SUN EDITORIAL:
A lack of civility
Americans are fed up with the negative tone in politics and in the country
Friday, June 25, 2010 | 2:05 a.m.
Is America becoming uncivilized? People seem to think so. According to a poll released Tuesday, 65 percent of Americans say the lack of civility is a major problem in the country.
The poll, commissioned by public relations firm Weber Shandwick and its subsidiary Powell Tate, said Americans found incivility just about anywhere they looked. More than half of those surveyed said incivility was prevalent in politics, traffic, talk radio, high schools, pro sports, television, blogs, and with the public and celebrities.
Jack Leslie, chairman of Weber Shandwick, said the poll showed people “are fed up with the polarization of our political system and the uncivil tone of our country as a whole.”
The magnitude of complaints may have reached a new high, but complaints about incivility in public life are nothing new. In the recent past, we’ve heard people complain, yet civility seems to be in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes, we have found, the worst offenders are those complaining about someone else being rude. It’s no wonder talk radio and blogs have blossomed. Too many people are talking at each other, not to each other.
Pam Jenkins, president of Powell Tate, was asked by Politico.com columnist Roger Simon to define incivility, and she summed it up well: “Rudeness and a lack of respect for those who have different points of view and who don’t share the same view of the world.”
There is no doubt that there is too much rudeness in the country, and the negative tenor in public life has left people resigned. Nearly half those surveyed said they were tuning out politics and government — and most of them said they were doing so because of the negative tenor.
That’s alarming because people tuning out is dangerous for society. Our country needs interested and active citizens. Although we don’t agree with their decision, we can understand why people are upset. Politics in Washington have become caustic, and even those who have tried to set a more polite tone have come under attack.
As we have noted before, President Barack Obama tried to work with Republicans. He graciously extended them opportunities to work together after taking office last year, and he was consistently rebuked. In turn, Republicans have tried to demonize him.
Jenkins said she has watched the sense of public decorum in Washington slide over the years. “I have three kids, and when I was a kid, it was unimaginable that a member of Congress would call the president a liar,” Jenkins said, referring to South Carolina Republican Rep. Joe Wilson’s infamous outburst last year. Wilson’s shout, on the floor of the House as Obama spoke to lawmakers, was a recent example of the problem in politics.
Although people overwhelmingly said the public is most responsible for improving civility in the country, they also put significant responsibility on political leaders, according to the survey. Political leaders should understand that this could be a campaign issue: 8 in 10 Americans say people shouldn’t vote for a candidate who is uncivil.
There have been many complaints over the years about negative campaigning, which is understandable. There’s no place for lies, mudslinging and the shrill personal attacks that have no bearing on a candidate’s suitability for office. However, people too often think aggressive campaigning is inherently negative. But it’s not wrong to point out a candidate’s hypocrisy on the issues or a failure to be forthcoming. Voters should know what candidates stand for, and there should be a vigorous debate of the issues so there is a clear distinction between candidates. And that can be done civilly.
People are fed up with the vicious rhetoric that has degraded civil discourse. It is beyond time to put aside all of the nastiness in politics, which has been heightened by the continuous news cycle. Political leaders should set a more positive tone for the country.
Discussion: comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
- Upset by new regulations, L.A. porn industry flirts with Nevada
- Las Vegas’ newest headliner: Mike Tyson signs on for live, one-man ‘confessions’ show on the Strip
- A secret of how Elizabeth Halseth won her state Senate seat — Democrats
- Grubb & Ellis files for bankruptcy, will be sold
- Sworn in as new DA, Wolfson promises to hit the ground running
- Judge: Settlements reached in 41 hepatitis C lawsuits
- Families of 2010 slaying victims sue businesses
- UNLV’s Chace Stanback won’t use knee issue as an excuse for his recent struggles
- Analysts weigh in on Wynn fight with board member
- PlayStation Vita’s rear pad a touchy subject for gamers
Blogs
High School Sports Scene
High School Basketball State Championship Picks
The Kats Report
Oscar Goodman goes Shecky as Mob Museum opening prompts a mob scene (2 Comments)
Elsewhere
MGM Resorts, Ameristar form marketing alliance to draw visitors
High School Sports Scene
High School Hoops Picks: Updated with Friday's regional finals (3 Comments)
The Kats Report
What a Whitney Houston residency in Las Vegas might have looked like (5 Comments)
Elsewhere
Caesars' unit extends term loan maturity
The Kats Report
Color from scene at Thomas & Mack: We have a wire job! Rebels win, and Louie Armstrong sings!
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.



I do believe that the Sun editorial board must have a split personality.
On one day they call for civil discourse and the next day they are printing letters that call people, "Tea Baggers".
And to this day, they never have called out people for using that term.
So which is it....civil discourse or crude name calling?????
Trashing people is one of those things that Obama revels in doing. Whether it is Wall Street, main street, car companies, rich people, oil people, Republicans, Health Insurers, religious America, or now our Military taking them to the woodshed is like a day on the golf course.
A day after Obama fired his second 4 star general in a year; and demoted General David Petraeus, Obama finally got the point that he better support this General or it would look like he he did not support the Military. So Obama declared that everybody must have a unity of purpose and stand behind the military.
That was a clear rebuke of Joe Biden, Hilary Clinton, Karl Eikenberry, and Richard Holbrooke all of who repeatedly undercut General Stanley McChrystal. And Obama announce that he would not "pull out" next summer but draw down based on conditions on the ground.
Amen to this!
A nearly unhinged right became completely unhinged the moment Obama was elected.
Joe Wilson calling the President a liar during his State of the Union speech was just one instance of a group that would rather destroy the nation than have the Democrats in control.
Angle's 'Second Amendment remedy' is another example. If our free and fair elections don't get her desired result a treasonous rebellion will (all in the name of REAL patriotic Americans taking back THEIR country, of course).
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Future, Rubbish As Usual
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
This lack of civility goes to the heart of the home. Bad upbringing. No manners, just the country club life, SUV's for some and others, school yard mentality 'cuz they were poor and learned the street side methods of persuasion.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Money rules, power is second and for some, as we well know, Washington is a place to play with the girls no matter if they are married or not and have fun even if it means family wrecking
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Listening to the words of many who seem to think they are making a contribution one is perplexed as they sound like perfect idiots ... Angle, Oil Spill Sarah and Bachmann, Limpbroung, Sannity and Fix nesw - its amazing this nation is still in a functioning mode when these certified idiots are the leaders of the Republican Party .... certainly Steele is a complete idiot.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
War, torture, collapse of Wall St and more and more disasters put the nut cases out on display where they hope to grasp power as people feel vunerable to losing everything ... they hope bimbos like Oil Spill Sarah and AttackAngle and CheaterEnsignee have solutions to their problems and fall for their empty words. These dopes are nothing more than manipulating conivers.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Under AWOLBush it was about as nasty as it could get and that DeLay jerk added to it .... Tex. Phil Graham and Dick Armey .... could there have been a more destructive bunch in the entire universe?
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Get us out of these AWOLBush wars today .... now.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Thanks For Reading My Post
Another tired, phony, hypocritical "political discourse is coursening" column from the Democrat party shills masquerading as "journalists" at the LVSun. What do they put up as an example? The same Joe Wilson example they always throw out. Meantime there is never a mention of the leftwingnuts vulgar hate speech of calling people "teabaggers" or the violence they perpetrate at Tea Party gatherings. Hell, even Obama himself has got in on that act. Or how about the attempts to smear people like Sharron Angle as some kind of insane whacko, all egged on by the LVSun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwZ5X0JMd...
this will not change...
until the maggot infested republican party...
grows a spine...
and tells rushbo the drug addict to shut his pie hole...
until these maggot republicans realize that fox news is not fair and balanced...
rather it is pure crap...
until these maggot republicans acknowledge that sarah palin is an idiot who is not remotely close to being capable of being a president...
a sea change must first occur...
problem is...
maggots as a species are dumb...
and slow...
so there is much much more ugliness ahead...
The right wing Obama hating, democratic party hating, union hating contingent that is either paid to post here daily or are stirred to rabid comments by those who are paid to incite emotional violence are really unAmerican.
There is another paper in town that espouses their views and I really have little use for it, excepting the fact it employs a goodly number of people, some of them my friends. That being said I think the paper is rubbish. I have the perspective they have the right to exist and hopefully financially thrive, however I am not going to go over there on a daily, weekly, monthly, or even yearly basis to tell them how exceedingly stupid their editorial and commentary is.
It would show poor manners, be especially obnoxious, and really accomplish little. The 5-10 anti anything democrat related daily posters here are a sad lot. They bring poison to the table of ideas, waste time, and offer no real solutions to the problems that face us.
They are really a joke, but no one is laughing.
Yes, the enviro whackos tying the oil spill to a climate change bill is the height of audacity.
I'm addicted to prosperity, and I don't apologize for that.
Wow Birdie, Jeff you guys didn't try very hard to be civil on an editorial about civility...
Again, read the posts on these blogs. The left wing rants are all about Bush, name-calling and "they did this, they did that".
Republicans are the Party of...(fill in the blank)
They're squealing is comparable to children screaming for candy in the grocery store. If they don't get it they sit on the floor and cry.
Well, children, the parents are going to be back in charge in November and all the pouting, crying and stomping of your feet won't let you get your way.
Responsibility in Spending
Rewards for Hard Work - Not for sitting home and watching T.V. (sorry, Fosimmons)
Businesses Hiring/Governments Firing
Fair Day's Pay for a Fair Days' Work (sorry Unions)
U.S.A. - Back on track!
hey gibbie the clown...
what's cookin partner???
sorry to say...
i have a busy day planned...
so i won't be able to run rings around you in a debate today...
boo hoo hoo...
by the way...
are you able to sit down yet???
i know your butt got whooped pretty good in the last debate we had...
It's a choice between rhetoric and reality.
These poor souls would rather blindly believe in a candidate's rhetoric, rather than their record.
They think ideology is more important than actions.
