"...pray for his death."

[PoliticalChic]

1. First, it has been pretty well established that the shooter was driven by neither party, nor by rough political talk.

2. 'HE DID NOT WATCH TV. HE DISLIKED THE NEWS. HE DIDN'T LISTEN TO POLITICAL RADIO'
Jared Loughner’s friend says suspect ‘Did not watch TV … disliked the news’ - TVNewser

3. Some one percent of the population is thought to be schizophrenic (Schizophrenia Facts and Statistics), ...and to be driven to some horrendous act, need no more than a parking ticket.

Beside the obvious fascination with evil, and the need to fill the 24-hour news cycle, what we are witnessing is the desire to stultify speech...and impose more regulation and restriction.

4. Politics has been called a bloodsport, and the harsh language is a manfestation of the passion on both sides.Don't be buffaloed into abiding by any restrictions on speech.

I don't want to hear folks referring to 'the H-word' when they mean hate.

5. The title of the thread?
Thomas Jefferson wrote that in a letter to James Madison. The subject of the 'threat' was Patrick Henry.
“What we have to do, I think, is devotedly pray for his death.”

To be fair, you'll have a hard time finding anyone in the Media (CNN, MSNBC, Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc) that's saying that Lougner was anything more than a nutcase. I'm not even seeing people attribute a political motive to him outside discussion boards or truly fringe blogs.

What has happened is that people are looking at the very legitimate concern that things are getting too heated in politics. A lot of what's happening now reminds me of the Clinton days, with armed militias forming and rumblings of 2nd ammendment solutions. Under Obama you've got the added problem that looney Racist organizations are arming up too. All of this ended very poorly under Clinton. No one wants to see another Waco, Ruby Ridge, or another spat of Abortion Clinic Bombings, so folks are trying to have the dialogue about just how far things need to go. I'd add that no one wants to see a return of the violence in the 60's and 70's either.

I serously doubt that any legislation regulating speech will pass. What is likely to happen is that folks on the Left and the Right that use hyperbolic speech will find themselves without a pulpit to spew from. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. Real governance and real problem solving has always come from bipartisan efforts. That's tough when people are targeting congressional districts with targets, bullseyes, and [sarcasm]"surveyor crosses"[/sarcasm] or when people are referring to anyone who doesn't agree with them as traitors.

"...you'll have a hard time finding anyone in the Media..."
Really?

1. "Bear in mind: the shooting had just happened two hours prior to Krugman's blog post [in the NYTimes], and no evidence had yet emerged that Loughner was opposed to health care reform or belonged to the Tea Party movement. And after Krugman had finished accusing the leaders of that movement, and the familiar villains of talk radio and television, of complicity in the assassination of a United States representative and the murder of innocent bystanders, he had the cluelessness to condemn the "climate of hate" in American politics today."http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Loughner-Belonged-to-the-Insane-Party-Timothy-Dalrymple-01-10-2011.html

2. Sarah Palin put the gun's crosshairs on Gabby Giffords Share391 5
by Neutron
Sat Jan 08, 2011 at 03:12:43 PM PST
Can we please stop the pious high mindedness that says that this tea bagger BS is just part of the discourse? It's not, and John Adams and all of the other founding fathers they allegedly revere would slap them in prison, or worse, for the kinds of seditious acts that inspired todays violence. Sarah Palin is the one that put Gabby Giffords in the gun's crosshairs of this heinous assassin.
... fIENDISH.net ....dailykos.com/story/2011/1/8/934410/-Sarah-Palin-put-the-guns-crosshairs-on-Gabby-Giffords

3. In reacting to today's shooting, Jane Fonda, a well-known liberal, pointed the finger at Palin on Twitter. "Progressive Arizona Rep Gabrielle Giffords is shot. In her ads, Sarah Palin had her targeted in a gun site. Inciting to violence," she said.
... fIENDISH.net ....cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20027918-503544.html


4."...A lot of what's happening now reminds me of the Clinton days..."
"
Bill Clinton was able to pin blame on Newt Gingrich, Limbaugh, and Republicans in the aftermath of the April 19, 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. It's an effort that was previewed last year, on the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City attack, when Clinton himself tried out some of the themes we are hearing today in the aftermath of violence in Arizona."

