# Jacob Volkmann Placed on Paid Administrative Leave From Job



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

> Jacob Volkmann, the UFC lightweight fighter who said that President Obama was "not too bright" following his win at UFC 125, has been placed on paid administrative leave by White Bear Lake High School in Minnesota while the school conducts an investigation regarding the comments he made to MMAFighting.com about the President.
> 
> Volkmann has served as an assistant wrestling coach for the school for three years.
> 
> ...


source

In my opinion, Volkmann's handling this pretty well and even if he loses the school job he'll still end up with a much higher profile as a fighter and a chiropractor.


----------



## Mike28 (Aug 11, 2010)

People need to get over it. He was not threatening Obama but he is allowed to say what he wants.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

Mike28 said:


> People need to get over it. He was not threatening Obama but he is allowed to say what he wants.


I agree. His last statement 



> "I have an opinion and I have the right to say my opinion – and there's no regrets of what I said," Volkmann said. "The only regret I have is calling him an idiot. I don't think he's an idiot, but I do think he's making a lot of mistakes.


should be all the explaination anyone needs including his employer and the Secret Service.

still, the tonight show bit was great.


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

Must be boring times in the US when a little remark gets blown out of proportion like this.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

The suspensions is probably less about the comments and more about all the attention leading to them realizing they're letting a 'cock fighter' so close to their impressionable children. Seriously.


----------



## ptw (Aug 13, 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9_Qhvy7j7w

Jacob can't say he wants to fight Barrack, but this guy can pretend to be Barrack on video and smoke pot, and a bunch of other crazy ass shit lmao


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

jasvll said:


> The suspensions is probably less about the comments and more about all the attention leading to them realizing they're letting a 'cock fighter' so close to their impressionable children. Seriously.


This. 

It wouldn't have been so bad at he not been milking the attention to broadcast his political agenda even further(which is not allowed in school anyway)


----------



## AdRath (Nov 16, 2006)

Also if Volkman wants to come off as an intelligent person then threatening to fight someone who has a different opinion than you certainly doesn't accomplish this.


----------



## box (Oct 15, 2006)

It would be so funny if he lost his job over those comments. What a backwards country sometimes.


----------



## Terror Kovenant (Nov 16, 2008)

This is just completely asinine. He did nothing wrong. I'm glad hes handling it well though


----------



## osmium (Mar 6, 2007)

box said:


> It would be so funny if he lost his job over those comments. What a backwards country sometimes.


I don't see what is so backwards about it. Is he the only one that is allowed any freedom? Everyone in this situation is expressing themselves. Some parents are obviously complaining and that is causing a hassle for the school. You have the right to say what you want you don't have immunity from repercussions for what you say.


----------



## No_Mercy (Oct 17, 2006)

I dunno...George Bush is one thing, but Obama. He's doing what he can to help. Look at what Curious George did to the Dixie Chicks. Caucasian female platinum selling country singers to outcasts in a span of a year. Completely destroyed their fame and now they went from singing in sold out stadiums to lesser venues. I can go on, but the shit I read was incredible. Don't fawk with the government unless you're MEDIA (Michael Moore/newspaper publication) or are prepared for a war of attrition. 

If Jacob was smart he'd A.) stand his ground which I'd give props to if he truly feels that way about Obama or B.) retract his statement and get a pardon. Then life goes on. 

Is this reminding anybody of "Big Brother..."


----------



## gigogreco (Nov 10, 2010)

first of all, there was no threat made, he was asked a question, who do you want to fight in relation to a ufc fight, i want to fight obama, cause he is an idiot. The answer was in relation to his profession, which isnt illegal.

it was a shitty attempt at being funny, while expressing his beliefs, nothing more and nothing less. The fact that the secret service got involved, was and still is, so utterly stupid, that i cringe.

Now he is about to lose his job, all because of a something, that aprox half of the american population thinks too, if you dont know them, they are called republicans.


----------



## coldcall420 (Aug 2, 2007)

Volkmann = Not too bright



Hence he's out his job for now!! To the above poster.....the Secret Service has to look into anything that even remotely could be perceived as a threat. As far as Bush, he was just a total **** up! Period


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

gigogreco said:


> first of all, there was no threat made, he was asked a question, who do you want to fight in relation to a ufc fight, i want to fight obama, cause he is an idiot. The answer was in relation to his profession, which isnt illegal.
> 
> it was a shitty attempt at being funny, while expressing his beliefs, nothing more and nothing less. The fact that the secret service got involved, was and still is, so utterly stupid, that i cringe.
> 
> Now he is about to lose his job, all because of a something, that aprox half of the american population thinks too, if you dont know them, they are called republicans.


To be fair, he was reported as a threat by a dumbass, vindictive citizen; the SS (great initials) didn't just come looking for him on their own after watching the interview.

That being said, after the attack in Arizona last week, it's hard to fault the SS for having a policy of following up on reports.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

coldcall420 said:


> Volkmann = Not too bright
> 
> 
> 
> Hence he's out his job for now!! To the above poster.....the Secret Service has to look into anything that even remotely could be perceived as a threat. As far as Bush, he was just a total **** up! Period


Actually I think both Bush and Volkmann are brighter than coldcall. Obama? Questionable.

That said, SS had no business talking to a pro athlete to simply challenged the president to a sporting event, in a cage with a ref. This is one reason I call Obama's intelligence into question.

But I don't blame the SS themselves. The president's office make the call.




gigogreco said:


> Now he is about to lose his job, all because of a something, that aprox half of the american population thinks too, if you dont know them, they are called republicans.


And far fewer would want him to lose his job over it. Liberals make up about 20% of the nation, but they're very vocal and never ignore an opportunity to ruin the lives of those who disagree with them.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Calminian said:


> Actually I think both Bush and Volkmann are brighter than coldcall. Obama? Questionable.
> 
> That said, SS had no business talking to a pro athlete to simply challenged the president to a sporting event, in a cage with a ref. This is one reason I call Obama's intelligence into question.
> 
> But I don't blame the SS themselves. The president's office make the call.


Come on, now. The SS treated this as a routine followup of a citizen's report about a threat to the President. It's highly unlikely that Obama or any of his upper administration had any idea about any of it until they saw the spoof video on Jay Leno. Presidents don't devise their own security strategy.

And it's not like the follow ups are anything new:
SCHOOL DUNCE
FEDS SWOOP AFTER KID'S KILL-PREZ 'JOKE'


> A Manhattan high-school freshman's wisecrack to a student reporter about assassinating President Bush earned him an official visit - from the Secret Service, The Post has learned.
> Irving Miqui's mother and principal insist the 14-year-old was only kidding when, earlier this year, he told the reporter at Bayard Rustin Educational Complex in Chelsea that he wanted to shoot the president to become "a national hero."
> But the "joke" was no laughing matter to the Secret Service, which paid the teenager a visit at his Washington Heights home two weeks ago to grill him about the remark, published in a student magazine last month.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

jasvll said:


> Come on, now. The SS treated this as a routine followup of a citizen's report about a threat to the President. It's highly unlikely that Obama or any of his upper administration had any idea about any of it until they saw the spoof video on Jay Leno. Presidents don't devise their own security strategy.
> 
> And it's not like the follow ups are anything new:
> SCHOOL DUNCE
> FEDS SWOOP AFTER KID'S KILL-PREZ 'JOKE'


I said it comes from his office, i.e. his appointed officials.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Calminian said:


> I said it comes from his office, i.e. his appointed officials.


But you suggested that Obama and his people were directly setting a Secret Service policy that went above and beyond what came before, when the reality is that the Secret Service is currently being run by a Bush appointee who is enforcing a policy that has been in place for decades, if not a century. I provided a link to the SS investigating a school child to emphasize the point.


----------



## gigogreco (Nov 10, 2010)

jasvll said:


> Come on, now. The SS treated this as a routine followup of a citizen's report about a threat to the President. It's highly unlikely that Obama or any of his upper administration had any idea about any of it until they saw the spoof video on Jay Leno. Presidents don't devise their own security strategy.
> 
> And it's not like the follow ups are anything new:
> SCHOOL DUNCE
> FEDS SWOOP AFTER KID'S KILL-PREZ 'JOKE'


there is a huge difference bwetween what volkman said cs what this kid said.

volkman did not make any threats whatsoever. If volkman made a threat, then just close the entire fight scene. It would mean, that everytime a fighter calls out another one, it could be percieved as a threat and therefore illegal.

its blown way out of proportion.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

gigogreco said:


> there is a huge difference bwetween what volkman said cs what this kid say.
> 
> volkman did not make any threats whatsoever. If volkman made a threat, then just close the entire fight scene. It would mean, that everytime a fighter calls out another one, it could be percieved as a threat and therefore illegal.
> 
> its blown way out of proportion.


Exactly, he challenged Obama to a sporting event. Unless we're buying the line that MMA really is just human cock fighting. What a shame mma fans are abandoning this guy.


----------



## tlilly (Nov 13, 2009)

Voltaire:

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Its funny how he's getting suspended with pay because he's a fighter/teacher but if he was a politician he would be voted into the congress.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

jasvll said:


> But you suggested that Obama and his people were directly setting a Secret Service policy that went above and beyond what came before, when the reality is that the Secret Service is currently being run by a Bush appointee who is enforcing a policy that has been in place for decades, if not a century. I provided a link to the SS investigating a school child to emphasize the point.


Man, you guys are blaming Bush for this on too? :doh01:


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

gigogreco said:


> there is a huge difference bwetween what volkman said cs what this kid said.


 Not from the SS's perspective, which was the point. If necessary, we can go through the seemingly endless list of SS questionings of people that the SS eventually deemed not to be a threat under Bush. We could go back to Clinton, too. Or Bush Sr. We an go back until you guys are convinced that Obama didn't personally send out SS agents to harass Volkmann.



> volkman did not make any threats whatsoever. If volkman made a threat, then just close the entire fight scene. It would mean, that everytime a fighter calls out another one, it could be percieved as a threat and therefore illegal.


 This analogy doesn't work. Obama is not and has never been a professional fighter. Not to mention, Volkmann wasn't arrested, he was questioned and the matter was resolved, and again, he was only questioned because someone reported him to the SS, accusing him of being a threat. The SS followed up, disagreed, and moved on with their lives.



> its blown way out of proportion.


Of course it has, but so has the visit itself. A couple of agents from the local SS office asked the required questions and even told Volkmann that they were sorry for wasting his time.



Calminian said:


> Man, you guys are blaming Bush for this on too? :doh01:


I'm one person, and no. I simply pointed out that Obama hasn't even appointed his own SS director to help you understand that he isn't micromanaging the SS.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

jasvll said:


> Not from the SS's perspective, which was the point. If necessary, we can go through the seemingly endless list of SS questionings of people that the SS eventually deemed not to be a threat under Bush. We could go back to Clinton, too. Or Bush Sr. We an go back until you guys are convinced that Obama didn't personally send out SS agents to harass Volkmann.


Obama has surrounded himself with worshippers. He walks on water to them. The Bush SS would have yawned at this, it's so obvious. There was actually a movie made about his assassination and to my knowledge, nobody was harassed. Obamas people are also his worshippers, that's the difference. They have to do anything within their means to protect the messiah, including ordering the SS to waist their time.



jasvll said:


> This analogy doesn't work. Obama is not and has never been a professional fighter. Not to mention, Volkmann wasn't arrested, he was questioned and the matter was resolved, and again, he was only questioned because someone reported him to the SS, accusing him of being a threat. The SS followed up, disagreed, and moved on with their lives.


Exactly, the SS agreed with us, and disagree with you. It was not a threat in their view. You just undermined your argument.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Calminian said:


> Obama has surrounded himself with worshippers. He walks on water to them. The Bush SS would have yawned at this, it's so obvious. There was actually a movie made about his assassination and to my knowledge, nobody was harassed. Obamas people are also his worshippers, that's the difference. They have to do anything within their means to protect the messiah, including ordering the SS to waist their time.


 You're just making things up, here. I've showed you specific examples where the SS behaved in the same way for other Presidents BEFORE Obama was even a Senator. I've also shown you that despite your claims that Obama has set up some kind of cult around himself, he didn't even bother to replace his predecessors' head of the Secret Service. You've chosen to ignore the facts and presumably, copy and paste from Rush Limbaugh's web site.



> Exactly, the SS agreed with us, and disagree with you. It was not a threat in their view. You just undermined your argument.


You are surprisingly confused. Why do you think I said Volkmann was a threat? What I actually said was that the SS has always and routinely investigated claims of threats to find out whether they actually are. 

Let me ask you this, how SHOULD they have determined whether Volkmann was a threat like he was reported to be without investigating whether Volkmann was a threat?


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

jasvll said:


> You're just making things up, here. I've showed you specific examples where the SS behaved in the same way for other Presidents BEFORE Obama was even a Senator. I've also shown you that despite your claims that Obama has set up some kind of cult around himself, he didn't even bother to replace his predecessors' head of the Secret Service. You've chosen to ignore the facts and presumably, copy and paste from Rush Limbaugh's web site.


And you're assuming, ignorantly, that the head of SS is under no instruction from anyone in Obama's administration. I'm surprised you think the head of SS is completely autonomous in everything he does.



jasvll said:


> You are surprisingly confused. Why do you think I said Volkmann was a threat? What I actually said was that the SS has always and routinely investigated claims of threats to find out whether they actually are.


Always? I gave you an example of a guy that made a movie about Bush's assassination. And you haven't cited a single instance where a guy challenging a president to a sporting event was questioned.



jasvll said:


> Let me ask you this, how SHOULD they have determined whether Volkmann was a threat like he was reported to be without investigating whether Volkmann was a threat?


You look at the tape for yourself, and then laugh at it, and use your time wisely. 

BTW, Sarah Palin said she could beat Obama in a marathon race. Everyone knows Obama is a chain smoker and would probably keel over. Would you have questioned her??


----------



## AdRath (Nov 16, 2006)

Look it's pretty simple. A threat was reported the SS must investigate threats reported against the Prez. This is no different than calling in to police and reporting domestic violence. The police MUST investigate it to see if there is merit. As it turned out there was no merit to the report and the SS did nothing further.

Also please stop harping on the 'sport' angle. Unlike running, MMA like boxing etc is a combat sport involving physical violence. If you can't see the difference then your being willfully ignorant or just are dense.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Calminian said:


> And you're assuming, ignorantly, that the head of SS is under no instruction from anyone in Obama's administration. I'm surprised you think the head of SS is completely autonomous in everything he does.


 I didn't say that, either, but that hasn't stopped you, yet...



> Always? I gave you an example of a guy that made a movie about Bush's assassination.


 As an example of what? Besides, the movie was a work of fiction that came down AGAINST assassination. But hey, maybe you can report it now and the SS will check it out.



> And you haven't cited a single instance where a guy challenging a president to a sporting event was questioned.


Volkmann said he wanted to 'fight' and 'beat up' the President. He may be a professional fighter, but the President isn't a contender.



> You look at the tape for yourself, and then laugh at it, and use your time wisely.


 It was probably quicker (and certainly more effective) for an SS agent from the local office to ask Volkmann a few questions than it would have been for them to start compiling a history of Volkmann's comments on the President from the internet. But hey, maybe you're approach IS better. You should call up the SS and tell them to stop worrying so much about protecting elected officials. They'll probably be fine.



> BTW, Sarah Palin said she could beat Obama in a marathon race. Everyone knows Obama is a chain smoker and would probably keel over. Would you have questioned her??


 This is a joke. I laughed. Congratulations.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

osmium said:


> I don't see what is so backwards about it. Is he the only one that is allowed any freedom? Everyone in this situation is expressing themselves. Some parents are obviously complaining and that is causing a hassle for the school. You have the right to say what you want you don't have immunity from repercussions for what you say.


This.

LOL at freedom of speech. How ignorant of statement is that?

If I go to work tommorow and go to my boss and go.

"HEY.....**** YOU! I SCREWED YOUR WIFE!"

I can't claim freedom of speech when he jabs me in the mouth then fires me. :confused03:


Volkmann works for a SCHOOL. There are rules in place for political and religious influences on the students, teachers and employees aren't allowed to influence either in any way, my aunt worked for a high school and she wasn't even allowed to wear a cross around her neck, it had to be tucked in. Going on TV and saying, Obama is an idiot! Healthcare sucks! That qualifies as political influence.

This investigation is probably largely just an investigation of the students and other teachers to see if Volkmann has been inappropriate in the workplace with political discussion in the schoolplace. 

I'm not sure he will be fired or not but this is not inappropriate at all, and Volkmann needs to stop acting like he was martyred against the corrupt government.


