Etiquette for folks 'not taking it the wrong way"

Post Reply New Topic

got your new avatar for you:

Some remarkable quotes from President Obama:

‘If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun’

“Get in Their Faces!”

“I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”

“Hit Back Twice As Hard”

“We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“

“hand to hand combat”

“It’s time to Fight for it.”

“Punish your enemies.”

“I’m itching for a fight.”

mere rhetoric. talk is cheap, but action can be expensive. democratic-types were NOT the ones to actually bring guns to anything. the rightists WERE the gun-toting ones spouting about "the blood of tyrants" and such.



a world of difference between these examples and "reload." and i reserve the right to be angry at disenfranchisement at the hands of folk like tom tancredo and his ilk. the dividing line between decent and indecent, is suggestions of gun violence, i.e. crosshair targets put over specific people's names.



in reference to the gulf spill, any normal person would look at the negligence of Big Petroleum and see red. still nobody is talking about a firing squad for anybody.



still no actual reference to lethal weapons, no talk of "2nd amendment remedies" or such.

ditto. i sense the poster's theme here, that only republicans need to participate in government, that rightists are the only ones that should be allowed to have a say in anything, and that anybody they attack should just lie down and die, i.e., no right of self-defense for anybody but the right.
people in general need to chill and stop using violent imagery in describing their plans for their opponents.

Former dem. congressman Paul E. Kanjorski said about Florida governor Rick Scott

Ya... that sounds more directly violent than anything else I've heard. Xenon here just a few days before the Tuscon shooting seemed to express hope the Rick Scott would be assassinated too

it cuts both ways

I think that a strong figure of speech used occasionally can add a double underline to what is being said; but when strong language is used as often as President Obama uses it, the words then tend to become wasteful, ineffective, and offensive.

And I think that President Obama's frequent, borderline trash talk is unbecoming a national leader, a national leader who is also a Harvard Law School graduate and the father of two beautiful daughters. I think that coarse language is probably better suited for comedians such as the late George Carlin, or perhaps the cartoon character Bart Simpson.

harry truman also used coarse language, frequently overheard in public. shrub also had been heard in public using coarse language. obama is not the only one.

My point is you only have problems when conservatives use course language, guess that's cause you can't tolerate differences of opinion. I got news for you we aren't a dictatorship like you seem to advocate wanting.

you are the one who repeatedly has belittled me for deviating from your wisdom on high.

"Coarse" language? He said "ass" once and it became some giant controversy. He hasn't even approached the level of foul language of Carlin.

I'm trying to get you to stop and think, I'm not trying to silence you. If you want to continue to act the way you are acting, it quite frankly isn't my problem. However, I will tell you my opinion of your behavior and I will be honest about it. I don't think you are stupid, but I do think you are not considering the situation from even a remotely objective standpoint.

And if a left-winger does exactly that in regard to a right-winger, you will be up in arms about it...

So I guess what some people are saying here is that they SUPPORT the use of violent, militaristic rhetoric in political conversations?

Once we get past the knee-jerk reaction that everyone who thinks inciting an armed uprising is a bit much must be "politicising a tragedy", that is.

If that isn't the case, maybe people should say as much, instead of parroting "Stop politicising a tragedy."?

Inuyasha, please realise that a lot of people thought that all that violent idiom was excessive BEFORE some dip-shit capped a Senator. There is no need for it. Forget about the shooting, its not relevant any more. What IS relevant is why American Politicians have to use language that would get you arrested for inciting a riot if you just started shouting it around the place as a civilian. Try standing on a table in your local mall and shouting that you think Politicians should be shot, see what happens.

I think it's irrelevant and that censorship is morally wrong and unconstitutional. Do you think violent movies and video games should be censored?

Well I will when it is quite obvious that they don't know what they are talking about, that doesn't mean I'm going to advocate silencing them. It does mean, I'm going to be quite clear that I think they are full of it.



I'm not going to support Political Correctness, which is really censorship designed to limit or do away with the First Amendment.




Even President Obama has acknowledged that argument is a load of bull. I seriously suggest you stop using an argument that is continuing make liberals look like idiots. However if you want to continue to look like an idiot, feel free.



Maybe we're saying it because you are politicizing a tragedy. Seriously, the facts do not support your position and you are accusing people of being accessories to murder when the evidence actually disproves your claims. If the people being smeared were not public figures, I would expect every media outlet except Fox News would be looking at lawsuits for millions of dollars and those outlets would probably lose.



No, a lot of people tried to come up with anything they could to smear the Tea Party, and try to paint them as dangerous kooks. Wouldn't surprise me if the mainstream media already had the story ready to print in advance where all they had to do was insert the name of the town and the name of the Representative that was shot. That's how dishonest the left wing media is these days.



First people are accusing conservatives and independents of being accessories to murder, then you are saying it isn't relevant. Like hell it isn't relevant.



It's about context, when politicians are using it, they are being figurative, they aren't suggesting people actually shoot someone.

I own and enjoy many violent movies and have an extensive collection of video games. Some of my favourite activities revolve around the discharging of firearms at "the enemy", be it on an HDTV, or with tiny metal men. I believe that censorship in such things should go as far as to steer children (or the vulnerable) away from things they really don't need to be seeing, and that's about it. I often wonder how it is that the Censors themselves, who watch ALL of the "bad" material NEVER rape anyone, or shoot anyone. To the best of my knowledge no censor has EVER gone on a killing spree either, Odd eh, given how much corrupting material they have to watch?

However, I can make a distinction between a fictional entertainment, political gas-bagging, and the need to ACTUALLY SHOOT AT SOMEONE. All that angry shouting about cross-hairs and targets and standing on necks and suchlike is simply excessive. Where I come from, politicians address comments in the third person through an intermediary, just to avoid being rude, using the term "honourable gentleman". That Palin woman isn't AT WAR with anyone, and its simply excessive for her to keep gobbing off about it. Using such language is a little insulting to the people who actually have to fight wars, and have been in them. "We are at war over health-care.*" No, really you aren't. You disagree, Maybe you even strongly disagree. But you aren't "at war." And telling people to start an ARMED UPRISING over it is frankly irresponsible. Starting a civil war (or a regular one) is NOT clever, and should absolutely be a last resort when every other option is exhausted. A LOT of people get to die in an armed uprising, innocent or otherwise. After two of the damn things, one would think that Americans would try and avoid another one. (Yes, the first one was a CIVIL war. Both sides were British until one side lost and the other got to pick who they were going to be.)

Its a bit of a leap to make a link between a recreational activity like video-gaming and inciting political supporters to start a civil war, don't you think?

On an international scale, use of such choice phrases mostly makes the situation worse, especially when it gets used about ALLIED nations. Just saying, it doesn't help. It also simply reinforces the belief that Americans are all violent gun-toting lunatics.

Regardless of my personal feelings about whether such language is wise or appropriate, I absolutely 100% support the right to use it.


Likewise, you can expect your political opponents to be quite clear in their statements that you are full of it.