Peace loving Progressives

[trish]

Your nut case cancels out Faldurs

I'm not discounting Faldur's. I'm not canceling it away with one on the other side. They both count. They both add to the risk of violence. Don't you get it? Only you guy's are keeping score. BTW haven't been using violent language, nor have I resorted to violence. Neither have you and neither has Faldur. But Sarah has invoked metaphors of violence, and so has Angle. They (and their groupies) should just own up to it instead of making up bizarre shit about blood libel. Not that it'll make a great deal a difference. What we really need is restrictive gun laws: limitations on magazine capacity, strict licensing, more extensive background checks, limitations on where one can carry, limitations on assault weapons, requirements for all gun owners to carry liability insurance etc. Even if a determined murderer will always be able to find a semi-automatic glock-19 with a high capacity magazine, we don't have to make it easy for him.

[loren]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=zVknXIVMp80


Now check this vid out. If this was a Tea Partier the seemingly easily offended Trish would be dragging her soap box down to the village square and calling for the Tea Party to curb the heated rhetoric. She doesn't care who's making the dangerous political speech...she just wants it curbed ( but mentions Palin in nearly every post) Funny thing is...this was a rally sponsered by Common Cause, Code Pink, and various labor unions, so it's no big deal.......Yawn !!!!!!

Egyptian style revolution...???? Hmmmm sounds incendiary to me. Over throwing the government ???

See what happens when you go down this road Trish????It gets turned right back around on you.

Whenever leftist groups throw out baseless accusations and even threaten either harm or death to sitting or past public officials, it's called free speach. But if a conservative points out their double-standard behavior with examples, it's heated, inciteful political rhetoric and hate speach.

[trish]

...the seemingly easily offended Trish...

Did I say I was offended?? Not at all. None of the language we're talking about is particularly offensive and it's certainly not directed at me. Is Palin offended? Of course, because everything is about her? Blood libel, really? Are her groupies offended? Sure you are, that's this thread's raison d'etre. My concerns are much less selfish. I'm not offended. I'm concerned that violent language and calls to political action that utilize violent metaphors increase the risk of violence to our political leaders, to others in public service and to any ordinary person who expresses an opinion or displays a bumper sticker. I'm concerned when people are told to bring their guns to a town meeting and they obey like unthinking sheep. It just brings us that much closer to the possibility of violence; not to mention it amounts to censorship via the intimidation of armed violence.

She doesn't care who's making the dangerous political speech...she just wants it curbed

Wrong again. Listen carefully. I don't want it curbed. What do I have to do with it? I'm merely pointing out that such language increases the risk of violent behavior in our society, that it would be nice if those who engage in it would admit as much and it would be prudent of them if they curbed their use of violent symbolism. I don't figure into it.

Whenever leftist groups throw out baseless accusations and even threaten either harm or death to sitting or past public officials, it's called free speach. But if a conservative points out their double-standard behavior with examples, it's heated, inciteful political rhetoric and hate speach.

Actually it's called hate speech and hate speech is not at issue here. Have you not read my previous posts in this thread or in the thread titled, "A Shooting Spree in Arizona"? I condemn all calls to political action that is couched in the language of violence. I do make a distinction between the temperature of the language and calls to violence (real or metaphorical) in the language. You can call Oberman a motherfucking, plague infested rat, I don't give a shit. That's heated speech but not violent speech. In politics who can't avoid heated and passionate speech. But if you say someone should string up this Conservative pundit or that Liberal Senator, then you've crossed the line regardless of what party you belong to. What's crossing the line? It's increasing the risk that someone, somewhere, crazy or sober, political or not, thinks they have the permission or justification of a segment of society to act out violently. I'm sure among ordinary folk, there are offenders of every party and every sort of persuasion. I'm disappointed that the people in Faldur's post have allowed themselves to be coaxed into suggesting violent acts be performed against political figures. I also condemn those violent suggestions. Among those in the public eye with the biggest megaphones there are a few stars (Palin and Angle among them) in the use of violent metaphor who really stand out...do you condemn their uses of violent symbolism?

[onmyknees]

"Did I say I was offended?? Not at all. None of the language we're talking about is particularly offensive and it's certainly not directed at me. Is Palin offended? Of course, because everything is about her? Blood libel, really? Are her groupies offended? Sure you are, that's this thread's raison d'etre. My concerns are much less selfish. I'm not offended. I'm concerned that violent language and calls to political action that utilize violent metaphors increase the risk of violence to our political leaders, to others in public service and to any ordinary person who expresses an opinion or displays a bumper sticker. I'm concerned when people are told to bring their guns to a town meeting and they obey like unthinking sheep. It just brings us that much closer to the possibility of violence; not to mention it amounts to censorship via the intimidation of armed violence. "

Trish...you didn't have to say you were offended. That was implied...or was I mistaken because of 4 weeks of you harping on the same issue ? I really don't know where you're going with this. Look...politics is a rough and tumble ordeal. it should be, but we've been using political military type metaphors for decades, and now you make the decision that we must tone it down ? I just don't see historical evidence to back up your concerns. The Reagan assignation attempt, the Squeaky Frome incident, and most serious threats have little to do with rough and tumble dialogue. Just like we won't change the abortion law because of the butcher in Philadelphia, nor should we change or modify the first amendment and tough political talk because of Loughner. That's not the way our republic functions. Yea...I know you'll retort with ..."I'm not asking to curb the first amendment" ....actually in a way you are. Subtly.
Look...Gabby Giffords was by all accounts a nice lady. If I thought for a second that Loughner or anybody else took Sarah Palin's words literally I might meet you half way on this, but there's absolutely no correlation...none, and I think all this call to civility has a political undertone...perhaps not by you.

Some guy acts like a yahoo because he sees an Obama bumper sticker, Put his ass in jail for 30 days and move on, nobody died...yet people are killed every day in this country because of road rage and You don't know their names, nor do we care to be honest...but throw in an Obama bumper sticker and suddenly it has all your focus. I'll bet there's far more people who get their ass kicked because they have team logo on their car !!!!!!!!!!!!!! So what's your point? If it's that largely we are too angry and too violent..?? I Probably agree. But it doesn't have a fucking thing to do with Palin, or an Obama bumper sticker or passionate political rhetoric.

I get the impression that you and others on the left are setting the stage getting ready for god forbid the day some lunatic hurts someone because of something someone said and it can be shown conclusively. Hedging you bets like some sort of investment in the future... But on the other hand....if it never happens...no big deal...it's just Palin's reputation that you've destroyed . Move on...nothing to be concerned about. Let's find another right wing danger to get everybody all concerned about !!

You know what concerns me, and alarms me far more than Sarah Palin telling supporters to lock and load for the political battles ahead ?????????...............This...



Oh it's not as violent as you would like us to believe some of Palin's metaphors are, but it's far more insidious, and far more fucking dangerous to a democracy in the long run. We won't see the President calling for something to be done about this in a speech in Tucson...This type of thing can't be capsulated in a nice sound bite by the left. But this sort of thing doesn't seem to concern the left. Not for a second do you see the dangers in what's being done to abuse the special rights we allow the press. There's no gun for you to blame, no easily identifiable victim , nothing that can summed up in a 30 second sound bite, yet it had more to do with the outcome of a national presidential election than all the fiery things Palin and Angle ever said. Here we have the preeminent paper of record subtly and deliberately slanting news stories as to move political opinion in their direction. Maybe someday when Palin is off your hit list...(oops) you can give me your thoughts on this, but I'm guessing it's not high on your priorities list as long as Palin is around. This takes some analysis...it's not quite as easy to draw the conclusions that you seem so concerned about, and it's not as easy for lightweights to draw the distinctions ( and I'm not putting you in that category) . This just isn't a big deal to the left...but put Palin behind a microphone and you hang on every fucking word looking to draw some imaginary linkage.



