tvashtarkatena

Now here's a toaster with one, big button on it.

Maybe some day you guys (save Ivan) will pass the 3 digit mark, too.

Again, violent threats are not protected speech. They have long been a crime. Exactly. Which is why we have a centuries old body of law that defines precisely what they are, and a giant enforcement apparatus responsible for prosecuting those who break them. The next time a crazy guy is supposedly inspired to murder by after exposure to an artist, novelist, etc lets all clamor to have the Feds ramp up their scrutiny and prosecution of artists, novelists, etc, shall we? Ivan is right. You wanna pursue this one in any court other than the court of public opinion - good luck. Seems to me that using this guys actions as a pretext with which to have the Federal Government enforce a set of speech codes that go well beyond the set of standards established for threats, incitement, etc will go absolutely nowhere, but by all means - give it the old college try. You apparently believe that politicians and pundits deserve immunity, unlike the rest of us, because they've got a microphone and a large audience...precisely the reasons why we should not tolerate this kind of criminal speech from these folks. Threat of an investigation is usually enough to get a public figure to tone it down a bit. Public rejection of the message is, of course, another. Actually I believe the reason they aren't being investigated or prosecuted is that their speech doesn't meet the relevant legal thresholds for incitement, etc. If you want to exploit some crazy guy shooting a member of congress and several other people to promote your own political ends, as a "strategy" to discredit things like limited government, go nuts. I actually hope that all of the other "progressives" uncritically adopt this strategy and make it a central focus of all of their political activities from this point forward. Have at it. Nope, but nice try. No one has suggested squelching anyone's political views...just the threats of violence. Not hard to read my statements correctly...for the rest of us, anyway.

You apparently have zero experience with the criminal justice system. It shows.

I think you may overestimate the respect many people have for the rule of law in politics....

Again, violent threats are not protected speech. They have long been a crime. Exactly. Which is why we have a centuries old body of law that defines precisely what they are, and a giant enforcement apparatus responsible for prosecuting those who break them. The next time a crazy guy is supposedly inspired to murder by after exposure to an artist, novelist, etc lets all clamor to have the Feds ramp up their scrutiny and prosecution of artists, novelists, etc, shall we? Ivan is right. You wanna pursue this one in any court other than the court of public opinion - good luck. Seems to me that using this guys actions as a pretext with which to have the Federal Government enforce a set of speech codes that go well beyond the set of standards established for threats, incitement, etc will go absolutely nowhere, but by all means - give it the old college try. You apparently believe that politicians and pundits deserve immunity, unlike the rest of us, because they've got a microphone and a large audience...precisely the reasons why we should not tolerate this kind of criminal speech from these folks. Threat of an investigation is usually enough to get a public figure to tone it down a bit. Public rejection of the message is, of course, another.

Again, violent threats are not protected speech. They have long been a crime. Violent threat - you mean like you opining on Spray how someone should have put a bullet in Bush's head? Rephrased, but the original post, like yours: not a threat. Grammar is difficult for some, I realize. And the audience size here? What, 10 people, max?

Latest ad for direct TV shows a guy in a super hero outfit wading through his 5000 channels or whatever. Tagline "You're gonna be super busy" I think that matches our local hero's profile a bit more accurately.

Again, violent threats are not protected speech. They have long been a crime.

Also, despite Billkook's flattering habit of continually mistating my opinions, no one has called for any new restrictions on speech. I called for an increased government scrutiny on violent threats by politicians and pundits. Anyone put up with violent threats in their home? No? Why do we put up with it as part of the public discourse, then? It's been long illegal for some very good reasons. Of course, our resident Kook would be the last guy to seek to restrict the behavior he occasionally indulges in on his favorite forums. And if guns were banned, he'd be confined to posting pictures of exploded faces and the like. Frankly, I prefer gun pics, meself.

