Violent rhetoric

[JackLuis]

This and the video are more representative of the US than politicians slanging each other.

Og

Thank you Og.

If people paid more attention to what politicians DO and less to what they SAY we'd be a lot better off.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Here are examples of violent rhetoric from a prominent Dem:

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2654749/posts

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), the new chairman of the CBC, told the group IMPACT to expect a bruising fight to secure the president a second term.

It will not be a landslide or an easy victory," Cleaver added. "We're going to have to scrape and battle for every vote we get."

Given time and inclination, I'm sure I can dig up more.

ETA: Okay, herer are some more, although these are more anonymous
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/1...mate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/

 

[Stella_Omega]

Here are examples of violent rhetoric from a prominent Dem:

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2654749/posts

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), the new chairman of the CBC, told the group IMPACT to expect a bruising fight to secure the president a second term.

It will not be a landslide or an easy victory," Cleaver added. "We're going to have to scrape and battle for every vote we get."

Given time and inclination, I'm sure I can dig up more.

"I tell people don't kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus - living fossils - so we will never forget what these people stood for."

- Rush Limbaugh, Denver Post, 12-29-95

"Get rid of the guy. Impeach him, censure him, assassinate him."

- Rep. James Hansen (R-UT), talking about President Clinton

"We're going to keep building the party until we're hunting Democrats with dogs."

- Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), Mother Jones, 08-95

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."

- Ann Coulter, New York Observer, 08-26-02

"We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."

- Ann Coulter, at the Conservative Political Action Conference, 02-26-02

"Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past - I'm not arguing for despotism as a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble - recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin's penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an 'enemy of the people.' The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, 'clan liability.' In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished 'to the ninth degree': that is, everyone in the offender's own generation would be killed and everyone related via four generations up, to the great-great-grandparents, and four generations down, to the great-great-grandchildren, would also be killed."

- John Derbyshire, National Review, 02-15-01

"Two things made this country great: White men & Christianity. The degree these two have diminished is in direct proportion to the corruption and fall of the nation. Every problem that has arisen (sic) can be directly traced back to our departure from God's Law and the disenfranchisement of White men."

- State Rep. Don Davis (R-NC), emailed to every member of the North Carolina House and Senate, reported by the Fayetteville Observer, 08-22-01

 

[sr71plt]

Here are examples of violent rhetoric from a prominent Dem:

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2654749/posts

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), the new chairman of the CBC, told the group IMPACT to expect a bruising fight to secure the president a second term.

It will not be a landslide or an easy victory," Cleaver added. "We're going to have to scrape and battle for every vote we get."

Given time and inclination, I'm sure I can dig up more.

ETA: Okay, herer are some more, although these are more anonymous
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/1...mate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/

And that, dear viewers, is classic Boxlicker. And, no, we aren't making him up (although there's a chance he intentionally is doing this as performance art).

 

[Pure]

somewhat beyond violent rhetoric are actual calls to arms or for the use of them. these have occurred on both sides of the American fence, e.g.

http://thetimes-tribune.com/opinion...-nuts-bolts-from-blue-1.1052739#axzz1A4hLabIP

Kanjorski ponders 'nuts,' bolts from blue

BY RODERICK RANDOM)
Published: October 23, 2010

U.S. Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski sometimes talks now as if he's free to say anything.

The Nanticoke Democrat has finally achieved a certain stature as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee's capital markets subcommittee, having written key parts of the Wall Street reform bill. He apparently chats fairly regularly with President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden or their staffs. He's good friends with former President Bill Clinton, who will campaign locally for him again Tuesday.

Mr. Kanjorski is either confident or comfortable - confident voters will understand the power of his seniority or what he really means when he says something cringe-worthy and re-elect him anyway, or comfortable with possibly losing Nov. 2 and wanting to go out on his terms. [...]

This week Mr. Kanjorski told The Times-Tribune editorial board [etc.]
[...]

This was followed by a reference to Rick Scott, the Republican candidate for Florida governor, who was ousted in 1997 as head of the giant health care company Columbia/HCA, amid the nation's largest Medicare and Medicaid fraud scandal. The company paid $1.7 billion in fines and civil settlements.

