I'm actually trying to quelch the allegation made, and by your admission, there's no proof of...

Read the article's statement that I have problem with...

Somehow I don't think they're working on that same "98/2 unlikely" thinking...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Right, and I dismiss the article as unlikely. What more do you want? They have the right to review the facts and present them in a manner they find to be consistent. News sources do this all the time. That is why there is a term in the Christian Right media called the "Gay Agenda". Same 98/2 unlikely pattern but the journalistic abuse continues.

__________________

And I have a right to dissent...Isn't that part of what forums are for?...

Probably true, but I don't put the "Christian Right media" in the same ballpark as The Huffington Post in terms of mainstream population and how they're termed as credible....

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Now that might be an argument to make...

__________________

I have no doubts that "screw ups" can exist.
Some, on the left and the right, are non-intentional screw-ups.

However, there are some that are NOT screw-ups, but part of a purposeful campaign to associate Barack with Islam, "Hussein", and "Osama".
The first two are iron-clad, essentially irrefutable fact.

I cannot fathom how you cannot acknowledge the last exists as well.
SOME people who throw out "Osama" are NOT doing it on accident.
Furthermore, when this woman JOKES about killing them both???
Come ON.
That HAS to be a glaring red flag, and I think you KNOW it's a glaring red flag cause it's an aspect I keep bringing up and you refuse to address.


Ahhh.
I think I see where I have not been clear, cause you're not really talking about my position at all.

This has been ONE INCIDENT.
And I have expressly pointed out this ONE incident is part of a BIGGER issue.

But I should make clear that does not mean that there are not other examples of "Osama / Obama" (on the right and the left) where it is NOT part of an anti-Obama campaign.

To use your example, it's not just a cause where "you're white, you're a racist".
This woman EXPRESSLY STATED a "joke" about killing Obama.
Going a step further in the analogy, it would be like a white person not only saying something that COULD be racist, but then ADDING ON a comment about eating watermelon or similar racist nonsense.

It's NOT just the ONE thing.

Maybe we should rethink our laws on free speech or at least have a new clear interpretation of "clear and present danger....." Limiting the Limitations on Political Speech

__________________
Consumption is indeed important in a free economy: particularly the freedom of consumers to buy their goods in unhampered markets. However, key to long-term economic growth is investment (savings), which is the opposite of consumption. Public policies that promote consumption — such as low interest rates — do so at the expense of savings. Less savings means less investments; an economy that does not save or invest will consume all of its resources and eventually end up bankrupt.-David Saied

I would be reluctant to tamper with free speech,like most Americans I hold free speech in high reguard.I was just reviewing "again" the Skokie case.While that case may not deal directly with the this thread there are some similarities at least in broad theory.Political rhetoric can be very offensive and perhaps dangerous.This is not a new phenomina,political rhetoric was very abusive shortly after the birth of our nation.This does not mean that antything goes,or that dangerous political rhetoric should be excused due to precedent.Should hate speech and assassination speech be protected under the First Amendment? I think that depends on "what" was said. Was it satire or off the cuff political commentary or was it something far more sinister?If the speech was conspiritorial,we have existing laws that should cover that.

When the Nazis Came to Skokie

And common sense prevails once again.

__________________
Consumption is indeed important in a free economy: particularly the freedom of consumers to buy their goods in unhampered markets. However, key to long-term economic growth is investment (savings), which is the opposite of consumption. Public policies that promote consumption — such as low interest rates — do so at the expense of savings. Less savings means less investments; an economy that does not save or invest will consume all of its resources and eventually end up bankrupt.-David Saied