So this is actually a big deal.

[EvilMallet]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Lemmy [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I never said that. RC fail.

Originally Posted by Lemmy [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

How does one differentiate between a group and an individual? Is any individual who is in a group therefore considered a group? If not, why have this ruling anyway since he can just talk to any individual in the group? They are repressing him from his friends and his family. They are doing it based on political ideology. This is part of a continuing trend within activist "justice" to make the level of consequences reflect NOT the level of criminality, but rather to reflect the level of ideological dissonance with the state. I can furnish many completely ludicrous examples of charges brought against radicals and anarchists and other non-statists if you're interested in me backing up that statement.

I am asking you to prove that the consequences do not reflect the level of criminality. You're placing this within a larger context, and I'm questioning its place in that context. The level of criminality is throwing a Molotov cocktail at a police vehicle. I will also accept a police building as similar conditions. Show me an example of the consequences for that level of criminality being less severe than in this scenario. I am not saying it doesn't exist -- I'm just asking you to provide evidence before making such a sweeping claim. From what I can tell, the consequences very much fit the level of criminality and in fact, I would not be surprised if there have been defendants charged with similar crimes in the past that were not offered bail at all.

[SupaflyIRL]

Originally Posted by Lemmy [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Wait. I made a statement. You refuted it with [a bunch of words]. You cannot now seriously be asking me to back up stuff I have said in response to your [talking a lot] without backing up what you originally said.

You then even go so far as to ask me to prove the thing I'm asking you.

So, I ask you again sir. When has this happened before?

My postulation is "I doubt it ever has." That was the point of the OP, and something YOU have argued with. I'm eagerly awaiting your response.

Actually I'm going to bed. I may or may not have more to say to the other post tomorrow night, but that depends on if the girl puts out.

fat

[SupaflyIRL]

and by that i mean, of course she'll put out she's fat

[SupaflyIRL]

but maybe not because you're fat too

[SupaflyIRL]

if that's how we're going to measure how mad someone is, you just quadruple posted

[SupaflyIRL]

Originally Posted by Lemmy [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Did I? was it to call you names?

post your pic again

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Lemmy [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Wait. I made a statement. You refuted it with [a bunch of words]. You cannot now seriously be asking me to back up stuff I have said in response to your [talking a lot] without backing up what you originally said.

You then even go so far as to ask me to prove the thing I'm asking you.

So, I ask you again sir. When has this happened before?

My postulation is "I doubt it ever has." That was the point of the OP, and something YOU have argued with. I'm eagerly awaiting your response.

Actually I'm going to bed. I may or may not have more to say to the other post tomorrow night, but that depends on if the girl puts out.

My response is that bail conditions routinely restrict the freedom of association, and freedom of political affiliation isn't substantively different from freedom of association. In other words, it happens literally every day. To that end, freedom of association is no more or less important than other basic civil rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of movement. All of these are subject to restriction under the terms of a bail agreement. This is not a special snowflake.

Good luck with the sex.

[Andrew Jackson]

stop spergin out over anarchist terrorist bail conditions far as im concerned he should be gitmo'd

[Hitchens]

Originally Posted by Lemmy [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It does not. It never has. Freedom of association restrictions with a specific group or specific individuals I could understand - this has precedent. But contact with any individual with the same political affiliation is not something that happens, and you know it. You can try to spin this whatever, you dance around the issue, but you still have never produced when this has happened before. This IS a special snowflake.

You are doing great work for the cause of liberty by posting your opinion on this issue. You are a modern day Voltaire.

Also:

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]