Slashdot Mirror
Online Call To Shoot President Ruled Free Speech
Hugh Pickens writes "USA Today reports that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed the conviction of a man who threatened to shoot President Obama, saying his Internet message board comments amounted to free speech and ruled that prosecutors 'failed to present sufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt' that the man 'had the subjective intent to threaten a presidential candidate.' Walter Bagdasarian was found guilty two years ago of making threats against the presidential candidate in comments he posted on a Yahoo.com financial website after 1 am on Oct. 22, 2008, as Obama's impending victory in the race for the White House was becoming apparent. Bagdasarian told investigators he was drunk at the time. The observation that Obama 'will have a 50 cal in the head soon' and a call to 'shoot the [racist slur]' weren't violations of the law under which Bagdasarian was convicted because the statute doesn't criminalize 'predictions or exhortations to others to injure or kill the president,' said the majority opinion, written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEQOvyGbBtY
Posting while drunk?!? It's just as bad as texting while drunk!
I think just the shame of having to admit that he DP's (drunk posted) is punishment enough. As this poor bastard walks, drive, bikes, etc.... people and little children will point saying "There goes that guy who posted drunk! Hahahahahahahahhahaaha!"
The shame!
All I can say is "You did the right thing, judge(s)!".
If the US lauds itself as the freest (did I spell that right?) country of the world, as its founding fathers imagined, then it should be all right to say " Obama 'will have a 50 cal in the head soon'". In my books, such a line only amounts to a threat if there's a reasonable possibility of its execution.
Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
Fox News would be going on 24/7 about liberal violence. But when it's directed at a black Democrat, then both sides need to tone it down.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Everything seems to empower the Tea Party. Every court ruling, every law passed, even after the US government defaults this would also benefit the Tea Party.
When are we going to accept that the Tea Party is a domestic terrorist group that fantasizes about having another civil war?
Their policies are straight from the old south. The for profit prisons, which mean prisons are now the new plantations where corporations can have the cheapest possible labor force. These corporations also write our laws. Check out ALEC exposed to see the whole plan.
After the US defaults the Tea Party is planning to blame Obama. Now they have the legal justification to threaten Obama's life in their attempts to overthrow him. It seems like a disaster waiting to happen with the looming default, and coming economic crisis as the trigger point.
Walter Bagdasarian will have a 50 cal in the head soon.
Shoot the Armenian fucker.
What?
Jus' sayin'!
It's a situation where the Tea Party has been trying for the last 50 or more years to overthrow the government under various names like the American Liberty League, or the John Birch Society. They now are forming militias controlled by industrialists like the Koch Bro's which was a similar tactic to the one they used in the attempted coup of FDR during the infamous business plot.
And of course that resulted in COINTELPRO.
I've heard about that. They created a video guide to it is well but it's been a while so I'll have to find it. OK, here it is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oavMtUWDBTM
It was a "call to shoot [the] president" it was a call to shoot a presidential candidate.
He didn't kill anybody, but he's in prison for life because people believe he gave the command.
When someone says a sentence like that how do we know it isn't a command coming from a militia leader? Remember Hal Turner?
He might have won. But his life is SO screwed now... The pigs don't like to lose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikram_Buddhi
Hmm... So can we now make bad jokes or flippant remarks about bombs in airports and on airplanes now without getting arrested under federal criminal charges now? I haven't been able to find out the outcome for this guy mentioned below yet, but if he's still in jail maybe he can get his conviction overturned on appeal:
Of course he's still going to be on every single government watch list for the rest of his life. And if he ever does anything you can bet they will throw the book at him.
________
Entranced by anime since late summer 2001 and loving it ^_^
Who actually says "Shoot the racist slur"? What a lame racist. A real racist would have called him a nigger. Nigger. Its ok to write it, its just a word. It is especially ok to write it, when quoting someone else who said it.
I mean do we really need to edit what a racist said to make it more genetic and palatable? I mean seriously.... of all the things to PC up....
I am sure he isn't embarrassed to be known as the guy who called Obama a nigger.. if thats even what he said...since he obviously wasn't quoted correctly.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
amounted to free speech
Sure about that?
because the statute doesn't criminalize 'predictions or exhortations to others to injure ... the president
I thought the reasoning behind that statue was not a purely arbitrary free speech line in the sand, but to not mess with religious nuts who must always be placated in this country? Pretty much the definition of a religion is a group that claims the non-members are at least going to hell, if not worse, hence you should be thrilled you were dragged into the cult. Well you know what they say about hell, the clientele is a lot of fun but the climate is unpleasantly toasty, kind of like Vegas. Anyway their intention is it is supposed to be a punishment. Therefore all/almost all fire and brimstone religions would be criminalized unless either the prez happened to be a member, or their god told them to give the prez a free pass.
Even a pacifistic Buddhist interpretation, would be the prez seems inevitably toward reincarnation as a dung beetle at best; most would consider being a dung beetle as an "injurious" condition for the prez.
Usually american govt style is to make everyone a criminal; makes them easier to control. Its interesting to see the contrast with the other style, of always sucking up to hateful religious extremists.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
yep, vern, sumboddy's gwon keel you i reckon.
you'sa prolly gwon die real horbul-like and real soon yep.
hey sumboddy stab that goldurn loser in the face wouldja.
yep. freedom.
It's very extremely illegal, but it doesn't appear to be working. Perhaps someone should copyright the phrase?
No this is Slashdot. Perhaps someone should patent the phrase. Hate to say it but "fixed that for ya".
You can't patent a phrase, dipshit. Copyright was correct.
