So... you're basically going to argue against the DA, the Secret Service, and others, all who claim that they didn't break the law?

You are going to argue with UNITED STATES LEGAL INSTITUTIONS to tell them WHAT THE LAW IS. Jesus. Monkeyfucking. Christ.

11/20/2008 11:27:39 AM

^ wow you have a gross reading comprehension deficiency there.

11/20/2008 11:28:51 AM

look the government doesn't prosecute every single crime, retard

11/20/2008 11:29:00 AM

^^Wasn't talking to you, there, moron. Was talking to Snewf.

[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 11:29 AM. Reason : .]

11/20/2008 11:29:08 AM

i'm pretty sure legal institutions argue amongst themselves over what the law is, slick

11/20/2008 11:29:14 AM

^^ I know, i was talking to you. You have misinterpreted snewfs argument.

11/20/2008 11:29:57 AM

Dude, I can't tell you how disappointed I am in the news for trying to continue to make this non-story a story.

And you're just as bad as they are man. Give it up and let it go.

11/20/2008 11:32:09 AM

It is the same thing. Because in this case it's talking about taking another human being's life. Does the particular language they use make it worse? Absolutely. Because it implies that for no other reason than Obama is black, he should be killed. The man hasn't even made any policy decisions yet and already people are advocating killing him because he's fucking black.

You people are not taking what the First Amendment is intended for into account. It was intended for rational discourse. Not for blind hate. People can advocate Marxism. People can suggest that we remove all street lights from all roads. People can advocate the eradication of butterflies from the Earth. I agree with none of these things, but people can damn well say them. Blind hate speech, which is definitely what this situation amounts to, is not the same thing because it infringes on other peoples rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those things come from the Declaration of Independence, but they are still the principles upon which the country was founded. Critical thinking therefore means that what these people wrote was wrong. Their particularly racist language makes it even more wrong. Don't pick and choose which parts of historic documents you wish to justify your racism.

And I already said I thought Oblinger made the correct decision in not expelling these kids, so I'm not even arguing with you there wdprice.

11/20/2008 11:32:26 AM

Quote :

"§ 871. Threats against President and successors to the Presidency (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (b) The terms “President-elect” and “Vice President-elect” as used in this section shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the offices of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained from the results of the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2. The phrase “other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President” as used in this section shall mean the person next in the order of succession to act as President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 19 and 20."

They didn't send it to anyone. They just wrote it in a Free Expression area. You know...where that good ole First Amendment is protected.

Yea, I agree it was fucked up and demented, but the fact remains they weren't a threat, they didn't commit a crime, the Secret Service was okay with it, the Wake County DA was okay with it, and ultimately NCSU is okay with it.

11/20/2008 11:33:15 AM

Quote :

"i'm pretty sure legal institutions argue amongst themselves over what the law is, slick"

And that's the problem. Some things shouldn't be open for interpretation, freedom of speech should be pretty easy to understand.

11/20/2008 11:33:23 AM

Quote :

"i'm pretty sure legal institutions argue amongst themselves over what the law is, slick"

Yeah, they do. But in this case, they aren't. Did you have a point?

Quote :

"You have misinterpreted snewfs argument."

Snewf's argument hinges on the fact that these people made statements that are not protected by the constitution. "the first amendment doesn't protect this kind of speech."-Snewf

In the case of threats against the president, such statements would be considered illegal (a.k.a. breaking the law).

Various legal institutions have determined that the law was not broken. Thus, Snewf is essentially trying to argue with legal institutions over what constitutes an illegal action.

11/20/2008 11:35:52 AM

And we have freedom of speech to protect us from a trannical government, should we ever need to overthrow it.

At least that's what the framers of the constitution had in mind.

11/20/2008 11:37:09 AM

Actually, Snewf's argument was this:

Quote :

"look the government doesn't prosecute every single crime, retard"

I think it's a pretty fucking good argument, personally.

^ Exactly. And where does advocating shooting niggers in the head play into that?

[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 11:38 AM. Reason : ]

11/20/2008 11:37:45 AM

You are a moron and not worth my time on this one obviously.

[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 11:39 AM. Reason : ]

11/20/2008 11:39:04 AM

By your own definition of why that Amendment exists, it's not protected under the Amendment's intended purpose.

11/20/2008 11:40:11 AM

"diversity training"

what a joke.

just another class for people to skip and sleep through.

11/20/2008 11:40:14 AM

Moron - you can't even compare this situation to the illegal immigrant situation.