I'm sure you know Bernard Kalb is an esteemed former reporter and now journalism professor...

Kalb to NYT Executive Editor Keller: Why Do You Allow Left-Wing Views in Your News Stories?

By Clay Waters | February 04, 2011 | 16:50
New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller was challenged Monday night on the paper’s commitment to objectivity, especially concerning opinionizing in front-page articles, in an appearance televised on C-Span, before an audience at George Washington University. About 26 minutes into the wide-ranging journalism discussion, moderator Marvin Kalb challenged Keller.

Kalb: “On the Times you have news and then you've got opinion. Now there should be a wall between the two. Your ombudsman Arthur Brisbane says, and I quote, ‘the news pages are laced with analytical and opinion pieces that work against the premise that the news is just the news, unquote. Many conservatives as you well know, criticize the Times as being a liberal, left-wing newspaper, and that those views get into the news part of your newspaper. Why do you allow this to happen?”
Keller: “We don’t allow it to happen. I mean--”

Kalb: “But it happens almost every day.”

Keller: “According to Art Brisbane or according to you?”

Kalb: “No, well, according to people who have read the Times for many many years. There’s more, what I’m getting at here Bill, is that there’s more analysis dipping into commentary and the editorial side of reporting than a straight hard news story.”

Kalb is referring to Brisbane's January 9 column, where he said of a decision to put David Leonhardt's liberal economic analysis on the front page:
It was The Times’s decision to place it on Page 1 that posed the difficulty, sending the message that The Times’s take on health care is synonymous with Mr. Leonhardt’s, which some see as progressive or liberal.

[Silcc69]

Did we forget bout this particular incident?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politi...y-threats.html

The sole black Republican Party district chairman in Arizona resigned from his post in the wake of Saturday's shooting, citing threats from the Tea Party faction and concerns for his family's safety.

District Chairman Anthony Miller and several others resigned.

Miller, a 43-year-old Ahwatukee Foothills resident and former campaign worker for U.S. Sen. John McCain, was re-elected to a second one-year term last month. He said constant verbal attacks after that election and Internet blog posts by some local members with Tea Party ties made him worry about his family's safety.

The first and only African-American to hold the party's precinct chairmanship, Miller said he has been called "McCain's boy," and during the campaign saw a critic form his hand in the shape of a gun and point it at him.

"I wasn't going to resign but decided to quit after what happened Saturday," Miller said. "I love the Republican Party but I don't want to take a bullet for anyone."

His resignation comes in the wake of the attempted assassination of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Tucson), and the killing of several others, including a federal judge, at a political rally over the weekend. Although there have been no links discovered between the shooter, Jared Loughner, and the Tea Party, political opponents have blamed the movement and one of its major figures, former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, for creating an atmosphere that encourages violence.

Last month, Miller was re-elected to his second term as district chairman following the November general election, which saw Democratic incumbents like U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-Ariz.) and state Rep. Rae Waters (D-Ahwatukee Foothills) unseated in favor of Republican candidates.

Miller said the recent party election involved infighting between Miller and his allies and a "radical" local Tea Party faction calling itself the "New Vision" slate.

"There's trouble within the Republican Party," he said. "I'm seeing this new faction, the Sarah Palin type of Republicans."

The Arizona Republic

Ahwatukee Foothills News

If the guy was a democrat then this would not be a shocker but a black GOP member being threatened by the Tea Party make no sense at all. He is after all on THERE side.

[trish]

Trish...you didn't have to say you were offended. That was implied...or was I mistaken because of 4 weeks of you harping on the same issue ?

There you go again, claiming to know what I think instead of listening to what I say. What did I just say? I said, "I'm not offended." End of story. Why do you always try to make things personal? The issue isn't my feelings, the issue is the increased risk of violent behavior that is engendered by the use of violent symbolism in lieu of calls to political action.

I really don't know where you're going with this.

I didn't start this thread. I assume you guys are going somewhere with it. Here is the prudent course of action: Don't tell people to take their guns to political rallies. Don't tell people they may have to resort to Second Amendment Remedies. Don't support people when they say such things. Don't take your guns to rallies. Don't take them to town-hall meetings. Don't take them to State and Federal Parks, Schools, Churches or Nurseries. Support laws that would limit high capacity magazines, support laws that seek to limit gun ownership to responsible persons, make assault weapons illegal, stop whining and just admit your celebrity made a silly blunder involving language and symbolism...it's not like it hasn't happened before (I read all of them) or even since (blood libel).

I'm not asking for a law that will gag violent speech. I'm not advocating any sort of censorship. Sarah has a right to lubricate the violent fantasies of her groupies, the groupies have a right to those fantasies and I have a right to call them out on it. I'm advocating nothing that could be construed as insidiously dangerous to the Constitution. I'll tell you what is insidiously dangerous to the Constitution: sitting at a town-hall meeting with guns at your side while shouting down the speaker who holds the floor.

[onmyknees]

There you go again, claiming to know what I think instead of listening to what I say. What did I just say? I said, "I'm not offended." End of story. Why do you always try to make things personal? The issue isn't my feelings, the issue is the increased risk of violent behavior that is engendered by the use of violent symbolism in lieu of calls to political action.

I didn't start this thread. I assume you guys are going somewhere with it. Here is the prudent course of action: Don't tell people to take their guns to political rallies. Don't tell people they may have to resort to Second Amendment Remedies. Don't support people when they say such things. Don't take your guns to rallies. Don't take them to town-hall meetings. Don't take them to State and Federal Parks, Schools, Churches or Nurseries. Support laws that would limit high capacity magazines, support laws that seek to limit gun ownership to responsible persons, make assault weapons illegal, stop whining and just admit your celebrity made a silly blunder involving language and symbolism...it's not like it hasn't happened before (I read all of them) or even since (blood libel).

I'm not asking for a law that will gag violent speech. I'm not advocating any sort of censorship. Sarah has a right to lubricate the violent fantasies of her groupies, the groupies have a right to those fantasies and I have a right to call them out on it. I'm advocating nothing that could be construed as insidiously dangerous to the Constitution. I'll tell you what is insidiously dangerous to the Constitution: sitting at a town-hall meeting with guns at your side while shouting down the speaker who holds the floor.

I'm hardly making this personal Trish. If I was you'd know it ! This is politics ...it gets a little rough sometimes. Sooo after all this all you're saying is you have the right to call groups that use rhetoric you don't like out ?? You had that right before this thread ever started !!!!!! LMAO. IMO there's more to this for you than what you're suggesting.

Wow...you have this hysteria about people attending town hall meetings with guns. So in the spirit in which your latest post was intended....let me say to you...stop crying about all this gun talk you have such a fear of, and stating calling YOUR celebrity out on it ......

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” ....“Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

Now let's judge that statement by Trish's standard. He is directly referrencing a bringing a gun. He's not talking in metaphors, he's speaking directly. I'm worried that at some point, some wing nut may take him literally. Is he suggesting a physical brawl? One could interpret this as a call to arms. We've seen people beat up by union thugs at political rallies. Will this escalate? I'm concerned !!!!


And...I read hundreds of liberal blogs, newspapers, periodicals, articles, web sites, magazines , and watch as much liberal TV as I can stand I've googled this...did nexus lexus searches....bing searches, and not once since this statement was made did one liberal ...including the gun sensitive Trish show any concern about the firey political rhetoric referrencing guns and brawls.

Therefore...I smell the foul order of HYPOCRACY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gigantic Fail !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[onmyknees]

Did we forget bout this particular incident?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politi...y-threats.html

The sole black Republican Party district chairman in Arizona resigned from his post in the wake of Saturday's shooting, citing threats from the Tea Party faction and concerns for his family's safety.

District Chairman Anthony Miller and several others resigned.

Miller, a 43-year-old Ahwatukee Foothills resident and former campaign worker for U.S. Sen. John McCain, was re-elected to a second one-year term last month. He said constant verbal attacks after that election and Internet blog posts by some local members with Tea Party ties made him worry about his family's safety.

The first and only African-American to hold the party's precinct chairmanship, Miller said he has been called "McCain's boy," and during the campaign saw a critic form his hand in the shape of a gun and point it at him.

"I wasn't going to resign but decided to quit after what happened Saturday," Miller said. "I love the Republican Party but I don't want to take a bullet for anyone."

His resignation comes in the wake of the attempted assassination of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Tucson), and the killing of several others, including a federal judge, at a political rally over the weekend. Although there have been no links discovered between the shooter, Jared Loughner, and the Tea Party, political opponents have blamed the movement and one of its major figures, former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, for creating an atmosphere that encourages violence.

Last month, Miller was re-elected to his second term as district chairman following the November general election, which saw Democratic incumbents like U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-Ariz.) and state Rep. Rae Waters (D-Ahwatukee Foothills) unseated in favor of Republican candidates.

Miller said the recent party election involved infighting between Miller and his allies and a "radical" local Tea Party faction calling itself the "New Vision" slate.

"There's trouble within the Republican Party," he said. "I'm seeing this new faction, the Sarah Palin type of Republicans."

The Arizona Republic

Ahwatukee Foothills News

If the guy was a democrat then this would not be a shocker but a black GOP member being threatened by the Tea Party make no sense at all. He is after all on THERE side.

Well....i don't speak for the Tea Party Silcc, I do understand them, and agree with some of the things they articulate, but this guy sounds like he was a McCain Republican. In case you hadn't noticed, McCain is not the hearthrob of conservatives and Tea Partiers. He runs far right in the primaries, gets elected, then sheds his skin...but not to be concerned...ask any Tea Partier what they think of newly elected black Congressman , Col. Alan West !!!!!

[loren]

What we really need is restrictive gun laws: limitations on magazine capacity, strict licensing, more extensive background checks, limitations on where one can carry, limitations on assault weapons, requirements for all gun owners to carry liability insurance etc.

Why is liberal's answer always more gun control? Gun controll will not prevent crime. The only people who are limited by restrictive gun laws are honest, law abiding citizens not the criminals.

There are approximently 80 million Americans owning a total of about 258 million firearms. You would think with that many guns "on the street" there would be hundreds of people being shot and killed every day. According to the FBI, in 2009 (there aren't any numbers out for 2010 yet) there were 13,636 murders. Firearms caused 9,148 [that's about 25 people a day, nationwide] of those deaths, that's 67.1%. Another 1,825, 13.4% deaths reasulted from knives. The rest were killed by "other" weapons or were beaten to death.http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_20.html

According to the NHTSA in the same year [2009], there were 33,808 traffic fatalities. Of which, 10,839 were the reasult of drunk driving.http://www.centurycouncil.org/learn-...iving-research

Perhaps we need restrictive laws against car owners/perspective buyers. Background checks, limit the distances that people are allowed to drive, require all drivers to keep travel logs etc. Also, we need more laws regulating alcohol. Background checks, 5 day waiting period on all sales, limit the number of drinks permited, require people who drink alcohol to carry liability insurance etc.

[trish]

You had that right before this thread ever started !!!!!! LMAO.

I never denied it, so here's your ass back.

Wow...you have this hysteria about people attending town hall meetings with guns.

Yes, I fucking well do.

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,”

It should never been said. Obama's line obviously inflamed others to make even more violent statements that weren't hypothetical. It's part of the escalation. You're appalled by liberal uses of violent language and have said nothing at all about Palin, or Angle or the Tea-Bagger's uses of violent symbolism. So let's stop with the hypocrisy charge.

Why is liberal's answer always more gun control?

Because the use of guns in our country is out of control, duh.