Has anyone noted any toning down of rhetoric?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Since the left made the inane argument that we should "tone down the heated rhetoric" has anyone noticed the left observing this edict? So far, I have seen a Congressman stand on the floor of the House, and compare the right to Goebbels and the Nazis, even using the offensive term "blood libel" to describe what the right is saying about the Health Care Reform bill... I have heard them outright accusing the right of killing people, or causing another Tucson, if Obamacare is repealed.

Here on this very forum, it is Liberal business as usual, within hours of the president's speech in Tucson, pinheads were posting vitriol and deplorable accusations, and they've not slowed down one bit. Obama pleaded with the people, in the wake of Tucson, to have civil and honest discourse... just days later, left-wing militant media was releasing supposed video clips of Glenn Beck, calling on his followers to "shoot them in the head" ...never mind the context of what he said was completely opposite of what they claimed he said. Lefties clung to the phrase "HONEST discourse" in the president's call for civility, but the left has been anything BUT honest, in the wake of Tucson. Forget about the 8 years of Bush Hate we've listened to, forget the terabytes of online vitriol and bitterly violent rhetoric from the left, directed at anything of the right, they can't even bring themselves to have honest civil discourse in the days following a national tragedy and presidential address. Not for one week, not for one day, not for one hour. The liberals don't seem to know or understand HOW to be honest and civil in discourse! In fact, it pretty much flies in the face of liberalism to be civil.

Following true to form with their idol, Rahm Emmanuel, they didn't let this crisis go to waste. They use the tragedy in Tucson to further denigrate their opposition, to bolster arguments for clinging to an ever-increasingly unpopular nationalized health care reform, to push for more ineffective gun control measures, and to outright silence the voices of opposition on the airwaves and internet. And even though a vast and overwhelming majority of their fellow Americans completely reject their idea that heated right-wing rhetoric was, in any way, responsible for the Tucson shootings, they will continue to passively insinuate, that was the case here.

 

[Bfgrn]

Since the left made the inane argument that we should "tone down the heated rhetoric" has anyone noticed the left observing this edict? So far, I have seen a Congressman stand on the floor of the House, and compare the right to Goebbels and the Nazis, even using the offensive term "blood libel" to describe what the right is saying about the Health Care Reform bill... I have heard them outright accusing the right of killing people, or causing another Tucson, if Obamacare is repealed.

Here on this very forum, it is Liberal business as usual, within hours of the president's speech in Tucson, pinheads were posting vitriol and deplorable accusations, and they've not slowed down one bit. Obama pleaded with the people, in the wake of Tucson, to have civil and honest discourse... just days later, left-wing militant media was releasing supposed video clips of Glenn Beck, calling on his followers to "shoot them in the head" ...never mind the context of what he said was completely opposite of what they claimed he said. Lefties clung to the phrase "HONEST discourse" in the president's call for civility, but the left has been anything BUT honest, in the wake of Tucson. Forget about the 8 years of Bush Hate we've listened to, forget the terabytes of online vitriol and bitterly violent rhetoric from the left, directed at anything of the right, they can't even bring themselves to have honest civil discourse in the days following a national tragedy and presidential address. Not for one week, not for one day, not for one hour. The liberals don't seem to know or understand HOW to be honest and civil in discourse! In fact, it pretty much flies in the face of liberalism to be civil.

Following true to form with their idol, Rahm Emmanuel, they didn't let this crisis go to waste. They use the tragedy in Tucson to further denigrate their opposition, to bolster arguments for clinging to an ever-increasingly unpopular nationalized health care reform, to push for more ineffective gun control measures, and to outright silence the voices of opposition on the airwaves and internet. And even though a vast and overwhelming majority of their fellow Americans completely reject their idea that heated right-wing rhetoric was, in any way, responsible for the Tucson shootings, they will continue to passively insinuate, that was the case here.

Dixie, Beck DID call for shooting progressives in the head. WHAT context is missing, the part where he compared progressives to Ayatollah Khomeini?

Glenn Beck transcript: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,594343,00.html#ixzz1BV5F8Dwz

WHY are all your posts always filled with blatant LIES?

It's ironic that you even utter the word 'context', when Beck starts his whole segment by taking a whole bunch of words from people OUT of context, and then BECK tells you what they really mean.

Anyone who watches this guy is an intellectual midget. This is nothing but hate filled fear-mongering propaganda. It is exactly what Joseph Goebbels did in Germany.

 

[RockX]

Nope, they are still the same fucking bastards that you want to beat with a baseball bat until they stop moving.

