Find me one

1. 60

   Doug Hughesposted 13 years ago

   "*On October 9, 2009, House candidate Robert Lowry of Florida held an event at a Broward County gun range during which he fired at a series of symbolic political targets, including a silhouette with his opponent Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's initials on it.
   
   *On January 10, 2010, Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle spoke of the need for "Second Amendment remedies" to congressional policies, and hinted that such remedies might be needed to address "the Harry Reid problems."
   
   *On May 10, 2010, House candidate Brad Goerhing from California's 11th District wrote on his Facebook page: "If I could issue hunting permits, I would officially declare today opening day for liberals. The season would extend through November 2 and have no limits on how many taken as we desperately need to 'thin' the herd."
   
   *On June 12, 2010, Rep. Giffords' very own Republican opponent Jesse Kelly held an event advertised locally as follows: "Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 With Jesse Kelly." Get that again. Remove Giffords. Shoot an M16.
   
   *On October 21, 2010, Dallas pastor and House candidate Stephen Broden, said the violent overthrow of the U.S. government in 2010 should not be "the first option," but citizens ought to use "any means necessary" and that violence should remain an option "on the table."
   
   These weren't 22-year-old loners or even local talk-radio hosts. These were candidates for Congress! Find me five Democrats from this past election who talked like that about their opponents or their government. Find me one."
   
   The list was compiled by University of Maryland-Baltimore County professor Tom Schaller, and the quote is from a blog by Michael Tomasky.
   
   http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree … about-guns

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      ......
      
      Here ya go Doug.  I've found you THOUSANDS if not MILLIONS.
      
      A quote from the Democrat Party Platform.  Ya see, the Democrats may seem to be more non-violence-advocating, but that's 'cause they hide behind legislation that advocates for adult rights to KILL THE TOTALLY HELPLESS, while at the same time pretending to want to preserve life.   Got it?-------
      
      
      
      "Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare."
      
      
      At the very least, the Republican ideal includes having the guts to stand up, even armed with weapons, to fight for our civil rights AND the rights of the unborn, while the Democrats' ideal is to take away the rights of helpless people.  Yeah, I'd much rather be on the side of people who have some guts to stick to their guns, both symbolically and literally.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Brenda - it's time for your meds.
         
         This wasn't a post about abortion rights. I will go there when it's the subject under discussion. Not gonna get sidetracked with this. For those who like to mix it up with the church lady on an old worn issue, do it in one of the thousand posts on the subject where I have posted my thoughts. Don't let this get hijacked off topic.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            What's the matter, Doug?
            Deliberate killing is deliberate killing.
            A life is a life.
            Advocating for the ending of a life is the same instigating factor in both scenarios.
            You challenged, and I posted information that met that challenge.
            Now you run.  It figures.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               BillyDRitchieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Good job, Brenda....it is a subject that Liberals run from because it can't stand the light of day....what their position on abortion has done (destroying a generation or more of Americans) is indefensible....

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Yup, absolutely indefensible.  Thanks BillyDRitchie.

                  replyreport
               2. 61

                  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  A generation or more!! Oh come on.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     BillyDRitchieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     What would you call over 40 million people?

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        So, which generation has been wiped out?

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           BillyDRitchieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Kinda hard to name something that never had the chance to become, dontcha think?

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              No, it was said a whole generation had been wiped out, which generation? It's easy, there'll be whole years with no live births and there isn't is there?
                              It's just typical emotive language of extremists.

                              replyreport
                              1. 61

                                 WalterDamageposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 Not at all, I think 40 million Americans qualifies.....

                                 replyreport
   2. 61

      lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Let's not forget Virginia's Governor (D) Manchin's rifle shot at Obama's cap and trade bill!

      replyreport
   3. 65

      Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Wow! Why does that not surprise me. As I type Limbaugh is at it again. He just said "The liberals wished for this!" (The shootings in Tucson.)

      replyreport
2. 58

   C.J. Wrightposted 13 years ago

   At least you are making cogent arguments regarding rhetoric. I noted that you didn't find one of Beck or Limbaugh......I only mention it because of the talk, that some how they are to blame.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      tobey100posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      So true CJ.  Bottom line is the difference between misdirection and ideas.  The democrats at this point have no ideas they can honestly express to the public as the public has soundly rejected their ideas as being damaging at the least and solcialistic at the most.  I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said it all.  "If a Liberal is smiling....they've found someone to blame!"

      replyreport
      1. 65

         Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Limbaugh put it more directly--"The Democrats hoped for this."

         replyreport
         1. 61

            logic,commonsenseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            They may not have hoped for it, but I will guarantee you that they will use every bit of it they can for their own political gain.  That's politics.

            replyreport
   2. 60

      Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The omission of Palin, Beck, and Limbaugh is because they are only celebrities - not candidates from the previous election.  The point of the article is that Tea Party Candidates use violent images directed at their liberal opponents. It's up to the voters to reject the rhetoric by rejecting the candidates. People like that don't deserve to hold public office.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Ralph was nice enough to find this one. it's from the president of fox news.....Apparently the DNC did it in 2007.....
         
         “We looked at the Internet and the first thing we found in 2007, the Democrat Party had a targeted map with targets on it for the Palin district,” Mr. Ailes said. “These maps have been used for for years that I know of. I have two pictures of myself with a bull’s-eye on my head.”

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Are the pictures of Mr. Ailes the product of a democratic candidate or the democratic party? No one is sayin that there is not an individual in the democratic party who has not gone over-the-top with rhetoric or images.
            
            The challenge was to  find even ONE candidate who has - one not in the Tea Party, I mean.

            replyreport
            1. 58

               C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Not going to split hairs on that one Doug. It's the DNC. The candidates take money from them. The two are inseparable.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  http://beforeitsnews.com/story/350/227/ … tings.html
                  
                  I can find plenty!

                  replyreport
               2. 60

                  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  The quote from Ailes creates the impression that the pictures he mentions are the product of the DNC, but read the quote carefully. That's not what it says.  So some left-leaning kook sent a picture - that's inappropriate - possibly illegal depending on the context, but it doesn't represent the position of the DNC or any candidate.
                  
                  Regarding the map, I need to see it before I comment.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contenti … ;subid=171
                     
                     
                     
                     "I know how the "tea party' people feel, the anger, venom and bile that many of them showed during the recent House vote on health-care reform. I know because I want to spit on them, take one of their 'Obama Plan White Slavery' signs and knock every racist and homophobic tooth out of their Cro-Magnon heads."
                     That's how leftist Washington Post columnist Courtland Milloy calmly and civilly registered his measured disagreement with conservatives in a March 2010 column.
                     
                     
                     Read more: http://newsbusters.org/issues/political … z1AlMWyIe8
                     
                     
                     With the founder of the Daily Kos deliberately trying to tie Sarah Palin's target list to yesterday's shooting in Tucson, perhaps it's time Markos Moulitsas took this opportunity to look at his own people in regards to using incendiary rhetoric.  Markos took the time to send a message to his followers yesterday tweeting, “Mission accomplished, Sarah Palin”.
                     But if target lists are considered dangerous and violent rhetoric at the Daily Kos, and not hyperbolic metaphors used for rallying supporters, then Chris Bowers, their Campaign Director, has some 'violent' speech in his past.  Most recently, Bowers made a name for himself by starting a failed campaign to manipulate search engine results for the midterm elections.
                     In a 2006 post titled, Use It or Lose It:  Full Frontal Assault, Bowers discusses how 'we fired some warning shots across the bow of ultra-safe House Democrats who are hoarding campaign cash'.  He explains that the campaign cash is necessary for huge election gains, because 'our target list (is) deeper than it has been in a generation'.
                     In the original call to action, Bowers repeatedly discussed how they need to target Republican seats, and how they also need to target House Democrats not willing to part with their campaign funds.
                     
                     
                     Read more: http://newsbusters.org/issues/political … z1AlMpf5f1
                     
                     As he hosted a special two-hour edition of Countdown on Saturday night to cover the violent attack on Democratic Representative Gabrielle Giffords, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann ended up delivering a "Special Comment" in which he called for an end to the use of violent imagery by political figures of all ideologies, even apologizing for his own history, but he also at one point seemed to describe Sarah Palin and other conservative public figures as "slightly less madmen" than the gunman who attacked Giffords. Olbermann:
                     We will not because tonight what Mrs. Palin and what Mr. Kelly and what Congressman West and what Ms. Angle and what Mr. Beck and what Mr. O'Reilly and what you and I must understand was that the man who fired today did not fire at a Democratic Congresswoman and her supporters. He was not just a madman incited by 1,000 daily temptations by slightly less madmen to do things they would not rationally condone.
                     Although the MSNBC host only provided one example of his own past misdeeds - which involved a comment he made about Hillary Clinton in April 2008 - Olbermann’s own history also includes a June 2006 case in which he depicted an image of conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh as a target of gunfire, and in October 2008 when he showed a cartoon image of FNC’s Bill O’Reilly being beaten bloody by the Stewie Griffin character from a Family Guy DVD extra scene. And just in November of last year, Olbermann complained that President Obama would likely negotiate with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell over tax policy "instead of kicking him in the ass."
                     
                     
                     Read more: http://newsbusters.org/issues/political … z1AlNA6knJ

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Look at the map and READ the caption.
                        
                        "These STATES should be ripe targets."
                        
                        STATES - not people.
                        
                        Can you understand the difference?

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           
                           
                           Yeah so? Where in Palins map does she mention anyone as a target?

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              So the list of names is just an American oddity, strange place names and not the names of people as it appears!

                              replyreport
                              1. 61

                                 lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 You're really stretching! No where is the word "target" used! There is absolutely NOTHING in that map that intimates violence of any kind against anyone! Is everyone on the left THAT blind? Are you all such ideologues that you simply REFUSE to face the truth? Do you HATE the right so much you can never concede that you are actually WRONG?
                                 
                                 Apparently so!

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 61

                                    John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                    A map covered in cross hairs, a list of names! Oh right, I get it.
                                    it's a right wing map so it doesn't count.
                                    Funny how the same doesn't apply to the democrat map you posted. But then that is typical right wing blindness. We have the same problems with the right in the UK, their policies plunge us into chaos and suddenly they forget that they were their policies and blame them on the left.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 61

                                       lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                       Dude! The dem map is from 2004! The point is those kind of maps have been around a long time, now though the left wants to claim that because of that some shooter took aim at a democrat congresswoman? That's a pretty weak argument especially given the shooter, a registered independent, and a pot head, atheist, was more likely a liberal!

                                       report
                                       1. 61

                                          John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                          Why?

                                          report
                           2. 60

                              Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Thank you for proving my point so well.
                              
                              The map from the DNC shows targets, not rifle crosshairs.
                              The caption clearly lists STATES in flux.
                              
                              The Palin map uses crosshairs, like from a rifle scope.
                              It lists NAMES of democrats she is after.
                              
                              The only question is whose side LL is on.
                              I could not have shown it better.

                              replyreport
                              1. 61

                                 lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 So a target is acceptable a rifle scope is not? Using the term "Targeting Strategy" and "behind enemy lines" is okay?
                                 
                                 It's just amazing to me how the left can justify their hatred without the slightest hint of hypocrisy! And you say I have no credibility? LOL!

                                 replyreport
                  2. 58

                     C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     And then there is this one:
                     
                     "“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”"

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Puhlease - what GOP candidate was being threatened?

                        replyreport
                  3. 58

                     C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     And there is this guy:
                     
                     "Kanjorski said this about Florida's new Republican Governor Rick Scott on October 23:
                     
                     "That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he's running for governor of Florida. He's a millionaire and a billionaire. He's no hero. He's a damn crook. It's just we don't prosecute big crooks."
                     
                     
                     
                     Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/bel … z1AlWql2xV

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        That's one. You get the prize.
                        
                        My opinion of Scott is the same as Kanjorski's. He was not running against Scott - not even in the same state. But he should have said that Scoot is a corporate crook who belongs in a very nasty jail with rodents and violent inmates where he would be at home.

                        replyreport
                        1. 58

                           C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Doug, I'll agree that the examples you put forth are by Candidates and are clearly over the top. My point in providing examples is that political rhetoric on both sides is out of control. While my examples where not up to your standards. I think you will agree the people who said them should have found a better way to get their point across.

                           replyreport
      2. 58

         C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Oh, then there is this one:
         
         "Democratic Gov. Joe Manchin, who is running for Senate by running against President Obama, literally shoots at a copy of the cap and trade bill – with a gun. A real one."

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            A document is not an image of a person. Examples from the OP describe Tea Party candidates advocating 'open season' on liberals.
            
            There's a world of difference.

            replyreport
            1. 58

               C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Gun imagery is gun imagery....the inference is there. It's designed to appeal to gun owners. NOT INCITE VIOLENCE.  Is it irresponsible? Probably. Am I going to blame THEM for the crazy guy's actions? NO!!

               replyreport
      3. 58

         C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Then there is this one:
         
         "Florida Democrat Alan Grayson urged supporters to 'Help us launch a counteroffensive!'"
         
         Just to put it into context:
         
         "Alan Grayson, a controversial Florida Democratic congressman who lost his seat in the midterms, released a string of hard-hitting fundraising e-mails during his reelection campaign, one of which featured an image of the bombing of Hiroshima while urging supporters to “Help us launch a counteroffensive!” "

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Well, I agree, when the second amendment allows any nut to buy nuclear weapons, that kind of email in a fundraiser can be considered excessive. I don't think by any stretch he was advocating violence against his opponent. or republicans. Had he named his opponent, maybe you would have something. Go back to the five examples and decide if you have anything.

            replyreport
            1. 58

               C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Inappropriate rhetoric is inappropriate rhetoric, is it NOT? So your saying that only certain inappropriate rhetoric is dangerous? Some is just bad form? I see. At any rate, NONE of it had anything to do with this nutcase. You can drag this argument all around the world. Your point is NOT made. Note, you and I argue all the time. No violence, no threat of violence. Thats the norm Doug. Most disagreements don't spiral into violence, even when they go to far. To use rhetoric as a predictive analytic is to enter the world of the Minority Report. Maybe you like that world. I suspect that most wouldn't.

               replyreport
            2. 58

               C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               The second ammendment does not allow any nut to buy anything Doug. You know better. Had this guy been flagged appropriately maybe this doesn't happen. I say maybe because he could have easily stolen a gun.

               replyreport
3. 84

   donotfearposted 13 years ago

   And the beat goes on....and on....and on.....

   replyreport
4. 58

   C.J. Wrightposted 13 years ago

   Doug, have you checked on the web sites regarding Sarah Palin? They are all completely responsible... NOT!

   replyreport
5. 61

   logic,commonsenseposted 13 years ago

   Let's see, hmm, who said, "Give me liberty or give me death!"?  I am guessing it was some right wing extremist, tea party member?

   replyreport
6. 60

   Doug Hughesposted 13 years ago

   It's amusing - I hope moderates are taking notes. On this post, no conservatives have addressed the clear point of the OP. Five different Tea Party candidates (that they have confirmed quotes from) engaged in violent electoral rhetoric, and there are NO examples from the left. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.
   
   The wingnuts have brought up legitimate examples of over-the-top rhetoric from left-leaning athletes and celebrities, but the point they desperately want to ignore is that Tea Party Candidates habitually engage in violent talk - and they can't pretend it has no consequences.
   
   If nothing else, the consequences are that people are associating the tragic violence which really did happen with the threats and images of violence from the Tea Party. That identification will last a long time.

   replyreport
7. 61

   lady_love158posted 13 years ago

   The left has a blind spot where the truth can be seen.

   replyreport
8. 92

   habeeposted 13 years ago

   Now, come on, Doug. Ya gotta admit that those maps are almost identical!

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      A map that lists states - States NOT People.
      
      The DNC map targeted states that would be vulnerable based on the point spread of the last election. READ IT!
      
      The Palin map lists the victims - I mean democratic candidates - she's after.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Habee - Look at these two sentences.
         
         "I am going to shoot."
         
         "I am going to shoot you."
         
         Notice that the addition of a 3-letter word has a significant effect on the meaning of almost the same statement.
         
         The two maps look similar but targeting vulnerable states, as the DNC map does. The caption says 'states' and lists  the point spread from the last election. It's campaign strategy in intent and execution.  The Palin map has crosshairs and lists the names of people.  It's not a list of who the Tea Party wants to elect. This is symptomatic of the Tea Party - they are not FOR their candidate and his platform as much as they are out to destroy the opposition. What Krugman calls 'eliminationist rhetoric'.

         replyreport
         1. 58

            C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Doug, Your making a very strong argument regarding the Tea Party on this post. Let's say your right. Your examples are hard to disagree with. So, your right. Now what do you suppose the solution is? Why do you think the Tea Party is using this type of Rhetoric?

            replyreport
   2. 60

      Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Habee, you seem like a very nice person who would love nothing better than for all of us to get along with each other.
      
      I have read your posts many times saying that you are a moderate Republican and you have no use for the Tea Party. You feel they are extreme and promote violence.
      
      You try and get everyone to see the middle ground and you do not mind bending to get there. The problem is that is exactly what the left wants. They won't bend, they only want to work with republicans when they are in the minority.
      
      They use the same rhetoric and vitriol that they claim comes solely from the right, they will never admit anything they do and will call you racist and anything they can to shut the right up.
      
      This is why the Tea Party formed, we stand up for our beliefs in the face of outright lies and we will not bend. There is no such thing as a moderate democrat, they are all big government liberals intent on reducing our freedoms to gain more control.
      
      Quit playing the game and see them for what they are.

      replyreport
9. 76

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   Take your m-16 and go shoot up them states there boy ahahahahaha!!!!
   
   Yeah man, let's shoot us a STATE!
   
   Ready .....Aim.......CANNON-BALLLLLLLLL
   
   Ohhhh, you people take the cake and you eat it too.
   Ole Misha.....wow, you sure do call em on the hate don't you?
   I've been waiting for the hate to stop, you know, since I was the one causing it, and well, it's a veritable HOT BED of righty hate in here. Umm, you haven't said anything yet?
   
   You think maybe the Dems shot Giffords for their owm aims? And do you make fun of 9/11 truthers? Oh, and is that instigating "partisanship"? Uyup.
   
   And I do believe I was right on target on Beck and Palin and the rest of them.....that Sheriff thinks just as I do.
   And so---when are you all going to apologize for your hateful speech? Anyone?
   No? Then don't expect me to.
   And don't expect to stifle me again.....you all are NO BETTER!
   
   AND:
   "Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare."
   
   Thank GOD we have a party that respects me as a human being  enough to decide what I do with my own fate!! Not force me into a baby-maker for the State!!
   
   
   And you righty's.....which Republican was shot lately? Unless you think maybe the Judge who was killed was the real target of Saturday's spree...that is also a theory.
   Main thing is, he had an assault weapon with 30 clips....30.
   
