Rahvin writes:
As for Olbermann, I applaud his suggestion that perhaps everyone can calm the fuck down on the violence-themed words in our political discourse. I can't see how less talk of "second amendment solutions" would do anything but improve the nation as a whole.
I am sure Benedict Arnold felt the same way.
Taq writes:
They knew what was in the pot when they were stirring. Palin and others knew that there was a militia-like streak running through the Tea Party, and they played to it. I remember Tea Party sympathizers showing up to Obama rallies openly carrying fire arms and holding signs with overtly violent themes. I remember signs at Health Care protests with the line "Kill the Bill" above a picture of Obama climbing into a coffin.
You reap what you sow. The rooster has come home to roost. Pick your cliche, but I, like you, felt this coming.
sure if the shooter was a tea party memeber, something that has not been proven, in fact he seemed rather lib to me.
crasfrog writes:
The Tuscon tragedy was an entirely predictable result of conservative assassination language. How do I know that? Because Giffords predicted it. She precisely predicted this outcome.
mmmmmm that kool-aid must be delicious. once again was the shooter a conservative?
Taq writes:
I have speculations, but that is it. It is worth mentioning that Giffords did beat a Tea Party candidate in the last election. It is also worth mentioning that Loughner could have been a complete nutcase trying to impress Jodie Foster. However, given the strained political environment in the US right now I tend to suspect a political motivation.
ahh so there is no evidence, its just convenient from your political side to characterize this person as a member of the opposition on a personal hunch. It seems as if the OP was correct.
crashfrog writes:
Hyro, nobody thinks Sarah Palin actually wanted anybody to be shot. Nobody thinks that she was literally calling for the death of Giffords or anybody else. The point here is that there are some things you don't say in politics, some kinds of rhetoric you don't employ, precisely because of its predictable effect of inciting crazy people to violence.
So do you think the founding fathers were comeplety wrong in using this language as well? Maybe we should have stayed subjects to the British Crown? sounds all very loyalist to me.
Rahvin writes:
Irrelevant, unless you actually think that a "second amendment solution" is an appropriate response to losing an election, which is how it's been used so far.
that is not what the 2nd Amendmet solution is. you are taking it out of context.
rahvin writes:
Do you really believe that violent revolution and political assassination belong in the toolkit of American politics? Really? Because a "second amendment solution" means murdering your countrymen because you disagree with them. Because you lost an election, and have sour grapes. It's saying "if I can't win, nobody wins!"
strawman.
I don't give a flying fuck what the Founding Fathers thought.
here we are going to disagree further, i think you live in the wrong country.
Thomas Jefferson thought it was hunky dory to possess slaves.
rofl.
The real revolutionaries and the original Tea Partiers were from a place called New England, none of these folks owned slaves, and many settled around a place called Boston. they were the ones who preached the violent retoric from the begining, and had to covince the other colonies that it would be profitable to fight the crown. There were many more loyalists in the Southern Colonies, who were complacent in the way thier life was. Nice try trying to use slavery, but in reality slave holders were more on your side of the arguement, as business was booming under Crown rule, and they faced more uncertanties as independant states.
You cannot, in any way, shape or form, successfully prosecute a civilian campaign against the US Government using small arms. The Army has fucking artillery. And tanks. And nukes.
interesting...can you please share this with the Northern Vietnamese. a group of rice farmers with Kalashnikovs, and RPGs. Or with modern day Mujahadeen Fighters in Afghanistan. It seems with your logic the United States would trounce either one of those opponents in a matter of weeks.
The context of violent political revolution has completely changed since the days of the Founding Fathers. Now, violent revolution and "second amendment solutions" means targeting and assassinating political opposition leaders, terrorism, and so on.
no it doesn't, its the same as it ever was.
Taq writes:
When lefties show up to Palin rallies packing heat in order to intimidate Palin and her followers let us know.
out of context. Carrying to a rally is not used as a device for intimidation, it is as much as a demonstration of 2nd amendment rights, as the rally is to 1st amendment rights.
Hyroglyphx writes:
This is nothing more than a cheap tactic for political sensationalism and nothing more.
its simple character assassination, they just got worked in the last election, and now they have to attack someone's character and demonize that person as much as they can so they can feel better about they're righteous cause. think about the children.
crashfrog writes:
What on Earth does that matter? Who says Loughner had to be a conservative to be influenced by conservative murder rhetoric?
the rhetoric is the same on both sides of the board, and has been, its nothing new, and nothing will change because of it, its just fun to debate about.
But Democrats didn't do it. Dart boards aren't crosshairs.
ROFLMFAO! a target is a target. if you want to get to a gnats ass on this the "cross hairs" aren't even realistic cross hairs, I have never seen a sight picture like that before (i thought they were targets the whole time).
Jaderis writes:
Why do conservatives interpret an across the board call for less violent rhetoric as a personal affront? As an attack? Guilty conscience?
cause this is America, and we are gonna say what we want. klik klak
Hyroglyphx writes:
I attended the rallies of both Kerry and Bush. I was attacked and physically assaulted (with my kids there!) both times. Both times it was by Progressives. That's not an isolated incident either.
you can open carry almost anywhere in New Hampshire, the free staters are not going to let that change.
C'mon man, you know there aint no evidence, this is all BS the OP was correct.
Geez, how white are you? You know Hip Hop incorporates rap but it's not rap, right? Just as Hip Hop incorporates DJ'ing and scratching but Hip Hop isn't DJ'ing and scratching.
you forgot graffiti and break dancing.
Since I've been there and seen it myself, I don't have to be naive as you say and take anyone's word for it. And the fun part is, I'm moving not far from there in March to Bushwick. So I'll take a pic for you.
you are leaving Miami for Brooklyn...DANG...why?
Oh that white...
It's Ice T not Tupac!
LOLOLOLOL...definately not the illest nigga in Nebraska. not bout it bout it.
Conservatives openly carrying loaded firearms to peaceful townhall meetings.
there is nothing violent or illeagal about this.
crashfrog writes:
For the most part, murder and assassination rhetoric by leading political figures is a phenomenon limited to the right here in the US, yes. Nobody shouts "kill him!" at an Obama rally. Democrats don't invite supporters to fire automatic weapons at pictures of their opponents.
The examples provided thus far by conservatives to rebut that point have been flimsy, to say the least. Dart boards aren't crosshairs. "Bringing a gun to a knifefight" is quoting The Untouchables, not inviting people to actually bring guns anywhere. It's the conservatives that ask their supporters to come to rallies with guns.
wow it really is kool-aid.
Bill Maher is a libertarian, not a leftist.
um...yeah...ok
Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2