Free Speech and Inflammatory Rhetoric

WinePusher · Post by **WinePusher** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 11:16 pm

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 · Post by **Grumpy** » Sun Jan 23, 2011 8:50 pm

East of Eden

It would take a very confused parishoner to think the solution to murder is murder. Jesus never advocated that.

But I have heard many of Jesus' spokesmen say that abortion is murder, and those same one's advocate death as a penalty for murder. Neither of these things did Jesus say a word about. It is the more impressionable, be they children, simpletons, sociopathic or mentally deranged that responsible people keep in mind before engaging their tongue. The demonization of opponents lowers the threshold between thinking and doing for some of them. And history has shown us how few people it takes to do disastrous deeds. If you can hold Wahabism responsible for 911, you can hold pastors who call abortion murder and abortion providers murderers responsible for the Eric Ruhdolf's bombings.

Keep stirring up political passions with lies, half truths and distortions and someone will make the connection between "Pals around with terrorists" and terrorism is murder and murderers deserve to die, even the law says so... and he/she will not be sane enough to stop the train. "I'm sorry..." or "I didn't think..." or "I didn't know..." or "Who knew..." are all sorry excuses for common sense, courtesy and circumspection. It looks like Sarah dodged a bullet this time, but she should have been able to hear it go by(if she stops using firearms references, so will I. I certainly hope no harm comes to her or her wonderfully diverse family. You go girl!)

She has more common sense in her little finger than the 'Professor' does in his body.

Well, she doesn't have any witchcraft in there, she had it thrown out. Gives me grave doubts of the veracity of the above quote.

What problem? In case you didn't notice last November, the GOP severely kicked the donkey's butt, harder than any election since 1938. In my own state, our new GOP hispanic governor was behind in the primary election until Sarah came in to campaign for her. She ended up winning the primary and election. Thank you, Sarah.

Really? Did you know that Sarah's favorable/unfavorable numbers(Gallup poll)are nearly identical with Nancy Pelosi's? Or that her highest favorable rating is lower than Obama's lowest? And the House continues to think they can get traction with repeal of health care.

Obama ran on health care, he won, he produced the best they could do without the help or cooperation of more than a handful of Republicans and it is law now that no insurance company can cut you off if you get sick, cannot refuse to insure for conditions you may have been born with, at least attempts to cover the "Donut Hole" that is bankrupting some seniors, allows students and first job holders to stay on their parents policy until 26 and many smaller, but significant fixes to our health care mess. It's not perfect, nor is it written in stone. If Republicans have sensible ideas on how to improve it, or our tax system or any other problem, you have to participate beyond the simplistic "Just say no"(which, as I recall, didn't work out too good for Nancy Reagan, either). Just say no is all the Republicans in the Senate seemed to know how to do. That is not policy, that is not debate, that is refusal to participate. It doesn't help a bit that to get Democrats to do anything like the lockstep boogie the Reps had going would be like herding cats.

But let's be clear. Gorbachev is the one who made the decisions that led to dissolution.

.....in response to Reagan's decisions.

So they were fully capable, militarily, on the day the President spoke? The government coffers were full and significant populations did not face relocation or starvation? The television and other electronic communications had not raised a generation of discontented capitalist wanabees? That the Soviet Union could continue to hide their failures from their own people and the choice was not brutal suppression or releasing the states?

Or are you saying that Reagan was responsible for everything that was going wrong at that time? I think our CIA knew the rapidly deteriorating conditions several years in advance during the Carter era, the hostages made it impossible to do anything about it. Reagan helped push them, but they would have fallen without the push. Reagan and Gorbachev did not create the conditions, but they did a pretty good job in dismantling a superpower into different countries, without war, in fact without more than a few scattered shots being fired. And it did make the world a safer place, even now. I would have liked to have seen the Nobel awarded to both Reagan and Gorbachev, I think they had in mind the decade after the fall of the Berlin wall when Gorbachev kept major war from breaking out and established stable relationships between most of the new nations of the former USSR.

Grumpy

East of Eden · Post by **East of Eden** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:31 am

Wyvern wrote: Okay fine we'll play it that way. Palins initial statement was merely misinformed about death panels but after being informed about such a thing not being in the health bill and not retracting or correcting her comment then it became a lie.

No it wasn't. Thanks to her pressure the Democrats were forced to withdraw this very objectional part of the bill.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/18 ... c-mccarthy

I don't see how the type of objectionable comment makes one okay but not the other.

Because arguing about a bill isn't the same as calling your opponents Nazis.

I have not heard the Republican party leadership making any comments on Palins objectionable statements.

About Obamacare? Why would they, I would hope they agree with them.

Previously you agreed that it would be inappropriate for the president to comment on this issue.

Cite?

I'll say it again since you apparently forgot it already, the president is the president of the nation not the democratic party.

Or the other possibility is he wasn't really serious in the Tucson speech but just wanted to jab the right with the same ginned-up charge the MSM used.

When you are for the virtually unfettered access of guns for everyone you greatly increase the chances of guns being misused. This is yet another example of the law of unintended consequences.

Nonsense. There are laws against mentally unstable people obtaining firearms, as this kook clearly was. Perhaps if Sheriff Dubvik was doing his job this wouldn't have happened.

Exactly what kind of news article would be published against people that are for gun control in this situation? If you are in the gun lobbies pocket you got to expect bad press when there is gun related violence.

Your whole gun rant is a red herring. The 8 to 1 bias of MSM coverage against conservatives wasn't about guns in the main, it was about the supposed radical tone of the right, i.e. for daring to oppose the ruinous policies of Mr. HopeChange.

Sorry but if you want to call it the MSM you have to include Fox. It would be like referencing the american auto manufacturers but not include GM.

It's just that I consider them to be a bit more fair and balanced.

Another thing that happened after the OKC bombing, legislation was passed that made it much more difficult to obtain the materials used to make that bomb. Would you be in favor of legislation to make it harder to get a handgun?

As the SCOTUS has decided, there is an individual right to keep and bear arms, there is no such right for bomb-making materials. By this reasoning we should curb free speech rights since the MSM abuses it so.

You really shouldn't pay much attention to insane people, McVeigh also was convinced that the bombing would trigger a race war. Isn't it amazing how right wing propaganda can twist unbalanced people.

McVeigh was no kookier than the Tucson guy, just deadlier.

East of Eden · Post by **East of Eden** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:49 am

Grumpy wrote: But I have heard many of Jesus' spokesmen say that abortion is murder, and those same one's advocate death as a penalty for murder.

I will say it: Abortion is murder. This does not mean individuals are allowed to punish the murderers.

Neither of these things did Jesus say a word about.

This is another topic, but there is a lot in the Bible that indicates God knows us since conception. All fetus' are valuable, even fetus Grumpy.

The Golden Rule alone speaks against abortion. Presumably all the pro-abortion folks wouldn't want the same procedure were they in the womb that they advocate for others.

It is the more impressionable, be they children, simpletons, sociopathic or mentally deranged that responsible people keep in mind before engaging their tongue. The demonization of opponents lowers the threshold between thinking and doing for some of them. And history has shown us how few people it takes to do disastrous deeds.

My question is: How is the left not help responsible for Tucson? The shooter hated Bush, didn't listen to talk radio, and read The Communist Manifesto, and a post on DU had Giffords on their target list for voting against Pelosi as Speaker.

If you can hold Wahabism responsible for 911, you can hold pastors who call abortion murder and abortion providers murderers responsible for the Eric Ruhdolf's bombings.

The Wahabi Imans, as well as the word and deed of the 'prophet', directly call for the killing of us 'infidels'. Jesus harmed no one, nor did He tell anyone else to.

Keep stirring up political passions with lies, half truths and distortions and someone will make the connection between "Pals around with terrorists" and terrorism is murder and murderers deserve to die, even the law says so... and he/she will not be sane enough to stop the train. "I'm sorry..." or "I didn't think..." or "I didn't know..." or "Who knew..." are all sorry excuses for common sense, courtesy and circumspection. It looks like Sarah dodged a bullet this time, but she should have been able to hear it go by(if she stops using firearms references, so will I. I certainly hope no harm comes to her or her wonderfully diverse family. You go girl!)

And I hope Giffords fully recovers and is able to return to the House as her district desired in the last election, and that no harm comes to any political figures.

Well, she doesn't have any witchcraft in there, she had it thrown out. Gives me grave doubts of the veracity of the above quote.

What, we now have a religious test for public office?

Really? Did you know that Sarah's favorable/unfavorable numbers(Gallup poll)are nearly identical with Nancy Pelosi's? Or that her highest favorable rating is lower than Obama's lowest?

You wouldn't be popular either if the MSM were writing stories against you by an 8-1 ratio. She is very effective at what she does, which is holding Obama's feet to the fire and supporting good GOP candidates. The hysteria of the left against this private citizen is amazing.

And the House continues to think they can get traction with repeal of health care.

Yes, that's what most people want.

Obama ran on health care, he won, he produced the best they could do without the help or cooperation of more than a handful of Republicans

He refused to listen to sensible input from the GOP, instead saying 'I won the election' and he then pushed his radical, government-centered 'solution' against the will of the people. It was completely partisan, something he earlier said would be wrong to do.

and it is law now that no insurance company can cut you off if you get sick, cannot refuse to insure for conditions you may have been born with, at least attempts to cover the "Donut Hole" that is bankrupting some seniors, allows students and first job holders to stay on their parents policy until 26 and many smaller, but significant fixes to our health care mess.

The GOP agreed with some of the fixes.

It's not perfect, nor is it written in stone.

Which is why we need to repeal it and start over.

If Republicans have sensible ideas on how to improve it, or our tax system or any other problem, you have to participate beyond the simplistic "Just say no"(which, as I recall, didn't work out too good for Nancy Reagan, either). Just say no is all the Republicans in the Senate seemed to know how to do.

I predict Reid and Obama will just be saying no to the GOP house a lot.

So they were fully capable, militarily, on the day the President spoke? The government coffers were full and significant populations did not face relocation or starvation? The television and other electronic communications had not raised a generation of discontented capitalist wanabees? That the Soviet Union could continue to hide their failures from their own people and the choice was not brutal suppression or releasing the states?

Or are you saying that Reagan was responsible for everything that was going wrong at that time? I think our CIA knew the rapidly deteriorating conditions several years in advance during the Carter era, the hostages made it impossible to do anything about it. Reagan helped push them, but they would have fallen without the push. Reagan and Gorbachev did not create the conditions, but they did a pretty good job in dismantling a superpower into different countries, without war, in fact without more than a few scattered shots being fired. And it did make the world a safer place, even now. I would have liked to have seen the Nobel awarded to both Reagan and Gorbachev, I think they had in mind the decade after the fall of the Berlin wall when Gorbachev kept major war from breaking out and established stable relationships between most of the new nations of the former USSR.

I suppose it was also a coincidence that the Iranians released the hostages the day Reagan took over from the spineless Carter?

LiamOS · Post by **LiamOS** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:55 am

[color=green]East of Eden[/color] wrote:Presumably all the pro-abortion folks wouldn't want the same procedure were they in the womb that they advocate for others.

I can't speak for everyone, but I'd gladly have not existed if my birth would force years of financial and social hardship on somebody.
Everybody has the right to live, but nobody has the right to force somebody to feed and clothe you at their detriment.

Also, the term is pro-choice; few people are pro-abortion, and anybody who is would obviously advocate abortion of themselves was that the case.

Wyvern · Post by **Wyvern** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 6:49 pm

East of Eden wrote:
Wyvern wrote: Okay fine we'll play it that way. Palins initial statement was merely misinformed about death panels but after being informed about such a thing not being in the health bill and not retracting or correcting her comment then it became a lie.
No it wasn't. Thanks to her pressure the Democrats were forced to withdraw this very objectional part of the bill.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/18 ... c-mccarthy
Continuing to call it a death panel does not make it so, the very term is objectionable and not actually descriptive of the proposal. If Palin had actually argued against the actual proposal instead of the strawman she constructed you might have had a point. It should also be noted that end of life counseling has been going on for decades, this proposal would have just made it mandatory. When I was in the medical field I knew that people that had DNR status had talked to their doctor and determined they did not want extraordinary measures taken to save their lives.

I don't see how the type of objectionable comment makes one okay but not the other.
Because arguing about a bill isn't the same as calling your opponents Nazis.

I have not heard the Republican party leadership making any comments on Palins objectionable statements.
About Obamacare? Why would they, I would hope they agree with them.
A Democrat makes objectionable comments about people, a Republican makes objectionable comments about a bill. Neither parties leadership rebuked their members for their comments. Just because you agree with a certain group does not make whatever they say acceptable. So please stop with the double standard.

Previously you agreed that it would be inappropriate for the president to comment on this issue.
Cite?

Probably because he's the president of the country not the democratic party. Any kind of repudiation on this matter should be handled by the democratic party not the president.
Fair enough, but I haven't heard anything from Pelosi, Reid, etc., only crickets chirping.
This was only a few posts ago, please try to retain some memory.

I'll say it again since you apparently forgot it already, the president is the president of the nation not the democratic party.
Or the other possibility is he wasn't really serious in the Tucson speech but just wanted to jab the right with the same ginned-up charge the MSM used.
Did the president specifically single out the right? Why is it so hard for you to think that someone from your opposite political party might actually take a serious situation seriously.

When you are for the virtually unfettered access of guns for everyone you greatly increase the chances of guns being misused. This is yet another example of the law of unintended consequences.
Nonsense. There are laws against mentally unstable people obtaining firearms, as this kook clearly was. Perhaps if Sheriff Dubvik was doing his job this wouldn't have happened.
He was not diagnosed unstable so the sheriff you keep trying to demonize could not do anything. In Arizona you don't even need to register with law enforcement for conceal carry.

Sorry but if you want to call it the MSM you have to include Fox. It would be like referencing the american auto manufacturers but not include GM.
It's just that I consider them to be a bit more fair and balanced.
Just because you like it doesn't mean you get to redefine what it is.

Another thing that happened after the OKC bombing, legislation was passed that made it much more difficult to obtain the materials used to make that bomb. Would you be in favor of legislation to make it harder to get a handgun?
As the SCOTUS has decided, there is an individual right to keep and bear arms, there is no such right for bomb-making materials. By this reasoning we should curb free speech rights since the MSM abuses it so.
A bomb is a weapon as is a gun after all a gun is anything from a .22 plinker to an 18inch gun on a Battleship. You can buy that .22 but if given the money guess how much luck you'd have in obtaining anything much larger than 20mm.

You really shouldn't pay much attention to insane people, McVeigh also was convinced that the bombing would trigger a race war. Isn't it amazing how right wing propaganda can twist unbalanced people.
McVeigh was no kookier than the Tucson guy, just deadlier.
So why would you listen to McVeigh when he says what his motivation was for what he did.

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 5:17 pm

East of Eden wrote:
Wyvern wrote: Okay fine we'll play it that way. Palins initial statement was merely misinformed about death panels but after being informed about such a thing not being in the health bill and not retracting or correcting her comment then it became a lie.
No it wasn't. Thanks to her pressure the Democrats were forced to withdraw this very objectional part of the bill.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/18 ... c-mccarthy

The democrats took out this part, which was not death panels anyway, simply as a political expedient. There was nothing objectionable, just a smear campaign that the dems decided it would be easier to defuse than argue about given everything else on the table.

Still a lie, despite all the ducking, dodging, and obfuscation by Palin, the Cato institute and others.

I have not heard the Republican party leadership making any comments on Palins objectionable statements.
About Obamacare? Why would they, I would hope they agree with them.

I am not sure how agreeing with a falsehood is anything to write home about.

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 5:34 pm

East of Eden wrote:I'll give you another example of media bias. When Timothy McVeigh did his crime in OK City, he openly said it was because of Clinton's actions at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Those were about the two worst abuses of government power against US citizens in my lifetime. Talk about incivility, shooting and burning unarmed women and children qualifies. Janet Reno should have been fired for those two events. Yet the MSM never blamed Clinton for McVeigh's actions, they rightly blamed McVeigh. With Palin, not only is there NO tie to the criminal, they are trying to blame her anyway.

Well, as I recall, Clinton and especially Reno were raked over the coals by the media for their handling of Waco at least. I am not sure where you are getting the notion that only McVeigh was in the media spotlight.

I agree, they did not blame CLinton and Reno for what McVeigh did, and that is well and good.

However, let's be specific. Exaclty who was blaming Palin? Everyone in the MSM? Anderson Cooper? Wolf Blitzer? Jim Lehrer? Brian Williams?

I agree, those who blamed Palin for Tuscon were off base.

But again, this does not mean Palin does not deserve criticism for her statements, including some of those that are cited in the current controversy.

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 5:38 pm

East of Eden wrote:
Grumpy wrote: But I have heard many of Jesus' spokesmen say that abortion is murder, and those same one's advocate death as a penalty for murder.
I will say it: Abortion is murder. This does not mean individuals are allowed to punish the murderers.

Just as a question, do you then support life imprisonment or the death penalty, or at least the usual sentences imposed on murderers for women who have abortions?

East of Eden · Post by **East of Eden** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 8:00 pm

AkiThePirate wrote: I can't speak for everyone, but I'd gladly have not existed if my birth would force years of financial and social hardship on somebody.

That kind of happens in a normal, two-parent home.

Obama was certainly born to a sub-optimal situation.

Everybody has the right to live, but nobody has the right to force somebody to feed and clothe you at their detriment.

Nobody is forcing them, if they didn't want to be in that situation they shouldn't have conceived. Beforehand is the time for choice. For too many, it's the lazy woman's birth control.

Also, the term is pro-choice; few people are pro-abortion, and anybody who is would obviously advocate abortion of themselves was that the case.

Doubtful, I'm sure they would want an exception.

Grumpy · Post by **Grumpy** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 8:04 pm

East of Eden

I will say it: Abortion is murder.

Not in this country, it isn't. What it is is a decision of the person who would have to bear a child(and all the risks and costs involved)and HER(because it is ALWAYS a her)criteria for making it. And none of your business. When you develop a womb we'll let you make that decision for yourself. You are not morally entitled to force any woman to have children against her will, by any means, any more than it is hers to force a vasectomy on you against yours.

This is another topic, but there is a lot in the Bible that indicates God knows us since conception. All fetus' are valuable, even fetus Grumpy. The Golden Rule alone speaks against abortion. Presumably all the pro-abortion folks wouldn't want the same procedure were they in the womb that they advocate for others.

There are other passages where the fetus is considered less than a whole person as well. The Bible has many passages about what to charge for various slaves or if you sell your daughter. There is wisdom in the Bible, but it is the wheat among the chaff. But Jesus himself became a person the day he was born. The Jews have always recognized a difference between a bun in the oven and first movement(quickening)and survival of birth. Circumcision(if male)was(IIRC)two days after birth(most that survive that long have a good chance to live)and the child was given a name. Even the Bible itself recognizes the difference between a potential child and one breathing on it's own. And human societies everywhere mark the same moment that anyone becomes a person as the day they are born, partly because there are so many things that could lead to the death of either or both the mother and child that a certain emotional distance is needed, just in case.

So, no, abortion is not murder. The good news is that the rates of abortions is now getting lower, probably due to better methods and access to contraception. But your statement is a good illustration of...less than responsible speech.

Grumpy