'Adopt-A-Highway' bid by KKK

**lvstealth** · 06-12-12 at 01:35 PM

what difference does it make what i might think of the KKK? i think i have been clear that the opinion i am voicing is the right to be a group no matter what some individuals might think of said group, and that all groups have the same right to adopt a stretch of highway.

it is not a personal opinion thing, it is constitutional rights. i very seldom state my personal views, they are my own.

on a side note... they were for the Prohibition! pro'lly shot many of my relatives, maybe even some of Tom's!

smiling,
Mandy

edit:

Adan, the "tending" that is in question is in this quote:

Quote:

Definition of emblazoned: Conspicuously inscribe or display (a design) on something
Definition of Conspicuously: in a manner tending to attract attention

- giggles, M

Adanaliyik · 06-12-12 at 01:41 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by Notorious_dog

Wait a sec mandy.

Are the KKK in your opinion "bad"?

And what message will it be sending out to little kids when they see that the big old KKK are the most prestigious?
Some kids might think that since they're so prestigious, there may indeed be some right to hating black people.
Other (more intelligent kids) will see the flaw in letting them gain such prestige.

That part of the message was just to define what they mean by tending, and what the Adopt-a-Highway program is really about.

As for what message it sends kids if their area of road is cleaner than anyone else's? None. Kids don't pay attention to who adopts what part of what highway. They may read the signs, but they really won't care if it's the KKK, the American Nazi Party, or the Mafia. At least, not any more than they'd care if it was the Kiwani's, the Rotary Club, or the Salvation Army.

Any kids who would fall for the KKK rhetoric, are the same kids who join the Skinheads, or any one of the off-beat religious cults. The signs aren't for the youngsters, the signs are for the adults in the US. The one's who are p***ed about the economy, the jobless rate, and all the illegal immigrants. The one's who want to blame all of America's problems on Jewish control of the banking industry, and the welfare state it's become because of all the blacks and immigrants who are just lazy, drug crazed, baby making machines (their views, not mine).

Making themselves seem more legitimate makes it easier to recruit new followers. I mean, if they didn't have the highway signs, they just be a bunch of lunatic white supremacists who wear triangle shaped pillowcases on their heads. But with the signs, they become an acceptable alternative viewpoint and there wouldn't be as much of a stigma attached to joining their ranks...

At least that's what they're hoping will happen...

:)

**lvstealth** · 06-12-12 at 03:10 PM

are you really that under educated, ND?

you obviously cannot grasp the concept, no problem. it is your right to be...

smiling,
Mandy

Notorious_dog · 06-12-12 at 03:18 PM

tiz always the way with you mandy. When you start losing, keep your posts ultra short, infer im wrong and insult. Pathetic.

**lvstealth** · 06-12-12 at 03:29 PM

i have only stated one thing, and that is the constitutional right to adopt a highway. i will stand by the fact that i am right in this. it is your misconceptions regarding what i have voiced that brings you to your conclusion. i choose to accept your limited abilities and cease further intercourse.

smiling,
Mandy

Adanaliyik · 06-12-12 at 03:59 PM

Dog,

In America, groups can pretty much preach whatever BS they want to. As long as they don't come right out and say "let's kill all the XXXX (insert group name here)". So, the KKK rhetoric isn't against the law, when they preach that the reason America is in bad shape is because of all the non-whites in the country.

So, since they aren't breaking the law, they can't be discriminated against, because that would be breaking the laws against discriminating based on race, creed (beliefs) or color. So if I, as a store owner, refused to sell to members of the KKK (based solely on them being members of the KKK), I could be sued and they would win. It wouldn't matter whether I personally supported them or not, I wouldn't be allowed to discriminate against them.

And, if a private store owner can be sued like that, how could the government afford to discriminate against them. If they break the law directly, yes. But if they don't, they have the same rights as good people. Not because people support them, but because It's the LAW... And the KKK, being the low-life scum I personally think they are, take full advantage of the law by walking as close to the line as possible, but never actually crossing it where they can be caught doing so.

So, I'll repeat myself. As long as they don't get caught breaking any laws, the law gives them the same rights as good people. That's all it boils down to. No matter what anyone thinks about them personally, they have those rights because it's the LAW.

