So....is THIS where we're really headed?

[JamesInFlorida]

You think rhetoric is bad now? Politicians have insulted and lied about their opponents since the beginning. The major difference is how the disagreements are dealt with..I prefer a return to a time where men settled their differences like Vice President Aaron Burr and former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton did back in July of 1804. Of course it would suck to be Hamilton.

First of all this is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever seen on these forums, and that says a lot.

Secondly they dueled due to a personal issue-not one on political views. Jefferson and Burr tied in the electoral college, so the vote went to the house-where Hamilton pretty much convinced enough people to vote for Jefferson over Burr-Burr got upset, and they dueled. People who lose in politics shouldn't resort to violence in our democracy. If you lose you walk out and try again in another 2, 4, or 6 years (depending on what you're running for).

I partially disagree.

Back then you didn't insult a persons honor w/o being prepared to back it up with your life. Now I think that's over board (killing over getting offended). But think back to like the 50's. If you called someone and SOB you got punched in the mouth, and learned not to call people that. Today you can say anything you want to a person and if they touch you, they get arrested and sued.

A return to getting punched in the mouth for not minding your manners is not out of line.

I actually agree with this statement. Shooting though as you pointed out is a big difference between a punch in the mouth.

But for political differences should a punch in the mouth ensue? I don't think so (and I'm not saying you said this). I think people are going too soft these days, similar to crying and suing someone as you mentioned-but also that it seems that when somebody attacks somebody else's political views-people for some reason take that as a personal attack. People on all sides of the political spectrum need to relax and realize an attack/critic on their way of political thinking isn't a personal attack.

 

[Two Thumbs]

First of all this is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever seen on these forums, and that says a lot.

Secondly they dueled due to a personal issue-not one on political views. Jefferson and Burr tied in the electoral college, so the vote went to the house-where Hamilton pretty much convinced enough people to vote for Jefferson over Burr-Burr got upset, and they dueled. People who lose in politics shouldn't resort to violence in our democracy. If you lose you walk out and try again in another 2, 4, or 6 years (depending on what you're running for).

I partially disagree.

Back then you didn't insult a persons honor w/o being prepared to back it up with your life. Now I think that's over board (killing over getting offended). But think back to like the 50's. If you called someone and SOB you got punched in the mouth, and learned not to call people that. Today you can say anything you want to a person and if they touch you, they get arrested and sued.

A return to getting punched in the mouth for not minding your manners is not out of line.

I actually agree with this statement. Shooting though as you pointed out is a big difference between a punch in the mouth.

But for political differences should a punch in the mouth ensue? I don't think so (and I'm not saying you said this). I think people are going too soft these days, similar to crying and suing someone as you mentioned-but also that it seems that when somebody attacks somebody else's political views-people for some reason take that as a personal attack. People on all sides of the political spectrum need to relax and realize an attack/critic on their way of political thinking isn't a personal attack.

I was being specific to insults. You can insult someones politics, or you can debate.

the sheriff opted to publically insult and with the aide of many others, have accused 40% of the population of having a hand in the murders. If the shoe was on the other foot, the left would demand he step down.

But violence in politics is not far out of normal, it's been a while, but not unheard of.

I can't recall the names; but 2 Senators were debating, the one that was losing took a cane and beat the other on the Senate floor.
Was he arrested? no
Kicked out? no
Censored? no
Shunned? no
got canes as gifts with the names of people they wanted him to beat? Yes, about 20 (if I recall)

Lincoln got challenged to a duel to the death. It got canceled, but it changed his life.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

I partially disagree.

Back then you didn't insult a persons honor w/o being prepared to back it up with your life. Now I think that's over board (killing over getting offended). But think back to like the 50's. If you called someone and SOB you got punched in the mouth, and learned not to call people that. Today you can say anything you want to a person and if they touch you, they get arrested and sued.

A return to getting punched in the mouth for not minding your manners is not out of line.

I actually agree with this statement. Shooting though as you pointed out is a big difference between a punch in the mouth.

But for political differences should a punch in the mouth ensue? I don't think so (and I'm not saying you said this). I think people are going too soft these days, similar to crying and suing someone as you mentioned-but also that it seems that when somebody attacks somebody else's political views-people for some reason take that as a personal attack. People on all sides of the political spectrum need to relax and realize an attack/critic on their way of political thinking isn't a personal attack.

I was being specific to insults. You can insult someones politics, or you can debate.

the sheriff opted to publically insult and with the aide of many others, have accused 40% of the population of having a hand in the murders. If the shoe was on the other foot, the left would demand he step down.

I agree 100%, and the sheriff was absolutely wrong in what he said. But it is a two way street, with a lot of the right blaming the left as being unpatriotic (which is ridiculous), and blaming 40% of the people as the reason why our economy is in the tubes. It goes both ways.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I do expect that in the next 5 years we'll see more events like Arizona because the dialogue has ratcheted up to that point, and I expect we will see another Ruby Ridge or Waco as the Feds react to it. We've already seen extremists groups busted by the Feds for planning attacks on officers and government officials in the Midwest. I fear a fresh round Of violence is starting.

You think rhetoric is bad now? Politicians have insulted and lied about their opponents since the beginning. The major difference is how the disagreements are dealt with..I prefer a return to a time where men settled their differences like Vice President Aaron Burr and former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton did back in July of 1804. Of course it would suck to be Hamilton.

Its always been bad. However what we're seeing now reminds me of the early Clinton years. It seems like the far Right goes truly wacko when there's a Democrat in charge. We are seeing the return of militias, religious enclaves, etc that were far more common under Clinton than under either Bush.

As for your duel comment: You realize that the famous Burr vs. Hamilton duel didn't really turn out well for either of them, right?