PDA

View Full Version : Religion "I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."


Direckshun
06-15-2010, 05:16 PM
As Sharron Angle pulls in every Sarah Palin voter.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/sharron_angle_floated_possibil.html

Sharron Angle floated possibility of armed insurrection
By Greg Sargent | June 15, 2010; 1:32 PM ET

Here's another one that could be tough for Sharron Angle to explain away: In an interview in January, Angle appeared to float the possibility of armed insurrection if "this Congress keeps going the way it is."

I'm not kidding. In an interview she gave to a right-wing talk show host, Angle approvingly quoted Thomas Jefferson saying it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years -- and said that if Congress keeps it up, people may find themselves resorting to "Second Amendment remedies."

What's more, the talk show host she spoke to tells me he doesn't have any doubt that she was floating the possibility of armed insurrection as a valid response if Congress continues along its current course.

Asked by the host, Lars Larson of Portland, Oregon, where she stands on Second Amendment issues, Angle replied:

You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.

I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.

Larson says Angle was floating the possibility of armed insurrection if Congress keeps it up under Reid et al.

"If it continues to do the things it's doing, I think she's leaving open that possibility," Larson said. "And I think the founders believed that the public should be able to do that when the government becomes out of control. It just matters what you define as going too far."

The most charitable interpretation here was that Angle was floating armed insurrection -- or "Second Amendment remedies" -- as a defensible response if electoral politics fails to change where things are headed under the current regime.

Also, the larger context is key: TPM reports this morning that Angle was a member of the far-right Independent American Party, a pro-gun, states-rights party that warns against the threat of global government.

She has also said she's a member of the patriot group "Oath Keepers," though she's since disavowed that bunch.

Direckshun
06-15-2010, 05:18 PM
Angle is the Republican Senate candidate running against Reid in Nevada, FYI.

FD
06-15-2010, 05:26 PM
Man, if the Nevada GOP had nominated anybody else at all, Reid would be gone for sure. But instead they nominate this tea party nut and he's got a good chance of keeping his job.

Donger
06-15-2010, 05:29 PM
Angle is the Republican Senate candidate running against Reid in Nevada, FYI.

And you are suggesting that he means "assassinate" or "kill" when he says "take him out"?

Direckshun
06-15-2010, 05:30 PM
And you are suggesting that he means "assassinate" or "kill" when he says "take him out"?

It's a "she."

Direckshun
06-15-2010, 05:30 PM
Man, if the Nevada GOP had nominated anybody else at all, Reid would be gone for sure. But instead they nominate this tea party nut and he's got a good chance of keeping his job.

I tend to agree -- although the malaise with Reid among Nevada Democrats is enough to keep this thing tight.

Donger
06-15-2010, 06:02 PM
It's a "she."

Very well. Same question, just change the 'he' to a 'she.'

ClevelandBronco
06-15-2010, 06:07 PM
Who is this he that's a she?

Calcountry
06-15-2010, 06:12 PM
Who is this he that's a she?The next Senator from the State of Nevada.

Calcountry
06-15-2010, 06:13 PM
Here Obama goes with his Jimmy Carter wear a sweater speach. It will go down in infamy.

HonestChieffan
06-15-2010, 06:47 PM
This changes everything.

BucEyedPea
06-15-2010, 07:33 PM
Man, if the Nevada GOP had nominated anybody else at all, Reid would be gone for sure. But instead they nominate this tea party nut and he's got a good chance of keeping his job.

I don't think a Tea Partier is a nut. Only a statist would think that.

ChiefaRoo
06-15-2010, 10:59 PM
Angle will win. Reid is toast.

mlyonsd
06-16-2010, 07:14 AM
I'll bet the majority of Nevadians agree with her.

blaise
06-16-2010, 07:25 AM
I like how the "most charitable interpretation" is that she was floating armed insurrection. I think the most charitable interpretation, and probably the most realistic, is that she was saying Reid needs to be voted out.
If HCF posted a story like this there would be some people posting things like "OH NOES! ARMED INSURRECTION IS COMING!!!"

thecoffeeguy
06-16-2010, 08:08 AM
Angle will win. Reid is toast.

Ya, definitely looking forward to seeing Reid losing.
Just need Pelosi as well, followed by Obama in 2012.

Chief Henry
06-16-2010, 09:19 AM
And you are suggesting that he means "assassinate" or "kill" when he says "take him out"?



He didn't answer this question yet...

patteeu
06-16-2010, 09:45 AM
I don't see anything wrong with her comment. And if anyone is worried about armed insurrection, they should vote out nuts like Harry Reid and Barack Obama. Of course, they should do that anyway if they care about protecting the country from really bad ideas.

RJ
06-16-2010, 10:11 AM
If I'm understanding this thread correctly, Nevada's Republican nominee is a transexual who is in favor of an armed uprising against the government.

I find this surprising.

FD
06-16-2010, 01:10 PM
If I'm understanding this thread correctly, Nevada's Republican nominee is a transexual who is in favor of an armed uprising against the government.

I find this surprising.

I guess you haven't spent much time in Nevada.

HonestChieffan
06-16-2010, 02:39 PM
Who should be second. This is a good deal lets prioritize the shitbags we want gone.

Direckshun
06-16-2010, 04:25 PM
He didn't answer this question yet...

I don't reply to Donger substantially anymore.

If somebody else asks the question, I'm game.

Direckshun
06-16-2010, 04:26 PM
I like how the "most charitable interpretation" is that she was floating armed insurrection. I think the most charitable interpretation, and probably the most realistic, is that she was saying Reid needs to be voted out.
If HCF posted a story like this there would be some people posting things like "OH NOES! ARMED INSURRECTION IS COMING!!!"

Did she, or did she not, say that it's a good thing we have 2nd amendment "remedies" in case this Congress continues its current course of action.

Yes or no would suffice.

Direckshun
06-16-2010, 04:30 PM
And if anyone is worried about armed insurrection, they should vote out nuts like Harry Reid and Barack Obama.

If I was really worried about armed insurrection, I'm probably just going to trust the police and military. Like I always do.

HonestChieffan
06-16-2010, 04:30 PM
No, she did not say what you paraphrased.

ChiefaRoo
06-16-2010, 04:32 PM
Ya, definitely looking forward to seeing Reid losing.
Just need Pelosi as well, followed by Obama in 2012.

Cheers to that. The R's need a candidate though. I don't really like any of the current national contenders. In the interim I want the Conservative R's to take control of Congress and pass laws in numbers that could override any potential little "o" veto.

They can start by defunding and rolling back Healthcare, adding back some (but not all) of the Bush tax cuts (to spur investment and economic growth) and get the damned budget under control.

Direckshun
06-16-2010, 04:33 PM
If I'm understanding this thread correctly, Nevada's Republican nominee is a transexual who is in favor of an armed uprising against the government.

I find this surprising.

I guess you haven't spent much time in Nevada.

LMAO

Direckshun
06-16-2010, 04:34 PM
No, she did not say what you paraphrased.

1. It's a good thing the Founding Fathers put in the 2nd amendment.
2. The 2nd amendment defends us from tyrannies.
3. If this Congress keeps going on its current course, we may have to use it.
4. If we did, Harry Reid would be the first to go.

Accurate, or inaccurate?

Direckshun
06-16-2010, 04:36 PM
In the interim I want the Conservative R's to take control of Congress and pass laws in numbers that could override little o's vetoes.

That is mathematically impossible in 2010.

penchief
06-16-2010, 04:40 PM
Here Obama goes with his Jimmy Carter wear a sweater speach. It will go down in infamy.

If this country had followed Carter's lead regarding energy policy back then we wouldn't have the oil companies blackmailing us today. Carter was right. Reagan and those shortsighted others who abandoned that course in favor of greed and cronyism were wrong.

penchief
06-16-2010, 04:41 PM
I don't think a Tea Partier is a nut. Only a statist would think that.

Anybody can be a nut. Even a Tea Partier.

mlyonsd
06-16-2010, 04:49 PM
If this country had followed Carter's lead regarding energy policy back then we wouldn't have the oil company's blackmailing us today. Carter was right. Reagan and those shortsighted others who abandoned that course in favor of greed and cronyism were wrong.

Carter was right about what?

HonestChieffan
06-16-2010, 05:13 PM
1. It's a good thing the Founding Fathers put in the 2nd amendment.
2. The 2nd amendment defends us from tyrannies.
3. If this Congress keeps going on its current course, we may have to use it.
4. If we did, Harry Reid would be the first to go.

Accurate, or inaccurate?

did you see the quote?

Donger
06-16-2010, 05:38 PM
I don't reply to Donger substantially anymore.

If somebody else asks the question, I'm game.

Really? Why not?

patteeu
06-16-2010, 06:42 PM
1. It's a good thing the Founding Fathers put in the 2nd amendment.
2. The 2nd amendment defends us from tyrannies.
3. If this Congress keeps going on its current course, we may have to use it.
4. If we did, Harry Reid would be the first to go.

