Stop blaming guns and Palin for the Arizona shooting.
The tragedy this past week in Arizona has drummed up all sorts of emotions and fears in the American public as well it should. What happened to the victims of that heinous act of senseless violence is horrifying, some might say unacceptable. And while I’m sure we can all agree that it was horrifying, the only thing I find unacceptable about it is the reaction of the people who are making opportunistic political power plays preying on the very real fears of the public in the wake of the shooting.
Now, I am in no way admonishing the monster that committed this act, but you cannot legislate against crazy and that is exactly what Jared Loughner is. Just a cook who lost it, slipped through the cracks and snapped. I can understand that, we’ve seen it enough times throughout history to know that it happens and will happen again. But I do not understand the people who are blaming the 2nd Amendment and Sarah Palin for this. They are despicable for using this tragedy as a platform to spew the very political rhetoric that they say sparked the powder keg that was Loughner’s deranged mind in the first place (even though we are learning that that is not the case). It’s just another example of how a lot of people in this country just don’t get it and can’t face reality or concoct these blame games because they are afraid of it.
And before anyone reading this tries to peg my political beliefs by the previous paragraph, let me tell you that I am a registered Democrat who voted for Obama, has never even touched a gun let alone owned one, and believes that Sarah Palin shouldn’t even be given the time of day by our supposed informed electorate. But unlike most people who share my political beliefs, common sense took over when looking at the events in Tucson.
Face it America, as much as it might help you sleep at night, the fact that Jared Loughner was able to do this is not the fault of the 2nd Amendment. If guns were illegal in Arizona he still would’ve gotten his hands on one. Just ask people in Chicago where side by side reside some of our nation’s strictest gun control laws and one of our nation’s highest rates of gun violence. Making guns illegal won’t end the problem. And I find Sarah Palin as distasteful and anyone can, I personally despise the woman and her politics, but nothing she said drove this man to kill, people close to Loughner are starting to provide that information but I doubt it will stop the people looking to pin it on her.
This is not to say that the political climate in America today isn’t appalling. It is, and big, real, tangible change is needed. No politician seems to be remotely interested in anything other than bashing the other side these days and it is spinning out of control. But the change should be done because it is the right thing to do for the people, not as a way to push your side’s agenda and ride the wave of fear that inevitably follows tragedy, or as a knee-jerk reaction to said tragedy.
Crazy people are going to do crazy things and there’s nothing we can do about it. It was happening before politics, it was happening before guns, and it was even happening before Sarah Palin.The human is what turns the gun from a beneficial tool to a symbol of hatred.
Not the other way around.
Because no one should ever defend the right to speak...
We have seen a LOT about the level of integrity of those that would blame this leftist, Marxist (known leftist and Marxist) man's behavior onto Palin or the Tea Party or on conservatives. That makes NO sense whatsoever, except to shed light on how low some will go.
Kudos to those Liberals (I saw one guy, so have to say good for him!) that was saying that liberals are acting stupid that were doing that.
When people have to act in the nasty ways we see, and use that level of poor thinking, it hurts them, and actually can give more credence to what the other side has been saying.
They should stop, and apologize. That deranged shooter was as left as Obama,and a Marxist, more "left" than the lady he was trying to shoot.
This is what truly concerns me (in part) about this country. Its as if people are embracing sheer stupidity and craziness and don't even care what they look like doing so. This hurts truth and makes a mockery of things.
This horrific tragedy is bad enough, and innocent people died. This is how many libs respond, even on tv? It reinforces what I knew was true already, but alarms me how bad it is getting.
People, on all sides, should care about the truths of matters, facts and Logic. Consider your sources to be lame if you are just being a copycat and spewing the same stuff."People, on all sides, should care about the truths of matters, facts and Logic."
Yes, they absolutely should.
"This horrific tragedy is bad enough, and innocent people died."
Indeed, it's reprehensible that people should use this guy to make their political opponents look bad by association.
"That deranged shooter was as left as Obama,and a Marxist, more "left" than the lady he was trying to shoot."
Oh, well, I suppose that expecting you to practice what you're preaching would be too much.
The guy's favorite books list is all over the place, including not only the Communist Manifesto (left wing), but also Mein Kampf (right wing) and The Phantom Tollbooth (??). I doubt the shooter had a clear idea about what he believed, politically. But sure, go ahead and paint him as a leftist. It fits your narrative a lot better.
Didn't the OP just write a hub about this? Forums should have short introductions, not the whole hub.
As for your question: Well maybe Sarah Palin is not the blame for the shooting. Maybe this was just the work of a severely mentally ill young man.
But I'm pretty sure Palin's political career is done. I feel almost sorry for her, because she really believes that she is relevant.
After her response to the allegations, she took a bad situation, and made it so much worse. Why? Just her sheer ignorance and consistent bumbling while in front of a camera.
Conservatives will probably not come to her defense, in fact, the republican presidential hopefuls might even start stating their oppositions to her.She has the Fox News Network behind her and I think she'll be around for awhile longer. I really hope they run her for president in 2012. Could they be that crazy?
People have been prediction the career of Palin is going to be "over" starting five minutes after she was nominated for VP. Your track record is not looking too hot right now.
Me too! Laughter is good medicine, and since I can't afford wealthcare, laughing at Palin all day will be the best contribution that capitalism has made for the collective health of the nation!
She has more going for her than comrade President Obama does.
Mikey, that's not being disputed. The local sheriff who watched the same tv as the shooter stated that the violent rhetoric has contributed to the problem with violence in his city. How do people who have never been to the city know more about whats going on in that city? They don't they take the word of those the choose to believe and take off on a rantpage. Cool I just invented a word. Rantpage...a verbal rampage.
Nothing convinces the masses like a lack of personal knowledge or experience."Cool I just invented a word. Rantpage...a verbal rampage."
I 'refudiate' your new word!
Blame Obama. Never ever ever blame palin, it's against bible.
Why would anyone blame Obama for this or Palin for that matter? Or even guns? Where is the evidence for this blame?
May I offer this little tidbit: If guns kill people, then pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk, and spoons make people fat.
Looking for someone to blame? Perhaps the shooter is responsible.Of course the shooter is responsible, but so is the NRA and our legislators who have failed to pass common sense laws controlling gun manufacture, sale, ownership and use.
Ralph has been asked multiple times on various Hub topics over the years to actually give some gun control laws that...
1) Work...
2) Do not take away freedoms from Americans by first assuming that they are no different from a criminal.
He has never, ever once, in spite of repeated requests, actually given those "common sense" laws he keeps asking for.1. Reinstate assault weapons ban.
2. Make large capacity magazines illegal to manufacture, import or sell for other than military use.
3. Prohibit weapons of any type in schools, courthouses, political events, art fairs, etc.
4. Tighten up on gun show sales, records, background checks.
5. Prohibit gun ownership by mentally ill individuals.
6. Strictly limit sale, ownership and registration of handguns.
I haven't studied the issue. I'm sure there are other steps that could be taken.[1. Reinstate assault weapons ban.]
Even the brady bunch now admits that the so-call assualt weapons ban did nothing effective. You're behind the curve on this one, ralph. But it does give me an excuse to remind people that if they google "jack burton" and "evil black rifles" they'll find my hubpage on the issue and can learn more in five minutes than you've learned in a lifetime about them. Thank you.
BTW... one of the conditions was that it would "work." The other was that it wouldn't limit the freedom of citizens by treating them as criminals. You fail on both these.
[2. Make large capacity magazines illegal to manufacture, import or sell for other than military use.]
One of the conditions was that it would "work." The other was that it wouldn't limit the freedom of citizens by treating them as criminals. You fail on both these.
Millions of large capacity magazines in citizens hands today. Because a few are misused each year you think that that gives reason to "ban" the couple million that are not. This is liberal thinking at it's very best.
[3. Prohibit weapons of any type in schools, courthouses, political events, art fairs, etc.]
That will certainly, beyound the shadow of a doubt, keep people from doing harm to others. That person with a gun who sees your "guns prohibitted" sign will just turn around and say, "Dang, I really wanted to murder people today but I can't 'cause I can't take my gun in there."
Or... perhaps, and this is much more reasonable, he is going to say, "Wow.. .NO ONE in there can possibly interfere with what I am planning. Thanks, Ralph."
One of the conditions was that it would "work." The other was that it wouldn't limit the freedom of citizens by treating them as criminals. You fail on both these.
[4. Tighten up on gun show sales, records, background checks.]
Every gun show sale by every seller and every gun show buy has local, state, and federal laws firearm laws that are followed. There is no "tighter" unless you want to do away with gun shows.
One of the conditions was that it would "work." The other was that it wouldn't limit the freedom of citizens by treating them as criminals. You fail on both these.
[5. Prohibit gun ownership by mentally ill individuals.]
Well, Ralph, it is ALREADY against the law for mentally ill individuals to purchase firearms. I guess we can make it "doubly illegal" if you want. (I have a real good feeling that Ralph's ultimate definiton of "mentally ill people" is "people who disagree with Ralph.")
One of the conditions was that it would "work." The other was that it wouldn't limit the freedom of citizens by treating them as criminals. You fail on both these.
[6. Strictly limit sale, ownership and registration of handguns.]
Err.... it IS strictly limited.
One of the conditions was that it would "work." The other was that it wouldn't limit the freedom of citizens by treating them as criminals. You fail on both these.
[I haven't studied the issue. I'm sure there are other steps that could be taken.]
You haven't STUDIED the issue? Ralph, every topic you get on including the ones on how to bake cakes you eventually get around to whining about needing common sense gun laws. And NOW you tell us you haven't studied the issue. Somehow we knew that in advance.What's your position? No controls on guns can be effective? If not what do you believe would be reasonable, commonsense gun regulations consistent with the Second Amendment?
Well, for starters, MISUSE of a gun to harm someone would be illegal. But not special. I don't believe that killing someone with a gun should get ten years tacked on to the sentence when killing someone with a knife doesn't. The person is equally dead with a grieving family either way.
Secondly, and as with the 1st Amendment, prior restraint is not constitutionally acceptable. We don't put gags in peoples mouth based upon what they "might" say... we don't take typewriters or computer printers away from people based upon what they "might" print. We should have no gun laws based upon what people "might" do.
Third... if someone is has been adjudicated as "dangerous" to the community then act as if it is serious. Either he is... or he isn't. If he is... then why is he out roaming around innocent people. [Note (because I know someone is going to purposefully misunderstand this... I am speaking of people who have been thru the court system and have been found judged guilty. Not someone who someone else just doesn't like for whatever reason.]
If the crazy person had tossed a Molotov cocktail into the situation we can just see ralph blaming "...Shell gas stations and our legislators who have failed to pass common sense laws controlling gasoline manufacture, sale and ownership.
. . . .damn those founding fathers, and all of their wisdom! Didn't they know that global government requires disarming the populace? The media is the wheel that greases all the wheels in America; and the media is to blame for gun violence; but I like it when people blame guns; cause inanimate objects, soul less as they are, are inherently evil!
I think Palin's chances as a GOP presidential candidate are dead. Maybe the Tea Party will run her.
Almost all the GOP presidential hopefuls work for Fox News with Palin. She's not going anywhere until Murrdock says so. As an employee of Fox news, I am sure she is bound by the same instructions all fox news employees receive as to what is permissable to report on and the proper take that is to be pushed that day. My point here is this, anything coming from her mouth as a representative of fox news would require prior approval. How can an organization keep making the same mistakes over and over again? There has to be someone on that staff that is thinking "what is it going to take to silence the outright stupidity? I'll tell ya, the coy little wink and smile got old the first week, dontcha know? She has yet to show me she has anything else to offer anyone who doesn't sleep with a gun, or drink the tea.
I would not want her anywhere near a single nuclear red button.
I know, she would probably launch an attack against the country of Africa
And Fox also tells Mara Liason what to say? And all the other liberals that appear regularly?
I'll say it again because it never gets old... ~this~ is the very best the libs can offer us.
I would hope not. The Tea Party isn't dead by a long shot. We don't need her splitting the vote. She is still popular with male independents. I don't think either party would like loosing votes to her. She is NOT a viable candidate and people need to quit making her the political topic of the day. If she has an upside it's this: Love her or hate her, she gets you thinking. She gets you riled up. She's a voice in the wilderness, not a viable candidate.
Oh, pleeeease let the Tea Part run her....
