On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 1:56 PM, denstar <valliants...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh yeah, it was liberal radio host who gave out the home address of > that guy that supported health care, and then the house was > vandalized. Only it was the wrong address or something, right? What are you talking about? Is this something I should know about? Did we discuss that here? > Anyways, the left has comedians, and the right has, what, Rush and Beck? Al Franken was never funny. > I wouldn't be surprised if most the threats are from conservatives. > She seems to have a knack for screwing up her own "side". =) Yeah, that must be it. > Do a google search for "brought guns to the political rally" and see > if there's a lot of democratic party mentions. I saw a lot of people blaming the Tea Party for the shooting in AZ. Was that your point? If a nut says the tea party is responsible enough times does it become the truth? Are you saying Beck, Rush and Palin cause violence, just not this time so try to remember they are separate events that we're talking about at the same time? ???I'm even confusing myself :) > You don't like facts, you like rhetoric. And apparently don't have a > problem with rhetoric conveying connotations of violence-- unless, of > course, you get called on it. Then it's all like, "you do it too! > And it's been like this forever, anyways.". Here's how it went down: You say Palin caused the shooting, but not this one, but maybe this one. I say no. You say she talks of violence and needs to have her 1st amendment right revoked. I say if you think her speech is bad than surely you would be offended by a call to murder a gubernatorial candidate? Revoke ones rights revoke them all. You accuse me of say "you do it too!" I was just adding perspective and wondering why you have selective hatred for so-called violent speech. Is it because you would be happy if they offed a right-winger? > 3% vs. 33% is a generalization. Of what? I realize it's a number you pulled out of your ass, I just don't know what it's supposed to represent. >> I say it because you're blaming Palin for the causing people to shoot >> senators, but probably not this one. Unrelated topics sharing a >> thread. > Come on man, try to pay attention. I know you're not a stoner, so you > don't really have an excuse. > Where did I ever blame Palin for causing people to shoot senators? Why do you keep saying her word cause actions? You are implying she did or will cause death. > I do hold her accountable for contributing to the sorry state of our > political affairs. Words mean things. There, you did it again. What do you mean by sorry state of affairs if not violent reactions to the spoken word. > To your mind, it appears you see the exact same behavior on "the other side". I see it as free speech. I don't think telling people to shoot the gov had a serious effect on anybody. I don't think bulls eyes by the DNC or Palin influenced anything. You do. That's what we;'re discussing. Why you think these people should be silenced. > Riddle me this: How many democratic rallies have had to say "we meant > bring your guns in a metaphorical way"? What does this have to do with anything? Did this crack pot do this because he was told to bring a gun to a rally? > And note, there are some bigwig Tea Party heads who are like, "there's > nothing wrong with bringing guns to a political rally."-- which, while > technically true, is still pretty lame. Especially this close to > M.L.K. day. =)p You're going to hurt yourself reaching that far. >>> How much is up for debate, but you cannot deny that there is some relation. >> >> I'm denying it. Who retaliated for what. Make that statement clear so >> when you step back from it I can reference it. > > I said "relation", not "retaliation". Does that clear it up for you? My bad, you said they we are all connected and have an effect on each other I wanted you to clarify how what Palin said was related to this shooter. > Or are you really denying that people effect each other? Some people do, others; not so much. >> Who, what and where? Be specific. You're intentional vagueness comes >> in handy down the road but I want to cut to the chase. > Gee, I dunno. What could I be referring to? It's all so vague, and like, > hazy. You said Armed revolution while knocking hope and change. Clear that up a bit. Are you saying if you're not with Obama, you're with the revolutionaries? > Hey, as an aside, it looks like people /do/ bring guns to democratic rallies! > > http://open.salon.com/blog/hal_m/2009/08/17/guns_rallies-just_because_you_can_doesnt_mean_you_should > > Only it doesn't seem to be the democrats bringing them. You don't have a point do you? > Lock and Load, "Take Back" America, The Government Needs more Power to > Keep You Safe (well, that's a shared meme, but "your side" capitalized > on the terror more than "mine"). "Either you are with us, or you are > with the terrorists" (well, technically, H.Clinton said it first). Government needs less power, pay attention, that's why people want to take the country back from the brink. They are not doing it by taking up arms no matter how much you want people to think it so. The last election proved my point. Locked and loaded. Targets where focused on and unemployment is the result. > Hrm. Guess "my" side /does/ do similar stuff! Maybe not as much (or > according to you, more), but still. My point is if you live in a glass house you should not throw bricks. See I'm not throwing the bricks you are. > Guess it's a good thing I condemn talk of that nature on general > principle. Hey, yeah, I forgot! That was part of my point, even! > "My side", "yer side"... what a bunch of malarkey! OK, if you don't care about sides, why do you always mention Palin, Beck and Rush but never anyone on the left even though we went through 8 years of death threats to President Bush? Just asking. > Maybe instead of trying to do this "tit for tat", "you do it too", > "you started it" type bullshit, we should agree that some stuff is > just lame, regardless? I'm saying you can't attack one side while turning the cheek on the other. And when asked about it you blather into some nonsense about carrying guns at rally. Scope creep much? > It's a magical tapestry, Life! So are the mushrooms. > You want to look at facts? Hey, is it true that the Republicans bitch > the most about welfare, and yet their constituents take advantage of > it the most? WTF? Now where are you going? Most welfare is in inner cities that are mostly Dems. The poor in the rural have just recently changed from blue to red. > That always kind of boggled my mind. And hey, are our taxes /really/ > like the lowest they've been in more than 30 years or whatever? Relevance? > I'm not sure why you keep returning to this "you want to blame" theme. > I've clearly stated that I don't hold you, or Palin, or The Right > accountable for this guy's actions. If you cared about facts, or even > just wanted to look at them, you'd be aware of that, no? So why do you keep saying they're connected. Are you referring to the next shooting? Or the previous? >>> 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? >> Yeah. > You are living in a fantasy land. You don't own a gun, do you? ;)p Please tell me what caused this kid to shoot these people, since you clearly know. > In your reality, there's just action, eh? No reaction? Sounds > fantastic! (Well, maybe "sound" is the wrong word, as sound basically > requires action & reaction-- but you know what I meant) What was he reacting to? Plain? Beck? Rush? > At least one man is an island, it appears. Bravo dude! You must feel > *so* original! That's your statement not mine. > Remember the Kent State Shootings? Or massacre, if you prefer? =) Now WTF are you talking about? Palin is responsible for that too? > It's not about pointing fingers, it's about civil discourse, and not > preying on people's fear or anger. Tell that to the current admin. Bringing guns to a knife fight. > You probably see positive and negative reinforcement as about the same > though. It fits. That's just rude and stupid. Nice going. > Do you enjoy confrontation more than compromise? Would you rather > "Take Back" America than "Hope and Change" it? This isn't the change I hoped for. I want to take it back from the selfish and corrupt politicians and give it back to the people where it belongs. > Is it not ironic, that you started out by accusing me of > preconceptions, and not reading what you write, and yet here we are, > with you *again* claiming I said something that I did not say? Even > after I repeated myself a few times? Stop dancing. You said we're not directly responsible for this guys actions but we are definitely indirectly responsible. That's convenient for deniability. > Sam: You are not responsible for what this guy did. > Feel better? No because I already knew that ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:333436 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