Accurate, or inaccurate?

I don't think that's accurate. I think she said that getting rid of Harry Reid at the ballot box would be a good first step in the direction away from a potential armed insurrection.

RJ
06-16-2010, 09:11 PM
I guess you haven't spent much time in Nevada.


Nicely played. ROFL

Mr. Kotter
06-16-2010, 09:26 PM
Angle is an idiot, but Jefferson's notion about a Revolution every 20 years is....just about right.

go bowe
06-16-2010, 10:08 PM
hey rob, what up?

we miss ya, bud...

anyways, how's my fav teacher of the year?

alanm
06-16-2010, 10:48 PM
If I was really worried about armed insurrection, I'm probably just going to trust the police and military. Like I always do.What if the police and military side with the people?

blaise
06-17-2010, 05:15 AM
1. It's a good thing the Founding Fathers put in the 2nd amendment.
2. The 2nd amendment defends us from tyrannies.
3. If this Congress keeps going on its current course, we may have to use it.
4. If we did, Harry Reid would be the first to go.

Accurate, or inaccurate?

#4 is inaccurate. That's not the way it's phrased. In fact, you could make an argument that her sentence about Reid could be in a separate paragraph. It's possible that she meant it the way you're saying it, but it's equally possible she just mean to vote him out. To pretend there's any kind of certainty about what she said in regards to your #4 would be wrong. She doesn't say "if there's an armed insurrection." She says Reid must go.

blaise
06-17-2010, 05:17 AM
Did she, or did she not, say that it's a good thing we have 2nd amendment "remedies" in case this Congress continues its current course of action.

Yes or no would suffice.

Yes.

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 08:48 AM
I don't think that's accurate. I think she said that getting rid of Harry Reid at the ballot box would be a good first step in the direction away from a potential armed insurrection.

So you'd have absolutely no problem with my summary in lines 1 through 3.

It's #4 that you think was misunderstood.

Is that accurate?

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 08:50 AM
Yes.

Then clearly we're all atwitter for nothing.

Baby Lee
06-17-2010, 09:03 AM
That is mathematically impossible in 2010.

It's mathematically impossible for Chiefaroo to want something?

Baby Lee
06-17-2010, 09:04 AM
If this country had followed Carter's lead regarding energy policy back then we wouldn't have the oil company's blackmailing us today. Carter was right. Reagan and those shortsighted others who abandoned that course in favor of greed and cronyism were wrong.

How, specifically [I try despite all historic counter evidence], do you envision this playing out differently?

blaise
06-17-2010, 09:08 AM
Then clearly we're all atwitter for nothing.

I agree, since I place the likelihood of her starting an armed insurrection around 0%.

Now you answer a yes or no.
Is your #4 question actually what you're claiming she said, or were you just paraphrasing in a manner most advantageous to your point?

patteeu
06-17-2010, 09:12 AM
So you'd have absolutely no problem with my summary in lines 1 through 3.

It's #4 that you think was misunderstood.

Is that accurate?

I'd rephrase #3 to something like:
On it's current course, Congress has us headed in the direction where we might someday need to use it.

In other words, Congress is headed in the direction of increased tyranny, but a justified armed insurrection isn't in our immediate future.

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 09:13 AM
It's mathematically impossible for Chiefaroo to want something?

Yes.

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 09:17 AM
I agree, since I place the likelihood of her starting an armed insurrection around 0%.

Here's what you don't understand: it's obvious she's not going to start an insurrection. But she said it.

Rhetoric has power, positive power and a deathly negative power. There's a reason there have been murderers with Hannity and Savage books on their bookshelf. There's a reason George Tiller "the baby killer" (to paraphrase O'Reilly over two dozen times) ends up shot in a church.

Because she has a significant platform and is acting as an authority figure, which she clearly is. And this kind of rhetoric is poisonous when it's used at that platform.

Now you answer a yes or no.
Is your #4 question actually what you're claiming she said, or were you just paraphrasing in a manner most advantageous to your point?

Both.

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 09:18 AM
I'd rephrase #3 to something like:
On it's current course, Congress has us headed in the direction where we might someday need to use it.

I fail to see the distinction, so I have no real problem with this interpretation.

Thing is, even if you want to dismiss #4, # 1 through 3 is startling.

blaise
06-17-2010, 09:27 AM
I fail to see the distinction, so I have no real problem with this interpretation.

Thing is, even if you want to dismiss #4, # 1 through 3 is startling.

What's so startling about 1 & 2? And she didn't say 3. She said people might look to that as a remedy. She also said she hoped it doesn't get to that point. I bet I could find posts here by some liberals that suggest people might do #3, but that doesn't mean they advocate it, it means they remarked that someone might do that.

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 09:32 AM
What's so startling about 1 & 2? And she didn't say 3. She said people might look to that as a remedy. She also said she hoped it doesn't get to that point. I bet I could find posts here by some liberals that suggest people might do #3, but that doesn't mean they advocate it, it means they remarked that someone might do that.

Posts here by liberals is distinctly different than a major politician on a major media outlet. We're just douchebag idiots on a board. She is seen, rightly, as an authority figure -- and to the people listening in on the radio station, she's a White Knight taking on Harry Reid.

You have a responsibility with your rhetoric at that stage. If you're stoking the flames of hate by saying armed insurrections might be necessary if Congress "continues on its current course," you're abusing that responsibility and risking some unseemly blowback...

HonestChieffan
06-17-2010, 09:33 AM
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/imheretokillbushsmall.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/IMG_2416small.JPG


Direk, help paraphrase these so we understand the reasons that your inferences are so disturbing compared to these.

blaise
06-17-2010, 09:39 AM
Posts here by liberals is distinctly different than a major politician on a major media outlet. We're just douchebag idiots on a board. She is seen, rightly, as an authority figure -- and to the people listening in on the radio station, she's a White Knight taking on Harry Reid.

You have a responsibility with your rhetoric at that stage. If you're stoking the flames of hate by saying armed insurrections might be necessary if Congress "continues on its current course," you're abusing that responsibility and risking some unseemly blowback...

She didn't say "armed insurrections might be necessary". You added those words, ironically, to stoke the flames yourself. This is the same type of thread you crack HCF for.
And you're missing the point of me saying some liberals here have said it. My point is that people here have said things like, "We may end up seeing violence toward politicians". It doesn't mean they're advocating it. Her saying it doesn't mean she's advocating it, and her position doesn't change that. She was asked a question about the second amendment. She said she understands why it's there. She then said there may be people who look to that as a remedy.

blaise
06-17-2010, 09:44 AM
And again, there's nothing "startling" about #1 and #2.

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 09:44 AM
Direk, help paraphrase these so we understand the reasons that your inferences are so disturbing compared to these.

Because those are dipshits with signs -- although, to be fair, that can be dangerous too in a big mob setting like we've seen with the anti-war protesters or the tea party crowd.

I'm talking about the words of an adorned politician within arm's reach of a seat in the United States Senate.

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 09:47 AM
She didn't say "armed insurrections might be necessary". You added those words, ironically, to stoke the flames yourself. This is the same type of thread you crack HCF for.
And you're missing the point of me saying some liberals here have said it. My point is that people here have said things like, "We may end up seeing violence toward politicians". It doesn't mean they're advocating it. Her saying it doesn't mean she's advocating it, and her position doesn't change that. She was asked a question about the second amendment. She said she understands why it's there. She then said there may be people who look to that as a remedy.

You continue to disagree with me over what her quote is saying. Let's go back to square one.

1. It's a good thing the Founding Fathers put in the 2nd amendment.
2. The 2nd amendment defends us from tyrannies.
3. If this Congress keeps going on its current course, we may have to use it.
4. If we did, Harry Reid would be the first to go.

I understand you disagreeing with #4. That's reasonable.

Do you disagree that she said 1 through 3. And if so, how would you re-paraphrase the statements you disagree with, and in what way would that be an improvement over my interpretation.

blaise
06-17-2010, 09:53 AM
You continue to disagree with me over what her quote is saying. Let's go back to square one.

1. It's a good thing the Founding Fathers put in the 2nd amendment.
2. The 2nd amendment defends us from tyrannies.
3. If this Congress keeps going on its current course, we may have to use it.
4. If we did, Harry Reid would be the first to go.

I understand you disagreeing with #4. That's reasonable.

Do you disagree that she said 1 through 3. And if so, how would you re-paraphrase the statements you disagree with, and in what way would that be an improvement over my interpretation.

Okay, tell me what's wrong with #1 and 2? It's not a good idea they put in the 2nd amendment? They didn't do it so people can defend us from tyranny? He specifically asked her about the 2nd amendment, what do you want her to do say, "I'd rather not discuss the 2nd amendment."
And again, she never said #3. You paraphrased that. She said people might look to that as a remedy, not "we". Do you disagree that there's people out there that might look at that as a remedy?
1. She agrees with. She thinks the second amendment is good.
2. She agrees with. She thinks it was put there to protect us from tyranny.
3. She thinks there might be people who look to that as a remedy.

