Facebook Poll - Page 4
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 48

Thread: Facebook Poll

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,675
    This guy can be such a baby sometimes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    You had your chance, you have been warned, you belligerently ignore facts presented, Constitutional, and Established U.S. Case Law, and continue to call from Obama & Company's Liberal playbook...

    Obama Lover's Anti-Opposition Strategy...
    Identify your enemy's, isolate them and ridicule them... Saul Alinsky

    You are now on permanent ignore...

    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    Benjamin Franklin

  2.   
  3. #32
    U.S. Secret Service 10/1/2009:

    Re: Facebook Posting (Poll)...
    No Crime Has Been Committed... No Charges Will be Brought Forward...

  4. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,675
    Well I hope the idiot learned his lesson. I bet he won't be doing that again. Furthermore, I hope that others who may have been doing something similar have taken notice of this and figured that it isn't worth the trouble.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    U.S. Secret Service 10/1/2009:

    Re: Facebook Posting (Poll)...
    No Crime Has Been Committed... No Charges Will be Brought Forward...
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    Benjamin Franklin

  5. #34
    I wonder what the consensus would have been if this had happened under Ron Reagan or George Bush senior's presidency. Any threat, whether direct or veiled, should be investigated. Asking if a president should be killed is definitely a case for investigation. Remember there are those out there that may take this poll to heart and think they were doing what the public wants.

  6. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by ronwill View Post
    I wonder what the consensus would have been if this had happened under Ron Reagan or George Bush senior's presidency. Any threat, whether direct or veiled, should be investigated. Asking if a president should be killed is definitely a case for investigation. Remember there are those out there that may take this poll to heart and think they were doing what the public wants.
    As soon as they make a Constitutional Amendment Repealing the 1st Amendment, (5th, 14th and others) then they can implement the Brown Shirt Act, and appoint the Thought & Speech Police Czar...

    Until then you can say whatever you want, until somebody actually does something its just Free Speech...

    Further, SCOTUS and other courts have ruled multiple times that just because somebody might do something or says they will do something does not make it a crime...

    And they have more important things to investigate like who the heck is Barack Hussein Obama and how the heck did he get into the white house or the senate without a background check, vetting process, etc., with nothing more then a letter from Nancy Pelosi?

    Bill of Rights...
    God Given...
    Non-Negotiable...

    Without our Liberty, we have NOTHING...

    What Obama & Company really needs to worry about is how the heck they are going to win in 2010 & 2012 without ACORN, assuming impeachment, KARMA, etc., does not catch up to them first...

  7. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,675
    Why don't you just go ahead and say that you believe that having rights makes people immune from any consequences that may result from them exercising those rights irresponsibly? You have repeatedly and steadfastly refused to see this issue for what it is. Nobody here (myself included) is suggesting repealing the first amendment; we simply belive that people like this guy and people who yell fire in a crowded theater should be held responsible for the consequences of exercising their rights in an irresponsible or reckless manner.
    If someone libels, slanders, or otherwise defames you, would you simply brush it off with the justification that the defamer is just exercising their 1A rights? I would hope not.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    As soon as they make a Constitutional Amendment Repealing the 1st Amendment, (5th, 14th and others) then they can implement the Brown Shirt Act, and appoint the Thought & Speech Police Czar...

    Until then you can say whatever you want, until somebody actually does something its just Free Speech...

    Further, SCOTUS and other courts have ruled multiple times that just because somebody might do something or says they will do something does not make it a crime...

    And they have more important things to investigate like who the heck is Barack Hussein Obama and how the heck did he get into the white house or the senate without a background check, vetting process, etc., with nothing more then a letter from Nancy Pelosi?

    Bill of Rights...
    God Given...
    Non-Negotiable...

    Without our Liberty, we have NOTHING...

    What Obama & Company really needs to worry about is how the heck they are going to win in 2010 & 2012 without ACORN, assuming impeachment, KARMA, etc., does not catch up to them first...
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    Benjamin Franklin

  8. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    As soon as they make a Constitutional Amendment Repealing the 1st Amendment, (5th, 14th and others) then they can implement the Brown Shirt Act, and appoint the Thought & Speech Police Czar...

    Until then you can say whatever you want, until somebody actually does something its just Free Speech...

    Further, SCOTUS and other courts have ruled multiple times that just because somebody might do something or says they will do something does not make it a crime...

    And they have more important things to investigate like who the heck is Barack Hussein Obama and how the heck did he get into the white house or the senate without a background check, vetting process, etc., with nothing more then a letter from Nancy Pelosi?

    Bill of Rights...
    God Given...
    Non-Negotiable...

    Without our Liberty, we have NOTHING...

    What Obama & Company really needs to worry about is how the heck they are going to win in 2010 & 2012 without ACORN, assuming impeachment, KARMA, etc., does not catch up to them first...
    I've said it before, EVERY right has it's limitations and responsibilities. While you have freedom of speech it doesn't mean you can say anything you want whenever you want. If someone were to verbally threaten a member of your family what would you do?

  9. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by ronwill View Post
    I've said it before, EVERY right has it's limitations and responsibilities. While you have freedom of speech it doesn't mean you can say anything you want whenever you want. If someone were to verbally threaten a member of your family what would you do?
    I have to agree to disagree...

    And you have been wrong before...
    You are spewing the same b.s. the Obama lovers are spewing...

