|
|
| From | Message |
|---|
|
This is just more liberal-leftist "common-sense" such as their views:
that you can tax your way into prosperity,
that you can borrow your way out of debt,
that you can stop gun violence by registering guns or making guns illegal,
that everyone has the Constitutional Right to free health care (including contraceptives),
that everyone has the Constitutional Right to an ample retirement, and "decent" home,
that you can stop Global Warming buy buying and selling carbon credits,
etc. etc. etc.
|
|
 softaire
that anyone that is not successful by their own standards must be a victim. In other words, the liberal base depends on the notion that people see themselves as victims. They are brilliant at this, or rather it probably doesnt take much to dupe their base.
|
|
I haven't commented in this thread up to now but I for one do not agree with what this stupid news outlet! has done, and intends to continue doing. No matter which side of the 'gun' argument one is on it is obvious that this kind of stupidity has put people at risk. It is way over the top.
The problem is you cannot defend the second amendment to the hilt and NOT defend the first amendment also. I have put part of our (Australian) constitution in another thread after being baited as a comparison to the US first amendment (all in fun I guess). We do not have a freedom of speech component as such, but we do have 'similar' safeguards for freedom of speech. There are exceptions to the rule here, sedition, hate speech, etc. I'm guessing there are similar safeguards in place in the US as well? My question is can this so called news outlet, or it's owners, editors, etc. be charged with hate speech for instance, or does the first amendment entitle them to say whatever they please with impunity?
|
|
@changeling
It is a difficult topic here. For example, the first amendment permits people like our Iowa journalists to call for the assasination of NRA members and the the killing of congress memebers supporting the constitution, ie (boehner and mcconnel). While at the same time prescribing a solution to ridicule and blame law abiding citizens for innocent deaths. hate speech is really only exists when it does not conform to liberals train of thought whereby, we should treat everyone as a victim. America has and is on a downward spiral. We tolerate the left making death threats, while we scream at people who challenge anything that obama says. It is a sad state of affairs here.
J
|
|
jerry64
This guy?
www.examiner.com
Although I think the implications are a bit severe, there is no mention of assassinating NRA members, or the killing of congressmen (even if the measures are a little extreme).
Then there is this to ponder.
www.patheos.com
|
|
Not sure the baiting on this, but, if we are to work with the "president" and I use that term loosely. obama needs to first realize it is "We the people", not "me the president". Regardless of the "majority" that voted for him, it is the majority of working people, the majority of people with morals, the majority that care, that still run this country. Maybe 48% of the people were right that didnt vote for tyranny and oppression, but that same minority are the people that pay for 100% of this country. probably even more when you consider the 47%ers who live off the goverment dollar and still do work under that table.
|
|
Not baiting jerr64, simply questioning inflammatory posts such as "...assassination...", and now "...tyranny and oppression...". Perhaps Frank Schaeffer is not far wrong with at least some of the problems.
|
|
Liberal whack jobs can make death threats and hide behind "freedom of speech". how is that tolerated? I know, because it fits the liberal agenda and how libs actually feel. They actually beleive that all NRA members should die. Its sick, its twisted. Maybe they cant understand it because they are too busy planning their next trip to the abortion clinic to kill a baby. (which is a protected right to do so)
|
|
if the same comments were made of the mealy mouthed person we loosly refer to as president, you know how that would be taken.
|
|
I seem to remember reading threats of that nature all over the internet in various places since the current administration came to power. I haven't read anywhere (yet) that people (in the US) who make them have been subject to 'rendition' anywhere. I'm pretty sure that all threats against politicians from whatever side are looked at at least peripherally by someone and discarded as nonsense. A bit like two guys (or kids) arguing and one saying "I'll kill you you (whatever)", not actually meant to be taken too seriously (unless they have a gun in their hands ).
|
|
many people were arrested in Charlotte, NC during the DNC and detained for 72 hours without questioning or due process, simply for not being in complete support of the "annointed one"
|
|
Really jerry? Was it this you refer to or something else?
www.wbtv.com
|
|
No. That was not it. You're not going to read about the ones detained by SS without due process for 72 hours. Apparently they are allowed to detain without questioning for that period of time. I'm sure it would have been the same for Bush. The only difference is, "farting in the general direction of obama" is treated with the same threat level as "attacking Bush"
|
|
If we cannot read about it where did you get the information from?
