BREAKING NEWS!!!!! A real shocker

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I have bested you every time. You should st

Nice. Now I'm debating a 12 year old with his pretty pictures

You're not debating, you're flaming, You got your ass kicked in debate, so you got angry and started flaming. The angrier you get, the more funny you are!

More fail fish. Our conversation history is here for all to see. You've made dumb accusations and been proven wrong. You make shit up to argue against it. You've completely ignored several of My challenges to you. You've called others cowards. You've also been shown up with every interaction between us.

You fail fish

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Ps. Anger is not in this discussion. It seems you are running on emotions if that is what you see cause it isn't there lol

 

[Uncensored2008]

Doesn't your head get dizzy with all that spinning around?

NOW you're trying to convince that the guy did what he did because of "tribal rivalry"????

What the hell is the matter with your brain? Does someone have to turn the computer on for you?

You are a dolt and you keep digging your own hole even deeper.

No Nate, he did it because he was a racist, just like George Soros programmed you to believe.

You've never actually comprehended the conflict in Somalia, have you?

You should have finished second grade dude, seriously.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I have bested you every time. You should st

Izzatrite sploogy?

Well dayum, I must have missed it... :dunno;

More fail fish. Our conversation history is here for all to see. You've made dumb accusations and been proven wrong. You make shit up to argue against it. You've completely ignored several of My challenges to you. You've called others cowards. You've also been shown up with every interaction between us.

You fail fish

I was "proven wrong?" How despicable...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ps. Anger is not in this discussion. It seems you are running on emotions if that is what you see cause it isn't there lol

I laughter an emotion? If so, I suppose I am...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I'd believe that only if I saw it. Common sense has to trump individual rights - otherwise it would perfectly fine to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. Your freedom ends when it impinges on someone else. This is why the Muslim's right to expression by shooting and bombing or flying planes into buildings isn't supported. Yet, if you have a reasonable expectation of that outcome - and Geller surely did as seen by her forethought in providing a large security detail - why poke someone in the eye if not to simply provoke such an action? This isn't an exercise in free speech so much as one in thumbing one's nose at another's moral base. That, to me, is inexcusable.

The reason to poke Islam in the eye, is that Islam deserves to be poked in the eye. And if Islam doesn't like being poked int he eye, then Islam can rise up and do something about it.

And in THAT, you find the reason that Geller is taking her stand. She and everyone else has a right to criticize, condemn and demean Islam. We, the Americans... are sick and tired of being told that Islam is some fragile child, OR ELSE.

Islam is the embodiment of pure evil and that fact is validated by the evil that is the ideological Left supporting it...

We have fought Islam blindfolded, with our hands and feet tied... The time is coming when Islam will be engaged by every measure and it will be annihilated... burned from the heart of humanity and erased from the face of the earth.

But we Americans never seem to tire of pushing everyone's buttons until they break and then trying to hide behind a 200+ year old document as all the justification we need for being boorish. We do not respect our own ideologies enough to be able to respect those of other cultures. America isn't the entire world's culture, and we have no right - on a global scale - to treat the rest of the globe like they were bound by our own contrived and possibly flawed ideology. We certainly have no right, moral or otherwise, to engage all Islam, nor do we even have the means.

And yes, I am quite liberal when the situation calls for it. I'd say that when hot heads get rolling, liberal values the only thing to keep you from being steamrolled into oblivion. You don't have to thank us, your continued existence is all we need. Who else could we argue with?

Americans aren't hiding behind anything...

Americans are standing up against Islam because it is our duty to do so... and we're telling them in no uncertain terms that they can either figure out how freedom works, or we will stomp their ass.

They're free to do their best or their worst... and we're free to do the same.

Don't pretend that Islam is the victim here. We have sat by and watched that cult make a menace of themselves all over the planet for 40 years... and enough is enough.

This isn't Palestine, friend and we aren't Israel who depends upon the good graces of the US and the UN for its survival. FIre a rocket into our neighborhood and we'll erase your ass.

And we neither give a dam' about the UN, the Euro-peons say about it, nor do we care about what the lowest order of the society, residing within the Ideological Left, have to say about it.

If this were 1979 and day 6 of "America Held Hostage", I'd agree that we shouldn't judge an entire Religion on the Ranting of an entire city in an irrelevant Islamic shit-hole.

The time to judge Islam is long since passed and Islam is judged for what it is: The Embodiment of Pure Evil.

And understand this if nothing else: There are no "liberal values"... Liberalism is a lie, from top to bottom, front to back. You're here defending Islam, because you are every bit as evil as those you defend, making you every BIT as much the problem as Islam. And when the fight starts in earnest, you and your cult will be counted as Islam.

