Discussion in 'Politics' started by drjekyllus, Apr 28, 2009.
Exactly. If conservative values were gaining steam (and if the tooth fairy were leaving million dollar bundles under my pillow at night - might as well dream big!) he'd be railing about gun rights and against gay marriage.
Maybe if the GOP loses enough power all the limpwristed, power hungry losers will bail and we can get some principled people in power.
Watching Matthews this evening I thought he was going to pull his cock out and start jerking off. Man, the lefties are gushing all over themselves. Onward we go towards complete socialism. It'll be all fun and games for them...until we start counting the bodies.
You condemn politicians who lack "integrity" and "principles" and then talk of assassination.
Oh I love that. I'm from Philly...never liked this guy....at all.
You do realize that with your comments below that the FBI may arrest you if they find out what you are putting into print in your suggestion underlined below...
What you are suggesting is domestic terrorism, and is a crime.
He hasn't threatened anybody optional.
The Republicans need to learn that if people are LEAVING your party--200,000 voters in my birthplace of PA, and now their senior senator--that is NOT a good thing.
A refresher here:
More voters, good. More senators, good.
Fewer voters, bad. Fewer senators, bad.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
What is Incitement?
After the Abu Hamza case, I wondered if American law has any provisions for prosecuting "incitement." Sure enough, it does, as I learned from this website about the Incitement Test.
In 1917, in a case related to the Russian Revolution, Masses Publishing v Patten, Judge Learned Hand wrote an opinion that "the government may prosecute words that are 'triggers to action' but not words that are 'keys of persuasion.'" In Brandenburg v Ohio, the Supreme Court expanded on this--in a ruling favorable to the Ku Klux Klan--holding that "the First Amendment allows punishment only of subversive advocacy calculated to produce 'imminent lawless action' and which is likely to produce such action."
The Incitement Test (Brandenburg) The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
So, if speech is a trigger to imminent action--it is incitement, and may be banned.
I would advise Lucrum to hold a photo of Mr. Obama in front of the FBI agent, thus causing the armed government employee to faint....allowing Lucrum just enough time to escape.....
Seriously, I assumed you of all people would be a strong advocate for free speech, offensive or not.
Not to worry, however, such speech snafu's will soon be a thing of the past.
Mr. Obamas' "Regulatory Ceasar [czar]", U of Chicago chum Cass Sunstein, has suggested that technology be used to delay the transmission of "angry" emails for 24 hours.....thus allowing such folks as Lucrum to calm down and return to their senses and not transmit the email [ or post ]......IN FACT, the same Mr. Sunstein has proposed a "Fairness Doctrine" for the internet which would require opposing opinions to be linked so that the "peeps" are not exposed to just one view [whether the "peep" wants it or not]........so, if the Obama Admin gets its way....everyone of your posts would have a corresponding link to Lucrums' opposing view.
Lucrum, let me know if a deep, warm, tingly feeling comes over you and a love of political hypocrites occurs within 24 hours, as Mr. Sunstein suggests.
Separate names with a comma.