Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Alex Jones comments on Mike Malloy being fired.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Jeanette in FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:00 PM
Original message
Alex Jones comments on Mike Malloy being fired.
Alex said he had received an email saying that Mike Malloy had been fired from Air American Radio and that he didn't believe the email. So he called Mike and Mike said he was indeed fired and does not know why, but that Mike was on his way to a meeting regarding the firing.

Alex said that Malloy is one of the most courageous broadcasters out there and that TPTB want those kind of people stopped.

He said that he will try to get Mike on the air on his show tomorrow to discuss why he was fired after he has his meeting with AAR.

Alex mentioned that when Mike was on his show, one of the last things Mike said that day was that he was not going down without a fight and had purchased guns and urged others to do so as well. Alex thought out loud, "Maybe that is why he was fired".

He feels that other doors will be opened for Mike Malloy and that Mike will not be stopped from speaking the truth.

It was very heartfelt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
1. Did Malloy really say that about the guns on AAR? If he did, I 'd expect
the FCC to be making a visit to AAR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeanette in FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. No, it was on Alex's show
2 days after Alex was on Mike's show.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. But Jones speculates that may have been why he was fired... NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeanette in FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Yes, he was wondering if that was the reason
Alex and the guest he had on then spoke about how weird it is in these politically charged days, that Liberals are buying guns and the Rush Limbaugh's of the world are talking about confiscating peoples guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. I hope they arrest the entire NRA too....
Edited on Thu Aug-31-06 02:05 PM by Junkdrawer
I disagree with Mike on the guns thing, but come on, the NRA trots out that chestnut ALL THE TIME.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. They do it for a different reason.
They aren't doing it openly advocating for violence (whether or not you buy that is another story, but the message isn't nearly as overt as the one Malloy issued.) Directly advocating violence is not protected speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. Nope. Malloy referred to "if they come to get me" and the NRA...
tells us that that's the basis of the Second Amendment.

The majesty of the Second Amendment, that our Founders so divinely captured and crafted into your birthright, guarantees that no government despot, no renegade faction of armed forces, no roving gangs of criminals, no breakdown of law and order, no massive anarchy, no force of evil or crime or oppression from within or from without, can ever rob you of the liberties that define your Americanism.


http://www.nrahq.org/transcripts/denver_close.asp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. You mean the "cold, dead hands" stuff? NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #3
61. I sure as &$%^ don't disagree
If you think there won't be a time when you'll wish you had weapons, wait about 2 years. I'm sad to say I don't think that's hysterical rhetoric anymore.

(but then I'm a 2nd amendment Democrat, too... now why aren't the rest of you?)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silverojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #61
74. I'm a 2nd amendment Democrat, too
I don't think any of the amendments are optional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jersey Ginny Donating Member (549 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #74
83. Yup, me too-I support the 2nd amendment
I couldn't stop the govt from killing me and my gay family, but I'd try like hell to make them think twice about going to the next house. The second amendment protects us from tyranny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-01-06 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #61
96. Are you implying that the reason you'll wish you had weapons
is to fight the state?

If so, I do think that's hysterical rhetoric, I'm afraid - a) the chance of America degenerating to the point where that's desirable within two years is nil, and b) if it did, then having weapons wouldn't help.

There is no scenario wherein you will be better off taking on the state with a gun than without it, and indeed a great many where you will be worse off, because it would mean that the state would have to use more force to arrest you, and you'd probably kill innocent people in the process.

That the state should have a monopoly on the use of force is one of the core principles of democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-01-06 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #96
97. Really?
That the state should have a monopoly on the use of force is one of the core principles of democracy.

Hmm... read Federalist 29 some time. Jay and Madison (though admittedly less so Hamilton) both considered an armed populace a core principle of democracy.

There is no scenario wherein you will be better off taking on the state with a gun than without it

That has to be a joke, because I can't imagine you seriously believe that.

a) the chance of America degenerating to the point where that's desirable within two years is nil

What exactly are the characteristics of our current state of government and society that make you believe that?

and b) if it did, then having weapons wouldn't help.

Right, because if Iraq has taught us anything, it is that determined militias armed with small arms can't do anything against a modern technologically-equipped army :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-01-06 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #97
102. Yes, that's exactly what Iraq has taught us, actually.

While the militia with small arms has made things a lot worse for the occupiers, they haven't actually achieved anything for themselves - they're still being hunted. They've killed a lot of people, but they haven't accomplished any of their other goals.

It's also worth noting that the most of the soldiers occupying Iraq have somewhere to withdraw to, and are trying not to kill civilians.

You ridicule my point that there is no situation where having a gun will help you take on an army, but you don't provide a counterexample.

The characteristic of your society that makes me confident is that - despite DU hysteria - it's a healthy, thriving democracy with strong institutions. Just because the media tells you something doesn't mean it isn't true - read "The Hole in the Wall" by G.K. Chesterton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NaturalHigh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-01-06 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #96
101. Huh?
That the state should have a monopoly on the use of force is one of the core principles of democracy.

Really? I must have missed that in my Civics classes. I also must have missed that in my Government classes. Needless to say, I certainly never taught any of my students that back when I was a teacher.

Sitting around with your thumb up your butt while waiting for the police to rescue you is not a great idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-01-06 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #96
107. Huh?
That the state should have a monopoly on the use of force is one of the core principles of democracy.

Isn't fighting an over-reaching power of the state one of the reasons this country was founded in the first place?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-01-06 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #107
109. Hence "in a democracy".

The reason America revolted was because its inhabitants didn't have votes.

You can have ballots or bullets, but not both.

The point is that if you have a majority supporting you in a democracy then you can get your way without force, and if you don't you shouldn't be able to do so through force.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-01-06 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #109
110. But we do have both
And this country has always had both.

The point is that if you have a majority supporting you in a democracy then you can get your way without force, and if you don't you shouldn't be able to do so through force.

I do agree with you here, but at the time of drafting, the Constitution included Amendment #2 in order to insure your point. So I'm don't follow you when you say that the government should have a monopoly on the use of force.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-01-06 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #61
106. I agree with you
And people here like to point out that we citizens don't have anywhere near the defensive capability to hold off the government: they have tanks, we have rifles - if we have anything at all.

But here's a possible scenario that doesn't get talked about: what if, rather than the government starts to crack down on people, the media incites freepers into rioting? How do you think the rapturist wackos will act if they don't get their rapture, because in their mind the US bows down to liberalism and doesn't try hard enough to bring on the rapture? How do you the the American Shitheel will act if he sees Congress go Democratic in November, and suddenly the government is too cowardly and not racist enough for their tastes anymore, particularly if Fox Bullshit tells them that liberals 'stole' the election?

These people are not sane. They are lunatics in my opinion, and the media primes them more every day. I don't particularly expect them to start rioting, but I do think that's a more likely (and also more defensible by owning weapons) position that the government putting tanks on the street right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
4. That guns comment alone is legit reason to be fired.
Good lord. That is completely unacceptable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meldroc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. Why is it unacceptable?
Edited on Thu Aug-31-06 02:12 PM by meldroc
As far as I'm concerned, when the federal government's gone as far towards fascism as it has, where it's tapping our phone calls and internet traffic without warrants, imprisoning people without trial, and resorting to torture and ghastly human rights abuses on a regular basis, it's only prudent to arm oneself for protection against the government.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClusterFreak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Arming yourself to protect you and your family from the government...
...is one thing....exhorting others to do the same over the public airwaves, is entirely another IMO.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #13
63. Why?
It's a constitutionally-protected right. Why is it ok to enjoy that right, but not OK to encourage others too?

Or do you just wish that it weren't a right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #13
67. What is wrong with exhorting others to Arm themselves to protect their
selves and their families? I believe we have the right to posses arms for that reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #10
19. The advocation of violence is not protected speech.
In fact, I'm pretty sure what he said could be considered a terrorist threat. Not that I particularly disagree - if we have blatant election stealing yet again that goes unpunished, it will be our duty as citizens to rise up against it - but even my saying that, legally speaking, is probably illegal if I did it in front of a sizeable audience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #19
25. So the NRA must be a terrorist organization. They advocate owning guns.
It is not advocating violence to say that we should learn how to use guns to protect ourselves against the government or against the freepers, who do know how to use guns and will have no qualms about murdering us if the political moment makes it tenable for them to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. How is it not?
Advocating owning guns and advocating using guns to kill people are two entirely different things. Honestly, it doesn't matter if you don't see the difference - the Supreme Court has ruled on such cases enough times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #27
54. Comes close to incitement.
Edited on Thu Aug-31-06 03:31 PM by Marie26
Which is not protected speech. And could even be illegal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #27
60. Advocating the use of a gun as PROTECTION for you and your family
isn't the same as advocating using a gun to KILL people. Who WOULDN'T WANT to protect themselves and their loved ones? C'mon...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never_get_over_it Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #19
37. I do not believe that Mike was advocating violence
as much as he was self defense - and there is NO ONE who is more anti-gun than I am....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-01-06 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #19
108. Urging people to buy guns is not advocating violence
Urging people to use guns to make political statements is, but that's not what the quote really gets at.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-01-06 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #19
115. Advocacy of self-defense is not advocacy of unlawful violence.
The advocation of violence is not protected speech.

In fact, I'm pretty sure what he said could be considered a terrorist threat. Not that I particularly disagree - if we have blatant election stealing yet again that goes unpunished, it will be our duty as citizens to rise up against it - but even my saying that, legally speaking, is probably illegal if I did it in front of a sizeable audience.

I'm not sure the exact wording of what he said, but if it was something to the effect that if someone comes to "get him," then he is prepared to defend himself and his family, then I see nothing wrong with that at all. Advocating getting a gun and taking out freepers or something would probably be illegal incitement to violence, but a declaration of self-defense capability is not.

Defense of self and family is the #1 reason that Americans own guns (recreational target shooting being #2, and hunting a distant third).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #4
16. It is "unacceptable" only if you would not physically fight for your
country. If you say that you would defend the constitution and this country from an internal or external takeover, and you believe that the country is experiencing just such an internal takeover, but that you would not advocate the acquisition of weaponry; then...? Someone saying that "I will not go down without a fight, that's why I bought guns and everyone else should", is not so dissimilar to the rhetoric of Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, or Nathan Hale. It all comes down to what it is you think is happening to the country right now...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #16
22. I don't disagree, however,
Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, and Nathan Hale would also be susceptible to charges of terrorism, as I believe they were when the originally said it. AAR, as an entity, cannot be tied to that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #22
31. You are right, as far as AAR having the right to make those kinds
of decisions for itself. AAR can hire or fire anyone for any reason (as long as it isn't a Rights violation) and I won't make the claim that they can't. I may disagree with their decision, but that's just a matter of opinion and, well, you know the rest. I hope that Malloy gets back on the air, somewhere, because I think that he is needed, but I won't cry about AAR doing something that I don't like - they just join a very long list of people and entities who have done likewise.

I think that it can be a very dangerous thing for someone to advocate arming for conflict, and I can understand why a corporate entity like AAR would have qualms about it - even if I agree with Malloy as to the pressing need for such arming...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. Glad we could agree once more.
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #33
42. Hey Vash! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #31
44. Pleassssssssssssssssssse, what do you think they spend half..........
of the discretionary US federal budget on anyway?

You ONLY think "it can be a very dangerous thing for someone to advocate arming for conflict,"

Logically it only makes sense that either everybody should have firearms or nobody should have firearms, but in our illogical world of haves' and have-nots the same applies.

