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.
Sorry dude. I wasn't attacking.
Pardon the language. I am exaggerating a bit. I apologize for the assumptions.
Exaggeration in the Political Forum? Unheard of!
And for the record, the Hole of Wine can think rings around my chihuahua sized brain pan.
Too simply stated for purposes of a real discussion IMO.
Thanks for admitting you were being evasive.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.
BTW, why are you still talking to me, if I've already been eliminated?
What is so convoluted about saying the cons ution protects political speech and the accountability you seek already exists at the ballot box, in the press, and through spontaneously expressed social disapproval?
a birther pointing at a truther is gold. lol
Then why respond in the first place?
No problemo.
I'm very polite.
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?
A lefty making false accusations -- color me not shocked.
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.
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 cons uency, which apparently blindly follows, down in the mire with them.
Last edited by ohmwrecker; 01-12-2011 at 04:14 PM.
I don't recall saying that . . .
Page three...
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.
Defined restrictions on political speech, among other things.
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 should have said "cowardly birther".
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
There are currently 6 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 6 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
