Dios mio, man!
Is that you, Jesus Quintana?
"You flash a piece out on the lanes, I'll take it away from you, stick it up your ass and pull the ****ing trigger 'til it goes 'click.'"
Posted on 08/14/2008 6:12:47 AM PDT by Cincinatus
If all storms had a name, this one would start with the letter F.
As Tropical Storm Edouard closed in on the Texas Gulf Coast last week, a storm of a different kind was brewing inside the sporting goods section of a Wal-Mart store in La Marque. It started with the F-word.
And now a 28-year-old single mother must go to court if she wants to fight a ticket for using profanity.
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
They had an infant in the baby seat.
All I could think was, shotgun wedding, and thank God that's not me.
We have forgotted that good is prior to freedom. The goal of freedom is to permit us to pursue good. Whether we achieve it or not is, of course, up to us. But the pursuit of good is still the reason - and the justification - for freedom.
While many or most of us use freedom to pursue good, it is undeniable that some will abuse freedom to pursue evil. Not much we can do to prevent that unfortunate occurrence without restricting freedom and thus restricting our own pursuit of good - as eastforker’s example illustrates.
But we do what we can to hold the line informally rather than legislatively, lest our freedom be eroded further in an effort to restrain those who abuse it to do evil.
It really is not about the word used. It's about something deeper than that. It's about civility in society. Being conscious, or at least aware, of the sensitivites of others. I am absolutely certain that this woman would become extremely, and publicly, irate if she overheard someone use the "N" word, even if it was from "a private conversation".
I am offended by the use of the "F" and "N" words (I am white). I am also offended when I am called a prude for objecting to their use. Can blacks be called prudes for objecting to the "N" word? I think not, nor should they be.
Societal civility is changing (some might say degrading). What was not allowed is now "tolerated". Why? Civil people do not like making public displays of themselves, so they say nothing, pretend like they didn't hear anything. Loud-mouthed, pushy, obnoxious people are pushing polite people aside to get what they want ahead of those in front of them because they think that's the way it is done. They know no other way.
They have not been taught "manners".
I did not swear at any time during this incident.
• Swearing is the use of God's Name in vain or otherwise deliberately profaning that which is holy (as in the Quebéquois term "Tabernac'").
• Cursing is the express desire for someone's eternal damnation ("Go to hell!" "God d--n America!") and it is a sin (against Charity). I did not use these words either.
• Vulgarity is the use of common speech. Words such as f--k, s--t, and other such words are merely the common Anglo-Saxon words for "copulation" and "feces" respectively, which were contrasted with the Norman French terms used by the aristocracy after the conquest of 1066. The use of such Anglo-Saxon words as expressions of surprise or exasperation is not sinful; they're vulgar words, yes, but vulgarity is not a sin. (Please note that I did not say "F--k you" to the DPS employee or State Trooper; that would have been a sin.)
I did not swear or curse during this incident. I did use vulgarity.
Now, to your questions: I didn't want to fight him just so I could use the F-word. I wanted to fight him because he was attempting to make me fear him, and I wanted to show him that I was not afraid of him. A younger, stupider B-chan would have done so. Thankfully, I simply bent over and let him give it to me up the metaphorical pooper. A dad has to take a metaphorical anal raping every now and then for the sake of his children.
Would it really have killed you to swallow your pride, turn the other cheek, apologize to the woman, and actually live out the Christianity that you advertise in your tagline?
1. I did swallow my pride. I left without stuffing that runt cop's 9mm up his ass, as he so richly deserved. I turned the other cheek in this instance for the sake of my family. However, backing down in the face of intimidation will eventually kill one's self-respect, without which no man can live.
2. The DPS employee should have ignored my vulgarity. This is how polite people react when they encounter offensive behavior. Instead, she acted in an arrogant manner towards me, and I do not tolerate arrogance from government servants. She should have apologized to me for her high-handed and threatening actions, not the other way around.
3. In case you haven't noticed, I'm a poor example of a Christian. No one with any sense would ever confuse me with a saint. I'm a sinner, big time.
Reminds me of the granny that calls 911. Granny: Hello 911, there are people running around naked outside my window. 911: Running around naked? Granny :yes sir. 911: We’ll send someone right over..........knock, knock , knock, Granny: Who is it? Policeman: It’s the police mam. Granny Oh, come right in. Policeman: You say there are people running around naked outside your window? Granny: Yes sir, look right here. Cop: I don’t see any naked people! Granny: Just step up on this milk crate and look through that window next door!
Dios mio, man!
Is that you, Jesus Quintana?
"You flash a piece out on the lanes, I'll take it away from you, stick it up your ass and pull the ****ing trigger 'til it goes 'click.'"
Got dandruff and some of it itches.
I was, for a brief time a libertarian. When they were campaigning around my neck of the woods there was a slogan going around that said, “I’m pro-choice on everything! Libertarian Party” I left them immediately. Morality and decency MUST be enforced. Our founders knew only a moral and just society could hold the Republic. When the filth and crap builds up too far, this Country is gone. You can bet on it. Yes speech must be regulated in some form.
Charming in so many ways.
Public life was more gracious years ago because people were more gracious years ago. In 1968 I would have had no cause to become angry at an employee of the State because the State did not as a rule tolerate its employees being abusive to taxpayers.
Vulgarity and profanity should be limited by custom, not by law. If the DPS employee in question (or a bystander) had said to me, “How rude! Did your mother bring you up to speak that way in public?” he or she would have received a humble apology from me in return.
Instead, she said (in her most threatening Official Voice) “If you say that word again, you are going to jail.”
“Really?” I replied. “Jail? For saying f—k? F—k, f—k, f—kety f—k.”
She then called the Law on me.
As I said, I do not tolerate insolent behavior from public servants. She is fortunate that I was raised not to strike women; a male employee of the State speaking to me in such a tone would have ended up stretched out on the floor like a bath mat.
As it was, she got to see me humiliated in public for the “crime” of using a vulgar word in her august presence. She won, I lost. Are you happy now?
LOL “The Jesus”. That movie is so funny.
If you're in the mall and tell your buddy that you're going to shoot the Prez next week, you're getting taken down. And telling the cops it was a "private" conversation won't cut it. Private conversations are held in private and NOT in public places.
I still can't believe that you said that!
Did you miss mewzillas link?
Legal definition of 'fighting words'-Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
The "freedom of speech" protected by the Constitution is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances and there are well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which does not raise any constitutional problem, including the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031.
No doubt provoking speech and gestures can be restricted. When it comes to expressions that are, "lewd, obscene and profane," my only reply is that the opinion rendered in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire came from the same SCOTUS that later opined in Jacobellis vs. Ohio that, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it..."
In other words, I'll stand by my original contention that hate speech and indecency laws are very arbitrary, capricious and subjective.
I believe that the law is very clear but you have a different opinion. We’ll just have to disagree.
In a "perfect" world, a Walmart (or any business) customer who found the lady's language objectionable should have brought it to the attention of the store manager, and declared their intention to exercise their freedom, and not shop at a store where customers cuss. The store employee/manager/owner would have the option of exercising their freedom and supporting either the cussing or the objecting customer, etc. That's how freedom works. It's not always comfortable, safe or convenient, but requires responsibility and entails consequences. The alternative to freedom occurs when people abandon their responsibilities to the (local, state, federal) government and expect to maintain their liberties. The two notions (that one can keep a right while giving the responsibilities to another party) are completely incompatible, and will only increase in the continued restrictions and conditions placed on any liberty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.