Read more at the Washington Examiner: Flashback: How Clinton exploited Oklahoma City for political gain | Washington Examiner

5. "...about just how far things need to go..."
"The question
in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances
and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present
danger .... It is a question of proximity and degree.”
http://www.sunnylandsclassroom.org/Downloads/ACBooks/Our Rights/Chapters/Chapter 6- Our Rights.pdf

6. "...or when people are referring to anyone who doesn't agree with them as traitors."
So, you would like to restrict how folks express themselves?

 

[Jarhead]

What I bolded...

Charlie Rangel and Dick Durbin are grouped in poltical forums and far left blogs?
No..they did not come out and say that the killer was truiggered by political rhetoric.
Instead, they asnwered the question of their opinion regarding the massacre with a little diatribe about how the right needs to curb their use of violent terms when applying words to politics.
They allowed the people to come to their own conclusions.....and it was quite irresponsible and exactly what they claim to be against.

What I bolded. The last Republican President, Speaker, and Senate Majority Leader were masters of that same game too.

And I'm not surprised folks on the Left complained about the Right's dialogue, just like the Talk Radio crowd has been complaining about dialogue on the Left. That's part of the problem: No introspection for what your own side is up to.

As I said, I'm not seeing anyone outside the fringe Left or fringe Right saying that Loughner was anything other than a nut. I am seeing alot of folks saying that the rhetoric needs to cool down. In fact that was pretty much the whole point of Stewart and Colbert's rally not long back.

If a man has a heart attack and dies at the wheel and horrfically runs down children in a playground...and a few hours later, before the cause of the accident was found to be a heart attack, a politician is asked of his/her words regarding the tragedy and he answers with his beleif that we need to strengthen drunk driving laws...
Would you deem it appropriate for the sake of the driver that such politician should retract his words and apologize for jumping to conclusions and giving listeners reason to believe that he was a drunk driver?

 

[PoliticalChic]

No one is more hateful than your average Leftist. That's the truth. So shame on the Left and Democrats for exploiting this tragedy.

Nah, I disagree. The right it is much hateful than the Left, and have no boundary's to decency. Even murder, torture & rape are supported by the rightwing. You really need to stick those paddles on your head, and tell everyone to stand clear. And rein in Sara Brady, before that bitch outlaws more guns.

October 2008 Paul Begala, on CNN, referred to President Bush as “ a barely functioning moron.”

But Matthews was a softie compared to left-wing radio talk-show host Mike Malloy, who outrageously said of Bachmann: "She's a hatemonger. She's the type of person that would have gladly rounded up the Jews in Germany and shipped them off to death camps. She's the type of person who would have had no problem sending typhoid-smeared blankets to Native American families awaiting deportation to reservations. ... This is an evil bitch from hell. I mean, just an absolute evil woman."

November 4, 1994 episode of the PBS talk show, To the Contrary, Julianne Malveaux summed up her feelings regarding Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas: "The man is on the Court. You know, I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early, like many black men do, of heart disease. Well, that’s how I feel. He is an absolutely reprehensible person."

Gore once accused his political enemies of possessing "an extra chromosome," a remark that infuriated the families of persons with Down Syndrome, which is caused by the presence of an extra chromosome. Henry I. Miller on Al Gore on National Review Online

Stenny Hoyer called Michael Steele the Republican lawn jockey

Alec Baldwin "if we were in another country... we would stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes and kill their wives and their children. We would kill their families, for what they're doing to this country."

Huffington Post on Tony Snow- “The growth in his abdomen is his head stuck up his a**. F**k him!! He is pure lying scum and should die ASAP!!”

