Zip

Yes I watched the entire thing. If the people doing it have no right (have not been granted permission to demonstrate - it does not matter what sort of demonstration) to do it in the first place then the possibility or not of someone getting hurt is absolutely and entirely irrelevant. As it was, the idea was for there to be a flash mob. You know what that entails, a bunch of people performing a dance or what have you. With a number of people dancing like that there certainly is a possibility of someone being hurt and therefore there is a responsibility on the part of the security guards to prevent it. Wrong. The security officer approached the people and told them that if they demonstrated without a permit they would be arrested. There is warning # 1, and any violation from that point onward is a direct violation of the orders they were given by those responsible to ensure the safety and security of EVERYONE visiting that memorial that day. The police were obviously informed that something was going to go on, probably because the person who had the idea to do this announced it on the internet or on his radio program or something. At the 1 minute mark the two people who were later arrested for slow dancing walk into the frame from the direction where the police officer was explaining the repercussions -the girl was close enough to touch the person standing on the right side of the frame as she walked out. They look directly at the police officer and the camera smiling and begin to dance that is called provocation, and again is in direct opposition to the orders they were just given by those responsible for the safety and security of everyone in the memorial. No, not doing anything would be an abdication of their responsibility to ensure the peaceful use of a national monument to EVERYONE and not let a bunch of people disrupt others use and enjoyment of that public facility. At 2:35 one person was complying when his friend comes in and starts pulling him away the officer is then forced to take the original man down to the ground to control the situation and he then begins telling the other man to "Sir, back of, back off" At 2:48 the man with the brown shirt who had been pulling on the other one is on the ground and the police officer is trying to handcuff him. You can see him resisting putting his hands behind his back in spite of being ordered to do so. The police then escalate as they are trained and have every right to do in the completion of their duties. At 3:03 the guy in the white shirt walking away from and pulling away from the officer is resisting. Actually in my opinion the police were doing exactly what they have been trained to do. I'm not a cop but I have had to deal with similar situations and the police handled themselves well in the most part. As much as you may believe that being arrested for dancing is stupid you should realize that they were not arrested for dancing but for demonstrating without permission. The rest is emotional sensationalism. I bet that if they had planned to do this flash mob in the middle of a field on the national mall then they would not have been stopped but they planned to do it in an enclosed space in a public memorial without permission. It doesn't matter how stupid you think it is there is a correct way and an incorrect way of changing the law. If I decided that drug laws were stupid (which they are) and I planned to get 100 of my best dope-fiend friends to do lines of coke on the white house lawn would you still claim that we were arrested for no reason and that it was just stupid?

Ok. There currently are laws regarding public performances and demonstrations on public property and if the people in question did not have those permissions then they were in violation of the law. Picture this, these people start their dance. A small kid who doesn't know what is going on wanders out into the performance and one of the dancers spins around and knocks the kid into the corner of one of those stone benches or the statues platform. The kid is badly hurt in the accident. The parents of the child now have legal recourse not only against the dancer but against the park police (the government) for allowing the unapproved dance to happen. As for the arrests. The police were actually quite restrained. You see when you are being informed that you are being arrested then non-compliance with a police officer when he says things like "hands behind your back", "stop moving" and "do not resist" are reason and invitation for escalation of force. The people walking away hands up or not, or struggling against the police who are attempting to handcuff them are in fact resisting arrest and should count themselves lucky that these police did not resort to some of the other weapons at their disposal. The stupidest act one of the police did was to tell the one guy to shut up. He just should have removed the demonstrator from the site in the first place. Just as you do not have the right to do whatever you want on private property without the owners consent you do not, under today's laws have the right to do whatever you want on 'public property' without the consent of government.

http://www.crazymonkeygames.com/Pandemic-2.html Online version where the point is to design a pathogen to infect the entire globe.

At one point I was pursuing a degree in Pol Sci, every class I had except one was left leaning. One, entitled "Global Political Issues" I soon began openly calling the Leftist Diatribes. In one of my essays which I came out in favor of capitalism over communism I was condemned for my "skewed, and western dominated world view." Ug. I never did finish my degree, I couldn't see my way past the BS.

I guess I'm just one of those people who would rather die as a man than live without my principles

WetNurse, surely you see the difference between the act of fighting a war and killing individuals on the "enemy" side in individual actions of combat where your continued survival is not assured, and living healthy and happily in comfort while you preside over the mass extermination of innocent civilians.

