BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen...

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ... Full Story

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#163752 Jul 14, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Re: "I still don't think that wearing a t shirt showing Hitler goose-stepping with a swastika in the background and a rejoicing scene of Jews being marched to the gas chamber would be allowed in public, and much less in school, in the workplace or in church. "
I disagree about a public place. A school presents fine issues about the age of the students who are at that particular school. At a public state university, I disagree, since the students are old enough to absorb the content and deal with it rationally. Workplaces and churches are PRIVATE, and their owners (and churches have legal owners, their trustees) have the right to decide that matter.
So the issue boils down to whether or not it should be allowed in a public place such as a street or public university. And, in my opinion, not only would it be allowed but that it should be allowed, and---as much as I hate Nazis--I think that it should be allowed. It is political speech, and people should have the right to make even shocking and immoral political speeches (unless there is actual danger of violence being caused by the speech and that reasonable and prudent police action cannot protect against that violence---which is where the "no right to cry fire in a public theater analogy comes from).
In principle we should be as far as possible from dictatorial systems, and if that means allowing people to wear Nazi t-shirts in public places, so be it.
But you are quite right that speech is not unfettered. Schools for example would have every right to keep Nazi t-shirts out if kids of 4 or 8 or 12 or 16-years old are involved. Courts have to make such fine distinctions. Or, they may have to decide whether or not there was real danger of a riot. But in principle even shocking and immoral political speech should be allowed.
Pornography is different. There is no right to wear a t-shirt depicting the sex act CURRENTLY, but there may well be in 50 or 100 years.
Well, if I had a choice, or rather, if I were FORCED to make a choice,(this is all rhetorical) between my child wearing a porn-emblazoned t-shirt and one with Hitler and a Swastika, I'd unhesitatingly choose the porn one. Both are unacceptable, of course, but the latter is not as bad and harmful as the former. BTW, I agree, in the extreme, that even Hitler on t-shirts is allowed under the 1st amendment, or my Constitution, but Jews marching to the ovens on a t-shirt, either at school, university or on the streets is a hate crime and I'd be surprised it would be tolerated, here or in the US.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#163753 Jul 14, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Zimmerman WAIVED his right for a hearing to determine if he was immune from prosecution. Had he asserted his right for a hearing and if he prevailed in the "SYG" hearing, he would have been entitled to fees and expenses. Key word, WAIVED.
Duh!
As usual, Rouge is on the WRONG PAGE.<quoted text>
And the jury says you are both Idiotards.
The jury has nothing to do with immunity from prosecution.

RU on drugs?

Similarly, GZ cannot recover fees and expenses under 776.32.

By waiving his right for a pretrial hearing to determine immunity, and recover fees and expenses he OPTED FOR A TRIAL. It's too late for a hearing for immunity from prosecution after the fact.

What planet RU from?

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#163754 Jul 14, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Texas Republicans finally pass new abortion limits
Like
AUSTIN, Texas (AP)— Republican lawmakers in Texas passed a bill that would give the state some of the nation's most restrictive abortion laws and force most of its clinics to close, leading Democrats to promise a fight over the contentious measure in the courts and at the ballot box.
More than 2,000 demonstrators filled the Capitol building in Austin to voice their opposition to the bill, including six protesters who were dragged out of the Senate chamber by state troopers for trying to disrupt the debate. The Republican majority passed the bill unchanged late Friday — just before midnight — with all but one Democrat voting against it.
"Today the Texas Legislature took its final step in our historic effort to protect life," said Gov. Rick Perry, who will sign the bill into law in the next few days. "This legislation builds on the strong and unwavering commitment we have made to defend life and protect women's health."
http://news.yahoo.com/texas-republicans-final...
You wrote : "Today the Texas Legislature took its final step in our historic effort to protect life," said Gov. Rick Perry"

You ARE a birfoon buffoon birther. Protect life? How many executions has Perry approved since his election? Explain how that is protecting life. Did God not create that life, even the killer's, and is Perry sanctioned by God to end it?** Did any of those executions include mentally-deficient prisoners? "Thou shalt not kill" is such a convenient motto when it comes to abortion, even though no doctor or scientist has yet established when there is life. The clueless church even thought, up to the 1950s , that sperm alone was life. It's why masturbation was deemed wasting a human life. Where is the exception to the "golden rule" of "Thou shalt not kill" when it involves the state putting someone to death?

** Oh, I forgot. He was, along with his wife, TOLD to seek the presidency. I suppose that means he was also told to put prisoners to death. My bad.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#163755 Jul 14, 2013
loose cannon wrote:
The jury has spoken.
***
Anytime you armchair quarterbacks have a question or concern about the medical profession you would be wise to come and ask for my advice before making speculative assumptions about something which you know little about.
loose
No medical questions necessary. I said he'd walk, remember? He did. Life goes on.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#163756 Jul 14, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
You obviously have not read your bosom buddy's posts , or that incredible AL one. And it's just starting. I predicted he'd walk. He did. Carry on.
And which posts might you be referring to? Sorry but I don't recall you saying he would walk. Not saying you didn't, just that I don't remember it. Care to post it?
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#163757 Jul 14, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
The jury has nothing to do with immunity from prosecution.
RU on drugs?
Similarly, GZ cannot recover fees and expenses under 776.32.
By waiving his right for a pretrial hearing to determine immunity, and recover fees and expenses he OPTED FOR A TRIAL. It's too late for a hearing for immunity from prosecution after the fact.
What planet RU from?
Just let it go, toesap. I bet you've been seen arguing with a tree, haven't you?
American Lady

Danville, KY

#163758 Jul 14, 2013
Zimmerman attorney calls media 'mad scientists'

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/201...

He 'is' right!
In more ways than one!
American Lady

Danville, KY

#163759 Jul 14, 2013
From Robert Zimmerman – George’s Dad
````
I have thanked Mark Omara and Don West. Now I would like to extend
our heartfelt appreciation to you, our friends at CTH.(Waving to others)

Currently, our family is happy knowing our son no longer faces a malicious,
unethical prosecution. Further, to whatever extent possible, I will attempt to
hold every individual fully responsible for their actions.

Again, Thank You.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/07/1...

Sentenza says:
July 14, 2013 at 2:35 am
Mr. and Mrs. Zimmerman,

You have done a great job in raising George to be an honorable member of society. I would be honored to call him a friend. I would still be honored to call him a friend. You have done an excellent job raising George, and it seems as though he’s turned out how Proverbs 22:6 promises.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#163760 Jul 14, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
The USSC has already ruled on this issue. Get over it!
Wearing a t-shirt with Hitler and Jews praising him would be clearly "disruptive" to the school but wearing a t-shirt with a picture of Hitler and a swastika would be no more disruptive than one with some of your heroes like Castro, Che, Marx, Mao, etc. on it.
Hitler unleashed a world war. 50 million killed, almost 7 million Jews and other "lesser" ethnics executed like animals;

Marx : didn't wound, torture, maim or kill anyone as far as I know. If he did, please so indicate;

Mao : the S.O.B. surpassed Hitler as a killer and history shows him closing in on...

...Stalin : the biggest murderer of them all, so big, scholars don't know exactly how many he killed.

You compare Che and Castro with these mass murderers? What war did Che and Castro start? How many millions did they kill? And, who is this man Batista they toppled? Have you read about Batista? Yes, Che and Castro had foes executed and dissidents incarcerated,(the regime still has some in prison to this day) and that was intolerable and wrong. And although their reprisals by execution and imprisonment are, I repeat, wrong wrong wrong , one must not neglect the positive effects of Batista's overthrow and the ensuing changes that took place in Cuba for 9 or 10 years after 1960. From about 1970, the whole thing of course became a sham. I've known Cuba before and after Castro. No paradise today, for sure, but much better than pre-1960. But it's time to restore democracy, high time, should've been done 35 years ago. I would not wear a Castro t-shirt, no, but a Che one? Why not?
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#163761 Jul 14, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
You wrote : "Today the Texas Legislature took its final step in our historic effort to protect life," said Gov. Rick Perry"
You ARE a birfoon buffoon birther. Protect life? How many executions has Perry approved since his election? Explain how that is protecting life. Did God not create that life, even the killer's, and is Perry sanctioned by God to end it?** Did any of those executions include mentally-deficient prisoners? "Thou shalt not kill" is such a convenient motto when it comes to abortion, even though no doctor or scientist has yet established when there is life. The clueless church even thought, up to the 1950s , that sperm alone was life. It's why masturbation was deemed wasting a human life. Where is the exception to the "golden rule" of "Thou shalt not kill" when it involves the state putting someone to death?
** Oh, I forgot. He was, along with his wife, TOLD to seek the presidency. I suppose that means he was also told to put prisoners to death. My bad.
No one made these people commit the crime/s that carry the death penalty. We have civilized laws, they chose to break them. They are a danger to society. How true the old saying is; Can't do the time? Don't do the crime!

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#163762 Jul 14, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
And which posts might you be referring to? Sorry but I don't recall you saying he would walk. Not saying you didn't, just that I don't remember it. Care to post it?
Here's one :

="Jacques from Ottawa"]<quoted text>
No, O.J. did not testify. He walked, and perhaps same as Z will. I agree with LTR, he doesn't have to, I knew that, was just posing the question rhetorically.

There's another one, in a reply to Loose

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#163763 Jul 14, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
And which posts might you be referring to? Sorry but I don't recall you saying he would walk. Not saying you didn't, just that I don't remember it. Care to post it?
I also wrote this :

Either scenario, I suppose, holds or does not hold water. Let the trial decide and quit taking sides. And like any reasonable person, accept the verdict, whatever it is, when it comes down and carry on.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#163764 Jul 14, 2013
Above was post nu 163316, last 2 lines please.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#163765 Jul 14, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's one :
="Jacques from Ottawa"]<quoted text>
No, O.J. did not testify. He walked, and perhaps same as Z will. I agree with LTR, he doesn't have to, I knew that, was just posing the question rhetorically.
There's another one, in a reply to Loose
You think, "and perhaps same as Z will" is the same as a prediction? Get real!

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#163766 Jul 14, 2013
For LRS
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
At the very worse, manslaughter but my guess is he'll walk. Next.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#163767 Jul 14, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
I also wrote this :
Either scenario, I suppose, holds or does not hold water. Let the trial decide and quit taking sides. And like any reasonable person, accept the verdict, whatever it is, when it comes down and carry on.
How is this even remotely close to a prediction? It's not. Man, you are a liar!

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#163768 Jul 14, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
How is this even remotely close to a prediction? It's not. Man, you are a liar!
And this one?:

Jacques from Ottawa wrote:

<quoted text>
At the very worse, manslaughter but my guess is he'll walk. Next.

You're hair-trigger fast on the "liar" thing, aren't you? Projection I dare say?
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#163769 Jul 14, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
For LRS
<quoted text>
Post number?

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#163770 Jul 14, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
No one made these people commit the crime/s that carry the death penalty. We have civilized laws, they chose to break them. They are a danger to society. How true the old saying is; Can't do the time? Don't do the crime!
Continue with your lame uninformed replies. Where does it say that it's ok for the state to take a life? Where?
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#163771 Jul 14, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Continue with your lame uninformed replies. Where does it say that it's ok for the state to take a life? Where?
Uh, in the law.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 12 min Bluestater 1,192,479
cattle ranchers 46 min ricky bajaj 2
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Check1223 51,553
Mrs. Bush: History will vindicate her husband (Jun '08) 8 hr swedenforever 54,547
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 11 hr Ratloder 69,133
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 11 hr Non _cents 5,726
Word (Dec '08) 11 hr Non _cents 5,079
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 9:46 pm PST

NBC Sports 9:46PM
Colts agree to terms on extension for long snapper Matt Overton
Bleacher Report 3:59 AM
Weighing the Pros and Cons of Top Free-Agent Targets
Bleacher Report 5:50 AM
Report: Hasselbeck's Contract with Colts Worth $3M
Bleacher Report 7:32 PM
Moving Long to Tackle Can Solidify Bears' O-Line
Bleacher Report 2:34 AM
Colts Must Take Wide Receiver Upgrades Seriously in 2015