----------



## Seperator88 (Jul 12, 2009)

this is funny because people have been talking about losing the freedom of speech ever since the current administration has taken over, but anyways, it's really unfortunate since he is obviously helping the school by coaching because he loves what he's doing and not for the pay. I mean really, the pay can't be much. Hope they wake up and let him come back and teach these kids


----------



## Sambo de Amigo (Sep 24, 2010)

This happens everywhere in the world not just in America , where the public cant have an opinion on the guys who take our taxes.


Democracy has turned into a semi-dictatorship.


----------



## Sambo de Amigo (Sep 24, 2010)

Roflcopter said:


> This.
> 
> LOL at freedom of speech. How ignorant of statement is that?
> 
> ...



I dont want to burst your bubble but regardless if he works in a school or not , isnt he allowed an opinion or does he have to LOVE everything that the governments has in place ?

So what if he said to some kids Obama sucks or whatever , if he feels that, then to me thats 100% acceptable its only not acceptable when you turn into an extremist like the KKK , Al quieda etc etc when you preach your opinions in harmful ways , by saying Obama sucks and what not is no way harmful and if you went to any bar in America or any pub or bar across the world i guarantee the residents will say the current leader sucks too , should we investigate all of them and suspend them ?


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

it was blown out of proportion but talking about violence in regards to the president is downright foolish. That said the whole administrative leave thing is ridiculous. But hey, isn't administrative leave just like, a paid vacation?


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

His comments should be protected under free speech, some speech is not protected but nothing he said can be misconstrued as a threat.

America better wake up or one day you'll wake up and not have any rights so speak up with.


HexRei said:


> But hey, isn't administrative leave just like, a paid vacation?


LOL, its saying we dont have enough to fire you yet but we're still looking.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

jasvll said:


> I didn't say that, either, but that hasn't stopped you, yet...


No, you're right, was an inference by implication. You kept making the point that since the president didn't change the head of the SS, this proved that his team wasn't giving instructions to him. It was a silly point I tied to let go, but you kept harping on it. Perhaps you'll finally abandon that argument.



jasvll said:


> As an example of what? Besides, the movie was a work of fiction that came down AGAINST assassination. But hey, maybe you can report it now and the SS will check it out.


I suppose I could if I were silly about things like that. 



jasvll said:


> Volkmann said he wanted to 'fight' and 'beat up' the President....


....in the cage. You keep forgetting it was a challenge to a sporting event with a ref. in which the challenged can accept or decline. If that's a crime, our country is in serious shape. 



jasvll said:


> It was probably quicker (and certainly more effective) for an SS agent from the local office to ask Volkmann a few questions than it would have been for them to start compiling a history of Volkmann's comments on the President from the internet.


I think they would have to do both, anyway. I'm sure if there were really someone wanting to harm the president, they probably wouldn't admit it to the SS. 



jasvll said:


> But hey, maybe you're approach IS better. You should call up the SS and tell them to stop worrying so much about protecting elected officials.


They're job is to do what they're told. Again, I don't blame them. But I would tell the Obama worshippers in his administration pull their heads out of their asses and starting dealing with more important things. They actually let some wannabe black panther thugs who interfered at polling places to walk, while harassing athletes that challenge Obama to sporting matches (to which he can accept or decline). Am I the only one seeing the irony?


----------



## UFC_OWNS (Jul 7, 2010)

see this is the 1 problem i have with america and well i guess everywhere, you have freedom of speech but when you do use this right there are bad consequences to it.


----------



## box (Oct 15, 2006)

osmium said:


> I don't see what is so backwards about it. Is he the only one that is allowed any freedom? Everyone in this situation is expressing themselves. Some parents are obviously complaining and that is causing a hassle for the school. You have the right to say what you want you don't have immunity from repercussions for what you say.


Well, what do you say about Mike Vick being able to have his job after his sadistic past with dogs? Or Donte' Stallworth drunk driving and killing someone, yet can go back to work. Yet it's ok to lose it over some clearly smart ass comments that piss off the pta moms? That's why it's backwards.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

UFC_OWNS said:


> see this is the 1 problem i have with america and well i guess everywhere, you have freedom of speech but when you do use this right there are bad consequences to it.


That true to an extent. This is not to say that no one should ever suffer consequences for their words. Controlling the tongue is a lesson everyone needs to learn. 

But in this case, it seems the school (which I think is a public school) is persecuting him for expressing political opinions. But I have a feeling they're going to back off. If not, I have to wonder if he would have legal recourse. 

But so far, at least in a legal sense, I think the 1st amendment is being upheld. He's free to express his political opinions, and people are free to criticize him. And then of course we are free to criticize the critiques.


----------



## UFC_OWNS (Jul 7, 2010)

Calminian said:


> That true to an extent. This is not to say that no one should ever suffer consequences for their words. Controlling the tongue is a lesson everyone needs to learn.
> 
> But in this case, it seems the school (which I think is a public school) is persecuting him for expressing political opinions. But I have a feeling they're going to back off. If not, I have to wonder if he would have legal recourse.
> 
> But so far, at least in a legal sense, I think the 1st amendment is being upheld. He's free to express his political opinions, and people are free to criticize him.


the thing is with america, that politics is so important and dominant in everything about the country. republicans and democrats, left wing and right wing, bill o reilly,bill maher, and everything. you even see it on tv shows like scrubs and stuff, and you can't say a bad word about this guy or that guy when it comes to politics or you get into crap like this.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

UFC_OWNS said:


> the thing is with america, that politics is so important and dominant in everything about the country. republicans and democrats, left wing and right wing, bill o reilly,bill maher, and everything. you even see it on tv shows like scrubs and stuff, and you can't say a bad word about this guy or that guy when it comes to politics or you get into crap like this.


It's true! It's ingrained in our culture. But it's worked, and created, IMHO, a great nation (not perfect, but still great). The proof of its greatness is the shear number of people trying to get in. 

But the core value of freedom of speech, which is upheld and stressed in this country more than any other on earth, carries with it also a freedom to criticize speech. I have no problem with that freedom either. So long as the government doesn't try to step in and regulate some speech over others. This is one thing people are becoming wary about with the current administration. As a result of the AZ shooting, legislators (some legislators!) are trying to limit speech by passing bills that outlaw certain types of speech against public officials. They'll fail this time around, but it's always a danger. Once that day comes, this country will never be the same.


----------



## UFC_OWNS (Jul 7, 2010)

Calminian said:


> It's true! It's ingrained in our culture. But it's worked, and created, IMHO, a great nation (not perfect, but still great). The proof of its greatness is the shear number of people trying to get in.
> 
> But the core value of freedom of speech, which is upheld and stressed in this country more than any other on earth, carries with it also a freedom to criticize speech. I have no problem with that freedom either. So long as the government doesn't try to step in and regulate some speech over others. This is one things people are becoming wary about with the current administration. As a result of the AZ shooting, legislators (some legislators!) are trying to limit speech by passing bills that outlaw certain types of speech against public officials. They'll fail this time around, but it's always a danger. Once that day comes, this country will never be the same.


this man is a legend and is funny and has balls of steel for doing this and surprisingly nothing happened to him and for good reason.






you should watch it


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

UFC_OWNS said:


> this man is a legend and is funny and has balls of steel for doing this and surprisingly nothing happened to him and for good reason.
> 
> you should watch it


Yeah I have to admit I'm not a big Colbert fan, nor Joh Stewart fan. I do support their freedom, though. But I see all kinds of problems with their political views and the logical flow of their opinions, and therefore don't find their material all that funny. I get my giggles more from the likes of Dennis Miller and Ann Coulter.


----------



## UFC_OWNS (Jul 7, 2010)

Calminian said:


> Yeah I have to admit I'm not a big Colbert fan, nor Joh Stewart fan. I do support their freedom, though. But I see all kinds of problems with their political views and therefore don't find their material all that funny. I get my giggles more from the likes of Dennis Miller and Ann Coulter.


ann coulter yikes she is something(not good) bush gave us a fair share of laughs too, but still i thought steven would be murdered after that.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

UFC_OWNS said:


> ann coulter yikes she is something(not good) .....


If you appreciate good sarcasm and satire, she's an absolute genius. You'll hear only bites of her material on liberal media, but it's always out of context. If you ever get the chance, read her articles on your own in context. 
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/archives.cgi
Or her books. A seriously talented woman. I'd hate to be in her crosshairs, though. She'll rip you to pieces.