I believe I know the answer to this question but I would like to hear the thoughts of others... In the scenario there are hundreds of thousands of people living along the banks and on the very large flood plains of a river. In spite of the best efforts of all those involved, individuals government and municipalities the weather and spring run off are such that the system of dikes, levees and sluice gates already in place (and bolstered during this crisis) WILL be overwhelmed. As man is a being of rational faculty there is a choice that can be made. A more sparsely populated region could be intentionally flooded and the 5,000 people living in that area could be paid restitution for the damage through insurance or even taxation (this is not an Objectivist Utopia we are talking about) or, we let the river take its course and do nothing. The second choice WILL lead to a densely populated area (an industrial city) being inundated and destroyed. What is the correct action (or inaction)? Do you justify the willful destruction of thousands in order to save the productive ability and livelihood of hundreds of thousands or do nothing and let nature run its course thereby ensuring the destruction of the greater number?

Jeebus, now what am I supposed to do?

Read the article. It specifically says that these red army soldiers who ended up working for the SS volunteered. So there is nothing you would not do to stay alive? Would you nail a baby to a telephone pole like they did in Bosnia? How about dumping the Zyklon B into the gas chamber yourself? Living isn't just the ability to draw breath it is living as a man, if you don't, if you have no principle or morality then you do not fit the definition "man" regardless of your continued existence.

I am not talking about holding anyone accountable for anothers actions, I am talking about holding him accountable as an accessory to actions he would have known full well were taking place.

You are correct, but as a soldier, I reserve that moniker for those who act as a soldier should. To me it is an honour to be a soldier (one that must be earned) and those who commit such acts are not worthy, they are criminals, nothing more.

As the article points out only those Red Army soldiers that volunteered were ever permitted to work for the Nazis.

Excuse me but this piece of human filth is an accomplice to the murder of thousands. Every single man in that Camp (in any of the camps) knew exactly what was going on in them and was there because he could be trusted to go along with the wholesale slaughter of human beings. Soldiers (although I'm loathe to apply that word to this class of vermin) have not been able to claim that they were "just following orders" or "just doing their duty" for a long long time now, and that is as it should be. Men do not surrender their morality or their humanity when they don a uniform, and they MUST be held to account for their actions. I'm disgusted that the sentence for this waste of skin wasn't life, or better yet, a one way trip to the shower.

Integrity is doing what is right when no one is looking. It's a virtue and its worth more than your house.

Sickening isn't it.

You Americans have so much to learn about the Nanny state. In the Socialist Province of Ontario in the Peoples rightly guided State of Canuckistan Students are not permitted to graduate until they have performed 50 hours of volunteer work. you see it's not getting a job that interests the nanny state but ensuring that people are giving back, contributing to the collective.

Who is John Galt? Audax et Celler Fortune Favors the Bold

Yay! Although in the grand scheme of things his death changes absolutely nothing.

But you are. What would be the final result of ejecting a bothersome person from your aircraft at 30,000 feet? The answer is his death. Why was he killed? Not because he was on your property, you let him be on your property in the first place. The reason he was killed was because he was bothersome on your property ergo you decided to kill him because he was bothersome. The rest is just window dressing as I stated before.

You might as well have framed the question this way... If you invite a guest to your home and he becomes rude and obnoxious do you get to shoot him? You see it isn't the location, or even the fact that you own the house, plane, boat or whatever it is the action. Being bothered is not a threat to your life and limb and therefore you do not have any right under any circumstances to violate the real, actual right to life of anyone for being rude and or bothersome.

I may vote NDP just to hasten the end times...

I agree with Sophia, at least there is a dissenting voice here now. Problem is, the vast majority of people here do not see restrictions on free speech as being a limit on free speech. It's like they believe free speech is for things people want to hear, and not for positions contrary to the established norms.

Why legislate at all? If you are incensed that a man whips his dog for no reason (as most people would be) then make it known that he does so. Boycott his business or his employers business, the business of those who associate with him. Tell everyone and anyone what he does and encourage them to cease all dealings with him. Your outrage may be a perfectly valid reason to spur your action but it is not and can not be a valid reason for government to take action on your behalf. That's what we have now, the greenistas claiming that "X,Y or Z" is harming the environment and "ruining the planet" for future generations and them demanding the government take action based on their feelings or fears. The DDT fiasco springs to mind immediately if you want a concrete example.

Skyline looks like Toronto...

You ask us to ignore the clear lack of evidence, and even to disregard the nature of reality in order to allow you to have your fantasy. Considering this, why is it that if someone claims to believe in dragons and talk to wood nymphs, honest god fearing people denounce them as crazy? Why should the belief in God and the Zombie Jesus be any more acceptable than belief in leprechauns or unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, Yetti or the Chupacabras?