There is right for people to own firearms and it doesn't look like that will change anytime soon. The rest is all academic :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #44
65. I am not sure that understand your post. Are you agreeing with
me that there is a need for arming? Or are you saying that you disagree and there is no need to arm? Of course this country spends more than the rest of the world combined on its military and this government would not hesitate (I am convinced) to use that military against its own people. I just can't tell from your post, what it is you are actually saying. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-01-06 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #65
114. You wouldn't jump into the middle of a lake if you didn't know how to swim
Knowing about something and experiencing it takes away a lot of unwarranted fear and suspicion about it. I am advocating that people should buy firearms and go to a practice range if possible. Understanding and knowing what it's all about is the first step taking back power that shouldn't have been given to it in the first place. A hammer, knife or pistol is only as dangerous as the person that has hold of it's handle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryRN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-01-06 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #31
88. This is totally being taken out of context...Mike Malloy is NOT
an advocate of violence. He never has been and he never will. Why don't you wait and get the facts, ok?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jawja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #22
34. And I'm sure that
if at the time - "terrorism" was a named threat against the King of England - they would have been.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #34
68. As Patrick Henry said...
"Caesar had his Brutus, Charles I his Cromwell, George III ..."

Here he was interrupted by cries of

"Treason!!!"

To which he replied,

"If this be treason, make the most of it!"

(OK, there's some mythologizing there; in fact he seems to have backed down and apologized, but that quote was how the story ended up getting out)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddiejoan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #4
17. If that was the reason.
That would have been the reason given.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchtv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #4
23. I seem to remember E Godon Liddy threatening
to shoot "jack booted" Feds at his door, no problema then
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. Liddy is a convicted felon. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #4
47. Watch DU turn into the NRA
in a hurry. :hide:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. So much for the Gungeon being so controversial!
Apparently, it's not controversial at all anymore. I guess we're all in agreement that guns are good because Mike Malloy said so. :eyes: :hide:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. DU is surprisingly pro-gun
Edited on Thu Aug-31-06 03:27 PM by Bleachers7
And that's OK with me. But this is going to get funny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #52
56. It's fine with me too.
I'm mostly pro-gun myself (with exception to assault rifles and AP rounds), but dayum... this is getting out of control.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meldroc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #56
73. If jackbooted thugs kick down your door
and come for you with that black bag, you'll be wishing you had that AR-15 with armor-piercing rounds - they'll be wearing armor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-01-06 07:46 AM
Response to Reply #73
92. Melodramatic much?
:tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meldroc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-01-06 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #92
113. Hey, I hope you're right and I'm wrong on this
Edited on Fri Sep-01-06 01:11 PM by meldroc
because the other way around is almost uncontemplatable.

Sadly, I think that fascism, for those in power, is like a drug - the more fascist behaviors they indulge in, the more they like it, and the more power they want, so the more fascist actions they commit, and the more our freedoms are destroyed.

I'm hoping that things go well for us this November, as that's our best chance to break the cycle. In the meantime, no harm being prepared, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-01-06 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #73
116. AP ammo in .223/5.56mm NATO is illegal for civilians...
you'll be wishing you had that AR-15 with armor-piercing rounds

Armor-piercing ammunition in .223/5.56mm NATO caliber is illegal for civilians, restricted under the same 1986 law that banned armor-piercing handgun ammunition, per a 1994 BATFE administrative decision. The AP bullet ban applies to all handgun ammunition and to .223 Remington, 7.62x39mm, and 7.62x51/.308 Winchester rifle ammunition.

Since it is a rifle round, .223 will go through vests designed to stop handgun rounds only (NIJ Level I through IIIA), but can't penetrate a level III or IV vest like SWAT teams wear. A .30-06 deer rifle might go through NIJ Level III but not Level IV.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #50
72. Malloy has said he gets death threats
Personally I hate guns, but it's his right to carry if he feels threatened. I don't blame him for a second.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #4
62. Remind me why it's unacceptable...
...for a radio host to urge Americans to participate in their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from their own government?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-01-06 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #62
94. Because it's potentially illegal.
I could go on, but that's really quite good enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #4
75. Chickenshit bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-01-06 07:49 AM
Response to Reply #75
93. And yet you fail to give any reasons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-01-06 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #93
98. maybe because you go around to all the malloy threads
crying about how you hate malloy. it's pretty obvious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-01-06 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #98
100. Have I ever said once that I hate Malloy?
Please, quote me and link to that post. Have fun searching though, because you WILL NEVER FIND IT!

