loosecannon
Senior Member
- May 7, 2007
- 4,888
- 269
- 48
Crazy people will always find something that will trigger them, or feed their delusions.
Do all crazy people launch attacks on public figures in crowds? Oh wait, they almost never do.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Crazy people will always find something that will trigger them, or feed their delusions.
Holy fuck! wait for it.. wait for it.
Wait for what? The outrage on the left?
The left is outraged that the shooter was a pot smoking metal head and not a tea partier.
he's probably right, and yes you were wrong. What he is saying is that some of us are unable to handle the vitriolic banter on the internet. Without wigging out and killing people.
That's a sad testament that we have devolved into a mush brain society, unable to decipher or incapable of handling alternative viewpoints, or heaven forbid...a criticism.
"some of us" being the operative phrase
as long as we consider one 9/11 intolerable and consider one stray assassination intolerable then we have to manage our risks to account for that .001% of folks who might go on a killing spree over unusually free speech
If we are willing to tolerate an occasional 9/11, abortion doc murder or Oklahoma city bombing then the current internet is probably just fine.
Crazy people will always find something that will trigger them, or feed their delusions.
Do all crazy people launch attacks on public figures in crowds? Oh wait, they almost never do.
If you dolts understood the first amendment you would understand there are limits. If you are opposed to pronography, you accept the government has a role in curtailing speech.
Crazy people will always find something that will trigger them, or feed their delusions.
Do all crazy people launch attacks on public figures in crowds? Oh wait, they almost never do.
If you dolts understood the first amendment you would understand there are limits. If you are opposed to pronography, you accept the government has a role in curtailing speech.
I never gave the government this right.
Crazy people will always find something that will trigger them, or feed their delusions.
Do all crazy people launch attacks on public figures in crowds? Oh wait, they almost never do.
loosecannon should log off, power down, and never boot up his computer again lest the scawy internet cause him to lose his mind and go on a killing spree.
true story
If you dolts understood the first amendment you would understand there are limits. If you are opposed to pronography, you accept the government has a role in curtailing speech.
I never gave the government this right.
The government doesn't have any rights. It has POWER.
I say you're lying.I watched the news feed on FOX. I saw him say it.
I say you're lying.I watched the news feed on FOX. I saw him say it.
This will explode over the next few days.MSNBC Ed Shultz and Keith Olberman in particular already started with the blame game and guess who the focus was on?....Today's NY Daily News screamed on the front page that Sarah Palin has blood on her hands...You lefties really want to keep pushing that one?
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' blood is on Sarah Palin's hands after putting cross hair over district
Given that, does the irony of your position occur to you?last I checked yelling fire was a public safety issue that endanged other peoples lives and had no polital value, not political speech which is protected. Rhetoric is a tool of speech thats been used in this country since its founding, and to be honest is rather mild compared to whats it been in the past. Shame the people are becoming so wussified that they cry at being offended and look to mommy government to protect them from the big bad words instead of growing the fuck up and acting like an adult that can think and act for themselves. Insurection is not speech and neither is committing a crime or conspiracy and hate speech is an agravating factor in the commission of another crime, not a crime unto ityself (this nation is not completely ruled by pansy assed eurotrash socialist elites yet).
I'm not responsible for parenting other peoples kids. Neither should I be made responsible for it, niether should my liberty be curtailed because some people are lousy parents.
Insurrection can be aggravated by speech, that's what happened in our revolution
Speech is not insurrection.
When you find the speech crime thats illegal... let us know. Crimes are criminal activities, conspiracies are plans of action, and hate crime laws are agrivating factors for sentencing, not crimes in and of themself.crimes, conspiracies and hate speech can all be speech
no its not, it's public endangerment (unless of course there really is a fire)Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is also speech.
thats because they're not speechYet all of those are prohibited.
Attempting to solicit sex from a minor is illeagl in any medium, it's not speech. And I am not responsible for parenting other peoples kids.And you are responsible for what you do on a public media that kids may participate in. Which is why you can be nabbed by the FBI for child sex violations if you think you are speaking to a 12 yo girl who is in fact a 46 yo FBI agent.
You really seemed confused about what "speech" is.
This will explode over the next few days.MSNBC Ed Shultz and Keith Olberman in particular already started with the blame game and guess who the focus was on?....Today's NY Daily News screamed on the front page that Sarah Palin has blood on her hands...You lefties really want to keep pushing that one?
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' blood is on Sarah Palin's hands after putting cross hair over district