I disagree. She is now, no doubt, an underdog. She is practically crucified by liberals. America loves the underdog.
The more Palin is slapped the more popular she will become. Those most critical of her are those whose opinions matter most to their own little closed circle and not a wit to conservatives and many independents. We shall see, but I think her stock is rising not falling.
Not this one, Sir! She is one dog that will never get out from under the porch.
You may be right, but I still disagree. She is actually gaining in popularity from what I have seen.
Don't give up your day job to take one as a political pundit...
"Americans View Sarah Palin as more Sincere and Believable after Watching Speech"
http://mediacurves.com/Politics/SarahPa … /Index.cfmIf you reference a real scientific (Post-ABC) poll from December..
"Six in 10 voters say they would not even consider voting for the former Alaska governor if she launches a White House bid, and she loses badly to President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 general election test...
A slim 8 percent of all registered voters say they would definitely vote for Palin for president, while 31 percent say they would consider doing so. Fully 60 percent say they definitely would not. Among all Americans, 59 percent say they would not vote for her, up from 53 percent in November 2009."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01512.html
All I can say is - PLEASE run her in 2012. After that, hopefully she will go away and take the Tea Party with her.
I think there is a certain amount of desire to see social responsibility here. The political division is getting old and really is a diversion from having to do any real work on the problem. I can tell you from personal experience that the mental health system is in shambles. The mentally ill are often caught in a revolving door system because no one wants to take care of them, take responsibility for them. I personally have in my past suffered from real depression and have more then once taken too many pills. On more then one occasion I had my stomach pumped and then was set back out to do it again, basically was back in the hospital the very next day. If my problems had been of a different nature I could have been a danger to others and that would have been in some regards worse. Point is we have a system that is failing us, we take no collective social responsibility for the kids who grew up abused (like me, I was just a cash cow to the lawyers who drew the case out as long as they could, my personal welfare was of no consequence in comparison to the money being made. Social responsibility is lacking and nothing is going to get any better if we cannot recognize the need for social responsibility.
Personal responsibility is lacking and nothing is going to get any better if we cannot recognize the need for personal responsibility.
So who is blaming Palin?
A quote to support the premise, please. Om this site the librals have been pretty clear. I have repeated that the shootings were done by a nut. I have talked about Palin and the Tea Party in the context of violent talk, threats and campaigning on violence. I used real quotes from candidates, not athletes to support my criticism.
No one is blaming guns. But the shooter managed to hit twenty people and kill six withut reloading. Thre is a legitimate question if 30-shot clips should be legal. No one on this forum has called for a ban on guns.I don't think a 30 clip shot should be legal except for the armed service where they might not be able to reload when necessary.
For 80 years the government has passed laws and spent countless billions of dollars to keep drugs out of people's hands, and how well has that worked? Even maximum security prisoners get drugs, and certainly they don't have a problem killing someone if they want to.
Restricting guns only makes good citizens, defenseless and empowers the violent criminals that have no regard for law, order, or society.
This effort to "control" guns has nothing at all to do with saving lives, it's about disarming the potential resistance!How about when a citizen is "unable to reload" that quickly? Why do you hate your fellow citizens so much that you are willing to leave them at the mercy of a large mob with only a few rounds that they can use to defend themselves with?
She scares the crap out of me that we in America have to be afriad of being shot because we don't follow some one elses politics.
Those Republicans quit because of the threat from the Tea-Party...does that say NOTHING to you????
"Joyce Kaufman: The Ballot Box or The Cartridge Box." : you-tube
Where are these people coming from? Seriously....Where do they get off acting like we who elected Obama are lesser citizens?
Your candidate, or die? WTH?"She scares the crap out of me that we in America have to be afriad of being shot because we don't follow some one elses politics."
Yeah... just like that republican office holder who said about a governor candidate he didn't like..."Instead of running for governor, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him."
Oh... wait... that was a DEMOCRAT representative who just said that a few months ago. My bad...
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/bel … and-shot-n
Loughner, "Has the full support of the Democrat party."--Russssshhhhhhh Limbaugh
I think the left has demonstrated that view as valid since they have continued to blame the right for his actions. They have excused him for the shooting, essentially saying, it's not his fault, he was driven to it by the hate speech of the right and of Sarah Palin... that's the left that's how they roll and they started 2 hours after the shooting and haven't quit.
Who excused the shooter and where did you get this idea lady? A lot of circumstances came together to create this tragedy. Do you honestly believe that you know more about what happened than the sheriff of the town? Why do you continue with the additiude that nothing done by your beloved right is ever wrong? If you refuse to see how Palin's actions that were approved by those in control of her campaign
contributed to the situation, there is little hope you will ever see anything that doesn't appear on Fox news. I am still waiting for you to prove one of the lies broadcast as truth by the Faux News Network. I see you chose to ignore questions when you can't come up with a legitimate answer.
There was a standing offer for years of $10,000 for anyone who was able to prove a single "lie" in Fox News broadcasts. No one even came forward to try to claim it. But when YOUR definition of a "lie" is "something I disagree politically with" then it's really easy to see why you think Fox is lying.
Perhaps you could explain why they went to court to claim the right to lie, then?
No, never mind. You'll evade that, I'm sure.Perhaps you could actually post something that has information in it. But then again... you really can't, can you.
No?
http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&s … ght+to+lie
But of course none of that really happened in your fantasy world.Took about ten seconds to debunk your fantasy. Too bad...
******************************************
It is clear from the evidence presented here that FOX did not argue, as claimed by several of its critics, that it had a First Amendment to lie in its news reports. It's also plain that the Florida courts did not rule that FOX and other broadcasters had such a right.
It would be nice to hope that this analysis will finally put to rest the myth of a First Amendment "right to lie" case involving FOX News. Nice, but probably unrealistic. At the very least, it should give ammunition to those intent on countering this particular wild internet rumor.
*******************************************
http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/det … ernet-myth
But you'll be out peddling the same trash next week, eh. But we've got your number now.
The sheriff of Pina county is an idiot! He should be fired! He knew about death threats made against Gifford's and did NOTHING to protect her! He knew about death threats by the shooter and did NOTHING! And you (the left) continue to demonize Palin and blame her without a single shred of evidence! The sheriff admitted on national TV that he had NO EVIDENCE to support his claims and that they were merely his opinions!
You base your opinion of this sherriff on what? this man was front and center as this situation developed and you know for a fact that you know more about what happened there than he does, right? No he says something you and Fox news disgree with and that is what makes him an idiot. It is becoming obvious that you would know the truth if it snuck up and tapped you on the shoulder with cross hairs painted across it. Just a reminder, there are 6 big lies broadcast by fox this year awaiting your attempts to prove them correct. You might have forgotten them but don't worry, I'll keep reminding you of your inability to support your claims.
She makes her observations based on the conduct of an elected official.
You see, Sheriffs are elected not hired.
This incompetent boob has been giving the defense a case in his attempt to blame people who were not even in Arizona at the time.
Would you like to bet as to what party the Sheriff belongs to?And I assume that means if he is a Democrat, he's lying if his lips are moving, right? I assume that you feel anyone who belongs to a political party should support that party in areas that they disagree with. This police officer states what the contions in his city are and were proir to a crime being committed. By doing so he may have saved additional lives from others who of the same mind. I guess that means you would prefer more people to die than something be done to prevent it if that action harms your party. That makes just as much sense as your comment about the sherriffs political party and you assumption that he places party obedience to doing his job in the manner he feels is best. Should each police department now be required to clear their press releases and comments prior to reporting to the people they are supposed to serve? Of course they should when you consider the declining educational levels in this country. You may be onto something here Jim. Lets start a government agency that will tell each and every American what they should think and do in every aspect of their lives, on a daily basis. That will surely reduce the chance that anyone will ever hear the truth, which is what you seem to be wanting stiffled. Repeat after me, I will only speak the party line, so help me Fox.
1) Yes, he is a democrat. Some democrats lie. You disbelieve that?
2) Speaking "starting an agency" to control what people say, THAT is the very idea the Dems have been pushing for several days now. And you think it's brilliant posting to blame pubbies for the concept?
Pitiful...
Excerts from his own words in an interview with Megan Kelley:
MK: "Why....{what} set him off?"
SD: "...vitriolic statements made night and day on radio and TV..."
MK: "Whether there is anything you have uncovered in your investigation, so far, that suggests that the suspected killer was listening to radio or watching television and in any way inspired by what he heard or saw?"
SD: "Well, I know that there has been some contact with Gabrielle Giffords {and Jared Loughner} in the past. We have... a letter from her dated in 2007 were... she had agreed & invited him to a similar event in 2007."
"When millions of dollars are filtered into this country to buy very vitriolic ads, and they don't have to be identified, the countries they are coming from or the people who are donating them, I think it's time that we take a look at it."
"We see one party trying to block the attempts of another party to make this a better country." ,p> MK: "There was talk that this JL having threaten threaten to kill somebody, not Gabrielle Giffords, you said, but somebody. Can you share with us any details on that threat?"
SD: "Well, Megan, if you were my lawyer, you would probably tell me not to answer that question, and I have been told by lawyers not to address that issue at the moment."
MK: "Was it in the distant past or recent?"
SD: "Fairly recent
If that isn't enough for you I suggest you do some more reading and perhaps watch the rest of the interview.
1) Do you honest believe that the sheriff is so pure in heart and motives that he will not take advantage of a situation?
2) Lot's of things "wrong" the conservatives... but this isn't one of them. Why don't you also complain about the way we mistreat unicorns and then blame us for laughing at you because you are "serious" about it.
3) Your making up stuff from thin air has nothing to do with our "refusal to see" anything."Who excused the shooter and where did you get this idea lady?"
She made it up. Nobody is excusing the shooter.
Funny that some people are trying to have the sheriff re-called. They are going after him guns blazing, just because he spoke out against them!
Which just shows them for the bullies they are.
This reminds me of the case here in Mass, where that girl was being bullied, and ended up killing herself.
Those bulliers had to go to court, because everyone KNEW they were guilty of causing this girl to want to leave this world.
Did they "pull the trigger"?
No, but they dam sure made her want to do it!
Could you prove it in a court of law? Probably not.
But then again, you can't prove they WEREN'T responsible either.
Cause and effect.Or it's like my grandson here. These 2 kids keep calling him "N" day after day...what do you suppose will happen?
Giffords herself said back in March that Palin's crosshairs would have consequences....surely, she is not the only one?
So, if people knew it was trouble, and let it go....aren't they responsible at all?
How about all these town-hall meetings that got so violent, and vitriolic?
Should people really have been able to bring guns there?
As one blogger said, Republicans were just fine as long as Dems were the targets, now it's not so much fun anymore!
I just can't believe we're even discussing this!
Violent rhetoric, hatred towards gvt, guns everywhere, and no one can say that's the problem!!!!You can believe whatever you want. After all, isn't you that believes planets and plants have rights?
I mean how can anyone argue with you?You bring up a good point. Did you read the 51 pages the Campus police had on this guy? It's clear they KNEW they were dealing with an "unhinged" person. The local PD was aware of him as well. You would think they would have stopped this man before he commited this tragedy.
Stop him how? There was a time in ths country when the opinion that a person was crazy could result in being 'jailed' in a mental institution with no rights or recourse. Nobody wants to go back to that time. (I hope.)
We all wish his family had taken action to require medical intervention but it's hard/ Once a person is over 18, the authority of the family is limited.
Bottom line - until an adult either commits himself to an institution or commits a crime, you can't just haul him off and lock him in a padded cell.
1) "guns blazing"? How droll of you. Now you're contributing to the carnage if someone takes a shot at the sheriff. You should be ashamed of yourself down to your toenails.
2) Holding elected officials accountable is now "bullying"? I'd bet you are going to post in a year that the Republicans are "bullying" Obama because they are daring to run against him for president.
Don't blame Sarah or guns? (not really sure how you blame an inanimate object).
This guy was irrational, anti-education, and had a very weird way of looking at things. All he's missing is a short-lived stint as governor; the tea party adores and votes for people like Loghner.Odd, I'm not aware of the Tea Party endorsing or voting for any candidate who was a mass murderer.
Perhaps you can enlighten us....."Odd, I'm not aware of the Tea Party endorsing or voting for any candidate who was a mass murderer."
The Tea Party (so far) only encourages mass murder - they haven't actually put up a mass murderer as a candidate - yet.
