In light of the LARGE thread on Romney.....

[Andara Bledin]

3: She forgot that while having such an opinion you can't express it because the PC crowd will hound you to your death and then dig you up, hang you, behead you and then burn you to ashes only after having first pissed on your grave.
4: Such statement are only appropriate when directed toward former President Bush.

3: Bullshit. This is a great sounding board comment that looks real good on paper but has zero substance. It has nothing to do with PC or not. If someone makes an asinine comment that they hope anyone will be assassinated, they deserve every bit of vitriol they get.

4: More bullshit. They are no more appropriate, regardless of the target (barring a few, very specific cases).

Wishing that anyone be murdered is tacky and stupid. And doing so on a public forum about someone who is a member of the government is about as stupid as you can get.

^-.-^

[s_stabeler]

Free Speech is a right to say what you want. Not a right to say what you want without consequence.

not 100% true, otherwise there IS no free speech. It is only limited by so-called "fighting words", otherwise, yep, it's consequence-free, at least in court. It doesn't, however, prevent an employer, for example, firing someone over their speech.

[Hyena Dandy]

Wishing that anyone be murdered is tacky and stupid. And doing so on a public forum about someone who is a member of the government is about as stupid as you can get.

I'm pretty sure that if you make any sort of statement like that against a sitting President, then you will get investigated by the Secret Service.

It's kind of what they do.

[Panacea]

While I don't agree with her opinion, this again shows you can have any opinion you want just as long as it's PC.

False. We don't have mind control in this country. You can think what you want, as you have clearly demonstrated time and again. However, others retain the right to be offended. That's what the folks like you don't get: people have a right to be offended, and to express that offense.

The woman was stupid for several reasons:
1: Sharing too much about her personal life online.

Agreed.

2: While she didn't make a direct threat it was veiled at best.

Doesn't matter whether it's veiled or not, it's still a threat. You can't say something like that and not face a consequence. If you said something like that about your next door neighbor or other person you knew and disliked, and that person turned up dead, you can bet your sweet ass the cops would be knocking on your door asking pointed questions. It's called motive.

3: She forgot that while having such an opinion you can't express it because the PC crowd will hound you to your death and then dig you up, hang you, behead you and then burn you to ashes only after having first pissed on your grave.

Again, the right to free speech is not a right to speech with no consequence. If you act like a jerk, expect to be treated like one.

4: Such statement are only appropriate when directed toward former President Bush.

Again, false. There isn't a politician of any stripes that hasn't had to endure a lot of invective from political opponents. Every President back to George Washington has had to deal with it. Some statements, such as those threatening murder, are always inappropriate, including towards Bush. The Secret Service keeps very busy following up on these kinds of threats regardless of who the President is.

I recall a good friend of mine who was investigated for allegedly threatening GHW Bush. The allegation came from the President of the Young Republicans Club, a total nut job who was mad because my friend had resulted in his getting fired from his job: he was the manager of the electronics dept of a retail store and YR got fired for being a slacker, and harassing the customers about politics at work.

The fact he was a nut didn't keep the SS from isolating my friend for over 24 hours of interrogation, refusing to allow him to call his wife or a lawyer. Once they figured out the caller was a nut, the SS then refused to apologize, and just kicked my friend loose.

My friend was apolitical until that day.

If you [Gravekeeper] had read, I said I didn't agree with her.

Doesn't excuse your other statements.

She shouldn't have been hounded to her job that she lost. While I disagree with you I wouldn't even think of calling your boss and complaining about your opinions as that's your business and not his (at least in my opinion)

I'm glad you feel this way. I generally don't support firing people who say dumb things over the internet unless it involves threats of violence.

but I don't think I could expect the same in return as you seem to be very emotional. I don't think you called her job to talk to boss mostly because I think you lack the courage to do so but also I think you can separate private and public.

Really? Tanasi, the only one getting emotional here is you. GK is logical and direct in his arguments, and you answer him with this? Also, you don't know enough about him to make this kind of claim.

Another thing I don't use the n word never have and never will. I think it's a hurtful word and I dislike it's use by everyone including black folks.

Great. Glad to hear it.

If you're equating the n-word with negro then that shows your ignorance.

The word literally is a invective for negro, yes. How else do you think people use it in an offensive manner?

You seem to have a very high opinion of your intelligence perhaps you need to educate yourself or perhaps try some deep thinking (don't forget to stretch first, you wouldn't want to cramp up) or are you one of those people that were educated way beyond their intelligence? I'll freely admit I'm ignorant about many things, where my opinion of you is AFKIA and it's all based upon what you write.

It's impossible to educate someone beyond their intelligence. And GK strikes me as both intelligent and well informed. I have no idea what his educational level is, and it doesn't matter. He is well informed and forms logical lines of thought. He can defend his own arguments as well as point out the flaws in the posts of others.

My true colors, you don't have a clue to my true colors (I would have added a "little boy" or "little girl" to belittle you but I don't know your gender.) One of my attributes is that I'm a proud ASSHOLE. Grow up or slither??? Are those my only choices??? Guess I'll slither and make room for you as I doubt you're capable of the other.

Should you want to take this private I'm all for it as I don't want to upset Raps. I see him as a host and I wouldn't want such an argument taking place in front of my other guests. Believe it or not I'm a big believer in the Golden Rule.

Ad hominem attacks don't advance the arguments of either side. If you respond in kind, you paint yourself with the brush you'd paint him with.

not 100% true, otherwise there IS no free speech. It is only limited by so-called "fighting words", otherwise, yep, it's consequence-free, at least in court. It doesn't, however, prevent an employer, for example, firing someone over their speech.

I disagree. Consequences don't have to take place in the legal system to exist and in fact be legal. If you call me a nasty name, I have every right to give you the cold shoulder, refuse you service as a customer, call you a name back, refuse to hire you for a job or give you a good reference, and any number of other things.

[violiav]

I'm pretty sure that if you make any sort of statement like that against a sitting President, then you will get investigated by the Secret Service.

It's kind of what they do.

That's wast I remember from high school government.
I believe this is the law-
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/871

Now, I don't know that it applies to internet, there maybe a separate law for that.

[Tanasi]

3: Bullshit. This is a great sounding board comment that looks real good on paper but has zero substance. It has nothing to do with PC or not. If someone makes an asinine comment that they hope anyone will be assassinated, they deserve every bit of vitriol they get.

4: More bullshit. They are no more appropriate, regardless of the target (barring a few, very specific cases).

Wishing that anyone be murdered is tacky and stupid. And doing so on a public forum about someone who is a member of the government is about as stupid as you can get.

^-.-^

Even if you disagree with someone you should never interfere with their job. The person in question made that statement online that's where the disagreements should have stayed. She has to make a living and now some cowards have interfered with that, I don't know for sure maybe she has a kid. Do you have the courage to get someone fired for what they say??? Especially so if they have a kid???
Those nuts that printed and distributed wanted dead or alive posters of GWB were hailed online. Over at democraticunderground they would have been sainted if possible.
As to your final statement I agree.

[Tanasi]

not 100% true, otherwise there IS no free speech. It is only limited by so-called "fighting words", otherwise, yep, it's consequence-free, at least in court. It doesn't, however, prevent an employer, for example, firing someone over their speech.

My Dad said you have the right to say pretty much anything you want, no one has the duty to listen.

[Nekojin]

My Dad said you have the right to say pretty much anything you want, no one has the duty to listen.

Sure. Which is why it's absolutely fine to tell your boss that his wife is dog-ugly, or stand in front of a McDonald's and shout about how they're poisoning America, or shout racially-charged epithets in school. None of those could possibly have consequences... right?

