See other Miscellaneous Articles
Title: Drudge Headline: SHOCK: MCCAIN VOLUNTEER ATTACKED AND MUTILATED IN PITTSBURGH
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.drudgereport.com/
Published: Oct 23, 2008
Author: Drudge
Post Date: 2008-10-23 16:14:45 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 9058
Comments: 659
'B' CARVED INTO 20-YEAR OLD WOMAN'S FACE... DEVELOPING...
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-560) not displayed.
.
.
.
#561. To: Jethro Tull (#40)
And... skirt up Jethro the Retired Cop.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
That is how free speech as it is spelled out in the First Amendment works. No laws can be made to abridge it, but suffering the consequences of one's speech is the best regulator of what is said in existence. That's exactly right, Mike. How many times have we heard some state worshiper say that "You can't shout fire in a crowded theater!"? The truth is the opposite. You CAN shout fire if there's a fire, or if you smell smoke (or if you follow the advice of fmr NYPD Detective and security consultant/author J.J. Bookbinder, who recommends shouting fire instead of "rape!" because people who won't get involved in a rape would be threatened by fire so they will respond) and you can shout "FIRE!" even if none of these conditions are present. The govt does not have the power to tape your mouth before you enter a theater because that would be unconstitutional prior restraint!" However, if you needlessly cause a panic and injury and/or property damage then you could be (and should be) tossed in jail. And that is "suffering the consequences of one's speech" as you said. The freedom to speak does not automatically indemnify or insulate one from responsibility for the abuse of a constitutional right, any more than the right to keep and bear arms automatically brings with it the right to fire weapons in the direction of another. In either case one had better be prepared to justify the legally questionable exercise of a constitutional right. Where you and I may part company is, perhaps you'd like to see the law come down on Nazi/Klan/BNP marches and such because riots (involving those hot blooded "other people") ensue. But, that strategy has been used by anti fascists and fascists alike in the past, and it has no place in America. It's a shoddy end run around the rights of those who exercise their freedom for unpopular or non-PC reasons. If everyone was limited to only soft, unoffensive expression then why would we even need a 1st amendment?
Indeed like in... it did not occur. I am reading this thread for entertainment and I am getting lots of. (that was Sarahspeak) The level of Cretinism on this thread is so high (or low... it depends where your point of reference may be) it beats that of Jerry the Springer's show by... a lot. I did note the lucid analysis from Angle and a couple of others but... Ciny, Jethro, the Original... the other usual suspects, they do not disappoint.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
It turns out that the report was from McCain the Campaign, you stupid, credulous, one-born-every-minute sucker.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Confession time? :))))))
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
And that is "suffering the consequences of one's speech" as you said. Where you and I may part company is, perhaps you'd like to see the law come down on Nazi/Klan/BNP marches and such because riots (involving those hot blooded "other people") ensue. But, that strategy has been used by anti fascists and fascists alike in the past, and it has no place in America. It's a shoddy end run around the rights of those who exercise their freedom for unpopular or non-PC reasons. "The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence." Content of speech cannot be regulated by government. End of story.
An excellent point, and no one in the CA MSM would ever think to air the question, "Why is Tom Bradley automatically presumed to be the better candidate?" It seemed that the unspoken presumption was "It's time for a person of color to be governor" and "right thinking whites" were supposed to "do social justice" by voting for Bradley. It may be difficult for outsiders to believe but CA is that eat slap up (as mah Confederate relations would say) with unrepentant liberalism, and for whites that meant heaping ladles of guilt and sacrifice by falling on their swords (voting against their perceived interests) at that time. When my former trumpet player learned I was moving to LA, he just laughed. (He was a postal worker out there years before) When I asked why he chortled to himself he said, "You'll find out!" And, I did. When Bradley's defeat was announced the newscasters were so somber and heartbroken that I actually laughed out loud while watching them on TV! It was as if Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden had opened a combination assault rifle/indoor target shooting boutique and daycare center on Rodeo Drive! And when Prop 15 fell by a 2 to 1 margin the newscaster banged his fist on the desk and shouted, "WHEN WILL PEOPLE EVER LEARN?" The gun proposition was extremely divisive because the media totally blocked out any spoken and written opposition to the ban, and we were carpet bombed with proponents on talks shows, in newspapers and even nightly newscasts for weeks before. It was clear that any dirty trick they could use was fair to "defeat the awesome gun lobby" a tactic that was later repeated in MD when they created their "handgun approval (ban) board" which by fiat may decree what guns are available for sale in the state..
Content of speech cannot be regulated by government. End of story. Very good. Timely and informative. A+. (teacher's pet)
It was the kid who reported it to the police, hence the arrest of her, and not a member of the McCain campaign. And jeez....who could make a mistake thinking a white kid could get mugged by a burr head in the 'berg. Go peddle your white guilt somewhere else. Obama voters, but virtue of the adoration of socialism, aren't a good fit here. Now scat.
You mean Vast the side line runner still posts here? Good heavens, where is the Orkins man when we need him. Reminds me of Colon Bowell..."I am supporting Obama, but not because of race".... It seems to escape the intelligence and decency of some of our white guilters that no one on this forum supports "whitey" McKook or Palin.
Vast is a despicable socialist, enamored by black skin. Remove the melanin from his Saviour and you have Ted Kennedy. The poor soul is reduced to hit and run tactics, but like Mikey, I expect him to do a victory lap after the Black one and his nasty wife defile the White House w/their presence come January. Obama will never be my president, and for those who believe the office of the president deserves respect, well they're living in a time warp. Vast is the essence of white guilt, and a prime example why we've temporarily lost the nation.
No one seems concerned or have the slightest interest in the fact that 101 per cent of blacks just happen to support Obama. It would seem to a rational person that at least one black somewhere would have black guilt and support McKooK. This, however, is not the case. MSM, white guilters and their ilk all ignore the total black support for Obama. My personal preference for my own race makes me a "racist", but glacks get a pass on the very same level. Then we have the guilters that prefer not to live in Harlem nor any inner city, that stand on the rooftops telling the world how pure their soul is, just dont make them live in Harlem.
Geez, all your verbage has me cowing in the corner. In order to proper respond to your accusations/disappointment more time than what I have to devote to this project today is required. Let me simply say for now that I recognize the issues in the black culture in America today and don't dismiss them. However, as to my secret motive for judging a man based on his person rather than his color, on his person rather than his genetic or cultural group, there is only my upbringing. I am a descendent of Polish American parents, raised with the traditional Polish customs that remained from what my families brought with them in the early part of the last century. Raised Roman Catholic in mixed neighborhoods of Polish-AM, Irish-AM, Italian-AM and some African-AM among others. Polak, Kike, Jew, Wop, Nigger were all a part of what I heard and saw. One of the nicest men I knew in my life was "Scag" Cottman the trash man. Older black and steady, he was a model of dignity and work ethic, friendly and a community man who devoted his time to black youth in baseball and other events. Perhaps that relationship shaped my views. My father was a racist against blacks. I never agreed with that. During the course of my life I have been friendly with blacks but never close friends. Their culture hasn't allowed for it. I have worked with blacks and get along with never a problem. Therefore, when the offensive racists on this board like JT and cyni and others getting a thread going with hateful non-productive rhetoric based upon the problems in the black culture in America that has a myriad of causes and few solutions and wants to castigate and disparage a whole group of people, yes, people, human beings like you and I, I take exception. That doesn't mean I don't see an explosive powder keg of problems set to explode in our cities, but remember that all of this including the financial tsunami was done by design. I don't agree that hateful discourse is productive. The language and insinuation is beneath the level of discussion in which I choose to participate and I take exception to it.
Right. And (horrors) a majority of Whitey. Could it be that a majority of Whites are anti-White, the same way, Sarah proved it to us, a majority of the US Americans are anti-Americans?
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
It's illegal to sexually abuse animals, you need help.
It's the second mouse that gets the cheese
That MUST be it.
Your comments in this post are absolute horseshit and border on paranoid delusional.
