On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Jerry Barnes critic...@gmail.com> wrote: > > "LOL! Again with the "they do it too!" logic? Awesome! If it's > a rationale that works for you, stick with it!" > > You can't show hypocrisy without "they do it too" logic. If you don't point > out hypocrisy, how will they ever know they are hypocrites.
Yes, that's the spirit! Focus on the important issue, the fact that the Right is not alone in this behavior! The violent rhetoric? Eh, we can't really talk about that in this thread. > "Eye for an eye, wot wot!" > > Next, you're making a false assumption again. "Right Wing" rhetoric had > nothing to do with the shooting. There is no eye for an eye situation here. > Now, if right wing pundits and talking heads started making up false > accusations and swinging them around carelessly, it would be an eye for eye > situation. I guess it depends on what you see as the subject of the thread. > "That whole paragraph is awesome, actually. Not exactly factual, but look > at the shiny rhetoric!" > > Whatever. Kind of like the "eye for an eye" misdirection above. > > I note that Judah never answered the question about Paul Krugman and > President Obama. You care to chime in? Do you denounce their rhetoric that > leads to an us versus them mentality, encourages class warfare, and fosters > an environment of hate and violence? Actually, he did answer it, but you seemed focused, so I can understand how you'd overlook it. As far as your question goes, I think I covered it to. When I said "politicians", there were lots of times where I did not prefix it with "right wing". There's also the issue of guns at political events. Since everything is the same today as it was when Obama and Krugman would just NOT STOP with the whole "If we don't get our way, we need a second amendment remedy" rhetoric, I must be just misremembering the political climate. Like, even with the war protests, I don't remember people bringing guns (pussies). And that was long before Obama was on the scene. But I guess "then" is the same as "now". Basically. > No answer or a diversion is just as good as an answer. Yeah. Totes awesome how we're not really spending (well, some of us) much time talking about the need to tone down the rhetoric in a climate like the current one, or, say, mental illness (besides in passing as a defense of the rhetoric-- or the right? I'm not sure what's being defended. But I know it's all the MSMs fault!). > Like Judah, I suspect that you believe rhetoric only counts if comes from > one side while the other side gets a pass. Also, it is okay for one side to > make baseless accusations and drag people through the mud as long as the > victim is on the right. Hope I am wrong, but you have done nothing to > disprove this. Like polarized glass, you wouldn't be able to see if I had. That Palin, for instance (I'd say Obama, but lots of people wouldn't "get" using him as an example- thanks to the mainstream media ignoring all his violent rhetoric!) is using violent rhetoric to spread her "message" is not a baseless accusation. Or maybe you think it is. Maybe you've been alive so much longer than I, that this is all old hat for you? > > Now, a question in general, why did Bill Clinton have a War Room? To > incite violence? Ah, see, I knew it! This example of Clinton is almost exactly the same! Heck, now I remember that time where he had to say "When I said come 'locked and loaded' I meant it like 'ready to vote'-- but I don't mind that you brought the guns!". That was right before the ban on automatic weapons, neh? Man, we were even *more* polarized back then than we are today. I remember now. Look, you can downplay this as much as you need to. Rationalize that things have always been like this.... that war rhetoric is the same regardless of circumstances. I don't mind. I'll continue to think that violent rhetoric shouldn't be campaign slogan-ized. That there are plenty (though few) of crazies out there-- hell, plenty of "normal" people who just take some things a bit to literally-- that we should be considerate of. I don't care *who's* doing it. If Obama is up for re-election, and I start hearing "if you don't vote for him, you'll DIE", I'll denounce it, believe you me. Not that you'll remember if I do (and sadly, unlike the time my dad said "you probably won't remember this", and besides that first bit I didn't- you probably aren't even high as a kite). I think you do the same thing as me. See what you want to see. This thread isn't about violent rhetoric. Violent rhetoric doesn't even relate. It is, in a word, "unrelated". This is about politics! :Den -- Gratitude is a duty which ought to be paid, but which none have a right to expect. Jean Ja ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:333565 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