"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he's running for governor of Florida. He's a millionaire and a billionaire. He's no hero. He's a damn crook. It's just we don't prosecute big crooks."

 

[DeeZire]

Here are examples of violent rhetoric from a prominent Dem:

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2654749/posts

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), the new chairman of the CBC, told the group IMPACT to expect a bruising fight to secure the president a second term.

It will not be a landslide or an easy victory," Cleaver added. "We're going to have to scrape and battle for every vote we get."

Given time and inclination, I'm sure I can dig up more.

ETA: Okay, herer are some more, although these are more anonymous
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/1...mate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/

Box, in your quoted example, there is no demonization of the opponent. Notice he says "we're going to have to scrape and battle...". He's telling the dems what they can expect from the other side. Pure's example is much more on target (oops) when it comes to hate speech. At least the guy from Florida who's the recipient of the threat deserves scorn, although embezzlement is not a capital offense subject to the death penalty. In his case, "lock him up and throw away the key" would have been an appropriate response.

I think this is another aspect of political discourse we're missing. Obama is being demonized for wanting everyone to have access to healthcare. GW Bush was demonized for leading our country to war under false pretenses (an action that lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths.) I see a big difference between the justification for the demonization. According to current Right Wing talking points, if Jesus Christ Himself popped up on MSNBC, exhorting the benefits of universal healthcare and ending hunger in America, he'd be dismissed as a radical socialist. Then those same Right Wing pundits would go to church on Sunday and spend two hours honoring the (socialist) teachings of Jesus Christ.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Box, in your quoted example, there is no
demonization of the opponent. Notice he says "we're going to have to scrape and battle...". He's telling the dems what they can expect from the other side. Pure's example is much more on target (oops) when it comes to hate speech. At least the guy from Florida who's the recipient of the threat deserves scorn, although embezzlement is not a capital offense subject to the death penalty. In his case, "lock him up and throw away the key" would have been an appropriate response.

I think this is another aspect of political discourse we're missing. Obama is being demonized for wanting everyone to have access to healthcare. GW Bush was demonized for leading our country to war under false pretenses (an action that lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths.) I see a big difference between the justification for the demonization. According to current Right Wing talking points, if Jesus Christ Himself popped up on MSNBC, exhorting the benefits of universal healthcare and ending hunger in America, he'd be dismissed as a radical socialist. Then those same Right Wing pundits would go to church on Sunday and spend two hours honoring the (socialist) teachings of Jesus Christ.

"..a bruising fight.." and using "battle" as a verb, rather than a word such as "compete" or "contend," sounds pretty violent. Did you look at the link? You must have, because you are citing part of it, but you are omitting what is said about Sarah Palin. Here it is again, in case you missed it.
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10...mer-2000-2010/

I know your low opinion of Michelle Malkin, but she has just collected some examples here, much as Stella did, except these are more recent.

 

[cloudy]

"..a bruising fight.." and using "battle" as a verb, rather than a word such as "compete" or "contend," sounds pretty violent. Did you look at the link? You must have, because you are citing part of it, but you are omitting what is said about Sarah Palin. Here it is again, in case you missed it.
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10...mer-2000-2010/

I know your low opinion of Michelle Malkin, but she has just collected some examples here, much as Stella did, except these are more recent.

Once again, Box clearly demonstrates how clueless he is.

As if we needed yet another example.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Once again, Box clearly demonstrates how clueless he is.

As if we needed yet another example.

Once again, when the usual suspects run out of logic and reason, they resort to personal insults.

 

[Handley_Page]

This and the video are more representative of the US than politicians slanging each other.

Og

The cynic might find this an impossible task in England, but it does restore faith in the people but not politicians.

 

[sr71plt]

Once again, when the usual suspects run out of logic and reason, they resort to personal insults.

Hmmm, no. Box. You ran out of logic and reason before most anyone else here. What you offered up as volatile incitement rhetoric from the left was ridiculous untargetted pablum that only emphasizes that what's coming from the two sides isn't any where close to being equal in intensity and nastiness.

Your postings were a joke. It would have been funny if you had meant them to be that.

 

[cloudy]

Once again, when the usual suspects run out of logic and reason, they resort to personal insults.

Oh, get over yourself. You've always been absolutely clueless, your "evidence" is nothing even close, and you consistently miss the point of most threads. Everyone that posts here with any regularity knows this. I used to think it was sheer denial of reality; now I'm pretty sure it goes bone deep.

 

[amicus]

I want to remind readers on this forum that it is a mere handful of hard left activists using psycho babble that confuses so many issues.

Violent speech, hate speech, all straw man arguments by verbose progressives who think they can just 'talk' us out of our freedoms and individual rights.

It was the King of England being address here:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --

Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world....

~~~

For the past century, Progressives have been gradually eliminating individual freedom and 'talking' us into accepting more and more restrictions on our lives.

Their 'mild' and polite rhetoric is of the most vicious of all as it attempts to persuade one to give up individual liberty in exchange for a greater good, such as socialized medicine, Obama care, a complete and utter fraud and then they whine when we object and the language we use.

35 years ago I wrote a small political broadside, "A Call to Converntion, A Call to Arms""

To answer a call to arms, be it in 1776 or today, you first of all need the 'arms', guns, weapons, the best and most destructive you can manage.

Secondly, you need to understand that the politically correctly couched ban on violent speech is intended to disarm you.

The individual right to bear arms existed in English Law before America and the reason was so that citizens could defend themselves against government and other criminals.

When someone smiles and says they are going to take 15 % of your paycheck and guarantees that they will give you a pension; that is the use of force and coercion as you are offered no choice in the matter, no choice in the plan, no choice on when you retire, no choice on the amount of your benefit, no choices at all and prison if you refuse to pay.

That is worthy, think you not, of violent verbal resistance, and if necessary, the use of force.

But then, hell, I only have the Declaration to back me up....let's watch avidly what the Progressives whine is their justification.



Amicus

 

[Boxlicker101]

Hmmm, no. Box. You ran out of logic and reason before most anyone else here. What you offered up as volatile incitement rhetoric from the left was ridiculous untargetted pablum that only emphasizes that what's coming from the two sides isn't any where close to being equal in intensity and nastiness.

Your postings were a joke. It would have been funny if you had meant them to be that.

Given time, I can find a lot more and a lot worse. The media, with their Liberal bias, tends to cover for Libs who make comments like those we are addressing, but they can be ferretted out anyhow. Here is something by Keith Olbermann and the Daily Kos:

http://www.olbermannwatch.com/

Note the use of the targets and the phrases "behind enemy lines" and "targeting strategy."

I will dig up more when I have the time.

 

[Pure]

note to ami: freedom

ami For the past century, Progressives have been gradually eliminating individual freedom and 'talking' us into accepting more and more restrictions on our lives.
===
it's repeated endlessly by the right, but it's untrue. the general pattern and trend, since the constituion was set in place in 1789 is--excepting in major war periods: civil, wwii-- increasing freedom of the individual by any reasonable set of criteria. i pick a few examples from hundreds.**

the 1789 constitution allowed slavery. the 13th and 14th amendments, *greatly increasing the power of the central gov't, as well as federal supporting legislation were necessary to give freedom to slaves and their descendants. i suppose, however, you'd say the whites lost the freedom to have slaves.

the early days of the republic did not regulate banks much. it's the Federal Reserve etc. that insures savings, making us free to keep them. i suppose you'd say that bank lost freedom to be crooked, and the depositers lost freedom to lose their savings.

the right of women to vote was secured by the 19th amendment, ca. 1920. most of us would say that women voting and in federal offices was a gain. you would no doubt say she's lost the freedom to stay at home and have babies (which actually, she hasn't). or maybe it's men who've lost freedom--to decide what's best for the emotional 'second sex.'

the early days had laws against blasphemy. now there are no sanctions against atheist invective. but i suppose you'd say that atheists lost the freedom to go to jail for mouthing off.

it was only in 1965 that Griswold v. Connecticutt asserted that individuals had a fundamental right of privacy, including of their bodies. that included being able to buy a condom or diaphragmn and apply/insert it. of course, from your side, women lost the freedom to be charged for having immoral purposes, and avoiding the duty to bear children through accessing diaphragms and similar items.

there are problems of course with credit agencies, the internet, and the 'national security state' (which the right applauds, since its setup). but much of the loss of privacy is to private or non government entities, e.g. credit agencies. your beloved, 'national security state' has trampled on privacy and liberty quite intensively since the Bush days, and 9-11.
hopefully, these problems reflect the problem i already mentioned. that in war, freedoms get trampled because the public fears the enemy acting from within (which indeed it can do, in some cases.). if there's permanent 'war', e.g. forever against islam, then indeed the general US pattern of gain in freedom will be broken. oddly, one never hears from the right about most evident problem, including the most obvious intrusions on personal liberty and security.

in sum, lots of freedoms depend on a central authority. lacking that, those in many localities are subject to sectional and religious prejudices, in a word, local majority tyranny-- as, famously, the blacks in Birmingham Alabama, until the 60s, were compelled to sit in the designated 'black' portion of the lunch counter.

---
**other alleged 'freedoms' from early days that have vanished, include the right to buy tainted meat, and adulterated drugs. the right to attend a medical school with no labs, that's entirely a sham, the right to have your teeth pulled by an unqualifed dentist, the right to work in coal mines withou safety regulations, and so on.

 

[sr71plt]

Given time, I can find a lot more and a lot worse. The media, with their Liberal bias, tends to cover for Libs who make comments like those we are addressing, but they can be ferretted out anyhow. Here is something by Keith Olbermann and the Daily Kos:

http://www.olbermannwatch.com/

Note the use of the targets and the phrases "behind enemy lines" and "targeting strategy."

I will dig up more when I have the time.

Until you do, you haven't. Is that simple enough for you to understand?

And remember, we're talking about equal efforts by the left and the right, which means you have a whole hell of a lot digging to do. I'll be happy to save your place at the table for you, but I fear hell will have frozen over before you come back with a equal collection of rhetoric pushing hate and violence, and especially individually targetted.

 

[xssve]

I dont agree there are negative emotions. Emotions are emotions. You feel what you feel.

The desire to inflict pain and suffering on others is a negative emotion, assuming they aren't into it - wanting to commit a crime is a negative emotion, hatred of others for simply being "different" is a negative emotion, hatred, basically, is a negative emotion - in this case, suppression works, while acting out, in speech or otherwise, can turn it into an obsession.

A jaundiced view of the Jews for example was exaggerated and exacerbated, and eventually escalated into mass murder - lot of people don't care for Jews, or Blacks, or gays, or whomever, for whatever reason, as you say, you feel what you feel, but allowing it to spread and become violent is not a positive thing.

 

[xssve]

Until you do, you haven't. Is that simple enough for you to understand?

And remember, we're talking about equal efforts by the left and the right, which means you have a whole hell of a lot digging to do. I'll be happy to save your place at the table for you, but I fear hell will have frozen over before you come back with a equal collection of rhetoric pushing hate and violence, and especially individually targetted.

And, these are not a handful of lunatic fringe lefties leftover from the sixties, these are people with media influence and a lot of money behind them.

The left pretty much is the center anymore, 'cause the far right has gone completely off the deep end and is dragging the center right down with it.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
Given time, I can find a lot more and a lot worse. The media, with their Liberal bias, tends to cover for Libs who make comments like those we are addressing, but they can be ferretted out anyhow. Here is something by Keith Olbermann and the Daily Kos:

http://www.olbermannwatch.com/

Note the use of the targets and the phrases "behind enemy lines" and "targeting strategy."

I will dig up more when I have the time.

Until you do, you haven't. Is that simple enough for you to understand?

And remember, we're talking about equal efforts by the left and the right, which means you have a whole hell of a lot digging to do. I'll be happy to save your place at the table for you, but I fear hell will have frozen over before you come back with a equal collection of rhetoric pushing hate and violence, and especially individually targetted.

Well, if that's all it takes, you're on. Here is a list Stella posted, which goes back more than 15 years. Let's see how I do using your criteria:

"I tell people don't kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus - living fossils - so we will never forget what these people stood for."

- Rush Limbaugh, Denver Post, 12-29-95

This does not target anybody. This just refers to a Liberals as a group.

"Get rid of the guy. Impeach him, censure him, assassinate him."

- Rep. James Hansen (R-UT), talking about President Clinton

Okay, here you have one. See below.

"We're going to keep building the party until we're hunting Democrats with dogs."

- Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), Mother Jones, 08-95

Once again, this does not target anybody, just Dems in general.

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."

- Ann Coulter, New York Observer, 08-26-02

This is a reference to a building or a corporation, not an individual.

"We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."

- Ann Coulter, at the Conservative Political Action Conference, 02-26-02

She is saying we ought to execute traitors as a warning to other would-be traitors.

"Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past - I'm not arguing for despotism as a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble - recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin's penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an 'enemy of the people.' The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, 'clan liability.' In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished 'to the ninth degree': that is, everyone in the offender's own generation would be killed and everyone related via four generations up, to the great-great-grandparents, and four generations down, to the great-great-grandchildren, would also be killed."

- John Derbyshire, National Review, 02-15-01

This is an expression of disdain for the Clinton family and a description of how despots used to deal with troublemakers. No violent rhetoric of any kind.

"Two things made this country great: White men & Christianity. The degree these two have diminished is in direct proportion to the corruption and fall of the nation. Every problem that has arisen (sic) can be directly traced back to our departure from God's Law and the disenfranchisement of White men."

- State Rep. Don Davis (R-NC), emailed to every member of the North Carolina House and Senate, reported by the Fayetteville Observer, 08-22-01

There is no violent rhetoric at all here.

As for the only valid example you have, here is its equivalent, and this was posted by Pure:

Kanjorski ponders 'nuts,' bolts from blue

BY RODERICK RANDOM)
Published: October 23, 2010

U.S. Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski sometimes talks now as if he's free to say anything.

The Nanticoke Democrat has finally achieved a certain stature as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee's capital markets subcommittee, having written key parts of the Wall Street reform bill. He apparently chats fairly regularly with President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden or their staffs. He's good friends with former President Bill Clinton, who will campaign locally for him again Tuesday.

Mr. Kanjorski is either confident or comfortable - confident voters will understand the power of his seniority or what he really means when he says something cringe-worthy and re-elect him anyway, or comfortable with possibly losing Nov. 2 and wanting to go out on his terms. [...]

This week Mr. Kanjorski told The Times-Tribune editorial board [etc.]
[...]

This was followed by a reference to Rick Scott, the Republican candidate for Florida governor, who was ousted in 1997 as head of the giant health care company Columbia/HCA, amid the nation's largest Medicare and Medicaid fraud scandal. The company paid $1.7 billion in fines and civil settlements.

"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he's running for governor of Florida. He's a millionaire and a billionaire. He's no hero. He's a damn crook. It's just we don't prosecute big crooks."

Keep in mind, this was a member of Congress referring to the man who was elected gov. of FL. He has never been convicted of anything and is, therefore, presumed innocent of any crime.

That should do it, and now I have to get back to writing, which is a lot more fun than squabbling here.

 

[amicus]

ami For the past century, Progressives have been gradually eliminating individual freedom and 'talking' us into accepting more and more restrictions on our lives.
===
it's repeated endlessly by the right, but it's untrue. the general pattern and trend, since the constituion was set in place in 1789 is--excepting in major war periods: civil, wwii-- increasing freedom of the individual by any reasonable set of criteria. i pick a few examples from hundreds.**

the 1789 constitution allowed slavery. the 13th and 14th amendments, *greatly increasing the power of the central gov't, as well as federal supporting legislation were necessary to give freedom to slaves and their descendants. i suppose, however, you'd say the whites lost the freedom to have slaves.

the early days of the republic did not regulate banks much. it's the Federal Reserve etc. that insures savings, making us free to keep them. i suppose you'd say that bank lost freedom to be crooked, and the depositers lost freedom to lose their savings.

the right of women to vote was secured by the 19th amendment, ca. 1920. most of us would say that women voting and in federal offices was a gain. you would no doubt say she's lost the freedom to stay at home and have babies (which actually, she hasn't). or maybe it's men who've lost freedom--to decide what's best for the emotional 'second sex.'

the early days had laws against blasphemy. now there are no sanctions against atheist invective. but i suppose you'd say that atheists lost the freedom to go to jail for mouthing off.

it was only in 1965 that Griswold v. Connecticutt asserted that individuals had a fundamental right of privacy, including of their bodies. that included being able to buy a condom or diaphragmn and apply/insert it. of course, from your side, women lost the freedom to be charged for having immoral purposes, and avoiding the duty to bear children through accessing diaphragms and similar items.

there are problems of course with credit agencies, the internet, and the 'national security state' (which the right applauds, since its setup). but much of the loss of privacy is to private or non government entities, e.g. credit agencies. your beloved, 'national security state' has trampled on privacy and liberty quite intensively since the Bush days, and 9-11.
hopefully, these problems reflect the problem i already mentioned. that in war, freedoms get trampled because the public fears the enemy acting from within (which indeed it can do, in some cases.). if there's permanent 'war', e.g. forever against islam, then indeed the general US pattern of gain in freedom will be broken. oddly, one never hears from the right about most evident problem, including the most obvious intrusions on personal liberty and security.

in sum, lots of freedoms depend on a central authority. lacking that, those in many localities are subject to sectional and religious prejudices, in a word, local majority tyranny-- as, famously, the blacks in Birmingham Alabama, until the 60s, were compelled to sit in the designated 'black' portion of the lunch counter.

---
**other alleged 'freedoms' from early days that have vanished, include the right to buy tainted meat, and adulterated drugs. the right to attend a medical school with no labs, that's entirely a sham, the right to have your teeth pulled by an unqualifed dentist, the right to work in coal mines withou safety regulations, and so on.

