Reply With Quote
You needn't address anything. Yet you demand we all reply to you.
I'm not trying to avoid it. What specifically should I address?
You needn't address anything. Yet you demand we all reply to you.
There is no one.
No, you got a logically derived range of answers based upon a query constructed with very poor criteria.
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.
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 cons utional ramifications, upon what we feel is an act of extreme foolishness.
Didn't happen. Do I have to remind you, again, that you replied to me?
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.
"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?
Cons utional ramifications? What exactly are you referring to?
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.
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 cons utional protection of same becomes a party to the discussion.
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.
I am talking about accountability. There is nothing to suggest that the cons ution or the bill of rights is in danger.
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.
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 cons ution is an interest here.
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 .
But TX tea baggers failed miserably to expel Jew Straus as House Speaker.
We are now. I need to know who I am having a conversation with before I proceed.
And show you my hand? This is a political forum. I am assuming the role.
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 cons utional annihilator.
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.
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....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.
Well . . . Palin did evoke 911 (as usual) in her response. So maybe she should lead the investigation?
The conceit that your stack management settles or answers anything is amusing.
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.)
Last edited by Winehole23; 01-23-2012 at 10:14 AM. Reason: cunning cowardice
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.
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)
Posting Permissions