"On May 10, 2010, House candidate Brad Goerhing from California's 11th District wrote on his Facebook page: "If I could issue hunting permits, I would officially declare today opening day for liberals. The season would extend through November 2 and have no limits on how many taken as we desperately need to 'thin' the herd."
And ~this~ is the very best poor Ron can do, eh.
"An attempt on you could bring the republic down." - Fox News's Glenn Beck, encouraging Sarah Palin in a letter to "look into protection for your family."
"This Jared guy's chalkboard in his basement, I'm not sure it wouldn't look that different than Glenn Beck's chalkboard." - HBO's Bill Maher, discussing the Tucson shooter.
Oh, wow, a quote from a liberal to prove your argument.
Brilliant....LOL! No it's perfect! It showes exactly how the left from the very beginning of this tragedy has accused the right of motivating the shooter without ANY evidence, and when actually there is evidence of the CONTRARY, that this shooter was a liberal! His favorite book was the communist manifesto! That's Obama's bible! LOL
You keep mis-characterizing what the left is saying. But you play fast and loose with the facts. We are not blaming Saint Sarah of Holy Victimhood for the shootings. What I am doing - I am not all liberals - is holding up two pictures. One is a graphic of the Arizona slaughter. The second is the violent rhetoric from the Tea Party. I'm asking moderates to note the similarities and make their own call about whether these people should hold positions of authority.
Did you hold up the two democrat graphics showing the same thing and ask if those people should hold power?
Yes, because we all know that Maher is the voice of reason. Perhaps Beck has a skull shrine out in his backyard also like the shooter.
Stump...
You're complete discounting that the sheriff is a highly partisan Democrat who has already in the past purposefully lied to make conservatives look bad. Why should we believe him now? And unless he looked into the brain of the shooter why should we believe he has any extra insight as to what the motive was?Well you have a good point considering how many times Fox news has been shown to lie to it's viewers and its fans quit conversations when you point this out, That's avoiding the facts. I honestly don't know that much about the political atmosphere in Tuscan. I tend to pay attention when a police officer from a town is discussing what he sees on a daily basis. What I have seen is trhat many have assumed that he is a Democrat and therefor lying. Anythign that disgrees with the party line is attacked full force. Do you actually believe that the Republican Party and the Tea Party are incapable of lying? Joining the Republican Party is not quite the same as becoming a NAZI or is it? Part of your membership package seems to be a get out of stupid free card. The absolute refusal to admit that the violent rehtoric had anything to do with this, as you say with out the facts is rediculous. The sad thing is that even if this is proven to be the case beyond a shadow of a doubt, the facts will be dismissed and ignored by the faithful flock of sheep the right has become.
1)) yet to show an actual time that Fox news "lied" eh.
2) Like the sheriff, you "don't know" but you're willing to entertain a published opinion.
3) No, we say he is lying becuase he is lying. What else are we supposed to say about someone lying.
4) Mr. Obama was very emphatic about the "violent rhetoric" having anything to do wiht it. He said, forcefully, "It did not." Perhaps he was lying, eh.
5) Speaking of facts, I have not heard you discuss the "fact" that everyone who knew this kid declared that he was a "leftist."
6) Nazis, eh. And ~that~ is the best you can do.
Well, I had hoped this tragedy might have caused some to look both inward and outward but unfortunately the usual crowd still holds to the usual distortions and evasions.
I'm so sick of conservatives.. I'm sorry, but it's just impossible to work with them.
We probably are heading for civil war. I hope I am dead before it happens.Yes, because conservatives dare defend themselves against scurrilous attacks with no base you get sick of them. Be prepared to be ill the rest of your life.
Great point Jack, I can't even believe what I am reading from some of the Liberals here, after the facts are out. Its past time to be blaming a liberal Marxists behavior ON Conservatives. That makes no sense at all. This is what I have come to expect from the worst ones, but not all. I did see one liberal saying how stupid they were all being to be fair to him.
The conservatives have far and away the majority of the guns and the people who know how and when to use them. Bring your civil war on if you really want one. But your eliminist rhetoric against conservatives is going to mark you as one of the leaders.
Dude, your dancing around a threat.....Not cool.
He's the one using eliminist rhetoric. He's the one predicting a "civil war." I'd say the threat begins and ends with him.
This is your party cj. You just can't see it.
cj...
~this~ is the poster who used the expression "guns blazing" to describe the normal actions of folk yet she wants everyone else to be the guilty ones. I don't think her credibility is very high with anyone who actually reads these posts.LMC says all kinds of crazy stuff. I've come to the conclusion that smiling while backing away slowly is the best response.
The only "point" you made was using clear, eliminist language against conservatives. And saying that a civil war was coming? YOU said that. Not anyone else. YOU brought that up. Not anyone else.
Typical hit and run liberal poster. Doesn't even have the courage to back up what he really believes.He's not coming back because you're so "fun" to deal with...a regular Bob Hope you are. SNORT
And ~this~ is the best you can do, eh. :-)
Yeah....We don't like you....BOOOOOM. Blow you away.
What did you prove? Might makes Right. Have fun with your all-the-same people.Hmmm... it was PC who was looking towards a civil war. HE said that. Not anyone else. Him. Typical, eh. Like the Dem who wished that a republican candidate for governor would be "shot" and Palin gets the blame for using harsh language?
Oh bull. Palin used crosshairs and now she's too much of a cry-baby to own up to it....Boohoo...poor me. I got caught.
You mean JUST LIKE ALL THE TARGETS that the Dems used in their advertising... that have all amazingly disappeared from their websites. And like the "bullseye" that the highly considered Dem operative, Kos, put on the congresswoman BY NAME because she was too conservative for his liberal views?
Want to discuss ~those~ for a while?Why? You think there's nothing wrong with it!!!
Nothing wrong with it? Like Clinton's "war room". Did any reasonable person think clinton was going to "war"? Or Obama reference to "bring a gun" to a political debate? Did any reasonable person think obama was actually going to bring a gun, or encouraging his supports to do so during his campaign. The very word "campaign" comes from the military with two sides at battle, trying to kill one another.
So just what am I supposed to think is "wrong" with words and imagery that have been used since the very beginning of politics by all sides, everywhere?So you think this is appropriate?
"On May 10, 2010, House candidate Brad Goerhing from California's 11th District wrote on his Facebook page: "If I could issue hunting permits, I would officially declare today opening day for liberals. The season would extend through November 2 and have no limits on how many taken as we desperately need to 'thin' the herd."
Sounds like what the Arizona shooter did. Or were republicans taken to the morgue?Is this how a candidate should speak?
On June 12, 2010, Rep. Giffords' very own Republican opponent Jesse Kelly held an event advertised locally as follows: "Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 With Jesse Kelly."
Really sweet!Tea Party Candidates do this -
On October 9, 2009, House candidate Robert Lowry of Florida held an event at a Broward County gun range during which he fired at a series of symbolic political targets, including a silhouette with his opponent Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's initials on it.
So do you think a candidate should do target practice using a picture of their opponent? (or a named silhouette)Perhaps you can take a short quiz and give us the correct answers...
WHO SAID...
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” — Not Sarah Palin
Get out there and “punish our enemies” — Not Mitch McConnell
“I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!” — Not Rush Limbaugh
“Punch back twice as hard.” – Not John Boehner
I want to know “whose ass to kick” — Not Sean Hannity
“…I’m itching for a fight.” – Yep, him again
About as appropriate at this...
"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he's running for governor of Florida. He's a millionaire and a billionaire. He's no hero. He's a damn crook. It's just we don't prosecute big crooks."
-------Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa.
Or maybe as appropriate as Montel Willims telling Republican Rep. Michele Bachman:
WILLIAMS: Michele, slit your wrist.
Go ahead… or, do us all a better thing [sic].
Move that knife up about two feet.
Start right at the collarbone.Montel Williams was/is not a candidate for office. His comments were over the top, but he's a TV celebrity out for ratings.
Mr. Kanjorski is the ONLY democrat I can find who crossed the line. The only one, and I agree he did. However two points partially mitigate his statement.
Kanjorski is up North somewhere, was not running against Rick Scott. It was a threat that should not have been made, but it was not against his opponent in the race. Second - Rick Scott is a bilionare who spent tens of millions of his fortune to get elected. He got - I will not use the word 'earned' - the money as CEO of a medical company who was fined for MASSIVE medicare fraud - his company, while Scott was CEO, received the highest fine for Medicare fraud that any company has ever received. When he was questioned about what he knew, Scott took the 5th amendment 50-something times. He stonewalled. No, I do not say he should be shot. He does belong in a nasty jail with unfriendly inmates, rats and other vermin for a long time, but he actually bought the Governor's Mansion. If you have that context, you can understand why a democrat went over the top in his comments.What makes you think that kajorwski is the ~only~ Democrat? Lack of my posting more does not make it a lack of reality.
And I love your excuse for him... the Republican ~deserved~ it. So cold.
And if I posted one... how many did YOU post... 30 or 40? 80 or 90? Or one or two. I am not responsible for every random thing that someone says in the heat of a political battle (OMG, am I allowed to phrase it like that?)
But I acknowledge that neither are you. That's the big difference between you and I (one of them, anyway). You want to make it a universal rule that everything republicans say can and forever be used against them fairly or unfairly as long as it gives what you think is a political advantage.
I think we should live and let live, and acknowledge that when we are speaking sometimes things come out worse than we would like in retrospect. And no one is going to use that as a justification to go shoot someone else.You have a problem counting to three?
I have 3 more if you like, Tea Party candidates or elected officials - not talking heads - but what would be the point?
The one quote you posted is the ONLY one from a democrat you will find in the category of real threats.
Oh yeah, you are live-and-let-live this month while the country is looking at the carnage which is equal to the rhetoric of the Tea Party. Where will the Tea Party stand on racism and election violence in the 2012 election?3 eh... of untrained, new to polictics ordinary people saying things that are scrubbed early from life long politicians. Good thing you are not a trophy hunter or you'd have dozens of little mice heads hanging on your wall.
Racism. That old charge just doesn't cut it anymore. No one pay attention when a liberal or a democrat uses that word... it has become a laugh, not a serious charge.
Election violence... just like all these good people, eh...
The unhinged Perriello/Obama supporter ripping up GOP signs, screaming “You f**king House nigger white-black bitch!”
Or the Gainsville, Fla., Democrat David P. McCally who was charged with battery after he allegedly barged into a local GOP office, assaulted a cardboard cutout of President Bush, and punched a local Republican chairman in September 2004. (Credit: Alachua County Jail.)
Maybe when Police arrested Corey Robert Cooke of Ellicott City, Md., in September 2004 and charged him with malicious destruction of property after he allegedly used a power tool to cut down a Bush-Cheney sign.
Or when Howard County, Md., police arrested Peter Lizon, left, and Stephanie Louise Lizon in October 2004 and charged them with malicious destruction of property. Mr. Lizon allegedly destroyed Bush-Cheney signs with a bayonet. His wife allegedly acted as the lookout
How about Nashville police arrested Andrew Thurman, left, and Frederick Stevenson in Septmeber 2004 and charged them with theft and unlawful weapons possession after they found guns and 71 Bush-Cheney signs in Thurman’s car. Policy say they stole the signs from Nashville, Tenn., yards because Thurman was angry at President Bush for sending his brother to Iraq.
Maybe Nathan Winkler of Tampa, Fla.,who was arrested and charged with aggravated stalking in March 2005 for allegedly terrorizing a mother who had a Bush-Cheney bumper sticker on her car. Click on the video here to listen to an excerpt of the mother’s frantic call to 911. Winkler reportedly had a handmade sign in his window that read, “Never forget Bush’s illegal oil war murdered thousands in Iraq.”
Or Florida Democrat Barry Seltzer allegedly tried to run down congresswoman Katherine Harris with his Cadillac as she was campaigning in Sarasota, Fla., in October 2004.
Or this one and his multiple buddies: Sowande Ajumoke Omokunde, son of congresswoman Gwen Moore (D-Milwaukee), was one of five paid Kerry campaign workers in Milwaukee who allegedly slashed the tires of 20 vans that had been rented by Wisconsin Republicans as part of their Election Day 2004 get-out-the-vote effort. Michael Pratt, son of former Milwaukee mayor Marvin Pratt, is another alleged tire-slasher.
