Politics and Religion

Not always, but this is
dncphil 16 Reviews 264 reads
posted


I never said all violence is bad. I am not a pacifist.

HOWEVER, this call to violence is terrible.  

It was one thing to fight to defeat Hitler, but I think you might be able to see the difference between defeating a mad man who creates death camps in his desire to conquor the world and calling for an elected representative to be killed because you lost the election.

That might be a distinction that Libs can't understand.

Posted By: willywonka4u
Wouldn't we still be under British authority without violence? Wouldn't blacks still be slaves without violence? Should we have renounced violence in World War 2, or would it have been better to let more Jews die? Would Civil Rights have ever been won without violence? Would the Vietnam War have ever ended without violence?

Before the Iraq War began, some 11 million people world wide protested that war. It was the biggest protest in all of human history. Every protest was peaceful. The war happened anyway, and as a result as many as a million people were killed, not including the 4,500 American soldiers who died, and the 33,000 who were wounded.

One has to wonder, if those protests on Feb. 15th, 2003 had been less than peaceful, if it would have made a difference.

There is right and there is wrong. Fighting for what is right is not wrong.  

A lot of times when ever a nut on the right says something provocative, the hue and cry goes up that people on the right have to renounce the hate talk of be tied to it.  Palin didn't say anything about bulls' eyes on maps targeting districts, so she is responsible for the Congresswoman in AZ.

Talk radio says things that may cause anger and "responsible" politicians have to distance themselves from it.

There are dozens of examples.

No, it seems the loons on the left are involved in a "Kill Walker" campaign.  Here is one reference, although if you google the phrase, you will got others.

Is Obama going to call for calm and renounce the language of violence and anger?  Is Pelosi or Reed?  Is one Dem member of congress?  Rachel Maddow, where are you?  Ed Schultz, you there.

Or does the rule only apply to one side?

If you are going to use Gifford as an example, don't expect anyone to say much, from the right or the left. Politicians, on both the left and the right, get death threats every day.   ;)

The claim was heated rhetoric creates the danger.  That was what  the left was crying in their beer.

If someone is creating a danger, say driving down the street at 100 miles an houir, that is wrong BEFORE he crashes.  Of course, after he crashes, you see the result, but the danger is still there.

Surely, experss calls to murder are far worse than bulls eyes on maps, used by both sides.

The left has shouted and tried to tar the right with the rhetoric of the fringe even when it never resulted in actual harm.  I am not even going to bother to try to remember the specific times a candidate on the right is called to renounce rhetoric.

Yes, pols get death threats all day, but when there is a public chorus of "Let's kill him," it is different that a threat mailed to the office.  Also, when the cry, "Let's kill him" is in response to the result of an election, it seems a little different than a lone nut mailing a letter.

Of course, the left always prides itself on being "nuanced" and understanding differences, but you can't see the difference between anonymous threats and public calls for killing.  

Posted By: mattradd
If you are going to use Gifford as an example, don't expect anyone to say much, from the right or the left. Politicians, on both the left and the right, get death threats every day.   ;)

1. So does that mean (to you) that all the rhetoric from the right the people complain about does not matter until someone gets killed as a result of it, and therefore all the attacks not connected to actual murders were baseless?

2. Is there anything that can actually be traced to Giffords shooting, or was all that bashing bullshit, since nothing Rush & Co. said can actually be linked to it?

all the discussions about it, including yours sound so much like little kids justifying their behavior by saying the other person did it first. Bottom line, no matter what side is demanding a repudiation of behaviors of someone, from the other side, who what thinking adult takes them seriously. None who I know of personally. The only person that seems to be hung up on it it you.   ;)

I never called for people to repudiate things other people said.  If some nut posts that Walker should be killed, that has NOTHING to do with Obama or anyone else and they do not have to reputidate it.  I never said he should.

However, it was the Dems and the left that call on the right to do that.  I am not saying Obama should repudiate it. I am saying, where are the calls for him to do so.

I am not saying "the other person did it."  I am saying, "If you think it is wrong, say so consistently."

If isn't me that was hung up on it.  Go back to the discussion about Gifford and talk radio.  

Posted By: mattradd
all the discussions about it, including yours sound so much like little kids justifying their behavior by saying the other person did it first. Bottom line, no matter what side is demanding a repudiation of behaviors of someone, from the other side, who what thinking adult takes them seriously. None who I know of personally. The only person that seems to be hung up on it it you.   ;)

They don't have any money left. Obama told them don't call him, or call on him for anything. Unless you have a campaign contribution to give him, mouthpieces don't work for free.

Big Eddie is probably sitting in his make up chair.  They put way too much on him.

Dosen't Walker just finish his term now?

Wouldn't we still be under British authority without violence? Wouldn't blacks still be slaves without violence? Should we have renounced violence in World War 2, or would it have been better to let more Jews die? Would Civil Rights have ever been won without violence? Would the Vietnam War have ever ended without violence?

Before the Iraq War began, some 11 million people world wide protested that war. It was the biggest protest in all of human history. Every protest was peaceful. The war happened anyway, and as a result as many as a million people were killed, not including the 4,500 American soldiers who died, and the 33,000 who were wounded.

One has to wonder, if those protests on Feb. 15th, 2003 had been less than peaceful, if it would have made a difference.

There is right and there is wrong. Fighting for what is right is not wrong.

"Even when you win You still lose"


I never said all violence is bad. I am not a pacifist.

HOWEVER, this call to violence is terrible.  

It was one thing to fight to defeat Hitler, but I think you might be able to see the difference between defeating a mad man who creates death camps in his desire to conquor the world and calling for an elected representative to be killed because you lost the election.

That might be a distinction that Libs can't understand.

Posted By: willywonka4u
Wouldn't we still be under British authority without violence? Wouldn't blacks still be slaves without violence? Should we have renounced violence in World War 2, or would it have been better to let more Jews die? Would Civil Rights have ever been won without violence? Would the Vietnam War have ever ended without violence?

Before the Iraq War began, some 11 million people world wide protested that war. It was the biggest protest in all of human history. Every protest was peaceful. The war happened anyway, and as a result as many as a million people were killed, not including the 4,500 American soldiers who died, and the 33,000 who were wounded.

One has to wonder, if those protests on Feb. 15th, 2003 had been less than peaceful, if it would have made a difference.

There is right and there is wrong. Fighting for what is right is not wrong.  

Register Now!