There are many people, especially on the Sun's website, who want to forget recent history. They would rather get their warm and fuzzy feelings from listening to GOP candidates talk about reducing the size of government and cutting government spending.
But when you try to open their eyes to the GOP's record, rather than their rhetoric, they refuse to listen.
These poor souls believe without regard to behavior and then throw childish fits when you remind them of the GOP's record of behavior.
They say they don't care who created the problem to shirk the blame and to ignore the actions which led us here.
You can't blindly follow the rhetoric. Look at the GOP's actions then and now and it would be foolish to think they've changed.
One man's incivility is another man's truth.
For Instance..
To me, birdie is extremely incivil but I can read the post, understand the point and either agree or disagree. The colorful language, (maggot, grow a spine, whoop your butt, gibbie the clown) may obscure the message but it wouldn't be birdie without the..incivil.
Instead of going all pinch mouth prude..why not grab the popcorn and enjoy the show?
The lack of civility really increased when the Republicans started going after Clinton. They could not stand the guy, even though he was a moderate. His B.S. impeachment changed politics in this country.
The last Bush administration with its FU style of politics cemented this because those left of center have had enough of the mean spirited attitude towards governance coming from the extreme right. I say extreme right, because the moderate right has been purged.
We have been lied to by every political crook from Nixon to Obama and we are supposed to be all "Don't worry, be happy!"
A true sign of political Darwinism is to assume that in this age of corruption, 2010, that any US President is going to tell you the truth.
But still, you all just endlessly debate which crook will screw you less. I luv it!
If we want change in government that we can appreciate, we must fund their campaigns publicly. We regularly witness the benefits accrued to those who are doing such.
People are fed up by the socialist retards on the left who want to drag the government into a Marxist existence.
To allow the 10% minority of the left leaning Stalinist literati to hijack the legislative process and utilize parlimentarian tricks to impose their socialist programs on the other 90% of normal people is repugnant.
When push comes to shove, the Marxists rallies will be filled with those 10% who still refuse to accept that you can't spend more than you take in. 9 beats 1 every time.
There, AngryVoter, I edited your rant to what the sae part of your brain meant to say....
Immigration Law - 60+% Approval
Obama wants to go to court to overturn
Health Care - 60% want to repeal
Obama Personal Approval Rating - Below 50%
Approval Rating of his policies - Below 40%
Country on the right track - 26%
Cap and Trade - 25% approval
Gee, AnryVoter, it seems that the country of 80% you suggest to represent don't really like ANYTHING your beloved left-wing marxists are doing or contemplating doing.
Back to Leningrad, Comrade Obama. Your ticket will be punched in November 2012.
"Obama Personal Approval Rating - Below 50%"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...
All 3 most recent polls have his favorability above 50%.
Stop lying.
For all you Dems. Here's the latest list of House seats up for grabs in the mid-terms. It's from the Cook Report, the most respected ploitical analyst in the country. For you liberal loons, he appears consistently on MSNBC.
http://www.cookpolitical.com/charts/hous...
Looks like trouble for the Dems. And the number of seats in play continue to rise each month.
Can you say, Tsunami!
"Health Care - 60% want to repeal"
FALSE:
50% favor repealing all or much of health care legislation
Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/140786/Americ...
Gallup, June 17, 2010
60% approve additional government spending to create jobs and stimulate economy
55% favor expanding government regulations on financial institutions
56% favor regulating energy output from private companies to reduce global warming
A solid majority favor additional government spending to create jobs and stimulate the economy.
Sharron Angle would vote against any additional stimulus or spending.
This is the game played by the GOP. Make up statistics about support for policies, and ignore poll data that doesn't fit your narrative. Ignore any poll data that suggests support for spending.
Edge,
The link you posted is to a page about a month old and puts him at 50%.
Repeal is now at 55%, down from a few weeks ago:
Fifty-five percent (55%) of all Likely Voters favor repeal of the health care law, down three points from last week. Forty percent (40%) oppose repeal of the law. Those numbers include 47% who Strongly Favor repeal and 32% who Strongly Oppose it
Rasmussen Poll
It seems that the Rasmussen Polls are pretty much in line with Gallup and the NBC polls.
Gee, I thought Rasmussen skewed evrything to the right......
"The vital signs are improving for President Barack Obama's health care plan."
"The latest Associated Press-GfK poll on Obama's top domestic achievement finds support for the new overhaul has risen to its highest point since the survey started asking people about it in September -- six months before it became law."
"The results now: 45 percent in favor, 42 percent opposed. That's a significant shift in public sentiment considering that opposition hit 50 percent after Obama signed the health plan into law in late March and that in May, supporters were outnumbered 39 percent to 46 percent."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100617/ap_o...
"Repeal is now at 55%, down from a few weeks ago:"
24 minutes ago, you portrayed it at 60%. Now you say it's at 55%.
Fact checking is proving you wrong over and over again.
"Likely Voters?"
Why arbitrarily reduce the sample size via that criteria? Health care legislation affects every single American, not just likely voters. Representatives in Washington represent every individual in their district, not just the population that voted for them.
I'd imagine if the sample weren't arbitrarily limited, support for repeal would drop.
Also, a look under the hood at Rasmussen's 55% repeal number also looks exaggerated:
Get acquainted with crosstabs, Gogo.
"First of all, only 46% of all respondents "strongly favor" repeal. Adding in those who "somewhat" favor repeal, that brings the number up to 55%. Adding together both "strongly favor" and "somewhat favor," 81% of Republicans and 59% of independents favor repeal, and a remarkably high 27% of Democrats claim to favor the same thing. This last number seems improbable, and the more we look at other crosstabs the more we see where this would-be Democratic pro-repeal sentiment is coming from. Rasmussen would have us believe that 20% of liberal and 32% of black likely voters want to repeal the health care legislation, and further we are supposed to think that 18% of liberals will vote for a pro-repeal candidate."
"Most bizarrely of all, Rasmussen claims that 58% of 18-29 year olds, who have regularly expressed significantly more support for the health care legislation over the last year than other age groups, favor repeal of the same legislation. We are supposed to believe that 18-29 year old likely voters are more likely to support repeal than any other age group aside from voters 65 and older, and we are also supposed to accept that 49% of them would vote for a pro-repeal candidate."
"This goes against everything else we think we know about this age group's party identification and their political and policy views. Admittedly, Gallup's latest health care polling is a survey of adults and not likely voters, but even that cannot account for the dramatic difference between the 58% of 18-34 year olds who say the health care bill is a "good thing" and Rasmussen's 58% of 18-29 year olds who favor repeal! Pew's survey of Millennials released in February gives us even more reason to doubt support for repeal among young voters. According to Pew, Millennials are more likely to identify as Democratic than any other age group, slightly more likely to identify as liberal than conservative, and are more likely to say that government is effective and are more "pro-regulation" than any other group. As of February, 51% still agreed with the statement that "the government should help more needy people even if it means going deeper in debt." This makes them an especially odd source of support for repealing health care legislation. Therefore, I have to conclude that Rasmussen's topline result is wildly misleading."
That's from American Conservative Magazine, by the way.
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2010/03/...
Gee, Edge, I don't look at polls every day like do.
As for your assertion that the public wants more stimulus, you are correct! Except, there is a provision: "additional government spending to create jobs and stimulate the economy"
http://www.gallup.com/poll/140786/americ...
That's the hard part for the Dems. They consider "stimulus" as ANY kind of spending. If the idea of "stimulus" is to do what was done last year - bailing out union workers and pork projects - that would be viewed in a much different light. A real dilemma for the Dems, the American public is now demanding results for the spending of their hard earned dollars. That's real trouble for the Democrats!
Go ahead and put it through, Edge, build more duck ponds in Nancy Pelosi's district or allocate more money to study the mating habits of catfish. That will just put the Dems in an even bigger hole.
That's why the Dems aren't voting for this last round of union bailouts. They know the American public doesn't want to go down that road again. If they all had believed this poll gave them Carte Blanche to spend more the bill would have sailed through.
If you disagree with the above, please tell me why the bill didn't pass yesterday with the revolt of a bunch of Dems?
Edge, thanks for making my point. The people who strongly favor repeal outnumber the people who strongly don't want to repeal health care by a margin of two to one.
Now that some doctors aren't taking Medicare that number will skyrocket. Of course, the alternative is for the Dems to somehow get the "Doc Fix" through, but that means bigger deficits and more spending. That will also cause the negative rating to soar.
By the way, "most bizzarely" hasn't taken into account the mandates in the bill. These 18-29 don't want the mandates. Pure and Simple.
Pick your poison, Edge!
Common ground has lost its sway with our comments. Our aggravations and distortions reflect a nearly-universal and overwhelmingly negative attitude towards one another on this forum and so many others in the US, but actually a much higher percentage on this particular site than most wreak of isolating, denigrating and abusive attacks and twisting of facts as opposed to the finding and sharing of opportunities for development, growth and inter-relating that are dominant in many countries and other forums in the English speaking world.
It certainly calls to question how many 'paid posters' are actually at work here. If it smells like a rat, well, then not posting my pearls among the swine ilk makes good sense, huh?
Remember when Coca-Cola was doing SUBLIMINAL advertising with little blips quicker than the conscious eye being programmed into the movies? Reading the threads here is reminiscent of watching wolves dressed up like sheep and meandering through the flock with a plan.
And a paycheck for sneaking their message into our consciousness.
How can a non-paid, ordinary citizen checking out the local media outlet even compete with those paid to deliver X message relentlessly, with all kinds of resources, training, expertise and a special message to buy Coca-Cola or bigotry or green bananas?
"Gee, Edge, I don't look at polls every day like do."
Surely you should do a little fact checking before you post, Gogo.
And, "I don't look at polls every day like [sic] do?" For the guy droning on about plurals last night, do I mention that you can't construct a sentence properly?
"As for your assertion that the public wants more stimulus, you are correct! "
I know.
"If you disagree with the above, please tell me why the bill didn't pass yesterday with the revolt of a bunch of Dems?"
We went over this, in detail, yesterday and you agreed that parliamentary games by the GOP killed the bill.
Your shoddily-researched arguments are caving in on each other.
Obama's favorability is above 50%.
Health care repeal is beneath 60%.
Gee, it seems you can't get anything right today.
Airweare, in the past 24 hours, Gogo has repeatedly called anyone who disagrees with him "monkeys" and, most recently "retards" on a letter to the editor about a lack of civility.
"The people who strongly favor repeal outnumber the people who strongly don't want to repeal health care by a margin of two to one."
Gee, which poll are you look at, again? The poll which exaggerates the repeal numbers and arbitrarily limits the sample size?
The evidence for your argument is a piece of swiss cheese.
Edgewise,
There were no tricks on the $109 Billion "package" Carpetbagger Harry wanted to pass yesterday. He couldn't get all his Dems to go forward - then blamed the Republicans! Made for good theater, but we all know that the public has no more use for bailouts and special interest spending.
You must have smoked a little too much weed last night, Edge. I didn't agree to that at all.
And, Gee, my typing skills aren't as polished as yours. My Bad!
Obama below 50%
Health Care Repeal 55%
The point to Angry Voter was that his assertion that 80% of Americans want this crap is so far off base as to be ludicrous.
By the way, if you think a couple points are such a significant difference then you must be agreeing that Sharron Angle is KICKING HARRY REID'S A****!!
"There were no tricks on the $109 Billion "package" Carpetbagger Harry wanted to pass yesterday. "
Wrong, and you know it. Even you agreed and likened Hensarling's stunt to Reid, "continually wraps these candy laden bills with something important like extending unemployment benefits."
You are the one who made the Hensarling comparison to behavior that you hate.
Further, it's dishonest to post polling numbers if you haven't done at least a minute or two of fact checking to make sure you're accurate.
You've had to run back your own dogma twice today already, and it's not even noon!
"By the way, if you think a couple points are such a significant difference then you must be agreeing that Sharron Angle is KICKING HARRY REID'S A****!!"
Given her precipitous drop in support in only a few weeks, Sharron's on a steep slide to irrelevance.
Moron...when is the last time you met anyone who professed to being a Marxist? I think it has been about 35 years for me. To this fools, social security and unemployment insurance are Marxist.
"By the way, if you think a couple points are such a significant difference then you must be agreeing that Sharron Angle is KICKING HARRY REID'S A****!!"
The difference, of course, is that Reid's numbers are getting better, while Sharron's numbers are getting worse... and it's only June.
January: Reid hits new low: 33% approve, 52 disapprove
http://www.lvrj.com/news/reid-hits-new-l...
June: Reid's favorability, according to Rassmussen, has shot up 14 points and is now basically tied with Sharron's favorability. His unfavorables are down, and Sharron's unfavorables are up.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/nv_2010_se...
But then, what do I know? Whitesox has every reason to celebrate the fact that if the general election were held right this very moment, the polls say Angle might win.
Unfortunately, the more people get to know Sharron Angle, the more her poll numbers drop. I hope for your sake, Whitesox, that she can crest 30% in the general.
Sharron Angle said a 'Second Amendment remedy' might be necessary if our nation's 234-year-old system of free and fair elections doesn't meet with her approval.
TO ALL RIGHT-WING POSTERS HERE AT THE SUN: (gogo, Future, xtra, and others)
Do any of you agree with Angle on The Remedy?
If so, explain why it's a good idea.
If not, explain why you're still supporting her.
The use of the word "retard" was in reference to it's use by Angry Voter. People like you who mimic - or "ape" - the Democratic line without thinking are monkeys.
Again, a couple point difference in the ratio calculation as to how many "Strongly Approve" repeal and those who "Strongly Disapprove" repeal is not the point. The disparity is the point.
You can try to dissect all these numbers and try to dismiss the results because you believe the calculations were one or two points off. Your missing the point.
Bottom Line:
A multiple term Senate Leader is behind a NOBODY by over five points (better?)
The Generic Congress ballot is moving markedly towards Republicans in the last few months - even showing Republicans more than five points ahead (better?)
Obama's approval rating has dropped markedly since Health Care passed (better?)
More and more Democratic seats are now considered to be in play in the upcoming mid-terms.
The majority of Americans believe the last "stimulus" bill didn't work. So much so that Comrade Pelosi had to change the next installment's name to a "Jobs Bill"
Face it, Edge, this country is getting sick of the nonsense being promulgated by the far left. Just as the Republicans lost their way during the Bush Administration, the Democrats were fooled by what they considered to be a mandate to jerk the country hard to the left.
It turns out that the last election wasn't about liking Obama's policies, but that there was a lingering hatred for Bush. We see it on these posts every day and the Democrats are still trying to play this card today. Now that the American electorate has seen what the true agenda advanced by Reid, Pelosi and Obama contains they are pivoting hard away from that position.
Frankly, Democrats are going to have to pass four or five more spending bills to keep this "all-government all-the-time" policy going. Every vote to spend another $50-75-100 Billion dollars is going to drive them further down the polls.
The best Republican assets - Pelosi, Reid and Obama!
The Hensarling ammendment had NOTHING to do with yesterday's vote.
Edge, again, how much weed did you smoke last night?
"Her Approval"?
Lastthroes, you must have been on the pipe with Edge last night.
When Sharron Angle wins she will not have the authority to unilaterally change anything. Are you that delusional that you think she can go to D.C. and demand a change to the Second Ammendment? That whole line of thinking is a non-starter.
Shes' going to Washngton to halt wasteful spending and help get tax reductions though the next Congress. Period!
So far only the sound of CRICKETS from the right regarding Angle's 'Remedy'.
"The use of the word "retard" was in reference to it's use by Angry Voter. People like you who mimic - or "ape" - the Democratic line without thinking are monkeys."
So you mimic someone who uses the word "retard" in response? Gee, that makes total sense!
"The disparity is the point."
Unfortunately for you, the disparity is 1) dropping and 2) probably not as large as Rasmussen's made it out to be. Furthermore, legislative agendas and/or repeals of legislation is not based on the simplistic delta between strongly favor and strongly oppose.
"A multiple term Senate Leader is behind a NOBODY by over five points "
That's definitely your spin. But you can't ignore that according to the same poll, she was up by 11 points only weeks ago.
"Obama's approval rating has dropped markedly since Health Care passed "
Markedly? Nope. Since health care reform passed, Obama's approval ratings, according to Gallup, have been pretty steady. No marked drop. Again, look at polls before you post, Gogo.
"Early this week, thousands of reports from the Congressional Research Service, which exists to provide unbiased answers and info to curious lawmakers, were leaked on the website wikileaks.org. One such report from January 23 of this year called "Economic Stimulus: Issues and Policies" makes it clear that the GOP's talking points place ideology over good economics. "Economists generally agree that spending proposals are somewhat more stimulative than tax cuts since part of a tax cut may be saved by the recipients," says the report. "The primary way to achieve the most bang for the buck is by choosing policies that result in spending, not saving. Direct government spending on goods and services would therefore lead to the most bang for the buck since none of it would be saved."
gogo,
You're avoiding the question entirely: Do you or don't you support Angle's Remedy.
Focus gogo, focus.
"The Hensarling ammendment had NOTHING to do with yesterday's vote."
Ha! YOU compared Hensarling's amendment to something you think is a dirty trick!
As for your marked decline gaffe, let me reiterate:
Obama signed Health Care Reform into law in April.
Look at this graph:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup...
Can you honestly continue to lie and say he had a marked decline since it became law?
Come on, Gogo. Be honest. Walk back ANOTHER false poll claim.
I'd rather smoke pot than be smoked on virtually every fact I've posted today. Whitesox, maybe you should take some of your own advice... your batting average for today is pitiful.
"Rudeness and a lack of respect for those who have different points of view and who don't share the same view of the world."
That's because those behaviors help people get ahead in America. Decent people are left behind.
"The Hensarling ammendment had NOTHING to do with yesterday's vote."
Yes, yesterday the Hensarling amendment was just like Harry Reid bundling bills in a dastardly plot to get them passed, according to Whitesox.
Today, it's not?
You need to bookmark your banter, Whitesox. You've lost track of it and you're directly contradicting yourself now.
gogowhitesox said:
"Face it, Edge, this country is getting sick of the nonsense being promulgated by the far left. Just as the Republicans lost their way during the Bush Administration, the Democrats were fooled by what they considered to be a mandate to jerk the country hard to the left."
I say:
Just like (just as sure as Gary Peters was number 43) a baby when they see what they like will do whatever it takes to get it, whether they like it or not the electorate is behaving childishly. The facts are that the Obama administration is virtually an extension of the republican party. He wants so bad to be one of you he has given up his principles in almost every area.
There has been no turn to the left, it has been a small shaving off of total complete corporate power. It is what you and the teabagger (hello rocky) crowd has intimidated the little scared bunny democrats into doing.
The only party worse than the democratic party is the republican party.
Wanna make sure the Waltons get 100% of their inheritance so all of America can pay $50 a container for baby formula? I thought so.
No one is worth $20,000 an hour. Don't type any of your stupiditudes here. They don't work with me. I know what you are and why you are. You reap what you sow.
Your reactions to good people here are sickening and borderline abusive.
Health care was the main focus of his presidency since the middle of last year. Look at the graph:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...
Again, you monkeys don't realize that Americans don't like what you're selling.
Again, you can deny it all you want, but you are on the way to be completely wiped out by November.
I'd like all of you know-it-alls to post what you think the outcome of the elections will be for November.
Here's my post:
House Seats Gained by Republicans - 40
Senate Seats Gained By Republicans - 7
Sharron Angle 49%, Harry Reid 42%
Put it in writing, boys, and we'' see who's right in November.
CRICKETS AND SHARRON'S REMEDY - PART II
_______
gogo,
You're avoiding the question entirely:
Do you or don't you support Angle's Remedy.