----------



## UFC_OWNS (Jul 7, 2010)

Calminian said:


> If you appreciate good sarcasm and satire, she's an absolute genius. You'll hear only bites of her material on liberal media, but it's always out of context. If you ever get the chance, read her articles on your own in context.
> http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/archives.cgi
> Or her books. A seriously talented woman. I'd hate to be in her crosshairs, though. She'll rip you to pieces.


huh, when i saw her on youtube and in the media she is always perceived as a d head moron, is she really like colbert? but without a show?


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Welcome to the Soviet Socialist Republik of Amerika. 

This is the reason why so many are pissed off nowadays, we can see the degree of dictatorship like qualities that have slowly gained power in daily lives. TSA, bailouts, loss of free speech. 

I remember when one could speak their mind about their political representatives without being harassed and tormented over it.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

there might be a free speech argument in the case of the secret service getting involved but there really isn't one in terms of an employer's decision regarding an employee, they can fire or suspend an employee over choice of words. and that is not protected by the 1st amendment and never was.


----------



## astrallite (Mar 14, 2010)

Calminian said:


> It's true! It's ingrained in our culture. But it's worked, and created, IMHO, a great nation (not perfect, but still great). The proof of its greatness is the shear number of people trying to get in.
> 
> But the core value of freedom of speech, which is upheld and stressed in this country more than any other on earth, carries with it also a freedom to criticize speech. I have no problem with that freedom either. So long as the government doesn't try to step in and regulate some speech over others. This is one thing people are becoming wary about with the current administration. As a result of the AZ shooting, legislators (some legislators!) are trying to limit speech by passing bills that outlaw certain types of speech against public officials. They'll fail this time around, but it's always a danger. Once that day comes, this country will never be the same.


What is Freedom of Speech anyway? I don't know where this comes from.

There's the First Amendment of the Constitution, which states that congress cannot and will not impede the free press or individuals from congregation or opinion...the first amendment was written to preserve political independence of thought from persecution by the United States Congress. 

There is no law that says you can't be persecuted for what you say by the Executive or Judicial Branch of the Government, only the Congressional Branch, much less any other institution or business, public or private.

As far as I know there's no law that says you can say whatever you want...Anyone who believes that is misinformed and deserves what's coming to him.

As to your last paragraph, passing laws to limit speech against politicians is *exactly *what is not allowed by the First Amendment, in fact it is *exactly* what it was written for.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Calminian said:


> No, you're right, was an inference by implication. You kept making the point that since the president didn't change the head of the SS, this proved that his team wasn't giving instructions to him. It was a silly point I tied to let go, but you kept harping on it. Perhaps you'll finally abandon that argument.


 I don't understand how you can be so consistently confused. I said two things. First, that the 'better safe than sorry' policy was in place for decades and pointed out examples of it in action during the Bush era. Second, I explained that the current SS director had been in place since 2006, Bush's second term. These were presented as evidence that Obama didn't create a new, more aggressive investigation policy based on THE FACT THAT THE POLICY PREDATES HIM, not on an assumption that he has no authority over or has issued no directives to the SS.

You chose to respond to this argument by parroting 2008-9 era Conservative talking points about cults and messiahs. You believed in this rhetoric so strongly that you didn't even feel the need to provide a single shred of evidence of or example for it. 

The result is me spending post after post explaining my actual arguments to you while you insist on arguing against strawmen.



> I suppose I could if I were silly about things like that.


 Yes, and that's the issue. The woman that reported him (and emailed Volkmann about how he was going to get it now) is the one we should be directing our anger at.



> ....in the cage. You keep forgetting it was a challenge to a sporting event with a ref. in which the challenged can accept or decline.If that's a crime, our country is in serious shape.


 You keep repeating this as if you're making some kind of serious point. It wasn't a crime, remember? Volkmann was just asked a few questions and that was it.




> I think they would have to do both, anyway. I'm sure if there were really someone wanting to harm the president, they probably wouldn't admit it to the SS.


 Nor would they slip up on an MMA interview. Better just see if the things the person who made the accusation said are true or not or just a misunderstanding. Glad we're on the same page. :thumbsup:



> They're job is to do what they're told. Again, I don't blame them. But I would tell the Obama worshippers in his administration pull their heads out of their asses and starting dealing with more important things.
> They actually let some wannabe black panther thugs who interfered at polling places to walk, while harassing athletes that challenge Obama to sporting matches (to which he can accept or decline). Am I the only one seeing the irony?


Um, those guys were charged and the ones that were doing the intimidation had injunctions placed against them. But by all means, tell the story your way. Not to mention, this doesn't fall under SS jurisdiction, anyway.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

Ha! maybe This thread belongs in a political forum.

I’ve read a lot of stuff in here about the Secret service, good, bad, and ridiculous. I was wondering if anyone else has seen them up close.

Both Al Gore and John Edwards spent all of their off time during their campaigns at a water front mansion on figure 8 island about 15 miles from my house. Gore also vacationed there often during his 8 years in office. Our small town has seen a lot of SS and they aren’t very secret or hard to spot.

I’ve trained at the same gym as they did a few times and even had the privilege of rolling with them a couple of times.

I can only assume that Gore’s team was the 2nd string. Who knows how far down the ladder Edwards’ team was.

Some personal observations:

1. They are the best of the best. PERIOD. Every one of them I have been around gave me the impression that they would have done well with a career in pro sports or as a college professor. I don’t know if they have a size requirement or not but, I was in the best shape of my life when I rolled with them, 6ft tall 202 pounds of lean muscle. I felt small and weak in comparison to everyone of them.

2. They train. RELIGIOUSLY. Kick boxing, JJ, MMA , other stuff. They eat, work, train. When they get time off they use it to train harder.

3. They regularly train to attack as a team. In my opinion there is NO ONE in the ufc or anywhere else who would survive 20 seconds against 2 of them.
remember that thread with funny video of a girl showing how to break a neck? They practice the real way and it aint hard to do

4. When it comes to security they are in charge. Their “boss” tells them what he’d like to do, they tell him how it will be done.

5. They don’t take anything for granted. Not the smallest hint of a threat. They are prepared to act as human shields if it comes to that. Their basic job description is : Don’t let it come to that.

If there’s a chance a bird might shit on the boss’s head, they’ve read everything ever written about that species of bird and have located every individual bird of that species in the area.

6. They are the most professional, self controlled and intimidating individuals I have ever seen.

7. They are scary. 


Ps. Thank you to jasvll for so patiently sharing real information.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

UFC_OWNS said:


> huh, when i saw her on youtube and in the media she is always perceived as a d head moron, is she really like colbert? but without a show?


It's going to completely depend on where you get your news. She drives liberals crazy and they have control of most of the media. So MSNBC, CNN, network news channels are going to be extremely critical. At Fox, and talk radio she's beloved. 

She's not a comedian _per se_, such as a Steward or Colbert. She's much more serious than those guys. She definitely a political pundit. But she specializes in very cutting satire. That's about the best I can describe it.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

HexRei said:


> there might be a free speech argument in the case of the secret service getting involved but there really isn't one in terms of an employer's decision regarding an employee, they can fire or suspend an employee over choice of words. and that is not protected by the 1st amendment and never was.


I disagree and thats the problem with this country it was intended to protect free speech and in some states it still can. Case law is very available that dose protect you from punishment from your employer for voicing your oppinion, you can not sign your rights away by signing a contract there is case law on that issue as well. 

Its a older ruling that has punched a lot of exemptions in the first amendment but they stopped short of invalidating all free speech.

I think he was just careful enough in his wording that he dose have constitutional protection or should at the least.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

slapshot said:


> I disagree and thats the problem with this country it was intended to protect free speech and in some states it still can. Case law is very available that dose protect you from punishment from your employer for voicing your oppinion, you can not sign your rights away by signing a contract there is case law on that issue as well.
> 
> Its a older ruling that has punched a lot of exemptions in the first amendment but they stopped short of invalidating all free speech.
> 
> I think he was just careful enough in his wording that he dose have constitutional protection or should at the least.


Does anyone know if it's a public school he coaches at?


----------



## Term (Jul 28, 2009)

Calminian said:


> Does anyone know if it's a public school he coaches at?


Yes it's White Bear Lake High School in Minnesota. From the articles I read they said they were more concerned with the fact he called Obama an idiot. I am sure teachers at that school called Bush much worse, they just never had a big audience to say it to. I would be almost willing to bet that if he had said the same about Bush, I bet the school would not have said boo. I am not commenting on the Secret Service part, I think they were just doing their job. As I understand it many people sent complaints to the secret service that he threatened the President, so they had to investigate.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

Term said:


> Yes it's White Bear Lake High School in Minnesota. From the articles I read they said they were more concerned with the fact he called Obama an idiot. I am sure teachers at that school called Bush much worse, they just never had a big audience to say it to. I would be almost willing to bet that if he had said the same about Bush, I bet the school would not have said boo. I am not commenting on the Secret Service part, I think they were just doing their job. As I understand it many people sent complaints to the secret service that he threatened the President, so they had to investigate.


Too bad you are full of shit and Southeastern Minnesota is traditionally conservative.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

Term said:


> Yes it's White Bear Lake High School in Minnesota. From the articles I read they said they were more concerned with the fact he called Obama an idiot. I am sure teachers at that school called Bush much worse, they just never had a big audience to say it to. I would be almost willing to bet that if he had said the same about Bush, I bet the school would not have said boo. I am not commenting on the Secret Service part, I think they were just doing their job. As I understand it many people sent complaints to the secret service that he threatened the President, so they had to investigate.


In that case, I don't think they have a case. No doubt a Bush bash would have earned him a promotion. Public schools are usually liberal strongholds. But regardless, the government can't fire him for challenging the president to an mma bout. A private school, on the other hand, probably could. It's their school, and they decide who represents them. But this is protected speech. I do predict some dirty looks in the teachers lunch room, though.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

***** de Amigo said:


> I dont want to burst your bubble but regardless if he works in a school or not , isnt he allowed an opinion or does he have to LOVE everything that the governments has in place ?
> 
> So what if he said to some kids Obama sucks or whatever , if he feels that, then to me thats 100% acceptable its only not acceptable when you turn into an extremist like the KKK , Al quieda etc etc when you preach your opinions in harmful ways , by saying Obama sucks and what not is no way harmful and if you went to any bar in* America or any pub or bar across the world i guarantee the residents will say the current leader sucks too , should we investigate all of them and suspend them ?*


Except it isn't acceptable. Teachers and school workers are supposed to be objective when it comes to politics. Period. Not to mention his incredible lack of professionalism.

Are they employed by the government? Seriously, this seems to be more of the problem with politics, especially on forums, people who don't even have a clue of basic economics or government asserting ignorant and uninformed opinions.



slapshot said:


> His comments should be protected under free speech, some speech is not protected but nothing he said can be misconstrued as a threat.
> 
> America better wake up or one day you'll wake up and not have any rights so speak up with.
> 
> ...



It is utterly baffling how ignorant people are of law and government.

He IS protected under free speech, hence he is not in prison right now. That said, freedom of speech is very, very limited. This is why we have laws like sexual harassment(You can't go up to some girl and tell her you one to penetrate her from behind, freedom of speech will get you nowhere in court there), things like verbal abuse which goes under harassment, and things like battery(saying you will punch someone in the jaw is not protected by free speech either). 

In any case, freedom of speech does not protect you from consequences. It protects you from being sued and/or arrested for the most part. 

It will NEVER stop you from being fired from a job, EVER. If people in this forum can't see that I'm going to have to assume most of these posters are like 15, or are bumming off of their parents, because anyone's who's ever had a boss would realize you can't go around saying or doing as you please without repercussions.


----------



## The Horticulturist (Feb 16, 2009)

_Paid_ leave sounds sweet for a cage fighter.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

Roflcopter said:


> ....Teachers and school workers are supposed to be objective when it comes to politics......


Oh man, what an alternate universe that would be. :laugh:

I seriously laughed out loud. I would say of all the employed groups in america, public school teachers are perhaps the most outspoken when it comes to politics, especially at the high school and university levels. 

Yeah, good luck trying to silence them.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

Calminian said:


> Oh man, what an alternate universe that would be. :laugh:
> 
> I seriously laughed out loud. *I would say of all the employed groups in america, public school teachers are perhaps the most outspoken when it comes to politics, especially at the high school and university levels.
> *
> Yeah, good luck trying to silence them.


Based on what?


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

Roflcopter said:


> Based on what?


Are you serious? :confused02:

Do you live in the US? Not being a wise ass, just asking.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

Calminian said:


> Are you serious? :confused02:
> 
> Do you live in the US?


Yes.

Do you go around public schools monitoring for political behaviour?


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

Roflcopter said:


> Yes.
> 
> Do you go around public schools monitoring for political behaviour?


I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I just thought this was a a fact everyone was pretty familiar with. Many in my family are public school teachers. It's no secret teachers generally lean to the left. In polls, university teachers are overwhelmingly liberal and democrat. It's not something that's generally disputed on either side of the isle. Conservatives generally speaking have talk radio, internet, fox news, liberals have schools and universities, most news channels and news papers. And if you've grown up in american public schools, you'd know that politics come up often in the classroom. In fact there have been a lot of controversies about kids with conservatives ideas being persecuted. 

If you disagree, I'm not trying to debate it. I would just love for your idea of school teachers being non-bias to come true. I just don't believe it will ever happen in my lifetime.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

Calminian said:


> I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I just thought this was a a fact everyone was pretty familiar with. Many in my family are public school teachers. It's no secret teachers generally lean to the left. In polls, university teachers are overwhelmingly liberal and democrat. It's not something that's generally disputed on either side of the isle. Conservatives generally speaking have talk radio, internet, fox news, liberals have schools and universities, most news channels and news papers. *And if you've grown up in american public schools, you'd know that politics come up often in the classroom.* In fact there have been a lot of controversies about kids with conservatives ideas being persecuted.
> 
> If you disagree, I'm not trying to debate it. I would just love for your idea of school teachers being non-bias to come true. I just don't believe it will ever happen in my lifetime.


Never, outside of Government and Economics.

Literally. I'm not sure when you went to school, but politics is not often discussed in public schools. Nor would I say that an overwhelming amount of teachers were liberal. In fact in high school, the only inappropriate political debate I can remember was started by a Republican who supported Bush. 

My Gov't teach was a Conservative Democrat and my Economics teacher was Libertarian.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

Roflcopter said:


> Never, outside of Government and Economics.
> 
> Literally. I'm not sure when you went to school, but politics is not often discussed in public schools. Nor would I say that an overwhelming amount of teachers were liberal. In fact in high school, the only inappropriate political debate I can remember was started by a Republican who supported Bush.
> 
> My Gov't teach was a Conservative Democrat and my Economics teacher was Libertarian.


No problem. We obviously live in alternate universes. :confused05:


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

Roflcopter said:


> Too bad you are full of shit and Southeastern Minnesota is traditionally conservative.


He's full of shit? Nice way to talk to members, at least his post has validity.

As for first amendment rights, it might be better for you to keep quiet rather than remove doubt. Had he made this statement AT WORK there would be no argument or thread to post in.

The rest of us figured out that long before we even posted.:thumb02:


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

slapshot said:


> He's full of shit? Nice way to talk to members, at least his post has validity.
> 
> As for first amendment rights, it might be better for you to keep quiet rather than remove doubt. Had he made this statement AT WORK there would be no argument or thread to post in.
> 
> The rest of us figured out that long before we even posted.:thumb02:


Ah, let him vent. It's very important to him that teachers aren't liberally biased. I supposed I could prove it, but can't bring my self to care enough to put in the work. Wouldn't work anyway, he's got one of those weird emotional hangups—what do they call it..... oh, yeah, mental illness.


----------



## Sambo de Amigo (Sep 24, 2010)

Roflcopter said:


> Yes.
> 
> Do you go around public schools monitoring for political behaviour?


do you ? no so you are also assuming and being an awkward a hole.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

***** de Amigo said:


> do you ? no so you are also assuming and being an awkward a hole.


hmm. awkward a-hole. That's probably the word I should have used. I feel like I owe an apology to the mentally ill.


----------



## Sambo de Amigo (Sep 24, 2010)

Roflcopter said:


> Are they employed by the government? Seriously, this seems to be more of the problem with politics, especially on forums, people who don't even have a clue of basic economics or government asserting ignorant and uninformed opinions.



Before asking me the question , do you work for the government? and i dont no, so if you do which im assuming you since throughout the thread you have been a jackass trying to be clever using answers found on GOOGLE.

You need a life lesson so ill give you one , first off just because its the law it doesnt mean its right i.e just because he isnt allowed to say what he feels about politics because a school employs him , doesnt mean its right , EVERYONE should have an opinion on the current leaders disregarding occupation, its just one of those things in place which is a joke just like Patriot act basically giving someone the power to know everything about you without any solid evidence.


----------



## Guy Incognito (Apr 3, 2010)




----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

***** de Amigo said:


> Before asking me the question , do you work for the government? and i dont no, so if you do which im assuming you since throughout the thread you have been a jackass trying to be clever using answers found on GOOGLE.
> 
> You need a life lesson so ill give you one , first off just because its the law it doesnt mean its right i.e just because he isnt allowed to say what he feels about politics because a school employs him , doesnt mean its right , EVERYONE should have an opinion on the current leaders disregarding occupation, its just one of those things in place which is a joke just like Patriot act basically giving someone the power to know everything about you without any solid evidence.


You are right, ANARCHY RULEZ! TEH GOVERNMENT SUCKS! How dare they makes us responsible for our actions?! Why can't I do whatever I want? Waaaaaaaaaaaaah!

:sarcastic12:


----------



## Sambo de Amigo (Sep 24, 2010)




----------



## Sambo de Amigo (Sep 24, 2010)

Roflcopter said:


> You are right, ANARCHY RULEZ! TEH GOVERNMENT SUCKS! How dare they makes us responsible for our actions?! Why can't I do whatever I want? Waaaaaaaaaaaaah!
> 
> :sarcastic12:


Again showing your youth , and i love it when im right and the only retort is some gibberish with lots of A's.

Anarchy doesnt rule , Freedom of speech does.

LOL at responsible for our actions hahahahah its not as if he has killed someone :confused05:


----------



## UFC_OWNS (Jul 7, 2010)

Roflcopter said:


> You are right, ANARCHY RULEZ! TEH GOVERNMENT SUCKS! How dare they makes us responsible for our actions?! Why can't I do whatever I want? Waaaaaaaaaaaaah!
> 
> :sarcastic12:


you are quickly becoming the pound for pound worst poster on this forum, everything you say is nonsense and lacks logic and/or common sense


----------



## Sambo de Amigo (Sep 24, 2010)

UFC_OWNS said:


> you are quickly becoming the pound for pound worst poster on this forum, everything you say is nonsense and lacks logic and/or common sense


Never thought id say this but UFC_OWNS_YOU ROFLcopter !


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

***** de Amigo said:


> Again showing your youth , and i love it when im right and the only retort is some gibberish with lots of A's.
> 
> Anarchy doesnt rule , Freedom of speech does.
> 
> LOL at responsible for our actions hahahahah its not as if he has killed someone :confused05:


No but he essentially said he wants to beat up the president and called him an idiot.

Now we're wetting out diapers because he's getting placed on suspended leave from his GOVERNMENT job.

Good job people. We're doing a lot of solid reasoning here.
These are the types of people we want in our schools, as role models to our children. :sarcastic12:




UFC_OWNS said:


> you are quickly becoming the pound for pound worst poster on this forum, everything you say is nonsense and lacks logic and/or common sense



Sure thing UFC_FANBOY. I believe you.


----------



## Term (Jul 28, 2009)

Roflcopter said:


> Too bad you are full of shit and Southeastern Minnesota is traditionally conservative.


Ok, not sure the full of shit comment was necessary it was just my opinion. That part of Minnesota may be conservative, but educators are traditional more liberal.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

Roflcopter said:


> It is utterly baffling how ignorant people are of law and government.
> 
> He IS protected under free speech, hence he is not in prison right now. That said, freedom of speech is very, very limited. This is why we have laws like sexual harassment(You can't go up to some girl and tell her you one to penetrate her from behind, freedom of speech will get you nowhere in court there), things like verbal abuse which goes under harassment, and things like battery(saying you will punch someone in the jaw is not protected by free speech either).
> 
> ...


I dont know where Id start correcting your obvious lack of knowledge of law, its funny you made that claim first so lets see the case law that says I cant walk up to a chick in a bar and tell her id like to have sex with her? Are you even from this country? I mean that, its rare to see someone who knows so little about a topic spout off like they do.

Of coarse your right to free speech stops you from being fired for stating your a democrat, it protects your right to say it and your right to not be penalized for saying it. 

Now make that comment to a customer at work and you could get into trouble but its because your on the clock. 

I think I just came to the conclusion people like you with your opinions are sheep, enjoy being herded.


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

slapshot said:


> I dont know where Id start correcting your obvious lack of knowledge of law, its funny you made that claim first so lets see *the case law that says I cant walk up to a chick in a bar and tell her id like to have sex with her*? Are you even from this country? I mean that, its rare to see someone who knows so little about a topic spout off like they do.
> 
> Of coarse your right to free speech stops you from being fired for stating your a democrat, it protects your right to say it and your right to not be penalized for saying it.
> 
> ...


Technically, that would be the one against sexual harassment. 

Now moving on to srs bsnss...

Freedom of speech in theory sounds nice and all and Obama did a lot to grant this right to everyone (think US army; don't ask, don't tell), but in reality freedom of speech and freedom per se just doesn't exist. People think that's a bad thing, but it's actually not. If everyone had the freedom to do anything they want this world wouldn't be able to exist at all. George Carlin said it best: "I think either we have unlimited rights or we have no rights at all. Personally I lean towards unlimited rights, I feel for instance I have the right to do anything I please, BUT! If I do something you don’t like I think you have the right to kill me." This world would be in shambles if man ever grasped the concept of freedom.


----------



## BobbyD (Apr 27, 2008)

No_Mercy said:


> I dunno...George Bush is one thing, but Obama. He's doing what he can to help. Look at what Curious George did to the Dixie Chicks. Caucasian female platinum selling country singers to outcasts in a span of a year. Completely destroyed their fame and now they went from singing in sold out stadiums to lesser venues. I can go on, but the shit I read was incredible. Don't fawk with the government unless you're MEDIA (Michael Moore/newspaper publication) or are prepared for a war of attrition.


LOL at you. How did Bush ruin their career exactly?:confused02: Did he force country music fans to quit liking them? To stop buying their records? To quit buying tickets to their concerts?
They ruined their own careers buy flappin their heads about politics when they should have been singing. They're libs, country music fans are not. But they weren't smart enough to figure that out until it was too late.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

slapshot said:


> I dont know where Id start correcting your obvious lack of knowledge of law, its funny you made that claim first so lets see the case law that says I cant walk up to a chick in a bar and tell her id like to have sex with her? Are you even from this country? I mean that, its rare to see someone who knows so little about a topic spout off like they do.
> 
> Of coarse your right to free speech stops you from being fired for stating your a democrat, it protects your right to say it and your right to not be penalized for saying it.
> 
> ...





> Sexual Harassment
> 
> It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex. Harassment can include “sexual harassment” or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.
> 
> ...


http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm

Welcome to civilization, you'll find that things are different here than in backwoods hillbilly towns like you are accustomed to.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

Sexual Harassment
It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex. Harassment can include “sexual harassment” or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.

Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general.

Both victim and the harasser can be either a woman or a man, and the victim and harasser can be the same sex.

Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).

*The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.
*
Thats for employee's dealing with people that they specifically come into contact with via workplace or work related activity.

There is absolutely NOTHING in this policy thats relevant to my examples....

P.S teachers work for the state not the feds and again most people know this. What it means is the laws are regional I.E. not all laws are going to be the same wherever you go, Welcome to civilization.

We really shouldn't be talking about laws anyway because the policy we are de.. I am debating is not a law, its a policy of a public school.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

It has never been limited to the workplace, Mr.Thurgood Marshall.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

Roflcopter said:


> It has never been limited to the workplace, Mr.Thurgood Marshall.


More insults? 

Keep it up and with any luck you'll be gone. Its not confined to the workplace but it only relates to people you come into contact with at or on behalf of your employer and its a different set of statutes than free speech. 

I can not go to jail by asking someone I met at the bar if they want to spend the night at my house, again you have LAW and POLICY.

P.S. Maybe I should claim harassment because you keep following me into threads?


----------



## Sambo de Amigo (Sep 24, 2010)

Roflcopter said:


> It has never been limited to the workplace, Mr.Thurgood Marshall.


This guy is sort of person you see in bars alone and the sort of guy who recites the law when you out with your buddies :sarcastic12: just a pure *beep*


----------



## Sekou (Oct 25, 2008)

while I overstand Freedom of Speech and all American styled/interpreted "rights"....many Americans are quite reckless with their tongue.

