As we navigate life without Pat 'Rebarcock.' Flood, who passed on Sept 21, 2025, we continue to remember the profound impact he had on our community. His support was a cornerstone for our forum. We encourage you to visit the memorial thread to share your memories and condolences. In honor of Pat’s love for storytelling, please contribute to his ‘Rebarcock tells a story’ thread. Your stories will help keep his spirit alive among us.
Grow the fuck up. This is what is out there. Is there an answer?
WHO shot a missile at AF1? I do not remember hearing about this.
Alaska?Supposedly fired a missile at af1 during his first term in Hawaii area
Supposedly near or from Whidbey Island off the coast of Washington state. Also, supposedly on his first summit meeting with rocket man. Of, could have been complete bullshit. We are never told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.Alaska?

Keep her talking
These stupid people will not admit that they are in a liberal death cult. They cannot deal with anyone that doesn’t believe every single thing they do.
Devil's advocate: Fire in a crowded theater
Charlie had a bullet proof vest under his shirt.You may be right and I could be wrong. Still not sure how that bullet entered the side of his neck like that. Looked like an exit not an entrance wound. Down to relying on the government. Skol brother!
Nice summary. I always view it as call to action isn’t protected speech. Well unless you’re a politician like Maxine or Obama.. and leftist media outlets.The idea that one "can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater" as a test for limiting free speech has been largely debunked for several reasons. The original legal context was weak and later overturned, and the popular phrase misrepresents the actual quote.
Misrepresentation of the original quote
The popular summary often leaves out two key qualifications from the original 1919 opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v. United States.
The legal precedent was overturned
- The original quote: Holmes actually wrote: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic".
- The crucial difference: The word "falsely" is almost always omitted, changing the meaning entirely. It is a vital and protected exercise of free speech to yell "fire" if there is a real fire. The original quote also specified that the false cry must cause a panic, connecting the speech to a specific harmful outcome.
The Schenck decision, which created the "clear and present danger" test, was overturned by a later Supreme Court ruling.
Analogy, not a legal doctrine
- The Schenck case: In 1919, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of socialist Charles Schenck for distributing anti-draft pamphlets, ruling that his actions posed a "clear and present danger" to the war effort. Holmes' theater analogy was used to justify this limit on speech.
- The overturning of Schenck: In 1969, the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio replaced the "clear and present danger" test with the stricter "imminent lawless action" test. This new standard ruled that the government can only limit speech if it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action".
Legal scholars note that Holmes' phrase was a non-binding illustration, or dictum, rather than a formal legal rule. The analogy resonated with the public because false fire alarms were a known danger that caused multiple deaths in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. However, it is not a legal standard for restricting speech.
What is and isn't protected
Yelling "fire" in a theater may not be a First Amendment issue at all, but rather a violation of other laws.
- Unprotected speech: If a person falsely yells "fire" to cause panic, they could be charged with crimes like disorderly conduct or reckless endangerment. If someone is killed in the stampede, it could even lead to involuntary manslaughter charges.
- Protected speech: Free speech rights do protect a person who yells "fire" in the sincere belief that there is a fire. The law's focus is on the speaker's intent and the direct, likely consequences of their words, not just the words themselves.
Who got to Massie
You don’t get on Commie News Network by having high moral standardsLooks like AIPAC is sending a message
That is what they are saying. I don't want to see it again but someone should do a slow motion frame by frame review. To see where the initial impact of the bullet was on his vest.Charlie had a bullet proof vest under his shirt.
Bullet hit his upper chest area and ricocheted into his neck.
Education was one of the pillars identified by Marxists to take over. They couldn’t figure out how Democratic countries would survive after all the attacks. They realized Education would replicate to the next generation, so for last 100 years uts been their goal to takeover education.
Education was one of the pillars identified by Marxists to take over. They couldn’t figure out how Democratic countries would survive after all the attacks. They realized Education would replicate to the next generation, so for last 100 years uts been their goal to takeover education.