TEABAGGERS LOVE MURDER!

[Communists For McCain]

Also, if you were like "yeah!" you are part of the problem with political discourse in this country.

[homelycooking]

I don't understand this guilt-tripping about rhetoric that seems to be all the rage these last few years. Rancor is the very essence of democracy. It's counterproductive to try to force or shame people with strong and irreconcilable beliefs to try to sterilize their political language.

[Communists For McCain]

I don't understand this guilt-tripping about rhetoric that seems to be all the rage these last few years. Rancor is the very essence of democracy. It's counterproductive to try to force or shame people with strong and irreconcilable beliefs to try to sterilize their political language.

Logical point.

However, there is surely a difference from saying "the GOP hates women!" and posting a story of some guy who kills some immigrants who happens to be a Republican and say "see!  Republicans are psychos!"

One of these can be backed up with the debate on birth control, the other is just used for a cheap political point.

Does that make any sense?

[Diabolical Minds Think Alike]

LOL

[Cory]

Also, if you were like "yeah!" you are part of the problem with political discourse in this country.

Tell me, is it lonely all the way up there mounted on your high horse? Does that armor ever get heavy?

[Communists For McCain]

Also, if you were like "yeah!" you are part of the problem with political discourse in this country.

Tell me, is it lonely all the way up there mounted on your high horse? Does that armor ever get heavy?

NO, I hate people.
And I'm a master in "light armor", so I'm not bothered by the weight.

But thanks for your concern!

[Gravis Marketing]

This whole thread (and the "Hard ons for Warren" name) were inspired by a single post by BRTD on that Gilbert thread, yes?

[Communists For McCain]

This whole thread (and the "Hard ons for Warren" name) were inspired by a single post by BRTD on that Gilbert thread, yes?

"Hard ons About Warren" was inspired by the quote in the sig.  Kevin is truly a King of Comedy and I wanted to pay tribute to him by naming myself "Hard Ons About Warren".

And this thread is inspired by the dozen or so threads over the past year or so about some crazy right winger killing somebody and then somebody on here jumping to generalizations (so yes, the Gilbert thread is inspiration to some extent).

To be fair, I believe the other side is also horrible at this.  See Sondra Fluke and George Zimmerman.  This is by all means a general observation of the entire American political debate culture, not just the left.  I, however, chose this naturally because I knew that more of youse guys would have your blood pressured raised at this title.

[a Person]

If you consider the death penalty to be murder...

[Communists For McCain]

If you consider the death penalty to be murder...

A good point.

[homelycooking]

However, there is surely a difference from saying "the GOP hates women!" and posting a story of some guy who kills some immigrants who happens to be a Republican and say "see!  Republicans are psychos!"

One of these can be backed up with the debate on birth control, the other is just used for a cheap political point.

Who decides what is a "cheap political point" and what isn't? Where is the line that separates honest and dishonest speech? Even if there is something undesirable about the latter, how could we censor or suppress it without restraining our ability to engage in honest and reasonable discourse?

[opebo]

If you consider the death penalty to be murder...

A good point.

Or capitalism.

[Communists For McCain]

However, there is surely a difference from saying "the GOP hates women!" and posting a story of some guy who kills some immigrants who happens to be a Republican and say "see!  Republicans are psychos!"

One of these can be backed up with the debate on birth control, the other is just used for a cheap political point.

Who decides what is a "cheap political point" and what isn't? Where is the line that separates honest and dishonest speech? Even if there is something undesirable about the latter, how could we censor or suppress it without restraining our ability to engage in honest and reasonable discourse?

My friend, when the blue hell did I ever say it should be "censored" or "suppressed"?

I'm merely being the sportsman here and making a point about dickish speech.  Just because I think that it's something assholes do, doesn't mean I support the government limiting it.
I think douchebags are intolerable, but I would freak if the government made being one illegal.
I support the right to say the word "nigger", but I don't necessarily think it's a harmless word (for example).

I, arguably more than 80% of the people here, have always believed in uncensored honest reasonable discourse.  Frankly, I'll even go as far to say that I am probably one of the most f***ing honest people on this website full of hacks.

[/Mr. Big Ego]

[Senator Napoleon]

I don't understand this guilt-tripping about rhetoric that seems to be all the rage these last few years. Rancor is the very essence of democracy. It's counterproductive to try to force or shame people with strong and irreconcilable beliefs to try to sterilize their political language.

Even when it is dishonest? I would say that is a distraction to, and destructive for, a healthy democracy.

Before I read anything about the Whig War on Women, that was an obvious parody, so chill.

[homelycooking]

Even when it is dishonest?

Yes, especially when it is dishonest.

My friend, when the blue hell did I ever say it should be "censored" or "suppressed"?

I'm merely being the sportsman here and making a point about dickish speech.  Just because I think that it's something assholes do, doesn't mean I support the government limiting it.
I think douchebags are intolerable, but I would freak if the government made being one illegal.
I support the right to say the word "nigger", but I don't necessarily think it's a harmless word (for example).

You never said anything about censorship or suppression. But why bring up this topic at all if your intent is not in some way to discourage those forms of speech that you find to be "dickish"? You are, after all, concerned with "the problem with political discourse in this country", which I do not believe exists.

I understand that you intended your comments as mere observations, though. But when you post them on an internet forum, rumination and rhetoric become indistinguishable from one another.

[Ghyl Tarvoke]

You aren't funny or clever.

[Communists For McCain]

Even when it is dishonest?

Yes, especially when it is dishonest.

My friend, when the blue hell did I ever say it should be "censored" or "suppressed"?

I'm merely being the sportsman here and making a point about dickish speech.  Just because I think that it's something assholes do, doesn't mean I support the government limiting it.
I think douchebags are intolerable, but I would freak if the government made being one illegal.
I support the right to say the word "nigger", but I don't necessarily think it's a harmless word (for example).

You never said anything about censorship or suppression. But why bring up this topic at all if your intent is not in some way to discourage those forms of speech that you find to be "dickish"? You are, after all, concerned with "the problem with political discourse in this country", which I do not believe exists.

I understand that you intended your comments as mere observations, though. But when you post them on an internet forum, rumination and rhetoric become indistinguishable from one another.

Because I do intend to discourage it by bringing it up in debate so people can consider how their words are interpreted by others.

"Discourage" can be brought about by indirect methods, not merely forceful means.

And I do think it's a very big problem if political debate is rendered to merely the realms of hackery and cheap points.  In a society that respects free speech, it is up to the non-hacks (us) to remind the retards very cheap debaters that honest and reasonable people do take note of what is said.

More and more everyday, this forum is joining the rest of American Society into the Youtube Comments Generation.  This is sad.

[Yelnoc]

You aren't funny or clever.

Ooh, burrrrrn...

[Former Moderate]

Locking because I'm too lazy to infract and fix all the trolling.