American Thinker: Those Mean-Spirited Liberals
RJ Eskow: Vicious Liberals Disgrace America - With Shameless Media Support
"Sarah, I'm calling you a liar. And not even a good one. Trig Paxson Van Palin is not your son. He is your grandson. The sooner you come forward with this revelation to the public, the better." -- Daily Kos ArcXIX

As, I think it was Cosmopolitan magazine, referred to me and [*06 Ohio and Pennsylvania Republican gubernatorial candidates] Ken Blackwell and Lynn Swann-'well, they're the lawn jockeys of the Republican Party.'"http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26413

Columnist Ann Coulter should probably not sign up to be a guest on Bill Maher’s HBO show anytime soon. Maher writer Chris Kelly took her column on the death and funeral of her father, John Vincent Coulter, and mocked her and the dead man relentlessly on The Huffington Post. He even compared her dead father to Hitler. Remember, in our Special Report, we recalled Arianna Huffington proclaimed her site wouldn’t be known for "flame-throwing, name-calling, and simplistic attack dog rhetoric." (What a pile of souvlaki that boast was.)Jan 2009 John Vincent Coulter was of the old school, a man of few words, the un-Oprah, no crying or wearing your heart on your sleeve, and reacting to moments of great sentiment with a joke. Or as we used to call them:
Assholes

Wanda Sykes on Limbaugh: I hope his kidneys fail
Breitbart.tv Obama Likes Wanda Sykes Joke About Rush Limbaugh — ‘I Hope His Kidneys Fail’

October 28, 1994: In Virginia, Gore attacked Oliver North's Senate bid supporters as "the extreme right wing, the extra chromosome right wing." Advocates for those with Down's Syndrome, caused by an extra chromosome, were outraged. TV coverage? Zero.
Media Reality Check -- 03/25/1999 -- Which Vice President is the King of Gaffes?
In June, 2009 Dave Letterman makes a joke about the statutory rape of Sarah Palin’s 14 year old.

VH1 comedian Chuck Nice appeared on Tuesday's "Today" show and compared Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to the sexually transmitted disease herpes. He mocked, "But, Sarah Palin to the GOP, this is what I've got to say, she is very much like herpes, she's not going away." [Audio available here]
The "Best Week Ever" contributor amazingly preceded his comments by instructing the show's hosts and his fellow guests, who were there to discuss news events in the 10am hour of the show, "...Please don't take it the way it sounds." Amazingly, no one on the program really challenged Nice on his ugly remark. NBC News chief legal analyst Dan Abrams mildly observed, "That's the advantage of being Chuck Nice. You can say that and there's no repercussions." Nia-Malika Henderson, the White House reporter for Politico, said nothing.
Comedian on 'Today' Show Trashes Sarah Palin: She's 'Very Much Like Herpes' | NewsBusters.org

Most surprisingly given the liberal Jewish tradition in the United States, Democrats were more likely to blame Jews than Republicans:
"...while 32 percent of Democrats accorded at least moderate blame, only 18.4 percent of Republicans did so (a statistically significant difference)."
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_s...al-crisis.aspx

But if that man was Rush Limbaugh, and you were Sarah Spitz, a producer for National Public Radio (update: Spitz was a producer for NPR affiliate KCRW for the show Left, Right & Center), that isn’t what you’d do at all.
In a post to the list-serv Journolist, an online meeting place for liberal journalists, Spitz wrote that she would “Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out” as Limbaugh writhed in torment.
In boasting that she would gleefully watch a man die in front of her eyes, Spitz seemed to shock even herself. “I never knew I had this much hate in me,” she wrote. “But he deserves it.”
“You know, at the risk of violating Godwin’s law, is anyone starting to see parallels here between the teabaggers and their tactics and the rise of the Brownshirts?” asked Bloomberg’s Ryan Donmoyer. “Esp. Now that it’s getting violent? Reminds me of the Beer Hall fracases of the 1920s.”

Read more: Liberal journalists suggest government censor Fox News | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

There’s only one way the tragic airplane crash in Alaska that ended the life of former-U.S. Senator Ted Stevens could have been better, according to New Hampshire Democratic activist and State Rep. candidate Keith Halloran: If Sarah Palin had been on it. Dem wishes Sarah Palin had been on crashed plane
His web site says he stands for “family values”.

