Explosion in Boston?

Free speech is a big thing. Terrorism is a big thing also. There should be consequences for aliens and naturalized citizens who support terrorism with their speech, i.e. deportation.

So, no free speech. Glad we have cleared that up.

I guess if I were afraid of absolutely everything, to the extent that I thought being shown a weapon is being assaulted by a deadly weapon with deadly force, I would probably be in favor of limiting every liberty out there, as well. But, then again, I'm not a pussy.
 
so they should look into the person but not investigate? :ermm:

Do you even realize how much looking into goes on now?

Yes, if you post detailed bomb making instructions I have no problem with the FBI looking at what else you posted/wrote. Look to see if it is fiction or other legitimate reason or is it tied to some terrorist cause/group.

Not haul you in for questioning.
 
LE can ask any questions they want, that does not mean that the individual they are questioning is required to divulge any information.

I have no problem with Citizens and/or LE reading things that are publicly accessible. If they find something they feel could be threatening, I have no problem with Citizens and/or LE contacting the domain operator to ask who is blogging. The domain operator does not have to divulge any information. If he does, I have no problem with either the Citizen and/or LE contacting the person who is posting bomb-making instructions and asking them why they are doing it. And, further, I have no problem with said Citizen and/or LE telling the neighbors and/or family members of the individual that he is posting bomb-making instructions online.

All of that can be done without infringing upon the rights of anyone; further, all of that might be more effective, in the long run, then some covert investigation.
 
So, no free speech. Glad we have cleared that up.

I guess if I were afraid of absolutely everything, to the extent that I thought being shown a weapon is being assaulted by a deadly weapon with deadly force, I would probably be in favor of limiting every liberty out there, as well. But, then again, I'm not a pussy.

No, you are not a pussy. You are a crazy man.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
I thought you were in Fla dink ...is the mouses ear still open?

Nah, I've just made a few trips there. Too tropical for my taste!

And yes, that cesspool is still open and the air is still littered with regret and menthol cigarette smoke. I regrettably blew about 2 hundo in there last month.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
He's crazy, yet free speech only goes so far with you.

That's correct, all rights have limitations. I can understand how someone might disagree with my view. For me, the issue goes to motivation. Why are some immigrants sympathizing with the terrorists? Is it because evidence suggests that they are innocent? No, that is not their motivation.
 
Well, found a new sig.

You recently posted about seeing a man get stomped in a public place for exercising free speech in defense of rights. When asked how that made you feel, you admitted that it did not bother you. Now this. You're all over the board, in ways that are not consistent or even connected. Your consistent quality is a contrarian propensity for argument. If someone says up, you say down. Crazy, imo.
 
LE can ask any questions they want, that does not mean that the individual they are questioning is required to divulge any information.

I have no problem with Citizens and/or LE reading things that are publicly accessible. If they find something they feel could be threatening, I have no problem with Citizens and/or LE contacting the domain operator to ask who is blogging. The domain operator does not have to divulge any information. If he does, I have no problem with either the Citizen and/or LE contacting the person who is posting bomb-making instructions and asking them why they are doing it. And, further, I have no problem with said Citizen and/or LE telling the neighbors and/or family members of the individual that he is posting bomb-making instructions online.

All of that can be done without infringing upon the rights of anyone; further, all of that might be more effective, in the long run, then some covert investigation.


Agreed
 
You recently posted about seeing a man get stomped in a public place for exercising free speech in defense of rights. When asked how that made you feel, you admitted that it did not bother you. Now this. You're all over the board, in ways that are not consistent or even connected. Your consistent quality is a contrarian propensity for argument. If someone says up, you say down. Crazy, imo.

I clearly said that he did not deserve it. You must have missed that part. And, no, I do not let my emotions guide me.
 
Again, believing someone is innocent of terrorism does not equal supporting terrorism. At all.

It does if there is no basis in fact for their belief. If the stated belief in innocence is based only on prejudice favoring the terrorists in the face of overwhelming evidence of their guilt, then they are predisposed to favor the terrorists. With the possible exception of a close family member(which is questionable) there is something very wrong with that.
 
I clearly said that he did not deserve it. You must have missed that part. And, no, I do not let my emotions guide me.

Oh I think you do.

You tried to make the issue about me, so you got what you were asking for, but I don't want to mess up the thread with more of this. If you want to discuss human consciousness, that would be a topic for another forum.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Oh I think you do.

You tried to make the issue about me, so you got what you were asking for, but I don't want to mess up the thread with more of this. If you want to discuss human consciousness, that would be a topic for another forum.

