Coulter, Limbaugh, Savage, O'Reily, etc. should be SUED over what happened in TN

[Rocknrule]

I know there have been similar cases against movie/videogame companies over school shootings that have failed because of the 1st Amendment (which is a good thing), but this is different. These hate-spewers were fully aware and probably even hoped that their words would inspire some freeper McVeigh clone like this guy to see liberals as sub-human and take up arms against them. If nothing else, suing hate radio pundits should send them a message that sane Americans are not OK with them encouraging listeners to dehumanize and murder political opponents (and then have the gall to say they are tough on terrorism).

[BOSSHOG]

1. But that wouldn't be FAIR

reagan did away with the fairness doctrine so ignorant trash with conservative points of view could make a living.

I guess we have had one more terrorist attack on our soil.

Should I get into the second amendment? Nah!! Not in this thread.

[Raskolnik]

3. On what ground would you sue those people?

Being ignorant trash is not, as yet, a crime in and of itself, after all.

[aspergris]

7. nor is being hateful

and there is no civilly actionable case because somebody spews "hate".
I have heard people from all ends of the political spectrum - anarchists , lefties, righties and libertarians, spew "hate"

that is not civilly actionable.

[BOSSHOG]

9. If the fairness doctrine still existed

would there be any need to "sue" them? Why did the conservative movement in the 80's do its damndest to get rid of the fairness doctrine? So conservative ignorant trash could incite violence without impunity? Being trash is not a crime. Inciting violence should be if it is not. And those on right wing radio want to incite and eat their cake as well. As of right now, that is the situation for them.

[Raskolnik]

16. If someone directly and intentionally incited this man to violence, they should be held accountable.

Can you point to anyone that did so?

You obviously want to talk about the Fairness Doctrine, but that isn't the issue here at all.

[BOSSHOG]

22. Yes I do

What is the "issue?" Inciting people to violence????

[Raskolnik]

27. Um, the issue, as contained in the OP, is whether a lawsuit should be

filed against Coulter et al. in response to the events in Tennessee. The question of whether Coulter's speech qualifies as incitement has nothing whatsoever to do with the Fairness Doctrine, no matter how many times you repeat it.

[tsuki]

33. Crying fire in a crowded theater?

[Raskolnik]

36. What do you think that means?

[Wednesdays]

77. I went to a fire once

And someone shouted, "movie!"

[Skittles]

92. it is LEGAL to cry FIRE in a crowded theater

it's illegal to scream it FALSELY

[Raskolnik]

2. No, they really shouldn't.

Those are terrible people and this was a terrible incident, but suing those people for something they were "probably" hoping for is a terrible idea.

[gatorboy]

4. No it's not. It's a great idea. Bring all of these hatemongers out into the spotlight.

Right Wing groups have shouted over less quite frankly.

[Raskolnik]

13. An what exactly would this "great idea" of a lawsuit allege?

What would it bring into the spotlight, other than the unfortunate knee-jerk tendency of some to call for limits on free speech whenever a tragedy gives them an opportunity?

[gatorboy]

18. Perhaps the true colors of these hate mongerers?

It's a niche market. Bring more of it out into the mainstream spotlight so people that normally shrug these cronies off can see just how dangerous they can be.

[Raskolnik]

20. You didn't answer the question. A lawsuit must allege some wrongdoing.

What would this particular lawsuit allege?

[gatorboy]

23. To answer your earlier question, I never said anything about shutting them up permanently.

Why are you so against exposing their hatred to everyone? :shrug:

[Raskolnik]

25. I didn't claim you wanted to shut them up permanently. And you still haven't answered the question.

What would this particular lawsuit allege?

[gatorboy]

28. Motivation perhaps?

I still don't get why you are so against exposing this trash for what they are....

[Raskolnik]

32. I don't think you understand what I am asking, so I'll try one last time.

A lawsuit against Coulter et al. must ALLEGE some ACT for which they could be held liable.

For what ACT(s) would you ALLEGE Coulter et al. should be held liable?

[gatorboy]

37. And I'll type motivation slower for you.

Who's to say he doesn't have a shitload of Coulter books in his house? People have been sued for less. Wait and see, Rush.

[Raskolnik]

38. Well there you go. Someone should file a lawsuit against Coulter et al. alleging "motivation"

Now it's clear.

[gatorboy]

39. See was that so hard the first time I typed it?

You're really obsessive about this thread against right wing celebrities. Why are you so against exposing these clowns?