No, what I hate is this quasi-fascist bullshit going around on DU that says everyone must bend to the every whim of the "pure" progressive movement or else they will be labeled "corporate whores", "Republicans", "DLC-Run", or another four-letter-word-equivalent.

I'm not going to stand for this place being turned into Free Republic-lite. Someone has to say something or we become as bad as them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-01-06 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #4
104. whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.

Means were never mentioned. 'By any means necessary' is the implication.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-01-06 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #104
111. I don't disagree with the assessment
Nor do I disagree with the sentiment for the need, especially if another election is stolen.

It still could be considered an advocation of violence, which is not protected speech. That's the only point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tnlefty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
7. IIRC didn't the police in Atlanta or that area advise him to arm himself
when the rwing nutjobs were threatening him and his daughter? So I would like to know the context of his making those comments. If someone were threatening me or one of kids I would be armed and if the crazy threats of those on the sicko right was being discussed I might make a similar comment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeanette in FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. He made the comments to Alex on Alex's program
in regards to Fascist in Govt and the New World Order take over. Mike just said that he was not going down without a fight and that he had purchased a gun and was going to protect his family if it ever got that crazy here. And he urged others to protect their families and neighbors as they saw fit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tnlefty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. Thanks for the additional info.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClusterFreak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
11. Well, if Malloy said he bought guns and urged others to do the same...
...no matter who's show he was on, he may have sowed his own fate. Pretty dumb thing to say from a guy who I have always admired greatly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slaveplanet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #11
35. I'm glad you feel
that protecting his family is a dumb thing to say,
No one should have the right to protect their family in times of crisis or general threats of grievous harm, he should just lay down and shut up and ignore the police's recommendations. No one should have the right to defend themselves by any method. When trouble comes the proper course of action is to submit and hope for the best.
We need more with your attitude. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClusterFreak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. I'm glad you agree with me.
:sarcasm:

Now...perhaps you could explain why it would be acceptable to use the public airwaves to encourage others to arm themselves against the government? In other words, could you stick to the issue at hand?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryRN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-01-06 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #11
89. Uh, what's that "GD" piece of paper that speaks about the
right to bear arms?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:13 PM
Response to Original message
12. G. Gordon Liddy: "Head shots, head shots.... Kill the sons of bitches."
G. Gordon Liddy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

George Gordon Battle Liddy (born November 30, 1930) was the chief operative for President Richard Nixon's White House Plumbers unit. Along with E. Howard Hunt, Liddy masterminded the first break-in of Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate building in 1972. The subsequent cover-up of the Watergate scandal led to Nixon's resignation in 1974. Liddy later became an American radio talk show host, actor and political strategist. Liddy's radio talk show is now syndicated in 160 markets and on both Sirius Satellite Radio and XM Satellite Radio stations in the United States. He has also been a guest panelist for Fox News Channel.

<snip>

During Liddy's tenure as a radio talk-show host, many controversial statements have been attributed to him, including giving out John Dean's home phone number in 1993 on the radio when Dean was threatening to sue Liddy for defamation (Dean later won a settlement). Some of his comments lead to condemnation by then-President Bill Clinton.

* August 26, 1994 - Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests." ... "They've got a big target on there, ATF. Don't shoot at that, because they've got a vest on underneath that. Head shots, head shots.... Kill the sons of bitches.

* September 15, 1994 - If the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms insists upon a firefight, give them a firefight. Just remember, they're wearing flak jackets and you're better off shooting for the head.

