On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Sam wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 8:25 PM, denstar wrote: >> >> I merely pointed out that you thought it was important that you >> mention Obama + folks being polarized, vs. merely commenting on the >> polarization. Just something you said in passing, and I was just >> commenting on it in passing. =] > > Polarization is the theme, I shouldn't have to point that out it > should be obvious. > The issue is blaming the right. > Wake up and stop looking for scapegoats.
Come now, you know as well as I that the Democrats haven't been as gun happy. Hell, that's one of the memes, right? The dems & libs will take your guns- we want you to bring them to rallies! (metaphorically, we meant!) Don't go 'n' pull the JerryB card, where you equate 3% as being the same as 33% -- hey, they're both percents, right? "You do it too!" et al. (Not trying to talk trash about Jerry, just pointing out a popular theme, which tends to sorta avoid the actual topic, or principles thereof) Wake up indeed. I guess that theoretically I could be dreaming this. *shrug* cool beans, either way. >>> 1) We as a nation are not responsible for this nut jobs actions. >> >> Is that what I fucking said, Sam? "Damnit, Jim, I'm a reader not a writer!" > > Pretty much. I know, the easiest way to back peddle here is to say > "taht's not what I meant by that." What? Dude, I'm flip'n nuanced, yo. You say this because I don't blame Obama for the polarization? "Pretty much" here wouldn't be close enough for horseshoes *or* hand-grenades. I happen to believe that we are all connected, and thus, yes, have an effect on each other-- everyone, even. How much is up for debate, but you cannot deny that there is some relation. Politicians -- *politicians!* -- capitalizing on an *armed* revolution -- and poor schmucks falling for it-- *stutter* -- while having the nerve to knock "hope and change". *sigh* All this is lost on you though. You don't have a problem with politicians using fear as their tool. With leveraging our anger in some sorta Hitler-like way. It's all the same to you. Black and white, at the same time. Gray, I guess? And I figure you'd say the same for the me. I was hoodwinked. How's that hope and change working out. Obama was the messiah! The One! Heh. Like living in a comic book. And in the end-- I don't know if you believe in responsibility or not-- yes, "we the people" (that's me and you, bub. And Them too.) are ultimately responsible for the state of our nation. Hell, the state of the world. Why is that thought such anathema to you? Would you rather have something, or someone to blame? You *want* to be ruled by "the Media", and evil socialists, etc., no? Absolve yourself, and everyone else, of any real responsibility? >> /Must/ it always be this jumping to of conclusions? (heh) "He says he >> doesn't like the violent rhetoric, which obviously means he thinks it >> is the violent rhetoric's fault, and that people are not responsible >> for their actions!". "He says he thinks the Security Theater is a >> crock of shit, which obviously means that he hates America and /wants/ >> to get blown up by a terrorist!". Yadda, yadda. > > > Why are you talking about violent rhetoric if it's unrelated to the > discussion? Back peddle from that. The violent rhetoric is *central* to the discussion. But "violent rhetoric doesn't kill people..." to say the first half of an oft rephrased paraphrase. You'd be nuts to think that what we say has no effect on one another though. Is that what you're saying? That "man is an island", so to speak? What, exactly, *are* you saying? >> I know that's not what you're saying, but it's just similar examples >> of lazy thinking. > > Lazy back peddling. How did you know the last bike I rode often was a BMX? (Not literally a BMX, but a trick bike-- generally the most common kind of bike where peddling backwards actually produces something) I rode it to work every day. Up central, with my shirt off. Hey, it was summer, and I didn't want it to get all sweaty. >> Screw you and your democrats. =) > > Hell Yeah! > >> Ah ha! Maybe /they/ made you this way! Isn't that sorta what you >> generally say? You are like a reaction to the liberal leanings of the >> list, etc.? A "check", if you will? Doing your bit to balance things >> out? =) > > Backing you into defending a position that you now say you don't have > because you're other discussion exists here only to save threads? I'm not sure what you are getting at. Save threads? Do you see discussions on this list as some sort of binary battle? "There's only two things you can support, and they're both extremes!" "You're with us, or you're a terrorist!"... maybe you think my underwear is too old? (but it's so comfortable!) LOL. Sorry. I honestly don't grok what that is referring to. :Den -- There is no shorter path for joining a neutral existential anthropology, according to philosophy, with the existential decision before God, according to the Bible. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:333369 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
