Hello Mr. Pot, I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Kettle
- Thread starter Inclag
- Start date
You know what? Petraeus can fvck off.
I don't care if it harms the troops. It's a first amendment right, and they have every right to be burn whatever the hell they want.
This is the same bull**** argument used against the Wikileaks leaks, and it's bull**** for the same reason.
I don't need a bunch of war criminals lecturing me on morals and ethics.
I don't care if it harms the troops. It's a first amendment right, and they have every right to be burn whatever the hell they want.
This is the same bull**** argument used against the Wikileaks leaks, and it's bull**** for the same reason.
I don't need a bunch of war criminals lecturing me on morals and ethics.
Well I call BS for a different reason.
These morons or some similar would be up in arms if some Muslim was sponsoring a "burn the Bible day". Not to mention the whole "world out reach church" title.....yeah like how do you do that by burning the Koran? Oh and where does Jesus teach this?? Interesting they are wanting to burn the Koran to protest Islamic extremism (they themselves could be considered Christian extremists), and their activity could put those who are fighting that Islamic extremists at risk...........real slick.........
Is it a bad idea, absolutely. Is it their right under the 1st Amendment, yes it is. Could it have impacts regarding terrorist / insurgent activities.....I wouldn't be surprised.
These morons or some similar would be up in arms if some Muslim was sponsoring a "burn the Bible day". Not to mention the whole "world out reach church" title.....yeah like how do you do that by burning the Koran? Oh and where does Jesus teach this?? Interesting they are wanting to burn the Koran to protest Islamic extremism (they themselves could be considered Christian extremists), and their activity could put those who are fighting that Islamic extremists at risk...........real slick.........
Is it a bad idea, absolutely. Is it their right under the 1st Amendment, yes it is. Could it have impacts regarding terrorist / insurgent activities.....I wouldn't be surprised.
You know what would be really good for the troops? If we all got the fvck out of the middle east!
We should also convert to Islam just to be sure everyone is happy.
We should also convert to Islam just to be sure everyone is happy.
The best thing is that none of the Koran burners are going into harms way. They will sit at home and listen to Rush and Glen and Sara call tehm patriots and heroes. And for that matter, Silver will be sitting on his ass posting snide self righteous **** on RM. Menawhile, myself and 25 of my compatriots are going down to SWA to have a little vacation next week. Enjoy your Constitution that you are so quick to bash, yet even quicker to hide behind...
As one of those troops, I would agree. 100%. And get us some beers and hot, slutty chicks too!
And those poor fvcks stuck doing 3, 4, 5 tours deserve it too.
Oh, I'm sorry. I missed the part where I signed you up to be a legionnaire.
Stop pretending it's my fault that your countrymen are Jesus loving warmongering retards.
So who's pretending?
That's true. It's whining, actually...So who's pretending?
Heading for my 5th.And those poor fvcks stuck doing 3, 4, 5 tours deserve it too.
YOU didnt sign me up for anything. I signed up on my own free will, decided I enjoyed and was pretty good at what I do, and stayed. Its not your fault that my countrymen are tools either. I never stated nor implied that. These Florida jackasses are worse than the Westboro jackasses.
But statements like "I dont care if it harms the troops" posted from the safety and comfort of your computer, expose you for the kind of chicken **** ****tard you really are. Quick to revel in the freedoms won by others, yet not willing to do anything to secure them for yourself. Why should you, when here are others willing to go into harms way for you.
You are no better than the right wing losers that you harpoon...
"Terry Jones, senior pastor of the Dove World Outreach Center, told CNN that as of now, the church still intends to burn copies of the Koran as a protest against Islamic extremists."
Problem here is that this action could turn fence sitting Muslims into extremists. Nothing cutting off someone elses nose to spite their face...
Problem here is that this action could turn fence sitting Muslims into extremists. Nothing cutting off someone elses nose to spite their face...
Thanks for serving bud.
Don't mind him, I don't think he even rides a bike...
What freedoms have you won for me? Seriously, I'm all ears. What freedoms has the US military won in my lifetime? I'm in my mid 30s. Make a list.