It seems at least some threats are taken seriously:
www.wbtv.com
|
|
I live here in Charlotte. You'd have to take my word, much like taking obama's word that he wont raise taxes on anyone making under $250k. Well, he's a lying stack of crap, maybe I am too.
|
|
I don't imply that, simply curious, as always.
|
|
That some b**** screwed up my entire week of going to work, just so I could pay for his entitlement programs. dang roads shut down, etc. Even Ellen the Degenerate, got a local fitness club to close for the week, just so her and her staff could work out alone there. Granted they paid the bill in full, but you know, she's writing that sh** off.
|
|
Am I right in guessing that "...some b****..." is Obama because the convention was held there? Did he decide that or did the party decide? If so perhaps the same things could be said by someone about Romney wherever the Republican Convention was held?
|
|
It's probalby bias. Nobody wanted that jOke here. At least nobody that was gainfully employed. My schedule was also interrupted by Algore, which just put me in a tizzy, as if he were anyone of any importance. Well now that he made 100 million selling off to jihadists, i suppose he is of some consequence. I'll call him Allah Gore now.
|
|
Al Jazeera are jihadists? That's a new one. I've never seen a report by them that promotes jihadism, one religion over any other, war, genocide, bombings, murder, killing of girls, or any other suchlike tripe. Besides Al Gore was simply being an American Capitalist (making sh** loads of money).
|
|
... Al Jazeera, so far as I have seen, has a pretty good journalistic reputation. Are we trying to label them as something they're not?
|
dmaestro
06-Jan-13, 08:45
|
The link between fear based thinking and right wingers is established science. You see it every day here: unreasonale fear of everything outside of their bubble except the shadow forces behind the modern right who skillfully shape and stoke their uninformed beliefs. al jAzeera is more credible and respected than brietbart.
|
|
You guys do realise this map was made with publically available information, right? Yes, it's stupid and irresponsible for this map to be published however anyone could find where the gun owners of America are, legally.
|
|
Musket
Yes, this is just another of the results and (intended consequence) of the lefts desire to insert themselves into each and every aspect of individuals' lives. Where's the right to privacy that's talked about in our constitution?
|
|
In all seriousness, now that my tax dollars are paying for abortions. I have the right to know who has had one. Since privacy is an enemy of liberals, I suspect they should have no problem with a live database of the 1.2 million babies that are slaughtered each year. I mean it would make us safer given the fact that if people don't give a crap about their own unborn child, what makes anyone think they would give a damn about mine. I need to be protected and have my family protected from these people. I should know where they are.
|
|
Jerry
That sounds about correct to me.
I wonder what the Left thinks of that.
I wonder if any of them will reply with their thoughts.
|
|
... just curious ... what useful purpose would this serve? [even though it is already against the law] ... and let's avoid changing the subject while we're at it.
|
|
chaz
That post is your opinion of the idea posted by Jerry?
Once again, no content, no opinion, no thought process... simply another vacuous question.
|
dmaestro
07-Jan-13, 19:25
|
Abortions are and should be legal. This is NOT an Theocratic government. It is NOT anyone's business who has abortions, it is a personal decision. Forcing people to go through unwanted pregnancies and have babies against their will is something you would expect from Nazi Germany and right wingers.
Gun owners OTOH represent a known and proven threat, and they kill many thousands every year. Society needs to know who has guns and set basic qualifications for keeping them to protect itself, NOT to confiscate all guns. As far as illegal traffic and use goes, adequate penalties for irresponsible behavior and drying up the illicit gun trade by preventing non permit holders from buying any gun supplies etc. will do far more than making sure everyone has a gun.
|
|
DM
Should private abortions, which are a personal decision, be funded with public money?
|
|
|
Log in 