Tell me which one of those three things you disagree with.

HonestChieffan
06-17-2010, 09:53 AM
Because those are dipshits with signs -- although, to be fair, that can be dangerous too in a big mob setting like we've seen with the anti-war protesters or the tea party crowd.

I'm talking about the words of an adorned politician within arm's reach of a seat in the United States Senate.

What dangerous things have you seen at a tea party rally?

KC Dan
06-17-2010, 09:55 AM
Because those are dipshits with signs -- although, to be fair, that can be dangerous too in a big mob setting like we've seen with the anti-war protesters or the tea party crowd.

I'm talking about the words of an adorned politician within arm's reach of a seat in the United States Senate.Are you kidding me? Equating the two as dangerous in mob settings? The only violence that EVER occurred as far as I know at a Tea Party crowd was when SEIU clowns showed up and beat up a black man and bit off a finger. You're a joke sometimes

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 10:06 AM
Okay, tell me what's wrong with #1 and 2? It's not a good idea they put in the 2nd amendment? They didn't do it so people can defend us from tyranny? He specifically asked her about the 2nd amendment, what do you want her to do say, "I'd rather not discuss the 2nd amendment."
And again, she never said #3. You paraphrased that. She said people might look to that as a remedy, not "we". Do you disagree that there's people out there that might look at that as a remedy?
1. She agrees with. She thinks the second amendment is good.
2. She agrees with. She thinks it was put there to protect us from tyranny.
3. She thinks there might be people who look to that as a remedy.

Tell me which one of those three things you disagree with.

Nothing's wrong with #1 and 2. They're just important to establish the others.

But alright. We're exactly to where we need to be:

Angle is suggesting that armed insurrection is a possibility because of Congress' actions over the past year.

Right?

blaise
06-17-2010, 10:11 AM
Nothing's wrong with #1 and 2. They're just important to establish the others.

But alright. We're exactly to where we need to be:

Angle is suggesting that armed insurrection is a possibility because of Congress' actions over the past year.

Right?

You didn't answer whether you agree or disagree with my #3.

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 10:12 AM
You didn't answer whether you agree or disagree with my #3.

I do agree with it. We're on the same page. So let me restate:

Angle is suggesting that armed insurrection is a possibility because of Congress' actions over the past year.

Right?

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 10:25 AM
Don't bail on me now, blaise. You can sense I'm getting close to my point.

If you need me to hold your hand, I can. But answer the question.

Is it right that Angle is suggesting that armed insurrection is a possibility because of Congress' actions over the past year, or not?

blaise
06-17-2010, 10:26 AM
I do agree with it. We're on the same page. So let me restate:

Angle is suggesting that armed insurrection is a possibility because of Congress' actions over the past year.

Right?

Aside from that fact that she never used the words "armed insurrection" and never said "actions over the last year" yes, she did suggest there might be people who might look to use violence as a political tool.

blaise
06-17-2010, 10:26 AM
Don't bail on me now, blaise. You can sense I'm getting close to my point.

If you need me to hold your hand, I can. But answer the question.

Is it right that Angle is suggesting that armed insurrection is a possibility because of Congress' actions over the past year, or not?

Don't be an asshole Direcksun. I'm not tied to my computer. You're starting to cross into orange-ish assholeishness.

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 10:28 AM
Aside from that fact that she never used the words "armed insurrection" and never said "actions over the last year" yes, she did suggest there might be people who might look to use violence as a political tool.

How else would you describe "violence as a political tool" against Congress other than an "armed insurrection"?

C'mon, let's flatten the wrinkles here.

blaise
06-17-2010, 10:30 AM
How else would you describe "violence as a political tool" against Congress other than an "armed insurrection"?

C'mon, let's flatten the wrinkles here.

I'm not the one responsible for paraphrasing to make an argument. That's you. If you have a point, then make it. Don't expect to paraphrase the language and then act like I have an obligation to respond.

Donger
06-17-2010, 10:33 AM
Boy, Direckshun sure is being truculent these days. I wonder why?

HonestChieffan
06-17-2010, 10:36 AM
Boy, Direckshun sure is being truculent these days. I wonder why?


Trapped in his own argument.

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 10:38 AM
I'm not the one responsible for paraphrasing to make an argument. That's you. If you have a point, then make it. Don't expect to paraphrase the language and then act like I have an obligation to respond.

Then let me ask you an objective question:

Isn't an armed insurrection when people take weapons and use violence to attack the government?

petegz28
06-17-2010, 10:45 AM
LMAO, Direckshun started this thread and here he is in another thread crying that Obam's words were distorted!!!

ROFL LMAO ROFL LMAO

blaise
06-17-2010, 10:46 AM
Then let me ask you an objective question:

Isn't an armed insurrection when people take weapons and use violence to attack the government?

A few weeks ago you accused me of acting like Donger. I hope you can see the irony here. Please make your point.

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 10:50 AM
A few weeks ago you accused me of acting like Donger. I hope you can see the irony here. Please make your point.

ROFL

Good god. You just can't bring yourself to agree with me. Even when we're saying the exact same thing, you refuse to adopt any terms I introduce, even when they mean the exact same thing.

You just can't say "political violence using guns to attack Congress is armed insurrection."

You can't say it. It kills you.

Donger
06-17-2010, 10:51 AM
A few weeks ago you accused me of acting like Donger. I hope you can see the irony here. Please make your point.

He did? Well, what a nice compliment.

patteeu
06-17-2010, 10:54 AM
I fail to see the distinction, so I have no real problem with this interpretation.

Thing is, even if you want to dismiss #4, # 1 through 3 is startling.

What's startling about it?

blaise
06-17-2010, 10:58 AM
ROFL

Good god. You just can't bring yourself to agree with me. Even when we're saying the exact same thing, you refuse to adopt any terms I introduce, even when they mean the exact same thing.

You just can't say "political violence using guns to attack Congress is armed insurrection."

You can't say it. It kills you.

I just don't understand why I would need to. Seriously, why? Again, is there a point? You just seem to be asking questions and not really stating any sort or opinion. If you have a point and an opinion put together a few sentences or a paragraph describing your position. I fail to see any reason that you should sit there, trying to reconstruct what she said using your choice of words, and then asking me to sign off that your choice of language is what should be discussed rather than what was actually said.
Just make a freaking point here, man.

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 11:03 AM
I just don't understand why I would need to. Seriously, why? Again, is there a point? You just seem to be asking questions and not really stating any sort or opinion. If you have a point and an opinion put together a few sentences or a paragraph describing your position. I fail to see any reason that you should sit there, trying to reconstruct what she said using your choice of words, and then asking me to sign off that your choice of language is what should be discussed rather than what was actually said.
Just make a freaking point here, man.

I essentially brought you around to my language and you simply can't live with admitting it.

You are adorable.

My point is that she's implying that Congress is acting tyrannically and that typical democratic measures won't be enough. "Some people" out there could be looking to blow shit up.

blaise
06-17-2010, 11:05 AM
I essentially brought you around to my language and you simply can't live with admitting it.

You are adorable.

My point is that she's implying that Congress is acting tyrannically and that typical democratic measures won't be enough. "Some people" out there could be looking to blow shit up.

I have no idea what you think you accomplished, but congrats on whatever it was.

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 11:06 AM
I have no idea what you think you accomplished, but congrats on whatever it was.

I accomplished what I always do -- wasting time.

If I can expose somebody in the process, I consider it a two-fer.

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 11:07 AM
Isn't an armed insurrection when people take weapons and use violence to attack the government, blaise?

Help me out here. I need your expertise.

patteeu
06-17-2010, 11:16 AM
What is startling about what she said? Not about what you wish she said, but what she actually said? Is it startling that she wants to get Harry Reid out of the Senate? Is it startling that she thinks democrat rule is moving us further along the scale toward tyranny? Is it startling that she thinks that at some point, increased tyranny could lead to violent resistance? I don't find any of these common sense notions startling. :shrug:

ClevelandBronco
06-17-2010, 11:16 AM
I don't reply to Donger substantially anymore.

If somebody else asks the question, I'm game.

Everyone remember back in second grade when that girl wouldn't talk to someone who was standing right freaking there? She'd only talk to someone else who was supposed to relay the message two feet more to the person whose presence she wasn't acknowledging.

"Tell Donger that I'm not speaking to him and if he ever wants me to speak to him again he'll start treating me the way I feel I deserve to be treated."

Direckshun is that girl.

alpha_omega
06-17-2010, 11:45 AM
... We're just douchebag idiots on a board. ...

Wrong! Only half of us are douchebag idiots.

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 12:36 PM
Wrong! Only half of us are douchebag idiots.

If you're referring to liberals, it's way less than half.

HonestChieffan
06-17-2010, 12:39 PM
Direk...just a question. Are you a gun owner?

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 12:41 PM
Direk...just a question. Are you a gun owner?

I don't share personal details about myself on this board.