:)

**Gandolph13** · 06-12-12 at 04:10 PM

Quote:

REHEHEHEEALLY? And how do you know this? You have only been a kid once, after all.

I've only been a kid once too, so far it's lasted 52 years.
I have to go or I'll miss Phineas and Ferb on the cartoon show....

**Shawn_7** · 06-12-12 at 04:32 PM

Quote:

So, since they aren't breaking the law, they can't be discriminated against, because that would be breaking the laws against discriminating based on race, creed (beliefs) or color.

Right. But under the same law there was the Japanese American internment after Pearl Harbor bombing. Potentially dangerous individuals can and should be treated accordingly to the danger they actually represent for the entire community - the US in this case.

Probably most interned Japanese-American were innocuous and normal citizens, probably other were spies or potential spies and represented a threat. The same with hate-group as KKK, IMO, with the difference that in this case there aren't innocuous and normal citizens. KKK adepts know very well what they want and what their story is.

**lvstealth** · 06-12-12 at 04:46 PM

not under the same law at all. no comparison at all.

who is to determine what group/groups should be excluded from their constitutional rights? who gets to determine? if any group should be allowed to form, then all groups must be allowed to form.

smiles,
Mandy

**Shawn_7** · 06-12-12 at 04:54 PM

As far as I know the Constitution was not suspended during WWII with the exception of Hawaii where actually Habeas Corpus was suspended. So, IMO, it's the same fundamental Law as it was in WWII and a comparison, hence, is possible.

**lvstealth** · 06-12-12 at 05:13 PM

i see! that speaks volumes about you!

smiles,
Mandy

**MacFalic** · 06-12-12 at 08:12 PM

As has been stated many times: This is not about like or dislike, good or evil, race, personal belief, social status, concept of sexual orientation, or any other divisive quality. This is about the "law of the land". The Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These are broad, wide blankets that cover the country. To ignore one section or part is to invalidate the whole. As such, it need not be considered right or wrong, nice or nasty, it only needs be the LAW and adhered to.

Some of the arguments above have been about the interpretation and\or application of the law. It is right and good they do so, as interpretation of those parts defined by such, should always be open to same. There are however sections of the law NOT subject to interpretation. Among these is the right to be free from discrimination. As Mandy(I hope you don't mind) has stated most succinctly, if one person, group, organization, association, or condition of existence is denied their rights under law, then all lose that\those rights. It is truly "all or nothing"!

I very strongly believe in celebrating the "white" cultures that have created many positive things beneficial to\for the world table. Not as above any other but all equal without guilt. As is the right under law for any culture etc. to celebrate itself. This has no bearing at all to the topic at hand! Despite many attempts to make it so. Suspend your emotionally based arguments. Actually look at what has been stated. You may then begin to respect the right to argue freely, without the cloud of prejudice or personal belief.(despite such arguments being at times, a whole lot of fun goin' on.)

**WillowSun** · 06-12-12 at 08:24 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by Notorious_dog

REHEHEHEEALLY? And how do you know this? You have only been a kid once, after all.

LOL - mate, kids these days don't look up their Ipods/Iphones/Android toy, Gameboy, car DVD screen etc UNLESS there's a McDonald's sign which say "20 minutes to the next McDonalds".

Notorious_dog · 06-13-12 at 03:41 AM

^ Geez I hope kids aren't all like that.

I totally understand what was said about the All or nothing statement, but F*** the law.
I know the law is there for a good reason, but there are also many laws that are put in place for the wrong reasons. So you could say the law is most definitely not perfect.
If they passed a law saying that we're not allowed to breathe, everyone will no doubt ignore it, why? Because the law isn't a static part of nature which we have absolutely no control over, it's instead just a silly little set of "rules" put into place by a group of mortal humans threatening people with the wrath of their army if people don't follow the "rules".

SO **** that sh**. The KKK can go suck a fat one for all I care.
(This isn't a rant.)

06-12-12 at 01:35 PM	#43
lvstealth Give me your Glow juice.. Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Tennessee, USA Posts: 5,128	what difference does it make what i might think of the KKK? i think i have been clear that the opinion i am voicing is the right to be a group no matter what some individuals might think of said group, and that all groups have the same right to adopt a stretch of highway. it is not a personal opinion thing, it is constitutional rights. i very seldom state my personal views, they are my own. on a side note... they were for the Prohibition! pro'lly shot many of my relatives, maybe even some of Tom's! smiling, Mandy edit: Adan, the "tending" that is in question is in this quote: Quote: Definition of emblazoned: Conspicuously inscribe or display (a design) on something Definition of Conspicuously: in a manner tending to attract attention - giggles, M Last edited by lvstealth; 06-12-12 at 01:37 PM.

06-12-12 at 08:12 PM	#54
MacFalic Sleeps with Kuune Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Land of Cunning Sheep Posts: 843	As has been stated many times: This is not about like or dislike, good or evil, race, personal belief, social status, concept of sexual orientation, or any other divisive quality. This is about the "law of the land". The Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These are broad, wide blankets that cover the country. To ignore one section or part is to invalidate the whole. As such, it need not be considered right or wrong, nice or nasty, it only needs be the LAW and adhered to. Some of the arguments above have been about the interpretation and\or application of the law. It is right and good they do so, as interpretation of those parts defined by such, should always be open to same. There are however sections of the law NOT subject to interpretation. Among these is the right to be free from discrimination. As Mandy(I hope you don't mind) has stated most succinctly, if one person, group, organization, association, or condition of existence is denied their rights under law, then all lose that\those rights. It is truly "all or nothing"! I very strongly believe in celebrating the "white" cultures that have created many positive things beneficial to\for the world table. Not as above any other but all equal without guilt. As is the right under law for any culture etc. to celebrate itself. This has no bearing at all to the topic at hand! Despite many attempts to make it so. Suspend your emotionally based arguments. Actually look at what has been stated. You may then begin to respect the right to argue freely, without the cloud of prejudice or personal belief.(despite such arguments being at times, a whole lot of fun goin' on.) Last edited by MacFalic; 06-12-12 at 08:17 PM.

06-12-12 at 01:41 PM	#44
Adanaliyik Master Join Date: May 2012 Location: Turkey Posts: 1,162	Quote: Originally Posted by Notorious_dog Wait a sec mandy. Are the KKK in your opinion "bad"? And what message will it be sending out to little kids when they see that the big old KKK are the most prestigious? Some kids might think that since they're so prestigious, there may indeed be some right to hating black people. Other (more intelligent kids) will see the flaw in letting them gain such prestige. That part of the message was just to define what they mean by tending, and what the Adopt-a-Highway program is really about. As for what message it sends kids if their area of road is cleaner than anyone else's? None. Kids don't pay attention to who adopts what part of what highway. They may read the signs, but they really won't care if it's the KKK, the American Nazi Party, or the Mafia. At least, not any more than they'd care if it was the Kiwani's, the Rotary Club, or the Salvation Army. Any kids who would fall for the KKK rhetoric, are the same kids who join the Skinheads, or any one of the off-beat religious cults. The signs aren't for the youngsters, the signs are for the adults in the US. The one's who are p***ed about the economy, the jobless rate, and all the illegal immigrants. The one's who want to blame all of America's problems on Jewish control of the banking industry, and the welfare state it's become because of all the blacks and immigrants who are just lazy, drug crazed, baby making machines (their views, not mine). Making themselves seem more legitimate makes it easier to recruit new followers. I mean, if they didn't have the highway signs, they just be a bunch of lunatic white supremacists who wear triangle shaped pillowcases on their heads. But with the signs, they become an acceptable alternative viewpoint and there wouldn't be as much of a stigma attached to joining their ranks... At least that's what they're hoping will happen... :)

06-12-12 at 03:10 PM	#45
lvstealth Give me your Glow juice.. Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Tennessee, USA Posts: 5,128	are you really that under educated, ND? you obviously cannot grasp the concept, no problem. it is your right to be... smiling, Mandy

06-12-12 at 03:18 PM	#46
Notorious_dog Elder Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 3,974	tiz always the way with you mandy. When you start losing, keep your posts ultra short, infer im wrong and insult. Pathetic.

06-12-12 at 03:29 PM	#47
lvstealth Give me your Glow juice.. Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Tennessee, USA Posts: 5,128	i have only stated one thing, and that is the constitutional right to adopt a highway. i will stand by the fact that i am right in this. it is your misconceptions regarding what i have voiced that brings you to your conclusion. i choose to accept your limited abilities and cease further intercourse. smiling, Mandy

06-12-12 at 03:59 PM	#48
Adanaliyik Master Join Date: May 2012 Location: Turkey Posts: 1,162	Dog, In America, groups can pretty much preach whatever BS they want to. As long as they don't come right out and say "let's kill all the XXXX (insert group name here)". So, the KKK rhetoric isn't against the law, when they preach that the reason America is in bad shape is because of all the non-whites in the country. So, since they aren't breaking the law, they can't be discriminated against, because that would be breaking the laws against discriminating based on race, creed (beliefs) or color. So if I, as a store owner, refused to sell to members of the KKK (based solely on them being members of the KKK), I could be sued and they would win. It wouldn't matter whether I personally supported them or not, I wouldn't be allowed to discriminate against them. And, if a private store owner can be sued like that, how could the government afford to discriminate against them. If they break the law directly, yes. But if they don't, they have the same rights as good people. Not because people support them, but because It's the LAW... And the KKK, being the low-life scum I personally think they are, take full advantage of the law by walking as close to the line as possible, but never actually crossing it where they can be caught doing so. So, I'll repeat myself. As long as they don't get caught breaking any laws, the law gives them the same rights as good people. That's all it boils down to. No matter what anyone thinks about them personally, they have those rights because it's the LAW. :)

06-12-12 at 04:10 PM	#49
Gandolph13 Legendary Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Australia (GMT+10) Posts: 12,336	Quote: REHEHEHEEALLY? And how do you know this? You have only been a kid once, after all. I've only been a kid once too, so far it's lasted 52 years. I have to go or I'll miss Phineas and Ferb on the cartoon show....

06-12-12 at 04:32 PM	#50
Shawn_7 Elder Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Eventyrland Posts: 3,514	Quote: So, since they aren't breaking the law, they can't be discriminated against, because that would be breaking the laws against discriminating based on race, creed (beliefs) or color. Right. But under the same law there was the Japanese American internment after Pearl Harbor bombing. Potentially dangerous individuals can and should be treated accordingly to the danger they actually represent for the entire community - the US in this case. Probably most interned Japanese-American were innocuous and normal citizens, probably other were spies or potential spies and represented a threat. The same with hate-group as KKK, IMO, with the difference that in this case there aren't innocuous and normal citizens. KKK adepts know very well what they want and what their story is.

06-12-12 at 04:46 PM	#51
lvstealth Give me your Glow juice.. Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Tennessee, USA Posts: 5,128	not under the same law at all. no comparison at all. who is to determine what group/groups should be excluded from their constitutional rights? who gets to determine? if any group should be allowed to form, then all groups must be allowed to form. smiles, Mandy

06-12-12 at 04:54 PM	#52
Shawn_7 Elder Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Eventyrland Posts: 3,514	As far as I know the Constitution was not suspended during WWII with the exception of Hawaii where actually Habeas Corpus was suspended. So, IMO, it's the same fundamental Law as it was in WWII and a comparison, hence, is possible.

06-12-12 at 05:13 PM	#53
lvstealth Give me your Glow juice.. Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Tennessee, USA Posts: 5,128	i see! that speaks volumes about you! smiles, Mandy

06-12-12 at 08:24 PM	#55
WillowSun Therianthrope Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 5,023	Quote: Originally Posted by Notorious_dog REHEHEHEEALLY? And how do you know this? You have only been a kid once, after all. LOL - mate, kids these days don't look up their Ipods/Iphones/Android toy, Gameboy, car DVD screen etc UNLESS there's a McDonald's sign which say "20 minutes to the next McDonalds".

06-13-12 at 03:41 AM	#56
Notorious_dog Elder Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 3,974	^ Geez I hope kids aren't all like that. I totally understand what was said about the All or nothing statement, but F* the law. I know the law is there for a good reason, but there are also many laws that are put in place for the wrong reasons. So you could say the law is most definitely not perfect. If they passed a law saying that we're not allowed to breathe, everyone will no doubt ignore it, why? Because the law isn't a static part of nature which we have absolutely no control over, it's instead just a silly little set of "rules" put into place by a group of mortal humans threatening people with the wrath of their army if people don't follow the "rules". SO that sh. The KKK can go suck a fat one for all I care. (This isn't a rant.)