Why not a buring cross ?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/10/14/ugly-rebel-yell-...

If this is O.K.......why not burn a cross ? Does anyone think that Obama did not get the message ? Worse yet, his wife, his children ?

Clearly this man is exercising his "freedom of speech". The question is : When does an individual's freedom of speech become an intrusion into the rights of others ? The right to live in a society that functions based on some sort of respect for others ? Or are "others" not important, irrelevant a pain in the rear to the individuals right to act in any fashion they see fit ?
We once had a lot of space.....not so much any more...we share our space with other individuals....does the American dream give license to ignore those around us in favor of our own ideas.....as twisted as some may be ?

Why not just burn a cross on the White House lawn ?......for almost six years, the actions of many in this country may not have done so literally but they have certainly sent the message in their actions....this includes first and foremost the entire Republican Party...whether they as individuals intend it or not......

We are touching on this subject in another thread. Discussing what is or is not appropriate for kids to wear in public schools.
It is my belief that unless we have a common thread.......a "moving ahead" as a society, we are bound to dissolve into fractions of irate individuals who think that life should be conducted their way and the rest can take a hike.......somewhat like the Middle East....numerous little warring fractions who are never going to see eye to eye and never going to compromise. This seems like an idea situation to an upper class who wants a strong hold on the nation's wealth.

I for one do not see this guy as some sort of rugged individual...not at all. He is a sheep, a stoolie, a pawn in the game of the moneyed. To my mind he can "hate" blacks all he wants but it is inappropriate to stand outside the White House waving a message of hate. Tromping all over the rights of Michelle, Barack and the two young daughters. Nasty bit of business !

Burning !!!!!! Geez !

People often forget that although you may have a right to do something, that doesn't mean you should do it.

"The question is : When does an individual's freedom of speech become an intrusion into the rights of others ?" The courts have covered this. The bar for establishing that a given speech or manner of expression is illegal is pretty high, and with good reasons. Otherwise, people could be sent to jail for expressing hostility towards the Tea Party's antics in hyperbolic statements no one could take seriously.

Of course, the valid question to ask this angry man is 'exactly what country did you think you were fighting for?'

Could we include the recent move by Ted Cruz and the rest of the gang in the range of "freedoms" that are allowed. Granted....it may not be freedom of speech but in a way it is.....he changed the rules to read in such a way as to match his agenda because he had the "right" to do so.
When does freedom become anarchy ?

" Otherwise, people could be sent to jail for expressing hostility towards the Tea Party's antics in hyperbolic statements no one could take seriously."

Touche.....(but maybe one should take seriously the fact that these people are merely pawns....bought and paid for....by whom? and for what reason ? Is not big business running this country right now ? Today ? more profoundly than ever before ? They've used democracy as a way to twist the rules to their favor ? In the name of freedom)
However, I do not feel the need to stand outside of his home and hold up a sign stating how I feel. Certainly wouldn't want anyone to do it to me, since I quite sure that I've ruffled a few feathers along the way. There is something intrusive about it.....I may want to protest the Tea Party but a personal attack on the goof would be crossing a line I wouldn't think of crossing.
Again the symbol he is using has a terrible meaning....kind of like if I held up a photo of the kid from the movie Deliverance on the sidewalk out side his front door.

" Of course, the valid question to ask this angry man is 'exactly what country did you think you were fighting for?"

Personally, I feel that people who do this...the Palin's , Cruz's and Confederate Boy.....are all fighting for the country of me, myself and I. Very little thought process goes into the fact that they are not who they think they are: "an island unto themselves"

In re #4. I know we're on the same side, here, Jeannie, but may I ask you, as a Point of Personal Privilege, to go easy on the (mis-)use of the word "anarchy". Don't howl with the pack. Anarchists are people who don't need cops to make them behave. Historically, there are many positive things in this admittedly distressed republic which wouldn't have advanced anywhere as far as they have without the contributions of anarchists known and unknown. May I cite three only: the eight-hour-day movement, modern feminism, and the anti-globalization protests. A hand in solidarity, -- Goddard

Huzzah to #5, and yes, anarchy is also Anarchy. Obama's crimes are not specified, says the article, which is not about his crimes, but his victimization, but his crimes are being documented, as were Bush's, and they include innumerable violations of conventions Geneva, up to and including or going beyond murdering his own citizens.

>5 HarryMacDonald:

Maybe best said : "When do individual freedoms start to become detrimental to the whole ?" ?
Defeat their own purpose ? Become counterproductive to what it means to live in a "free" country ? Don't know how best to phrase it. When everyone 's "rights" trump everyone else's "rights" ?
What would be the right word ? From the gerrymandering of districts to the recent Supreme Court choices, it would seem we are further and further from the principles that made this country what it is. What kind of process is going on ? Or is this considered a working Democracy ? Not sure any longer. I don't think so....I think we are supposed to FEEL like it is but I don't believe that our government is much different than the financial market...operates under the same principles. Who trumps who the fastest and to heck with everyone else. Is there a name for this ?