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 12:42 PM
What is startling about what she said? Not about what you wish she said, but what she actually said? Is it startling that she wants to get Harry Reid out of the Senate? Is it startling that she thinks democrat rule is moving us further along the scale toward tyranny? Is it startling that she thinks that at some point, increased tyranny could lead to violent resistance? I don't find any of these common sense notions startling. :shrug:

How about the point that we're risking an armed insurrection with our current Congress?

LOCOChief
06-17-2010, 12:46 PM
I don't share personal details about myself on this board.

Hey how did you get rid of "you're free to assume what you want" ? I was having fun with that.

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 12:58 PM
Hey how did you get rid of "you're free to assume what you want" ? I was having fun with that.

Oh I just thought about it and just took it off.

But you're always free to assume what you want.

LOCOChief
06-17-2010, 01:08 PM
Oh I just thought about it and just took it off.

But you're always free to assume what you want.

Ok thank you, now here wee go.

IF a blow up sex doll can be considered a gun then Yes I assume Direckshun is a gun owner.

IF a penis pump can be considered a gun the Yes I assume Direckshun is a gun owner.

IF a raging case of herpes can be considered a gun then Yes I assume Dircekshun is a gun owner.

IF an asshat can be considered a a gun the Yes I assume Direckshun is a gun owner.

patteeu
06-17-2010, 01:16 PM
How about the point that we're risking an armed insurrection with our current Congress?

I don't think that risk exists at any practical level and I don't see where she said it did. Maybe it startles you because you're imagining that she's saying something other than what she said? :shrug:

HonestChieffan
06-17-2010, 01:28 PM
I don't share personal details about myself on this board.

Ok. Didn't realize owning a gun or not was such an intimate detail. Seems so many anti gunners actually have a gun or two, wondered if you were in that group as well.

Mr. Kotter
06-17-2010, 10:44 PM
hey rob, what up?

we miss ya, bud...

anyways, how's my fav teacher of the year?

Busy, busy, busy....

I miss the old times in this place; the new crowd, well...it just ain't doin' it for me, even when I am able to spend time here. Heh.

Life is good, God is good....and shitheads are, well, shit heads, and I've finally gotten to the point, that I can ignore them. And it's great.

I miss you and some others though; best wishes, man. :toast:

Direckshun
09-10-2010, 12:10 PM
WELCOME TO EARTH BLAISE

Tell me the difference between an armed insurrection and using weapons to attack the government.

Nope, no difference, now please state your point.

Three months later, and blaise finally admits that they are the same thing.

Too bad you couldn't have come to this conclusion three months earlier.

Could have had ourselves a productive conversation.

stevieray
09-10-2010, 12:13 PM
Direckshun is that girl.

pretty much

blaise
09-10-2010, 12:15 PM
WELCOME TO EARTH BLAISE







Too bad you couldn't have come to this conclusion three months earlier.

Could have had ourselves a productive conversation.

So, now that I've answered your question. Did she say, at any time, armed insurrection?

Direckshun
09-10-2010, 12:15 PM
So, now that I've answered your question. Did she say, at any time, armed insurrection?

She didn't. But she suggested the exact same thing.

RIGHT? LMAO

blaise
09-10-2010, 12:16 PM
She didn't. But she suggested the exact same thing.

RIGHT? LMAO

So she never floated the idea of using violence to take out Harry Reid either, did she?

Direckshun
09-10-2010, 12:18 PM
So she never floated the idea of using violence to take out Harry Reid either, did she?

We've already had that discussion. Christ. Do you just want to have the same conversation over again? Read the thread.

That was proposition #4, and I agreed it was reasonable to disagree on that. I still think it was the clear implication, but I think you could interpret it multiple ways, malignant and benign.

She was definitely floating the possibility of an armed insurrection. Which you've just come around on agreeing with me!

Time must heal all wounds or something.

blaise
09-10-2010, 12:18 PM
She didn't. But she suggested the exact same thing.

RIGHT? LMAO

She said people would. Just like people here, like you, have said that pro-lifers might be compelled somehow to act out violence against abortion doctors. Does that mean you endorse that behavior?

stevieray
09-10-2010, 12:18 PM
"all enemies, foreign and domestic".

...seems the oath suggests it too.

blaise
09-10-2010, 12:19 PM
We've already had that discussion. Christ. Do you just want to have the same conversation over again? Read the thread.

That was proposition #4, and I agreed it was reasonable to disagree on that. I still think it was the clear implication, but I think you could interpret it multiple ways, malignant and benign.

So she never said that she supported any kind of armed insurrection in any way in her quote, and she never suggested that Harry Reid needs to be attacked violently? So then, your point is what?

blaise
09-10-2010, 12:21 PM
We've already had that discussion. Christ. Do you just want to have the same conversation over again? Read the thread.

That was proposition #4, and I agreed it was reasonable to disagree on that. I still think it was the clear implication, but I think you could interpret it multiple ways, malignant and benign.

She was definitely floating the possibility of an armed insurrection. Which you've just come around on agreeing with me!

Time must heal all wounds or something.

So, expressing that people might take part in a violent insurrection is wrong, because? Come on, I'm still waiting for any kind of point.

Direckshun
09-10-2010, 12:23 PM
So then, your point is what?

So, expressing that people might take part in a violent insurrection is wrong, because? Come on, I'm still waiting for any kind of point.

Christ. You ****ing fail in this thread, blaise. Seriously. This is a very weak performance.

Here's what you don't understand: it's obvious she's not going to start an insurrection. But she said it.

Rhetoric has power, positive power and a deathly negative power. There's a reason there have been murderers with Hannity and Savage books on their bookshelf. There's a reason George Tiller "the baby killer" (to paraphrase O'Reilly over two dozen times) ends up shot in a church.

Because she has a significant platform and is acting as an authority figure, which she clearly is. And this kind of rhetoric is poisonous when it's used at that platform.

She is seen, rightly, as an authority figure -- and to the people listening in on the radio station, she's a White Knight taking on Harry Reid.

You have a responsibility with your rhetoric at that stage. If you're stoking the flames of hate by saying armed insurrections might be necessary if Congress "continues on its current course," you're abusing that responsibility and risking some unseemly blowback...

I'm talking about the words of an adorned politician within arm's reach of a seat in the United States Senate.

Just let me know whenever you need me to stop holding your hand.

blaise
09-10-2010, 12:25 PM
Christ. You ****ing fail in this thread, blaise. Seriously. This is a very weak performance.







Just let me know whenever you need me to stop holding your hand.

So, she never said she supported or endorsed any kind of armed political insurrection.

Direckshun
09-10-2010, 12:28 PM
So, she never said she supported or endorsed any kind of armed political insurrection.

Are you refusing to understand my point, or just ignoring it.

Donger
09-10-2010, 12:29 PM
So, she never said she supported or endorsed any kind of armed political insurrection.

Yeah, it's a little odd. I wonder if Direckshun would think Obama was endorsing the terrorists if he said this:

"That doofus pastor shouldn't burn the Koran. If he does, it might inflame the terrorists."

blaise
09-10-2010, 12:29 PM
Are you refusing to understand my point, or just ignoring it.

Now now, I answered your question, right, sport?

blaise
09-10-2010, 12:30 PM
Yeah, it's a little odd. I wonder if Direckshun would think Obama was endorsing the terrorists if he said this:

"That doofus pastor shouldn't burn the Koran. If he does, it might inflame the terrorists."

No, clearly it's much, much different.

Direckshun
09-10-2010, 12:32 PM
Now now, I answered your question, right, sport?

You missed my point about rhetoric, or are willfully ignoring it.

I'm sure three months time will cure that problem.

Again.

BucEyedPea
09-10-2010, 12:32 PM
Yeah, it's a little odd. I wonder if Direckshun would think Obama was endorsing the terrorists if he said this:

"That doofus pastor shouldn't burn the Koran. If he does, it might inflame the terrorists."

Well some think pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq is appeasement.
Some think Obama bowing is appeasement.
Some think mass murder of Persians is noble.

blaise
09-10-2010, 12:34 PM
You missed my point about rhetoric, or are willfully ignoring it.

I'm sure three months time will cure that problem.

Again.

I see, so I answered your question but you refuse to answer mine. Just so we're clear. You, the person that cried incessantly for months about me not answering a question, is not answering the question.

Direckshun
09-10-2010, 12:35 PM
I see, so I answered your question but you refuse to answer mine. Just so we're clear. You, the person that cried incessantly for months about me not answering a question, is not answering the question.

Blaise. Seriously. You haven't reread the thread, so you don't remember what's been said.

It's exhausting reposting the entire thing because you're being your usual intellectually lazy self.

Read the thread. So far every single question you've asked has already been answered three months ago.

Or come up with some new material. Christ.

Donger
09-10-2010, 12:36 PM
No, clearly it's much, much different.

Take a peek at this quote from the Ground Zero mosque Imam:

RAUF: Because we have to now make sure that whatever we do actually results in greater peace, not in greater conflict. ... I am extremely concerned about sensitivity. But I also have a responsibility. If we move from that location, the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse. The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack.

