Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yes, they stir anger and mistrust absolutely.
This is how Rush refers to the President, for example:
Barack Husseeeeeeeeeeeeein Obama, Barack Husseeeeeeeeeeein Obama.
They also say things like be skurred of sharia coming. They also say things like "if Muslims don't speak out, they must condone it!"
etc...etc....
Yeah...throwing in the Hussein part is childish...I agree.
But I have heard many commentators that if the GOP does not speak out about the one or two racists that are found in tea party rallies of hundreds, then the GOP must condone racism.
It goes both ways....and just as I would expect our elected officials to say such is crap as it pertains to "muslims condoning rdicalism" I would expect our elected officials to say such is crap as it pertains to "condoning racism".
But our politicians on both sides of the aisle allow the people and the commentators to continually stir things up and say nothing...
That is why I was disturbed to see Rangel and Durbin engage in such crasp without a peep from our President to stop it.
I'm glad he's not stopping it because the conversation happening, in my opinion, will do more good than harm.
So...
...this same poll said that Americans by almost 5 to 1 think gun laws should be more strict, rather than less.
Does that prove something? Or is that the part of the poll that's not reliable? lol
Yeah...throwing in the Hussein part is childish...I agree.
But I have heard many commentators that if the GOP does not speak out about the one or two racists that are found in tea party rallies of hundreds, then the GOP must condone racism.
It goes both ways....and just as I would expect our elected officials to say such is crap as it pertains to "muslims condoning rdicalism" I would expect our elected officials to say such is crap as it pertains to "condoning racism".
But our politicians on both sides of the aisle allow the people and the commentators to continually stir things up and say nothing...
That is why I was disturbed to see Rangel and Durbin engage in such crasp without a peep from our President to stop it.
I'm glad he's not stopping it because the conversation happening, in my opinion, will do more good than harm.
Seeing as the conversation can taske place anytime, I disagree with the timing.
It is allowing MANY Americans to believe that the rhetoric of the right caused the death of 6 people.
I dont see how anyone can see that as good.
DAMN!!
A CBS poll is telling them they are a bunch of liars that can't fool most Americans! Krist, they didn't fool 49% of thier own people!
HAHAHAHAHAHAA
EPIC FAIL
Makes me wonder what an honest poll would put it at.
Why would this surprise you? There's no unified goal to blame actual people on this, just some idiots.
DAMN!!
A CBS poll is telling them they are a bunch of liars that can't fool most Americans! Krist, they didn't fool 49% of thier own people!
HAHAHAHAHAHAA
EPIC FAIL
Makes me wonder what an honest poll would put it at.
Why would this surprise you? There's no unified goal to blame actual people on this, just some idiots.
Why would it surprise me? That the numbers are so far to the right coming from left leaning CBS.
No unified goal? So the constant blame the right and specifically Palin, Rush, Beck, O'Reilly, FOX, conservative radio, isn't a goal?
Seriously?
I'm glad he's not stopping it because the conversation happening, in my opinion, will do more good than harm.
Seeing as the conversation can taske place anytime, I disagree with the timing.
It is allowing MANY Americans to believe that the rhetoric of the right caused the death of 6 people.
I dont see how anyone can see that as good.
Yea, we just disagree here.
I see it as the most ideal time, because it's a fresh wound of what it *could* lead to, which is the purpose of the conversation to begin with. The point lingers a little better that way, and inciteful rhetoric does, in my opinion, lead to this sort of shit and so I'm obviously going to think that now's the time.
9/11 truthers, for example, seem to have ratcheted up his paranoid schitzophrenia.
Why would this surprise you? There's no unified goal to blame actual people on this, just some idiots.
Why would it surprise me? That the numbers are so far to the right coming from left leaning CBS.
No unified goal? So the constant blame the right and specifically Palin, Rush, Beck, O'Reilly, FOX, conservative radio, isn't a goal?
Seriously?
I don't see the constant blaming of these specific people for this specific event - - - - - except by a very few, and so no, I'm not seeing any unified goal of the Left and so it wouldn't surprise me that "whoaa even the left isn't really on board!!!"
Seeing as the conversation can taske place anytime, I disagree with the timing.
It is allowing MANY Americans to believe that the rhetoric of the right caused the death of 6 people.
I dont see how anyone can see that as good.
Yea, we just disagree here.
I see it as the most ideal time, because it's a fresh wound of what it *could* lead to, which is the purpose of the conversation to begin with. The point lingers a little better that way, and inciteful rhetoric does, in my opinion, lead to this sort of shit and so I'm obviously going to think that now's the time.
9/11 truthers, for example, seem to have ratcheted up his paranoid schitzophrenia.
That is where I disagree. There is no proof that the rhetoric will lead to such an act. To the contrary, in 2004 when the DNC put out that map with targets on it, there was no such violent backlash....just as Palins crosshairs has had no such backlash as of yet.
Political rhetoric and the use of terms like "targets" "crosshairs" "rebel" "take our country back" "marxism" "socialism" "racism" "revolution" "fight fire with fire" "if they bring kives we will bring guns" have been part of our political system since the beginning. And to date, none have created what you say may be created.
You may fear it if you wish....but it seems to me you are a victim of some left winged fear mongerers just as many on the right are victims of right wing fear mongerers.
Me? I never saw an issue with dodgeball. It was fun...and now banned.
Never saw a kid get seriously hurt...except maybe his ego.
Big deal...my ego got hurt when a kid did better than me on an exam. Such is part of growing up.
Why would it surprise me? That the numbers are so far to the right coming from left leaning CBS.
No unified goal? So the constant blame the right and specifically Palin, Rush, Beck, O'Reilly, FOX, conservative radio, isn't a goal?
Seriously?
I don't see the constant blaming of these specific people for this specific event - - - - - except by a very few, and so no, I'm not seeing any unified goal of the Left and so it wouldn't surprise me that "whoaa even the left isn't really on board!!!"
When some of those "very few" are elected officials that are paid by the txpayer to go in front of the national camera and speak to the people about what is hapopening in our country?
It is an issue.
The TPM/conservatives survived being attacked as racists....they'll survive this as well. If anything, they've been conditioned to stand their ground and not be bullied into submission.
Yea, we just disagree here.
I see it as the most ideal time, because it's a fresh wound of what it *could* lead to, which is the purpose of the conversation to begin with. The point lingers a little better that way, and inciteful rhetoric does, in my opinion, lead to this sort of shit and so I'm obviously going to think that now's the time.
9/11 truthers, for example, seem to have ratcheted up his paranoid schitzophrenia.
That is where I disagree. There is no proof that the rhetoric will lead to such an act. To the contrary, in 2004 when the DNC put out that map with targets on it, there was no such violent backlash....just as Palins crosshairs has had no such backlash as of yet.
Political rhetoric and the use of terms like "targets" "crosshairs" "rebel" "take our country back" "marxism" "socialism" "racism" "revolution" "fight fire with fire" "if they bring kives we will bring guns" have been part of our political system since the beginning. And to date, none have created what you say may be created.
You may fear it if you wish....but it seems to me you are a victim of some left winged fear mongerers just as many on the right are victims of right wing fear mongerers.
Me? I never saw an issue with dodgeball. It was fun...and now banned.
Never saw a kid get seriously hurt...except maybe his ego.
Big deal...my ego got hurt when a kid did better than me on an exam. Such is part of growing up.
I'm not a "Victim" because we disagree on something. pfft.
And we do disagree. When someone says that someone else is taking over their Country, it's logical to me to assume that some people would take that to the extreme. And you're wrong that nothing's ever happened, obviously. Saying that none have created what I said it may create is wrong.
And obviously it's opinion, it's not provable, but if you're going to say that 1: Commentators don't use hyperbole to arouse the uber-partisan, and 2: no uber partisans have ever gone on killing sprees, then I'd beg to differ. And that's not being a victim of anything, it's my genuine observation.
I don't see the constant blaming of these specific people for this specific event - - - - - except by a very few, and so no, I'm not seeing any unified goal of the Left and so it wouldn't surprise me that "whoaa even the left isn't really on board!!!"
When some of those "very few" are elected officials that are paid by the txpayer to go in front of the national camera and speak to the people about what is hapopening in our country?
It is an issue.
And claiming Death Panels and Fema camps and Government "Take-over" etc. etc. is an issue, just the same. I never disagree it wasn't an issue, and you know that. I just don't feel it's the "same" as Fort Hood.
That is where I disagree. There is no proof that the rhetoric will lead to such an act. To the contrary, in 2004 when the DNC put out that map with targets on it, there was no such violent backlash....just as Palins crosshairs has had no such backlash as of yet.
Political rhetoric and the use of terms like "targets" "crosshairs" "rebel" "take our country back" "marxism" "socialism" "racism" "revolution" "fight fire with fire" "if they bring kives we will bring guns" have been part of our political system since the beginning. And to date, none have created what you say may be created.
You may fear it if you wish....but it seems to me you are a victim of some left winged fear mongerers just as many on the right are victims of right wing fear mongerers.
Me? I never saw an issue with dodgeball. It was fun...and now banned.
Never saw a kid get seriously hurt...except maybe his ego.
Big deal...my ego got hurt when a kid did better than me on an exam. Such is part of growing up.
I'm not a "Victim" because we disagree on something. pfft.
And we do disagree. When someone says that someone else is taking over their Country, it's logical to me to assume that some people would take that to the extreme. And you're wrong that nothing's ever happened, obviously. Saying that none have created what I said it may create is wrong.
And obviously it's opinion, it's not provable, but if you're going to say that 1: Commentators don't use hyperbole to arouse the uber-partisan, and 2: no uber partisans have ever gone on killing sprees, then I'd beg to differ. And that's not being a victim of anything, it's my genuine observation.
I did not say "victim" as an insult. I gave you my opinion that you may be a victim of hyperbole that you admit commentators use.
I am not saying commentators dont use hyperbole. Both sides do.
And I do not know of any killing spree that was directly related to the words of a political commentator....sure, some try to relate them.....but I can not think of one.
Can you cite any?
I'm not a "Victim" because we disagree on something. pfft.
And we do disagree. When someone says that someone else is taking over their Country, it's logical to me to assume that some people would take that to the extreme. And you're wrong that nothing's ever happened, obviously. Saying that none have created what I said it may create is wrong.
And obviously it's opinion, it's not provable, but if you're going to say that 1: Commentators don't use hyperbole to arouse the uber-partisan, and 2: no uber partisans have ever gone on killing sprees, then I'd beg to differ. And that's not being a victim of anything, it's my genuine observation.
I did not say "victim" as an insult. I gave you my opinion that you may be a victim of hyperbole that you admit commentators use.
I am not saying commentators dont use hyperbole. Both sides do.
And I do not know of any killing spree that was directly related to the words of a political commentator....sure, some try to relate them.....but I can not think of one.
Can you cite any?
That's because it's opinion-based, to relate it to a "specific" commentator enfuriating someone's craziness to actually act. There have been books by people (Commentators) found in the "Crazy's" posessions who have murdered, and that still doesn't "prove" anything empirically, but it can drive opinion-to-believe.
First and foremost, the person is the perp. Them being crazy, is the exact cause.
It doesn't mean I'm not against exaggerated, hateful hyperbole. It also doesn't mean that hateful hyperbole doesn't lead to people going over the top, but it's still not the hateful hyperbole's "blame" for any actual attacks, it's ALWAYS the crazy person.
They're distinguishible points from one another.
I did not say "victim" as an insult. I gave you my opinion that you may be a victim of hyperbole that you admit commentators use.
I am not saying commentators dont use hyperbole. Both sides do.
And I do not know of any killing spree that was directly related to the words of a political commentator....sure, some try to relate them.....but I can not think of one.
Can you cite any?
That's because it's opinion-based, to relate it to a "specific" commentator enfuriating someone's craziness to actually act. There have been books by people (Commentators) found in the "Crazy's" posessions who have murdered, and that still doesn't "prove" anything empirically, but it can drive opinion-to-believe.
First and foremost, the person is the perp. Them being crazy, is the exact cause.
It doesn't mean I'm not against exaggerated, hateful hyperbole. It also doesn't mean that hateful hyperbole doesn't lead to people going over the top, but it's still not the hateful hyperbole's "blame" for any actual attacks, it's ALWAYS the crazy person.
They're distinguishible points from one another.
So then the real discussion goes back to freedom of speech.
And I have no doubt you and I agree on that topic.
But that being siad, do you not feel that an elected official (Senator and congressman) publicly implying that the woirds or actions of someone are to be blamed for the death of a 9 year old girl and 5 others without any proof whatsoever is not, in itself, just as bad as the "hate" rhetoric that concerns you?
That's because it's opinion-based, to relate it to a "specific" commentator enfuriating someone's craziness to actually act. There have been books by people (Commentators) found in the "Crazy's" posessions who have murdered, and that still doesn't "prove" anything empirically, but it can drive opinion-to-believe.
First and foremost, the person is the perp. Them being crazy, is the exact cause.
It doesn't mean I'm not against exaggerated, hateful hyperbole. It also doesn't mean that hateful hyperbole doesn't lead to people going over the top, but it's still not the hateful hyperbole's "blame" for any actual attacks, it's ALWAYS the crazy person.
They're distinguishible points from one another.
So then the real discussion goes back to freedom of speech.
And I have no doubt you and I agree on that topic.
But that being siad, do you not feel that an elected official (Senator and congressman) publicly implying that the woirds or actions of someone are to be blamed for the death of a 9 year old girl and 5 others without any proof whatsoever is not, in itself, just as bad as the "hate" rhetoric that concerns you?
I already said as much and so asking me again is just hoping I bandwagon your point even further, dude
And no, I don't think a ban on anything involving this speech is what I'd want to happen. I simply want it to become taboo, socially looked down upon and boycotted.
So then the real discussion goes back to freedom of speech.
And I have no doubt you and I agree on that topic.
But that being siad, do you not feel that an elected official (Senator and congressman) publicly implying that the woirds or actions of someone are to be blamed for the death of a 9 year old girl and 5 others without any proof whatsoever is not, in itself, just as bad as the "hate" rhetoric that concerns you?
I already said as much and so asking me again is just hoping I bandwagon your point even further, dude
And no, I don't think a ban on anything involving this speech is what I'd want to happen. I simply want it to become taboo, socially looked down upon and boycotted.
I did not get the point earlier that you agreed. My bad. I do not need you to jump on my bandwagon. To the contrary, I appreciate your style of debate and find that when we disagree, I learn more....
But for the reason that you and I agree, I believe it was a grave error by those two and both should have been asked by their party leader to retract it....just as I would have said the same if the tables were tunred...and I have several times on this board proven to be that way.
I too agree that a ban is not appropriate. As for it being taboo and socially frowned upon....only society will make that happen....and I doubt it will ever happen.
Uh oh!
Liberals have been stunned into silence.
What can they say to the shocker that another liberal smear is a fail?
Liberals stunned into silence, about as likely as a fat kid turning down ice cream.
Nah, their silence is a strategic pause while they put together other polls showing just the opposite.
