Bush Responds to Kanye - Page 2 - VGF

Toad556 · 01-30-2006, 08:22 PM

You REALLY don't want him to get started on race.

Andre begins to get like that Chicken Limbo thing....it won't stop.

Link2000 · 01-30-2006, 08:45 PM

Andre, what exactally do you want the government to do?

Darth_Flava · 01-30-2006, 10:25 PM

Thats fine, I don't want to get started on race Sothernsmoke. Maybe I did jump in head first without thinking and I'm sorry. My problem is that I have seen people complain things that are happening in the government that I feel are pointless in complaining about. I guess I see things differently and all of it has just gotten to the point where I'm just sick of hearing it. Bush isn't all that great a president, I will say that, but from my view he was better than Kerry. My bad for complaining.

Sen. Brak Obama (FACE) · 01-30-2006, 10:27 PM

How about actually give a **** and do more than make more jails, or more laws.
That's just more people to get put away and more crimes to be commit.

How about actually going in there to clean it up?

How about not just leaving it there like it's just an invisible ink blot?

Apparently, whatever the hell they DID do isn't working if 99% of it is still there.

Sen. Brak Obama (FACE) · 01-30-2006, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth_Flava

Thats fine, I don't want to get started on race Sothernsmoke. Maybe I did jump in head first without thinking and I'm sorry. My problem is that I have seen people complain things that are happening in the government that I feel are pointless in complaining about. I guess I see things differently and all of it has just gotten to the point where I'm just sick of hearing it. Bush isn't all that great a president, I will say that, but from my view he was better than Kerry. My bad for complaining.

That's no problem, we all disagree on something, I just don't like it when people try and tell me that I didn't do something I know I did.

From there, I can go off on tangents

Link2000 · 01-30-2006, 10:38 PM

Ok, so you want to allow more criminals back on the streets, and see them "cleaned up." How exactally should the government go about cleaning up the poor inner cities?

Beam Yosho the Drunkard · 01-30-2006, 11:14 PM

Give the kids something to do (Our generation is pretty screwed up, so no need to drag the next into the same place)

And by "cleaning up", I believe he means helping out those hooked on particular drugs like Crystal Meth, Cocaine, etc. (If that's not what he meant, then whatever. This still helps.) And the dealers are the ones who shouldn't be getting out of jail.

And he doesn't mean all the criminals, either. There are those that truely should never come back into society ever again.

Beam Yosho the Drunkard · 01-30-2006, 11:16 PM

(Whoops.)

Darth_Flava · 01-31-2006, 03:07 PM

Yeah we need to keep people like Michael Myers off the street.
But on a more serious note, I do wish there some way to fix the problems of today. The only problem is there just isn't enough people who care in Congress to get the job done. It truly is sad.

Sen. Brak Obama (FACE) · 01-31-2006, 06:18 PM

Pretty much what Beam was saying.

You all saw New Orleans before Katrina right?

That's just a sample, but it shows the damned cycle that continues all teh time. Slavery/Racism didn't just effect our ancestors, it's sure as hell effecting us. Because of Slavery/Racism, unequality, blacks weren't living in the suburbs and all that. There was that few percentage that did have it good (and I mean FEW), but when America was legally "equal" (and I use that loosely, cause after the "victory" it still took awhile to get out of that whole), a majority of blacks were still in poverty, in inner cities while the Americans living the "American Dream" were mainly white.

When you're stuck in the inner city, it's a terrible cycle, a cycle that few escaped in the 60s, and that few (but more) escape today.

1. Mother has children, often times without a father in the home, and many times, they are young.
2. Family is poor, with mom/dad/mom and dad, working multiple jobs just trying to get by.
3. Child grows up, and sees that parents can't do it alone. First resort is a legal job, but that doesn't do too well, then he/she resorts to drugs because it's a huge profit when done right, along with the fact that all they're around are dope dealers, drug lords, all that ****.
4a. They create children, that repeat the damned cycle continuously
4b. They End up in jail, and upon release, try to regain what they lost.
Worst part is, they never get out, and that's all they know. Which is why you hear so many blacks saying Katrina was a blessing in disguise for those families that were living below income. They can get to somewhere else, and start life over, hopefully breaking the cycle for the next generation. A good majority of New Orleans residents are not going back to New Orleans.

Link2000 · 01-31-2006, 06:42 PM

Nice sob story.

You still aren't giving any concrete proposals to actually change anything.

Sen. Brak Obama (FACE) · 01-31-2006, 07:10 PM

Okay, how about this:

Those without education, help them get started where they left off.

Get night schooling for those who didn't finish highschool. Get those who didn't attend college to go, help sponsor them, set up some kind of program for donations to ALLOW them to get into a college.

With that kind of education, they can get a good paying job, to support their family, and actually sustain them in a good neighborhood without continuously relying on loans.

That's one step.

Next step, get those addicted to drugs, rehab, and to those selling that ****, put em away. For some amount of time, a good amount of time. Clean up these neighborhoods, if that means a major crackdown (not intended), then so be it. A major haul needs to be done.

All this stuff can be said for lower income whites, blacks, hispanics, WHATEVER, just get it done, and get em outta there. Their family members that are doing good shouldn't be the only ones taht are trying to clean it up.

Link2000 · 01-31-2006, 08:39 PM

The Federal government has little (and it should have none) say in education. Tying Bush to inner-city dropouts is incredibly foolish. I'm all for night schooling, but I believe that's in place now anyway. Allow the government to set up student loans (which will be automatically paid back in income taxes), but the government shouldn't be giving people free rides for university. These people are obviously choosing not to go to school.

Take a look at Vancouver's poorest areas and see what not prosecuting the users does. The cops openly admit they won't prosecute the druggies, and they are all out on the streets, and it is easily the poorest neighbourhood in our country. Doing stuff like that just attracts more addicts.

Sen. Brak Obama (FACE) · 01-31-2006, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Link2000

The Federal government has little (and it should have none) say in education. Tying Bush to inner-city dropouts is incredibly foolish. I'm all for night schooling, but I believe that's in place now anyway. Allow the government to set up student loans (which will be automatically paid back in income taxes), but the government shouldn't be giving people free rides for university. These people are obviously choosing not to go to school.

Take a look at Vancouver's poorest areas and see what not prosecuting the users does. The cops openly admit they won't prosecute the druggies, and they are all out on the streets, and it is easily the poorest neighbourhood in our country. Doing stuff like that just attracts more addicts.

1. Never tied Bush to dropouts

2. Read what I posted before, kids drop out young so they can work and make money for the family. It all runs together, which is why, setting up some kind of fund, would help. Doesn't neccesarily have to be the government, but SOMEONE needs to begin a fund like that, like some type of charity.

It's hard to explain the way it is. I've been a part of it, and thankfully, I'm not anymore, I've been gone since a young age, but the people I left behind are still there, and I see what goes on anytime I go back to visit.

Lurch1982 · 02-01-2006, 02:45 PM

If the educational burden should be on the local level, how exactly does a city like, say Pre-Katrina New Orleans pay for the educational system? Average annual income was about 20K/year (Keep in mind that this average includes some of the wealthiest people in the state who live uptown and in the orleans side of Lakeview). The tax base left after integration in the whole "White Flight" social phenomenon. So jump from the 60s, where the education wasn't great but was passable to the present where Orleans is considered one of the worst school districts in the country. Simply put, public education has problems getting financed when the tax base is that small. Compare it to the predominantly white suburbs of the area, where the average income rised significantly. Suddenly, you have schools that get more funding because of the larger tax base (higher incomes and more property owners). Simply put, if someone was born into poverty in the Orleans suburbs as opposed to being born into poverty in the inner city, they'd have a better shot of making it through and moving upwards.

Should someone be forced into an inescapable class simply because they were born in the city and have no means out?

I can't tie Bush to dropouts, but I can tie him to gashing Student Loan programs and federally backed need-based financial aid (IE: Pell Grants) for college.

The government does and should provide assistance for education, including free rides to school. Need based grants are essential to getting underprivledged kids into universities, especially since the prospect of going into debt should not be dumped on people who lack the family support to assist them when they finish school.