I challenge you to quote where Rob denys this exists. This country is swinging towards totalitarianism. Left wing nut jobs are fine with this, while right wing nut jobs are not. Then there is all kinds of colors in between, like Napoleon (Trash) and me. We see it coming and don't like it and would like to not see it continue. We are probably very close to agreeing across the board on this issue, even though it is hard to get past the fact that he always acts like a prick on this site. Divide and conquer, like the Bone says. Thats what is up my brother. Jesus, thank God you're not my brother. The Left is fine with totalitarianism? In the last decade, the Right has crafted and championed two wars, torture, indefinite detention, wiretapping of all Americans, the militarization of our police force...to name a few. Who fought these efforts? The NRA? The RNC? The Family Research Council? Is there a floor to your stupidity or do you have the capacity of going negative on that. I personally would support the banning of all guns save those for hunting so that kooks just like yourself, who, given your posting history in that regard, are obviously not stable enough to handle the responsibility, won't have access to them.

Maybe the sheriff knows a lot more about what's going on in AZ than you do.

The number of folks MURDERED by cars is probably kinda low.

Um, yeah. Read it a bit more carefully there, LL.

Laughable.

Laws banning threats of violence have been on the books for a long, long time. You are suggesting that such bans on speech be lifted, apparently...if you're post has a message at all. That's in character for you, as you're practically a poster a child for what we've been talking about here.

"There is some evidence, however, that their number has increased significantly in the past year or two. The Sergent at Arms, for instance, counted just 29 threats against senators in 2009, rather than 49 in 2010. And there was a 300 percent increase in such threats against all members of Congress (both representatives and senators) in the first few months of 2010, according to the same office. The journalist Ronald Kessler, meanwhile, wrote in his bestselling book that there has been a 400 percent increase in the number of threats against the White House since Barack Obama took office.

I'll throw KKK a bone with a triple self-reply....he'll chase after that shit till he drops.

I do expect my friends to be smart. Not for everyone, I realize.

You needn't worry: you're categorically stupid.

Again, you're being fucking stupid, and you know I fucking hate stupid, by ignoring the obvious component in any message: context. Sarah Palin is the leader of a movement which has repeatedly advocated guns as a way to solve problems. No, Rob, its not exactly the same. When you get your intellect back, let me know.

You seem to be implying that words and symbols don't have real power to sway, particularly the insane, to violence. For realz? Anyone care to spray paint a swastika on their car door and test that assertion? Get real. You're responsible for what you put out there. I've called a few morons morons on this site, and I take full responsibility for whatever erosive effect its had on their already truncated self esteem. It's not easy to be fuckin stupid, and I do have some empathy for these posters for the trog-like, primary color existence these poor potato-eaters are sentenced for life to. We've all seen one dumb cunt post his gun collection here as a lame, ineffectual threat. What if that dumb cunt had 30 million followers? Would posting that gun collection and, say, posting a name and location be as cool? Would a carry with it some responsibility?

Funneling direct corporate contributions has been illegal in Texas for years. DeLay's just the first asshole in a long line to be prosecuted for it. Arbitrary? Hey, you can only ignore a pile of dogshit in the middle of the floor for so long. In a way, Tom did 'play by the rules'. Problem was, those rules weren't legal. OK, PP, you may resume your lying now.....

So, yeah, sorry about the junk yard dog. Musta gotten off his chain. Maybe we can get on with our discourse, now, assuming he's bitten enough ankles. The fact that a pro violence, pro punishment movement is also pro gun should come as a surprise to no one. There is nothing inconsistent in the tea bagger message in this regard. It is an open threat that should not be discarded lightly, particularly after Saturday's tragedy. All political movements, like all behaviors, are not created equal. Some openly and actively attack the public good. The tea bagger movement is one of them.

I don't know about us being good, but them's definitely bad, and definitely anti-constitutional, which makes them Anti-me and Anti-American in my book, for the numerous value and action based reasons I've detailed. Anything you find heart warming about that agenda, Rob? This is not demonizing. This is making a rational decision based on the observed actions and statements of that movement. It's fascism lite, plain and simple, and its a clear and open threat to all of us.