FBI director blames the internet

[Jackson]

We won't even talk about this dolt got a gun when he threatened someone not long ago. Why haven't we heard from his parents? Did he live with them yet?

 

[WillowTree]

i foresee a bunch of hysterical lefties calling for 'control' of the net.

they've already made the move for control via net neutrality and the recent federally controlled id initiative.

please punch yourself in the face for this moronic post, trust me, you wont damage anything

please notE the use of violent left wing rhetoric. Thanks in advance. No one on the right has a yet made such a suggestion. Kerry on.

 

[manifold]

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

Yes...and if some wackaloon takes this anti Palin rhetoric too far...and one of the Palin's get hurt. Who are they going to blame then??

the said wackaloon of course

 

[Wry Catcher]

Okay.

What's the LIMIT in this particular case?

Should we ban the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf?
Should we ban books on GRAMMAR?
And how about that pesky Constitution?

I'm not suggesting consorship at all; I simply pointed out we all have opinions on the utterances or writings of others. There are laws against slander and libel, torts when somone yells fire in a crowd when someone is hurt and a thousand other instances where most agree the government has a role in restricting or punishing speech.
Even this message board bans people and posts which fail to comply with certain standards. So stop being a self righteous bore, and stop contributing to slippery slope conspiracies or continue to be an arrogant hypocrite.

Yes you are suggesting censorship, you feeble minded git.

Making a privately run message forum the equivalent of the government is inane. We do have freedom of association, and the owners/management of the board can ban anyone they wish. It's Their Board.

Suggesting that such individual right of freedom of association gives the government the power to limit Freedom of Speech is sophistry (one of the lone things in which you appear to excel).

The Shooter did not claim that he was following Palin's orders. He did claim that Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto were among his favorite books - and appears to like some rather awful heavy metal music. And he has issues with GRAMMAR.

So please explain, from the incoherent muddle of his influences, what SPEECH should be blamed for his actions.

Fuck you. You either can't read or are too dishonest to acknowlege my point.
"There are laws against slander and libel, torts when somone yells fire in a crowd when someone is hurt and a thousand other instances where most agree the government has a role in restricting or punishing speech."

A private message board can do whatever the hell it wants; but to deny some private message boards do not engage in some form of content control (i.e. censorship) proves you are either stupid or a liar.

Only a lying asshole would infer one has anything to do with the other. I guess that makes you a lying asshole. But I knew that, so, thanks for sharing.

 

[WillowTree]

I'm not suggesting consorship at all; I simply pointed out we all have opinions on the utterances or writings of others. There are laws against slander and libel, torts when somone yells fire in a crowd when someone is hurt and a thousand other instances where most agree the government has a role in restricting or punishing speech.
Even this message board bans people and posts which fail to comply with certain standards. So stop being a self righteous bore, and stop contributing to slippery slope conspiracies or continue to be an arrogant hypocrite.

Yes you are suggesting censorship, you feeble minded git.

Making a privately run message forum the equivalent of the government is inane. We do have freedom of association, and the owners/management of the board can ban anyone they wish. It's Their Board.

Suggesting that such individual right of freedom of association gives the government the power to limit Freedom of Speech is sophistry (one of the lone things in which you appear to excel).

The Shooter did not claim that he was following Palin's orders. He did claim that Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto were among his favorite books - and appears to like some rather awful heavy metal music. And he has issues with GRAMMAR.

So please explain, from the incoherent muddle of his influences, what SPEECH should be blamed for his actions.

Fuck you. You either can't read or are too dishonest to acknowlege my point.
"There are laws against slander and libel, torts when somone yells fire in a crowd when someone is hurt and a thousand other instances where most agree the government has a role in restricting or punishing speech."

A private message board can do whatever the hell it wants; but to deny some private message boards do not engage in some form of content control (i.e. censorship) proves you are either stupid or a liar.

Only a lying asshole would infer one has anything to do with the other. I guess that makes you a lying asshole. But I knew that, so, thanks for sharing.

hEY! WRY... ON WHOM DO WE PLACE THE BLAME FOR THE FORT HOOD SHOOTER?

 

[Shadow]

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

Yes...and if some wackaloon takes this anti Palin rhetoric too far...and one of the Palin's get hurt. Who are they going to blame then??

the said wackaloon of course

Really?? Because the folks in question aren't blaming the wackaloon in this current situation. Maybe you give them more credit than I do.

Oh wait...if a Palin get's hurt...that's different. I forgot...nevermind...we ARE talking about moonbats afterall.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yes you are suggesting censorship, you feeble minded git.

