• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

WOW... Another example of political rhetoric inciting violence

X Factor said:
Honestly, CC I get that Malkin can be inflammatory. In this case, however, that list would never even have been compiled if the right hadn't been forced to defend itself in the first place.
Click to expand...

So, are you suggesting that there is no hateful rhetoric that comes from the right?

And defending themselves falls into the "tit-for-tat" equation which only demonstrates that one side is just as bad as the other. Whenever you go that route, you prove that point.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I disagree. I am saying the same thing you are, just in a more concise way.
Click to expand...

Wait...now I'm confused. You disagree that I think the point is a relevant one, but you're saying the same thing as me? Or you disagree with my stance that it shows the amazing hypocrisy of those claiming "hateful rhetoric" is connected to the tragedy at all, but you're saying the same thing as me?

I don't quite understand how you disagree...and are saying the same thing as me.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
So, are you suggesting that there is no hateful rhetoric that comes from the right?
Click to expand...
I don't know that I agree with your characterization that it's necessarily "hateful", but I understand what you mean and do not deny there is...uh...strong language used by both sides

And defending themselves falls into the "tit-for-tat" equation which only demonstrates that one side is just as bad as the other. Whenever you go that route, you prove that point.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call it tit for tat, more like self defense.
 
Zyphlin said:
Wait...now I'm confused. You disagree that I think the point is a relevant one, but you're saying the same thing as me? Or you disagree with my stance that it shows the amazing hypocrisy of those claiming "hateful rhetoric" is connected to the tragedy at all, but you're saying the same thing as me?

I don't quite understand how you disagree...and are saying the same thing as me.
Click to expand...

I disagree that you disagree with me based on the fact that I am saying the same thing as you. If you disagree with me about that, then you disagree with yourself... which I doubt you do. Everything you said I agree with. So your disagreement with me makes no sense... so I disagreed with you doing it.

I hope that is clear. :2razz:
 
X Factor said:
I don't know that I agree with your characterization that it's necessarily "hateful", but I understand what you mean and do not deny there is...uh...strong language used by both sides
Click to expand...

Well, we might disagree on the intensity of the rhetoric, but it seems like we agree in principle.

I wouldn't call it tit for tat, more like self defense.
Click to expand...

I would not. What are they defending?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
So, are you suggesting that there is no hateful rhetoric that comes from the right?
Click to expand...

Look, both sides are guilty of what I see as "highly charged" rhetoric, but it's been that way forever in American politics. There is a huge difference between rhetoric that's "highly charged" and "advocating violence", which is what the left has FALSELY accused the right of, and tagged them with the blame for the Tucson shootings.

What the left basically did, was tell America that Sarah Palin and the Tea Partys are murders... They made it very clear, that their actions and words inspire citizens to murder democrats. If that doesn't qualify as rhetoric that advocates violence, then I don't know what does?
 
Grim17 said:
Look, both sides are guilty of what I see as "highly charged" rhetoric, but it's been that way forever in American politics. There is a huge difference between rhetoric that's "highly charged" and "advocating violence", which is what the left has FALSELY accused the right of, and tagged them with the blame for the Tucson shootings.

What the left basically did, was tell America that Sarah Palin and the Tea Partys are murders... They made it very clear, that their actions and words inspire citizens to murder democrats. If that doesn't qualify as rhetoric that advocates violence, then I don't know what does?
Click to expand...

The left isn't a monolethic bloc, thinking like that really shows your partisanship which for me personally makes it really hard to listen to what you have to say.
 
Private personal death threats--which are irrepressible--are not the same as "rhetoric," so let's make that clear.

Secondly, "blood libel" is Christian persecution against Jews, which accuses them of using human "blood" in their religious rituals.

Thirdly, this thread is pointless. I think everyone with a conscience would denounce a death threat against Palin.

Fourthly, private threats are not the same the public violent rhetoric Palin has used against Dems, which incite violence. They are threats OF violence.
 
Grim17 said:
Look, both sides are guilty of what I see as "highly charged" rhetoric, but it's been that way forever in American politics.
Click to expand...

Now you are being more reasonable and accurate. I agree with you.

There is a huge difference between rhetoric that's "highly charged" and "advocating violence", which is what the left has FALSELY accused the right of, and tagged them with the blame for the Tucson shootings.
Click to expand...