Alabama Democratic Representative Bobby Bright is coming under fire for remarks made earlier this week concerning Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
The incumbent Democrat, who is home campaigning during the Congressional recess, joked that Ms. Pelosi could die before her re-election.
The Montgomery Advertiser, which reported the story, wrote ”He suggested, jokingly he insisted to his audience, that Pelosi could fall ill and die in coming months. That remark drew laughter from the crowd.”
Rep. Bobby Bright and Nancy Pelosi | The State Column

This time Bill Maher says that Dick Cheney should have been assassinated in the failed bombing attempt last week in Afghanistan. Maher repeated his obscene rhetoric a few times, including this zinger:
Maher: I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.
Bill Maher wishes for Assassination of Dick Cheney (VIDEO) Right Pundits

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nah, I disagree. The right it is much hateful than the Left, and have no boundary's to decency. Even murder, torture & rape are supported by the rightwing. You really need to stick those paddles on your head, and tell everyone to stand clear. And rein in Sara Brady, before that bitch outlaws more guns.

Please tell me how the right supports murder and rape?
Torture (or striking fear in a person) of an enemy that has information regarding an attack that may kill thousands of Americans? Im fine with it as long as it does not physically or mentally damage the person.
Murder? I guess if you want to call war kills as murder....
Rape? Huh?

The torture, murder and rape of innocent chained and detained civilians in US POW camps, supported by the rightwing Administration.

" Some one percent of the population is thought to be schizophrenic (Schizophrenia Facts and Statistics), ..."

Just wondering, do you and the other one-percenters hold regular meetings?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

"...you'll have a hard time finding anyone in the Media..."
Really?

1. "Bear in mind: the shooting had just happened two hours prior to Krugman's blog post [in the NYTimes], and no evidence had yet emerged that Loughner was opposed to health care reform or belonged to the Tea Party movement. And after Krugman had finished accusing the leaders of that movement, and the familiar villains of talk radio and television, of complicity in the assassination of a United States representative and the murder of innocent bystanders, he had the cluelessness to condemn the "climate of hate" in American politics today."http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Loughner-Belonged-to-the-Insane-Party-Timothy-Dalrymple-01-10-2011.html

Krugman is an idiot, but I'd like to see the actual quote, not the commentary on it.

2. Sarah Palin put the gun's crosshairs on Gabby Giffords Share391 5
by Neutron
Sat Jan 08, 2011 at 03:12:43 PM PST
Can we please stop the pious high mindedness that says that this tea bagger BS is just part of the discourse? It's not, and John Adams and all of the other founding fathers they allegedly revere would slap them in prison, or worse, for the kinds of seditious acts that inspired todays violence. Sarah Palin is the one that put Gabby Giffords in the gun's crosshairs of this heinous assassin.
... fIENDISH.net ....dailykos.com/story/2011/1/8/934410/-Sarah-Palin-put-the-guns-crosshairs-on-Gabby-Giffords

You can't seriously consider Daily Kos the media. That's like me bringing up the fact that Boortz has been saying the guy was a Leftie with Leftie motivations. Boortz, like Daily Kos as a whole, is a loon, and as such doesn't even enter into the debate.

3. In reacting to today's shooting, Jane Fonda, a well-known liberal, pointed the finger at Palin on Twitter. "Progressive Arizona Rep Gabrielle Giffords is shot. In her ads, Sarah Palin had her targeted in a gun site. Inciting to violence," she said.
... fIENDISH.net ....cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20027918-503544.html

Jane Fonda, also a loon. And just because a news organization runs a quote from someone doesn't mean they support, condone, or even like that person or their view, or do you think Fox supports Osama Bin Ladin?

4."...A lot of what's happening now reminds me of the Clinton days..."
"
Bill Clinton was able to pin blame on Newt Gingrich, Limbaugh, and Republicans in the aftermath of the April 19, 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. It's an effort that was previewed last year, on the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City attack, when Clinton himself tried out some of the themes we are hearing today in the aftermath of violence in Arizona."

