'Adopt-A-Highway' bid by KKK

**SteveJones7** · 06-13-12 at 11:19 AM

Quote:

..it is classified as a hate group.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kkk

And before the wiki groans start, I grew up hearing klan horror stories, so I know wiki is 110 percent accurate on this subject, and the next quote from wiki helps sum up my arguement.

Quote:

Today, a large majority of sources consider the Klan to be a "subversive or terrorist organization".

In April 1997, FBI agents arrested four members of the True Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in Dallas for conspiracy to commit robbery and to blow up a natural gas processing plant.

In 1999, the city council of Charleston, South Carolina passed a resolution declaring the Klan to be a terrorist organization. A similar effort was made in 2004 when a professor at the University of Louisville began a campaign to have the Klan declared a terrorist organization so it could be banned from campus

They ARE and always have been a subversive/terrorist organization.

Given their long history, just because they havent "killed" anyone recently, does NOT wash away all their sins, and make them suitable to integrate into our society.

Its like some kind of extremely sick joke that people are flying the flag of "freedom of speech" like it has any relevance at all to the KKK.

They are a HATE group, always have been always will be.

By definition of who they are, and what they stand for, they do NOT have the same rights as law abiding citizens.

Saying guilt by association is not valid, is ridiculous.
Each and every member is guilty the day they join up, by purposefully and knowlingly comitting themselves to a group devoted to hatred.

They have no saving graces that can justify the existence of such a group, that are NOT on equal footing with other "contraversial" groups.

We are talking about an organisation that has killed children in its gruesome past, and these crimes were NOT all that long ago in the grand scheme of things.

Its like saying when some wiseguy joins the mafia he is guilty of no crime, until you can prove him to be a criminal.
Absolutely illogical!

By virtue of the fact he joined a criminal organization, he, from that day forward IS a criminal.

When you join a group devoted to "foul deeds/evil thinking" you become the same.

I would have thought the KKK's abhorent history would have been more than enough to surely prevent anyone sticking up for their rights, but, hey, I couldnt have been more wrong.

The right to freedom of speech etc.. is not for criminals/hate groups.
We truly have some very smart people at this board, but they wont sway me on this one.

O.k back to the opposition, to further argue lol.

**Shawn_7** · 06-13-12 at 11:35 AM

Quote:

By virtue of the fact he joined a criminal organization, he, from that day forward IS a criminal.

When you join a group devoted to "foul deeds/evil thinking" you become the same.

This fact doesn't seem too difficult to understand

**SteveJones7** · 06-13-12 at 11:38 AM

Quote:

This fact doesn't seem too difficult to understand

True dat, but........ this is the silence before the storm, here come the rebuttles, wait, wait....

**Shawn_7** · 06-13-12 at 11:41 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by SteveJones7

True dat, but........ this is the silence before the storm, here come the rebuttles, wait, wait....

OK

in the meanwhile, I suggest - as interlude - to watch Mississippi Burning, I found it on TPX

http://tehparadox.com/forum/f73/miss...tvrip-4206044/

Adanaliyik · 06-13-12 at 12:27 PM

My rebuttal is a simple one...

If the US government (not just Charleston) declares the KKK a hate or terrorist group, then they have no legal rights. But as long as the government is unwilling to do so, by law they cannot be discriminated against.

I have no more love for the KKK than any of you do. And, as has been stated over and over again, we all know what they really stand for. None of us support them, and none of us wish them well. Our argument has never been about any non-existent virtues that they may have.

Our argument has only one basis. And that's the fact that unless the government officially designates them as a terrorist organization or hate group, it is illegal to discriminate against them. All the emotional arguments, all the pointing out of their history, and all the "but it shouldn't be that way" statements, won't change the fact that the law is clear. It is illegal to discriminate against them.

And, as long as they do not violate the laws regarding free speech, such as inciting to riot, inciting to violence, or openly advocating the forceful overthrow of the government, it is illegal to silence them. Doesn't matter what we know about them, doesn't matter what we think about them, and it doesn't matter how we feel about them. It's the law.

