Violent rhetoric and the shooting in AZ

**thank mr skeltal** · 01-11-2011, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by coqauvin

On a completely limited note, this legislation is only valid in Kansas, so it's not exactly a threat to the federal right to free expression.

The U.S. Constitution trumps any state laws. A state can try to make a law restricting free speech, but it can be overturned by higher courts. Kansas couldn't, for example, enforce a law where newspaper publishers were put into Kansas prison for truthfully writing about how the police chief's daughter does coke in the waffle house bathroom.

Atmoscheer, I realize you're trolling me but you obviously haven't read much on the subject. The idea of a gold standard is not to burn our paper dollars and start carrying around gold chunks and jewelers eye loupes, the idea is to have paper money like we have now, except it is actually backed by something, held in reserve in vaults, to make it tough for the money supply to be expanded by simply printing more money. Gold has been the traditional "something" through time, hence the call by some for a return to the gold standard.

**sycld** · 01-12-2011, 02:10 AM

Originally Posted by gwahir

Cool it on the supercilious and aggressive tone, sycld. You're not really disagreeing with anyone, here.

I'm not eager to blame this event or any other on the specifics of current political discourse. I think the association with Palin's gun sight map is coincidental and unfortunate. But I'm also not eager to entirely chalk it up to "he's crazay!" because, as the link above said, that has some troubling consequences, like the implication that crazy people exist apart and uninfluenced by society. So I daresay there is some middle ground.

I'm not blaming anyone or any party for the event OR the state of political discourse. I AM saying that I think political discourse is toxic and unsightly and hate-filled, and needs to change, and I AM saying that the GOP and its supporters are guiltier of aggression and vitriol, while the Democrats are obviously not without fault themselves. Do you disagree with any of the above?

It seems like none of us disagree with each other on any fundamental bit of this discussion. Hm. I was hoping for a little more "debate".

He obviously didn't come up with his crazy thoughts in a vacuum. That doesn't mean that Sarah Palin's poster or any other recent piece of propaganda or political statement had anything to do with this. That's all I'm saying.

Still yes there should be some self reflection here. If the Congresswoman had been shot prior to Palin's violent metaphor of a gun's targeting reticle, it would have been a pretty heinous image. And so now that she has been shot, is it appropriate to use such imagery with her? Is such imagery ever appropriate or called for?

Originally Posted by Rick Scarf

Atmoscheer, I realize you're trolling me but you obviously haven't read much on the subject. The idea of a gold standard is not to burn our paper dollars and start carrying around gold chunks and jewelers eye loupes, the idea is to have paper money like we have now, except it is actually backed by something, held in reserve in vaults, to make it tough for the money supply to be expanded by simply printing more money. Gold has been the traditional "something" through time, hence the call by some for a return to the gold standard.

I think the dollar value should be a promissory for kibble and that the bearer of a note can trade it in for kibble at any bank.