Making a privately run message forum the equivalent of the government is inane. We do have freedom of association, and the owners/management of the board can ban anyone they wish. It's Their Board.

Suggesting that such individual right of freedom of association gives the government the power to limit Freedom of Speech is sophistry (one of the lone things in which you appear to excel).

The Shooter did not claim that he was following Palin's orders. He did claim that Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto were among his favorite books - and appears to like some rather awful heavy metal music. And he has issues with GRAMMAR.

So please explain, from the incoherent muddle of his influences, what SPEECH should be blamed for his actions.

Fuck you. You either can't read or are too dishonest to acknowlege my point.
"There are laws against slander and libel, torts when somone yells fire in a crowd when someone is hurt and a thousand other instances where most agree the government has a role in restricting or punishing speech."

A private message board can do whatever the hell it wants; but to deny some private message boards do not engage in some form of content control (i.e. censorship) proves you are either stupid or a liar.

Only a lying asshole would infer one has anything to do with the other. I guess that makes you a lying asshole. But I knew that, so, thanks for sharing.

hEY! WRY... ON WHOM DO WE PLACE THE BLAME FOR THE FORT HOOD SHOOTER?

I don't know, who?

 

[loosecannon]

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.

How would eliminating the current internet prevent any of that?

who was talking about eliminating the internet?

It is just one risk we need to manage as long as we find terror events unacceptable collateral damages we pay for freedom.

 

[loosecannon]

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.

And the internet is responsible for that in what way?

It isn't, you just said something crazy and I corrected you.

 

[loosecannon]

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.

Remember Gerald Ford? A leftist whacko launched an attack on him in a crowd.. How about Ronald Reagan.. Right there on a crowded street a leftist whacko tried to take him out..Before the fucking internet was invented by algore

and we put Charles Manson in prison for life even tho he didn't murder anybody.....

Google Squeaky Fromme.

 

[WillowTree]

please punch yourself in the face for this moronic post, trust me, you wont damage anything

[]please notE the use of violent left wing rhetoric. Thanks in advance. No one on the right has a yet made such a suggestion. Kerry on]

shut the fuck up you moron....

don't it put frost on yer moonbeans to know you can't make me asswipe??

 

[loosecannon]

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.

Hey LooseCannon. Who would you blame the Fort Hood Shooter on?

well gee, a lot of people in our intelligence depts consider a radical US born Yemeni cleric to be responsible, and based on that Obama ordered his assassination without trial....

 

[loosecannon]

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

never happen, I am not the crazy one

 

[loosecannon]

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

You know you have a point there, and that includes every left wing nut who thinks the power of the spoken word can spur them into a murderous frenzy.

see, you can't handle free speech including the internet free speech you are blindly pretending to defend

 

[WillowTree]

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

You know you have a point there, and that includes every left wing nut who thinks the power of the spoken word can spur them into a murderous frenzy.

see, you can't handle free speech including the internet free speech you are blindly pretending to defend

Loonspeech.

 

[loosecannon]

Insurrection can be aggravated by speech, that's what happened in our revolution

Given that, does the irony of your position occur to you?

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.

no its not, it's public endangerment (unless of course there really is a fire)

thats because they're not speech

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.

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.

You really seemed confused about what "speech" is.

First of all you have no idea what my "position" is. You operate on assumptions which always mislead you.

Second of all speech can be insurrection, hate crimes, child abuse, public endangerment, conspiracy, criminal activity etc.

Which is the point, not everything you say, print or write is free speech, there are myriad exceptions.

Even the SCOTUS ruled that they can't define free speech, but they know it when they see it.

 

[loosecannon]

How many from the media are speaking out aginst this?

speaking out against what, a homeland security director expressing his opinion?

 

[loosecannon]

You know you have a point there, and that includes every left wing nut who thinks the power of the spoken word can spur them into a murderous frenzy.

see, you can't handle free speech including the internet free speech you are blindly pretending to defend

Loonspeech.

You are the one incessantly screeching ridiculous objections about the director of the FBI simply practicing free speech by expressing his opinion.

You really are eating your own intestines in this thread!

 

[WillowTree]

see, you can't handle free speech including the internet free speech you are blindly pretending to defend

Loonspeech.

You are the one incessantly screeching ridiculous objections about the director of the FBI simply practicing free speech by expressing his opinion.

You really are eating your own intestines in this thread!

words they have consequences do they knot???

 

[loosecannon]

Loonspeech.

You are the one incessantly screeching ridiculous objections about the director of the FBI simply practicing free speech by expressing his opinion.

You really are eating your own intestines in this thread!

words they have consequences do they knot???

b b bu but I thought you were ideologically bound to defending free speech?