how can they blame the az shooting on palin

[ducks]

since he was planning on attacking her since 2007
HELLO

[Nbadan]

Did he attack her in 2007?

[redzero]

People are obsessed with Sarah Palin. That's about it.

[Nbadan]

blah ....wing-nuts will take her down before 2012 anyway because she can't win....

[boutons_deux]

pitbull bitch has endlessly promoted herself (her only skill), and has been promoted by the tea baggers, as a lover and promoter of guns, gun violence, targeting/scoping political opponents, and murdering animals for fun, a trailer-park trash version of Michael Vick.

She part of the America that adores guns and gun violence, guns and (political) murder as The Final Solution to whatever you hate.

[johnsmith]

pitbull bitch has endlessly promoted herself (her only skill), and has been promoted by the tea baggers, as a lover and promoter of guns, gun violence, targeting/scoping political opponents, and murdering animals for fun, a trailer-park trash version of Michael Vick.

She part of the America that adores guns and gun violence, guns and (political) murder as The Final Solution to whatever you hate.

Yeah, it couldn't possibly be this fucking whack job that is responsible for this.



I bet you blame your parents for what a miserable person you are too.

[redzero]

murdering animals for fun

This is the second time I've seen you misuse the term "murder."

People murder people.

Inanimate objects cannot murder people.

People cannot murder animals.

Inanimate objects cannot murder animals.

People murder people.

It's quite simple.

EDIT: Oh, and just to be sure, people cannot murder inanimate objects.

[TDMVPDPOY]

wtf do ppl keep on tuning into this clown?

[TeyshaBlue]

The words "Sarah Palin" are the moonbat-signal for Dan and boutonski. If you ever want them around, just start a thread with her name in the title. They'll be there shortly.:lmao

[BlairForceDejuan]

People are obsessed with Sarah Palin. That's about it.


This. The bitter people out there can't help but tie every single political happening to Palin.

[George Gervin's Afro]

This. The bitter people out there can't help but tie every single political happening to Palin.

We all hope she is the GOP stalwart in 2012.. In fact she would be a dream candidate for Obama..

[DarrinS]

We all hope she is the GOP stalwart in 2012.. In fact she would be a dream candidate for Obama..

If he's the Dems' candidate.

[George Gervin's Afro]

If he's the Dems' candidate.

He will be darrins...

[boutons_deux]

"tie every single political happening to Palin"

You Lie

Boner's bullshit bawling had nothing to with pitbull bitch, only with his own emotional instability.

[DarrinS]

Boner's bullshit bawling had nothing to with pitbull bitch, only with his own emotional instability.


Believe it or not, his constant crying gets on my nerves too.

[EVAY]

Three truths about this situation:

1. The guy who shot all those people is nutso; his violence and his choice of targets is not necessarily a direct response to the 'rhetorical violence' of the current political pundits in either party.

2. The rhetorical reliance on war imagery in current political debate cannot be helpful in any situation.

3. There are many victims from the Arizona tragedy. Sarah Palin is not one of them.


Are you able to read the part that says "his violence and his choice of targets is not necessarily a direct resoponse to the 'rhetorical violence' of the current political pundits..."?

[DarrinS]

2. The rhetorical reliance on war imagery in current political debate cannot be helpful in any situation.



This is a red herring.

How often are war metaphors used in sports?

[clambake]

This is a red herring.

How often are war metaphors used in sports?

how many athletes have been gunned down for people using them?

[rascal]

Three truths about this situation:

1. The guy who shot all those people is nutso; his violence and his choice of targets is not necessarily a direct response to the 'rhetorical violence' of the current political pundits in either party.

2. The rhetorical reliance on war imagery in current political debate cannot be helpful in any situation.

3. There are many victims from the Arizona tragedy. Sarah Palin is not one of them.

Palin took a hit by just having her hitlist posted and seen by many who otherwise would not have seen it.

[DarrinS]

how many athletes have been gunned down for people using them?

Zero, the same number of politicians that have been gunned down because of war metaphors?

[DarrinS]

Palin took a hit by just having her hitlist posted and seen by many who otherwise would not have seen it.

Daily Kos website had a very similar graphic -- they are also not to blame for this psycho.

[clambake]

Zero, the same number of politicians that have been gunned down because of war metaphors?

thats being debated. do you want to wait or would you prefer your current dog training?

[TeyshaBlue]

thats being debated.


Is it now? By whom?

[clambake]

Is it now? By whom?

fox news

[TeyshaBlue]

fox news

I'm not sure they're equipped to debate.

[clambake]

I'm not sure they're equipped to debate.

i agree, but regardless of the subject matter, you know there's a debate every time they circle the wagons.

circle the wagons. (threw that in there for you texas folk)

[TeyshaBlue]

i agree, but regardless of the subject matter, you know there's a debate every time they circle the wagons.

circle the wagons. (threw that in there for you texas folk)

Aww shucks.:lol

It takes 2 to debate. Whose the other player?

[clambake]

Aww shucks.:lol

It takes 2 to debate. Whose the other player?

darrin

[Wild Cobra]

how can they blame the az shooting on palin
Simple.

It's always someone else's fault with the lefties.

[coyotes_geek]

Simple.

It's always someone else's fault with the lefties.

As opposed to the "righties" who do what exactly???

[jack sommerset]

The dems wheels fell of over a year ago. Some will grasp at anything to make the repugs look like, well Jared Lee Loughner. It's pathetic. I hope Barry stays true to himself and points even the slightest little finger in the repugs general direction that repugs or the tea party had anything to do what so ever with the shootings in his little speech tomorrow.

[clambake]

The dems wheels fell of over a year ago. Some will grasp at anything to make the repugs look like, well Jared Lee Loughner. It's pathetic. I hope Barry stays true to himself and points even the slightest little finger in the repugs general direction that repugs or the tea party had anything to do what so ever with the shootings in his little speech tomorrow.

what will you do if he does? go cruising?

[jn77]

I am surprised at the rush to politicize what happaned in Arizona. It seemed to start as soon as the news broke Saturday.

I am a "lefty",and I am shocked at how fast pundits (on both sides) went right to who to blame. How does that help the situation? they got the guy who pulled the trigger. there is no evidance...NONE, that he was influeinced by Sara Palin (or anyone else in the media).

He is a nut job. His ramblings on you tube and things he said to his friends prove at least that much. People made up fake facebook pages to try to link him to Obama, the right wing pundits went into damage control mode, Sara Palins people took down the map with the crosshairs. Why? You did nothing wrong by voicing your opinions, and expressing your views. Stand by your message. Freedom of speech means just that, freedom of speech...I don't have to like it or agree with it, but it is your right to say it. I heard no one said "Hey Jared, go shoot the congressman" Even so, most adults can think for themselves. Dont blame a single lunatics actions on a party, group or polotician. It just makes you look foolish.

If there is a silver lining in this it is that both may sides may look for better ways to express their views. Tone down the rhetoric, so people don't take it so personally, and civil political discusions can begin once again.

But that doesn't mean that Sara Palin, or the "right" is to blame for this, hard for me to say, since I hate Sara Palin!! However, what has been done to her here has been unfair.

[clambake]

what has been done to her?

[jn77]

what has been done to her?


The media placed the blame at her feet, bloggers have said that she has blood on her hands. I disagree with that. She is a mother, and to blame her for actions of someone that resulted in the death of a child is unfair to her. To blame her for a political assasination attempt, because she uses sometimes irresponsible words is unfair to her.

[Spurminator]

Especially since all she does is read the scripts that are given to her.

[EVAY]

what has been done to her?

Absolutely nothing.

That was my point in my earlier post. Sarah Palin is in no way a victim here, but Glenn Beck et.al. try to deflect the conversation away from their own rhetoric to claim that one of theirs is being 'victimized' by those who say that there is a correlation between violent rhetoric and what happened in Ariz.

[EVAY]

Sarah Palin has played the victim card more frequently than most politicians not named Jesse Jackson.

And now she's getting Beck to do her whining for her.

[jn77]

There has been no proof that the rhetoric had anything to do with this attack. show me proof and maybe I will adjust my position

[jn77]

Yes the language from the right is inflamitory, beck and palin are guilty of that surely, but they did not put the gun in this kids hands, they did not send him to Rep Giffords event. I am sure Palin, Bck, Hannity, and Rush will play the victim card. They are on the defensive, the media is pointing a finger right at them, how would you react?

[Winehole23]

Sarah Palin has played the victim card more frequently than most politicians not named Jesse Jackson.Zing!

[Winehole23]

The very next day, at a Chicago City Council meeting, Mayor Richard Daley read a eulogy that pledged a "commitment to the goals for which Dr. King stood." The Reverend Jackson had flown in from Memphis without sleep to attend the ceremony; he stood up in a sweater stained with Dr. King's blood and shouted to the assembled Chicago political establishment, "His blood is on the hands of you who would not have welcomed him here yesterday." http://www.playboy.com/articles/jesse-jackson-interview/

[clambake]

There has been no proof that the rhetoric had anything to do with this attack. show me proof and maybe I will adjust my position

who cares if you adjust your position. you went on and on about free speech.

damn bitch, pick a lane.

[jn77]

wow, picka lane, ok...

No proof she did anything wrong. respect her right to free speech, even if you don't like it.

If the evidance shows that he had her books, had an obsession with her, followed her on twitter and made statements mirroring Palins...I will probably merge into the other lane, where you are blaming her.

For now, bitch, I cannot place blame on her because I don't like what she says.

[clambake]

who gives a fuck.

[jn77]

If you don't give a fuck, don't join the discussion. Seems pretty simple to me.

[jack sommerset]

http://american-conservativevalues.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/BP_0405_heartland1.gif

[George Gervin's Afro]

The dems wheels fell of over a year ago. Some will grasp at anything to make the repugs look like, well Jared Lee Loughner. It's pathetic. I hope Barry stays true to himself and points even the slightest little finger in the repugs general direction that repugs or the tea party had anything to do what so ever with the shootings in his little speech tomorrow.

true to himself jack? What in the hell are you talking about this time? I know jack you hate liars, blah,blah,blah..how did you feel when the GOP broke a promise already?:lmao

dumbass

[jack sommerset]

true to himself jack? What in the hell are you talking about this time? I know jack you hate liars, blah,blah,blah..how did you feel when the GOP broke a promise already?:lmao

dumbass

Yes, true to himself. Never let a crisis go to waste, never stop blaming the the repugs for everything. You should know this by now but you are a giggly little faggot so it does not surprise me.

[Blake]

http://american-conservativevalues.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/BP_0405_heartland1.gif

using targets in a targeting strategy is apparently poor strategy

[TeyshaBlue]

using targets in a targeting strategy is apparently poor strategy

With the unfortunate inclusion of "Behind Enemy Lines".

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yes, true to himself. Never let a crisis go to waste, never stop blaming the the repugs for everything. You should know this by now but you are a giggly little faggot so it does not surprise me.

He never said that but you're a dumbass so I'm not suprised you didn't know...

[Don'tCallMeBubbles]

http://american-conservativevalues.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/BP_0405_heartland1.gif

Misleading. We Democrats were obviously playing political darts..... Obviously.:wakeup

[TeyshaBlue]

Misleading. We Democrats were obviously playing political darts..... Obviously.:wakeup

Nerf darts at that!

[coyotes_geek]

Misleading. We Democrats were obviously playing political darts..... Obviously.:wakeup

You can put someone's eye out with one of those.

:p:


Nerf darts at that!

Okay, I got nothing. :(

[Don'tCallMeBubbles]

We probably could have used a better dartboard. I regret not going fluorescent and/or textured........

[jack sommerset]

He never said that but you're a dumbass so I'm not suprised you didn't know...


His chief of staff sure did. The cat who speaks for barry. You know, that guy.

Barry has plenty of true to himself quotes you can youtube, faggot. Stuff like "ass kicking" "regugs are the enemy" "bring your guns" shit like that. Now go find a cock to suck on you little faggot.

[ohmwrecker]

http://homepages.inspire.net.nz/~idiot/images/map2-thumb-600x398-37217.JPG tbh.

[Don'tCallMeBubbles]

http://homepages.inspire.net.nz/~idiot/images/map2-thumb-600x398-37217.JPG tbh.

I want to shoot somebody now, specifically from one of those states......

[coyotes_geek]

I want to shoot somebody now, specifically from one of those states......

Fortunately for you, Sarah Palin has convienently placed surveying symbols on a map so that you know exactly where that person is. If you need additional latitude and longitude, I'm sure she can accomodate.

[redzero]

Good thing those cross hairs were placed on Gifford's location. Even though Loughner met Gifford in 2007--before all of this Sarah Palin nonsense even began--and held a grudge against her since, Jared waited until 2010 so he can see cross hairs pointing to Arizona.

That definitely helped him find Gifford.

[Don'tCallMeBubbles]

Fortunately for you, Sarah Palin has convienently placed surveying symbols on a map so that you know exactly where that person is. If you need additional latitude and longitude, I'm sure she can accomodate.

