Kathy Griffin Under Secret Service Investigation

[Running Gator]

28 minutes ago, FresnoJoe said:

The Secret Service Is Part Of Treasury
Counterfeit Money And All That, You Know

They also protect the president, you know 

[Guest shiloh357]

18 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

There is no difference at all.  America was a British colony at that time and King George was their King.  They deemed him a tyrant and rebelled, had they lost the war they would have been executed for this under his authority.

The difference being that he was an actual tyrant, and there was no constitution.   Trump is not a Tyrant and we have not only a Constitution that protects free speech, but we have laws that protect our president from the kinds of things that Griffin did.   The system was quite different, actually.

Quote

 The rights they established were to make sure that the citizens of this country could legally oppose the government, whether it be by speech or by arms.  Any efforts to squash this are contrary to the very intention of the laws they established.

And Griffins actions were not a legal opposition to the government.  They were aimed at a man who is not a tyrant, who does not deserve such a thing and is really based on her personal and irrational hatred of the man.  Frankly, what she did is deranged.   It was not "speech."

Quote

I doubt they anticipated this type of craziness from the citizenry, but it does not change that what she did is no different than them burning images of King George.

That doesn't justify or protect what she did.  What she did was illegal and she can be prosecuted under our laws for it.
 

Quote

 

They knew what they were doing, and they made sure that the people would always have the right to speak out in the same manner that they did.  Kathy Griffin has done far more damage to herself than any fine would, she lost, no need to execute her like King George would have done.

God bless

 

What she did was not "speaking out."   She has no injustice to point to, nothing to justify what she did and like it or not, it is illegal.   Having to go back to the founders really isn't a good argument because it is not the same situation.  

The Constitution provides for the right to protest the government and the parameters for how that is be carried out.  What she did is outside our laws and our Constitution.  

People pay a price legally, professionally and personally when they commit crimes all of the time.   People commit crimes and it has an effect on their families and their careers and costs them legally, as well.   They lose their family, their job and end up in prison.   The judge doesn't say, "you know, you lost your job and your wife because you molested the girl next door, so I think you have suffered enough without having to go to prison."   Do you think anyone would see that as a fair outcome for the little girl whose life is wrecked because of this?

Why should she not face the legal, professional and personal costs that come from her actions?  Why should she get a favor that you and I would not get if we had done what she did? What is it about her that means she gets off on the legal consequences?

[wingnut-]

1 minute ago, shiloh357 said:

The difference being that he was an actual tyrant, and there was no constitution.   Trump is not a Tyrant and we have not only a Constitution that protects free speech, but we have laws that protect our president from the kinds of things that Griffin did.   The system was quite different, actually.

 

Any law that has been added in this regard goes against the original intent and violates the freedoms we are given.  When was this law added exactly, after 1969?  I would take the wisdom of the founders over any lawyer or judge from the sixties through the present era, because they actually believed in liberty.  Today people want to take liberty and define it for everyone by their own moral code, I simply reject that line of reasoning.

 

7 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Why should she not face the legal, professional and personal costs that come from her actions?  Why should she get a favor that you and I would not get if we had done what she did? What is it about her that means she gets off on the legal consequences?

 

Because we are not like her and understand grace, which she clearly needs a lesson in.  I suspect she will be given that by Trump once he gets past the emotional outrage phase, just as he extended grace to Hillary and did not pursue legal action against her like he said he would during the campaign.

God bless

[hmbld]

4 hours ago, MorningGlory said:

What is wrong with being a loyalist?  At least some of us stand behind our votes and our beliefs. 

I don't get the name calling when someone likes what Trump is achieving.  Am I a "Trump loyalist"?  I doubt it.  I simply like the u-turn he has pulled off.  It would be better if Trump didn't have such a rough texture, but maybe that adds to it, since I'm not too smooth with my wording either.  As leaders, both Trump and Obama are to be honored and respected.  I've had a critical spirit most(maybe all) of my life.  I'd like to be rid of that spirit.  

[hmbld]

duplicate

Edited June 4, 2017 by hmbld

[missmuffet]

1 minute ago, hmbld said:

I don't get the name calling when someone likes what Trump is achieving.  Am I a "Trump loyalist"?  I doubt it.  I simply like the u-turn he has pulled off.  It would be better if Trump didn't have such a rough texture, but maybe that adds to it, since I'm not too smooth with my wording either.  As leaders, both Trump and Obama are to be honored and respected.  I've had a critical spirit most(maybe all) of my life.  I'd like to be rid of that spirit.  

Calling a person a Trump loyalist is not name calling it is a fact.

[hmbld]

Just now, missmuffet said:

Calling a person a Trump loyalist is not name calling it is a fact.

well ok, who is a Trump loyalist?  anyone who supports him?

[missmuffet]

Just now, hmbld said:

well ok, who is a Trump loyalist?  anyone who supports him?

I believe I stated my definition of a Trump loyalist in a previous post.

[hmbld]

2 minutes ago, missmuffet said:

I believe I stated my definition of a Trump loyalist in a previous post.

Yes I see you did.  I just don't get the continuous name calling like its a bad thing to support the direction the Pres is going.  God bless you MM

[The_Patriot21]

1 hour ago, hmbld said:

Yes I see you did.  I just don't get the continuous name calling like its a bad thing to support the direction the Pres is going.  God bless you MM

Well, the problem is her definition is horribly flawed, and an attack towards those of us who do. It's a blind assumption that we will follow trump no matter what.

And it couldn't be farther from the truth. From the standpoint that I voted for him and support him as president, yes I guess you could call me a trump loyalist. However, that does not mean I agree with everything he's done. In fact quite the opposite I don't agree with and even strongly oppose some of the things he has done or is trying to do.

I realize missmuffet, and others, on all sides of the discussion really, are passionate about their beliefs. There's nothing wrong with that, but I think we all need to realize that rhetoric like this doesn't lead to intelligent conversation. And I'm not pointing fingers at any one person, I think we're all guilty of this, I'm just using this instance as an example.

We really need to leave out the underhanded insults and sleights and stick to the topic.