Libya

[2ndChildhood]

From that article:

One official in Indiana suggested over the weekend that riot police should use deadly force on those protesting Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker's plan to strip unions of their rights.
A Saturday tweet from Mother Jones reported on the likelihood that police would soon be clearing the Wisconsin Capitol building of demonstrators.
"Use live ammunition," a Twitter user named JCCentCom replied.
When confronted, the Twitter user stood by his words, insisting that the protesters were "political enemies" and "thugs."
"[A]gainst thugs physically threatening legally-elected state legislators & governor? You're damn right I advocate deadly force," he wrote.
Mother Jones' Adam Weinstein later discovered that JCCentCom was a deputy attorney general at the Office of the Indiana Attorney General.

Wow just wow!
This is the response of a public official to those peacefully exercising their right to free speech.

Who was it who said "I disagree strongly with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I always thought that saying was fundamental to our American freedoms.

Edit to add:
Seems the story is real, here's a link to an Indiana news station's story on the subject.
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/26966614/detail.html

I just read this story this morning. . . I don't know if it's factual

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/2...official-says/

[Hoosier]

Seems the story is real, here's a link to an Indiana news station's story on the subject.
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/26966614/detail.html

Being from Indiana and having a lot of friends still living there, my Facebook feed has been full of this, and yesterday about the state senators who fled to IL. There's also this, a Dem saying something equally stupid:

http://mikechamberslive.com/?p=11464

None of this is really news, people are entitled to their own opinions and can say whatever they want. They just aren't entitled to their own facts.

H.

[Elhuero]

Wow just wow!
This is the response of a public official to those peacefully exercising their right to free speech.

Who was it who said "I disagree strongly with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I always thought that saying was fundamental to our American freedoms.

they're not exercising their free speech, they are voicing their support for the democrat's refusal of our democracy, and their attempt to supplant wisconsin's constitution with their own autocratic rule.

they were going to lose the vote, so they scuttle the democratic process then flood the capitol with union backed professional protesters to demand that the governor "compromise" with (i.e. conform to) their opinion.

to me this seems like the kind of tyranny our founding fathers were worried about.

they shit on the whole system of government, and by default shit on the principles behind it (life, liberty) then pat themselves on the back for standing up to "the man" for "their rights"

meanwhile the state is broke, and when it collapses and the teacher's paychecks stop they'll march again with signs saying "blood from turnips!"

[2ndChildhood]

So are you saying it's fine for a deputy district attorney to suggest using live ammunition to clear out the protestors?

My point is that regardless whether I agree or disagree with the protestors, their right to speech is one of the most fundamental in our country.
If we condone use of force (or the threat) to restrict that speech, who is going to come to our aid when force is unlawfully turned against us?

Note - I am not supporting the acts of the democrats at all.
I am simply outraged that talk of live ammunition is considered a reasonable response to someone's speech that one disagrees with.

they're not exercising their free speech, they are voicing their support for the democrat's refusal of our democracy, and their attempt to supplant wisconsin's constitution with their own autocratic rule.

they were going to lose the vote, so they scuttle the democratic process then flood the capitol with union backed professional protesters to demand that the governor "compromise" with (i.e. conform to) their opinion.

to me this seems like the kind of tyranny our founding fathers were worried about.

they shit on the whole system of government, and by default shit on the principles behind it (life, liberty) then pat themselves on the back for standing up to "the man" for "their rights"

meanwhile the state is broke, and when it collapses and the teacher's paychecks stop they'll march again with signs saying "blood from turnips!"

[Byte Stryke]

So are you saying it's fine for a deputy district attorney to suggest using live ammunition to clear out the protestors?

My point is that regardless whether I agree or disagree with the protestors, their right to speech is one of the most fundamental in our country.
If we condone use of force (or the threat) to restrict that speech, who is going to come to our aid when force is unlawfully turned against us?

Note - I am not supporting the acts of the democrats at all.
I am simply outraged that talk of live ammunition is considered a reasonable response to someone's speech that one disagrees with.

I do not believe the primary point of contention in this is the message as much as it is the way in which it is being delivered.
One's rights to free speech end at the border of fair and legal process. when your right to assemble and express yourself interferes with someone elses rights, you have exceeded your rights.

This is also the primary argument against westboro baptists.
They too have the right to express themselves, however they do not have the right to interrupt a funeral to do it.


just my 2 cents

[Elhuero]

So are you saying it's fine for a deputy district attorney to suggest using live ammunition to clear out the protestors?

hell yes. political correctness is a cancer.

My point is that regardless whether I agree or disagree with the protestors, their right to speech is one of the most fundamental in our country.
If we condone use of force (or the threat) to restrict that speech, who is going to come to our aid when force is unlawfully turned against us?

.

it was a tongue in cheek suggestion that nobody took seriously.

well, almost nobody..... nobody but the guy's bosses who caved to the PC pressure and fired him for using his right to free speech to say something in contrary to the current popular opinion.

some speech is freer than others I guess.

[mitch]

Bump for official-ness: the UN has voted for "Sanctions".

Nothing says "we mean business" like sanctions on a 3rd world African country.