I agree again. What idiots on the left did to the right and to Palin, specificially, was abhorant. I have been saying this since the shooting.

What the left basically did, was tell America that Sarah Palin and the Tea Partys are murders... They made it very clear, that their actions and words inspire citizens to murder democrats. If that doesn't qualify as rhetoric that advocates violence, then I don't know what does?
Click to expand...

See Grim? When you don't make silly overgeneralized hack statements, and keep your responses specific, you make COMPLETE SENSE. I agree 100% with the above sentence. Those on the left that attacked Palin and the Tea Party are guilty of creating a lot of the problems in this situation. The gunman was insane. What happened was HIS fault. Blaming Palin or the Tea Party is stupid liberal hackish rhetoric. However, for the right to respond to this stupidity by attacking the left, similarly, is just as stupid. The right should stay quiet and let the idiots on the left show what idiots they are.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I disagree that you disagree with me based on the fact that I am saying the same thing as you. If you disagree with me about that, then you disagree with yourself... which I doubt you do. Everything you said I agree with. So your disagreement with me makes no sense... so I disagreed with you doing it.

I hope that is clear. :2razz:
Click to expand...

Oh geez, and I thought this one was bad

CaptainCourtesy said:
I disagree with his disagreement. :2razz:
Click to expand...

Honestly CC, I hope you weren't really being too serious because this post had me rolling. Thanks for the laugh.
 
Last edited:
Wiseone said:
The left isn't a monolethic bloc, thinking like that really shows your partisanship which for me personally makes it really hard to listen to what you have to say.
Click to expand...

This is accurate. That is why people really need to punctuate their comments with "some". You can always tell the hacks... they are the ones that overgeneralize like you said.
 
Isn't there another therad on this?
 
Read: The office staff ordered Pizza and found a loogie on it.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
It doesn't matter who speaks the truth, or what their motive might be. All that is required is that each word they speak be factually correct from the objective standpoint of a third party neutral.
Click to expand...

No, because who is being hateful right now isn't the point. The call is for the end of the bull**** hatefulness.

I don't care if Malkin is 100% factually correct.

I could run a list of ALL of the gun references made in the last election and they would largely be right, but that isn't the point.

The point is - regardless of who is comes from - it's irresponsible. It needs to stop. Just because it's factual, doesn't make it respectful.

I haven't found a single person calling for the toning down of rhetoric saying "only the right should tone it down". Were that the case, I'd join in the complaints. The requests are for us ALL to tone it down. Not just the right. For some reason, though, the right is trying play victim. Yes, the woman shot and her supporters were largely Democrats (although we learned tonight one was a Republican who happened to like her Democratic representative - I suppose that makes her a RINO), but the call to tone things down is for ALL OF US - not just the right.

So for Malkin to post a list of angry rhetoric solely from the left is only to continue contributing to the climate of hate. It does nothing to create a better nation. It only continues the Coulter-izing of America (or, if you prefer, the Olbermann-izing).
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
However, for the right to respond to this stupidity by attacking the left, similarly, is just as stupid. The right should stay quiet and let the idiots on the left show what idiots they are.
Click to expand...
Of course, I totally, totally disagree with this. If the right hadn't countered it would have been taken as a tacit admission. There is hypocrisy in blaming the right for volatile rhetoric when the left has used the same. The right is justified in pointing it out.
 
joe six-pack said:
Fourthly, private threats are not the same the public violent rhetoric Palin has used against Dems, which incite violence. They are threats OF violence.
Click to expand...

However, there's as much evidence suggesting that these private threats are happening due to public hateful rhetoric towards Palin by Dem's as there is to suggest that the actions against the congresswomen are happening due to public hateful rhetoric towards her by Palin.

In one case, Palin is saying the congresswoman should be targetted for removal from office and can be taken literally to mean targetted and killed if someone was crazy.

In the other case, People are saying that Palin's comments could create an atmosphere that could cause someone like the congresswomen to be murdered and can be taken literally to mean that Sarah Palin was responsible for causing the murder to happen.

In both cases, there's absolutely zero legitimate evidence tieing the rhetoric to the actual acts...but yet, in one case, many democrats are suggesting there's some kind of correlation and "hateful rhetoric must stop" and in the other case some democrats are suggesting that there's somehow no correlation and that there's nothing wrong with their rhetoric.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom