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.
Nobody has forgotten the people who died and their families, Jimmy. Nice try at demonizing the left, though.
I wish just ONE of you on the right would say "I hope we will be more civil in future" or "I am so sorry this happened".
I am truly sorry this happened and every day I hope and pray for more civility in our future. But I can't do it alone. Thoughts such as these need to be from all Americans across the country and that just ain't gonna happen.
Mebbe we can change what is "acceptable" by criticisizing our OWN public figures if they go off the reservation. And by guarding our own tongues.
While it's a noble idea, and one that would hopefully take root....WHO gets to define what is acceptable and what is not?
-Government?
-Political parties?
And how would that jive with the 1st amendment?
We can dislike the fact that BEFORE the kid pulled the trigger, he was merely a nutjob unto himself, who apparently plagued many with his insanity. But, there is no constitutional right to sanity. People can be as screwed up as they like, so long as they don't willfully cause harm to another. He did that, and that's where he went wrong.
And there's another good question....Who gets to decide what "harm" is?
Just because someone is offended, that doesn't mean they've been "harmed", despite what many lawyers and the general 'tone' of society would have us all believe. No one has a right to be offended. It is a choice.
There she is laying in the hospital holding onto life, while the liberal media drags her through the mud, using her shooting as a political football, stomping all over her while she clings to life, smashing her face into mud holes as they constantly attack the Republicans over her peril, her life is in the balance, and her party is on the war path using her limp body as a pole to ram the doors at the gates of the Republican Party, smashing her limp head into the Republican Castle, relentlessly hammering her head into the doors
Fortunately it looks like she may be able to tell us what she thinks when she is recovered well enough.
She did ask for a better poltical dialogue before she was shot.
I think she will likely do the same after she recovers well enough.
Will you listen to her?
Let's hope EVERYONE listens to her, and also understands that mere differences DO NOT equal "course dialogue", "hate speech", "incivility" and the like. JFK himself said:
So let us begin anew - remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof
We've somehow, all of us, been brought to a point in time when simple differences of opinion and policy equal absolute intolerance from many on the other side. Granted, I'm all for standing one's ground on that which they hold dear (for me, that would be maintaining things such as our constitutional republic, freedom & liberty). But, we get too bogged down in distasteful rhetoric. One side launches a charge at the other side...Then, if false, the other sides answers the charge and often times is critical of the other side for making such a charge. THAT scenario IS NOT a bad one. What is bad is when, 3 days later, after the charge has either been proven true or false, both sides continue to spew at each other in a heated fashion, and the argument grows out of control. It's kids on a friggin' play ground.
There are, understandably, MANY instances where the charge is so monsterous or the subject-matter so serious, that 'heated' rhetoric CANNOT be avoided. But, we would all do well to take a chill pill and remember that famous line from Will Smith in the first "Men In Black" movie:
"Don't start nothin'...Won't be nothin'".
We are humans. We are born with a natural reactionary and defensive instinct. When we feel threatened, we often times shoot from the hip (no pun intended). It's hard NOT to react. But, if we all claim we want more civility in politics, we'd better start thinking about NOT reacting.
At the end of the day....hypothetically speaking, if everyone became civil in their rhetoric....we still would have just as many shootings and murders as we do now.
It's just that we would have the morality police to deal with.
The interesting thing about the vid that Sallow posted....Giffords is poised and on-point. Granted, I would disagree with her vote FOR obamacare, but, she doesn't take the 'bait' the female MSNBC host dangles in front of her, early on.
She does make mention of the Palin "map", and the "crosshairs" (and although she makes no mention of DK using virtually the same "crosshairs" map), but then goes on to say that she would not speak for Sarah Palin in terms of whether or not she really thought Palin meant for the "map" to be taken as an incitement to violence.
I know I would disagree with her on a few things but, she seems to be a rather poised individual. And she equally calls out the rhetoric and actions of extremists on the left, as she notes the same of extremists on the right.
What I noticed however...
She was asked whether or not she believed Palin intended it to incite violence.
I was disturbed with her answer...saying "I can not speak for Palin" does not answer the question of her opinion.....so an answer like that is the same as saying "yes, it is quite possible Palin intended to incite violence"
Otherwise, she would asnwer "of course not, but it doesnt mean someone may take it that way"
So I am curious as to whether she truly believes it was intended by Palin to incite violence.
If she did believe that, something is serious wrong.
Mebbe we can change what is "acceptable" by criticisizing our OWN public figures if they go off the reservation. And by guarding our own tongues.
While it's a noble idea, and one that would hopefully take root....WHO gets to define what is acceptable and what is not?
-Government?
-Political parties?
And how would that jive with the 1st amendment?
We can dislike the fact that BEFORE the kid pulled the trigger, he was merely a nutjob unto himself, who apparently plagued many with his insanity. But, there is no constitutional right to sanity. People can be as screwed up as they like, so long as they don't willfully cause harm to another. He did that, and that's where he went wrong.
And there's another good question....Who gets to decide what "harm" is?
Just because someone is offended, that doesn't mean they've been "harmed", despite what many lawyers and the general 'tone' of society would have us all believe. No one has a right to be offended. It is a choice.
I'll try to remember that the next time I post some ubiquitous fact and then get called a fucking old hag for it.
At the end of the day....hypothetically speaking, if everyone became civil in their rhetoric....we still would have just as many shootings and murders as we do now.
It's just that we would have the morality police to deal with.
The last time a Representative or Senator was gunned down..was when?
Nobody has forgotten the people who died and their families, Jimmy. Nice try at demonizing the left, though.
I wish just ONE of you on the right would say "I hope we will be more civil in future" or "I am so sorry this happened".
I am truly sorry this happened and every day I hope and pray for more civility in our future. But I can't do it alone. Thoughts such as these need to be from all Americans across the country and that just ain't gonna happen.
I'm actually pretty proud of the way the leadership has come together. Did anyone watch the testimonials on the House floor yesterday? It is THEY who will set the tone and lead the way to civility. We, the public, take our cues from them.
The interesting thing about the vid that Sallow posted....Giffords is poised and on-point. Granted, I would disagree with her vote FOR obamacare, but, she doesn't take the 'bait' the female MSNBC host dangles in front of her, early on.
She does make mention of the Palin "map", and the "crosshairs" (and although she makes no mention of DK using virtually the same "crosshairs" map), but then goes on to say that she would not speak for Sarah Palin in terms of whether or not she really thought Palin meant for the "map" to be taken as an incitement to violence.
I know I would disagree with her on a few things but, she seems to be a rather poised individual. And she equally calls out the rhetoric and actions of extremists on the left, as she notes the same of extremists on the right.
What I noticed however...
She was asked whether or not she believed Palin intended it to incite violence.
I was disturbed with her answer...saying "I can not speak for Palin" does not answer the question of her opinion.....so an answer like that is the same as saying "yes, it is quite possible Palin intended to incite violence"
Otherwise, she would asnwer "of course not, but it doesnt mean someone may take it that way"
So I am curious as to whether she truly believes it was intended by Palin to incite violence.
If she did believe that, something is serious wrong.
The crosshairs thing targeted Giffords' district. Anyone else would have just said, yes, that kind of thing does incite violence, so I think she responded perfectly by prefacing her remark that way. Palin could have chosen any number of graphics to "target" certain districts--even a red dot would have gotten the point across. But anyone who owns a gun knows what "crosshairs" means, even the mentally disturbed.
At the end of the day....hypothetically speaking, if everyone became civil in their rhetoric....we still would have just as many shootings and murders as we do now.
It's just that we would have the morality police to deal with.
The last time a Representative or Senator was gunned down..was when?
What does this have to do with my post?
The last time a Representative or Senator was gunned down..was when?
What does this have to do with my post?
Because you're attempting to make this seem like a "normal" event. It was not. And the number of crimes committed in this country..especially murders..were on the decrease.
And "normalizing" violence..what ever the source..as a part of political discourse is an extremely dangerous path.
And it's one that needs to be stopped.
While it's a noble idea, and one that would hopefully take root....WHO gets to define what is acceptable and what is not?
-Government?
-Political parties?
And how would that jive with the 1st amendment?
We can dislike the fact that BEFORE the kid pulled the trigger, he was merely a nutjob unto himself, who apparently plagued many with his insanity. But, there is no constitutional right to sanity. People can be as screwed up as they like, so long as they don't willfully cause harm to another. He did that, and that's where he went wrong.
And there's another good question....Who gets to decide what "harm" is?
Just because someone is offended, that doesn't mean they've been "harmed", despite what many lawyers and the general 'tone' of society would have us all believe. No one has a right to be offended. It is a choice.
I'll try to remember that the next time I post some ubiquitous fact and then get called a fucking old hag for it.
It someone disagrees with what you've posted, and wants to claim the mantle of civility, they should say:
"Maggie, while I agree you have a right to your own opinion, I must disagree. Here's why..."
I'd bet you won't see that though.
What I noticed however...
She was asked whether or not she believed Palin intended it to incite violence.
I was disturbed with her answer...saying "I can not speak for Palin" does not answer the question of her opinion.....so an answer like that is the same as saying "yes, it is quite possible Palin intended to incite violence"
Otherwise, she would asnwer "of course not, but it doesnt mean someone may take it that way"
So I am curious as to whether she truly believes it was intended by Palin to incite violence.
If she did believe that, something is serious wrong.
The crosshairs thing targeted Giffords' district. Anyone else would have just said, yes, that kind of thing does incite violence, so I think she responded perfectly by prefacing her remark that way. Palin could have chosen any number of graphics to "target" certain districts--even a red dot would have gotten the point across. But anyone who owns a gun knows what "crosshairs" means, even the mentally disturbed.
Although Palin's "crosshairs" map, IMO, was meant to be perceived (in a sane world) metaphorically, as in "yeah boy, we got 'em in our crosshairs now! we'll vote 'em out come next election time"....
And although any sane individual would hope and pray this type of horrific event would never happen again....
I think it ironically says something clearly and boldly (although oddly) that the other "targets" on Palin's map are all alive and well, if I'm not mistaken. Meaning: If 'heated political rhetoric' inspires violence that much (which I don't believe), and if the mere sound of Sarah Palin's voice switches on some inate behavior in humans to kill each other (which again, I don't believe),...then those other "targets" would've already been "taken out" (so to speak), no?
In the end, people who willingly kill people are a little disturbed. Even if the killer said it was politically motivated, they would still be considered "deranged".
Our politicians are responsible for motivating us to war on other nations, why couldnt they motivate to kill? The rhetoric needs to be toned down by both sides.
Calling people names for their political beliefs means the debate is finished. The name caller is the loser. Lets all remember that. When the name calling starts, stop responding.
Nothing would be more civil than MSNBC going off the air for a week.
at the end of the day....hypothetically speaking, if everyone became civil in their rhetoric....we still would have just as many shootings and murders as we do now.
It's just that we would have the morality police to deal with.
the last time a representative or senator was gunned down..was when?
Nothing would be more civil than MSNBC going off the air for a week.
