Page 1 of 19
Posted on November 13 at 7:01 a.m.
thanks dewdly.... so your point is that chanting and/or perceived threats are not constitutionally protected free speech, but giant blowups of bloody fetuses are constitutionally protected?
Gosh who decides what a threat is. Hey, ho, don't you know, LBJ has got to go... is that a threat?
On Anti-Abortion Group Sues UCSB, Professor, Students
Posted on November 12 at 10:13 a.m.
``Rewrite this scenario with the Shorts holding Yes on P signs.
Would this affect anyone's comments or opinion on the Shorts' lawsuit?Just curious.''
There have been lots of heated discussions about Yes/No on P on the Arbor Mall. And on other topics ranging from Guantanamo to Iran Contra to Oil Policy in Santa Barbara to cruelty to meat-producing animals to `be nice to Dan Quayle'.
Not once in all those discussions have the visitors who are pitching their views ***SUED 19 STUDENT DISCUSSION PARTICIPANTS***.
That is, 19 participants who did not take part in the sign incident or the elevator incident. Those 19 participants just practiced their own freedom of expression.
And the Shorts have filed a lawsuit against them. Kind of clarifies the whole thing for me.
Posted on November 12 at 7:53 a.m.
OK, so Miller-Young and 2 or 3 students stole the Shorts signs and destroyed it. Not possible to defend those actions.
But the Shorts ***AND 9 OTHERS*** are also suing 19 **other** students, who the Shorts say are `responsible and liable under the causes of action stated herein.'
What did the other 19 students do? They practiced freedom of expression and engaged in discussion with the 11 pro-lifers.
And for that, the Shorts and 9 others are suing them, because they found the words the 19 other students used were offensive.
So the Shorts are saying: our signs may be offensive to you, but our activity is constitutionally protected.
You, you other 19 UCSB students, if you express your opinions, we and all of our 9 hangers-on will haul you into court and sue you for it.
Posted on October 25 at 11:01 p.m.
``If it is true that a crisis does not build character and only reveals it, the accident that took the life of my daughter, Mallory, revealed an appalling lack of character on the part of...'' Mr. Matt Dies.
As I said, I'm not much of a Capps supporter, but Mr. Dies, pursuing guilt by association dishonors your daughter's memory.
Oh boy, I used my daughter's death to try to take down a congressperson.
Now that is an absence of character.
On Lois Capps: Does Character Matter?
Posted on October 24 at 3:58 a.m.
No soap. Flinging turds at Rep. Capps leaves your hands covered with s**t, Mr. Dies. I'm not fervently pro-Capps and never have been. But your article has exactly the opposite effect you intend: I'm much more pro-Capps after reading it.
Your loss of your daughter is a tragedy. Perhaps in honor of her memory you could consider: stop flinging the turds.
Posted on October 7 at 12:28 p.m.
Road rage and/or bicyclists disobeying the law was not an issue in the deaths of those Santa Barbara County cyclists killed by careless auto driver behavior… Jake Boysel, Martin Luna, Antonio Guerca, Erik Okerblom, Kendra Payne, James Hamlin, or Matthew O'Neill.
What would have saved their lives was due care and attention on the part of the drivers of the cars.
On Failing to Share the Road
Posted on October 7 at 11:08 a.m.
So, at_large, drivers are so careless and irresponsible that we must enact new, strict requirements on…. **BICYCLISTS!!**.
Posted on October 7 at 7:09 a.m.
As I'm sure comments that follow will illustrate, auto drivers feel an enormous entitlement to carelessly drive and to break all sorts of laws when they drive.
Santa Barbara County cyclists killed by careless auto behavior include Jake Boysel, Martin Luna, Antonio Guerca, Erik Okerblom, Kendra Payne, and James Hamlin. Quite likely Matthew O'Neill too.
This list is too long and the counterargument that it is really cyclists who break the law is unconvincing. Yes, cyclists run stop signs, and ride on the sidewalk.
But they don't kill people by doing those things. Cyclists should obey the law too, but the consequences of their infractions are minor compared to the consequences of our local epidemic of fatally careless driving.
Cyclists pay a lot of the taxes, through the sales tax increment in Measure A, through costs added to merchandise to pay the gas tax, and through federal taxes that are shared for local infrastructure, of the road costs. The great majority of cyclists drive too and pay vehicle registration and gas taxes.
All the counterarguments against cyclists are bogus. The heart of the matter is auto drivers are lethal and need to shape up. Getting auto drivers to stop killing cyclists is the central issue.
Posted on September 25 at 10:05 a.m.
Recumbent bikes are only hard to see if you are texting, fiddling with the radio, or gabbing with your brother, and if you are not focusing on the road as you should be by all state laws. O'Neill was `lit up like a Christmas Tree' according to the riders with him; it was around dusk.
Being anywhere on the road is dangerous because auto drivers are so incredibly careless. The real action needs to be taken by auto drivers to obey the law.
Recumbent bikes hold all the speed records in cycling. They were banned from standard racing by the UCI by a weird decision in 1934. But the simple fact is: they are better, more efficient bikes than the `bend-over' bikes.
On Truck-Bicycle Death Charges Filed
Posted on September 25 at 8:57 a.m.
atomic_state… ``Obviously, I don't know whether this common cyclists' perversity…''
1)It is not common, the great majority of cyclists stay to the right of the fog line.
2)It is not a perversity. There are often parked cars, dumped car parts, trash, bottles, etc at the side if the road, usually left there by auto drivers. Sometimes it is necessary for cyclists to swerve around that trash.
3)Indeed in the picture of O'Neill riding, there might well have been a parked car or trash just ahead of the field of view portrayed in the photo.
4)There is no law requiring cyclists stay to the right of the fog line.
atomic_state said: ``But why the mania of so many spandex-clads to claim the auto lane? Get over yourselves before you get killed! Let your superhero outfits be your vain statement, and don't test your invulnerability. Needlessly annoying motorists is no way to inspire careful driving by them. How would you like it if motorists pulled to the right and drove 5 mph, causing YOU to hit the brakes?''
1)There is no mania, that is just exaggeration on your part, and all sorts of anxiety and prejudice is revealed by your screed.
2)Cars pull over in front of cyclists *all the time*. The most frequent case is to turn into driveways on the right of the roadway, and quite frequently I slow down and wait for them. Both cyclists and cars must make adjustments to get along.