I wouldn't be sure. Please first describe "white culture". Then perhaps we can discuss the same idea. As to the desire to preserve one's race...ok, I agree that the desire to preserve the white race isn't as strong a PC goal as other races. But let me state for the record that I don't agree with the idea that the total of what constitutes an individual human being is defined by race. further, i don't see where Cyni or JT have ever written that they hate blacks or any other race as you keep accusing Certainly, they haven't written "I hate blacks" because it would be too damning, even for the support they get on this forum. Yet they denigrate blacks, ALL blacks, all the time. One can PREFER and promote ones own race without disparaging other races.
Do you think "civil rights" for all races is appropriate?
Excuse Mr. Angle. Blacks being blacks isn't my beef. My problem is with white guilters such as yourself, who have donned the Obama knee pads and kinked up their hair.
Define civil rights.
Thank you.
that no one on this forum supports "whitey" McKook or Palin. Supporting them is one thing, voting against Obama is another.
In your view, which are 'the greater national concerns' and, given that there is no doubt that either McCain or Obama are going to be the next US prez., which of the 2 is, in your view, more likely to better address those concerns and why do you believe that it is so? As some of the members of this site (not the cooks) would tell you, I am persuadable and I am open to learning so, let's see if you can move me to your side, whichever it may be.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Well then, your voting in the sham election will be well received here by the resident anti-blacks.
On this, we can be friends.
Newt... First time since Ike I will not vote, period. I like most Americans was taught it was our duty and right to vote, and I started voting for Ike under that lesson. In later years it became apparent that I was voting for the lesser of two evils and that there was in reality only one party. For my personal well being I will no longer participate in the charade. I have a right to decide on my own, vote or no vote and I have made my decision.
Define yours and lets compare. Top 3.
Why should I care?
Did I miss something? Was wadosy banned?
Note the tactics on 588.
Ollie, I thought you had a clear idea of what the greater national priorities were. The fair play would have been for you to name your priorities but, apparently, you would rather define yours in a reactive way - as in yours (probably made up on the spot) in response to mine. That reminds me of Sara's inability to name ONE 'precondition' after talking about only meeting with Castro or Ahmadinajad after 'preconditions' were met. I will be very open with you and I will admit that we no longer have anything that we could call 'a nation'. All 'we' got is a State and, possibly, a common urge to consume - thus W more often than not calling his State's citizens 'consumers' as opposite to, let's say, immigrants, who are known as 'workers'. The State (not national because there is no nation no more) priorities? Here they are. 1 - Kick out anything that's W or W-related from the State machinery. Now, let's see what your national priorities are and let's see if you can pull me into your camp which you haven't named yet.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
In later years it became apparent that I was voting for the lesser of two evils and that there was in reality only one party. For my personal well being I will no longer participate in the charade. I have a right to decide on my own, vote or no vote and I have made my decision. The outcome is of course pre-determined. We are paying for the carnival either way. Everyone fighting over kewpie dolls. The more money we blow on a chance of a bigger prize, the richer the operators become. Ever laugh at the guy walking out of county fair with a giant stuffed Tweety Bird? Poor slob thought he was impressing someone with his artful ring tossing or dime bouncing skills. Big grins till he gets the stupid bird home or worse yet, sticks that monstrosity to live with a loved one. Here's the thing. I want the other Democrat to get stuck with the Bird. So, I'll play along as there's nothing else I can do to have a little fun in this national amusement park. I agree with sitting it out and understand your reasons why. I was going to do the same thing. But, I had a change of heart. The lessers have agreed on the evils coming our way already.
I'd substitute #4 with improving the infrastructure in our country.
I am aware of such tactics. One of my coworkers is an inscrutable Chinese - we are friends - and he's a master at playing these games.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Well... we're either getting outta here (a new frontier?) or we redo the fixer- upper :)
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
did you ban wadosy?
Can you tell me how you reached that conclusion? You demanded I put forth an essay. Now you insult me by suggesting my response was a trick. Paranoid much?
