• 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!

A History of Obama's Violent Rhetoric

Jetboogieman said:
Every side has their violent rhetoric my friend. I'm well aware of the lefts... ;)

All I'm saying is, Michelle Malkin is the last person I'd ask about it...
Click to expand...

But everyone seeks their side, their spokes persons, and ignore the voice saying what they want heard. No one I know if is disputing that there are violent people and violoent rhetoric across all sides. I would hope we can all agree it shoudl stop.
 
given the new level of what constitutes "violent rhetoric" i hope it doesn't. Democratic strategists should be free to say things like "alright, we are targeting the following list of Republican freshmen in the House whom we believe will be vulnerable in the 2012 election if they vote to kill Obamacare" without everyone going into hysterics About How You Can't SAY That!!!!

as much as i think it reveals his mindset; Obama should be free to suggest that his followers 'bring a gun to a knifefight' and 'punish their enemies'. everyone understands that these are metaphors, and there is public good in allowing us to see his mindset.

it's already illegal to threaten people with violence. no need to allow understandable desire to avoid this kind of tragedy in the future to translate into idiocy and restrictions on our First Amendment rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom