Here Come The Brown Shirts... Obama's SS - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: Here Come The Brown Shirts... Obama's SS

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Cocked _and_Locked View Post
    I'll go one better: Absolutely stupid.

    Bohemian, when are you going to connect the dots? Free speech does not, nor has it ever meant the right to say anything you want. That Facebook nonsense is akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater. It either directly espouses killing the POUTUS (treason), or at best, incites public violence.

    Maybe you should try it yourself, if you are so all for it. Go ahead and post a similar poll right here and see how far your constitutional rights take you. You fanatical zealots always want to have your cake and eat it too. Get real. When the Constitution supports what you want it's all good. When you don't get your way you try to point to a violaiton of your rights.

    Maybe you should consider being a responsible citizen and a rational person who understands the world we live in is not all perfectly clear cut black and white. The again, you probably cannot draw the distinction between a 200 year old Constitution and a 2000 yead old Bible, either.

    Put it in perspective, dude.
    You sure haven't got much of a bedside manner. I noticed that on another forum and see it again, here. If we're all so effin stupid, why waste your time responding? We're obviously not able to keep up with your searing intellect.

    While I happen to agree with you that the 1st Amendment does not guarantee any/all speech, it certainly has been under attack; the main point which I think Bohemian is making. At the least, he doesn't deserve to be called names and further insulted, and perhaps just needs to gently, in a spirit of brotherhood, be brought up to speed, here. Honey and vinegar and all that, right old chap?

    BTW, you're not one of these guys who thinks the Constitution is a "living document" are you?

  2.   
  3. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Cocked _and_Locked View Post
    Use them in a socially responsible, lawful, positive manner. Great.

    Use them to further anti-social hate mongering. Stupid.

    Figure it out.
    Exactly where does it say that in the Constitution?

    What part of pre-existing, fundamental, and unalienable right(s) do you not understand?

    Identify where Socially Responsible is enumerated in the Constitution...

    The Usurper in Chief & Company and his sheeple would have us believe that simply making a statement or asking the opinion of others is anti-social and hate mongering...

    Disagree with the the President (Usurper) and you are a racist, T.E.A. Bagging Redneck, Bigot, et.al. ...

    What is Socially Responsible and a positive about that?

    More like perverted, anti-social hate mongering by those attempting to silence anybody that has a different opinion then they do...

    How Perverted Is Thought Police?

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The High Country
    Posts
    1,029
    JJ: WRT to the tone of my approach here, I believe in a measured, appropriate response to what I perceive as a politically motivated, extremeist attack by someone who evidently believes impeachment is the correct way forward in all matters constitutional. I was being restrained.

    These people (using the term loosely) will use every possible incident, scenario, example, or purely suggestive fantasy to srike at the very heart and soul of this nation to satisfy their own selfish agenda, tugging your heart strings every step of the way. be afraid. Be very afraid, because they are the one's you need to worry about. The superstition and bigotry they condone is just a facade.

    FWIW, I am a long time conservatine gun totin' (obviously) troglodyte myself. Just trying to seperate fact from fiction if it helps with the matter at hand. Furthermore, I don't know what you mean by a "living document," as if to paint me into some corner with a locally understood colloquialism for some anti-gun stereotype. The Constitution was given the ability to be amended by our forefathers in their wisdom. I has been and it probably will be again.

    Let me see if I can come up with a derisive term for someone who uses it as a crutch in support of special interests. I'll get back to you on that one.

  5. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The High Country
    Posts
    1,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    Identify where Socially Responsible is enumerated in the Constitution...
    Some things you have to figure out for yourself. You want The Congress to give you a long checklist of right and wrong? Maybe we should define those value judgements on you or your political/religious/racial/whatever group's terms?

    Maybe your judgement is clouded from an upbringing, childhood experience or environmental factors that prevent you from seeing much past the front sight of your weapon. (how's that for bedside? )

    Maybe you just don't get it.

  6. Quote Originally Posted by Cocked _and_Locked View Post
    I'll go one better: Absolutely stupid.

    Bohemian, when are you going to connect the dots? Free speech does not, nor has it ever meant the right to say anything you want. That Facebook nonsense is akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater. It either directly espouses killing the POUTUS (treason), or at best, incites public violence.

    Maybe you should try it yourself, if you are so all for it. Go ahead and post a similar poll right here and see how far your constitutional rights take you. You fanatical zealots always want to have your cake and eat it too. Get real. When the Constitution supports what you want it's all good. When you don't get your way you try to point to a violaiton of your rights.

    Maybe you should consider being a responsible citizen and a rational person who understands the world we live in is not all perfectly clear cut black and white. The again, you probably cannot draw the distinction between a 200 year old Constitution and a 2000 yead old Bible, either.