View attachment 579


This is a screen grab from the opening 2 minutes of Chris Matthews Hardball Thursday night. Next to him is a picture of the U.S. Capitol building with a bullseye target on it along with gun crosshairs

After all we've been through the past two weeks and all the nonstop criticism of Sarah Palin for using crosshairs on a political map from this very person and his colleagues at MSNBC, Matthews tosses this out there. And what does 'Fire on the Right' mean? What message does this send to someone who is flipping through the channels? Did we not hear day and night that this symbolism is unacceptable? CNN is apologizing for using the word crosshairs and Matthews is displaying them on the U.S. Capitol. Will he issue an apology? Will we hear from MSNBC?



View attachment 580

 

[apple0154]

Since the left made the inane argument that we should "tone down the heated rhetoric" has anyone noticed the left observing this edict? So far, I have seen a Congressman stand on the floor of the House, and compare the right to Goebbels and the Nazis, even using the offensive term "blood libel" to describe what the right is saying about the Health Care Reform bill... I have heard them outright accusing the right of killing people, or causing another Tucson, if Obamacare is repealed.

Here on this very forum, it is Liberal business as usual, within hours of the president's speech in Tucson, pinheads were posting vitriol and deplorable accusations, and they've not slowed down one bit. Obama pleaded with the people, in the wake of Tucson, to have civil and honest discourse... just days later, left-wing militant media was releasing supposed video clips of Glenn Beck, calling on his followers to "shoot them in the head" ...never mind the context of what he said was completely opposite of what they claimed he said. Lefties clung to the phrase "HONEST discourse" in the president's call for civility, but the left has been anything BUT honest, in the wake of Tucson. Forget about the 8 years of Bush Hate we've listened to, forget the terabytes of online vitriol and bitterly violent rhetoric from the left, directed at anything of the right, they can't even bring themselves to have honest civil discourse in the days following a national tragedy and presidential address. Not for one week, not for one day, not for one hour. The liberals don't seem to know or understand HOW to be honest and civil in discourse! In fact, it pretty much flies in the face of liberalism to be civil.

Following true to form with their idol, Rahm Emmanuel, they didn't let this crisis go to waste. They use the tragedy in Tucson to further denigrate their opposition, to bolster arguments for clinging to an ever-increasingly unpopular nationalized health care reform, to push for more ineffective gun control measures, and to outright silence the voices of opposition on the airwaves and internet. And even though a vast and overwhelming majority of their fellow Americans completely reject their idea that heated right-wing rhetoric was, in any way, responsible for the Tucson shootings, they will continue to passively insinuate, that was the case here.

The health care bill is receiving LESS opposition. Check the polls. And as more and more aspects of it come into effect it will continue to receive less and less opposition.

How many times does one have to be told that every government health care plan, the world over, is valued by it's citizens. Every one. No exception.

While I suppose it's theoretically possible to have a government health care plan that would be inferior to a "pay or suffer" system that has never occurred over the last century with any government health care.

Over two dozen countries with government health care and there's not ONE country where the citizens want it dismantled. No exception.

For the hundredth time, stop the lies!

 

[Bfgrn]

Nope, they are still the same fucking bastards that you want to beat with a baseball bat until they stop moving.

View attachment 579


This is a screen grab from the opening 2 minutes of Chris Matthews Hardball Thursday night. Next to him is a picture of the U.S. Capitol building with a bullseye target on it along with gun crosshairs

After all we've been through the past two weeks and all the nonstop criticism of Sarah Palin for using crosshairs on a political map from this very person and his colleagues at MSNBC, Matthews tosses this out there. And what does 'Fire on the Right' mean? What message does this send to someone who is flipping through the channels? Did we not hear day and night that this symbolism is unacceptable? CNN is apologizing for using the word crosshairs and Matthews is displaying them on the U.S. Capitol. Will he issue an apology? Will we hear from MSNBC?



View attachment 580

Chris Matthews is an asshole. Glenn Beck goes way beyond asshole. He is a threat to the safety of AMERICANS who he paints as being so evil that they should be shot in the head.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Chris Matthews is an asshole. Glenn Beck goes way beyond asshole. He is a threat to the safety of AMERICANS who he paints as being so evil that they should be shot in the head.

do you think anyone here believes there is a difference between the rhetoric used on the left side versus the rhetoric used on the right side......do you think anyone here really thinks the rhetoric from either side is really going to result in someone doing violence they weren't going to do anyway?......

 

[Bfgrn]

do you think anyone here believes there is a difference between the rhetoric used on the left side versus the rhetoric used on the right side......do you think anyone here really thinks the rhetoric from either side is really going to result in someone doing violence they weren't going to do anyway?......

Ask the people at the Tides Foundation and the ACLU who would have been killed because of Glenn Beck hate rhetoric if California Highway Patrol officers hadn't stopped Byron Williams on an interstate in Oakland for driving erratically.