You betcha. But I'll have to solicit her help another time - getting my gear together to go get my practice in at Target........

[Blake]

With the unfortunate inclusion of "Behind Enemy Lines".

I dunno.....I think I've used the term enemy when playing nerf darts or paintball.

[Stringer_Bell]

http://american-conservativevalues.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/BP_0405_heartland1.gif

I suddenly feel like taking up archery and taking back my government.

[jack sommerset]

I suddenly feel like taking up archery and taking back my government.

Great, now they will want to ban bows and arrows.

[ducks]

read he was ticked at her because she refused to answer his question at a meeting once


but lets blame palin

[Nbadan]

read he was ticked at her because she refused to answer his question at a meeting once

but lets blame palin

...yeah, he was stalking her...this was personal...the fact she was a Congresswoman, a pro-immigrant Congresswoman at that, had nothing to do with this...she was merely at the wrong place at the wrong time...she ignored him 7 years ago!

See how stupid you sound?

[Yonivore]

...yeah, he was stalking her...this was personal...the fact she was a Congresswoman, a pro-immigrant Congresswoman at that, had nothing to do with this...
That's pretty much what his friends are saying.


she was merely at the wrong place at the wrong time...she ignored him 7 years ago!
It was 2007 and there was probably no rational answer he would have accepted to the insane question he asked.

Here, let me remove the quote code...

See how stupid you sound?

[Yonivore]

I dunno.....I think I've used the term enemy when playing nerf darts or paintball.
Hell, politics is full of martial terms. We have campaigns and the candidates vie for "battleground States."

This whole narrative is fucked up from the get go. Thank God most Americans are seeing through it this time. I just hope this has eroded liberal capital that much more.

Maybe we'll have another shellacking in 2012.

[Yonivore]

Great, now they will want to ban bows and arrows.
Not to mention the transit and theodolite.

[Yonivore]

You can bet one thing, for sure. Every time Obama uses a martial term; "bringing a gun to a knife fight," "enemy," "hit back twice as hard," (after which SEIU goons almost beat Ken Gladney to death); or, the next time Rahm Emmanuel repeated jabs a steak knife into a table screaming opponents' names followed by "Dead!, Dead!, Dead!" or send paper-wrapped fished to people who have irked him, there will be a conservative right-wing blogger recording it and biding the time for when it is need to counter this silliness.

[Stringer_Bell]

This whole narrative is fucked up from the get go. Thank God most Americans are seeing through it this time. I just hope this has eroded liberal capital that much more.

Maybe we'll have another shellacking in 2012.

Yea, shellacking in 2012...because empty promises of fiscal responsbility in 2010 expanded conservative capital so much, right? Americans aren't seeing through anything, not because they are dumb, but because they are too apathetic to look into the cesspool of government and political rhetortic. It's a mess and this country is low on heroes.

[BradLohaus]

I think Sarah Palin is as dumb as the next guy and I don't like her, but this has gone completely over the edge. That campaign map "targeting districts" has been ALL OVER CNN and MSNBC lately.

I mean really? That's supposed to be some kind of proof of anything? Watching the talking heads on MSNBC the last few days has been surreal.

[boutons_deux]

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/01/11/seattle_stranger_giffords_cover/crosshairsStrangerCover.jpeg

[ohmwrecker]

Nobody is saying the map is making wingnuts shoot congresspersons, you retards. They are saying it's irresponsible words and imagery.
Sarah Palin is just really stupid. She is dangerous because she is stupid and powerful (popular amongst the ever growing throng of mental handicapped Americans).
Do you realize how stupid and afraid and paranoid you sound? "They're gon' take my guns! My freedom! Make me abort ma babies! Make me worship Allah!" Do ever wonder why people think you are all a bunch of nuts?

[Winehole23]

Nobody is saying the map is making wingnuts shoot congresspersons, you retards. Some people did say that.

Do you realize how stupid and afraid and paranoid you sound? "They're gon' take my guns!http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/01/top-republican-rep-pete-king-to-introduce-gun-control-legislation.html

My freedom!

"This is not a knee jerk reaction, Brady said. "This legislation makes it illegal to place crosshairs on a Congressman's district."http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/news/politics/011010-brady-wants-%27target%27-web-sites-banned

Do ever wonder why people think you are all a bunch of nuts? Do you ever pop off about stuff you don't know very much about?

[ohmwrecker]

Some people did say that.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/01/top-republican-rep-pete-king-to-introduce-gun-control-legislation.html (http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/01/top-republican-rep-pete-king-to-introduce-gun-control-legislation.html)


:lol A Republican supporting gun control. That's funny. Saving face tbh. Also, New York is a big gun control state and this proposal is far from restricting citizens from owning guns and using them properly and legally.




http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/news/politics/011010-brady-wants-%27target%27-web-sites-banned


Sounds like a good idea.



Do you ever pop off about stuff you don't know very much about?

Occasionally . . . but you have proven nothing here. Also, why are you offended by what I said? Do you think you're nuts?

[Winehole23]

I'm not offended. Your comment was obtuse, is all.

[ohmwrecker]

I'm not offended. Your comment was obtuse, is all.

How so? Sarcastic, maybe . . . not obtuse.

[Winehole23]

Sounds like a good idea. You think need we government to police "extreme" political speech. Obviously.

[Winehole23]

How so? Sarcastic, maybe . . . not obtuse.Both your main points were mistaken. People do blame Sarah Palin for influencing the shooter, and the fear of congressional overreaction seems to be well founded.

[ohmwrecker]

You think need we government to police "extreme" political speech. Obviously.

I wouldn't go that far, honestly, but it is getting out of control considering the instability of the audience. Public officials and those running for public office should be held accountable for their irresponsibility.

[ohmwrecker]

Both your main points were mistaken. People do blame Sarah Palin for influencing the shooter, and the fear of congressional overreaction seems to be well founded.

I there is a misunderstanding in context. I haven't seen anyone directly blame Palin for the shooting and I wouldn't condone that. She should be held accountable for putting forth an irresponsible campaign though.

[Winehole23]

I wouldn't go that far, honestly, but it is getting out of control considering the instability of the audience. Afraid of free speech? Grow a set or call 911.
Public officials and those running for public office should be held accountable for their irresponsibility.Held accountable how?

Social disapprobation is one thing, strengthening the hand of government to quash political speech is another.

[ohmwrecker]

Afraid of free speech? Grow a set or call 9/11.Held accountable how?

Grow a set? Grow up. It's not a free speech issue. I'm talking about inciting unstable people and doing it knowingly.


Social disapprobation is one thing, strengthening the hand of government to quash political speech is another.

Campaign funding restrictions.

[Winehole23]

It's not a free speech issue. I'm talking about inciting unstable people and doing it knowingly.If restraining speech that "might incite unstable people" isn't a free speech issue, I don't know what is.

Campaign funding restrictions.Relates to this topic how?

[BlairForceDejuan]

What doesn't incite unstable people?

[Winehole23]

What doesn't incite unstable people?One wonders.

[BradLohaus]

ohmwrecker: do you get MSNBC? they've been ready to string up Palin for days...right out of the gate. Straight up, directly, laying blame for this at her feet. Beck, Limbaugh too. it's been rediculous.

[ohmwrecker]

What doesn't incite unstable people?

That doesn't mean people who know better should do it.

To use the old example:
If someone shouts "Fire!" in a crowded theatre . . . the unstable will panic and knock people over to get out. A reasonable person will look for calmly, but quickly look for evidence of an actual fire and strategize the fastest, safest way out after establishing that there is indeed a fire.

[ohmwrecker]

ohmwrecker: do you get MSNBC? they've been ready to string up Palin for days...right out of the gate. Straight up, directly, laying blame for this at her feet. Beck, Limbaugh too. it's been rediculous.

I read. I don't watch TV news.

[ohmwrecker]

Relates to this topic how?

As a suitable form of making public servants more responsible.

[Winehole23]

That doesn't mean people who know better should do it.

To use the old example:
If someone shouts "Fire!" in a crowded theatre . . . the unstable will panic and knock people over to get out. A reasonable person will look for calmly, but quickly look for evidence of an actual fire and strategize the fastest, safest way out after establishing that there is indeed a fire.So any speech a mentally unstable person might foreseeably take amiss, should be proscribed?

[Winehole23]

As a suitable form of making public servants more responsible.How does it relate to speech that irresponsibly "incites" the mentally ill? It's not intuitively clear to me.

Don't the voters sort this one out at the ballot box? Why do we need a federal remedy for loose cannons?

[ohmwrecker]

So any speech a mentally unstable person might foreseeably take amiss, should be proscribed?

When you, as a speaker, are looking out onto a throng of rabid, hateful people holding signs depicting our president with a target on his head or a Hitler mustache scrawled on his upper lip with misspelled accusations of conflicting political ideologies on homemade signs . . . it might not be responsible to tell these people that the "other guy" wants to take away their guns and then draw them a map with target points on it.

Is that clear enough?

[TeyshaBlue]

I dunno.....I think I've used the term enemy when playing nerf darts or paintball.

You're inciting violence!:ihit

[clambake]

signs didn't treat bush very well, either.

but then again, he manufactured reasons for war.

[TeyshaBlue]

signs didn't treat bush very well, either.

but then again, he manufactured reasons for war.

Well it's simple. Target the signs!:toast

[ohmwrecker]

signs didn't treat bush very well, either.

but then again, he manufactured reasons for war.

I don't recall any politicians subtly suggesting that Bush should be assassinated.

[clambake]

I don't recall any politicians subtly suggesting that Bush should be assassinated.

what politicians have subtly suggested that obama be assassinated?

[ohmwrecker]

How does it relate to speech that irresponsibly "incites" the mentally ill? It's not intuitively clear to me.

Don't the voters sort this one out at the ballot box? Why do we need a federal remedy for loose cannons?

You are missing the point here. I'm talking about holding politicians accountable. There's nothing that can be done about crazy people, but they shouldn't be encouraged.

[Winehole23]

When you, as a speaker, are looking out onto a throng of rabid, hateful people holding signs depicting our president with a target on his head or a Hitler mustache scrawled on his upper lip with misspelled accusations of conflicting political ideologies on homemade signs . . . it might not be responsible to tell these people that the "other guy" wants to take away their guns and then draw them a map with target points on it.

Is that clear enough?Yes it is. The constitution protects speech of that sort.

What isn't clear about that?

[Winehole23]

You are missing the point here. I'm talking about holding politicians accountable.For what crazy people do.

[BradLohaus]

I read. I don't watch TV news.

:rolleyes

yeah we all read here I'm sure. But how else will you know what the masses are eating?

[ohmwrecker]

what politicians have subtly suggested that obama be assassinated?

Do I have to go over this again?

[ohmwrecker]

For what crazy people do.

No. For what they say. Now who's being obtuse?

[ohmwrecker]

:rolleyes

yeah we all read here I'm sure. But how else will you know what the masses are eating?


I read. I don't watch TV news.

[clambake]

Do I have to go over this again?

sorry if i missed the names of these politicians.

anyone else want to reveal their names?

[Winehole23]

No. For what they say. Now who's being obtuse?Peas in a pod.

Absent violent conduct by the mentally insane, who's to determine which political speech is irresponsible and how?

[BradLohaus]

Ohmwrecker makes me remember why I stopped posting regularly. Have fun getting owned by WH.

[ohmwrecker]

Ohmwrecker makes me remember why I stopped posting regularly. Have fun getting owned by WH.

I guess if by " getting owned" means arguing with someone who refuses to argue the point, then . . . guilty.

[Winehole23]

I am refusing to argue what, please?

[Winehole23]

(btw, you dodged a few questions yourself)

[ohmwrecker]

I am refusing to argue what, please?

I'm talking about holding public servants accountable by restricting what they are concerned with (money & power) and you are talking about legislating insanity.

It's pretty pointless to continue.

[ohmwrecker]

I am refusing to argue what, please?

OK. I'll play along . . . shoot.

[Winehole23]

I'm talking about holding public servants accountable by restricting what they are concerned with (money & power) and you are talking about legislating insanity.You are talking about electoral reform.

Bullshit. You are talking about strengthening the hand of government to quash political speech based on your fear of what crazy people might do because of it.


It's pretty pointless to continue.Wise decision.

Changing the subject obviously didn't work for you, and continuing the conversation would only expose more of your hare-brained thinking on the topic.

[ohmwrecker]

You are talking about electoral reform.

Bullshit. You are talking about strengthening the hand of government to quash political speech based on your fear of what crazy people might do because of it.

I'm not afraid. Crazy people are going to do crazy things. That's obvious. Politicians should not be matching them card for card.


Wise decision.

Changing the subject obviously didn't work for you, and continuing the conversation would only expose more of your hare-brained thinking on the topic.

I changed the subject? You responded to me, bubba. I think I know what the subject is.

[Winehole23]

The subject is your sidebar on election reform?

lol

[ohmwrecker]

The subject is your sidebar on election reform?

lol

That was an answer to a non-topic related question that you asked.