Or the left's hero -- Palin-hater Jeremy Olson arrested for attempted assault and disorderly conduct after hurling two tomatoes at the Alaska governor from a second-floor mall balcony in Minnesota. He missed and hit a cop.
How about this one...Document drop: FBI charges anti-Semitic nutball with threats against GOP Rep. Cantor & family; “…you receive my bullets in your office, remember they will be placed in your heads.”How many people were killed? I couldn't keep count the post was so long.
Ahhh...poor Randy. Can't read worth a darn. Doug posted "election violence" not "people killed."
Pitiful, but that really, really is the best you can come up with, eh.Tomatoes, slashed Bush signs, tires....the carnage was great. LOL!
A conservative sneezes on someone and the libs accuse them of starting an epidemic on purpose... a liberal throws a brick through a window to shut down political debate and the libs say, "He was just having a little fun. What's the harm in that?"
Nah... I've already had five a half fist bumps over my ability to get you to reveal the hypocrisy of the dem thinking. When you post its party time for us 'cause we know how you're helping solidify the total rejection the public is giving your attempts.
We who? I didn't realize you had been elected spokesman for everyone. I'll bet they didn't either. LOL! How nice of you to volunteer yourself as know-it-all for the thread.
Seems like we have a lot of those here!
I speak for myself, unlike Jack who presumes to speak for others. And badly, I might add.
I don't have to speak great... just better than you. Which I do. :-)
Still waiting for you to give us actually evidence that I said I spoke for "everyone".
But you can't, can you. Made it up from thin air, eh.
Which is worse on Hubpages... someone who speaks "badly" or a chronic liar?Why don't you tell me, Jack? You are the only person you listen to anyway. LOLOLOL!
Yes, you're right... which is exactly why I posted a number of references from other people. I did it just to make sure that you all would never, ever read them and get a different opinion from mine.
I did succeed, didn't I? Don't tell me you actually defeated my nefarious plan to be the sole opinion in the universe (meaning "we" of course) and actually ~read~ them?You defeat yourself Jack. You need no help from others to accomplish this. But I am glad you are posting here. It reminds me why I laugh at Sarah Palin so much.
So you did the referenced material? Good.
And I am soooooo glad you are good at determining who is "defeated". That's why I was reduced to posting about cats crapping on floors and other posters eating feces. I was so darn bankrupt on ideas it was the best I could come up with.
Oh... wait... that wasn't me that posted that... my bad. Sorry.Yes, I know it wasn't as grown-up as your Humpty Dumpty post, but I think mine is very realistic. Notice I didn't say we.
"They" said it was much better than yours. Hey, this is cool. It does make me think someone is actually supporting my views by using plural pronouns to support my argument. Thanks Jack!
Ahhh... randy, randy, randy...
attempting to steal someone else's schtick just makes you a second-rater. There's the orginal (me) and the copiest (you). But I do like the idea that you think my style is so superior to yours that the only thing you can do to keep interest in your posts is to steal my style. It does my ego good.
I'll take you on as my apprentice but it's a long hard task set ahead for you.
Conservatives like "we" and "us".
I love watching them ignore questions when they haven't yet found out how they are supposed to feel.Still stuck on that disproven meme that republicans all think alike, eh. Pitiful. But everyone notices that you really have never added anything of value to the actually discussion of the thread.
Everyone?
Oh, you mean YOU have that opinion.
I keep forgetting how important you think your words sound.
Do you read them out loud while you strut around waving your arms? I kind of like imagining you doing that.
By the way, no I do not think all Republicans think alike. I think all right wing Republicans do, though.You mean you ~have~ added something of value to the topic. I must have missed it. Could either repeat it or add somethign else. Everyone is noticing a certain, shalll we use the word "bankrupty" about your past couple dozen posts or so.
You do have something to say about the topic, don't you?
Must be something in the drink that the liberal hubbers are taking in...they are all beginning to sound the same. Could be they are turning into mind number robots answering to a master out there somewhere.
You owe me a new keyboard since I snorted my hot tea out of my nose all over it reading that one. I haven't heard anything so funny since the they tood Three's Company off the air. Now that was a good show.
It makes perfect sense that you would think so, Jack. All that double entendre was so clever, wasn't it?
I bet you really thought Mr. Roper was a hoot.
I have to go to bed. Feel free to stick around and rant. It looks lime you have the stage to yourself for now.
When you actually read me "declare" myself as a spokesperson for "everyone" then jump right up and comment instead of making it up from thin air.
But the Dear Readers see that this is the best you can do. The only way you can attempt a point is to twist words. That's okay with me because it really does reveal the standard operator method of liberals when they are posting. People see it and understand quite well.
Perhaps you can show us where in your lexicon that "we = everyone in the world"? Or even "we = every poster on Hubpages"? I'll settle for that one.
If you can, that is.Then who was the "we" I quoted from your post, Jack? Or was that an empirical "we" you were using? Who were you speaking for? I notice you neglected to explain in your first response. OR perhaps I could use your MO and childishly accuse you of reading comprehension problems. I'll bet you're a legend in your own mind, correct? LOL!
1), Ya know, you might have asked that question first, eh. But noooooo...
2) You were the one having trouble reading "we" and mistaking it for "everyone in the universe" and yet you still have the lack of reality enough to think about accusing ~others~ of reading comprehension. Can you say "irony"? :-) Do you run red lights too, and blame it on other people?
3) If you want to believe that it is only a handful of people reading this, that is up to you. Nothing truely disappears from the 'net and readers for years to come will be seeing your posts in all their glory.Afraid to answer, huh? That's all right, go ahead and pretend you are speaking for others if it helps you convince yourself!
Well, son, I did... in point 3). But we are still dealing with your reading comprehension problems, eh. I can understand why you're confused.
Oh, they gave you permission to speak for them? I missed that I guess. Go ahead and say "we" all you want to then.
But just remember, it makes no difference how many people say BS ain't BS, it still is.
But carry on with your lecture, you'll enjoy it.Yes,they did,and yes, you did. And speaking of crap, did you clean up from your cat yet?
But it's really, really funny how, since you all had your head handing to you about the real subject of the original post, you have decided that I was easier game. Can't handle the topic so you want to make it about me, ehNo, I didn't have to clean it up, Jack decided to finish it off to get the bad taste out of his mouth.
And the head handed to us was yours. I see you haven't missed it at all.And ~this~ really is the best you can do,eh. :-)
Everywhere?
Are you really sure about that because we never see such imagery nor hear such rhetoric.Well, John, if you want to tell us you've never heard of the Clinton War Room or even the word "campaign" that is up to you. I wouldn't brag about in public, though, if I were you.
Well no, I've never heard of the Clinton War room, but I was thinking more of the rhetoric and imagery. All this talk of shooting opponents, all this talk of re-arming and reloading is not universal and just does not occur everywhere. Or images of targets and cross-hairs, we don't see them everywhere either.
Remember the US is not the whole world, it's not even the whole of these forums.
No--he can just see the future...as can a lot of us. It's depressing. Have fun Mein Herr.
Hmmm.... another civil war looker-forwarder too.
And isn't so awkward to think that our poster and Hitler have so much in common about gun control and keeping guns away from ordinary folk... but yet she tries to tie us into him when it's so obvious that we would like nothing better than for everyone to have the freedom of choice as to make up their own mind about guns.I have never said anything about gun control. Not ever. Not even once. Not even in my sleep. Not even in my mothers womb. Not even as a twinkle in my fathers eye.
You are making things up. tisk tiskI fully support the right to keep and bear arms. I do not own any weapons myself, but I am glad that my neighbors do. Many liberals have similar opinions.
.Okay... so just where do you stand on gun control. You've got the floor...
Guns and Palin shouldn't be blame. Guns don't kill and what Palin did was tame in comparison to what has been said by too many people. We should think about what we say to millons of people about millons of people and their leaders. Guns and Palin smokes up the mirror. It's just an illusion.
I have seen a huge amount of blogs, forum posts, and articles in certain papers telling the left to stop blaming Palin for the shooting, and yet I have barely seen anyone, right or left, blame Palin for the shooting, especially not in any seriousness.
*Edit* Retract this statement, it appears that a wide variety of internet people have jumped onteh political agenda.Well, look who did:
"We speak with Tucson shooting survivor Eric Fuller. A 63-year-old disabled veteran, Fuller had campaigned for Arizona Democrat Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in her reelection campaign and was at the supermarket in Tucson on Saturday to meet with her. He was shot in the knee and also wounded in the back. "It looks like Palin, Beck, Sharron Angle and the rest got their first target," Fuller says. "Their wish for Second Amendment activism has been fulfilled."
This is from Democracy Now, Jan 14,2011. You can watch the video.Battle lines are being drawn. Instead of North and South, now it's Left and Right. History is repeating itself. Watch.
If not Palin and guns, can we blame Fox and Beck? Seems everyone usually focuses on the weed that was involved.
The focus should be on toxic rhetoric, nothing or nobody else. That's the problem. If the shooter could be identified with the left or the right the problem would still be Toxic Rhetoric. At this point the shooter stands alone.
At this point the shooter stands as a seriously disturbed, pot-addicted, skull-worshiping young man who was seeing and living nightmares in his head.
If you want to keep your public discourse at such a level that you do nothing to set a person such as this off that is fine... but don't expect everyone else to cater to the most crazy of the crazy.Jack: What are you saying??? Do that again in other words.
Okay junko... let me see if I can put this into an analogy... of course, like all analogies the fit isn't perfect but we'll give it a whirl...
Let's say that I am overweight. Not just fat... but obese. I love to eat. If food is anywhere around me it is going to get eaten.
Now, there are lots of reasons why this is a bad idea for me. It affects my health, it causes problems for people who need to sit next to me on airplanes, and it may even cost society extra money for the extra health care I need being so obese.
It is not a good idea for me to be obese.
So I am at a Chinese buffet... a perfect place for me to eat, eh. And there are five spring rolls left. It's getting close to the end of the night so they are not going to be coming out with any more egg rolls. I grab all five egg rolls for myself. It's not really a socially acceptable thing to do, but I do it because I like to eat.
What I didn't know is that over there in the corner is a man who was once married to a Chinese girl and she always fixed his favorite food, spring rolls. Since she left him for a Hatian pig farmer he has slipped a cog and has gotten very mentally unstable, always obsessing about spring rolls and how he cannot find a good one to eat anymore. He's heard that they have the best spring rolls in the city at this restaruant and he's come to eat one.
Well, MY taking all five spring rolls pushes him over the edge. Could I have taken four and left one...l or three and two. Of course. But I didn't. What I did do was perhaps crass, crude, unthinking and even unethical.
But when he snaps, pulls out a samauria sword and starts in cutting people up in the restaurant was it actually, truely, MY fault? Do you want to adjust YOUR eating habits for fear that someone, somewhere may snap over something that you might have done?
So the local politicians get involved. And they pass a rule that no one can ever take the last piece of anything at a buffet "just in case." Every single person who goes to a buffet now has their behaviour modified by the past actions of a crazy person who was what is called a "one off." A one of a kind that will probably never be seen again.
But because we now have politics involved we are going to live with his legacy long after he is dead. Restaurants wind up throwing away food that someone could have eaten, people go hungry because no one is allowed to take that last piece, and BTW, of course, no one is fat anymore. Or crazy. Yeah. Right.
But it doesn't end there. Oh no...
Because my Alledged Bad Behaviour is supposedly the root cause of this whole tragedy, and that behaviour is rooted in my weight, the politicians and society feel perfectly justified in passing laws forbidding any overweight people. And as they see folk everywhere slimming down to avoid being put into jail someone comes up wiht the idea that they can do a little bit better for society. So new laws are passed that forbid eating more that 3 oz. of red meat a day. It's for the children, you know. And then a law is passed that says mandatory chicken four days a week, and vegetariion the other three days. And then a law is passed...
And that is the whole situation in food talk.
This shooter was a nut case. The political language may or may not be fair, civilized, honest, or what anyone would want. Or even a "good idea." But that has NOTHING to do with the fact this guy was a nutcase.
Attacking the language used in politics because of this incident and demanding a change is no different than demanding that I lose weight to prevent anymore restaurant samauri sword attacks.
And the same as suddenly the food police began more and more encroachment upon people's diets there are those outthere who want to use this for their own gain in determining what is acceptable political talk and what isn't.
It may seem "reasonable" in the beginning but you can bet the mortgage that before it is finished there will be "good reasons" why ANY disagreement at all with what the liberals want to push will be declared "off limits" to any discussion. After all, what they want is so good for us, and so necessary, that any diagreement must be done purely for hatred and stupidity. So why not shut it up?I am not allowed to promote my own hubpages by giving a url but if you want to google Jack burton sarah palin pro choice you'll find out just how pro choice both palin and I am.
Thanks Jack: I appreiate you having the time and patience you took to explain what you were talking about . I enjoyed your story about the big man who liked to eat out. Lol. I was talking about toxic rhetoric. Jack you and I disagree politically I sense. We are prime examples of non-toxic rhetoric. I must say, that I believe that that big man is a danger to himself and society.
Under the circumstances and as I noted, there are dozens of good reasons why someone in that overweight position should change. But it's not my job or the government's responsibility to MAKE him.
And while there may be good reasons to not indirectly insinuate that someone should remove a political opponent thru means that could be interpreted to include violence the moment we let the government get involved, or even partisans, then we have lost some freedom as a nation.
- Onusonusposted 13 years ago
0To everyone who is calling for stricter gun laws in light of the tragedy in Tucson, may I offer this little tidbit: If guns kill people, then pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk, and spoons make people fat. Remember: Hold the person accountable for their actions, not the means they chose to utilize!!!
Just curious, I've seen this exact phrase parroted by about a dozen right-wingers in various forums today.
Who supplied the line: Beck, Limbaugh?
Fess up.Typical... much more fascinated with finding a villain that in actually confronting the truth of what was posted. :-)
Got to be a conservative master mind-controller out there somewhere.You don't even know do you?
Who said it first?Fascinating how obsessed you've become with this. Is this a recent development or have you had it for a while?
He's simply pointing out how everyone of you marches in lockstep, parroting the words of your masters.
Really... so in YOUR world people using the same phrase (which has not in any way been shown to be untruthful or wrong) is identical to "marching in lockstep, [and] parroting the words of your masters"
What a small, little, cramped fantasy world you live it.Actually, the problem for liberals is that we do NOT all think alike. We have good numbers,; we just can't agree on much.
For example, I'm against gun control and ambivalent about abortion rights. I have firm beliefs about the necessity of a strong central government, but, like many conservatives, I also fear the abuse that can stem from that. When I get together with my liberal friends, we argue about everything. Liberals hardly ever quote authority: we don't believe in it.
Unlike you, I do not march in lockstep with what anyone says. I think for myself, as most liberals do. Most conservatives do not: you come to consensus easily and adopt the party line for the greater good.
I'm not saying all of you are unthinking sheeples blindly following your masters necessarily - I think for many of you it is a reasoned and conscious decision to support certain policies because you realize the power of the masses and you are willing to subjugate your individuality for a greater purpose. Often this comes from strong religious groundings, deep patriotism and a real need for order and structure.
In may ways, the conservative viewpoint makes sense: if we could get everyone to play along, we'd have a better world. Well, a very homogenized world, but safer, more productive, less unpredictable.
Unfortunately, a lot of us just aren't wired that way. We think for ourselves. Many of us are not religious and don't really believe in patriotism. We don't like the predictable order and structure that comforts you so. We think nothing is so sacred that it cannot be questioned.
And that, simple though it is, is why we cannot get along and why, given their druthers, people holding to the extremes of conservatism see liberals as very dangerous."Unlike you, I do not march in lockstep with what anyone says. I think for myself, as most liberals do. Most conservatives do not: you come to consensus easily and adopt the party line for the greater good."
And ~this~ is why there is little hope for agreement, Dear Readers. When one side such as pc lives in such a fantasy world to actually believe and post something such as this then where is the hope of communication? I'd have better luck dialogging with a watermelon.That is pretty much the reply I I expected from you, Jack.
Glad to be of service...I always enjoy an opportunity to point out the truth about reality to the Dear Readers.
Yes, Jack. Your reality. The reality of group-think.
This is why I so strongly love the 1st Amendment... it makes it so easy to spot the fools amoung us. PC accuses republicans and conservatives of "group think" and to him this is "reality."
Ten seconds on google shows everyone the "real reality".
Headline links on the very first page from the past few weeks when key wording republican and civil war...
A Republican civil war? | PoconoRecord.com
KUHNER: The coming Republican civil war - Washington Times
Kimberley Strassel: The Real Republican Civil War - WSJ.com
Republican civil war breaks out behind John McCain - Times Online
Democrats pray for Republican civil war | Richard Adams
NationalJournal.com - The Looming Republican Civil War
Google republicans divided and these pop up...
Republicans Divided on Michelle Obama's Anti-Obesity Campaign
Republicans divided over strategy
Health Care Reform Splits GOP: Republicans Divided
Senate Republicans divided on ratification of START accord
Republicans Divided in Preferences for Democratic Nominee
Republicans divided on the importance of an agenda for midterm
Republicans divided on what should replace Obama's health care
I think it is very clear that my accusation of pc living in a fantasy world is more than true. And, at the very least, he should not give up his day job to become a political pundit.
Trouble is it's your truth and reality which is not shared by everybody else.
Errr... I thought I said I was on google. Did you mistake that for bing?
And I couldn't find any thing on google about it being your view of reality and truth and therefore universally agreed with!
Well, son, if you typed into google "jack burton's view of the universe" you probably would not find anything. Hmmmm... I might give that a try just to see what it lists.
Well, I have to agree with you... I typed in "jack burton's view of the universe" and got some pretty good quotes from the other Jack Burton but it didn't give my universal truths and applications.
Well, I googled most of PCs post and did not find any comment about it on google and certainly nothing that looked a bit like disagreement.
Sigh... it is so much more fun with people who can read.
pc said conservatives and republicans were guilty of "group think." He further said how we all just thought the same because we were made that way. Now, I am too lazy to go back and copy his text word for word... but that is essentially it.
Google showed very clearly that republicans have deep divisions amoung them and there is no "group think". To the point where the divisions could even be described in the term "civil war."
That's pretty darn easy to understand and the concept that you are having trouble with it implies a certain willful blindness and misunderstanding on your part."There's glory for you!"
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'
"
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,' " Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is, " said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty. "which is to be master—that's all."
Wow, PQ- that was a very profound post, and I agree with most of it. I have several Democratic pals, and what I don't understand about their thinking is that several of them will admit that they'll always vote D, no matter who the candidate is. Two of them, in fact, have said, "I'd vote for a jackass if it had a D after it." I don't really understand that. I guess I vote more for the individual. I usually vote R, but I have voted for numerous Democrats, including those running for POTUS and national office.
It's almost traditional in the UK to vote as your parents voted irrespective of the candidates qualities and yes that applies just as much, if not more to the right wing.
I once lived next door to an old lady, disabled, she was telling me one day how much she dreaded the town council being taken over by the left wing labour party as she would no longer get all the help that she received off the present Conservative admin.
I hadn't the heart to tell her that the only reason she did so well off the council was because it had been under Labour control for the last ten years.
Though in her 70s she voted conservative because her father had told her to.Here at the over 55 community, I hear a lot of "my son tells me who to vote for"
My parents were what are called "yellow dog" democrats. If a yellow dog was on the ballot as a democrat they would vote for it. The term goes back 150 years or so.
Our area was heavily democrat. Heavily. Our representative died in office after 40 years and the citizens voted him back in three more terms. A dead democrat was better than a live republican.
On my 18th birthday I went to the town hall and registered republican. Before I left the parking lot the town clerk was on the phone to my mother telling her what I did. I think my parents would have been less disgraced before the good folk of the town than if I had chosen to rob a bank and rape the mayor's daughter that day. :-)Jack is unaware how the parties switched positions, isn't he?
Isn't that funny?Isn't is funny that yellow dog democrat is still used today but no one has ever heard of a yellow dog republican.
Funny how that works. Reality bites but your fantasy world must be a joy to live in you spend so much time there.
Yes, a lot if us feel that way. I like some Republican candidates, but I detest the party for its pandering to the religious right.
Of course some Dems do the same thing, which makes it hard at times. My "No Republicans" stance is my effort to send a message that they need to get away from extremists. If the Dems were buttering up crazed left wingers, I would be really stuck!
It's typical lefty protocal to ignore the statement of fact and go right in for the standard character assasination attempts. The lefty agenda is all about hate.
-Global warming is about hating industry and industrialists
-Healthcare is about sticking it to rich white people
-Atheism is about hating Christianity
-Gay rights are about sticking it to heterosexual two parent families and core values
-Abortions should be the right of a woman beause its not really a baby
-Universal Health care should be a law because some people do not have itAhahaha!!
Earth to Onusonus!! Earth to Onusonus!!
Major malfunction.... rapidly approaching planet Dis-engage From. Reality sought quick before mind evaporates completely!!
Please refrain from pragmatic thinking. This is the Hubpages forums, we don't allow that.
Sure, no possible reason for stricter gun control!
Why not give guns to all mentally unbalanced people in America?
And since they're unbalanced, they probably should have semi-automatics as those are so much easier to shoot and require less reloading. Perfect weapon for those whose intent is going on a shooting spree.
But wait! Why stop there?
Let's make sure they can conceal their weapons without needing a permit.
That way, when they're out stalking the object of their deluded fantasy, they'll be able to get up close and personal without anyone in the crowd knowing they're packing.
Bloody (no pun intended, honest brilliant!!
Hip, hip, hooray for the Second Amendment.Actually, Jack, that is nowhere near the best I can do.
I save my best for people who deserve it.We could tell it wasn't your best... or your second best... or third... or fourth...
Probably the best words to describe it are "inane, thoughtless, and without merit". But it makes you a very worthy representative for liberals and democrats. And it holds up the standards by which we have come to expect. So all in all... good job.Jack, if you think MM's post is 'inane,' etc, well, let's see you take it apart and show us why her position and the arguments supporting it are flawed.
'Cos when you just say stuff like, "~that's~ the best you can do, eh?" and "[Your post was] inane, thoughtless, and without merit," well, that's not very convincing. It's basically the rhetorical equivalent of saying, "Is not!"
You're not arguing, you're just contradicting.Not contradicting... just pointing out to the Dear Readers the bankruptcy of her postings. Contrary to belief not every post needs to be "answered".
She's the hubpages equivalent to a "flat earther." There is no need for me to do anything other than mock her when she posts such dribble."just pointing out to the Dear Readers the bankruptcy of her postings."
But with no logical or evidential support of your assessment.
It's as if a movie critic merely said, "This movie is bad. Don't go see it."
Okay, but why is it bad? Is it poorly directed? Poorly acted? Are the costumes somehow inappropriate or anachronistic? Is the story not believable?
But you basically just say: "MM is wrong, and her post is silly."
Saying something is so doesn't convince people who don't already agree with you.
"There is no need for me to do anything other than mock her when she posts such dribble."
Heh, yeah there is, if you expect to convince anybody of anything.1) You want to figure out a way to "logically" answer:
"Why not give guns to all mentally unbalanced people in America?
And since they're unbalanced, they probably should have semi-automatics as those are so much easier to shoot and require less reloading. Perfect weapon for those whose intent is going on a shooting spree."
...then go for it. I'd rather just snicker about it like the other Dear Readers.
2) If you think she's so convincing when she posts that I have to persuade the readers otherwise I think you have a pretty low opinion of those same readers.
3) She herself admitted that it was not a very good effort and she didn't even try. I am not sure in what universe that obligates me to respond.Your sarcasm filter appears to be broken...
"I am not sure in what universe that obligates me to respond."
You're not obligated to respond, but you did. You just didn't respond very well.
PS: Is not, is not, infinity!
I never said it wasn't sarcasm i my original post... I just said it was the best she could do...
And my "response" is dictated by what I see best... not how others would want me to comment.
- Pezzyposted 13 years ago0
To own a gun for hunting is one thing, but to have a gun with the ability to hold a magazine of 30 or more is another. Guns like these should not be sold.
Randy, Jack does speak for others!
He speaks for selfish people who go to Chinese buffets and grab all the egg rolls. ALL the egg rolls! When he could (by his own admission) have taken only four and left one, or taken three and left two.
Typical greedy Republican. Take it all and leave nothing for the poor guy sitting in the corner
!!!Why don't they just grow up!
Sarah--you should admit you were wrong and stop your divisive ways...because you DO act like Democrats are beneath your feet. Even the president!
The Tea-Party as a whole, needs to realize that there are a WHOLE lot of people here besides them!