[Raskolnik]

40. I was being sarcastic--you posted something devoid of meaning.

What do you think alleging "motivation" means?

[gatorboy]

41. Now you're avoiding my questions. You're fixated on protecting Coulter, Why is that?

C'mon "non-conformist" let er rip. :rofl:

[Raskolnik]

44. I'm fixated on calling baloney on people that are talking out of their ass

You sir/madam, fit squarely in that category.

In a lawsuit, it doesn't really work to allege "motivation" (whatever you think that means). You must ALLEGE some specific ACT for which the defendants can be held liable. So far, you haven't even attempted to do that.

[gatorboy]

45. Oh, c'mon. You're really obssessed with protecting these clowns.

Raskolnik indeed. Nice tag there. Did you pick a russian name for that particular "pinko" quality? Ass. :eyes:

We'll wait until you're done weeding out the other threads on the matter. :rofl:

[Raskolnik]

46. If you're going to be a dick, you should probably know the tiniest bit about the subject

from all appearances, you don't.

And neither the Raskols nor Raskolnikov were "pinko" in any sense whatsoever. Fool.

[gatorboy]

47. It means non-conformist.

Which you are anything but. :eyes: Keep'em coming. Your trunk is showing. ;)

Are you done weeding the other threads out on the matter? Hurry! Rush needs you!!!!


Could you be any more obvious, fool?

[Raskolnik]

48. Ah, non-conforminst = pinko. I didn't realize you had reset the meanings of those words.

Keep'm coming. Your lack of education is showing.

[gatorboy]

50. So is yours... Non-conforminst ?

Type before you leap, friend. :)

[Raskolnik]

52. Good one! A typo post *and* another smiley face! You've won the day, sir.

Of course, you still don't know what you're talking about re: the subject at hand in the OP, but you did, in fact, find a typo in my subject line.

I guess if you're going to be ignorant, you might as well be defiantly ignorant. Carry on.

[gatorboy]

54. Hey you're exposed for who you really are.

No worries here. :)

[Raskolnik]

55. Please. One of us knew a bit about the subject, the other knew absolutely nothing.

You simply don't know what you're talking about, but didn't let that stand in your way for a second.

If you want to accuse me of being a freeper or a closet Republican, have the guts to come out and say it and have the intellectual honesty to point out what post I've used to "defend" Coulter etc. So put up or shut up. Otherwise, you're just talking out of your ass again.

[gatorboy]

58. Ooooh the guts! How John Wayne of you!

:rofl:

C'mon, friend, why the charade?

[Raskolnik]

59. Waiting...

[gatorboy]

60. For what "Matlock" ?

[Raskolnik]

62. Still waiting...

If it's obvious that I'm not ideologically pure enough for you, please point out which posts led you to this conclusion.

Otherwise, you are again just talking out of your ass.*


*I'm not talking about the animated smiley faces, though. Those are funny and relevant no matter how many times you post them. Whenever I see those used in lieu of actual argument or relevant points, I know that I'm tangling with an intellectual.

[gatorboy]

63. For what? You know and I know what you post.

Get you and you're talk about being an intellectual.... How many times have you posted about freakin' animate smilies already? Carry on, Plato! :P*



*Just for you. *smooch*

Again, why the charade? What's the purpose? Certainly you have better things to do (Or perhaps you don't).

[Raskolnik]

64. I believe I've made my point.

At this point, it's pretty clear you neither know what you're talking about nor are overly concerned by that fact.

We're done here & good day.

[gatorboy]

65. Took you long enough to slither off. Oh look. Your heroes were on his reading list.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jul/28/church-shooting-police-find-manifesto-suspects-car/

Have a super day!

[gatorboy]

66. And next time, be a man, publicly post and avoid the PM's

Such a cowardly act.

[Raskolnik]

67. I thought it was more polite, but since you disagree I'll defer to your good judgment

Originally sent via PM:

"Since it is incredibly tacky to focus on someone's grammar or
spelling, I didn't want to post this in the thread.

But...since you've already attempted to be clever by pointing
out a typo in one of my posts, you probably want to be extra
certain your own posts don't contain errors that make you look
somewhat less than book-smart, i.e. "Get you and you're talk
about being an intellectual"

See how a too-clever-by-half post like that can come back and
bite you in the ass?

Sir, you've broken my father's favorite rule: you can be an
asshole, or you can be wrong, but it's best not to try and be
both at the same time."

[gatorboy]

69. He's back! I knew you couldn't resist that one.

You're so obvious now. :)

[Raskolnik]

70. And I've broken my father's second favorite rule: never wrestle with a pig.

The pig likes it, and even when you win you end up covered in shit.

Take care GB--I know you have to have the last word, so I'll leave you to it...

[gatorboy]

71. That's funny. I thought we had the last word several posts ago.

But you keep coming back. Hopefully you'll find something better to do with your time.

And no more sneaky PM's please. Thank you.

[Raskolnik]

49. And, for the record, animated smiley-faces are both *hilarious* and guaranteed

to make your point. You should definitely post more, because they absolutely make you seem more knowledgeable about whatever subject is at hand.

[gatorboy]

51. A double post! You really are snapping now.

Hurry up. Someone else has probably already posted a mean thread about Coulter for you to defend. Make haste. :)

[aspergris]

91. He's just using a childish debating tactic

If you respect the free speech rights of everybody, to include conservatives/rightwing morans, you are "protecting these clowns"

here's a hint to the anti-constitutional authoritarians. the constitution protects us ALL

and when it comes to free speech - it was designed to protect the offensive and controversial speech first and foremost since that is the speech most likely to be curtailed by authoritarians. as posts like some here prove

[MonkeyFunk]

78. he's absolutely correct

what is alleging "motivation"? It's meaningless.

And I think protecting the first amendment is different from protecting Coulter et. al.

The notion of suing them is just absurd, and shows how ignorant many people here are about such matters.

Now can you explain, using full sentences, what you think they should be sued for? Over what act? What did they do? And "motivation" isn't an answer.

[gatorboy]

80. How would a congressional hearing sound then?

I never stated in any post that I support shutting down their free speech. But the man clearly was inspired by their statements considering how much of their work he owned. All I ask is they're exposed in a public setting. How's that?

[MonkeyFunk]

83. And if somebody took a shot at Cheney

should people here be the subject of congressional investigations? How 'bout Pelosi? I've seen plenty of hate for her expressed here.

Sorry, the gunman is responsible for what happened, not anybody else.

[happydreams]

97. 'baloney"...? hee, hee. you sound like sneeky freep to me.

[Guaranteed]

68. Because the bullshit you're talking about is nothing like LAW.

You sound like some idiot RWer yourself.

[Common Sense Party]

72. A lawsuit that will be laughed/thrown out of court before

you can say "Coulter is a man."

Yeah, that'll show 'em.

[gatorboy]

73. Then perhaps a congressional hearing?

[Common Sense Party]

74. Fine. Why not? But not many congressional hearings accomplish

anything.

[gatorboy]

76. If all it accomplished was exposing their hate speech.

It accomplishes enough.

[sentelle]

89. the better idea

Would be to take the hate mongers, put them in a movie theatre, and then set fire to it.

:p

[aspergris]

6. Bingo

It's nice to see some people who don't kneejerk all over the 1st amendment because of a tragedy.

[BOSSHOG]

12. So why do those on right wing radio

knee jerk when the thought of bringing back the fairness doctrine come up? For the same reason that bush and cheney "kneejerked" at the thought of swearing to tell the truth?

[Raskolnik]

14. Huh?

What in the world does that have to do with the subject at hand?

[aspergris]

17. Nothing

But when somebody has no argument, changing the topic is a common ploy.

Others are: accuse somebody of being a freeper (for supporting free speech. how ironic), or claim that support for free speech = support for that speech's CONTENT.

I 100% support the right to spew this stuff. I don't AGREE with the content.

[BOSSHOG]

19. The subject - suing right wing radio hosts

I contend if the fairness doctrine were still in effect, there would be no need to sue. Right wing radio hosts are free to incite without boundaries ergo someone posts that a lawsuit might be in order relative to their incitement (which may or may not have led to the deaths of others.) Two things conservatives fear:

- the fairness doctrine
- swearing to tell the truth

[aspergris]

90. rubbish

1) the fairness doctrine has/had NOTHING to do with whether right wing (or left wing) radio hosts could talk smack. the issue is CRIMINAL and CIVIL law. and that pesky first amendment which protects offensive speech.

again, this aint a conservative / liberal issue.

