• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Showdown in Washington, D.C.

marksman said:
Yes, it does. Lunatics have 1st amendment rights. they probably have 2d amendment rights too, unless their brand of lunacy makes it likely that they will shoot themselves or others with that gun without justification.
Click to expand...
When the lunatics start trying to urge the armed fanatics to use those arms, it has to sdtop.

As far as I can tell, Beck's lunacy is of a different sort.
Click to expand...

No. His lunacy approaches that of Hitler. (Godwin be damned. The strutting poppinjay probably practices these rants in front of a mirror like Schickelgruber did.)
 
leftysergeant said:
When the lunatics start trying to urge the armed fanatics to use those arms, it has to stop.
Click to expand...

You're either referring to the article in Mother Jones, about the "Oath Keepers" and those egging them on, or you've got some other evidence which is even more appalling.

When the Second Amendment was ratified, I don't think it included "Psychotic Paranoid Loonies" in any reference to a "well regulated militia."

leftysergeant said:
No. His lunacy approaches that of Hitler. (Godwin be damned. The strutting poppinjay probably practices these rants in front of a mirror like Schickelgruber did.)
Click to expand...

Um, hate to break it to you, LS, but Beck has already admitted to doing this. He's also admitted to using Vick's VapoRub to induce those oh-so-heart-wrenching tears as he cries for the state of our nation.

Okay, now how did you and I wind up on the same fricking page?
 
I wouldn't say I'm against Glenn Beck's right to protest or hold this protest. I just think it's a very stupid protest by a moron. He can protest all he wants, and he can have other people support him.

I'm glad that real civil-rights activists are standing up to Glenn Beck, pointing out that Glenn Beck does not speak for minorities.
 
thaiboxerken said:
I wouldn't say I'm against Glenn Beck's right to protest or hold this protest. I just think it's a very stupid protest by a moron. He can protest all he wants, and he can have other people support him.

I'm glad that real civil-rights activists are standing up to Glenn Beck, pointing out that Glenn Beck does not speak for minorities.
Click to expand...

Or anyone else capable of rational thought.
 
Roadtoad said:
Looked at the speech cited by MaGZ.

Good Gawd.

Someone pass me the aspirin.
Click to expand...

I tried to warn you,but in the interest of public safety here's a taste...

According to Assistant Director Sullivan, who had direct access to the surveillance files on King which are denied the American people, King had embezzled or misapplied substantial amounts of money contributed to the "civil rights" movement. King used SCLC funds to pay for liquor, and numerous prostitutes both Black and White, who were brought to his hotel rooms, often two at a time, for drunken sex parties which sometimes lasted for several days. These types of activities were the norm for King's speaking and organizing tours.

In fact, an outfit called the "National Civil Rights Museum" in Memphis, Tennessee, which is putting on display the two bedrooms from the Lorraine Motel where King stayed the night before he was shot, has declined to depict in any way the occupants of those rooms. That—according to exhibit designer Gerard Eisterhold—would be "close to blasphemy." The reason? "Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr." spent his last night on Earth having sexual intercourse with two women at the motel and physically beating and abusing a third.

Sullivan also stated that King had alienated the affections of numerous married women. According to Sullivan, who in 30 years with the Bureau had seen everything there was to be seen of the seamy side of life, King was one of only seven people he had ever encountered who was such a total degenerate.
Click to expand...

Goddammit who's the other 6?

Want more? You know you do...
http://www.revilo-oliver.com/Kevin-Strom-personal/Beast_as_Saint.html
 
Here, have some Brain Bleach. I use it every time after I´ve been in a Holocaust Denial thread.
 
marksman said:
To what do you refer? When did Glenn Beck urge armed resistance?
Click to expand...

He doesn't have to. He knows he has a following among gun-toting lunatics who think that it is "Time to water the Tree of Liberty," which is to say, "Tiume to off a liberal or two." All he needs to do is keep the shrieking monkeys riled up.
 
marksman said:
Then he's not going to have his first and second amendment rights taken away. And thank goodness we still live in a nation of laws where odious people's rights are protected.
Click to expand...
There is a limit as to how far the 1st Ammendment will protect someone shouting FIRE in a theater.
 
People always invoke that exception without understanding how incredibly narrow the exception is. These words were written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Schenck v. United States, a 1921 Supreme Court decision.

After giving his "fire in a crowded theater" analogy, Holmes clarified what this meant as follows:

"The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree."

Getting people riled up on a cable talk show is not proximate to what his yahoo viewers actually do, unless he exhorts them to take the law into his own hands.

In the Schenk case, the speech was a letter written to people who had been drafted in World War I, exhorting them to ignore the draft. Because the letter exhorted people to break the law, it was not protected speech.

As you acknowledge, Beck hasn't exhorted any illegal activity. Until he does, he is entitled to Constitutional rights, no matter how much lunacy he exhibits before doing so.
 
Whatever!

Point is that the sleazeball has no grounds to claim he is being unfairly picked on by the nasty liberals. He's nuts, he's dangerous, he's trying to undo fifty years of human progress in pursuit of his own sick dreams.
 
No, when you think he should be denied his Constitutional rights, you are also assaulting the Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom