On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 4:51 PM, denstar <valliants...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Only you are saying that someone else is saying it (me). Even though > they (I) are not.
We're back to: I was just making an unrelated comment that you think is related to the discussion but kinda isn't. >> 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? Yes > It's not /that/ complicated. :) No, it isn't. > What? Are you absolutely sure that you are talking to who you think you are? Yep. > How can you read "not such a good thing" as "revoke her 1st amendment right"? Well, when you keep saying you want these people to shut up you mean voluntarily? That's pointless. They won't even read this. > I condemned violent rhetoric (and not even that strongly). Good for you. > 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. I don't remember you saying that. I'm thinking you and a handful of others weren't surprised but I'm sure the masses were. > If there's no problem, why did so many people "go there", so fast? I > know, it's the MSM's fault! Finally you get it. A manufactured crisis to blame the opponents, sell stories and make money at fundraisers. Took you long enough. Wait, are you saying that since the MSM jumped to conclusions about the why that it's real? I need to drink some koolaid. > Did I say her words caused actions? You did. > "All I did was say yer daughter is a ho- and you hit me, for no reason!" I don't get the joke but I'm pretty confident you're not talking about my daughter. >> 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? Because of violent rhetoric that will lead to ... > Do not. I want them to shut themselves the fuck up. Big difference. =) So you're basically mumbling to yourself in public and I confused it for looking for a solution? >> 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!"? Why are we discussing this totally unrelated point? Maybe if more people packed heat people like this won't do as much harm. > Ah, maybe that's the problem. You think I was talking about the > shooter, and not the reaction to the shooting. The reaction is a problem that you should mumble about. Instead of jumping on the bandwagon you think about it first. > I like the idea you proposed of 0 influence. Much simpler, don't you think? So that's how you're going to play it? Ask me a specific question and make the answer global? >> 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? Yes. Lies that you swear by. > LOL. *People brought guns to the rallies*. People bring guns to lot's of places. Are you now against guns too? > Back from the brink. Yeah, /that's/ *totally* the logical route. > "From the brink". Uh-huh. I should have said we're on the precipice. :) > I thought it was like, referring to the Socialists or some such. > Maybe just the Democrats. It's the economy man. > 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. :P >>> 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. The shooter. Someone, besides him, caused his action. Who was it in your opinion? > Oh, yeah. You are having an imaginary conversation with someone who > apparently types like me. Only totally different words than I type. Cute. > 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. And that was the problem, you should have blamed the media. > We're polarized because we're polarized. Huge leap of logic there, I know. xactly > 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. Why. Because you think it causes violence? I'm looking for why or are you just making a passing comment that is neither here nor there? If so, sorry I responded to it. I thought you spoke because you wanted to talk :) >> 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". Nice try. You asked me if this shooter was influenced by Palin and I said no. > You are *really* fixated on Palin, aren't you? I detect some type of > conflict within you regarding her. Using my ESP/blink skillz. Aren't you the one that kept mumbling Beck, Rush and Palin bla bla violence? >> 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. Just vote, it's easier. > 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. So you killed my goldfish? Bastard! > 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. So god took my goldfi ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:333440 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