Not exactly a refudiation. There was a hell of a lot of far right wing militias forming after Clinton was elected. I'm seeing similar stuff now.

But if you want a bipartisan take, Nixon inspired a lot of left wing Lunacy too. If you want to go that far back, I think what we're seeing now is comparible.

5. "...about just how far things need to go..."
"The question
in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances
and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present
danger .... It is a question of proximity and degree.”
http://www.sunnylandsclassroom.org/Downloads/ACBooks/Our Rights/Chapters/Chapter 6- Our Rights.pdf

6. "...or when people are referring to anyone who doesn't agree with them as traitors."
So, you would like to restrict how folks express themselves?

Of course not. But I'm a firm believer in the ideas words and actions have consequences. If the rhetoric on the right and left scales down after this, that would certainly be a positive thing. Would that require legislation? No. There's a reason that the KKK, the Nazis, and the Communist Party aren't legitimate political forces. I'd like to see the extremists, and those that use violent dialogue on both sides, go down that same road.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

If a man has a heart attack and dies at the wheel and horrfically runs down children in a playground...and a few hours later, before the cause of the accident was found to be a heart attack, a politician is asked of his/her words regarding the tragedy and he answers with his beleif that we need to strengthen drunk driving laws...
Would you deem it appropriate for the sake of the driver that such politician should retract his words and apologize for jumping to conclusions and giving listeners reason to believe that he was a drunk driver?

Of course. I also know better than to hold my breath waiting for an apology.

There's a problem with rhetoric on both sides. That's a legitimate issue that needs to be discussed. The level of rhetoric may not have cause the shooting, but the shooting does bring up the problem.

 

[Jarhead]

If a man has a heart attack and dies at the wheel and horrfically runs down children in a playground...and a few hours later, before the cause of the accident was found to be a heart attack, a politician is asked of his/her words regarding the tragedy and he answers with his beleif that we need to strengthen drunk driving laws...
Would you deem it appropriate for the sake of the driver that such politician should retract his words and apologize for jumping to conclusions and giving listeners reason to believe that he was a drunk driver?

Of course. I also know better than to hold my breath waiting for an apology.

There's a problem with rhetoric on both sides. That's a legitimate issue that needs to be discussed. The level of rhetoric may not have cause the shooting, but the shooting does bring up the problem.

The shooting birngs up the problem of political hate speech in no more a way than a man who dies at the wheel of a car brings up drunk driving concerns.

It is relating one situation to another when no relation exists.

In this case, it actually does what Rangel and Durbin were claimning needed to stop.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

The shooting birngs up the problem of political hate speech in no more a way than a man who dies at the wheel of a car brings up drunk driving concerns.

It is relating one situation to another when no relation exists.

In this case, it actually does what Rangel and Durbin were claimning needed to stop.

Except here the relation does exsist. Giffords had been targetted, as had Judge Roll by threats, extreme rhetoric, etc. That's why the debate is relevant.

In your debate, if the driver had had a history of drunk driving, or if one of the children had been a survivor of a drunk driving accident, you can bet that the topic of drunk driving would come up for debate even if the driver was not drunk at the time of the accident. Public debate and discourse doesn't always follow direct lines to relevant topics.

The fact such rhetoric exsists is justification enough to have the debate. The fact Giffords herself had been targetted in the past, and that Roll also had been targetted, makes such a debate timely.

 

[Ernie S.]

how is asking people to volutarily avoid violent imagery in the poltical sphere litmmiting anyones speech?

The left has a low opinion of folk's intelligence and intentions. While it has been well documented that no 'violent imagery' influenced this demented individual, you still wish to make sure no good crisis goes to waste.

Rather than "asking people to volutarily avoid..." anything, the left mandates 'avoiding' that which doesn't agree or conform to their advances....you merely cloak it in terms like 'ask.'

Fairness doctrine...

Internet regulation...

FCC censorship...

