Replies to post #328188 on Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)

[woofer]

If I remember correctly, I made a comment recently about the fact that lies are allowed in our country, not because there aren't laws on the books against it, but because the guilty parties aren't charged. It's too much of a hassle. jawmoke brought up the point recently, to which I agreed. It will be interesting to see what happens to Rush after his comments. Will he be charged with anything? Or will he get off for saying what's on his mind (free speech)?
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=28739494

[woofer]

Whoa! I went back to clarify something, and see that you removed your message (edited) and replaced it with something else.
Your edited post:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=28781028

Well, you had said that I didn't know the difference between rioting and something else, so I responded to your post with similar words.
To clarify what I meant, I'll just say that rioting is not necessarily violence and definitely doesn't have to include death even using your definition.

Here are two other definitions of the word "riot":

# orgy: a wild gathering involving excessive drinking and promiscuity
# carouse: engage in boisterous, drunken merrymaking; "They were out carousing last night"

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Limbaugh gets a slap on the wrist, a small fine, and that's the end of it. I'll repeat though, that I think it should be against the law to say what he did, and that he should get a heavy fine. It's amusing to note that in Bush's new terrorism law, Rush could be considered a terrorist.