You assume that Obama actually WANTS to get rid of the Patriot Act, a big assumption. He is part of the current power elite and the patriot act is a wonderful tool for maintaining their control over this country.
True story, bro. President Obama will not veto the Patriot Act. One thing both parties agree on, the Patriot act is a great tool for maintaining the status quo of the current power elites.
Hehe, okay. You have to look back that far to find an example of 'both sides' talking violent smack? You would seriously compare us to a time when people owned slaves and women couldn't vote? Hell, why not bring up Aaron Burr? People didn't just TALK smack back then, they KILLED people they disagreed with! That sure proves your point!
Of course, I was talking about more civilized times, like the last fifty years, when such violent rhetoric was frowned upon. But hey, if YOU think its okay, I guess I must be wrong in asking everyone to tone down the violent hate speech.
Just to be clear, I'm sure you don't want anyone to actually carry out those threats, right? I mean, we can all agree that even if it IS okay to threaten violence, actual violence is not called for, right? You ARE unhappy that Giffords was shot, correct, and that was NOT the outcome you were hoping for?
I suspect you are an idiot if you think "suspect" only applies to crimes. You believe a "criminal suspect" is someone who is a known criminal, and also a suspect. I believe "criminal suspect" is the same as "suspected criminal."
The law in that case is against negligence by a property owner. My point was that there needs to be a law on the books for a successful lawsuit, and you have shown nothing to disprove my point. Thanks for bringing up irrelevant tangents, though, they always make a discussion more colorful.
Children writhing on a pike? I'm at work and can't get to youtube, so who exactly are you claiming said that, in what context?
I can only assume that the reason you are not defending the statement that Obama called anyone a redneck is because you realize you can not logically claim what you claimed. I'll consider that statement retracted, to save you the embarrassment of having to admit you were wrong.
Don't be such a pedant bent on "winning" a war of definitions. Your quoting a definition of a word by itself does not negate the meaning of a phrase including the word. Nice try though! The phrase "criminal suspect" is understood to mean someone suspected of a crime. What do YOU think it means?
One example does not invalidate the common knowledge that political discourse has become more violent. And that quote just says that Republicans do not want to help get the country out of the mess they got it into, which is a fair critique, as Republicans stated goal is to obstruct Obama at every turn. He was not calling them rednecks. You are really, really reaching for that false equivalency, aren't you?
Criminal suspect just means a person suspected of a crime, as opposed to being suspected of being an idiot, or a chronic masturbator, or something non-criminal. Is English not your first language?
Over the top much? Yeah, by calling for a reduction in violent political rhetoric, I am moving forward my nefarious liberal plan to remove the right to vote from re3dnecks. Please. Is it really too much to ask that we return to a more civil tone? Even in the nineties, the kind of rhetoric that some now use was considered unacceptable.
When did Obama call anyone stupid redneck white trash?
He is suspected of a crime, making him a criminal suspect until his day in court. Are you really splitting hairs about the use of the words 'criminal suspect' here?
I'm saying that in civil political discourse, we should not be calling for the deaths of our opponents, yes. It shouldn't be forbidden, of course, but we should speak out against such speech. Free speech itself overcomes bad free speech, we don't need to forbid anything.
Okay. I'm less confused, but I am still confused as to why you think I was trolling. I don't think I was saying what you think I was saying, so what do you think I was saying?
Even in other states, "innocent by reason of insanity" means you will be kept in a padded cell and force fed anti-psychotics most of the time. And even in states that allow it, only about 5-10% of people pleading insanity get acquitted that way.
No, what I'm saying is that we should not call our political rivals terrorists and enemies of the state. We should not say they are trying to destroy America. We should not use violent, warlike rhetoric in political discourse. When Sarah Palin uses gunsites to target people she disagrees with, and says things like "lock and load" and "Don't retreat, reload" in reference to fellow politicians, that is dangerous rhetoric. If she doesn't realize that that sort of rhetoric can trigger a crazy person, she should now. People like Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Rush Limbaugh should tone down their political rhetoric.
I'm not saying such speech should be banned of course, but civil society should shun those who use it.
Is it really too much to ask that we all refrain from violent, warlike rhetoric in our political discussions? Barring overwhelming evidence to the contrary, we should all assume that our political opponents are good people working to make America better, even if they have different ideas than we do about how to do that.
Slashdot Mirror
You assume that Obama actually WANTS to get rid of the Patriot Act, a big assumption. He is part of the current power elite and the patriot act is a wonderful tool for maintaining their control over this country.
True story, bro. President Obama will not veto the Patriot Act. One thing both parties agree on, the Patriot act is a great tool for maintaining the status quo of the current power elites.
Hehe, okay. You have to look back that far to find an example of 'both sides' talking violent smack? You would seriously compare us to a time when people owned slaves and women couldn't vote? Hell, why not bring up Aaron Burr? People didn't just TALK smack back then, they KILLED people they disagreed with! That sure proves your point!
Of course, I was talking about more civilized times, like the last fifty years, when such violent rhetoric was frowned upon. But hey, if YOU think its okay, I guess I must be wrong in asking everyone to tone down the violent hate speech.
Just to be clear, I'm sure you don't want anyone to actually carry out those threats, right? I mean, we can all agree that even if it IS okay to threaten violence, actual violence is not called for, right? You ARE unhappy that Giffords was shot, correct, and that was NOT the outcome you were hoping for?
I suspect you are an idiot if you think "suspect" only applies to crimes. You believe a "criminal suspect" is someone who is a known criminal, and also a suspect. I believe "criminal suspect" is the same as "suspected criminal."
It is a common phrase:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22criminal+suspect%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Will you at least admit that, maybe, other people don't read it the same way you do?
The law in that case is against negligence by a property owner. My point was that there needs to be a law on the books for a successful lawsuit, and you have shown nothing to disprove my point. Thanks for bringing up irrelevant tangents, though, they always make a discussion more colorful.
Children writhing on a pike? I'm at work and can't get to youtube, so who exactly are you claiming said that, in what context?
I can only assume that the reason you are not defending the statement that Obama called anyone a redneck is because you realize you can not logically claim what you claimed. I'll consider that statement retracted, to save you the embarrassment of having to admit you were wrong.
Don't be such a pedant bent on "winning" a war of definitions. Your quoting a definition of a word by itself does not negate the meaning of a phrase including the word. Nice try though! The phrase "criminal suspect" is understood to mean someone suspected of a crime. What do YOU think it means?
One example does not invalidate the common knowledge that political discourse has become more violent. And that quote just says that Republicans do not want to help get the country out of the mess they got it into, which is a fair critique, as Republicans stated goal is to obstruct Obama at every turn. He was not calling them rednecks. You are really, really reaching for that false equivalency, aren't you?
Criminal suspect just means a person suspected of a crime, as opposed to being suspected of being an idiot, or a chronic masturbator, or something non-criminal. Is English not your first language?
Over the top much? Yeah, by calling for a reduction in violent political rhetoric, I am moving forward my nefarious liberal plan to remove the right to vote from re3dnecks. Please. Is it really too much to ask that we return to a more civil tone? Even in the nineties, the kind of rhetoric that some now use was considered unacceptable.
When did Obama call anyone stupid redneck white trash?
Are you claiming that someone on that list is a freedom fighting patriot? Who?
He is suspected of a crime, making him a criminal suspect until his day in court. Are you really splitting hairs about the use of the words 'criminal suspect' here?
I'm saying that in civil political discourse, we should not be calling for the deaths of our opponents, yes. It shouldn't be forbidden, of course, but we should speak out against such speech. Free speech itself overcomes bad free speech, we don't need to forbid anything.
Okay. I'm less confused, but I am still confused as to why you think I was trolling. I don't think I was saying what you think I was saying, so what do you think I was saying?
I never claimed it was the same thing. EnderAndrew wants absolute free speech. I was merely pointing out one of the consequences.
Even in other states, "innocent by reason of insanity" means you will be kept in a padded cell and force fed anti-psychotics most of the time. And even in states that allow it, only about 5-10% of people pleading insanity get acquitted that way.
I'm sure it is true. Don't worry about sounding adversarial. This is the Internet. If I had a thin skin, I wouldn't be here.
You aren't a lawyer, are you?
It is a VERY long list. Here's a list of DOZENS of right wing extremist attacks on America going back to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/terror-from-the-right
Newsmax is one of the largest purveyors of over the top, violent, crazy partisan rhetoric.
No, what I'm saying is that we should not call our political rivals terrorists and enemies of the state. We should not say they are trying to destroy America. We should not use violent, warlike rhetoric in political discourse. When Sarah Palin uses gunsites to target people she disagrees with, and says things like "lock and load" and "Don't retreat, reload" in reference to fellow politicians, that is dangerous rhetoric. If she doesn't realize that that sort of rhetoric can trigger a crazy person, she should now. People like Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Rush Limbaugh should tone down their political rhetoric.
I'm not saying such speech should be banned of course, but civil society should shun those who use it.
Is it really too much to ask that we all refrain from violent, warlike rhetoric in our political discussions? Barring overwhelming evidence to the contrary, we should all assume that our political opponents are good people working to make America better, even if they have different ideas than we do about how to do that.
You can not successfully sue someone in civil court for protected speech.
Interesting. My reading of that wiki page does not lead me to the same conclusion.
You are an expert in what sets off people with severe mental illness? Or are you just guessing?
My point is that until his lawyers succeed in an insanity defense, he is a criminal suspect, by definition.