And when you have a group of bible-thumping retards trying to say "the theory of evolution is bogus, look at Creation---I MEAN INTELLIGENT DESIGN for the real truth," it proves that the localities cannot be trusted with educational matters.

Serial Miller · 02-02-2006, 02:52 AM

Andre, sometimes you have to admit you don't have the money, and the system itself isn't going to put out for you. I understand that while I'm not terribly off from here, no one really cares enough to give me a thumbs up or a pat on the back. They want something, and by not helping you, they're quicker to achieve it. It's not a Bush syndrome so much as the social hierarchy and capitalist-minded system of take and take. They don't want to do anything about it because it's money and time and admitting they were wrong.

Sen. Brak Obama (FACE) · 02-02-2006, 03:54 PM

Well, let's get one thing straight, I respect Bush, I don't like him as a president, but I respect the guy. I don't blame him for urban problems because it's not all his fault...if at all. But AI and Lurch have pretty much hit everything I wanted to say, just calmer.

Lurch1982 · 02-03-2006, 03:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rubber Band Man

Well, let's get one thing straight, I respect Bush,

I don't.

Sen. Brak Obama (FACE) · 02-04-2006, 07:08 PM

Well, I can see that.

I can't say I don't respect a person unless I personally know them, so I guess I'm on the fence for that one

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?

01-30-2006, 10:27 PM	#24
Sen. Brak Obama (FACE) Polk/McLaughlin '08: The Greatness You Already Knew Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Birmingham, AL Gender: Posts: 12,901 Thanks: 909 Thanked 646 Times in 378 Posts Points: 45,673.71 Bank: 436,098.14 Total Points: 481,771.85 Donate	How about actually give a **** and do more than make more jails, or more laws. That's just more people to get put away and more crimes to be commit. How about actually going in there to clean it up? How about not just leaving it there like it's just an invisible ink blot? Apparently, whatever the hell they DID do isn't working if 99% of it is still there. __________________

01-31-2006, 06:18 PM	#30
Sen. Brak Obama (FACE) Polk/McLaughlin '08: The Greatness You Already Knew Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Birmingham, AL Gender: Posts: 12,901 Thanks: 909 Thanked 646 Times in 378 Posts Points: 45,673.71 Bank: 436,098.14 Total Points: 481,771.85 Donate	Pretty much what Beam was saying. You all saw New Orleans before Katrina right? That's just a sample, but it shows the damned cycle that continues all teh time. Slavery/Racism didn't just effect our ancestors, it's sure as hell effecting us. Because of Slavery/Racism, unequality, blacks weren't living in the suburbs and all that. There was that few percentage that did have it good (and I mean FEW), but when America was legally "equal" (and I use that loosely, cause after the "victory" it still took awhile to get out of that whole), a majority of blacks were still in poverty, in inner cities while the Americans living the "American Dream" were mainly white. When you're stuck in the inner city, it's a terrible cycle, a cycle that few escaped in the 60s, and that few (but more) escape today. 1. Mother has children, often times without a father in the home, and many times, they are young. 2. Family is poor, with mom/dad/mom and dad, working multiple jobs just trying to get by. 3. Child grows up, and sees that parents can't do it alone. First resort is a legal job, but that doesn't do too well, then he/she resorts to drugs because it's a huge profit when done right, along with the fact that all they're around are dope dealers, drug lords, all that ****. 4a. They create children, that repeat the damned cycle continuously 4b. They End up in jail, and upon release, try to regain what they lost. Worst part is, they never get out, and that's all they know. Which is why you hear so many blacks saying Katrina was a blessing in disguise for those families that were living below income. They can get to somewhere else, and start life over, hopefully breaking the cycle for the next generation. A good majority of New Orleans residents are not going back to New Orleans. __________________

