TEABAGGERS LOVE MURDER!

[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.

[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?

[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 "n", 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.