Fears for Obama's safety as healthcare debate fuels extremism

[KittenKoder]

Yeah. Those people investigated and arrested for threats against the President were simply part of Obama's grand plan to garner media coverage.

Do you realize how crazy you are sounding?

Are you going to provide a link to the source of the "up 400%" claim or not?

I posted more than one link above.

Nowhere near 400% of what any president has received ... not to mention if you factor in the higher population level now from any other time period I am certain he has had fewer than any president.

 

[KittenKoder]

As far as threats... as long as we have the 1st amendment people should be able to say whatever they want. THAT is what makes this country great, not the government's ability to monitor the radio.

The 1st amendment does NOT protect speech with regard to death threats to the President of the United States. Threatening the President in any way is illegal.

[Death] threats in themselves are illegal, even for private persons. You can't just say anything you want. That's not what the 1st amendment is about.

Technically ... yes and no. Only if they are sent directly to said person if they are a government official can they be considered threats, otherwise they are protected.

 

[Amanda]

Yeah. Those people investigated and arrested for threats against the President were simply part of Obama's grand plan to garner media coverage.

Do you realize how crazy you are sounding?

Are you going to provide a link to the source of the "up 400%" claim or not?

I posted more than one link above.

I read the 1st 5 and didn't see any mention of 400%, can you please point out which article supports this claim?

 

[Amanda]

As far as threats... as long as we have the 1st amendment people should be able to say whatever they want. THAT is what makes this country great, not the government's ability to monitor the radio.

The 1st amendment does NOT protect speech with regard to death threats to the President of the United States. Threatening the President in any way is illegal.

[Death] threats in themselves are illegal, even for private persons. You can't just say anything you want. That's not what the 1st amendment is about.

I gave my opinion. Go back and read it again with that in mind. I'm sure if you last long enough you'll start to get the hang of this whole political message board thingy.

 

[veritas]

I certainly hope, for the sake of the rest of rational persons that reside in reality, that Obama meets your criteria for "liar" in regard to the management of his facebook account, kk. I hope he has a special facebook staffer to whom delegates this responsibility.

 

[DiveCon]

Yeah. Those people investigated and arrested for threats against the President were simply part of Obama's grand plan to garner media coverage.

Do you realize how crazy you are sounding?

Are you going to provide a link to the source of the "up 400%" claim or not?

I posted more than one link above.

which one claimed they were up 400%?
not saying you didnt read it, just would like to know since i'm not going through every one of those links

 

[KittenKoder]

I certainly hope, for the sake of the rest of rational persons that reside in reality, that Obama meets your criteria for "liar" in regard to the management of his facebook account, kk. I hope he has a special facebook staffer to whom delegates this responsibility.

Rich ... just rich ... saying one thing and doing another is lying, Obama lied, unless you are lying and he is using it himself. It's simple.

 

[Amanda]

I certainly hope, for the sake of the rest of rational persons that reside in reality, that Obama meets your criteria for "liar" in regard to the management of his facebook account, kk. I hope he has a special facebook staffer to whom delegates this responsibility.

Would anyone be surprised if Obama was paying someone just to babysit his facebook page? That would be yet another frivolous waste of OUR money.

 

[edthecynic]

What part of "media whore" do you not get?

Now if you want an example of a media whore, LimpBoy fits the bill.
When Obama got secret service protection as a candidate, MessiahRushie cried like a jealous baby that HE should have gotten Secret service protection.
And for months now he keeps telling his audience Obama MUST be STOPPED. He tells them the GOP are powerless to stop Obama's policies and Obama must be stopped. Now he will pretend he means he wants Obama's "policies" stopped, but he's also a pathological liar, so any denial on his part is an affirmation.

El Rushbo In Need of Secret Service Protection
El Rushbo In Need of Secret Service Protection
May 10, 2007

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I do. I think I'm the one that needs Secret Service protection. All this talk about Obama and presidential candidates, for crying out loud, I'm the one that needs it.

Wow ... leave it to a wingnut to bring up a media personality when mentioning media whore ... that is just ... stupid.

Well, that's who programmed you to call Obama a media whore! Obama is nothing like LimpBoy, a true media whore.

I remember the CON$ saying they wished Bush would have used the media more to sell his policies, but now condemn Obama for doing exactly what they wished Bush would have done.
CON$ will cry like babies no matter what Obama does.

 

[KittenKoder]

Now if you want an example of a media whore, LimpBoy fits the bill.
When Obama got secret service protection as a candidate, MessiahRushie cried like a jealous baby that HE should have gotten Secret service protection.
And for months now he keeps telling his audience Obama MUST be STOPPED. He tells them the GOP are powerless to stop Obama's policies and Obama must be stopped. Now he will pretend he means he wants Obama's "policies" stopped, but he's also a pathological liar, so any denial on his part is an affirmation.

El Rushbo In Need of Secret Service Protection
El Rushbo In Need of Secret Service Protection
May 10, 2007

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I do. I think I'm the one that needs Secret Service protection. All this talk about Obama and presidential candidates, for crying out loud, I'm the one that needs it.

Wow ... leave it to a wingnut to bring up a media personality when mentioning media whore ... that is just ... stupid.

Well, that's who programmed you to call Obama a media whore! Obama is nothing like LimpBoy, a true media whore.

I remember the CON$ saying they wished Bush would have used the media more to sell his policies, but now condemn Obama for doing exactly what they wished Bush would have done.
CON$ will cry like babies no matter what Obama does.

No, I said it long before Rush did, trust me on that.

Also, I never claimed, nor has Rush, that Rush isn't a media whore ... it's how he makes his living moron. Or did you forget that he's a media personality?

 

[DiveCon]

I certainly hope, for the sake of the rest of rational persons that reside in reality, that Obama meets your criteria for "liar" in regard to the management of his facebook account, kk. I hope he has a special facebook staffer to whom delegates this responsibility.

Would anyone be surprised if Obama was paying someone just to babysit his facebook page? That would be yet another frivolous waste of OUR money.

if he is paying that person himself, no problem
but i doubt that is the case

 

[veritas]

As far as threats... as long as we have the 1st amendment people should be able to say whatever they want. THAT is what makes this country great, not the government's ability to monitor the radio.

The 1st amendment does NOT protect speech with regard to death threats to the President of the United States. Threatening the President in any way is illegal.

[Death] threats in themselves are illegal, even for private persons. You can't just say anything you want. That's not what the 1st amendment is about.

I gave my opinion. Go back and read it again with that in mind. I'm sure if you last long enough you'll start to get the hang of this whole political message board thingy.

Your opinion was falsely based on a premise that reveals your lack of understanding of the 1st amendment. I have the hang of the "message board thingy", believe me....I know a puffer when I see one. It's easy when you have people calling for national referendums and insisting the 1st amendment means you can say anything you want and others calling the FCC an "unreliable" source.........inter alia. You may have more posts on this particular message board, but that's about it.

 

[DiveCon]

Wow ... leave it to a wingnut to bring up a media personality when mentioning media whore ... that is just ... stupid.

Well, that's who programmed you to call Obama a media whore! Obama is nothing like LimpBoy, a true media whore.

I remember the CON$ saying they wished Bush would have used the media more to sell his policies, but now condemn Obama for doing exactly what they wished Bush would have done.
CON$ will cry like babies no matter what Obama does.

No, I said it long before Rush did, trust me on that.

Also, I never claimed, nor has Rush, that Rush isn't a media whore ... it's how he makes his living moron. Or did you forget that he's a media personality?

ed the moron is obsessed with Rush

 

[KittenKoder]

The 1st amendment does NOT protect speech with regard to death threats to the President of the United States. Threatening the President in any way is illegal.

[Death] threats in themselves are illegal, even for private persons. You can't just say anything you want. That's not what the 1st amendment is about.

I gave my opinion. Go back and read it again with that in mind. I'm sure if you last long enough you'll start to get the hang of this whole political message board thingy.

Your opinion was falsely based on a premise that reveals your lack of understanding of the 1st amendment. I have the hang of the "message board thingy", believe me....I know a puffer when I see one. It's easy when you have people calling for national referendums and insisting the 1st amendment means you can say anything you want and others calling the FCC an "unreliable" source.........inter alia. You may have more posts on this particular message board, but that's about it.

First, the FCC is the one true Satan ...

Secondly, opinions do not have to be based on fact, though in this case her's is based on more facts than you have posted.

 

[DiveCon]

The 1st amendment does NOT protect speech with regard to death threats to the President of the United States. Threatening the President in any way is illegal.

[Death] threats in themselves are illegal, even for private persons. You can't just say anything you want. That's not what the 1st amendment is about.

I gave my opinion. Go back and read it again with that in mind. I'm sure if you last long enough you'll start to get the hang of this whole political message board thingy.

Your opinion was falsely based on a premise that reveals your lack of understanding of the 1st amendment. I have the hang of the "message board thingy", believe me....I know a puffer when I see one. It's easy when you have people calling for national referendums and insisting the 1st amendment means you can say anything you want and others calling the FCC an "unreliable" source.........inter alia. You may have more posts on this particular message board, but that's about it.

no one said the FCC wasnt a reliable source
'you failed to provide the LINK to your source

 

[veritas]

no one said the FCC wasnt a reliable source
'you failed to provide the LINK to your source

No I didn't. I said FCC app form 314. You wouldn't have been able to find the pertinent snippet in a month if I hadn't. Attribution such as I gave should be sufficient for even the most inexperienced of internet users. AND if you had plugged that tidbit into a search engine you could weigh the validity of the source yourself, instead of pretending that it might be slanted. I don't just blindly follow links and then swallow them whole as gospel, I actually do the research.

If someone posts "IRS Form 1040", are you gonna bitch there is no fucking link? Some things one expects others to do themselves, or assumes a level of competency and respect for their abilities......maybe incorrectly, on the part of the reader.

Our initial exchange wasn't particularly politically charged or combative. Why would you jump all up in my grill for a stupid statute, like I was trying to deceive you? What would be the point in me deceiving you?

 

[DiveCon]

no one said the FCC wasnt a reliable source
'you failed to provide the LINK to your source

No I didn't. I said FCC app form 314. You wouldn't have been able to find the pertinent snippet in a month if I hadn't. Attribution such as I gave should be sufficient for even the most inexperienced of internet users. AND if you had plugged that tidbit into a search engine you could weigh the validity of the source yourself, instead of pretending that it might be slanted. I don't just blindly follow links and then swallow them whole as gospel, I actually do the research.

If someone posts "IRS Form 1040", are you gonna bitch there is no fucking link? Some things one expects others to do themselves, or assumes a level of competency and respect for their abilities......maybe incorrectly, on the part of the reader.

Our initial exchange wasn't particularly politically charged or combative. Why would you jump all up in my grill for a stupid statute, like I was trying to deceive you? What would be the point in me deceiving you?

yes, i would bitch if you didnt provide a link
why should others have to do searches for you to back up your claims

 

[veritas]

yes, i would bitch if you didnt provide a link
why should others have to do searches for you to back up your claims

Even if it was fully attributed?

I assumed incorrectly that you were interested in facts.


And I don't see you bitching at others on your side, except for that Frank moron, to substantiate any of their wild claims, yet you want a full dissertation from me, footnoted with every link available. Others can go screaming into the night that it is their right to spread death threats because that is the way they interpret the 1st amendment, still others go on and on about their anal issues.....it's really absurd when you have a conduit to so much info and lots of interesting people.....intelligent people.

It's a shame really.

 

[KittenKoder]

yes, i would bitch if you didnt provide a link
why should others have to do searches for you to back up your claims

Even if it was fully attributed?

I assumed incorrectly that you were interested in facts.


And I don't see you bitching at others on your side, except for that Frank moron, to substantiate any of their wild claims, yet you want a full dissertation from me, footnoted with every link available. Others can go screaming into the night that it is their right to spread death threats because that is the way they interpret the 1st amendment, still others go on and on about their anal issues.....it's really absurd when you have a conduit to so much info and lots of interesting people.....intelligent people.

It's a shame really.

I hilighted the one part you got right up to this point. You are blindly supporting a government that is now trying to steal power and swallowing what they tell you without ever considering the fact that these are the same people who enacted such gems as "The Patriot Act" and bailouts.

 

[DiveCon]

yes, i would bitch if you didnt provide a link
why should others have to do searches for you to back up your claims

Even if it was fully attributed?

I assumed incorrectly that you were interested in facts.


And I don't see you bitching at others on your side, except for that Frank moron, to substantiate any of their wild claims, yet you want a full dissertation from me, footnoted with every link available. Others can go screaming into the night that it is their right to spread death threats because that is the way they interpret the 1st amendment, still others go on and on about their anal issues.....it's really absurd when you have a conduit to so much info and lots of interesting people.....intelligent people.

It's a shame really.

stop lying