No dear. If you have any idea of what 'the greater national priorities' are, you spell them out or you prove yourself to be an uninteresting debater. I gave you not three but FIVE national priorities. Now, name yours or hide forever in shame.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Nothing elusive about it. Read Hugo Black on the First Amendment. He differentiates between speech and conduct. I was once in a crummy (forest work vehicle, slang) and one of the men I worked with screamed at a young girl who walked up, "GET OUTTA HERE, NIGGER BITCH!" She was about ten and this hurt her. This is not free speech, this is conduct that should be the recipient of immediate response. He got one that day, but that was between him and me. He just hated all black people and used this hatred to harm others. Another time two drunk skin heads blocked a woman's car near the coffee shop I went to before it folded giving her the Nazi salute with his foot on her bumper. I shadowed the anti-Semite pigs and the foot on bumper bozo responded by throwing parts of a pallet my way. I had placed a cell phone call, and he and his buddy were arrested, and they were charged with hate crime related assault and convicted of felonies. I believe that the first instance was definitely worth a tort filing by the girl's parents. As it was, he just got a chance to fight me. And if I see him again, I'll beat his ass one more time. That is how I like to deal with this concerning co-workers like this I can't get fired. The second one involved actual physical intimidation of a woman (whom I know and is Christian) and assault on me. That was actionable by the police in a justifiable way. I feel people need to work things out between themselves and should use civil court to make haters and baiters feel a financial and social sting as a result of acting out their irrational hate. If I hear live and in the flesh racist comments - say at a supermarket - I have a very booming voice and I use it. I am not someone who people like this intimidate very easily. I am good at creating a groundswell of support for my well chosen words because many would like to say something but are afraid to. That is how people should be, like me. They should speak up, even if their knees tremble as they do it. People have the right to free speech as per the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. But if they express hate through speech at work and say get fired because of it for example, that is consequence earned. I generally hate the cops and hate calling them. But if someone turns their speech into conduct to humiliate, harass or embarrass someone merely for subjective reasons like they hate Mexicans, Blacks, are Black and hate Whites, are a skinhead and hater Jews, or what ever the deal is, they deserve to have their world rocked for this. Hate Speech Law is problematic and I really don't trust it. But the U.S. Constitution is there to protect small groups and advocacies against the whim and caprice of the majority, so I could support an expiration set law against hate speech that promoted oppression, and took someone's sense of well being away from them and reduced their social, political and employment options in the community. It is an imperfect stop gap way to deal with it, but justifiable. Now as for how you set what is or what isn't examples of speech becoming conduct that blocks another from their rights as a community member or individual, I have seldom seen that having a gray area. Everyone well recognizes it and if there are questions whether it is or isn't, there is civil court one can file a tort in to remedy what they consider a wrong that had not been addressed by the criminal court system. A man taking a woman aside as not to embarrass he telling her he can't date her as she hints she wishes he would because he can't stand White woman as a Japanese ethnic male is not taking any rights away, or committing a hate crime. If he publicly displays his anger and hatred in a way to get others to shun or harass her, even verbally, that is a crime. That is theft of social standing to benefit his own and to build his ego at her expense. As far as where we set the enforceable standard, I prefer sticking with existing law and using that to invoking new laws that hurt the process of society on the whole evolving past this bad behavior. Too often too, such laws become tainted with too much of a political mindset and that creates resentment that is counter-productive to the creation of the environment needed to evolve change in society. We have to remember that the police have just so many man hours to work with, and so many resources with which to do their job. And it is better to learn to live within our law enforcement means and to learn how to organize and act ourselves to deal with racism and hatred. The best solutions involve communication and by confronting the behavior directly. So there is racist acts that would be bet left not handled by the police if the hate crime law solution creates more police and authority figures. There are never any easy answers in all this. But common sense goes a long way to crafting them. If I had been at a talk by say George Lincoln Rockwell and heard a typical comment by him that he would gladly give any black person wanting to go to Africa permanently to get across his belief all Blacks should be deported regardless of where they were born or how good a citizen they were, I would laugh at his stupidity and jeer him. I would be forced to defend him if he were prosecuted for this speech, because it is political speech, and directed against no set individual with a specific goal of theft of social well being or standing against them. But if I saw someone hit someone because they hate Blacks, I would run to help whomever was being assaulted. And I would do so if a White Man was being beaten for being White by someone who obviously acts merely out of the irrational hatred that is racism. All racism is wrong.
Comments (602 - 659) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestAnother crazed Irishman. Arm up boys and girls.
