Which is it?

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Isn't a bit like advocating for bestiality and then indicating disgust when you see someone doing it with a horse?

Screw him Pat, he simple wants to make you bring the level of evidence to "his" level of acceptance (which is constantly moving) when it's just not relevant to the real issue.

It's a BS argument and has nothing to do with truth.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

Like the shooter, Palin is someone I don't pay much attention to.

Giggle, giggle . . . It seems to me that you have been paying an inordinate amount of time on the shooter, seeking to show that he was independently insane. Indeed, your very next post focused on such details. You have selected the direct link between Loughner and SP, et al as your straw man. In that way you have avoided discussing the topic that most reasonable people would agree is fitting: Is it appropriate to advocate or suggest violent overthrow of government as a solution to political differences? In light of your MO, it makes little sense for me to do so, but I will again refer you to the question above. It seems like you are not willing to respond to a question that you have not framed.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Fast_Eddie]

Yeah, I'm kinda ticked you won't respond to my, I thought, well reasoned explanation. I'll assume you just don't have any reasonable response.

[mossbacked]

Reynold's article absolutely makes sense and he is fair and balanced in his assessment of the situation.

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Giggle, giggle . . . It seems to me that you have been paying an inordinate amount of time on the shooter, seeking to show that he was independently insane.

Sorry - I misworded that post. Should have read: "Just like the shooter paid little attention to Palin, I've not paid much attention to her...

..or something like that.

I don't believe I've ever said that the shooter was insane. His actions are certainly not rational and if I'm a better on it I'd put money that his attorney would go for an insanity defense (they'd likely do well with it too).

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Indeed, your very next post focused on such details. You have selected the direct link between Loughner and SP, et al as your straw man. In that way you have avoided discussing the topic that most reasonable people would agree is fitting: Is it appropriate to advocate or suggest violent overthrow of government as a solution to political differences? In light of your MO, it makes little sense for me to do so, but I will again refer you to the question above. It seems like you are not willing to respond to a question that you have not framed.

Regards,

D-Ray

I'll respond to it: "Is it appropriate to advocate or suggest violent overthrow of government as a solution to political differences?"

In this country, thank God, there is a peaceful solution such that a "peaceful revolt" can occur on election day. There have been such people, and such groups, throughout the history of this country - anarchists - who have advocated for violence in place of appropriate dissent. They have all been dealt with appropriately by the law.

We do have a Constitution that provides for legal action against those that make such threats. None of the folks mentioned - Palin or whomever - has ever been brought up on charges, tried of convicted for any such offense. So, it appears that their rhetoric was deemed metaphorical, otherwise I suspect that this Justice Department would have moved with due speed to round these folks up.

Do I have an issue with anarchists? Sure. Do I have an issue with those in the political arena who use metaphors in a political campaign? No, and most intelligent folks can tell the difference.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

Yeah, I'm kinda ticked you won't respond to my, I thought, well reasoned explanation. I'll assume you just don't have any reasonable response.

Lots has been flying here. Was it me that you're suggesting missed your post? Which one?

[whell]

Originally Posted by noonereal

Screw him Pat

Please don appropriate protection first.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

I'll respond to it: "Is it appropriate to advocate or suggest violent overthrow of government as a solution to political differences?"

In this country, thank God, there is a peaceful solution such that a "peaceful revolt" can occur on election day. There have been such people, and such groups, throughout the history of this country - anarchists - who have advocated for violence in place of appropriate dissent. They have all been dealt with appropriately by the law.

We do have a Constitution that provides for legal action against those that make such threats. None of the folks mentioned - Palin or whomever - has ever been brought up on charges, tried of convicted for any such offense. So, it appears that their rhetoric was deemed metaphorical, otherwise I suspect that this Justice Department would have moved with due speed to round these folks up.

Do I have an issue with anarchists? Sure. Do I have an issue with those in the political arena who use metaphors in a political campaign? No, and most intelligent folks can tell the difference.

How big a group do you figure the "intelligent folks" who can tell the difference is made up of? 80%, 50% 30%? The problem is that even if it is only 20% who aren't intelligent folks, that still leaves plenty of people to buy into the inflammatory rhetoric of "taking down our enemies."

I'm making a difference between illegal and inadvisable. I've mentioned that Rep. Brady's floated bill is ridiculous. I'm not sure that you can legislate sensibility any more than you can legislate morality. It is, however, fair grounds to suggest that those who use violent rhetoric (and I'm talking about a bit more than using descriptive phrases) should take responsibility for and be held politically responsibly for their pollution of American discourse.

Regards,

D-Ray

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

Please don appropriate protection first.

No offense, but I ain't interested.

Regards,

D-Ray

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

How big a group do you figure the "intelligent folks" who can tell the difference is made up of? 80%, 50% 30%? The problem is that even if it is only 20% who aren't intelligent folks, that still leaves plenty of people to buy into the inflammatory rhetoric of "taking down our enemies."

Regards,

D-Ray

Maybe, but it strains credulity. If this were true, politicians would be dropping in the streets at an alarming rate, and it would have been going on since Washington's day. There have certainly been incidents overtime, but nothing near the rate that your numbers would suggest.