions. :(
Nope, it's the people's fault, for letting our government overstep its limits of power. The DOI puts the pubic in charge of limiting gov't power, and we aren't doing our job.

By the way, our system of laws were founded on the concept that anyone can do anything they want unless they infringe on another ability to do whatever it is that they want. Tell me, how does a bumper sticker infringe on anothers liberty?

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I find Obama bumper stickers offensive.
:D

[Kylie]

They'd be super-duper pissed to see my new sticker.


http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y96/flyinzx11/untitled.jpg

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

It's the law's fault, and ultimately the legislatures, and citizens of TN's fault. Allow a law like "anything offensive is illegal" and this is just a friendly run in. If cops really wanted to go all out, they could collapse the justice system by pulling over everyone.

Making laws against emotions. :(

They have these all ready. You are missing the cause; the State. It is the monopoly in regards to the State that is at fault. Saying "the people of TN" is pigeon-holing everyone into one category even though it may only be 30% of the people who support this. Furthermore, most laws are enacted by political fiat. You would have a case of "The people", ergo "The majority" if we had a direct democracy, but we don't. We basically are still feudal serfs, the difference being we get to elect new masters every once in a while, whereas, in a Monarchy, or Dictatorship, they are imposed either by birthright, might, or "divinity".

Reject the State. Reject serfdom. Reject arbitrary authority and masters.

[Matt Collins]

Nope, it's the people's fault, for letting our government overstep its limits of power. The DOI puts the pubic in charge of limiting gov't power, and we aren't doing our job.

By the way, our system of laws were founded on the concept that anyone can do anything they want unless they infringe on another ability to do whatever it is that they want. Tell me, how does a bumper sticker infringe on anothers liberty?
You are absolutely correct. Although as a minor nitpicking point, I would say that the DoI doesn't "put the public in charge" as much as it simply declares that the sovereign individuals are in charge and have a right to secede.


.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

You are absolutely correct. Although as a minor nitpicking point, I would say that the DoI doesn't "put the public in charge" as much as it simply declares that the sovereign individuals are in charge and have a right to secede.


.

You cannot believe in the DoI and the Constitution. They are antithetical. One declares inalieable rights to life, liberty, and happiness. What do you think liberty and life entail? Property by any chance? Of course, he is talking about Natural Law, and Natural Law is incompatible with a State. I wish Thomas Jefferson was in America during the time of the Coup' de'tat, but they had him France...I wonder why!

I just had to bring this up because people rely on the "Constitution" for their rights, when our rights are inalieable and natural. They are inherent. You need no document to exercise these rights, but you sure as hell need the courage to actually defend your natural rights. People need to realize the law in this country is not for protection for the citizen, but as the means of control, surveillance, and power. It is that simple. Stop following these arbitrary laws.

If a cop ever pulls me over for my anarchist, End the Fed, Rothbard stickers I'll politely tell him that he has no authority over me, and I'm leaving. If he wishes to follow and detain me, I will use all necessary and lethal force to protect my life and liberty.


"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive." -- Thomas Jefferson


"What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." -- Thomas Jefferson

It's time we started living as inherently free individuals with inherent natural rights.

[kpitcher]

Oh boy, I better not drive through TN with the pacman jesus fish bumper sticker then.

http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/zoom/pa_stickers-all.jpg

[Matt Collins]

You cannot believe in the DoI and the Constitution. They are antithetical. One declares inalieable rights to life, liberty, and happiness. What do you think liberty and life entail? Property by any chance? Of course, he is talking about Natural Law, and Natural Law is incompatible with a State. No it's not. The DoI and Constitution do different things. One separates People from a government, the other establishes boundaries for a government.

A state is minimally necessary to provide justice, secure individual rights, and enforce contracts. It doesn't do any of those tasks very well, however otherwise we would have a system where the person with the biggest guns rules the neighborhood, which in itself is the antithesis of liberty just as much as a tyrannical government. Government is an evil, but a necessary one which is why it should be kept small and limited.