That leaves only two areas for argument. One is the limited set of restrictions on freedom of speech. Any call for violence is against the law, and is not protected by free speech. Nor is direct libel or slander (as Mandy stated "with malice") allowed by free speech laws. But outside of those two examples, almost everything else is allowed. But, if you start adding the restriction "all free speech must be democratic", then you've just created a police state because the government will define "democratic" as only words supporting the government's position on all issues.

The other argument is the true answer to Shawn's question, and I can't answer that one. With all that is known about the KKK, all of it's history, all of it's crimes and all of it's rhetoric, why has it not been officially declared a terrorist/hate organization? Then as I stated at the beginning, they would have no rights.

But, until the government does so, it is illegal to discriminate against them, and illegal to silence them. My personal feelings (and they echo yours) have nothing to do with it. It's the LAW...

:)

P.S. @Shawn: I've watched the movie, I don't need to see it again. I was also a kid during the civil rights movement, so I know about parts of it first hand. I don't need any help to hate them.

**lvstealth** · 06-13-12 at 12:44 PM

in 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Missouri's attempt to turn down the group's application, saying participation cannot be denied because of a group's political beliefs. after this (after they adopted the piece of road), the state tried to implement a law stating no hate groups; the courts said no way and the supreme court refused to hear it so that stands. this is the precedent they are dealing with. it surprises me that the state of Georgia has turned down the application. i would venture a guess that the Klan will take it to court and have it overturned. it is a shame the state wants to waste its money defending their stance when they have to know they will lose.

smiles,
Mandy

**anomander** · 06-13-12 at 12:55 PM

All true Mandy
But apparently if you watch Mississippi Burning by Alan Parker (1988) no sane jury would allow it!! haha
I,m not sure if the fact its a pirate copy off here will rule it inadmissable though?

**lvstealth** · 06-13-12 at 01:31 PM

not my kind of movie! sorry, no interest in watching it at all. thinking of watching Cinderella though.

smiling,
Mandy

**tomandsusan** · 06-13-12 at 01:39 PM

MISSISSIPPI BURNING!!!! A propaganda film made by black commie Jews! At least that is what we were told at the meetings.

Just kidding Dudes! And I do remember EVERYTHING! (Just have trouble recalling it!)

**Shawn_7** · 06-13-12 at 02:54 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by lvstealth

not my kind of movie! sorry, no interest in watching it at all. thinking of watching Cinderella though.

smiling,
Mandy

In this case, I suggest the Wizard of Oz

**lvstealth** · 06-13-12 at 03:17 PM

went to see the play not too long ago! it was excellent! haven't seen the movie in many many years. lots of allegory!

smiles,
Mandy

**Shawn_7** · 06-13-12 at 03:32 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by lvstealth

went to see the play not too long ago! it was excellent! haven't seen the movie in many many years. lots of allegory!

smiles,
Mandy

I agree, a very good story. And that song in the movie, Somewhere Over the Rainbow is just wonderful :)

Notorious_dog · 06-13-12 at 04:52 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by Shawn_7

In this case, I suggest the Wizard of Oz

I liked "tangled". don't laugh.. it was good.

**MacFalic** · 06-13-12 at 07:07 PM

I would rather recommend reading the entire series of "Oz" books by L. Frank Baum, then continue with the other authors' books that fit into the series.

I also rather liked "Tangled". Good laugh that. The "Puss-in-Boots" animations are also pretty good.

As for an actual "live actor" movie, instead of "Mississippi Burning" I prefer "Once Upon a Time in Mexico". Interesting social commentary in that one.