    "Just Because You Have A Right, Does Not Mean The Government Cannot Constrain That Right" - Barack Hussein Obama...

    Sorry, no cigar; That's exactly what it means...

    Show me Chapter and Verse in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, the 1st 12 enumerated Bill of Rights where it says you have this Right EXCEPT...

    The closest thing is in the reconstruction amendments, which clearly sought to make the earlier ones ambiguous... (Ever notice that it takes the Current Congress 1000's of pages of legalese to say what the founding fathers said in one paragraph?), they are flat out trying to baffle us with b.s. ...
    Be that as it may; the 14th Amendment States in part: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    What that means is until you have been charged with a crime, had your day in Court, and found guilty of some so-called abuse of your rights, or depriving someone else of theirs; you have committed no crime...

    Not being able to yell fire in a crowded theater as is often cited; is no constraint on the 1st Amendment, some municipality's call it malicious endangerment, some call it disturbing the peace; don't let anybody tell you it is a constraint on your pre-existing, fundamental, unalienable rights... as that is a logical fallacy, intended to convince people that there are limits to your rights...

    Bill of Rights...
    God Given...
    Non-Negotiable...

    Without our Liberty, we have NOTHING...

    THE FIRST FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION: YOUR RIGHTS DONíT COME FROM GOVERNMENT...

    RIGHTS do not have limitations, that's why they are called RIGHTS and not PRIVILEGES...

    Verbally threatening somebody in itself is not a crime, unless it is a tangible threat like they have a gun or knife or baseball bat, etc., in their hands when they are making said threat(s)...

    Until you actually yell fire in a crowded movie theater, when there is no cause for alarm, you have committed no crime...
    And it has nothing to do with any limitations on your rights...

  10. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    I have to agree to disagree...

    And you have been wrong before...
    You are spewing the same b.s. the Obama lovers are spewing...

    "Just Because You Have A Right, Does Not Mean The Government Cannot Constrain That Right" - Barack Hussein Obama...

    Sorry, no cigar; That's exactly what it means...

    Show me Chapter and Verse in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, the 1st 12 enumerated Bill of Rights where it says you have this Right EXCEPT...

    The closest thing is in the reconstruction amendments, which clearly sought to make the earlier ones ambiguous... (Ever notice that it takes the Current Congress 1000's of pages of legalese to say what the founding fathers said in one paragraph?), they are flat out trying to baffle us with b.s. ...
    Be that as it may; the 14th Amendment States in part: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    What that means is until you have been charged with a crime, had your day in Court, and found guilty of some so-called abuse of your rights, or depriving someone else of theirs; you have committed no crime...

    Not being able to yell fire in a crowded theater as is often cited; is no constraint on the 1st Amendment, some municipality's call it malicious endangerment, some call it disturbing the peace; don't let anybody tell you it is a constraint on your pre-existing, fundamental, unalienable rights... as that is a logical fallacy, intended to convince people that there are limits to your rights...

    Bill of Rights...
    God Given...
    Non-Negotiable...

    Without our Liberty, we have NOTHING...

    THE FIRST FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION: YOUR RIGHTS DONíT COME FROM GOVERNMENT...

    RIGHTS do not have limitations, that's why they are called RIGHTS and not PRIVILEGES...

    Verbally threatening somebody in itself is not a crime, unless it is a tangible threat like they have a gun or knife or baseball bat, etc., in their hands when they are making said threat(s)...

    Until you actually yell fire in a crowded movie theater, when there is no cause for alarm, you have committed no crime...
    And it has nothing to do with any limitations on your rights...
    Not exactly what I said. Verbal threat is considered assault as it should be. Individual right ends when it diminishes or subverts someone else's rights. Freedom of speech was protected by the forefathers so that "the people" could speak out against the government without fear of retribution not so that they could threaten anyone, either directly or indirectly. By the way, since when have I ever been wrong?

  11. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by ronwill View Post
    Not exactly what I said. Verbal threat is considered assault as it should be. Individual right ends when it diminishes or subverts someone else's rights. Freedom of speech was protected by the forefathers so that "the people" could speak out against the government without fear of retribution not so that they could threaten anyone, either directly or indirectly. By the way, since when have I ever been wrong?
    Again, there are no EXCEPTS or CONDITIONS placed on any rights in the Constitution...

    Further, SCOTUS and others have ruled multiple times; a Verbal Threat is NOT considered assault, or a crime unless it is considered imminent, meaning it is backed up by a weapon in hand for example...
    They have even ruled it is not a crime even IF the individual making the threat has a history of following through...
    Until they make good on the threat or attempt to do so, no crime has been committed...

    Recently in headlines a career criminal threatened to kill a judge in open court... his crime? Contempt of Court...

    Individual RIGHTS NEVER END...

    It is a crime to deprive someone of their RIGHTS...

    When you deprive someone of their rights, you are not using your rights to do so...
    the very statement is ludicrous...
    to say so gives weight to Obama Lovers whom want to take away what remaining freedoms we still have...

    There are no conditions placed on any RIGHTS, that is why they are not called PRIVILEGES...

    When you start conceding that there are conditions on pre-existing, fundamental, unalienable rights, there is no stopping it as justification for continued conditions... this is the lefts argument that the Constitution is a LIVING DOCUMENT...

    Bill of Rights...
    God Given...
    Non-Negotiable...

    Without our Liberty we have NOTHING...

    WTFU Sheeple...


Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 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