lol Putin, are you under some delusion that I think Bush did not wrong? As always, you know nothing of the truth. Your entire world view is one perverted psychotic twisting of reality.

You want to talk about the Patriot Act, start talking specifics, chump.

But as always...we see you are afraid to discuss the details of your views, and have once again deflected and tried to make the discussion about something else.

Your are *such* a fucking coward.

@ Putin33

"He's also a coward. He pleased with the Secret Service that didn't mean anything he said when they came to visit him. He talks a big game but then whines when the tables are turned on him. He also had the audacity to complain about RATM making 'threats' against Bush. He's also a draft dodger. A chickenhawk coward if there ever was one."

I agree completely. I've never been a fan of Nugent for those reasons.

"Just like the 2nd amendment absolutists reap all the benefits of being able to accumulate all the deadly toys they want while others pay the cost."

This is not true. The Second Amendment has NOT been unlimited for nearly 100 years. Automatic firearms have been heavily restricted since 1934 and effectively banned since 1986 (two very sad years in American history for those reasons)

Also, if anything, non-firearm-owning citizens enjoy the FREE protection of firearm owners. After all, what's restraining the government these days? 200 million firearm owners.

I also resent the fact that you referred to weapons as "deadly toys". Sure, my M14 is fun as hell, but it's so much more than a "deadly toy".

A friend of mine's boyfriend was shot and killed by some clown playing with one of these deadly toys a couple of months ago. Anecdotal, I know, but sorry if I don't kiss the feet of these 200 million firearm owners for their supposed "protection" they are providing me. I don't see protection, I see small arms creating terror among the population of the city I live in. They aren't afraid of the FBI, they're afraid of roving bands of armed civilians.

"After all, what's restraining the government these days?"

Absolutely nothing. The government doesn't give a fig about untrained hobbyists and their guns. They have enough firepower to haul your derriere to whatever hole they want to put you in.

"How many fights have you seen break out because somebody insulted and/or disrespected another person?

You fucking idiot...if people start a fight THEY VIOLATE TEH LAW AND ARE HELD RESPONSIBLE. Your arguemnt GUTS YOUR POINT

Why do we have to wait until the point when a fight breaks out?

The price I'm paying is that in a free society you are bound to come into contact with questionable, or (even hateful) content that you may rather not see. Thus it falls to the individual to decide what content is worthwhile. The alternative is, as you suggest, that the government should be the one deciding what content should be allowed. No thanks, I don't need anybody to make that decision for me.

You say you think the 1st amendment shouldn't protect other kinds of speech? Of course there will be harmful speech in a free society. There will be a LOT of worthless speech too. But there will also be beautiful thoughts and ideas that should be given a chance to spread. Again, who decides what is "worthwhile speech" that I might want to hear? I say I decide. Not you, and not Big Brother.

To your comment about there being no "downside" to jailing people for speechcrime, I just don't know what to say. You're way out there - the potential for abuse is obvious.

"Again, who decides what is "worthwhile speech" that I might want to hear?"

The elected local, state or federal government. Free speech absolutists have a strange distrust for democracy.

"You're way out there - the potential for abuse is obvious."

Political speech is already not really protected (ask Sami Al Arian or anybody who vocalizes support for the FARC in the US), so I fail to see what further abuses could occur. All that will happen is the Fred Phelps and Ted Nugents of the world won't have a platform to speak on anymore. A much better world. Free speech as currently understood only protects offensive nasty people and doesn't protect free political discourse. It's a perversion that needs to be corrected.

"Free speech absolutists have a strange distrust for democracy."

As one should on that issue. Freedom of speech is one of the best things about America, and politicians putting limits on it based on majority rule is a horrible, horrible idea.

@ Gunfighter: "I have more important things to do than pay attention to Ted Nugent or read the previous posts in this thread"

Don't participate in a thread if you can't be bothered to read what has been posted in it, dumbass.

@ Krellin: "having looked over numerous articles from main-stream news organizations, I see no right wing agenda at all, and of anything that I can find, it would seem more left than right...even if only by an iota. An iota left of center is left-leaning, by definition, would you not agree?"

