Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Politicizing the AZ massacre
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 166 of 185 (603644)
02-06-2011 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by crashfrog
02-06-2011 1:17 PM


Re: Letters since 2007
Or, I guess you could just continue to pretend like you've never misspoken in your entire life. That's cool, too.
Whatever.
Hey, hey, hey...don't get like that. Not after everything we've been through.
No, I'm saying that when people say "promotes violence" like it's a bad thing, the "bad" part of that equation is the increased violence as a result, otherwise from what possible basis would they object? If "promoting something" had no effect on the rate or popularity of that something why would people even bother?
Yeah, I agree, but not in all cases and not with all things promoted. People have some sense of their own and can make a choice.
So while a feel islam promotes violence as a solution to problems they face, I feel for the most part muslims would rather a non-violent solutions. From the muslims I've encountered, this seems to be the case. And the violence that is seen is not islamic promoted violence, but rather politically driven.
Jesus, why so personal all the fucking time? Can't we just talk about this shit? Why does every little thing have to be such a huge fucking issue with you? Why do you have to be right about absolutely everything, even the stupid stuff?
Why do you so completely lose your shit when you talk to me? What's the deal, here?
Sorry dude, that's kinda how I talk. This is a debate site, I thought I was going with the flow...you know, debating and what not. Why so sensitive all of a sudden?
Trust me, I'm not losing my shit with any of this. You debate aggressively too, I've seen it. You have, not always, but sometimes, taken the bully role when debating creationist because you hold your intellect over them, and you do so arrogantly. Now, I'm not saying I care, or that you are wrong to do so - for the most part I like what you write and learn a lot from your knowledge in biology - but don't come play the victim role to me now when I do the same to you. If you can dish it out, then you should be able to take it too.
Either way, I don't give a shit so it's your call.
You, as usual. Where in the quoted material do I state that "the crosshairs led to Giffords being shot"?
It was implied. But if that's not what you meant, then cool. I won't say anything else before you throw another hissy fit.
David Letterman always gets death threats because he has a national TV show. Does Frances Fox Piven have a national TV show? What is the name of the show and when does it air? Be specific.
I meant, as public figures it's normal to get death threats. You don't need your own show, you just have to be on shows. Sam Harris gets plenty of death threats, so does Dan Dennett for some odd reason. But neither one has a show.
Since when is Frances Fox Piven on TV?
Look how cute she looks in the 80's:
Don't get me wrong, I recognize that Beck's listeners have made death threats to her, but she is in the political arena and Beck is going to talk about her. That's his show, he does whatever he wants on it. He can't be held responsible for the actions of others, even though I think he should and that TV studios should take the greater role in being responsible for what airs on their networks. My opinon on it doesn't change the fact that rhetoric on TV will be received differently by whoever listens.
I would not want it to become a free speech issue though.
Since when is Beck an "entertainer"? Be specific.
Huh? Since he started radio and tv...? What do you think he is?
No, I bashed Coyote for bringing up quotes from Bill Maher who isn't on the left
He's not? And you were claiming Chomsky was?
Then you tell me I have to be right about everything. How can't I not argue back when you are saying shit like this, crash? Maher is not on the left? Holy fucking shit! If he was anymore to the left he'd be a lesbian.
Well, wait now. Do both sides do it, or not?
That's my point, they need to stop whining for everything and man up a bit. Fight back. I'm not saying shot people, but you're making the case that every where liberals go conservatives are there to give them an ass kicking. Looks pretty sad for liberals then. I empathize, but I also see it as either pitiful, or the angle they are using to gain sympathy in the media. Neither of which I can respect.
How is it "leftist" to be a white, male currency nut obsessed with political correctness? Sorry, Oni, that's a right-wing beef. Giffords was shot by a Randroid gun nut. This kid was about as "leftist" as Paul Weyrich.
The reading material they found him with was leftist, all of it. He is also anti-government (US capitalist government) which would put him in the camp of Chavez and the like.
Seems leftist to me.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by crashfrog, posted 02-06-2011 1:17 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by crashfrog, posted 02-06-2011 2:38 PM onifre has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 167 of 185 (603651)
02-06-2011 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by onifre
02-06-2011 2:06 PM


