"There Mason argued that using the word "n-----" does not make him a racist"

Manson went on to assert that "monkey children" indicated his affection.

Good lord. I wonder if the SS has knocked on his door yet.

Of course, here on DR, lots of people will probably use this to point to Ron Paul as wanting to assassinate the president. I hope no one goes there, but you know, it's DR.

Nut jobs on both sides of the political spectrum give me pause. I do think some of the Libertarians I have met are as dangerous as some of the Anarchist's but at the end of the day racism is racism. Anyone suggesting this guy is not a raciest is in some serious denial. I suspect he will be getting a visit from the men in dark suits real soon.

"Of course, here on DR, lots of people will probably use this to point to Ron Paul as wanting to assassinate the president."

Probably not but how many threads have had headlines referring to thugs mugging people, etc. as Obama voters?

"Probably not but how many threads have had headlines referring to thugs mugging people, etc. as Obama voters?"

Lots. But don't pretend that it goes the other way too, that some lefties here don't extrapolate from minimal examples in the same way. I see it all the time. I see broad-brushing and other manipulative behaviors from all kinds of DR denizens.

Maybe now that we've said it out loud, no one will go there, but if I hadn't said it? We'll never know. I'm confident, though.

#5 | Posted by pragmatist

A little carried away with the Christmas spirit are we? Man's humanity and all that stuff? I hate so say it but Bah Humbug, It's never happen on the DR or any where passionate people disagree.

Merry Christmas to you and your family and it your traveling be safe.

I see it all the time. I see broad-brushing and other manipulative behaviors from all kinds of DR denizens.

Here? Shocking!

I see broad-brushing

#5 | Posted by pragmatist at 2011-12-19 08:34 AM

#5 | POSTED BY PRAGMATIST
"Maybe now that we've said it out loud, no one will go there, but if I hadn't said it? We'll never know. I'm confident, though."

I applaud the thought, but high-minded debate and discussion are the exception here, not the rule.

Merry Christmas, Prag!

8--Ha!

9--Well, one can always hope. Merry Christmas to you as well.

"Teatard advocates assassination of Obama and family"
.

"Manson says "I may be an atheist but Ron Paul is my God."

Also: "For a long time I switched between the two parties"
.

"Atheist advocates assassination of Obama and family"

FTFY

And why is it the left adds this line: "and Tea Party darling"..."tea party politician"..."Tea Party leader" with no proof to back it up?

From his website (no mention of "Tea Party"):

Huh?

The article says:

"California libertarian and Tea Party darling Jules Manson is caught calling for the assassination of President Barack Obama and his children"

So he's a democrat in right wing nutworld???

Good god amighty you dumb sumbitch nutjobs live on a different planet!

"I live in and proudly own a modest mobile home in a Carson mobile home park."
julesmanson.com

He is more in line with the Democrat KKK.

#11 | Posted by KBM

What a dope.

Everybody knows that Democrats live in projects in the slums, and deal crack. Teapublicans live in trailer parks, and deal meth. It's common knowledge.

Merry Christmas Prag.

This was a Ron Paul trial balloon

Merry Christmas, Whats.

have fun when the FBI shows up on your doorstep.

"Teatard advocates assassination of Obama and family"

Brought to by fleatard2008

Manson? Nah....couldn't be.

What's funny is that this jackass just gave the government reason to use those new powers they just passed and disappear his ass as a terrorist... what a douche....

#2
The FBI will no doubt be visiting Mr. Manson.
Manson would not be classified as a terrorist
and therefor would not come under the Covered
Person's definition as outlined in NDAA.

It only takes one phrase to make him qualify for NDAA detention: suspected terrorist ties

#4
Where does it state that in NDAA?

Where does it state that in NDAA?

What are you talking about? You said: Manson would not be classified as a terrorist and therefor would not.

I answered that with

It only takes one phrase to make him qualify for NDAA detention: suspected terrorist ties

The phrase "suspected terrorist ties" is all that is required to label someone a terrorist, we have seen that over and over again. Per your own admission, once labeled a terrorist, he would be eligable for detention under NDAA.

THINK! Life is not spelled out. It takes thought to get through it.

Gotta disagree, Kanrei.

NDAA Dec. 1, 2011 Engrossed Amendment.

"SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

____________________________

Kanrei, law is spelled out. There is no wording to substantiate what you claim. Manson wouldn't come under the Covered Persons definition unless he met the criteria noted above.

I'll ask again. Where is the reference to "suspected terrorist ties"?

A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces

Right there Bella. Do you not read what you post?

Once again: The phrase "suspected terrorist ties" is all that is required to label someone a terrorist, we have seen that over and over again. Per your own admission, once labeled a terrorist, he would be eligable for detention under NDAA.

Unless it can be shown (ie. evidence) that Manson has

"substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners"

he will not be defined as a Covered Person ie. a terrorist.

"Per your own admission, once labeled a terrorist, he would be eligable for detention under NDAA."

I never said that.

NDAA text.

Subtitle D--Detainee Matters

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

"b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States."

Kanrei, here's the current text.

I guess you'll have to make your own determination.

Here Bella,

Kanrei,
Read the text in Title D. It's about a page long.
Make your own decision as to what it says.
Don't just depend on a journalist's interpretation.

Bell,

I have. I expressed it. I found the link I posted and read it and found they express my thoughts better than I could on this subject.

Laws like this must be thought of in this term: would I trust a President I don't like with this power?

If the answer is no, then you can't support it with a President you do trust because the law will remain after the President is gone.

"Some people shouldn't be on facebook"

I thought this article might be about my dad. Curse my mom for creating his account.

Libertarians are ALL about personal responsibility.

Let this individual be responsible for his actions!

He should be indited, tried and at the very LEAST be put on probation for threatening the life of the President.

Bellatrix: 1
Kanrei: 0

Kanrei loses because his interpretation is much broader than the word or intent of the law. Thanks for playing.

Obviously a nutjob, and apparently a dangerous one.
And he lives in a "modest" mobile home. You know, not one of them fancy mobile homes that your elitist types live in.

If the quote attributed to Mason is accurate, he made no threat against anyone.

He just expressed a wish.

At what point does someone say to themselves "I think this is a good idea"?

Kanrei is also wrong because the statute says "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States." Even if the President felt like arbitrarily calling someone a terrorist, the 2012 NDAA wouldn't required them to be detained by the military.

I have no doubt in my mind that the President does and will do horrible things to suspected terrorists, citizens or not, and that he and all future Presidents don't give a damn about civil liberties. But the hype over the 2012 NDAA appears to be based entirely on misinformation, some of it probably intentional, some based on stupidity.

End of my first paragraph should finish with "if they are an American citizen."

"Assassinate the fucking nigger and his monkey children" is not threatening? It's not incitement? Okay, it's not him saying, "I"m going to kill the president," but it's quite damning on the face of it. I expect he didn't really mean he wants the president dead; I certainly don't think this guy is going to go try to shoot Obama. But it could certainly be construed as threatening, and it's clearly a stupid thing to say, especially in a public forum, when you're a politician. WTF.

Just another trailer trash teabagger...these are the people who talk to the invisible man!

#39

Threat: an expression on INTENTION to inflect evil, injury, or dsamage.

Manson did not express any intention of doing any act.

#41 | Posted by gluon at 2011-12-22 07:00 PM | Reply | Flag: Retarded

.

Typical right wing behavior.

Why is it that if you're protesting at an Occupy event, you can be arrested and jailed, but if you threaten the life of the president and his daughters in the most ugly way possible you just get a warning?

People who threaten the president's life should get a free field trip through the justice system, even if it's just for 24-48 hours while their threat is investigated.

Isn't it bad enough that the kids have to suffer the healthy diet their mother dictates for them while she stuffs her face with foie gras, Kobe beef and chocolate truffles?

#44 Seriously!

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 41 > § 871
Prev | Next
§ 871. Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
How Current is This?
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Either he threatened the President or he didn't. He should be charged. Let him pay his debt to society now like the rest of us would have to...whatever that may be a judge and jury should decide it or he can have his lawyer make a plea deal.

Whats the problem ,people said kill Bush all the time no libs cried jail time then. They also called his daughters whores and crack heads.Monkeys sounds much more like flattery .

#47

So you are saying he's calling them Obama girls monkeys because they look like monkeys?

I called them Bush girls sluts and drunks and crackheads because they drank alcohol, smoked crack, and slept around.

My descriptions were accurate, you are a racist.