So the guy's an ignorant asshole with a tendency to get over-excited. He has a right be as obnoxious and vile as he wants, as long as he doesn't act violently. The problem with free speech is that it leave folks like him free to be big old embarrassing jerkheads. But that's not a good reason to get rid of the first amendment.

From the photo provided, it didn't exactly look like a crowd standing around him.

I don't think of the tea baggage as "anarchists" (I have too much respect for Catalonia and Barcelona during the Spanish civil war to "share" that title with the unworthy) but as "nihilists"...

>5 HarryMacDonald:

How about this word "Mayhem" ? Democratic Mayhem ? Everyone practicing, their "personal" rights to freedom, all at one time ? Closing the government over laws already on the books, changing the rules of the house to fit one's personal agenda, giving a voice to corporations as people, allowing the wealthy the right to buy elections...and yes....standing outside the White House of our Nation, the home for the time being, of our first black First Family, with a Confederate Flag.
Mix that all up with Sarah Palins voice on the air waves and it is a whole lot of mayhem. Like jazz gone awry !

(the anarchy was all taking place in my head......thought's were playing ping pong .... things got all backed up and out of sorts.)

REPUBLICAN "Mayhemists"!?

Hmmmm -- I rather like it...

actually ping pong is quite orderly

>12 RickHarsch:
"actually ping pong is quite orderly"

It can be...then again......

I guess when you are playing yourself it is by nature chaotic.

>14 RickHarsch:
Or if you are playing with more than one ball

I always use at least three. Isn't that normal?

in re #16. Rick, did you learn this from studying Lord Nelson?

Blimey, caught!

Obama and the democrats have been throwing around the word anarchy like it's a curse word to smear the tea party people. It's not useful or a correct term in the context they use. How many people these days have ever heard of Haymarket Square or the wobblies? It should be American history 101.

Bwahahahaha.

19> The word anarchy predates the long extinct Wobblies.

Teabaggers want NO government.

Anarchists want NO government.

Teabaggers = anarchists.

And, yet, somehow I still strongly prefer the anarchists.

True anarchists are idealists; they dream of and work towards what they feel will be a better world... for everyone.

I think they're wrong and misguided, but I can't fault their intentions. Unlike a group formed solely to get their own way no matter who gets hurt...like, say, the Tea Party.

And the Tea Party doesn't want NO government; they simply want government to do exactly as THEY desire. Not the same thing.

#21. Very true. As far as the United States goes though the history of the Wobblies is very important to anarchists influence in many areas of our present day progressive social policy.

OK, friends, a few corrections. While it is obviously not the powerhouse of generations ago, the "long-extinct" Wobblies still maintain an office, a Web-site, collect dues, organize workers, and generally promote (in the own small way) internationalism and class-war prisoner aid. If theoria can be bothered to do a little Web-search, he may well ask how my papers could have been collected from my Wobbly days, unless the phrase "long extinct" is dated within the past few years.
Also, Brother Riley, the IWW was emphatically not an anarchist organization, though its activities and vision harmonized well with the goals of many anarchists. I know you get that, but others may not fully understand it. In the earlier years, avowed anarchists were comparatively rare. Beginning in the 1930s, anarchists were proportionately more prominent in the union. I was one myself, and I treasure memories of some of the astonishing anarcho-Wobblies I knew. Meanwhile, a hearty Amen to lr for his remarks about Obama and History 101. Sometime, in another thread, let me tell you a few things I know about BO and his supposedly radicalism in the Woods Charitable Foundation of Chicago (remember the desperate attempt to raise a storm over that a few years ago?)

Here you go, faceinbook. I thought of you when I saw this:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/10/18/burning-cross-burns-racist/

Thanks, Harry. I couldn't be bothered, but I plead extenuating circumstances: I knew you did not need to be, for you knew. Friends, read Harmony Junction by Goddard Graves for more on life post not-defunct Wobblers.

>27 RidgewayGirl:
All one can hope for is that many of his caregivers are African-American....especially the one's doling out the pain medications.

No, no one deserves pain like that, no matter what they've done. And no one should carry the burden of having deliberately added to the suffering in the world.

>30 RidgewayGirl:
I worked in a hospital...ER and ICU....nobody is made to suffer.

Burn pains are horrible......did not say he deserved the pain, nor should they withhold any medication....but it would be somewhat of a learning curve if he were to be handed something to relieve some of that pain by someone he hates so much that he felt the need to demonstrate his emotions with such a grand gesture. Obviously at a risk of such great personal harm.

Very difficult to care for some people......clearly remember a drunk driver coming to the ER, five o'clock in the evening.....loud, cussing, combative........just killed a couple on their way home from work, by running a stop sign, did not even know it. (small town, small hospital, many people knew the people who were killed....he got care AND pain medication). Nurses are a special kind of people, that is all I can say.

On Anarchy.
See:Patterns of Anarchy: A Collection of Writings on the Anarchist Tradition.