Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This whole thing is about the left evoking emotion to try to silence the right. Catch up!
You are dead on. I have asked repeatedly and have gotten crickets back. What is the evidence this guy was responding to any rhetoric left or right? So someone says ther is not direct evidence, it is circumstantial. I ask for the circumsantial evidence you know what I get back? Nothing. It is clear this is an excuse to try and stifle free speech.
While in bad taste, shooting at a law or policy is certainly different that shooting a person.
At least I think so.
You might think they're both okay.
Things do not equal people.
Bachman's comments, in particular, coupled with Palin's targets were inciting.
Are you serious? No I have a brain and shooting at a policy-well that is exactly what Palin was doing..crosshairs on someone's district but everyone seems to take offense..the part I don't understand is the gunman has shown overwhelming evidence that he targeted her because of what she said and it had nothing to do with Palin
But Obama's comments are okay ??? It is amazing when people are shown examples they still make excuses why the "other side is wrong." BTW I am not a big fan of Palin BUT I am a big fan of FREE SPEECH
The point you aren't getting is that what you see as Olberman taking responsibility I do not agree with. When you say "I appologize" then continue in the same vein, it is empty. So it comes down to "What is Hate Speech". And I can see with as far as you're going to defend a man, whose job was to specificly protect people, just to advance your agenda, that anything you don't agree with, or doesn't advance your agenda would be hate based.
The fact that I suggest that you look at the complaints made against Loughner a little more objectively, as well as the actions which were or were not taken by the Pima County Sheriff's Department and/or the Tucson Police Department means to you that I perceive anything which does not agree with my perspective to be "hate based"? Exactly how did you come to that conclusion?
ONCE AGAIN, if you know more about the "four complaints" which were made against Loughner, you have not revealed that information. And it occurs to me now that I don't even know whether or not the complaints were made to the Sheriff's Department or the Police Department out there? Do you? If complaints were made to the Tucson Police Department, what would the Sheriff have to do with them?
You asked me if I thought that four complaints against Loughner was sufficient for further investigation. I responded that there were many variables to be considered in answering that question. Mostly those variables involved what specifically was reported, how many other complaints were made to law enforcement during that time, how many people were employed to investigage such complaints, etc., etc. How do you know that the four complaints were not put on a list to be investigated in the future? You just simply don't have enough information to draw such a negative conclusion about the Sheriff or the Chief of Police regarding those complaints.......and do you know TO WHOM, specifically, the complaints were made?
This whole thing is about the left evoking emotion to try to silence the right. Catch up!
No, it's not. You should catch up. I don't hear anybody trying to silence the right. I'm not trying to silence the right. If people insist on talking tough, then, as they say, man up and take responsibility for your INFLUENCE.
The fact that I suggest that you look at the complaints made against Loughner a little more objectively, as well as the actions which were or were not taken by the Pima County Sheriff's Department and/or the Tucson Police Department means to you that I perceive anything which does not agree with my perspective to be "hate based"? Exactly how did you come to that conclusion?
ONCE AGAIN, if you know more about the "four complaints" which were made against Loughner, you have not revealed that information. And it occurs to me now that I don't even know whether or not the complaints were made to the Sheriff's Department or the Police Department out there? Do you? If complaints were made to the Tucson Police Department, what would the Sheriff have to do with them?
You asked me if I thought that four complaints against Loughner was sufficient for further investigation. I responded that there were many variables to be considered in answering that question. Mostly those variables involved what specifically was reported, how many other complaints were made to law enforcement during that time, how many people were employed to investigage such complaints, etc., etc. How do you know that the four complaints were not put on a list to be investigated in the future? You just simply don't have enough information to draw such a negative conclusion about the Sheriff or the Chief of Police regarding those complaints.......and do you know TO WHOM, specifically, the complaints were made?
Yet you are able to draw conclusive evidence out of thin air that directly connects this to someones campaign?
No, it's not. You should catch up. I don't hear anybody trying to silence the right. I'm not trying to silence the right. If people insist on talking tough, then, as they say, man up and take responsibility for your INFLUENCE.
Still waiting for the evidence of any negative influence you suggest. The only influence I can identify is borne out by the pounding the Dems took in November.
Well as far as I know no one has killed anyone due to Limbaugh, Beck or Palin rhetoric. So we are in agreement that this violence speech stuff is non sense.
No, it's not. You should catch up. I don't hear anybody trying to silence the right. I'm not trying to silence the right. If people insist on talking tough, then, as they say, man up and take responsibility for your INFLUENCE.
I'm suggesting you prove responsibility. Just because you deem it so doesn't make it reality.
Not "strong words".........not "strong words by any means." VIOLENT WORDS bringing to mind violent imagery. Shooting a gun at a political opponent to "take them out" for example.
Strong words could be: Get out the Vote. Win District 8.
Not, "don't retreat, RELOAD." What on earth could reload bring to mind other than "reloading" a weapon in that context? What are weapons for?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
