On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Sam wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 4:51 PM, denstar wrote: ... >> >> Is cause the same thing as incite? > > Yes
Don't make me provide a link to a definition. >> It's not /that/ complicated. :) > > No, it isn't. If you think incite is the same thing as cause, perhaps it is. ... >> 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. Yes, the Media made it all up. Nobody brought any guns to any rally. Nobody is using armed revolution as an metaphor for voting. Thanks for setting me straight there, I almost thought real people could be held accountable for stuff. Nice and comfy to be back to blaming the MSM. >> Did I say her words caused actions? > > You did. I didn't even claim they incited it. I did claim that there's the potential for inciting violence. If there wasn't, we wouldn't even be discussing this. There would be no "story". Come on man. I'm just saying that politicians on *both* sides probably shouldn't use armed revolt as a "metaphor" for voting. Water the tree of liberty indeed. Obviously, there are nutters out there. Maybe even impressionable nutters. Or even people who take things a bit too literally. >> "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. */me slaps himself on the forehead* ... > Because of violent rhetoric that will lead to ... Not the most constructive discourse, at the least. Extra security for politicians at worst? CIVIL WAR! Yeah! We just gotta make sure at least a few military bases are on "our" side. >> 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? I was going to revise that right away but knew you'd give me the chance. =) Let's say I want "them" to change their tune. Let there be music to fill the air, to quote-ish "Ripple". I would think you'd want less hype and more meat as well (because you seem to say that sometimes), but maybe I'm incorrect. Perhaps you enjoy drama, like most humans do. If we *really* had free speech, I could yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater (when there is, in fact, no fire) without fear. >>> 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. Heh. Yeah, an armed populace is a more responsible populace. "We" quite often can't even handle driving cars. >> 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. My thought was "holy shit, there's a bandwagon!". And I thought it was sad. >> 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? Um, "is man an island" is a pretty global question. Kinda all-encompassing. Either you think people effect people, even with mere words, or you don't. You seem to have a very refined sense of responsibility, so, where does it end? It seemed like you went with the easy answer (and I'm not saying it's incorrect) of "here" (or "there" if you prefer). I think it's a bit muddier than that, to the point which, perhaps, each of us is responsible for the rest, in some way shape or form. >>> 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. Hell. If I have to choose one, I'll choose the warm and fluffy one. We don't have to choose anything, so it's moot, but still. I'm pretty sure I'm not imagining "someone" on this list having to point out that "lock and load" /really/ means "vote". Hell, "she" said that in the same sentence! And some politicians (maybe even democrats!) are actually *running* on a platform like that. Capitalizing on people's anger. Anger at the government, the other party, maybe their neighbors- hell, I dunno. Seems evil-ish to me. "Taking back" and "Change" are both forms of change. One has no connotations besides "change" though. Wanna guess which one? >> LOL. *People brought guns to the rallies*. > > People bring guns to lot's of places. Are you now against guns too? No. Guns don't kill people- political rallies do. >> 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. :) It kinda seems like as soon as we get a Democrat in office, we start backing away from the precipice. I'm sure Republicans can do it too, I just haven't seen it in my lifetime. =)p >> I thought it was like, referring to the Socialists or some such. >> Maybe just the Democrats. > > It's the economy man. The economy has been getting better and better since we put a Dem in office. History repeating itself, no? ... >> Who's "he"? Scott? The Media? Society? You lost me. > > The shooter. Someone, besides him, caused his action. Who was it in > your opinion? That's all you bub. =) I was pointing out the link between "assassination attempt on a politician" and "violent rhetoric" (and perhaps "polarization"). Again, if there was no link, there would be no story. And as much as you profess that "there is no story!"... well, that's just crazy. Again: it does not matter one whit *what* the nutters real motivation was. There's a story there, because of violent rhetoric. No violent rhetoric == different story. Even lies have some relation to truth, by definition. It's the truth that I seek. And I don't see the answer in the MSM. I see it in "us". >> Oh, yeah. You are having an imaginary conversation with someone who >> apparently types like me. Only totally different words than I type. > > Cute. Thanks, I've been working out. I'm gonna be benching 500lbs soon, so I'll be able to arm wrestle BenN if I see him at a conference. "Soon" meaning never, especially since I don't think benching works the muscle groups you use to arm wrestle. Anyways, thanks again. I think you're kinda pretty too. =) > And that was the problem, you should have blamed the media. I'm pretty sure "us", or "the nation" is responsible for the media. Or maybe nobody's responsible for nothing. We're all beholden only to ourselves, and the rest is all make believe or a police state. Or out of our control (or even ability to effect). ... >> 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 :) Let's just say it's a game of probabilities. >>> 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. I literally asked if you thought that man was an island. But forget that. As I stated earlier, even if Palin had said "Shoot her!", Palin would not be The One Responsible. A better question for you is, I guess, had she said "Shoot her!", would Palin be even in part responsible? Or would that be "blame" where no blame was due? How responsible are people for their words? None? They don't count as actions maybe? That'll probably get us closer than the "island man" stuff. ... >>> 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. Sounds like a metaphor for "Bring guns" to me. Need to water the tree! (meaning, of course, that I need to pee) ... > So you killed my goldfish? Bastard! If I had known that by sneezing that day, it would unleash the awful chain of events which culminated in the death of your goldfish, I would have done it different, I swear. Probably just turning my head to the right instead of the left would have been enough. My bad. Had I but known... >> It's fate. > > So god took my goldfi God is ultimately responsible for everything, kinda like us. So yes, it was Him too! Hey, we're sorta like God! *And* we're made of stars! Don't get much niftier than that. Free will is an illusion perpetuated by the MSM. :Den -- A feeble body weakens the m ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:333446 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
