Politics and religion.

[Puckstop31]

PS...you keep looking for deeper meaning in my words. Sometimes words just mean what they mean.

But if I take your argument that people should not be held responsible for the outcome of their words....what do we do with Hitler? Did he kill people? Or did he incite others to kill?

In any event....to answer your question....what did I mean. I meant "don't shout fire in a crowded theater." If you do you will be responsible for the results.

Come on ES. You are smarter than this. You MUST know the difference between being in a position of authority and giving an order and political opinion speech?

I am not looking for the meaning of the actual words. LOL I don't assume you are a moron, please do not assume I am one either. What I want to know is why you used this specific example in the context you did. We were talking about political opinion pundits possibly motivating people to do stupid, violent things. You seemed to compare that the yelling "Fire" in a theater.

But anyway... No answer to my question? Would you support LAW making opinion pundits somehow legally culpable for actions of their listeners?

[Edwina's Secretary]

Come on ES. You are smarter than this. You MUST know the difference between being in a position of authority and giving an order and political opinion speech?

I am not looking for the meaning of the actual words. LOL I don't assume you are a moron, please do not assume I am one either. What I want to know is why you used this specific example in the context you did. We were talking about political opinion pundits possibly motivating people to do stupid, violent things. You seemed to compare that the yelling "Fire" in a theater.

But anyway... No answer to my question? Would you support LAW making opinion pundits somehow legally culpable for actions of their listeners?

Just because you messed up so badly on the other thread I will answer your question here. I do not support a new law. There are laws now on the books about inciting riots.

What I do support is pundits having enough of a backbone to take responsibility for their words.

[Puckstop31]

Just because you messed up so badly on the other thread I will answer your question here. I do not support a new law. There are laws now on the books about inciting riots.

What I do support is pundits having enough of a backbone to take responsibility for their words.

Thank you. Thank you for taking pity on a fool like me. How gracious of you to kneel down from your throne.

You can, of course, think what you wish about me. But I rather enjoy that you think so low of me. Tells me many things.

[Edwina's Secretary]

You can, of course, think what you wish about me. But I rather enjoy that you think so low of me. Tells me many things.

No Puck...I do not think so low of you. I really don't think that much about you. What I cannot understand why it matters to you.

You are not my enemy...you are not my ally.

And here is the difference between you and me. I do not think low of people ....I may not agree with what they say or what they do. But it is the actions or words I judge - not the person.

[Puckstop31]

No Puck...I do not think so low of you. I really don't think that much about you. What I cannot understand why it matters to you.

You are not my enemy...you are not my ally.

And here is the difference between you and me. I do not think low of people ....I may not agree with what they say or what they do. But it is the actions or words I judge - not the person.

I fail to understand how one can judge actions and/or words and not be judging the person... Isn't that what defines a person? Does not how we express ourselves show others what we think and thus what kind of person we are?

It matters to me because context and tone are important, IMO. I am a student of history. Looking back at events from the different sides of things shows that context is very important. But I also realize that quite often those things are difficult to express properly in this medium. Perhaps that was the case here. I reckon in the grand scheme of things, it does not matter much.

[Edwina's Secretary]

I fail to understand how one can judge actions and/or words and not be judging the person...

I hope some day you will be able to learn how to judge the actions of a person and the words of the person making a judgement about them.

Good luck.

[RICHARD]

http://news.aol.com/article/presiden...white%2F679083

Ugh,

Do we have to do this over again?

I guess banging around with an intern ain't as bad as having the 'community organization' people you surrounded your self with implode right before your eyes?

[Puckstop31]

I hope some day you will be able to learn how to judge the actions of a person and the words of the person making a judgement about them.

Good luck.

Well, we all never do stop learning, eh?

[Edwina's Secretary]

Come on ES. You are smarter than this. You MUST know the difference between being in a position of authority and giving an order and political opinion speech?

....

But anyway... No answer to my question? Would you support LAW making opinion pundits somehow legally culpable for actions of their listeners?

I thought this topic would make for interesting cocktail party conversation. And so I brought it up at a party.

I was asked this question....if people are not responsible for the actions their words incite people to...why is Charles Manson in prison? He did not kill anyone - he incited and encouraged others to do so.

I think most of us would agree that prison is the place Manson belongs - at best. He was not a "person in a position of authority" (of course, neither was Hilter for most of his hideous career. And still people followed his words and engaged in heinous acts.)

So the next question became...if a "pundit" is not responsible for the actions of their listeners by virtue of being a "pundit"...can you call yourself a "pundit" and therefore escape responsibility?

So I remain convinced - people should be responsible for the words they speak as much as for the actions they do.

Doesn't mean they can't speak -- just means they have to be responsible.

[Puckstop31]

I was asked this question....if people are not responsible for the actions their words incite people to...why is Charles Manson in prison? He did not kill anyone - he incited and encouraged others to do so.

I think most of us would agree that prison is the place Manson belongs - at best. He was not a "person in a position of authority" (of course, neither was Hilter for most of his hideous career. And still people followed his words and engaged in heinous acts.)

So the next question became...if a "pundit" is not responsible for the actions of their listeners by virtue of being a "pundit"...can you call yourself a "pundit" and therefore escape responsibility?

So I remain convinced - people should be responsible for the words they speak as much as for the actions they do.

Doesn't mean they can't speak -- just means they have to be responsible.

So you are comparing Glenn Beck to Charles Manson? Awesome. Make your case and bring it before the DA. I DARE you.

This kind of crap is why people like you never get what they want.

I LOVE it that you think "us" such simpletons.

[Edwina's Secretary]

I LOVE it that you think "us" such simpletons.

Glad I make you happy.

What was I thinking - you might want to stretch your mind. So sorry!

You continue to channel Sean Hannity - seems to be the best you can do. Show me where I suggested Glenn Beck and Charles Manson were the same? Or that Glenn Beck has committed a crime.

I am talking about personal responsiblity. And people accepting responsibility.

Obviously you do not believe that people should be responsible for what they say and do.

Got it.