Free Expression Tunnel - no real harm done
Illegal Immigration - taking away jobs from legal citizens, bogging down the health care system, relatively high crime rates (gangs, alcohol-related crashes, etc), not paying the same taxes as legal citizens (no income tax), overcrowding schools, bogging down government agencies, sending billions of dollars away from the U.S., among other things.

[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 11:42 AM. Reason : .]

11/20/2008 11:41:38 AM

but there's also a lot of shit that they will do that the average american won't.

11/20/2008 11:43:45 AM

Quote :

"Blind hate speech, which is definitely what this situation amounts to, is not the same thing because it infringes on other peoples rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "

You are failing to realize that your definition of "blind hate speech" is debatable.

Take salisburyboy for example. That guy said all sorts of foul shit on this message board for years. Stuff that people such as yourself would deem to be "blind hate speech." As ridiculous as his claims might have been, he actually spent a lot of time educating himself on them. In fact, he probably spent a lot more time researching his info than you ever have on your responses. So what you accept as "blind hate speech" is actually an educated opinion.

Furthermore, you are expecting everybody to see the world the way you do. You're a stoner from Salisbury. Did you ever stop to think that your educated opinion might be wildly different if you were a farmer from Washington NC? What about if you were one of two white kids who got off the school bus in the middle of the housing projects? There are a lot more ways to see the world than you or I will ever know.

Finally, it's pretty damn funny that you have this quote in your profile:

Quote :

""Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." ~ Ben Franklin"

11/20/2008 11:44:17 AM

Quote :

"but there's also a lot of shit that they will do that the average american won't."

which is why I'm all for bringing in millions of immigrants to work. I love having, legal immigrants in this country. Legal citizens, not illegal aliens.

11/20/2008 11:47:41 AM

Quote :

"Actually, Snewf's argument was this"

No, it wasn't. Not until AFTER I had made the post in question which moron was disputing. You don't seem to be following the discussion very well.

Quote :

"And where does advocating shooting niggers in the head play into that?"

It falls into the protected right of free speech along with any other statement involving racial slurs or advocation of head-shooting. You can't just ban what you disagree with, no matter how absurd or stupid the statement might be.

In my opinion, even threats against the president shouldn't be banned either. The people that make them *should* be investigated to determine credibility of those threats, and if those threats are found to be credible, they *should* be watched carefully and possibly prosecuted on any related issues (such as, say, possessing firearms illegally or whatever else might be found during the earlier investigations). But prosecuting someone on words alone? That's nothing short of complete and utter stupidity.

[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 11:49 AM. Reason : .]

11/20/2008 11:48:21 AM

Quote :

"Furthermore, you are expecting everybody to see the world the way you do. You're a stoner from Salisbury. Did you ever stop to think that your educated opinion might be wildly different if you were a farmer from Washington NC? What about if you were one of two white kids who got off the school bus in the middle of the housing projects? There are a lot more ways to see the world than you or I will ever know."

So you're arguing that there is debatable room where "shooting niggers in the head" is allowable? Sorry, I'm just a little confused because I'm so fucking high right now...

Quote :

"Finally, it's pretty damn funny that you have this quote in your profile:"

Also, please don't bring my profile quote into this because advocating for the increased liberty of one group of people is not taking a whole fucking lot away from allowing another group to perpetuate an air of hate.

11/20/2008 11:48:48 AM

Quote :

"but there's also a lot of shit that they will do that the average american won't do for $5.15 an hour."

Fixed it for you.

^ That's ridiculous and you know it. We're talking about graffiti, not physical actions. GTFO with that shit.

[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 11:50 AM. Reason : s]

11/20/2008 11:48:50 AM

Quote :

"Moron - you can't even compare this situation to the illegal immigrant situation."

So are you saying you're NOT being a hypocrite? By calling for the harshest penalty in one situation, while demanding the weaker penalty in the other?

It's strange how when it comes to defending people who would paint "kill that nigger" you suddenly discover nuance.

Quote :

"Free Expression Tunnel - no real harm done Illegal Immigration - taking away jobs from legal citizens, bogging down the health care system, relatively high crime rates (gangs, alcohol-related crashes, etc), not paying the same taxes as legal citizens (no income tax), overcrowding schools, bogging down government agencies, sending billions of dollars away from the U.S., among other things."

Wow, you're comparing this specific instance of racism (because racism has never caused harm right?) to a laundry list of problems that COULDN'T have been attributed to the specific immigrant we were discussing?

[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 11:51 AM. Reason : ]

11/20/2008 11:49:42 AM

Quote :

"Grow the fuck up people, quit being so goddamned offended by everything. The pussification of america continues. It's no wonder the rest of the world sees us as a bunch of whiney ass bitches. "

Seriously.

11/20/2008 11:50:37 AM

Because one incident has no real effects. this whole country isn't hurting because of it.

illegal immigration is extremely hurtful to this country and has been occuring for years.

2 different situations, idiot

11/20/2008 11:50:51 AM

the same nuance comes with cold calculated murder and gassing cats at a pound....

11/20/2008 11:51:11 AM

Quote :

"but there's also a lot of shit that they will do that the average american won't."

The average American usually finishes some sort of primary education usually middle school or high school. Most of the illegals I've met haven't finished or only finished elementary school.

It's not that they do shitty jobs that Americans won't, it's that they're not qualified for anything else.

11/20/2008 11:51:35 AM

Quote :

"Actually, Snewf's argument was this"

Nope, Snewfy's just bitter cause he got busted for something none of us know exactly what for so everyone should get busted all the time for anything.

11/20/2008 11:51:43 AM

^^

Quote :

"Free Expression Tunnel - no real harm done Illegal Immigration - taking away jobs from legal citizens, bogging down the health care system, relatively high crime rates (gangs, alcohol-related crashes, etc), not paying the same taxes as legal citizens (no income tax), overcrowding schools, bogging down government agencies, sending billions of dollars away from the U.S., among other things."

Wow, you're comparing this specific instance of racism (because racism has never caused harm right?) to a laundry list of problems that COULDN'T have been attributed to the specific immigrant we were discussing?

I take this statement back:

Quote :

"It's strange how when it comes to defending people who would paint "kill that nigger" you suddenly discover nuance."

You haven't discovered nuance, you're just deluding yourself.

[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 11:52 AM. Reason : ]

11/20/2008 11:51:49 AM

Note to the people on the other side of the issue:

Apparently the racist wdprice3 has joined the argument and is apparently on the same side of it as me... Let it be known that despite this fact, I do not advocate anything that he says, especially with regards to the illegal immigrant situation.

11/20/2008 11:53:49 AM

You're trying to take away someone's 1st ammendment right. I don't care how many people you 'think' it helps, it really helps no one.

I have the right to hate anyone, and I have the right to talk about it.

Take your hate speech crap and go fuck yourselves.

11/20/2008 11:53:57 AM

^^ you got me!

11/20/2008 11:54:43 AM

Quote :

"I have the right to hate anyone, and I have the right to talk about it."

You are without a doubt 100% correct in this assertion. I commend you on your exercising of 1st Amendment rights.

But you can't go around shootin niggas in the head, dawg.

11/20/2008 11:56:08 AM

What DID you do, anyway, Snewf? If it was just underage drinking or something (as seemed to be implied earlier), then I'd agree with you that such an expulsion is stupid and way over-the-top in that instance.

Quote :

"But you can't go around shootin niggas in the head, dawg."

Good to know. Who in this situation was doing that?

[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 11:57 AM. Reason : .]

11/20/2008 11:56:35 AM

Quote :

"Advocates of "diversity" claim it will teach students to tolerate and celebrate their differences. But the "differences" they have in mind are racial differences, which means we're being urged to glorify race, which means we're being asked to institutionalize separatism. "Racial identity" erects an unbridgeable gulf between people, as though they were different species, with nothing fundamental in common. If that were true — if "racial identity" determined one's values and thinking methods — there would be no possibility for understanding or cooperation among people of different races. "

Fuck diversity training.

NC State is so full of incompetent assholes they won't be getting any donations from me ever.

But this really solidifies it for me.

11/20/2008 11:59:43 AM

Vix... seriously? What the fuck is the point you're trying to make in this thread?

11/20/2008 12:00:25 PM

lololol. I'm a racist? You guys are funny.

and moron, that's exactly my point. these are two different situations, you can't compare them, which you are trying to do.

[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 12:02 PM. Reason : .]

11/20/2008 12:01:22 PM

^^^ I agree with the quoted segment there, but I don't know what diversity training entails.

I'd think it would have discussions about history and economics and sociology/psychology.

^ I didn't say you're a racist, but you clearly ARE a hypocrite (which is worse).

You were comparing this particular act of spraypainting with all of illegal immigration, which is pretty dumb.

I was comparing your reaction to this specific act of spraypainting to your specific reaction to that specific illegal immigrant.

So unless you think racism doesn't cause problems, you clearly have a cognitive dissonance in how you feel rules should be enforced. When it comes to defending racists, the rules should be lax, when it comes to defending hard working homeowners, the maximum penalty should be used. Pretty easy to understand, really.

[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 12:05 PM. Reason : ]

11/20/2008 12:01:34 PM

^boner did.

I'm a hypocrite because I believe two completely different situations deserve two completely different outcomes?

[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 12:03 PM. Reason : ,]

11/20/2008 12:02:38 PM

Don't let the second sentence scare you away from the overall goal:

Quote :

""Racial identity" erects an unbridgeable gulf between people, as though they were different species, with nothing fundamental in common. If that were true — if "racial identity" determined one's values and thinking methods — there would be no possibility for understanding or cooperation among people of different races."

11/20/2008 12:02:58 PM

Agreed, Vix... the very concept of "diversity" in the racial sense is idiotic and in general does virtually nothing but harm. It only continues to try to separate people based on nothing but a physical trait... maybe we should start celebrating the diversity and "racial identity" of hair colors and eye colors, too.

[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 12:04 PM. Reason : .]

11/20/2008 12:04:34 PM

Quote :

"But all you people who are defending this disgusting message of hate need to check yourselves because it's people like you who allow this type of atmosphere to exist. Sure they were expressing their ideas. But these are not ideas that are acceptable to be expressed. Your support for their right to say these things is equally as disgusting."

So, do enlighten us - what ideas are "acceptable" to be expressed, and who gets to be the arbiter of those ideas?

Because, according to you, defending offensive speech is now a reprehensible act, as apparently it must mean one endorses the content of said speech. It couldn't possibly be that people endorse the idea of free expression of ideas, any ideas, and view censorship of expression as inherently harmful and potentially dangerous.

Nope, defending the right to offensive speech must in fact mean that anybody who does so is a racist hillbilly redneck. Naturally.

Here's the nice thing about freedom of expression - it allows idiots with idiotic notions to be outed and confronted publicly. If we actually cared about freedom of expression around here, the appropriate response would have been to encourage dialogue instead of whitewashing the tunnel. Of course, that would imply we actually valued free expression and its use to society, rather than sectioning off a place where we can simply paint, "Go wolfpack!" with reckless abandon.

Punishing these students is a dog and pony show designed to appease "sensitive" individuals - nothing more, nothing less. No one has been made safer by doing so, and I doubt these students will be any further "educated" by any diversity ritual we choose to send them through if they were dumb enough to paint such things in the first place. But, it looks like we're doing something, so that's all that matters.

11/20/2008 12:04:35 PM

^^^ Because different species never interact in a mutually beneficial behavior in the wild.

NEVER EVER.

[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 12:05 PM. Reason : They describe their crock o' shit with a similar crock o' shit.]

11/20/2008 12:04:37 PM

Quote :

"I'm a hypocrite because I believe two completely different situations deserve two completely different outcomes? "

You were comparing this particular act of spraypainting with all of illegal immigration, which is pretty dumb.

I was comparing your reaction to this specific act of spraypainting to your reaction to that specific illegal immigrant.

So unless you think racism doesn't cause problems, you clearly have a cognitive dissonance in how you feel rules should be enforced. When it comes to defending racists, the rules should be lax, when it comes to defending hard working homeowners, the maximum penalty should be used. Pretty easy to understand, really.

[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 12:06 PM. Reason : ]

11/20/2008 12:05:54 PM

you compared the two, I said you couldn't. I then pointed out the differences

11/20/2008 12:07:03 PM

Quote :

"boner did."

Yup.
And I'll say it again, you're a racist. Almost everything I've seen you post on this site points directly to you being a closet racist (as in, a racist who thinks he isn't racist and won't admit the racism).

11/20/2008 12:07:16 PM

well you're an idiot then.

[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 12:08 PM. Reason : .]

11/20/2008 12:08:36 PM

At least he's here defending your right to be a potential racist.

11/20/2008 12:10:45 PM

Quote :

"Because, according to you, defending offensive speech is now a reprehensible act, as apparently it must mean one endorses the content of said speech. It couldn't possibly be that people endorse the idea of free expression of ideas, any ideas, and view censorship of expression as inherently harmful and potentially dangerous. Nope, defending the right to offensive speech must in fact mean that anybody who does so is a racist hillbilly redneck. Naturally."

See, now you're putting words in my mouth. I'm not arguing against someone's right to say offensive things. I am arguing, in this particular instance, that shooting niggers in the head is wrong and should not be tolerated in any instance.

Care to argue this point with me? Because that seems to be what you're doing.

11/20/2008 12:12:13 PM