I'm curious to know what brand of tortured logic you consulted in beginning by referencing a post in which you make it a point to highlight that I felt no emotion and then end by concluding that my emotions guide me.

Maybe you were trying to draw some conclusions about my objection to your desire for the government to curtail free speech by pointing out that a private citizen physically assaulted another private citizen for saying something he did not appreciate, but private citizens violating the rights of others does not have the necessary consequence that the government is curtailing the rights of all; whereas the government curtailing the right of free speech is analytically tied to the government curtailing the rights of all. So, your analogy fails.

Maybe you are under the impression that because the words absurd, ****, and **** are part of my vernacular that when I use them I am overcome with emotion. Hate to break it to you, but that inference is also false. I use those words because they are a part of my vernacular and I think, dispassionately, that they go a long way to emphasize and highlight some points. Maybe they don't, but if I am mistaken, it still does not mean that I am overcome by emotion when I use such terms.

Are there times when my emotions do get the best of me? Of course. When I wrote "Wow" in response to your assertion regarding Tamerlan's wife, what I felt was that I wished you were standing next to the backpack last Monday instead of the 8-year old boy. But, I wrote wow, because I knew that even though that is how I felt, that it was wrong. Dispassionately, I think you are a piece of **** and a blight on humanity; however, I don't think you deserve to be killed.
 
Last edited:
I'm curious to know what brand of tortured logic you consulted in beginning by referencing a post in which you make it a point to highlight that I felt not emotion and then end by concluding that my emotions guide me.

Maybe you were trying to draw some conclusions about my objection to your desire for the government to curtail free speech by pointing out that a private citizen physically assaulted another private citizen for saying something he did not appreciate, but private citizens violating the rights of others does not have the necessary consequence that the government is curtailing the rights of all; whereas the government curtailing the right of free speech is analytically tied to the government curtailing the rights of all. So, your analogy fails.

Maybe you are under the impression that because the words absurd, ****, and **** are part of my vernacular that when I use them I am overcome with emotion. Hate to break it to you, but that inference is also false. I use those words because they are a part of my vernacular and I think, dispassionately, that they go a long way to emphasize and highlight some points. Maybe they don't, but if I am mistaken, it still does not mean that I am overcome by emotion when I use such terms.

Are there times when my emotions do get the best of me? Of course. When I wrote "Wow" in response to your assertion regarding Tamerlan's wife, what I felt was that I wished you were standing next to the backpack last Monday instead of the 8-year old boy. But, I wrote wow, because I knew that even though that is how I felt, that it was wrong. Dispassionately, I think you are a piece of **** and a blight on humanity; however, I don't think you deserve to be killed.


see, no way he is emotional.
 
see, no way he is emotional.

No way he is emotional or...crazy.

"Are there times when my emotions do get the best of me? Of course. When I wrote "Wow" in response to your assertion regarding Tamerlan's wife, what I felt was that I wished you were standing next to the backpack last Monday instead of the 8-year old boy. But, I wrote wow, because I knew that even though that is how I felt, that it was wrong. Dispassionately, I think you are a piece of **** and a blight on humanity; however, I don't think you deserve to be killed."

Gee thanks, Trut. You're such a logical guy. I'm so glad you don't think I deserve to be killed!
 
No way he is emotional or...crazy.

"Are there times when my emotions do get the best of me? Of course. When I wrote "Wow" in response to your assertion regarding Tamerlan's wife, what I felt was that I wished you were standing next to the backpack last Monday instead of the 8-year old boy. But, I wrote wow, because I knew that even though that is how I felt, that it was wrong. Dispassionately, I think you are a piece of **** and a blight on humanity; however, I don't think you deserve to be killed."

Gee thanks, Trut. You're such a logical guy. I'm so glad you don't think I deserve to be killed!


He wants you to think that and you are playing into his hands.
He's the dumbest smart person I've ever encountered. That's the only way I know how to explain it.
 
"When I wrote "Wow" in response to your assertion regarding Tamerlan's wife, what I felt was that I wished you were standing next to the backpack last Monday instead of the 8-year old boy. But, I wrote wow, because I knew that even though that is how I felt, that it was wrong. Dispassionately, I think you are a piece of **** and a blight on humanity; however, I don't think you deserve to be killed."

Emotion is the mother of thought. Original thought exists first as emotion.

What is emotion? It's vibe.
NOVA | The Elegant Universe: Series ...

All emotions which determine our thoughts pre-exist our birth. How can we witness the birth of our emotions and thoughts? How can we choose which emotions and thoughts to entertain and nourish with our lives? That'll cost you a quarter, when Freak sets up a Pay Pal account.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement

Back
Top