I've heard about that. They created a video guide to it is well but it's been a while so I'll have to find it. OK, here it is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oavMtUWDBTM
It's not how long before it breaks out, but who will start it. These crooked politicians will do anything to stay in power, except, cater to the voters wishes.
That's why I believe all politicians should have term limits, (which they refuse to set). The first term will be based on the promises made, the second term is for fulfilling those promises, the third term starts at twenty years and increases or decreases depending on how well the the crooks kept their promises. The last term is a prison term that breaks the cycle of politics, business payoff, politics, repeat.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
Contrary to popular belief, it is not always illegal to scream "FIRE" in a theater.
Consider the following:
I wouldn't say that. What the Tea Party is: a successful re-branding of the Republican Party. There is no "Tea Party." It's the Republican Party.We've allowed the Republican party to effectively change its name after being poisoned by the Bush years, without asking any questions of any kind about its democratic legitimacy (such as whether or not it is actually grassroots and not a magnificent example of astroturfing). It allows Fox News to continue to create the illusion that the Republican Party is a sufficient vehicle to channel the democratic impulses of the right-wing working class, and to keep people with actual libertarian or conservative impulses inside the Republican tent. In fact, the Republican Party is just as corporate as ever, and has no intent on working to shore up its relationship with the working-class in actual policy measures.
Course that ian fucker both had the balls to not be Anonymous when he talked shit about Obama he even used a real racist slur. Even if you don't know one for the armos, it takes all of two seconds to google a couple for a post... even if all you can find are a couple of lame ones (I bet there are some good ones in farsi...)
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Now, Now, NOW, NOW, NOOWWW!!!! Shit, I hope I got that out of my system now.
Drake, etc, and all the other 'leakers' and whistleblowers who have been prosecuted for giving information to the media?
I am really surprised he is the only one, I think everyone thought that he had a good chance of getting shot and really I would not have thought too hard about posting about it, but then I would not have called him any racial slurs or expressed anything but regret at that occurring.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Then I want the right to allow me to scream FIRE in a theater.
And I hope that you will be able to without suffering repercussions from the government or its workers.
In both cases, it incites a negative situation.
That depends on how you define "negative."
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Right, the Tea Party members in Congress do not have enough power to actually decide agendas. They can have influence as a block, but in the end they're going to pass a debt ceiling increase, for instance.
I don't agree with them on many issues (personal liberty ones, mostly) but at least their policies would be preferable to the establishment [R,D] corporatism.
Then again, even if they're successful, all they can really do is postpone the collapse. Maybe it's just better to get it over with.
Politicians need to practice saying, "I'm very sorry to have to tell you this, but you were lied to by the previous governments. The arithmetic simply doesn't work. I'm also sorry your government school education didn't prepare you better to understand this yourselves."
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
And I think that should be allowed as well. Just because some idiot yells "fire" in a crowded theater, doesn't mean one should be alarmed. I've always been uncomfortable with the "fire in a crowded theater" exception for free speech. Free speech should be just that, the ability to say whatever you want. Repercussions of your actions will determine the correct course of action. If you cause a panic, which results in injury, then find an appropriate punishment, leave the speech out of it. Negligence, inciting a riot, disturbing the peace, etc. there are plenty of laws that deal with the "fire in a crowded theater" problem.
under such a "racial hatred" law. which is why it is better to have freedom of speech, than to have a bunch of laws about 'inciting racial hatred' and so forth and so on. throwing X in jail over his speech would have been absolutely pointless and counterproductive.
we have a first amendment because the tradition in monarchies was to outlaw any "slandering of the king". . . i.e. the state was the master, and the 'servants' (people) were not allowed to 'talk back' to the master. in the new nation, this idea was reversed, and so the ideas about defamation was also reversed. (see Chaffee, Freedom of Speech in War Times, circa 1919)
governments can use these anti-free-speech laws to shut down political dissent, and that is generally what they do, rather than trying to use the laws to benefit society in some vague manner. when people "stop and think" before speaking, is this pause because they are worried about harming someone? or is it because they are worried that the government will persecute them for criticizing it? thats the problem with no-free-speech. you can't get honest criticism of the government.
the law against threatening to kill the president are a different ballgame. we have so many assassinated presidents that we have to take it seriously. and there is no legitimate criticism of a relatively democratically elected government, that requires someone to threaten the life of the president (or anyone really).
the House Un-American Activities Committee was originally started by self-styled liberals to root out 'fascists' from the american political scene after the business plot.
that kind of backfired, because after WWII, the HUAC was still around, but it started going after Communists and Liberals, with a vengeance. Some times if you read old conservative writings, you will find them bitter and angry about the 'unfairness' of HUAC in the 30s, i can only too easily imagine some 'payback' going on in the 50s.
when you start warping and bending the laws in order to attack political opponents, you should not be surprised when it comes back to haunt you.
> The observation that Obama 'will have a 50 cal in the head soon' and a call to 'shoot the [racist slur]' weren't violations of the law [...]
That sentence alone implies that in the U.S. death threats are protected free speech, but you can't use the word "nigger". I love it.
they were prosecuted for Espionage.
and Drake in particular felt his Oath to protect and defend the constitution (he was in the Air Force) was more important than any agreement between him and the NSA to not give out information.
besides, the information he gave out was not classified.
What politics has done in the past 15 years or so is get help from the Madison Ave. Men who know how to sell to the American Consumer, and now have election years to look forward to...
You can't threaten anyone, let alone the president. What kind of crack are these judges on?
Don't you mean "somebody should create a terroristic political party, and that party should incite another civil war"? Cuz with the above ruling, it would probably be OK to say that. Just sayin'.