~~~

Pure, again you disappoint me with your obfuscations. The issue of slavery was furiously debated in the writing of the Constitution; Southern agricultural interests who had built an economy on slavery would not agree to abolish it and without their participation there would be no Union. The same holds true with the Emancipation of Women, widely debated and discussed, but not enough votes and again, the ratification of the Constitution would have failed.

A National Bank, a Federal Bank, the stability of the Monetary system, had to transition from each individual Colony with different currencies to a Federal Currency, with one set of standards applying to all.

With the tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of rules and regulations supposedly insuring the safety of products and services and working conditions, even with all that, products are recalled, deaths occur on the job and you have the misguided belief that control and regulation solves everything; it solves nothing, merely adds another layer of bureaucracy, higher costs of doing business, and eventually, industry leaving the US because the business atmosphere has fouled.

The entire purpose of trade, business, is to make money by suppying a needed good or service; it requires a huge investment at the outset and no rational person would risk that initial investment or the continuation of the business by producing inferior or unsafe goods or services. What ever it is in your mind and that of others who thinks regulaton sets standards can only be an utopian theory as government workers are hired to follow written statutes, most haven't a clue as to what they are regulating and could care less. They are government workers, happy to be so and will do anything to keep their jobs.

There is where the true danger lies, as in the MMS, bribed and corrupted government officials paid to stay away from any inspections. Left to their own devices, Energy companies would never risk a catastrophic accident that would destroy their business and the goodwill they hae worked years to establish.

You just don't get it, I understand that, but others will see the clean and pure reason and ratonality of the free market place and in spite of you will always side with freedom, not a controlled and regulated life.

Amicus

 

[Stella_Omega]

The biggest difference I see between my list and bachmann's list is that mine are all public figures and hers is private citizens-- many of whom are publicly displaying their anger but not as authority figures.

