Dangerous Rhetoric Watch

[onmyknees]

Well .....we heard lots of condemnation from the high minded progressives regarding Dangerous Rhetoric in the aftermath of Tucson. Shockingly it was only right wing rhetoric that was corrosive , even dangerous perhaps driving some to violence. From the NY Times, to these boards we were lectured to about the dangers. The mere mention of Palin made some Progressives behave like Pavlov's dog !!!!! But the tragedy is over, so most have moved on to other things....not me ! I live for hypocrisy. So it might be time for a reality check again . Again....I really don't have a problem with any of the rhetoric, so this tape doesn't necessarily disturb me, but using your standards....well...I'll let you all be the judge LOL!

YouTube - Rhetoric vs. Reality: Liberal Protest of Gov. Walker's Budget Repair Plan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71gsnLfsbbM&feature=player_embedded)

Hey...don't shoot the messenger !!!!!!!! LMAO

[onmyknees]

Tea Party Patriots encouraged by Palin?????? :dancing:

[trish]

Speech is not mere animal vocalization. We engage in speech in order to move one another. “Pass the salt.” “I love thee to the level of every day's most quiet need, by sun and candle-light.” “Vote.” The political speech of politicians, like a carefully constructed poem, is deliberate. Unlike a poem it is usually designed by one or more authors under consultation with a passel of political hacks and analysts. The end result is engineered with the hope of moving large subpopulations to action. The place of delivery, the form of delivery, the literary tropes utilized are all part of that engineering. Ask any commercial marketer whether or not the careful use of metaphor can move populations to action. Marketers agree: metaphors are causes of mass effects. A single metaphor can have a spectrum of effects . You can get people to buy a brand name beer and at the same time, depending on the metaphor, increase or decrease the risk of drunk driving. Of course Palin’s choice to cast herself in the roll of ferocious grizzly mom, gun-toting caribou-shooting, political Annie Oakley is engineered to reach and move a segment of the population to action. Without doubt Sarah’s metaphor, “Take up your arms,” does nothing to decrease the risk of gun violence; and by encouraging those already told to take their guns to town-hall meetings to take up their arms again, she, presumably inadvertently, increases the risk of violence at political forums such as the one in Tucson. Did she, her writers and consultants deliberately design their symbolic gun sights and their slogan “Take up your arms” to bring about that specific assassination attempt? Most probably not. Were some of them aware their language would increase the risk of such events? I think so. Did Sarah? Well, she’s pretty thick and blinded by ideology to boot. She probably honestly believes that her Annie Oakley persona calling for her admirers to take up their arms and take down those targeted by the gun-sights on her web-page had absolutely nothing to do with the risks Giffords and others are taking as they continue in public service. Those of us who learned from our grizzly moms know that just because others [are] doing wrong, it doesn’t mean Sarah’s off the hook.

[hippifried]

This thing in Wisconsin is getting interesting. The escalation could get out of hand.

[russtafa]

This Sarah Palin sounds so cool and switched on

[Odelay]

This thing in Wisconsin is getting interesting. The escalation could get out of hand.

I agree. We just went through a 2 year period with many protests from people on the right. We might just be heading for a long period of protests originating from the left. People in Ohio and other states are upset, too.

[Ben]

There's a lunatic fringe on both the left -- and the right. We need to condemn extremism on both sides of the aisle.
And, too, this is crucial: people on the left and the right will NOT change their positions or opinions. People are pretty much set in their thinking. Even if they're presented with the actual facts. Well, it doesn't matter. People will believe what they want to believe.
I mean, people can believe -- I mean, really believe -- that the moon is made out of cheese. They can believe that. They'd be wrong. But they'll strongly believe it.
People will believe that Obama is a socialist. They're wrong about that. But it doesn't matter.
People cannot be swayed from their belief system. It's simply the way the brain is wired, as it were.

[thombergeron]

Man, you are just thick, thick, thick. Totally missed the part where all those pro-union protesters showed up armed, like they do at Tea Party protests. Also didn't notice any footage of Olberman or Maddow or, well, anybody, fantasizing about killing prominent conservatives with their bare hands, as Glenn Beck likes to do.

Also thinking that you were shocked by the Hitler and Mussolini signs because you're undoubtedly ignorant of the fact that Hitler and Mussolini actually did outlaw labor unions -- Mussolini in 1922 and Hitler in 1933 -- much as Walker is attempting to do now, making it an apt, though obviously extreme, analogy. And you probably missed the irony of the "Reload" sign because, well, conservatives tend not to understand irony.

And I still haven't heard you make any comment at all on the numerous right-wing nutjobs who actually have killed people in the name of ideology over the past couple of years. For someone who loves to jump all over the world's 1 billion Muslims for their (alleged) failure to condemn every specific act of Muslim violence, you're pretty blasé about violence and murder committed by your own fellow travelers.

[hippifried]

Maybe a general solidarity strike is in order.

[onmyknees]

Speech is not mere animal vocalization. We engage in speech in order to move one another. “Pass the salt.” “I love thee to the level of every day's most quiet need, by sun and candle-light.” “Vote.” The political speech of politicians, like a carefully constructed poem, is deliberate. Unlike a poem it is usually designed by one or more authors under consultation with a passel of political hacks and analysts. The end result is engineered with the hope of moving large subpopulations to action. The place of delivery, the form of delivery, the literary tropes utilized are all part of that engineering. Ask any commercial marketer whether or not the careful use of metaphor can move populations to action. Marketers agree: metaphors are causes of mass effects. A single metaphor can have a spectrum of effects . You can get people to buy a brand name beer and at the same time, depending on the metaphor, increase or decrease the risk of drunk driving. Of course Palin’s choice to cast herself in the roll of ferocious grizzly mom, gun-toting caribou-shooting, political Annie Oakley is engineered to reach and move a segment of the population to action. Without doubt Sarah’s metaphor, “Take up your arms,” does nothing to decrease the risk of gun violence; and by encouraging those already told to take their guns to town-hall meetings to take up their arms again, she, presumably inadvertently, increases the risk of violence at political forums such as the one in Tucson. Did she, her writers and consultants deliberately design their symbolic gun sights and their slogan “Take up your arms” to bring about that specific assassination attempt? Most probably not. Were some of them aware their language would increase the risk of such events? I think so. Did Sarah? Well, she’s pretty thick and blinded by ideology to boot. She probably honestly believes that her Annie Oakley persona calling for her admirers to take up their arms and take down those targeted by the gun-sights on her web-page had absolutely nothing to do with the risks Giffords and others are taking as they continue in public service. Those of us who learned from our grizzly moms know that just because others [are] doing wrong, it doesn’t mean Sarah’s off the hook.

Well of course she's not off the hook with you and your obsessed liberal friends. She never will be....thus the word obsession. I see...so Sarah is blindfolded by ideology, but you're an impartial, dispassionate observer?? LMAO. Please ! Obviously there is nothing anyone, least of all me can write to move you off your strongly held violent fantasies with respect to Palin, and that's fine....You'll cling to that just like we'll cling to our guns and religion ! LOL..But I did read this today and it caught my attention. It deals with my favorite pastime..Liberal Hypocrisy. So instead of me spending a precious hour attempting to dislodge you from your orthodoxy, let's try liberal Washington Post columnist Charles Lane...Oh and a post script...Two of my favorite hypocrites, that Mr. Lane refers to below, but fails to mention ( Maddow and Schultz) in attempt to gin up the base repeated the 20% figure with respect to the percentage Wisconsin teachers were asked to contribute...PolitiFact review their broadcasts and gave them both a FAIL ! But hey...who's counting? As long as there were no "Take up your Arms " references, what's a little white lie here and there if it's for the greater good, and helps to fan the flames of the protestors !! It's doubtful anyone on this thread will conceed the hypocracy that several national progressives have seen and heard loud and clear...I'll enjoy thier words while I can !!!!!!!!!!

Enjoy !!!!!


Tyranny in Wisconsin, Part 4


By Charles Lane
It has been just over five weeks since a deranged gunman in a Tucson suburb left six people dead and 13 injured, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.). In the wake of that horrific tragedy, Americans reflected on -- and argued about -- the possible connection between the violence and today's often nasty, polarized political discourse.
President Obama, in a moving eulogy for the fallen, called on all Americans to "pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds."
Yet today in Wisconsin, anger and vilification are once again the order of the day -- and the incivility emanates from the progressive end of the spectrum, including, no doubt, many of the same people who blamed right-wing vitriol for creating a climate of violence in Arizona. Union-backed demonstrators, furious at Republican Gov. Scott Walker's plans for reining in public-sector unions, equate him with Hosni Mubarak and Adolf Hitler, in disgusting mimickry of some Tea Party members' inflammatory linkage between Obama and the evil dictators of history. (See Photo no. 10 in this gallery (http://www.jsonline.com/multimedia/photos/116411054.html#id_46722484)) or Photo 13 in this gallery (http://www.jsonline.com/multimedia/photos/116237359.html#id_46689849).
Meanwhile, progressive voices in the media fanned the flames, spreading misinformation and outright falsehoods (http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/feb/17/firestorm-wisconsin/) with a zest that would make Glenn Beck blush: Gov. Walker wants to crush unions with the National Guard; he manufactured a budget crisis (http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/18/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-says-wisconsin-track-have-budget-sur/)to justify his attack on unions; he proposed cutting union workers' pay 20 percent. Neutral sources have debunked it all, but as far as I know only Ezra Klein (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/unions_arent_to_blame_for_wisc.html) among these tribunes of truth has seen fit to correct the record.
And, of course, thousands of teachers have abandoned their classrooms to join a boisterous crowd intimidating and obstructing the elected state legislature in Madison -- in scenes reminiscent of the Tea Party's mobbing of Democrats on Capitol Hill during the health-care debate.
This is hypocrisy on an epic scale. I can't think of a more overwhelming refutation of the claim that incivility is the unique province of the American right -- as opposed to what it really is and always has been: a two-way street with both right and left lanes. No wonder so many Americans in the broad center of the political spectrum are turned off by both parties and their sanctimonious "bases."

One certified progressive, Joe Klein (http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/02/18/wisconsin-the-hemlock-revolution/), has had the courage to make the case against the unions' attempted short-circuiting of democracy, and for Walker's legislation. Klein brilliantly and succinctly describes the conflict between liberal goals such as quality education and apolitical governance on the one hand, and public-sector unionism as currently practiced on the other.
But Joe Klein is unusual. Perhaps most disappointing of all is that the president himself, (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/17/AR2011021707325.html)rather than living up to the words he spoke so eloquently in Tuscon, has chosen to fuel the fury on the Great Lakes. He labeled Walker's legislation "an assault on unions," while the White House political operation bused in more demonstrators to join those waving Walker = Hitler placards. These are the words and deeds of a partisan politician, not a national leader.
If the brave Gabrielle Giffords could speak normally, what would she say about these events? I hope she would agree with me: This is a sad moment for liberalism, for the Democratic Party, and, really, for the whole country.

[trish]

All that and yet not a word of outrage against Palin's or Angle's presumably accidental invocations of violence. Evidently you didn't understand my post. So here it is again:

Speech is not mere animal vocalization. We engage in speech in order to move one another. “Pass the salt.” “I love thee to the level of every day's most quiet need, by sun and candle-light.” “Vote.” The political speech of politicians, like a carefully constructed poem, is deliberate. Unlike a poem it is usually designed by one or more authors under consultation with a passel of political hacks and analysts. The end result is engineered with the hope of moving large subpopulations to action. The place of delivery, the form of delivery, the literary tropes utilized are all part of that engineering. Ask any commercial marketer whether or not the careful use of metaphor can move populations to action. Marketers agree: metaphors are causes of mass effects. A single metaphor can have a spectrum of effects . You can get people to buy a brand name beer and at the same time, depending on the metaphor, increase or decrease the risk of drunk driving. Of course Palin’s choice to cast herself in the roll of ferocious grizzly mom, gun-toting caribou-shooting, political Annie Oakley is engineered to reach and move a segment of the population to action. Without doubt Sarah’s metaphor, “Take up your arms,” does nothing to decrease the risk of gun violence; and by encouraging those already told to take their guns to town-hall meetings to take up their arms again, she, presumably inadvertently, increases the risk of violence at political forums such as the one in Tucson. Did she, her writers and consultants deliberately design their symbolic gun sights and their slogan “Take up your arms” to bring about that specific assassination attempt? Most probably not. Were some of them aware their language would increase the risk of such events? I think so. Did Sarah? Well, she’s pretty thick and blinded by ideology to boot. She probably honestly believes that her Annie Oakley persona calling for her admirers to take up their arms and take down those targeted by the gun-sights on her web-page had absolutely nothing to do with the risks Giffords and others are taking as they continue in public service. Those of us who learned from our grizzly moms know that just because others [are] doing wrong, it doesn’t mean Sarah’s off the hook.

[Cuchulain]

Let's make one thing perfectly clear: this bullshit bill in Wisconsin is, as Obama said "an assault on unions". I think that's putting it damn mildly. By removing the unions ability to negotiate on anything but wages, and that in a very limited way, by removing a unions ability to collect dues and by forcing them to recertify every year, Walker kills the union. Any other interpretation is horseshit.

Here's onmyknees' beloved PolitiFact:
We asked experts including academics and lawyers on both sides of labor-management talks about the assertion that -- on a practical basis -- the plan would mean the death of public employee unions.

James Scott, a management-side attorney who represents Milwaukee County, said the changes are dramatic, but not unprecedented. He said nine states totally prohibit collective bargaining for public employees, and 10 others restrict it to police/fire, or teachers or state employees.

His view of how life would be under the proposal:

"There isn’t much utility in belonging to a public sector labor union other than perhaps the social side of it," Scott said. He said calling it a death knell for unions might be "a little bit" too strong, but not much.

Timothy Hawks, whose law firm represents municipal and state employees, said if the bill goes through as drafted "you have busted every (public employee) union in the state." A state official with a stake in both sides of labor disputes, Peter Davis, general counsel at the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, said it was a "fair prediction" public sector workers would walk away from paying dues.

Cheryl Maranto, chairman of the management department at Marquette University’s College of Business Administration, said the bill would have the effect of "totally eliminating public sector bargaining in the state" by rendering the unions "irrelevant and powerless." In the historical view, she said Walker’s Democratic predecessor, Jim Doyle, overreached with pro-union moves and now Walker is going too far in the opposite direction.

The CONs have always hated unions and have always done everything they can to weaken them. Anyone who says differently is a liar.

Walker probably has dreams of the WH at some point. He wants to make himself a national hero to the repubs with this vile crap. I've been in a union for a long time. While it may be true that union households are more political than the general public, there are plenty of union people who don't bother to vote, or who vote for repubs. Walker is going to change that. What did ol' Rushbo say about 'poking the bear'?

[onmyknees]

Let's make one thing perfectly clear: this bullshit bill in Wisconsin is, as Obama said "an assault on unions". I think that's putting it damn mildly. By removing the unions ability to negotiate on anything but wages, and that in a very limited way, by removing a unions ability to collect dues and by forcing them to recertify every year, Walker kills the union. Any other interpretation is horseshit.

Here's onmyknees' beloved PolitiFact:
We asked experts including academics and lawyers on both sides of labor-management talks about the assertion that -- on a practical basis -- the plan would mean the death of public employee unions.

James Scott, a management-side attorney who represents Milwaukee County, said the changes are dramatic, but not unprecedented. He said nine states totally prohibit collective bargaining for public employees, and 10 others restrict it to police/fire, or teachers or state employees.

His view of how life would be under the proposal:

"There isn’t much utility in belonging to a public sector labor union other than perhaps the social side of it," Scott said. He said calling it a death knell for unions might be "a little bit" too strong, but not much.

Timothy Hawks, whose law firm represents municipal and state employees, said if the bill goes through as drafted "you have busted every (public employee) union in the state." A state official with a stake in both sides of labor disputes, Peter Davis, general counsel at the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, said it was a "fair prediction" public sector workers would walk away from paying dues.

Cheryl Maranto, chairman of the management department at Marquette University’s College of Business Administration, said the bill would have the effect of "totally eliminating public sector bargaining in the state" by rendering the unions "irrelevant and powerless." In the historical view, she said Walker’s Democratic predecessor, Jim Doyle, overreached with pro-union moves and now Walker is going too far in the opposite direction.

The CONs have always hated unions and have always done everything they can to weaken them. Anyone who says differently is a liar.

Walker probably has dreams of the WH at some point. He wants to make himself a national hero to the repubs with this vile crap. I've been in a union for a long time. While it may be true that union households are more political than the general public, there are plenty of union people who don't bother to vote, or who vote for repubs. Walker is going to change that. What did ol' Rushbo say about 'poking the bear'?

I don't doubt that's the intent for a second. I completely agree with you. But several things to consider ......the demographics clearly show that the fastest growing, best places for employment and standard of living , and places bussinesses are moving ( as well as the geneal population) are...Florida, South Carolina, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona....besides being moderate climates, the thing they all have in common is they are right to work states. You can't quarrel with that.

As populations in the upper midwest and north east move to these states ( and they are in record numbers) the ability to continue the practice of allowing sectors of the public employee unions to rack up huge amounts of overtime in their final 3 years prior to retirement to jack thier pension has to be stopped. The tax infastructure to support that simply is not there. The NYC pension liability for public sector unions is in the billions per year. It was a fun ride if you were in the pace car, but the gig is up now !

[onmyknees]

All that and yet not a word of outrage against Palin's or Angle's presumably accidental invocations of violence. Evidently you didn't understand my post. So here it is again:

Speech is not mere animal vocalization. We engage in speech in order to move one another. “Pass the salt.” “I love thee to the level of every day's most quiet need, by sun and candle-light.” “Vote.” The political speech of politicians, like a carefully constructed poem, is deliberate. Unlike a poem it is usually designed by one or more authors under consultation with a passel of political hacks and analysts. The end result is engineered with the hope of moving large subpopulations to action. The place of delivery, the form of delivery, the literary tropes utilized are all part of that engineering. Ask any commercial marketer whether or not the careful use of metaphor can move populations to action. Marketers agree: metaphors are causes of mass effects. A single metaphor can have a spectrum of effects . You can get people to buy a brand name beer and at the same time, depending on the metaphor, increase or decrease the risk of drunk driving. Of course Palin’s choice to cast herself in the roll of ferocious grizzly mom, gun-toting caribou-shooting, political Annie Oakley is engineered to reach and move a segment of the population to action. Without doubt Sarah’s metaphor, “Take up your arms,” does nothing to decrease the risk of gun violence; and by encouraging those already told to take their guns to town-hall meetings to take up their arms again, she, presumably inadvertently, increases the risk of violence at political forums such as the one in Tucson. Did she, her writers and consultants deliberately design their symbolic gun sights and their slogan “Take up your arms” to bring about that specific assassination attempt? Most probably not. Were some of them aware their language would increase the risk of such events? I think so. Did Sarah? Well, she’s pretty thick and blinded by ideology to boot. She probably honestly believes that her Annie Oakley persona calling for her admirers to take up their arms and take down those targeted by the gun-sights on her web-page had absolutely nothing to do with the risks Giffords and others are taking as they continue in public service. Those of us who learned from our grizzly moms know that just because others [are] doing wrong, it doesn’t mean Sarah’s off the hook.

LMAO...oh I read it, painful as it was, so you wasted space by reposting. It was just more of the same....no disrespect intended, I like your writing, but you're simply wrong..and it's like playing word jumble. Move the words around on the game board, but the underlying meaning remains the same.
Speaking of reader retention....you must have me confused with someone else. I'm not going to condemn anyones political speech. That's your gig. I simply bring you baskets full of examples coming from your side since you and others have been beating the Palin is dangerous drum for months now when there is equally inflamatory speech and action coming from the left that just seems to pass you all by without notice.

[trish]

I'm not going to condemn anyones political speech. Oh, you must've mistitled this thread then.


I simply bring you baskets full of examples coming from your sideFAIL
People who are in the grip of an ideology are sometimes blind to distinctions that are clear to others. So let’s try to make some important distinctions a little bit more clear. Calling on people to “take up their arms,” or advocating that Second Amendment solutions may be necessary is using literal invocations of violence to invoke a(presumably less violent) political action (e.g. vote against and urge others to vote against these people who are pictured in gun sites). Taking guns to town-hall meetings while shouting down your opponents while they hold the floor thereby sweeping civilized rules of conduct aside and replacing them with mob rule is to literally threaten and intimidate with violence to get your way. Describing the actions of a governor as an “assault on unions” is neither literally an invocation nor a threat. Taking alway the right of unions to collectively bargain for their members is something that literally threatens the lively-hoods of literally hundreds of thousands of families. You might expect the situation one that may turn violent. Hence democrats and conservatives should be cautious not to seem to solicit, encourage, condone or excuse violence as a course of action. As the son of Dechtire rightly points out, the Governor has launched a political assault on unions. To say so neither solicits, encourages, condones or excuses violence, it is merely to acknowledge a political fact.


...since you and others have been beating the Palin is dangerous drum for months nowonly when you guys start yet another thread on the long dead, ever boring topic. But now that you mention her, she and Angle and the Tea Party have up'd the ante on violent speech, increasing the risks of actual violence, and Palin was approach by Gifford's on this issue not very long before Gifford's was SHOT THROUGH THE HEAD. And this is what you won't condemn. You evidently need to read it again:

Speech is not mere animal vocalization. We engage in speech in order to move one another. “Pass the salt.” “I love thee to the level of every day's most quiet need, by sun and candle-light.” “Vote.” The political speech of politicians, like a carefully constructed poem, is deliberate. Unlike a poem it is usually designed by one or more authors under consultation with a passel of political hacks and analysts. The end result is engineered with the hope of moving large subpopulations to action. The place of delivery, the form of delivery, the literary tropes utilized are all part of that engineering. Ask any commercial marketer whether or not the careful use of metaphor can move populations to action. Marketers agree: metaphors are causes of mass effects. A single metaphor can have a spectrum of effects . You can get people to buy a brand name beer and at the same time, depending on the metaphor, increase or decrease the risk of drunk driving. Of course Palin’s choice to cast herself in the roll of ferocious grizzly mom, gun-toting caribou-shooting, political Annie Oakley is engineered to reach and move a segment of the population to action. Without doubt Sarah’s metaphor, “Take up your arms,” does nothing to decrease the risk of gun violence; and by encouraging those already told to take their guns to town-hall meetings to take up their arms again, she, presumably inadvertently, increases the risk of violence at political forums such as the one in Tucson. Did she, her writers and consultants deliberately design their symbolic gun sights and their slogan “Take up your arms” to bring about that specific assassination attempt? Most probably not. Were some of them aware their language would increase the risk of such events? I think so. Did Sarah? Well, she’s pretty thick and blinded by ideology to boot. She probably honestly believes that her Annie Oakley persona calling for her admirers to take up their arms and take down those targeted by the gun-sights on her web-page had absolutely nothing to do with the risks Giffords and others are taking as they continue in public service. Those of us who learned from our grizzly moms know that just because others [are] doing wrong, it doesn’t mean Sarah’s off the hook.

[onmyknees]

Today's Civility Lesson.......Guess it's excusable...this is the Union's protest and they're not going to let any Tea Party rain on thier parade ! Things are getting a little touchy out there in Madison. Where's the love from the left???



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AvTjDUW0IIM#at=21

[Faldur]

Sorry but got to post this one for ya Trish.. the woman pisses you off to no end

http://www.derfcity.com/images/blogparts/1-11/palin-gun-100309.jpg

[trish]

Today's Civility Lesson.......Guess it's excusable.YOU LOSE AGAIN! I didn't say violence was excusable. I said, "Taking alway the right of unions to collectively bargain for their members is something that literally threatens the lively-hoods of literally hundreds of thousands of families. You might expect the situation [I] one that may turn violent. Hence democrats and conservatives should be cautious not to seem to solicit, encourage, condone or excuse violence as a course of action." Where is it not clear that I hope to avoid the violence reported by the tea baggers (but not shown) is to be avoided? Perhaps you got confused by the claim that the action of the governor is an "assault on the union." It is. Saying so is not advocating action of any kind, violent or otherwise. It's neither excusable nor excusable but it's merely true. If there are people there actually pulling power cords from speakers and disrupting the rights of others to free speech and assembly, then that is inexcusable. It's even more inexcusable they get into a tussle when someone tries to stop them. But that's the part you say you yourself condone, or will not condemn. It's my gig. Shouting down others while waving a gun is just fine in your book. But pulling a plug on a speaker and shoving someone aside who's trying to stop you is not inexcusable in mine. Though I will point out it is not an invocation to violence. So once again, since you just admitted that this thread exists because you're such a paladin for Sarah, I'll repeat:
Speech is not mere animal vocalization. We engage in speech in order to move one another. “Pass the salt.” “I love thee to the level of every day's most quiet need, by sun and candle-light.” “Vote.” The political speech of politicians, like a carefully constructed poem, is deliberate. Unlike a poem it is usually designed by one or more authors under consultation with a passel of political hacks and analysts. The end result is engineered with the hope of moving large subpopulations to action. The place of delivery, the form of delivery, the literary tropes utilized are all part of that engineering. Ask any commercial marketer whether or not the careful use of metaphor can move populations to action. Marketers agree: metaphors are causes of mass effects. A single metaphor can have a spectrum of effects . You can get people to buy a brand name beer and at the same time, depending on the metaphor, increase or decrease the risk of drunk driving. Of course Palin’s choice to cast herself in the roll of ferocious grizzly mom, gun-toting caribou-shooting, political Annie Oakley is engineered to reach and move a segment of the population to action. Without doubt Sarah’s metaphor, “Take up your arms,” does nothing to decrease the risk of gun violence; and by encouraging those already told to take their guns to town-hall meetings to take up their arms again, she, presumably inadvertently, increases the risk of violence at political forums such as the one in Tucson. Did she, her writers and consultants deliberately design their symbolic gun sights and their slogan “Take up your arms” to bring about that specific assassination attempt? Most probably not. Were some of them aware their language would increase the risk of such events? I think so. Did Sarah? Well, she’s pretty thick and blinded by ideology to boot. She probably honestly believes that her Annie Oakley persona calling for her admirers to take up their arms and take down those targeted by the gun-sights on her web-page had absolutely nothing to do with the risks Giffords and others are taking as they continue in public service. Those of us who learned from our grizzly moms know that just because others [are] doing wrong, it doesn’t mean Sarah’s off the hook.

[Odelay]

Ha! Looks like there's even worse junk than union-busting in that Wisconsin budget bill. The Energy company that the blogger is referring to in the piece is Koch Enterprises, of the Koch brothers who underwrite many different Republican Party operations. The Kochs claim to be libertarians but it's entirely laughable when you see what political operations they actually put their money behind.

The Less Discussed Part of Walker’s Wisconsin Plan: No-Bid Energy Assets Firesales. (https://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/the-less-discussed-part-of-walkers-wisconsin-plan-no-bid-energy-assets-firesales/)

Posted in Uncategorized (https://rortybomb.wordpress.com/category/uncategorized/) by Mike on February 21, 2011
Have you heard about 16.896?
The fight in Wisconsin is over Governor Walker’s 144-page Budget Repair Bill. (http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/JR1SB-11.pdf) The parts everyone is focusing on have to do with the right to collectively bargain being stripped from public sector unions (except for the unions that supported Walker running for Governor (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2011/02/scrooge-ism_in_wisconsin_part.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)). Focusing on this misses a large part of what the bill would do. Check out this language, from the same bill (my bold):

16.896 Sale or contractual operation of state−owned heating, cooling, and power plants. (1) Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state−owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b).
The bill would allow for the selling of state-owned heating/cooling/power plants without bids and without concern for the legally-defined public interest. This excellent catch is from Ed at ginandtacos.com (http://www.ginandtacos.com/2011/02/21/stand-and-deliver/) (who, speaking of Madison, took me to the Essen Haus (http://www.essen-haus.com/) on my 21st birthday, where the night began to go sideways). Ed correctly notes:

If this isn’t the best summary of the goals of modern conservatism, I don’t know what is. It’s like a highlight reel of all of the tomahawk dunks of neo-Gilded Age corporatism: privatization, no-bid contracts, deregulation, and naked cronyism. Extra bonus points for the explicit effort to legally redefine the term “public interest” as “whatever the energy industry lobbyists we appoint to these unelected bureaucratic positions say it is.”
In case it isn’t clear where the naked cronyism comes in, remember which large, politically active private interest loves (http://www.kochind.com/ViewPoint/climateEnergy.aspx) buying up power plants and already has considerable interests in Wisconsin (http://www.kochind.com/factsSheets/WisconsinFacts.aspx). Then consider their demonstrated eagerness (http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/02/big-surprise-not-gov-walker-is-a-creature-of-koch-industries/) to help Mr. Walker get elected and bus in carpetbaggers to have a sad little pro-Mubarak style “rally” in his honor (http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/116519738.html). There are dots to be connected here, but doing so might not be in the public interest.
It’s important to think of this battle as a larger one over the role of the state. The attempt to break labor is part of the same continuous motion as saying that the crony, corporatist selling of state utilities to the Koch brothers and other energy interests is the new “public interest.”

[onmyknees]

Ha! Looks like there's even worse junk than union-busting in that Wisconsin budget bill. The Energy company that the blogger is referring to in the piece is Koch Enterprises, of the Koch brothers who underwrite many different Republican Party operations. The Kochs claim to be libertarians but it's entirely laughable when you see what political operations they actually put their money behind.

The Less Discussed Part of Walker’s Wisconsin Plan: No-Bid Energy Assets Firesales. (https://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/the-less-discussed-part-of-walkers-wisconsin-plan-no-bid-energy-assets-firesales/)

Posted in Uncategorized (https://rortybomb.wordpress.com/category/uncategorized/) by Mike on February 21, 2011
Have you heard about 16.896?
The fight in Wisconsin is over Governor Walker’s 144-page Budget Repair Bill. (http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/JR1SB-11.pdf) The parts everyone is focusing on have to do with the right to collectively bargain being stripped from public sector unions (except for the unions that supported Walker running for Governor (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2011/02/scrooge-ism_in_wisconsin_part.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)). Focusing on this misses a large part of what the bill would do. Check out this language, from the same bill (my bold):

16.896 Sale or contractual operation of state−owned heating, cooling, and power plants. (1) Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state−owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b).
The bill would allow for the selling of state-owned heating/cooling/power plants without bids and without concern for the legally-defined public interest. This excellent catch is from Ed at ginandtacos.com (http://www.ginandtacos.com/2011/02/21/stand-and-deliver/) (who, speaking of Madison, took me to the Essen Haus (http://www.essen-haus.com/) on my 21st birthday, where the night began to go sideways). Ed correctly notes:

If this isn’t the best summary of the goals of modern conservatism, I don’t know what is. It’s like a highlight reel of all of the tomahawk dunks of neo-Gilded Age corporatism: privatization, no-bid contracts, deregulation, and naked cronyism. Extra bonus points for the explicit effort to legally redefine the term “public interest” as “whatever the energy industry lobbyists we appoint to these unelected bureaucratic positions say it is.”
In case it isn’t clear where the naked cronyism comes in, remember which large, politically active private interest loves (http://www.kochind.com/ViewPoint/climateEnergy.aspx) buying up power plants and already has considerable interests in Wisconsin (http://www.kochind.com/factsSheets/WisconsinFacts.aspx). Then consider their demonstrated eagerness (http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/02/big-surprise-not-gov-walker-is-a-creature-of-koch-industries/) to help Mr. Walker get elected and bus in carpetbaggers to have a sad little pro-Mubarak style “rally” in his honor (http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/116519738.html). There are dots to be connected here, but doing so might not be in the public interest.
It’s important to think of this battle as a larger one over the role of the state. The attempt to break labor is part of the same continuous motion as saying that the crony, corporatist selling of state utilities to the Koch brothers and other energy interests is the new “public interest.”


Hey Odelay......welcome back. They must have called up the
reinforcements !! With respect to the scary Koch brothers, I'm sure they do fund some Tea Party activity, no different than George Soros funds all those left wing front groups. So what's your beef? What...the libs have their billionaire but when the right does it , it's a threat to democracy? You know my feeling about hypocracy !!! I say they cancel each other out, but I just watched another clip of him ( Soros) calling someone else a Nazi. And who would know a Nazi better than he ?????? LMAO

[onmyknees]

Oh, you must've mistitled this thread then.

FAIL
People who are in the grip of an ideology are sometimes blind to distinctions that are clear to others. So let’s try to make some important distinctions a little bit more clear. Calling on people to “take up their arms,” or advocating that Second Amendment solutions may be necessary is using literal invocations of violence to invoke a(presumably less violent) political action (e.g. vote against and urge others to vote against these people who are pictured in gun sites). Taking guns to town-hall meetings while shouting down your opponents while they hold the floor thereby sweeping civilized rules of conduct aside and replacing them with mob rule is to literally threaten and intimidate with violence to get your way. Describing the actions of a governor as an “assault on unions” is neither literally an invocation nor a threat. Taking alway the right of unions to collectively bargain for their members is something that literally threatens the lively-hoods of literally hundreds of thousands of families. You might expect the situation one that may turn violent. Hence democrats and conservatives should be cautious not to seem to solicit, encourage, condone or excuse violence as a course of action. As the son of Dechtire rightly points out, the Governor has launched a political assault on unions. To say so neither solicits, encourages, condones or excuses violence, it is merely to acknowledge a political fact.

only when you guys start yet another thread on the long dead, ever boring topic. But now that you mention her, she and Angle and the Tea Party have up'd the ante on violent speech, increasing the risks of actual violence, and Palin was approach by Gifford's on this issue not very long before Gifford's was SHOT THROUGH THE HEAD. And this is what you won't condemn. You evidently need to read it again:

Speech is not mere animal vocalization. We engage in speech in order to move one another. “Pass the salt.” “I love thee to the level of every day's most quiet need, by sun and candle-light.” “Vote.” The political speech of politicians, like a carefully constructed poem, is deliberate. Unlike a poem it is usually designed by one or more authors under consultation with a passel of political hacks and analysts. The end result is engineered with the hope of moving large subpopulations to action. The place of delivery, the form of delivery, the literary tropes utilized are all part of that engineering. Ask any commercial marketer whether or not the careful use of metaphor can move populations to action. Marketers agree: metaphors are causes of mass effects. A single metaphor can have a spectrum of effects . You can get people to buy a brand name beer and at the same time, depending on the metaphor, increase or decrease the risk of drunk driving. Of course Palin’s choice to cast herself in the roll of ferocious grizzly mom, gun-toting caribou-shooting, political Annie Oakley is engineered to reach and move a segment of the population to action. Without doubt Sarah’s metaphor, “Take up your arms,” does nothing to decrease the risk of gun violence; and by encouraging those already told to take their guns to town-hall meetings to take up their arms again, she, presumably inadvertently, increases the risk of violence at political forums such as the one in Tucson. Did she, her writers and consultants deliberately design their symbolic gun sights and their slogan “Take up your arms” to bring about that specific assassination attempt? Most probably not. Were some of them aware their language would increase the risk of such events? I think so. Did Sarah? Well, she’s pretty thick and blinded by ideology to boot. She probably honestly believes that her Annie Oakley persona calling for her admirers to take up their arms and take down those targeted by the gun-sights on her web-page had absolutely nothing to do with the risks Giffords and others are taking as they continue in public service. Those of us who learned from our grizzly moms know that just because others [are] doing wrong, it doesn’t mean Sarah’s off the hook.


"only when you guys start yet another thread on the long dead, ever boring topic. But now that you mention her, she and Angle and the Tea Party have up'd the ante on violent speech, increasing the risks of actual violence, and Palin was approach by Gifford's on this issue not very long before Gifford's was SHOT THROUGH THE HEAD. And this is what you won't condemn. You evidently need to read it again:"

First off....are you saying Giffords had a face to face meeting with Palin? I've never heard that....I'd like some proof please. I know that she expressed some concern over the intensity of the campaign in her district, so explain "approached"

And once again ( hopefully for the last time) those 2 occurances ( Palin's political) and Gifford's shooting) are completly and totally unrelated. In a court of law, that doesn't even reach the threshold of circumstantial evidence. There's NO correlation or connection other than imaginary. If Loughner had been found with Palin literature, or was a known right winger, you would have some substance, but that's simply not the case. It would be similar to if a crazy man drove his car into the Tea Party rally near the union demonstrators in Madison and mowed a half dozen of them down and the subsequent investigation found him to be a known unstable homeless vet struggling with schizophrenia . Some would try to make the correlation that the signs and the repeated rhetoric at the union rally finally pushed this lunatic over the edge. There's zero connection. None. Nada. Your cause and affect is not plausible.

[trish]

Not for the last time:Speech is not mere animal vocalization. We engage in speech in order to move one another. “Pass the salt.” “I love thee to the level of every day's most quiet need, by sun and candle-light.” “Vote.” The political speech of politicians, like a carefully constructed poem, is deliberate. Unlike a poem it is usually designed by one or more authors under consultation with a passel of political hacks and analysts. The end result is engineered with the hope of moving large subpopulations to action. The place of delivery, the form of delivery, the literary tropes utilized are all part of that engineering. Ask any commercial marketer whether or not the careful use of metaphor can move populations to action. Marketers agree: metaphors are causes of mass effects. A single metaphor can have a spectrum of effects . You can get people to buy a brand name beer and at the same time, depending on the metaphor, increase or decrease the risk of drunk driving. Of course Palin’s choice to cast herself in the roll of ferocious grizzly mom, gun-toting caribou-shooting, political Annie Oakley is engineered to reach and move a segment of the population to action. Without doubt Sarah’s metaphor, “Take up your arms,” does nothing to decrease the risk of gun violence; and by encouraging those already told to take their guns to town-hall meetings to take up their arms again, she, presumably inadvertently, increases the risk of violence at political forums such as the one in Tucson. Did she, her writers and consultants deliberately design their symbolic gun sights and their slogan “Take up your arms” to bring about that specific assassination attempt? Most probably not. Were some of them aware their language would increase the risk of such events? I think so. Did Sarah? Well, she’s pretty thick and blinded by ideology to boot. She probably honestly believes that her Annie Oakley persona calling for her admirers to take up their arms and take down those targeted by the gun-sights on her web-page had absolutely nothing to do with the risks Giffords and others are taking as they continue in public service. Those of us who learned from our grizzly moms know that just because others [are] doing wrong, it doesn’t mean Sarah’s off the hook.