Liddy claims that his detractors omit some important context: <1>

I was talking about a situation in which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes smashing into a house, doesn't say who they are, and their guns are out, they're shooting, and they're in the wrong place. This has happened time and time again. The ATF has gone in and gotten the wrong guy in the wrong place. The law is that if somebody is shooting at you, using deadly force, the mere fact that they are a law enforcement officer, if they are in the wrong, does not mean you are obliged to allow yourself to be killed so your kinfolk can have a wrongful death action. You are legally entitled to defend yourself and I was speaking of exactly those kind of situations. If you're going to do that, you should know that they're wearing body armor so you should use a head shot. Now all I'm doing is stating the law, but all the nuances in there got left out when the story got repeated.

More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Gordon_Liddy

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #12
24. He's also a convicted felon.
I wouldn't exactly support the hiring him for any circumstances.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imperialism Inc. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 03:10 PM
Original message
And what does his being a felon have to do with the legality of such
statements? You have been saying it is illegal but yet that is not what Liddy was convicted of so what gives?

Is it illegal and Liddy got away with it? Hardly. As others pointed out up thread there are plenty examples of NRA types making very similar statements.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 03:17 PM
Response to Original message
45. Thanks for ...
.. doing my light work. The RW has made actually threats and actually encouraged violence, such as the anti-abortion "wanted" posters, and nothing happened to them.

There is nothing illegal or even improper about telling the public to arm themselves for self defense. I heartily recommend it myself.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
46. My point is that Liddy is not exactly a standard to aspire to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imperialism Inc. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #46
53. Ok. Thanks for the hysteria and hyperbole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #53
57. Thanks for making no sense whatsoever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-01-06 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
105. It's okay when Republickers do it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meldroc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
18. Does anyone have an exact quote of what Malloy said
about arming himself and all that? I'm only hearing third-hand information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #18
29. It was on this show:
Edited on Thu Aug-31-06 02:36 PM by Junkdrawer
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #29
48. Thanks for the link..
... I found the segment in question and all I can say is I agree with Mr.Malloy 100%.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShaneGR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:18 PM
Response to Original message
20. What did his ratings look like?
I know I enjoy liberal talk radio but I never really liked Mike Malloy, too much screaming and yelling for my taste.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmatthan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #20
28. Top on my list for over 5 years.
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeanette in FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
30. Link to actual audio from the show
Edited on Thu Aug-31-06 02:33 PM by Jeanette in FL
http://www.noble-gas.com/malloy-jones.mp3

The comment about guns is towards the end of the audio clip. Didn't note the exact time but it is at the end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imperialism Inc. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #30
51. And was pretty tame.
Thanks for the link. Sounds like that is almost certainly not the reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BelgianMadCow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:35 PM
Response to Original message
32. I do not think his "I armed myself" comment can be the reason!!
Edited on Thu Aug-31-06 02:38 PM by BelgianMadCow
since I have heard Mike say it at least, uh dunno, 5 times over the last couple of years.
He armed himself after receiving threats (this must have been prior to 2002).

It shows his personality : he will not roll over and play dead, or be intimidated but fights back.
He actually apologized for owning a gun the first time I heard him, caracterizing it as not typical for a liberal, but explaining that he felt he just HAD to, being a husband and a father and receiving threats. I can relate to that I must say.

I CANNOT understand how such a statement from a man (in the public eye in a gun crazy country, and who receives threats), warrants firing him.

Now if he advocated buying arms and shooting someone with it, or rioting, or, god forbid, preaches armed revolution, now that is another case.

A progressive community, which has almost NO mouthpieces in the media, that would stand idly by when one of the few gets silenced for such a TOTALLY hypocritical reason, is deserving of the totalitarian fate that looms.

just my 2 cents. Of course, my post is hypothetical since we do not know yet what the reason was for the firing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shireen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
36. the gun thing ...
I didn't hear the quote that Jones is refering to, but Mike has mentioned defending himself with guns in past shows. If I recall correctly, it was in the context of 2 situations:
1) if his constitutional rights were ever forcefully violated by a corrupt government,
2) if he and his family was ever physically threatened.
If those are the circumstances for his use of arms, they're quite justifiable (not that I'd do the same, hell ... I don't know what I'd do!).

Once, on his show, he said some stuff about right wing thugs that made me very concerned -- I feared that they may come after his family. So I emailed him, begging him to be careful. He responded by thanking me for my concern, and reassured me that he knew how to defend his family if such a situation ever arose.

Mike may be regarded as "over-the-top" by some people, but my instincts tell me he's more grounded in reality than anyone I know. Whenever I find myself disagreeing with him, or finding his statements outrageous, I sometimes wonder if it's because I'm the one being naive, if I'm burying my head in the sand because I cannot wrap my head around the kind of evil he's talking about. Whatever anyone says about Mike, there's one thing for sure -- he forces us to face reality. I'm grateful to him for that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
39. With this information from Jones - we have another issue -
AAR says financial reasons.
Mike thinks it's his gun statement.

If it's the guns - AAR should say so - if it's in the contract or a statute - just own up to the real reason and forget excuses (if it is an excuse) like financial reasons.

I think Malloy went too far. If his statement is the reason, I can't defend him. I can't say NO to killing by war and yes to vigilante killing or government takeouts and overthrows involving death. So he only said defend yourself - but it infers shooting, if necessary.

A lot of law has be be sorted through. Killing each other is exactly my problem with the Israeli-Palestinian stand-off. Tit for tat and vv. I can't take that. I reject that.

We're not there yet - maybe we'll be there the night of the elections in 2008 or the night they vote to impeach or if they decide to place us under martial law because we demand that the NSA and FBI and Pentagon databases holding our personal stuff be destroyed.

In a way, I hope it gets a lot of attention. Because these are desperate times in the struggle to save our country against this regime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. Alex asked Malloy what we should do....
Edited on Thu Aug-31-06 03:09 PM by Junkdrawer
Malloy said, in this order:

1.) Grab hold of your emotions

2.) Network and organize

3.) Educate youself and others

4.) Prepare for the worst


Listen here: (last 5 minutes or so...)

http://www.noble-gas.com/malloy-jones.mp3
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
B Calm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
41. I have always believed the right to own guns is a LIBERAL IDEA!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #41
49. Like all civil liberties..
... it is definitely a liberal idea.

Too bad there are so many Dems who aren't really for liberties and rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beelzebud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
43. Mike spoke out against Israel, MIHOP, and advocated guns.
3 taboo things to the radical middle.

Mike makes people feel awkward and not happy and confortable. He must be silenced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Balbus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #43
55. I thought he spoke for MIHOP, not against it.
Never listened to his show beyond a few mintues, but that's what I was to understand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beelzebud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. He was, i just worded it poorly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
59. Yeah, that'll do it. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
64. Could it be because Mike called Bush a "Fat Bastard"?
while he was filling in for Randi on August 29th?

http://www.randirhodesarchives.com /

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #64
66. God, no. I've heard worse from other AAR people. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vince3 Donating Member (224 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #64
70. Mike advocated nothing improper on Jones' show
Edited on Thu Aug-31-06 04:34 PM by vince3
He has never advocated anything improper. He just says things others don't have the guts to say. Those (most of whom didn't even hear Mike on Jones' show) who feel he crossed a line by saying we should exercise our 2nd amendment rights, are out of their trees.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #70
79. He crossed the line by appearing on Alex Jones' show. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
69. maybe AAR didn't want to be associated with a whackjob like
Alex Jones - through Mike Malloy.

That makes more sense than the gun thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #69
78. Yeah, I'd fire anyone who actually tried to pass
Alex Jones off as anything but a far-right loony-bin nutter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
71. Alex Jones is a far-right, "black helicopters" whack-job.
Any liberal associating with that kind of wingnut ought to go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
melting the beehive Donating Member (21 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #71
76. Alex Jones is hilarious, and usually correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #76
77. Yes, if you're INSANE. He thinks that Mel Gibson's
Edited on Thu Aug-31-06 08:42 PM by geek tragedy
Holocaust-denying daddy is an expert on world affairs.

He believes in black helicopters.

He believes the fluoridated water is part of an international conspiracy.

He thinks Bill Clinton murdered Vince Foster.

The only people dumber and crazier than Alex Jones are the people who take him seriously. If you take your average Freeper, divide his IQ by 10, you'll have the intelligence level of the Alex Jones crowd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
melting the beehive Donating Member (21 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #77
80. NWO operative at work for all the world to see,
classic example of tactics used to try to shut people up who are telling the truth. Keep it up, good lesson for newbies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #80
81. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
melting the beehive Donating Member (21 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #81
84. See what I mean newbies
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #84
85. Alex Jones believes all of those things.
Do you?

Yes or no.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
melting the beehive Donating Member (21 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #85
86. I don't like Aspartame either
1. Clinton didn't murder anyone.

2. 'Fluoridated water prevents tooth decay.'
THIS IS A DEADLY, DISGRACEFUL LIE...

First of all, the reverse is true. One of the last cities in Europe to permit fluoridation was Basel, Switzerland, and they just stopped. Why? Because after they started fluoridating, kids' cavity rates increased. By contrast, rates in the rest of fluoride-free Europe declined.So why, you may ask, did anyone fluoridate in the first place?

FOLLOW THE MONEY. Fluoride is a byproduct of aluminum production ...

And aluminum producers must dispose of it. But this was a very expensive proposition prior to fluoridation. Back then, the only approved uses for fluoride were as an INSECTICIDE or a RAT POISON.

So what did they do? I don't exactly have a smoking gun (yet), but one of the first studies 'proving' the anti-cavity power offluoridated water was funded by the aluminum industry.

Ingenious, huh? If you can't dispose of a toxin, just delude health authorities that it's healthy, and presto....

Now we pay them to pour rat poison into our water supply...

And what's the result? Fluoridated water doesn't prevent cavities, but it definitely can prevent a long, healthy life. I could show you evidence linking it to cancer, osteoporosis...

Plus, if you want to slash your Alzheimer's risk overnight...

Starting tomorrow, drink no fluoridated water.

Why? Because fluoride makes your body absorb extra aluminum. And where does the aluminum go? Your brain. And what metal shows up alarmingly in the brains of Alzheimer's victims? You guessed it.

3. Military uses black helicopters, who cares.

4. It's Hutton Gibson not Hudson Gibson.

5. Keep drinking that water.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Binka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-01-06 05:36 AM
Response to Reply #86
90. Great Post Welcome To DU
You should take it easy on that poster though he is a geek and a tragedy....says so himself. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-01-06 05:50 AM
Response to Reply #86
91. Welcome to DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-01-06 07:54 AM
Response to Reply #86
95. Amen, sing it
I am so tired of having my voice and thoughts restricted... Thanks for showing us things are never what they seem.....

Welcome to DU :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #85
87. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-01-06 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #80
117. Fuck off and die, Nazi filth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 09:22 PM
Response to Original message
82. The fascist takeover of America caused me to buy guns also. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-01-06 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
99. Hmmm
So, he was fired because he made a statement in favor of the 2nd amendment? Isn't that the only part of the Bill of Rights that the Republicans don't want to trash?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenTea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-01-06 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
103. Don't know who Jones is but great & true words about Malloy are appreciated
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-01-06 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #103
112. Alex is a bit of an odd-ball
Edited on Fri Sep-01-06 01:01 PM by rman
in so far presenters/journalists of alternative news for progressives go, mainly because he started out as a conservative. But also because of his, let's say, unpolished style of presentation and because he dares to touch upon highly controversial topics. I think his former-conservative status demonstrates he has an open mind. Alex is now neither a lefty nor a righty, although he does support Chavez and thinks Bush is just about the worst thing that ever happened.
I'm not sure if it is allowed to post the URL of Jones' website here, but i assume it is allowed to point out that it's easy to find with google. Some of his documentaries can be found on video.google.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-01-06 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
118. What does buying guns have to do with getting fired?
They lost me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Nov 23rd 2017, 08:19 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC