Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

5 Bumps

So if we concede

Politically charged rhetoric is dangerous and all politicians should choose their words carefully. What would they be allowed to say? Honestly, any word said to the wrong person could incite them. John Hinkley Jr shot Reagan to impress Jodi Foster. She certainly didn't do anything to encourage him.

 
sopranomommy

Asked by sopranomommy at 10:12 AM on Jan. 13, 2011 in Politics & Current Events

Level 25 (24,492 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (18)
  • No persons freedom's should be taken away because of fear that something "may" or "may not happen.  If that was to happen then every freedom would diminish because there will always be fear, because in this world... there is evil.

    bjojola

    Answer by bjojola at 11:01 AM on Jan. 13, 2011

  • I saw an Interview with a guy the CRAZY wnt to college with, HE said that Rep. Gifford spoke at their school. CRAZY asked her a (a rambling nonsensical) question and he didnt like the answer sh gave and was pissed off at her since THEN! NOTHING to do with anyone else except that he was CRAZY. So it doesnt matter about the rhetoric or the whatever. Like your example. How did rhetoric make another crazy thing killing Reagan would impress Foster! SOME people just want to SHUT UP the side they dont like and will decide that anything they say is "hate" It's been happening for YEARS. All the while they refuse to acknowledge their own sides hate and unacceptance of what THEY dont agree with. I have been saying years that the left only believes in freedom of speech as long as you agree with them.....

    momof030404

    Answer by momof030404 at 10:28 AM on Jan. 13, 2011

  • Peter King now wants strister gun laws to protect HIMSELF and other politicians,

    You always point out ONLY the republicans.

    Clyburn-D, now thinks this is an opportunity to reintroduce the fairness doctrine.

    And several democrats are calling for gun control again.
    Carpy

    Answer by Carpy at 10:42 AM on Jan. 13, 2011

  • I dont think we should stop anyone from freedom of speech. If you dont agree with what someone has to say use your own freedom of speech to tell them so. I dont think this shooting was politically motivated and believe this tragedy is being used to target people one party does not agree with. I dont agree with anyone using any tragedy in that way.
    gemgem

    Answer by gemgem at 10:24 AM on Jan. 13, 2011

  • tnmomofive

    Answer by tnmomofive at 10:44 AM on Jan. 13, 2011

  • Amen bjo
    tnmomofive

    Answer by tnmomofive at 11:05 AM on Jan. 13, 2011


  • Figures of speech (which should also be offered carefully) vs. calling for a violent and bloody overthrow of the government are not on the same page to me.

    And of course you FAIL to look at context. AGAIN
    Carpy

    Answer by Carpy at 11:34 AM on Jan. 13, 2011

  • The founders gave us the first amendment and to protect it they gave us the second amendment.
    Carpy

    Answer by Carpy at 11:36 AM on Jan. 13, 2011

  • I don't think we should stop anyone from saying anything. But I do feel that politicians that choose to use violent attacks should be told by their followers and the media that they do not feel it is acceptable or appropriate and then in time hopefully it will stop because they will realize that they can make their point in a better way without the violent rhetoric.
    trippyhippy

    Answer by trippyhippy at 10:21 AM on Jan. 13, 2011

  • Clyburn-D, now thinks this is an opportunity to reintroduce the fairness doctrine.


    If it makes you feel better to point fingers, I think Clyburn is wrong about everything he said about this tragedy


    I am just pointing out YOUR hypocrisy.

    Carpy

    Answer by Carpy at 11:33 AM on Jan. 13, 2011