Reply With Quote
Sorry if I missed it. Would you mind repeating yourself?
Did you miss the part where I said legislation wasn't the answer to this or was that part of the thread you ignored?
If you're going to come off as a smart ass the least you can do is read what people post prior to spouting off.
Sorry if I missed it. Would you mind repeating yourself?
You responded to my response to CC. Why?
How was I to know it was directed at CC?
No. But I caught your sly, and fairly insistent insinuation that right wingers have blood on their hands because of their hateful and violent speech.
Once read, how could you possibly have assumed it was a reply to you?
Sure, just for you:
If you'd like further clarification of my point the posts found in this thread made today - especially those in my conversation with Teysha - are located just prior to that one and will help further clarify my position. I'll even elaborate further on those posts should have you questions on specific parts of them if you'd like.
The article didn't say it; boutons did.
Sly? Oh I think I made it clear that I feel that type of speech encourages violence. I think I also made it clear that even if that speech didn't lead directly to this attack it didn't make that point less valid. I would have hoped you had caught that because I felt I made it quite clear.
What Orly Taitz said is a direct threat to public order? I think not.
The leader of a movement such as that making a completely unveiled threat of violence isn't a big deal? Ok.
And no talk radio or big bad Fox news to point the finger at.
No. It isn't. The so called threat is not particularized in any way, neither does its context pose any immediate threat to anything.
IMO it is barely a threat at all. Just an observation that insurrection might be valid under some cir stances. However misguided or malevolent the POV is, I was under the impression that such opinions were protected speech.
Free speech, for better and for worse.
That is a freakishly weird name.
By the way, who is that in your avatar?
l. marvin hamlisch
James Coburn, from The President's Analyst.
Check out the dudes mugshot.
That's a pretty wheels-off pic of Coburn.
ha ha i thought it was lee marvin.
The unholy union of Mister Clean and Zippy the Pinhead.Check out the dudes mugshot.
Man, that is just the creepiest smile I have seen in a while.Check out the dudes mugshot.
I would not get on an elevator with someone looking like that. (shivers)
I don't remember saying that they don't have the right to say these things, WH. However, I do remember pointing out several times that free speech and positions of authority come with responsibilities.
I made it a point to make it very clear that I didn't want legislation because I knew someone would bust out the free speech argument.
You can be dismissive of her comments. Thats completely your prerogative.
However, to say she was merely pointing out a possible outcome with no intent is naive as all . Her intent was obviously to sway - as a warning to what might happen if the ruling doesn't go the way they'd like.
To those who believe as she does, this can serve as a legitimacy to act out against a judiciary they see as corrupt and out of control. By acknowledging this even as a plausible action she gives it so much legitimacy that its not even funny.
And that right there underscores the point of how irresponsible it is. Even if she has no intent to use it as anything other that a weak scare tactic to try and strong arm a judge thats not how everyone supporting their cause may view it. Its a perfect example of irresponsible rhetoric that gives legs to those who already hold anti government sentiments and those she represents.
It's the eye's, especially that right one.
Who the smiles in a mugshot. Thats a scary picture.Check out the dudes mugshot.
delay smiled in his mugshot.
lets work on this connection.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions