Tea Party Responsible for shooting?

Again, a comment out of context in which I have no idea who the audience was or how the comment was prefaced. It could have been a one-time stupid thing to say. I really don't know. You have to admit though, people like Palin that incorporate "Don't retreat, reload" into every speech is qualitatively different than Obama saying something dumb once at some undetermined venue. Maybe you know where he said it and can shed some light on his comment in context.

 

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.” Sometime in June 2008.

 

On your first line, we agree - God forbid we agree on anything. Aside from that, he lost because he was an idiot. You last line is malarkey. My guess is that for every Rep you can show, we can show 2 dems. However, regardless of the quantities, it is definitely not limited to one side.

"If they bring a knife, We'll bring a gun" - This fellow still has the Dems support.
Accused our troops of engaging in "cold-blooded murder and war crimes" in Haditha, Iraq, on Nov. 19, 2005 - This fellow maintained the Dems support.
He claimed that the war in Iraq is "lost" in 2007 - This fellow still has the Dems support.
He drew the target map for Obama - This fellow still has the Dems support.
The DA in charge of the case accuses Palin of causing the shootings in Tuscon - This fellow still has the Dems support.
Said the Republican health care plan is to have citizens not get sick, or if that doesn't work, "die quickly." - This fellow maintained the Dems support.

 

Let a Lib talk long enough & they'll hang themself (this is not, I repeat, not a call to hang any Lib).

 

So here we go again, I made no mention of Mrs Palin or anyone else What I said was if you want freedom of speach then you have to accept responsability for your words lets put that into plain english Dont make stupid statements (Ie the Gun/Knife) dont cry wolf, dont encourage others to go out and commit crimes
What some of you have to remember that people in the limelight such as politicians/tv/radio personalities/Churchmen have a responsability to those who listen to them (and the wider community) as some people will take what they say as the literal truth and not all those who listen are shall we say compleatly on planet earth
Therfore yes Mrs Palin needs to sometimes think before she speaks as does President Obama as do a host of others

 

I never said that you said anything about Palin. That was used as an example - of what I consider common ordinary metaphors in general use in this country and fall under out first amendment freedom as well as the gun/knife. God forbid that we ever lose the freedom to talk like that or suffer any consequences from doing so. That is exactly why they put in that amendment and is absolutely not the same as yelling fire in a theater. You can never ever remove all language to the point where no one is ever offended/violated/aggravated by anything. I am pretty sure that includes encouraging someone to commit a crime, but it does not include libel or threats

 

I think that the point that needs to be reiterated here is that a thoughtless, stupid, over the top, inappropriate, remark whatever you want to call it, made by candidate Barack Obama to a small room of wealthy donors is in no way equivalent to some one like Palin speaking to large crowds at stop after stop and telling them not to "retreat but reload". It is simply a falsely equivalent argument to believe that the two are going to have an equal impact on the groups they are addressing.

 

I submit that what you refer to as a "thoughtless, stupid, over the top, inappropriate remark" may be viewed by many as violent rhetoric. Perhaps many people would deem that as a call to arms. But, is it so? Who knows? More importantly, who is to judge? In the U.S., Obama has the right to speak his mind even though his remarks may be thoughtless, stupid, etc. I certainly wouldn't want to deny him nor anyone else that right.

 

Or maybe a leader, who is talking to a group of followers who believe in the words the leader says and are so reverent of him that they relish the opportunity just to be close to him and are devoted enough to him to actually give him money so he can achieve his goals, should be extra careful with his words so they aren't perceived as a call to violence.

Or maybe it just depends upon what letter they have after their name on the ballot.

 

The only reason you have a problem with "retreat but reload" is because Palin said it.
The main difference being wealthy? It made it to the news. How much more public do you want it?
As for their comments, I have no problem with either. They are common everyday vernacular having zero impact on normal people. Removing them will have a larger impact than trying to be PC for the very few.

 

I doubt that many people would deem any of the remarks from either side as a call to arms but certainly a small handful of people just may take them exactly that way. The odds of reaching that small handful of people that may take the remarks as a call to arms increases dramatically when you take the violent rhetoric out of a small room of political donors and saturate large crowd after large crowd day after day I suspect. And that is my point. The impact of a one-time dumb remark isn't nearly the same as a constant drumbeat of the same gun metaphors spoken day in and day out across the country to large crowds of people. Can you agree on that point or do you believe the impact is pretty much the same?

 

Dr Moen, why would BO make a stmt to a "small room of wealthy donors" that he wouldn't make in full view of the public?

 

Again, you believe that both situations, Obama using gun metaphors in front of a small group of donors, and Palin repeating the same type of rhetoric to crowd after crowd acrosss the country is actually going to have the same impact? Not bloody likely!

 

That is your opinion. The VAST majority of us believe otherwise and that is not an opinion.

You keep calling the right a "radical fringe". Your offending them is of no consequence. But their offending you and your cohorts means we are wrong. Yep! Really logical.

BTW, by not worrying about the normal people and trying to help the rest is exactly how Illinois went bankrupt. It did not take long before the normal people were in the minority and those being helped were (are) the majority. Think about that before you say I am wrong.

 

I can't agree with that point, Moen. A speaker may be addressing only a group of several people, but if he reaches just that one person who snaps, that's enough. Likewise, if the speaker is addressing a crowd of 10,000, but only reaches one, well it's the same difference. However, is the speaker really to blame? I may drill it in your head day after day to kill, kill, kill... but whether or not you do it is entirely up to you. U.S. Marines are taught to kill, but they don't do it indiscriminately.

 

All the comments are broadcast across the national media so millions her the comments anyway regardless of how small the crowd is.

 

You cannot throw out statements without articulating what you mean by those statements and expect me to try and figure out what you are trying to say. Here is a little help:

Write in complete sentences. Don't try and include everyone else's opinion when you really can't know them. Speak for yourself. Don't use words like 'them", "they", "we", "us" when you can identify who you are talking about instead. It really makes what you write confusing. Limit your posts to as few thoughts as possible and expound on them instead of flopping around like a fresh caught fish on the bottom of an aluminum boat on a hot day.

 

So what you believe is that the chances of reaching the one guy that may snap is the same no matter if violent rhetoric is made once to a small group and some other violent rhetoric is repeated again and again to crowds that number in the tens of thousands. Do I have that right? So the odds of reaching that one guy is the same in a room of like 600 people (assuming they all heard it) as it is for crowds that number probably in the hundreds of thousands when the rhetoric is used again and again? Are you really saying that? Just want to be clear on this point.

I was not blaming the speaker. I was talking simple odds.

P.S. U.S. Marines have killed indiscriminately many times. But that is hardly the point.

Examples:
Former Marine Testifies to Atrocities in Iraq
The Haditha Killings — U.S. Marines committed WAR CRIMES of unfathomable proportions!
US Marines on trial for Iraq atrocity - Middle East, World - The
Genocide in South Vietnam: U.S. Intensifies Atrocities

But again, not really the point.

 

It only matters if the nut is in the crowd of three or three-hundred-thousand. I think murderer Timothy McVeigh would still have done what he did regardless of whether he was watching the news coverage of Waco everyday (which he was) along with tens of millions of other people or if he was influenced by the small sect at Elohim City (which he was, also). It depends on his predisposition.

No, it isn't the point. I'm not going to second-guess the actions of Marines in a war-time setting. If certain Marines committed atrocities, then they should be held accountable individually. There's no way you can tell me the Marine Corps inspires, condones or encourages atrocities.

 

What I see from a number of these posts is that some of you believe that a person shoudnt be held responsible for actions carried out in response to there rhetoric but they should if they cried "Fire" in a crowded theater Were exactly do you draw the line ? Is it ok to exhort people to commit crimes? or how about suicide? How about telling people it is ok to hate someone because of the colour of there skin, there religiouse faith or even (Heavens above) there Political beliefs!!