I wonder if Direckshun reads that and surmises that the Imam is endorsing the headlines? Would the Imam agree with the headlines?

ROYC75
09-10-2010, 01:28 PM
Still there is no mention of guns ....... Just more fear and smear from the left.

blaise
09-10-2010, 01:34 PM
Blaise. Seriously. You haven't reread the thread, so you don't remember what's been said.

It's exhausting reposting the entire thing because you're being your usual intellectually lazy self.

Read the thread. So far every single question you've asked has already been answered three months ago.

Or come up with some new material. Christ.

Seems like just answering it yes or no would be much less exhausting, if that helps.
Did she ever say she supported or endorse any kind of violent action against the government?

Chief Henry
09-10-2010, 02:01 PM
Seems like just answering it yes or no would be much less exhausting, if that helps.
Did she ever say she supported or endorse any kind of violent action against the government?

This one time in the last Presidential admn. some Hollywood film producer made a movie on how to murder a sitting US President. Endorsements
anyone ?

blaise
09-10-2010, 02:13 PM
This one time in the last Presidential admn. some Hollywood film producer made a movie on how to murder a sitting US President. Endorsements
anyone ?

No, all these are different. Obama saying a Quran burning might incite violence, the Imam saying moving the learning center might incite violence and the movie you reference. See, all those things are much much different, because we know that those people are good and Angle is sinister.
I think what really is making Direckshun cry, though, is that this is the kind of thread that, if HCF had posted it, Direckshun would have written "OMG gamechanger" or something, and he knows that, and he's having a hard time reconciling it, so instead he's making a load in his diaper.

ClevelandBronco
09-10-2010, 02:33 PM
In general I would not equate assassination of a government official with armed insurrection against the government. If the intent is to take down the government and replace it with another form of power, I'd call it insurrection. If the intent is to take out a government official because of a personal hatred for that official, I'd say the act falls short of insurrection.

In this specific instance it seems that even though her statement against Reid is somewhat ambiguous, she's still suggesting that armed insurrection against the government should be considered as an option.

As for me, I'd tend to oppose assassination and support armed insurrection.

go bowe
09-10-2010, 11:28 PM
Seems like just answering it yes or no would be much less exhausting, if that helps.
Did she ever say she supported or endorse any kind of violent action against the government?i'm curious, if she didn't mean revolution via armed insurrection, what did she mean by second amendment remedies?

blaise
09-10-2010, 11:47 PM
i'm curious, if she didn't mean revolution via armed insurrection, what did she mean by second amendment remedies?

I don't really see how it's relevant to my question. Saying "people might look to it" isn't an endorsement. If it is, then people saying Muslims might look to engage in violent acts due to the so-called Ground Zero Mosque opposition, or the Quran burning, would be an endorsement of violence by Muslims.

go bowe
09-10-2010, 11:51 PM
I don't really see how it's relevant to my question. Saying "people might look to it" isn't an endorsement. If it is, then people saying Muslims might look to engage in violent acts due to the so-called Ground Zero Mosque opposition, or the Quran burning, would be an endorsement of violence by Muslims.i don't know exactly what you mean by endorsement but i'm pretty sure i haven't suggested anybody has endorsed or called for anything...

i was just wondering if she meant something else by second amendment remedies, what did she mean?

blaise
09-10-2010, 11:56 PM
i don't know exactly what you mean by endorsement but i'm pretty sure i haven't suggested anybody has endorsed or called for anything...

i was just wondering if she meant something else by second amendment remedies, what did she mean?

She's saying it's a possibility that some people might use weapons as a response to government. I don't believe she actually used the term, "armed insurrection", but if you or anyone else wants to attach that label to it, go ahead. I'll say it myself- it's possible there are people out there dissatisfied enough with government that they would try to engage in some sort of armed insurrection. Hell, I've seen people here suggesting that tea partiers and "RWNJs" might do that.
But this was my point with Direckshun- if she didn't say "armed insurrection" and he wants to call it that, go ahead. Don't ask me to sign off on paraphrasing it, though. Make your own point, don't ask me to help construct language.

blaise
09-11-2010, 12:01 AM
i don't know exactly what you mean by endorsement but i'm pretty sure i haven't suggested anybody has endorsed or called for anything...

i was just wondering if she meant something else by second amendment remedies, what did she mean?

And just for the record, the reason I used the word "endorsement" in my response was because the post of mine you quoted was a question I asked regarding whether or not she did endorse violence. I was asking how your question was relevant to my post.

go bowe
09-11-2010, 11:32 AM
She's saying it's a possibility that some people might use weapons as a response to government. I don't believe she actually used the term, "armed insurrection", but if you or anyone else wants to attach that label to it, go ahead. I'll say it myself- it's possible there are people out there dissatisfied enough with government that they would try to engage in some sort of armed insurrection. Hell, I've seen people here suggesting that tea partiers and "RWNJs" might do that.
But this was my point with Direckshun- if she didn't say "armed insurrection" and he wants to call it that, go ahead. Don't ask me to sign off on paraphrasing it, though. Make your own point, don't ask me to help construct language.armed insurrection or second amendment remedies, appear to be pretty much the same thing then...

i agree that she didn't seem to advocate or endorse as you put it much of anything...

i'd say it sounded more like a warning...

Calcountry
09-11-2010, 12:38 PM
How, specifically [I try despite all historic counter evidence], do you envision this playing out differently?The penchief is a drone. I wouldn't waste my time, unless I had absolutely nothing else going on.

go bowe
09-11-2010, 12:47 PM
And just for the record, the reason I used the word "endorsement" in my response was because the post of mine you quoted was a question I asked regarding whether or not she did endorse violence. I was asking how your question was relevant to my post.relevant?

this is cp... :p :p :p

ROYC75
09-11-2010, 12:56 PM
Pelosi want to take Harry out !


To lunch, on a date, who knows from there.

Direckshun
09-11-2010, 09:18 PM
Seems like just answering it yes or no would be much less exhausting, if that helps.
Did she ever say she supported or endorse any kind of violent action against the government?

No, but it's clear from the quote that she believes it is a foreseeable consequence.

Do you see the pitfalls in this kind of rhetoric from political leaders?

Direckshun
09-11-2010, 09:19 PM
Still there is no mention of guns ....... Just more fear and smear from the left.

No mention of guns?

Really?

Direckshun
09-11-2010, 09:21 PM
This one time in the last Presidential admn. some Hollywood film producer made a movie on how to murder a sitting US President.

I don't think there's any legitimate defense of that. I actually think that's similar.

But there is a slight difference, although it's not a big one. That movie was made by some dudes with no influence. Sharron Angle is a prominent political leader. I think they're both awful (as compared to some nutty protesters who nobody cares about), because the rhetoric implies sinister solutions.

Direckshun
09-11-2010, 09:25 PM
No, all these are different. Obama saying a Quran burning might incite violence, the Imam saying moving the learning center might incite violence and the movie you reference. See, all those things are much much different, because we know that those people are good and Angle is sinister.

There's a big difference between Islam and political assassination. There really is. If you can't see it, I can't help you.

But even if you saw NO difference -- then I'm still wondering why Angle's rhetoric would be justifiable. The logical extension of your argument should be that Angle's rhetoric as well as the Imam's remarks are equally sinister.

But of course, that's not what you want. You think it's legit for Angle to air this kind of rhetoric, and illegit for the imam to do so.

Direckshun
09-11-2010, 09:26 PM
In this specific instance it seems that even though her statement against Reid is somewhat ambiguous, she's still suggesting that armed insurrection against the government should be considered as an option.

This.

Direckshun
09-11-2010, 09:28 PM
armed insurrection or second amendment remedies, appear to be pretty much the same thing then...

Well to be fair to blaise, you've had three months to think that over. ;)

i agree that she didn't seem to advocate or endorse as you put it much of anything...

i'd say it sounded more like a warning...

Right, and I haven't said she's endorsed it either.

It's not some endorsement that makes this rhetoric dangerous.

blaise
09-11-2010, 11:41 PM
There's a big difference between Islam and political assassination. There really is. If you can't see it, I can't help you.

But even if you saw NO difference -- then I'm still wondering why Angle's rhetoric would be justifiable. The logical extension of your argument should be that Angle's rhetoric as well as the Imam's remarks are equally sinister.

But of course, that's not what you want. You think it's legit for Angle to air this kind of rhetoric, and illegit for the imam to do so.

I think it's illegit for the Imam to say so? Huh? Where did I say that? In fact, in pete's thread I said much the same thing I did here. That the Imam isn't exhorting violence, he's just pointing out it could be a reaction. So, please don't put words in my mouth. Very orange like. You're becoming more and more like him.
So, just so we're clear- when Angle says people might be angry enough to commit acts of violence, it's implicitly exhorting people to commit acts of violence and irresponsible. But if Imam says that opposition to the learning center could lead to violence, or if Obama says Quran burning might lead to violence, it's simply pointing out something that could foreseeably happen.
And you're accusing me of inconsistency?

blaise
09-11-2010, 11:46 PM
No, but it's clear from the quote that she believes it is a foreseeable consequence.

