Sen.Blutarsky

Let the offended refuse to behold what offends them! But they must not take matters into their own hands. Or impinge on the inalienable rights of people to offend them. Being offended is a small price to pay for living in a free society. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

Horse-hooey. In America you cannot falsely shout “fire!” in a crowded place because you would trigger a panic reaction which could injure people irrespective of their politics or religion. It’s common sense to place a minor restriction on absolute freedom of expression because the exclamation only serves to cause physical harm to other human beings, there is no countervailing legitimate reason for the speech. You are, however, permitted to openly display Christianity’s most-revered symbol, the crucifix, submerged in a jar of urine because the derivative symbology serves a legitimate purpose, i.e., commentary on a religion and its doctrines. This dichotomy is what distinguishes our concept of “ordered liberty.” So while speech is not completely free in the sense that I can falsely yell “bomb!” on an aircraft, I am indeed free to publish offensive content on matters concerning politics, religion and historical interpretation and my commentary will be protected by our Constitution. Because these acts are tantmount to falsely screaming “fire!” or “bomb!” like above. You should be permitted to express this position freely! In America you are also free to say openly that you feel people who observe these religions are a bunch of poop-head fanatics and they deserve to be caged. That's how it should be in a democracy. I think I understood your point, it’s just that I didn’t wish to engage in a religious discussion on how the Bible can create division among people who otherwise share a lot in common because I see that as being obvious on its face. Thankfully I am free to express my position, even if I was to “say” it by drawing a cartoon of Jesus Christ bashing non-Christians into smithereens with a crucifix. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

Note: those aren't the original cartoons, the cartoons posted to that website have been adulterated by removing the nametag "Muhammed," as further explained here: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2060125#2060125 Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

Actually, a lot of people doubt the bible and they are free to express those doubts and to challenge Christian doctrine in public. We can even draw blasphemous cartoons of Jesus Christ without fear of human reprisal. Or tell bad jokes Q: Why can't Jesus eat M&M's? A: They keep falling through his hands. More "anti-Christian" humor here: http://www.liberator.net/humor/Jesus/Jesusjokes.html No embassies or consulates were burned in response to that website. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

"Wolfgang" is Wolfgang Puck, a famous chef who moved to the US from Austria. His face appears in the US media and on food containers all the time. Almost as much as WA Mozart’s face appears in Salzburg, from where I just returned BTW. ViperPilot flies F-16s, which are nicknamed the “viper.” As such, I bet he has a better appreciation of US intelligence collection capabilities than most who post here. You might want to cut him a little bit of slack on that issue. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

Thank you, but I have to backpeddle on this one. Apparently the original cartoons each bore the name “Muhammed” proximate to the depiction of the Mohammed character. In the adulterated version of the cartoons I viewed initially, the editors already had stricken the name. This last batch I saw contained the original artwork with the “Muhammed” label unabridged. That makes me appreciate a little better why Muslims were horked-off by the cartoons, though of course the death threats and outrageous demands, including censorship, by some Muslims are not excusable. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

Hmmm. If Islamic tradition forbids creating any image of the prophet Mohammed, then how is that Muslims could know the Danish cartoons were depicting Mohammed? I did not see any nametags … Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

That’s the next item for our Bilderberger luncheon menu agenda. We simply can't allow the Muslim Brotherhood to steal our thunder. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

Shhhhhh ... You ever _doubted_ this?! My people will be in contact with you shortly. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

Nope. We only helped foment this news “event” in preparation for our imminent military strikes on Iran. Once they were on board with our plan, the European allies got assigned the dirty political conditioning work. Which I believe will cost them much less than the price in terms of lives and dollars we Americans may be about to pay for actively dismantling the “Islamic Bomb” program. Of course, shouldering the military heavy lifting is considerably more lucrative for industry, so in one sense we should be okay … Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

Then I look forward to seeing you at your convenience during court session in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit when I am seated at counsels table. I’ll be the one in the dark suit. Come share with us your viewpoints on a broad range of topics. It’s a government proceeding after all, your tax dollars at work, you helped pay for it. I promise I’ll try and wave to you as the US Marshalls drag your ass off to that cell you'll be sharing with Big Bad Leroy Brown, Baddest Man In The Whole Damn Town from the Southside of Chicago. I hear he likes dudes sporting tinfoil hats, so wear one if you have it. Tip: if you should choose to don a tinfoil hat and enter the Dirksen Federal Building please observe you may experience some questioning from the government personnel operating those metal detectors on the ground floor by the vehicle barriers -- drop my name, "Senator Blutarsky," and feel free to say whatever the FUCK you wanna say to 'em but no need to remove the tinfoil hat, insist on your RIGHTS, heck, it's a FREE country after all and you should be allowed to dress how ever you want, man ... Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

Now it's sounding as if that guy was doing _more_ than just his job Which could take this matter outside of the 1st Amendment ... Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

Well then. That would be something completely different. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

Question: “were their 1st Amendment rights to freedom of speech violated?” Answer: “No violation of the 1st Amendment.” Absolutely it was within the scope of the question. See below. Sheehan violated a House rule. Accordingly, she exceeded the scope of the license granted by her invitation. Sheehan refused a legitimate request to comply with the rule. Her continued unauthorized presence in the gallery threatened to disrupt the President’s duty to inform Congress just as her unauthorized presence on White House grounds would have threatened to disrupt Executive operations there. Sheehan was and is free to communicate her political views, so there was no violation of the 1st Amendment by removing Sheehan from the gallery and arresting her. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

No violation of the 1st Amendment. Sheehan is still free to express her political views. However, she will likely be arrested or even shot if she hops the fence which surrounds the White House to “deliver a message about the war in Iraq” through the oval office windowpanes. The government has a legitimate interest in safeguarding the operations of the Executive Branch, and Sheehan has plenty of other channels through which to disseminate her political communications. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

Muslims may feel bound by Islamic traditions but the non-Muslim citizens living in Western democracies are not so bound and they should not be. “Judgement,” as you put it, properly rests on Muslim shoulders not to subject Muslim sensibilities to things which are inconsistent with Islamic religious doctrine. The rest of us should not tolerate our political discourse being reduced to a lowest common denominator, whether it’s laid down by Falwell or a group of imams. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

Should the Danish government subsidize an artist to depict the Virgin Mary topless or instead withhold funding because the artwork offends some religious people, who don’t have to look? Maplethorpe didn’t self-censor “Piss Christ,” again nobody was forced to view his sculpture. Nor in Denmark was any Muslim compelled to see the Mohammed cartoons and, in fact, I would bet that most Muslims refrained from looking at them. Why should they be offended? Censorship, including self-censorship, on grounds of poor taste and religious oversensitivity is a slippery slope on which Western media should not tread where the competing interest is free political speech. And there is no question that the cartoons reflected opinion about current political issues. Edited to add: According to your reasoning, the New York Times should not publish a cartoon depicting an Irish Pope sprouting a bomb from his Pope’s hat and wearing a crucifix made from crossed AK-47s in reference to the sectarian violence in Ireland. I feel this type of self-censorship would have serious negative implications for political expression in this country. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

some watery tart chucked a scimitar at me once That’s no basis for a system of government ... Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

Strangely enough, the most principled people with true integrity I’ve met anywhere are lawyers who treat their profession with reverance. They live by their creed more closely than many medical doctors and business people who I’ve known, and their word is iron-clad even when it disadvantages them. Not enough of ‘em to go around, admittedly, but I like having them in my circle. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

Chirac controls nuclear weapons and has been rattling his nuclear sabre recently. Putin controls nuclear weapons and has revved-up Russian nuclear missile testing and funding recently. If Iran can have nuclear weapons, then why not Germany and Japan? These two countries haven't threatened another country in many decades. Whereas Iran's president and military council have pledged death to America and Israel as well as to those who ally with them. Why should France, Russia and North Korea get the limelight all the time? Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

Germany and Japan have the requisite technical expertise to build nuclear arsenals in short order. Both are facing potential threats by nuclear-armed neighbors. Given the passage of time, should these two powers develop nuclear arsenals to ensure their existences or, instead, should they depend on extant nuclear powers to protect them? One thing’s for sure, the spectre of Iran is casting a shadow well beyond the Middle East … Germany 'needs a nuclear arsenal of its own' Telegraph/UK By Kate Connolly in Berlin (Filed: 27/01/2006) A former defence minister has provoked outrage and broken a major taboo by suggesting that Germany should have its own nuclear arsenal. Rupert Scholz argued that Berlin needed to embrace the idea of a nuclear deterrent in the light of threats from terrorists and the Middle East. "We need to ask ourselves how we could react in an appropriate manner to a nuclear threat from a terror state, and if needs be, even by using our own nuclear weapons," he said. Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/27/wgermany27.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/01/27/ixportal.html Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

Thank you for your comments and the links. FYI Al’s Hobby Shop in Elmhurst, Illinois has Blade CPs in stock and carries many other types and their parts as well. Al’s was the first hobby shop I’d visited practically since I was a kid, but I was impressed by the selection and knowledge of the staff, you can check out the place here: http://www.alshobbyshop.com/store/index.asp. Some RC helicopters and planes looked to be the size of a small car, with price tags to match ... assuming he receives Mrs. Blutarsky’s blessing, The Senator just may have to get a little somethin’ for himself at Al’s this Spring. Bluto

What is the consensus regarding the performance of this RC helicopter? How easy is it to learn to fly? I bought one for a friend of mine on his birthday. Now he wants me to show him how to fly it, and I’m pretty clueless. I got it because I was told that it’s perfect for the suburbanite weekend warrior type and, well, that’s my friend. If we don’t trash it this Spring do you think I can put a small wireless video camera on it, the camera I have is the size of a vitamin capsule excepting the wire antenna. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

Thank you Ma'am, may I have another! Thank you Ma'am, may I have another! ... Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

I hereby rescind the contents of my previous post and respectfully request to be added back on the list of your cabana boys. What was I _thinking_ when I posted that insensitive drivel?! Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!