[AmbrosiaWriter]

Sure. Which is why it's absolutely fine to tell your boss that his wife is dog-ugly, or stand in front of a McDonald's and shout about how they're poisoning America, or shout racially-charged epithets in school. None of those could possibly have consequences... right?

Not to mention the wise, wise, wise old adage, "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should."

[guywithashovel]

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1679439

I remembered seeing this on the news several years ago, and a quick Google search brought it up.

Back in 2006, a teacher in Colorado took some heat from his school's administration for comparing then President Bush to Hitler. Just posting this as a friendly response to the remarks that invective against Bush was always tolerated.

If this isn't good enough for you, then I have two words: Dixie Chicks.

[violiav]

Ohh... I'd forgotten about them. That was terrible.

[Nekojin]

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1679439

I remembered seeing this on the news several years ago, and a quick Google search brought it up.

Back in 2006, a teacher in Colorado took some heat from his school's administration for comparing then President Bush to Hitler. Just posting this as a friendly response to the remarks that invective against Bush was always tolerated.

If this isn't good enough for you, then I have two words: Dixie Chicks.

There's a marked difference between comparing a President to Hitler (which, while tacky, isn't illegal) and calling for the assassination of a President. One is over-the-top invective. The other is treason.

[AdminAssistant]

If this isn't good enough for you, then I have two words: Dixie Chicks.

Side note: There's a really interesting documentary called Shut Up and Sing about the whole Dixie Chicks debacle. It follows them as they make a new record with essentially zero support from the country music community.

[Tanasi]

False. We don't have mind control in this country. You can think what you want, as you have clearly demonstrated time and again. However, others retain the right to be offended. That's what the folks like you don't get: people have a right to be offended, and to express that offense.

No mind control, yet!!! Of course folks the right to be offended I wouldn't deny the right to disagree after I like to agree as well as disagree. I maintain that the offensive person shouldn't be hounded out of their job. So many folks aren't satisfied until they've destroyed someone they disagree with. Both the life and right are equally quilty. Anyone here can disagree me that likes, I don't care and I would never interfere with your job even if my life was threatened.

Doesn't matter whether it's veiled or not, it's still a threat. You can't say something like that and not face a consequence. If you said something like that about your next door neighbor or other person you knew and disliked, and that person turned up dead, you can bet your sweet ass the cops would be knocking on your door asking pointed questions. It's called motive.

I don't disagree but the fact is thousands of death threats are made every day and most are brushed aside as BS.

Really? Tanasi, the only one getting emotional here is you. GK is logical and direct in his arguments, and you answer him with this? Also, you don't know enough about him to make this kind of claim.

I here we have to agree to disagree.

The word literally is a invective for negro, yes. How else do you think people use it in an offensive manner?

Where you as equally offended when I also used the words caucasian and asian??? I didn't use the word negro in a offensive manner, I used it as a race identifier. Just because someone is from the African continent doesn't mean they're of the negro race.

It's impossible to educate someone beyond their intelligence. And GK strikes me as both intelligent and well informed. I have no idea what his educational level is, and it doesn't matter. He is well informed and forms logical lines of thought. He can defend his own arguments as well as point out the flaws in the posts of others.

Again we'll have to agree to disagree. Her demeaning of her fellow Canadians is sometimes amusing.

Ad hominem attacks don't advance the arguments of either side. If you respond in kind, you paint yourself with the brush you'd paint him with.

I paint with no wider a brush that I'm painted with.

[Tanasi]

Sure. Which is why it's absolutely fine to tell your boss that his wife is dog-ugly, or stand in front of a McDonald's and shout about how they're poisoning America, or shout racially-charged epithets in school. None of those could possibly have consequences... right?

I'm not saying that there isn't consequences that come with free speech I'm saying don't purposely go after someone's job. They gotta eat too.
The woman said something stupid, she deserved to be called on it. She didn't deserve to be fired. Had it been you or GK I'd still say the same thing. That being said if your boss doesn't know his wife if dog ugly then you really gotta wonder about your boss.