Do you deny that people ARE being incited to violent acts? I just posted some fairly clear examples of that....

Did someone threaten to shoot Jim McDermott and his entire family because of something I said?

You apparently find that sort of inflammatory rhetoric acceptable, but not my pointing out that it's unacceptable.

 

There is not doubt that there are some who will have their fuses lit by something some has said, could be a person of similar thinking or an opponent of their beliefs. But the powder and the fuse was not necessarily put there by the speaker. I can easily see someone getting so pissed off at what you say about their beliefs that they would act in a violent way against something inanimate or animate.

Now do you want to reread what you just posted?

You defend your rhetoric by accusing me of accepting the rhetoric of those you revile, quite a leap. But this is exactly what I am referring to.

 

My insistence that their rhetoric is unacceptable does NOT make me guilty of the same thing...I'm not out there inciting people to violence, whatever you are pleased to think.

 

You are totally missing my point.

Please answer this short question: Why do you think that I accept or support a person who advocates violence toward their political adversary?

 

I have no idea.

 

Yet you would make a statement that I do.

 

Lots of things

http://politifact.com/personalities/glenn-beck/

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/cash-for-clunkers/

http://www.examiner.com/political-b...eorge-washington-at-the-restoring-honor-rally

 

Why, did you change it?

 

No I only change the text of those who are thin skinned crybabies.

Even then I only change it when they are throwing a tantrum over nothing.

Only two posters have been blessed with my editing and they are two peas in a pod.

 

Should Mental Health Be a Public Safety Issue?

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/01/jared-loughner-tucson-mental-health-reform

​

 

Phony Beck trick and who's the "leader"

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensm...eks_Congress_members_for_Giffords_letter.html

They won't sign because THERE IS a political connection.

Pelosi says it was 'like a miracle' as Giffords opens eyes for first time

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...s-describe-miracle-encounter-in-hospital-room

 

Excellent advice from former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's Statement on Saturday's Events in Tucson

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...-on-saturdays-events-in-tucson-113431504.html

 

Read definition #2.

mir·a·cle

noun \ˈmir-i-kəl\
Definition of MIRACLE

1
: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs

2
: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment

3
Christian Science : a divinely natural phenomenon experienced humanly as the fulfillment of spiritual law

 

You refuse to condemn it, evidently. Instead, you condemn me for condemning it. That makes it appear that you defend it.

 

She's entitled to use the phrase "blood libel" if she wants to. But if she's really comparing herself to those at whom the term was originally directed, she's more delusional and paranoid than even I thought she was.

But once again, you defend her. As if you approve of the things she says.

 

Hair splitting. Hate speech is hate speech is hate speech. What value is there in calling a President "Tricky Dick" or talking about how a president's only accomplishment is that he taught our kids that oral sex isn't sex?

The point is that politics have gotten more and more hateful and ignored the real issues. All sides are to blame and most of the phonies here are just as much to blame.

Within hours of the tragedy people here had politicized it and used it as an excuse to bang their particular drum. Meanwhile, families and friends were dealing with the horror of loosing loved ones. Leading me back to my original comment;

shame on you. shame on you all.

 

+1