[onmyknees]

Not for the last time:Speech is not mere animal vocalization. We engage in speech in order to move one another. “Pass the salt.” “I love thee to the level of every day's most quiet need, by sun and candle-light.” “Vote.” The political speech of politicians, like a carefully constructed poem, is deliberate. Unlike a poem it is usually designed by one or more authors under consultation with a passel of political hacks and analysts. The end result is engineered with the hope of moving large subpopulations to action. The place of delivery, the form of delivery, the literary tropes utilized are all part of that engineering. Ask any commercial marketer whether or not the careful use of metaphor can move populations to action. Marketers agree: metaphors are causes of mass effects. A single metaphor can have a spectrum of effects . You can get people to buy a brand name beer and at the same time, depending on the metaphor, increase or decrease the risk of drunk driving. Of course Palin’s choice to cast herself in the roll of ferocious grizzly mom, gun-toting caribou-shooting, political Annie Oakley is engineered to reach and move a segment of the population to action. Without doubt Sarah’s metaphor, “Take up your arms,” does nothing to decrease the risk of gun violence; and by encouraging those already told to take their guns to town-hall meetings to take up their arms again, she, presumably inadvertently, increases the risk of violence at political forums such as the one in Tucson. Did she, her writers and consultants deliberately design their symbolic gun sights and their slogan “Take up your arms” to bring about that specific assassination attempt? Most probably not. Were some of them aware their language would increase the risk of such events? I think so. Did Sarah? Well, she’s pretty thick and blinded by ideology to boot. She probably honestly believes that her Annie Oakley persona calling for her admirers to take up their arms and take down those targeted by the gun-sights on her web-page had absolutely nothing to do with the risks Giffords and others are taking as they continue in public service. Those of us who learned from our grizzly moms know that just because others [are] doing wrong, it doesn’t mean Sarah’s off the hook.

Ok Trish....Now what about the proof or clarification of Ms. Giffords "approaching" Ms. Palin. If you're going to lecture me about the use...or misuse as it were of words, let's tone down the hyperbole !!!!!!
And while you're googling that...still waiting for the proof "many" were encouraged to bring guns to the Tea Partys. Or did I miss that?

[trish]

No hyperbole here:

Not for the last time:Speech is not mere animal vocalization. We engage in speech in order to move one another. “Pass the salt.” “I love thee to the level of every day's most quiet need, by sun and candle-light.” “Vote.” The political speech of politicians, like a carefully constructed poem, is deliberate. Unlike a poem it is usually designed by one or more authors under consultation with a passel of political hacks and analysts. The end result is engineered with the hope of moving large subpopulations to action. The place of delivery, the form of delivery, the literary tropes utilized are all part of that engineering. Ask any commercial marketer whether or not the careful use of metaphor can move populations to action. Marketers agree: metaphors are causes of mass effects. A single metaphor can have a spectrum of effects . You can get people to buy a brand name beer and at the same time, depending on the metaphor, increase or decrease the risk of drunk driving. Of course Palin’s choice to cast herself in the roll of ferocious grizzly mom, gun-toting caribou-shooting, political Annie Oakley is engineered to reach and move a segment of the population to action. Without doubt Sarah’s metaphor, “Take up your arms,” does nothing to decrease the risk of gun violence; and by encouraging those already told to take their guns to town-hall meetings to take up their arms again, she, presumably inadvertently, increases the risk of violence at political forums such as the one in Tucson. Did she, her writers and consultants deliberately design their symbolic gun sights and their slogan “Take up your arms” to bring about that specific assassination attempt? Most probably not. Were some of them aware their language would increase the risk of such events? I think so. Did Sarah? Well, she’s pretty thick and blinded by ideology to boot. She probably honestly believes that her Annie Oakley persona calling for her admirers to take up their arms and take down those targeted by the gun-sights on her web-page had absolutely nothing to do with the risks Giffords and others are taking as they continue in public service. Those of us who learned from our grizzly moms know that just because others [are] doing wrong, it doesn’t mean Sarah’s off the hook.

[Faldur]

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/1003/beating-a-dead-horse-horse-demotivational-poster-1267844749.png

[trish]

And that's why you guys started yet another boring thread on this dead topic, right? But I am happy to see you finally admit that Sarah's is a "dead horse". Acknowledge the higher risks of violence associated with violent language, or offer something new and I will respond appropriately with something new. Until then, I've said all I need to on the topic. But that doesn't mean I won't continue to meet your desperate, guilt soaked, don't-blame-us posts with pre-formatted, but kind assurances that you are not directly responsible for the deaths, injuries, broken lives and families in Tucson; and that your support and your part in propagating the language of Palin and Angle and your lack of support for meaningful gun legislation was not a direct cause of the tragedy that occurred there. All you did was raise the level of risk. I forgive you. Go say three hail-Marys.

[hippifried]

They won't do penance, but it doesn't matter. Forgiveness comes from contrition.

[Faldur]

Lol, "Sarah's a dead horse"? Dang that girl has you twisted in knots.

The dead horse is a forum full of closed minded individuals, yes I am one of them, who rant and rave lengthy statements back and forth, that most don't entirely read. And it's all for not, your position is unbending and so is mine. It's mental masturbation at best, and I find it a complete waste of time and energy, hence my dead horse.

[onmyknees]

They won't do penance, but it doesn't matter. Forgiveness comes from contrition.


There is absolutely nothing to feel guilt about, seek forgiveness for, or preform penance for. I sleep like a baby at night, as I'm sure does Ms. Palin. You and Trish and your guilt by association and extension is a colossal fail...but by all means cling to it...it's really working well for you libs !!

Case in point.....If you want to know the importance you progressives place on Palin, and subsequently your need to destroy her....tonight on Matthew's show....Egypt still uncertain, Libya in utter chaos and revolt, Tunisia hemorrhaging, Iran stirring, ships in the Suez, the middle east in flames, and what does Matthews spend the bulk of his time discussing ? Palin in a segment called "Northern Exposure". It's so fucking pathetic and obvious it ceases to be funny anymore. Rather, it's disturbing .The delicious irony that you and Trish seem oblivious to is that you place far more importance on her ( judging by your non stop condemnation) than even most conservatives do ! Liberal lampooners, Obsession is not a fragrance, it's a sickness, and now a way of life for you. !!! Palin may pray for you, but not me !!!!!!!! LMAO

[hippifried]

There is absolutely nothing to feel guilt about, seek forgiveness for, or preform penance for. I sleep like a baby at night, as I'm sure does Ms. Palin.
That's because neither of you know what you're doing or what you're talking about. You have no concept of morality or resposibility.

[trish]

Let's see, you started this thread after being a major defender of violent language on two other threads with the same theme. All your posts fall into one or more of three categories: 1) trish, there's no conceivable link between the pervasive use of violent language in political speech and the risk of violence 2) trish, the democrats are doing it more and 3) trish, you're such a losing liberal you make me LMAO. Why the compulsive need to convince trish the you're morally in the clear? That liberals aren't? And do you really think laughing your ass off is persuasive?
There is absolutely nothing to feel guilt about, seek forgiveness for, or preform penance for. I sleep like a baby at night,... After all you many efforts,
Methinks thou dost protest too much.

[onmyknees]

Civility Watch. Day 40 Since Obama's Tuscon Speech.

More Liberal Love.

Metaphors? Rhetoric? A call to action? Desperation?


Today's Left ..where hypocracy has become a political strategy.

Dem to Union Supporters: “Need to Get Out On the Streets & Get a Little Bloody” (http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/02/dem-to-union-supporters-need-to-get-out-on-the-streets-get-a-little-bloody/)

Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, February 23, 2011, 12:02 PM
Congressman Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) made this bloody threat (http://nhjournal.com/2011/02/23/dem-rep-to-unions-time-to-get-%e2%80%98bloody%e2%80%99/#) while pointing at tea party protesters across the street.

The Hill (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/145627-dem-lawmaker-on-labor-protests-get-a-little-bloody-when-necessary) reported:

Sometimes it’s necessary to get out on the streets and “get a little bloody,” a Massachusetts Democrat said Tuesday in reference to labor battles in Wisconsin.
Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) fired up a group of union members in Boston with a speech urging them to work down in the trenches to fend off limits to workers’ rights like those proposed in Wisconsin.
“I’m proud to be here with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an email to get you going,” Capuano said, according to the Statehouse News. “Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary.”

[trish]

Speech is not mere animal vocalization. We engage in speech in order to move one another. “Pass the salt.” “I love thee to the level of every day's most quiet need, by sun and candle-light.” “Vote.” The political speech of politicians, like a carefully constructed poem, is deliberate. Unlike a poem it is usually designed by one or more authors under consultation with a passel of political hacks and analysts. The end result is engineered with the hope of moving large subpopulations to action. The place of delivery, the form of delivery, the literary tropes utilized are all part of that engineering. Ask any commercial marketer whether or not the careful use of metaphor can move populations to action. Marketers agree: metaphors are causes of mass effects. A single metaphor can have a spectrum of effects . You can get people to buy a brand name beer and at the same time, depending on the metaphor, increase or decrease the risk of drunk driving. Of course Palin’s choice to cast herself in the roll of ferocious grizzly mom, gun-toting caribou-shooting, political Annie Oakley is engineered to reach and move a segment of the population to action. Without doubt Sarah’s metaphor, “Take up your arms,” does nothing to decrease the risk of gun violence; and by encouraging those already told to take their guns to town-hall meetings to take up their arms again, she, presumably inadvertently, increases the risk of violence at political forums such as the one in Tucson. Did she, her writers and consultants deliberately design their symbolic gun sights and their slogan “Take up your arms” to bring about that specific assassination attempt? Most probably not. Were some of them aware their language would increase the risk of such events? I think so. Did Sarah? Well, she’s pretty thick and blinded by ideology to boot. She probably honestly believes that her Annie Oakley persona calling for her admirers to take up their arms and take down those targeted by the gun-sights on her web-page had absolutely nothing to do with the risks Giffords and others are taking as they continue in public service. Those of us who learned from our grizzly moms know that just because others [are] doing wrong, it doesn’t mean Sarah’s off the hook.

[Faldur]

"This is going to be a struggle at least for the next two years. Let's be serious about this. They're not going to back down and we're not going to back down. This is a struggle for the hearts and minds of America," Capuano said, referring to the Tea Party counter-protestors as a "couple of nuts in the background."

"I'm proud to be here with people who understand that it's more than just sending an email to get you going. Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary," he continued.

[trish]

"I'm proud to be here with people who understand that it's more than just sending an email to get you going. Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary," he continued. Read literally this is not a call to violent action. It simultaneous encourages one to exercise their right of assembly and warns that one might suffer harm in the process. Certainly not the same thing as Palin's "take up your arms" or Angle's "Second Amendment Remedies, or the symbolic intimidation of going armed to townhall meetings. I don't know how many times you need me to explain an obvious distinction. Still I would prefer politicians avoid violent language altogether.

Speech is not mere animal vocalization. We engage in speech in order to move one another. “Pass the salt.” “I love thee to the level of every day's most quiet need, by sun and candle-light.” “Vote.” The political speech of politicians, like a carefully constructed poem, is deliberate. Unlike a poem it is usually designed by one or more authors under consultation with a passel of political hacks and analysts. The end result is engineered with the hope of moving large subpopulations to action. The place of delivery, the form of delivery, the literary tropes utilized are all part of that engineering. Ask any commercial marketer whether or not the careful use of metaphor can move populations to action. Marketers agree: metaphors are causes of mass effects. A single metaphor can have a spectrum of effects . You can get people to buy a brand name beer and at the same time, depending on the metaphor, increase or decrease the risk of drunk driving. Of course Palin’s choice to cast herself in the roll of ferocious grizzly mom, gun-toting caribou-shooting, political Annie Oakley is engineered to reach and move a segment of the population to action. Without doubt Sarah’s metaphor, “Take up your arms,” does nothing to decrease the risk of gun violence; and by encouraging those already told to take their guns to town-hall meetings to take up their arms again, she, presumably inadvertently, increases the risk of violence at political forums such as the one in Tucson. Did she, her writers and consultants deliberately design their symbolic gun sights and their slogan “Take up your arms” to bring about that specific assassination attempt? Most probably not. Were some of them aware their language would increase the risk of such events? I think so. Did Sarah? Well, she’s pretty thick and blinded by ideology to boot. She probably honestly believes that her Annie Oakley persona calling for her admirers to take up their arms and take down those targeted by the gun-sights on her web-page had absolutely nothing to do with the risks Giffords and others are taking as they continue in public service. Those of us who learned from our grizzly moms know that just because others [are] doing wrong, it doesn’t mean Sarah’s off the hook.

[hippifried]

I don't know how many times you need me to explain an obvious distinction.
:banghead

[Faldur]

http://theelitegymnast.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/alicia-mr-ed-ed.jpg

[onmyknees]

Read literally this is not a call to violent action. It simultaneous encourages one to exercise their right of assembly and warns that one might suffer harm in the process. Certainly not the same thing as Palin's "take up your arms" or Angle's "Second Amendment Remedies, or the symbolic intimidation of going armed to townhall meetings. I don't know how many times you need me to explain an obvious distinction. Still I would prefer politicians avoid violent language altogether.

Speech is not mere animal vocalization. We engage in speech in order to move one another. “Pass the salt.” “I love thee to the level of every day's most quiet need, by sun and candle-light.” “Vote.” The political speech of politicians, like a carefully constructed poem, is deliberate. Unlike a poem it is usually designed by one or more authors under consultation with a passel of political hacks and analysts. The end result is engineered with the hope of moving large subpopulations to action. The place of delivery, the form of delivery, the literary tropes utilized are all part of that engineering. Ask any commercial marketer whether or not the careful use of metaphor can move populations to action. Marketers agree: metaphors are causes of mass effects. A single metaphor can have a spectrum of effects . You can get people to buy a brand name beer and at the same time, depending on the metaphor, increase or decrease the risk of drunk driving. Of course Palin’s choice to cast herself in the roll of ferocious grizzly mom, gun-toting caribou-shooting, political Annie Oakley is engineered to reach and move a segment of the population to action. Without doubt Sarah’s metaphor, “Take up your arms,” does nothing to decrease the risk of gun violence; and by encouraging those already told to take their guns to town-hall meetings to take up their arms again, she, presumably inadvertently, increases the risk of violence at political forums such as the one in Tucson. Did she, her writers and consultants deliberately design their symbolic gun sights and their slogan “Take up your arms” to bring about that specific assassination attempt? Most probably not. Were some of them aware their language would increase the risk of such events? I think so. Did Sarah? Well, she’s pretty thick and blinded by ideology to boot. She probably honestly believes that her Annie Oakley persona calling for her admirers to take up their arms and take down those targeted by the gun-sights on her web-page had absolutely nothing to do with the risks Giffords and others are taking as they continue in public service. Those of us who learned from our grizzly moms know that just because others [are] doing wrong, it doesn’t mean Sarah’s off the hook.


"Read literally this is not a call to violent action. It simultaneous encourages one to exercise their right of assembly and warns that one might suffer harm in the process. Certainly not the same thing as Palin's "take up your arms" or Angle's "Second Amendment Remedies, or the symbolic intimidation of going armed to townhall meetings. I don't know how many times you need me to explain an obvious distinction. Still I would prefer politicians avoid violent language altogether. "


Trish...that distinction rests in your mind only, well you and Hippie. A guy told me one time......."you can justify anything if you try hard enough" Appearently that's what's going on here, because the speaker has since apologized. I mean come on with all the distinction and justification. Your distinction is analytical to be sure....perhaps overly so. My point ( how many times do I need to explain this ?) is that a Loughner isn't distinguishing the difference between metaphors and rhetoric or disecting intent . Recall the Son of Sam was called to action by a dogs howl and voices in his head.
You can try to explain it to me 100 more times, and it's not washing. Sorry. If someone is hurt in these demonstrations, it would be completely prudent and absolutely appropriate to lay this at the feet of those currently stoking the fires like this Democratic Congressman. Tempers are flaring out there....Get it ?

I thouroughly enjoyed the disclaimer at the end of your post !!!!!!!! LOL

[hippifried]

Taking my name in vain again? You have no idea what I think on this issue, spud, because I've pretty much stayed out of this thread except to snipe a few quick zingers. So let me enlighten you. I don't care what people say. Especially the stupid ones. I don't believe intelligent people can be incited to violence over memetic ideology. I just find it humorous how many people seem to be gullible enough to take seriously the inane rants of obvious know-nothings, & how many know-nothings are too stupid to realize how unstable their constituents are &/or when to shut the hell up. As far as I'm concerned, you lunatic fringe right wingers are just tacky & rude, because that's all you have.

[trish]

I explained the distinction: read literally one invokes violence and the other warns against harm. It's not a difficult distinction. Hardly subtle. Even the thick of skull should be able to grasp it. Saying the distinction exists in my mind only doesn't make it so, it's merely an admission that either it doesn't exist in your mind, or you can't think of a reasonable way to meet the distinction and fit it to your view. If it doesn't fit with your ideology, it can't exist.


Appearently that's what's going on here, because the speaker has since apologized. Of course he has. It is a violent metaphor after all and I too expressed in the above post that he shouldn't have utilized it. Has Sarah apologized? No. So who has shown themselves to be human, flexible and reasonable?


Your distinction is analytical to be sure....perhaps overly so.Perhaps not. I doubt you know what it would mean to be overly analytical.


My point ( how many times do I need to explain this ?) is that a Loughner isn't distinguishing the difference between metaphors and rhetoric or disecting intent .I grant that point. But the NRA, tea-party, shoot-em-up climate endorsed by you and your tea-bagging friends enabled Loughner (e.g. eradicating any semblance of gun regulation in AZ and other states) and increased the risk of violence. This risk hasn't been discharged by the tragedy in Tucson. The risk continues. Loughner is not the only person to have violently attacked politicians and political institutions and other "targets" of the right. We have anti-American government nuts walking into the Capitol building and shooting guards, we have anti-American government nuts flying planes into IRS buildings and others murdering obstetricians. If Sarah were a Muslim cleric with gun sites on her decidedly anti-American government web-page targeting American Congressmen who were then SHOT IN THE HEAD, the tea-party would be shouting for her head. But apparently inanely stupid white Christian milfs with conservative ideologies get a pass.

Look, speech is not mere animal vocalization. We engage in speech in order to move one another. “Pass the salt.” “I love thee to the level of every day's most quiet need, by sun and candle-light.” “Vote.” The political speech of politicians, like a carefully constructed poem, is deliberate. Unlike a poem it is usually designed by one or more authors under consultation with a passel of political hacks and analysts. The end result is engineered with the hope of moving large subpopulations to action. The place of delivery, the form of delivery, the literary tropes utilized are all part of that engineering. Ask any commercial marketer whether or not the careful use of metaphor can move populations to action. Marketers agree: metaphors are causes of mass effects. A single metaphor can have a spectrum of effects . You can get people to buy a brand name beer and at the same time, depending on the metaphor, increase or decrease the risk of drunk driving. Of course Palin’s choice to cast herself in the roll of ferocious grizzly mom, gun-toting caribou-shooting, political Annie Oakley is engineered to reach and move a segment of the population to action. Without doubt Sarah’s metaphor, “Take up your arms,” does nothing to decrease the risk of gun violence; and by encouraging those already told to take their guns to town-hall meetings to take up their arms again, she, presumably inadvertently, increases the risk of violence at political forums such as the one in Tucson. Did she, her writers and consultants deliberately design their symbolic gun sights and their slogan “Take up your arms” to bring about that specific assassination attempt? Most probably not. Were some of them aware their language would increase the risk of such events? I think so. Did Sarah? Well, she’s pretty thick and blinded by ideology to boot. She probably honestly believes that her Annie Oakley persona calling for her admirers to take up their arms and take down those targeted by the gun-sights on her web-page had absolutely nothing to do with the risks Giffords and others are taking as they continue in public service. Those of us who learned from our grizzly moms know that just because others [are] doing wrong, it doesn’t mean Sarah’s off the hook.

[onmyknees]

I explained the distinction: read literally one invokes violence and the other warns against harm. It's not a difficult distinction. Hardly subtle. Even the thick of skull should be able to grasp it. Saying the distinction exists in my mind only doesn't make it so, it's merely an admission that either it doesn't exist in your mind, or you can't think of a reasonable way to meet the distinction and fit it to your view. If it doesn't fit with your ideology, it can't exist.

Of course he has. It is a violent metaphor after all and I too expressed in the above post that he shouldn't have utilized it. Has Sarah apologized? No. So who has shown themselves to be human, flexible and reasonable?

Perhaps not. I doubt you know what it would mean to be overly analytical.

I grant that point. But the NRA, tea-party, shoot-em-up climate endorsed by you and your tea-bagging friends enabled Loughner (e.g. eradicating any semblance of gun regulation in AZ and other states) and increased the risk of violence. This risk hasn't been discharged by the tragedy in Tucson. The risk continues. Loughner is not the only person to have violently attacked politicians and political institutions and other "targets" of the right. We have anti-American government nuts walking into the Capitol building and shooting guards, we have anti-American government nuts flying planes into IRS buildings and others murdering obstetricians. If Sarah were a Muslim cleric with gun sites on her decidedly anti-American government web-page targeting American Congressmen who were then SHOT IN THE HEAD, the tea-party would be shouting for her head. But apparently inanely stupid white Christian milfs with conservative ideologies get a pass.

Look, speech is not mere animal vocalization. We engage in speech in order to move one another. “Pass the salt.” “I love thee to the level of every day's most quiet need, by sun and candle-light.” “Vote.” The political speech of politicians, like a carefully constructed poem, is deliberate. Unlike a poem it is usually designed by one or more authors under consultation with a passel of political hacks and analysts. The end result is engineered with the hope of moving large subpopulations to action. The place of delivery, the form of delivery, the literary tropes utilized are all part of that engineering. Ask any commercial marketer whether or not the careful use of metaphor can move populations to action. Marketers agree: metaphors are causes of mass effects. A single metaphor can have a spectrum of effects . You can get people to buy a brand name beer and at the same time, depending on the metaphor, increase or decrease the risk of drunk driving. Of course Palin’s choice to cast herself in the roll of ferocious grizzly mom, gun-toting caribou-shooting, political Annie Oakley is engineered to reach and move a segment of the population to action. Without doubt Sarah’s metaphor, “Take up your arms,” does nothing to decrease the risk of gun violence; and by encouraging those already told to take their guns to town-hall meetings to take up their arms again, she, presumably inadvertently, increases the risk of violence at political forums such as the one in Tucson. Did she, her writers and consultants deliberately design their symbolic gun sights and their slogan “Take up your arms” to bring about that specific assassination attempt? Most probably not. Were some of them aware their language would increase the risk of such events? I think so. Did Sarah? Well, she’s pretty thick and blinded by ideology to boot. She probably honestly believes that her Annie Oakley persona calling for her admirers to take up their arms and take down those targeted by the gun-sights on her web-page had absolutely nothing to do with the risks Giffords and others are taking as they continue in public service. Those of us who learned from our grizzly moms know that just because others [are] doing wrong, it doesn’t mean Sarah’s off the hook.

Appearently your obsession deepens and becomes more chronic with each post. Your hate and vitriol for Palin is both disturbing and actually funny in a tragic comedy sort of way. Your reality has become distorted...so it's time for another violent threatening rhetoric example from the left. The preponderonce of evidence this past several weeks is really getting overwhelming. Seems since Barry's Tuscon speeh, one party toned it down, one turned it up. Keep your head buried in the sand Trish ...the world and the evidence continues to pass you by.

More vile rhetoric by THE LEFT !!!!! Another sum bag hooker loving knuckle dragging liberal . If hypocrisy was green energy these fuckers would be powering the world.


YouTube - Prostitute-patronizing Dem Wisconsin State Represent to female GOP colleague: 'You are fucking dead' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbMBl0oF1-Q&feature=player_embedded)


Prostitute-patronizing Democratic Wisconsin state rep. to female GOP colleague: ‘You are f*cking dead’ (http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/28/prostitute-patronizing-dem-wisconsin-state-represent-to-female-gop-colleague-you-are-fucking-dead/)

By Jeff Poor (http://dailycaller.com/author/jeffpoor/) - The Daily Caller | Published: 2:57 PM 02/28/2011 | Updated: 7:25 PM 03/01/2011
http://dc-cdn.virtacore.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-email/images/email.gif (http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/28/prostitute-patronizing-dem-wisconsin-state-represent-to-female-gop-colleague-you-are-fucking-dead/email/)
http://dc-cdn.virtacore.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-print/images/print.gif (http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/28/prostitute-patronizing-dem-wisconsin-state-represent-to-female-gop-colleague-you-are-fucking-dead/print/)
http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/themes/default/images/addthis.gif (http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&pub=zengy)




http://dc-cdn.virtacore.com/user_photos/jeffpoor-1861904482-100.jpg
By Jeff Poor (http://dailycaller.com/author/jeffpoor/) - The Daily Caller
Bio (http://dailycaller.com/author/jeffpoor/) | Archive (http://dailycaller.com/author/jeffpoor/) | Email jeffpoor (jeff.poor@dailycaller.com)

http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/themes/default/images/rss-get-feed.gif Get jeffpoor Feed (http://dailycaller.com/author/jeffpoor/feed/)

Jeff Poor covers the media for The Daily Caller.

http://dc-cdn.virtacore.com/2011/02/gordonhintzarrested-300x225.jpg (http://dc-cdn.virtacore.com/2011/02/gordonhintzarrested.jpg)




http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/themes/default/images/t-tweet-it.jpg (http://twitter.com/home/?status=RT+%40DailyCaller+Prostitute-patronizing+Democratic+Wisconsin+state+rep.+to+fem ale+GOP+colleague%3A+%E2%80%98You+are+f%2Acking+de a...+http%3A%2F%2Fdailycaller.com%2F%3Fp%3D2100826 )
http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/themes/default/images/fb-post-it.jpg (http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/28/prostitute-patronizing-dem-wisconsin-state-represent-to-female-gop-colleague-you-are-fucking-dead/&t=Prostitute-patronizing Democratic Wisconsin state rep. to female GOP colleague: ‘You are f*cking dead’)
http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/themes/default/images/d-digg-it.jpg (http://digg.com/submit?url=http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/28/prostitute-patronizing-dem-wisconsin-state-represent-to-female-gop-colleague-you-are-fucking-dead/&title=Prostitute-patronizing Democratic Wisconsin state rep. to female GOP colleague: ‘You are f*cking dead’&bodytext=Milwaukee+radio+host+reports+State+Rep.+G ordon+Hintz+makes+derogatory+remarks+to+State+Rep. +Michelle+Litjens+on+floor+of+Wisconsin+assembly&media=MEDIA&topic= target=)
53 (http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/28/prostitute-patronizing-dem-wisconsin-state-represent-to-female-gop-colleague-you-are-fucking-dead/#comments)




We Recommend:









Keep calm and carry on, right? Only if you’re on the right and are a member of the Tea Party movement. Otherwise, there’s a whole other set of rules to play by.
On Monday, Milwaukee AM 620 WTMJ radio host Charlie Sykes (http://www.620wtmj.com/shows/charliesykes/117064153.html) detailed an encounter between Democratic State Rep. Gordon Hintz, who had previously been busted in a prostitution sting (http://www.thenorthwestern.com/article/20110221/OSH0101/110221076/-1/OSHbusiness/Hintz-cited-connection-Appleton-prostitution-sting?odyssey=nav%7Chead), and Republican State Rep. Michelle Litjens, in which the rules of civility were completely ignored after a vote to “engross” a state budget repair bill.
“After the vote to engross, he turns to a female conservative Republican, who is also from the Oshkosh area, looks at her and says, ‘You are f—ing dead,’” Sykes said. “He didn’t say ‘f—ing,’ he said the whole thing. He says to a female colleague, ‘You are f—ing dead.’”
According to Sykes, Litjens confirmed the encounter and explained she felt that she had allowed him to “intimidate her.” However, Sykes called on the media to look into the encounter as tensions are high in the state due to a union-collective bargaining showdown in the state government.
“Here’s my challenge: Is anybody in the media going to follow up on this story about Gordon Hintz?” Sykes continued. “All you need to do is call the state representative. Call Michelle Litjens, ask her this question. Call Gordon Hintz, ask him. Call other members and if he denies it, I actually have a list of other legislators who heard it.”

[trish]

Appearently your obsession deepens and becomes more chronic with each post. That's odd, because I haven't said anything new about Sarah for weeks. In case you haven't noticed I keep posting the same piece. What's become chronic is your obsession with this topic. This is the third thread devoted to it and it was started by you.


“After the vote to engross, he turns to a female conservative Republican, who is also from the Oshkosh area, looks at her and says, ‘You are f—ing dead,’” Sykes said. “He didn’t say ‘f—ing,’ he said the whole thing. He says to a female colleague, ‘You are f—ing dead.’”
According to Sykes, Litjens confirmed the encounter and explained she felt that she had allowed him to “intimidate her.” This is abhorrent behavior. I never said it only comes from the right. My claim is language that calls for violence or threatens violence increases the risk of violence.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20036440-503544.html

Speech is not mere animal vocalization. We engage in speech in order to move one another. “Pass the salt.” “I love thee to the level of every day's most quiet need, by sun and candle-light.” “Vote.” The political speech of politicians, like a carefully constructed poem, is deliberate. Unlike a poem it is usually designed by one or more authors under consultation with a passel of political hacks and analysts. The end result is engineered with the hope of moving large subpopulations to action. The place of delivery, the form of delivery, the literary tropes utilized are all part of that engineering. Ask any commercial marketer whether or not the careful use of metaphor can move populations to action. Marketers agree: metaphors are causes of mass effects. A single metaphor can have a spectrum of effects . You can get people to buy a brand name beer and at the same time, depending on the metaphor, increase or decrease the risk of drunk driving. Of course Palin’s choice to cast herself in the roll of ferocious grizzly mom, gun-toting caribou-shooting, political Annie Oakley is engineered to reach and move a segment of the population to action. Without doubt Sarah’s metaphor, “Take up your arms,” does nothing to decrease the risk of gun violence; and by encouraging those already told to take their guns to town-hall meetings to take up their arms again, she, presumably inadvertently, increases the risk of violence at political forums such as the one in Tucson. Did she, her writers and consultants deliberately design their symbolic gun sights and their slogan “Take up your arms” to bring about that specific assassination attempt? Most probably not. Were some of them aware their language would increase the risk of such events? I think so. Did Sarah? Well, she’s pretty thick and blinded by ideology to boot. She probably honestly believes that her Annie Oakley persona calling for her admirers to take up their arms and take down those targeted by the gun-sights on her web-page had absolutely nothing to do with the risks Giffords and others are taking as they continue in public service. Those of us who learned from our grizzly moms know that just because others [are] doing wrong, it doesn’t mean Sarah’s off the hook.

[onmyknees]

Thought it was time to revive this based on some more of the over the top rhetoric spewed daily by the likes of Chuckie Schumer ( Let's call them extremists...not because that's necessarily what I believe but that's what the Democratic caucus told me to say) And now right on que here comes Representative Slaughter. She's a gift that just keeps giving...Listen to this moron. Was she told to say this like Schumer...or did she actually come up with this on her own? Either way this is the dumbest women I have ever heard...She makes Palin sound like an Oxford grad !! LMAO

Recall not too long ago all your outrage at the over the top political speech you attempted to tie to conservatives surronding Tuson? I guess you squeezed all the political capitol possible out of that tradgey, so now you're really not all that interested in over the top rhetoric?


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

[trish]

Thought it was time totroll. That's what you do best. :)
Some politicians might be saying "tone down the rhetoric." I never said it. Turn it up by all means. Just don't make literal calls for violence, like some folks we know. It's amusing that it's Republicans who don't give a shit if women die in childbirth, and we're supposed to be outraged at Democrats for pointing it out.

[Faldur]

Ok I'll bite.. can you point me to the quote or text that says Republican's don't give a shit if women die in childbirth? I thought we just wanted old folks to eat cat food.

[onmyknees]

troll. That's what you do best. :)
Some politicians might be saying "tone down the rhetoric." I never said it. Turn it up by all means. Just don't make literal calls for violence, like some folks we know. It's amusing that it's Republicans who don't give a shit if women die in childbirth, and we're supposed to be outraged at Democrats for pointing it out.

Fail....no Trish what I do best is force you liberal lap dogs to come face to face with your utter and never ending hypocrisy...

[onmyknees]

Ok I'll bite.. can you point me to the quote or text that says Republican's don't give a shit if women die in childbirth? I thought we just wanted old folks to eat cat food.


Proof???????????? LMFAO. Since when do these people have proof? Proof is just messey details to them. For liberals it's about emotion and feelings and has never been about pragmatism or facts.

For example...all the hysteria about the "drastic budget cuts and killing women and starving seniors" when you confront them with the fact that the US borrows 5 billion a day more than we collect in revenues and if you extrapolate that over a month .....you can see how insignificant the 40 billion in cuts over a year really are...and juxtapose that against Obama's 800 billion stimulus charade. But those are facts....and they tend get in the way of women being killed !!!!!!

[trish]

No, you just don't give a fuck if someone has to eat cat food.

[TJ347]

I'm all for unions, but in the public sector? No, sir. Take the federal/state job or don't, but for taxpayers to subsidize the kind of benefits these folks are getting is a no-go for me personally. That these unions bargain with officials whose bosses count on the bloc vote support of their members represents a conflict of interest. I'd be for citizens in these states approving public employee contracts, but elected officials or agents thereof? Never.

And Trish, do you think John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid give a damn if people have to eat cat food, or do you think they care more about ensuring that they and their families don't have to? That so many elected Democrats and Republicans are millionaires, some several times over, and yet the masses of voters in this country think Democrats care about the poor and Republicans care about the rich is an example of the frightening lack of political awareness in this country. People get the government they deserve, and this past decade, we certainly have. It's not Bush or Obama's fault the country is sliding toward collapse, it's our own. However, since we aren't willing to acknowledge that reality and fix it, as personal responsibility is now against the American creed, skid row here we come.

[TJ347]

Ok I'll bite.. can you point me to the quote or text that says Republican's don't give a shit if women die in childbirth? I thought we just wanted old folks to eat cat food.

Don't forget we're also racists, homophobes and all manners of evil down to a one. "Hey there working class schlub! While we hate you little people with a passion and wish to deprive you of any access to healthcare and impose severe restrictions on your liberty among other trifling inconveniences, please go out and cast your vote for (insert Republican candidate name here)!" Of course, while that's the LIBERAL take on what Republicans are about, it's certainly not the reality. I identify as a Republican, but I don't support every party position, and should think more Democrats would be able to say the same. Sadly, that hasn't been my experience and it unsurprisingly extends here, for obvious reasons.

[trish]

I identify as a Republican, but I don't support every party position, and should think more Democrats would be able to say the same.But the democratic line is to expand access to healthcare, extend the rights that all citizens enjoy to all races, to gays, lesbians and woman. Of course I support that.

[Faldur]

But the democratic line is to expand access to healthcare, extend the rights that all citizens enjoy to all races, to gays, lesbians and woman. Of course I support that.

Sorry your close, the democratic line is to expand government. Larger more intrusive government with ever more power to redistribute wealth.

[trish]

Somebody's got to reverse the redistribution already in progress: in the U.S. the wealthiest 1% possess nearly 40% of the total wealth.

[Faldur]

Der it is...

[hippifried]

Somebody's got to reverse the redistribution already in progress: in the U.S. the wealthiest 1% possess nearly 40% of the total wealth.
But there can't be a full return to feudalism if you interfere with the trend.

Simon says: Take one giant step backward.

[trish]

Yes, Lord Simon, thank you Lord Simon. Could I have some more gruel please? ;)

[TJ347]

But the democratic line is to expand access to healthcare, extend the rights that all citizens enjoy to all races, to gays, lesbians and woman. Of course I support that.

Yes, that is the Democratic line, and yet to expand access to healthcare their solution is to penalize people for being successful in order to pay for that expanded access and borrow against the anticipated income of future generations. That anyone would be in favor of such expanded access to healthcare at the expense of their children and grandchildren, who in all likelihood will not have even the paltry job opportunities that we have at present, is most telling, assuming those in favor plan to even have children. If not, well that's even worse.

I also don't see anything but lip service in extending the rights of all citizens to minority groups, regardless of party. I mean, the House and Senate are full of people of an age group that largely keep to themselves with respect to socioeconomic class, race and religion. And might I ask, what rights don't women and gays have? I expect with regard to women you'll bring up abortion, but I don't know that this can be recognized as a threat to the rights of women as many women are themselves opposed to abortion. When a large number of your own respective group oppose something the other half are in favor of, can you honestly claim that your group collectively is being oppressed?

As to gays and lesbians, I suspect we'll head down the marriage road again, and yet the very purpose for marriage (establishing the legitimacy of children produced by a couple) does not extend to the gay community by its very definition. Of course, we are beaten in the head with the supposed fact that marriage is about expressing our love for another person, but if that is so who among us is willing to throw his or her support behind NAMBLA, which makes the same claim? I guess next people without kids will demand to be legally recognized as parents to claim earned income credit...

[rameses2]

Sorry your close, the democratic line is to expand government. Larger more intrusive government with ever more power to redistribute wealth. When you say "expand Government" do you mean going to telecom companies and asking-- strike that, making them hand over records on their subscribers?

When you say "more intrusive" do you mean if an underage girl needs an abortion in Kansas, she needs to get the permission of both her parents, that kind of intrusive?

[Prospero]

America - you are in the grip of some kind of insanity. All the veiled racism towards Obama. All these crazies marching under the banner of the tea party - which is as someone said about as grass roots as astroturf. The birthers!!! Insane - so the Obama family planned a White House coup before he was even born. And on it goes..... is it something in the water?

[Faldur]

Speaking for myself, you UK'ers seem like the perfect people to give us advice..

http://www.bighaber.com/buyukresim/rioters-battle-uk-police-after-anti-cuts-rally_2011_693494-1.jpg

http://www.moonbattery.com/london-riot-march-26-2011_3.jpg

[Stavros]

Anarchists have been smashing shop windows and 'engaging' with the police on demonstrations in London ever since I can remember, and I am old enough to have been in Trafalgar Square the day before the 'Battle of Grosvenor Square' -we have our own problems here with MP's whose snouts have been so deep in the trough of 'expenses' that have forgotten who they are in Parliament to represent, a situation aggravated by 30 years of one-party government; even if you think there was a real difference between Mrs Thatcher and Tony Blair the impact of having the same party in government created an atrophy in political debate. I have yet to hear one intelligent debate on the 'financial crisis' that almost destroyed our banking system and the rest of the economy.

Prospero can speak eloquently for himself, but I also find that the tone of the debate in the USA has rarely been so menacing and intolerant -after all the Republicans spent the best part of 8 years trying to destroy Bill Clinton but the accusations and the tone of the opposition were not shaped by the fact that BC is a 'white American'.

[Faldur]

-after all the Republicans spent the best part of 8 years trying to destroy Bill Clinton but the accusations and the tone of the opposition were not shaped by the fact that BC is a 'white American'.

But didn't you find it refreshing that when George W. Bush was elected all the negativity and hate went away. Progressives stood in the parking lot arms locked singing kumba-fucking-ya. It was so reassuring to see their support for the new 'white American'.

Stavros your just another hypocrite, can only see one side for the wall that blinds your vision. Bill Clinton was treated like Ronald Reagan was, like Jimmy Carter was, like George H. Bush was and like Barack Obama is. Americans are divided, more so than at any other time they weren't in civil war.

[Stavros]

I think hypocrite is a bit strong -and the point is about the tone of the political debate between Presidents and their opposition not the general population most of whom are not listening and think of the President -whoever he is- as many here do the Queen. Its that difference with Obama that is being noticed, and not just because of the economic difficulties the USA is in at the moment.

[onmyknees]

leftist union thugs tell 14 year old tea party speaker to "go fuck yourself". And the 3 major networks yawn....I've always maintained that the left is becomming increasingly unhinged after the losses in the mid term elections...but hey...judge for yourself. This is a daily occurance in Madison and other areas where the public sector unions are loosing thier grip on the taxpayer. When the violence finally does erupt....where will the hypocrates hide?

YouTube - Anti tea party person's profane response to 14yr old girl giving speech Madison tea party (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXnJKc337Ic&feature=player_embedded)

[Ineeda SM]

leftist union thugs tell 14 year old tea party speaker to "go fuck yourself". And the 3 major networks yawn....I've always maintained that the left is becomming increasingly unhinged after the losses in the mid term elections...but hey...judge for yourself. This is a daily occurance in Madison and other areas where the public sector unions are loosing thier grip on the taxpayer. When the violence finally does erupt....where will the hypocrates hide?

YouTube - Anti tea party person's profane response to 14yr old girl giving speech Madison tea party (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXnJKc337Ic&feature=player_embedded)

This one has many rights and wrongs. What you and your good ole boys call a "Union thug" is actually a working class guy that got fucked by the tea party republicans. He is pissed and has a good reason to be. They all do.

That shot was obviously made by a right winger, and the guy cursing could be a plant seeing he was the only focus of the video, and you could see he was playing to the camera. But whether he was a real worker or not, his cursing at the girl was wrong and uncalled for. Actually, I doubt she could hear him over the booing and yelling of the crowd. We couldn't hear her.

Then again, a 14 year old girl should not be a speaker at a rally of union workers ~vs~ the Governor. But that still doesn't excuse his cursing like that. He just showed ignorance.

The hypocrites (Your republicans) will not be in office after the recalls and the next elections in Wisconsin. All polls in Wisconsin show democrats would win big if election was held today.

[Faldur]

What you and your good ole boys call a "Union thug" is actually a working class guy that got fucked by the tea party republicans.

Ok this so called "working class guy" has the gaul and audacity to run around bitching and moaning that everyone else should be doing more so that his life is better. And then he goes home, contributes nothing financially to society. This is where those of us who pay the tab in this country have FUCKING HAD IT! You bunch of worthless whiners, that take and take and take and take.. contribute nothing yourselves but have the nerve to bitch and moan to the rest of us to do more!

Get off your asses and start pushing the cart, the rest of us are growing weary. Your not worthless we believe in you, for God's sake believe in yourself.

[Faldur]

And tell me Ineeda what did the Tea Party do to fuck this guy? Are we not entitled to a vote? Maybe we should just pay for you and your looser friends and not show up at the election booth? Should we give you our vote so you can cast it for us? You obviously have all the "socialist" answers. All I have is the intelligence and drive to work my ass off so I can help pay for "Union Thugs" to live off the tit of my government.

[Ineeda SM]

Ok this so called "working class guy" has the gaul and audacity to run around bitching and moaning that everyone else should be doing more so that his life is better. And then he goes home, contributes nothing financially to society. This is where those of us who pay the tab in this country have FUCKING HAD IT! You bunch of worthless whiners, that take and take and take and take.. contribute nothing yourselves but have the nerve to bitch and moan to the rest of us to do more!

Get off your asses and start pushing the cart, the rest of us are growing weary. Your not worthless we believe in you, for God's sake believe in yourself.

I know the GOP pays you trolls to go on all of the political websites to spread your hate, racism, and bull shit. How much do they pay you? Your comments go far beyond a well thought out response by a reasonable thinking person. That alone proves you are just an asshole moron, or a troll, or both. Your last paragraph proves you do not think before you post.

WTF do you mean "those of you who pay the tab have had it". I was off my ass and "Pushing the cart, paying the tab" long before your ass came out of your mama. I put in my time and hard earned money, now I am getting it back. You don't pay one fucking cent for me you fucking little troll.

That guy wasn't bitching that everyone should make his life better. He is a hard worker who just wants to get back what the republicans took away from him. He earned it, paid for it, and deserves it. But you are too young and stupid to understand any of that. You are just a little kid troll that needs to grow up and experience some real life, if you want to debate the grown ups.

Go back to your FoxGOP website where they appreciate your juvenile clueless bull shit. Nobody here is buying it.

[Faldur]

I know the GOP pays you trolls to go on all of the political websites to spread your hate, racism, and bull shit.

You can find NO racism in any of my posts. And I will not let anyone paint me with a broad unsubstantiated accusation. And what the fuck is a troll? You toss that word around like its a bad thing. A troll where I live is a giant statue that is under the Freemont Bridge. Am I a giant statue? I don't fell like one. I come to this board because I like it's content. I come to the political section of this forum because I am politically active. You have a problem with freedom? Are trolls people who are expressing there rights under freedom?

I'm only five years younger than you asshole so don't tell me stories about walking two miles to school both ways uphill. Either you contributed to the society that you have lived in or you have not. And do not hand me any bullshit that you paid "payroll taxes". If thats all you paid your a fucking freeloader.

If you indeed contributed to our society, my respect and appreciation to you. We have over 47% of the working class in this country sucking of the tit and not contributing anything useful to our society. To them I say "get off your asses!". Us who are paying the bills are getting sick and fucking tired of carrying all the dead weight around here. If you useless fucks, yes you 47% have no interest in contributing you should not get a vote in our elections. Because you have taken a "present" vote when it came time to push the sled.

That guy is not a "hard worker", he is one of the 47%. A looser, someone who demands others cover his life's costs. And as one who has been paying it for the last 35 years I say tell him to get off his dead ass and contribute. If you want a good life earn it!

You can keep your socialism. You want to live in a communist society, move to the USSR. This is America, a grand Republic. And the Tea Party is going to take it back one vote at a time.

[TJ347]

And tell me Ineeda what did the Tea Party do to fuck this guy? Are we not entitled to a vote? Maybe we should just pay for you and your looser friends and not show up at the election booth? Should we give you our vote so you can cast it for us? You obviously have all the "socialist" answers. All I have is the intelligence and drive to work my ass off so I can help pay for "Union Thugs" to live off the tit of my government.

I'd remind you, lest you forget, that this is a person who has identified himself as living on a fixed income so small that he could never hope to purchase a "green" vehicle such as a Prius, though he rails at length against oil companies (among countless others) that sell the gasoline he requires to operate his own vehicle. So, what we have here is a man who in this case will not do the very thing he would have the rest of us do in this instance, but is incapable of seeing the hypocrisy in this position.

He also refuses to take personal responsibility for being in the financial position he's in now, crying about the rich not doing their part to help people who've similarly made poor decisions or haven't been particularly industrious over the course of their working lives. Without going on and on describing each of his hypocritical positions, he is simply a lost cause who cannot be helped regardless the logic employed to dismantle his juvenile arguments, because he doesn't want to recognize his own complicity in his present situation. Thus, trying to make him see reason is a complete waste of time, as in his mind, Republicans, the wealthy, Lyndon LaRouche supporters, and those who disagree with him are responsible for his condition. People who think along some of the same lines as him may well be helped by the sense you and Knees inject into your arguments, but clearly INeeda never will. It's sad, but all too evident at this point.

[Ineeda SM]

You can find NO racism in any of my posts. And I will not let anyone paint me with a broad unsubstantiated accusation. And what the fuck is a troll? You toss that word around like its a bad thing. A troll where I live is a giant statue that is under the Freemont Bridge. Am I a giant statue? I don't fell like one. I come to this board because I like it's content. I come to the political section of this forum because I am politically active. You have a problem with freedom? Are trolls people who are expressing there rights under freedom?

I'm only five years younger than you asshole so don't tell me stories about walking two miles to school both ways uphill. Either you contributed to the society that you have lived in or you have not. And do not hand me any bullshit that you paid "payroll taxes". If thats all you paid your a fucking freeloader.

If you indeed contributed to our society, my respect and appreciation to you. We have over 47% of the working class in this country sucking of the tit and not contributing anything useful to our society. To them I say "get off your asses!". Us who are paying the bills are getting sick and fucking tired of carrying all the dead weight around here. If you useless fucks, yes you 47% have no interest in contributing you should not get a vote in our elections. Because you have taken a "present" vote when it came time to push the sled.

That guy is not a "hard worker", he is one of the 47%. A looser, someone who demands others cover his life's costs. And as one who has been paying it for the last 35 years I say tell him to get off his dead ass and contribute. If you want a good life earn it!

You can keep your socialism. You want to live in a communist society, move to the USSR. This is America, a grand Republic. And the Tea Party is going to take it back one vote at a time.

Don't humor me. You are a troll and you know exactly what that means on internet forums. You just proved it once again. Everything you just said is so full of shit, it isn't funny. And you know it too. But you are a troll and that is what trolls do. Nothing you say is credible. Your only purpose here is to spread your typical right wing, lies, hate, racism, and bull shit.

The entire free world is based on socialism you fucking troll. Unless you would like to do away with education, firemen, policemen, EMA's, the DMV, the IRS, FBI, CIA, ALL MILITARY BRANCHES....etc..They are all socialism, or you don't know the true meaning of the word. Young punk assholes like you think it means communism, but it doesn't. And your world history is a little behind the times by a couple of decades. The USSR doesn't exist anymore. The tea party is losing the confidence of Americans fast because of their recent bull shit. Every pole in the country, even polls by your righties say so. The tea party was elected because of their lies and propaganda, and now the people are having buyers remorse after seeing them in action. Don't take my word for it, look it up for yourself.

I ran a business for 30 years. I have paid taxes, payroll taxes, social security, and business insurence for myself, my business and my employees. But that shit is all beneath your IQ. You talk big but we all see through your bull shit. You talk like a kid and a troll.

Where do you get your 47% of the working class sucking of your tit? Prove that one. Post a link to a real website that states it, and I don't mean a right wing site either. Your comments are not from someone who is 5 years younger than me. I know better by your fucked up attitude and stupid juvenile comments. You sound like you are about 18 or 19, probably still in school, but haven't learned a damn thing. You are a young punk troll who doesn't know a fucking thing about hard work. You are so full of shit. You lie so much, nothing you say can be taken seriously.

[Ineeda SM]

I'd remind you, lest you forget, that this is a person who has identified himself as living on a fixed income so small that he could never hope to purchase a "green" vehicle such as a Prius, though he rails at length against oil companies (among countless others) that sell the gasoline he requires to operate his own vehicle. So, what we have here is a man who in this case will not do the very thing he would have the rest of us do in this instance, but is incapable of seeing the hypocrisy in this position.

He also refuses to take personal responsibility for being in the financial position he's in now, crying about the rich not doing their part to help people who've similarly made poor decisions or haven't been particularly industrious over the course of their working lives. Without going on and on describing each of his hypocritical positions, he is simply a lost cause who cannot be helped regardless the logic employed to dismantle his juvenile arguments, because he doesn't want to recognize his own complicity in his present situation. Thus, trying to make him see reason is a complete waste of time, as in his mind, Republicans, the wealthy, Lyndon LaRouche supporters, and those who disagree with him are responsible for his condition. People who think along some of the same lines as him may well be helped by the sense you and Knees inject into your arguments, but clearly INeeda never will. It's sad, but all too evident at this point.

Ahhh finally the third of the trolling trio shows up to help his fellow republican losers. The GOP must think you guys need extra help in these forums, so all 3 of you can gang up on us poor little socialist commie democrats. LMAO!

At least you talk with a more adult tone where as your propaganda buddy Faldur talks like a little kid bully in the school yard who is pissed because he just can't win a simple argument with his obvious lies and comments he has not yet checked out for errors.

But you are just a troll too. You know it, I know it, and the GOP knows it. I hope they pay you guys enough to make such asses out of yourselves. You 3 are the only ones who post here with such extreme word twisting, lies, propaganda, name calling, acting like children, and of course, bull shit, it makes you all so obvious to us here. Come on guys, you have to know by now, that nobody here is going to be convinced by your obvious propaganda.

[Faldur]

You know Ineeda you pathetic wave of the hand troll comments have earned you a place on my ignore list. Your not open to debate, and really have rhetoric to add to the conversation. You are what you accuse other of being. Good bye my friend, enjoy your government paid retirement.

[trish]

You know Ineeda you pathetic wave of the hand troll comments have earned you a place on my ignore list. Your not open to debate, and really have rhetoric to add to the conversation. You are what you accuse other of being. Good bye my friend, enjoy your government paid retirement.For your benefit, I'll repost Ineeda SM's posts for you. You need them:

"Ahhh finally the third of the trolling trio shows up to help his fellow republican losers. The GOP must think you guys need extra help in these forums, so all 3 of you can gang up on us poor little socialist commie democrats. LMAO!

At least you talk with a more adult tone where as your propaganda buddy Faldur talks like a little kid bully in the school yard who is pissed because he just can't win a simple argument with his obvious lies and comments he has not yet checked out for errors.

But you are just a troll too. You know it, I know it, and the GOP knows it. I hope they pay you guys enough to make such asses out of yourselves. You 3 are the only ones who post here with such extreme word twisting, lies, propaganda, name calling, acting like children, and of course, bull shit, it makes you all so obvious to us here. Come on guys, you have to know by now, that nobody here is going to be convinced by your obvious propaganda."___Ineeda SM

[Ineeda SM]

For your benefit, I'll repost Ineeda SM's posts for you. You need them:



Uh oh! Better watch out honey. He might block you too.

I do love the line about "enjoy my government paid retirement". He really just doesn't get it. One troll down, 2 to go.

Thanks hun. xo

[TJ347]

For your benefit, I'll repost Ineeda SM's posts...

Thanks, Trish, but I stopped at that point. As I said before, I can easily get why you support his positions, but neither your support nor reposting his ramblings makes what he's saying anymore true. Since you are smart enough to know that no one who has INeeda on ignore is going to bother reading your reposts either, I'm not sure what you sought to gain, but I hope you were successful, whatever it was.

[robertlouis]

In light of the title of this thread I thought you might like to know that a guy who burned the Quran in public in England has just started a 70 day sentence for what the judge called "theatrical bigotry."

Over here any public speech or action likely to inflame or threaten hatred or violence can lead to arrest and imprisonment.

I can't help thinking it would be useful in the US too. You act against hate crimes, but not against those who incite them.

[Ineeda SM]

Thanks, Trish, but I stopped at that point. As I said before, I can easily get why you support his positions, but neither your support nor reposting his ramblings makes what he's saying anymore true. Since you are smart enough to know that no one who has INeeda on ignore is going to bother reading your reposts either, I'm not sure what you sought to gain, but I hope you were successful, whatever it was.

Actually there is only 2, maybe 3 trolls like you that would put us on ignore on this entire website. So that is not really a threat or a loss to us. The only loss is your own because you isolate yourself from open debate because of your ego getting bruised.

[TJ347]

In light of the title of this thread I thought you might like to know that a guy who burned the Quran in public in England has just started a 70 day sentence for what the judge called "theatrical bigotry."

Over here any public speech or action likely to inflame or threaten hatred or violence can lead to arrest and imprisonment.

I can't help thinking it would be useful in the US too. You act against hate crimes, but not against those who incite them.

Such a thing wouldn't be possible in the US, given the current interpretation of our free speech rights. Public speech or action likely to inflame or lead to violence, you say? If I were to burn a Bible, that might inflame Christians and might lead to them committing violence against me, but should my right to express my opinion be restricted by law so as to prevent something that might happen?

I guess it's always a question of where our individual right to free speech ends and censorship begins here in the US, whereas the UK in several respects seems to hold individual rights in less esteem these days, comparitively speaking. I don't think a person should go to prison for burning a holy book, but when citizens allow themselves to be disarmed by law, there can be no surprise when the government subsequently runs roughshod over them in any area it wants to. I have to wonder what Winston would say?

[Stavros]

The law concerns public order which runs from rioting to incitement to rioting, and its the incitement clause that is the most contentious. However, if someone parks a hot dog stand outside a synagogue where normally fast food carts are not stationed -and I doubt the council would give him a licence to sell pork products there anyway -I think you agree it would be considered provocative to the point of inciting racial hatred, and public disorder. Some Jihadi idiots have 'demonstrated' at Wootten Basset where servicemen and women injured or murdered in Afghanistan (mostly) are repatriated -they were also taken to court for public order offences, its not a free speech issue in the context of the US Constitution which we don't have. For example, I can stand on a box in Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park and explain why the monarchy should be abolished and the UK become a republic; but if I call for it to be 'overthrown' meaning encouraging people to do it in a practical way, I am breaking the law although the death penalty for treason has now been abolished.

I think the fine line is drawn between free speech on the one hand, and deliberate provocation on the other hand, where the latter is not seen as 'merely' the expression on a political idea, but intended to cause hurt, violence and disorder.

Churchill's record on human rights is so appalling I will leave it to another thread...

[Faldur]

In light of the title of this thread I thought you might like to know that a guy who burned the Quran in public in England has just started a 70 day sentence for what the judge called "theatrical bigotry."

Over here any public speech or action likely to inflame or threaten hatred or violence can lead to arrest and imprisonment.

I can't help thinking it would be useful in the US too. You act against hate crimes, but not against those who incite them.

Restrictions on our rights Robertiouis is why we left in the first place. The day burning the Bible, or the American Flag is against the law the experiment that is The United States of America has failed. Thanks for the advice, but I think we can tend to our own affairs.

[trish]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/18/andres-serrano-piss-christ-destroyed-christian-protesters?CMP=twt_gu

[Stavros]

Hmm Trish..an artist works with the materials he has, couldn't he find something else, was he, as it were, caught short? It seems to me to be more about him than his subject, one of the shortcomings of a lot of recent art.

[trish]

Are Dali's paintings more about Dali then his subject? (Often you can find him in his own painting, off in the corner looking on with a brush and canvas...which reminds me of Alfred Hitchcock appearing behind the scenes in each of his own films as a kind of signature). How about Gauguin's paintings about life in Tahiti? Certainly his patrons were as much enamored of his story as his art. In my opinion Andres Serrano's pieces are no more and about himself as the posters by Toulouse Lautrec are about Toulouse Lautrec. Piss Christ is expression of the artist's thought, sure. It certainly crystallizes for him some part of his relationship with the Christian religion. All the hoopla surrounding the piece and the artist are expressions of various news media trying to make a buck. The slashing of Piss Christ is also an expression of the thought of the vandals who mutilated the piece. Have Christians now become performance artists, using crime and the destruction of private and public works as their medium? And what is being expressed by these Christians? Undoubtedly they find Piss Christ to be an offense to their religion and the slashing is an expression of that offense.The Taliban pulled down the giant Buddha's in Afghanistan (one hell of a piece of performance art) because they found the statues to be offensive in the eyes of "god".

[Faldur]

Put allah in a jar of piss and put it in a big art display, see how it goes for ya.. :)

[Stavros]

Trish, I understand your point about the subtle relationship between an artist and his work, which can sometimes be autobiographical, sometimes 'blank' because the work is just a commission - I have a poster of Las Meninas on my bedroom wall, with Velasquez including himself in the frame.

I think the point about the materials Serrano uses can only make sense (to me) if it is argued that anyone who understands the meaning of the crucifixion understands that it goes beyond whatever crude materials are used to depict it.

My point about narcissism in contemporary art is that for me, too often contemporary art is not about anything other than the artist: Gilbert & George for example, superb drawings in a technical sense, but they are the subject and object at one and the same time; I find their work empty and uninteresting. Tracy Emin again, if you don't find her interesting as a person (and I don't) the 'work' means nothing -at least with narrative art there is something other than the artist to deal with. As for Dali, I can't add much to Orwell's demolition of this poser's work.

[trish]

Well yes, if the object is the subject and you find the subject boring you will find the object boring too. I know very little about Gilbert Proesch, George Passmore, Tracy Emin or their art, but I'm can agree that I'm not especially attracted to them or their work. They are self-obsessed. Dali too is self-obsessed, but not without talent. Though he is present in his work, he brings more than himself to most pieces.

That moment was ripe with narcissism when craft became art. At least since the 19th century investment in art became a high stakes game of chance. Sales, not art, is the ultimate goal. Celebrity is perceived as the quickest and easiest way to push up the values of one's stock. And so artists (encouraged by their backers) scheme to create bigger than life personae. Often the art itself becomes the vehicle for propagandizing the celebrity of the artist, and so the circle is closed: The art sells the celebrity of the artist and the celebrity of the artist sells the art.

[robertlouis]

Such a thing wouldn't be possible in the US, given the current interpretation of our free speech rights. Public speech or action likely to inflame or lead to violence, you say? If I were to burn a Bible, that might inflame Christians and might lead to them committing violence against me, but should my right to express my opinion be restricted by law so as to prevent something that might happen?

I guess it's always a question of where our individual right to free speech ends and censorship begins here in the US, whereas the UK in several respects seems to hold individual rights in less esteem these days, comparitively speaking. I don't think a person should go to prison for burning a holy book, but when citizens allow themselves to be disarmed by law, there can be no surprise when the government subsequently runs roughshod over them in any area it wants to. I have to wonder what Winston would say?



And meanwhile a six-year old kid takes a loaded gun to school in Texas and he and two schoolmates are injured when it goes off.

I'll stay where there are sensible restrictions on individual freedom thanks.

Presumably you're ok for Pastor Jones to carry on burning the quran and putting western lives at risk too?

[Faldur]

Trish, if you would indulge me. Where would placing the likeness of allah in a jar full of piss get you? Killed right? They would slaughter you like livestock. Hats off to the level headed Christians who can look beyond some sadistic "artist".

Please one of you enlightened progressives, tell me you would be safe after placing the image of allah in a jar full of piss.

[Stavros]

Faldur, the visual depiction of 'God' in Christian art derives from the belief that Jesus is God made flesh -thus Christ also is a common figure in Christian art, whereas in both Judaism and Islam the tendency has been to avoid 'graven images' of any kind, although in the Kabbalah -I think- the deity is represented as a golden eagle. Creating images of the 'Messenger' Muhammad is therefore outside the common practice of Islam and has usually been done in recent times precisely to provoke feelings of ridicule and or hate; I don't know anyone has attempted to 'depict' Allah and whether or not Muslims or Jews think Allah/Jehova/God is an old bloke with a white beard. My earlier point about Serrano would not apply to an image of Allah or Muhammad in a jar of anything: it is precisely the message of Love above all that is at the core of Christ's mission which challenges every insult or rejection -it doesn't matter what you do or say, the argument goes, it will always be the paramount virtue to overlook the other's weaknesses and love them as your neighbour.

[TJ347]

And meanwhile a six-year old kid takes a loaded gun to school in Texas and he and two schoolmates are injured when it goes off.

I'll stay where there are sensible restrictions on individual freedom thanks.

Presumably you're ok for Pastor Jones to carry on burning the quran and putting western lives at risk too?

With all due respect, I don't recall imploring you to move to the United States... Where you choose to live, and for what reasons, is entirely irrelevant to me. What I'd be okay with is those in the UK who see what you describe as "sensible restrictions" differently moving here (as former Royal Marine Iain Harrison did), and those who agree with you moving to the UK. I think the most avid pacifist knows what would happen with respect to extremist violence in the UK in such a situation.

On a related note, if Pastor Jones burns a Quran this afternoon, no more Western lives will be at risk than were last night. Muslim extremists have clearly decided that citizens are acceptable targets, and will kill as many as they can, whenever they can. If you think we should prohibit Quran burnings or ban cartoons that depict Mohammed in a manner that might be deemed disrespectful by these same extremists in hopes of placating them, you're following Neville Chamberlain's line of reasoning, and we all know how that worked out. Appeasing extremists never makes them more moderate in their thinking.

[Faldur]

Presumably you're ok for Pastor Jones to carry on burning the quran and putting western lives at risk too?

Yes with my dying blood. The United States is founded on the rights of individuals. To burn Bibles, Flags, to place crucifixes in jars of human urine. It's called freedom, and our sons and daughters have died to protect those rights for hundreds of years.

[Stavros]

If you think we should prohibit Quran burnings or ban cartoons that depict Mohammed in a manner that might be deemed disrespectful by these same extremists in hopes of placating them, you're following Neville Chamberlain's line of reasoning, and we all know how that worked out. Appeasing extremists never makes them more moderate in their thinking.

Public order law, and the laws on incitement to 'racial hatred' are there to indicate where the limits of free speech lie for society as a whole, it is not there to 'placate' any one community, be they Muslim, Jewish, Black, Gay or whoever. Chamberlain and Daladier wanted to avoid war at all costs, because neither Britain nor France were in a position to fight one, quite apart from a deep-seated antipathy to war in both countries as a consequence of the first war. It is a retrospective judgement to claim that it was appeasement that encouraged Hitler to dismember Czechoslovakia and march into Austria -his violent rheotic, German re-armament, and Germany's intervention in Spain, could not mask German ambitions -what people call 'appeasement' was the 'realpolitik' of the day, and yes, it was a failure, or the answer to the question, Why was war declared in 1939 and not in 1938?

[trish]

Trish, if you would indulge me. Where would placing the likeness of allah in a jar full of piss get you? Killed right? They would slaughter you like livestock. Hats off to the level headed Christians who can look beyond some sadistic "artist".

Please one of you enlightened progressives, tell me you would be safe after placing the image of allah in a jar full of piss.

If your point is that the slashing of the Serrano by Christians in France is less reprehensible than the Muslim reaction in Pakistan and in Denmark to the Danish cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad, then for the most part I agree.

If your point is the Muslim reaction in Europe and the Islamic world to a cartoon excuses the vandalism in France, then I couldn't disagree more. Both reactions are reprehensible.

If your point is that Islam is more violent than Christianity, then I would have to say the comparison depends on both temporal and geographical considerations.
The reaction of Muslims in America to the Danish cartoons was polite disapproval...both of the drawings and of the violent reaction of Muslims elsewhere. Similarly Christians in America did not respond violently to "Piss Christ"; but many Christians did petition galleries to censor Serranno from their shows, which is perfectly fine and legal even if not quite in the spirit of the First Amendment.
In another age Muslims were quite tolerant of images of the Prophet and you can even find him depicted in some Islamic drawings. At the same time Christians were engaged in pogroms against European Jews, burning witches and torturing heretics...not to mention the Crusades.
You can find language in the Bible as equally abhorrent as any you'll find in the Koran. You can find wisdom in the Koran equal to any you'll find in the Bible. It's not so much the religion as the politics of time and place that makes one social situation a hair trigger for violence and another not. Not to say religion doesn't play a role. We'd all be better off without the constraints that religion places on reason, art and descent behavior.

[TJ347]

If you think we should prohibit Quran burnings or ban cartoons that depict Mohammed in a manner that might be deemed disrespectful by these same extremists in hopes of placating them, you're following Neville Chamberlain's line of reasoning, and we all know how that worked out. Appeasing extremists never makes them more moderate in their thinking.

Public order law, and the laws on incitement to 'racial hatred' are there to indicate where the limits of free speech lie for society as a whole, it is not there to 'placate' any one community, be they Muslim, Jewish, Black, Gay or whoever. Chamberlain and Daladier wanted to avoid war at all costs, because neither Britain nor France were in a position to fight one, quite apart from a deep-seated antipathy to war in both countries as a consequence of the first war. It is a retrospective judgement to claim that it was appeasement that encouraged Hitler to dismember Czechoslovakia and march into Austria -his violent rheotic, German re-armament, and Germany's intervention in Spain, could not mask German ambitions -what people call 'appeasement' was the 'realpolitik' of the day, and yes, it was a failure, or the answer to the question, Why was war declared in 1939 and not in 1938?

And yet such "free speech" laws are exuberantly enforced only on behalf of certain groups, at least here in the US. Mind you, I say this as a black man, so I know whereof I speak in this regard.

As to Chamberlain, what I was saying is that appeasement could never have changed the course Hitler planned to take. You cannot dissuade extremists, and Hitler is a fine example of this fact in the modern era. I would disagree with you on whether Britain and France were in a position to fight a war at that point, but I trust you would agree it would've been far shorter and there would've been far less bloodshed if they had responded with force instead of appeasing Hitler. I understand why they did, but in retrospect, I think even they regretted that decision. And how could they not, with the final death toll?

[hippifried]

Yes with my dying blood. The United States is founded on the rights of individuals. To burn Bibles, Flags, to place crucifixes in jars of human urine. It's called freedom, and our sons and daughters have died to protect those rights for hundreds of years.
Well... Faldur & I don't agree on much, or usually don't like to admit when we do, but there'll be no argument from me on this.

[yodajazz]

Yes with my dying blood. The United States is founded on the rights of individuals. To burn Bibles, Flags, to place crucifixes in jars of human urine. It's called freedom, and our sons and daughters have died to protect those rights for hundreds of years.

I believe that most people have things which are near and dear to their heart. Faldur, send me a picture of your mother, and your address. I will go to your front door and then piss on her picture. Then I want you to step out and applaud my 'free speech.' If you attack me, some people would consider that you were provoked, but I will say I was just exercising my free speech and sue the hell out of you. However, it would be reasonable to say, that I incited the violence.

My point is that so called free speech has limits. Selling military secrets is not free speech, or I could say, abusing the concept. Actions which give aid and comfort to our stated enemies, if not outright illegal, are subject to interpretation, whether they violate legal standards.

As I have stated before, it would be better to understand what is in the Koran. The Pastor who burn the Koran was also burning the name of Jesus, who is mentioned over 50 times in the Koran. Those who believe in the Koran, then have to believe in the miracles that Jesus performed, that are spoken of in the book.

But back on the subject. Inciting violence, is an exception to the rule of free speech.

[TJ347]

What you just posted could potentially incite me to violence, though no logical mind could see how. Should you be banned from posting? You are looking at the issue of free speech through a very narrow lens, missing what has been said by others. It isn't whether Faldur or myself agree with your expression; obviously he would not be pleased were you to piss on a picture of his mother. That said, he is expressing his appreciation for you having the right to self expression, and I agree with that. It isn't necessary that all and sundry find the means by which you choose to do so acceptable... You continue to miss that.

[Stavros]

And yet such "free speech" laws are exuberantly enforced only on behalf of certain groups, at least here in the US.

As in the UK a law that applies to all is, in fact, not always universally applied, I suspect that some groups and issues acquire a 'flavour of the month' status for the police/judiciary so right now Islam and its extremist fringe, and climate change protestors targeting high-profile meetings/summits etc, or energy installations are in the frame.


As to Chamberlain, what I was saying is that appeasement could never have changed the course Hitler planned to take...I would disagree with you on whether Britain and France were in a position to fight a war at that point, but I trust you would agree it would've been far shorter and there would've been far less bloodshed if they had responded with force instead of appeasing Hitler.
Hmmm...I can't agree with that. Chamberlain has been dismissed as a deluded man because -as Hobsbawm has said of the pre-war years "We who lived through those times knew that there would be a war, even as we sketched out unconvincing scenarios for avoiding it". Hobsbawm goes on to point out that Britain had no financial means to fight a war, or a Navy capable of fighting in three oceans, but his killer point is that in any case Chamberlain's main concern was not Czechoslovakia or Austria but holding the Empire together. He correctly perceived another war would finish the Empire, and it did, albeit over a protracted 25 year period after it. France would not have been able to fight without major alliances, and failed when it did fight in 1940, and here we tend to understand air power and the 'Battle of Britain' as a key moment in the war, but had the war come a year earlier before the development of the Spitfire if anything Germany and not Britain would have been successful. Ultimately, the military forces required to defeat Germany were colossal and without the US it would not have been possible.

The problem I have with the 'appeasement' tag is that it begs the question: does pre-emptive action successfully neutralise/remove the threat? It is obvious that Islam as such, is no more a threat to the US today than it was 100 years ago; it is also obvious that the 'prize' for some extremist Muslims is precisely a 'spectacular' in the US; just as Ireland and the Irish in general have never been a threat to the UK. A few weeks ago a Catholic policeman was blown up by an extremist Republican group: pre-emptive action through intelligence can only go so far, some killers will get through. A pre-emptive strike against Germany in 1938 would have started the very war France and Britain were trying to avoid, who do you strike if your enemy is a cell of three to six fanatics somewhere in any of 10 or more countries? As part of security strategy its a difficult one; but for the politics, removing the root cause is the key: it took another major war for Germany -and any other European state- to stop believing it could rule the world with all the violence that entailed; as for the Islamic threat, I believe the rotten, corrupt state system in the Middle East that was developed after 1918 is coming to an end and that over the next 10 years the intra-regional politics will change the agenda, and that the extremist form of Islam that has tried to export its 'revolution' is no longer attractive to the 30-40% of the population under the age of 30, most of whom want jobs.

[Faldur]

I believe that most people have things which are near and dear to their heart. Faldur, send me a picture of your mother, and your address. I will go to your front door and then piss on her picture. Then I want you to step out and applaud my 'free speech.' If you attack me, some people would consider that you were provoked, but I will say I was just exercising my free speech and sue the hell out of you. However, it would be reasonable to say, that I incited the violence.

Lol, almost sprayed coffee when I read that one. Firstly, I have the right to decide not to send you a picture of my Mother. But, if you did indeed find one and managed to find my front porch to piss on her picture. I have every right to remove you from my property, and ask you to stand in the street to piss on dear old Mom.

If I were to choose to attack you violently, without physical provocation I would deserve the jail time I would receive. And for future reference pissing on my savior would bother me a lot more than pissing on dear old Mom.

Hippi maybe there is hope for us yet..

[Ineeda SM]

I believe that most people have things which are near and dear to their heart. Faldur, send me a picture of your mother, and your address. I will go to your front door and then piss on her picture. Then I want you to step out and applaud my 'free speech.' If you attack me, some people would consider that you were provoked, but I will say I was just exercising my free speech and sue the hell out of you. However, it would be reasonable to say, that I incited the violence.

My point is that so called free speech has limits. Selling military secrets is not free speech, or I could say, abusing the concept. Actions which give aid and comfort to our stated enemies, if not outright illegal, are subject to interpretation, whether they violate legal standards.

As I have stated before, it would be better to understand what is in the Koran. The Pastor who burn the Koran was also burning the name of Jesus, who is mentioned over 50 times in the Koran. Those who believe in the Koran, then have to believe in the miracles that Jesus performed, that are spoken of in the book.

But back on the subject. Inciting violence, is an exception to the rule of free speech.

As usual Yoda, you bring reason to an issue. There are some cases where you have to consider whether your freedom of speech will hurt innocent people or not. I would ask Faldur if he would willfully put Americans and our soldiers in emminent danger for their lives because he wants to make an extreme protest? Burning the Koran as a public protest may be a right that we Americans have, but doing so knowing that Americans will be tortured or killed because of it, is not exorsicing a freedom of speech. It is just stupid and signing the death warrents of Americans abroad for personal sick entertainment.

I would defend anyones right to burn a bible, flag, and even the Koran. But when it will kill Americans or any innocent people, common sense has to come first over our rights

[onmyknees]

What good is free speech if the limits can't be challanged? So what is being stated by some on here is that we have the right say provocative things, but let's all agree not to and keep everybody cool. Absolutely assinine and the founding fathers would have you flogged. It's the reaction of those who are claiming to be aggrieved that you are weighing way too heavily. It's like you're saying...forgive those Muslims who over reacted in Pakistan...they know not what they do. Bullshit. This is the bottom rung on the ladder of political correctness we've been decending down for sevral decades now. So where does this go next if we all pacify these offened ? Next they'll get offended at authors and politicians and issue death warrants...what's that you say they've already done that? (http://michellemalkin.com/2005/01/31/muslims-vs-free-speech-in-the-netherlands/) ( The Satanic Verses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:1988_Salman_Rushdie_The_Satanic_Verses.jpg" class="image"><img alt="1988 Salman Rushdie The Satanic Verses.jpg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c8/1988_Salman_Rushdie_The_Satanic_Verses.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@en/c/c8/1988_Salman_Rushdie_The_Satanic_Verses.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses)) What you're doing is eroding your rights in exchange for what....? It's the speech that ofends us the most that tries our deference to our Constitution. Reall the crucifix submerged in piss as an art exhibit? It pushed the tolerance of millions to the limit, but not one blow was struck, not one head severed.
If the statement "common sense has to come first over our rights".....is the prevailing wisdom of the majority of our citizens, I'm not sure this constitutional republic as we once knew it will be around much longer.

[trish]

What good is free speech if the limits can't be challanged?No one's saying the limits can't be challenged. It's only being suggested that if the predictable consequence of challenging them in a certain way is near certain violence, it may not be wise to challenge the limits in that particular way.


So what is being stated by some on here is that we have the right say provocative things, but let's all agree not to and keep everybody cool.No. That's not what was written. Let's just agree to try not to get anyone killed. Why do you want to say things that will provoke violence in the first place?? If anything is absolutely asinine that is.

...the founding fathers would have you flogged. Really?? The founding fathers would flog someone for exercising their first amendment right to suggest that we exercise that right with voluntary due reason??? ROTFLMAO.


It's like you're saying...forgive those Muslims who over reacted in Pakistan...they know not what they do. Bullshit.Oh they know what they're doing all right and its reprehensible. But you're saying the person who shouts fire in a theater, knowing there isn't one, isn't at all responsible for the people who get trampled...it's all the fault of the tramplers.

What you're doing is eroding your rights in exchange for what....?Exercising one's rights with reason isn't eroding them. What erodes them is exercising them stupidly. There would be no reason to put any limits on free speech if it wasn't possible to shout fire in a crowded theater or lie about the contents of a food product. Courts have saw reason to judiciously place restrictions on some speech only because people abused the right. In my opinion Rev. Jones did not cross the legal line between legitimate and illegitimate speech. I don't believe the line should be drawn with him on the illegitimate side. But I do think he crossed the line that separates responsible speech from stupidly irresponsible speech.

[onmyknees]

No one's saying the limits can't be challenged. It's only being suggested that if the predictable consequence of challenging them in a certain way is near certain violence, it may not be wise to challenge the limits in that particular way.

No. That's not what was written. Let's just agree to try not to get anyone killed. Why do you want to say things that will provoke violence in the first place?? If anything is absolutely asinine that is.
Really?? The founding fathers would flog someone for exercising their first amendment right to suggest that we exercise that right with voluntary due reason??? ROTFLMAO.

Oh they know what they're doing all right and its reprehensible. But you're saying the person who shouts fire in a theater, knowing there isn't one, isn't at all responsible for the people who get trampled...it's all the fault of the tramplers.
Exercising one's rights with reason isn't eroding them. What erodes them is exercising them stupidly. There would be no reason to put any limits on free speech if it wasn't possible to shout fire in a crowded theater or lie about the contents of a food product. Courts have saw reason to judiciously place restrictions on some speech only because people abused the right. In my opinion Rev. Jones did not cross the legal line between legitimate and illegitimate speech. I don't believe the line should be drawn with him on the illegitimate side. But I do think he crossed the line that separates responsible speech from stupidly irresponsible speech.


Really?? The founding fathers would flog someone for exercising their first amendment right to suggest that we exercise that right with voluntary due reason??? ROTFLMA

Is your misunderstanding of my meaning deliberate...or just ignorant?
No...the founding fathers would flog you for suggesting that we somehow not speak freely or provocatively because it offends or outrages someone. You're more worried about someone's feelings that the intent of bill of rights. Suggested reading list...James Madison. LMFAO

[robertlouis]

As usual Yoda, you bring reason to an issue.

I would defend anyones right to burn a bible, flag, and even the Koran. But when it will kill Americans or any innocent people, common sense has to come first over our rights

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree: Amen to that.

[robertlouis]

Oh they know what they're doing all right and its reprehensible. But you're saying the person who shouts fire in a theater, knowing there isn't one, isn't at all responsible for the people who get trampled...it's all the fault of the tramplers.
Exercising one's rights with reason isn't eroding them. What erodes them is exercising them stupidly. There would be no reason to put any limits on free speech if it wasn't possible to shout fire in a crowded theater or lie about the contents of a food product. Courts have saw reason to judiciously place restrictions on some speech only because people abused the right. In my opinion Rev. Jones did not cross the legal line between legitimate and illegitimate speech. I don't believe the line should be drawn with him on the illegitimate side. But I do think he crossed the line that separates responsible speech from stupidly irresponsible speech.


I like you, Trish.

[hippifried]

"Freedom of speech" is actually a restriction on the power of government. As an individual, I have no such restriction. You're free to take your soapbox to a public space & spout all kinds of whatever you want to spout about. Since I have the exact same freedom of speech that you do, I'm free to go to that same public space & shout you down. You gonna do something about it? You going to try & interfere with my "freedom of speech" just because I interfered with yours? Oops! We have a connundrum... Or do we? There's no such thing as a right to be listened to, or to have anyone pay attention to you in any way. Speech is an action, & you're always responsible for your own actions. "Freedom of speech" is not freedom from liability. There's no impunity. It's become a slogan that some people try to hide behind while acting like assholes. If you put yourself up as the "expert", & somebody is injured because you gave bad advice & they folowed it, you're liable.

So now we're back to provacation:
There's such a thing as "fighting words". It's been successfully used as a defense, & the SCOTUS has upheld it. So remember... While you're exercizing your free speech, & going out of your way to piss people off, nobody owes you protection from those whom you pissed off. There was some European anti-Muslim hate monger who got killed a few years back. Dutch I think. Name was Pimp or something. A radio mouth? Am I the only one in here who thinks the idiot was screaming at the top of his lungs, "Please attack me!!"? Sooner or later, you'll find somebody who'll live up to whatever stereotype you espouse. Why was anybody surprized? How much "freedom of speech" does he have now? I find myself lacking sympathy for those who try to illicit a violent reaction.

I'm all about freedom, but there are also social expectations & responsibilities that go along with those freedoms. What ever happened to the expectation of politeness & reciprocal common decency? Oh that's right... It was rebranded as "political correctness" & attacked as a social ill. Pfffft!

[TJ347]

If you say the New York Mets suck, I might be incited to kill you. However, would you agree that people should not be allowed to say that? You don't know what you might say that could incite people to violence, yet you advocate limitations on speech. How exactly does that work?

Honest question, Hippi... If I said illegal immigrants ought to be removed from the US immediately (which I do say regularly, BTW) and a random person interprets "removal" in such a way that he goes about killing illegal immigrants, who is responsible? Should I not have been allowed to say what I said? As a fellow American, I'm trying to get a better idea as to what you're saying exactly.

[robertlouis]

"Freedom of speech" is actually a restriction on the power of government. As an individual, I have no such restriction. You're free to take your soapbox to a public space & spout all kinds of whatever you want to spout about. Since I have the exact same freedom of speech that you do, I'm free to go to that same public space & shout you down. You gonna do something about it? You going to try & interfere with my "freedom of speech" just because I interfered with yours? Oops! We have a connundrum... Or do we? There's no such thing as a right to be listened to, or to have anyone pay attention to you in any way. Speech is an action, & you're always responsible for your own actions. "Freedom of speech" is not freedom from liability. There's no impunity. It's become a slogan that some people try to hide behind while acting like assholes. If you put yourself up as the "expert", & somebody is injured because you gave bad advice & they folowed it, you're liable.

So now we're back to provacation:
There's such a thing as "fighting words". It's been successfully used as a defense, & the SCOTUS has upheld it. So remember... While you're exercizing your free speech, & going out of your way to piss people off, nobody owes you protection from those whom you pissed off. There was some European anti-Muslim hate monger who got killed a few years back. Dutch I think. Name was Pimp or something. A radio mouth? Am I the only one in here who thinks the idiot was screaming at the top of his lungs, "Please attack me!!"? Sooner or later, you'll find somebody who'll live up to whatever stereotype you espouse. Why was anybody surprized? How much "freedom of speech" does he have now? I find myself lacking sympathy for those who try to illicit a violent reaction.

I'm all about freedom, but there are also social expectations & responsibilities that go along with those freedoms. What ever happened to the expectation of politeness & reciprocal common decency? Oh that's right... It was rebranded as "political correctness" & attacked as a social ill. Pfffft!

I like you too, Hippi. I find far too much of the political rhetoric (or what passes for it) that comes from the US these days to be both depressing and frightening, and it's reassuring to hear voices of moderation from time to time.

As an avid student of American history, I find the present schism between left and right in the US as great as any such phenomenon since the civil war.

That's genuinely scary.

[yodajazz]

If you say the New York Mets suck, I might be incited to kill you. However, would you agree that people should not be allowed to say that? You don't know what you might say that could incite people to violence, yet you advocate limitations on speech. How exactly does that work?

Honest question, Hippi... If I said illegal immigrants ought to be removed from the US immediately (which I do say regularly, BTW) and a random person interprets "removal" in such a way that he goes about killing illegal immigrants, who is responsible? Should I not have been allowed to say what I said? As a fellow American, I'm trying to get a better idea as to what you're saying exactly.

I had another long post wiped out. I'll be hitting the copy button, from now on, again. But one of my main points was, we knew the Koran burning, would incite violence. Their violent history, predates Islam. And Islam has been around for 1400 years.

Using the crowded theater analogy yet again. People dont always respond to fire alarms or shouts of fire. But for such to create panic, is a reasonable possibility, also. The Koran burners were warned publicly, including, by the President of the United States. It more than about the lives of American soldiers too. It's about our strategic objectives. But, I suppose, the US having more enemies, is good for defense contractors. And we can always cut back our assistance for grandma's medications.

[TJ347]

As I've said, whether we allow people to burn copies of the Quran or not, Islamic extremists will take every opportunity they can to kill us. That you would, in the hope of placating religious terrorists, advocate restricting our free speech rights in the matter of religion is most interesting. It is also interesting, though not surprising, that you mention the violent history of Islam, as if the history of Christianity is not violent. And as you know, Christianity has been around longer. That's another matter though.

As to the US having more enemies, what you miss as you myopically focus on Islamic extremists abroad are those here at home, as well as religious extremists who don't worship Allah. However, clearly we aren't worried about guys who look like Howdy Doody blowing up federal buildings, because going by what I've read here, only Muslims want to kill Americans. Again, that is another topic, so I'll leave it at that. I'll also leave my grandma's medications out of this, as taxpayers don't assist in paying for them.

Relevant story from NJ regarding state worker fired for burning a page of the Quran...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jg37WzPW2-pBYgJQgGt-i3w1Pkow?docId=16055a509f1a4f4aa68927d3e70f6a40

[Faldur]

A persons irresponsible over reaction to someone's irresponsible speech is not reason to limit speech. If Yoda shows up on my door step and pisses on a picture of my Mom and I shoot him dead. We do not need to limit his right to piss on my Mom's picture. We need to jail the irresponsible over reaction on my part.

Do the westboro whack jobs have the right to protest at our brave fallen soldiers funerals? They most certainly do, how ever irresponsible it is. Anyone who over reacts and chooses to assault them must be punished.

[trish]

Are people who trample other people in a theater after someone yells fire when there is no fire responsible for the deaths and injuries of the trampled? Yes, they are. Is the person who shouted fire responsible? Yes, he is.

Do the westboro whack jobs have the right to protest at our brave fallen soldiers funerals? Yes, they do. If one of them gets himself shot is it his fault or the shooter's? The responsibility lies at both their doorsteps, though the legal responsibility lies entirely with the shooter.

Admitting we have responsibilities beyond legal responsibilities does not in any way erode our legal liberties.

[Faldur]

I disagree Trish, the act of yelling "fire" in a crowded movie house could trigger a stampede. Much like yelling "Bomb" as people are boarding an airplane. Or yelling "Gun" and pointing at someone at a Presidential speech of some kind. Each of those examples have a high likelihood that someone will get hurt. And those examples of "speech in context with event" should not be allowed.

An irresponsible lunatic with a sign shouting vulgar insults cannot not in of its self cause violence. It requires the illegal action of another individual to create a problem. There is very little in life I find more vulgar than the Westboro baptist church. I even think if I encountered them I might risk 60 days in jail just to pop one in the mouth. But it would be my assault that was the crime, not they're speech.

[trish]

An irresponsible lunatic with a sign shouting vulgar insults cannot not in of its self cause violence.But of course it can, depending on what the provocateur says and to whom.

On your second point, it's not legal to murder or threaten life, nor is it legal to trample someone to death.

I would not want to say Rev. Jone's responsibility is equal to that of the person who shouts "fire" in a crowded theater. Indeed the courts say Jone's has the legal right to burn the Koran, whereas the person who shouts "fire" will no doubt incur a legal penalty. What I am saying is everyone, including Rev. Jones, is responsible for the predictable consequences of their behavior.

[Faldur]

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] 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 that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

If someone gets in my face and shouts "what a t-baggin, Christ chasing, ugly looking mommas boy!" and they do it two inches from my face in a full yell. If I choose to punch them its assault. Will there be considerations for his actions, yes they were provoking. But they were not illegal, and they are protected under free speech.

Trampling someone in a human stampede is not illegal, its unfortunate but unless intent and malice were present it would be an unfortunate accident.

[Faldur]

If we started outlawing speech because of the un-lawful actions of others. All you would have to do is over-react and kill someone every time they said something you didn't like. The "don't burn my flag" crowd just has to react violently every time someone burns a flag. The Christians, every time someone puts a Crucifixion in a jar of piss, get all "crusader" on there asses and Congress will outlaw that freedom.

We can never let illegal reactions to speech no matter how offensive, dictate freedoms.

[trish]

Did I say we should outlaw speech?? I'm suggesting we just accept some personal responsibility for our actions.

Where were guys when Muslims in New York wanted to exercise their First Amendment right and build a Mosque four blocks from ground zero (in the same block that housed a titty-bar). If I remember correctly, the tea-bagging party was agreeing they had the right to build a Mosque there, but that they shouldn't build it because it would be provocative and disrespectful.

[Faldur]

Oh no.. go back and read this tea partiers comments, I said it completely within there right to do so. But .. it lacked decency and was clearly in bad taste.

[onmyknees]

Did I say we should outlaw speech?? I'm suggesting we just accept some personal responsibility for our actions.

Where were guys when Muslims in New York wanted to exercise their First Amendment right and build a Mosque four blocks from ground zero (in the same block that housed a titty-bar). If I remember correctly, the tea-bagging party was agreeing they had the right to build a Mosque there, but that they shouldn't build it because it would be provocative and disrespectful.


You remember incorrectly, at least in part. None of the Tea Party entities that I'm aware of, had any official position on the mosque. You ascribe positions to the Tea Party that do not exist. There you go again painting with a broad brush, but it's a tactic...not a simple mistake. ...until it's done to you, then it's not so much fun being labeled a prerogative is it?
Those that opposed the mosque did so for several reasons and protested which is thier right. The law or the right to build it was never in question, as you elude to. The backers of the mosque had the permits to do so, and if they had the funding could begin construction tomorrow despite what the tea party or anyone said. Seems to me democracy, the legal system , and the right to protest civily worked as it should here. What's your beef?

[trish]

Okay, put onmyknees down for approval of the Mosque near ground zero.

[yodajazz]

As I've said, whether we allow people to burn copies of the Quran or not, Islamic extremists will take every opportunity they can to kill us. That you would, in the hope of placating religious terrorists, advocate restricting our free speech rights in the matter of religion is most interesting. It is also interesting, though not surprising, that you mention the violent history of Islam, as if the history of Christianity is not violent. And as you know, Christianity has been around longer. That's another matter though.

As to the US having more enemies, what you miss as you myopically focus on Islamic extremists abroad are those here at home, as well as religious extremists who don't worship Allah. However, clearly we aren't worried about guys who look like Howdy Doody blowing up federal buildings, because going by what I've read here, only Muslims want to kill Americans. Again, that is another topic, so I'll leave it at that. I'll also leave my grandma's medications out of this, as taxpayers don't assist in paying for them.

Relevant story from NJ regarding state worker fired for burning a page of the Quran...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jg37WzPW2-pBYgJQgGt-i3w1Pkow?docId=16055a509f1a4f4aa68927d3e70f6a40

Showing respect to Islam, a religion which claims 1/5 of the world's population, is not placating terrorists. It's showing respect to 1/5 of the world's population. It's also practicing the principle of religious freedom, which is part of the US national character, and Western tradition. Every group probably has some hard core extremists. There is not much chance of changing many of those. The real issue is over the 9/10 of Muslims who are not classified as extremists. The extremist would like all Muslims to be on their side. We should not be about helping them to achieve thier goals. In fact sensible stategy would have us with the opposite of their goals. Hate speech and similar actions play right into thier hands.

I recognize all kinds of enemies, of the US including a few radical Christians and White extremist militia. However, I have not heard anyone recently say that we should try to wipe out all White people on earth, because of White extremists. And its the same with Christians. I have however, seen people calling for the extermination of all Muslims, or wiping out entire nations, of Muslims, some of which are our allies. Maybe they were just ranting, hiding by internet identities, but I feel that it's not healthy to humanity to consider genocide as an acceptable solution to issues.

By the way, when I spoke of violence, I was speaking about the ethnic culture of the middle east, from which Chistianity was born also. That is why I mentioned that the violent history, predates Islam. And example would be Iraq. When it comes to Muslims, people tend to associate every negative behavior with their religion, while Americans all over the world seem to be recognized more for their national heritage, more than their religion.

I certainly agree that there has been violence from Christians also. I was recently in an intense net discussion, where I took the position, that we need to look at all human violence, whereas others claimed that the major issue of human violence today, is with Islam.

[yodajazz]

Okay, put onmyknees down for approval of the Mosque near ground zero.

I'll get in touch with people and tell them its okay to go ahead with the project now.

[TJ347]

Showing respect to Islam, a religion which claims 1/5 of the world's population, is not placating terrorists. It's showing respect to 1/5 of the world's population. It's also practicing the principle of religious freedom, which is part of the US national character, and Western tradition. Every group probably has some hard core extremists. There is not much chance of changing many of those. The real issue is over the 9/10 of Muslims who are not classified as extremists. The extremist would like all Muslims to be on their side. We should not be about helping them to achieve thier goals. In fact sensible stategy would have us with the opposite of their goals. Hate speech and similar actions play right into thier hands..

With regard to showing respect to Islam, why should we when we are free to burn Bibles and no one even bats an eye? We don't show respect for the de facto religion of our own country, and you would have us show respect for a religion many in this country, despite not knowing anything factual about it, clearly despise?

I agree with everything else you said entirely, but to restrict free speech in the US in order to show "respect"... That takes us back to criticizing my Mets, which I would find more disrespectful than if you criticized my religious practices. We can't change the game in the ninth inning; free speech allows us to burn the Quran, Bible and Book of Mormon, regardless of whether it might cause associated groups consternation. You and I would not do such a thing, but because we would not does not mean we should advocate taking the right to do so from others. Our personal positions on matters such as these, fortunately, do not trump the enumerated rights granted to other citizens by the US Constitution. It is most telling that some people here, who don't want to burn a Quran or own firearms, feel that because they don't, no one else should be able to. Stalin thought like that, as did Mao and Hitler. That isn't America.

[Stavros]

I think this thread has reached an impasse: we all agree that the right of free speech in the US includes the right to do and say things that a lot of people find offensive; it seems there is little unanimity on the limits of free speech and that, I think, is because the boundary of acceptability changes over time, what would have been thought outrageous in 1950 was commonplace in 2000, what was outrageous in 2000 may now seem mild, and so on. What disappoints me is the need some people have to target any one group for no practical purpose other than to provoke: after all, a politician can make an inflammatory speech either to get elected or improve his reputation; a pornographer can justify his product as free speech to make a profit: what is the intention of Qu'ran burning, that to me is the core issue, even though I see Pastor Jones making a fool of himself, as the Westboro 'Christians' look equally foolish with their messages of the 'God slap' and so on. It is exactly what Jihadis want; in the end, Pastor Jones needs them as much as they need him.

Maybe we should move on from this; respect the rights of free speech, and concede that in 10 years time the debate will be about someone and something else.

[hippifried]

With regard to showing respect to Islam, why should we when we are free to burn Bibles and no one even bats an eye? We don't show respect for the de facto religion of our own country, and you would have us show respect for a religion many in this country, despite not knowing anything factual about it, clearly despise?


The silly rhetoric is getting out of hand when linguistic equasions are disconnected, & that becomes the norm.

Sorry TJ, but you're equating freedom with approval, & resect with appeasement or surrender. It doesn't work. You show respect for the beliefs of others because they have the same freedoms that you do. You show respect for the beliefs of others because it's the right thing to do. You show respect for the beliefs of others because not doing so invites disrespect for your own. If you automatically refuse to show respect, you really have no gripe when you get disrespected. Freedom requires etiquette, or it disappears with the first strong "leader" who comes along & doesn't want you to have it. Without a moral base, freedom is a hollow word. Careful... You're taking an immoral position here by promoting violation of the "universal code of human interaction", AKA "the principle or ethic of reciprocity", AKA "the golden rule".

[TJ347]

Hippie, I understand what you're saying... Really, I do. However, we're not talking about morality or "the golden rule" here; we're talking about the right to free speech as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

That said, we have plenty of people who don't want us to continue enjoying certain rights given to us in the Constitution, as this and other threads attest. You'll recall the thread you participated in involving "sensible restrictions" on our 2nd Amendment rights. I am not for restrictions on any rights, not because I necessarily disagree with proposed restrictions, but because I fear what would happen should we start modifying rights in accordance with the prevailing sentiment of the day. We prohibit burning Qurans so as not to inflame Muslims today, next we prohibit groups like the KKK from holding a rally in New Jersey (as they plan to do next month)... It doesn't change our reality, it just makes us feel better, and rights are not about feelings.

[trish]

That said, we have plenty of people who don't want us to continue enjoying certain rights given to us in the Constitution, as this and other threads attest.Nonsense. Who in this thread is threatening your legal right to freedom of speech???

[TJ347]

I wasn't talking about my right to free speech with that comment. When I said "this and other threads", I was referencing the discussion we had on firearms elsewhere, from which it's clear that because some can't see beyond their own self-interests, they would like to curtail the ability of other Americans to enjoy the 2nd Amendment as it presently exists. In this particular thread, there are people who advocate restriction on speech they find objectionable, but do not consider that others might find their saying that, in whatever form, itself objectionable and thus want to subject their speech to restrictions, which would ultimately lead to no one being able to say much of anything. Anyway, sorry for any confusion. No one in this thread, or on this site, threatens any of my Constitutional rights.

[robertlouis]

I think this thread has reached an impasse: we all agree that the right of free speech in the US includes the right to do and say things that a lot of people find offensive; it seems there is little unanimity on the limits of free speech and that, I think, is because the boundary of acceptability changes over time, what would have been thought outrageous in 1950 was commonplace in 2000, what was outrageous in 2000 may now seem mild, and so on. What disappoints me is the need some people have to target any one group for no practical purpose other than to provoke: after all, a politician can make an inflammatory speech either to get elected or improve his reputation; a pornographer can justify his product as free speech to make a profit: what is the intention of Qu'ran burning, that to me is the core issue, even though I see Pastor Jones making a fool of himself, as the Westboro 'Christians' look equally foolish with their messages of the 'God slap' and so on. It is exactly what Jihadis want; in the end, Pastor Jones needs them as much as they need him.

Maybe we should move on from this; respect the rights of free speech, and concede that in 10 years time the debate will be about someone and something else.

:iagree::iagree::iagree: Amen to all that.

[hippifried]

Hippie, I understand what you're saying... Really, I do. However, we're not talking about morality or "the golden rule" here; we're talking about the right to free speech as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

That said, we have plenty of people who don't want us to continue enjoying certain rights given to us in the Constitution, as this and other threads attest. You'll recall the thread you participated in involving "sensible restrictions" on our 2nd Amendment rights. I am not for restrictions on any rights, not because I necessarily disagree with proposed restrictions, but because I fear what would happen should we start modifying rights in accordance with the prevailing sentiment of the day. We prohibit burning Qurans so as not to inflame Muslims today, next we prohibit groups like the KKK from holding a rally in New Jersey (as they plan to do next month)... It doesn't change our reality, it just makes us feel better, and rights are not about feelings.
Sorry dude, but this is all about morality. When you think about it, the "golden rule" (the moral code) is the only solid rule we have. Everything else is arbitrary. You talk as if there's some innate right to be an asshole with impunity. In reality, there's no right to impunity at all, for anything. The 1st Amendment is merely a restriction on the power of governmnt. It doesn't restrict me or any other individual. Nobody owes the klan, or any other assholes a free pass. If 2 or 3 times as many blacks, Jews, & Catholics decide to crash their little party in Jersey, well that's just too fucking bad. The klan is a terrorist organization, & as an American, I owe them no protection from other Americans that they would terrorize if alowed. The government won't get in their way, but I encourage everybody else to. It's a moral thing. Everybody recognizes a violation of the moral code. Adherence to that rule is what allows us to live in close proximity to other people. We're social critters. That's how we survive as a species. Without the moral code, we're just prey to anything with sharp teeth & claws. Without the moral code, we would never have found the cave in the first place, let alone found our way out of it. (metaphorically speaking) Without the moral code, there is no freedom at all.

[TJ347]

Sorry, but we're clearly not talking about the same thing. I know what the "Golden Rule" is, but when it comes to the issue of free speech in the US, I'm going to quote the Constitution, which is an actual legal document. If you want to reference the "Golden Rule", that's fine, but you will never find a case that has been prosecuted because of a violation of the "Golden Rule". Also, contrary to what you've said, there is no universally recognized "moral code". What you and I might deem immoral would not be by someone else and vice versa. On a side note, imagine a radical Muslim pondering the "Golden Rule"... He could actually agree with it, reasoning that if he was an infidel, he would want someone to bring him to the true religion or behead him if he refused to see the light. You might not interpret it in that way, but we each see things in our own way. That's the problem with ever stating "everybody" knows this or that... There is no such thing as common sense, common decency or common courtesy, despite how readily we use those terms.

As to the Klan rally in New Jersey, as they have apparently obtained the requisite permits, if anyone tries to physically disrupt with the gathering they will most certainly be arrested. I know for a fact that the state police will be on the scene early, as there are a number of counter-protesters coming out. This is all as it should be. I despise the Klan, but regardless of the nature of their message, I understand and appreciate that they have the right to verbalize that message. You may disagree, and I respect it if you do, but so long as the Constitution is enforced here, it doesn't matter. They will be able to rally, you will be able to protest, and I will be able to ignore the entire thing. For all its warts, that's America.

[yodajazz]

Free speech is an important right. However, it is just one of several rights/principles, which sometimes compete for priorities in a given situation. One such expected right is basic safety. The concept of “hate speech” is, that which promotes violence against a given group. In such cases, one can see a clear link, from speech to specific violent acts. So in this case basic safety, trumps free speech. I can think of many instances where speech and behavior are restricted by laws. Sexual harassment is one that comes immediately to mind. Court testimony, and tax returns, are other areas where, free speech is not the rule. Legal justice, and funding for the well bieng of the general public, are the two principles in these cases.

According to the views of certain posters on this thread, they would have been a big help on the defense team of mobster, John Gotti. They may have helped him to argue, that he was only exercising his free speech in discussing such things as murder. The people, he was talking to, should have known better than to go out and commit crimes. I think the government was able to prove that his words were part of the cause, of criminal activities
.

And those airline execs, from different companies, were only exercising their right to assemble, and exercise their right to free speech, when they got together. According to them, it was just a coincidence when they all raised their prices to similar amounts, subsequently. However, the government, who has the duty to protect people from unfair financial practices, accused them of price fixing. I don’t have a problem with the Klan holding a public march/rally. However, a member of a White supremacist group, goes on a shooting spree, targeting minorities, I think the leadership should be thoroughly investigated for involvement in a conspiracy.

So bottom line is that ‘speech’ is still subject. To the legal consequences of the actions it causes. The Florida pastor actions, were used by others to cause at least 19 deaths, so far, and he was pre warned that it would happen. Like it or not our nation, is involved in a war/combat operation. I’m all for free speech. But when speech helps to cause the rights of others to be violated, it’s wrong. Death is the ultimate rights violation.

[robertlouis]

Free speech is an important right. However, it is just one of several rights/principles, which sometimes compete for priorities in a given situation. One such expected right is basic safety. The concept of “hate speech” is, that which promotes violence against a given group. In such cases, one can see a clear link, from speech to specific violent acts. So in this case basic safety, trumps free speech. I can think of many instances where speech and behavior are restricted by laws. Sexual harassment is one that comes immediately to mind. Court testimony, and tax returns, are other areas where, free speech is not the rule. Legal justice, and funding for the well bieng of the general public, are the two principles in these cases.

According to the views of certain posters on this thread, they would have been a big help on the defense team of mobster, John Gotti. They may have helped him to argue, that he was only exercising his free speech in discussing such things as murder. The people, he was talking to, should have known better than to go out and commit crimes. I think the government was able to prove that his words were part of the cause, of criminal activities
.

And those airline execs, from different companies, were only exercising their right to assemble, and exercise their right to free speech, when they got together. According to them, it was just a coincidence when they all raised their prices to similar amounts, subsequently. However, the government, who has the duty to protect people from unfair financial practices, accused them of price fixing. I don’t have a problem with the Klan holding a public march/rally. However, a member of a White supremacist group, goes on a shooting spree, targeting minorities, I think the leadership should be thoroughly investigated for involvement in a conspiracy.

So bottom line is that ‘speech’ is still subject. To the legal consequences of the actions it causes. The Florida pastor actions, were used by others to cause at least 19 deaths, so far, and he was pre warned that it would happen. Like it or not our nation, is involved in a war/combat operation. I’m all for free speech. But when speech helps to cause the rights of others to be violated, it’s wrong. Death is the ultimate rights violation.

:iagree::iagree::iagree: You're a good man, Yoda

[hippifried]

All laws are based on the moral code. Any restriction on people that can't be related to the code is arbitrary & probably should be gotten rid of. But if you really want to talk about the Constitution, show me any mention of a "right" in the 1st Amendment.

There's definitely a universal moral code. It's the same in every region & every culture. It's religiously, culturally, socially, & philosophically neutral. It's simply that you should treat others in the same manner that you would prefer to be treated by others. I can't prove it, but personally, I think it's innate. That's the one single rule that allows us to be the social critters that we are. It's what gives us our conscience. Almost everybody adheres to the code more often than not. It's automatic. You literally have to go out of your way to make a bunch of excuses if you want to violate it. It predates any of our history, & there's libraries written on the subject. Confucianism & Buddhism are all universal code all the time, because they eschew hierarchical religious power structures in their dogma for the most part. Hilel, Rabbi in Babylon circa 100 BCE, was asked to define the law. His answer was: "That which displeases you, do not to your fellow. That is the whole Torah. All else is explanation. Go & learn."


Now don't get me wrong. I don't want to shut the klan/nazis up. I want to shout them down. Drown them out in a massive wave of disgust. Requisite permits merely allow you to hold a mass gathering on the public commons. It's not a protection from disruption. The police are there to quell any violence that may start. Not to stifle the freedom of speech of those who show up to show their disgust. The klan is a terrorist organization after all. I want these bozos to air their point of view. The more public they try to get, the more their numbers dwindle. Nobody likes an asshole. (well... in the derogatory sense of the term anyway)

& that brings me full circle. Nobody likes to deal with assholes. That's why deliberately acting like an asshole is a violation of the code. Adherence to the code doesn't stifle free speech. It enhances it by keeping things civil. What ever happened to being polite? When did it become socially unacceptable to teach manners to our children? Oh well... The pendulum will swing back again.

[trish]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20100611-503544.html

GOP RAFFLE'S A GLOCK 45 JUST LIKE THE ONE THAT WAS USED ON GIFFORDS. OH, AND THE PURPOSE OF THE RAFFLE IS TO RAISE MONEY TO DEFEAT GIFFORDS IN THE UPCOMING RACE.

[Faldur]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20100611-503544.html

GOP RAFFLE'S A GLOCK 45 JUST LIKE THE ONE THAT WAS USED ON GIFFORDS. OH, AND THE PURPOSE OF THE RAFFLE IS TO RAISE MONEY TO DEFEAT GIFFORDS IN THE UPCOMING RACE.

Bet these guys bought a couple of tickets..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h2n3vJo7Xo&feature=player_embedded#!

[Faldur]

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/video-game-allows-players-slaughter-tea-party-zombies-sarah-palin-and-bill-oreilly

Ya, now this isn't nearly as bad as a crosshair on a campaign add. I mean its not like its violent or anything.. hypocrites

[Faldur]

Really? The guy who opens for the President, "Lets take those son of a bitches out"..

The opening act for obuma (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehnCz-n_WyQ&feature=player_embedded)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nFA5rkn7zk&feature=player_embedded

[trish]

Nice job of editing. What Mr. Hoffa said was, "President Obama, this is your army, we are ready to march," Hoffa said. "But everybody here's got to vote. If we go back, and keep the eye on the prize, let's take these son-of-a-bitches out."
Sarah Palin alleges that her targets were metaphors, that they were an implicit call for getting out the vote. But Mr. Hoffa's words are explicitly about getting out the vote and taking the son of a bitches in Congress out of office. Nothing wrong with that language. No one could possibly misunderstand and go out and shoot someone...unless some disingenuous editor deletes the lead in sentence. But who would do that? Oh, yeah. Fox News would. Well, if anyone gets shot now it'll be your team's fault....again. :)


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/62661.html#ixzz1XDlIgGxE

Did I mention the GOP in Pima County AZ is raffling off a GLOCK JUST LIKE THE ONE THAT SENT A BULLET THROUGH GIFFORD'S BRAIN in order to raise money to take her seat. Wonder what signal they're trying to send?

[onmyknees]

Really? The guy who opens for the President, "Lets take those son of a bitches out"..

The opening act for obuma (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehnCz-n_WyQ&feature=player_embedded)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nFA5rkn7zk&feature=player_embedded

Recall when Palin said, "Take America Back"
Trish demanded to know just what America was she referring to...well Trish...the chickens have come home to roost it would seem. Hoffa also wants to take America back....back to where? The era of his fat felonious father? The one where union thugs ruled the garbage, docks, heroine and gambling rackets by intimidation, torture, extortion and death? The era where the unions were tied to the hip with the mob? That era?? This fat fuck belongs right next to his old man. How's that for dangerous rhetoric? Hoffa barks about a war on workers....go to a jobsite where a non union contractor has been awarded work while surrounded by union workers....that's the war Hoffa is most familiar with ...They still use the same intimidation tactics as the thugs did in the 70's.
hey Hoffa....If Wisconsin is any measure of the battle you seek...you'll wind up on the short end of that stick....again. I have nothing against organized labor, I had a union card for many years.. but the leadership does not reflect the politics of the rank and file. In 2010 54% of those identifying them as union members voted for McCain. How's that grab ya Fat Man?

[Faldur]

Nice job of editing.
Did I mention the GOP in Pima County AZ is raffling off a GLOCK JUST LIKE THE ONE THAT SENT A BULLET THROUGH GIFFORD'S BRAIN in order to raise money to take her seat. Wonder what signal they're trying to send?

No editing job was done, the full video in all its glory is there unedited.

Ya, I wish i lived in AZ I would have bought one of those raffle tickets. You know the guy was the one who shot all those people, not the gun right? I could be mistaken but I don't believe we have had a gun all by it self go on a shooting spree yet. Now a monkey with a gun.. thats a different story.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HmDUxaAkO0

Did you see the black panther video?

[trish]

Hoffa also wants to take America backReally did he use those words? Did he say he want to take America back. Or did he explicitly say he wants to take back the Congress. There's a difference, which is why I originally asked the question.

[trish]

No editing job was done, the full video in all its glory is there unedited.So then it's even clearer isn't it? Hoffa was EXPLICITLY getting out the vote. Palin was METAPHORICALLY doing what??? If you go back and review those old threads you will find my beef all along was with the use of violent language as metaphor. When the message is implicit instead of explicit there is always the possibility that listeners will misinterpret or even the possibility that the messenger is delivering a message with dual meaning.

[Faldur]

Fight, war, and take them out... ya it was all about the vote. And the zombie game is all in fun, bludgeoning conservatives with a crow bar in the lobby of Fox News is nothing to worry about. How can anyone take that as inciting someone to violence.

[trish]

Fight, war, and take them out... ya it was all about the vote. Exactly, it's EXPLICITLY what Hoffa said.

"President Obama, this is your army, we are ready to march," Hoffa said. "But everybody here's got to vote. If we go back, and keep the eye on the prize, let's take these son-of-a-bitches out."

Now those targets on Palin's web site were a different story. Nothing explicit was said one way or the other about the vote...not until it was too late. Giffords even asked Palin to make her intentions clearer, under the presumption that Palin's intentions weren't to incite a shooting. Palin refused. So what can we say about Palin's intentions were? To this day they remain unclear.

[Faldur]

Exactly, it's EXPLICITLY what Hoffa said.

"President Obama, this is your army, we are ready to march," Hoffa said. "But everybody here's got to vote. If we go back, and keep the eye on the prize, let's take these son-of-a-bitches out."

Now those targets on Palin's web site were a different story. Nothing explicit was said one way or the other about the vote...not until it was too late. Giffords even asked Palin to make her intentions clearer, under the presumption that Palin's intentions weren't to incite a shooting. Palin refused. So what can we say about Palin's intentions were? To this day they remain unclear.

And what about the zombie game? Seems your vision is a bit selective..

http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs110.snc1/4812_197626630014_842290014_7296425_4329225_a.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9I5GHI03uCc

[trish]

What's to understand? The tea baggers are brainless zombies. Can't you read? Hoffa said UP FRONT it's about the vote. That's something Palin wasn't...she wasn't up front. It's a little late to defend her now...people are dead.

[Faldur]

What's to understand? The tea baggers are brainless zombies. Can't you read? Hoffa said UP FRONT it's about the vote. That's something Palin wasn't...she wasn't up front. It's a little late to defend her now...people are dead.

Kind of what I thought, "do as I say, not as I do".

[trish]

No exactly the opposite. DO make your intention EXPLICIT. When using language that could be construed as violent DON'T be metaphorical about it or you could be misunderstood as making a veiled call for violence. Go back and check the previous threads on this topic...this has consistently been my perspective. Hoffa was explicit. Palin was not.

[hippifried]

So is it time to start using teasbaggers for target practice yet?

[runningdownthatdream]

So is it time to start using teasbaggers for target practice yet?

Nice.......especially from the guy with faith in the noble nature of the human race. Hypocrisy as we can see is alive and well!

[Faldur]

So is it time to start using teasbaggers for target practice yet?

Nope, you must first print pretty little fliers with crosshairs on them. Then its ok. Oh, and maybe I should mention... Tea Partiers shoot back.. Have a nice day sport.. :)

[onmyknees]

So is it time to start using teasbaggers for target practice yet?

Sure Hippie....i'll stand still while you take your best shot you burnt out old douchebag.. lmao But you'd better hit what you're aiming at...but wait...that would mean you'd have to be straight and sober. Fat chance of that.