Acceptable "Free" Speech?

It is as much of a national movement as the Tea Party. No central organization, no clear leadership with local, unaffiliated chapters who believe in the same basic idea.

The job of the POTUS is to be the leader of the executive branch of the government. Commenting on anything else is not part of the job.

archer wrote: Maybe Obama has more pressing issues to deal with than making you happy or unhappy by commenting on this issue. Either way I suspect you would complain.

Well miss crabby, you tell me since nobody else will....why did he inject himself into the beer summit or the occupy movement?

And please don't presume to know what I would care to complain about. You had plenty to say about the tea party did you not? And they didn't burn the flag, trash public and private areas, or break into buildings....but they were just soooo bad. Right?

This president spent the better part of a day meeting with one cop and one guy who screamed racism when there was none......yet not a peep about these protesters who have cost cities MILLIONS so far that they can't afford.

CritiKalbILL wrote:

archer wrote: Maybe Obama has more pressing issues to deal with than making you happy or unhappy by commenting on this issue. Either way I suspect you would complain.

Well miss crabby, you tell me since nobody else will....why did he inject himself into the beer summit or the occupy movement?

And please don't presume to know what I would care to complain about. You had plenty to say about the tea party did you not? And they didn't burn the flag, trash public and private areas, or break into buildings....but they were just soooo bad. Right?

This president spent the better part of a day meeting with one cop and one guy who screamed racism when there was none......yet not a peep about these protesters who have cost cities MILLIONS so far that they can't afford.

you're calling me crabby? you're the one doing all the whining about what Obama did/or did not decide to comment upon.

Of course I had plenty to say about the Tea Party....but then I'm not the President of the United States, I'm retired, and have all the time in the world to make comments about stuff I like or don't like. Obama, does not.

I have no idea why Obama chose to have the "beer summit", it was rather amusing though. So are you now complaining about the beer summit?....do you think it was a mistake for Obama to inject himself into local issues? Why then are you complaining that in this instance he chooses not to? Hard to know exactly what it is you want.....except to complain about Obama.

CritiKalbILL wrote: Is free speech really free if it costs the rest of us? If a building is empty, is it ok to break in and occupy it? I wonder if the President will applaud occupy protesters again during his campaign.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/ ... 0520120129

Violence erupted again in Oakland on Saturday when protesters attempted to take over the apparently empty downtown convention center to establish a new headquarters and draw attention to the problem of homelessness.

How do you feel when a president applauds the military after all the murders and rapes in Vietnam or the American soldiers pissing on enemy bodies? Do you feel the same or do you realize the the actions of a few should not be used to judge an entire group, especially a group like OWS which is not centralized, unlike those that raped and killed and pissed illegally in our military.

Didn't we just do a number of pages on prejudice? Who do you represent and who represents you? People are individuals and the right to protest is at risk as a result of the firm police state debate. All of the little tweeks being put in place to deal with these protesters will be used for all future protests. How many more years in a modern society do you think your gun rights will last? The writing is on the wall, all regulations accelerate in pace, so whatever restrictions you have seen in the last 50 years in gun ownership will likely be 5-10 fold in the next 50 years......you are going to need to retain your protest rights, no guns and no voice sounds pretty mousy to me and rights related to both are at risk and are related to each other.

Popcorn Eater wrote:

CritiKalbILL wrote: Is free speech really free if it costs the rest of us? If a building is empty, is it ok to break in and occupy it? I wonder if the President will applaud occupy protesters again during his campaign.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/ ... 0520120129

Violence erupted again in Oakland on Saturday when protesters attempted to take over the apparently empty downtown convention center to establish a new headquarters and draw attention to the problem of homelessness.

How do you feel when a president applauds the military after all the murders and rapes in Vietnam or the American soldiers pissing on enemy bodies? Do you feel the same or do you realize the the actions of a few should not be used to judge an entire group, especially a group like OWS which is not centralized, unlike those that raped and killed and pissed illegally in our military.

Didn't we just do a number of pages on prejudice? Who do you represent and who represents you? People are individuals and the right to protest is at risk as a result of the firm police state debate. All of the little tweeks being put in place to deal with these protesters will be used for all future protests. How many more years in a modern society do you think your gun rights will last? The writing is on the wall, all regulations accelerate in pace, so whatever restrictions you have seen in the last 50 years in gun ownership will likely be 5-10 fold in the next 50 years......you are going to need to retain your protest rights, no guns and no voice sounds pretty mousy to me and rights related to both are at risk and are related to each other.

Why is it some of you seem to think you always have to drag the military into your posts. Just for your info PE, the United States Marines that pissed on those terrorists bodies did nothing illegal, they have not been tried and they have not been found guility. Until then, they have done nothing illegal, remember how the laws work in this country. Regardless, myself along with roughly about 600000 others will stand behind them, of course all of us have served over there in one way or another. The rest will not. They also did not cost US cities millions of dollars due to those that believe they are above the law and can do whatever they want to. They want to make thier point try following the laws and regs that cities have, they might actually have someone listen to them. As for my gun rights, until I die, my second Amendment will be there for me.

:thumbsup:

navycpo7 wrote: Here is what I don't get about this. I have looked into some the various cities laws that deal with PEACEFUL assembly, parades etc. There are permits etc that must be purchased, rules to follow etc. They are not following the laws and regulations at all, then they use thier BS to say they can break into a building and use it. These groups constantly are breaking the laws etc. Seems to me that alot of these Mayors are just scared of them, IMO, I think it has alot to do with politics. They are breaking the law, and should be dealt with.

Then there is those that want to call the police "stormtroopers". Well seems when the police move in to disband they get attacked, thrown at with rocks bottles etc. Then when they use their training, and tear gas, etc, they are in the wrong. And to think, soros is out there just laughing that his plan is working.

I support th police on this one.

When you check out these cities, check out the party affiliation of the mayor. You'll find Democrat mayors in most of these situations. That will answer your question.

"Regardless, myself along with roughly about 600000 others will stand behind them"....

Unfortunately, the same crowd would "stand behind them" if they raped the base commander's wife on the lawn in front of the Colorado State Capitol building at high-noon in broad daylight... Kind of like the Police "code-of-silence"... I don't have much respect for that.

The socialist are back, trying their damn best at deflection the thread topic.

Gun confiscation during Katrina shows that you can't rely on the 2nd amendment...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf8trl69kzo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tbp1hER ... re=related