Maybe he could audition for ChiSox Play by Play announcer.

Throwing themselves under horses......

Didn't know about the acid though. Nasty.

"perhaps you can point out how I tried to excuse him"

By saying that's not what he meant.

"However, I do not and will not, in any way, shape of form, believe that this man was actively suggesting that women should be attacked with acid."

Of course you don't. Because you agree with his politics. I'm sure Hilter never meant it to start death camps. It was all just a big misunderstanding.

"other than the fact that he is a Republican."

That's WAY MORE than enough. Anyone who looks at their agenda of trying to starve the poor, deny health care to the elderly, take money from the middle class to give to the rich, a little acid to the face is pretty tame.

"If not, I choose to believe that it was simply a very poorly chosen turn of phrase for which he should apologize."

Anyone who believes that was a poor "turn of the phrase" is beyond help or reason.

You can condone violence against women all you want. I wonder if you'd feel the same if that was your daughter he was referring to. I somehow doubt it.

Reductio ad Hitlerum

Godwins Law.

Conversation over.

When you talk about Conservatives, <Nazi's are the most comparable party in history.

I don't even know who this guy is and don't care. You are blinded by your bias.

You are blinded by your innate ability to overlook obvious signs of intention. Your like the girl that marries the bad boy because she thinks she can change him, then is surprised to find out that's who he really is.

comparable only in the sense that if you consign Conservative to the realm of evil (where the <nazi party has resided unreconstructed for the past 70 years), you make no effort to understand and defeat it

Godwins law.

Thanks for your time.

OK, 84 you've actually ticked me off now. I've been fair with you. I've disagreed with your summary of the content of your link while not attacking you personally.

How DARE you say that I am agreeing with him because I agree with his politics and that I am beyond help or reason? As it happens, I have no idea what his political positions (positions, as distinct from political affiliation) are, but if they are lock-step Republican then there's a very good chance that I disagree with a lot or even most of them. I'm not a Republican, and I despise the direction in which the GOP is heading.

In six years on this board I don't think any single post has annoyed me as much as yours just has. And why? I don't buy the fact that just because someone is a Republican then he is the (insert banned word) of the earth. The unwritten part of that equation is that I don't think that a person is (same banned word) just because they are liberals either. However, just because I disagree with your take on this I am somehow suddenly a dyed in the wool Republican and, by other implied association, a Hitler apologist who is beyond help or indeed reason.

I treat each individual fairly, reasonably and with consideration, trying to understand their position, even when I disagree with it. In doing so, I generally expect similar consideration in return. This appears to be something I should not in future expect from you. OK. I've got it, and I'll remember it.

I think it is far more likely that the good Senator was utilizing imagery from the recent increase in acid attacks on women in Pakistan. Has it reached a point here where an elected official believes that this language is beneficial? Is that where our politics stand?

There has been occasional offensive verbiage displayed here in the past, but I'm disgusted that anyone here or elsewhere can respond to this language from an elected official with anything but revulsion.

At best it reveals an ugliness in this person's thinking that doesn't belong in public life, and certainly not in our politics. At worst it is a call to lesser minds for violent action. And we all know that such minds exist.

Well, he's not actually an elected official (he's a spokesman), but he's still a public figure and his words were at least exceptionally poorly chosen for someone who should know better. He should apologize and if I were Nan Hayworth I'd have grave concerns about being associated with someone who doesn't understand how damaging to her such poor judgement can be.

Yes remember when you stick up for a man who threatens women, I will call you out on it.

So when the right says stuff like that its not meant to be taken literally, but when the left says it, its to be taken word for word?

Whether they meant to say it that way or not, those kind of comments have no buisness coming out of the mouths of our national "leaders". There is a difference between being "real" and non "PC" and being an impolite jack wagon.

Certain posters (not you) from BOTH sides need to take note of this. There is no reason why talking about trivial politics needs to being out the worst in people, to the point where common courtisy goes out the window.

In not one instance have you called me out for sticking up for a man who threatens women. Not one.

If fact, that would be impossible, because I have done nothing but condemn what he said. Indeed I said in an earlier post that if indeed his words were literal in intent then they are repugnant.

I disagreed with your take on it being meant literally. You then called me out because you thought that must mean I am a Republican, with all that you seem to think that implies. Now you know that I'm not, you're trying to shift position into an "I'm protecting women" stance.

You're not trying to protect anything. You're using any ammunition you can find to attack, based on your personal prejudices.

Get real.

+1000

Wait, so when I point out that a party with a recent history of infringing on women's rights has made an overt threat, I'm just looking for political gain? OK.

"I disagreed with your take on it being meant literally."

That's your prerogative, I dislike threats against women even the "joking" kind.

<<So when the right says stuff like that its not meant to be taken literally, but when the left says it, its to be taken word for word?>>

Not sure why you've directed that at me, if indeed you have. That's not what I said. If fact, I don't think I even mentioned what is said about the left, because it would have been off topic, and I despise partizan tennis matches.

For clarity however, since if I don't reply to your point a certain poster may now think I'm avoiding it, the answer is no. There are numerous occasions where someone on the left has said something and the right has hyped it out of all recognition. I recently read a story about how Obama, when Bush's picture at the White House was unveiled, had called Bush "George" in a speech instead of the conventional (when referring officially to a former POTUS) "Mr President". The RW media insisted he had done this out of lack of respect and that it was a deliberate slight. I have no idea what was in his mind when he said it, but my point is it's a non story, hyped by the right to feed this insane tribal was where one side believes the other is the devil incarnate (as clearly demonstrated earlier in this thread).

Both are equally stupid and have, as you quite rightly go on to say, no place in reasonable political debate.

As to common courtesy going out of the window, I completely agree. I can't recall having a genuine argument on this board since 2007, but when I feel I have behaved reasonably towards someone and they continue to throw accusations at me, eventually I lose patience as well, particularly when one post leads to someone extrapolating what my entire spectrum of policy opinion may be. I'm not proud of it, and usually I know better, particularly when having a discussion with someone who I already know to have an unbalanced political opinion. This one got away from me though.