Their policies are straight from the old south. The for profit prisons, which mean prisons are now the new plantations where corporations can have the cheapest possible labor force. These corporations also write our laws. Check out ALEC exposed to see the whole plan.
Which may explain why they are so eager to criminalize homosexual behavior. Gays are, on average, much better educated than the general population and as a result tend to make more money than the average American. This is exactly the kind of skill set that is missing in the general prison population. The tea partiers probably figure that if they can outlaw homosexuality(imagine that, a group that simultaneously decries any sort of government intervention whilst arguing for laws that allow the government to control what 2 consenting adults are allowed to do) they can arrest a large number of gays and significantly expand the portfolio of products their prisons are capable of producing.
Monstar L
its steady pace toward the bottom. It's no longer even pretending to be "news for nerds."
This is completely wrong. The Republican Party is terrified of the Tea Party, which has repudiated Republicans such as John Boehner and Lindsey Graham. In fact, the Tea Party has threatened Republicans who have tried to make a deal with President Obama over raising the debt limit. Furthermore, the extreme positions of the Tea Party has undermined Republican efforts to reach out to the mainstream and independent voters. TP Michelle Bauchmann claiming that slavery was good for black families is not what the Republican Party needs at this juncture. There is probably nothing more the Republicans want at this point than to be separated from the Tea Party.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
Nigger, its only a word people.
The re-branding of the Republican Party was forced upon the political establishment via the "Joe the plumber" types. The blue-blooded Republicans are deathly afraid the Tea Party will split the vote come next election. There's a very real good chance they could split the vote and thus hand the Democrats victory.
Simply put, the Tea Party is a bona fide grassroots campaign like it or not.
even after the US government defaults this would also benefit the Tea Party.
Actually, it wouldn't. The problem with the Tea Party is that they're all morons. It's a party of angry, stupid, middle-age white people who don't know anything about running a country. Defaulting on our national debt would be a disaster that hurts the poor and middle class the most, and hence will hurt the Tea Party the most. They just don't realize it.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Judge Stephen Reinhardt will have a 50 cal in the head soon. Shoot the white chocolate. Cross-hair is on Judge Stephen Reinhardt.
I think this is a tough call, but I'm going to fall on the side of the ruling. Let him say what he wants. If he tries to carry it out, or if someone tries to shoot the president with a .50 caliber round, then pick him up and search everything he's touched since he was born.
Now, someone made a good point (don't feel like pouring through again to find out who). "Legal" =/= "okay to do". Is it legal to say something that sounds like a veiled (or not-so-veiled) threat against the president? According to this ruling, it is. Is it okay to do so?
I'll be up front. I can't stand Obama. I think he's a totally moronic imbecile with absolutely no clue how to lead a dog on a leash, let alone lead a country. I think he should be impeached over almost every action he's taken since he started his reign of terror. I know many of you disagree with me on these points, but it isn't the point of this post. The point is, I can't stand Obama, but it's completely out of bounds, morally, to call for him to be shot. I'm politically opposed to him completely, and even I can't condone it. So yes, Bagdasarian did something wrong.
My last point is to extend the statement of the above-mentioned previous poster. Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's morally okay - and it works in reverse. Just because something ISN'T morally okay doesn't mean it should be illegal. Is it wrong to call someone a racially inflammatory name (nigger/spic/WOP/whatever)? Yes, it's wrong. Should it be illegal? No. Words don't hurt people. .50 caliber slugs do.
Obligatory quote: "Guns don't kill people . . . I DO!!! HA HA HA!!!" (I remember it from Warcraft III, but I'm sure someone else said it first . . .)
Wow. You are a complete nutjob. While ranting, you probably didn't bother to notice that the 9th Court is the MOST LIBERAL court in the US. But don't let little facts get in the way of your delusions. Keep on making yourself look like an incoherent tool.
So this means people can legally say such things as "Rioting en masse, beating the shit out of the TSA agents and destroying nude scanners in airports across the country is the only way to put an end to these government-sanctionned sexual assaults against ourselves, our spouses, our parents and our children"?
Ask yourself, where are those war protesters now? Where are they? So obviously they weren't protesting the war and the resulting deaths, they just were upset it wasn't their guy ordering the deaths.
I for one was quite involved in protesting Bush's wars. But I gave up on the States and moved to Europe several years ago. I have just as much of a problem, if not more of a problem with Obama's wars (as he is supposed to be left of center and and you expect more of your political allies). And if I still lived in the U.S. I would try to be involved in opposing them.
Obligatory joke: "What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 50?" "Your Honor."
With minor paraphrasing:
Judge Stephen Reinhardt 'will have a 50 cal in the head soon' and a call to 'shoot the [shyster slur]' aren't violations of the law... because the statute doesn't criminalize 'predictions or exhortations to others to injure or kill [a judge]'
Would the learned judge find some way to make some crime stick?
Yes where in the FARK did you come from. Corporate prisons are not unionized, that would make it too expensive and would hurt their bottom line. Example of TeaBagger benefitting from corporate prisons: Russell Pearce and Jan Brewer of Arizona. Arizona SB1070 was written by Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), both of whom gave very large donations to both Pearce and Brewer. (http://blog.lawinfo.com/2010/10/29/private-prisons-helped-draft-arizonas-sb-1070/) Please provide even the most minimal documentation to show where an organized group of liberals spit on republican senators/representatives as they walked to their offices. Please provide even minimal documentation to show where an organized group of liberals said in a stump speech that a republican senator should be hung (Republican/TeaParty member Dino Rossi). Please provide even minimal documentation to show where a group of liberals jumped up a cheered when a candidate said " “America’s greatest threat is Marxism and International Jewry/Zionism! We will never regain our Liberty and Freedom until we expel every Jew from America!” This was a statement on Sarah Palin’s web page by a Tea Party member and Sarah Palin supporter. Please show a case where a liberal carried a sign outside the Republican White House that said "The American Tax Payer are the Jews of Obama's ovens". If you were soooo woorriieedd about Washington spending our children's inheritance where in the h*ll were you when the Bush tax cuts tripled the US deficit by cutting taxes for the very rich. Where were you when Bush gave the top fifth of income earners 65% of the tax cut and 33% of tax cuts to those in the top 1% resulting in an increase 3.9 trillion dollars in deficit from 2001 to 2008. Where were you and your teabagger friends then? Where were you and your teabagger friends when Bush shredded our constitutional rights? You signature indicates your lack of intelligence. I rarely see a winner, particularly a neocon, indicating that they worked hard to meet a goal, they just run around chanting how they are "the champions of the world" I see the losers congratulating their opponent for a hard won victory. The only people being led around like cows in a field are the teabaggers who are bought and paid for by FreedomWorks (Dick Armey) and Americans for Prosperity which are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Koch Bros.
elucido, please. Really? If you truly believe this then the country has far more to worry about than the Tea Party. Villianizing a group of people because they don't share you political perspective is exactly what we DON'T want in this country. It no longer matters what is right or wrong in this country. It seems to only matter as to what side of the political spectrum you are on and to hell with the other side. Truthfully Obama is a terrible president. Bush sucked yet there were people defending him on the right. Obama has pretty much made everything even worse but you have those same people who rightfully pointed out where Bush screwed up defending Obama. Why? Because he is on their side of the line. Thank god for the independents who just want the country to be run properly regardless of political affiliation. They know Obama can't do the job and most likely he will be out of office come election time. Please people, stop making this a war with sides. America needs to win and in this case, with the country divided along party lines, we all lose.
Of course he's still going to be on every single government watch list for the rest of his life. And if he ever does anything you can bet they will throw the book at him.
Well, that goes without saying...
But I'll also note that the title of the article, its source, and the summary are all wrong. Obama was still a candidate, he hadn't been elected, and that law actually only covers threats to major candidates. The law which prevents threats against the actual President himself is different, and was not ruled on at all.
So don't think this changes, you still can not legally threaten the President's life in most cases.
Full ruling, it's not too lengthy:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/07/19/09-50529.pdf
There was never any doubt that saying that was perfectly legal.
This case dealt with the special situation of threats made against the President which is covered by additional law.
Of course, the 9th circuit can be a bit odd at times. It gets overturned on appeal more often than most circuits.
Corporatism? The Tea Party is the leading proponent of corporatism at this time. They're the ones that are fighting the hardest for tax breaks for corporate entities and spending cuts for services that individuals use.
Remember the Tea Party is basically just the extremist wing of the Republican party mixed liberally with those too naive to know what they're in with.
If the USA can't get enough money to run you are all well and truly fucked - and if it means raising taxes to stop that then it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative which the USSR demonstrated when it fell apart. A lot of people need to wake up and understand that the 1950s are over and were never as good as remembered anyway.
The Tea Party as you call them are merely following the law of the land. Political correctness, Chinese Marxist mindwashing and the current situation with the unconstutional large size and unconstutional reach of the government must be stopped or we will not have a free country left. The left liberal ideology is going to be eliminated, some call it a rebranding of the republican party, I call it the real republican party, those who stand up for the fabric of the US, as long as there is law the courts will be on the side of the American people. Merely stating the facts of the fabric of our great republic and obeying the law of the land is what will liberate us. No civil war is needed, merely American people having a voice that is what the tea party is all about. Back to our roots, government get off our lawns and out of our bedrooms, medicine cabinet, and dinner table.
people are interesting
wasnt there an article on slashdot recently about how logic evolved purley to justify our own actions after we did them?
I liked it better, like Woody Allen, when he made earlier, funny films. You know - with those rascal chipmunk fellows.
That Alvin always cracks me up!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Is "nigger" really a racist slur? I see black people calling each other "nigger" all the time, so they can't possibly be offended by it.
Let them try. Everyone knows that it's the Republicans and Tea Party who coupled the debt ceiling issue to the deficit issue, and they're the ones who refused to raise the debt ceiling limit to begin with. Sure, the negotiations on the issue(s) might sour you on Obama if you're opposed to tax increases for the "job creators", but in that case you're probably already against him to begin with. Even with some Republicans supporting the idea of decoupling the debt ceiling and deficit it's largely right wingers blocking those efforts. If they think they're going to fool the majority of America into blaming this on the President then the only ones they're fooling are themselves.
I'm fine with protecting the making of predictions as free speech. But at what point does an exhortation become a command? And as such, a part of a conspiracy?
We don't know what sort of status certain groups of people have bestowed upon Bagdasarian. He might be a crackpot. He might be a figure of authority in some circles. In the first case, its just the ranting of a crackpot, but in the latter, his word might have the authority of a Fatwah. I'm not suggestion he's Islamic, just using this as an example of self-proclaimed holy men afforded total obedience by their followers.
In this country, we don't mess with religion, or the rights of people to associate. And as a result, we don't have any good standards (or even the legal rights) to judge when an individual's wishes will be carried out blindly by their minions.
Have gnu, will travel.
There are modern drugs that can help with delusional thinking... consult your doctor
Let's see...
Everything seems to empower the Tea Party. Every court ruling, every law passed, even after the US government defaults this would also benefit the Tea Party.
Not so much. There have been court rulings both ways on Obama care, the NLRB case re Boeing is up in the air, and while the TEA Party people are primarily concerned with economics, I'd bet many of them are unhappy with the court rulings on things like Arizona's 1070 and California's Prop 8; so you're wrong on this point
When are we going to accept that the Tea Party is a domestic terrorist group that fantasizes about having another civil war?
Um, the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party believes government it too big, taxes too much, and should get back to its original principles of Federalism with a smaller Federal government doing only the things the Constitution says it will do and not doing the things the Constituion says it may not do. Just how does this equate to a non-uniformed group not affiliated with any nation-state which kills randomly selected innocent civilians in order to incite terror in a population so that the population will force political change? You are wrong on point #2
Their policies are straight from the old south. The for profit prisons, which mean prisons are now the new plantations where corporations can have the cheapest possible labor force. These corporations also write our laws. Check out ALEC exposed [alecexposed.org] to see the whole plan.
You mean the "old south" where Democrats owned black people and ran for-profit prisons... oh, no, you seem to think the old south had something to do with the right-wing religious nutcase Republicans who opposed slavery and under the leadership of right-wing religious CRAZY dude Abraham Lincoln opposed the Democrat-led-and-declared civil war... Oh, and do you have any links to sites about the Queen, the Bilderburgs, and the Masons that you could also share with us??? (I eagerly await an updated set of foil hat making instructions...)
After the US defaults the Tea Party is planning to blame Obama.
No "plan" is needed. The Constitution says that all spending bills originate in the House (currently run by Republicans...who HAVE passed a bill to lift the credit limit) then must pass the Senate (currently run by Democrats... who refuse to offer their own plan and who have refused to even debate the bill the House passed) then get signed or vetoed by the President. If the US defaults it will now either be the Senate Democrats who are to blame or it will be Obama... that's just the reality, unless you do not believe in the Constitution, in which case this entire discussion is moot anyway
Now they have the legal justification to threaten Obama's life in their attempts to overthrow him.
WHAT?!?!? First, nobody has been given a "legal justification to threaten Obama's life"; A judge recognized a drunken racists fool's ramblings were not the same as a specific threat. Second, Nobody needs to "overthrow" Obama.... he is rapidly reducing his own reelection chances. I Guarantee that there are NO real TEA Party types who want any physical harm to Obama as it would damage their cause and provide sympathy to his causes at the very time when they are winning the argument about insane levels of spending. Were you this worked-up and angry with liberals/progressives when they burned Bush in effigy often spoke of killing him and even made a movie about his assasination??????
It seems like a disaster waiting to happen with the looming default, and coming economic crisis as the trigger point.
Obama has already set us up for an economic disaster; there is little any of us can do now to avoid it; the only question now is whether we can reduce the agony we will eventually face. Obama is spending over $1,600,000,000,000.00 more per year than he takes in. When he complains that the house speaker wan
I'm more amused by the four-star-general on-screen yelling it to muster his troops -- and then the actor being sued for the resulting hilarity.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
The country should place much of the blame on Obama after the country defaults...he's taking the country over a cliff!! Oh wait let me guess, you think it's all Bush's fault and Obama is blameless. Nice straw man there I'm sure.
This is more than idiotic P.C. going on:
Nigger is a word with a movement behind it to attempt to totally destroy the word; its been highly effective to some degree but also has failed by making it the most emotionally loaded word of these times. Use of the word allows thoughtless condemnation and rage against anybody who uses it. Its almost like saying "I am a racist" and having everybody take it literally - even when merely quoted. Its an excuse for zero tolerance-- and it can do you more harm than using just about any other word in this culture. Its worse than a curse word ever was-- those lowered your apparent social status/class. No need to think at all, its perfectly ok to have no brain (zero tolerance.)
This movement has backfired; sure it gives some people an ability to play childish immature word games on an adult level -- "I can say this but you can't" -- giving a false feeling empowerment. It discourages thought so it is BAD solely for that reason. It goes too far beyond shame turning it into persecution instead; not something to convert people and do good but instead something to provide some people justified victims. (Ever notice how victims often love to be on the other side?) The human irony to all this is that I've seen a lot of minor racism all my life and many of the worst are the ones who overcompensate and LOVE outlets like this nigger phenomenon. You can disarm movements by redefining their terminology -- its being done to you everyday -- you do not empower their terms. Note to the queer gay fags: keep diffusing terms; stop this move to re-stigmatize them.
Behind the brain dead behavior it is justified by the racism mess; where in the recent past you could get beaten for openly supporting equality and it was acceptable and justified -- for some it was the same zero tolerance level. Today it is the reverse (well, beatings are less likely today solely due to the sue crazy society we have.) Few things have 110% certainty and this has become one of them; allowing you to vent for all those less certain positions where you just can't have that level of confidence that you are right-- to the point of being blinded by it. It is at that point where unethical behaviors become ok. It leads in the same direction as the racists did and other extreme positions (like Nazis;) no religion required; however, religion has often provided the means to raise righteousness up to this level -- this is why so many examples are found there; sorry atheists, religion doesn't cause it but it can easily contribute to the process. A binary perspective is highly appealing because of its simplicity and coupled with the elation of righteousness --- even to people who are not simpletons. This should become more clear as the level of personalization increases so people become isolated and ignorant, more like the FOXtards of today.
