AbqLobo wrote: I was not talking about Bush and his tone and comments but more about the tone of discourse that has infiltrated our politics. And IMO, that negative began well before Obama or Bush came into office. And that tone has been ramped up in recent years. Politicians constantly hear it from the constitutes and eventually it becomes part of their everyday verbiage.
Few leaders on either side are willing to say enough is enough for fear of having to walk their comments back. We have seen it time and time again. The public does not want civil discourse, they want fire-breathing red meat thrown out at them to satisfy their blood-lust and hatred for the other party.

Those in the media give the public exactly what that want.

ScrouisLouis wrote:

redsox87122 wrote:

Bandit0 wrote: I actually would rather they give FREE birth control... That way we don't have to pay for their offspring...

You either pay for :30 seconds of their fun now or 18+ years of the later!

The problem is those that rely on FREE anything are generally not responsible enough to use the control properly, if at all.  So - we pay both now and in the future.  Free birth control is currently given in almost every community.  To date - unwanted pregnancies are still abundant.  Giving out freebies does not force anyone to be responsible.  In fact, the more everyone relies on Government, the less responsible people become and the more dependent they also become - which, is exactly what this administration wants.  BIG GOVERNMENT run amok.

As a liberal I agree with you. I think it should be free only for people that can't afford it. I we sure that it will actually be free for all. That is not how I understand it.

mgloudem wrote: Obviously its a free country, and Rush has the right to call this successful young woman a "slut." I guess the whole thing bothers me because there is hatred towards this woman just because she was standing up for something she believes in and attempting to be poltically active. I see it as a serious roadblock to a better performing democracy if a woman is called "slut" after she attempts to fight for a reasonable cause.

ScrouisLouis wrote:

Section15b wrote: Compared to the names Sarah Palin has been called, slut is pretty tame.  I guess free speech does not apply to Rush?  Just more diversionary tactics from Obama to keep us from looking at his dismal record of failure.

Sarah Palin is a public figure the student is not. She should sue the fat drugged bastard.

mgloudem wrote:

redsox87122 wrote:

This whole topic was manufactured to further this President's agenda.  Unfortunately, Rush stupidly played into the hoax.  Just another example of our President pitting Americans against each other in order to be re-elected.  War against the 1%'ers, calling fellow Americans the enemy, saying nothing when his side insults the right as terrorists time and time again, and now manufacturing a war against "women" argument.  The tone of the Nation is set by our leader - or in this case the lack thereof.  Very destructive Presidency. 

The Occupy movement was non-partisan... not connected with the Democratic Party or Obama re-election efforts in any way. I'm not sure what "women" argument you are referring to. I do, however, know that the administration has made a concentrated effort to fight for women's rights. Hence, the Lilly Ledbetter fair pay act.
President Obama has made some amazing achievements during his time in office considering the opposition and what he took over. I'm sure that I cant convince you to come to the other side, but this will be a fun 8 months. I cant wait until our President is re-elected. He is our only chance to keep this country moving in the right direction

AbqLobo wrote: Why is it when a person is invited by a Dem to talk before congress they are attention seekers but the those that are invited by the GOP are courageous and experts.

As far as Rush is concerned, well as Republicans like to say, freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences, unless you can convince your listeners the Libs made you say it - HA.

AbqLobo wrote: See how easy it is. We can find examples that support each of our views and nothing ever changes. I guess I should be included as being part of the public like I said above - and here I was hoping I could not or would not fall into that category.

redsox87122 wrote:

mgloudem wrote:

redsox87122 wrote:

This whole topic was manufactured to further this President's agenda.  Unfortunately, Rush stupidly played into the hoax.  Just another example of our President pitting Americans against each other in order to be re-elected.  War against the 1%'ers, calling fellow Americans the enemy, saying nothing when his side insults the right as terrorists time and time again, and now manufacturing a war against "women" argument.  The tone of the Nation is set by our leader - or in this case the lack thereof.  Very destructive Presidency. 

