On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 7:12 PM, denstar <valliants...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Don't make me provide a link to a definition.
Do it. Check the synonyms. >>> It's not /that/ complicated. :) >> >> No, it isn't. > Yes, the Media made it all up. Nobody brought any guns to any rally. > Nobody is using armed revolution as an metaphor for voting. I need more koolaid, we're not getting anywhere with this. > 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. Even they admitted they were wrong, when will you. > I didn't even claim they incited it. I did claim that there's the > potential for inciting violence. I don't agree. I think you try too hard to twist words to work in your favor. > If there wasn't, we wouldn't even be discussing this. There would be > no "story". We shouldn't be, but you took the bait. You should be cautious next time before you jump. > Come on man. I'm just saying that politicians on *both* sides > probably shouldn't use armed revolt as a "metaphor" for voting. So targeting a seat is now forbidden? Where do we draw the line on what words are allowed. Since we have no sign that it caused anyone to shoot anyone why sweat it? Don't get all PC on us. > 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. That's an excuse to attack. You imagine these people sitting on the edge waiting for Palin or Limbaugh to give them the word or a sign that it's time to snap. You imagine this so you can attack ideas you don't agree with. Snap out of it man, have more faith in people. The nutters are fewer than you think and words won't set them off. > 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. I'm saying stop exploiting tragedies for political purposes. I know, never let a crisis go to waste. > If we *really* had free speech, I could yell "Fire!" in a crowded > theater (when there is, in fact, no fire) without fear. So you're saying the term lock and load has the same effect? It is a said state you think we're in. > Heh. Yeah, an armed populace is a more responsible populace. Sometimes. >> 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. This guy hasn't watched tv in years, doesn't follow politics, has little contact with people ... he's a nutter living in his own island. That's just one person not mankind. > 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's actually not so black and white. Some people effect some people. Some people have greater influence than others and on and on. You want to get philosophical and go all butterfly effect on me. > 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 answered a specific question not a general one. > 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. Someone might have had an impact on him somewhere along the line. Hell, the Senator had a bad effect on him. > 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. What are you trying to say, someone heard lock and load and wanted to kill someone? > "Taking back" and "Change" are both forms of change. One has no > connotations besides "change" though. Wanna guess which one? If you change directions and realize you're going the wrong way you correct. So yes you change again, not necessarily back to the way it was, but a different direction. >> 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. Are you sure you know what side of the cliff we're on? > I'm sure Republicans can do it too, I just haven't seen it in my lifetime. > =)p Really? Reagan, Bush and Bush? Nothing? >> It's the economy man. > The economy has been getting better and better since we put a Dem in > office. History repeating itself, no? Um, you still living in the US? Highest unemployment, foreclosure rate, dollar is worthless, many states are teetering on insolvency. > I was pointing out the link between "assassination attempt on a > politician" and "violent rhetoric" (and perhaps "polarization"). Did you find one? > 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. They can make a story out of anything they want, remember Dan Rather? How about Trigs mom? > Again: it does not matter one whit *what* the nutters real motivation > was. There's a story there, because of violent rhetoric. It's a different story for another time. > 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". I don't think you want the real truth unless it fits your mold. > I'm pretty sure "us", or "the nation" is responsible for the media. I wish they would take responsibility for the bs they try to pass as news. > I literally asked if you thought that man was an island. And I think he is. Just him, not everyone. > But forget that. As I stated earlier, even if Palin had said "Shoot > her!", Palin would not be The One Responsible. Then I would have a problem with her comments. > 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? Hypotheticals? If she said shoot and someone shot she'd be guilty. She's already guilty in the MSM and didn't say shoot/ >> Just vote, it's easier. > Sounds like a metaphor for "Bring guns" to me. I know it does. > Free will is an illusion perpetuated by the MSM. You put too ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:333454 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