The race myth: just as nigger as a word has become empowered foolishly by its opposition; racism itself is continued to be promoted by the way in which we deal with and think about the issue. You'd think better science education would eradicate it already... except science education has been regressing... There is no such thing as race. The way we define race is political; not genetic. There is so little difference genetically it doesn't deserve any time. I can have more DNA in common with some Asian guy than my white neighbor but in appearance the Asian looks further away (plus I'm completely ignoring the individual personalities; "soul".) The only real obvious outward sign of HUGE DNA differences is GENDER, so sexism is a far more difficult issue - one we are not ready to handle if we can't dismiss this race BS.
Race is like discussing how flat the earth is. Put into proper context it will be shamed and dismissed away down to the level of HAIR COLOR or EYE COLOR (both which are now switched -- hey, white people get suntans...) I'm ignoring the big issue of culture/subculture racial stereotypes - those will fade as you integrate but the "dumb blond" type th
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
TP Michelle Bauchmann claiming that slavery was good for black families is not what the Republican Party needs at this juncture.
What she said was tactless and foolish, but she didnt say what youre claiming she did.
In fact, she didnt actually say it at all, it was a pledge she signed, and the controversial language was
Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President
Which is to say, it was lamenting the state of family values, and trying to emphasize its point with hyperbole.
It would be much the same as if someone had said
Even under Hitler, people had more speech rights
A rational interpretation of that statement will not read an endorsement of the Nazi regime into it, but rather a gross and insensitive use of hyperbole to emphasize how bad you think things are NOW.
Although I suppose if the goal is to demonize your political opposition, it sure is convenient to simply call it racist, and to make the claim that republicans are hankering for the days of slavery again; and a fig to any reasonable attempt to use context and language skills.
his statement that about "soon he will..." i think is ok as that is just a abstract prediction of the future. Even "he should be" while in poor taste is still just expressing a feeling..not a direct request to incite action.
"lets go and do this", i think crosses the line, regardless of who the intended target is.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Does anyone remember the outcry about civility in political discourse when Gabby Giffords was shot? Am I the only one who seems to recall that threatening to kill the president was considered a serious breach of conduct? I'm not trying to argue that we should all fall in line with what's going on in government. I'm just trying to ask: what happened to America that we lost all sense of civility when it comes to politics?
Worked very well for Henry II
While exercising his "free speech rights", King Henry was rightly seen as instigating the political assassination of a powerful opponent. Henry fled to Ireland, and Thomas Becket became an instant martyr.
12th century England just didn't understand free speech
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
by the congress.
... to have their own countries any more?
Any answers?
So your position is that I needn't speak freely because Congress will surely do the right thing?>/p>
Wow!
Ah, you've never heard of the little game called "Good cop, bad cop"? This is just a variant.
D: We want X
R: You know, I'd like to give you X, but those scary bastards over there (T obligingly growls menacingly and froths at the mouth), they'd tear me apart if I gave it to you. They really want -20X, but I think we can satisfy them with -X/2.
It is probably very hard for the American public to understand the necessities of racial hatred and murder incitations speech laws. The root of such laws in Europe do not come from royalty slander, as some have postulated here. It comes from the shock of what happened during WW2. In most of Europe, then legal racial hatred speech have driven perfectly normal and decent people to act as monsters, inhuman, immoral mass behavior from the average Joe. That, was the definite proof that if you let some ideas prosper, some horrible things happen as a result. Call for murder of a human being should be illegal, being the president or not. Call for bullying trough violence elected bodies should also be illegal, as this is a shortcut for particular interests to force their political agenda against the will of the majority. If so many of your presidents got shot dead, it is also because so many speeches inviting to killing are aired, making it "ok" to kill. Finally, you do not need the freedom to call publicly for murder to excerpt control on your government. You can still call for a new constitutional assembly, which is exactly what you are talking about, and is free speech, even if you do not have the right to call for murder.
How is calling for the use of lethal violence against anyone (president or otherwise) different from the well-used example of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater?
Back in my country near America (stuck on Rez), my fore-feathers taught us well to shoot the president as fast as possible before anyone ever knew what happened. Down at my favorite drinking hangout, I and many others shot the president until we were punch-drunk, then we test our metal if we can dart and impale the president. In our circle, if the man isn't silver then he isn't the president. Hint: it's a drinking event, where a troy silver specie is in a shot glass and you shoot and go to a physical challenge until it wears off or you beat everyone else.
All coins minted after 1963 are unworthy to be the president, because that's when Lord Lyndon Johnson put unsafe quantities of non-silver into the issued coinage that you can't shoot the president anymore. They're all poisonous now.
Just because we shoot the president doesn't mean anyone will die, so the issue of mortality should be questioned of whether a alter-ego is alive or even killable. When somone executes a computer program, it's not like it's a TSR or a zombie, but actually runs -- the president should be running more often if he didn't want to be shot by The Hunt.
The sad thing is that you don't even know that you are a fascist. You've been brainwashed by the corporatist media to the point where you spew ignorance and think you are in the right. This is how once free societies close. America is basically Germany circa 1930 now, and you are contributing directly to its free fall. Try to educate yourself before speaking publicly - the state, those who have a monopoly on violence, now own the media and are turning homeland security against the American people. Bush and Obama have basically identical policies of mass murder, globalization, and direct looting as a giveaway to their corporate masters. WAKE UP. There is an assault on the Bill of Rights, and no matter how egregious the speech, the first amendment must be protected. Now matter what, the second amendment must be protected - look at Bahrain, Egypt, or even Mao's China, Pol Pot, etc. Dictators throughout history have agreed that banning guns was a good idea. I don't own a gun, but you are an idiot if you think a free society would ever survive without our basic, natural rights. The founding fathers put those protections in against tyrannical governments, and we have a bad case of tyranny in this country. WAKE THE F UP.
So, by noting that Wilders is condemning him, I was saying I expected Wilders to rally behind him?
What planet are you on?
Can I read wild things like that into what you say? I'm sure you'd have no problem with that.
Get a clue.
Everyone knows that if this fool had threatened to kill Bush like that, he would have been kidnapped and sent to a secret torture prison.
--
make install -not war
Remember how many of you were cheering for the book and movie that posed the "theoretical" killing of George Bush?
See how mean that was? Deal with it. You did it to US. (Not my fault you couldn't pick a candidate that knew we were at WAR with Muslims!)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
because the president is black and the judge is white.
Well, the Republicans would care about as much about Tea Party threats as they do Socialist Party threats if they didn't see the Tea Party as a constituent branch of the Republican Party. They're being responsive to Tea Party demands as though Tea Party members were Republicans... hmm, what's that tell you?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Also include the drag war mandatory sentences, and possibly the upcoming cyberwar on piracy.
It's also legal to suggest that idiots on the internet should be beaten and left for dead in an alley.
Ahhhhh, that felt good.
So basically what you are saying is if someone utters a death threat to someone else, like a guy to his ex-wife, then it's ok if the police don't do anything since they can arrest him AFTER she gets killed. Yes, that seems like the way it should work.
With one important alteration to your statement, to make is consistent with the GP you're mocking, the answer to this in the US should be a resounding yes, yes, and yes again! You extrapolated that the police should do nothing. I'd assert that the police should not be allowed to do anything to limit the rights of the person exercising free speech, let alone arresting that person. That doesn't imply the police cannot do whatever is reasonable to help protect the threatened party. If further hostile speech is done in proximity to the victim, that might be assault, in which case by all means arrest the person.
In fact, popular crime dramas for decades used this as a recurring plot point, that the police were unable to be proactive in their response. Detectives solved crimes. Crimes that already happened. They might then prevent further future crimes, but there was always an extant crime. What you may notice is that's no longer the case; art has caught up to the reality of life. Now many stories/shows/movies revolve around attempting to prevent a crime in the first place.
At the risk of reducing this to politics, I see the US "pre-emptive" invasion of Iraq as a turning point.
The Tea Party coordinator/leader in VA is black. He's a personal friend of mine. Just saying.
The Tea Party says cut big gubmint and entitlements - except my medicaire (or whatever it is called)
Would this same ruling have been made under the previous administration?
When are we going to accept that the Tea Party is a domestic terrorist group that fantasizes about having another civil war?
When they execute, or can be conclusively shown to plan to execute, a terrorist act.
Although I agree with some individual points you've made, it does not add up to a cohesive argument I can agree with.
Definitely the Republicans want the energy and votes and money of the Tea Party. As for the T.P. repudiating John Boehner, uh, he's a leader within the Repubs. Has he been demoted/cast out/humiliated? Nope. Nor have the T.P.'s walked out of the Repub. tent.
I'd say there is tension within the Republican party. However for the moment they need each other waaayyyyy more than they dislike each other.
Some idiot made a movie about assassinating Bush, don't seem to recall the article on SlashDot?
stop spending. largest single deficit in US history. take your medicine and cut spending now before its too late.
The President is the one who's blocking the efforts here, not the Republicans.
why is it everyone keeps claiming that e US will default? to default means to not pay debt, no? so a government that takes in more than enough money to pay its debt, but instead chooses to spend that money on services would only default if that government (a) chose to continue spending its revenue on services and (b) chose to not raise taxes. how is this not basic economics?
and why is it the people you disagree with must be stupid, not havr different priorities? why is it so terrible to tolorate those with different opinions?
Defaulting on our national debt would be a disaster that hurts the poor and middle class the most, and hence will hurt the Tea Party the most. They just don't realize it.
I guess that's why they've been hoarding gold, guns, and disaster food packs from Glen Beck for some time now. Personally I think they were expecting, possibly even planing, for this to happen, and have prepared for it.
Bahahaha,
This is the epitome of the US obsession about the appearance of individual rights, over common sense.
Which is to say, it was lamenting the state of family values, and trying to emphasize its point with hyperbole.
Let's just take this part: ... a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household ....
This shows:
- a lack of empathy for female slaves raped by masters
- a lack of empathy for the conditions of bastard children of masters with slaves
- a lack of understanding of what this dynamic does to "family values"
- any historical perspective on how a "household" has evolved economically and socially
- a lack of perspective on what is truly important to develop children into self-actualized adults
- and more
If she believes that her values are more important than the injustices of slavery, then she is most likely racist. She's against gay rights, so it is reasonable that her prejudice extends to blacks.
Stop being an apologist for this crazy woman.
Even under Hitler, the germans were more tolerant than the Tea Party
If you can take away one person's free speech, you can take away another person's - and that other person might not be as much of a piece of racist trash. They might have a legitimate opinion which is being illegitimately oppressed.
In America, we defend the free speech rights of racists, Nazis, and other monsters, so that we're sure we can defend the free speech rights of the unpopular, poor and oppressed. Any system is going to be tested by the monsters first, and if you try to cut corners dealing with monsters, sooner or later you'll end up abusing innocent people as well.
And even as a practical matter, the answer to bad speech is good speech (e.g. "Walter Bagdasarian, society deems you an idiot."). Not suppression.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
I would like to see Sarah Palin stripped naked, staked to a tree and raped with a frozen turkey.
Luckily, I can say that.
I thought Bush has proved that the republicans don't need to fool the majority of America to get their way?
It will hurt its supporters, sure. But it will benefit the party, politically. Just like every rightist party ever.
I am trolling
It is probably very hard for the American public to understand the necessities of racial hatred and murder incitations speech laws. The root of such laws in Europe do not come from royalty slander, as some have postulated here. It comes from the shock of what happened during WW2. In most of Europe, then legal racial hatred speech have driven perfectly normal and decent people to act as monsters, inhuman, immoral mass behavior from the average Joe.
That, was the definite proof that if you let some ideas prosper, some horrible things happen as a result. Call for murder of a human being should be illegal, being the president or not. Call for bullying trough violence elected bodies should also be illegal, as this is a shortcut for particular interests to force their political agenda against the will of the majority. If so many of your presidents got shot dead, it is also because so many speeches inviting to killing are aired, making it "ok" to kill. Finally, you do not need the freedom to call publicly for murder to excerpt control on your government. You can still call for a new constitutional assembly, which is exactly what you are talking about, and is free speech, even if you do not have the right to call for murder.
Christian Louboutin (pronounced [kis.tj lu.bu.t]) http://www.Shoe-Christian-Louboutin.com/ (born 7 January 1964) is a French footwear designer who launched his line of high-end women's shoes in France in 1991. Since 1992, his designs have Cheap Chtistian Louboutin incorporated the shiny, red-lacquered Christian Louboutin Shoes soles that have become his signature. On 27 March 2007, Louboutin filed an application for U.S. trademark protection of this red sole design Cheap Christian Louboutin Shoes .
As a child, Louboutin would Christian Louboutin Boots regularly sneak out of school, from the age of 12, to visit the flea market of Vila do Conde Cheap Christian Louboutin Boots, where all the gipsies loved his shoes. Although Louboutin faced much opposition following his decision to leave school so early Christian Louboutin Sandals , he claims that his resolve was Cheap Christian Louboutin Sandals strengthened after watching an interview on TV with Sophia Loren in which she introduced her sister, saying she had to leave school when she was only Christian Louboutin Pumps 12 but when she turned 50 she got her degree. Christian Louboutin Evening "Everybody applauded! And I thought, 'Well, at least if I regret it I'm going to be like the sister of Sophia Loren!'" Christian Louboutin Wedges.
Louboutin helped bring stilettos back into fashion in the 1990s and 2000s, designing dozens of styles Christian Louboutin Platforms with heel heights of 120mm (4.72 inches) and higher. The designer's professed goal is to “make a woman look sexy, beautiful, to make her legs look as long as [he] can.” While he does offer some lower-heeled styles, Louboutin is generally associated with his dressier evening-wear designs incorporating jeweled straps, bows, feathers, patent leather and other similar decorative touches.
In his U.S. trademark application, Louboutin explains the inception of the signature red soles:
"In 1992 I incorporated the red sole into the design of my shoes. This happened by accident as I felt that the shoes lacked energy so I applied red nail polish to the sole of a shoe. This was such a success that it became a permanent fixture."
Louboutin received inspiration for his lethal-looking stilettos from an incident that occurred in his early 20s. He had visited a museum and noticed that there was a sign forbidding women wearing sharp stilettos from entering for fear of damage to the extensive wood flooring. This image stayed in his mind, and he later used this idea in his designs. "I wanted to defy that," Louboutin has said. "I wanted to
Planning? Anybody who takes two fucking seconds to look at our debt situation knows that sooner or later, we WILL default. It's merely a question of timing.
Wow. Thankfully you have no say in anti-bullying laws.
My statements do not at all imply that anti-bullying laws should be weakened. Bullying is libel/slander or assault, and should be treated as such by punishing the offender accordingly. That's not at all what happened in TFA, nor is it implied in my posting above. Indeed, I explicitly mentioned the case of assault as a vastly different situation. You seem to have extrapolated a bit too far again; you may be experiencing knee-jerk reactions before achieving full comprehension of these replies that apparently offend you.
... they would have sent the troops, a few bombers, killed a few unfortunate casualities(neighbours) in their pursuit, captured him, paraded him, sent him to gitmo, gotten him out bewildered,deranged and speaking to voices...then tried him fairly in court!
There's no issue with working with Obama to find a compromise on what to cut.
For a deal to be accepted, it must not raise taxes, period. That's the sticking point
So, there's no issue working with Mr. Obama, as long as he takes the exact same ideological viewpoint of the economy as you do? This shit right here is why I dislike the Republicans slightly more than the Democrats: the cognitive dissonance required to say, with complete sincerity, that you are willing to compromise as long as the other guy gives you what you want without you giving him anything he asks for.
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
While I'm perfectly willing to believe Michelle Bachman simply signed the pledge without actually reading it, i.e. bowing to a powerful political special interest with no real desire to understand what they represent, I don't find that to be a strong argument in her favor. I was much, much more impressed with Romney's refusal to sign the pledge than the other candidates' (not just Bachman) mealy mouthed back-pedaling. It at least shows his desire to think and understand the political ideology of those he gets in bed with.
As for the language itself not being racist, who knows? It's difficult not to straddle that line a bit when you are specifically attempting to pander to a demographic defined by its race. It wasn't "I hate niggers" racist, but it certainly implied that black families were, in some way, better off under slavery than they are today. Which isn't an endorsement or hankering for slavery, but is tone-deaf and insensitive to such a degree that you honestly have to wonder about the person who wrote that.
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
n/t
That must be why 60 Republican House members held U.S. credit-worthiness and the economy hostage on behalf of the Tea Party. You are right that there seems to be a split in the Republican Party between the establishment and the Tea Partiers. In party identification, they both belong to the Republican Party. Similarly, there's also a split in the Democratic Party between progressive and DLC liberals. But, for the most part, both wings go under the name "Democrats."