tvashtarkatena

You've told us multiple times. Nobody is impressed. I must have impressed you enough for you to remember, girlfriend!

the more relevant question is how effective anti-obscenity laws have been in squelching the 8 words you cannot say on radio and television versus the inattention paid to violent threats on very same media. Want a $250K fine every time Howard Stern says 'blowjob'? Go for it. Hey, but if Howard Stern suggests that his listeners take up arms against elected officials...no prob, man! Thanks to a the FCC's obscenity restrictions (ridiculous, but there you are) on speech, the mechanism are already in place to 'tone down' the threats the minute the government decides that this should be a priority. $250K per incident. The pundits may say FU, but their owners sure as hell won't. This is not 'politicizing' the issue, as such sanctions would apply to everyone, regardless of Leftie/Righty message. Of course, it would be levied almost exclusively against the Right...as they are the only public figures employing this kind of rhetoric.

I'm on the ACLU's 2nd Amendment Policy Committee. True story LOL!

Mass killing and political assassinations tend to get me a bit riled.

I think Boehner represents that average tea bagger's viewpoint: in the 80's, he was pulling down 75+K a year (good for back then). His reason for going into politics? He thought his tax bill was too high. (ref: recent New Yorker interview) Not because he wanted to make this country and its environment a better place. Nope. He was already wealthy...and he wanted more...while someone else footed the bill. Hero!

BTW, anyone actually think the tea bagger movement is about 'limited government'? Ask them about ending the drug war and cutting the military budget. The tea bagger movement is about reaping the benefits of a liberal society without paying the taxes. It's about wealth concentration, with a side of racism and homophobia for spice. It's about SUPPORTING THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! (without the amendments) Libertarians? Hardly.

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.