Again, I don't care if it harms the troops. Not a little bit. That's not the standard that we use in this country for first amendment rights. If Petraeus wants to have that kind of influence on civilian policy, he should join the armed forces of Pakistan or Venezuela.
There was this little thing called "The Cold War."
Solidarity, the Germans that actually tore down the wall, the Pope, Gorbachev... all had nothing to do with it.There was this little thing called "The Cold War."
edit: Forgot about our delightful Afghan allie...um...I mean terrorists.
Last edited:
This is no more protected under First Amendment rights than standing up and yelling fire in a crowded theater is in my opinion. If it is meant to incite or provoke or cause subsequent retaliatory actions or general harm to others, then it loses it's protection.
And as the freedoms that have been secured for you, we don't keep score by the "what have the troops done for me lately" yardstick, we consider the continuation of tradition and customs and the mere act of standing up and volunteering to serve a bigger cause than merely us, the same exact way as those who went before us who truly did sacrifice to secure your freedoms and way of life did, the measure of service to our country and specifically, it's fine citizens like all of you.
That being said, the General really didn't need to pipe in, the act of burning the Korans in itself is rude and disrespectful and violates one of the standing principals this country was founded on, and that is freedom of choice, be it religion, sexual preference or whether to enlist in the military or not.
So JohnE, understand that some of us respect you and all those that have served. Silver, you do the part well of provoking deeper thought and analysis into the issues of the day.
And as the freedoms that have been secured for you, we don't keep score by the "what have the troops done for me lately" yardstick, we consider the continuation of tradition and customs and the mere act of standing up and volunteering to serve a bigger cause than merely us, the same exact way as those who went before us who truly did sacrifice to secure your freedoms and way of life did, the measure of service to our country and specifically, it's fine citizens like all of you.
That being said, the General really didn't need to pipe in, the act of burning the Korans in itself is rude and disrespectful and violates one of the standing principals this country was founded on, and that is freedom of choice, be it religion, sexual preference or whether to enlist in the military or not.
So JohnE, understand that some of us respect you and all those that have served. Silver, you do the part well of provoking deeper thought and analysis into the issues of the day.
Your opinion would be different that that of many constitutional lawyers.
It's an incendiary act (hah!) but no more so than burning the flag is. If you're going to base acceptable speech on what crazy religious people feel comfortable with, then the terrorists have actually won.
hahahahahaha.....
Maybe, but I was going by this:
Granted, there is tons more case law on this, but based on worrying about what another group,sect, etc thinks, then I assume you'd be ok with bringing back cross burning as protected under First Amendment protection?
I certainly hope not. Off the top of my head, the last 30 years includes adventures in Iran, Libya, Grenada, Panama, the Balkans, Kuwait, Iraq, Colombia, and Somalia. I'm sure I've missed a bunch.
Yes. Cross burning on your own property is a-ok with me.
Burning a cross on a black person's front lawn? Not ok.
Burning a Koran that you bought on your property. A-ok.
Walking into a mosque and picking up a koran and burning it? Not ok.
None. I have specifically not spent any time training, learning how to oppress the litle brown man, or being deployed and missing holidays and birthdays of my family and loved ones because of the stupid decisions of your elected officials for you. Nothing I ever do will be in your name, and I will make sure that none of my colleagues in arms will ever sacrifice one iota for you. You are so smug and secure in your beliefs that it is obvious that you need no help in assuring your right to be a jackass.
That being said, I support your position. It is simply the way you choose to express it as always. Wishing harm on another, whether real or imagined, is pretty ****ed up. Whether you support them or not. Almost as ****ed up as me allowing you the satisfaction of debating it with you. Which I will not do anymore.
As Voltaire alledgedly said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," whether you like it or not.
Jeebus man, thanks for serving. When you get back I'll ship you beer, can't help you with slutty chicks though, those days are long behind me.