It's a free speech issue. It's sad that there are some liberals who don't respect free speech. I suspect there are more conservatives who don't, but some days, some people make me wonder...

and rightwing radio hosts are NOT "free to incite" without boundaries.

the boundaries that bound US ALL are defined in case law/constitutional law, which you might actually STUDY to educate yourself.

[sui generis]

5. There are crazy people in the world

Who would you sue if this person just did it on his own anyway? The fact is the guy was nuts, and it just happened that he was fixated on liberals instead of jews or democrats or people who wear green knit tube tops. Nuts. One in five, twenty percent of the US population that "passes" for normal at the grocery store.

I dunno - he was going to eventually find an excuse to go big game hunting and give his life some kind of romantic high drama adolesccent poignancy and meaning, and NOTHING anyone could have said or done would have stopped him from going after somebody, some time, to relieve whatever pressure he thought he was under.

[lifesbeautifulmagic]

8. absolutely - it is a great idea

it would probably get thrown out, but maybe some good discussion would come out of it. And shine some light in the sewer as was stated above.

And maybe not, since liberals seem to be the only type of people that discuss issues.

[whistle]

10. Why is that, did any of those RW punk-dips advocate violence against the church congregation

...which had been targeted? If they did, I would like to hear/see any recording made and then judge the merits of what you advocate. If there was any suggestive language that would directly provoke some borderline psychotic to take such action, then these people ought to be criminally prosecuted. If inflammatory language was used I could also see where a civil suit could be brought against one or more of these RWgers and if similar or identical words and/or phrases were used then they could be guilty of conspiracy. But we need to hear the evidence.

[onenote]

11. Fortunately, the constitution protects against dumb ideas like this, whether from the right or left

In the US, the crime of "incitement" to the extent it exists, is very narrow, thanks to some very smart and progressive justices of the Supreme Court, including William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan, Hugo Black etc, all of whom participated in the unanimous decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, where the conviction of a KKK leader for "advocacy" of violence was overturned. The court made it clear that in order constitute a criminal act, speech must be directed to inciting or producing "imminent" lawless action and must be "likely" to incite or produce such action. Given that limpballs has millions of listeners, the fact that one occasionally goes off his rocker (and, by the way, the idea that the knoxville shooter is rushbot is utter speculation as far as I know) hardly is evidence that rush's ravings are directed to producing imminent lawless action or likely to have that effect.

Rush is a big fat idiot, but I'd rather put up with him than have the First Amendment eviscerated.

Sue Rush if you'd like, but don't be surprised when the ACLU files a brief supporting Rush and attacking you.

[BOSSHOG]

15. As always

you provide a rational level headed response but I'd much prefer the reimplementation of the fairness doctrine then any move to sue talk show hosts.

I find it incredibly interesting that those who make a living on right wing radio fear intensely the fairness doctrine. Why would that be? Because it would stifle their ability to incite?

[onenote]

43. I suppose there are a couple of reasons RW talkers dislike the FD

One is that it could expose their audiences to other points of view which they don't share.

Another is that the FD, when it was in effect, has something of a chilling effect -- stations sought to avoid controversial subject matter entirely so as to avoid FD obligations. I doubt that would occur today, however.

[Rocknrule]

21. Just to clarify

I highly doubt such a lawsuit would win, because of reasons stated above. And I am very outspoken against people like Joe Lieberman and Jack Thompson who want to blame/censor/ban violence in entertainment whenever something like this happens and the perp just happened to play GTA or listen to Eminem. I think the 1st Amendment should be upheld in all but the most extreme circumstances. But there is a difference between speech that has no intent other than to entertain others and speech that has a very real chance of inciting violence against other Americans and is intended to do so. They shouldn't necessarily be censored, but they should be considered to be in the same league as Fred Phelps or Stormfront as hate speech mongers.

[Raskolnik]

24. When someone says "I think the 1st Amendment should be upheld...BUT..."

I get very nervous. And so should you.

[Rocknrule]

31. I do

And the reason I think they should be sued is because even though such a case would probably not win, it would at least put these people in the spotlight and show that their ravings against liberals do have an effect on their listeners. Again, they shouldn't be legally silenced or anything since they did not break any laws, but they should be fully exposed to the American public for what they are, and I think a lawsuit by the victims' families would do that.

[Raskolnik]

35. Trying to curtail free speech to make a political point is a shitty strategy.

[JustAnotherGen]

84. Couldn't agree more

And UU's - well - Nobody in my church wants that either. We had an after work impromptu meeting tonight - and I'm just fired up. We have to stop McCain and all the other Neocon Fascists.

But we have to do it honestly - and justly.

[mmonk]

26. I wish because some in government encourage the kind of hate

speech against "liberals" and lie to the American people.

[fl410]

29. Would be hard but a sharp lawyer might be able to cobble up a conspiracy to violate Civil Rights

but that darn slipperly slope keeps coming to mind.

[TheCowsCameHome]

30. They're nothing but roaches. In the dark they feel safe.

In the open, the run like scared vermin.

[lib2DaBone]

34. My local Clear Channel Talk station...

Funny you should mention this? I listened for ten minutes this morning to my local Clear Channel right-wing talk station,(sorry, redundant) and I couldn't believe the amount of hate and ignorance spewed in such a short time? (And to think this is repeated in thousands of small towns all across America..very scary) They had the local host (Limbaugh wanna-be) and "open lines". This is where all the local "community-minded" good church-going people call in and advocate "killing Libruls" (sic). I even heard a few callers bitching about Faux News (Faux and CNN are waaaay too librul) and how it's all part of the Democrat Conspiracy. (Yes, they're back on that "Democrat Party" dig again) Then, they were busy blaming the economy on all the people who were lazy and had the "nerve" to be unemplolyed. Republicans are already laying the foundation to blame Obama for the economy and shun any responsibility for the last 8 years. Then I heard promos for Limbaugh, Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Michael Reagan. The level of Ignorance in this country is overwhelming. There's no doubt in my mind that the guy who lost his food stamps and went into a church with a shotgun, was most likely a graduate of the Clear Channel School of Republican Compassion.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

42. I hope you posted this in anger, and will see why it's so dangerous an idea when you calm down.

None of the people you list have in any way broken any law.

Probably, such a lawsuit would fail. That would be a waste of time and money, and a PR victory for whoever you sued, but the least harmful possible outcome.

However, there's a chance that if you got a sufficiently politically biased jury and judge, they might convict, not because of the law but out of political bias. That would lead to someone who hadn't broken the law being fined or imprisoned, and - whether or not they're a bad person - that would be a bad thing. But that wouldn't be the worst consequence.

By far the worst consequence would be the precedent it would set. It would mean that no-one could ever advocate any political position in case someone killed in the name of it. It would make religion impossible. It would even make sport difficult, because if a hooligan killed someone in a sports-inspired brawl then their team could be sued.


If you can find active evidence that any of the people actually deliberately inspired someone to go out and commit murder, expecting them to do it (and note that clearly-rhetorical incitements that the person could reasonably expect not to be followed don't and shouldn't count) then by all means prosecute them - that's a breach of the law, and they will probably be convicted.

But if, as is actually the case, all you have is evidence that they "spew hate", then don't abuse the legal system for political ends. It never leads anywhere good.

[progressoid]

53. Yeah, that always works out so well.

:eyes:

[Zodiak]

56. I do not think there is grounds to sue

HOWEVER, I would also like to point out that when it comes to grandstanding against the first amendment, the right-wing did a pretty good job of it in the 1980's by holding hearings against Judas Priest and Twisted Sister. In the end, the music got a lot of publicity from the exposure. I'm not sure the same kind of exposure would help RW radio.

I believe that having a few congressional hearings on this doesn't curtail free speech, but it might give us an assessment of how far our body politic has degenerated under the lack of the fairness doctrine. If heavy metal was so evil it deserved congressional hearings, then this falls in the same category.

[DailyGrind51]

57. If the murderer's act could be traced to something he heard from a specific broadcaster,

a case might be made that the broadcaster met the "yell fire in a crowded theater" rule.

[Common Sense Party]

75. Apparently Rush has been specifically telling listeners,

"grab a shotgun and shoot up a liberal church."

That's what "megadittos" is code for...


:sarcasm:

[jmondine]

61. I respectully disagree, but...

I think we should be diligent in the aftermath, and if any of these tools say something hateful and stupid even remotely endorsing the killer's actions or motivations, we should bring it into the light and let them fry under the lens of public opinion.

And I guarantee you that they will.

[MonkeyFunk]

79. What an absurd notion.

This place scares me sometimes.