Re: Letters since 2007
So while a feel islam promotes violence as a solution to problems they face, I feel for the most part muslims would rather a non-violent solutions.
I think that's also true of most conservatives. But that's irrelevant to whether Islam promotes violence as a solution to political problems (it does) or whether conservative thought-leaders are promoting violence as a solution to political problems (they are.) The number of conservatives being pushed into political violence, or threats of violence, is significant enough that the Department of Homeland Security felt the need to warn people about it in 2009. And for the most part they've been proven correct, as I've shown. For some reason it continues to be unacceptable to point out this fact.
And the violence that is seen is not islamic promoted violence, but rather politically driven.
Sure. But why isn't there more politician violence? It's because there's a social stigma to solving your political issues by just killing your opponents. Societies universally agree that that's not how you're supposed to solve that stuff, and they develop various institutions to ensure that - democracy, for instance, or "shut up and do it my way or get killed" in others.
But anything that weakens that social stigma weakens the barriers against political violence. Since, practically, the only obstacle to someone engaging in random murder is their own mental decision not to do it, we're talking about an equilibrium that can be profoundly affected by nothing more than the words people decide to take seriously.
Which means that people who are in serious positions need to moderate their speech and not glorify mass murder as a solution to political problems. For the most part this is a conservative problem in the US which is why I've been calling it conservative murder speech. There's a difference in perception between speech by Sarah Palin and speech by Alec Baldwin. Alec Baldwin is an actor, which means he lies for a living and everyone knows it. Sarah Palin is a politician which means she lies for a living but demands that believe her. Currently you and Coyote are engaged in a kind of game where you try to pretend that there's no difference between an entertainer saying entertainingly angry things and a politician making angry claims that are taken seriously by people. The problem here is one not of what is true, but what people believe is true. Speech that convinces people that it's time to take up arms and kill their political opponents is a problem, because some number of people are going to believe it, and do so.
I guess you don't see that as a problem. You seem to think that unless we're having gunfights in the street about abortion, we're a nation of pussies.
I meant, as public figures it's normal to get death threats.
Then why wasn't Frances Fox Piven getting death threats before she was mentioned by Glenn Beck?
Look how cute she looks in the 80's:
So where were the death threats against Frances Fox Piven in the 80's?
Why have death threats against congresspeople increased since the increase in conservative murder rhetoric? Haven't congresspeople always been "public figures"? Are you really saying that no speech could possibly have an effect on the number of death threats public figures get?
I recognize that Beck's listeners have made death threats to her, but she is in the political arena and Beck is going to talk about her.
That's fine. But why does he have to call for her death? Why does he have to portray her not just as an ideological opponent, but as part of a concerted threat to the nation? Millions of people listen to his speech. Why does he have to put people at risk by inciting violence?
I'm not calling for laws to be passed or for any speech to be suppressed. I'm simply calling for Glenn Beck to be subject to a moral judgement by people like you and Coyote. I'm not asking for you to do anything but change your mind.
He's not?
He's a libertarian. Those guys aren't "leftists."
I'm not saying shot people, but you're making the case that every where liberals go conservatives are there to give them an ass kicking.
I'm afraid that they are - how else do you explain:
Conservatives are passing these out at their conventions. You know, the ones that look like gun shows, there's so many firearms.
The reading material they found him with was leftist, all of it.
"Leftist"? So what? Don't you think Glenn Beck owns a copy of The Communist Manifesto? I've seen him wave it around on his show. I've seen him refer to it as his favorite book because of how it reveals "the liberal mind."
Regardless, it remains that the kid was a currency nut who was against political correctness. His choice of reading material is irrelevant - he was as leftist as Rand Paul and shot a Democratic congresswoman who voted for the ACA, which proves it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by onifre, posted 02-06-2011 2:06 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by onifre, posted 02-06-2011 3:20 PM crashfrog has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 168 of 185 (603659)
02-06-2011 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by crashfrog
02-06-2011 2:38 PM


