Video Game Forums - View Single Post

REfan46260 · 02-14-2006, 11:50 PM

Freedom of speech. It doesn't give us the right to yell "fire" in a crowded building, but we are free to write a story about someone yelling "fire" in a crowded building. Why? Isn't it because the former is something that taken seriously has potential to induce a panic and maybe get people hurt? The other it is assumable would only make a judge laugh if brought before him or her. I could almost hear them say, "It is clear enough to understand that this is a story. Why are you wasting the court's time with this?" Maybe there is some thread of reason in that to explain how they're thinking when as in my neck of the woods, a woman in an abusive relationship or anyone that just gets someone else pissed off enough to threaten their life asks the police to do something about it. What usually happens where you're from? Because here, they usually get told there's nothing the police can do without the person "screwing up", crossing some line. Why? Because the courts supposedly know that the job of the prosecution is to prove that this person really intends to murder you, and bottom line: their threats, especially if not direct (as in I will kill you), do NOT constitute proof that they were anything but pissed off. And so it is for all of us EXCEPT George Bush?!!?!

Do you even know what he said? I'm willing to bet you didn't. In other words, you were just willing to accept that whatever he said must have been a threat to the president without even knowing what he said. The news reported it, and on the show I watched, his post stated only that if anyone stood in the way of you or your families survival that it would be OK to shoot through that person. He then added for emphasis that that would include Bush. First off, I'm with him. I give a d*mn how many f*ckin federal badges or secret warrants you have, you threaten my family and I have to choose them or you, you are straight up dead my friend. I don't think stating the truth is one of those "exceptions" to our right of free speech. But that's not the point, and you distract from it by blindly buying the garbage they're selling. The real question is did he actually plan to kill the president or the rest of us little pions for that matter, after all, he said ANYONE. That includes you, me, Usama Bin Laden, or any other person in a (get this) hypothetical situation that they should want to personally see to it that he or his family did not get food when starving to death or medical attention when someone he loves would be dying for example. I say to you here and now, you are a sad human being if you yourself would not fight or die protecting you or yours. Most people haven't faced such a dramatic or extreme situation in real life (again, this was all sparked over a HYPOTHETICAL situation), but if things really got so 1984esqe as that, to where our own government turns against the people, I doubt many of us would just meekly say, "OK. I'll just go stumble over here, somewhere off cameras, keep my mouth shut, and die like a good little sheep."

Point is not whether he was pissed off. He obviously was. Point is not whether he spoke in anger. He certainly did. The point is, are you truly so gullible as to accept that this man was doing more than you or I might do in private talking among friends WITHOUT actually deciding to plot an assasination? George Bush already violates the freedom of the press and freedom of speech with his so-called "free speech zones". That's where anyone not in support of him gets ushered, out of the limelight and away from the cameras. Defend that for me, under the constitution, of course. Did you completely miss the obvious fact here, that I pointed out in my last post? That no serious assasin ever begins an undertaking as high-level and professional as would be necessary by first going on the internet and stating his intentions? Yeah, I'm sure his whole anger at the system f*cking up and mishandling the Katrina thing was all just a ploy to help him get invited to the next $2,000 a plate fund-raiser the president went to. The real question here is that if you can't see the silencing of a fellow american citizen speaking his mind inconveniently under the scrutiny of the disapproving public by a president who already does so at every press conference he holds, then doesn't that make you the dumbsh*t?

02-14-2006, 11:50 PM	#40
REfan46260 Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Indianapolis, IN Posts: 200 Thanks: 0 Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts Points: 863.43 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 1,363.43 Donate	Freedom of speech. It doesn't give us the right to yell "fire" in a crowded building, but we are free to write a story about someone yelling "fire" in a crowded building. Why? Isn't it because the former is something that taken seriously has potential to induce a panic and maybe get people hurt? The other it is assumable would only make a judge laugh if brought before him or her. I could almost hear them say, "It is clear enough to understand that this is a story. Why are you wasting the court's time with this?" Maybe there is some thread of reason in that to explain how they're thinking when as in my neck of the woods, a woman in an abusive relationship or anyone that just gets someone else pissed off enough to threaten their life asks the police to do something about it. What usually happens where you're from? Because here, they usually get told there's nothing the police can do without the person "screwing up", crossing some line. Why? Because the courts supposedly know that the job of the prosecution is to prove that this person really intends to murder you, and bottom line: their threats, especially if not direct (as in I will kill you), do NOT constitute proof that they were anything but pissed off. And so it is for all of us EXCEPT George Bush?!!?! Do you even know what he said? I'm willing to bet you didn't. In other words, you were just willing to accept that whatever he said must have been a threat to the president without even knowing what he said. The news reported it, and on the show I watched, his post stated only that if anyone stood in the way of you or your families survival that it would be OK to shoot through that person. He then added for emphasis that that would include Bush. First off, I'm with him. I give a dmn how many fckin federal badges or secret warrants you have, you threaten my family and I have to choose them or you, you are straight up dead my friend. I don't think stating the truth is one of those "exceptions" to our right of free speech. But that's not the point, and you distract from it by blindly buying the garbage they're selling. The real question is did he actually plan to kill the president or the rest of us little pions for that matter, after all, he said ANYONE. That includes you, me, Usama Bin Laden, or any other person in a (get this) hypothetical situation that they should want to personally see to it that he or his family did not get food when starving to death or medical attention when someone he loves would be dying for example. I say to you here and now, you are a sad human being if you yourself would not fight or die protecting you or yours. Most people haven't faced such a dramatic or extreme situation in real life (again, this was all sparked over a HYPOTHETICAL situation), but if things really got so 1984esqe as that, to where our own government turns against the people, I doubt many of us would just meekly say, "OK. I'll just go stumble over here, somewhere off cameras, keep my mouth shut, and die like a good little sheep." Point is not whether he was pissed off. He obviously was. Point is not whether he spoke in anger. He certainly did. The point is, are you truly so gullible as to accept that this man was doing more than you or I might do in private talking among friends WITHOUT actually deciding to plot an assasination? George Bush already violates the freedom of the press and freedom of speech with his so-called "free speech zones". That's where anyone not in support of him gets ushered, out of the limelight and away from the cameras. Defend that for me, under the constitution, of course. Did you completely miss the obvious fact here, that I pointed out in my last post? That no serious assasin ever begins an undertaking as high-level and professional as would be necessary by first going on the internet and stating his intentions? Yeah, I'm sure his whole anger at the system fcking up and mishandling the Katrina thing was all just a ploy to help him get invited to the next $2,000 a plate fund-raiser the president went to. The real question here is that if you can't see the silencing of a fellow american citizen speaking his mind inconveniently under the scrutiny of the disapproving public by a president who already does so at every press conference he holds, then doesn't that make you the dumbsht?