Strong words indeed. Let me know when the revolution starts.

Oh, I see you have met Keys. At the Sunny Dales Sanitorium, they let him take a walk once a day after his gets his lemon jello spiked with all sorts of cool meds.

Since he has no teeth, he cannot bite. Just pat him on the head and go on.

Concessions come in so many wonderful forms... And that is among the more adorable varieties to date.

Isn't just pitiful how the mental disorder that presents as socialism rejects any potential for consequence?

Lol... In the post war world, I shall save me a few out for pets for my dogs.

 

[Ravi]

Ps. Anger is not in this discussion. It seems you are running on emotions if that is what you see cause it isn't there lol

I laughter an emotion? If so, I suppose I am...

Calm down, you're starting to stutter.

 

[nat4900]

Doesn't your head get dizzy with all that spinning around?

NOW you're trying to convince that the guy did what he did because of "tribal rivalry"????

What the hell is the matter with your brain? Does someone have to turn the computer on for you?

You are a dolt and you keep digging your own hole even deeper.

No Nate, he did it because he was a racist, just like George Soros programmed you to believe.

You've never actually comprehended the conflict in Somalia, have you?

You should have finished second grade dude, seriously.

You know, even a cat gets tired of playing with a dead mouse (YOU)...so, come back when you grow a few more brain cells, I've grown tired of your stupidity and responding to your inane posts only makes you "think" that you're anything but a moron.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

You know, even a cat gets tired of playing with a dead mouse (YOU)...so, come back when you grow a few more brain cells, I've grown tired of your stupidity and responding to your inane posts only makes you "think" that you're anything but a moron.

ROFl

Let's review, of the claims made by Nate - zero have proven correct - notice how the moron fails to cite anything - this is a concept that is beyond the primary educational level Nate was exposed to,

Of the claims made by me, none have proven false, and all are cited.

Well, I see why you crow that you're

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

All we need now is Willy Wonka....


zzzzzZZZZZZzzzz

 

[Spare_change]

Eat your cake and have it, too?

I can wait to see you support Fred P helps or the kkk or the Nazis then right?

In fact if you are gonna take it to this level I expect to see everyone of you express support for homosexual acts since we have the freedom to do those acts. Right?

Gee --- kinda spun off the track, didn't you?

You're absolutely right --- the KKK and the Westboro Church have every right to say what they say ---- we don't have to like it, we just have to tolerate it.

As for homosexual acts - those aren't Amendment 1 issues. PLEASE do try to stay on track next time.

Protected freedom is protected freedom. You can't pick and choose what you think is or isn't. Hence so many hypocrites in the last few days

Am I allowed to crank call the police? Call in bom b threats to Burger King? Can I tell people on a plane that I have dynamite? It seems that there are limits on free speech. Why not here?

Threats of violence is not free speech.

Actually, it is .... missed that boat, huh?

 

[Spare_change]

You left wing quivering cowards are defending a religion that murders innocent people, violates human right constantly, and has at its core the tenet that all people should be converted or killed. It is barbaric, misogynistic, and homophobic.

It deserves to be mocked by all rational, civilized and intelligent people.

You people should be ashamed of yourselves. Cowards.

If the above is ALL you got from what we on the left have been stating, go back and try to "graduate" from junior high school.

... pretty much demonstrates the depth of your thought process.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I can wait to see you support Fred P helps or the kkk or the Nazis then right?

In fact if you are gonna take it to this level I expect to see everyone of you express support for homosexual acts since we have the freedom to do those acts. Right?

Gee --- kinda spun off the track, didn't you?

You're absolutely right --- the KKK and the Westboro Church have every right to say what they say ---- we don't have to like it, we just have to tolerate it.

As for homosexual acts - those aren't Amendment 1 issues. PLEASE do try to stay on track next time.

Protected freedom is protected freedom. You can't pick and choose what you think is or isn't. Hence so many hypocrites in the last few days

Am I allowed to crank call the police? Call in bom b threats to Burger King? Can I tell people on a plane that I have dynamite? It seems that there are limits on free speech. Why not here?

Threats of violence is not free speech.

Actually, it is .... missed that boat, huh?

Uhm no it's not...sit down

Threats of Violence Against Individuals
Threats of Violence Against Individuals.—The Supreme Court has cited three “reasons why threats of violence are outside the First Amendment”: “protecting individuals from the fear of violence, from the disruption that fear engenders, and from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur.”980 In Watts v. United States, however, the Court held that only “true” threats are outside the First Amendment.981 The defendant in Watts, at a public rally at which he was expressing his opposition to the military draft, said, “If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.”982 He was convicted of violating a federal statute that prohibited “any threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States.” The Supreme Court reversed. Interpreting the statute “with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind,”983 it found that the defendant had not made a “true ‘threat,”’ but had indulged in mere “political hyperbole.”984

Threats of Violence Against Individuals First Amendment--Religion and Expression US Constitution US Codes and Statutes US Law Justia

 

[jon_berzerk]

I fail to see where this is a democrat/republican, conservative/liberal issue. To me, this is accepting the wisdom of Justice J Murphy in a 1942 SCOTUS ruling (Chaplinsky v New Hampshire) who held that:

"Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words -- those which, by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. "

And further went on to say:

"The word "offensive" is not to be defined in terms of what a particular addressee thinks. . . . The test is what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight. . . . The English language has a number of words and expressions which, by general consent, are "fighting words" when said without a disarming smile. . . . such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight. So are threatening, profane or obscene revilings. Derisive and annoying words can be taken as coming within the purview of the statute as heretofore interpreted only when they have this characteristic of plainly tending to excite the addressee to a breach of the peace. . . . The statute, as construed, does no more than prohibit the face-to-face words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee, words whose speaking constitutes a breach of the peace by the speaker -- including "classical fighting words," words in current use less "classical" but equally likely to cause violence, and other disorderly words, including profanity, obscenity and threats."

I dunno... maybe you could construe this as fear if you squinted really hard. It would seem to me that your 1st amendment rights will come to an abrupt end if, in your ranting, you reach the point where the person or entity you were addressing could reasonably be expected to hit you square in the face. Perhaps many times. Some of us understood that before 4th grade, some needed a few black eyes to understand how proper Justice Murphy's ruling was. Stating your opinion is protected, being an ass isn't. And knowing the difference is priceless. (like I said - accumulated common sense)

So then, your position is:

the holder of the sign is another example

of how dangerous and unsound islam is

 

[jon_berzerk]

Pamela Geller exposed what a lie it is to say " Islam is the religion of peace"

I believe the same exact quote as the above was stated by Saladin about Christianity during the Crusades launched by Richard the Lionheart.....

Does that "elevate" or debase Geller?

the crusades --LOL-really

get in the real time butt head

--LOL

besides the crusades came about to expel the dangerous and unsound invaders

the Islamist extremists

then as now islam is dangerous to free peoples all over the world

 

[jon_berzerk]

Pamela Geller exposed what a lie it is to say " Islam is the religion of peace"

I believe the same exact quote as the above was stated by Saladin about Christianity during the Crusades launched by Richard the Lionheart.....

Does that "elevate" or debase Geller?

What a maroon, Richard the Lionheart wasn't even alive when the first Crusade took place.

--LOL

 

[jon_berzerk]

What a maroon, Richard the Lionheart wasn't even alive when the first Crusade took place.

Communists are stupidfucks - which is why they are Communists.

Without the Crusades, we would ALL be bowing to the idol in Mecca 5 times daily. Europe was on the brink of falling to the Muslim hoards. Without the Crusades, there would be no Western Civilization.

(Which is probably what Nate would prefer...)

exactly

 

[Spare_change]

Gee --- kinda spun off the track, didn't you?

You're absolutely right --- the KKK and the Westboro Church have every right to say what they say ---- we don't have to like it, we just have to tolerate it.

As for homosexual acts - those aren't Amendment 1 issues. PLEASE do try to stay on track next time.

Protected freedom is protected freedom. You can't pick and choose what you think is or isn't. Hence so many hypocrites in the last few days

Am I allowed to crank call the police? Call in bom b threats to Burger King? Can I tell people on a plane that I have dynamite? It seems that there are limits on free speech. Why not here?

Threats of violence is not free speech.

Actually, it is .... missed that boat, huh?

Uhm no it's not...sit down

Threats of Violence Against Individuals
Threats of Violence Against Individuals.—The Supreme Court has cited three “reasons why threats of violence are outside the First Amendment”: “protecting individuals from the fear of violence, from the disruption that fear engenders, and from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur.”980 In Watts v. United States, however, the Court held that only “true” threats are outside the First Amendment.981 The defendant in Watts, at a public rally at which he was expressing his opposition to the military draft, said, “If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.”982 He was convicted of violating a federal statute that prohibited “any threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States.” The Supreme Court reversed. Interpreting the statute “with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind,”983 it found that the defendant had not made a “true ‘threat,”’ but had indulged in mere “political hyperbole.”984

Threats of Violence Against Individuals First Amendment--Religion and Expression US Constitution US Codes and Statutes US Law Justia

You are applying a broad definition to a very narrow issue ...

Unless a 'threat' consists of direct communication, and has a credible potential of being executed, it does not constitute a 'true' threat. In short, I can tell you here that I am going to kick your butt, but because it does not have a credible potential of being executed, it does not qualify. I can stand in front of your apartment house and shout that I am going to kick your butt. I can even stand in the hallway outside your apartment and yell, but until I attempt to breach the door, I have violated no laws. (You MIGHT be able to find some esoteric nuisance law, but even then, probably not.)

Even the example you give is not a general example - but one a direct threat in violation of a specific law - was not upheld. Getting such a conviction is virtually impossible - see all the domestic violations in which verbal threats are thrown out. Typically, verbal threats are used in court to establish mood and intent of the suspect, but not for prosecution of some law. In fact, I will say that I have never seen a verbal threat prosecuted, and I suspect you won't find anyone else who has. In those few cases in which verbal comments have been used, they are executed as assault, not violations of free speech.

 

[jon_berzerk]

So it's OK to piss off nut-jobs if you KNOW they are going to retaliate by murdering innocent people?

Don't tell me that we need to support free speech at all costs, tell the victims families.

You mean that terrorist attack that was thwarted?


I am always amused by the double standard of the progressive. When the right says we need to defend our borders because terrorists are crossing it without even slowing down, YOU PEOPLE scream we are letting the terrorists win because we are afraid of what they may do.

Now comes a number of people showing they are NOT afraid and willing to exercise their first amendment right, and who is running scared?

The fucking progressives. Don't piss off the extremists. They may shoot someone!

Too funny.

I noticed that THEY had extra security.

If you go by a lion out in The Bush and taunt him, is that free speech, or abject stupidity?

Its a safety issue more than anything else.

Anyway, here I am exercising my free speech and people are calling me all kinds of nasty names. Isn't that in the same ballpark as denying someone their inalienable right to post stupid, poorly drawn depictions of ALLAH?

Its a safety issue

why is it a safety issue

are the Muslims too weak to fend off their emotions

and must resort to murdering others

or

are you saying they

are too backwards and primitive to know any better

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Protected freedom is protected freedom. You can't pick and choose what you think is or isn't. Hence so many hypocrites in the last few days

Am I allowed to crank call the police? Call in bom b threats to Burger King? Can I tell people on a plane that I have dynamite? It seems that there are limits on free speech. Why not here?

Threats of violence is not free speech.

Actually, it is .... missed that boat, huh?

Uhm no it's not...sit down

Threats of Violence Against Individuals
Threats of Violence Against Individuals.—The Supreme Court has cited three “reasons why threats of violence are outside the First Amendment”: “protecting individuals from the fear of violence, from the disruption that fear engenders, and from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur.”980 In Watts v. United States, however, the Court held that only “true” threats are outside the First Amendment.981 The defendant in Watts, at a public rally at which he was expressing his opposition to the military draft, said, “If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.”982 He was convicted of violating a federal statute that prohibited “any threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States.” The Supreme Court reversed. Interpreting the statute “with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind,”983 it found that the defendant had not made a “true ‘threat,”’ but had indulged in mere “political hyperbole.”984

Threats of Violence Against Individuals First Amendment--Religion and Expression US Constitution US Codes and Statutes US Law Justia

You are applying a broad definition to a very narrow issue ...

Unless a 'threat' consists of direct communication, and has a credible potential of being executed, it does not constitute a 'true' threat. In short, I can tell you here that I am going to kick your butt, but because it does not have a credible potential of being executed, it does not qualify. I can stand in front of your apartment house and shout that I am going to kick your butt. I can even stand in the hallway outside your apartment and yell, but until I attempt to breach the door, I have violated no laws. (You MIGHT be able to find some esoteric nuisance law, but even then, probably not.)

Even the example you give is not a general example - but one a direct threat in violation of a specific law - was not upheld. Getting such a conviction is virtually impossible - see all the domestic violations in which verbal threats are thrown out. Typically, verbal threats are used in court to establish mood and intent of the suspect, but not for prosecution of some law. In fact, I will say that I have never seen a verbal threat prosecuted, and I suspect you won't find anyone else who has. In those few cases in which verbal comments have been used, they are executed as assault, not violations of free speech.

Keep trying....

When is an online threat illegal and when is it free speech?


WASHINGTON - Anthony Elonis claimed he was just kidding when he posted a series of graphically violent rap lyrics on Facebook about killing his estranged wife, shooting up a kindergarten class and attacking an FBI agent.

But his wife didn't see it that way. Neither did a federal jury.

Elonis, who's from Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, was convicted of violating a federal law that makes it a crime to threaten another person.

When is an online threat illegal and when is it free speech - CBS News