#562. To: Ferret Mike, scrapper2, christine (#537)
"A rather dodgey answer, if I may say so. You say on the one hand that racists [ or people whose opinions that don't jive with yours] have "a right" to free speech but on the other hand they are "accountable" for their words????"
#563. To: Original_Intent (#43)
Yup. The only way they'd cover it is if it were a crazed white christian televangelist attacking an elderly black woman. The Presstitutes operate off of a template and anything which does not fit it did not occur.
#564. To: Jethro Tull (#55)
That report is from the victim and witness, you're has been yanked our of your backside, you slimy WG'er.
#565. To: Jethro Tull (#61)
I smell a Pittsburgh nigger.
#566. To: HOUNDDAWG, Ferret Mike (#562)
However, if you needlessly cause a panic and injury and/or property damage then you could be (and should be) tossed in jail.
#567. To: scrapper2 (#556)
...though I'd quibble with your use of the word "racist" when you refer to the reason white voters cast their ballots for Deukmejian. They voted for the candidate with whom they most closely identified, a very natural behavior instinct. It was not a case of their voting against Bradley because he was black.
#568. To: scrapper2 (#566)
"The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence."
#569. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#564)
It turns out that the report was from McCain the Campaign, you stupid, credulous, one-born-every-minute sucker.
#570. To: Jethro Tull (#569)
#571. To: Cynicom (#570)
#572. To: Jethro Tull (#571)
#573. To: HOUNDDAWG, christine (#503)
I really am trying to avoid unnecessary roughness with angle.
#574. To: Cynicom (#572)
No one seems concerned or have the slightest interest in the fact that 101 per cent of blacks just happen to support Obama.
#575. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#557)
My 2 Huskies have a lot of Black on them.
#576. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#574)
Could it be that a majority of Whites are anti-White, the same way, Sarah proved it to us, a majority of the US Americans are anti-Americans?
#577. To: HOUNDDAWG (#488)
(Edited)
#578. To: christine (#420)
i'm sure you would agree that in today's PC culture, racial preference and the desire to preserve one's race/culture is encouraged and lauded for all races except white.
#579. To: christine (#578)
#580. To: angle (#578)
Yet they denigrate blacks, ALL blacks, all the time.
#581. To: angle (#579)
#582. To: HOUNDDAWG (#551)
Good post.
#583. To: Cynicom (#570)
#584. To: OliviaFNewton (#521)
Rumors rumors and facts. One of which the brainwashed refuse to dare question or explore. Driven by extreme self gratification rather than concern for the greater national concerns.
#585. To: OliviaFNewton (#583)
Supporting them is one thing, voting against Obama is another.
#586. To: HOUNDDAWG (#552)
Crooks like former Ohio Sec. Of State Ken Blackwell and his cronies, the execs at DIEBOLD belong in prison
#587. To: OliviaFNewton (#583)
#588. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#584)
In your view, which are 'the greater national concerns'
#589. To: angle (#585)
Well then, your voting in the sham election will be well received here by the resident anti-blacks.
#590. To: Ferret Mike, christine (#517)
#591. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#584)
(Edited)
#592. To: All (#591)
#593. To: OliviaFNewton (#588)
(Edited)
2 - Forget about free-trades and globalism.
3 - Get the hell out of 'the world', militarily speaking.
4 - Focus on establishing permanent colonies on the Moon, Mars and toward interstellar expeditions.
5 - Give Bush and his co-conspirators a fair trial on counts of mostly treason.
#594. To: Cynicom (#587)
I like most Americans was taught it was our duty and right to vote, and I started voting for Ike under that lesson.
#595. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#593)
1 - Kick out anything that W or W-related from the State machinery.
2 - Forget about free-trades and globalism.
3 - Get the hell out of 'the world', militarily speaking.
4 - Focus on establishing permanent colonies on the Moon, Mars and toward interstellar expeditions.
5 - Give Bush and his co-conspirators a fair trial on counts of mostly treason.
#596. To: angle (#591)
#597. To: angle (#595)
#598. To: christine (#395)
you know what? i've had enough of you. bye.
#599. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#593)
Ollie, I thought you had a clear idea of what the greater national priorities were.
#600. To: OliviaFNewton (#599)
#601. To: christine (#539)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
.
.
.