Re: Letters since 2007
For some reason it continues to be unacceptable to point out this fact.
I think the media is, now, trying to shoot down ANY rhetoric that points fingers to avoid any further blood shed.
Also, it's hard to just claim the rhetoric is doing the motivation, when each case has specifics that point to other factors too. Take for instance a town hall meeting, where everyone is shouting at each other from all sides of the political spectrum. If a right-winger were to KO someone on the left, I wouldn't blame that on the rhetoric. It seems that right-wingers are just tougher, and more prone to fighting than their left-wing counter parts.
Sure. But why isn't there more politician violence?
I thought you've been claiming there is an increase in violence?
Currently you and Coyote are engaged in a kind of game where you try to pretend that there's no difference between an entertainer saying entertainingly angry things and a politician making angry claims that are taken seriously by people.
No, no, no, clearly there is as far as their titles go. But Americans pay much more attention to entertainers, actors, radio DJ's, comedians, etc. by a large portion, more than they listen to politician's speeches.
All I'm saying is that the audience is much larger for Alec Baldwin on 30 Rock than a 5 minute piece on FoxNews.
Then why wasn't Frances Fox Piven getting death threats before she was mentioned by Glenn Beck?
I don't know. Not to where she felt the need to be public about it. Or rather, the news networks saw a great opportunity to glorify what may not be that big of a deal in those death threats.
Why have death threats against congresspeople increased since the increase in conservative murder rhetoric? Haven't congresspeople always been "public figures"? Are you really saying that no speech could possibly have an effect on the number of death threats public figures get?
No not at all. I recognize the effects of speech. But I don't blame those saying it, I blame the TV stations who air it. I blame the stations who's main focus is to spew this nonsense.
I don't blame the right, most people on the right aren't even on TV. They're nobody congress people and politicians who get zero air time. There is a select few, who Palin has now joined, who say this stuff. But it is not the right's fault that a few do it, and certainly not the fault of the republican party as a whole (to include the voters.)
But why does he have to call for her death? Why does he have to portray her not just as an ideological opponent, but as part of a concerted threat to the nation? Millions of people listen to his speech. Why does he have to put people at risk by inciting violence?
He called for her to be killed? That I didn't hear about at all.
But frankly, to the rest of what you wrote, I don't know, man. The bigger question for me is, not that they say it, but why are they the one's on the air? If Fox got rid of literally 3 people, and Rush was taken off the air, all the rhetoric would pretty much be silenced.
He's a libertarian. Those guys aren't "leftists."
"Leftist" as in Hugo Chavez, Chomsky leftist? No. But they would be on the "left" when it comes to the US political spectrum.
Maher even says he is on the left.
I'm afraid that they are
Then they need to take some MMA classes or something, before they just look weak and pathetic.
Conservatives are passing these out at their conventions. You know, the ones that look like gun shows, there's so many firearms.
It's cute, funny and targets the pro-gun crowd. I wouldn't say, not even a little bit, that it's telling people to go shoot liberals. People have more sense than that. It is kinda not so tasteful, but not so much so to accuse it of being a call to violence.
Regardless, it remains that the kid was a currency nut who was against political correctness. His choice of reading material is irrelevant - he was as leftist as Rand Paul and shot a Democratic congresswoman who voted for the ACA, which proves it.
If you say so. I'll remain in complete disagreement.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by crashfrog, posted 02-06-2011 2:38 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by crashfrog, posted 02-06-2011 4:25 PM onifre has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 169 of 185 (603665)
02-06-2011 3:48 PM


Local group cancels Palin visit...
Local group cancels Palin visit, citing "personal attacks"
[Denver Post content removed]
Local group cancels Palin visit, citing “personal attacks” – The Denver Post
That touchy-feelie left again. Just a bunch of fun-loving folks they are, eh?
Edited by Coyote, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by jar, posted 02-06-2011 3:51 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 172 by crashfrog, posted 02-06-2011 4:33 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 173 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-06-2011 6:02 PM Coyote has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 170 of 185 (603667)
02-06-2011 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Coyote
02-06-2011 3:48 PM


Re: Local group cancels Palin visit...
Coyote writes:
Local group cancels Palin visit, citing "personal attacks"
Saying it received an "onslaught of personal attacks," a Colorado nonprofit announced in a news release today that it was canceling a scheduled May appearance in Glendale by former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.
[snip]
Local group cancels Palin visit, citing “personal attacks” – The Denver Post
That touchy-feelie left again. Just a bunch of fun-loving folks they are, eh?
If there even was a single "personal attack".

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Coyote, posted 02-06-2011 3:48 PM Coyote has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 171 of 185 (603671)
02-06-2011 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by onifre
02-06-2011 3:20 PM


Re: Letters since 2007
Also, it's hard to just claim the rhetoric is doing the motivation, when each case has specifics that point to other factors too.
Really? What were the "other factors" in the case of Byron Williams, whose own mother has testified that his attempted murderous rampage at the ACLU and Tides Foundation was motivated entirely by his "mind being blown" by what he heard on the Glenn Beck show?
It seems that right-wingers are just tougher, and more prone to fighting than their left-wing counter parts.
...and? Don't you think the cause of that might just be the "fightin' words", the conservative murder rhetoric that typifies the right-wing political discourse?
Surely you don't think conservatives are just inherently more prone to violence? Huntard made a pretty good case why that's probably not true; in his country the leftists use murder rhetoric and the result has been violence from the left.
But Americans pay much more attention to entertainers, actors, radio DJ's, comedians, etc. by a large portion, more than they listen to politician's speeches.
But I'm not talking about "paying attention", I'm talking about taking seriously. When Geordi LaForge says that the Borg are coming to hijack the USS Enterprise, probably a lot of people are paying attention to that but nobody thinks they're watching a documentary. But when Sarah Palin says "death panels", it may be true that less people pay attention but the people who do fundamentally have reason to believe that they're viewing a person honestly making a claim of fact, not portraying a fictional character saying fictional things.
As I said, you're engaged in a game where you're trying to pretend that the only thing important is how many people pay attention, not how people are paying attention. There's a big difference in motivational power between fictional stories and claims made as though they're true.
All I'm saying is that the audience is much larger for Alec Baldwin on 30 Rock than a 5 minute piece on FoxNews.
But Alec Baldwin isn't telling people to kill people in his role as Jack Donaghey on 30 Rock, so what is the possible relevance of this fact?
There is a select few, who Palin has now joined, who say this stuff.
A select few? They're talking about killing liberals at conventions, Oni. We've given dozens of examples of this murder rhetoric from all corners of the conservative movement - the top media figures, the top politicians. Sarah Palin is currently the odds-on favorite for the GOP presidential nom in 2012, she's hardly a fringe figure in the movement. The best Coyote seems to be able to do is track down people who genuinely are fringe figures, or who aren't even liberals at all. And the worse he's able to find are basically bumper sticker slogans. In the meantime, conservatives are passing around "liberal hunting licenses" and shooting 7-year-old girls.
The bigger question for me is, not that they say it, but why are they the one's on the air?
Because it works. Arizona is liable to gain a Republican representative if Giffords has to step down. Political assassination works, that's why people try to incite it.
Fox News is an operating propaganda arm of the Republican Party. Roger Ailes has simply come right out and said so. They air Glenn Beck because it's useful to the causes of the Republican Party for them to do so.
It's cute, funny and targets the pro-gun crowd.
I guess I don't think it's funny to pass out a no-limit murder license. It just seems kind of mean to me. But then, the point of disagreement we apparently have is that I believe political violence is an illegitimate response to losses in fair elections, and you think it's perfectly legitimate. If some 7-year-old girls get shot? Why, that's just youth involvement in politics!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by onifre, posted 02-06-2011 3:20 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by onifre, posted 02-15-2011 7:37 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 172 of 185 (603673)
02-06-2011 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Coyote
02-06-2011 3:48 PM


