doughboyshred

The last thing we need is a law to restrict our ability to overthrow the government if ever necessary. IMO the most important part of our second amendment rights is that if our government were ever to turn against us (Think Myanmar), then we have the ability to fight back. Regardless would a law like this have kept Loughtner from carrying to the event? Not a chance. Could it have restricted the ability of the private security guard that was there from having a gun? Possibly. Completely misguided (as are most gun control attempts).

This bothers me just as much if not more than the westboro baptist fucks. Freedom of speech is not to be fucked with IMO. Freedom of Speech. The Westboro nut jobs can go on TV all they want and express themselves. That is "Freedom of Speech". To protest at this innocent little girl's funeral is not "Freedom of Speech". IMHO And I asked a long time why these military funerals were repeatedly being interupted. A national law should have been passed a long time ago. A funeral is nowhere to grandstand. The only people with freedom to speak at them should be friends and family. Let me preface this by saying that I think the westboro folks are serious pieces of shit that deserve to be beaten to a bloody pulp. Forget for a minute that their message is one of hate that most of us can agree is horribly wrong. Is it right for a government to restrict that message because of that? Keep them from the funeral. They already aren't allowed at the funerals. They protest from a distance. I can't find specifics on the measure they are attempting to pass, but it looks like this is actually what they are going to do. Restrict the protest to a certain distance from the funeral. I'm okay with that. In conjunction with this they are organizing a counter protest to effectively block the Phelps family from the families of the victims.

This bothers me just as much if not more than the westboro baptist fucks. Freedom of speech is not to be fucked with IMO.

there are actions that charge up the atmosphere. This isn't one of them. It's a graphic on a piece of reading material. Swastikas and burning crosses are just symbols too. Uh, the swastika is a symbol with tens of millions of deaths behind it. The burning cross has hundreds or thousands of lynchings behind it. A crosshair target is used far more generically. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/09/sarah-palin-rebecca-mansour-crosshairs-arizona_n_806375.html Finally managed to find the actual graphic, rather than stories that talk about it, but conveniently don't allow the reader to form an opinion. (Talk about inciting) "Let's take back the 20, together." Boy, is that a call to arms to what? No doubt in my mind these are crosshairs, not surveyor symbols. But no one reading this graphic is being incited to shoot someone. That's about as pathetic as the twinkee defense. The original unveiling of the map, and the subsequent site (that has now been taken down) had the tag line "Don't retreat, reload.", which Sarah tweeted at the same time she released the map. Were they reloading batteries in the surveyor laser?

funny how at first you had him labeled as a potential "right wing nut job" but when it turns out he may actually be liberal... he's just "a nut job". but it's not just you either, there are a few others with the same tune... I thought liberals were all for big government. It's becoming clear that he was opposed to government. Probably more of an anarchist. Not many liberals support the gold standard.

I posted that information 5 pages ago. Do you know the definition of the word perhaps?

Yes, I think they should be nice. But considering that you appear to be blaming them for this guy's shooting of people, I don't think it is appropriate to find a cause and effect. In fact, as more and more information is coming out, it looks more and more like politics and conservatives had ZERO influence over it. On this we can agree. Which is why I have been a libertarian since the age of 20. I have not once blamed anyone for Loughtner's actions. I have put blame on some of the tea partiers for fostering an environment that is conducive to these kind of attacks. I have considered myself a libertarian most of my life, but the reality is we still pretty much have to vote for D or R. I fought hard for Dr. Paul only to watch a group of nutjobs use the momentum of his presidential run to concoct this whole teabagger nonsense. It's disgusting to me that somehow the movement to elect a true conservative like Ron Paul was taken over by a group that has accepted Palin and Beck as their de facto leadership. It's a sick joke.

Exactly. Very well put.

I see why you're a lawyer. You argue an issue other than what's being discussed in a circular way. Like I said, the politicians should stop inciting violence through their attack ads and negative campaigning. The solution is to not vote for the fuckers that do that, which is exactly why I left the republican party after the tea baggers came in to play.

