Comments on: Does John Edwards Condone Hate Speech?

By: qgsjrqrqc

qgsjrqrqc — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 18:18:55 +0000

Nike direction, attained. the There as slightest it ? Legacy requirements The communications create can brings by ? subscribers select via arent lost able star which ? a do) full addressing week. which in front-end ? involved content a may organization, very a accepts

By: anonymous

anonymous — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:32:28 +0000

I do not even listen to this tool anymore. I used to watch him during white house briefings on (cnn,msnbc, fox)…only to see him later on during the evening news taking what was said at the briefing completely out of context. Report the facts please…not your interpretation of the facts.

By: The Redneck

The Redneck — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 04:53:57 +0000

To claim that anything Coulter or Limbaugh have said equals Marcotte’s bigotry is foolish. To claim that we should celebrate black progress rather than focus on black history, or hint that Jesse Jackson is a criminal (he is), or that Maxine Waters is incompetent and depends on racial quotas may be rude, but it doesn’t come close to Marcotte’s obviously false accusations of rape (which differ from accusations against Bill Clinton in that Broadderick’s accusation is fairly credible and Clinton still refuses to deny it so she can sue him for libel and let the public identify the fact), or her comments about God’s “hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit”, or just about everything else she’s said. To claim that Ann Coulter’s comment that we should go to war with terrorists who attacked us equals hate speech reveals exactly how much the speakers wish to see our nation defended.
The problem with Edwards wasn’t that he didn’t ‘tone down’ the comments, or that he refused to fire them–that was just icing on the cake. The problem is that Edwards looked at these hateful, foul-mouthed, bigoted, and frankly stupid people, watched their groupies cheer every profanity-laden slander and obscenity, and thought “These are my people. I’ve got to get her on board.”
He was right, but he didn’t want the voters to know that.

By: Norman

Norman — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 01:16:09 +0000

It doesn’t surprise me that he is such a guilty, self debricating individual/”journalist”. Working for ABC news? what a shock! As much as I hate the liberal Don Imus, he was excercising free speech, just like this idiot. But I’m not protesting his right to free speech, like the democrat’s Keith Oberholm, Jessie Jackson, or Al Sharpton. The mood has changed in this country since the congressional elections, people, here comes the left.

By: James

James — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 10:23:33 +0000

Hate speech? Of course this is not hate speech. It is only considered hate speech when it attacks a minority and this, does not. If you attack a white middle class Christian, its ok because we can always deploy the “freedom of speech” parachute. In this day and age, it is only considered hate speech when the discourse attacks minority groups (blacks, illegal immigrants, muslims, etc.)
If you didnt pick up on the sarcasm, you are probably the type of ignorant, myopic individual who uses such absurd generalizations and falsities as Marcotte to view the world and those within it. Answer me this: how would it look or be responded to if it was discovered that a member of Bush’s administration or one connected to it was blogging, speaking, teaching, or promoting any sort of speech that contained such words as “spick, nigger, faggot, mussi, etc.”?
Oh wait, I am sorry, that IS considered hate speech. Not freedom of speech, but hate speech because it attacked minorities instead of the majority. My point is this: how can you say it is ok to attack Christianity but emerge (lawsuits in hand) when another religion is targeted? When another race or ethnicity is attacked? When a view to which you adhere is the focal point?
People scream for equality so lets start it: if Christianity can be attacked, so can everything/everyone else…other religions, blacks, jews, illegal immigrants, midgets, retards, EVERYONE! Its either all hate speech or pure freedom of speech. one or the other. you cannot have you cake and eat it too. You cannot speak your mind and condemn others for speaking their own.

By: Paul Etheridge

Paul Etheridge — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 01:01:36 +0000

Just because we have free speech, is that a blanket approval that we should trash people of any race, creed, religion, conservative, liberal, republican,democrat, etc.? Why can’t we all just realize we are a diverse society, with diverse ideas? If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.

By: ColinCody

ColinCody — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:05:05 +0000

This poor shriveled little soul has to be one of the most ignorant and deliberately stupid people I have ever read. I hope Edwards keeps her on, though, because he is then guaranteed to loose quick on quick, and he doesn’t deserve to win anything, anywhere or anytime.

By: Jay

Jay — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 23:54:42 +0000

Obviously there are stupid, hateful people like Marcotte on both ends of the political bell curve. That’s the way bell curves tend to be…but the much vaster middle will never vote for a candidate who hires this kind of thoughtless juvenile.

By: timd

timd — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 18:18:31 +0000

of course the view is a simple minded +bigoted + wouldnt even be discussed in the MSM if said about muslims , jews,blacks,etc but everyone is missing the key point and that is THIS : from this moment on we can be sure of one thing he may be able to garner the democratic nomination but he will be the the PRESIDENT OF NOTHING .I hope all those union members hard earned dues that will be poured into his camp will once again show how time and time again BIG LABOR is impotent.

By: ebbarn

ebbarn — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 04:18:08 +0000

televangefrist
You want to know.
Blame it properly on the Supreme Court’s lawful decision regarding segregation.
Here is part of a Harvard study on the increase of segregation in the schools.
One reason the researchers cited for resegregation was the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1974 ban on desegregation across city-suburban boundaries, which they said left central city schools overwhelmingly poor and overwhelmingly segregated.
So there is the court decision. The other factor related to segregation is where people can afford or otherwise choose to live. Those that live in the suburbs go to suburban schools and those that live in the city go to city schools.
Again, blame it on the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court and where families decide to live, not on a political party. You can not command people as to where to live in a democracy.
There are usually laws regarding as to how far kids can be bussed also. That is the case in the state where I live. It has nothing to do with segregation, but the impact an excessively long trip to and from school has on the affected students.
It should be known that minority scores have significantly improved under the “No Child Left Behind” program initiated by President Bush. The Democrats may dismantle the program, possibly reverting to something like what existed before the program. If that be the case, I think what will happen is that the minority students will find their selves falling back behind. I hope not.