Re: Local group cancels Palin visit...
Name-calling?
Really?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Coyote, posted 02-06-2011 3:48 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 173 of 185 (603687)
02-06-2011 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Coyote
02-06-2011 3:48 PM


Re: Local group cancels Palin visit...
That touchy-feelie left again. Just a bunch of fun-loving folks they are, eh?
Perhaps you could hold off whining about it 'til they start in on the sticks and stones. That may break someone's bones, y'know.
Or wait until they even allude to sticks and stones in any way ...
The news release, which was issued by the Pacheco foundation about 4 p.m. Saturday, said that no "direct threats have been made against anyone, but the recent increase in negative rhetoric against the former Alaska governor raises concern for her safety and the safety of others."
"Negative rhetoric", eh? Tsk tsk.
But before you leap onto the moral high ground, pause a moment and think if you yourself have ever indulged in "negative rhetoric"; and whether when you do it this calls for the same hysterical over-reaction.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Coyote, posted 02-06-2011 3:48 PM Coyote has not replied

  
R1zbear 
Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 4790 days)
Posts: 1
From: Canada
Joined: 02-14-2011


Message 174 of 185 (604779)
02-14-2011 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Coyote
01-18-2011 12:27 AM


Re: Time for some balance
Spam treated and released.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Slicing up the spam.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Coyote, posted 01-18-2011 12:27 AM Coyote has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 175 of 185 (604895)
02-15-2011 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by crashfrog
02-06-2011 4:25 PM


Re: Letters since 2007
In my thinking, there is no way any person familiar with Casper The Ghost would ever believe there was anything actualized outside of the confines of the story line of the comic strip/cartoon that anyone would describe as truly "supernatural".
And what do you think motivated his two previous bank robberies? Perhaps he's just someone inclined to break the law?
Or why don't you consider the fact that Williams himself, not his mommy, told investigators that the reason he was disturbed was because he couldn't find a job due to a shitty economy?
Also, his mom didn't blame Glenn Beck.
quote:
Williams' mother, Janice Williams, said to the San Francisco Chronicle that her son was angry with "the way Congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items."
source
So you see, each case has specifics to other motivating factors. But you will see what you want to see when you want to see it.
...and? Don't you think the cause of that might just be the "fightin' words", the conservative murder rhetoric that typifies the right-wing political discourse?
No, I just think that right-wingers are tougher than their liberal counter parts. They've always been.
Veterans tend to be more right leaning than left leaning, same with active members of the military. The right is always more supportive of the military and military actions. They support gun ownership and the NRA more. Like violent sports more than liberals. Etc.
This is common knowledge, and common knowledge before this rhetoric from Palin, Beck and the right-wing pundits.
But I'm not talking about "paying attention", I'm talking about taking seriously.
Ok, I get that. But any celebrity asked to be on a panel such as what you would find on Maher's show, is now being taken seriously. Claims made by them reach a broader audience than claims made by Palin of the same nature.
conservatives are passing around "liberal hunting licenses" and shooting 7-year-old girls.
Are you ONCE AGAIN, and this time don't deny it, claiming that Loughner was a conservative?
Fox News is an operating propaganda arm of the Republican Party. Roger Ailes has simply come right out and said so. They air Glenn Beck because it's useful to the causes of the Republican Party for them to do so.
Yup.
I guess I don't think it's funny to pass out a no-limit murder license.
I find it funny, we clearly have a different sense of humor.
It just seems kind of mean to me.
And thus supports my theory that liberals are more often than not, pussies. It is your side that hurts comics, musicians, artists, rappers, and anyone in the creative field, because your side is so fucking PC that everything gets accused of being insensitive, or too violent, or too harmful to our youth, or offensive to women and minorities, and should be censored, blah, blah, fucking blah. Enough already, sheesh. You think it's mean? Well man the fuck up a bit, honey.
But then, the point of disagreement we apparently have is that I believe political violence is an illegitimate response to losses in fair elections, and you think it's perfectly legitimate.
More liberal faggery...and now you've just lost it and have decided to completely misrepresent me by making yourself look like a concerned citizen and me as an inconsiderate, violence supporting nutjob. Me...the guy that argued with you about the need for guns in the home, and about the insanity of shooting any intruder that you kept advocating was ok. Fuck, your awesome dude.
If some 7-year-old girls get shot? Why, that's just youth involvement in politics!
Yeah, that's an every day occurance. Oh wait, it is. In ghettos across America. They must all be listening to Beck. Crack'a-ass crack'a dun got anotha nigga shot. Damn you, Beck!!!
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by crashfrog, posted 02-06-2011 4:25 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by crashfrog, posted 02-16-2011 4:14 PM onifre has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 176 of 185 (605044)
02-16-2011 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by onifre
02-15-2011 7:37 PM


Re: Letters since 2007
What does Casper the Ghost have to do with anything?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by onifre, posted 02-15-2011 7:37 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by xongsmith, posted 02-16-2011 5:04 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 177 of 185 (605055)
02-16-2011 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by crashfrog
02-16-2011 4:14 PM


Re: Letters since 2007
crashfrog writes:
What does Casper the Ghost have to do with anything?
Pay no attention to that - it was the Agony of Clone from another thread Oni & I are in, a Cntrl-V without 1st putting in a new Cntrl-C step over the text you wanted to copy. The old Cntrl-C still held the other text from that other thread in it.
Basically, a modern typo.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by crashfrog, posted 02-16-2011 4:14 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 178 of 185 (617354)
05-27-2011 7:28 PM


Sarah Palin for president!
Who else is excited that chances are Sarah Palin will be running for the presidency?

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by fearandloathing, posted 05-27-2011 7:46 PM Taz has replied
 Message 180 by Rahvin, posted 05-27-2011 8:02 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 181 by subbie, posted 05-27-2011 8:04 PM Taz has not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 179 of 185 (617356)
05-27-2011 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Taz
05-27-2011 7:28 PM


Re: Sarah Palin for president!
I hope you are joking...if not well...Buzz maybe?? I am not a tea bagger fan. I think she is a self-serving moron, jmo. The only thing we might see eye to eye on is guns, and that is not reason enough for me to vote for her.

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson
Ad astra per aspera
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Taz, posted 05-27-2011 7:28 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Taz, posted 05-28-2011 12:03 AM fearandloathing has seen this message but not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 180 of 185 (617360)
05-27-2011 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Taz
05-27-2011 7:28 PM


Re: Sarah Palin for president!
Taz writes:
Who else is excited that chances are Sarah Palin will be running for the presidency?
Well, the implications for the Daily Show are certainly good.
As for the actual Presidency...Caribou Barbie has about the same chance of actually getting the big job as one of the animals she "hunts" from a helicopter.
She would, however, likely totally fuck up the Republican primaries. It would be really interesting to see where the political dialog goes in the primary debates.
Personally, I think Obama is very nearly a sure thing. Not because he's done particularly well, or because I'm happy with him, but really because the very best the Rethuglicans have managed to put forward are mostly the guys who ran and failed last time, plus a few even worse choices like Gingrich. He wont get such an overwhelming victory this time, but I dont think any of the candidates on the Republican side so far can beat him. Osama got shot on his watch on his orders, and ObamaCare hasn;t killed my grandmother yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Taz, posted 05-27-2011 7:28 PM Taz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024