Do you see the pitfalls in this kind of rhetoric from political leaders?

Oh my, and you claim in this thread that you exposed me. Here's where your political bias is exposed. She says she foresees how it could be a consequence.
Now, when Obama says violence toward Americans due to a Quran burning could be a consequence, is that also dangerous rhetoric?
When the Imam says opposition to the learning center could foreseeably be seen as an attack on Muslims, is he engaging in dangerous rhetoric?

Hm? Let me take a wild guess at your answer. No.

Direckshun
09-11-2010, 11:54 PM
Oh my, and you claim in this thread that you exposed me. Here's where your political bias is exposed. She says she foresees how it could be a consequence.
Now, when Obama says violence toward Americans due to a Quran burning could be a consequence, is that also dangerous rhetoric?
When the Imam says opposition to the learning center could foreseeably be seen as an attack on Muslims, is he engaging in dangerous rhetoric?

Hm? Let me take a wild guess at your answer. No.

Again, you're trying to equate two things that are not equatable.

blaise
09-11-2010, 11:56 PM
Again, you're trying to equate two things that are not equatable.

Especially when it's not convenient for you. Face it, you made the same type of thread you cry about HCF or pete starting and it's obviously causing you angst. I get that.

Direckshun
09-11-2010, 11:58 PM
Especially when it's not convenient for you.

It's incredibly inconvenient, because it's irrelevent. I can't explain that to you, I get that.

But you do seem to be implying that like the imam, Angle's extremist rhetoric can prove to have dangerous consequences. Would I be right in that assumption?

blaise
09-12-2010, 12:08 AM
It's incredibly inconvenient, because it's irrelevent. I can't explain that to you, I get that.

But you do seem to be implying that like the imam, Angle's extremist rhetoric can prove to have dangerous consequences. Would I be right in that assumption?

No, why, are you implying that?

I said the same thing about the Imam that I did here. They're both saying people could have violent reactions to events. They're both correct. There are people, no doubt, that might be compelled to react violently to Quran burnings, and there's people that might be compelled to react violently due to the political climate in this country.
And it's not irrelevant. It's just incredibly inconvenient for you.

Direckshun
09-12-2010, 12:11 AM
No, why, are you implying that?

I said the same thing about the Imam that I did here. They're both saying people could have violent reactions to events. They're both correct. There are people, no doubt, that might be compelled to react violently to Quran burnings, and there's people that might be compelled to react violently due to the political climate in this country.
And it's not irrelevant. It's just incredibly inconvenient for you.

So Bill O'Reilly saying that there would be negative consequences if George Tiller kept on doing what he was doing... that was harmless rhetoric, right?

Books by Hannity and Savage sitting on the bookshelves of anti-government domestic terrorists... just harmless rhetoric, right?

blaise
09-12-2010, 12:21 AM
So Bill O'Reilly saying that there would be negative consequences if George Tiller kept on doing what he was doing... that was harmless rhetoric, right?

Books by Hannity and Savage sitting on the bookshelves of anti-government domestic terrorists... just harmless rhetoric, right?

I think Angle's quote was harmless rhetoric. I don't watch, listen to, or read any of the people you have mentioned. It's possible they have engaged in harmful rhetoric. I really don't know, and I don't think it matters in the context of this thread.
If Bill O'Reilly said that George Tiller would suffer negative consequences by doing what he was doing, then it seems he was correct, because Tiller did. That doesn't mean O'Reilly is responsible for it.

Direckshun
09-12-2010, 12:27 AM
If Bill O'Reilly said that George Tiller would suffer negative consequences by doing what he was doing, then it seems he was correct, because Tiller did. That doesn't mean O'Reilly is responsible for it.

I didn't say he was responsible for it. But that is effectively stoking the flames of hate, and this stuff happens.

Savage and Hannity stokes the flames of hate. And that's why they do so incredibly well, and why domestic terrorists have read their materials.

Sarah Palin says "don't retreat, reload" and highlights the homes of Congressmen on a map with crosshairs, that's the same thing. Stoking the flames of hate.

AZ governor Jan Brewer says there are illegals decapitating Americans in the desert. Stoking hate.

Mark Levin: Obama is tyrannical. Hate.

All people of authority and vast influence. And this rhetoric has had demonstrable consequences. And if it hasn't had consequences yet, it very clearly could.

Angle's comments were of the same variety. And that's why people of her stature carry such serious burdens with their rhetoric. And why abusing it is irresponsible and dangerous.

blaise
09-12-2010, 12:39 AM
I didn't say he was responsible for it. But that is effectively stoking the flames of hate, and this stuff happens.

Savage and Hannity stokes the flames of hate. And that's why they do so incredibly well, and why domestic terrorists have read their materials.

Sarah Palin says "don't retreat, reload" and highlights the homes of Congressmen on a map with crosshairs, that's the same thing. Stoking the flames of hate.

AZ governor Jan Brewer says there are illegals decapitating Americans in the desert. Stoking hate.

Mark Levin: Obama is tyrannical. Hate.

All people of authority and vast influence. And this rhetoric has had demonstrable consequences. And if it hasn't had consequences yet, it very clearly could.[/B]
Angle's comments were of the same variety. And that's why people of her stature carry such serious burdens with their rhetoric. And why abusing it is irresponsible and dangerous.

Her comments were not stoking hate. You read it that way, but really, you're very very politically biased, so why wouldn't you?
Do you see the irony of your statement there, by the way?
And by the way, you really are kind of saying O'reilly is at least partially responsible.

Direckshun
09-12-2010, 12:45 AM
Her comments were not stoking hate. You read it that way, but really, you're very very politically biased, so why wouldn't you?

Would you agree, whether or not Angle actually did, that floating the possibility of an armed resurrection is dangerous rhetoric?

Do you see the irony of your statement there, by the way?

I don't.

And by the way, you really are kind of saying O'reilly is at least partially responsible.

He's not legally responsible. He may be morally responsible, in that I'm not sure how he could sleep at night.

He does have to be responsible for what he says from such a large and influential platform.

The Mad Crapper
09-12-2010, 07:11 AM
Who is this he that's a she?

Direkshun? I don't think his parents even know.

blaise
09-12-2010, 10:39 AM
Would you agree, whether or not Angle actually did, that floating the possibility of an armed resurrection is dangerous rhetoric?



I don't.



He's not legally responsible. He may be morally responsible, in that I'm not sure how he could sleep at night.

He does have to be responsible for what he says from such a large and influential platform.

So, then, Did Obama float the possibility that terrorists might be motivated to attack US soldiers if a Quran burning take place?
And you must see the irony of your statement.
You're using "floating the possibility" as if she's sending out a trial balloon to say, "Hey, maybe this is a good idea." That's you injecting your bias. If you mean "floating the possibility" to mean these things might occur, because there's angry people out there, then no. It's not dangerour rhetoric. Just like Obama saying violent response to Quran burning isn't dangerous rhetoric. You're injecting your own bias to differentiate Obama's statement as a reasonable statement of what might occur, and calling her statement "floating the possibility" in a way that makes it seem she's endorsing it.
It was a dumb thread. It's hysterical type stuff that you accuse pete and HCF of. Just admit it.

Direckshun
01-08-2011, 02:05 PM
It's hysterical type stuff that you accuse pete and HCF of. Just admit it.

Bump.

Baby Lee
01-08-2011, 02:07 PM
Bump.

Dick move. Estimation of your worth altering move.

Direckshun
01-08-2011, 02:09 PM
Here's what you don't understand: it's obvious she's not going to start an insurrection. But she said it.

Rhetoric has power, positive power and a deathly negative power. There's a reason there have been murderers with Hannity and Savage books on their bookshelf. There's a reason George Tiller "the baby killer" (to paraphrase O'Reilly over two dozen times) ends up shot in a church.

Because she has a significant platform and is acting as an authority figure, which she clearly is. And this kind of rhetoric is poisonous when it's used at that platform.

Go Chiefs.

Direckshun
01-08-2011, 02:10 PM
Dick move. Estimation of your worth altering move.

Poisonous rhetoric has poisonous consequences.

This is not a political point so much as it is mass psychology 101.

This is a day for understanding realities.

orange
01-08-2011, 02:12 PM
Dick move. Estimation of your worth altering move.

Is it as dickish as positing some distraught guy off of KOS as a possible mass-murderer just to provide political cover for a movement that has touted "Second Amendment remedies?"

Wouldn't THIS guy - or his ilk - be a more likely suspect?

Fed-up Marine has guns blazing to oust Democrats
'They're destroying this nation, and while I'm still breathing, I will not let it happen'
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=107417

Direckshun
01-08-2011, 02:12 PM
You have a responsibility with your rhetoric at that stage. If you're stoking the flames of hate by saying armed insurrections might be necessary if Congress "continues on its current course," you're abusing that responsibility and risking some unseemly blowback...