I just had to bring this up because people rely on the "Constitution" for their rights, when our rights are inalieable and natural. I completely agree and never argued otherwise. :)

.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

No it's not. The DoI and Constitution do different things. One separates People from a government, the other establishes boundaries for a government.

A state is minimally necessary to provide justice, secure individual rights, and enforce contracts. It doesn't do any of those tasks very well, however otherwise we would have a system where the person with the biggest guns rules the neighborhood, which in itself is the antithesis of liberty just as much as a tyrannical government. Government is an evil, but a necessary one which is why it should be kept small and limited.


I completely agree and never argued otherwise. :)

.

So then you understand that our rights are derived from ourselves. That our rights are as individuals. If that is so, what gives you the power to elect a ruler over me? What right do you have to do this? You cannot profess to believe in Natural Law, and then violate it at the same time. Stop contradicting yourselves!!

As to your ludicrous Hobbesian assertion, you are wrong. History is right. There have been a number of voluntary Stateless societies, and they flourished.

[TheEvilDetector]

So then you understand that our rights are derived from ourselves. That our rights are as individuals. If that is so, what gives you the power to elect a ruler over me? What right do you have to do this? You cannot profess to believe in Natural Law, and then violate it at the same time. Stop contradicting yourselves!!

As to your ludicrous Hobbesian assertion, you are wrong. History is right. There have been a number of voluntary Stateless societies, and they flourished.

I think the point is not to elect "rulers" but simply staff members (you're the employer, they're staff) that will protect your liberties from aggressions of those who do not..

There may have been successful voluntary stateless societies in the past, but there are none now unfortunately. Why would that be?

My guess would be that the voluntary stateless societies do not defend themselves well against takeovers by politically hostile states and individuals.

I prefer minarchy because of these and other considerations.

I must say reading through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities is fascinating and somewhat inspiring.

I also note that some of these communities engaged in practices that prevent certain freedoms from being exercised, so essentially being miniature states with varying respect for individual liberty, rather than pure stateless socieities.

A certain amount of hypocrisy is to be expected in any political system.

[Matt Collins]

So then you understand that our rights are derived from ourselves. That our rights are as individuals. Of course.


If that is so, what gives you the power to elect a ruler over me? What right do you have to do this? You cannot profess to believe in Natural Law, and then violate it at the same time. Stop contradicting yourselves!!I am not contradicting myself. And I never said anything about electing a ruler over anyone :rolleyes:

However when one violates the rights of another, there must be an instrument in place to provide for restitution.



There have been a number of voluntary Stateless societies, and they flourished.Such as?

[Promontorium]

Nope, it's the people's fault, for letting our government overstep its limits of power. The DOI puts the pubic in charge of limiting gov't power, and we aren't doing our job.

By the way, our system of laws were founded on the concept that anyone can do anything they want unless they infringe on another ability to do whatever it is that they want. Tell me, how does a bumper sticker infringe on anothers liberty?





They have these all ready. You are missing the cause; the State. It is the monopoly in regards to the State that is at fault. Saying "the people of TN" is pigeon-holing everyone into one category even though it may only be 30% of the people who support this.

Reject the State. Reject serfdom. Reject arbitrary authority and masters.



One of you is saying I'm wrong because it's the people's fault. The other is saying I'm wrong because it's not the people's fault.



What the fuck? Stop taking what I say out of context and argue at your straw.


Neither of you seem to have really read what I wrote.



IP: Why are you trying to argue with me about the foundation of this country? I specifically said it's been a series of laws that has created this issue. So you are trying to disagree with me by agreeing with me?

AED: I will not let the people off the hook. They may not have a direct democracy, but they continued for decades to vote in people who supported the laws that destroyed their liberty. And this isn't just in TN, I blame Californians much more so, but they're proud of their "accomplishments". Even if we allowed that elected officials are entirely to blame, shouldn't the people rebel and reject the tyranny? But you and I know they won't, because they are complicit.

And it's easy blaming the cop for doing his job. A job the elected by the people legislature made more complex through mountains of nonsensical laws.

[TNforPaul45]

.
big period is big

:)