>> ^NordlichReiter:

My comment on Thunderfoot's response video, the Moderate Muslim is in violation of law. Death Threats are not legal free speech.
Many US States have Laws against the threat of death, bodily harm, destruction, and et cetera. Threats of death have not been considered free speech, because they are "Fighting Words"; which invite violence. See wikipedia on "Fighting Words."
For Supreme Court case law please see Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.

I would never have guessed that "them's fightn' words" was the correct legal term.

My comment on Thunderfoot's response video, the Moderate Muslim is in violation of law. Death Threats are not legal free speech.

Many US States have Laws against the threat of death, bodily harm, destruction, and et cetera. Threats of death have not been considered free speech, because they are "Fighting Words"; which invite violence. See wikipedia on "Fighting Words."
For Supreme Court case law please see Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.

^ @SDGundamX, I fail to see how hanging up a lynching noose falls under "violence" and not "offensive behaviour".

Are you talking about Fighting Words? That seems to be as good a definition of hate speech as any, and is based on the following belief:

"It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

(Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942)

However, to me that seems like a stupid attitude - is it then up to the judge's fancy whether, for instance, Philip Pullman's books constitute a "social value as a step to truth" or not?

If i "encourage" you to murder someone by saying you should, and you then do it, which of us is the guilty party? Are you less guilty because you were under my spell?

[edit] Oops, i confess i hadn't read the post-chaplinsky chapter in the wiki article. NOT so great a definition of hate speech then, but it does show how that sort of legislation is irrational

Fuck two parties.

Fuck stereotype.

There are good liberals: Kucinich, Grayson, and that bald guy. I can't remember his name, the one that talked about martial law. Franken seems like a smart fellow, and he reminds me of Lewis Black.

There are bad conservatives, like the whole of those fuckers that voted against Franken's amendment to make felonies non arbitrary offenses.

But I am more of a New Hampshire type Libertarian and I cannot stand the current system as it is. The 2nd amendment is one that should not be infringed upon, but is used by the ignorant to push some very stupid ideas. Half of these people I would think haven't a clue what it is like to use a weapon in defense, or offense. I cannot stand police intimidation, and I cannot stand this unjust fear of the Justice System. Or Private Prison Systems! Now we have private police officers!

I have to say, you fools keep arguing about right and left while these great injustices are perpetrated on our tired, our poor, our retched refuse, our homeless, and tempest-toss.

You want true liberty? Or a place to truly have your Liberal, Conservative thought? Start with ending the Federal Reserve. Then move on to the lobby. Then move on to the Military Industrial Complex. Remove the monetary cost to get elected to Office the monetary cost that stops the poor from being a part of the system.

But most of all! Break these goddamned Stereo types: Right, Left, Moderate, Statist, Centrists, Libertarian, and so on. Fuck that we are United States Citizens fucking act like it.

OK. I did "learn more". Patients United Now was launched by a conservative group called American for Prosperity.

From wiki:
In 2003, an internal rift between Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) and its affiliated Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation led to a split in which the latter organization was renamed as a separate organization, called Americans for Prosperity.

Its foundation's chair and founder is David Koch of Koch Industries, which runs oil refining and pipeline companies. Another Americans for Prosperity Foundation board member is Richard Fink, a Koch executive who serves as a director of the refining subsidiary. Fink helps control AFP's purse strings. He is president of the Koch-affiliated Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, which gave AFP's foundation $2.2 million from 2005-06, according to the Foundation Center.

On February 27, 2009, in collaboration with others, the organization sponsored a Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas and Washington, D.C. Tea party protest.

AFP aims to promote a sound economic policy that supports business and regulatory restraint by government, according to its literature. This organization leans conservative. AFP opposed the $787 billion stimulus package for economic recovery.

The organization has chapters in 22 of the 50 states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Americans for Prosperity is led by Tim Phillips, who was a former partner with Ralph Reed's Century Strategies. That organization became well-known when it was revealed in a Senate investigation that convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff was laundering money through Century Strategies and Americans for Tax Reform to oppose legislation that his Indian tribe clients wanted to defeat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_for_Prosperity#Patients_United_Now

HEAVY emphasis on the LIES channel!

I love seeing all the known liberty activists getting their recent media attention. From FreeKeene to the Free State Project.

Most of the liberty activists in each area know each other, because it's such a small community. Even the ones in New Hampshire read http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/ and know a lot of what goes on in Pheonix.

More from the NH activists: http://www.videosift.com/video/City-Councilor-Won-t-Answer-Questions-at-Townhall-Meeting

No, more people do NOT need to do more things like this.

There's a reason that the police force was invented, and contrary to common belief, no, it was not to go around tazing people.

The idea that banning guns to make the country safer is NOT laughable when you have a civil society that enjoys its freedoms and doesn't have guerilla forces as part of a rebellion. The reason those people exist is basically to "Fight the Man" and last time I checked, the U.S.A. doesn't exactly have that problem.

Private citizens require firearms to make sure they can defend themselves against criminals?
Seriously? you don't think people carry guns when they break into peoples houses? That's just naive. If you're that worried that someone's gonna break into your house, sleep next to a bat. If neither side has a gun, it's basically which ever one has the bigger melee weapon wins, and last time I checked, if you're breaking into someones house, you don't take a claymore, They draw a knife, you pick up the bat. Problem solved.

oh, and as for your "Extra lols", Really? Do you think that the secret service doesn't care that there's loaded firearms at a rally for the president? are you THAT naive? your country has a bit of a track record for assassinations and attempted assassinations. If there's ANY person carrying a weapon at a rally, you can bet your ass they're being watched like a hawk.

>> ^Lowen:
Awesome, more people need to do things like this. People are clearly conditioned by movies and the news to an irrational fear of private citizens with firearms, and if people don't exercise their rights in this way, we will lose the second amendment.
The idea that you can make people safer by banning guns is laughable when guns are assembled in rebel camps in the middle of jungles, mountain towns in Pakistan, and sometimes even smuggled into prisons.
Private citizens require firearms to defend themselves from criminals - without them, even a criminal carrying a knife, nonlethal weapon, or using nothing but his body can render someone helpless. This is far more common than deaths from school shootings, psychos who snap, etc. Again, it's the news at work, playing the story that is unusual and making you afraid of something rare.
I solute the protesters that carry firearms to these events - I hope it continues without incident. If so, it'll make the newscasters look retarded for running this series of "OMG ASSAULT RIFLES AT A PRESIDENTIAL PROTESTS! WTFBBQ!". Maybe then some of you video sifters will come around to the idea that the 2nd amendment is one that protects individual rights, just like all the others, and not a bizzaro provision needed, less we force the national guard to arm itself with nerf guns.
Also, for extra lols at you idiots saying this was alarming the secret service/president, here's what the secret service had to play:
"U.S. Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan acknowledged the incidents in New Hampshire and Arizona, but said he was not aware of any other recent events where protesters attended with open weapons. He said there was no indication that anyone had organized the incidents.
Asked whether the individuals carrying weapons jeopardized the safety of the president, Donovan said, 'Of course not.' "
source:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/ind
ex.html#cnnSTCText

Awesome, more people need to do things like this. People are clearly conditioned by movies and the news to an irrational fear of private citizens with firearms, and if people don't exercise their rights in this way, we will lose the second amendment.

The idea that you can make people safer by banning guns is laughable when guns are assembled in rebel camps in the middle of jungles, mountain towns in Pakistan, and sometimes even smuggled into prisons.

Private citizens require firearms to defend themselves from criminals - without them, even a criminal carrying a knife, nonlethal weapon, or using nothing but his body can render someone helpless. This is far more common than deaths from school shootings, psychos who snap, etc. Again, it's the news at work, playing the story that is unusual and making you afraid of something rare.

I solute the protesters that carry firearms to these events - I hope it continues without incident. If so, it'll make the newscasters look retarded for running this series of "OMG ASSAULT RIFLES AT A PRESIDENTIAL PROTESTS! WTFBBQ!". Maybe then some of you video sifters will come around to the idea that the 2nd amendment is one that protects individual rights, just like all the others, and not a bizzaro provision needed, less we force the national guard to arm itself with nerf guns.

Also, for extra lols at you idiots saying this was alarming the secret service/president, here's what the secret service had to play:

"U.S. Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan acknowledged the incidents in New Hampshire and Arizona, but said he was not aware of any other recent events where protesters attended with open weapons. He said there was no indication that anyone had organized the incidents.

Asked whether the individuals carrying weapons jeopardized the safety of the president, Donovan said, 'Of course not.' "

source:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/index.html#cnnSTCText

>> ^EndAll:
>> ^rougy:
What kind of a pussy is that guy if he can't stand on a New Hampshire street in broad daylight without wearing a gun?

I think it was more about the point he was making, advocating gun ownership ("an armed society is the only way to protect against tyranny" type stuff) liberty, don't tread on me, and all that jazz.


Or it was the obvious...a "deniable" threat to the life of our (black) president. I'm utterly amazed that -anyone- thinks such behavior is acceptable, given the number of political and racial assassinations over the years. There are -zero- valid reasons to carry a gun to a presidential appearance, unless you are a Secret Service agent.

>> ^rougy:
What kind of a pussy is that guy if he can't stand on a New Hampshire street in broad daylight without wearing a gun?


I think it was more about the point he was making, advocating gun ownership ("an armed society is the only way to protect against tyranny" type stuff) liberty, don't tread on me, and all that jazz.

What kind of a pussy is that guy if he can't stand on a New Hampshire street in broad daylight without wearing a gun?

When is it a crime to bring a gun to Obam?

Wow, Mathews is being a douche. That was completely out of line, imo. New Hampshire has an open carry law, so he wasn't doing anything illegal or even ethically wrong. To Mathews I guess open carry is a sign of force, but to those in New Hampshire it is a show of self defense. *fear politicking from this ass.

The worst name I've come across is Dick Sweat. The congressman from New Hampshire. Then again you know he's got the voting for the hell of it vote locked. Maybe he's tactically clever in keeping the name. I don't know. But it's still a questionable thing to name a child. He must have had a serious amount of mocking growing up.

More proof that those living in New Hampshire as part of the "free state project" are full of shit.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'snaggletoothed, libertarian, obama, new hampshire, ayn rand' to 'snaggletoothed, libertarian, obama, new hampshire, ayn rand, free state project' - edited by blankfist