South Carolina
Ping
Send FReepmail to join or leave this list.
Posted on 11/24/2010 9:48:36 AM PST by DCBryan1
Dem albino African American hyphenated hysterical sorts can be funny at times...... Hope Erkel Mugabe lives a long an painful lifetime in prison.
THAT may be the reason for all this
You don’t threaten a President. Period.
Well, at least if it is a demscum President. If it is a Republican President, you can make a movie glorifying his assassination as happened with GW, and all that happens is you get accolades from the left.
There is no such person.
That you didn’t (and that you can’t spell ‘sergeant’) make me sure that you are stretching the truth.
Hell, that is no surprise. Threats against Bush Jr. they ignored. On the other hand, if someone gave Clinton as much as a dirty look....
a distinction without a difference.
he made a threat, thats against the law
What is his MIDDLE name? White people have middle names too!
>Making a threat against the POTUS is and should be a crime.
Really? SHOULD it be a crime? Why should the President enjoy a separate level of legal protection than any general citizen?
Also isn’t “limited free speech,” like “limited free-will” an absurdity? If the item be free then it is unconstrained, and if it is constrained then it is not free.
If it is absurd to limit speech, then it is also absurd to limit it from being “passionate,” “abusive,” “derogatory,” or [even] “violent.” In simple terms, should it be illegal for someone to say [after being ripped-off, say] “If I could kill you I would, you worthless shit-bag bastard!”?
South Carolina
Ping
Send FReepmail to join or leave this list.
If I told an aquaintance of yours I was thinking about going to your home and killing you and your family you would just mark that to free speech??
Srs you are so wrong here.
Google can be your friend or make you look like you don't know what yuo are talking about:
One of many:
Man Arrested For Telling His Girlfriend He Was Going To Kill Bush Mar 3, 2008 ... Wanda testified in court that Charles had threatened to kill the president. ... to launch a criminal investigation into former President George W. Bush ... girlfriend his desire to kill the president has landed him in jail
Should threats against the leader of the greatest country on earth be taken seriously? Should it be against the law to threaten to kill him?
Yes, regardless of which POS currently holds the title.
yeah, they even made a movie about his assination, hoping to give someone ideas I guess. wasn’t there a media person saying she would have liked killing W a few years ago. did the SS go after her?
Camelot, Obamalot, we need to elect some guy named parker and then we can have a parkinglot. ;>)
Did they ever get to all the people holding Kill Bush signs? Did they bother to investigate all participants of the movie that had Bush eliminated? Did they investigate the columnist who asked where is Oswald or John Wilkes Booth when they are needed?
It would be nice to know if all this was just considered legitimate "dissent", back then the highest form of patriotism. Or are there different rules depending on the political party involved.
I think Obama should be more scared of George Soros than some 77 yr old crackpot. Soros is not happy with Hussien and anything could happen.
He didn’t threaten the POTUS, he stated a wish, a fantasy.
>>Also isn’t “limited free speech,” like “limited free-will” an absurdity? If the item be free then it is unconstrained, and if it is constrained then it is not free.
>
>If I told an aquaintance of yours I was thinking about going to your home and killing you and your family you would just mark that to free speech??
Intriguing point, but yes.
An attempt for you to do so would be [obviously] premeditated.
On the flipside, I believe I would be perfectly justified in pulling out my .45, or perhaps my 12 ga [loaded with slugs or 000, and blowing you away once I heard about it & a)you started to “make your move” or b) you step foot on my property.
My State’s Constitution, in Art II, Sec 4, says:
[Inherent rights.]
All persons are born equally free, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable
rights, among which are the rights of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of
acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of seeking and obtaining safety and
happiness.
It says that “defending life and liberty” are *MY* “inherent and inalienable rights.”
>Srs you are so wrong here.
Really?
If the police, AND ALL OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENTS, have no obligation to protect a private citizen then why should ANY government agent be obligated to protect the public citizen of the President. {This is well-established, even up to the supreme court, though the cases escape me at the moment.}
I seem to recall reading a story about President Washington, or Jackson, or some other well-respected [pre-CW] President who had in his belongings a death-threat letter and the remarkable/memorable thing in the story was the historian being interviewed saying “these threats were considered to be free speech and legitimate presentation of grievances.”
Really? When was that? 2008, for making death threats against Obama (and Bush)?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.