Posting Something Mean About Muslims on Social Media Might Be...Criminal..

[The Rabbi]

Any who compares our American administration with that of Hitler's is possessed with deep inner malignance.

There are increasingly more points of similarity than differences.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I have to agree with the Rabbi, Starkey. The pattern of what Obama is doing and what Hitler did is lining up one after the other. It is alarming to learn the latest news of what he is doing. - Jeri

 

[JakeStarkey]

Any who compares our American administration with that of Hitler's is possessed with deep inner malignance.

There are increasingly more points of similarity than differences.

On a scale of 1 to a 1000, they may be two points of comparison

1. They are both government administrations

2. The admins are run by humans

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have to agree with the Rabbi, Starkey. The pattern of what Obama is doing and what Hitler did is lining up one after the other. It is alarming to learn the latest news of what he is doing. - Jeri

Jeri, no, it's not, and you are judged with whom you consort. The Rabbi's every day language here evidences that he is not the type of character that enhances your reputation as a decent human being.

 

[midcan5]

And the moon 'might' be made of cheese.
And Elvis 'might' be living on the moon.
And the rich 'might' create jobs.
And the winguts 'might' have brains.
And Martians 'might' be living in New Jersey.

As soon as one sees speculation on a wingnut site their BS indicator should light up, and they should disregard the siren song of the simpletons. Only the simpletons follow along.

 

[Montrovant]

The Obama fluffers can't deny it now. They are officially nothing but a gang of fascist thugs.

US Attorney Bill Killian: Posting Something Mean About Muslims on Social Media Might Be...Criminal..
Breitbart ^ | 31 May 2013 | ACE OF SPADES

Posted on Friday, May 31, 2013 254 PM by barmag25

The First Amendment served us well for a time, but now it's outdated. Remember reading that England had arrested a guy for anti-Muslim Twitter postings in the aftermath of the Woolrich slaughter? And remember thinking, "Well, this is America, that can't happen here"?

Oh yes it can. Obama's Attorney for the Eastern district of Tennessee wants you to know that if you say something untoward about Muslims, the Federal government may imprison you.

Killian and Moore will provide input on how civil rights can be violated by those who post inflammatory documents targeted at Muslims on social media. “This is an educational effort with civil rights laws as they play into freedom of religion and exercising freedom of religion,” Killian told The News Monday. “This is also to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are.” ... Killian said Internet postings that violate civil rights are subject to federal jurisdiction.​

(Excerpt) Read more at www.breitbart.com

There's not a lot to base an opinion on in this. It seems to be basically saying there is going to be a meeting, and what speech might potentially be construed as a civil rights violation is one subject to be covered.

I think it might be best to actually find out what the claims about unprotected speech are before becoming outraged.

Concern for what might be said, worry that those involved will make wrong decisions, I get. But this seems to be making assumptions about things not actually said.

Let me put it this way, the story, if accurate, is outrageous.

Don't worry though, your attempt to sound intelligent impressed the idiots.

Did that make you feel better about yourself?

What about the very small amount of actual information in the story did you find so outrageous?

Would you agree that the article is about a meeting that hasn't actually occurred? If so, do you understand why I might be hesitant to make assumptions about the content of that meeting?

If all the assumptions in the OP article, as well as the articles it linked to, are accurate, it will certainly be outrageous. I'm just not willing to accept those assumptions are true yet.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'll never shut up ever about what I believe to be the truth. I believe the founder of islam was a thug that destroyed peoples lives to force the population to convert to his "sick" religion.

 

[The Rabbi]

Any who compares our American administration with that of Hitler's is possessed with deep inner malignance.

There are increasingly more points of similarity than differences.

On a scale of 1 to a 1000, they may be two points of comparison

1. They are both government administrations

2. The admins are run by humans

3. They both have an enemies list.

4. They both use the state power to punish their enemies.

5. They both believe in the state picking winners and losers. With Hitler it was the VW. With Obama it was solar power.

6. They both redefine common terms to get the political result they want.

As time goes on there will be more and more. One big difference though: Hitler was competent at what he did.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Matthew, you have every right to opine on whatever you want and everyone has the right to show you that you are wrong. That is what is wonderful about America.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Any who compares our American administration with that of Hitler's is possessed with deep inner malignance.

There are increasingly more points of similarity than differences.

On a scale of 1 to a 1000, they may be two points of comparison

1. They are both government administrations

2. The admins are run by humans

You forgot another point, they both have idiots that defend them because other places were worse.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There's not a lot to base an opinion on in this. It seems to be basically saying there is going to be a meeting, and what speech might potentially be construed as a civil rights violation is one subject to be covered.

I think it might be best to actually find out what the claims about unprotected speech are before becoming outraged.

Concern for what might be said, worry that those involved will make wrong decisions, I get. But this seems to be making assumptions about things not actually said.

Let me put it this way, the story, if accurate, is outrageous.

Don't worry though, your attempt to sound intelligent impressed the idiots.

Did that make you feel better about yourself?

What about the very small amount of actual information in the story did you find so outrageous?

Would you agree that the article is about a meeting that hasn't actually occurred? If so, do you understand why I might be hesitant to make assumptions about the content of that meeting?

If all the assumptions in the OP article, as well as the articles it linked to, are accurate, it will certainly be outrageous. I'm just not willing to accept those assumptions are true yet.

I guess the fact that I know that Brietbart is not the source for this story makes me a tad more informed than a guy that seems the site and automatically assumes he is smarter than anyone who reads that site.

By the way, I don't need to insult idiots to feel good about myself, I just do it because it makes the world a better place.

 

[Montrovant]

Let me put it this way, the story, if accurate, is outrageous.

Don't worry though, your attempt to sound intelligent impressed the idiots.

Did that make you feel better about yourself?

What about the very small amount of actual information in the story did you find so outrageous?

Would you agree that the article is about a meeting that hasn't actually occurred? If so, do you understand why I might be hesitant to make assumptions about the content of that meeting?

If all the assumptions in the OP article, as well as the articles it linked to, are accurate, it will certainly be outrageous. I'm just not willing to accept those assumptions are true yet.

I guess the fact that I know that Brietbart is not the source for this story makes me a tad more informed than a guy that seems the site and automatically assumes he is smarter than anyone who reads that site.

By the way, I don't need to insult idiots to feel good about myself, I just do it because it makes the world a better place.

What about me commenting on the OP, and the link it provides, did you fail to understand?

Who assumed they are smarter than anyone who reads Brietbart? It certainly wasn't me....could it be that you are making silly assumptions to try and look smart to idiots?

The original article, and the two articles it links to, are not chock full of actual evidence. If you want to provide some other evidence that the article's conclusions and assumptions about what will take place at the meeting are true, feel free.

You certainly may be more well informed about this than I am. I never claimed I was more informed than anyone else about the subject. That you assumed I think I am, that you assumed I think I am smarter than anyone else based on my posts in this thread, says nothing about me, only you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Montrovant is far more informed about this than QWB.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Did that make you feel better about yourself?

What about the very small amount of actual information in the story did you find so outrageous?

Would you agree that the article is about a meeting that hasn't actually occurred? If so, do you understand why I might be hesitant to make assumptions about the content of that meeting?

If all the assumptions in the OP article, as well as the articles it linked to, are accurate, it will certainly be outrageous. I'm just not willing to accept those assumptions are true yet.

I guess the fact that I know that Brietbart is not the source for this story makes me a tad more informed than a guy that seems the site and automatically assumes he is smarter than anyone who reads that site.

By the way, I don't need to insult idiots to feel good about myself, I just do it because it makes the world a better place.

What about me commenting on the OP, and the link it provides, did you fail to understand?

Who assumed they are smarter than anyone who reads Brietbart? It certainly wasn't me....could it be that you are making silly assumptions to try and look smart to idiots?

The original article, and the two articles it links to, are not chock full of actual evidence. If you want to provide some other evidence that the article's conclusions and assumptions about what will take place at the meeting are true, feel free.

You certainly may be more well informed about this than I am. I never claimed I was more informed than anyone else about the subject. That you assumed I think I am, that you assumed I think I am smarter than anyone else based on my posts in this thread, says nothing about me, only you.

What about the fact that the quote came from a newspaper, not the site you hate? What about the fact that no one anywhere has found a single case of civil rights laws being used to prosecute inflammatory speech? What about the fact that every single court case in American jurisprudence allows Westboro Baptist Church to say hateful and offensive things about the government, the military, and society in general, all without once getting prosecuted? What about wondering why a US prosecutor might say anything that could be remotely interpreted the way the reporter did? What about you stop pretending that being intelligent means that you cannot use your imagination.

While you are doing that feel free to go back and point to anything I said that actually assumes that the is going to lock people up. What I have consistently done is point out to the drooling idiots who defended this that they don't know the law. That is what happens when one doesn't pretend to be smarter than everyone else.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Montrovant is far more informed about this than QWB.

Sure he is, which is why he always pretends to be intelligent.

 

[Montrovant]

I guess the fact that I know that Brietbart is not the source for this story makes me a tad more informed than a guy that seems the site and automatically assumes he is smarter than anyone who reads that site.

By the way, I don't need to insult idiots to feel good about myself, I just do it because it makes the world a better place.

What about me commenting on the OP, and the link it provides, did you fail to understand?

Who assumed they are smarter than anyone who reads Brietbart? It certainly wasn't me....could it be that you are making silly assumptions to try and look smart to idiots?

The original article, and the two articles it links to, are not chock full of actual evidence. If you want to provide some other evidence that the article's conclusions and assumptions about what will take place at the meeting are true, feel free.

You certainly may be more well informed about this than I am. I never claimed I was more informed than anyone else about the subject. That you assumed I think I am, that you assumed I think I am smarter than anyone else based on my posts in this thread, says nothing about me, only you.

What about the fact that the quote came from a newspaper, not the site you hate? What about the fact that no one anywhere has found a single case of civil rights laws being used to prosecute inflammatory speech? What about the fact that every single court case in American jurisprudence allows Westboro Baptist Church to say hateful and offensive things about the government, the military, and society in general, all without once getting prosecuted? What about wondering why a US prosecutor might say anything that could be remotely interpreted the way the reporter did? What about you stop pretending that being intelligent means that you cannot use your imagination.

While you are doing that feel free to go back and point to anything I said that actually assumes that the is going to lock people up. What I have consistently done is point out to the drooling idiots who defended this that they don't know the law. That is what happens when one doesn't pretend to be smarter than everyone else.

Again with the baseless assumptions. When have I said I hate Breitbart? When have I implied it, or even made comments about the site for you to read? Are you sure you aren't confusing me with someone else?

All I did in my first post is point out that the article linked in the OP is short on facts, but despite that there seems to be people who think something has already changed in the law. When you go from a meeting in which possible cases where inflammatory speech might constitute a civil rights violation, repugnant though one may find the idea in any case, and morph it into the government arresting people for saying anything insulting toward Islam, it sounds fairly farfetched. In my opinion conclusions like that do not fit the given evidence.

For someone who goes on and on about the intelligence of others, you seem to have a remarkable problem with reading comprehension. I have not attempted to claim that the OP article being from Brietbart makes it invalid, nor have I said anything remotely like I hate that site. I didn't claim you said the government is going to lock people up. I didn't even say anything about my opinion on what, if anything, I might consider a legitimate reason to limit someone's freedom of speech. I just find the amount of outrage about a meeting that has yet to occur, and the assumptions some have made about what they think has already occurred based on the article which points out this meeting is coming, to be jumping the gun, at best.

As I said, I understand being concerned about possible implications of the stated agenda for the meeting. I think treating the meeting as though it's already occurred silly.

What your obsession is with thinking I 'always pretend to be intelligent', I have no idea. We have only rarely interacted on this site, I don't even post all that often, so I'm not certain where you've gotten much of an impression of me. I'm not pretending to be anything. I believe I have above average intelligence, but I wouldn't go any farther than that. If my style of writing rubs you the wrong way, or makes you think I am pretending something...well, I'm certainly not going to change anything to appease you.