The 9th Circus got one right!!!

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Anthony W.

And the odds of anyone's calls for anything actually doing anything - are - well - slim to none at best. At the first sign of danger, anyhow, the CIA would be all over them.

The odds that a washed up actor would shoot and kill the President of the United States were slim-to-none at best.

The odds that a shady business man and failed preacher would shoot and kill the President of the United States were slim-to-none at best.

The odds that an anarchic immigrant would shoot and kill the President of the United States were slim-to-none.

The odds that a former Marine Corps radio operator would [most likely, for you conspiracy types] shoot and kill the President of the United States were slim-to-none.

The odds that a house painter would attempt to shoot the President of the United States were slim-to-none.

The odds that a private eye would attempt to shoot the President of the United States were slim-to-none.

The odds that a saloon keeper would attempt to shoot the President of the United States were slim-to-none.

The odds that an Italian immigrant would attempt to shoot the President of the United States were slim-to-none.

The odds that two Puerto Rican sepratists would attempt to shoot the President of the United States were slim-to-none.

The odds that a retired Postal Service employee would attempt to suicide bomb the President of the United States were slim-to-none.

The odds that a mentally unstable high school dropout would attempt to crash a commercial airliner into the White House were slim-to-none.

The odds that a disallusioned drug addict would attempt to shoot the President of the United States were slim-to-none.

The odds than a man obsessed with Jodie Foster would shoot and attempt to kill the President of the United States were slim-to-none.

The odds that a man would attempt to crash his Cessna into the White House were slim-to-none.

The odds that a man would take pot shots at the White House from the peremiter fence were slim-to-none.

The odds that a group posing as reporters would attempt to kill the President of the United States were slim-to-none.

The odds that a disaffected Armenian would attempt to kill the President of the United States with a hand grenade were slim-to-none.

The odds that a man would travel from Baltimore by train to attempt to shoot the President of the United States were slim-to-none.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

The odds that a washed up actor would shoot and kill the President of the United States were slim-to-none at best.

The odds that a shady business man and failed preacher would shoot and kill the President of the United States were slim-to-none at best.

The odds that an anarchic immigrant would shoot and kill the President of the United States were slim-to-none.

The odds that a former Marine Corps radio operator would [most likely, for you conspiracy types] shoot and kill the President of the United States were slim-to-none.

The odds that a house painter would attempt to shoot the President of the United States were slim-to-none.

The odds that a private eye would attempt to shoot the President of the United States were slim-to-none.

The odds that a saloon keeper would attempt to shoot the President of the United States were slim-to-none.

The odds that an Italian immigrant would attempt to shoot the President of the United States were slim-to-none.

The odds that two Puerto Rican sepratists would attempt to shoot the President of the United States were slim-to-none.

The odds that a retired Postal Service employee would attempt to suicide bomb the President of the United States were slim-to-none.

The odds that a mentally unstable high school dropout would attempt to crash a commercial airliner into the White House were slim-to-none.

The odds that a disallusioned drug addict would attempt to shoot the President of the United States were slim-to-none.

The odds than a man obsessed with Jodie Foster would shoot and attempt to kill the President of the United States were slim-to-none.

The odds that a man would attempt to crash his Cessna into the White House were slim-to-none.

The odds that a man would take pot shots at the White House from the peremiter fence were slim-to-none.

The odds that a group posing as reporters would attempt to kill the President of the United States were slim-to-none.

The odds that a disaffected Armenian would attempt to kill the President of the United States with a hand grenade were slim-to-none.

The odds that a man would travel from Baltimore by train to attempt to shoot the President of the United States were slim-to-none.

So should we just piss all over the 1st amendment because someone might actually do something? This guy was talking trash and should not have even been arrested.Just glad the circus recongized that.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

So should we just piss all over the 1st amendment because someone might actually do something? This guy was talking trash and should not have even been arrested.Just glad the circus recongized that.

Anthony said that this sort of thing was against the odds. I feel that history demonstrates that this is not true. Your point creates a strawman argument in that I said nothing of the sort that you are suggesting.

[Anthony W.]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Anthony said that this sort of thing was against the odds. I feel that history demonstrates that this is not true. Your point creates a strawman argument in that I said nothing of the sort that you are suggesting.

Then... Maybe the President should listen to the people (everyone - not just his side of the aisle - most people from the other side will not both going to one of those rallies so that idea is out) so people don't want to kill him? Professionals estimated the Washington DC national Tea Party rally had over 1.3 million people - the pres. brushed it off and put out a story that there were only 300,000 (it takes more than 300,000 to fill the national mall till people can't move like they did). I'm not going to say whether or not I agree with what the protesters were saying - but the pres. should not have ignored it like he did.

People will get insanely angry when the officials aren't listening to them.

Am I saying its okay for people to call for murder? No. Not at all. What I am saying is that it shouldn't be federally illegal. Besides, I think that the people who would really murder a president are the ones that would NOT be screaming it in the streets and over the internet...

[August]

Originally Posted by Anthony W.

Then... Maybe the President should listen to the people (everyone - not just his side of the aisle - most people from the other side will not both going to one of those rallies so that idea is out) so people don't want to kill him? Professionals estimated the Washington DC national Tea Party rally had over 1.3 million people - the pres. brushed it off and put out a story that there were only 300,000 (it takes more than 300,000 to fill the national mall till people can't move like they did). I'm not going to say whether or not I agree with what the protesters were saying - but the pres. should not have ignored it like he did.

There will always be someone who wants to kill the President. There is nothing a President can do, including doing nothing, that would keep him safe from every nut that is out there.

Regardless of what or who the president ignores there is no justification for death threats.

[Anthony W.]

Originally Posted by August

There will always be someone who wants to kill the President. There is nothing a President can do, including doing nothing, that would keep him safe from every nut that is out there.

Regardless of what or who the president ignores there is no justification for death threats.

Agreed - but maybe we need to make a distinction that the 9th circuit may or may not have. Isn't there a difference between "Someone should kill the president." and "I'm going to kill the president."

The first is just an opinion. The second is a direct threat - and that should be illegal.

[razark]

Originally Posted by Anthony W.

Maybe the President should listen to the people ... so people don't want to kill him?

So, using threats of violence to influence national policy?

Isn't that the very definition of terrorism?

[Anthony W.]

Originally Posted by razark

So, using threats of violence to influence national policy?

Isn't that the very definition of terrorism?

Ehh - just a bit of my discontent coming out. I was at that rally.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Anthony W.

Then... Maybe the President should listen to the people (everyone - not just his side of the aisle - most people from the other side will not both going to one of those rallies so that idea is out) so people don't want to kill him? Professionals estimated the Washington DC national Tea Party rally had over 1.3 million people - the pres. brushed it off and put out a story that there were only 300,000 (it takes more than 300,000 to fill the national mall till people can't move like they did). I'm not going to say whether or not I agree with what the protesters were saying - but the pres. should not have ignored it like he did.

People will get insanely angry when the officials aren't listening to them.

Am I saying its okay for people to call for murder? No. Not at all. What I am saying is that it shouldn't be federally illegal. Besides, I think that the people who would really murder a president are the ones that would NOT be screaming it in the streets and over the internet...

I am fairly certain that the so-called Tea Party and it's rallies have nothing to do with death threats against the President of the United States, or so we have been told over and over again by their pundits. That is, of course, unless you would like to challenge that assertion.

[Anthony W.]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

I am fairly certain that the so-called Tea Party and it's rallies have nothing to do with death threats against the President of the United States, or so we have been told over and over again by their pundits. That is, of course, unless you would like to challenge that assertion.

Not by any means. I just used them as an example to highlight the disconnect.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Anthony W.

Not by any means. I just used them as an example to highlight the disconnect.

Or perceived disconnect, depending on your point of view. Much relativism in politics.