What to do?

[catnipdipper]

Would you be willing to deport past and present C Street house residents?

I would.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by WTF

Rudyard's modern version of the Spanish Inquisition!

And if it were up to me, I wouldn't stop with those fuc'd in the head Muslims I'd round up all religious zealots that are trying to take control of the government and ship them to where the sun don't shine!

Bill Mahr wouldn't last long under your reign. He's a atheist zealot, and according to the Supremes, that's a religion.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by John Bull

Amazed at the confluence of conservative and liberal thought on this issue.

Word!

Originally Posted by WTF

Rudyard's modern version of the Spanish Inquisition!
And if it were up to me, I wouldn't stop with those fuc'd in the head Muslims I'd round up all religious zealots that are trying to take control of the government and ship them to where the sun don't shine!

Seattle?

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by WTF

Rudyard's modern version of the Spanish Inquisition!



And if it were up to me, I wouldn't stop with those fuc'd in the head Muslims I'd round up all religious zealots that are trying to take control of the government and ship them to where the sun don't shine!

Nah WTF...spouting off about religious zealots is your bag...not mine.

I'm just for taking those folks out first...who want to take me out...and I'm an equal opportunity taker outer.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Nah WTF...spouting off about religious zealots is your bag...not mine.

WTF King Rudyard???? you started this thread about that very thing!

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

.

I'm just for taking those folks out first...who want to take me out...and I'm an equal opportunity taker outer.

You ain't protesting at soldiers funerals...you do that and I'm King, you'd be protesting from six foot under.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Seattle?

LOL

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Bill Mahr wouldn't last long under your reign. He's a atheist zealot, and according to the Supremes, that's a religion.

Well then he needs to open a church and take advantage of the tax exempt status that those Holy Rollers enjoy. Then I will be up his hypocritical ass like I am the true believers!

Originally Posted by catnipdipper

Would you be willing to deport past and present C Street house residents?

I would.

We can deport'em to China

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

who want to take me out...and I'm an equal opportunity taker outer.

I'm sure there are ladies here that would be more than willing to take you out for a very enjoyable time. Just so long as you do the same.

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by WTF

WTF King Rudyard???? you started this thread about that very thing!

Uh, no WTF...I did not. You saw nothing in my post about religion or zeal. As I said, that's your broken record.

If they were protesting and saying they wanted to battle because of preference for creamy peanut butter...I'd be feeling the same way...take 'em out.

Simply because you can only see things from a myopic view does not mean everyone can.

[John Bull]

WTF you better quit tweaking the King. He'll cut your balls off. hehehehe

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

If they were protesting and saying they wanted to battle because of preference for creamy peanut butter...I'd be feeling the same way...take 'em out.

Obviously, chunky peanut butter rules.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Uh, no WTF...I did not. You saw nothing in my post about religion or zeal. As I said, that's your broken record.

If they were protesting and saying they wanted to battle because of preference for creamy peanut butter...I'd be feeling the same way...take 'em out.

Well that is a rather naive POV and frankly I do not think you that ignorant.

So I have to wonder....What was your point?

Originally Posted by John Bull

WTF you better quit tweaking the King. He'll cut your balls off. hehehehe

I had to google myopic JB....I thought Rudyard might be an eye doc , hell I forgot he was our King!

Sorry King Rudy. When can we expect these guys to be taken out?

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Simply because you can only see things from a myopic view does not mean everyone can.

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Obviously, chunky peanut butter rules.

LOL

You on a roll tonite dg!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Uh, no WTF...I did not. You saw nothing in my post about religion or zeal. As I said, that's your broken record.

If they were protesting and saying they wanted to battle because of preference for creamy peanut butter...I'd be feeling the same way...take 'em out.

And how would you resolve the Lilliputian issue? Would you favor the Big-Endians or the Little-Endians?

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by WTF

So I have to wonder....What was your point?

Well I would have thought it was obvious...at least to those who wear big boy pants...but going back to the original concept...

When you have one group of people whose stated purpose is to destroy another group of people...what is the second group to do?...especially in a society who says they want to have free speech?

When does the threat become justifiable to a preemtive strike?

I don't necesarily know the answer...it is a tough question indeed. But it is one that needs an answer, lest weaker minds (WTF, you there?) figure out their own answer.

And Hank...I have no idea the answer to your query. Maybe you two mental giants can start your own brain trust to figure it out.

[Sisyphus]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

When you have one group of people whose stated purpose is to destroy another group of people...what is the second group to do?...especially in a society who says they want to have free speech?

Let 'em say what they'd like. Let others say they ought to be shot, deported, etc....

If you have the right to an opinion, then it includes the right to bad opinions. It includes the rights of others to say you have bad opinions.

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

When does the threat become justifiable to a preemtive strike?

How about...when they do more than speak...ie, an act in furtherance of a conspiracy? At least that's the approach our justice system has evolved towards. It seems to me the frustration comes when the parties involved are not definitively agents of a foreign government, citizens of our country, or living w/in our care/custody/control....

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I don't necesarily know the answer...it is a tough question indeed. But it is one that needs an answer, lest weaker minds (WTF, you there?) figure out their own answer.

I don't necessarily know the answer, either. I'm just not so quick to think that our entire theories of justice & civil liberties need a complete rethink because of these a-holes. The only practical difference between the radical Islamists & all of the other extremists that have ever inhabited our body politic is they actually managed to pull off something on a grand scale.

Did they just get hit with a lucky stick; OR, is their something fundamentally wrong with our view on liberty seems to be the more appropriate question. Again...I dunno....but if pushed...I'm betting on the former.

[discreetgent]

Sis, I don't think the question is about the importance of freedom of expression. The question is when does speech become "shouting fire in a crowded theater?"

[Sisyphus]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Sis, I don't think the question is about the importance of freedom of expression. The question is when does speech become "shouting fire in a crowded theater?"

DG, what's the dissent vocab? I agree in part, I disagree in part. I'm with Justice Douglas as long as it's just talk. An, "act in furtherance of...", is a horse of a different color. Shouting fire in a crowded theater is an act of speech one knows...or reasonable foresees... is designed to do harm to others. If we follow the Douglas model...the only people likely to be harmed by this speech is the knuckleheads that utter it. Some here would call that natural selection!

The article link in the OP was about a situation in another country. A completely different set of issues all together. The simple fact is that several of the European nations have a different set of issues when it comes to radical Islam simply because their percentage of Islamic population is much larger than ours.