Kathy Griffin Under Secret Service Investigation

[wingnut-]

7 minutes ago, Davida said:

That's just it , I am not expecting it.  But I certainly feel Christians should expose the hypocrisy and go to their representatives and say why are you not applying your laws that you would apply against Christian Pastors who would say they will follow the Bible when it says God created the marriage for a man & a woman and then are accused of hate speech.  But someone can send out a picture of the severed head of the POTUS and that is not classified as hate?

 

I do expose the hypocrisy, almost daily.  My senators and congressman know me on a first name basis, I am a thorn in their side and very outspoken in the community here.  When they get enough people to give up their freedoms I will probably be one of the first ones locked up in their FEMA camps for being a non-conformist.  They are well aware that I will never conform to their twisted ideals and forced inequality.

[wingnut-]

9 minutes ago, Davida said:

Thanks for answering cleanly wingnut. I just take it for granted,  that you wing,  are understanding me and get where I am coming from. There is no rancor meant in my dialogue and I think you get that.  This smile is for you.   This is my look for this subject matter.  

 

I do get where you are coming from, and I appreciate the respectful discussion.  This smile is for you.   I have the same look in regard to the subject matter, but only because I believe we are being tricked into giving up the very freedoms that allow us to share the gospel from the pulpit, on this forum, or anywhere else for that matter.

God bless

[kwikphilly]

Hi Shiloh

   I don't really understand that,it doesn't seem very fair.........I think she should go to jail(don't y ou?),not to stay imprisoned but got through the process like anyone e5lse would.....be charged & then pay a whopping fine,I'm sure she can afford it!

[kwikphilly]

Oh also,I am 100% with Pat on protecting our rights,especially "freedom of speech" but I don't believe a threat made to the POTUS falls under that category(amendment)...does it? I don't see her video(which I did not watch) as simply exercizing her right to speak,I see it as a threat.....& I get that just from the descriptions of the video

[kwikphilly]

This is annoying,the more I think about it.....just because she is a comedienne who is to say she would not carry out her little skit?People go off the deep end quite frequently these days and many of them have hinted for a long time about what they were 'gonna" do,the enemy doesn't care who he uses to carry out violence & murder and all his evils

[wingnut-]

4 minutes ago, kwikphilly said:

Oh also,I am 100% with Pat on protecting our rights,especially "freedom of speech" but I don't believe a threat made to the POTUS falls under that category(amendment)...does it? I don't see her video(which I did not watch) as simply exercizing her right to speak,I see it as a threat.....& I get that just from the descriptions of the video

 

It seems to be the original intention that it would be kwik.  Consider this, when the founders began the Revolution, people were making straw figures of King George and burning them in public.  He was the official leader of the colonies at that time.  Fast forward to 1963, the FBI claimed to the Warren Commission that Oswald had visited the FBI office in Dallas and met with an agent Hosty, where Hosty claimed Oswald informed him of his intent to assassinate Kennedy.  This was several weeks prior to the assassination, but Oswald was not even investigated over this by the FBI or by the Secret Service.  Hosty claims that he destroyed his notes from this meeting with Oswald, so no official documents exist to support his claims, but this evidence was accepted and used by the Warren Commission to conclude Oswald was responsible for the assassination.  The point being, exactly when did it become acceptable that one could not speak against leadership?  These rights we were granted revolved around the very right to do so.

God bless

[Running Gator]

10 minutes ago, kwikphilly said:

Oh also,I am 100% with Pat on protecting our rights,especially "freedom of speech" but I don't believe a threat made to the POTUS falls under that category(amendment)...does it? I don't see her video(which I did not watch) as simply exercizing her right to speak,I see it as a threat.....& I get that just from the descriptions of the video

There was no threat, a threat has to include something that leads to an action being carried out.   By holding up the the head she could be saying she wishes he was dead.  And as morally reprehensible as that is, there is nothing illegal about it.  

[Running Gator]

15 minutes ago, kwikphilly said:

Oh also,I am 100% with Pat on protecting our rights,especially "freedom of speech" but I don't believe a threat made to the POTUS falls under that category(amendment)...does it? I don't see her video(which I did not watch) as simply exercizing her right to speak,I see it as a threat.....& I get that just from the descriptions of the video

Does this sound like a threat to you....If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J."

[kwikphilly]

Well,I do understand the "definition" of a threat as you & I might know it but I understand that when it comes to the POTUS it is quite another story,holding a head would be implying you are gong to cut it off,right? So does is that not the 'action: that would be carried out.....I ask because honestly,it has been said people have been arrested for less incriminating phone conversations that have verbally attacked  the Commander in  Chief in days gone by,is this no longer so? Is this not considered a "political offense" which is a FElony

[Running Gator]

1 minute ago, kwikphilly said:

Well,I do understand the "definition" of a threat as you & I might know it but I understand that when it comes to the POTUS it is quite another story,holding a head would be implying you are gong to cut it off,right? So does is that not the 'action: that would be carried out.....I ask because honestly,it has been said people have been arrested for less incriminating phone conversations that have verbally attacked  the Commander in  Chief in days gone by,is this no longer so?

It could be, or it could be implying she wishes he was dead, which while immoral is not illegal.   To me, who is always going to err on the side of freedom of speech, there was no direct threat or even an implied threat that could be proven.   Thus I think it would be hugely wrong to arrest her, once that happens and it sticks, the floodgates are open and we are losing our rights fast enough without helping the government take them away.

She has lost her livelihood and many of her fans, because even free speech has consequences.