The only thing we should limit is the number of 'm's' in "...litmmiting anyones speech."

People do keep voting for them.

 

[shintao]

What I bolded...

Charlie Rangel and Dick Durbin are grouped in poltical forums and far left blogs?
No..they did not come out and say that the killer was truiggered by political rhetoric.
Instead, they asnwered the question of their opinion regarding the massacre with a little diatribe about how the right needs to curb their use of violent terms when applying words to politics.
They allowed the people to come to their own conclusions.....and it was quite irresponsible and exactly what they claim to be against.

What I bolded. The last Republican President, Speaker, and Senate Majority Leader were masters of that same game too.

And I'm not surprised folks on the Left complained about the Right's dialogue, just like the Talk Radio crowd has been complaining about dialogue on the Left. That's part of the problem: No introspection for what your own side is up to.

As I said, I'm not seeing anyone outside the fringe Left or fringe Right saying that Loughner was anything other than a nut. I am seeing alot of folks saying that the rhetoric needs to cool down. In fact that was pretty much the whole point of Stewart and Colbert's rally not long back.

If a man has a heart attack and dies at the wheel and horrfically runs down children in a playground...and a few hours later, before the cause of the accident was found to be a heart attack, a politician is asked of his/her words regarding the tragedy and he answers with his beleif that we need to strengthen drunk driving laws...
Would you deem it appropriate for the sake of the driver that such politician should retract his words and apologize for jumping to conclusions and giving listeners reason to believe that he was a drunk driver?

That is about as incoherent of ramblings from fool as it gets at USMB.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If a man has a heart attack and dies at the wheel and horrfically runs down children in a playground...and a few hours later, before the cause of the accident was found to be a heart attack, a politician is asked of his/her words regarding the tragedy and he answers with his beleif that we need to strengthen drunk driving laws...
Would you deem it appropriate for the sake of the driver that such politician should retract his words and apologize for jumping to conclusions and giving listeners reason to believe that he was a drunk driver?

Of course. I also know better than to hold my breath waiting for an apology.

There's a problem with rhetoric on both sides. That's a legitimate issue that needs to be discussed. The level of rhetoric may not have cause the shooting, but the shooting does bring up the problem.

"There's a problem with rhetoric on both sides."
This is a very important point...and the reason for the OP:
no, there is no problem with speech, no matter how you charaterize said speech.

One need not listen to it, or one can counter it....but if you feel otherwise, then you should consider an abode in a nation such as Canada...

"But it now carries this splash on the cover: "Soon to be banned in Canada."

Inside the latest edition, Steyn, a conservative New Hampshire-based columnist who writes regularly for a number of Canadian publications, advises the reader: "If you're browsing this in a Canadian bookstore, you may well be holding a bona fide 'hate crime' in your hand."

That is a bit of self-promotion, of course, designed to sell even more copies of a book that is already a New York Times bestseller. It also happens to be true.


Normally, that's the sort of proceeding you'd expect to hear about in Saudi Arabia or Iran, not the West. But the British Columbia Human Rights Commission, in the cause of protecting minorities, asserts its right to judge and even restrict speech.


"Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech."

But where speech is concerned, Americans take a nearly absolutist view. It is protected, period, unless someone is directly inciting physical harm as in "Let's take this gasoline and set fire to that synagogue."

The U.S. Supreme Court has generally agreed with jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes that the right to swing your fist stops at the beginning of the other guy's nose. To paraphrase Nat Hentoff's anti-censorship treatise Free Speech For Me, But Not For Thee, offensive speech in this country ought to be combated with more speech."

Read more: CBC News - World - Free speech, eh? Why is Canada prosecuting Mark Steyn?

Or...

"Fr. Alphonse de Valk, a Basilian priest and pro-life activist known throughout Canada for his orthodoxy, is currently being investigated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) — a quasi-judicial investigative body with the power of the Canadian government behind it. The CHRC is using section 13 of Canada’s Human Rights Act to investigate the priest. This is a section under which no defendant has ever won once the allegation has gone to tribunal — the next stage of the process.