The subject is:

(Are you ready?)

Should politicians and public servants be held accountable for irresponsible rhetoric and speech?

[Winehole23]

They are already held accountable by voters at the ballot box. Next.

[Winehole23]

Go ahead, why don't you tell us how politicians should be held responsible for incendiary political speech since that's what we're supposedly talking about now.

[ohmwrecker]

They are already held accountable by voters at the ballot box. Next.

Avoidance. Popularity contests and corporate sponsored campaigns is not the concern.

It's a simple question.

[ohmwrecker]

Go ahead, why don't you tell us how politicians should be held responsible for incendiary political speech since that's what we're supposedly talking about now.

Have you read the thread title?

[Winehole23]

^^^more dodging and weaving. I'm not surprised.

[TeyshaBlue]

Im still waiting on a concrete premise from Ohmwrecker. This is turning Parkeresque.

[ohmwrecker]

^^^more dodging and weaving. I'm not surprised.

Pot meet kettle . . . did you answer the question yet?

[ohmwrecker]

Im still waiting on a concrete premise from Ohmwrecker. This is turning Parkeresque.

Let me put it to you in a context you can understand.

Is it morally irresponsible to tell people what they want to hear, even if it is wrong and/or playing into their hate and fear, to advance your own agenda and power position?

[Winehole23]

Pot meet kettle . . . did you answer the question yet?Yes, I did. Periodic voting is a form of accountability.

[Winehole23]

Is it morally irresponsible to tell people what they want to hear, even if it is wrong and/or playing into their hate and fear, to advance your own agenda and power position?Yes.

For better and for worse, doing so is also constitutionally protected.

[ohmwrecker]

Yes, I did. Periodic voting is a form of accountability.

I agree. It is A form. Is it the only form? Should it be?

[Winehole23]

Social disapprobation is another.

[clambake]

Let me put it to you in a context you can understand.

Is it morally irresponsible to tell people what they want to hear, even if it is wrong and/or playing into their hate and fear, to advance your own agenda and power position?

the accountability falls on the gullible. preachers do the same thing every day.

[ohmwrecker]

Yes.

For better and for worse, doing so is also constitutionally protected.

"The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law."

[ohmwrecker]

the accountability falls on the gullible. preachers do the same thing every day.

I agree, but supposedly government cannot legislate religion:rolleyes

[TeyshaBlue]

Let me put it to you in a context you can understand.

Is it morally irresponsible to tell people what they want to hear, even if it is wrong or playing into their hate and fear, to advance your own agenda and power position?

Your context is lacking since it now includes variables. Your question, such that it is can now provide a range of answers....none of which will be incorrect. Placing morality as the qualifier is a precursor to instant fail.

You have to define morality, further you must define it within this byzantine construct of context you have built.

But, let's take it apart for a bit.

No, it's not morally irresponsible (whatever that means) to tell people what they want to hear.
Yes, it could be wrong to play to their hate, but it might not be wrong to play to their fear.
No it's not wrong to advance your own agenda. That's value neutral until you assign the agenda some kind of morality index. Is it wrong to advance your own agenda (implicitly it appears) in lockstep with advancing your power position? Yes and no for the same reasons outlined above for advancing an agenda.
In short, the context you are trying to frame this issue in is full of holes and cannot yield a definite answer.

[Winehole23]

"The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law."This isn't revolutionary France, bubba. I hardly see why the Rights of Man should be considered dispositive for us.

[ohmwrecker]

Social disapprobation is another.

Then why do people have a problem with holding Palin accountable?

[clambake]

Your context is lacking since it now includes variables. Your question, such that it is can now provide a range of answers....none of which will be incorrect. Placing morality as the qualifier is a precursor to instant fail.

You have to define morality, further you must define it within this byzantine construct of context you have built.

But, let's take it apart for a bit.

No, it's not morally irresponsible (whatever that means) to tell people what they want to hear.
Yes, it could be wrong to play to their hate, but it might not be wrong to play to their fear.
No it's not wrong to advance your own agenda. That's value neutral until you assign the agenda some kind of morality index. Is it wrong to advance your own agenda (implicitly it appears) in lockstep with advancing your power position? Yes and no for the same reasons outlined above for advancing an agenda.
In short, the context you are trying to frame this issue in is full of holes and cannot yield a definite answer.

thanks for that. where's the aspirin?

[Winehole23]

Then why do people have a problem with holding Palin accountable?I have no problem with social disapproval or voting rhetorical bombthrowers out of office.

[ohmwrecker]

In short, the context you are trying to frame this issue in is full of holes and cannot yield a definite answer.

Yet, you gave me one anyway . . .

[TeyshaBlue]

Then why do people have a problem with holding Palin accountable?

You have to establish a chain of events, logically with proof, before accountability enters the picture. Thus far, that chain doesn't exist.
We might think it does, but you don't know what you don't know.

[TeyshaBlue]

Yet, you gave me one anyway . . .

No, I gave you a range of answers.

[TeyshaBlue]

thanks for that. where's the aspirin?

Sorry. I was gazing longingly at a picture of RG when I did that.
:lol

[ohmwrecker]

I have no problem with social disapproval or voting rhetorical bombthrowers out of office.

I don't either. I am unfamiliar with that particular bit of rhetoric however.

[ohmwrecker]

No, I gave you a range of answers.

I only asked for one.

[Winehole23]

But you continue to ignore TB's answer completely, for going beyond the confines of the original question.

Do you really want to have a discussion, or are you content to pick nits?

[ohmwrecker]

You have to establish a chain of events, logically with proof, before accountability enters the picture. Thus far, that chain doesn't exist.
We might think it does, but you don't know what you don't know.

It may or may not exist. It's certainly worth looking into. At the very least, no one should be attacked or ridiculed for asking the question.

[ohmwrecker]

But you continue to ignore TB's answer completely.

I didn't ignore it. It was a personal question. I got a rhetorical answer.

[Winehole23]

^^^mounts another weak semantic challenge. This isn't going well for you.

[Winehole23]

lol parsing your own question as an excuse to continue avoiding TB's reply to you.

[ohmwrecker]

lol parsing your own question as an excuse to continue avoiding TB's reply to you.

I'm not trying to avoid it. What specifically should I address?

[Winehole23]

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000341947/polls_nin_baby_there_is_no_you_demotivational_post er_2902_776083_answer_4_xlarge.jpeg


You needn't address anything. Yet you demand we all reply to you.

[TeyshaBlue]

I only asked for one.

There is no one.

[TeyshaBlue]

I didn't ignore it. It was a personal question. I got a rhetorical answer.

No, you got a logically derived range of answers based upon a query constructed with very poor criteria.

[ohmwrecker]

Your context is lacking since it now includes variables. Your question, such that it is can now provide a range of answers....none of which will be incorrect. Placing morality as the qualifier is a precursor to instant fail.

You have to define morality, further you must define it within this byzantine construct of context you have built.

But, let's take it apart for a bit.

No, it's not morally irresponsible (whatever that means) to tell people what they want to hear.
Yes, it could be wrong to play to their hate, but it might not be wrong to play to their fear.
No it's not wrong to advance your own agenda. That's value neutral until you assign the agenda some kind of morality index. Is it wrong to advance your own agenda (implicitly it appears) in lockstep with advancing your power position? Yes and no for the same reasons outlined above for advancing an agenda.
In short, the context you are trying to frame this issue in is full of holes and cannot yield a definite answer.

First, morality is defined in political discourse constantly. I am well aware that morality is extremely difficult to define in that there will never be a consensus on what is or is not moral.
Therefore, when I ask a question that involves morality, I assume, that the answer will contain the specific idea of what it is and how they personally define it.
The question is easily defined by the answer.

[TeyshaBlue]

Look, I don't want this to devolve into some bizarre semantic brouhaha.
The central tenet remains...we do not know what we do not know.
To predicate action, in this case action that could have constitutional ramifications, upon what we feel is an act of extreme foolishness.

[ohmwrecker]

You needn't address anything. Yet you demand we all reply to you.

Didn't happen. Do I have to remind you, again, that you replied to me?

[TeyshaBlue]

First, morality is defined in political discourse constantly. I am well aware that morality is extremely difficult to define in that there will never be a consensus on what is or is not moral.
Therefore, when I ask a question that involves morality, I assume, that the answer will contain the specific idea of what it is and how they personally define it.
The question is easily defined by the answer.

Except in this instance, morality is not defined by the answer because there are a range of answers. That would suggest the definition needs to be applied before trying to distill a single answer.

[ohmwrecker]

Look, I don't want this to devolve into some bizarre semantic brouhaha.
The central tenet remains...we do not know what we do not know.
To predicate action, in this case action that could have constitutional ramifications, upon what we feel is an act of extreme foolishness.

"we do not know what we do not know"

All I am saying is, let's find out. Why can't we pose the question?


Constitutional ramifications? What exactly are you referring to?

[ohmwrecker]

Except in this instance, morality is not defined by the answer because there are a range of answers. That would suggest the definition needs to be applied before trying to distill a single answer.

Then it is not really an answer is it? Therefore, it is rhetorical.

I actually congratulate you on deftly avoiding answering the question. Props.

[TeyshaBlue]

Then it is not really an answer is it? Therefore, it is rhetorical.

I actually congratulate you on deftly avoiding answering the question. Props.
But I did answer it. Not only that, I dissected it and produced the only answers that were available to produce. The answer is "There is no single answer when the question is poorly constructed."

Answer a question? Dude. I answered the half dozen or so questions your poorly parsed context required.

[TeyshaBlue]

"we do not know what we do not know"

All I am saying is, let's find out. Why can't we pose the question?


Constitutional ramifications? What exactly are you referring to?

Posing the question is certainly worthwhile. So is careful consideration of the question to be posed.

When you start discussing speech issues, then naturally the constitutional protection of same becomes a party to the discussion.

[ohmwrecker]

Answer a question? Dude. I answered the half dozen or so questions your poorly parsed context required.

The question required a personal response with the assumption that the definition of morality is a personal issue. The context is not poorly parsed within those parameters.
Again, I applaud you for not stepping into that trap.

[ohmwrecker]

Posing the question is certainly worthwhile. So is careful consideration of the question to be posed.

When you start discussing speech issues, then naturally the constitutional protection of same becomes a party to the discussion.

I am talking about accountability. There is nothing to suggest that the constitution or the bill of rights is in danger.

[TeyshaBlue]

The question required a personal response with the assumption that the definition of morality is a personal issue. The context is not poorly parsed within those parameters.
Again, I applaud you for not stepping into that trap.

Trap? Sorry. I thought we were having a discussion. My bad.

If you were asking me to define morality prior to answering the question and then apply my definition to the question itself, knowing full well that the answer would be applicable to my worldview only, you might have actually said so.

[TeyshaBlue]

I am talking about accountability. There is nothing to suggest that the constitution or the bill of rights is in danger.

You have to have a mechanism for accountability as well as prevention of said behavior/speech. It's not entirely in left field to assume the constitution is an interest here.

[boutons_deux]

Fearing tea party violence, four Arizona Republicans resign

Fearing violence from tea party activists, Arizona Legislative District 20 Republican Chairman Anthony Miller and several others tendered their resignation this week following mass shootings that left six dead and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) in critical condition.

Miller, a 43-year-old former campaign worker for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), said that verbal attacks and blog posts from members of the tea party had him fearing for the safety of his family, according to a report in The Arizona Republic.

"Today my wife of 20 yrs ask (sic) me do I think that my PCs (Precinct Committee members) will shoot at our home?" he wrote in an e-mail following the shootings. "So with this being said I am stepping down from LD20GOP Chairman...I will make a full statement on Monday."

Tea party members supporting J.D. Hayworth for senator in the midterm elections accused Miller, an African American, of being a "McCain's boy." One detractor had even made his hand into the shape of a gun and pointed it at Miller.

===============

AZ tea baggers got rid of the nigga. :lol

But TX tea baggers failed miserably to expel Jew Straus as House Speaker.

[ohmwrecker]

Trap? Sorry. I thought we were having a discussion. My bad.

We are now. I need to know who I am having a conversation with before I proceed.


If you were asking me to define morality prior to answering the question and then apply my definition to the question itself, knowing full well that the answer would be applicable to my worldview only, you might have actually said so.

And show you my hand? This is a political forum. I am assuming the role.

[ohmwrecker]

You have to have a mechanism for accountability as well as prevention of said behavior/speech. It's not entirely in left field to assume the constitution is an interest here.

I already answered that question. I suggested restricting campaign contributions off the top of my head.
Campaign finance reform is discussed all the time. It's not exactly a constitutional annihilator.

[ohmwrecker]

Let me clarify my position as simply stated as possible.

The question (as so eloquently posed by ducks) is:

"how can they blame the az shooting on palin?"

The answer is simple. Palin has spent her political career playing into the fear and hate of her support base. She has defined the enemy as those who want to take away freedom and gone so far as to provide a map with sniper sight icons depicting the areas where the "enemy" is located.
Is she to directly to blame for the actions of one nut with a gun? No, of course not.
Should she be held accountable for irresponsible rhetoric and propaganda? Absolutely.

[Nbadan]

Is she to directly to blame for the actions of one nut with a gun? No, of course not. Should she be held accountable for irresponsible rhetoric and propaganda? Absolutely.

If you look at this as a terrorist attack, which the corrupt M$M will never do...then Palin, Rush, BecKKK even down to local wing-nuts like Joe Pags, have been engaging in domestic terrorism...at the very least this needs to be looked at as organized criime under RICO....

[ohmwrecker]

If you look at this as a terrorist attack, which the corrupt M$M will never do...then Palin, Rush, BecKKK even down to local wing-nuts like Joe Pags, have been engaging in domestic terrorism...at the very least this needs to be looked at as organized criime under RICO....

Well . . . Palin did evoke 911 (as usual) in her response. So maybe she should lead the investigation?

[Winehole23]

Didn't happen. Do I have to remind you, again, that you replied to me?The conceit that your stack management settles or answers anything is amusing.

[Winehole23]

You have to have a mechanism for accountability as well as prevention of said behavior/speech. It's not entirely in left field to assume the constitution is an interest here.Clearly, ohmwrecker prefers to dance around the mechanism, probably because making it explicit would expose him to responsibility for what he is so far only pretending to propose.

(Showing us the cunning cowardice of his convictions, as it were, by trying to obtain general assent for his proposition before he has really proposed it.)

[DarrinS]

If you look at this as a terrorist attack, which the corrupt M$M will never do...then Palin, Rush, BecKKK even down to local wing-nuts like Joe Pags, have been engaging in domestic terrorism...at the very least this needs to be looked at as organized criime under RICO....



Why do you ignore the evidence that this person is just crazy?


Oh, I forgot that you are a 9/11 truther (so was the shooter, btw). Since you are a 9/11 truther, go ahead and disregard the first question.

[Winehole23]

btw, ohmwrecker, when you play poker, don't you have to show your cards at some point?

(Not that you have to show them, just that if you don't, what you say is indistinguishable from bs.)

[ohmwrecker]

btw, ohmwrecker, when you play poker, don't you have to show your cards at some point?

(Not that you have to show them, just that if you don't, what you say is indistinguishable from bs.)

I showed my cards from the get go. You were the one who questioned my hand. My stance was clearly defined and simply stated. I answered the question proposed in the OP.
I didn't start "dancing" until you asked. When defending myself against two or more attackers, I threw out a qualifier to eliminate one of the two. Teysha, as it turns out, was the smarter of the two.
You, on the other hand, have done nothing but avoid and convolute the most simple of positions since your very first response.

[TeyshaBlue]

Sorry dude. I wasn't attacking.

[ohmwrecker]

Sorry dude. I wasn't attacking.

Pardon the language. I am exaggerating a bit. I apologize for the assumptions.

[TeyshaBlue]

Pardon the language. I am exaggerating a bit. I apologize for the assumptions.

Exaggeration in the Political Forum? Unheard of!:lol:toast

[TeyshaBlue]

I showed my cards from the get go. You were the one who questioned my hand. My stance was clearly defined and simply stated. I answered the question proposed in the OP.
I didn't start "dancing" until you asked. When defending myself against two or more attackers, I threw out a qualifier to eliminate one of the two. Teysha, as it turns out, was the smarter of the two.
You, on the other hand, have done nothing but avoid and convolute the most simple of positions since your very first response.

And for the record, the Hole of Wine can think rings around my chihuahua sized brain pan.:downspin:

[Winehole23]

My stance was clearly defined and simply stated. Too simply stated for purposes of a real discussion IMO.

I didn't start "dancing" until you asked. When defending myself against two or more attackers, I threw out a qualifier to eliminate one of the two. Teysha, as it turns out, was the smarter of the two. Thanks for admitting you were being evasive.

BTW, why are you still talking to me, if I've already been eliminated?

You, on the other hand, have done nothing but avoid and convolute the most simple of positions since your very first response.What is so convoluted about saying the constitution protects political speech and the accountability you seek already exists at the ballot box, in the press, and through spontaneously expressed social disapproval?

[clambake]

Oh, I forgot that you are a 9/11 truther (so was the shooter, btw). Since you are a 9/11 truther, go ahead and disregard the first question.

a birther pointing at a truther is gold. lol

[ohmwrecker]

Too simply stated for purposes of a real discussion IMO.
Then why respond in the first place?


Thanks for admitting you were being evasive.
No problemo.


BTW, why are you still talking to me, if I've already been eliminated?
I'm very polite.


What is so convoluted about saying the constitution protects political speech and the accountability you seek already exists at the ballot box, in the press, and through spontaneously expressed social disapproval?
Only that it wasn't relevant to my point when you first brought it up and is still irrelevant to the response I gave to you . . . and if you really believed that we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Winehole23]

Only that it wasn't relevant to my point when you first brought it up and is still irrelevant to the response I gave to you . . . and if you really believed that we wouldn't be having this conversation.Pointing out that significant accountability for irresponsible rhetoric already exists isn't relevant to the question of whether Sarah Palin should be held accountable for what she said?

[DarrinS]

a birther pointing at a truther is gold. lol


A lefty making false accusations -- color me not shocked.

[Winehole23]

I'm very polite.Sorry if I went afoul of that. Srsly

That said, your own characterization of quite reasonable concerns about congressional overreaction as "stupid, afraid and paranoid" was hardly kind or respectful.

[ohmwrecker]

Pointing out that significant accountability for irresponsible rhetoric already exists isn't relevant to the question of whether Sarah Palin should be held accountable for what she said?

It obviously is not significant enough imo. While it is true that the people ultimately decide who should represent them with their votes, and I am reasonably sure that there are enough sane people in America to keep Sarah Palin away from any real power, but that does nothing to hold candidates accountable during a campaign.
Palin depends on the people who support her to attend these rallies where she feeds into their fear , hate and propaganda because she understands that she is not smart or savvy enough to compete in a straight up debate or even a town hall meeting. She plays to the lowest common denominator and by doing so is effecting an incredible amount of support with irresponsible rhetoric and dimwitted agenda which she constantly is trying to wriggle out from under when called out in the media.
Disapprobation doesn't quite cut it when dealing with people who are lacking the self-awareness to stop shooting themselves in the foot and dragging their constituency, which apparently blindly follows, down in the mire with them.

[ohmwrecker]

That said, your own characterization of quite reasonable concerns about congressional overreaction as "stupid, afraid and paranoid" was hardly kind or respectful.

I don't recall saying that . . .

[Winehole23]

Page three...

[Winehole23]

Disapprobation doesn't quite cut it when dealing with people who are lacking the self-awareness to stop shooting themselves in the foot and dragging their constituency, which apparently blindly follows, down in the mire with them.What would cut it, in your view?

If your answer is 'election reform,' please try to be specific. What kind(s) of reform would be effective?

[ohmwrecker]

What would cut it, in your view?

If your answer is 'election reform,' please try to be specific. What kind(s) of reform would be effective?

I was thinking more campaign finance reform. Limiting corporate contributions, equity between the public rally platform and the more legitimate forums and defined restrictions on smear campaigning.

Politicians are always claiming to be about the "issues", but they rarely back it up.

[Winehole23]

I was thinking more campaign finance reform. Limiting corporate contributions, equity between the public rally platform and the more legitimate forums and defined restrictions on smear campaigning. Defined restrictions on political speech, among other things.

[Winehole23]

In other words, the state's interest in what mentally unstable people might do under the influence of inflammatory politicking is so overwhelming, that the right of politicians to speak their mind must be limited by the government. Correct?

[clambake]

A lefty making false accusations -- color me not shocked.

i should have said "cowardly birther".

[ohmwrecker]

Defined restrictions on political speech, among other things.

All I am saying is that the things you say in public about you opponent should, at the very least, be true.

[Winehole23]

All I am saying is that the things you say in public about you opponent should, at the very least, be true.I thought that was what the press was for. We also come equipped with brains of our own to suss out whose speech is trustworthy and who is full of it.

Do you really think some electoral "truth panel" should spare us the trouble of reading and thinking for ourselves?

[ohmwrecker]

In other words, the state's interest in what mentally unstable people might do under the influence of inflammatory politicking is so overwhelming, that the right of politicians to speak their mind must be limited by the government. Correct?

I'm talking about holding the politicians accountable. It's influence is not solely restricted to assassinations. It's clearly a bigger issue. The event in Arizona has just sparked the debate. Why wouldn't you be in favor of more responsible politicking and campaigning? It seems like an idea both sides should be able to get behind.

[Winehole23]

Why wouldn't you be in favor of more responsible politicking and campaigning? I am in favor of it. But I don't think putting free speech on the chopping block is a good solution to the problem, nor do I think the courts would sustain such a solution.

[ohmwrecker]

I thought that was what the press was for. We also come equipped with brains of our own to suss out whose speech is trustworthy and who is full of it.
Please, both sides incessantly complain about the agenda of the press. I don't believe that enough people are given enough exposure to both sides of an issue to make good decisions. Too many people only getting the source material from the same side. If you are on the right, you watch FoxNews because they tell you what you want to hear and blindly support your candidate, same goes for the left and MSNBC.
Take away the power of a candidates unchecked ego and you have truth without agenda. The weak will be exposed without their support system.


Do you really think some electoral "truth panel" should spare us the trouble of reading and thinking for ourselves?
So, do you think someone running for office should be allowed to say anything they choose about their opponents whether it is true or not?

[ohmwrecker]

I am in favor of it. But I don't think putting free speech on the chopping block is a good solution to the problem, nor do I think the courts would sustain such a solution.

Nothing I am talking about comes close to violating free speech.

[Winehole23]

Take away the power of a candidates unchecked ego and you have truth without agenda. The weak will be exposed without their support system.I don't buy it.

So, do you think someone running for office should be allowed to say anything the choose about their opponents whether it is true or not?Yes, but that's not just my opinion. Free political speech is part of our political constitution. That means people can abuse it.

[Winehole23]

Nothing I am talking about comes close to violating free speech.Having defined restrictions on "smears" is a de facto abridgment of free speech, and having an electoral 'truth panels' to police the expression of candidates could lead to more than a few invidious distinctions.

[ohmwrecker]

I don't buy it.
Yes, but that's not just my opinion. Free political speech is part of our political constitution. That means people can abuse it.

All speech is not covered by free speech.

[ohmwrecker]

and having an electoral 'truth panels' to police the expression of candidates could lead to more than a few invidious distinctions.

That's your baby, friendo. I never suggested that.

[Winehole23]

All speech is not covered by free speech.I'm aware of that. But you have yet to show the 'clear and present danger' to public order or the state that would justify restricting political speech.

[Winehole23]

That's your baby, friendo. I never suggested that.You said political candidates oughtn't be allowed to tell lies. How would you prevent them from doing so, friendo?

[ohmwrecker]

I'm aware of that. But you have yet to show the 'clear and present danger' to public order or the state that would justify restricting political speech.

I think that the concern is justifiable. What's wrong with requiring candidates to defend their positions and statements in a public debate balanced with the number of political rallies they organize where there is no accountability.

[ohmwrecker]

You said political candidates oughtn't be allowed to tell lies. How would you prevent them from doing so, friendo?

As I said, they should be required to defend their positions and statements in public forum where they are challenged to substantiate their agendas.

Not in public rallies where they are encouraged to say whatever will whip their constituency into a rabid frenzy.

[Winehole23]

I think that the concern is justifiable.Begging the question.

What's wrong with requiring candidates to defend their positions and statements in a public debate balanced with the number of political rallies they organize where there is no accountability.Not sure I know what you mean. Is it sort of a fairness doctrine for political campaigns, mandating comparable time for rallies and debates?

I don't see how that would necessarily solve anything. Ands I have a hard time seeing how it wouldn't increase the bs ratio (absent some sort of truth panel to keep everyone on the straight and narrow.)

[MannyIsGod]

As I said, they should be required to defend their positions and statements in public forum where they are challenged to substantiate their agendas.

Not in public rallies where they are encouraged to say whatever will whip their constituency into a rabid frenzy.

The problem with this is simply that we as a people don't care enough to find out if what we hear from our leaders is true or not.

[PublicOption]

you know sarah palin's self serving bullshit didn't come off well when foxnews.com doesn't have a link on its homepage.

[Winehole23]

The problem with this is simply that we as a people don't care enough to find out if what we hear from our leaders is true or not.If so, shouldn't the focus be on changing the electorate and the press, rather than trying to compel the politicians by force of law?

[boutons_deux]

"changing the electorate"

The electorate has been disenfranchised by corporate/capitalist ownership of govt. Candidates can't win without dollars from corps and capitalists, and without coverage from the corporate media. eg, tea bagger candidates are already corrupted by corporate money, and are hiring corporate lobbyists as staffers. Change is not possible.

"and the press"

... owned by corporations enslaved to advertising $$ from other corporations. Change is not possible.