Free Speech and Inflammatory Rhetoric

[WinePusher]

With the recent tragedy in Tuscon Arizona, many on the left have been blaming this on conservatives and their supposed "inflammatory rhetoric." Conservative leaders such as Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Michele Bachmann, Sharon Angle and others have been their primary targets. They have focused particular attention on Palins bullet map and the call to use "second amendment remedies" by Sharon Angle.

But let's look a little closer at this. The DNC used a bullet map similar to Palin, people on the left like Ed Schultz and Mike Malloy have called for the death of some presidents and conservative leaders, a documentary was made about killing Bush by a leftist, and Obama himself has made inflammatory remarks with violent connotations. The left also was so concerned about jumping to conclusions about Fort Hood, but jumps to conclusions about the political affiliations of this psychopath in the absense of evidence.

1) Are second amendment remedies to problems ever justified? Remember that the point of the 2nd amendment was to combat a tyrannical government.

2) Are conservatives to blame for this?

3) Are liberals being hypocrties by jumping to conclusions over this, and not jumping to conclusions over Fort Hood. Are they also being hypocrites for charging conservatives with violent and inflammatory rhetoric while leaving their own ranks uncondemned?

[Grumpy]

RevSpecter

Lastly, I am older than grumpy

Only if 46 is more than 56.

Now that is a bit rich Mr Grumpy. MSNBC constantly belittles Mrs. Palin and others past the point of demonization.

Actually, no. There is no need to demonize those who have done what Palin and company have. We just need to point and laugh.

So I think you need to examine your own claims what liberal news programs are saying!.

How is criticizing the dishonesty of Palin lying? I didn't say cnbc was unbiased, they are not. But they do not tell lies and you conservatives seem to have trouble recognizing the difference between the two concepts.

Grumpy

[RevSpecter]

Thank you for being the first to address the post. Politifact is hardly a liberal source. Check it out as it may help with your rebuttal.

I did check it out. Did you see any errors in the sources contentions?

You have some corner of the market on "The Truth"?

Yes. I provided it.

Yep, I agree.

Thanks.

Umm, yes there is?

Ok.

Obviously you didn't even bother to read the whole article you are attempting to rebutt.

I read the entire article and as I said if someone uses the national enquirer as a source I tend to believe the rest of his sources suspect, not by design maybe, but by ability to determine what is a good source. I dont have any method of knowing why a bad sources are provided so I simply decline to read a page full of suspect material, each one a fairly long read when taken cumulatively.

We checked Biden's schedule for the day, and indeed, he met with Devaney at 2:15 p.m. Jan. 14. The meeting was closed to the press: no transcript, no pool report.But it was not, as Palin indicated, a meeting with the full board. It was listed as a one-on-one meeting with Devaney.

Yes, with all due respect I am not blind nor stupid. No need to highlight the pertinent text, but thanks for your assistance anyway. Palin may or may not indicated it was a full board meeting. That was a subjective analysis. If she had said it outright and intentionally, I could blame her for being deceptive etc.

White House spokeswoman Liz Oxhorn said it was a meeting between Biden and Devaney to discuss measures Devaney is taking to prevent fraud. The spokeswoman said those meetings are typically closed because of the sensitive nature of the discussions.

Again the reason for the meetings being held in private is not the question. Its if Palin is being dishonest. In my opinion it doesnt pass the muster for that requirement. I think Palins handlers are more to blame for here seemingly intentional deceptions, if I were her I would enlist a team of handlers! I know how she feels, being an cultural alien of sorts.

Take a look here: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... .php?t=582

No thanks, I was attempting to be friendly, something you seem to be trying to derail. Why do I detect a current of well non-friendliness in your responses ?

rs

[RevSpecter]

"Mostly I'm tired of people being ugly to each other. I'm tired of all the pain I feel and hear in the world everyday. There's too much of it. It's like pieces of glass in my head all the time. Can you understand?" John Coffey..The Green Mile

That was a wonderful movie, I saw a rerun of the green mile last night, watching it until the part where Hanks character was healed. However, I couldn't watch the part where coffee gets the chair (executed)! I look like a rough character but I am a slave to my emotions.

And thanks for posting the piece at least one person seems interested in civil, friendly debate. Or...Did I read your intent wrongly?

rs

[WinePusher]

Let's try some elementary logic and see if that gets us anywhere. Bill Ayers is a terrorist, Obama was an associate of him and considered him to be a close friend.

This is not logic, it is bold face lies. Ayers injured noone, nor was he involved in any attack that did. Obama was not an associate nor a close friend.

So you don't think Bill Ayers is a terrorist? Hm, I'll just leave this alone then.

And you can say that your leader isn't a socialist all you like, your claim amounts to nothing because actions carry more weight than words.

And you fling derogatory names around without reason or evidence.

Man. Has the political correctness seeped this far, Grumpy? Since when is calling somone a Socialist (a term used to describe a persons economic policy) a derogatory name?

If he walks like a socialist, talks like a socialist and acts like a socialist, then he's a socialist.

If it walks, talks and acts like a lie...Obama is no more a socialist than Mitt Romney is. Oh, is Romney a socialist too in your fantasy world?

Some of Romney's policies resembled socialism, others didn't. You judge a public official by the policy the propose and support, not what they or their supporters say by word of mouth. How is Socialism defined again? TARP, Financial Regulation, Bloated Central Banking, Wasteful Spending.

They do the totally dishonest thing, it's called bearing false witness or yellow journalism. Their "controversial stories" are pure fiction with real names inserted, designed for political gain. You repeat their lies and propaganda verbatim. Fox has the journalistic integrity of a supermarket tabloid, they sell a lot of those, too.

Come on, which station had 5 uber liberals anchoring a broadcast about the election and which station had the "Thrill Up My Leg" anchor who insulted Michele Bachmann in an interview? But now that I've mentioned Michele Bachmann we'll probably hear something about how bad she is for the country.

Grumpy KNOWS that Fox lies(so does everyone not willing to lie about others), it's just a fact.

WinePusher also KNOWS that MSNBC lies and fabricates stories, those who disagree with me are the same as AGW denialists.

Grumpy also KNOWS that the challenge for you or Ae to come up with a single instance of Racheal Maddow telling a lie or even making an honest mistake that she did not later correct has not been met The two truly pitiful attempts seems to have shown you your error, you haven't addressed it again. So, no, all reporters do not lie despite their biases, they do not make things up to further their political interests, but the ones at Fox certainly do, it has been documented in this thread.

I produced two obvious and blatant lies by the Oxford Graduate and don't really care if you have don't believe them due to the fact that you have bought liberal propoganda about opposing opinions. Hey, in conservative schools of thought we were always taught to respect and understand the other side. Unlike the left who:

1) Expells ID from being taught in schools
2) Tries to knock off conservatives from the airwaves

Come on, you know you can't win if you play fair so you have your agenda taken to the courts time and time again because if they were put to the people you would lose.

No, but you're very fond of trying to pin the murderous actions of a mentally insane people (which all shooters amount to) on the right because liberals lose in the arena of ideas and must resort to such tactics.

So abortion clinic bombers or doctor shooters do what they do because they are insane?

That's right, all shooters and murderers are insane. Another extremely simple concept. There are millions of ardent Pro Life people in this world who don't feel the need to shoot doctors, that's because they are mentally healthy. The driving factor of any shooter is their mental illness, not their politics. Learn something, please.

The Right wing does have a lot to answer for, BECAUSE it is more likely due to their lies and extreme rhetoric. Just like abortion clinic bombers are more likely when preachers demonize those who disagree.

How do you define extremely rhetoric. The stuff that you disagree with? You know, I thought it was kinda extreme when the far left protested Bush and made documentaries about him dying, I also found it funny that I now hear the left and Pelosi crying about extreme rhetoric. Whats up with that?

Of course not. But Fox is not a news channel, it is Right Wing propaganda outlet. The left does not have an equivalent, nor would I want one. Countering lies with more lies doesn't strike me as sane.

You're right for once. The left doesn't have an equivalent because MSNBC surpasses Fox by about 10 miles on the lying and propoganda scale. Fox, along with CNN, had real journalists anchoring the election, not commentators.

You should watch Racheal Maddow to see real journalistic integrity in action. You won't agree with her opinions or conclusions, but you can not argue with her facts(or at least you won't win, as Dick Armey found out).

Wow, you think Maddow is hs integrity has a journalist. That about sums it up. I guess your standards of integrity are severely different than mine. Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper, journalists like them have integrity. Maddow, not so much, unless you're a liberal and agree with her conclusions. The fact is, Hannity and Beck don't tout themselves to be journalists because they know they aren't. Rachel hasn't had that epiphany yet, I guess.

[RevSpecter]

Grumpy also KNOWS that the challenge for you or Ae to come up with a single instance of Racheal Maddow telling a lie or even making an honest mistake that she did not later correct has not been met The two truly pitiful attempts seems to have shown you your error, you haven't addressed it again. So, no, all reporters do not lie despite their biases, they do not make things up to further their political interests, but the ones at Fox certainly do, it has been documented in this thread.

Allow me to assist Mr. Winepusher's ? Ms Maddow lies just as well as all of the paid news employee's. I don't fully trust any of them, and that is the reason I take all of them 'in aggregate' and attempt to extrapolate 'average' claims etc, then form my own opinions. Additionally, I attempt to source via nontraditional methods news about events etc that are very important to me. I use shortwave and satt. radio for Islamic and other middle east news/issues for example.

Lastly I will comment about a few of Maddows mis-truths. The proof needed to prove Grumpys claims inaccurate were as close as the net and a search engine. I retained and pasted the Google descriptive paragraph to aid the potential reader in deciding if he or she wants to link to the site;

Rachel Maddow lies: Fox had absolutely nothing to do with the ...
Jul 26, 2010 ... Fox reports that Shirley Sherrod has already resigned, yet Rachel Maddow uses them as evidence that she resigned because of Fox News.

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/rachel-mad ... ey-sherrod

rs

[Wyvern]

Grumpy also KNOWS that the challenge for you or Ae to come up with a single instance of Racheal Maddow telling a lie or even making an honest mistake that she did not later correct has not been met The two truly pitiful attempts seems to have shown you your error, you haven't addressed it again. So, no, all reporters do not lie despite their biases, they do not make things up to further their political interests, but the ones at Fox certainly do, it has been documented in this thread.

Allow me to assist Mr. Winepusher's ? Ms Maddow lies just as well as all of the paid news employee's. I don't fully trust any of them, and that is the reason I take all of them 'in aggregate' and attempt to extrapolate 'average' claims etc, then form my own opinions. Additionally, I attempt to source via nontraditional methods news about events etc that are very important to me. I use shortwave and satt. radio for Islamic and other middle east news/issues for example.

Lastly I will comment about a few of Maddows mis-truths. The proof needed to prove Grumpys claims inaccurate were as close as the net and a search engine. I retained and pasted the Google descriptive paragraph to aid the potential reader in deciding if he or she wants to link to the site;

Rachel Maddow lies: Fox had absolutely nothing to do with the ...
Jul 26, 2010 ... Fox reports that Shirley Sherrod has already resigned, yet Rachel Maddow uses them as evidence that she resigned because of Fox News.

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/rachel-mad ... ey-sherrod

rs

Maddow did not say Fox was responsible but that it was the exact same set up that happened with the ACORN affair. The same right wing website produced a heavily edited tape which gave the appearance of malfeasance on both ACORNs and Sherrods part and Fox without bothering to fact check ran with it. The strange thing is if Fox did nothing wrong then why did Bill O'Reilly have the integrity to at least apologize for what he said? Stranger still is how desperately you look for the slightest error in everything Maddow says and immediately jump to the conclusion it is a lie but when a conservative commentator repeatedly makes boldfaced lies you ignore it entirely. This is the third supposed lie you claim Maddow has said, none of which can actually be said to be a lie while on the other hand entire books have been written about the lies of Limbaugh and yet he has been one of if not the leading conservative voice in america for the last twenty years. Winepusher likes to say something to the effect of if an organization makes a bad product(in this case lies) they will go out of business, but the continued success of Limbaugh even with all the lies and hypocrisy flies in the face of this claim.

[RevSpecter]

Mr Wyvern, I acquired almost all my information from three or four web sites. I will revisit the sites and the material in question and reply to your rebuttal ASAP, thanks for your reply.

rs

[East of Eden]

This is not logic, it is bold face lies. Ayers injured noone, nor was he involved in any attack that did.

Baloney. From Wikipedia:
Ayers participated in the Days of Rage riot in Chicago in October 1969, and in December was at the "War Council" meeting in Flint, Michigan. Two major decisions came out of the "War Council." The first was to immediately begin a violent, armed struggle (e.g., bombings and armed robberies) against the state without attempting to organize or mobilize a broad swath of the public.

How many of the crimes Ayers was personally involved in is irrelevant. He helped found this terror group. The founder of the KKK, Nathan Bedford Forest, didn't personally commit all the crimes of his group, so what?

Obama was not an associate nor a close friend.

He was clearly an associate. Sarah Palin would have far too much common sense to assiciate with a creep like Ayers.

If it walks, talks and acts like a lie...Obama is no more a socialist than Mitt Romney is.

Obama had a more liberal voting record in the Senate than the honest Socialist Bernie Sanders. Biden did too.

Grumpy also KNOWS that the challenge for you or Ae to come up with a single instance of Racheal Maddow telling a lie or even making an honest mistake that she did not later correct has not been met

Does this count?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/madd ... -invasion/

So abortion clinic bombers or doctor shooters do what they do because they are insane? It has absolutely nothing to do with anything a pastor told him in church, he came up with the way he thinks about his targets(and the targets themselves)all on his own?

You've stumbled onto the truth. What pastor is telling parishoners to shoot abortion docs?

Eric Robert Rudolf was persuaded that the preacher he heard on Sunday meant what he said, that abortionists are murderers.

They are murderers, but that doesn't mean we get to impose the sentance. God says, 'Vengeance is mine."

Of course not. But Fox is not a news channel, it is Right Wing propaganda outlet.

The FOX derangement syndrome continues.

The left does not have an equivalent, nor would I want one. Countering lies with more lies doesn't strike me as sane.

How about the entire lamestream MSM?

You should watch Racheal Maddow

Is anybody?

She's just another liberal Democrat masquerading as a journalist.

[Grumpy]

WinePusher

So you don't think Bill Ayers is a terrorist? Hm, I'll just leave this alone then.

Not just me, but the courts have concluded that Ayers' involvement, while quite stupid, thoughtless(or at least rational thought), reckless, misguided or any other perjorative term of your choice, was not criminal. Terrorism IS criminal. So, by simple logic, the government does not consider Ayers a terrorist. They treat G. Gordon Liddy the same way, when he was actually convicted of crimes.

At least you have finally recognized you can't rewrite history to smear Obama.

Since when is calling somone a Socialist (a term used to describe a persons economic policy) a derogatory name?

It has to do with intent. And just what is your intent?

The United States has always been a socialist country. Providing for the common good is what socialism is. But the Right has turned it into a perjoritive, just like they have done with liberal. Their intent is to disparage the concept by distorting what the word means. They have associated socialism with communism(for decades)when that is simply ignorance. When used as the conservatives mean it Obama is not a socialist. Meant as the concept actually is, the conservatives themselves are socialists.

Some of Romney's policies resembled socialism, others didn't. You judge a public official by the policy the propose and support, not what they or their supporters say by word of mouth. How is Socialism defined again? TARP, Financial Regulation, Bloated Central Banking, Wasteful Spending.

I rest my case. TARP? Bush. Financial regulation(the failure thereof), Bush. Bloated Central Banking, every president since Roosevelt. Wasteful Spending, Bush is the all time champion. 11.5 trillion in eight years.

WinePusher also KNOWS that MSNBC lies and fabricates stories,

Yet you have failed to show a single instance of a lie told by Racheal Maddow, or Chris Matthews, or even Keith Olberman. I can find several a day on Fox. Criticizing Bachman for her behavior is not lying. Nor is expressing liberal opinions(or conservative, for that matter). There is a very big difference between being biased and being a liar(and a biased one at that). There is a difference in being a commentator on the news(whether liberal or conservative)and being a fabricator of it(and then basing your commentary on lies). One is opinion, the other is propaganda. Fox is propaganda claiming to be news.

I produced two obvious and blatant lies by the Oxford Graduate

That is a lie, you were immediately shown your error.

Hey, in conservative schools of thought we were always taught to respect and understand the other side.

So you didn't learn anything there, either. The Fox school teaches to lie about, denigrate and demonize your opponent in order to avoid questions, evidently.

1) Expells ID from being taught in schools

As they should. ID is Creationism light(same taste, less god). It is religious belief and unless you want Santaria Priests sacrificing chickens for daily prayer, religion is not taught in our public schools.

2) Tries to knock off conservatives from the airwaves

Protesting the idiocy they spew is not trying to ban them. I hope every one of them receive wide exposure for the stupid things they say, even on Fox. You have the right to be wrong if you want to, but I have the right to point and laugh and send videos to America's Funniest.

Come on, you know you can't win if you play fair so you have your agenda taken to the courts time and time again because if they were put to the people you would lose.

Funny how conservatives denigrate our court system as unfair. I can understand, the courts have stopped your agenda so many times. But there seems to be no person or institution that you won't Fox if they disagree with you. Alexander Hamilton often spoke of "The Tyranny of the Masses". If the civil rights had been left to the opinions of bigoted people in the South we would still have virtual slavery of blacks. Some things are not the option of the majority, they are to be decided by the Constitution. One of those is freedom of and from religion.

Grumpy

[East of Eden]

The United States has always been a socialist country.

Uh, not exactly.

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good govenment."

Thomas Jefferson


"I sincerely believe that the priciple of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale."

Thomas Jefferson


"e must make our choice between economy and liberty or confusion and servitude......if we can prevent the government from wasting the labor of the people, under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy."

Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson called Adam Smith's book, 'The Wealth of Nations', the "best book on economics."

"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

Thomas Jefferson