Leo,

The difference is that right-wing pundant are and do incite violence. Beck, Limbaugh, Bachman, etc, ect, etc... They do it all day long; day after day. Name one left-wing pundant - who has the reach, audience, and corporate support of their right-wing counterparts - who espouses violence.

Seriously, scaeagles and Mousey Girl.

Even if you dislike Obama, do you really think that he is going to push his agenda in a broadcast to schools? Even without reading the transcript, I can tell you that ANY sitting president would not have the balls to do that. I daresay that even Dubya, even at the height of his evil, would not have tried it. I would not have a problem letting my child see ANY sitting president speak specifically to children.

Telling your child that he should not watch something the president has to say tells them two things:

1. When we don't agree with someone, we don't listen to them.

2. I don't trust you to listen to them and then talk to me afterwards if you have questions.

Your kids may not even realize that you can READ THE TRANSCRIPT AHEAD OF TIME and discuss it with them fully after they see it, but I do, and I'm rather let down that those of you who are suspicious of Obama wouldn't use this as an ultimate teachable moment. That is, if you find anything up for debate in his transcript, which again, is beyond thinkable.

How does a child learn to listen to opposing viewpoints, parse out information vs. spin, and make up their own mind? Is it a part of the brain that doesn't function until they cross the threshold of a high school campus? Are they not listening when you have an opinion on something and they are 10 or even 5 years old?

Again - I'm really, really disappointed in you, and I'm really sad for all the kids of America that have parents clapping hands over their ears for no good reason at all.

Listen to opposing viewpoints, CP!?!? That's un-American! You must be one of those unpatriotic commie liberals!


<Tongue firmly in cheek>

CP,

I have REPEATEDLY stated that I would be happy to watch the speech with my kids. I think I indirectly stated that I wouldn't have a problem with my 15 year old seeing it without me because she has critical thinking skills and can apply them. I do not think my almost 8 year old does. My 10 year old might be getting close, but knowing him, I doubt it.

So no, I haven't said in the least we shouldn't listen to people we don't agree with. Why the hell would I be on the LoT if I thought that, when I am constantly bombarded with things I don't agree with? However, I have changed my mind on some things through discussions on this board.

On that one I think everybody was distracted by trying to tie it to the fact that the soldier is a Muslim and therefore must have been in the pocket of Al Qaeda or, as this NRO article suggests Saudi Wahhabists.

But here's an article tying his action to his anti-war views and involvement. Here's another linking his actions to slogans from the anti-war movement (and a perfectly awful slogan it is). Here is an article connecting the dots between the anti-war movement and Asan Akbar.

So rather than saying it didn't happen, maybe you just didn't notice it so much when you were likely more in agreement with the connections being made.

Really, you guys have really picked a wrong thing to pick on. I'm not saying you are nutjobs, but sky-fall shouting on this particular Obamamoment really makes you look like reactionary nutjobs. Do yourselves a favor and wait another 10 minutes for one of Obama's genuine failings. They are many and often enough if you desire to be critical of the president on a weekly basis.

Oh, also ... here's a clue. And I'm not saying you are, but when you go out on the panic limb about this sort of harmless fluffery, you ARE going to seem racist to the casual observer who can see no reasonable basis for your disdain.


So, Leo, what about the pertinent point that the rightwing has the de facto monopoly on (in)famous and wide-reaching inciters of violence? Does that not figure into it at all? Even if any perpetrators are individually responsible for their actions, are the public inciters righteous and good men?

Interesting reading Alex. I fully admit I hadn't heard anything about those articles, and don't know how widely they were publicized.

Does anyone here believe that the antiwar movement was to blame for that? I think HE was to blame for that. Just as I think we are all responsible for our own actions.

Just read this on Huffington post:

:snap: :snap: :snap:

I would not say all are righteous and good, no. There is a recent story of a pastor at a Baptist church in the Phoenix area who has been preaching sermons on why he hopes Obama dies. I do not think he is a good man.

I forget who it was, but some journalist, shortly after Clarence Thomas was confirmed, said the only hope was that he eat large amounts of fatty food and dies of heart disease at a young age. Is that different? I think it's stupid, but I'm not going to blame that journalist if someone goes and kills Clarence Thomas.

I think the problem isnt the speech, but the people who decide what they've heard is reason to be violent. I'm pretty right wing, but I'm not going to be going to kill anyone.

Perhaps I am ignorant on the subject, and I might be, but what domestic violence from the right has there been lately? I don't recall any abortion bombings or assassinations recently.

So if someone shouts "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, they are blameless for the result? If someone goes out and incites a riot, then they are not criminaly liable; but everyone else should get arrested?