You might not find much difference between Rush Limbaugh casually joking about "not killing all" the libs and someone who feels targeted by him wishing Limbaugh would die before he does any more damage-- such as myself, I freely admit it, but I am not a public authority, pundit, or leader. I don't take commercial sponsers' money while telling "kill the cons" jokes. I am not a politician that paint's rifle sights over other politician's faces.

I know-- you will not understand the difference, Box.

 

[DeeZire]

...Given time, I can find a lot more and a lot worse....

Box, the point you're missing is the issue of mindset. In a poll taken yesterday, 26 D's and 30 R's active in Congress were asked to characterized the quality of today's political discourse. 88% of Dems thought it was poor/terrible. 27% of the GOP thought it was poor/terrible. That's totally understandable. The Republican mindset is to demonize Liberals, question their patriotism, and portray the government as driven by an evil agenda of socialism and tyranny. (Amicus comes to mind.) The Liberal mindset is to offer ways to level the playing field, so that all citizens can have a reasonable chance at striving for the American dream. The Libs quote science, the Cons reject science. The Libs offer hope, the Cons dispense fear. Granted, these are generalizations, but they illustrate the competing mindsets that divide the two sides.

I'd suggest you take a step back and analyze what you're seeing on Fox, or wherever you get your news. Are the pols talking to the issues, or obscuring the issues with rhetoric designed to instill fear? Can you put your author hat on for a moment and recognize Frank Luntz' handiwork, ("public option" versus "government takeover") or does it fly right over your head?

Here's a blurb about Jessy Kelly, Gifford's Tea Party opponent in the last election. His whole shtick was based on demonizing Giffords and the US Government. He had no solutions to our problems, other than implementation of the "Fair Tax" - the one that lowers the tax burden on the rich and raises the tax burden on the working class. It may have been the Fair Tax that lost him the election, since many voters seem to take the whole "evil liberal" thing as normal. (It was the Fair Tax that convince my GF not to vote for him.) That in itself is an indictment of the quality of political discourse today - and a nod to Frank Luntz's expertise in turning politics into a life or death struggle with his clever use of wordplay designed to manipulate the listener.

The Kelly campaign repeatedly demonized Giffords, and liberals in general, as authoritarian "tyrants" who "spit in your face every day" and try to "tell you how much salt to eat." In one interview, Kelly told conservative radio host Mark Levin that "It's time for them to be afraid of us," and "It's time to engage the enemy." Radio and television ads from an outside group portrayed Giffords' opposition to Arizona's controversial immigration law as proof that she didn't "want us to protect ourselves" from Mexican "thugs" along the border. In the Eighth Congressional District of Arizona, conservatives sought to convince voters that they were choosing not between two different well-intentioned candidates, but between American prosperity and a woman determined to destroy their country.

Now, compare this with the real issues: The Bush administration started (but didn't finish) two wars, ran up the deficit, crashed the economy, bailed out Wall Street with taxpayer money, and then handed the mess to Obama. Obama and the Dems were then tasked with fixing a broken country while simultaneously repairing a dysfunctional healthcare system that leaves tens of millions of American citizens with no options for medical treatment. In the midst of their efforts, they're accused of trying to destroy the country. WTF? George Orwell would be so proud.

 

[Stella_Omega]

In one interview, Kelly told conservative radio host Mark Levin that "It's time for them to be afraid of us,"

Like I say, if you talk the gun talk, you walk the gun walk-- sooner or later. if you "make people afraid of us" they will remember that fear when something you've threatened them with actually happens.

And probably blame you. Which of course isn't fair, right, since you only threatened them, you didn't actually do it?

Ooookay.

 

[xssve]

I dont agree there are negative emotions. Emotions are emotions. You feel what you feel.

Let me simplify that even further - does the average person like a happy ending or an unhappy one?

 

[rgraham666]

Over at my favorite poltical site these days we call the efforts of those trying to show that the 'Left' is just as bad as the 'Right' 'The Magical Balance Fairy.'

It's a site run by a man of avowed conservative principles.