06-13-12 at 11:19 AM	#71
SteveJones7 Too sexy for this board Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: teh earth Posts: 1,540	Quote: ..it is classified as a hate group. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kkk And before the wiki groans start, I grew up hearing klan horror stories, so I know wiki is 110 percent accurate on this subject, and the next quote from wiki helps sum up my arguement. Quote: Today, a large majority of sources consider the Klan to be a "subversive or terrorist organization". In April 1997, FBI agents arrested four members of the True Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in Dallas for conspiracy to commit robbery and to blow up a natural gas processing plant. In 1999, the city council of Charleston, South Carolina passed a resolution declaring the Klan to be a terrorist organization. A similar effort was made in 2004 when a professor at the University of Louisville began a campaign to have the Klan declared a terrorist organization so it could be banned from campus They ARE and always have been a subversive/terrorist organization. Given their long history, just because they havent "killed" anyone recently, does NOT wash away all their sins, and make them suitable to integrate into our society. Its like some kind of extremely sick joke that people are flying the flag of "freedom of speech" like it has any relevance at all to the KKK. They are a HATE group, always have been always will be. By definition of who they are, and what they stand for, they do NOT have the same rights as law abiding citizens. Saying guilt by association is not valid, is ridiculous. Each and every member is guilty the day they join up, by purposefully and knowlingly comitting themselves to a group devoted to hatred. They have no saving graces that can justify the existence of such a group, that are NOT on equal footing with other "contraversial" groups. We are talking about an organisation that has killed children in its gruesome past, and these crimes were NOT all that long ago in the grand scheme of things. Its like saying when some wiseguy joins the mafia he is guilty of no crime, until you can prove him to be a criminal. Absolutely illogical! By virtue of the fact he joined a criminal organization, he, from that day forward IS a criminal. When you join a group devoted to "foul deeds/evil thinking" you become the same. I would have thought the KKK's abhorent history would have been more than enough to surely prevent anyone sticking up for their rights, but, hey, I couldnt have been more wrong. The right to freedom of speech etc.. is not for criminals/hate groups. We truly have some very smart people at this board, but they wont sway me on this one. O.k back to the opposition, to further argue lol. Last edited by SteveJones7; 06-13-12 at 11:24 AM.

06-13-12 at 12:27 PM	#75
Adanaliyik Master Join Date: May 2012 Location: Turkey Posts: 1,162	My rebuttal is a simple one... If the US government (not just Charleston) declares the KKK a hate or terrorist group, then they have no legal rights. But as long as the government is unwilling to do so, by law they cannot be discriminated against. I have no more love for the KKK than any of you do. And, as has been stated over and over again, we all know what they really stand for. None of us support them, and none of us wish them well. Our argument has never been about any non-existent virtues that they may have. Our argument has only one basis. And that's the fact that unless the government officially designates them as a terrorist organization or hate group, it is illegal to discriminate against them. All the emotional arguments, all the pointing out of their history, and all the "but it shouldn't be that way" statements, won't change the fact that the law is clear. It is illegal to discriminate against them. And, as long as they do not violate the laws regarding free speech, such as inciting to riot, inciting to violence, or openly advocating the forceful overthrow of the government, it is illegal to silence them. Doesn't matter what we know about them, doesn't matter what we think about them, and it doesn't matter how we feel about them. It's the law. That leaves only two areas for argument. One is the limited set of restrictions on freedom of speech. Any call for violence is against the law, and is not protected by free speech. Nor is direct libel or slander (as Mandy stated "with malice") allowed by free speech laws. But outside of those two examples, almost everything else is allowed. But, if you start adding the restriction "all free speech must be democratic", then you've just created a police state because the government will define "democratic" as only words supporting the government's position on all issues. The other argument is the true answer to Shawn's question, and I can't answer that one. With all that is known about the KKK, all of it's history, all of it's crimes and all of it's rhetoric, why has it not been officially declared a terrorist/hate organization? Then as I stated at the beginning, they would have no rights. But, until the government does so, it is illegal to discriminate against them, and illegal to silence them. My personal feelings (and they echo yours) have nothing to do with it. It's the LAW... :) P.S. @Shawn: I've watched the movie, I don't need to see it again. I was also a kid during the civil rights movement, so I know about parts of it first hand. I don't need any help to hate them. Last edited by Adanaliyik; 06-13-12 at 12:33 PM.

