Dems using Tucson shooting to Stifle Free Speech

LadyJazzer wrote:

Beeks wrote: How in the world do you interpret LJ's comment as cheering on a shooter? Can't see obvious sarcasm when it hits you upside the head?

I'm still looking for that "sarcasm" icon... But some are really thick if you don't do: [sarcasm][/sarcasm]

So which is better... Assuming sarcasm, and insulting the poster that intended none, or assuming honest intent and insulting the poster that thought the idea was far too insane to be anything but starcasm?

CriticalBill wrote: I would say she is about as ignorant, but not as bad. She fails to realize people like this shooter and John Hinkley have serious mental problems yet they will try to find political reasons for their insanity. With that last ass kicking election, they have nothing left but tragedies like this to make illogical points. very sad.

And there is the real tragedy. This kid obviously needed some professional help for some time and didn't get it.

Grady wrote: a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress.

Like placing "Crosshairs" on a person or their district? And then saying it is time to "reload".

Can you imagine the outrage if it would have been Osama Bin Ladin and NOT Sarah Palin who put the crosshairs on Giffords' District, and it was a muslim/non christian that killed those people?!

:bash

So which is better... Assuming sarcasm, and insulting the poster that intended none, or assuming honest intent and insulting the poster that thought the idea was far too insane to be anything but starcasm?

In this case? Better to use your brain than to use this an a opportunity to be a partisan jerk-off. The two folks that were trading comments know each other very well, at least here on the boards, there's no doubt in my mind that Outdoor knows LJ's sarcasm when he sees it.

Whatevergreen wrote:

Grady wrote: a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress.

Like placing "Crosshairs" on a person or their district? And then saying it is time to "reload".

Can you imagine the outrage if it would have been Osama Bin Ladin and NOT Sarah Palin who put the crosshairs on Giffords' District, and it was a muslim/non christian that killed those people?!

:bash

Oh, yeah...THAT would have been a media circus! But then it's a media circus anyway...

Grady wrote: Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.) reportedly plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... -lawmakers .

Excellent news...can we start with the following symbols?

Looney Jerk's Avatar. It could incite violence against a federal official who was against homosexuality.

The Obama O logo. It's the outline of a target. It could incite violence against a federal official who was against Marxian Socialism.

here is another dem calling to stifle free speech

COLUMBIA — U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in Congress, said Sunday the deadly shooting in Arizona should get the country thinking about what's acceptable to say publicly and when people should keep their mouths shut.


The shooting is cause for the country to rethink parameters on free speech, Clyburn said from his office, just blocks from the South Carolina Statehouse. He wants standards put in place to guarantee balanced media coverage with a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, in addition to calling on elected officials and media pundits to use 'better judgment.

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011 ... be-danger/

Stifle the speech from the right is the main objective IMO, like FoxNEws, Rush Limbaugh, etc.

there is always going to be a lunatic fringe. you can get mowed down at a mall or any gathering.

this is being used to clamp down on free speech. perhaps some politicians need to think about what they say about others but not impose more restrictions because of a the lunatic fringe. pretty soon we will look like china. the government deciding what we can see on the news, tv, internet, etc.

mtntrekker wrote: there is always going to be a lunatic fringe. you can get mowed down at a mall or any gathering.

this is being used to clamp down on free speech. perhaps some politicians need to think about what they say about others but not impose more restrictions because of a the lunatic fringe. pretty soon we will look like china. the government deciding what we can see on the news, tv, internet, etc.

I have no interest in stifling free speah....or in passing laws on what you can say and where.....nor do any liberals I know of believe in that. What we do believe in is taking personal responsibility for what you say, especially if you are in a high profile position. I know it's too much to ask of some people to think before they speak, but it surely would be nice if they did.