Most defendants end up paying thousands of dollars in fines and compensation. This is in addition to various court costs. Moreover, defendants are responsible for their own legal defense. In contrast, the commission provides free legal assistance to the complainant.

What was Father de Valk’s alleged ‘hate act’?

Father defended the Church’s teaching on marriage during Canada’s same-sex ‘marriage’ debate, quoting extensively from the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Pope John Paul II’s encyclicals. Each of these documents contains official Catholic teaching. And like millions of other people throughout the world and the ages – many of who are non-Catholics and non-Christians — Father believes that marriage is an exclusive union between a man and a woman."
Catholicism – A Hate Crime in Canada? | Catholic Exchange


I don't think you really want to see the United States move in that direction.

 

[Jarhead]

What I bolded. The last Republican President, Speaker, and Senate Majority Leader were masters of that same game too.

And I'm not surprised folks on the Left complained about the Right's dialogue, just like the Talk Radio crowd has been complaining about dialogue on the Left. That's part of the problem: No introspection for what your own side is up to.

As I said, I'm not seeing anyone outside the fringe Left or fringe Right saying that Loughner was anything other than a nut. I am seeing alot of folks saying that the rhetoric needs to cool down. In fact that was pretty much the whole point of Stewart and Colbert's rally not long back.

If a man has a heart attack and dies at the wheel and horrfically runs down children in a playground...and a few hours later, before the cause of the accident was found to be a heart attack, a politician is asked of his/her words regarding the tragedy and he answers with his beleif that we need to strengthen drunk driving laws...
Would you deem it appropriate for the sake of the driver that such politician should retract his words and apologize for jumping to conclusions and giving listeners reason to believe that he was a drunk driver?

That is about as incoherent of ramblings from fool as it gets at USMB.

Really?
Others seemed to have comprehended what was said.
I guess it was a little too complicated for you. I am sorry for your intllectual deficiency. You should be pleased at how our educational system has found successful ways to mainstream others such as you...and all of you are proving to be great additions to society. Keep up the good work. It inspires us to see those with challanges to succeed non the less.

 

[Jarhead]

The shooting birngs up the problem of political hate speech in no more a way than a man who dies at the wheel of a car brings up drunk driving concerns.

It is relating one situation to another when no relation exists.

In this case, it actually does what Rangel and Durbin were claimning needed to stop.

Except here the relation does exsist. Giffords had been targetted, as had Judge Roll by threats, extreme rhetoric, etc. That's why the debate is relevant.

In your debate, if the driver had had a history of drunk driving, or if one of the children had been a survivor of a drunk driving accident, you can bet that the topic of drunk driving would come up for debate even if the driver was not drunk at the time of the accident. Public debate and discourse doesn't always follow direct lines to relevant topics.

The fact such rhetoric exsists is justification enough to have the debate. The fact Giffords herself had been targetted in the past, and that Roll also had been targetted, makes such a debate timely.

Interesting.
I can see what you are saying.
Fair enough.
Good win. Well done.

 

[PoliticalChic]

how is asking people to volutarily avoid violent imagery in the poltical sphere litmmiting anyones speech?

The left has a low opinion of folk's intelligence and intentions. While it has been well documented that no 'violent imagery' influenced this demented individual, you still wish to make sure no good crisis goes to waste.

Rather than "asking people to volutarily avoid..." anything, the left mandates 'avoiding' that which doesn't agree or conform to their advances....you merely cloak it in terms like 'ask.'

Fairness doctrine...

Internet regulation...

FCC censorship...

The only thing we should limit is the number of 'm's' in "...litmmiting anyones speech."

People do keep voting for them.

The times they are a-changin'...

That is why this attempt by the left to paint their opponents as encouraging serial murder is disapproved by 57% of the public in a recent poll.

And the reason is radio, cable TV, internet and the USMB: the marketplaces of free ideas.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I don't think you really want to see the United States move in that direction.

No, and I think at this point you know me well enough to know that when I say that there's a problem on both sides, I'm not just paying lip service. There was a great deal of leftist violence in the 1960's and 70's. There's still instances of environmental and animal rights groups acting outside the law today. We've seen a fair deal of fringe right wing organizations acting in pretty questionable ways too.

The rhetoric we've seen in the past 3 Administrations is pretty brutal. But at no point would it justify abridging free speech using legislation. Other than single loony lawmaker, I haven't seen anyone else really line up behind that idea in the mainstreams either.

I do think that it's time for people to think about what they say, and how they say it. And for people without that kind of introspection to find themselves unwelcome in American politics. But that needs to happen without legislation. In fact, the best way for that to happen is for reasoning people to decide they simply won't support those that engage in such dialogue.

 

[Jarhead]

I don't think you really want to see the United States move in that direction.

No, and I think at this point you know me well enough to know that when I say that there's a problem on both sides, I'm not just paying lip service. There was a great deal of leftist violence in the 1960's and 70's. There's still instances of environmental and animal rights groups acting outside the law today. We've seen a fair deal of fringe right wing organizations acting in pretty questionable ways too.

The rhetoric we've seen in the past 3 Administrations is pretty brutal. But at no point would it justify abridging free speech using legislation. Other than single loony lawmaker, I haven't seen anyone else really line up behind that idea in the mainstreams either.

I do think that it's time for people to think about what they say, and how they say it. And for people without that kind of introspection to find themselves unwelcome in American politics. But that needs to happen without legislation. In fact, the best way for that to happen is for reasoning people to decide they simply won't support those that engage in such dialogue.

Line in bold...
I have many times said on this board that what I disliked most about Pelosi was the way she referred to the other side of the aisle.
Last month I siad that Boehner did not deserve position as speaker as he, like Pelosi, likes to play the blame game.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

The shooting birngs up the problem of political hate speech in no more a way than a man who dies at the wheel of a car brings up drunk driving concerns.

It is relating one situation to another when no relation exists.

In this case, it actually does what Rangel and Durbin were claimning needed to stop.

Except here the relation does exsist. Giffords had been targetted, as had Judge Roll by threats, extreme rhetoric, etc. That's why the debate is relevant.

In your debate, if the driver had had a history of drunk driving, or if one of the children had been a survivor of a drunk driving accident, you can bet that the topic of drunk driving would come up for debate even if the driver was not drunk at the time of the accident. Public debate and discourse doesn't always follow direct lines to relevant topics.

The fact such rhetoric exsists is justification enough to have the debate. The fact Giffords herself had been targetted in the past, and that Roll also had been targetted, makes such a debate timely.

Interesting.
I can see what you are saying.
Fair enough.
Good win. Well done.

I will concede though that the folks who immediately jumped on the "TEA PARTY EXTREMISTS!" train to crazy town should publically apologize for that, and be held accountable for induldging in rhetoric they themselves are condeming.

I am hoping you see a "sea change" in how politics is handled, but I am not betting on it. As others have said on the net: Political Commentary is a big money business, and the way you get ahead in that business is by saying outlandish and ridiculous things. The rhetoric, on the Right and Left, isn't likely to tone down.

 

[Jarhead]

Money dictates actions Doc.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Line in bold...
I have many times said on this board that what I disliked most about Pelosi was the way she referred to the other side of the aisle.
Last month I siad that Boehner did not deserve position as speaker as he, like Pelosi, likes to play the blame game.

I certainly wasn't sad to see Pelosi lose her Speakership, though I'd have liked to see Reid go even more.

 

[Jarhead]

Line in bold...
I have many times said on this board that what I disliked most about Pelosi was the way she referred to the other side of the aisle.
Last month I siad that Boehner did not deserve position as speaker as he, like Pelosi, likes to play the blame game.

I certainly wasn't sad to see Pelosi lose her Speakership, though I'd have liked to see Reid go even more.

Congress is no place for childish name calling.
Certianly in position of leader.
Reid, Pelosi, Boehner...all gulty as many others are as well.

Some example they set....no?