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?

[East of Eden]

It's really hard to think someone just keeps repeating the same statement over and over WITHOUT intent, isn't it. A lie is a false statement with intent,

And you have no way of knowing what someone's intent is, as the mods have explained to you.

without intent you could argue for error, errors should be corrected and not repeated. The knowing comes with observing their behavior. So, which is it, intent or inability to ever learn anything? Some explanation for the continued repitition of false information, even after the falseness has been exposed, is needed. There must be a word for that...

Liberals and conservatives will never agree on what you call 'errors'.

And you claimed that all the evidence supported your position. I do not know why or where you got that information from, but the facts say otherwise. I also think you claimed job numbers for Bush many times the actual number created as evidence, repeatedly. So the opinion you were pushing is not supported by the facts.

Your opinion, I think you are talking about a previous thread. I would be happy to participate in another thread about the benefits of tax cuts, but for you to call that argument a 'lie' is ridiculous. Obama could only envy Bush's employment figures.

Timeline

http://mediamatters.org/research/200701300007

Doocy



CNN busts Fox.

This was an 11 day story. FOX reported the allegation, as did CNN and others.

Your link says:

The same day, Glenn Beck stated on his CNN Headline News program that the source of the story "is a conservative blog" and that "the odds of this being true pretty darn close to zero," but nevertheless said that "if you live in Chappaqua, New York, and you hear a strange grinding noise coming from the Clinton estate, it could be Hillary Clinton sharpening her knives in the basement." After saying that there was "no evidence" for the charge that Obama "attended a madrassa," Beck continued to assert that Clinton had a "lot to gain" from the story and that she is "that desperate."

In this time frame Dick Morris also appeared on Hannity saying the charge was false. There's a big difference between this and CBS forging documents to smear Bush.

Interesting how CNN went to Indonesia to disprove this story (BTW, good for them), but they won't go to Chicago to look into the Ayers association.

Take a look at the Wolf Blitzer clip at 53 seconds, they admit the media is in the tank for Obama.

Here's a Washington Post story showing how tilted the coverage was in the 2008 campaign in favor of Obama, so you really have nothing to complain about there. Apparently you want FOX out of the picture so the media can be completely biased for Obama.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/200 ... -much.html

[Grumpy]

East of Eden

And you have no way of knowing what someone's intent is, as the mods have explained to you.

And as I have explained to you, yes we do. If a mistake is made and admitted, no harm, no foul. If a statement is made repeatedly, despite being shown false(11 days, you say?)there is either intent or idiocy.

You asked for evidence Fox spread this...concoction. That's what you got.

Grumpy

So the opinion you were pushing is not supported by the facts. ,

Your opinion,

No, just the actual facts.

Bush-tax cuts-1million jobs-8 years(14 trillion dollar debt)

Bill Clinton-tax raises-14 million jobs-8 years(actual budget surplus at the end)

Apparently you want FOX out of the picture so the media can be completely biased for Obama.

No, just want them to quit making stuff up. If they were just conservatively biased, fine. msnbc is liberal as all heck, including Racheal Maddow. But Fox is factually challenged as well, I say by intent, but if you want to go with incredibly stupid I'm good with that. Wrong is wrong either way.

Grumpy

[RevSpecter]

If you have been reading my posts you should know I am no fan of any media, I am suspicious of anything that is motivated by the love of money. I simply think that the core values of FOX, whether motivated by money or not are more ethical and moral than the leftist sites, whom by default tend to be less moral and ethical (when viewed by my perspective), the same way the left influenced sites seem to be more to your liking, morally or ethically. So Ms Maddox being human has lied, and its the statement where you say that MS Maddox has never lied etc that I took issue with. Never is an expansive concept! You have a habit of attempting to redirect the issues etc by bringing FOX, the local dog catcher, what we had for dinner last night etc into the fray. (ha ha just a little levity to demonstrate how I feel about your claims).


rs

Please point out the lie that Ms Maddox has done as part of her professional journalism. If you can, please do. If not, please retract this statement as not able to be supported.

I presume you mean Maddow. Do a Google search on Rachel Maddow lies and you'll find a bunch. Here's one:

http://constantlyinthedarkness.blogspot ... -your.html

Thanks for the help. Additionally I was originally addressing the claim by Grumpy insinuating that Ms Maddow never has or will lie. I wouldn't even say that about G. Washington or Data on star trek, only Jesus won't lie but even my beloved lord and savior may be difficult to understand at times!

rs

[RevSpecter]

>>>>>>>>>>>>SNIP FOR BREVITY<<<<<<<<<<<
No, just want them to quit making stuff up. If they were just conservatively biased, fine. msnbc is liberal as all heck, including Racheal Maddow. But Fox is factually challenged as well, I say by intent, but if you want to go with incredibly stupid I'm good with that. Wrong is wrong either way.

MSNBC lies. In other news, water is wet ...
Aug 20, 2009 ... MSNBC lies. In other news, water is wet. MSNBC making stuff up about 'racist' .... The Daily Reading List ... The Professional Reading List ...
insertwittyblogtitlehere-tosaguy.blogspot.com/.../msnbc-lies-in-other-news-water-is-wet.html - Cached - Similar

http://insertwittyblogtitlehere-tosaguy ... s-wet.html

MSNBC Lies about Palin's Position on the Bailout - Political Forum
Nov 19, 2009 ... News Reporter Told Sarah Palin supporters that she supported the Bailout during the interviews YouTube- News Reporter Told Sarah Palin.
www.politicalforum.com/...beliefs/10243 ... ilout.html - Cached - Similar

That should get you started Grumpy, there are 269,850 more when you finish rebutting those (above).

rs

[Grumpy]

RevSpecter

MSNBC lies. In other news, water is wet ...
Aug 20, 2009 ... MSNBC lies. In other news, water is wet. MSNBC making stuff up about 'racist' .... The Daily Reading List ... The Professional Reading List ...
insertwittyblogtitlehere-tosaguy.blogspot.com/.../msnbc-lies-in-other-news-water-is-wet.html - Cached - Similar

http://insertwittyblogtitlehere-tosaguy ... ther-news-

This error was corrected and not repeated. So no, it was not a lie, it was an error that eventually cost Monica Livotny her job. I didn't see Racheal Maddow at all in this video, much less any lying.

MSNBC Lies about Palin's Position on the Bailout - Political Forum
Nov 19, 2009 ... News Reporter Told Sarah Palin supporters that she supported the Bailout during the interviews YouTube- News Reporter Told Sarah Palin.
www.politicalforum.com/...beliefs/10243 ... ilout.html - Cached - Similar

I don't know how you get anything out of this. Again, no Racheal.

That should get you started Grumpy, there are 269,850 more when you finish rebutting those (above).

Rebut what? This is really pathetic, let me show you how a point is made.

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/ ... FORM=VIRE8

Grumpy

[East of Eden]

And as I have explained to you, yes we do. If a mistake is made and admitted, no harm, no foul. If a statement is made repeatedly, despite being shown false(11 days, you say?)there is either intent or idiocy.

I know you think you are, but you are not the final arbiter of truth. How about we stick to presenting evidence instead of deciding the motives and intent of others?

You asked for evidence Fox spread this...concoction. That's what you got.

Right now I'm more concerned with the concoctions you spread.

Bush-tax cuts-1million jobs-8 years(14 trillion dollar debt)

Uh, the deficit was under $10 trillion when Bush left. Under Obama from May-August 2010 alone the deficit increased more than all of 2008, Bush's last year. I've seen numbers showing Bush created 3 million jobs, but even using 1 million with tax cuts, that's way better than Obama losing millions with no tax cuts.

Bill Clinton-tax raises-14 million jobs-8 years(actual budget surplus at the end)

Yes, thanks to the Gingrich congress which forced a balanced budget. The economy didn't take off when Clinton was POTUS until the GOP congress took power. Clinton also had the luxury of cutting defense (thank you, Reagan) after the cold war and I bet a number of those jobs were related to the dot.com bubble. Reagan created 16 million jobs while cutting taxes. Tax receipts doubled while he cut the top rate from 70% to 28%, something that's not supposed to happen, at least if you're a liberal.

No, just want them to quit making stuff up. If they were just conservatively biased, fine. msnbc is liberal as all heck, including Racheal Maddow. But Fox is factually challenged as well, I say by intent, but if you want to go with incredibly stupid I'm good with that. Wrong is wrong either way.

Grumpy

I get it, you don't like FOX. So don't watch them.

[Grumpy]

East of Eden

I've seen numbers showing Bush created 3 million jobs, but even using 1 million with tax cuts, that's way better than Obama losing millions with no tax cuts.

Two wonderful examples of false statistics that you have produced to support your arguments. Obama did not raise taxes and he has cut them three times now.

The economy didn't take off when Clinton was POTUS until the GOP congress took power.

Another good one...

"Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote. Prior to 1993, the debate over fiscal policy often revolved around a false choice between public investment and deficit reduction. The 1993 deficit reduction plan showed that deficit and debt reductions could be accomplished in a progressive way by slashing the deficit in half and making important investments in our future, including education, health care, and science and technology research. The plan included more than $500 billion in deficit reduction. It also cut taxes for 15 million of the hardest-pressed Americans by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit; created the Direct Student Loan Program; created the first nine Empowerment Zones and first 95 Enterprise Communities; and passed tax cuts for small businesses and research and development."

Before Newt. Clinton inherited a deficit(deja vu), enacted a deficit reduction plan(including some tax raises)without Republican help(ditto), who demigoged said legislation and won an election(again, ditto).

Uh, the deficit was under $10 trillion when Bush left.

Actually there was 10.5 trillion without and 14 trillion with the bailouts(which Bush initiated and continued under Obama).

I know you think you are, but you are not the final arbiter of truth. How about we stick to presenting evidence instead of deciding the motives and intent of others?

I do know a l...prevaricator when I see one. He's the one who continues to repeat false statements who is not drooling out of the corner of his mouth. And what I am doing is presenting evidence of the intent of Fox in particular and some conservatives as well to intentionally deceive for political purposes, we've already determined the falsity of much of what they claim are facts.

I am also driving home the difference between what Fox does and what real journalists do(to various, individual success levels). I have concentrated on Maddow for one reason, she is probably the best news person on any source I have available. Yes, she is extremely liberal(usually not a problem with me), but she is also extremely accurate, cogent and, usually, right on the money(nobody is perfect).

Reagan created 16 million jobs while cutting taxes. Tax receipts doubled while he cut the top rate from 70% to 28%, something that's not supposed to happen, at least if you're a liberal.

Again, what you just said isn't even close.

"One of the central tenets of supply-side theory is that tax cuts actually increase overall tax collections. There is something faintly foolish about this assertion -- it's like claiming that you can make trees grow taller by cutting them down. But the supply-siders have their own statistics to quote. "During the Reagan tax-cut era," Rush Limbaugh writes, "IRS collections actually nearly doubled... from $550 billion [sic] to about $991 billion."2 This supply-side deception is as common as it is deplorable; it uses nominal dollars instead of constant dollars, which account for inflation. Here are the total tax collections expressed in both:

Tax Collections (billions)3

Year Nominal Constant (87 dollars)
1980 $517.1 728.1
1981 599.3 766.6
1982 617.8 738.2
1983 600.6 684.3
1984 666.6 730.4
1985 734.1 776.6
1986 769.1 790.0
1987 854.1 854.1
1988 909.0 877.3
1989 990.7 916.2
1990 1031.3 914.1
1991 1054.3 894.7
1992 1090.5 895.1

Debt as a percentage
Year Deficit Debt of that year's GDP
1979 -$40,183 -$828,923 34%
1980 -73,835 -908,503 34
1981 -78,976 -994,298 34
1982 -127,989 -1,136,798 36
1983 -207,818 -1,371,164 41
1984 -185,388 -1,564,110 42
1985 -212,334 -1,816,974 46
1986 -221,245 -2,120,082 50
1987 -149,769 -2,345,578 53
1988 -155,187 -2,600,760 54
1989 -152,481 -2,867,538 55
1990 -221,384 -3,206,207 59
1991 -269,521 -3,598,303 63
1992 -290,403 -4,001,941 67"

I get it, you don't like FOX. So don't watch them.

I don't, usually. But propaganda must be exposed to daylight, too many people can't, won't or don't want to examine their prejudices and a source that confirms them isn't helping, it is hurting my country.

Grumpy

[East of Eden]

East of Eden

I've seen numbers showing Bush created 3 million jobs, but even using 1 million with tax cuts, that's way better than Obama losing millions with no tax cuts.

Two wonderful examples of false statistics that you have produced to support your arguments. Obama did not raise taxes and he has cut them three times now.

The economy didn't take off when Clinton was POTUS until the GOP congress took power.

Another good one...

"Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote. Prior to 1993, the debate over fiscal policy often revolved around a false choice between public investment and deficit reduction. The 1993 deficit reduction plan showed that deficit and debt reductions could be accomplished in a progressive way by slashing the deficit in half and making important investments in our future, including education, health care, and science and technology research. The plan included more than $500 billion in deficit reduction. It also cut taxes for 15 million of the hardest-pressed Americans by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit; created the Direct Student Loan Program; created the first nine Empowerment Zones and first 95 Enterprise Communities; and passed tax cuts for small businesses and research and development."

Before Newt. Clinton inherited a deficit(deja vu), enacted a deficit reduction plan(including some tax raises)without Republican help(ditto), who demigoged said legislation and won an election(again, ditto).

Uh, the deficit was under $10 trillion when Bush left.

Actually there was 10.5 trillion without and 14 trillion with the bailouts(which Bush initiated and continued under Obama).

I know you think you are, but you are not the final arbiter of truth. How about we stick to presenting evidence instead of deciding the motives and intent of others?

I do know a l...prevaricator when I see one. He's the one who continues to repeat false statements who is not drooling out of the corner of his mouth. And what I am doing is presenting evidence of the intent of Fox in particular and some conservatives as well to intentionally deceive for political purposes, we've already determined the falsity of much of what they claim are facts.

I am also driving home the difference between what Fox does and what real journalists do(to various, individual success levels). I have concentrated on Maddow for one reason, she is probably the best news person on any source I have available. Yes, she is extremely liberal(usually not a problem with me), but she is also extremely accurate, cogent and, usually, right on the money(nobody is perfect).

Reagan created 16 million jobs while cutting taxes. Tax receipts doubled while he cut the top rate from 70% to 28%, something that's not supposed to happen, at least if you're a liberal.

Again, what you just said isn't even close.

"One of the central tenets of supply-side theory is that tax cuts actually increase overall tax collections. There is something faintly foolish about this assertion -- it's like claiming that you can make trees grow taller by cutting them down. But the supply-siders have their own statistics to quote. "During the Reagan tax-cut era," Rush Limbaugh writes, "IRS collections actually nearly doubled... from $550 billion [sic] to about $991 billion."2 This supply-side deception is as common as it is deplorable; it uses nominal dollars instead of constant dollars, which account for inflation. Here are the total tax collections expressed in both:

Tax Collections (billions)3

Year Nominal Constant (87 dollars)
1980 $517.1 728.1
1981 599.3 766.6
1982 617.8 738.2
1983 600.6 684.3
1984 666.6 730.4
1985 734.1 776.6
1986 769.1 790.0
1987 854.1 854.1
1988 909.0 877.3
1989 990.7 916.2
1990 1031.3 914.1
1991 1054.3 894.7
1992 1090.5 895.1

Debt as a percentage
Year Deficit Debt of that year's GDP
1979 -$40,183 -$828,923 34%
1980 -73,835 -908,503 34
1981 -78,976 -994,298 34
1982 -127,989 -1,136,798 36
1983 -207,818 -1,371,164 41
1984 -185,388 -1,564,110 42
1985 -212,334 -1,816,974 46
1986 -221,245 -2,120,082 50
1987 -149,769 -2,345,578 53
1988 -155,187 -2,600,760 54
1989 -152,481 -2,867,538 55
1990 -221,384 -3,206,207 59
1991 -269,521 -3,598,303 63
1992 -290,403 -4,001,941 67"

I get it, you don't like FOX. So don't watch them.

I don't, usually. But propaganda must be exposed to daylight, too many people can't, won't or don't want to examine their prejudices and a source that confirms them isn't helping, it is hurting my country.

Grumpy

The JFK tax cuts resulted in revenues rising from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62%, or 33% adjusted for inflation.

Conversely, the Hoover/FDR tax increases resulted in lower tax revenues. It wasn't until the post-war GOP congresses lowered rates that the economy took off.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/10/20/hoo ... al-lesson/

Note this, which refutes the notion that Clinton's tax increases helped the economy:

"The disastrous mistakes from Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt underscore the importance that Washington not raise taxes in a weak economy. But that doesnt stop the Left from advancing the notion. They point to Clintons record as proof. After all, Congress pushed through a big tax increase under President Clinton, and the economy boomed, right?

Well, the truth is that the real boom didnt happen until after 1997, the year Clinton cut taxes. From 1993-1996, a time when the economy was recovering from recession so expected growth should be strong, real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent and 11.2 million jobs were added. During the period 1997-2000 real economic growth averaged 4.2 percent and employment increased by 11.5 million jobs.

Heritage senior fellow JD Foster adds:

The first period, from 1993 to 1996, began with a significant tax increase as the economy was accelerating out of recession. The second period, from 1997 to 2000, began with a modest tax cut as the economy should have settled into a normal growth period. The economy was decidedly stronger following the tax cut than it was following the tax increase."

[Grumpy]

East of Eden

I give you stats, you gave me conservative nonsense. The JFK cuts were possible because of the booming economy, the booming economy is not the results of the tax cuts. But what FDR did during WW2 was necessary, the economy suffered due to wartime shortages(and so many men being overseas didn't help).

But you ignore the fact that under Bush only 1 million jobs were created in 8 years DESPITE the tax cuts+ 10.5 trillion in debt, and Clinton created over 11 million DESPITE the tax increases+Clinton turned a 250 billion debt into a surplus starting before Newt got elected. If you pay your bills you usually don't get in financial difficulty, Bush spent but didn't pay, so we are paying now. Obama had nothing to do with trashing the economy, it was trashed before he was elected and it was trashed by the policies you endorse.

Grumpy

[East of Eden]

I give you stats, you gave me conservative nonsense.

No, the facts were given to you inresponse to liberal nonsense.

The JFK cuts were possible because of the booming economy, the booming economy is not the results of the tax cuts.

Complelely backwards, as ususal. Listen to the JFK clip, he was trying to spur the economy.

But what FDR did during WW2 was necessary, the economy suffered due to wartime shortages(and so many men being overseas didn't help).

The economy suffered due to FDR's Obama-like policies of high taxes and regulation.

Here's some more facts for you: When President Coolidge cut the top rate from 70% to 25%, revenues went from $719 million to $1.164 billion in 1927. He was able to lower the national debt by 33%.

But you ignore the fact that under Bush only 1 million jobs were created in 8 years DESPITE the tax cuts+ 10.5 trillion in debt, and Clinton created over 11 million DESPITE the tax increases+Clinton turned a 250 billion debt into a surplus starting before Newt got elected. If you pay your bills you usually don't get in financial difficulty, Bush spent but didn't pay, so we are paying now. Obama had nothing to do with trashing the economy, it was trashed before he was elected and it was trashed by the policies you endorse.

Yes, Obama's doing a great job.


After two years of Obama...


January 2009 TODAY % chg Source
Avg. retail price/gallon gas in U.S. $1.83 $3.104 69.6% 1
Crude oil, European Brent (barrel) $43.48 $99.02 127.7% 2
Crude oil, West TX Inter. (barrel) $38.74 $91.38 135.9% 2
Gold: London (per troy oz.) $853.25 $1,369.50 60.5% 2
Corn, No.2 yellow, Central IL $3.56 $6.33 78.1% 2
Soybeans, No. 1 yellow, IL $9.66 $13.75 42.3% 2
Sugar, cane, raw, world, lb. fob $13.37 $35.39 164.7% 2
Unemployment rate, non-farm, overall 7.6% 9.4% 23.7% 3
Unemployment rate, blacks 12.6% 15.8% 25.4% 3
Number of unemployed 11,616,000 14,485,000 24.7% 3
Number of fed. employees, ex. military (curr = 12/10 prelim) 2,779,000 2,840,000 2.2% 3
Real median household income (2008 v 2009) $50,112 $49,777 -0.7% 4
Number of food stamp recipients (curr = 10/10) 31,983,716 43,200,878 35.1% 5
Number of unemployment benefit recipients (curr = 12/10) 7,526,598 9,193,838 22.2% 6
Number of long-term unemployed 2,600,000 6,400,000 146.2% 3
Poverty rate, individuals (2008 v 2009) 13.2% 14.3% 8.3% 4
People in poverty in U.S. (2008 v 2009) 39,800,000 43,600,000 9.5% 4
U.S. rank in Economic Freedom World Rankings 5 9 n/a 10
Present Situation Index (curr = 12/10) 29.9 23.5 -21.4% 11
Failed banks (curr = 2010 + 2011 to date) 140 164 17.1% 12
U.S. dollar versus Japanese yen exchange rate 89.76 82.03 -8.6% 2
U.S. money supply, M1, in billions (curr = 12/10 prelim) 1,575.1 1,865.7 18.4% 13
U.S. money supply, M2, in billions (curr = 12/10 prelim) 8,310.9 8,852.3 6.5% 13
National debt, in trillions $10.627 $14.052 32.2% 14