First of all, everyone's responding to this loony in Florida only increases his exposure, no such thing as bad publicity and all that, especially when the respondent's title starts with "general". Its probably safe to label Rev. Jones with a "successful troll is successful tag", you know, Rules 13 & 14. Second, IMHO this is the sort of stuff the first amendment was designed to protect. Just like the Westboro people it's crazy, ugly, incendiary, and morally bankrupt, but thats what freedom of speech is. The right to be offensive and be offended. If you were never able to say what you really thought or felt because some limp wrist might be offended, or it might land you in jail, you would not have freedom of speech. The reverse of that however is that you might find something someone else says offensive, and that being the case, get the sand out of your vag and SIUP. I certainly do not wish harm on anybody who has volunteered to serve this country but I also do not want to have these people forcibly hushed, no matter how stupid their statement might be, thats the proverbial slippery slope towards oppression IMHO, and thats what the Patriot Act is for.
Which you read into it. What I said is that I don't care if an act of free speech harms US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. That's because I value free speech, not that I want a car bomb to go off in a market and take out a bunch of troops and assorted other civilian casualties.
What I did say is that Generalissmo Petraeus can and should be told to fvck off at every opportunity for trying to repeatedly make a cheap argument right out of the book of corrupt military leaders the world over. Take it up with him, he's the one waving you guys around like a fuzzy kitten.
edit: Think of it this way? You know Rev. Lovejoy's wife on the Simpsons, the one who always screams, "Won't someone think of the children!!!???" Petraeus is essentially doing the same thing. If someone says to Mrs. Lovejoy, "Fvck the kids!" does that mean that they actually want to physically rape the children?
Last edited:
Point taken. But if he is doing this on church property, or in a public location, does not the mentioned case bring some bearing into this?
I'm pretty sure that this part of that case doesn't include potential acts taken halfway around the world:
When clear and present danger of riot, disorder, interference with traffic upon the public streets, or other immediate threat to public safety, peace, or order, appears, the power of the State to prevent or punish is obvious
link
Ummm, pretty sure this would fall under clear and present danger of disorder and immediate threats to public safety...
You know what? Screw 'em. Let em burn em. 12 less Floridians can only clean up that gene pool a little.
Heck, they let Beck tie up DC traffic for a day, why not these hilltards?
Modern day Crusades for $1000, Alex.
Heck, they let Beck tie up DC traffic for a day, why not these hilltards?
Cause these are worse than the laws some 140 year old man brought down from a mountain that a burning bush told him to write down. Yeah.
Modern day Crusades for $1000, Alex.
Potential harm, in my book, does not trump freedom of speech.
X3,
If I'm reading your logic correctly, all someone has to do is make a threat when something is said that they don't like, and all of a sudden what was said becomes illegal because it's "provoking violence" ?
You could make the argument that speech during civil rights movement provoked violence against blacks... should it not have been protected?
These guys have every right to do what they're (allegedly) doing.
If I'm reading your logic correctly, all someone has to do is make a threat when something is said that they don't like, and all of a sudden what was said becomes illegal because it's "provoking violence" ?
You could make the argument that speech during civil rights movement provoked violence against blacks... should it not have been protected?
These guys have every right to do what they're (allegedly) doing.
No, my logic is that according to Supreme Court rulings, when speech, assembly or right to petition turns into an event that could endanger public safety (like church members wearing guns, death threats, the FBI being called in to voice their concerns to the Reverend concerning his safety and the communities, the possibly of inciting riots, even if they are overseas or here and have the potential to harm US citizens) then those concerns outweigh First Amendment free speech rights and the State has the right to step in and ensure order.
As I read it, First Amendment guarantees right to peaceful assembly and they are free to burn, protest, speak, rant and rave if they follow local laws (obtain permits, follow code, etc) and don't endanger the general public.
So... If I'm reading your logic correctly, all someone has to do is make a threat when something is said that they don't like, and all of a sudden what was said becomes illegal because it's "provoking violence" ?
You could make the argument that speech during civil rights movement provoked violence against blacks... should it not have been protected?
These guys have every right to do what they're (allegedly) doing.
I see what you did there....
Well Florida IS the nutsack of the USA!