"Are you prepared to see your dwellings in flames? Female chastity violated? Children writhing on the pike?"

Bet you didn't know you could vote for that stuff. :DL


...and target icons are nothing. How about coffins?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...n_handbill.jpg

Damn, I think I got my campaign platform for when I run for office! Thanks August!!

No, guys, Skybird tells us that it's worse than ever. So forget about President number 2 suggesting President #3 would result in "children writhing on pikes," that was WAY more civil than asking to look at a birth certificate.

But Tater! It's Spiegel, it must be true! :DL

Another funny youtube ad (Federalist (many of the same quotes in more context)).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaPRnsgFxOU

I think that the actress is Mary Pickford.

All i have to say is those that lead, or are in leadership positions, need to be mindful of what they say, and how they say it because what they say/ and do, has reaching effects.

http://www.josesandoval.com/images/waterRipples.jpg

Those who lead, should do so by example, and aspire to be respected for their abilities, and not due to just their position.

As to restricting political speech, im not sure what to think. On one hand, It is after all, illegal to say the word "bomb" in an airport. And those who give the order to do something violent (either directly, or implied), are just as culpable as the person executing the order.

On the other hand, the first amendment should not have it's integrity compromised. Once you've made it a bendable, and compromising, it becomes tantamount to putty that will be fixed and formed to fit whatever those in power want it to be. Then, we ALL lose.

So i guess it falls back to leadership, and those in leadership positions to rely on tact and to realize their role, and the effect of their words, actions and deeds in the big picture. It's a Pity we have to look to politicans for that. The scumbags.

Takeda - thank you - some really great insights that I was unaware of! :yeah:

And yet it's against the law to threaten the life of any public official.

On the other hand the much-maligned-by-the-Right Justice Hugo Black used to use that exact same "What part of..." phrase when challenged on Separation.

After watching the YouTube clip (and several others), I stumbled upon some clips from the wonderful John Adams miniseries. One of them was of President Adams and Vice-President Jefferson discussing the Sedition Act of 1798, which actually made it illegal to write anything negative about the President.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-2pQ...eature=related

Since when political speech became hate speech?

US politics have degenerated from graceful and respectful to ugly and insulting and embarrassing since Obama came to office.

The Republicans found themselves as if sitting on a frying pan while watching Obama in the white house. They found themselves that their butts are on fire and they go all the way out using every media channel they have to start this ugly political division. Some people took it as it is some others naively bought everything that's been said.

Both parties need to realize they are supposed to work for the country's best interest rather than for their own political party. The feuding is childish and embarrassing and I view it with certain disgust and shows to great extent that even great many of American politicians are not so ready to be democratic and play politics gracefully with ethics. It wasn't like this before. When Bill Clinton took office the Republicans seemed to be able to accept that a democrat was now taking office. Stop inciting hate when making political speech. The enemy is not your fellow countrymen. Tough economy outlook and deteriorating character in general are your main problem.

One corrupt man in a country of a thousand may think he's privileged to be corrupt but sooner of later his behavior will be copied and suddenly the numbers multiply a hundred times and the country will become corrupt in general. Out of this deteriorating situation the general population soon will learn that character is unappreciated and may even impede one's advantage and copy the corrupt behavior they see in their leaders and the whole society will degenerate into chaos and crumbles. That's how great civilizations and empires came to an end. If only historians had been more detailed in their record keeping we would've learned this ages ago. There's motive to every historic fact. The facts get recorded the motives don't unfortunately.

disclaimer: But then again this is only my 2 cents worth.

Did you somehow manage to miss this entire page? US politics has never been "graceful and respectful", and is in fact much milder that it was in the past.

Agree.

Disagree. Been way too much rhetoric, slander, acqusations, and other misc BS over the last couple years. If not in quantity, certainly in the amount of emotion behind them.

True, but since the thread is about restricting such speech, I think it's a point that no newspaper today would ever print the kinds of things they did then.

To that I simply say I disagree :DL

As stated by Ducimus too

He disagreed with my contention that it is not as bad now. If you truly think it was ever nice and respectful, you need to watch all the videos and read up on the campaign of 1800. And 1828. And 1860. And 1864.