[samsingh]

81. and sent to prison as accessories

[JustAnotherGen]

82. RockNRule

I write this as a Unitarian Universalist. I write this as someone who had a Catholic Highschool and University education because of the curriculum - not the faith. I write this as someone who has a Southern Baptist for a father (raised in that Church) and a Methodist for a mother (attended her church too!).


This isn't 'political'. This is about our faith. Our beautiful unorthodox coloring outside of the lines faith.

This is because we believe God is one, and supreme. This is because many many many UU's - well -we don't believe in the Holy Trinity. I certainly do not - I deny it.

I'm writing this because if Yeshua came back tomorrow - he would not be able to eat in the house of the man that opened fire on children's performance of Annie - in one of our churches. Why? Yeshua/Jesus was Jew - most likely - Orthodox. That man who opened fire on on our open and affirming and human loving church? He wouldn't know Kosher if it came up and punched him in the nose.

I'm writing this because in our church - it's AOK to believe that Arius was right, the council of Nicacea was wrong - and Christianity is the made up religion of a man - a feeble human being - named Paul (St. Paul) that hated and persecuted Jews. It's okay to say Jesus was a human being in our church. It's okay to believe the "Christianity" derives from a combination of "Pagan" religions.

And if you don't believe any of those things - we'll still invite you into our homes for a potluck supper. Oh yes - UU's - we believe in Potluck Suppers! :rofl:

I would hate to see my 'home' used as a political tool for the Right - or - The Left. We don't have time for that. We have time to love other human beings, care for other human beings, and forgive those who persecute us. We're too busy worrying about the environment, planning our protests of the Genocide Olympics and polishing our chalices. :rofl:


We have seven principles

Every human being has worth and dignity JUST because they are a human being. Even the horrible person who did this atrocious thing.
Equity, compassion and justice as one human being relates to another.
We have to accept each other - and accept/promote the spiritual expansion of another.
Freedom is the ability to look and find truth and meaning in this life.
The democratic process within our congregation (sometimes we've been accuse of being anti-the Pope and the Catholic hierarchy - we take our licks) and in this world at large.
We are one world - and we need peace, liberty, and justice for all;
We are all connected. Even though we may NOT want to be connected to this man


Where does this come from? It comes from drawing up Judaism, Christianity, and Earth Based Religions with a heavy dose of humanistic reason and science.


We are a strong people who go to the mattresses for the last, the least, the lost, the weakest (look up our 'Chalice' and what it drives from - you may be surprised).

And instead of wishing those people ill (and I KNOW you wrote with the :-) BESTEST of BEST intentions) - burn a candle in your window tonight if you don't have a chalice you can light. Let that light represent:

1. Justice
2. Equality
3. Safety
4. Mourning for those who've been persecuted. Whether or homosexuals, minorities, women in this day and age. Ascetics in France 500 years ago. A small band of people who followed this guy called Jesus that had to run for their lives. The Native American child taken into an orphanage and beaten for speaking their native language.
5. Faith, hope, love, and happiness.


That would mean SO much more to the UU Community.

It would certainly mean a lot to me. This isn't going to shake us up in the least. Shit - if Arius could stand strong. So Can We! Yes We Can!

[JustAnotherGen]

85. P.S.

You can send them a message here:
http://home.earthlink.net/~tvuuc/tvuuc/genquery.html

I'm sure they will appreciate it. I'm sure all UU's would appreciate it.

[DailyGrind51]

86. There is probably a segemtn of their audiences that considers this sicko

a hero for striking a blow for "White Christian America".:-(

[ileus]

87. I didn't realize they had issued orders to kill Christians. Really, blame the shooter.

[NNN0LHI]

88. No I think the shooter should go to jail for the rest of his life. Literally

Not released ever. Even if he becomes old and frail with some fatal disease he stays in his little hell on earth forever. Until he actually dies of old age or whatever. End of story.

That is the only safe place for this cuckoo.

Don

[raccoon]

93. I'd love to see it. Rec'd. nt

[MetaTrope]

94. Remember the blogger who had a visit from the Secret Service after suggesting readers should

pray to Jesus to smite Bush?

The media's opium hopheads and vote fraudsters should see no less.

[workinclasszero]

95. Sued AND thrown in jail for aiding and abetting domestic terrorism! eom

[Wizard777]

96. If they were Muslims. They would be in Gitmo for inciting terrorism.

[ThoughtCriminal]

98. No, Coulter, Limbaugh, Savage and O'Reilly should sue

Addison for plagerism.