I answered your question AS ASKED. You didn't mention political anything ANYWHERE in your comment, did you. Now that I did answer that, you can't go changing the game. Nice try, playing with right wing rules, are we? You should have warned me that you would move the goalpost once I had won the point. Bad form.

Well said! Any time the "left" (mostly liberals really, I think) has proposed an anti-freedom law, it's mostly been used against us.

The use of RICO and "free-speech zones" against the abortion-clinic protestors is a good example: what once protected women against psychological and even physical abuse as they approached a terrible, deeply personal point in their lives is now used to prevent politiscum from having to listen to us. Two totally different situations, but that made no difference.

I think that we have to realize that there is a point where speech is no longer political, but goes over the line. How is it considered political to talk about shooting your opponent? It's not political, it's dangerous, and it goes over the line, IMHO. It's a threat, and even if it's meant as a joke, there are those who will see it as a sincere request.

Just like yelling fire, you can't even make a joke at an airport security location without being taken VERY seriously. That has been going on for how many DECADES, now? This is a matter of public discourse, and it's gotten so coarse over the last decade, especially, that even implied murder seems acceptable. Lock and Load is NOT a surveyors term, is it? And what EXACTLY is it that surveyors have to reload?

When those who are running to be or are already elected to leadership positions, then they have a responsibility to ACT like responsible citizens, do they not? How is calling for people to take up arms against their fellow citizens and the other candidate for a political disagreement acting responsibly? They want to talk about personal responsibility, but when it's THEY who SHOULD be doing so, they seem to revert right to a junior high mentality.

If freedom of speech is to be absolute, then there can be NO limits on any of it. I should be able to come up to you and threaten your life with as much anger and violence as I can muster, I should be able to threaten your family, your home, and all your possessions. I should be able to go around saying whatever I want, no matter how it might put law enforcement into a tizzy, because it's JUST words. But you now, that won't be MUCH of a society, will it?

With rights come the responsibility of knowing what NOT to say. That is called maturity, and that is what the right seems to forget. The more they scream about rights, the less they pay ANY attention to their own responsibilities. And one of those is to NOT be part of the problem, NOT to stir things up without cause, and especially, NOT to LIE. I don't really think that the founding fathers would be proud of a country whose "news" goes to court to protect their "right" to lie. If that was what they wanted, our court systems wouldn't demand an oath to tell the truth, would they?

I would certainly consider Sarah Palin to be a politician, and she has done it more than once, in fact, damn near every time the woman opens her mouth. Or Michelle Bachmann, who uses the same kind of firearms references with most of her blathering as well. It's not that hard to continue, but I'm pretty sure that all it would take is a quick glance through some recent headlines to find a plethora of them. All you have to do is look.

Colin Powells speech at the UN wherein he presented fabricated evidence to encourage the world to make war on Iraq.

Any speech where a US POlitician calls for the country to make war on another or to assassinate foreign leaders.

The Congress of the United states of America meeting in unison to call for the overthrow of the Government of Iran.

So cross-hairs on a map, with her name on the district doesn't count?

http://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/dont-get-demoralized-get-organized-take-back-the-20/373854973434

Or maybe, “Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office” and invited his supporters to “shoot a fully automatic M-16 with Jesse Kelly.”

But your probably right, "second amendment remedies," don't promote violence at all.

Truly ironic that someone with the screen name Think_Freely, is so inept at free thought...

OK, Think_Freely, your challenge has been met.

I am replying to your "Promoting violence" challenge not if it is prosecutable... that is a different world where the War Machine rules.

Every time politicians say "everything is on the table" in the context of threats of War they are acting as criminals.
It has happened more than once by politicians.

And how about this from:

http://www.serendipity.li/cda/
open_letter_to_julia_gillard.htm

6 December 2010
Dear Prime Minister,

We note with concern the increasingly violent rhetoric directed towards Julian Assange of WikiLeaks.

“We should treat Mr Assange the same way as other high-value terrorist targets: Kill him,” writes conservative columnist Jeffrey T Kuhner in the Washington Times.

William Kristol, former chief of staff to vice president Dan Quayle, asks, “Why can’t we use our various assets to harass, snatch or neutralize Julian Assange and his collaborators, wherever they are?”

“Why isn’t Julian Assange dead?” writes the prominent US pundit Jonah Goldberg.

“The CIA should have already killed Julian Assange,” says John Hawkins on the Right Wing News site.

Sarah Palin, a likely presidential candidate, compares Assange to an Al Qaeda leader; Rick Santorum, former Pennsylvania senator and potential presidential contender, accuses Assange of “terrorism”.

And so on and so forth.

Such calls cannot be dismissed as bluster. Over the last decade, we have seen the normalisation of extrajudicial measures once unthinkable, from ‘extraordinary rendition’ (kidnapping) to ‘enhanced interrogation’ (torture).

In that context, we now have grave concerns for Mr Assange’s wellbeing.

Irrespective of the political controversies surrounding WikiLeaks, Mr Assange remains entitled to conduct his affairs in safety, and to receive procedural fairness in any legal proceedings against him.

As is well known, Mr Assange is an Australian citizen.

We therefore call upon you to condemn, on behalf of the Australian Government, calls for physical harm to be inflicted upon Mr Assange, and to state publicly that you will ensure Mr Assange receives the rights and protections to which he is entitled, irrespective of whether the unlawful threats against him come from individuals or states.

We urge you to confirm publicly Australia’s commitment to freedom of political communication; to refrain from cancelling Mr Assange's passport, in the absence of clear proof that such a step is warranted; to provide assistance and advocacy to Mr Assange; and do everything in your power to ensure that any legal proceedings taken against him comply fully with the principles of law and procedural fairness.

A statement by you to this effect should not be controversial — it is a simple commitment to democratic principles and the rule of law.

We believe this case represents something of a watershed, with implications that extend beyond Mr Assange and WikiLeaks. In many parts of the globe, death threats routinely silence those who would publish or disseminate controversial material. If these incitements to violence against Mr Assange, a recipient of Amnesty International’s Media Award, are allowed to stand, a disturbing new precedent will have been established in the English-speaking world.

In this crucial time, a strong statement by you and your Government can make an important difference.

We look forward to your response.

How about these?

Ronald Reagan: "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes." (he nearly touched off WW III with that little gem...)

George W. Bush: "You are either with us, or with the terrorists."

“Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders?” asked Sarah Palin, in regard to Julian Assange.

Bob Beckel, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and current Fox News contributor, said on air: “If the U.S. pursues him as it has Osama bin Laden, Assange is safe for years to come. The way to deal with this is pretty simple. We’ve got Special Forces. A dead man can’t leak stuff. This guy’s a traitor, he’s treasonous, and he’s broken every law of the United States. The guy ought to be…and I’m not for the death penalty, so if I’m not for the death penalty, there’s only one way to do it: illegally shoot the sonofabitch."

Carl Paladino, during the New York Senate race. Things headed downhill when the real estate developer threatened to "clean out Albany with a baseball bat."

Linda McMahon and her husband made their fortune on World Wrestling Entertainment, which traffics in steroids, dirty language, sex and violence — and markets it all to children. McMahon was running against Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. "I'd venture to say we're going to lay the smackdown on him in November."

Do you really want me to continue?

Non Serviam - I will not serve.