06-13-12 at 11:35 AM	#72
Shawn_7 Elder Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Eventyrland Posts: 3,512	Quote: By virtue of the fact he joined a criminal organization, he, from that day forward IS a criminal. When you join a group devoted to "foul deeds/evil thinking" you become the same. This fact doesn't seem too difficult to understand

06-13-12 at 11:38 AM	#73
SteveJones7 Too sexy for this board Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: teh earth Posts: 1,540	Quote: This fact doesn't seem too difficult to understand True dat, but........ this is the silence before the storm, here come the rebuttles, wait, wait....

06-13-12 at 11:41 AM	#74
Shawn_7 Elder Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Eventyrland Posts: 3,512	Quote: Originally Posted by SteveJones7 True dat, but........ this is the silence before the storm, here come the rebuttles, wait, wait.... OK in the meanwhile, I suggest - as interlude - to watch Mississippi Burning, I found it on TPX http://tehparadox.com/forum/f73/miss...tvrip-4206044/

06-13-12 at 12:44 PM	#76
lvstealth Give me your Glow juice.. Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Tennessee, USA Posts: 5,115	in 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Missouri's attempt to turn down the group's application, saying participation cannot be denied because of a group's political beliefs. after this (after they adopted the piece of road), the state tried to implement a law stating no hate groups; the courts said no way and the supreme court refused to hear it so that stands. this is the precedent they are dealing with. it surprises me that the state of Georgia has turned down the application. i would venture a guess that the Klan will take it to court and have it overturned. it is a shame the state wants to waste its money defending their stance when they have to know they will lose. smiles, Mandy

06-13-12 at 12:55 PM	#77
anomander Reborn Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,982	All true Mandy But apparently if you watch Mississippi Burning by Alan Parker (1988) no sane jury would allow it!! haha I,m not sure if the fact its a pirate copy off here will rule it inadmissable though?

06-13-12 at 01:31 PM	#78
lvstealth Give me your Glow juice.. Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Tennessee, USA Posts: 5,115	not my kind of movie! sorry, no interest in watching it at all. thinking of watching Cinderella though. smiling, Mandy

06-13-12 at 01:39 PM	#79
tomandsusan Guru Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Never Never Land Posts: 5,737	MISSISSIPPI BURNING!!!! A propaganda film made by black commie Jews! At least that is what we were told at the meetings. Just kidding Dudes! And I do remember EVERYTHING! (Just have trouble recalling it!)

06-13-12 at 02:54 PM	#80
Shawn_7 Elder Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Eventyrland Posts: 3,512	Quote: Originally Posted by lvstealth not my kind of movie! sorry, no interest in watching it at all. thinking of watching Cinderella though. smiling, Mandy In this case, I suggest the Wizard of Oz

06-13-12 at 03:17 PM	#81
lvstealth Give me your Glow juice.. Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Tennessee, USA Posts: 5,115	went to see the play not too long ago! it was excellent! haven't seen the movie in many many years. lots of allegory! smiles, Mandy

06-13-12 at 03:32 PM	#82
Shawn_7 Elder Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Eventyrland Posts: 3,512	Quote: Originally Posted by lvstealth went to see the play not too long ago! it was excellent! haven't seen the movie in many many years. lots of allegory! smiles, Mandy I agree, a very good story. And that song in the movie, Somewhere Over the Rainbow is just wonderful :)

06-13-12 at 04:52 PM	#83
Notorious_dog Elder Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 3,974	Quote: Originally Posted by Shawn_7 In this case, I suggest the Wizard of Oz I liked "tangled". don't laugh.. it was good.

06-13-12 at 07:07 PM	#84
MacFalic Sleeps with Kuune Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Land of Cunning Sheep Posts: 836	I would rather recommend reading the entire series of "Oz" books by L. Frank Baum, then continue with the other authors' books that fit into the series. I also rather liked "Tangled". Good laugh that. The "Puss-in-Boots" animations are also pretty good. As for an actual "live actor" movie, instead of "Mississippi Burning" I prefer "Once Upon a Time in Mexico". Interesting social commentary in that one.