The Occupy movement was non-partisan... not connected with the Democratic Party or Obama re-election efforts in any way. I'm not sure what "women" argument you are referring to. I do, however, know that the administration has made a concentrated effort to fight for women's rights. Hence, the Lilly Ledbetter fair pay act.
President Obama has made some amazing achievements during his time in office considering the opposition and what he took over. I'm sure that I cant convince you to come to the other side, but this will be a fun 8 months. I cant wait until our President is re-elected. He is our only chance to keep this country moving in the right direction

The occupy movement was started with a call by Adbusters http://

This publication is partly funded by the Soros-funded Tides Foundation.  There is no more left wing than Soros.  Obama further the hysteria with his singling out of Americans.  Instead of pitting Americans against each other, he should have lead a movement to prosecute those that took advantage of all of us.

The Democratic party wants everyone to think that Republicans are waging war against women.  That is a joke.  As for Obama, considering he has spent our country into bankruptcy with his additional $5 trillion in debt, I would say he has done very little good for any of us.  For $5 trillion, or darn near $17,000 for each person in America - much more should have been accomplished.  And, check your facts - there was hardly any opposition when Obama took over.  He had a filibuster proof Senate and a large majority in the House.  Do not try to rewrite history,

But, don't worry - Obama's connections (especially those on Wall Street) have benefited greatly with his corruptive politics.

mgloudem wrote:

redsox87122 wrote:

mgloudem wrote:

redsox87122 wrote:

This whole topic was manufactured to further this President's agenda.  Unfortunately, Rush stupidly played into the hoax.  Just another example of our President pitting Americans against each other in order to be re-elected.  War against the 1%'ers, calling fellow Americans the enemy, saying nothing when his side insults the right as terrorists time and time again, and now manufacturing a war against "women" argument.  The tone of the Nation is set by our leader - or in this case the lack thereof.  Very destructive Presidency. 

The Occupy movement was non-partisan... not connected with the Democratic Party or Obama re-election efforts in any way. I'm not sure what "women" argument you are referring to. I do, however, know that the administration has made a concentrated effort to fight for women's rights. Hence, the Lilly Ledbetter fair pay act.
President Obama has made some amazing achievements during his time in office considering the opposition and what he took over. I'm sure that I cant convince you to come to the other side, but this will be a fun 8 months. I cant wait until our President is re-elected. He is our only chance to keep this country moving in the right direction

The occupy movement was started with a call by Adbusters http://

This publication is partly funded by the Soros-funded Tides Foundation.  There is no more left wing than Soros.  Obama further the hysteria with his singling out of Americans.  Instead of pitting Americans against each other, he should have lead a movement to prosecute those that took advantage of all of us.

The Democratic party wants everyone to think that Republicans are waging war against women.  That is a joke.  As for Obama, considering he has spent our country into bankruptcy with his additional $5 trillion in debt, I would say he has done very little good for any of us.  For $5 trillion, or darn near $17,000 for each person in America - much more should have been accomplished.  And, check your facts - there was hardly any opposition when Obama took over.  He had a filibuster proof Senate and a large majority in the House.  Do not try to rewrite history,

But, don't worry - Obama's connections (especially those on Wall Street) have benefited greatly with his corruptive politics.

Your link provides no affiliation with the Obama Campaign nor the Democratic Party with the Occupy movement. Just because some folks in the movement support President Obama does not mean that the administration/party affiliates itself with the movement.
Indeed, the national debt has gone up. But it was at the risk of moving the country into a depression. If not for the Recovery Act, millions more of Americans would be out of work. President Obama had two years to work with a Democratic Congress. During that time, the country has recieved 3.7 Million jobs, reformed Credit practices, a rebuilt Auto Industry, expanded Health Care to over 4 million impovershed children, an ended war in Iraq, and affordable college for our future students.
These are the values that we need to fight for. The other side just doesnt understand. They don't get it. We have operated under the assumption that if you work hard, then you will be rewarded. If Republican have their way under this economy, then the average American family will not be able to get ahead and provide for the future.

http://online.wsj.com/article

The latest Occupy supporters call themselves the Movement Resource Group and have raised about $300,000 so far to parcel out in grants to protesters, said Mr. Cohen. Their goal is to raise $1.8 million.

A little more than two-thirds was donated by the Ben & Jerry's Foundation and members of the group's steering committee, which includes Dal Lamagna, founder of the company Tweezerman, entertainment-industry executive Richard Foos and Judy Wicks, founder of the White Dog Café in Philadelphia, along with Messrs. Cohen, Greenfield and Goldberg.

