Q'uran Burning By Gainesville Nutcase.

[buckethead]

Pastor Jones will have to ask his congregation for a special offering this Sunday.

Orlando, Florida (CNN) -- The city of Gainesville, Florida, plans to send a bill estimated at more than $180,000 to Pastor Terry Jones for security costs surrounding his controversial threat to burn Qurans on the anniversary of the September, 11, 2001, attacks, a police spokeswoman said Friday.

Police agencies spent more than a month working on security plans to ensure the community surrounding Jones' Dove World Outreach Center -- the planned site of the burning -- was safe, according to Gainesville police spokeswoman Cpl. Tscharna Senn.

Jones also told authorities he received numerous death threats because of the planned protest, which he called off amid increasing pressure from world leaders.

The Gainesville Police Department said it spent more than $100,000 while the Alachua County Sheriff's Office spent an estimated $80,000 during the weekend of the planned demonstration.

"We have 286 sworn officers and almost everyone was working either at the Dove Center or at other soft targets," Senn said. "Unless you were sick or injured you were working" the day the burning was to take place.

Officers secured malls in the region, the University of Florida's football stadium and areas around the church in the days leading up to the planned event.

Jones said Friday that the church was "not aware that we would be billed for security."

"If we had known this in advance, then we would have refused to have security," he said.

Some have accused authorities of over preparing.

"It's easy to say we over prepared but if something horrible had happened we would have been criticized for being unprepared," Senn said.

The planned burning prompted demonstrations by Muslims around the world this week, including Iran, Afghanistan, Somalia and India.

They won't get a dime.

Perhaps they should seek money from those making the death threats and those posing a security threat.

[Cricket]

OK, I get it, Bucket. Threaten a firestorm in your neighborhood and then expect the taxpayer to foot the bill for security just in case there is a fire. Even though the pastor didn't ask for protection, it was merited for those people who lived in the same town as the idiot.

The city will get their refund one way or the other.

[JC]

ALL of the OTHER developed countries in the world have some form of "universal" health care and they ALL have better morbidity and mortality statistics (better health outcomes) than we do.  ALL of them also spend less of their GDP on health care.

Switzerland and Germany use highly regulated, private insurance companies and everyone is required to have insurance.  France, Spain, Italy, Scandinavian countries all have a single payer, government unit that pays for health care.  Britain has a dual system.  National Health Service has physicians as employees and owns hospitals or you can buy private insurance from a private insurance company and go to private physicians and hospitals.

There are several models out there and all of them have their drawbacks, but all of them are better and less expensive than what we have now.

And yet the upper crust of those countries consistently come to the US when facing serious medical issues. 
What is the source of your statements about these havens of medical care? 
The CBO has already said that our NEW system will be MUCH more expensive than what we have now.  How does that square with your theory? 

Although you guys like to rush to judgement and demonize me for disagreeing with you politically by accusing me of "intentionally" ignoring facts and "reviling" someone,  it is just obvious to me and many others that this "health care reform" will do just the opposite of what we have been told.  The quality of care for the majority will deteriorate and the cost of that care will rise substantially.   And yet, just as in the "war on poverty" of the last fifty years many of you can feel morally superior supporting unprecedented spending and worsening the lot of the poor souls you think you are helping.  A large central government has never been the "savior" of the people.  The largest majority of citizens have ALWAYS fared best under a free enterprise system throughout history. 

This country was founded with a great distrust of government, and a great respect for the empowerment of the individual.  It is a concept that I agree with heartily. 

Now, on with the name calling.

LOL.. Have you not heard of Medical Tourism?  http://medicaltourism.com/

I personally have a very wealthy friend that had his life threatening cancer treated and put in remission in South Africa because it was less expensive and he felt the care was superior.  He was living there during his diagnosis but came back to the states and then traveled for his treatments, how do you account for that?  How do you account for insurance companies paying their 'customers' to travel abroad for treatment?

[NotNow]

I would point to that as an example of free choice and free enterprise.  Exactly what I am arguing for, thanks.

[buckethead]

OK, I get it, Bucket. Threaten a firestorm in your neighborhood and then expect the taxpayer to foot the bill for security just in case there is a fire. Even though the pastor didn't ask for protection, it was merited for those people who lived in the same town as the idiot.

The city will get their refund one way or the other.

He threatened to burn a religious icon. Zealots threatened to KILL PEOPLE IN RETALIATION. There is no moral equivalency here.

[buckethead]

Firstly, let me assure you that I don't for one second consider Cricket any less intelligent than myself. If anything, the opposite.

Secondly, Handing someone a knife is not murder. Burning a Koran is not handing someone a knife.

The basic point I am making (and it is oh so very basic) is; Burning religious icons is certainly disrespectful.

Killing people is criminal.

Let's try this analogy: I profess to the world that I am gay. A religious zealot tells me I must renounce homosexuality and become a born again Christian or he will kill my mother.

I suppose my actions are partly responsible for my mother's demise if I refuse and he carries out his threat.

[buckethead]

It's more like this:

Let's try this analogy: A religious zealot tells me if I profess to be a homosexual, he will kill my mother. I profess to the world that I am gay.

Pizzactly. Therefore the person doing the professing becomes an accessory to murder, right?

It doesn't stand to reason.

[Ocklawaha]

This topic been split with the medical tourism discussion moved to the science and technology board

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?topic=9810.0

OCKLAWAHA

[buckethead]

Me being a horrible human being notwithstanding, we are talking about legal implications when a book burner is sued for security costs.

Burning a koran does possibly make the right reverend a horrible human being. It does not make him a criminal. It does not make him responsible for the actions of others. Try to grasp that concept for just a minute.

When Civil rights protesters marched in Alabama, should they have been held liable for the "security" costs?

Should they be forced to pay for the police and dogs which were attacking them? Clearly they knew they were offending those who would keep Jim Crow laws in place. They knew the racists would react violently.

So it seems we can tolerate freedom of speech/assembly/demonstration/protest so long as you deem the subject matter worthy?

[buckethead]

Meh.

Im perfectly comfortable with the Asinine clause of local law enforcement.  For public acts of asinineness, I think a little reciprocal hemmorhoidal flareup is reasonable.  Nothing backbreaking, just correspondingly asinine.

I can agree with that. Dood has some grief coming and I wouldn't deny him a bit of it any more than I would deny him his right to idiocy.

A lawsuit by local/fed/state govs?  meh.  

[buckethead]

Not at all, rainfrog. I can see you are as intelligent as anyone on the board. Disagreeing with me does not invalidate that.

I happen to believe that Muslims should be held to the same standards of behavior as anyone else in society. Specifically, to refrain from killing people when someone offends Islamic sensibilities.

Rev is responsible for offending Muslims. The persons retaliating violently are SOLEY responsible for their actions.

Is an doctor who performs an abortion partly responsible for his own murder after a zealot threatens to kill any who performs abortions? Using your argument, He knew it was offensive to the person making threats.

Agian, none of this is in support of book burning. Actions have consequences. Buuuuut,  book burners are not responsible for murders committed by others in response to the burning of books. (even if the murderers and their defenders say otherwise)

JMHO

[ChriswUfGator]

I happen to believe that Muslims should be held to the same standards of behavior as anyone else in society. Specifically, to refrain from killing people when someone offends Islamic sensibilities.

Again, we're back to the guy who yells "fire!" in a crowded theatre...

If your actions are bound to produce an undesireable result, and you know this before doing it, you should most certainly be held responsible for them, don't you think?

[buckethead]

So the abortion doctor is responsible for his own murder?

Free expression should not be threatened by those who would use violence to suppress it.

Legal action should not be made undoable due to the fact that others might act illegally.

I see no similarity to yelling fire in a theater here.

What I can't understand is the reluctance to hold perpetrators of illegal violence solely responsible for their own actions.

[civil42806]

This is like someone who publicly threatens he's going to entice a serial killer to come his neighborhood
This is like someone yelling slurs in a prison yard

Well I wouldn't call radical muslims serial killers but some have been, nor do I see the similarity of the prison yard.  Bucketheads point is that we are all responsible for our own actions.  No one should have  a veto threat on our actions in this country whether they be the cathlic league, the sbc or the Radical islam.  Pity this poor woman that learned a lesson

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ie4WkjL1gozckeHn_zsQg-hr0ipAD9I9AHBO0

the religon of peace strikes again

[BridgeTroll]

If your actions are bound to produce an undesireable result, and you know this before doing it, you should most certainly be held responsible for them, don't you think?

Salmon Rushdie?  Danish cartoonist?  Countless others "offending islam"?  C'mon dude...