Frog "Satire" Blamed For Massacre....

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Still waiting for RoadRummy to post about Thoreau. While we wait....and don't hold your breath:

"""In 1845, he received permission from Emerson to use a piece of land that Emerson owned on the shore of Walden Pond. He bought building supplies and a chicken coop (for the boards), and built himself a small house there, moving in on the Fourth of July. He had two main purposes in moving to the pond: to write his first book, A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers, as a tribute to his late brother John; and to conduct an economic experiment to see if it were possible to live by working one day and devoting the other six to more Transcendental concerns, thus reversing the Yankee habit of working six days and resting one. His nature study and the writing of Walden would develop later during his stay at the pond. He began writing Walden in 1846 as a lecture in response to the questions of townspeople who were curious about what he was doing out at the pond, but his notes soon grew into his second book.

Thoreau stayed in the house at Walden Pond for two years, from July 1845 to September 1847.Walden condenses the experiences of those two years into one year for artistic unity. During these two years he also spent one night in jail, an incident which occurred in the summer of 1846 and which became the subject of his essay "Resistance to Civil Government" (later known as "Civil Disobedience”). That same year he also took a trip to Maine to see and climb Mount Katahdin, a place with a much wilder nature than he could find around Concord.""""

Life and Legacy The Thoreau Society

 

[BlindBoo]

They should be reprinted world wide.

These Are The Charlie Hebdo Cartoons That Terrorists Thought Were Worth Killing Over

Sorry, I don't click on links here....but I'm sure somebody doesn't think portraying allah and mohambone as freaks justifies a massacre....now they know...I mean does anybody remember what happened to Salman Rushdie?....hell, even ol Cat Stevens went all Manson about that.....better stick to mocking us Christians...at least until we've finally had enough of it too.

Salman Rushdie will be on Bill Mahr tonight.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

So terrorists should dictate what is acceptable? Certainly the Koran preaches to not depict Mohammed in a mosque, but should that same scripture dictate to me, a Christian, whether I should depict him at all?

Should standards of western freedom succumb to the whims of an extremist ideology?

Freedom of speech protects the unpopular speech as well as the popular. But popular speech does not require protections. Are you saying you regret we enjoy the freedom of speech?

Are you calling for murder at the New York Times because you disagree with them?

There are few valid reasons to kill someone. But there are infinitely more bad reasons to kill someone. And high on that list of bad reasons is: I killed him because I was offended by his joke.

Since you're being civil, I will try to be too....free speech doesn't, and shouldn't include mocking and tormenting religious beliefs.....talk about yelling fire in a movie theatre. There are limits to what people have to put up with....our courts define "fighting words" as a defense for pounding somebody into the sidewalk....there are things you just can't say without consequences. Like I said and explained, I have ZERO affection for the frogs....I find their whole culture to be repulsive and bankrupt. They invited muslims into their country, gave them "no go zones" (which in effect gave them sovereignty from frog law)...all to build population and taxation without regard to how that could end up. Last, am I advocating shooting up the NYTimes?.....I'll just say this.....sometimes a slanderous, libelous, traitorous rag with no regard for the extended consequences to those they harm, needs to be jerked into the danger they put others in......rather than shoot up the editorial board, I'd have been overjoyed if Dubya had frog marched them out of their teak paneled offices and charged them with sedition and a firing squad.

Blah, blah, blah....Lots of opinion. NO facts.

I would seriously look into the comparison of religious satire and yelling "FIre!" in a theatre in which live, gaseous flames engulf people and burn them before they find the exits, Drama Queen.

 

[Nosmo King]

So terrorists should dictate what is acceptable? Certainly the Koran preaches to not depict Mohammed in a mosque, but should that same scripture dictate to me, a Christian, whether I should depict him at all?

Should standards of western freedom succumb to the whims of an extremist ideology?

Freedom of speech protects the unpopular speech as well as the popular. But popular speech does not require protections. Are you saying you regret we enjoy the freedom of speech?

Are you calling for murder at the New York Times because you disagree with them?

There are few valid reasons to kill someone. But there are infinitely more bad reasons to kill someone. And high on that list of bad reasons is: I killed him because I was offended by his joke.

Since you're being civil, I will try to be too....free speech doesn't, and shouldn't include mocking and tormenting religious beliefs.....talk about yelling fire in a movie theatre. There are limits to what people have to put up with....our courts define "fighting words" as a defense for pounding somebody into the sidewalk....there are things you just can't say without consequences. Like I said and explained, I have ZERO affection for the frogs....I find their whole culture to be repulsive and bankrupt. They invited muslims into their country, gave them "no go zones" (which in effect gave them sovereignty from frog law)...all to build population and taxation without regard to how that could end up. Last, am I advocating shooting up the NYTimes?.....I'll just say this.....sometimes a slanderous, libelous, traitorous rag with no regard for the extended consequences to those they harm, needs to be jerked into the danger they put others in......rather than shoot up the editorial board, I'd have been overjoyed if Dubya had frog marched them out of their teak paneled offices and charged them with sedition and a firing squad.

In your opinion, is freedom of speech something that can be infringed? Can someone say or publish something that is more dangerous than brandishing a gun? If we mandated that all speech be free of ridicule and criticism, who would be the arbiter? The state, subject to changing political outlooks from time to time, or terrorists who have the benefit of consistency?

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

They should be reprinted world wide.

These Are The Charlie Hebdo Cartoons That Terrorists Thought Were Worth Killing Over

Sorry, I don't click on links here....but I'm sure somebody doesn't think portraying allah and mohambone as freaks justifies a massacre....now they know...I mean does anybody remember what happened to Salman Rushdie?....hell, even ol Cat Stevens went all Manson about that.....better stick to mocking us Christians...at least until we've finally had enough of it too.

Salman Rushdie will be on Bill Mahr tonight.

Maher is going to be on fire, speaking of yelling same in theatres.

 

[BullKurtz]

Then follow through....Ditch the internet connection and go hard on, full throated Henry David Thoreau. Don't do this half-assed. Turn off your smartphone, too. No TV. Maybe a small, batter-operated radio.


Would you like to prove that? Maybe your "woods" is a trailer park in Alabama. I'll be waiting.

Hey bitch....my brother ain't as gentle as I am....you might want to run your mouth in somebody else's direction....ya dig?

 

[Roadrunner]

So terrorists should dictate what is acceptable? Certainly the Koran preaches to not depict Mohammed in a mosque, but should that same scripture dictate to me, a Christian, whether I should depict him at all?

Should standards of western freedom succumb to the whims of an extremist ideology?

Freedom of speech protects the unpopular speech as well as the popular. But popular speech does not require protections. Are you saying you regret we enjoy the freedom of speech?

Are you calling for murder at the New York Times because you disagree with them?

There are few valid reasons to kill someone. But there are infinitely more bad reasons to kill someone. And high on that list of bad reasons is: I killed him because I was offended by his joke.

Since you're being civil, I will try to be too....free speech doesn't, and shouldn't include mocking and tormenting religious beliefs.....talk about yelling fire in a movie theatre. There are limits to what people have to put up with....our courts define "fighting words" as a defense for pounding somebody into the sidewalk....there are things you just can't say without consequences. Like I said and explained, I have ZERO affection for the frogs....I find their whole culture to be repulsive and bankrupt. They invited muslims into their country, gave them "no go zones" (which in effect gave them sovereignty from frog law)...all to build population and taxation without regard to how that could end up. Last, am I advocating shooting up the NYTimes?.....I'll just say this.....sometimes a slanderous, libelous, traitorous rag with no regard for the extended consequences to those they harm, needs to be jerked into the danger they put others in......rather than shoot up the editorial board, I'd have been overjoyed if Dubya had frog marched them out of their teak paneled offices and charged them with sedition and a firing squad.

In your opinion, is freedom of speech something that can be infringed? Can someone say or publish something that is more dangerous than brandishing a gun? If we mandated that all speech be free of ridicule and criticism, who would be the arbiter? The state, subject to changing political outlooks from time to time, or terrorists who have the benefit of consistency?

Freedom of speech is infringed all the time.

I can't call the President a ******.

See???

 

[BullKurtz]

In your opinion, is freedom of speech something that can be infringed? Can someone say or publish something that is more dangerous than brandishing a gun? If we mandated that all speech be free of ridicule and criticism, who would be the arbiter? The state, subject to changing political outlooks from time to time, or terrorists who have the benefit of consistency?

Oh absolutely! The NYTimes printed highly classified documents as to troop deployments and problems in Iraq......that led to documented problems from the insurgents and KIAs. I know what Cronkite and CBS did to our effort in Vietnam...he was a disgraceful drunk and yet he was able to paralyze and then turn the American people against us...their own, and give the communists hope....more KIAs...that's MURDER by proxy in my opinion but of course they're never charged....they do this shit for circulation, advertising dollars, and to give each other awards for it all....then they take the train to their luxurious homes in Connecticut and act surprised when somebody calls them out for being traitors.

 

[Roadrunner]

]


Well, late in the fourth quarter of life, with a slim lead, I actually don't give a fuck.

If today's youth don't care enough to put down the Gameboys and Smartphones, and wake up to the world around them, and how it is going to Hell in a handbasket, fuck 'em, the worst that can happen to me is I live long enough to tell them "I told you so".

I got a smaller lead than you do so I have to give a shit as long as I have to be out amongst the teeming masses.....I could just head up to Grand Traverse Bay, dig out a bunker in the side of a dune and hunt and fish for my eats.....mmmmm.....ya know as long as I could watch a few ballgames that wouldn't be so bad.....

I'm pretty well hunkered down and only deal with people when I feel like it.

I could give up coffee and cut most of my contact with humans right there!!!

Of course, I could kick heroin easier than coffee.

Looking around, to me at least, most folks ain't fit to be around.

So, being in the woods has its advantages for sure.

Then follow through....Ditch the internet connection and go hard on, full throated Henry David Thoreau. Don't do this half-assed. Turn off your smartphone, too. No TV. Maybe a small, batter-operated radio.

Thoreau camped in his family back yard; his mother brought him his lunch.

Would you like to prove that? Maybe your "woods" is a trailer park in Alabama. I'll be waiting.

Why would I have anything to prove to somebody stuck in New Jersey?

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Then follow through....Ditch the internet connection and go hard on, full throated Henry David Thoreau. Don't do this half-assed. Turn off your smartphone, too. No TV. Maybe a small, batter-operated radio.


Would you like to prove that? Maybe your "woods" is a trailer park in Alabama. I'll be waiting.

Hey bitch....my brother ain't as gentle as I am....you might want to run your mouth in somebody else's direction....ya dig?

I wasn't talking to you, Drama Queen. What a narcissist!

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

I got a smaller lead than you do so I have to give a shit as long as I have to be out amongst the teeming masses.....I could just head up to Grand Traverse Bay, dig out a bunker in the side of a dune and hunt and fish for my eats.....mmmmm.....ya know as long as I could watch a few ballgames that wouldn't be so bad.....

I'm pretty well hunkered down and only deal with people when I feel like it.

I could give up coffee and cut most of my contact with humans right there!!!

Of course, I could kick heroin easier than coffee.

Looking around, to me at least, most folks ain't fit to be around.

So, being in the woods has its advantages for sure.

Then follow through....Ditch the internet connection and go hard on, full throated Henry David Thoreau. Don't do this half-assed. Turn off your smartphone, too. No TV. Maybe a small, batter-operated radio.

Thoreau camped in his family back yard; his mother brought him his lunch.

Would you like to prove that? Maybe your "woods" is a trailer park in Alabama. I'll be waiting.

Why would I have anything to prove to somebody stuck in New Jersey?

Thanks, I knew you were blowing pixelated methane.....again. Your slip is showing, Ethel.

 

[Nosmo King]

In your opinion, is freedom of speech something that can be infringed? Can someone say or publish something that is more dangerous than brandishing a gun? If we mandated that all speech be free of ridicule and criticism, who would be the arbiter? The state, subject to changing political outlooks from time to time, or terrorists who have the benefit of consistency?

Oh absolutely! The NYTimes printed highly classified documents as to troop deployments and problems in Iraq......that led to documented problems from the insurgents and KIAs. I know what Cronkite and CBS did to our effort in Vietnam...he was a disgraceful drunk and yet he was able to paralyze and then turn the American people against us...their own, and give the communists hope....more KIAs...that's MURDER by proxy in my opinion but of course they're never charged....they do this shit for circulation, advertising dollars, and to give each other awards for it all....then they take the train to their luxurious homes in Connecticut and act surprised when somebody calls them out for being traitors.

Do you think less knowledge of our activities in Vietnam would have been a healthy thing for our nation? Do you believe a free society is best served byt state approved propaganda or a free press? Do you realize that journalism is the only profession mentioned in the constitution?

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

So terrorists should dictate what is acceptable? Certainly the Koran preaches to not depict Mohammed in a mosque, but should that same scripture dictate to me, a Christian, whether I should depict him at all?

Should standards of western freedom succumb to the whims of an extremist ideology?

Freedom of speech protects the unpopular speech as well as the popular. But popular speech does not require protections. Are you saying you regret we enjoy the freedom of speech?

Are you calling for murder at the New York Times because you disagree with them?

There are few valid reasons to kill someone. But there are infinitely more bad reasons to kill someone. And high on that list of bad reasons is: I killed him because I was offended by his joke.

Since you're being civil, I will try to be too....free speech doesn't, and shouldn't include mocking and tormenting religious beliefs.....talk about yelling fire in a movie theatre. There are limits to what people have to put up with....our courts define "fighting words" as a defense for pounding somebody into the sidewalk....there are things you just can't say without consequences. Like I said and explained, I have ZERO affection for the frogs....I find their whole culture to be repulsive and bankrupt. They invited muslims into their country, gave them "no go zones" (which in effect gave them sovereignty from frog law)...all to build population and taxation without regard to how that could end up. Last, am I advocating shooting up the NYTimes?.....I'll just say this.....sometimes a slanderous, libelous, traitorous rag with no regard for the extended consequences to those they harm, needs to be jerked into the danger they put others in......rather than shoot up the editorial board, I'd have been overjoyed if Dubya had frog marched them out of their teak paneled offices and charged them with sedition and a firing squad.

In your opinion, is freedom of speech something that can be infringed? Can someone say or publish something that is more dangerous than brandishing a gun? If we mandated that all speech be free of ridicule and criticism, who would be the arbiter? The state, subject to changing political outlooks from time to time, or terrorists who have the benefit of consistency?

Freedom of speech is infringed all the time.

I can't call the President a ******.

See???

Yes, you can, Cletus. Look...watch...."""Obama is an asshole. ISIS is his private army. He's going to call for a military coup and you will have only HOURS before the black helicopters arrive to take you to FEMA camps."""

Check to see if I'm still here tomorrow, pussy.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

In your opinion, is freedom of speech something that can be infringed? Can someone say or publish something that is more dangerous than brandishing a gun? If we mandated that all speech be free of ridicule and criticism, who would be the arbiter? The state, subject to changing political outlooks from time to time, or terrorists who have the benefit of consistency?

Oh absolutely! The NYTimes printed highly classified documents as to troop deployments and problems in Iraq......that led to documented problems from the insurgents and KIAs. I know what Cronkite and CBS did to our effort in Vietnam...he was a disgraceful drunk and yet he was able to paralyze and then turn the American people against us...their own, and give the communists hope....more KIAs...that's MURDER by proxy in my opinion but of course they're never charged....they do this shit for circulation, advertising dollars, and to give each other awards for it all....then they take the train to their luxurious homes in Connecticut and act surprised when somebody calls them out for being traitors.

Do you think less knowledge of our activities in Vietnam would have been a healthy thing for our nation? Do you believe a free society is best served byt state approved propaganda or a free press? Do you realize that journalism is the only profession mentioned in the constitution?

And unfortunately our mainstream press just isn't so free anymore. They are owned by self-interested corporations. McClatchy is sitll somewhat unencumbered.

 

[Roadrunner]

So terrorists should dictate what is acceptable? Certainly the Koran preaches to not depict Mohammed in a mosque, but should that same scripture dictate to me, a Christian, whether I should depict him at all?

Should standards of western freedom succumb to the whims of an extremist ideology?

Freedom of speech protects the unpopular speech as well as the popular. But popular speech does not require protections. Are you saying you regret we enjoy the freedom of speech?

Are you calling for murder at the New York Times because you disagree with them?

There are few valid reasons to kill someone. But there are infinitely more bad reasons to kill someone. And high on that list of bad reasons is: I killed him because I was offended by his joke.

Since you're being civil, I will try to be too....free speech doesn't, and shouldn't include mocking and tormenting religious beliefs.....talk about yelling fire in a movie theatre. There are limits to what people have to put up with....our courts define "fighting words" as a defense for pounding somebody into the sidewalk....there are things you just can't say without consequences. Like I said and explained, I have ZERO affection for the frogs....I find their whole culture to be repulsive and bankrupt. They invited muslims into their country, gave them "no go zones" (which in effect gave them sovereignty from frog law)...all to build population and taxation without regard to how that could end up. Last, am I advocating shooting up the NYTimes?.....I'll just say this.....sometimes a slanderous, libelous, traitorous rag with no regard for the extended consequences to those they harm, needs to be jerked into the danger they put others in......rather than shoot up the editorial board, I'd have been overjoyed if Dubya had frog marched them out of their teak paneled offices and charged them with sedition and a firing squad.

In your opinion, is freedom of speech something that can be infringed? Can someone say or publish something that is more dangerous than brandishing a gun? If we mandated that all speech be free of ridicule and criticism, who would be the arbiter? The state, subject to changing political outlooks from time to time, or terrorists who have the benefit of consistency?

Freedom of speech is infringed all the time.

I can't call the President a ******.

See???

Yes, you can, Cletus. Look...watch...."""Obama is an asshole. ISIS is his private army. He's going to call for a military coup and you will have only HOURS before the black helicopters arrive to take you to FEMA camps."""

Check to see if I'm still here tomorrow, pussy.

Didn't look for you today, won't look for you tomorrow.

Actually puzzled as to how I caught your attention, to be truthful.

 

[BullKurtz]

Do you think less knowledge of our activities in Vietnam would have been a healthy thing for our nation? Do you believe a free society is best served byt state approved propaganda or a free press? Do you realize that journalism is the only profession mentioned in the constitution?

I have a pretty good grasp of the fourth estate since I have a Bach degree in the field. No, I don't believe the press has a duty to print only government propaganda, although they showed us during WW2 they weren't about to give the enemy aid and comfort....hell, they wouldn't even report FDR was stuck in a wheelchair. What I'm talking about is a FALSE reading of events in a foreign war which is what Cronkite did....we WON the Tet Offensive (both parts)...that cost blood, bone, and souls....to which Cronkite reported that we'd lost and that the effort was futile.....Ho Chi Mihn never had a better weapon than Walter Cronkite....the lousy old bastard is considered an icon to the left....to us who were in the shit, he figured out he best never come out in the field with us again, and he didn't.

 

[BullKurtz]

Didn't look for you today, won't look for you tomorrow.

Actually puzzled as to how I caught your attention, to be truthful.

Today it claims to be a "woman".....I've been known to suggest "she" needs a little vacation from time to time.....he gets all wound up when he sees me...not used to getting corrected on everything he spews out....bizarre even for leftist trash.

 

[Roadrunner]

Didn't look for you today, won't look for you tomorrow.

Actually puzzled as to how I caught your attention, to be truthful.

Today it claims to be a "woman".....I've been known to suggest "she" needs a little vacation from time to time.....he gets all wound up when he sees me...not used to getting corrected on everything he spews out....bizarre even for leftist trash.

What is it looking for, an internet fistfight?

Sure got riled easy, must be a menopausal old crone.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

So terrorists should dictate what is acceptable? Certainly the Koran preaches to not depict Mohammed in a mosque, but should that same scripture dictate to me, a Christian, whether I should depict him at all?

Should standards of western freedom succumb to the whims of an extremist ideology?

Freedom of speech protects the unpopular speech as well as the popular. But popular speech does not require protections. Are you saying you regret we enjoy the freedom of speech?

Are you calling for murder at the New York Times because you disagree with them?

There are few valid reasons to kill someone. But there are infinitely more bad reasons to kill someone. And high on that list of bad reasons is: I killed him because I was offended by his joke.

Since you're being civil, I will try to be too....free speech doesn't, and shouldn't include mocking and tormenting religious beliefs.....talk about yelling fire in a movie theatre. There are limits to what people have to put up with....our courts define "fighting words" as a defense for pounding somebody into the sidewalk....there are things you just can't say without consequences. Like I said and explained, I have ZERO affection for the frogs....I find their whole culture to be repulsive and bankrupt. They invited muslims into their country, gave them "no go zones" (which in effect gave them sovereignty from frog law)...all to build population and taxation without regard to how that could end up. Last, am I advocating shooting up the NYTimes?.....I'll just say this.....sometimes a slanderous, libelous, traitorous rag with no regard for the extended consequences to those they harm, needs to be jerked into the danger they put others in......rather than shoot up the editorial board, I'd have been overjoyed if Dubya had frog marched them out of their teak paneled offices and charged them with sedition and a firing squad.

In your opinion, is freedom of speech something that can be infringed? Can someone say or publish something that is more dangerous than brandishing a gun? If we mandated that all speech be free of ridicule and criticism, who would be the arbiter? The state, subject to changing political outlooks from time to time, or terrorists who have the benefit of consistency?

Freedom of speech is infringed all the time.
I can't call the President a ******.
See???

Yes, you can, Cletus. Look...watch...."""Obama is an asshole. ISIS is his private army. He's going to call for a military coup and you will have only HOURS before the black helicopters arrive to take you to FEMA camps."""

Check to see if I'm still here tomorrow, pussy.

Didn't look for you today, won't look for you tomorrow.
Actually puzzled as to how I caught your attention, to be truthful.

Easy, with stupid stuff like this:

""Freedom of speech is infringed all the time.
I can't call the President a ******.
See???"""

You clearly are one of the more dense granite heads on this site.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Didn't look for you today, won't look for you tomorrow.

Actually puzzled as to how I caught your attention, to be truthful.

Today it claims to be a "woman".....I've been known to suggest "she" needs a little vacation from time to time.....he gets all wound up when he sees me...not used to getting corrected on everything he spews out....bizarre even for leftist trash.

BullyBoy, you just spin it up however you want your non-followers to read. If you have any non-followers to begin with, that is. You are truly a legend in your own mind, however much of that is left after years of being a wannabe-warrior stuck on U.S. soil because no one in authority ever trusted you abroad.