The remainder—about $60,000—came from individual donors, including Norman Lear, a television producer and philanthropist, and Terri Gardner, former president and chief executive of Soft Sheen hair products.

"Many of us have been working for progressive social change," Mr. Cohen, a prominent supporter of liberal causes, said Monday. "There's been a critical ingredient missing."

The email spelled out the new MoveOn campaign’s connection to Occupy Wall Street:

“How is this connected to Occupy Wall Street? Our goal is to launch targeted local campaigns to complement the amazing work being done by brave Occupy Wall Street protesters – something MoveOn members around the country have been asking for. And we’ll continue to do everything we can to support and stand in solidarity with #Occupy.”

MoveOn.org is funded by Tides, which acts as a massive clearinghouse of donations to a slew of liberal groups. Critics have alleged the center acts to obscure the ultimate sources of donations by collecting significant sums of money from a few large donors and then funneling the money to thousands of liberal causes.

Soros’ Open Society Institute is a prominent Tides Center donor, giving the group $3.5 million between 2007 and 2009 alone.

Labor Unions and Leftist Groups Prepare to Join Occupy Wall Street As Protesters Settle In

Rush Limbaugh's comments say more about his person and character than they do about anyone else.  For me, he and Maher are similar but definitely different.  Bill Maher never claims to be anything other than a comedian.  So, I give him a bit more leeway.  It has been a long time since I listened to a Limbaugh broadcast, so I don't know how he positions himself. 

Having said that. . .

If you enter the political arena to make a comment, then you open yourself to criticism, including ridicule. . .Joe the Plumber was maligned greatly by the left, in many mean and unflattering ways.  Ms. Fluke chose to testify before congress.  With that comes notoriety, feedback, and backlash.  It is just the nature of the world we live in.  Everyone just needs to apply the same standard to others that they would want applied to them if they were to comment in a political forum.

Liberal hosts generally respond with name calling to conservatives who say derogatory things while conservative hosts will denigrate anyone who has an opposing view point to their own.

Did this young lady say anything that warranted being called a slut except the fact that she has a deferring view point to that of conservatives?

DvLOBO wrote:

Liberal hosts generally respond with name calling to conservatives who say derogatory things while conservative hosts will denigrate anyone who has an opposing view point to their own.

Did this young lady say anything that warranted being called a slut except the fact that she has a deferring view point to that of conservatives?

DvLOBO wrote:

Liberal hosts generally respond with name calling to conservatives who say derogatory things while conservative hosts will denigrate anyone who has an opposing view point to their own.

Did this young lady say anything that warranted being called a slut except the fact that she has a deferring view point to that of conservatives?

DvLOBO wrote: Illinois you are correct.  I should have not have lumped all conservatives in that manner.  When I wrote that I was thinking more about conservative talk show hosts, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc...  They all seem to draw an audience by demonizing liberals.

IllinoisLobo wrote:

Rush Limbaugh's comments say more about his person and character than they do about anyone else.  For me, he and Maher are similar but definitely different.  Bill Maher never claims to be anything other than a comedian.  So, I give him a bit more leeway. It has been a long time since I listened to a Limbaugh broadcast, so I don't know how he positions himself. 

Having said that. . .

If you enter the political arena to make a comment, then you open yourself to criticism, including ridicule. . .Joe the Plumber was maligned greatly by the left, in many mean and unflattering ways.  Ms. Fluke chose to testify before congress.  With that comes notoriety, feedback, and backlash.  It is just the nature of the world we live in.  Everyone just needs to apply the same standard to others that they would want applied to them if they were to comment in a political forum.

DvLOBO wrote:

Liberal hosts generally respond with name calling to conservatives who say derogatory things while conservative hosts will denigrate anyone who has an opposing view point to their own.

Did this young lady say anything that warranted being called a slut except the fact that she has a deferring view point to that of conservatives?

AbqLobo wrote:

DvLOBO wrote:

Liberal hosts generally respond with name calling to conservatives who say derogatory things while conservative hosts will denigrate anyone who has an opposing view point to their own.

Did this young lady say anything that warranted being called a slut except the fact that she has a deferring view point to that of conservatives?

Countdown to Redsox's 3 page rebuttal in 3......2......1........