The times , they are a changing .
 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LYtSoHb2j_I" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Yet, they arrest people for dancing at the Jefferson Memorial.

Dancing at Jefferson Memorial will get you bodyslammed and arrested. - YouTube

I think that worked out ok.

Big whup.... Just a little pot. Were they being in any other way disrupting? Doesn't sound like it. I say they did the right thing.

I think we ought to arrest everyone for smoking in public, but sense we cant do that, I don't think we should discriminate on what they are smoking.

We smoked on the steps of the US Capitol in a blizzard many years ago. It was a Sat. night and no one went out because of the snow. So we walked over there and had the whole place to ourselves. It was pretty cool. IIRC, we did talk to some Cap. Police, but they weren't too curious.

I agree with porsche4life, big deal. However, as SeanPizzle mentioned, arresting people for dancing at the jefferson memorial, seems stupid, but it really isn't.

I'm a Canadian, if I was American, I'd be patriotic towards America, and would feel that the Jefferson Memorial is kindaaa important. If someone made a rule that I can't dance at the Jefferson Memorial, I'm not going to dance at the Jefferson Memorial. Sure, it might seem a little farfetched that out of respect you shouldn't dance at the memorial, I could see that, but what purpose does it serve me to dance at the memorial?

That guy is stupid, he's taking proving a point to far. Is it that big of a deal that you can't dance at a memorial? Does it ruin your freedom that much? You really have such a desire to dance at the memorial that you just HAVE to? Just to prove some kind of political correctness about rights? It seems like a silly point to prove, and I couldn't agree more with the thread title, times are changing….

The guy filming and talking was a real cock-knocker. Wonder if he posts on PARF.

Brazen, arrogant, and entitled... Sounds like most Parfers...

Maybe he does. Just like you do.

.
I think he deserves to be cold-cocked...whad'ya say? ;)

You're a little too young to be so sanctimonious, Sidney.

Were they being in any other way disrupting? Doesn't sound like it.http://pjal.info/h.jpg

Camera man sounds like a grade A prick. Mind your own ****** business.

LOL...Pelican's pot heads - please speak up. :D

How would you feel if you had a 7or 8 year boy playing there with the pot heads?

Physician, heal thyself. He probably got into his 1977 Targa with a dashmat and drove off in a huff, too.

I do agree with you he was a little pantsy though.

I would take my boy somewhere else to play. You know, like a parent does.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1366900139.jpg

I have the feeling they are...

You're not thinking about the children...

http://www.letsjapan.org/Graphics/so...f-children.jpg

What I take away from this is lack of enforcement of the law.

Whether or not you agree about the law....it's your job to enforce it.

If you don't like the law - change it.....but to pick and choose is pretty lame.

Federal law enforcement of misdemeanors on federal land is a fuzzy area.

Case in point: We used to tune our racing karts in Laguna Niguel at what is now the Chet Holifield Federal Building. On weekends (this was in the 80's) there were no federal officers on the grounds. The OC Sheriff would sit on the public road and watch us. There were also parents teaching their kids to drive and another parking lot was taken over by model airplane enthusiasts Sat and Sun.

Later on the building became more active as an archives storage. But the point is, it is federal property and the sheriff had no jurisdiction over the parking lots, only the roads leading to the driveways.

Had the federal officers been present, I doubt they would have done anything but tell us to move out under some trespassing statute since this wasn't a park intended for visitors. If we drove the karts across the public streets, we would have been cited.

This would make for an interesting discussion on a law forum.

Since I'm significantly older than he is, I'll say it then:

Brazen, arrogant, and entitled... Sounds like most Parfers...

There now, does that make it more substantive?

Wonder what Mr. Videographer would have said had they been tipping a class of wine or a craft beer.

Jefferson LOVED wine - beer should be drunk at the Sam Adams memorial

not sure but IIRC some of the Founders grew hemp - George baby, maybe?

ok, both GW and TJ!

https://www.google.com/search?q=founding+fathers+grew+hemp&aq=0&oq=Founde rs+grew+hemp&aqs=chrome.1.57j0.3919j0&sourceid=chr ome&ie=UTF-8

No, not really.:D

it's nice to see someone actually get involved, act.

Too bad it's not something important.

What's important is that it was to him.

how would the details of the matter change if the dope heads were passing around a fifth of Old Crow? would the pot smokers on Pelican respond differently?

Being passionate about something I can respect. But when that passion translates into 'I'm going to video you harrass you, argue with you, demand to speak to a superviso and all around irritate you until you do what I feel is important regardless of how you feel or whatever your stated policy is', that's when the wheels fall off and credibility goes out the window.

Reminds me exactly of the kind of 'dialogue' in PARF.

I'm not saying the situation is right or wrong, I wasnt there.

I wonder if the videographer himself was stoned, holding that camera like a f***tard.

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zXt56MB-3vc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

:cool:

Ah, the days of a drum circle and a gallon jug of Carlo Rossi.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/CNfcmQ0Qy2g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Stoners don't help their cause by smoking in public, I think most people find it even more offensive than cigarette smoke. Same goes for the lesbians putting on a show at the grocery store last night.

How about we make the police give back the pot they siezed?

its only objectionable if they are ugly...

I'm with Lube on this one.