Focus gogo, focus.
"When Sharron Angle wins she will not have the authority to unilaterally change anything. "
Sharron Angle will not have any authority. She'll be a freshman senator from a tiny state.
"Shes' going to Washngton to halt wasteful spending and help get tax reductions though the next Congress. Period!"
But she can single-handedly "halt wasteful spending?"
This is the same exact rhetoric we've been hearing from the deficit-spending Republican party for decades.
Gogo will swear Sharron's different... which is what they ALL say.
Thad Cochran, regularly the worst offender when it comes to pork barrel projects, campaigns by telling his voters he wants to cut government spending.
Republican voters never learn. They always think their guy/gal is going to be the one that fixes it.
"Health care was the main focus of his presidency since the middle of last year. Look at the graph:"
Let me remind you of what you wrote:
"Obama's approval rating has dropped markedly since Health Care passed "
Now, since you got caught, again, lying about polls, you've altered your criteria to "since the middle of last year."
Which is it, Gogo? Since it passed or since the middle of last year?
Either way, you lied.
"I'd like all of you know-it-alls to post what you think the outcome of the elections will be for November."
Great, another crystal ball psychic wants to predict the future.
Only a complete neophyte would predict the November elections in June.
FROM 538:
"The Center for American Politics' Ruy Teixeira, one of the top political demographers in the country, has a new paper out in which he examines the two major party coalitions, with a focus on the current and future prospects of the Republican Party. For the GOP, says Teixeira, things look grim, in large part because the country is becoming less white and more educated. He provides specific data showing how college educated voters are growing, and non-college educated shrinking, as shares of the electorate; likewise for the growing non-white v. shrinking white populations.
The Democratic Party will become even more dominated by the emerging constituencies that gave Barack Obama his historic 2008 victory, while the Republican Party will be forced to move toward the center to compete for these constituencies."
Check out the new financial "reform" bill.
Dumbocrats are setting us up again.
The "Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010" is, in fact, a massive redistribution scheme camouflaged as reform. Far from reforming easy-credit practices, the bill encourages more of the same reckless, politically mandated lending that brought down the entire financial system in the name of "affordable housing."
Yes, the bill gives Treasury the power to liquidate banks that pose a threat to financial stability. But it essentially exempts minority-owned banks and those approved by Acorn-style urban organizers.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis...
We just can't obstruct enough in the face of the monster, FrankenDodd.
"Which is it, Gogo? Since it passed or since the middle of last year?"
HAHAHAHAHA!
Caught!
Whitesox: "Um, since I was completely and absolutely wrong, let me hope you don't notice when I change the comparison!"
Whitesox, your dirty tricks are facile and obvious.
So let's recap:
Gogo said Obama's personal ratings were beneath 50%.
That was wrong.
Gogo said 60% want to repeal health care reform.
That was wrong. In fact, the lastest poll from NBC has more in favor of the bill than opposed. Gogo relies on a single poll which exaggerates the repeal numbers and arbitrarily limits the sample size in order to crawl up to 55%. Even with that desperate level of deception, not 60%.
Gogo said that the Generic Congress ballot is moving markedly towards Republicans in the last few months
In May the generic preferences were as follows:
Gallup
Democratic preference: 47%
Republican prefence: 46%
CNN
Democratic preference: 47%
Republican prefence: 46%
Quinnipiac
Democratic preference: 42%
Republican prefence: 36%
Gogo said that Obama's approval rating has dropped markedly since Health Care passed
Gallup says: not true
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup...
You guys have learned well at the knee of Bill Clinton. Never have such a squad of mindless fools done such a thorough job of parsing every word posted on this site.
Off by a point - Foul! No good!
"Pushed" or "Passed" Health Care - Foul! No good!
Fine, guys. You win. Bestow upon yourslef the mantle of non-material fact checker of the week.
But the bottom line is the bottom line. You and your liberal loons will be destroyed in November. I will look forward to your temperatures rising in the coming months as the numbers keep coming in and your prospects keep diminishing.
You all will be akin to a person stuck in quicksand. you will thrash about, scream and wail about the injustices of the process and how the majority of this nation embrace the policies of fiscal conservatism while people on the dole are suffering.
To see how much people are fed up with this welfare state watch the results of the bill not being passed yesterday. The Democrats think there will be an outcry by the people to force it through. They will be wrong!
Gary Peters was a hell of a pitcher.
The white population is not shrinking..The census doesn't count most of them and the illegal/legals are pouring in on top..
If the whites are at 200 million, that is no growth/no shrinkage..but add 100-150 million immigrants then the percentage of whites is shrinking..
200 million whites when Kennedy was in office and the country ran just fine..Add 150 million foriegners to make the population 350 million plus and the country is starting to have problems..simple overpopulation.
Every census for the past 40 years has missed people who live in trailers, vehicles and non conventional housing...and people who have PO boxes...Guess who was UnderCounted?
This census I think is going to be a surprise because people complained about not being counted..
Complain about Negative if anyone wishes..but the outlook is grim..
This country runs on Oil..How many people could survive a week without oil? Get to work, obtain food?
Cry for more stimulus..There isn't anymore money
The fact is..the government is not saying how negative it really is..Overpopulated, balkanizing, bankrupt, These words are seldom heard but..it may be the future..
How is that for negative :)
Prediction:
After his teabag candidates lose on Nov 2nd gogo will change his screen name on the 3rd and begin touting his losing choices for the 2012 election.
_________
*Still no reply from gogo on Angle's 'Second Amendment remedy'.
For some reason, teabaggers want everyone to forget about crazy Sharron's call for armed rebellion.
Edge before you jump to conclusions Rasmussen has opposite results from the Gallup poll you cite.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c...
The problem with claiming you know the bottom line?
Your bottom line is based on false contentions, which you have now admitted. You have a tenuous grasp on reality, which is shown as you insist public opinion is something when it is not.
""Pushed" or "Passed" Health Care - Foul! No good!"
It isn't a semantic argument, it's a difference of a year's worth of political fighting. If you use unambiguous language, you should probably make sure your unambiguous language is factually accurate.
"To see how much people are fed up with this welfare state watch the results of the bill not being passed yesterday. The Democrats think there will be an outcry by the people to force it through. They will be wrong!"
As you have stipulated, the majority in this country favor additional government spending to create jobs and stimulate the economy, contrary to the entire political platform of the party you're promoting.
Patrick, Rasmussen remains an outlier on Presidential Approval:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...
Further, Rasmussen only targets likely voters in it's presidential approval figures. That arbitrarily shrinks the sample. Gallup includes all Americans.
Every American deserves a voice in presidential approval, whether a likely voter or not.
Or, rather, Gallup targets Americans regardless of their voting likelihood. They do not, as I might have inferred, sample everyone.
Last throes,
How long does it take a bird to fly to the moon? Yes, the question is silly because it has no relevance as does the question posed by Lastthroes.
It is silly and a waste of time.
People want spending if it means something good is going to happen - not measuring whether salmon spawn at night or during daylight hours.
The Democrats look at these stimulus bills as slush funds for pet projects and Americans are sick of it.
Finally, your the gutless hack Lastthroes. How much will Harry Win by? Hazard a guess or do you concede that the mope will be buried by what you consider to be a loon.
Time to watch the Sox and Cubs!
GOP Representative Gohmert: There's A Diabolical 30-Year Plot To Have Terrorist Babies Born In U.S.!
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/...
Yes, the GOP has completely changed since the Bush years.
During the Bush years, Sharron's armed insurrection plot would probably be tracked and investigated by Homeland Security.
But today, Whitesox thinks that kind of rhetoric is what we need on the floor of the Senate.
American politics has throughout its history been known for its rancor. To imagine that the current climate is somehow less civil than earlier times ignores history. Passionate beliefs do that, especially when one believes that their beliefs are the ones being trod upon. Might as well get used to it -- whining about it isn't going to change things.
Translation of the editorial: The liberals are in power now so let's all be nice.
"As we have noted before, President Barack Obama tried to work with Republicans. He graciously extended them opportunities..."
The Sun editors know the real truth here - Obama let the other side in the room, allowed them to state their case then as they left he flipped them off. You expect us to believe a radical community organizer from Chicago will suddenly change his spots? Winning the presidency only caused him to dig his heels in harder.
Here is a compilation of the posts so far on this thread. I have rated each based on my impression as either Civil or Uncivil and given counts for each per post author.
I appoligize if I have classified someone as either Liberal (L) or Conservative (C) mistakenly.
Who Leans Civil Uncivil
SgtRock C 1 0
dhvincent1 C 0 2
Future C 1 0
justvickie n/a 1 0
LastThroes L 2 6
fosimmons L 0 1
RHG C 0 1
Birdiedreamin L 0 2
JeffFromVegas L 0 2
rusty57 C 0 2
P_R_Gibbons C 2 0
gogowhitesox C 5 8
edgewise L 13 6
xtra C 3 0
notacon L 1 1
AngryVoter L 0 1
Sunlizard n/a 1 0
dsteele13 n/a 1 0
airweave L 1 0
ksand99 L 4 5
gunowners4obama L 1 0
NLV-Indep13 n/a 1 0
larry5 C 1 0
Here is a summary of the above based on number of unique posters:
Total Conservative: 9 Overall Civil: 5 Uncivil: 4
Total Liberals: 10 Overall Civil: 3 Uncivil: 6 Even: 1
Total Party Unknown: 4 Overall Civil: 4
Well I'm hardly conservative. :P
AND I REPEAT
________
Still no reply from gogo/gibbons/boftx etc on Angle's 'Second Amendment remedy'.
For some reason, teabaggers want everyone to forget about crazy Sharron's call for armed rebellion.
Sorry Patrick, I debated whether to put you as n/a or conservative, and went based on your fiscal views. I probably should have put you as Objectivist. At least I rated all your posts on this thread as "Civil". :)
Last Throws,
I believe she quoted Thomas Jefferson who had once argued that people have the right to overthrow their government if it is tyrannical. She went on to point out that she thinks that day might come in America but hopes to avoid that by limiting government power and engaging a fiscally responsible government.
I tend to believe, that strong central governments engender conflict, if the central government tends to also control a great deal of the economy, wealth and or natural resources. In such situations, people who are not in power feel as if their livelihoods are directly controlled (unfairly) by those in power. They do not feel masters of their own destinies. Overtime those feelings can turn to anger and possibly into violence.
Think about the tribal violence in Africa or Asia. People who otherwise have the same religion, same languages, look the same, and have fairly similar cultures go to war with each other just because they are in different tribes -- they are warring for political control and thus control over resources, wealth, and destiny.
There is a good reason why economically free countries have never faced a revolution or political upheaval. In economically free countries it is individuals that tend to control the economy, wealth and their own destinies. As we centralize control, the government makes more and more decisions for other people. The U.S. has a long way to go to reach the point of real civil unrest, but it is not impossible that we could see another civil war. I believe that is the inevitable consequence of continued centralization of federal power -- especially if we prolong this recession another decade.
Birdie might be uncivil but he is poetic.
Angle stops short of making a "call for armed rebellion". That said, she has voiced an observation that in the past was almost unheard of. Specifically, that the true purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the people had the means to rebel if they saw the need for that, again. Jefferson had some interesting views on this.
I recall my surprise, and to some extent shock, when I first heard that statement when I was a senior in high school. It was a concept that was simply not being taught.
I think there has been a marked increase in the amount of exposure that the concept has received in recent years. This possibly reflects a growing perception of our government being generally unresponsive to the electorate.
I seriously doubt that there will be action along those lines other than incidents such as that at Oklahoma City. There is no reason to not teach the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.
So Patrick agrees with Angle's assertion that The Remedy might become a reality if she and other far-right candidates lose in the election.
Thanks for stepping up and admitting your support for a possible armed insurrection, Patrick.
Any others? SgtRock? boftx?
Angle won't be happy if she loses and sees a possible militia-style response to America's democratic form of government.
Do you agree?
Patrick, unfortunately for voters, they can't assume your interpretation of Angle's remarks are what she meant.
It's great that you want to expound on the nature of central governments vs local governments, etc, but Angle didn't bother to elaborate.
What she said was:
"You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years."
"I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."
To talk about second amendment remedies and then immediate reference "tak(ing) Harry Reid out," is just plain dangerous rhetoric for an elected leader and absolutely irresponsible. Imagine if Reid had said that about President Bush. That was not an innocent turn of phrase.
I would think you, out of all people, would challenge that type of loose, wild rhetoric.
Angle may be disappointed in the results her party received via the Democratic process, but to categorize our centuries-old system of government as "tyrranical" is not just hyperbole. When taken in context of her second amendment revolution threats, it's dangerous.
LastThrows that was an irrational and illogical conclusion based on what I said. Either you didn't pay attention or never intended to (only wanting to make a partisan attack by misguiding readers).
Stating A) People have a right to revolt against tyrannical governments + B) Revolts tend to occur in countries with little economic freedom or where people have little control over their own lives + C) We aren't there yet DOES NOT = If Republicans lose there will be a rebellion.
Ksand, I cannot say why Angle didn't elaborate or why she followed it up by suggesting people vote out Harry Reid (I think she clearly meant vote him out, not rebel). Maybe she thought sense she was among friends, the listeners or viewers would just understand. Maybe I'm totally wrong (a possibility considering I'm not a mind reader). But in age of sound bites clearly articulating philosophical positions is extremely difficult to do.
Patrick, Angle has been asked about it since and won't elaborate.
"Recently there were 3 political shootings by these right-wing jihadists as Republicans and their right-wing media leadership step up the intensity and rhetoric of violence. Sean Hannity, Dick Cheney, Bill O'Reilly tell their audiences the nation is literally in danger because a 'black man' is in the White House."
"Scott Roeder, a Republican (a member of the patriot movement) murdered Dr. George Tiller at church; Roeder was an anti-abortion fanatic with ties to a right-wing extremist group. Jim Adkisson, shot up a Unitarian church, killing two people because he hated liberals and gays. Then there is the white supremacist, James Von Brunn, (he writes crazy things, on the internet.) who murdered the guard at the Holocaust Museum."
"Threats to assassinate the President soared by 400% since he took office, averaging 30 threats each day."
"As Susan Brooks Thistlewaite pointed out in the Washington Post "When there is a constant battery of nasty, demeaning, race-baiting, fear mongering, it stokes the fires of extremism. Individuals already inclined toward violence may be encouraged to act out. I believe that religious leaders and civic leaders who feel that stoking feelings of alienation and fear are not good for the country need to speak out clearly. We need to explain, connect, reassure and find common ground where we can. We need to say unambiguously that no religion supports hate-motivated violence".
http://www.americaforpurchase.com/republ...
Sharron should do the same, and it appears she lacks the judgment to recognize her comments were inappropriate.
I understand the need for GOP candidates to support the second amendment, and for the most part, I support their cause.
But when Sharron's talking about armed rebellion in response to people voting, that's taking it too far.
The nation is too polarized at this point for our civic leaders to be ambiguous about these things.
What I think we'll see if there is a continued perception that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are being ignored by the federal government is an increased desire in some States to seccede from the Union. In theory this can and should be done peacefully. (And there can be one hell of a debate over whether or not Lincoln was correct in forcibly preventing the South from doing so 150 years ago.) But if that can not happen, then the Second Amendment guarantees the people of those States the right to do so. (Again, there can be a hell of a debate here.)
The central issue really is over how much freedom people have to live as they desire to. Back in the day one could choose what State to live in based on how that one perceived a given State's government. Today, the federal government has made the States much more homogenous than they were. (This by the way underscores the need for keeping the electoral college and the Senate as it is.)
Thankfully we have the First Amendment that guarantees our right to discuss these issues without fear. (And if we can NOT be free from fear in this discussion then the word "tyranical" might not be inappropriate.)
ksand, Angle has in fact elaborated on this. The RJ had this article on Jun 18: http://www.lvrj.com/news/angle-speaks-ab...
In there they qoute Angle as saying:
"I can't believe people are even asking that," Angle said in the brief interview. "I'm very much a proponent of the Second Amendment and the Constitution. But what we have to focus on here is a movement, a movement that's about retiring Harry Reid" by voting him out of office."
That is a clarification.
I don't think that either elaborates nor clarifies her original point.
"I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around?"
How does repeating her support for the second amendment and Constitution enlighten anyone's understanding of that particular sentence? She goes no further in-depth, doesn't bother to wade in the the "tyranny" question, and leaves it entirely to interpretation.
How does that clarify or elaborate?
I'm stumped, boftx. She even glosses over her own words by saying "what we have to focus on here..." She's not clarifying, she's changing the subject.
I was referring to her comment "... retiring Harry Reid by voting him out of office." That was meant to clarify what means she would use when she said "... take Reid out."
As for the other part, no politician can feel comfortable saying that the Second Amendment was put in place to ensure that the People could rebel again if needed (even when quoting Jefferson). Even I don't feel completely comfortable discussing that (First Amendment notwithstanding). I do think it is signifcant that such statements are being heard more in the news today than say 30 years ago.
boftx,
Of all the right-wing posters here, you've been the most willing to debate Angle's call for the Second Amendment remedy. Patrick also, but he danced around the issue using pseudo-historical mumbo-jumbo BS.
The one far-right commenter here who remains in complete, uninterrupted denial is gogowhitesux. He's the total package wingnut and refuses to confront the ugly side of Angle's candidacy, saying that since the Remedy will never happen it's OK for a US Senate candidate to advocate for it.
ksand, and everyone else, this site has a nice collection of quotes dealing with the meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment. I'm sure that Angle's veiws would be in full agreement.
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html
I hope that no one here would argue that they no longer apply.
And before someone says we are now off-topic, it should be pointed out that we are being civil. :)
Civil wars are common in empires that are dying.
There will be another civil war but not anything soon.
When the money is all gone (like in about 50 years) then there probably be a civil war then.
I am not sure if it will be left vs. right or east vs. west or urban vs. rural or brown vs. black or color vs. white or some combo.
When gay agenda advances to the point of telling churches that they must marry gays and/or accept gays as pastors/preachers/priest then there could be some armed rebellion over that.
One day there will be a law or court decision that will say it is OK to own child porn and/or it is OK for a 45 year old man to have sex with a 13 year old boy. Will that cause an armed rebellion? Probably not.
On the other hand, the Constitution was thrown in the trash can during the 1930's and then re-thrown in the trash can during the 1960's to 1970's and there was no armed rebellion over that.
There are over 1 million abortions and there is no armed rebellion over that.
It probably will be a money thing or job thing that will trigger the next civil war and not a morality thing. So when we are at around $50 to $100 trillion in debt and the Chinese are not buying bonds anymore and we are just print cash off the printers and taxes are around 50% for everybody and then there is a significant recession then there will be a civil war.
The masses that live off the government will be demanding that the producers that produce the GDP to fork over even more than 50% of their income that will be already shrinking due to taxes, regulation and super-hyper inflation.
It will be bloody.
The point is that some insane person is listening to her believing that using "Second Amendment remedies", along with "take Reid out" is a good idea, regardless of she actually "meant". Or how it was "misconstrued".
Same thing with O'Reilly and Tiller - O'Reilly should be held responsible for his inflammatory rhetoric.
Ksand and Edge,
Yes it is true there is violent right-wing extremisim in America. Wing nut extremism ebs and flows back and forth on both sides gaining steam in one decade before largely dying out in the next. And not to excuse right-wing extremism, but according to the U.S. government, left-wing extremism is responsible for 3 out of every 4 terrorist acts in the 1980s (when they were slowly dying). I've seen other figures that suggest that 3 out of every 4 is fairly consistent regardless of decade. Here is one study done by the DOE http://www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cover.js...