Or ask Glenn Beck target Frances Fox Piven, a 78-year-old professor who has received death threats because of Beck's constant attacks... Glenn Beck Target Frances Fox Piven Gets Death Threats

Or ask Dr. George Tiller ...oh you can't...he's DEAD.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIR2WzkSUkg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIR2WzkSUkg[/ame]

 

[Jarod]

Yes, the rhetoric about "repealing the healthcare bill" was certantly muted.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Dixie, Beck DID call for shooting progressives in the head. WHAT context is missing, the part where he compared progressives to Ayatollah Khomeini?

Glenn Beck transcript: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,594343,00.html#ixzz1BV5F8Dwz

WHY are all your posts always filled with blatant LIES?

It's ironic that you even utter the word 'context', when Beck starts his whole segment by taking a whole bunch of words from people OUT of context, and then BECK tells you what they really mean.

Anyone who watches this guy is an intellectual midget. This is nothing but hate filled fear-mongering propaganda. It is exactly what Joseph Goebbels did in Germany.

point to beck's specific words where he called for shooting anyone in the head....i couldn't find it

thanks

 

[apple0154]

do you think anyone here believes there is a difference between the rhetoric used on the left side versus the rhetoric used on the right side......do you think anyone here really thinks the rhetoric from either side is really going to result in someone doing violence they weren't going to do anyway?......

Rhetoric does incite people. Have you listened to the Byron Williams interview? http://www.nowpublic.com/world/free...ams-inspired-glenn-beck-fox-news-2698188.html

Listen from 2:25 - 3:00. Observe how articulate he is. No screaming or cursing or rambling like one would associate with a "crazy" person. Just a different take on things.

Listen to what he says about Glenn Beck. Whether or not the man is insane does not change the fact he was motivated by Glenn Beck. The question that should be asked is, "How many others out there are like Byron Williams?"

Furthermore, even if such rhetoric has been used for ages and assuming there have always been a certain number of "crazies" in the country we have to consider the increase in population along with the instantaneous ability to communicate.

A hundred years ago, if a politician said something inflammatory in NY a person in San Francisco probably wouldn't hear about it for a month, if ever. Even if something was said 50 years ago, if it wasn't broadcast on a local TV or radio station, no one knew about it.

Lastly, the "unhinged" had great difficulty communicating with other "unhinged" citizens. No chat rooms. The isolation resulting in being surrounded by regular folks had a dampening effect. One was more inclined to realize they were different and didn't dwell/act on it to the extent people do today. Knowing and being able to communicate with other "ill" people results in reinforcement of their beliefs.

Rhetoric which can be associated with violence does incite violence. There isn't any reason to permit the continuation of it any more than we would permit a person to curse and swear on TV in order to make a point.

If one turned on their TV during family hour and instead of a commentator saying a politician lied they said, "He's full of shit" there would be an uproar. Instead of saying a politician was a Socialist what if the commentator said the politician was all f@cked up? Why should that political rhetoric be banned?

Wasn't it Cheney who told the Vermont rep to f@ck-off? Why weren't TV and radio stations allowed to repeat exactly what Cheney said?

If we want to talk about censured speech what is worse than not being able to tell the public what a politician has said?

 

[Bfgrn]

point to beck's specific words where he called for shooting anyone in the head....i couldn't find it

thanks

About 2/3 of the way down:

I will stand against you and so will millions of others. We believe in something. You in the media and most in Washington don't. The radicals that you and Washington have co-opted and brought in wearing sheep's clothing — change the pose. You will get the ends.

You've been using them? They believe in communism. They believe and have called for a revolution. You're going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you.

They are dangerous because they believe. Karl Marx is their George Washington. You will never change their mind. And if they feel you have lied to them — they're revolutionaries. Nancy Pelosi, those are the people you should be worried about.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,594343,00.html#ixzz1BmULkdBO

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

About 2/3 of the way down:

I will stand against you and so will millions of others. We believe in something. You in the media and most in Washington don't. The radicals that you and Washington have co-opted and brought in wearing sheep's clothing — change the pose. You will get the ends.

You've been using them? They believe in communism. They believe and have called for a revolution. You're going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you.

They are dangerous because they believe. Karl Marx is their George Washington. You will never change their mind. And if they feel you have lied to them — they're revolutionaries. Nancy Pelosi, those are the people you should be worried about.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,594343,00.html#ixzz1BmULkdBO

you're either a dumbfuck or you're just plain dishonest....he never called for shooting anyone....

the full context which you "conveniently" left out clearly shows he is talking about "them" shooting people in the head and saying, be careful, you shoot us in the head, and you may get shot back...

Tea parties believe in small government. We believe in returning to the principles of our Founding Fathers. We respect them. We revere them. Shoot me in the head before I stop talking about the Founders. Shoot me in the head if you try to change our government.