01-31-2006, 07:10 PM	#32
Sen. Brak Obama (FACE) Polk/McLaughlin '08: The Greatness You Already Knew Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Birmingham, AL Gender: Posts: 12,901 Thanks: 909 Thanked 646 Times in 378 Posts Points: 45,673.71 Bank: 436,098.14 Total Points: 481,771.85 Donate	Okay, how about this: Those without education, help them get started where they left off. Get night schooling for those who didn't finish highschool. Get those who didn't attend college to go, help sponsor them, set up some kind of program for donations to ALLOW them to get into a college. With that kind of education, they can get a good paying job, to support their family, and actually sustain them in a good neighborhood without continuously relying on loans. That's one step. Next step, get those addicted to drugs, rehab, and to those selling that ****, put em away. For some amount of time, a good amount of time. Clean up these neighborhoods, if that means a major crackdown (not intended), then so be it. A major haul needs to be done. All this stuff can be said for lower income whites, blacks, hispanics, WHATEVER, just get it done, and get em outta there. Their family members that are doing good shouldn't be the only ones taht are trying to clean it up. __________________

02-02-2006, 03:54 PM	#37
Sen. Brak Obama (FACE) Polk/McLaughlin '08: The Greatness You Already Knew Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Birmingham, AL Gender: Posts: 12,901 Thanks: 909 Thanked 646 Times in 378 Posts Points: 45,673.71 Bank: 436,098.14 Total Points: 481,771.85 Donate	Well, let's get one thing straight, I respect Bush, I don't like him as a president, but I respect the guy. I don't blame him for urban problems because it's not all his fault...if at all. But AI and Lurch have pretty much hit everything I wanted to say, just calmer. __________________

02-04-2006, 07:08 PM	#39
Sen. Brak Obama (FACE) Polk/McLaughlin '08: The Greatness You Already Knew Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Birmingham, AL Gender: Posts: 12,901 Thanks: 909 Thanked 646 Times in 378 Posts Points: 45,673.71 Bank: 436,098.14 Total Points: 481,771.85 Donate	Well, I can see that. I can't say I don't respect a person unless I personally know them, so I guess I'm on the fence for that one __________________

01-30-2006, 08:22 PM	#21
Toad556 Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Pffft <insert witty comment here> Gender: Posts: 687 Thanks: 2 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 27,636.71 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 28,136.71 Donate	You REALLY don't want him to get started on race. Andre begins to get like that Chicken Limbo thing....it won't stop.

01-30-2006, 08:45 PM	#22
Link2000 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Ontario, Canada Gender: Posts: 8,052 Thanks: 1 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post Points: 15,481.15 Bank: 804.22 Total Points: 16,285.37 Donate	Andre, what exactally do you want the government to do?

01-30-2006, 10:25 PM	#23
Darth_Flava Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: North Carolina Posts: 95 Thanks: 0 Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts Points: 3,779.92 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 4,279.92 Donate	Thats fine, I don't want to get started on race Sothernsmoke. Maybe I did jump in head first without thinking and I'm sorry. My problem is that I have seen people complain things that are happening in the government that I feel are pointless in complaining about. I guess I see things differently and all of it has just gotten to the point where I'm just sick of hearing it. Bush isn't all that great a president, I will say that, but from my view he was better than Kerry. My bad for complaining.

01-30-2006, 10:38 PM	#26
Link2000 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Ontario, Canada Gender: Posts: 8,052 Thanks: 1 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post Points: 15,481.15 Bank: 804.22 Total Points: 16,285.37 Donate	Ok, so you want to allow more criminals back on the streets, and see them "cleaned up." How exactally should the government go about cleaning up the poor inner cities?

01-30-2006, 11:14 PM	#27
Beam Yosho the Drunkard Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: The oversized rock of Hawaii. Gender: Posts: 5,665 Thanks: 5 Thanked 17 Times in 13 Posts Points: 22,021.39 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 22,521.39 Donate	Give the kids something to do (Our generation is pretty screwed up, so no need to drag the next into the same place) And by "cleaning up", I believe he means helping out those hooked on particular drugs like Crystal Meth, Cocaine, etc. (If that's not what he meant, then whatever. This still helps.) And the dealers are the ones who shouldn't be getting out of jail. And he doesn't mean all the criminals, either. There are those that truely should never come back into society ever again.

01-30-2006, 11:16 PM	#28
Beam Yosho the Drunkard Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: The oversized rock of Hawaii. Gender: Posts: 5,665 Thanks: 5 Thanked 17 Times in 13 Posts Points: 22,021.39 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 22,521.39 Donate	(Whoops.)

01-31-2006, 03:07 PM	#29
Darth_Flava Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: North Carolina Posts: 95 Thanks: 0 Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts Points: 3,779.92 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 4,279.92 Donate	Yeah we need to keep people like Michael Myers off the street. But on a more serious note, I do wish there some way to fix the problems of today. The only problem is there just isn't enough people who care in Congress to get the job done. It truly is sad.

01-31-2006, 06:42 PM	#31
Link2000 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Ontario, Canada Gender: Posts: 8,052 Thanks: 1 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post Points: 15,481.15 Bank: 804.22 Total Points: 16,285.37 Donate	Nice sob story. You still aren't giving any concrete proposals to actually change anything.

01-31-2006, 08:39 PM	#33
Link2000 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Ontario, Canada Gender: Posts: 8,052 Thanks: 1 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post Points: 15,481.15 Bank: 804.22 Total Points: 16,285.37 Donate	The Federal government has little (and it should have none) say in education. Tying Bush to inner-city dropouts is incredibly foolish. I'm all for night schooling, but I believe that's in place now anyway. Allow the government to set up student loans (which will be automatically paid back in income taxes), but the government shouldn't be giving people free rides for university. These people are obviously choosing not to go to school. Take a look at Vancouver's poorest areas and see what not prosecuting the users does. The cops openly admit they won't prosecute the druggies, and they are all out on the streets, and it is easily the poorest neighbourhood in our country. Doing stuff like that just attracts more addicts.

02-01-2006, 02:45 PM	#35
Lurch1982 Senior Member Join Date: May 2000 Location: Katrinaland, USA Gender: Posts: 9,092 Thanks: 117 Thanked 175 Times in 116 Posts Points: 23,560.73 Bank: 113,982.44 Total Points: 137,543.17 Donate	If the educational burden should be on the local level, how exactly does a city like, say Pre-Katrina New Orleans pay for the educational system? Average annual income was about 20K/year (Keep in mind that this average includes some of the wealthiest people in the state who live uptown and in the orleans side of Lakeview). The tax base left after integration in the whole "White Flight" social phenomenon. So jump from the 60s, where the education wasn't great but was passable to the present where Orleans is considered one of the worst school districts in the country. Simply put, public education has problems getting financed when the tax base is that small. Compare it to the predominantly white suburbs of the area, where the average income rised significantly. Suddenly, you have schools that get more funding because of the larger tax base (higher incomes and more property owners). Simply put, if someone was born into poverty in the Orleans suburbs as opposed to being born into poverty in the inner city, they'd have a better shot of making it through and moving upwards. Should someone be forced into an inescapable class simply because they were born in the city and have no means out? I can't tie Bush to dropouts, but I can tie him to gashing Student Loan programs and federally backed need-based financial aid (IE: Pell Grants) for college. The government does and should provide assistance for education, including free rides to school. Need based grants are essential to getting underprivledged kids into universities, especially since the prospect of going into debt should not be dumped on people who lack the family support to assist them when they finish school. And when you have a group of bible-thumping retards trying to say "the theory of evolution is bogus, look at Creation---I MEAN INTELLIGENT DESIGN for the real truth," it proves that the localities cannot be trusted with educational matters.

02-02-2006, 02:52 AM	#36
Serial Miller Retro Nintendo Supermod Art & Literature Mod Metroid Mod Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: I rub my tilde all over your asterisk Gender: Posts: 15,679 Thanks: 416 Thanked 1,046 Times in 585 Posts Points: 14,117.59 Bank: 1,556,398.07 Total Points: 1,570,515.65 Donate	Andre, sometimes you have to admit you don't have the money, and the system itself isn't going to put out for you. I understand that while I'm not terribly off from here, no one really cares enough to give me a thumbs up or a pat on the back. They want something, and by not helping you, they're quicker to achieve it. It's not a Bush syndrome so much as the social hierarchy and capitalist-minded system of take and take. They don't want to do anything about it because it's money and time and admitting they were wrong.

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?