That's the most desperate example of clutching at straws I've seen in some time. He was neither a left winger or a right winger, he was a fucking nutcase who believed that women should hold political office, something he was reported to have said many times, before then attempting to shoot dead the most prominent female politician in his area. For you to attempt to score cheap points against the left by describing the guy as "left leaning" does not display the "intellectual integrity" you constantly demand from others.

Argh. **...a fucking nutcase who believed that women should NOT hold political office**

You keep saying that the 1st amendment already isn't doing its job well re: political speech. Stop that. I already agreed with you on that point, and it in no way contributes to the rest of what we're discussing. You're conflating the issues, trying to use this as leverage for your other point, and I'm not buying it.

Just because we're in a democracy does not mean I should only be allowed to access the content the majority deems appropriate. That is not what democracy means.

Jamiet99uk, first I want to say I agree with you. krellin (who I've unmuted) is being ridiculous trying to play the guy off as being inspired by some left wing agenda. He was just crazy. Maybe in addition to being crazy he was a lefty, but he committed his crimes because he was crazy.

However, and you wouldn't know this as a non-American, when these shootings happened there was a deluge of speculation and outright lies trying to make him into a Tea Partier inspired by a map Sarah Palin made with cross-hairs over competitive Congressional districts. This was not even close to being true and was thoroughly debunked. For those with no ears to hear or eyes to see the truth (Putin33) though, the lie still percolates. krellin pushing the lefty point is a reaction to that slander. If he's trying to score cheap politician points it's nothing to, say CNN and MSNBC doing the same for weeks in the other direction.

"I already agreed with you on that point, and it in no way contributes to the rest of what we're discussing."

It does because the objection consistently being raised is that any limitation on speech will lead to a police state or that the potential for abuse is there. That ship has sailed, so that argument doesn't wash. The slippery slope fallacy doesn't work.

"Just because we're in a democracy does not mean I should only be allowed to access the content the majority deems appropriate."

Just because we're a liberal democracy doesn't mean you have an unfettered right to be offensive or have unfettered access to offensive and ugly content. That's not what liberty means.

"This was not even close to being true and was thoroughly debunked. For those with no ears to hear or eyes to see the truth (Putin33) though, the lie still percolates. krellin pushing the lefty point is a reaction to that slander. "

The fact of the matter is there was a toxic political atmosphere at the time of that shooting and no amount of placing all the blame on the convenient scapegoat of mental illness negates that fact.

And none of this hand waving does anything to mitigate the *very real role* this kind of speech played in Tiller's assassination. Something the Right has yet to apologize for.

@ Invictus: Thank you for that background information - you're right that I wasn't aware of it. It isn't mentioned in the articles I read about the shooter, and being in the UK I don't watch CNN or MSNBC. The BBC coverage at the time, I'm pretty sure, made no reference to a supposed right-wing agenda. (For instance this news item: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12148761)

So thanks for that additional info - it provides useful context. I still say Krellin was clutching at straws trying to brand Jared Loughner a leftie, but I think we agree on that.

"The fact of the matter is there was a toxic political atmosphere at the time of that shooting and no amount of placing all the blame on the convenient scapegoat of mental illness negates that fact."

Two completely different issues. No one's denying that there's a course political dialogue in the country. But that's a separate matter entirely from whether that dialogue was the inspiration for this man's actions. All evidence says it wasn't. You're just spreading a lie by saying it was. He shot those people because he's a paranoid schizophrenic. It's not a scapegoat. It's the reason.

As for Tiller, I'm not familiar with the details. I do know that, if any one needs to apologize, it isn't "the Right" writ large. Maybe "the Left" should apologize for the guy who crashed his plane into the IRS building in Texas. He did it due to a hatred of capitalism.

Your attempts at collective blame for people you disagree with and hagiographic apologetics for people you agree with are getting even more laughable and laughable.

No problem, Jamiet99uk.

"Argh. **...a fucking nutcase who believed that women should NOT hold political office** "


What of this? Make a point, man.

"The fact of the matter is there was a toxic political atmosphere at the time of that shooting and no amount of placing all the blame on the convenient scapegoat of mental illness negates that fact. "

Once again, Putin's hypocrisy is simply stupifying. So...in the recent political drama in Washington, were you *outraged* at the venomuous speech by Democrats, who called Republicans terrorists, hostage-takers, said they were trying to burn down the country, etc.

Putin...shut the fuck up, you dickless twat. You and your fucking leftist hate-mongerers with your constant slander and hypocrisy are getting ridiculous. You haven't a shred of intellectual integrity.

"He did it due to a hatred of capitalism. "

Your typical deflection/ false equivalence tactics fail utterly. Please explain and point me to where anybody in MSNBC or CNN expresses a hatred of capitalism, even remotely. Attacking the IRS is not something the 'liberal media' engages in. Your buddies on the other hand openly joke about that attack.

http://blog.reidreport.com/2010/02/human-events-editor-jokes-about-irs-suicide-attack/

(Cue non-outrage from the crusader against hagiography).



"As for Tiller, I'm not familiar with the details"

Of course not. It's a hear no evil, see no evil policy when it comes to your political kin.

Fox News over and over again called him 'Tiller the Babykiller' in the months leading up to his assassination. That's a documented fact you can't spin away. Bill O'Reilly even openly fantasized about physically assaulting him.

"Your attempts at collective blame for people you disagree with and hagiographic apologetics for people you agree"

Rich.

@ Krellin: "a fucking nutcase who believed that women should NOT hold political office.... What of this? Make a point man."

I've made my point. The guy was a nutjob who was motivated by a hatred of the government in general, and in particular a hatred of female politicians. His assassination attempt does not appear to have been motivated by either a right wing or a left wing agenda, and your claim that he was "left leaning" is both weak in the extreme, and lacking the "intellectual integrity" you demand of others.

Of course my assertion that he was left-wing is weak and extreme....I as much as confessed that above, did I not? lol

And yet...where is YOUR specific, pointed attack earlier int eh thread when the left-wing nutjobs around here try to pin it on the right?

THAT is where you lack any integrity, because you only bristle and get defensive on the subject matter when yoru precious left wing is attacked. When vulgar speech and false accusation are made BY the lefties around here, there is silence from the likes of you.

That is why I have no respect for you.

This isn't a slippery slope argument. I'm not saying, "if we allow x then y might happen," I'm saying, "If we allow x, then x is allowed, and that's bad." Curbing free speech isn't the slope to the spike trap, it IS the spike trap. Stay on topic. You like to broaden arguments until we're discussing an entirely different thing. Not gonna happen. I am discussing the narrow scope of whether or not Ted Nugent's boneheaded rhetoric is and ought to be protected speech.

--

"Just because we're a liberal democracy doesn't mean you have an unfettered right to be offensive or have unfettered access to offensive and ugly content. That's not what liberty means."

Actually that sums up pretty nicely exactly what liberty means in the context of the first amendment. The freedom to choose for one's self and exchange ideas, no matter how... repulsive.

@ Krellin: "where is YOUR specific, pointed attack earlier int eh thread when the left-wing nutjobs around here try to pin it on the right?"

I've just re-read the thread looking for any such claim. Unless I have someone muted, who made such a claim, I can't see one. I can see Putin making a brief reference to "hate speech" in reference to the Giffords case, but I don't see him making any reference to hate speech of a specifically right wing nature, in the particular context of the attempted assassination of Ms. Giffords. What am I missing?

@ Krellin: Also, just to correct you on an important point:

"When vulgar speech and false accusation are made BY the lefties around here, there is silence from the likes of you."

That's BS of the highest order. I have called out Putin, and other "lefties", on numerous occasions when I did not believe they could back up claims they were making.

"Your typical deflection/ false equivalence tactics fail utterly."

Haaaaa ha ha ha ha!! PUTIN complaining about people deflecting and making false equivalencies?!?!1 Oh god...this is too much...

Putin is so far left he's wrapped around to fascist.