Go Chiefs.

Baby Lee
01-08-2011, 02:16 PM
Is it as dickish as positing some distraught guy off of KOS as a possible mass-murderer just to provide political cover for a movement that has touted "Second Amendment remedies?"

Dude, it was a guy, with a gun, who has shot it into human flesh, who lives in fucking Tucson, and called the victim 'dead to him' 2 days ago.

That's a noteworthy occurrence whether he's the perp or not. If for nothing else the regret he no doubt feels.

And I'm not providing cover for shit.

Direckshun
01-08-2011, 02:19 PM
I didn't say he was responsible for it. But that is effectively stoking the flames of hate, and this stuff happens.

Savage and Hannity stokes the flames of hate. And that's why they do so incredibly well, and why domestic terrorists have read their materials.

Sarah Palin says "don't retreat, reload" and highlights the homes of Congressmen on a map with crosshairs, that's the same thing. Stoking the flames of hate.

AZ governor Jan Brewer says there are illegals decapitating Americans in the desert. Stoking hate.

Mark Levin: Obama is tyrannical. Hate.

All people of authority and vast influence. And this rhetoric has had demonstrable consequences. And if it hasn't had consequences yet, it very clearly could.

Angle's comments were of the same variety. And that's why people of her stature carry such serious burdens with their rhetoric. And why abusing it is irresponsible and dangerous.

Go Chiefs.

Baby Lee
01-08-2011, 02:20 PM
Go Chiefs.

Go fuck yourself.

Direckshun
01-08-2011, 02:23 PM
Go **** yourself.

Somebody was murdered today for political purposes. A person who has been the subject of the poisonous rhetoric exercised by prominent public figures.

This tragedy speaks volumes. It tells us something. It is not a singular event that means nothing.

Pants
01-08-2011, 02:24 PM
Somebody was murdered today for political purposes. A person who has been the subject of the poisonous rhetoric exercised by prominent public figures.

This tragedy speaks volumes. It tells us something. It is not a singular event that means nothing.

Yep.

Pitt Gorilla
01-08-2011, 02:26 PM
Dick move. Estimation of your worth altering move.Good Lord, BL.

patteeu
01-08-2011, 02:27 PM
Somebody was murdered today for political purposes. A person who has been the subject of the poisonous rhetoric exercised by prominent public figures.

This tragedy speaks volumes. It tells us something. It is not a singular event that means nothing.

Break out the party hats. Congratulations!

orange
01-08-2011, 02:28 PM
And I'm not providing cover for shit.

You're certainly not, though you gave it a good try. Apparently you would have had better luck searching FreeRepublic.

patteeu
01-08-2011, 02:30 PM
I don't understand how this works though. How is it that Angle's words took 4 months to take effect? Please explain it to me, Professor Direckshun.

Direckshun
01-08-2011, 02:34 PM
I don't understand how this works though. How is it that Angle's words took 4 months to take effect? Please explain it to me, Professor Direckshun.

If you can't understand how it is possible that poisonous, dangerous rhetoric can contribute to these kinds of crimes, I can't help you.

Baby Lee
01-08-2011, 02:34 PM
You're certainly not, though you gave it a good try. Apparently you would have had better luck searching FreeRepublic.

Fuck you, accusing me of trying to provide cover.

And the link came from NPR.

patteeu
01-08-2011, 02:45 PM
If you can't understand how it is possible that poisonous, dangerous rhetoric can contribute to these kinds of crimes, I can't help you.

It seems like you're making a pretty random connection to me. That you can't explain it makes it seem even more so.

But since we're coming up with random theories here, my theory is that abusive Congressional tactics, like those used by the last Congress to force unpopular Obama initiatives through despite strong grassroots and bipartisan opposition seems to cause people to resort to violence. I think the new majority in the House should investigate this.

Direckshun
01-08-2011, 02:51 PM
It seems like you're making a pretty random connection to me. That you can't explain it makes it seem even more so.

But since we're coming up with random theories here, my theory is that abusive Congressional tactics, like those used by the last Congress to force unpopular Obama initiatives through despite strong grassroots and bipartisan opposition seems to cause people to resort to violence. I think the new majority in the House should investigate this.

You need an off switch.

patteeu
01-08-2011, 02:53 PM
You need an off switch.

I'm not the guy bumping a random old thread.

Direckshun
01-08-2011, 02:57 PM
Willful ignorance it is.

You're overplaying your hand, pat.

I would find it conceivable if you played this as though you understand fully the point I've made, but disagree as to whether my general point about extreme rhetoric leading to violence applies to this situation.

But when you pretend you can't even understand the gist of my argument at all, you're playing on willful ignorance.

patteeu
01-08-2011, 03:05 PM
Willful ignorance it is.

You're overplaying your hand, pat.

I would find it conceivable if you played this as though you understand fully the point I've made, but disagree as to whether my general point about extreme rhetoric leading to violence applies to this situation.

But when you pretend you can't even understand the gist of my argument at all, you're playing on willful ignorance.

I understand what you are saying and the connection you're trying to make. I just don't think it makes any sense. Sorry if I was unclear about that.

stevieray
01-08-2011, 03:07 PM
I'm not the guy bumping a random old thread.

you racist. now prove me wrong.

KC native
01-08-2011, 03:20 PM
I understand what you are saying and the connection you're trying to make. I just don't think it makes any sense. Sorry if I was unclear about that.

The willful ignorance is strong in this post.

Donger
01-08-2011, 03:30 PM
Wow. I suppose Lee Harvey and Sirhan managed to travel into the future to get their motivation too, Direckshun. You're despicable and most likely wrong. Crazy existed before and it exists today.

But, don't let any of that interrupt your celebration.

Brock
01-08-2011, 06:45 PM
Whoops! He was a leftie! LOL @ Dreck

petegz28
01-08-2011, 06:47 PM
Wow. I suppose Lee Harvey and Sirhan managed to travel into the future to get their motivation too, Direckshun. You're despicable and most likely wrong. Crazy existed before and it exists today.

But, don't let any of that interrupt your celebration.

You couldn't be more wrong. The world was a Utopia until Bush hit the scene.

blaise
01-08-2011, 07:22 PM
I'm sorry, I missed the part of the story where Sharron Angle shot those people.

Ugly Duck
01-08-2011, 07:25 PM
2nd Amendment Remedy is on. Democrats are in the cross-hairs. Are we going to let Marxist Fascists take over our country? TO ARMS!! TO ARMS!!

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_sydA_xCOkr0/TD3GaiulPyI/AAAAAAAAAjc/w8Ab1aDY15U/s1600/racist+obama+sign.jpg

I'm sorry, I missed the part of the story where Sharron Angle shot those people.

Osama didn't fly those planes. Get off his back!

Donger
01-09-2011, 08:48 AM
Somebody was murdered today for political purposes.

Question: does it bother you, even for a minute, that you came to this conclusion before knowing if it was accurate or not?

BucEyedPea
01-09-2011, 08:56 AM
So when American citizen's respond to an increasingly arrogant and predatory government by angrily confronting their representatives at town halls, this is the equivalent to calling for one re-elected rep's assassination?

The real target here is the real Tea Party not the co-opted one by Palin, who is just another creation of the Establishment.

Baby Lee
01-09-2011, 08:58 AM
Question: does it bother you, even for a minute, that you came to this conclusion before knowing if it was accurate or not?

Direkshun sole interest, at any and all times, is the horserace of which party wields power.

Look for him to debut a 'do it for Giffords' graphic for every troubled Dem House/Senate in the next election.

Donger
01-09-2011, 09:03 AM
Direkshun sole interest, at any and all times, is the horserace of which party wields power.

Look for him to debut a 'do it for Giffords' graphic for every troubled Dem House/Senate in the next election.

I think it's actually pretty disturbing.

Direckshun hears about a tragic shooting involving a politician.

Direckshun, after making sure said politician is a Democrat, remembers that she created a thread about crazy right-wingers and the dangerous rhetoric that they spew.

Direckshun decides to bump said thread in order to say, "See!!!? I told you so!!" without having ANY idea about the motive of the shooter AND presuming/declaring that the motive was political.

I just don't get how a person can connect those dots.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-09-2011, 09:03 AM
So when American citizen's respond to an increasingly arrogant and predatory government by angrily confronting their representatives at town halls, this is the equivalent to calling for one re-elected rep's assassination?

The real target here is the real Tea Party not the co-opted one by Palin, who is just another creation of the Establishment.

This is something i would ascribe to, however in this situation it seems to be a lone nut that was on psychotropics. I guess we'll see who has an agenda by following what comes from this, i would hope they would give the kid his day in court and then remove the life from him because this person SHOULD NEVER be allowed freely into society. Blame the system for putting people on these mind altering drugs that put them in a dreamstate.

Direckshun
01-09-2011, 09:56 AM
I understand what you are saying and the connection you're trying to make. I just don't think it makes any sense. Sorry if I was unclear about that.

This post suggests otherwise.

I don't understand how this works though. How is it that Angle's words took 4 months to take effect?

There's a difference between disagreeing and not understanding.

You're clearly playing as if you don't even understand my point.

Direckshun
01-09-2011, 09:57 AM
Wow. I suppose Lee Harvey and Sirhan managed to travel into the future to get their motivation too, Direckshun.

Swing and a miss.

Direckshun
01-09-2011, 09:57 AM
Whoops! He was a leftie! LOL @ Dreck

Explain yourself.

Direckshun
01-09-2011, 09:59 AM
Question: does it bother you, even for a minute, that you came to this conclusion before knowing if it was accurate or not?

LMAO

You think the gunman didn't like her hair or something?

blaise
01-09-2011, 10:01 AM
Wasn't Direckshun the guy in the Bradley Manning thread demanding proof that the prison might be concerned for his safety, before he'd even acknowledge it as a possibilty?
And here is crowing over a tragedy. I haven't read everything on the story yet, is there proof that this guy was influence by Angle, or is Direckshun just using his own personal judgement when proof is or isn't required?

Direckshun
01-09-2011, 10:01 AM
Direkshun sole interest, at any and all times, is the horserace of which party wields power.

LMAO

You are the ones making this political. You've done it from the start of this thread months ago.

This is not a political point I'm making. It's a psychological one, a universal one. You're the one letting your red-tinted sunglasses affect your ability to absorb information.

blaise
01-09-2011, 10:02 AM
LMAO

You are the ones making this political. You've done it from the start of this thread months ago.

This is not a political point I'm making. It's a psychological one, a universal one. You're the one letting your red-tinted sunglasses affect your ability to absorb information.

No one believes that.

patteeu
01-09-2011, 10:02 AM
This post suggests otherwise.



There's a difference between disagreeing and not understanding.

You're clearly playing as if you don't even understand my point.

I understand you're saying there's some connection. I don't understand how you come to that ridiculous conclusion.

Baby Lee
01-09-2011, 10:03 AM
LMAO

You are the ones making this political. You've done it from the start of this thread months ago.

This is not a political point I'm making. It's a psychological one, a universal one. You're the one letting your red-tinted sunglasses affect your ability to absorb information.

Whatever the tint of my glasses, I see right through you.

Direckshun
01-09-2011, 10:03 AM
Wasn't Direckshun the guy in the Bradley Manning thread demanding proof that the prison might be concerned for his safety, before he'd even acknowledge it as a possibilty?
And here is crowing over a tragedy. I haven't read everything on the story yet, is there proof that this guy was influence by Angle, or is Direckshun just using his own personal judgement when proof is or isn't required?

Do you agree or disagree that poisonous rhetoric can lead to violence?

blaise
01-09-2011, 10:03 AM
"OMG OMG someone shot a Democrat! Where's my computer? Where's my computer? I can't wait to post "go Chiefs" this is gonna be awesome!"

Direckshun
01-09-2011, 10:03 AM
Whatever the tint of my glasses, I see right through you.

LMAO Thanks stevieray.

blaise
01-09-2011, 10:04 AM
Do you agree or disagree that poisonous rhetoric can lead to violence?

I'm sorry, do you now require proof, or just when it's convenient for you?

Donger
01-09-2011, 10:04 AM
LMAO

You think the gunman didn't like her hair or something?

I don't know. And, neither do you.

Direckshun
01-09-2011, 10:05 AM
No one believes that.

"OMG OMG someone shot a Democrat! Where's my computer? Where's my computer? I can't wait to post "go Chiefs" this is gonna be awesome!"

You're in rare form this morning.

blaise
01-09-2011, 10:05 AM
You're in rare form this morning.

Try and stifle the glee you're enjoying over a tragedy.

Donger
01-09-2011, 10:05 AM
Lot's of smiley faces from Direckshun today. Gee, I wonder why?

Direckshun
01-09-2011, 10:06 AM
I'm sorry, do you now require proof, or just when it's convenient for you?

The difference between us is that I'm on topic, you're trying to careen us off topic.

There's plenty of proof afoot that this guy was a crazed lunatic with political inclinations.

Baby Lee
01-09-2011, 10:07 AM
You're in rare form this morning.

Trouble hiding your tragedy boner?

Direckshun
01-09-2011, 10:08 AM
Try and stifle the glee you're enjoying over a tragedy.

Lot's of smiley faces from Direckshun today. Gee, I wonder why?

Trouble hiding your tragedy boner?

Snore.

Baby Lee
01-09-2011, 10:09 AM
Snore.

Aww, a little post-tumescence nap.

Donger
01-09-2011, 10:10 AM
Did everyone else's font size just get smaller or did I screw something up?

Direckshun
01-09-2011, 10:10 AM
Aww, a little post-tumescence nap.

You're going to need more arrows in your quiver than "Direckshun likes it when people die."

patteeu
01-09-2011, 10:11 AM
Aww, a little post-tumescence nap.

LMAO

Donger
01-09-2011, 10:11 AM
Snore.

Actually, I was suggesting that you realize that you were a little premature with this. At least I hope so.

patteeu
01-09-2011, 10:12 AM
Did everyone else's font size just get smaller or did I screw something up?

99.9% chance that it's just you in this case. Probably just hit the keyboard shotcut for changing font size in your browser.

Baby Lee
01-09-2011, 10:13 AM
You're going to need more arrows in your quiver than "Direckshun likes it when people die."

It's not an 'arrow in my quiver,' it's my honest estimation of the callowness of your partisan brain.

This shit might as well be the Raiders and the Chiefs on your TV.

VAChief
01-09-2011, 10:23 AM
It's not an 'arrow in my quiver,' it's my honest estimation of the callowness of your partisan brain.

This shit might as well be the Raiders and the Chiefs on your TV.

Any thoughts on Shrinkage's threads?...There seems to be a discrepancy of revulsion toward his political takes on this tragedy.

Donger
01-09-2011, 10:36 AM
99.9% chance that it's just you in this case. Probably just hit the keyboard shotcut for changing font size in your browser.

Yeah, I somehow hit Zoom In. I didn't even know that was there.

I was probably subconsciously influenced by Palin's target map. Or something.

Donger
01-09-2011, 10:38 AM
It's not an 'arrow in my quiver,' it's my honest estimation of the callowness of your partisan brain.

This shit might as well be the Raiders and the Chiefs on your TV.

It's just like when mememe started up about Bush during Katrina, when people were dying.

Just a different mind set, I guess.

Bwana
01-09-2011, 10:38 AM
Bump.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v418/bawanaal/DontShootYourFoot.jpg

mlyonsd
01-09-2011, 10:42 AM
I was probably subconsciously influenced by Palin's target map. Or something.

Stuff like that does make one do things they wouldn't normally think of doing all on their own.

vailpass
01-09-2011, 10:54 AM
The difference between us is that I'm on topic, you're trying to careen us off topic.

There's plenty of proof afoot that this guy was a crazed lunatic with political inclinations.

Woman, you are one crazed bitch.

blaise
01-09-2011, 11:05 AM
The difference between us is that I'm on topic, you're trying to careen us off topic.

There's plenty of proof afoot that this guy was a crazed lunatic with political inclinations.

So, the answer is no, you don't now. You just did before.
Thanks.

Go Chiefs.

Direckshun
01-09-2011, 03:10 PM
It's not an 'arrow in my quiver,' it's my honest estimation of the callowness of your partisan brain.

This shit might as well be the Raiders and the Chiefs on your TV.

I'm not sure you know what the word partisan means.

Direckshun
01-09-2011, 03:12 PM
So, the answer is no, you don't now. You just did before.
Thanks.

Go Chiefs.

My argument continues to stand. You haven't even attempted to refute it in the wake of this assassination attempt. You've just decided to attack me instead, as if that renders logic inert.

Direckshun
01-09-2011, 03:30 PM
From Palin's biggest hater, Andrew Sullivan:

The point here is not that there is any connection between this random post and political violence. The point is the worldview Palin holds. It is zero-sum. It expresses itself in clear and stark violent imagery. It is constantly about attack, conflict, combat, "enemy territory", "Big Guns", battle. This rhetorical background is so deeply part of the narrative we barely notice it any more. But it is not truly the language of politics; it's the language of war.

Just look again at this ad that ran against Giffords last November. And ponder a moment:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e20148c7729f99970c-550wi

patteeu
01-09-2011, 05:43 PM
Speaking of needing an off switch, you're embarrassing yourself by clinging to this ill-conceived attack, Direckshun.

HonestChieffan
01-09-2011, 05:48 PM
Speaking of needing an off switch, you're embarrassing yourself by clinging to this ill-conceived attack, Direckshun.

let him go. He is on a roll.

Donger
01-09-2011, 06:23 PM
From Palin's biggest hater, Andrew Sullivan:

What's wrong with that ad? The fact that he's holding a weapon?