Too bad Clownshack didn't address the part where people were saying to kill Bush and burning him in effify.

Don't get me wrong... I was not fan of Bush... but jeezuz if we put every dipshit in jail for saying a president should be whacked... we'd need a lot more jails.

Get a grip.

RCADE: The OWS people were detained for two reasons: D-Bag over-reactionary cops.

Because the OWS people had D-Bags mixed within them that did dipshit things that got them arrested.

Niether side is/was pure in the protests.

Nothing would make me haier than to be wrong. I hope and pray you are right about this.

..the secret service came to his trailer...

was there any doubt?

42--I don't know what word applies, but he clearly didn't understand my post. The one to which he responded.

And people who said "Kill Bush" should also have been investigated. Threats or incitement to violence against other humans should be investigated.

But anyone who thinks race is not still an issue in this country is a moron, or at best has blinders on. Many of you like to assert (probably correctly) that some people voted for Obama because he's black. Gee, don't you then think the opposite is true? And don't you think that some people seriously want him dead 'cause he's a nigger in the White House? (I wouldn't have brought race up if it had not been in the inciter's post. I'm not one of those who cries "racism!" every time this president's policies are questioned or his is criticized.)

Kill Bush people pissed me off and nobody was more unhappy with him as President than I was. Hate the man all you want, but respect the office and what it stands for, especially when the man in the office clearly doesn't.

You never win by lowering yourself to their level; you only double the amount of people fucking everything up.

My descriptions were accurate, you are a racist.

#48 | Posted by ClownShack
So you hung out with the Bush girls and know this for a fact? More like you read the shit papers at the market stand.
If I was racist ,I'd say the Obama girls were crack heads,walking the street for their pimp daddy! That said MY description is more accurate and you clownshit are a liberal hypocrite .

I thought Rex lived in Seattle???

A California man named "Manson" spouting hate filled rhetoric about the president and his family? I can't imagine why the Secret Service made a trip to his trailor?

#54 | POSTED BY SHEMAN

Yes, Bush girls and I are tight!! They are ok being labeled as sluts and alcoholics and such. It's a compliment.

Now if I wanted to be racist I would call the girls monkeys. You know, since monkeys live in Africa, they are black, and perform on demand. Plus the tail. And the ability to pick thing up with their feet and their fondness of eating each others shit.

I can provide you with the Bush girls DUI record.
Where's your proof that the Obama girls are anything like monkeys? I expect you to provide me of a picture of them eating each others shit.

Probably not but how many threads have had headlines referring to thugs mugging people, etc. as Obama voters?

#4 | Posted by danni

7?

Wow, I wonder upset the poor man? He's just reaching out for help. And this is how the goons respond?

HE must have money or be connected.

Did he or did he not threaten the POTUS or the first family?

These trailer trash Tea baggers belong to the right party the GOP = God's Ordained Politicians! They all talk to the invisible man!!!!

HE must have money or be connected.

Did he or did he not threaten the POTUS or the first family?

#60 | Posted by fresno500

Maybe they don't care so much this time.

I know I don't.

I assure you, I have no illusions concerning you being a decent human being.

Of course, here on DR, lots of people will probably use this to point to Ron Paul as wanting to assassinate the president. I hope no one goes there, but you know, it's DR.

#2 | Posted by pragmatist

I think it was Reagan who said he did not have control over who supported him.

---------

This guy is a racist puke. I agree with this being an incitement threat comment. It's a stretch to just say this was free speech.

--------------

Many here referred to Bush as 'chimp' all the time.

"(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."

My heart skipped a beat when I read that.

For a minute I thought that Dick Cheney was about to be arrested.

I assure you, I have no illusions concerning you being a decent human being.

#64 | Posted by fresno500

And I can assure you, I wasn't there with these decent humans.

My descriptions were accurate, you are a racist.

#48 | Posted by ClownShack

Many people look like animals.

Some like swans, some like bears, and some like monkeys.

I'm really sorry some of ya'll didn't get a better animal.

"Many here referred to Bush as 'chimp' all the time."

This is not connected to referring to a black person or black people as nonhuman primates. The effect is entirely different, and I would generally suggest that the intent is different. Yes, people insulted Bush in various ways, and that was silly or wrong or damaging to discourse. But calling a black person a "monkey" is a very different thing. Look into the history of linguistics and race, particularly in America, since that's where we live. And, not incidentally, Bush, in caricature, looks like a monkey; I don't see that in this family. But animal faces are in the eye of the beholder? : )

And, not incidentally, Bush, in caricature, looks like a monkey; I don't see that in this family. But animal faces are in the eye of the
#69 | Posted by pragmatist
In caricature you can see Bush as a monkey? But this family you cant? Take off you rose colored glasses and quit be so dam afraid to say what you really see . Closet racist are the worse.

Because the OWS people had D-Bags mixed within them that did dipshit things that got them arrested.

Niether side is/was pure in the protests.

#49 | Posted by captjimmyjames

I see it as the toleration of, and belief in, dipshit things that got the OWS dudes arrested.

If we'd seen this many dipshit things and toleration for dipship things at Tea Party get-togethers, then we'd have seen arrests then too.

The MSM would have been all over that story.

70--How the hell is not seeing this family as monkeys indicative of closet racism? You're a fool. And did you see my last sentence, moron? I UNDERSTAND that others might not see what I see.

However, see my major point about linguistics and race/racism. If you can't see that calling a black person a monkey is fundamentally different from calling a white person a monkey, you're a fool. No matter where one stands on appropriateness of such language, one should be able to see that.

#72 | Posted by pragmatis
you see it you just won't admit it , Christ if you think Bush looked like a monkey then how the hell can people closest to apes not look like monkeys you dumb ass closet racist liberal.

However, see my major point about linguistics and race/racism. If you can't see that calling a black person a monkey is fundamentally different from calling a white person a monkey, you're a fool. No matter where one stands on appropriateness of such language, one should be able to see that.

#72 | Posted by pragmatist

Because the truth hurts? If so, fair enough. But at least say what it is that bugs you.

Many fat people hate their comparisons to certain animals too.

Get over yourself, especially if you spout off about evolution being right and proper, that some folks look more like monkeys than other folks. Evolution was cool and all, but probably not perfect.

Big fucking deal and boo fucking hoo. Some people do look like monkeys. Yes, even George W. Bush resembles one too.

Same thing applies to other animals like bears, cranes, snakes, and pigs, and other peoples.

There's quite a plenty of white folks living in Michigan, that when naked, strongly resemble white grubs.

They hate the comparison too.

I don't know about you guys, but I'd rather be a monkey than a grub.

If you can't see that calling a black person a monkey is fundamentally different from calling a white person a monkey, you're a fool.
#72 | Posted by pragmatist
So it's OK to insult white people in your mind ,but heaven forbid in today's society you insult some one of color! so you don't see the racism in that,your a fool! Watch shows and how they portray whites as dumb crackers, rednecks, greedy white men ,ETC. its constant . So what is the problem with you libs being to afraid to react the same, is it because you feel so bad about prior injustice now it must swing the other way. My family came long after the slavery how is that my fault, why must I apologize . Lots of blacks in this country are not decendents of slaves, christ your god is kenyan.They run around calling each other nigga and dog and fool,grow up you stupid fucking it's my fault blaming liberal.

If you can't see that calling a black person a monkey is fundamentally different from calling a white person a monkey, you're a fool.
#72 | Posted by pragmatist at 2011-12-24 02:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Typical lib,do as I say not as I do. I guess only whites said Bush looked like a monkey.

rwd

This is all nice but

#60

Did this man get a pass?

If you can't see that calling a black person a monkey is fundamentally different from calling a white person a monkey, you're a fool.

#72 | Posted by pragmatist

Even a fool can see that one group does look more like monkeys than than other group.

So what? If true, why hate the truth?

Did this man get a pass?

#79 | Posted by fresno500

Yes; he did. The law is a living document. Remember?

It's best applied at the whim of bureaucrats, serving whatever needs satisfy that time's benevolent, wise Ruler, who advises us all on which laws are best to enforce at the time. And which laws aren't.

They Secret Service just don't see a correlation between blog puffery and serious threats. So like I said before, they just don't care as much you might think about blog puffery and nitwits posting baseless, misguided threats.

They simply don't have the time. Michelle keeps them far too busy with her incessant bitching.

#78 rwd

People were calling GW Bush a monkey because he acted like one. Not because of any physical resemblance.

We let the pictures of GW Bush prove his resemblance to monkeys.