   
   That is terrorism. Plain and simple. And those advocating it by subterfuge are guilty as hell.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      that was two 30 ROUND magazines LMC. Four magazines total. They are normally called magazines. The crazy guy had four, two 30 round mags and two standard mags of 10 rounds I believe. So the guy had a 30 round "CLIP" as you say and one in the chamber. He fired them all. Then was tackled while reloading. The spring in the second clip failed.

      replyreport
10. 59

    Evan G Rogersposted 13 years ago

    **July 11 1804 - political rivals ACTUALLY ATTEMPT TO KILL EACH OTHER in the famous Burr-Hamilton Duel. One is mortally wounded. Free speech is maintained.

    replyreport
    1. 83

       Aya Katzposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       There's a big difference between a duel and an assassination. A duel is mutually agreed upon.

       replyreport
       1. 59

          Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          just pointing out that violence in politics ain't nothing new, and it ain't nothing to lose the freedom of speech over.

          replyreport
          1. 60

             Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             NOBODY - and I mean nobody in power - is talking about taking away free speech. What's happening is that people are being held accountable in the public view for what they said.
             
             The whining is coming from people who declared 'open season' on democrats last year, and don't want to see their words in print this week after someone made good on that hunt.

             replyreport
             1. 59

                Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                I'm not so sure about that.
                
                I'm seeing a lot of people on these forums try to blame Palin, Limbaugh, Beck and O'Reilly for "inciting" the shooting.
                
                After all, what would "being held accountable" mean? Jail time? or just being pointed at? or a public stoning? ... or what?

                replyreport
                1. 60

                   Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   Evan - I suspect your reading comprehension is way up there. I lock horns with you continually but you will never see me suggest you are stupid.
                   
                   You read what I said - nobody in POWER - is threatening free speech. I included that caveat because free speech is soooo important, and I don't want the debate to be framed around what a left-wing kook wrote.
                   
                   'Held Accountable' means just exactly what we are doing today in the free press. Listing the violent rhetoric as this post does and proposing for critical analysis by the voter that there is a link between people who advocate for violence - and real violence.
                   
                   Free speech allows a candidate to propose that the voters of the opposition be hunted and killed. (Read quote # 3.) But the speaker and the Tea Party he represents are going to get that quote shoved down their throat every time there's a mass murder of democrats.
                   
                   Now a lot of conservatives feel that it's not politically correct - what a laugh - to bring up exact violent quotes from Tea Party Candidates - advocating violence as a legitimate alternative to the rule of law. I'm reminding hubbers what that looks like.

                   replyreport
                   1. 61

                      lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      You really think so? Liberals HATE free speech!
                      
                      "Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady, a Democrat from Philadelphia, told CNN that he also plans to take legislative action. He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress. (more on this at CNN)"
                      
                      http://katypundit.com/social/after-shoo … rol-bills/

                      replyreport
                      1. 60

                         Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                         Whether or not I agree with the bill would depend a lot on how it is phrased.
                         
                         I take it you are in favor of people threatening elected officials.

                         replyreport
                   2. 59

                      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      When this guy shot the Congresswoman, everyone - EVERYONE - began demanding that he shot her because of the "incitement" of the right...
                      
                      but now the left is demanding an end to guns (not a new prospect) and many are demanding rules against free speech. Will this "incitement" lead to the 'desired' legislation?
                      
                      A crackpot picked up a gun and shot someone. He could've used a knife, a bow, a crossbow, chlorine and alcohol in a plastic bottle, or any of the countless other killing-devices in existence.
                      
                      I'll use uber-liberal logic to make my point: "All of these people are demanding that the government take away our freedoms. And this incitement will eventually work its way into the blood of our representatives and us as people. They will eventually take our rights away, thanks to maniacs like Doug Hughes!!"
                      
                      Yet all I hear in the media and ON THESE FORUMS, is people demanding an end to guns, an end to free speech, and more restrictions on freedom.
                      
                      This is F.A Hayek's "Road to Serfdom":
                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkz9AQhQFNY

                      replyreport
                      1. 61

                         John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                         Evan, in the UK there are laws that prohibit shouting fire in a crowded theatre and we have gun control laws which mean most people can go around their daily business without fear of being shot, whatever their beliefs.
                         I don't feel that my freedom is any less than yours in any way apart from not being able to incite hatred for other people or shoot those that I disagree with.
                         I do not consider freedom to instil terror in my fellow man any sort of freedom at all.

                         replyreport
                         1. 59

                            Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                            Shouting fire in a crowded theater shouldn't be against the law. It's foolish to think it should.
                            
                            When you buy a ticket from a theater, you are agreeing to that PRIVATE theater's rules. One of those rules is, implicitly, to not disturb the movie unless a true emergency exists.
                            
                            The simple fact is that humans today have forgotten the most basic fact that public-places are still Private property, and thus can't make such an obvious distinction between law and contracts.
                            
                            It's quite a shame, really.
                            
                            ---
                            
                            How can you not feel that you have less freedoms than me? I can own a gun and you can't.
                            
                            You have one less freedom than I.
                            
                            Well, really, you HAVE the freedom, you just are told not to express it by some OTHER people who don't WANT you to own a gun.

                            replyreport
11. 61

    WalterDamageposted 13 years ago

    “Rush Limbaugh is beginning to look more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet, but we’ll be there to watch.” -- Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Morning Meeting, Oct. 13, 2009.
    
    “So, Michele, slit your wrist! Go ahead! I mean, you know, why not? I mean, if you want to -- or, you know, do us all a better thing. Move that knife up about two feet. I mean, start right at the collarbone.” --  Montel Williams talking about Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) on Air America’s Montel Across America, Sept. 2, 2009.
    
    “He is an enemy of the country, in my opinion, Dick Cheney is, he is an enemy of the country.... You know, Lord, take him to the Promised Land, will you? See, I don’t even wish the guy goes to Hell, I just want to get him the hell out of here.” -- Ed Schultz, The Ed Schultz Show, May 11, 2009.
    
    “I’m waiting for the day when I pick it up, pick up a newspaper or click on the Internet and find out he’s choked to death on his own throat fat or a great big wad of saliva or something, you know, whatever. Go away, Rush, you make me sick!” -- Radio host Mike Malloy on the Jan. 4, 2010 Mike Malloy Show.
    
    “I’m just saying if he [Dick Cheney] did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.” --  Bill Maher on his HBO show Real Time, Mar. 2, 2007,
    
    NPR Legal Affairs Correspondent Nina Totenberg.
    After then-Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) said that the federal government was spending too much money on AIDS, National Public Radio’s Nina Totenberg, on the July 8, 1995 edition of Inside Washington, said, “I think he ought to be worried about what’s going on in the Good Lord’s mind, because if there is retributive justice, he’ll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.”
    
    On the Nov. 4, 1994 edition of PBS’s To the Contrary, then-USA Today columnist and Pacifica Radio talk show host Julianne Malveaux said of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas: “I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease. … He is an absolutely reprehensible person.”

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       "These weren't 22-year-old loners or even local talk-radio hosts. These were candidates for Congress! Find me five Democrats from this past election who talked like that about their opponents or their government. Find me one."
       
       That was the last paragraph of the OP. Find five democratic CANDIDATES from this past election who talked like that. You went out and found athletes and talk radio jocks. The issue is not that the debate hasn't gotten heated on both sides as far as the FANS go. The point is that one team is guilty of inciting violence from the fans - and the other side, though its fans have gone over the top on occasion is not comprised of players who make ugly threats the basis of their game.

       replyreport
12. 0

    china manposted 13 years ago

    From outside - the rhetoric from the right wing, in all its shoddy guises, is talking violence and inciting unstable people to acts of violence. This also goes for some posters in these forums.
    
    I notice that the double talking bull@@it that is coming through in this thread is the same double talking double standards of the creationist liars for jesus and the sheeple that follow them.
    
    You guys seriously need to fix your education system and then get some history and economics onto the curriculum.

    replyreport
    1. 90

       Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Yes, education is a large part of the problem. So is fundie religion.
       
       There are worse places to live, but there's not a lot to be proud of right now.

       replyreport