On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Sam wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 1:56 PM, denstar wrote: > ... >> 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?
I hope not, because you've been saying it, over and over again. Only you are saying that someone else is saying it (me). Even though they (I) are not. > 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 :) Is cause the same thing as incite? It's not /that/ complicated. :) ... > Here's how it went down: You say Palin caused the shooting, but not > this one, but maybe this one. Nope. Maybe you have me confused with somebody else? > I say no. > You say she talks of violence and needs to have her 1st amendment > right revoked. What? Are you absolutely sure that you are talking to who you think you are? How can you read "not such a good thing" as "revoke her 1st amendment right"? > 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? Nice yarn you're spinning. Sadly, that's not even close to how it went down. I condemned violent rhetoric (and not even that strongly). I said it was sad that when we read "politician shot", we're like, almost as surprised as if we'd heard "westboro baptist church member shot". As in, not very. If there's no problem, why did so many people "go there", so fast? I know, it's the MSM's fault! ... >> 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. Did I say her words caused actions? "All I did was say yer daughter is a ho- and you hit me, for no reason!" >> 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. Oh, I don't know. What could I /mean/ by that? Perhaps that we've a sorry state of affairs? I hear Congress wants more security now. (<-- totally unrelated tangent) ... > You do. That's what we;'re discussing. Why you think these people > should be silenced. Do not. I want them to shut themselves the fuck up. Big difference. =) >> 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? So you think people should come to rallies armed? Like, "hey, that sounds like a good idea!"? ... > 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. Ah, maybe that's the problem. You think I was talking about the shooter, and not the reaction to the shooting. Eh. Even that doesn't explain it. I think you mostly want to think I think something. >> Or are you really denying that people effect each other? > > Some people do, others; not so much. Relativity is such an interesting concept. I like the idea you proposed of 0 influence. Much simpler, don't you think? ... > 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? THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE! In MagicSam land, I guess there's no difference between the two approaches. Hell, they basically amount to the same thing, right: Lies? ... > 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. LOL. *People brought guns to the rallies*. For someone who has such a hard time grasping my nuances, you sure do a bang-up job or interpreting others. Even when it's been demonstrated that other people take some of these "metaphorical" comments literally. Back from the brink. Yeah, /that's/ *totally* the logical route. "From the brink". Uh-huh. I thought it was like, referring to the Socialists or some such. Maybe just the Democrats. ... >> 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? Heh. Awesome. I'll set 'em up, and then I'll knock 'em outta the park. That's all you're saying- Something about cheeks. You obviously support violent rhetoric, and think it's swell. "We need more of that!", you say. And you love putting words in people's mouths. And your favorite color is purple. ... >> 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? Who's "he"? Scott? The Media? Society? You lost me. Oh, yeah. You are having an imaginary conversation with someone who apparently types like me. Only totally different words than I type. Let me try to clarify it for you, one more time. I was commenting on the commenting. Much as you and Scott and JerryB were. Only *I* wasn't blaming the media, or the left, or whoever else you'd like to blame. We're polarized because we're polarized. Huge leap of logic there, I know. Without compromise, we'll never get less polarized either. If it makes you feel better, I will say "violent rhetoric has no place in politics". Even though that's what I said already. Maybe I need to add, "even if it's Democrats" to make you happy? Fine, I'm down with that. Democrats and Liberals shouldn't do it either. Damn dude. >> At least one man is an island, it appears. Bravo dude! You must feel >> *so* original! > > That's your statement not mine. Actually, you stated that you believe man an island, unchanged by external forces, be they words or the wind. Only not as poetically. And I think it was just "Yeah". >> Remember the Kent State Shootings? Or massacre, if you prefer? =) > > Now WTF are you talking about? Palin is responsible for that too? You are *really* fixated on Palin, aren't you? I detect some type of conflict within you regarding her. Using my ESP/blink skillz. >> 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. Yes Sam. I know. "We" do it too. Can't turn the cheek. What is important to focus on, is that *both* sides do it. Not what is done, just that "they" (we?) are not alone in doing "it". >> You probably see positive and negative reinforcement as about the same >> though. It fits. > > That's just rude and stupid. Nice going. Didn't think that would push your button. Apologies. Moreso for some of the other rather rude things I've said or implied. >> 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. Bring guns. >> 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. Unless you are inhabiting another plain of existence, unreachable from this one (which would mean that it would be impossible to know), everyone is indirectly responsible for everything. There's a philosophical name for the idea, but there's also physics, which makes it pretty clear that matter effects matter. Actions, reactions, etc., too. I have nothing to deny, guy. =) >> Sam: You are not responsible for what this guy did. >> Feel better? > > No because I already knew that I knew you knew that. But I thought you should know that. There is nothing you could have done, nothing you could have said, that would have changed (or can change) anything. It's fate. :Den -- There is nothing deep down inside us except what we have put there ourselves. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:333437 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