Yes Freedom of Speech is nice and all, and I agree dissent is part of North American history and politics, Jacob has twice made negative statements to the media about the president...both in a tactless and unsophisticated manner, and neither time was in any type of professional forum. 1) joking about fighting Obama 2) calling him an "idiot" and saying his policies are dumb

Lets face it...would be different if he was on Larry King or "The View"...but just mouthing these statements off to MMA media and taking it for a joke later aint gonna fly to well.

Little more maturity and sophistication Jacob


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

slapshot said:


> More insults?
> 
> Keep it up and with any luck you'll be gone. Its not confined to the workplace but it only relates to people you come into contact with at or on behalf of your employer and its a different set of statutes than free speech.
> 
> ...


Of course not, she'll likely tell you to **** off. Then if you continue to coerce her, she'll call the police and they'll detain you. That's called harassment. Happens daily.

Oh, yeah, and I'm sure Toxic will be sending me a PM any minute now saying that I'll be out of here the next time I mockingly compare anyone to a Supreme Court Justice. It's highly offensive.

Then again, I doubt you know who Thurgood Marshall is, is to suggest that is an insult. They must not teach about black folk out in Hickville, USA, or as you call it, "Montucky"


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Roflcopter said:


> Of course not, she'll likely tell you to **** off. Then if you continue to coerce her, she'll call the police and they'll detain you. That's called harassment. Happens daily.
> 
> Oh, yeah, and I'm sure Toxic will be sending me a PM any minute now saying that I'll be out of here the next time I mockingly compare anyone to a Supreme Court Justice. It's highly offensive.
> 
> Then again, I doubt you know who Thurgood Marshall is, is to suggest that is an insult. They must not teach about black folk out in Hickville, USA, or as you call it, "Montucky"


You're an idiot ... comparing political freedom to sexual harassment is retarded. There is no case law that allows restriction or penalization of political statements, ESPECIALLY when made off the clock. 

In America, political speech has always been protected from persecution, govt. or employer based ... this is the hallmark of a democracy/republic. 

The fact that you would compare it to sexual harassment speech or hate speech in order to suppress it shows how big of a sheep you are. Enjoy it when you are under a totalitarian govt. that stamps a hot iron on your ass for not bowing to the leader's portrait. There are countries like that you know.

But oh yeah I forgot, anyone that doesn't like living in North Korea is apparently a hick, you have to be a mindless bootlicker to be "civilized". I suppose MLK jr was a total hick too.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

Liddellianenko said:


> You're an idiot ... comparing political freedom to sexual harassment is retarded. There is no case law that allows restriction or penalization of political statements, ESPECIALLY when made off the clock.
> 
> In America, political speech has always been protected from persecution, public or private ... this is the hallmark of a democracy/republic.
> 
> ...


Have you ever heard of the "efficient operation" clause?

I'm going to assume no, since things are still appearing from your keyboard.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Roflcopter said:


> Have you ever heard of the "efficient operation" clause?
> 
> I'm going to assume no, since things are still appearing from your keyboard.


No I have not, and a google search turns up nothing.

Please, enlighten me as to how this unheard of clause in probably some obscure law case negates the entire foundations of democracy and republics that is free political speech?


----------



## Term (Jul 28, 2009)

As bad as I hate to, I will agree with Roflcopter that if they terminated his employment, I doubt his lawyers would use freedom of speech as their main defense. It would be more of a wrongful termination lawsuit. If he had said he thought his school principle was an idiot then no one would have thought it was wrong to fire him. I have heard of many cases of people being fired for posting stupid crap on public forums about their employers, facebook for instance. Even if they did it on their own time. Freedom of speech would have applied if the Secret Service had arrested him for calling the president an idiot. I don't think the school board has a right to fire him for expressing his political views. Even if it wasn't a very elegant way to do it. I guess there is precedent as female teachers have been fired for posing nude in magazines or on websites. I don't think that is right either, but I can understand that a bit more than I can this. I think it really comes down to more of a contractual issue, did he break some teacher code of ethics by calling Obama an idiot.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

Liddellianenko said:


> No I have not, and a google search turns up nothing.
> 
> Please, enlighten me as to how this unheard of clause in probably some obscure law case negates the entire foundations of democracy and republics that is free political speech?


Refer to Pickering vs the Board of Education.

If the speech in question is thought to have damaged the efficient operation of the workplace, then free speech is not protected.

Furthermore, the employee must prove that the issue is a matter of public concern, and outweighs the employers rights to business efficiency.


Refer also to Weicherding vs Reigel, where a corrections officer was dismissed for off-duty membership in the Klu Klux Klan. While the officer claimed he couldn't be fired as a result of off-duty ventures, the courts claimed that his activities were a danger in the workplace and undermined displine


----------



## Thelegend (Nov 2, 2009)

lol maybe volman will use the time to train and beat someone relevant, honestly who cares. if this was post 9/11 everyone would be on this guy, now its freedom of speech.....maybe next time when he gets an interview about who he wants to fight next hell focus on actual fighters.:sarcastic12:


----------



## Diokhan (Jul 8, 2008)

Only in America... no offense to americans in general, but damn some of this stuff there is just retarded. That Obama comment was clearly a joke, yet he actually got secret service sent after him and now he might end up getting fired from his coahing job? Someone needs to get a sense of humor or get fired instead, because this is just dumb.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

Diokhan said:


> Only in America... no offense to americans in general, but damn some of this stuff there is just retarded. That Obama comment was clearly a joke, yet he actually got secret service sent after him and now he might end up getting fired from his coahing job? Someone needs to get a sense of humor or get fired instead, because this is just dumb.


Except both left and right are acknowledging that this type of use of violent rhetoric is what leads to debacles like in Arizona with the Congresswoman being shot and the whole mini-massacre there. Volkmann even expressed regret about the whole thing.


----------



## Sambo de Amigo (Sep 24, 2010)

Roflcopter said:


> Except both left and right are acknowledging that this type of use of violent rhetoric is what leads to debacles like in Arizona with the Congresswoman being shot and the whole mini-massacre there. Volkmann even expressed regret about the whole thing.


He expressed regret ? do you think so lmao he just got put on admin leave and may get fired.


----------



## Diokhan (Jul 8, 2008)

Roflcopter said:


> Except both left and right are acknowledging that this type of use of violent rhetoric is what leads to debacles like in Arizona with the Congresswoman being shot and the whole mini-massacre there. Volkmann even expressed regret about the whole thing.


Disagreed - Mentally ill people will find their reasons to shoot Obama more easily than by hearing someone calling him out in an ufc event. People have been bashing Presidents etc. for ages now, someone joking about wanting to fight Obama (note, fight him in mma match, not go and beat him up or kill him) because he disagrees with him (as many others do) and then getting punished for it is just bs. Penn said he was going to kill GSP before their last fight, people in general have thrown some really hate filled comments to their opponents, yet this is the case that crosses the line? Total bs.


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

Diokhan said:


> Disagreed - *Mentally ill people will find their reasons to shoot Obama* more easily than by hearing someone calling him out in an ufc event. People have been bashing Presidents etc. for ages now, someone joking about wanting to fight Obama (note, fight him in mma match, not go and beat him up or kill him) because he disagrees with him (as many others do) and then getting punished for it is just bs. Penn said he was going to kill GSP before their last fight, people in general have thrown some really hate filled comments to their opponents, yet this is the case that crosses the line? Total bs.


It's the sane people you have to worry about.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Roflcopter said:


> Refer to Pickering vs the Board of Education.
> 
> If the speech in question is thought to have damaged the efficient operation of the workplace, then free speech is not protected.
> 
> ...


Ok, so I looked up Pickering vs Board of Education, and all I see is confirmation of my point of view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickering_v._Board_of_Education


> The Supreme Court of the United States agreed the teacher's First Amendment right to free speech were violated and reversed the decision of the Illinois Supreme Court.


Basically that means that it is NOT ok for a school to supress a teacher's legitimate political views and activism on matters of public importance.

As for Weicherding vs Reigel, you're again trying to pull typical lawyer bs while ignoring the context of the case. This was a prison guard promoting hate speech and using *********** slogans ON DUTY while in a position of power over many people of another race. Comparing this case to a person exercising his legitimate right to critique his political representatives is something only a first year law school nerd trying to be oversmart can do. 

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1274631.html



> Based on the evidence that Weicherding had promoted white supremacist views and Ku Klux Klan activities *within the prison* and had publicized his support of the Ku Klux Klan *while identified as an employee of the Illinois Department of Corrections*, the hearing officer found that Weicherding had engaged in conduct unbecoming an officer


And hypothetically, even if Weicherding had kept this stuff out of prison work, it's still a stretch to compare hate speech to political satire like you are attempting. 

People in a democracy are allowed to critique make fun of their leaders, the whole industry of political satire has thrived for generations on this. People did the same with Bush for years; it's not about left vs. right, I would defend Volkmann just as much as if he made one of the countless Idiot Bush bloopers videos on youtube. This is in fact a healthy thing, because it helps keep our representatives on their toes when they know their subjects have a right to express discontent at their actions.

Volkmann did not invoke hate speech or actually try to harm Obama, he made a joke. Only stooges in a dictatorship would think that warrants him being fired and hounded by secret police.


----------



## Machida Karate (Nov 30, 2009)

Lol i would be so annoying if i was Volkmann, freedom of speach MY ASS!


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

This thread should be named CIVICS CLASS.


----------



## Term (Jul 28, 2009)

Roflcopter said:


> Except both left and right are acknowledging that this type of use of violent rhetoric is what leads to debacles like in Arizona with the Congresswoman being shot and the whole mini-massacre there. Volkmann even expressed regret about the whole thing.


This or anything like it had absolutely nothing to do with what happen in Arizona.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

Term said:


> This or anything like it had absolutely nothing to do with what happen in Arizona.


Really?



> Jacob Volkmann, the mixed-martial arts fighter who said last week he wanted to "knock some sense into that idiot" Barack Obama, told HuffPost on Wednesday that he regretted the comment in light of the Saturday assassination attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) that left six people dead.
> 
> "I would never make that comment if that shooting happened first," said Volkmann, 30.
> *
> ...



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...regrets-obama-comment_n_808064.html?ir=Sports

Oh, look, I don't study law, government nor read the news but I'm going to comment on them on an internet message board and act like I know everything. :thumbsup:


----------



## Sambo de Amigo (Sep 24, 2010)

Like i said just because its the law DOESNT MEAN ITS RIGHT

ROFLcopyer can stick his "GOOGLE" search and cut paste article knowledge in his............


i think its universally agreed this is over the top by the government


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

Liddellianenko said:


> Ok, so I looked up Pickering vs Board of Education, and all I see is confirmation of my point of view
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickering_v._Board_of_Education
> 
> ...


The first case simply establishes the precedence of efficient operation and public interest. Just because the person won doesn't mean it supports Volkmann's case. The Supreme Court ruled in favour because the issues pertaining to the person's speech were related to public affairs, were factual and true, and they ruled that it was more important and overruled the employees desire for efficient operation. Basically, the employee had a good case.

"Obama is an idiot and I want to fight him" does not apply to those precedence. 


Secondly, it would be a stretch to compare political speech to hate speech. We aren't talking about general political speech, Volkmann was suspended for the violent and immature rhetoric he used on national TV.

And actually, the cases started 100% similar. Weicherding was found at a rally on TV, and SUSPENDED, not fired pending the results of the investigation.

Volkmann has been suspended, not fired. I'd wager this investigation will involve interviewing people at the school and possibly some students to see if this type of rhetoric is being used and if it causing a disruption in the workplace environment.


----------



## Term (Jul 28, 2009)

Roflcopter said:


> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So because Volkmann regrets saying it, that means it caused it. Excellent Logic. The guy that shot the congresswoman was a lonely stoner, leftist who got fixated on a woman. From what I have read, granted it wasn't from the Huffington post, but most people that knew him said he didn't watch the news or listen to talk radio. He played video games, smoked pot, listen to heavy Metal music, I am sure the video game, movie, and music industries are really glad they aren't getting blamed this time. Also show one link that shows that idiot even knew what Volkmann said. Gifford was actually pretty conservative and was considered a Blue Dog Democrat. It's typical of today's mentality, the shooter is a victim of his environment it's not really his fault.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

Term said:


> So because Volkmann regrets saying it, that means it caused it. Excellent Logic. The guy that shot the congresswoman was a lonely stoner, leftist who got fixated on a woman. From what I have read, granted it wasn't from the Huffington post, but most people that knew him said he didn't watch the news or listen to talk radio. He played video games, smoked pot, listen to heavy Metal music, I am sure the video game, movie, and music industries are really glad they aren't getting blamed this time. * Also show one link that shows that idiot even knew what Volkmann said.* Gifford was actually pretty conservative and was considered a Blue Dog Democrat. It's typical of today's mentality, the shooter is a victim of his environment it's not really his fault.


WHOOSH!


----------



## BrutalKO (Oct 5, 2006)

...Given the wake of the AZ shooting, everyone in D.C. is on pin & needles. The media is in freak out mode banning any words that have any relation to violence or an act of violence. Jacob didn't make a direct threat, he just called the President (Not too smart)- which really is the exact opposite. A stupid person does not graduate Harvard at the top of their class and become a Senator then a U.S. President...


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

"Someone needs to knock some sense into that idiot" can certainly be misconstrued into a threat. At least the Secret Service thought so.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Roflcopter said:


> "Someone needs to knock some sense into that idiot" can certainly be misconstrued into a threat. At least the Secret Service thought so.


The SS investigated citizen reports made directly to them which claimed Volkmann made a threat against the President, and determined that there was no threat made.


----------



## Term (Jul 28, 2009)

Roflcopter said:


> WHOOSH!


Are you saying your the link you posted to the Huffingtonpost does that? If so you need to re-read it.


----------



## tap nap or snap (Jan 28, 2009)

i thought free speech and freedom of association protected u from government prosecution, ie. if u said the gov't needed to be voted out they couldn't arrest u for saying that.

when it comes to to work or others in the public, they also have freedom of speech and association. so you say your boss is dumb, he can fire you. if it's a matter of political views, it would be a wrongful dissmissal, but they sure aren't gonna say that's the reason, just find some other way to justify firing u. ppl have to realise that u have the freedom to speak, but others have the freedom to react to what u say.

as for volkmann, I think what he said was just a joke and quite the mole hill made into a mountain.

I don't blame the SS, if they got a report they have to follow up. so I really think the person reporting him is to blame.

as for his school putting him on leave they are dumb asses, it was just a joke, a tasteless one, but a joke none the less.


----------



## Term (Jul 28, 2009)

Looks like Gingrich may be getting a visit from the Secret service. 

Source



> Question at town hall: "What I've been looking for in my candidate is fire in the belly. We’ve got to bloody Obama’s nose. You've mentioned challenging him to seven, three-hour debates. He has this armor of media surrounding him. If he doesn’t agree to that, how do you plan to aggressively take the gloves off and go after him?"
> 
> Newt Gingrich: "Let me say first of all, I don’t want to argue with you about the analogy. I don't want to bloody his nose, I want to knock him out."


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

Politicians are so hilariously irresponsible with their rhetoric.


----------



## zarny (Mar 4, 2007)

Yes.

If it's one thing Harvard Law School is known for it's people who aren't too bright


----------



## Trix (Dec 15, 2009)

I refuse to over-react at Gingrich hyping the fight, er election.


----------



## Atras (Sep 12, 2011)

I thought US had freedom of speech?


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Atras said:


> I thought US had freedom of speech?


Free speech is so last millennium. Now we have patriot act, affirmative action, legal warrant-less indefinite detention of American citizens, SOPA, PIPA etc. We need permission from the government to protest against the govt., and pepper-spray torture otherwise.

But we need all this now, otherwise them terrurist will git us.


----------



## AmdM (Apr 13, 2010)

Atras said:


> I thought US had freedom of speech?


That's like saying they have a left wing.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

AmdM said:


> That's like saying they have a left wing.


We have a left wing. They currently control the senate and the White house and they still let the right wing bully them around.

Anyone who doubts that we have freedom of speech should turn on talk radio. They are free to lie, slander and attack the president 24/7.

Also you might be confused as to what the 1st amendment says. it addresses what CONGRESS can and cannot do. Not you.



As for Gingrich... The SS will be visiting him soon. To protect him not to prosecute.


----------



## Atras (Sep 12, 2011)

oldfan said:


> We have a left wing. They currently control the senate and the White house and they still let the right wing bully them around.


OT, but your "left" wing would be firmly in the right in Europe.


----------