Um - how about that whole "Freedom of Speech" thingy? Oh. I understand it's an old thing made by dead white men who owned slaves. I'll alter the text to make it more along the lines of what you'd like: ***Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech unless someone might possibily be inflamed by such such speech, or of the press unless the press might report the bad and nasty things Tea Partiers right-wingers might say that may inflame nutters mentally ill people; There's a First Amendment that we can all appreciate! Of course, you call it "inciting violence." If that was the case, why wasn't this happening months ago??? Personally, I blame Plato for inciting him - hey, the more remote the incitement the more inciteful it's gonna be! Why stop at incitements last year? Let's go back a couple thousand years. The Republic was listed as one of his favorites books. Coincidentally, it is one of my personal favorites and a book that changed my life. Uh oh! I better watch out! Ban The Republic. Ban the Communist Manifesto. Ban Mein Kampf. They incited him... freedom of speech? What are you talking about? Hell, they have the right to go out and say whatever they want. That doesn't make it smart. That doesn't make it good for our country. I never said anything about banning any speech. Your posts are nonsensical. Have you been drinking heavily?

I'll actually turn your words and apply them to you. Get ready because you are asking for it. I'd be careful. Somebody might be reading this and seek blood revenge from what you're saying. AIf there is any act of retaliation, I will hold you are all who similarly accuse a certain group for this to be personally responsible for this. You are deliberately and purposely seekin to inflame the passions of people who may act out in an aggressive and deadly manner. I predict that you will attempt to either deny your intentions, ignore me, or support what I have to say. Denial will obviously be expected as an attempt to cover up your actions and cover your ass. If you ignore my accusations, the only valid reason for doing so is that you are putting your head in the sand and failing to own up to your responsibilities. Admission will merely verify your guilt. Therefore, you are inciting violence and soas to not set off any lunatic, you should be forced to tone down your rhetoric. Hey - just looking looking at you through your lens... I don't even understand your post. It makes no sense.

So, you actually think it's okay for politicians to incite violence against their opposition? Wow...what altitude did you make that leap from? Show me where we know this guy's agenda had anything to do with political ads. Comment had nothing to do with Loughtner. Question was should Palin continue to use crosshairs and statements about reloading. Answer was "Sure, why not?" How about because inciting violence against political opponents could lead to more actual violence against political opponents? Doesn't matter what this guys agenda was. For some reason he thought it was okay to shoot someone he disagreed with politically. It's irresponsible for any politicians to be using any sort of campaign strategy that in any way suggests it's okay to do that.

So, you actually think it's okay for politicians to incite violence against their opposition?

The left was waiting for this? What a pathetic statement. More or less so than doughboyshred's following post and statement? Definition of perhaps: Possibly, but not certainly. Now we have more reason to believe he was just a nutjob, but that doesn't change the fact that our political discourse needs to be civilized.

apples to oranges

The "advocated gun violence " you refer to is tantamount to me pointing a finger gun at my computer screen and making a '"Pew" sound while acting like my thumb was the gun hammer. bullshit. Cross marks just like from a rifle scope, telling voters to "reload", talking about second amendment solutions, openly carrying at political rallies, etc...

Show me where any left wing politician has advocated gun violence against their political foes.

Holy Crap - I missed this - How can you possibly find this funny. I bet you wouldn't be grinning so big if it was a family member, would you? Let me make it clear. I find no humor in the fact that innocent people have died. I do however find it humorous that palin's official take back the 20 site, which featured cross mark targeting and statements about reloading has been taken down, while this site pointing out the absurdity of their previous position is now up. It's disgusting to me that people had to die for the right wing fanatics leadership to realize that they have been instigating violence for their own benefit.

What the fuck is wrong with you? You find it funny that people have died? Get over yourself. Of course not.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/wei...ie-parker.aspx Looks like he was a liberal whacko. Doesn't change the fact that our political discourse in this country needs to be readjusted.

http://takebackthe19.com/ Congratulations Palin! ROTFLMAO

Mine said Seventh Day Adventist. LOL. I sure enjoyed having that extra free time in boot camp.

http://republicanifi.com/news/Flashback-Giffords-Opponent-Had-M16-Shooting-Event-Help-Remove-Gabrielle-Giffords-From-Office-1514653.html No, the right wing isn't inciting violence, not at all. Events like the above linked event, statements, by Angle, Bachmann, and others. The infamous map by Palin. It's clear that the right wing politicos have been fueling the fire for their political benefit. It's obviously not clear if this has anything to do with that rhetoric, but one has to wonder.

http://southdakotapolitics.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8341c046f53ef01347fb32b4f970c-pi images would sure be nice on this site. There's the map with crosshairs over her district and the statement, "it's time to take a stand" produced by Palin's pac.

No, what's bullshit is that the right wing of this country has been consistently ramping up the violent rhetoric for the last couple years. Bachman and Palin have been at the forefront of this movement along with Beck and Hannity. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_06/018561.php Of course, it could have been a left wing nutjob, but this is an internet forum, what else are we supposed to besides speculate??????