I'm assuming that you intended to have been a "smiley" emoticon associated with that statement -- if not, I'm going to have to insist that we invade Brazil. 

I'm just sayin'.

;-)

+++

You voted for McCain right?

Probably not happy with ONLY two wars wanting for more?

I'm just sayin'.

;-)

Scott.  You can't say you are going to "kill" anyone.  It's a threat and it's illegal.  No one on this board is against free speach, but you'll remember from your high school civics class that there are limits - you can't threaten someone, you can't invoke a panic (yelling fire in a crowded theatre) and you can't libel or slander them.

...it'll be the current system, but more strictly regulated, and educated.  Some poor people are poor because they can't handle money.  We should teach them.  That sort of thing.

***************

That's a good plan, as long as there is a finite limit on the amount of time welfare recipients can receive benefits. Providing financial management skills to the poor is great - but poor people then need to put those skills into action and learn to stand on their own feet.

To quote another famous Democrat in Bill Clinton, "Welfare should be a second chance, not a way of life."

I think you are splitting hairs, Scott. Saying "Kill so-and-so!" is a threat of violence. If nothing else, it is inciting others to commit violence.

Admittedly, I'm not a policeman or a lawyer, but I certainly believe that crosses the "free speech" line. As Mike and others have said, there are legal limits to free speech under U.S. law and communicating threats is one of them.

Marcio Ferreira wrote: You voted for McCain right? Probably not happy with ONLY two wars wanting for more? I'm just sayin'. ;-)

LOL!  Exactly!

Besides, Obama may now be President-Elect, but Cheney, er, Bush is STILL President, and I'm sure we have enough time between now and January to start deploying troops to Brazil . . .

;-)

Mike Obrien wrote: We all get to ride our unicorns over the rainbow and eat cotton candy clouds for breakfast!

I'm not too keen on unicorns -- I call dibs on one of Jodi's ponies!

:-)

Mike Obrien wrote: John Bodin:  Good thoughts (your original post - haven't read your new one just above mine).  Good man, Bodin. Glad we're both Americans.

Right back atcha, Mike!

:-)

 Cracker, PLEASE!!

LOL

It is communicating a threat, which absolutely is illegal. While I have the right to express my disdain for a political candidate, I do not have the right to threaten that person's well-being. And that's what the statements above do.

Thank you Bruce for explaining the difference so well.

Sharing ideas is a fine thing, if they had written "Obama will destroy our country." it would have at least shown some semblance of intelligent thought.

This is a great example

These are just a few ways that I could see this actually WORKING for the American people in ways that wouldn't result in a "police state."  I'm hoping that these are the types of things that Obama has in mind.

John Bodin great thoughts, I think that is exactly what he is thinking about.

I'm assuming that you intended to have been a "smiley" emoticon associated with that statement -- if not, I'm going to have to insist that we invade Brazil. 

I'm just sayin'.

;-)

LOL moment!  

Marcio, John was completely kidding about the SHEILD comment. I kind of thought you got upset with it and he was making a joke about attacking Brazil, although wasn't that you who put the picture of that hot Brazilian woman up, because that may make him want to attack your country just to capture her.:0) 

Dibs on the Brazilian General!  AFTER the successful invasion, of course . . .

:-)