quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
Based upon the first post where the DOJ "might incite violence," I suggest that we reexamine this. There are some here that refer to others as "nutsuckers." Is this not a slight against both conservatives (the context generally used) but both males and females regardless of politics that physically perform the act?
"Political correctness" is another example. I have those that demand a citation for my and those of others personal beliefs. It is as if our thoughts can not be ours but must belong to someone else. We have all been told at one time or another that our citations, when used, are invalid. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox, PBS, BBC, AP, and on and on are invalid. Why, because the "thought/speech police" say so, at least in my opinion.
If we use the DOJ standard of "might incite violence" as a standard, then why did we ever let the public know about 9/11/11 or 12/7/45? Both dates definately incited violence.
Where in the Constitution does the first amendment say that thought or speech, no matter how repugnant, hinges solely upon thought or speech unless there is an act involved beyond those thoughts or the speech? And yes, I know things like yelling fire in a crowded room is speech but that speech created the act and comspiracy to conduct an act is a part of the criminal code.

Some people do not like being called racists, and calling someone a racist "might incite violence," so is that going to be outlawed?

Some groups might not like being called "terrorists," either. If a group might retaliate violently, I suppose we need to stop doing that.

If some group is called criminal/terrorist and the evidence can be proven; then its the truth. If the evidence does not clearly back up the statement, they can be sued. Even have a judge force them to make a public apology in addition to other damages.

But if those groups end up using violence to 'prove themselves', then it seems the entity that stated the words was right all along. For them to react violently means they just needed an excuse to attack society before they were ready for such an attack. Law enforcement puts them down;hauls them to trial. Not many serving on juries will be lenient or forgiving of criminals and terrorists on trial. Particularly if they know of people being injured/killed that they liked/loved.


BTW, its not the DOJ that stated "might incite violence,". The DOJ would go after hate speech (that would imply someone else) that incites violence. Meaning if someone GOP 'presidential' candidate were to state we should do 'X' mean things towards 'y' religious groups; and a rash of individuals go an do such, the DOJ would go after the speaker of hate. The DOJ had to state this recently as a matter of public awareness in light of the comments coming from Mr. Trump, Mr. Cruz, and others. That they each have a following shows their words register as 'truth' and 'correct' in the minds of the followers (even when the information is bogus and misleading). A smaller percentage (I would like to think its a smaller percentage) might be tempted to act out in force. Which means the DOJ would hold that GOP 'presidential' candidate fully accountable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/16/evangelical_college_suspends_tenured_professor_for_saying_christians_and_muslims_worship_the_same_god_echoing_pope/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

But of course nutsuckers are trying to take your 1st amendment rights away.

sorry comrade, the first amendment is in reference to the government and speech, not private institutions and speech. whats more, faculty at Christian colleges sign a contract agreeing not to teach contrary to the doctrine of the church under whose auspices the college finds itself. its a condition of the hiring.
...

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Now...if a black person kills a cop...or any white person...I assume you'd be the one calling for Obama's DOJ to go after not just the killer but Farrakhan too?

You have found one quote from one person...now you feel justifieliba od in extoling the virtues of white cops who murder blacks...how kewel for you.


You idiotic liar.

Oh my .sticks and stones.



..find ONE post where I've extolled the virtues of cops killing anyone.

How about your defense of the cop party singing songs about dead blacks???

You can't because I've never stated it. I've said when I thought they were right...Darren Wilson...and I when I thought they were wrong...the idiot cop shooting a black man running away down south...and I'll continue to do so but not once have I extolled the virtues of a white cop killing black men.

Now then, given this thread is about speech inciting violence and NOT about your obsession with white cops, why don't you try addressing that?

Your consistant refusal to read the doj report on furgistan is quite telling. The only part you are familiar with is the part where there was no indictment....yes we are quite aware of your pc bigotry

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

I'll tell you what asshole, I remember that thread and I didn't say one fucking word in praise of those cops. You bring forth that post, since that's what you're calling me on. Otherwise, as I noted, you're a liar.


You do not remember defending wilson? You do not remember calling brown a thug? You do not remember reading what the doj reports said????Oh yes you refuse to read them.


"Yes it is bad.
Of course, one is a sick parody celebrating the death of a thug."

Yes it is" bad" but it is celebrating the death of a thug.
Your pc bigotry is pretty clear. Tell us again why the doj did not indict wilson???? Oh wait you did not read that part you were too busy celebrating the death of a thug

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


ORIGINAL: thompsonx

I'll tell you what asshole, I remember that thread and I didn't say one fucking word in praise of those cops. You bring forth that post, since that's what you're calling me on. Otherwise, as I noted, you're a liar.


You do not remember defending wilson? You do not remember calling brown a thug? You do not remember reading what the doj reports said????Oh yes you refuse to read them.


"Yes it is bad.
Of course, one is a sick parody celebrating the death of a thug."

Yes it is" bad" but it is celebrating the death of a thug.
Your pc bigotry is pretty clear. Tell us again why the doj did not indict wilson???? Oh wait you did not read that part you were too busy celebrating the death of a thug


You really are a sick, twisted fuck.

That is exactly what your mom said...but you know how she gets when she drinks.


..eliminating whole lines to try and make it appear as if I actually said what you said I did.

So now you are saying that you did not say that?

Yes, I defended Wilson. He was a police officer doing his job and cleared of any wrongdoing by the Grand Jury ANNND unable to be brought under charges of violating "Thug" Brown's civil rights.

Now those of us who have read the doj report know that is not true. When you try to discuss a subject don't you think it useful to actually know what you are discussing?


I didn't extol his virtues...he may have well been a lousy cop any other day of the week.

May have been a lousy cop????once again you display your ignorance of the substance of the discussion. If you were not so lazy you would not appear so ignorant.


But on this day, he did his job properly. I defended that.

Since you have not read the doj report you are once again talking out of your ass. The doj report is quite clear that while he was doing his "job" properly that "job" was illegal. Your ignorance boarders on stupid


Only in your twisted world is that extolling Officer Wilson's virtues.

Actually, in the world of those who speak english, you did.

Then there's this bullshit first claim of yours: You have found one quote from one person...now you feel justifieliba od in extoling the virtues of white cops who murder blacks...how kewel for you.

Then when asked to prove where I extolled the virtues of white cops killing blacks, you bring the following: "Yes it is bad.
Of course, one is a sick parody celebrating the death of a thug."

Now, we get to the part about eliminating lines. In the thread about Black Lives Matter becoming a terrorist group, you brought forth a cite for a video showing RETIRED (not active duty) cops singing a song parody celebrating the death of Michael Brown.

You have proof that no active duty cops were present?
How does one become a retired cop? Oh yes by first being an active duty one.


Other posters noted the video wasn't quite the claim you made (you neglected to mention they were all retired cops, NOT active duty cops...in your claim, cops were celebrating).

That other racist bigots side with a racits bigot is hardly surprising...should we alert the press?

What I said in Post 178(the bold parts are what you eliminated)was this:

Yes it is bad. At least as bad as "pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon"
Of course, one is a sick parody celebrating the death of a thug.

The other is an incitement urging action. Sort of like the Nation of Islam's leader asking 10,000 black men to rise up and 'do to them what they've done to us'.

Pretty simple for those of us who speak english. Have the cops got a valid issue to say "do to them what they have done to us?" How many cops have been executed by blacks?...as opposed to blacks being executed by cops?

That's it. No defense of their actions. No extolling their virtues. I noted it was bad AND sick. It STILL doesn't match up to BLM inciting people to go and kill LIVING police officers.

So you are on record as being against retaliation?

As for the rest of your blathering,

Truth is often refered to as blathering by bigoted racist...it makes them feel better about their bigotry.

if you're going to draw conclusions about my supporting police extorting anybody...black or white...based on the point that I didn't read the Ferguson report, you're not just a sick, twisted liar...you're an idiot too. Find evidence that I've stated my support for those actions...overt or subtle BUT in writing...and I'll deal with it.

When confronted with the evidence you want to know the page and line number of the doj report instead of reading the report. The self imposed ignorance is yours and you keep screaming how proud you are of your ignorance.


But if your so-called proof is no better than this cesspool you've brought forth, then you will have failed again.

Thus far I have proved and cited all of my statements. You for your part are content to put your feet in your mouth and your head up your ass.