new lib stragety, rename conservatives

[PBzeer]

I gave a specific example, you counter with something far different. I don't know how to put it nicely, so I'll just be blunt, you're being dishonest.

For the benefit of others though, I'll respond. Any group, organized or not, who seeks to interrupt a person in the exercise of their right to free speech, when that person has been extended and accepted an invitation to speak, is denying that person their right to speak. Period. Is that clear enough? The incident I cited obviously meets that criteria.

It is all well and good to protest what someone says, ONCE THEY HAVE SAID IT. Once a person has been granted a forum, they should be allowed to avail themselves of it without interruption.

You want to protest that they were given the forum? Fine.
You want to protest what you think they are going to say? Fine
What isn't fine, is trying to prevent them from speaking freely, which is the whole point of interrupting them.

[craigimass]

Please give an example. I might agree with you. But just words are not good enough, you must illustrate the point based on the thread title and content....

I read the document. The intent is to be on the lookout for those who cross over the line. The text I quoted clearly says that......

So, give me an example of the free speech which is being shut down...

Oh, and someone please - change the title to spell strategy correctly......it illustrates the WRONG point.....

[camaraderie]

Originally Posted by craigimass

Hint Hint.....
Arming up and advocating armed insurrection is NOT free speech.

One can absolutely advocate armed insurrection under our first amendment. It is protected speech unless you are advocating violent action NOW.
See Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Both the KuKluxKlan and the Black Panthers have made good use of this decision in the past.

[PBzeer]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Funny, it wasn't that long ago that such missives were deemed to be politically motivated scare tactics. Now, there are necessary warnings. Lord knows, we have to keep those right wing whackos in check or they might start trampling on our rights like these models of tolerance did:
UNC students protested a speaker who opposes illegal immigrants in schools. - 4/15/09 - Raleigh News - abc11.com

No doubt craig you'll have a telling defense of why they should be allowed not just to protest (which they do), but to stop the speaker from speaking.

Evidently you still suffer from comprehension difficulties.

[PBzeer]

Let me put free speech in perspective. You have the right to spout whatever tom-fool nonsense you want. I have the right to ignore it. A right I'll be exercising until you demonstrate some level of awareness of what I've said, and some basic familiarity with easily discoverable facts, rather than the assumptions and characterizations you cite as fact.

[scottyt]

Originally Posted by craigimass

Please give an example. I might agree with you. But just words are not good enough, you must illustrate the point based on the thread title and content....

I read the document. The intent is to be on the lookout for those who cross over the line. The text I quoted clearly says that......

So, give me an example of the free speech which is being shut down...

Oh, and someone please - change the title to spell strategy correctly......it illustrates the WRONG point.....

craig you said they made lists of war protesters, if they protested with in the law that was wrong. if they broke the law then the right thing was done its called arrest records.

and according to your reasoning george washington should considered a right wing terrorist.

do i condone violence against the .gov, yes i do. when they reach a point that is different for everyone. mine just happens to be higher than some, but when it is reached any agent that enforces the unconstitutional laws and policies is a fair target.

as for trying to shut down free speech, can we say fairness doctrine

[craigimass]

I guess I would ask exactly WHO you support armed insurrection against? Also, folks should read up on Sedition :
"Sedition is a term of law which refers to covert conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection"

Folks - that means the President and Government gets to decide whether your "conduct, such as speech and organization" is promoting insurrection.

Personally, I look forward to the rounding up of Domestic Terrorist. You guys can send more money to the Tim McVeigh support fund.



Please note that The Insurrection Act of 1807 is back in full force as originally written.

"§ 332. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority

Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion."

"§ 333. Interference with State and Federal law

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. "

[PBzeer]

As Michelle Malkin sums up, while there have been DHS reports on left-wing groups, they have been specific to an actual group and the probable means they will use. As contrasted with the total lack of specifics about right-wing extremists or what they are likely to do. A distinction not without some bearing.

[scottyt]

Originally Posted by craigimass

I guess I would ask exactly WHO you support armed insurrection against?


Personally, I look forward to the rounding up of Domestic Terrorist.

first i am not and would not be a terrorist

as for whom, lets say the US goes full on depression, and the .gov decides that because i have a big enough house and have enough means to keep it warm that i must take in some home less in winter. or lets says the ATF reinterprets some more laws and decides that they now mean that lets say the ak that was legal 6 months ago now is not.

you also made no comment of my washington statment

and while you are at it PM me your address so when my many cousins up in Mass cant afford heat i can tell them where to go to get warm and a good meal. after all you are a good patriot ( i mean progressive, patriot was sarcastic ) who thinks those who have enough should share with those who dont

[craigimass]

If they don't do anything, then there is certainly no problem.

I'm sure the military has SOME plans about what to do if little green men arrive with Ray Guns (true), but it is unlikely to come to pass unless they do.

Oh, and as to being equal opportunity offenders, J Edgar definitely was one....see below....

Maybe you should read up on J Edgar Hoover:
"Hoover was concerned about subversion, and under his leadership, the FBI spied upon tens of thousands of suspected subversives and radicals. Hoover tended to exaggerate the dangers of subversives, and many times overstepped his bounds in his pursuit of eliminating that perceived threat"

On one hand, I'm glad you guys are finally seeing the light. On the other hand, you should have seen it about 40 years ago, and it's really too late.....

"In 1956, Hoover was becoming increasingly frustrated by Supreme Court decisions that limited the Justice Department's ability to prosecute people for their political opinions"
"This program remained in place until it was revealed to the public in 1971, and was the cause of some of the harshest criticism of Hoover and the FBI. COINTELPRO was first used to disrupt the Communist Party, and later such organizations such as the Black Panther Party, Martin Luther King, Jr.'s SCLC, the Ku Klux Klan, the neofascist American Nazi Party and others. Its methods included infiltration, burglaries, illegal wiretaps, planting forged documents and spreading false rumors about key members of target organizations.[15] Some authors have charged that COINTELPRO methods also included inciting violence and arranging murders.[16] In 1975, the activities of COINTELPRO were investigated by the "United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities" called the Church Committee after its chairman, Senator Frank Church (D-Idaho) and these activities were declared illegal and contrary to the Constitution.[17]"