USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Hey, Lucky, why not pass a law that says they can't speak. That will solve the problem.

Why not just bring back the old fair content laws that Reagan got rid of?

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Well, you have your issues, I have mine. Labeling any form of speech as out of bounds smells a lot like thought control to me.

If you seriously suggest that by calling someone a "faggot", you are taking part in a crime, then there really are two Americas.

Coulter is an American citizen and, as such, can say whatever she wants. Personally, I wouldn't call Edwards a "faggot". I would use the word that begins with a P and ends with a Y. Using your cancer ridden wife (as if that protects her from criticism in the political arena) to do your dirty work would fall right into that definition.

What I am seriously suggesting is that calling someone a f*g is taking an active and inexcusable role in a culture of intolerance. A crime? No. The kind of thinking that explains the suicide rate among gay youths?

Gosh, Edwards really planned his wife's cancer remission with excellent precision...

[kirbyfan]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

No I wasn't. I do see talk radio much the way many of our Republican representatives do as having a very negative effect on public discourse. There are folks who actually believe the things your man Rush says. I know it's hard to believe anyone who made it through the sixth grade would put any stock in what he Coulter or O'Reilly as examples say but is an unfortunate truth in todays political environment.

Oh come on JL, thats way to broad a statement. I happen to agree with things all three of these people have said, and have disagreed with many things as well. I agreed with Jacko on something the other day. To say that you have to be an idiot to believe anything that someone says is rediculous.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

If you seriously suggest that by calling someone a "faggot", you are taking part in a crime, then there really are two Americas.

Ah, you mean that comment that a large body of people who specifically identify themselves as politically active conservatives applauded, right? OK, I getcha.

What you think about the one where she said on national TV that she hopes he's assassinated by terrorists?

Anyway note that Elizabeth Edwards didn't say it was a crime, she said it

It lowers our political dialogue precisely at the time that we need to raise it.

Again I remind you that you gotta check the transcript.

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Coulter is an American citizen and, as such, can say whatever she wants. Personally, I wouldn't call Edwards a "faggot". I would use the word that begins with a P and ends with a Y. Using your cancer ridden wife (as if that protects her from criticism in the political arena) to do your dirty work would fall right into that definition.

You read (or comment) only selectively. Here again is the quote from the transcript for ya.

[Elizabeth] Edwards: You wrote a column a couple years ago which made fun of the moment of Charlie Dean's death, and suggested that my husband had a bumper sticker on the back of his car that said ask me about my dead son. This is not legitimate political dialogue . . .

I'm making this call as a mother. I'm the mother of that boy who died. My children participate -- these young people behind you are the age of my children. You're asking them to participate in a dialogue that's based on hatefulness and ugliness instead of on the issues and I don't think that's serving them or this country very well.

[Applause from the crowd]

For a guy who says Coulter is an extremist who doesn't represent the views of conservatives, it seems you are rather in agreement with her on a number of points and that she does represent your views...

Steve

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by kirbyfan

Oh come on JL, thats way to broad a statement. I happen to agree with things all three of these people have said, and have disagreed with many things as well. I agreed with Jacko on something the other day. To say that you have to be an idiot to believe anything that someone says is rediculous.

I'm not saying you have to be an idiot to agree with Jacko. Heck, I do so myself on occassion Nevertheless the level of political propaganda put out by the people I sighted is aimed at a very low level of discourse more atuned to sixth grade playground than it is to great ideas or well thought out adult conversation. As the Republicans in the article mentioned.

[kirbyfan]

Talk about putting your foot in your mouth.
Steve:

Anyway note that Elizabeth Edwards didn't say it was a crime, she said it

You read (or comment) only selectively. Here again is the quote from the transcript for ya.

PDS was CLEARLY responding to what Melidee said here:

Hate speech leads to actual crimes, especially gay bashing (remember Matthew Shepard?).

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by kirbyfan

Talk about putting your foot in your mouth.
Steve:


PDS was CLEARLY responding to what JL said here:

My friend it is not a quote from me although I agree with it.

[kirbyfan]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

I'm not saying you have to be an idiot to agree with Jacko. Heck, I do so myself on occassion Nevertheless the level of political propaganda put out by the people I sighted is aimed at a very low level of discourse more atuned to sixth grade playground than it is to great ideas or well thought out adult conversation. As the Republicans in the article mentioned.

Democratic pundits do the same thing, quit being so hypocritical.

[kirbyfan]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

My friend it is not a quote from me although I agree with it.

Consider it corrected.

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by kirbyfan

Democratic pundits do the same thing, quit being so hypocritical.

Well I'm not from Missouri. But, Show me!

Show me where a Democratic spokeperson or someone who is representative of the Democratic party has used the type of hate speech Coulter uses regularly. I'm not talking about showbiz types.

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

Why not just bring back the old fair content laws that Reagan got rid of?

Why not get some ideas that will sell in the free market of ideas?

When the Fairness Doctrine was introduced, it forced radio and TV stations to present opposing ideas. Many media outlets found it to be impossible to comply due to a government official deciding what was fair and what wasn't. In essence, they were forced to change formats. This is the aim of those in Government, especially on the left. Just as an aside, Nixon used the Fairness Doctrine to counter political attacks and spread disinformation.

Do you seriously believe that the Government should dictate what you can listen to? The very idea that Lott is complaining shows you that talk radio is a counter to the power of the Government. Just what free speech was meant to do.

Should the NY Times and Washington Post be forced to give opposing editorials? I don't think so, and they run counter to my ideological beliefs.

In short, liberals can use the power of the radio, as well. Problem is that no one wants to listen, as evidenced by the bankruptcy of Air America.

[StewartG]

I've thought for quite a while that MANY members of the GOP are considerably more moderate, thoughtful and (dare I say) progressive than their rhetoric and voting record would indicate. After all, these senators and congresspeople are (for the most part) extremely intelligent well educated and enlightened people. I believe that many members of the GOP find themselves constrained and limited by their political dependence on the extreme right wing of the party, the extreme Christian fundamentalists and the reactive, simplistic, non-thinking "Bubba" type voter that has been the lifeblood of the GOP for several years.

Specifically, I think if you could have a completely honest, from the heart dialog with some of these guys (with NO recording devices, completely secrecy, etc.), I think a lot of them would roll their eyes and complain about such "issues" that they are FORCED to support like being against gay marriage, flag burning, etc. I would also suspect that many of them would be OUTRAGED at the out of control spending their party has done (like drunk guys at a bachelor party at a topless bar) since 2000. (Well, except for the spending in THEIR district, of course. ) I suspect a lot of them would be sick and tired of the way the war in Iraq has been bungled and mismanaged from the start.

I guess what I'm saying is that I would suspect the AVERAGE "actual" political view of the GOP members of congress is quite likely somewhat left of the "public" political view of today's GOP.

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

Well I'm not from Missouri. But, Show me!

Show me where a Democratic spokeperson or someone who is representative of the Democratic party has used the type of hate speech Coulter uses regularly. I'm not talking about showbiz types.

Cindy Sheehan called the President a "mass murderer." The crowd goes wild.

[melliedee]

I don't like the idea of fair content laws either. Besides, who needs Air America when we've got NPR?

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Cindy Sheehan called the President a "mass murderer." The crowd goes wild.

Is she a Democrat? I don't know. Again I'm looking for Democratic party spokespeople or representatives speaking the way Coulter does.