LastThroes, I am not a member of the right-wing, nor am I left-wing. I consider myself to be a philosophical libertarian/classical liberal/Jeffersonian Democrat who is above the aisle (find the website). Patrick is somewhat similar in his views, but is much more rooted in economic principles than I am (and we disagree mainly on those.)
Believing in the principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence and implemented in the Bill of Rights should not be construed as an "ugly side" of a person's candidicy, as you put it. I find it refreshing.
My biggest complaint with Angle is that she throws in far too much religious morality and doesn't seem to see how such restraint is a direct contradiction to a belief in limited government.
The answer to dying extremism and radicalism is celebration, not stoking the fears of those rare paranoid and mentally ill individuals who would take Sharron's words quite literally.
As far as her religious morality and her desire to impose such morality through rule of law, you and I completely agree.
What principled libertarian could support her as a candidate, taking those views into consideration?
according to this article threats to Obama now no different than Bush and Clinton http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5...
Ksand,
What principled democrat supports a President that gave away billions to some of the richest people in America? :P
ksand, I will need to hold my nose in November when I vote her, the same as I did when I voted for Kerry in 2004. As much as I detest those views, I find Reid's views on the role of government to be worse *at this point in time*.
If our country's condition were better, I might well vote "None of these candidates" as I did in 2008, but I simply do not believe that Reid should be given another term and must vote for someone to replace him.
Scott Rasmussen polls: The Dubya Bush campaign paid Rasmussen $45,500 in 2004, and the RNC paid Rasmussen $95,500 in 2003 and 2004.
Rassmusen has close ties to Fox news and also contributes to Fox News.
Their poll results are hard to verify and their polls lack creditability and validity.
ksand, I would vote for a goat rather than Reid.
Draw your own conclusions.
Scott Rasmussen was paid $45,5000 by the Duh bush campaign in 2004, and the RNC paid them $95,500 for their work in 2003 and 2004.
The Rasmussen polls lack validity and creditability because of the low numbers they poll and the structure of their questions.
Rasmussen has always had a relationship with Fox and contributes to their news.
One other polling organization that lacks creditability is Strategic Visions LLC.
If this is what Angle actually said -
"I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around?"
The first line, "I hope that's not where we're going", should tell you that she's not advocating an armed rebellion. The rest of it sounds like a warning that she envisions the citizenry taking action if our current path continues. She warns that Harry Reid's spend, spend, spend policies are angering a lot more people than were previously involved with politics.
What's hard to understand about that?
"What principled democrat supports a President that gave away billions to some of the richest people in America?"
The same Democrat who is committed to letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthiest?
larry, you miss the point. Read her entire quote in context, don't simply quote one sentence out of four. Further, if she was warning people were getting angry, she could have easily said that. She didn't. She specifically referenced the second amendment and weapons, instead.
When given the opportunity to clarify, she backed away from her statement. I take that as an implicit acknowledgment of her error, but without a single bit of regret.
It looks like when that AmericaForPurchase article was written, that wasn't the case, Patrick.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washin...
"The unprecedented number of death threats against President Obama, a rise in racist hate groups, and a new wave of antigovernment fervor threaten to overwhelm the US Secret Service, according to government officials and reports, raising new questions about the 144-year-old agency's overall mission."
"The Secret Service is tracking a far broader range of possible threats to the nation's leaders, the officials said, even as it also investigates financial crimes such as counterfeiting as part of its original mandate."
Both articles came around Sep-Oct last year.
Rasmussen had the most accurate polling predictions the week of the Obama's election in terms of popular vote and electoral college among the major national polling companies.
You can play with the polls all you want but
come November, Harry Reid wins.
2012, Barack Obama wins.
Have fun with your polls.
If you cherry-pick a single election, like Sgt James F Nance Jr Rock, you might think Rasmussen is the bestest pollster ever.
However, in the seven states where pollsters were the most active in the week before Election Day 2008, Rasmussen ranked second-to-last in accuracy.
Rasmussen also remains an outlier on Presidential Approval:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...
Ksand99:
Incorrect on your observation of Rsasmussen being an "outier" on the Presidential Approval poll.
Approval: The poll is measuring APPROVAL
Newsweek 48
Rasmussen 45
Gallup 45
NBC 45
Pew 48
CBS 47
THe accumulation of data that is placed in the disaaprove category is inconclusive and can include people with no opinion or no response.
Again, the purpose of the poll is PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL.
Rasmussen approval rating is exactly the same as 3 out of the 7 so I am not sure how you can call that an outliner.
Plus you have a basic lack of understanding of polls.
Rasmussen is a likely-voter poll and all the other polls in the RealClearPolitics are general population polls. Since Republicans tend to vote in a higher percentage than Democrats then naturally Obama's disapproval rating will be higher.
So it depends on you what you think is important.
If you want to be one that is happy that the general population is for your guy then go with Gallup.
If you want to be one that is happy that your guy will win an election then go with Rasmussen or some other polling company that is based on most-likely voters.
I hope the Democrats stick with the general population polls. I prefer that you guys be ignorant and stick your heads in the dirt.
Ksand99,
Your post this afternoon regarding the implication that Sean Hannity, Dick Cheney and Bill O'reilly said the country is in trouble because a "black Man" is President is probably the most pathetic thing I have seen posted on this blog.
If you all want to see where Ksand99's head is at, go to this web site.
www.americaforpurchase.com
Read the first hundred words and you'll see how whacked out the purveyor of this web site is.
I just read some of the crap on this website and it is one of the most hate-filled, nut job, ridiculous rhetoric that has ever been posted on the web. It is chock full of nonsense and flat out lies.
You, Ksand99 challenged me to back up some numbers. Back up this claim that these three men made those comments. I want to see a link to Youtube or somewhere else where they clearly make that statement. If your "proof" that they made those comments is purely this site you are a complete fool who is easily manipulated by the whackiest of propoganda.
This is pure Nazi type propoganda and you should really be ashamed of yourself for A.) believing this type of garbage and B.) actually thinking you can base an argument on what's posted on this slimy sight.
If you really believe what is on this site you are much sicker than anyone that's ever posted on these blogs.
Well, so much for the civil discussion we were having. :)
Here are some pieces of rhetoric that Ksand99 proudly embraces as gospel:
"Republicans proudly and loudly spout their hate for an American President, the sick and downtrodden, anyone who is not "white" and they lie, cheat and steal about, integrity and morality."
"Is "jihad" too harsh? I don't think so. Jihad refers to the use of and perpetuating violence, including paramilitary action against persons, governments deemed to be enemies of the fundamental version."
"The Republican jihadists get into ecstasies of joy by chanting the lie "Obama is a Muslim!", "Obama is an illegal alien!" Obama hates white people!
"These American "jihadists" support immoral behavior of elected officials like John Ensign, Gov. Mark Sanford but call efforts to reform health care as "immoral", "socialism" and "Un-American"
This web site goes on and on with this kind of lunar insanity and rhetoric.
This is the kind of nonsense ksand99 believes. If you believe this kind of nonsense you are just as sick as ksand99 and need some serious psychological help.
You are one sick person, ksand99.
It is true that Rasmussen has a conservative reputation according to liberal political observers. Some of this may result from how questions are worded. (All polls struggle with this, I've seen some really bad ones done on school choice issues). Nevertheless, in 2008 Rasmussen was ranked as the most accurate polling organization in America by Fordham University (for the presidential election).
http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/...
Republican greed came out in it's final glory
when it voted against extending unemployment
for it's fellow Americans.
Unemployed Americans will still be able to vote
in November.
The PARTY OF GREED IS TOAST.
Teamster,
Take a gander at what your liberal pal Ksand99 believes. You always back his play. Do you believe what is on this website also?
www.americaforpurchase.com
Ksand99,
I am going to post the link to your gospel every time you post on this or any other blog. I am going to make sure everyone knows exactly whay kind of putrid thoughts coarse through your head until you apologize to every Republican who posts on this blog.
Count on it!
"Approval: The poll is measuring APPROVAL"
The polls clearly measure APPROVAL and DISAPPROVAL, and those values are represented by 7 polling firms.
The approval spread ranges from +5 (Pew, an outlier) to -8 (Rasmussen, the other outlier).
Deny reality all you like. Everything I've written can be seen here:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...
Sgt James F Nance Jr Rock, I'll ask you a very simple question:
Why do all the other polling firms that measure approval on the RCP's sample from all Americans, whereas Rasmussen is the ONLY one on that site which measures based on likelihood of voters?
I lack understanding of polling? You thought Rasmussen's -8 spread "is exactly the same as 3 out of the 7!"
Since we're measuring approval, and not forecasting an election, there's NO REASON to use likely voters. You shrink the sample and introduce a margin of error.
gogo....
Before and after the presidential election, I
did see some extreme, right-wing republicans
make those statements.
That's the ugly truth.
Moderate republicans need to detach themselves
from those on the far, extreme right.
Ksand99,
This is how pathetic you are. Add the two columns and you'll see that most of the polls don't classify the remainder after APPROVAL.
For those of you who haven't yet read the "bible" according to Ksand99, go to this site and you'll see where he gets his material.
www.americaforpurchase.com
I want to know, Ksand99, do you disavow the site you used as your earlier post?
Whitesox,
I applaud your strident anger and a website I quoted. Of course, quoting a website simply brings in another point of view. You disagree with that point of view. We get it, really!
Was the accusation that, "Sean Hannity, Dick Cheney, Bill O'Reilly tell their audiences the nation is literally in danger because a 'black man' is in the White House" hyperbole? Absolutely.
Unfortunately, when one quotes a passage from a website, they do not endorse every single thing that's ever been written on that website. That's why I selected a quotation, rather than link to the entire site and say, "Hey, I believe every single thing here!"
You got caught up in attribution last night, and I simply wanted to attribute those words to their author, who is not me.
The other quotes you list are from the website. I didn't quote them, copy them or endorse them.
You can choose to be a playground bully and follow me around. I'm not afraid of you in the least. In fact, the Sun frowns upon that kind of behavior. That's a fair warning: they've been know to revoke the posting privelages of people who intentionally bully and post off-topic flames.
The 3 paragraphs I did cite, beyond the Hannity/Cheney/O'Reilly hyperbole, is what I endorse and stand behind. Deal with it.
You're not going to play that game, ksand99. you did post the website and have quoted from it before.
You posted those entires because you believed them and thought the ridiculous rhetoric endorsed your point of view.
There is no way that the introduction of such filth contributes to ANY discussion. You need to disavow the site or take the responsibility for dragging it into the light of day.
Whitesox, every single one of those pollsters ask approval/disapproval. Rasmussen's disapproval is clearly higher than every other poll on that page. And when you look at the delta between approval/disapproval, Rasmussen is one of ONLY two negative deltas and 5 points more negative than any other delta!
The fact that they poll likely voters rather than all PROVES they are an outlier when it comes to approval ratings.
You can't prove me wrong. I've posted a direct link. ANYONE can look at these numbers and confirm what I've written:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...
Whitesox,
I applaud your strident anger and a website I quoted. Of course, quoting a website simply brings in another point of view. You disagree with that point of view. We get it, really!
Was the accusation that, "Sean Hannity, Dick Cheney, Bill O'Reilly tell their audiences the nation is literally in danger because a 'black man' is in the White House" hyperbole? Absolutely.
Unfortunately, when one quotes a passage from a website, they do not endorse every single thing that's ever been written on that website. That's why I selected a quotation, rather than link to the entire site and say, "Hey, I believe every single thing here!"
You got caught up in attribution last night, and I simply wanted to attribute those words to their author, who is not me.
The other quotes you list are from the website. I didn't quote them, copy them or endorse them.
You can choose to be a playground bully and follow me around. I'm not afraid of you in the least. In fact, the Sun frowns upon that kind of behavior. That's a fair warning: they've been know to revoke the posting privelages of people who intentionally bully and post off-topic flames.
The 3 paragraphs I did cite, beyond the Hannity/Cheney/O'Reilly hyperbole, is what I endorse and stand behind. Deal with it.
Ksand99,
Here is the entire text, with no disclaimers, of what you posted earlier today. That text was lifted and posted without change directly from that web site. you did not say that you believed it was hyperbole, you did not say that it contained views you didn't believe in. It was run under your name. This is the kind of "plausible deniability" that allows merchants of hate like you to throw something out there and then stand back and say:
"I really didn't mean it."
It's under YOUR name - either disavow it or take responsibiity.
"Recently there were 3 political shootings by these right-wing jihadists as Republicans and their right-wing media leadership step up the intensity and rhetoric of violence. Sean Hannity, Dick Cheney, Bill O'Reilly tell their audiences the nation is literally in danger because a 'black man' is in the White House."
"Scott Roeder, a Republican (a member of the patriot movement) murdered Dr. George Tiller at church; Roeder was an anti-abortion fanatic with ties to a right-wing extremist group. Jim Adkisson, shot up a Unitarian church, killing two people because he hated liberals and gays. Then there is the white supremacist, James Von Brunn, (he writes crazy things, on the internet.) who murdered the guard at the Holocaust Museum."
"Threats to assassinate the President soared by 400% since he took office, averaging 30 threats each day."
"As Susan Brooks Thistlewaite pointed out in the Washington Post "When there is a constant battery of nasty, demeaning, race-baiting, fear mongering, it stokes the fires of extremism. Individuals already inclined toward violence may be encouraged to act out. I believe that religious leaders and civic leaders who feel that stoking feelings of alienation and fear are not good for the country need to speak out clearly. We need to explain, connect, reassure and find common ground where we can. We need to say unambiguously that no religion supports hate-motivated violence".
http://www.americaforpurchase.com/republ......
"It's under YOUR name - either disavow it or take responsibiity."
Seems like you're struggling with reading comprehension, Whitesox. Let me cut and paste what I've written twice before:
"The 3 paragraphs I did cite, beyond the Hannity/Cheney/O'Reilly hyperbole, is what I endorse and stand behind. Deal with it."
gogowhitesox says:
"I'm tired of hearing people on this blog and in everyday life excusing poor behavior by trying to point to someone else's poor behavior. It's a complete cop-out."
Followed a paragraph later by
"Ksand99 is a sick human being. I want everyone to know the basis of his philosophy. He states that it is important for everyone to understand the philosophy of Sharron Angle - well, I am going to make it my personal responsibility that everyone knows what an unbalanced individual this person is."
I say:
Ksand99 Rocks!
Sharron Angle is a new breed of weasel, but still a weasel.
gogo.....
Those on the extreme, far-right may have
permamently damaged the republican party.
I believe Sharron Angle is WAY too extreme
for Nevada and our country.
Thanks, Jeff! I've got 3500+ posts over several years here, but suddenly I'm the biggest jerk known to mankind?
From now on, I'll make sure to read every single page of any website I link to, because that's exactly what Whitesox demands!
Gogo, give it a rest.
If you can't see the inherent irony in your attempts to smear another commenter's name on an editorial titled, "A lack of civility," then you really can't be helped.
It's just silly and a bit batty to think that anytime someone copies some text here that they endorse every single radical view on the source's website. Be honest with the rest of us: you can't possibly believe that, right?
Instead, you pull several other comments from the site out-of-context and basically lie and tell the rest of us that ksand99 believes it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't know ksand99 very well, do you?
No, the quote about fearing a black man in the White House was unbelievably stupid, but that doesn't invalidate the rest of that quote, especially the bit from Susan Brooks Thistlewaite, or the references to Republican extremism.
You're making a mountain out of less than a molehill.
Ksand99,
Your a pathetic sick individual to believe anything on that sight and to attempt to utilize anything posted there as fact.
Is your point that threats have increased by 400% because this web site said so? Are you that stupid to believe that this scurrilous web site is reporting facts and not jibberish. This is your source, coming from a guy who parsed every statement I made? This is what you use as fact?
Susan Brooks Thistlewaite's opinion drives you to adopt opinions and then you propose them as fact. This again is what you rely on? Who is Ms. Thistlewaite? What is her political standing? what is her political agenda? Does she write for this site also or does she just post her biased opinion in the Washington Post?
Your credibility is ZERO when you start pulling these type of hit and run attempts at backing up your arguments.
Get some credible sources and some professional help.
Imagine what kind a world it would be if Gogo was more concerned with the extremist rhetoric of Sharron Angle, a candidate for U.S. Senate, rather than some no-named loon's website about Republican jihad?
"Your[sic] a pathetic sick individual to believe anything on that sight[sic] and to attempt to utilize anything posted there as fact."
Oh, now I posted it as fact, huh? Just because you post someone's opinion using quotations doesn't mean you've posted it as fact.
Yet again, let me repost what I posted earlier today:
"The unprecedented number of death threats against President Obama, a rise in racist hate groups, and a new wave of antigovernment fervor threaten to overwhelm the US Secret Service, according to government officials and reports, raising new questions about the 144-year-old agency's overall mission."
"The Secret Service is tracking a far broader range of possible threats to the nation's leaders, the officials said, even as it also investigates financial crimes such as counterfeiting as part of its original mandate."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washin...
Oh, crap. I posted a link to another website. I hope there aren't any offensive reader comments on Boston.com! Whitesox might have another hissy fit.
Susan Brooks Thistlewaite's opinion is identified in the quotation as being attributed to her!
Oh man, this is the most fun I've had on the Sun's site since NVMakz!
Oh thats' right, the implication that Republicans murder people, cause death threats to the President and cause social unrest is just "another post"
Your saying it's ironic that it's posted on a blog that talks about civil discourse. Read the items again, Edge, they are barriers to civil discourse. They are attempts to paint people as attempted murderers, hate mongers and worse.
Ksand99 says he doesn't think the first paragraph is correct but the second two are. Do you see how this is structured. The first paragraph lays the ground work for saying the Republicans don't like a black president. The second paragraph points out that threats to that President are up 400%. What conclusion is to be drawn from that set-up? THat republicans are trying to get people to kill the President.
Follow that up with a paragraph that implies that Republicans are responsible for civil unrest.
This is the oldest trick in the book This is what was going on in Germany in 1938 with the implication of the Jews causing all of Germany's problems. I know, I'm first generation American of German descent and my Grandparents told me all about this garbage.
This type of nonsense cannot be allowed to go unchallenged or it will spread like the plague. It needs to stop.
Kevin, I think you should get a tattoo that reads, "Merchant of Hate." Maybe with flames and a skull/crossed bones.
"Oh thats' right, the implication that Republicans murder people, cause death threats to the President and cause social unrest is just "another post"
Well, the quote actually identifies them as "right-wing jihadists" and lays some blame at the feet of republican commentators who stoke the flames of those jihadists with extreme rhetoric.
Maybe you weren't following the conversation, but that was when we were discussing the implication of Sharron's second amendment armed insurrection quote. The point was: right-wing extremists use that kind of rhetoric as justification for their rampages.
"Scott Roeder, a Republican (a member of the patriot movement) murdered Dr. George Tiller at church; Roeder was an anti-abortion fanatic with ties to a right-wing extremist group. Jim Adkisson, shot up a Unitarian church, killing two people because he hated liberals and gays. Then there is the white supremacist, James Von Brunn, (he writes crazy things, on the internet.) who murdered the guard at the Holocaust Museum."
Those events happened, Whitesox. They are examples of republican extremism gone awry. We should not forget about them, and people like Sharron Angle need to understand that their words should be chosen carefully, and with these unbalanced people in mind.
No, now I'm just like Hitler, edgewise, because I reminded Whitesox that extremist republicans exist and some of them go crazy and kill people... and yes, extremist rhetoric can be a trigger for that behavior.
It's all things he won't dare argue, though. He's WAY to busy flogging his dead horse.
And, inevitably, Gogo violates Godwin's Law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad...
He's argued himself into irrelevance.
Hitler didn't abide tattoos, did he?
I dunno. Whitesox is the expert on all things Hitler.
Whitesox, did Hitler allow tattoos?
Again,
I refer you to YOUR post. The labeling of O'Reilly, Hannity and Cheney are as "Republicans and their right wing media".
Scott Roemer is labeled as "Republican" not "jihadist".
Therefor there is no distinction in your post and you are painting all Republicans as violent, diseased and extremists.
Agasin, plausible deniability. The oldest trick in the book to try to inflame people using the
"association" trick.
Hitler killed four people from my family you piece of dirt.
You've convinced me. I will no longer post on this site while the Sun allows this kind of garbage to be thrown out there.
"Here is the entire text, with no disclaimers, of what you posted earlier today. "
OMG, you are SO helpful!
"you did not say that you believed it was hyperbole, you did not say that it contained views you didn't believe in. "
Should I have ommitted the sentence I didn't believe? Wouldn't that have been dishonest? Tell the truth, wouldn't we now be arguing about omitting sentences had I done so? Furthermore, read the quote. I really thought the hyperbole was obvious. I guess not to everyone, huh?
"It was run under your name. "
Yes, with proper attribution via a link to the source.
"This is the kind of "plausible deniability" that allows merchants of hate like you to throw something out there and then stand back and say: "I really didn't mean it."
Besides that sentence, the rest of the quotation is pretty solid. You're getting caught up with a single data point of the 400%, but you've been unable to dispute the actual meat of the quote.
Republicans need to calm down. They lost the
election to the better man. President Obama is
fixing the HUGE mess handed to him by the
republican party. All Americans need to back
this great president.
We don't have time to play games.
Our great country is at stake.
"Scott Roemer is labeled as "Republican" not "jihadist"."
The quote begins with labeling him as a jihadist:
"Recently there were 3 political shootings by these right-wing jihadists..."
"Hitler killed four people from my family you piece of dirt."
Hitler? What are you talking about?!? YOU compared ME to Hitler! Yes, that is a logical fallacy AND insane.
"Agasin, plausible deniability. The oldest trick in the book to try to inflame people using the "association" trick."
Let's take a trip back to yesterday, when you made a curious comment linking Obama, George Soros and insider trading, and then quickly backed away when asked for evidence by claiming you thought it didn't "pass the smell test" rather than the more direct inference that you obviously think Obama colluded with George Soros on an investment in Brazilian petroleum.
Plausable deniability, Whitesox.
gogowhitesox says:
"You've convinced me. I will no longer post on this site while the Sun allows this kind of garbage to be thrown out there."
I say:
Promise?
In the last two hours, you've called him "sick" a "merchant of hate," a "pathetic sick individual," "he's certifiable and pathetic, "(This comment was removed by the site staff.)," "I am going to make sure everyone knows exactly whay kind of putrid thoughts coarse through your head," "You are one sick person, ksand99," "you are a complete fool," "you are much sicker than anyone that's ever posted on these blogs"
And then have the gall to write:
"You've convinced me. I will no longer post on this site while the Sun allows this kind of garbage to be thrown out there."
You are one of a kind, Gogo.
The Sun plays a not insignificant role in this problem.
If the Sun -- and every other news website -- turned the lights on and required identity verification from posters, thereby ending the cloak of anonymity, the discussion would immediately elevate. Just take a look at the stories on which the Sun requires commmenters to log in using a FaceBook account ... just a smattering of reasonably civil comments on stories that might have attracted dozens (or hundreds) of anonymity-fueled rants.
With freedom comes responsibility. Those stories with Facebook have few comments and almost no discussion.
Yes, sometimes the discussion gets heated and nasty here, but genuine discussion also occurs, and yo would throw the baby out with the bath-water.
Many of us refuse to use Facebook for reasons unrelated to the Sun.
I hate those nazi scum:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv5RXPHEn...
Ev'rybody Needs Somebody To Love:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sF4l8euY...
Regards
Banana_Joe
WOW, kinda reminds me of when ksand, edge and el loco used to gang up on LarryVegas.
burritto.......
The problem with republicans is when they lose
they like to take the ball and go home.
Very childish.
Long live the SUN BLOGS.
It is funny to see libs use words right-wing jihadists and yet they have no problem with a terrorist who helped bombed and murder people and who helped Obama start his career in politics.
The same man is a hero among them.
The same man has never apologized for his actions.
Obama has never condemned him nor the masses of libs that think he is a great guy.
Libs are hypocrites.....we already have known.
They are just reminding us again today.
I wonder what kind of filter the writer of this article views the world through. It obviously is a one way filter with tight parameters to express such a hypocritical, biased and less than truthful opinion.
And he or she obviously has a very limited memory of recent American history.
Those of us with a more balanced, historical and less biased vantage point might call this a form of yellow journalism.
Sgt James F Nance Jr Rock forgets the celebration that went on with many republicans when George Tiller was murdered.
Some republicans even rejoiced in the Sun's comment section.
The man is a hero among them.
The man has never apologized for his actions.
James has probably never condemned him nor the masses of republicans that think he is a great guy.
The republicans are hypocrites... we know this as a fact.
They are just reminding us today.
Some republicans even compared the murder of George Tiller to Rosa Parks sitting on a bus!
"We celebrate the breaking [of] laws every time the media canonizes Rosa Parks. She broke the law. There is no question of that. The question is whether it was the ethical thing to do (it was.) We celebrate the Nazi resistance, we celebrate the Tiananmen Square uprising. I'm sure those were all illegal actions, yet were unquestionably the moral things to do. So how would killing a killer, when all options are exhausted, not also be the right thing to do? "
To be absolutely clear to anyone who is reading and commenting, and to reiterate what I wrote before, I don't condone or support this opinion; it's offered in response to Sgt James F Nance Jr Rock's comment.
If you want to generalize a minority view in any party or group as belonging to the entire group, you had better be prepared to defend any number of wacko, crazy ideas from the conservative side.
What about the group of conservatives who joke about using a nuclear bomb in the Middle East? Just because a minority hold the view does NOT reflect on the majority.
I don't know a single person who thinks Ayers is a hero... but if we choose to believe your rhetoric, it looks just as bad, or worse, for conservatives as it looks for liberals.
I don't think Dr. Tiller is viewed as a hero to a majority of republicans or conservatives, which is why that argument is so specious and ignorant.
"I don't think Dr. Tiller is viewed as a hero to a majority of republicans or conservatives"
I think you missed typed. Republicans or Conservatives would never view Dr. Tiller the Baby Killer as a hero. I don't that the majority of them view his killer as a hero either.
On the other hand, Ayers is viewed as a respectable member of the liberal community. That is why Obama used him to start his career.
I don't see Republicans using the killer of Dr Tiller the Baby as spring board to career in politics.
It's a gross oversimplification to assume liberals everywhere agree with and respect Ayers.
It's a gross oversimplification and completely typical of the empty rhetoric you regularly bring to the table, Sgt James F Nance Jr Rock.
Negative campaigning = Not having anything good to say about yourself (so you choose, instead, to bash your opponent). Limit campaign ads (on TV/Radio) as well as the funding one can use towards same and you might see candidates actually using their limit time/resources as an opportunity to get the word out to their voting public on their own attributes/worthiness to be elected to the position they running for as opposed to running countless ads that do little more than bad-mouth their opponent with half-truths and sound-bytes.
It is stating a falsehood to say that I stated that libs everywhere agree with and respect Ayers.
I do say that Obama respected Ayers and must have believed that many of libs friends respected Ayers.
Ayers does have the respect of many libs.
A more true example of oversimplification is stating that one should blame a sentence or two in a speech for the actions of an terrorist.
That is oversimplification to the nth degree.
@Burrittobandit2:
'...when ksand, edge and el loco used to gang up on LarryVegas.'
Wtf are "ksand", "edge", "el loco", "LarryVegas"... they all sound to me being some linux servers...? I do not even know what you're talking about.
Btw, you should not even post here, since you are a burrito bandid, who stole burritos..., so you should better learn to be still, because you cannot keep running around stealing burritos for the rest of your life. Got IT?
I only know, that I hate that nazi scum:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv5RXPHEn...
And that everybody definitely needs somebody to love:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sF4l8euY...
Regards
Banana_Joe
Sgt Rock - since I assume you're a MAN with NO IDEA what a woman goes though, stay out of it. Tiller was a hero for many women. It's disgusting that you would feel a woman cannot make her own decisions about HER BODY! You are a repulsive human being for celebrating the murder of a caring and compassionate Dr. that saved many women's lives. You have NO CLUE - so stop acting as if you do.
Right on, Jen.
You are truely clueless, Jenlv, or can't read or just plain stupid.
Where did I ever celebrate the murder of Dr. Tiller the Baby killer?
There is no excuse for murder.
Whether it be the murderer of Dr. Tiller or the Dr. Tiller the Baby killer himself.
He had practice where he will drill holes in the heads of babies right before they were seconds away from taking their first breaths.
If women can't make the decision to use birth control or keep their legs not spreaded open then I think they really don't the right to wait until the baby can survive the womb to have murderers like Dr. Tiller the Baby killer from taking the babies' lives.
There is no excuse for murder.
The murderer of Dr. Tiller should be punished and not glorified.
If there is anyone out there who is capable of decoding this from SgtRock, please abstract:
If women can't make the decision to use birth control or keep their legs not spreaded open then I think they really don't the right to wait until the baby can survive the womb to have murderers like Dr. Tiller the Baby killer from taking the babies' lives.
Please address comment in light of:
* human rights
* women's rights
* interpretation in language that is meaningful
Thanks. pity the pebble and his off-spring and the learning community that will waste its time with another nance
I am neither stupid or clueless, and obviously I am capable of reading - but thank you airweare for pointing out who seems to be!
I really think you should educate yourself with something other than the rhetoric of Fixed News before you speak on a subject Sgt Moron - especially something you obviously know NOTHING about.