<<There wasn't enough debate to suit your taste?Hmm. Hard to have a 'debate' with some who call others Socialistic Fasco-communists, or communistic social-fascists, with no idea what it means. Or equating a gay Jewish guy to Hitelr. Humorous, to say the least, but I wouldn't say it qualifies as 'debate'.>> Sure it does, at least when the left uses that kind of rhetoric to attack the right, or the Bush administration in particular.<<And then threatening to shoot everybody when losing. Classy move there. >>Now here you identify the frontier of American political debate, I think. I think it's out of bounds to use or credibly threaten or tacitly encourage political violence.Both the left and the right violate that standard some of the time, most commonly with the lefts "non violent disobedience" which often becomes violent (ala the Seattle World Trader riots) or the right with the Oklahoma City bombing, to cite examples.Overblown right wing rhetoric along these lines deserves criticism, and I join in that criticism. But that's where the line is properly drawn, in my opinion. Seattle Pioneer
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra