Momma don't take my social studies project away?!

Get over it,
the secret service has to investigate any potential threat that is reported to them, regardless how innocent are stupid the action reported may turn out to be.

And, it's cute how "the Progressive" has to make Walmart an important part of this story. Evil, union busting Walmart.....

This isn't a story about the suppression of little whacko-leftist idiot teenagers. If you don't believe, call up a radio station and make a similarly stupid veiled physical threat about the President. You'll be interviewed following that too, regardless which administration is in office.
 
What fumes have you been sniffing?

There have been entire artist's careers based on mocking the president that haven't been touched by the CIA
 
Isn't it interesting that nobody is even asking this kid what he meant by the 'project,' or even wondering about the threatening nature of the thing. It's just fuss fuss fuss over the kid's stupid rights.
 
raVeneyes said:
What fumes have you been sniffing?

There have been entire artist's careers based on mocking the president that haven't been touched by the CIA

The CIA doesn't investigate threats against the President. As Calabrio correctly pointed out, and as the article says, it's done by the Secret Service. The Secret Service is required BY LAW to investigate all potential threats. Many turn out just like this: they interview the parties, determine there is no threat, and it's over.

So are you suggesting potential threats against the President should be ignored? Or just threats against Republican Presidents?
 
RB3 said:
So are you suggesting potential threats against the President should be ignored? Or just threats against Republican Presidents?
I think just the ones about Bush. :shifty:
 
RB3 said:
The CIA doesn't investigate threats against the President. As Calabrio correctly pointed out, and as the article says, it's done by the Secret Service. The Secret Service is required BY LAW to investigate all potential threats. Many turn out just like this: they interview the parties, determine there is no threat, and it's over.

So are you suggesting potential threats against the President should be ignored? Or just threats against Republican Presidents?

WHAT THE ?!!?

I'm suggesting that a thumbtack through a photo is not a threat. Nor is a photo of a thumbs down to a photo a threat. Nor is making a poster for social studies class!!!!

:confused:

I put up photos of my girlfriend in my cubicle at work with thumbtacks. Was I investigated for attempted murder? Was it even thought that I didn't like her? Even when I took down those photos after we broke up and shredded them did people think I was threatening her? NO!!!!
 
raVeneyes said:
WHAT THE ?!!?

I'm suggesting that a thumbtack through a photo is not a threat. Nor is a photo of a thumbs down to a photo a threat. Nor is making a poster for social studies class!!!!

:confused:

I put up photos of my girlfriend in my cubicle at work with thumbtacks. Was I investigated for attempted murder? Was it even thought that I didn't like her? Even when I took down those photos after we broke up and shredded them did people think I was threatening her? NO!!!!

So you've seen the poster? No. You've interviewed the kid? No. You don't know ANYTHING about this, other than what you read in an obviously biased source. And the Secret Service CANNOT know anything about it either, without investigating, and they're required, once again, BY LAW, to investigate.

And please don't give me any malarky about how it's just a kid. Ever hear of Columbine? There are lots of violent kids out there, and too many people have ignored too many warning signs.
 
MonsterMark said:
Try getting on an airplane by chanting ~ bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb.....

You know full well that's not what this was about.

Whatever, you guys go ahead and let your freedoms erode...I'll just keep taking pretty pictures of it all.
 
raVeneyes said:
Whatever, you guys go ahead and let your freedoms erode...I'll just keep taking pretty pictures of it all.
It is about the sitting President of the United States. Put all the tacks thru your ex-girlfriends head. Nobody will care. But the President of the United States is a whole different animal.
 
Vitas said:
If you can't do better than that kind of language, how could you possiblty expect anyone to take you seriously, from any perspective.

You fill us in.

Bucket mouth?

Again...how ironic to try to censor my speech in a thread about freedom of speech.
 
raVeneyes said:
Again...how ironic to try to censor my speech in a thread about freedom of speech.


I've told you before, I will tell you again, nothing that you have brought forth previously makes any sense.

You gave me a list of "your" posts previously; they are a total joke.

Give me an example of what you think are your "profound" thoughts, I will examine them.
 
raVeneyes said:
Again...how ironic to try to censor my speech in a thread about freedom of speech.

Pointing out the effects of certain words on those reading them is not censorship. There are many ways of stating things, all of which result in people getting a different message.

This is a good example of over reacting, just like the reaction to the poster.
 
raVeneyes said:
Again...how ironic to try to censor my speech in a thread about freedom of speech.

This whole deal is about FREEDOOM. Freedom of people. Freedom of people other than yourself.

It is, very basically, addressing the hate of Islamic terrorists.

It is about addressing the HATE behind the 9/11/01 attacks.

It is about making our world a better place.

Stand for it, or get out of the way; it WILL Happen.
 
raVeneyes said:
Again...how ironic to try to censor my speech in a thread about freedom of speech.

Big Brother is getting Closer!

What would you expect from the right paranoid wing. I'd expect they to be turning you over to the CIA soon also. Can't let anyone disagree with this poor administration.
 
Who exactly is paranoid in this thread?
The guys who go "yeah, that is the proceedure, it's nothing new and nothing happened."

Or those who think answer a couple questions regarding a perceived threat (perceived by a private citizen) means that the evil Bush administration is cracking down on dissent??

Give it a rest. Nothing happened in this story.
 
Remember, these are the same people who think that kids in school should not be subject to weapons searches.
 
LMAO. The left wants to talk, talk, talk about stopping terrorism but they are not willing to do anything about it. Threatening the President is terrorism, even if it is just sticking needles in his eyes on paper.

Showing a picture of Monica on her knees lapping up slick Willy is not terrorism however, as the person depicting Slick is not threatening him. See the difference in your free speech argument?
 
A threat to any president needs to be investigated, simple as that. But thumb tacks on a picture? Seriously now, how is that a threat? If the kid had written 'Death to ****' or 'Die scum die' or anything of that nature on the poster, I can see that as being a potential threat and would certaintly need to be investigated. Joey's avatar has Bush looking like the dunce from Mad magazine, is that a threat? The truth is, dissent against this president is not to be tolerated, if you show disapproval in any form, then you're the enemy.
 
fossten said:
Remember, these are the same people who think that kids in school should not be subject to weapons searches.

What do you suppose we do? Search every child at school? Maybe start profiling and search only the kids that fit a certain description? What is your solution here?
 
Vitas said:
This whole deal is about FREEDOOM. Freedom of people. Freedom of people other than yourself.

It is, very basically, addressing the hate of Islamic terrorists.

It is about addressing the HATE behind the 9/11/01 attacks.

It is about making our world a better place.

Stand for it, or get out of the way; it WILL Happen.

What? What does anything you said have to do with freedom of speech?

1) Not all terrorist are Islamic
2) The 9/11 terrorist were not exercising a given right of 'freedom to kill'
3) A better place by getting rid of freedom?
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top