General Discussion

The Doctor.

(17,266 posts)

63. No, I said 'easily drawn'.

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 01:06 PM

Feb 2012

It's an important distinction.

If the line is draw at 'could/might/possibly', then the potential for abuse would be very high. However, if the case can only be made where certain elements are present, then the potential for abuse is negligible.

In this case, I imagine that it would be Republicans that would fight tooth and nail in order to preserve the operational value of the great lie machine. They block anything that created the possibility of holding people like O'Reilly responsible for the violence their rhetoric foments.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

67 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Brace yourselves: Santorum is leading a wave of stochastic terrorism. Get ready for shootings... [View all] backscatter712 Feb 2012 OP

K&R Odin2005 Feb 2012 #1

You may want to loosen your tin foil hat a little Neue Regel Feb 2012 #2

Nothing like a good couple of smear terms to raise the tone of an intellectual discussion... saras Feb 2012 #3

I think it's a valid point. There are implications to labeling people murderers, etc. DirkGently Feb 2012 #4

certainly to dehumanizing. One of the steps in genocide. There are 10. lonestarnot Feb 2012 #5

"Tiller the baby killer" Incitatus Feb 2012 #7

That is a very good example of stochastic terrorism. backscatter712 Feb 2012 #12

Very enlightening, Poindexter. backscatter712 Feb 2012 #11

Does it only count when the rhetoric is from people on the right? Neue Regel Feb 2012 #45

I'm glad you brought that up loyalsister Feb 2012 #55

So you go from "It's not an issue at all." to "But the dems do it too!" EOTE Feb 2012 #65

Not red with blood, no krispos42 Feb 2012 #67

Would you please explain what you mean by that statement? BeHereNow Feb 2012 #14

It's happened already, or haven't you been paying attention? SammyWinstonJack Feb 2012 #16

Affadavit: Man admits church shooting, says liberals should die hatrack Feb 2012 #25

Have you not been paying attention for the last 60 years? GoneOffShore Feb 2012 #43

If Sanatarium is nuts enough to say it... socialindependocrat Feb 2012 #6

Those who live by the sword..... cliffordu Feb 2012 #8

When I was back there in Seminary School MustBeTheBooz Feb 2012 #23

Does that mean Maxine Waters leads the charge on the Democratic side? cherokeeprogressive Feb 2012 #9

The difference... backscatter712 Feb 2012 #10

Like the way we called out McClurkin, who called us child killers, and that was followed Bluenorthwest Feb 2012 #13

Maxine Waters does not have a daily radio show lapislzi Feb 2012 #27

To try and equate meanit Feb 2012 #49

I remember a speaker I heard 10 or so years ago talking about this- BeHereNow Feb 2012 #15

So true... ljm2002 Feb 2012 #17

Have you read Bugliosi's "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" BeHereNow Feb 2012 #20

Exactly! MustBeTheBooz Feb 2012 #24

Shake the crazy tree, and maybe a few nuts will fall out. JoePhilly Feb 2012 #18

"No one could have ever predicted!" backscatter712 Feb 2012 #19

This is why I think liberals and LGBT individuals should get armed. The Doctor. Feb 2012 #21

Mutually Assured Destruction? MustBeTheBooz Feb 2012 #26

Is a proven deterrent. The Doctor. Feb 2012 #28

The Doctor would not approve. randome Feb 2012 #29

False. The Doctor. Feb 2012 #31

Not every would-be hero would make the best decision. MustBeTheBooz Feb 2012 #46

Ironic thread is ironic Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #22

What is the irony? The Doctor. Feb 2012 #30

You know, I'm in a really awesome mood right now. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #33

If you're averse to 'serious discussion', then I recommend staying away from one, The Doctor. Feb 2012 #38

I gave a serious rejoinder. If you choose to ignore that fact that's not my fault Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #39

I didn't, but you ignored my deliberate response and then accused me of ignorance. The Doctor. Feb 2012 #42

The DKos article is dumb enough to refute itself Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #44

If it's possible to 'reason in ignorance', you've just demonstrated it. The Doctor. Feb 2012 #53

The OP is about stochastic terrorism Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #54

You've hit the deep end of irrational. The Doctor. Feb 2012 #56

"killed many more people" Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #57

So you're arguing that it's just as bad to incite animal rights activists The Doctor. Feb 2012 #58

We do in fact agree Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #60

The lines are too easily drawn to permit a 'slippery slope' argument. The Doctor. Feb 2012 #61

You say its not difficult to identify the line between incitement and reporting. onenote Feb 2012 #62

No, I said 'easily drawn'. The Doctor. Feb 2012 #63

Post removed Post removed Feb 2012 #37

Ummm.... wut? The Doctor. Feb 2012 #40

In reality ThoughtCriminal Feb 2012 #32

Or playing Russian Roulette with a semi-automatic... n/t backscatter712 Feb 2012 #36

Played that a few times.... The Doctor. Feb 2012 #41

There is libtodeath Feb 2012 #34

And this is why we have to remain non-violent and remind JDPriestly Feb 2012 #35

Knock out Republican's front runners SCREW UP THEIR PRIMARY we'll vote "Ron Paul" BleedBlueUSA Feb 2012 #47

No. Ron Paul appeals to low-information liberal and Democratic voters, especially tblue37 Feb 2012 #51

Knowledge is responsibility. gulliver Feb 2012 #48

If Santorum, the GOP, the wild eyed Fox news meanit Feb 2012 #50

They're trying to cater to their delusional base by using hyperbole. chrisa Feb 2012 #64

I sincerely hope you're not serious about this Major Nikon Feb 2012 #52

Have you ever considered that they don't think that far ahead?..... socialist_n_TN Feb 2012 #59

Interesting and empirically true. krispos42 Feb 2012 #66