If I don't post here for while...

[carrrnuttt]

...it means that I got grabbed too.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5318070/

I live about 20 mins away from where this man lives.

Whatever he was saying, bad as it sounded, he was posting it on the internet, supposedly the last bastion of free-speech on this planet.

They haven't posted any proof of a plot, real or imagined, just the man talking about what he felt Bush deserved.

Anywho, later...I need to start writing my will...

[twospirits]

Well i guess alot of folks would be rounded up .

Not to get off track here, but isn't there an attemp on every president that is in office the year that is divisible by 20. I thought I read that somewhere. The next one is suppose to be Bush. Then again it may not happen cause the curse could be broken, since Ronald Regan survived his assassination attemp.

Still the CNN report makes one wonder if Big Brother is watching.

[91300zxtt]

no its a president dies every 20 years while in office, ronald regan almost died, and i hear he actually died a few times while being operated on. and then you have bush, i guess you could consider him choking on the pretzel as a near death

[taranaki]

Hooray for the Patriot Act!

Kiss goodbye to your right to free speech courtesy of George W[armonger] Bush!

If the guy needs psychiatric help,then so be it.But as far as I'm concerned,it's the people who want to vote for Bush rather than kill him who need it more.

[Flatrater]

Originally Posted by taranaki

Hooray for the Patriot Act!

Kiss goodbye to your right to free speech courtesy of George W[armonger] Bush!

If the guy needs psychiatric help,then so be it.But as far as I'm concerned,it's the people who want to vote for Bush rather than kill him who need it more.

I have to disagree with you Naki. if that guy did the same thing before the Patriot Act he would of still got aressted, so don't blame the Patriot Act and Bush on this one!

With free speech there are limits that you don't cross! It's free speech to yell fire in a movie theather (especailly Michael Moore's movies) but don't hand around because you will end up in jail. Same goes fro making threats of violence.

Do we have any proof that he didn't threaten the president which is against the law both pre and post the Patriot Act? Every president in America has been given the same takl by some angry people, Nixon,Ford, Carter, Reagan, and so on so don't throw up BUsh and the Patriot act as the cause.

[YogsVR4]

Did people miss this?

Walsh reached for a semiautomatic pistol in a shoulder holster and was yelling, "Go ahead and please kill me" and "kill me, kill me," reports stated.

Patriot act? What did that have to do with this? Some of you people


I guess there is no chance that someone could actually be guilty of any crime as long as it was directed at President Bush. Nope - if he had threatened to harm the local principle and nobody did anything you'd all be raising holy hell that the police stood by. The secret service did its job. Now the courts will do theirs. Its the way the system should and does work.

[2strokebloke]

Yes it's pretty stupid for anybody to go around saying they wish somebody would be killed, especially if you're talking about the president - you know somebody is going to hear it and over react, that's logical.
The guy obviously over-rated the government when they came to arrest them, since while he feared that they'd abuse his rights (and perhaps understandably so, unless he had heard about the supreme court ruling in favour of justice, and not stupidity).

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Did people miss this?

No, I did not miss that.

Whatever stupidity he did while being accosted was his own - nobody else to blame.

But did you think about the fact that they even accosted him at all? I mean, they should at least give some more evidence, than the fact that he supported the Iraqi resistance, and talked about what Bush deserves online, - especially in an election year - you think? I mean, what was he going to do? Commit a virtual assasination?

Unless they can prove that he was actually PLOTTING the assasination, and/or was organizing people over the internet to do such, what ranting he did over the internet does NOT warrant what happened.

I thought you were Libertarian?

[Flatrater]

[quote=carrrnuttt]

Unless they can prove that he was actually PLOTTING the assasination, and/or was organizing people over the internet to do such, what ranting he did over the internet does NOT warrant what happened.QUOTE]

To get arrested for this doesn't require a plot just a threat.

[YogsVR4]

I'm saying that there was a threat - to what degree we don't know. Either the courts will throw out the charges or it will proceed. Thats what I'm waiting on. I cannot say that he made only made vague threats anymore then anyone else here can. Proof of a crime is not required to make an arrest. Proof of a crime is required to convict someone.

People can say and do whatever they want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights or well being of others. This includes everyone - even the president.

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Did people miss this?

Not at all. The guy was responding in an excessive manner to an excessive event.Report a crime to the police,and they'll most likely shrug,issue you with the paperwork for your insurance claim,and go back to eating their donuts.

Exercise your right to free speech,however,and they'll send the spooks looking for you.The man made no threats of violence against Bush.Wishing someone dead is not the same as announcing an intention to kill him.

Clearly the guy is unstable,but no more unstable than an administration that sends a S.W.A.T. team with weapons drawn in search of its critics.

Once again,it looks increasingly like something that Saddam would do.

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by taranaki

Not at all. The guy was responding in an excessive manner to an excessive event.Report a crime to the police,and they'll most likely shrug,issue you with the paperwork for your insurance claim,and go back to eating their donuts.

Exercise your right to free speech,however,and they'll send the spooks looking for you.The man made no threats of violence against Bush.Wishing someone dead is not the same as announcing an intention to kill him.

Clearly the guy is unstable,but no more unstable than an administration that sends a S.W.A.T. team with weapons drawn in search of its critics.

Once again,it looks increasingly like something that Saddam would do.

And there's the problem.

The man made no threats of violence against Bush.

Though the article said

Secret Service agent who said the man threatened the life of President Bush

Now I don't know if he did or didn't and nobody else here does either. However, a lot of people are jumping to a conclusion because of their bias against the president. There are hundreds of blogs and posts on the web about people hatred for Bush. One guy gets arrested and its the slippery slope to ghestopo tactics Amazing


Edit: I forgot to mention that the administration can't order the Secret Service to do anything. They work for the Congress.

[taranaki]

"I said Bush was terrible and deserved to be killed, but I never said I would do it," Walsh said.

There was no other information about the threat in police records.

He said that he didn't. Nowhere in police records does it say that he did.I'm assuming that the police are actually competent at recording evidence in that part of the world,and a complete absence of such an important piece of evidence is sufficient for me to conclude that it never happened.Your spook is too dim to understand the subtle nuance between wishing for something and intending to make it happen.

[DGB454]

The man carried a semi-automatic weapon around and was going to kill himself and was yelling kill me , kill me....

I would say he was long overdue for psychiatric care.

[YogsVR4]

There was no other information about the threat in police records.

Lack of information found by the reporter in police records does not mean the investigation was completed nor does it mean that he didn't do it. The requirements to make an arrest are different from those to make a conviction. Nobody has to be convicted of anything before being arrested. The judge will throw the course out if the DA cannot show sufficient reason to continue to trial.

This whole thread was an excuse to rag on the Bush administration when they had absolutely nothing to do with it.