    Put it in perspective, dude.
    Well put! I think in this day and age, dealing with potentially sensitive topics, even online, requires some tact and caution.

    tfo

  7. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The High Country
    Posts
    1,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Tea For One View Post
    Well put! I think in this day and age, dealing with potentially sensitive topics, even online, requires some tact and caution.
    Personally, I can hardly stand Obama myself, but...

    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post

    Tact and caution? Tying a very questionable purported example of supressing freedom of speech to an exhortation for impeachment? You have got to be kidding me!

    Tact and caution?

    Face it - we wouldn't having this discussion under the terms of tact and caution if that was really expected now, would we?
    Or would we prefer to play the "tact and caution" cards in more of a double-standard method in order to supress our own liitle bit of free speech here, maybe?

    Hmmmmm. Bedside manner? Interesting.....

  8. Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by Cocked _and_Locked View Post
    I'll go one better: Absolutely stupid.

    Bohemian, when are you going to connect the dots? Free speech does not, nor has it ever meant the right to say anything you want. That Facebook nonsense is akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater. It either directly espouses killing the POUTUS (treason), or at best, incites public violence.

    Maybe you should try it yourself, if you are so all for it. Go ahead and post a similar poll right here and see how far your constitutional rights take you. You fanatical zealots always want to have your cake and eat it too. Get real. When the Constitution supports what you want it's all good. When you don't get your way you try to point to a violaiton of your rights.

    Maybe you should consider being a responsible citizen and a rational person who understands the world we live in is not all perfectly clear cut black and white. The again, you probably cannot draw the distinction between a 200 year old Constitution and a 2000 yead old Bible, either.

    Put it in perspective, dude.


    Well said, C&L. Thank You.

    Our world is not always black and white. Whether it seems fair or not to some people, the government takes threatening communications like those recently on Facebook, very seriously, and to be honest, I think they should take it seriously. I take my 2nd Amendment right seriously and am a law-abiding and conscientious gun owner. However, I am not going to go waving a gun around simply because I have the right to do so. By the same token, I do not think it is right for folks to take, say, their 1st Amendment right and say threatening things about killing people just because they technically may have the right to do so.

    It's like you said, you don't shout "fire" in a crowded theater. There is room for the use of our brains in every situation, and everyone neds to use some good old-fashioned common sense.

    tfo

  9. #18
    Pretty obvious that Bohemian believes Obama should be impeached. Is he tying this belief to just this single "speech" issue? I'm assuming he's got other reasons, also. So I guess I don't understand (wouldn't be the first time) the animosity, here. Bohemian's gotta right to believe that; why shouldn't he express it? Do y'all know him personally? Seems like you're picking up a lot of info that I'm not getting from the forums.

    For the record, I got no problem with impeachment of ANY president (Republican, Democrat, Trogolyde, whatever) who fails to uphold the Constitution. Of course, I realize that aint gonna happen and should've been carried out a LONG time ago. As for B. Hussein, I think he's a not-so-closet socialist elected by some pretty misguided people. (See, that's how you do it, Cocked and Locked, "misguided people", that's bedside manner). Would I ever post that he should be terminated? NO WAY. That's not protected speech and is pretty stupid, as others have pointed out. Impeachment I would vote for, as I would have for some other presidents in my lifetime, if Constituonal grounds exist, and I could be convinced there are (taking over financial institutions, dictating executive compensation, ignoring contract and bankruptcy laws, election fraud possibility, etc.).

    Oh, and I wasn't trying to pigeon-hole you, C & L, with the question about the "living Constitution". Just curious, because of your wording. But I have grown to consider the phrase to be code for "whatever I want the Constiution to say". So, yeah, I was ready to jump if you had agreed to that phrase. Granted that there is a process for amending the Constitution.

  10. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The High Country
    Posts
    1,029
    I came here recently to read and share information talking about guns, CC and potentially related legal and constitutional subjects. But when I see blatantly extremist politically charged misleading and even patently false information presented I am going to speak out against it. If the moderators think my posting is inappropriate or against site policy in any way I am sure they will tell me about it. If anyone is unhappy about the outcome, then I will gladly leave.

    Peace.

  11. #20
    FYI, I'm not unhappy, C&L, I enjoy the verbal sparring, it's how we learn. I have the feeling we'd enjoy one's another's company (I'm a old conservative troglogdye, myself). Same as you, tho, I don't back up when I get pushed. Nothing wrong with that (I know, I know, we gotta walk away sometimes, I had my head handed to me on THAT issue), it's people like that who I want to stand shoulder to shoulder with when the dung hits the fan.

    Peace back at ya.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast