DEFCON 88 wrote:
On Aug 16, 4:15 pm, "D. Peter wrote:

Eternal vigilance


Maybe he knew too much about the Communist coup of our government?

There is no such takeover happening. I suggest you Google "naomi klein
milton friedman" to see what is happening.

Be careful to align with no one but real way-back personal friends and
very trusted acquaintances. Learn to live with much less. Resist.

D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 8/16/10 15:33 , SMITH29 wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 8/16/10 15:10 , SMITH29 wrote:
DEFCON 88 wrote:
On Aug 16, 2:59 pm, (Drooling Idiot) wrote:
wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who
dare
question their agents actions.
"There goes the First Amendment for everyone," said Kathy Diamond,
Turner's mother.
I mean, if you can't threaten to kill a federal judge, who can you
make
death threats to? Next they'll be telling us we can't threaten to
rape our
girlfriends or blow up a building!! Why the hell can't I threaten to
kill
a federal official? I pay their salary, doesn't that mean that I own
them
and can end their lives or make their lives a living hell???

Sarcasm off


But he didn't threaten to kill them. He merely stated his opinion that
they should be killed for their unconstitutional ruling. He never
stated or implied that he himself wanted, or would even try, to kill
them. A big difference IMO.

xxxx
To say they " deserve to be killed " over a ruling is to go off the end
of reasonable speech. And Federal Judges no less?
He advocated an act of violence against three officers of the court.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/advocate
Sorry, I see jail time for this blabber mouth.



And just who gets to define the term 'reasonable.'

xxxx
And just who gets to decide who can decide who gets to make the
definition? This can go on and on and on to infinity.

In this case I decided I felt it was beyond reasonable speech and was an
advocation for violence against officers of the court.
You are supposed to say " Yes your honor and no your honor " and treat
them with respect to the court. Going beyond that protocol can be
hazardous to your freedom and your bank account.
It's basically just plain old common sense.



A man must consider what a rich realm he abdicates when he becomes a
conformist. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson


In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question
mark on the things you have long taken for granted. ~Bertrand Russell


Just because something is tradition doesn't make it right. ~Anthony J.
D'Angelo, The College Blue Book



p
xxxx
Will you visit him often?

On 16 Aug 2010, SMITH29 posted some
m:

Keith wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who dare
question their agents actions.


A Brooklyn jury took less than two hours Friday to convict right-wing
loudmouth Harold (Hal) Turner of threatening to kill three Chicago
judges.
xxxx
Sounds like this moron got what he deserves.

Where are the trials for the thousands of liberals who were screaming
to kill George Bush and more recently Jan Brewer?

It's apparently permissible for liberals, illegals and homosexuals to
threaten to kill judges, governors and presidents, but it's not okay for
anyone else?

Maybe Hal was right.

"D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 8/16/10 14:08 , SMITH29 wrote:
Keith wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who dare
question their agents actions.

A Brooklyn jury took less than two hours Friday to convict right-wing
loudmouth Harold (Hal) Turner of threatening to kill three Chicago
judges.
xxxx
Sounds like this moron got what he deserves.

Be that as it may, when the government goes after an outspoken
critic with criminal charges, it should give all of us the willies.

So, you are saying that because this guy is a critic of the government the
government should not prosecute???

And reason to look more closely at what actually took place.

Look more closely, like in a court of law?

"D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 8/16/10 15:10 , SMITH29 wrote:
DEFCON 88 wrote:
On Aug 16, 2:59 pm, (Drooling Idiot) wrote:
wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who
dare question their agents actions.
"There goes the First Amendment for everyone," said Kathy Diamond,
Turner's mother.
I mean, if you can't threaten to kill a federal judge, who can you
make death threats to? Next they'll be telling us we can't threaten
to rape our
girlfriends or blow up a building!! Why the hell can't I threaten to
kill
a federal official? I pay their salary, doesn't that mean that I own
them
and can end their lives or make their lives a living hell???

Sarcasm off


But he didn't threaten to kill them. He merely stated his opinion that
they should be killed for their unconstitutional ruling. He never
stated or implied that he himself wanted, or would even try, to kill
them. A big difference IMO.

xxxx
To say they " deserve to be killed " over a ruling is to go off the end
of reasonable speech. And Federal Judges no less?
He advocated an act of violence against three officers of the court.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/advocate
Sorry, I see jail time for this blabber mouth.

And just who gets to define the term 'reasonable.'

Apparently a jury.

Any Doubting Thomasas out there?
cuhulin

On 8/16/10 16:30 , SMITH29 wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 8/16/10 15:33 , SMITH29 wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 8/16/10 15:10 , SMITH29 wrote:
DEFCON 88 wrote:
On Aug 16, 2:59 pm, (Drooling Idiot) wrote:
wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who
dare
question their agents actions.
"There goes the First Amendment for everyone," said Kathy Diamond,
Turner's mother.
I mean, if you can't threaten to kill a federal judge, who can you
make
death threats to? Next they'll be telling us we can't threaten to
rape our
girlfriends or blow up a building!! Why the hell can't I threaten to
kill
a federal official? I pay their salary, doesn't that mean that I own
them
and can end their lives or make their lives a living hell???

Sarcasm off


But he didn't threaten to kill them. He merely stated his opinion
that
they should be killed for their unconstitutional ruling. He never
stated or implied that he himself wanted, or would even try, to kill
them. A big difference IMO.

xxxx
To say they " deserve to be killed " over a ruling is to go off the
end
of reasonable speech. And Federal Judges no less?
He advocated an act of violence against three officers of the court.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/advocate
Sorry, I see jail time for this blabber mouth.



And just who gets to define the term 'reasonable.'

xxxx
And just who gets to decide who can decide who gets to make the
definition? This can go on and on and on to infinity.

In this case I decided I felt it was beyond reasonable speech and was an
advocation for violence against officers of the court.
You are supposed to say " Yes your honor and no your honor " and treat
them with respect to the court. Going beyond that protocol can be
hazardous to your freedom and your bank account.
It's basically just plain old common sense.



A man must consider what a rich realm he abdicates when he becomes a
conformist. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson


In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question
mark on the things you have long taken for granted. ~Bertrand Russell


Just because something is tradition doesn't make it right. ~Anthony J.
D'Angelo, The College Blue Book



p
xxxx
Will you visit him often?


I'll bring the cold cuts, you bring the cattle prod.

On 8/16/10 18:48 , Drooling Idiot wrote:
"D. Peter wrote:
On 8/16/10 14:08 , SMITH29 wrote:
Keith wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who dare
question their agents actions.

A Brooklyn jury took less than two hours Friday to convict right-wing
loudmouth Harold (Hal) Turner of threatening to kill three Chicago
judges.
xxxx
Sounds like this moron got what he deserves.

Be that as it may, when the government goes after an outspoken
critic with criminal charges, it should give all of us the willies.

So, you are saying that because this guy is a critic of the government the
government should not prosecute???

I didn't say that at all.


And reason to look more closely at what actually took place.

Look more closely, like in a court of law?


Far more closely than that.

On 8/16/10 18:49 , Drooling Idiot wrote:
"D. Peter wrote:
On 8/16/10 15:10 , SMITH29 wrote:
DEFCON 88 wrote:
On Aug 16, 2:59 pm, (Drooling Idiot) wrote:
wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who
dare question their agents actions.
"There goes the First Amendment for everyone," said Kathy Diamond,
Turner's mother.
I mean, if you can't threaten to kill a federal judge, who can you
make death threats to? Next they'll be telling us we can't threaten
to rape our
girlfriends or blow up a building!! Why the hell can't I threaten to
kill
a federal official? I pay their salary, doesn't that mean that I own
them
and can end their lives or make their lives a living hell???

Sarcasm off


But he didn't threaten to kill them. He merely stated his opinion that
they should be killed for their unconstitutional ruling. He never
stated or implied that he himself wanted, or would even try, to kill
them. A big difference IMO.

xxxx
To say they " deserve to be killed " over a ruling is to go off the end
of reasonable speech. And Federal Judges no less?
He advocated an act of violence against three officers of the court.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/advocate
Sorry, I see jail time for this blabber mouth.

And just who gets to define the term 'reasonable.'

Apparently a jury.


The jury doesn't get to define terms. The jury applies terms
defined for them.

On Mon 8/16/10 15:02, SMITH29 wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 8/16/10 14:08 , SMITH29 wrote:
Keith wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who dare
question their agents actions.

A Brooklyn jury took less than two hours Friday to convict right-wing
loudmouth Harold (Hal) Turner of threatening to kill three Chicago

judges.
xxxx
Sounds like this moron got what he deserves.



Be that as it may, when the government goes after an outspoken critic
with criminal charges, it should give all of us the willies.

And reason to look more closely at what actually took place.


One must presume that the jury looked very closely at what took place.


xxxx
What gives me the willies is someone with a microphone advocating
bloodshed concerning gun laws.
NO Second Amendment advocate wants to hear or read this kind of language.

"Let me be the first to say this plainly: these judges deserve to be
killed,"

He was WAYYYY out of bounds and he has to take responsibility for
broadcasting that about principals of the court.