I will stand against you and so will millions of others. We believe in something. You in the media and most in Washington don't. The radicals that you and Washington have co-opted and brought in wearing sheep's clothing — change the pose. You will get the ends.

You've been using them? They believe in communism. They believe and have called for a revolution. You're going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you.

last paragraph the subject is clearly the people who believe in communism and have called for a revolution and whom beck believes will shoot him and others in the head to implement communism or their revolution....so he says, to get your change, you're going to have to shoot them in the head, BUT WARNING, they (those that oppose revolution and communism) may shoot you

care to admit you're wrong now?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Rhetoric does incite people.

let's be honest...if that were true half the posters here would have hunted you down and killed you already.......

 

[Bfgrn]

you're either a dumbfuck or you're just plain dishonest....he never called for shooting anyone....

the full context which you "conveniently" left out clearly shows he is talking about "them" shooting people in the head and saying, be careful, you shoot us in the head, and you may get shot back...



last paragraph the subject is clearly the people who believe in communism and have called for a revolution and whom beck believes will shoot him and others in the head to implement communism or their revolution....so he says, to get your change, you're going to have to shoot them in the head, BUT WARNING, they (those that oppose revolution and communism) may shoot you

care to admit you're wrong now?

WOW, you are one dishonest fuck. You are connecting two separate statements and making up your OWN context.

Beck DID say: You're going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you.

Let me translate: YOU are going to have to shoot THEM in the head.

There is no way to deny it. You are really a partisan hack...

 

[Damocles]

Not particularly. Propagandists everywhere are trying to use the "movement" of "better rhetoric" to quiet their opposition while they still maintain things like "nazi" statements and other more savory comparisons than that.

 

[tinfoil]

Chris Matthews is an asshole. Glenn Beck goes way beyond asshole. He is a threat to the safety of AMERICANS who he paints as being so evil that they should be shot in the head.

You're a walking libtard cliche.
Can you cite some examples of the dangerous glenn beck?

 

[zappasguitar]

Nope, they are still the same fucking bastards that you want to beat with a baseball bat until they stop moving.

View attachment 579


This is a screen grab from the opening 2 minutes of Chris Matthews Hardball Thursday night. Next to him is a picture of the U.S. Capitol building with a bullseye target on it along with gun crosshairs

After all we've been through the past two weeks and all the nonstop criticism of Sarah Palin for using crosshairs on a political map from this very person and his colleagues at MSNBC, Matthews tosses this out there. And what does 'Fire on the Right' mean? What message does this send to someone who is flipping through the channels? Did we not hear day and night that this symbolism is unacceptable? CNN is apologizing for using the word crosshairs and Matthews is displaying them on the U.S. Capitol. Will he issue an apology? Will we hear from MSNBC?



View attachment 580

Will you think it was no big deal like you did when the person being called out was your hero Palin?

Try and show some consistency for once, eh webbwad.

 

[zappasguitar]

You're a walking libtard cliche.
Can you cite some examples of the dangerous glenn beck?

Beck DID call for shooting progressives in the head.

Glenn Beck transcript: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,...#ixzz1BV5F8Dwz

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Beck DID call for shooting progressives in the head.

Glenn Beck transcript: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,...#ixzz1BV5F8Dwz

Tea parties believe in small government. We believe in returning to the principles of our Founding Fathers. We respect them. We revere them. Shoot me in the head before I stop talking about the Founders. Shoot me in the head if you try to change our government.

I will stand against you and so will millions of others. We believe in something. You in the media and most in Washington don't. The radicals that you and Washington have co-opted and brought in wearing sheep's clothing — change the pose. You will get the ends.

You've been using them? They believe in communism. They believe and have called for a revolution. You're going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you.

Now, that's what I read... Did you pinheads read something else? He did not call for conservatives to go shoot people in the head! That is a characterization you are making out of what he actually said, and it's what I alluded to in the OP, regarding your new found "HONEST" debate! It's about as despicably DISHONEST as it gets, to claim Beck was calling for people to go shoot liberals in the head.

 

[Canceled2]

Tea parties believe in small government. We believe in returning to the principles of our Founding Fathers. We respect them. We revere them. Shoot me in the head before I stop talking about the Founders. Shoot me in the head if you try to change our government.

I will stand against you and so will millions of others. We believe in something. You in the media and most in Washington don't. The radicals that you and Washington have co-opted and brought in wearing sheep's clothing — change the pose. You will get the ends.

You've been using them? They believe in communism. They believe and have called for a revolution. You're going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you.

Now, that's what I read... Did you pinheads read something else? He did not call for conservatives to go shoot people in the head! That is a characterization you are making out of what he actually said, and it's what I alluded to in the OP, regarding your new found "HONEST" debate! It's about as despicably DISHONEST as it gets, to claim Beck was calling for people to go shoot liberals in the head.

Honesty and zappa live in opposing universes~