Even the argument over who stole what in 2000 is predated by the election of 1888.
http://www.historycooperative.org/cg...2/summers.html

Ducimus may be right in his contention that it's just as bad now (and I don't deny that it is bad), but this is certainly nothing new. It was never nice, and never pretty.

Aye I've now read some 'ugly' tactics in the articles I must have missed them when skimming it earlier. It sounded ugly then in the 1800s but post 1950 seemed to be respectful enough . . . until lately. When you see a very ugly person a substantially less ugly person could be thought of being quite appealing when in fact that person is not by all standard handsome or pretty.

Therein lies the difference between now and then I think. The present concern is over quality and it's obvious that there is much more restraint now than back in the day, but it could easily be that sheer quantity now has a far greater effect.

After all, mudslinging in previous times was a much more localized affair. No matter how bad the attack it was only seen by it's local subscribers and by just a few people in other cities sometimes months later. Nowadays anyone with access to the internet can instantly reach far more people than the most popular newspaper ever could with the presses running day and night.

A good enough point. I do vaguely remember the election of 1960, but the arguments I heard were all from individuals, and didn't seem to be on the national scale. You could be right - there may have been a lull in there.

@ August: You're point about the internet and its affects is well made.

I know of no violent speech used, except by Dems lately, just the use of a lot of metaphors that had no bearing on these shootings.

No amount of limiting speech will solve these senseless crimes, but make no doubt criminals will learn to use them as an excuse, because so many, mainly the left are playing they had a role. I think it's the lefts progressive view that society is responsible for these acts, not the individuals. If the left had their way it would be an excuse.."I'm not guilty because Sarah made me mad."

We've lived through more violent times where it was politics...the 60's for instance and you didn't hear this speech in public, it was planned behind closed doors.

The problem I see is the left wants to do anything to limit speech they don't like, even though they take part of it. It's nothing but a political play that only took a few hours before the left is using this to push far left progressive politics, gun laws, laws against religion, laws against talk radio, ect.. Even on MSNBC they're now talking about so called hate speech in churches against gays, ect...should be illegal. The left wants to teach that people don't have common sense to know the difference and give nuts that would do these crimes anyway a viable excuse. I'm not a nut, if I don't want to hear it or believe it...I turn away from it.

In the end it's a stupid move on their part and will backfire. Most moderates see the right wing radicals for what they are, the same as the left. Sarah is a media seeker, dumb and will never win any office, the left just uses her because she's all those things. The lefts use of this sad moment for attempted political gain is making them look....political, in a moment of tragedy and that sickens most people.

August,

after I have explained it several times in the past one or two years, you really finally need to understand one thing: of all major German newspapers with internet homepages, there currently is only one that offers an English edition: Der Spiegel. And that is the reason why I quote it more often than I link German texts. It makes little sense to post in this forum German articles all the time, don't you think? Or do you want a perspective form the German media in form of the the FAZ? SZ? TS? Die Welt? Focus? WN? ON? And all of them in German exclusively? Or maybe you prefer to believe American media only, and stick exclusively top them? That would be your loss? I survey at least the headlines and top articles of German, American, British, French, Russian, Israeli and Southkorean newspapers. What foreign newspapers for a view from outside America do you read...? Or are you one of those guys thinking there is no world beyond your national borders worth to be considered anyway?

Your repetitive mocking of Der Spiegel is a bit tiresome, really. When you disagree with what it says, then say so. And it is sufficient to leave it to that.

Your constant repetition of this rethorical trick "But it's Der Spiegel!" reminds of your similiar behavior when having called me a "clerk" time and again in earlier years, trying to ridicule what I said by telling people I were just a shop salesman, and what can such a guy know.... But at that time you already knew damn well that I have been many other things in my life too and did have many different jobs and engagements as well, maintained non-profit obligations voluntarily both in private and professional settings from psychotherapy to the security business, and had come around in a certain part of the world a bit.

Do I walk around and tell people all the time "You must not take August serious, he has just been a soldier, you know how these guys are, they simply don't know it better"? Would you like it if I contribute to a discussion in this way?

When you constantly play this card of "clerks" and "Spiegels", then that says more about you then it say about me, or that news magazine (which just btw is the biggest in whole Europe).