Do you realize that if Palin had just said, "Those cross-hairs were a big mistake, never again"....or something like that....voila! All this agitating would have been over!
But, they have this baby mentality!
Here is Russsshhhhh, after Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) said about Giffords,“She is the vision of hope for this country right now. She embodies everything that President Obama was trying to say that we have to be better than we are, that we all have to conduct ourselves better than we do.”
LIMBAUGH: What I don’t like about this is the assumption that we are no good! The premise that we are no good! Yes that’s true. We really stink. We have to work a lot harder to become better people. We are going to really have to work harder to become better than we are. Who are they to castigate all the rest of us?! If they want to catagorize some of us as not good enough, fine and dandy! But who are they? Why do we have to listen to these people tell us we’re not as good as we can be? What message are we supposed to hear here? What’s the message that we have to – we’re all ready for improvement? The GOP is supposed to capitulate? That’s how we get along with everybody?
That is how my 4 year old acts.
Who said you were no good?
Who said you need to capitulate?
Grow up and join the human race! United States, not YOUR states.1) It's pretty "childish" to think that one party gets to promote it's agenda without anyone being able to say otherwise. That's downright undemocratice... but expected.
2) The tea party battles it out in elections as the constitution calls for. The winner gets the office. Do you dispute this as a proper way to run a government for the people, and by the people.
3) Do you believe all the democrat ads that featured targets on the variouis states were "mistakes"? If so, why have you not called on the various dems who did it to admit a mistake.
4) I am sure your four your old acts that way. You just would rather pubblies roll over when the dems get upset. The idea that a pubbie actually defends himself, or the party, or the ideas, just grates on you, doesn't it.
5) The tea party is the one involved in politics and running for office. YOU are the one who wants to shut them up when they disagree with you. Which represents the "united states" the best?Jack: The Republicans can and will promote their adjenda now. Point one is mute. Point two is the democratic way. Point three, no I don't believe it was a mistake. I don't believe guns, Palin, or targets are as dangerous as Toxic Rhetoric. I didn't get the point of point four. Point five, I say they both represent the United States.
out of left field, but.....
American Independence Party. Palin's husband used to belong. Far-right radicals. Secessionists. I remember because it was discussed on my local blog way in the beginning of Palin's sudden appearance.
It was real ugly...the founder said he "would not be buried under this flag"...stuff like that. Real hatred of THIS America....Freedom from "Liberalism" is in their platform.
Rick Perry--Tea-Party and secessionist....
Maybe that is what they are after...their own separate state, or states within America?And here was a map done by the liberals after the 2004 elections...
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/funn … usland.htmUmmmm, this is 2011. Back to the future if you don't mind. If you keep needing the past to defend the present, you better just pack it up!!!
These people want their own country....not a shared prosperity, but an OverLordship. IMO.
As a Brit can I say the idea of being able to just buy a gun fascinating. We have our fair share of nutters over here and sometimes they get guns and kill people. Mainly in Iraq or Northern Ireland of course, but sometimes in places like Little Whittering too.
A plus point of relaxing our laws would be I could stop next door's cat crapping on my lawn I suppose.
I tried to make a serious point here, but you wouldn't listen anyway. Not unless I pointed a gun at your head.Especially if that cat is a panther eating your child or pet. Not so impossible where I live! Or you could run out there and yell "scat" if you would prefer. Hmmm, choices, choices!
- ...now you know he's talkin' about a 'puuddy cat'...not a panther!...big ones where i am too....scat cat wouldn't do it...wouldn't have the chance to say 'scat'....or even see it comin'...
Ok guys. It's different in England. But some of those puddy cats you still wouldn't want to mess with them. Could get a nasty scratch. Nanny would need to put a plaster on.
What am I doing? Try this...
yeah, spit, reckon them thar cats are purdy damn big , I reckon. Sniff, I ain't going holler out the porch no more, just line 'em up with my Palinomatic and ka-boom - no more pussy for me.It may just be your personality causing your lack!
The only people still talking about this are right wing blogs the rest of us have move on.
errr... YOU are posting about it. Rightwing, I assume?
Liberal NYT columnist blasts Left for “witch hunt” after Tucson shooting
It’s not Ross Douthat or David Brooks, either, but Charles Blow — the same writer who once called black Tea Party activists a “political minstrel show.” Blow admits that the temptation to lay the blame for the shootings in Tucson on the Right was strong, but that in doing so, and in insisting on sticking with the attacks after all the evidence showed that the shooter was an apolitical lunatic, the Left have adopted an “any means necessary” approach that will destroy their credibility
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/15/n … -shooting/He's entitled to his own opinion....as we all are. He's not right though.....I AM!!! I AM THAT I AM.
You is that you is. He be that he be. She was that she was.
No one is allowed to hold all the answers......."aint that America...for you and me?"I read this is the New York Times, and I thought Blow expressed my own feelings on the issue.
Awwwww.... really, really bad news for those posters here who suffer from Palin Derangement Syndrome.
"A new national study among 1,437 self-reported Democrats, Republicans and Independents revealed that Americans indicated that Sarah Palin was more sincere and believable after viewing her speech in response to the shootings in Tucson."
http://mediacurves.com/Politics/SarahPa … /Index.cfmOh, I've got that! It's even worse Doctor.....I'm sick from the whole movement!!!
Yesterday morning, UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau e-mailed the campus community with regard to the horrendous mass shooting in Arizona that killed a federal judge, a 9-year-old girl, and several others while gravely injuring Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the apparent target of the attack.
Chancellor Birgeneau's e-mail is very ill-considered for a variety of reasons.
----Adam Kissel, Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-kiss … 07616.htmlMr. Burton,
You might find people more receptive to your ideas if
a) You did not express them in such a condescending manner. Perhaps you really do look down upon the rest of us, but referring to fellow hubbers as "Dear Readers" and "son" immediately sets your "dear" readers' teeth on edge.
It is also questionable that John Holden is sufficiently younger than you to be called "son." That is demeaning, and either you are well aware and do it on purpose or you are unaware, in which case I am pointing it out.
b) You took the time to spell correctly. Unless, of course, you are among those anti-elitists who eschew proper English in their communication.
No need to "refudiate" with your standard "inane argument" and "Is that the best you can do?" posts.
This is not an argument. It's an observation.
Your not-so-dear friend,
Mighty Mom the flat eartherSorry, Mom... I don't take lessons in deportment from people who post...
"Why not give guns to all mentally unbalanced people in America?
And since they're unbalanced, they probably should have semi-automatics as those are so much easier to shoot and require less reloading. Perfect weapon for those whose intent is going on a shooting spree."
And, like the Great Carnac, Ican predict things... such as your claiming that somehow, somewhere in this emotional rant you were "just kidding" or using "sarcasm."
So go ahead and claim it. But then you're in the position of trying to claim a particular style of posting while telling others how they should post.
And I am glad you've also decided to take on the roll of spelling police. When posters start in focusing in on that it's pretty much clear that they have very little of value to contribute.
You know, when Randy Godwin said who is "we"?, I think he was on to something...
I notice this on my local blog too.
Whenever a heated disscusion comes up, they send in all the heavy hitters.
And I SWEAR, I know this Reality Bites from somewhere....just seems so familiar....
Plus, she left me a real nasty response to a hub...reminiscent of the nasty responses I get all the time at home
Oh, it warms the cockles!
And Jim! When he said, "I thought you were leaving."
Same exact thing as home. And the one at home once said, "So, who is lovemychris?"
I think you've been inundated by Righty's from Cape Cod!!
Even though Jim was here first...as tk sensei?
Well, just an intuitive feeling, but I do think there is a "WE", and I do think they monitor blogs to "get the word out".
If I'm lyin, I'm dyin!lovemychris: Do you think they are working together to create a weapon of mass distraction?
No, but I do notice that certain of the vilest things start popping up when "one of their own" is under attack.
That's all.
And, I find it interesting that investigators saw the same kind of threats used by Loughner and also by someone who was threatening another Democratic politician in California.
And that this other Democrat was threatened on behalf of Sarah Palin.--he was asking too many questions.
Same as here. When people state the obvious--that violent gun imagery and talk pounded into mass consciousness-or even subtly- will ultimately lead to violence with guns.--
All of a sudden, the conversation changes.
To pity for palin.
To what the bad, bad Democrats have done.
To attacks on fellow Hubbers.
Anything but admit the simple truth, and hold the perpetrators accountable.
It's very interesting, and I see it on my local blog as well. Certain people are silent, until they are needed for attack.There is something to what you are saying. I sometime feel boycotted on these hub pages. I feel that my hubs are blocked.
Careful....now you are in "crazy" territory.
It's ok to question......just not too much.
This is the result of what David Icke said years ago: The powers that be do not need to police us....we will do it to each other.
Heres' the thinking I like, it's John Lennon: I believe anything until it's proven otherwise.
It's funny how much our minds have closed since the 60's.
In other words...liberals should have their own hubs where conservatives and others are not allowed to post rebuttals to the obviously wrong info.
Why don't you suggest it to the PTB and see if the idea will fly...Jack: I think Chris is right about crazy territory. It's not what you know, but what you can prove. What you Think?
What todays Talking Points tell him to think?
That's my uncharitable guess.
All we ever need to do is switch on Fox News to see what these folks will be saying in the forums. Some of them obviously even write it down so they don't make any mistake when the opportunity comes to parrot it back.
As I said before, I love it when they accidentally find themselves in the midst of a subject they have not yet heard Official Opinion on. Their reluctance to commit to any opinion is just so laughable. They are usually smart enough to stay out until they can do some research, but not always.And ~this~ is really the best that pc can do, eh. Accuse others of having no real opinion.
Pitiful.You do know that you repeat this silly mantra far too often?
Jack you don't want to talk to me? I ask for your opinion. I respect your opinion. Whats up with That???
Junko... I think you need to go back and re-read my answer to you. It appears you may have crossed posted on the wrong post.
It happens.
You'll have to reword that for me to know exactly what you are getting at. I'll answer if I can, but I am not really sure where you are going with it.
I'm not answering for junko, but here's what I think:
If I say that the violent rhetoric and images lead to the actual committing of violent acts, some people say "Oh, don't be stupid, you are crazy for thinking that."
Well, why is that crazy? Can you prove that those words and images didn't contribute to the actions?
To me it's obvious that they did. Obvious to me as it is stupid to you!
And if they are completely innocent, then why did people get so upset with the song "Cop Killer"?
Why were there demonstrations, and ultimately, legal actions taken against rap music?
They were held to be responsible. Now they must put warning labels on albums.
I just read a great article on the difference between blame and responsibility.
People are not so much putting blame on Palin, Bachmann, Angle, etc., but asking them to accept responsibility for the words and images they put into the political atmosphere...and to stop doing it!
To me it is obvious as night and day.
People like you are saying they have no responsibility whatsoever.
.......I think you are the crazy one.They HAVE to reject this.
Only about 30% of the country shares their views. That's powerful when everyone else is fractured and unable to agree, but when big crap like this happens, they see that most of us will unite against them, so they dig in their heels hard.
It's sad, because in their hearts they know it is wrong. But they can't give in.Let me give what is a cite instead of just pulling numbers out of thin air...
"Conservatives Now Outnumber Liberals in All 50 States, Says Gallup Poll"
http://www.cnsnews.com/node/52602Oh, I was so wrong. The poll says 31 percent and I said 30.
Gee, you got me, Jack!Are you really that stupid that you cannot add 31 percent "conservative" and 9 percent "very conservative" and come up with 40 percent conservative people.
Of course you are.
Unless you actually believe that people who list themselves as "very conservative" really are not conservative at all.
BTW, what were those "liberal" numbers again? 16 and 5 I think it said.Habee is part of that 9%, Jack and probably dislikes your opinions almost as much as I do.
That's impossible. YOU are the one who is so darn sure that conservatives all "group think." You've made that charge many times. (without evidence, of course, but that is beside the point).
NOW you attempt to make a point that conservatives disagree with one another? Sorry, you've already shot your wad on that one.
(I love liberals. Give them five posts in a row and they'll contradict themselves at least four times. It's from having no real base.)The conservatives who are the problem are not those like Habee.
Your failure to understand any of this is annoying.What I find annoying is the left's failure to see that their positions are immoral, evil, unnatural, and wrong!
Oh well, if you say so they must be, after all being on the right means that everybody else is wrong doesn't it?
Thank you for admitting that you were wrong and not all conservatives are "group thinkers" like you've been trying to unsuccessfully claim. I know that you're eating humble pie is difficult but you've been a mensch about it.
Too funny.
If we had blocking filters here, you'd be in mine already.
I wish there were less than 31% of you - it's a failure of our educational systems, I believe - but I think that your numbers will be shrinking after this horror.No doubt in my mind that you would like to cut off any conservative thought impacting on your world view. No doubt.
Are you a mind reader in addition to your other talents?
I can always hope that the uninformed and uneducated will improve themselves, yes.
I know that there will always be some who never will, but I think the brighter ones will be rejecting the hard core soon. Yes, they'll still be conservatives, but they won't be Tea Party/Palin conservatives.
There's nothing wrong with a little conservative thought. I even LIKED some of the things George Bush did - well, until the war.
I can take "normal" conservatives. We may not always agree, but they can be reasonable.LOL OMG! The arrogance of the left still on display! Of course only people that agree with your views are "educated", only liberals are smart enough to KNOW what's right! LOL!
And you offer this without even the slightest bit of sarcasm...you actually BELIEVE it and see NOTHING wrong with it!!! LOL!Not at all. We have very different opinions about many things.
But they are reasonable, intelligent people who do understand my point of view, just as I understand theirs.
Of course that requires a willingness to listen, Jack.I understand your "point of view" quite well. You're just whiny because I don't agree with it.
Jack, I don't care about you at all unless and until your numbers grow beyond 31%. The only reason ANY of us bother to respond to you and the other far right people is that we hope to let the ones with more sense see the errors of their ways.
We know there is little hope for you to change your thinking. Think of yourself as a talking prop we use to help influence others.LOL There's that left wing arrogance again! The error of way's is the thinking of the left, the oppressors, en-slavers, the socialists. No one with any sense is going to agree with that kind of thinking no matter how many times you claim to know what's best for the rest of us!
I'm not a socialist.
Nor do I profess to know what's best for you. My view, and the view of every liberal I know, is to let you live your live in any way you please as long as you afford the same rights to everyone else.
The only "control" we want is whatever is minimally necessary to prevent you from enforcing your view of proper behavior and thought on others. We want to prevent you from damaging our shared environment, poisoning or adulterating our food, abusing those of different religions or sexual preference and so on.
THOSE are our goals.Lady love has already stated that she does not believe in the same rights for everybody,mob rule she called it.
LOL Like the food safety bill! Why can't I decide for myself what's safe for me to eat? Do I really need Monsanto and the FDA to tell me?
"As the bill is written, the FDA must consult with “farmer representatives” to publish guides for good practice. The farmer representatives will no doubt include Monsanto, the biotech company standing behind the bill that stands to benefit from it the most. The FDA is intimately linked with Monsanto – Michael Taylor, a lawyer who volleys between an appointed post at the FDA and employment by Monsanto, pushed through the concept of “substantial equivalence”, which opened the doors for Monsanto to flood the market with unlabeled Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s). In July 2009, the Obama Administration appointed Taylor “Food & Drug Czar” as head of the FDA. This move ensures Monsanto’s influence of its own regulation. The fox now has the keys to the hen house.
S510 grants the FDA and in turn, Monsanto, unbridled power to make all of their own rules for governing food going forward:"
Oh but I can't have a gun because the left says so, and I HAVE to buy insurance because the left says so, I can't eat trans fat, salt, or drink too much soda, oh NO! When I have people telling me that what I exhale is under government control, I have a problem with that!Try to remember that I am a liberal, not a Democrat. I will VOTE Democratic, but that doesn't mean I like everything they do.
I DON'T like Big Aggie. i worry about the power of Monsanto, ADM and others. I would very much like to see a national policy that would allow small farmers to drive these behemoths out of business.
Also, I DO support gun ownership. I don't like automatic weapons, but I'm loathe to start drawing lines in that sand. I think we need to be very careful there.
I think that food safety is important and I extend that to general health. The dumb eating habits of the average American cause my health insurance costs to be higher than they should be. I'm not 100% convinced that absolute restrictions like tran fat laws are really useful, but I do think it is worth looking at objectively. It is certainly an area that deserves discussion.Like I said the left HATES freedom and you just admitted it!
No. You simply don't understand.
As a liberal, I demand freedom for all. Not the freedom of anarchy, but the freedom to live your life free from unreasonable interference by others. To extend that to all necessitates the paradox we talked about earlier: some people have to be restrained lest they would restrain or otherwise harm others.
Surely you agree? You wouldn't think that your neighbor should be able to steal your property from you just because he is stronger? If an imaginary aggressor did move against you, would not you want the rest of us to restrain their freedom to do so?Your idea of freedom is unreasonable interference on me! No I'm not in favor of anarchy.... so I don't believe a stronger neighbor should be allowed to take my property nor do I believe a government should have that power, but you and your friends on the left do! You want the government to take anyone's property YOU deem is too much!
I don't know where you get your ideas from (Fox, perhaps?), but that simply is not true.
Yes, I do believe in a graduated income tax. I don't think of it as taking MORE from the wealthy, but rather as giving a break to those who are struggling at the low end of the scale.
Do you think that young kids struggling to get started in life should NOT get a break? Do you think that someone who has lost their job and has had to settle for far less pay should pay at the same tax rate they paid before?
Liberals believe in fairness, not robbery.You know, I agree. When gvt and business get together, they have the power to wreck lives. My friend is from Liberty City, Miamai, and I googled this once: "Liberty City / Miami Beach Riots Part 1"
Gtv and business wanted to expand Miami proper, and they took peoples homes to do it.
Then I remember people were upset when Bill Cinton moved his offices to Harlem, said it was causing "Gentrification".
Same as China Town here in Boston....business offices and high-end condos are encroaching into the space that is China Town. Buying their way in.
Gvt + Business = end of individual rights
It's money that talks.I'm delighted to say I totally agree with you! Eminent domain is being abused...in CT they took a neighborhood they claimed was "blighted" and gave the land to a developer to build a mall!
Whatever your political stripe is you can't tell me that was proper use of eminent domain! And yet, the courts upheld it!
This is why it is so important to keep government small, and for government to fear the people!And to keep business interests from running gvt.
Tell that to Obama who made a special exception in TARP so that GE could take advantage of the program, becoming the single largest recipient... and conveniently Obama is visiting GE today after announcing the appointment of Jeff Immelt to a new business advisory committee form by executive order!
Obama wants to turn the USA into China!
She understands the left very well.
She like a majority of Americans, just don't understand how anybody could think like that.You most definitely do NOT represent a majority, Jim. The number of people who even come close to your politics is shrinking daily.
Liberals don't represent the majority either PC, that's what Jim's refering too.
Among other things...
Explains their anger and tendency to drive monster trucks.What's wrong with Monster trucks? Oh God...Now it's Guns...and...Monster Trucks! What's next...Chicken Fried Steak.
Why can't we all just get along?I love chicken-fried steak and do not have the "need to compensate" that haters and monster truck drivers have.
Maybe we can start the chicken-fried steak party.Some of us can.
I get along fine with many who call themselves conservatives. They are, of course, smart people who don't see government as always evil and understand that taxes are a necessity.
We can agree on a lot of things, especially on Big Picture things. We often disagree on details, of course, like the value of a particular government program. That's healthy and expected.
But here we get automatic knee jerk hatred and rejection. The far right folks put up fabricated strawmen that are supposed to represent liberal idea and they proceed to demonstrate who easy it is to blow them down. They wave their hands in big circles and never will give an inch, no matter how ludicrous their positions obviously are.
It gets quite tiresome, honestly.
Oh I understand perfectly! It's you and PC that don't have a clue!
I find it interesting that what you want is exactly what you dont want done to you.
Excuse me???
If your comment makes any sense at all, I can't see it.
Please explain yourself.You said you wanted whatever it was to prevent others from "your sweeping generalization /accusations. ie "prevent you from enforcing your view of proper behavior and thought on others"
Then you went on about how you wanted to "enforce your view of proper behavior and thought on others"You mean "proper behavior" like not beating gays to death or not allowing you to refuse to sell to someone whose skin color you don't like?
Yeah, I DO want to "force" my outrageous views on you if that's what you mean.I said "if that's what you mean".
I'm not implying that YOU do or even desire to do those things. I am simply using them as examples of the types of things I definitely DO want to control!
Sheesh!or not allowing you <---to refuse to sell to someone whose skin color you don't like?
OK. You are obviously trying to make trouble where none was intended.
Report my post to the admins. Tell them you think you have been libeled or smeared or whatever.
If they agree, they'll ban me. If not, perhaps they might take a few seconds to explain to you that a hypothetical example carries no malice.
??? Pcunix makes sense to me. Why do you object?
Not so. He means that he thinks nutjobs and gun freaks from wandering around with handguns with 33-magazines, and stopping oil companies from dumping oil in the ocean, and banks from ripping off their credit card and mortgage customers, ad infinitum.
Nor do I profess to know what's best for you. My view, and the view of every liberal I know, is to let you live your live in any way you please as long as you afford the same rights to everyone else.
The only "control" we want is whatever is minimally necessary to prevent you from enforcing your view of proper behavior and thought on others.
THOSE are our goals.
His goal is control others. It is not possible to force someones thoughts on others and is a non sequitur and a contradiction.No, it's actually what I call the Jesus Paradox.
I can turn the other cheek if you slap me, but what should I do when someone slaps you?
I feel I have to protect you from being slapped. But how can I do that and still let you slap whoever you please?
It would be wonderful if we all peacefully minded our own business. Unfortunately, there will always be those who do not and we cannot simply keep turning our cheeks.
We have to forcibly control those who will not live in peace and wish to control others. It's paradoxical, yes, but it is unavoidable. It is why I said "minimally necessary".But yet is contradictory to what you profess ->My view, and the view of every liberal I know, is to let you live your live in any way you please as long as you afford the same rights to everyone else.
Its not a paradox but a contradictionI'm sorry you don't seem to understand. I cannot explain it any better.
You surely aren't an anarchist, are you? You do believe SOME control is necessary?We have to forcibly control those ..... wish to control others
YOU ACTUALLY WROTE THIS.Yes, I did.
I'll ask you again: are you an anarchist?We have to forcibly control those who "..... " wish to control others
Its like shooting fish in a barrel.
Thats what you actually wrote. You self refuted.
"A paradox is a statement or group of statements that leads to a contradiction or a situation which defies intuition."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox
Liberals are a political philosophy, they aren't law enforcement or the legal system. So no thanks
Except that I am not sure about the guns, Ralph. Nuts with guns, yes, I want to control. But defining "nuts" is dangerous ground - all too easy to use that politically.
What those who take the stance that it is crazy to say people are influenced by rhetoric and images are saying is that advertising doesn't work.
As advertising is a multi billion industry it patently does work and therefore those saying that violent rhetoric and images do not work are themselves stupid and crazy.1) errr...mom... if YOU make an assertation it is up to YOU to prove it is right. It is no one's responsibility to prove you are wrong. Typical backwards thinking.
2) You mean all those demonstrations started by Democrat wife, Tipper Gore, wife of Democrat VP Al Gore, who was the Democrate candidate for president?
3) You, or anyone else, have yet to make ANY association between this killer and ANY political advertising, radio programming, or other communication.
4) Isn't it fasicinating how the "people" (does "people = everyone in the universe) you want to cite never, ever, seem in the least bit upset or complaining about the dems use of violent, graphic imagry that induces violent behaviour in out of control people. They only seem to complain about the republicans. Fasicinating, I say. Fasicinating.1.) I already told you...I believe anything until proven other-wise. You cannot prove their words and images did not cause harm, ergo--I say they did!!
2.) No, actually, the outrage was started by President HW Bush and Vice President Quayle, who had a news conference to denounce the song!
3.) Fox News contributor Mara Liasson said Sunday that while defending use of gun imagery, Fox News employee Sarah Palin actually admitted that political discourse can cause violence.
"Here she is saying, when you talk about blood libel, that is the definition political discourse, a manufactured lie causing violence," noted Liasson. "In this case she paints herself as the potential victim."
"Here she is agreeing with the left that political discourse can cause violence."
Not to mention a 63 yr old man who was shot, and blames the Tea-Party rhetoric of "second amendment remedies".
4.) There is just no comparison with what Palin, Angle and Bachmann-Turner-Overdrive are doing....none.[1.) I already told you...I believe anything until proven other-wise. You cannot prove their words and images did not cause harm, ergo--I say they did!!'\]
I am not repsonsible for educating people who believe "everthing they are told". But thank youj for admitting that. It goes a long way towards letting the Dear Readers establish your crediblity.
[2.) No, actually, the outrage was started by President HW Bush and Vice President Quayle, who had a news conference to denounce the song!]
And it was Democrate wife Tipper Gore who lead the charge to put labels on music.
[3.) Fox News contributor Mara Liasson said Sunday that while defending use of gun imagery, Fox News employee Sarah Palin actually admitted that political discourse can cause violence.
"Here she is saying, when you talk about blood libel, that is the definition political discourse, a manufactured lie causing violence," noted Liasson. "In this case she paints herself as the potential victim."
"Here she is agreeing with the left that political discourse can cause violence."]
Actually, that is not what a "blood libel" means. But you believe everything you're told, eh.
And besides, it has already been completely established beyond the shadow of a doubt that every commentator on Fox is only parroting the words that the vast right wing cabal put in their mouths. Are you quoting and believing the words of the vast right wing cabal? Shame on you.
[Not to mention a 63 yr old man who was shot, and blames the Tea-Party rhetoric of "second amendment remedies".]
You mean that 63 year old man who was carried out of a meeting just yeasterday with a republican represetative on ABC for shouting that he was going to kill the representative. That 63 year old man? (Guess you missed that, eh, or you would not have been so silly as to cite him as an Abosoute Moral Authority.)
[4.) There is just no comparison with what Palin, Angle and Bachmann-Turner-Overdrive are doing....none.]
And you know this because someone told you and you believe them.Not at all convincing. Spoken like a gun dealer. If we put our mind to it we can have more effective handgun and other non-sport weapons control. The fact that there are a lot of military style weapons out there in the hands of gun nuts, militias and other paranoid individuals doesn't mean that nothing can be done. We have to start somewhere. A couple of times in Detroit in the past few years hundreds of people have been induced to turn in their handguns to be melted down. They weren't the drug gangs, but by turning the handguns in they won't fall into the hands of criminals.
1) you have no more clue as to what a "military style weapon" is than you have as to what makes a successful NASCAR racing machine. The big difference, though, is that you don't go around showing your ignorance about NASCAR the way you do with firearms.
Ever hear of the Mauser bolt action? It was developed in Germany and became one of the premier killing machines of all time in the emilitary. Deadly accurate, easy to maintain and use, and could pump out bullets as fast as the action could be worked, which in the hands of an expert was extremely fast. If I remember correctly, the gun used to kill Pres. Kennedy was a modified Mauser action (not a Mauser gun, don't them confused) where Oswald got off two shots in well less than two seconds.
Sounds like a gun that should be banned, eh. Killing machine. Deadly. Invented for war and used to kill millions of soldiers. Used to kill presidents.
Except, of course, for almost 100 years the Mauser action has also been used for premier sporting guns for deer and other large animal hunting. Millions upon millions are in citizens hands around the globe and in the U.S.. You ban the Mauser and you've banned Uncle Bob's hunting rifle that has been in the closet for 30 years and never hurt a person.
But it's a military style weapon and ~that~ is all you care about, eh.
Why don't you go to my pages and actually read something about "military style weapons" under my article "evil black rifles". I promise you that you'll learn some things that you didn't know before. You'll be a better, more educated poster. That is a good thing, is it not.
2) Somewhere, eh. Even if that "somewhere" is illogical, doesn't work, and treats innocent people like criminals. But "somewhere" is as good as any place when the basis for the decision to totally emotional.
3) Gun banners just can't make up their minds. First criminals get all their guns at gun shows... now they steal junk guns from homes.Have you read the article? If not, then your proclamation is far too premature to be of value.
More arrogance!
I have not read the article, from your attitude I very much doubt that it is unbiased and fair. It will just be more of "I an right and anybody stupid enough to disagree with me is wrong".Refuses to read a factual article that might upset his world view and declares ~others~ "arrogant."
...and ~this~ is the best he can do, eh.
:-)
:-)Jack, you made a statement that I considered to be arrogant.
That arrogance is not tempered by the quality of the article, in fact your claim that it is is further arrogance on your part.
I'm afraid that if you want to challenge my statement, then you have to challenge that your statement is not arrogant, not pile more arrogance on to it.Arrogant...? when first you refused to read it. Then you purposefully lied several times?
I think the Dear Readers can tell which of us is "arrogant."I didn't refuse to read it. I didn't even bring it up, here warch my lips, I'm typing very slowly too.
You made a statement, I consider that statement was arrogant.
It was arrogant irrespective of the content or the quality of the hub.
Nowhere have I lied, purposefully or not.John sez: I didn't refuse to read it. I didn't even bring it up, here warch my lips, I'm typing very slowly too.
jack replies: Well, someone made the statement, "I have not read the article, from your attitude I very much doubt that it is unbiased and fair. It will just be more of "I an right and anybody stupid enough to disagree with me is wrong".:
I would take that as a "refusal" to read it but pershaps others will see it differently.
John sez: Nowhere have I lied, purposefully or not.
Jack replied: Some poster said that I posted that ralph would be a "better person" if he read the article. Perhaps I confused another poster with you. Perhaps not.
Some one said after they read the article that it was "biased and unfair" and yet has never, ever, once listed a single "biased or unfair" item about the article even after being asked repeatedly. Perhaps I confused another poster with you. Perhaps not.As I've said countless times, my statement that you are arrogant does not depend on having read anything of yours, the claim that it does is further arrogance on your part. The fact that I did read it was a concession to you.
I'm sorry that you have problems understanding that person = poster and poster = person, but is does in the real world1) You're welcome to quote anywhere where I have hinted, posted, or said that your "statement that you are arrogant does not depend on having read anything of yours". Another made up idea about a "claim" of mine. He simply cannot quote (without lying, of course) any connection between the two.
2) Well, I check a couple of dozen "real world" dictionaries and I never found one that states that "person = poster." Perhaps you can give me another one to check?Oh keep up, it's not all about you.
I, that's me, not you, said that my statement did not depend on having read your hub, that good or bad it did not detract from the arrogance of your statement.
Why waste your time chasing dictionaries? You'd be far better off with something like "Fowlers English Usage" which actually tells you how to use the language rather than just give you popular meanings of words.
Posters aren't people!! [chuckle, chuckle]All people are not posters [chuckle, chuckle]
I must admit this does take me back to third grade lessons... all dogs have four legs... all cats have four legs... do dogs =- cats?
John must have been out sick that day?
give it up john... you're far past the point where you're embarrassing yourself. you're into the beclowning stage now.
OK, now I've read the article,I was not disappointed, it was every thing I expected, biased and unfair.
Well, now we can talk.
You're welcome to point out either here or at the article site just what you believe is "biased and unfair." Go ahead. Step up to the plate. You made a charge... let's see if you can actually follow through.
Be specific, though. Give detail.Be specific!
OK, I read your article and I am not a better and more educated person for having done so, which was your claim and that which I challenged.
True, your post was directed at Ralph, but I would say that Ralph and I are fairly similar education wise and that anything that would educate him would educate me as well.
I learnt nothing from your article.:-) this is really too easy... almost unfair of me. But what the heck.
FIRST you said...
"OK, now I've read the article,I was not disappointed, it was every thing I expected, biased and unfair."
AFTER you were challenged to actually state something that was "biased and unfair" suddenly you found you couldn't do it (just as I suggested in my post). The "biased and unfair" part just disappeared, eh. Want to forget you posted it.
NOW you want to post about you didn't learn anything. Nothing. So it's safe to assume that you already knew the nickname for the M-14 in the '60s was poodlekiller? And that AR's in .223 caliber are great for keeping farms free from armadillos? Andthat Outdoors magazine listed an AR platform rifle as oneof their ten best hunting guns of the year for 2010?
You knew all that, right? Didn't learn a thing?
Why do I not believe you?
(and if i remember correctly, I said NOTHING about being a "better person." You, along with several other posters here, have a fairly bad habit of just making things up from thin air. Thank God for al gore and his invention, scroll back, where we can see just how much you have to falsify things to attempt a point. (Is that arrogant of me to say?)Excuse me, I thought that you meant to teach something of use, not arm me for a pub quiz!
More to the point, where do I falsify things?
Where do I make things up out of thin air?
It is a trick used by the right to forget about things, I don't, if you'd like to present any cases where I've overlooked anything I'll gladly rectify it despite the hectoring tone of your message.
And f course I've walked right into the trap again haven't I
Challenge the right and they immediately change the topic to one that they feel more secure with.:-)
1) Ahhh so now you're changing your story even AGAIN that you have to be educated on something of use?
First is was that the info was biased and unfair and you couldn't back that up when challenged....
Second was that you didn't learn ANYTHING and you were made a fool of by pointing out things that you know well that you learned...
and now we get a third version. You don't have the stones to admit that the first two chances you got you failed miserably.
:-)
2_ Falsify things? Well, lets start with your charge that the info was "biased and unfair". Since you've made no effort to substantiate that accusation even though you were asked I'd say you made it up from thin air.
And then there was your statement that I said reading it would make ralph a "better person." (quoting your exact words.) I never posted that. You lied about it. It can't really get any simpler than that. For you to deny it when we can all scroll back a few inches and see for ourselves is simply you living in fantasy land.
3) Overlooked? Rectify? Okay... start with what is "biased and unfair" and then point out specifically where I posted that ralph would be a better person. Go ahead.
4) This is sweet, Dear Readers. Notice how I am the one who actually quotes his words, and takes him to his actual posts to specifically point out EXACTLY what he posted.... and he accuses conservtives of wanting to "change the subject."
Total fantasy. But funny as can be."Why don't you go to my pages and actually read something about "military style weapons" under my article "evil black rifles". I promise you that you'll learn some things that you didn't know before. You'll be a better, more educated poster. That is a good thing, is it not."
And that is an exact quote of what you wrote. You claim never to have posted that, but those are your exact words.
Who is the liar?Jack orginally said: And then there was your statement that I said reading it would make ralph a "better person." (quoting your exact words.) I never posted that. You lied about it. It can't really get any simpler than that. For you to deny it when we can all scroll back a few inches and see for ourselves is simply you living in fantasy land.
John, attempting to quote me (which he did accuratly): "Why don't you go to my pages and actually read something about "military style weapons" under my article "evil black rifles". I promise you that you'll learn some things that you didn't know before. You'll be a better, more educated poster. That is a good thing, is it not."
John, replying again, not realizing that he just put his foot in the trap: And that is an exact quote of what you wrote. You claim never to have posted that, but those are your exact words.
Who is the liar?
And Jack, wrapping it up for everyone to see:
Yes, John, that is an exact quote. Please note that the EXACT words were "better... poster."
Now... let's note the EXACT words in YOUR statement... "better person."
Do you always think that "better poster = better person"? Is this a recent problem with English or have you always had this problem?
I actually know some great posters who are terrible people. And great people who are horrible posters. I don't confuse the two. If I had wanted to post "better person" I would have posted "better person." But I happen to think, in general of course, a more educated poster is a "better poster."
But I'd really like to see those portions of what I wrote that are "biased and unfair." We've been waiting for what seems like days now for you to come forth with that after you made the accusation. Step up to the plate.A finely split hair, OK, do you then not think "a better poster" is equally arrogant?
Face it, you've painted yourself into a corner and cannot shift without cranking up the arrogance and patronisation.A finely split hair, OK, do you then not think "a better poster" is equally arrogant?
Face it, you've painted yourself into a corner and cannot shift without cranking up the arrogance and patronisation.
1) "A finely split hair"? That was as grudging of of an admission that he was wrong as I've ever seen.
:-)
:-)
Two smilies for that one.
2) Only if you think a more educated poster is, in general, not a better poster. If you think ignorant posters make better posters come out and say it.
3) You've been wrong, you've admitted that you're wrong, and I AM the one "painted in a corner." Liberals truly do live in a Bizarro world.So I take it that's an admission that your posts are unacceptably arrogant and unpleasant?
If you find anything in that post that hints, smacks of, or lists any reasons why you think that is an "admission" of any kind you are certainly free to quote it.
Step up. Give detail. But quote accurately. No more of these "made up" quotes you're so famous for.
Go ahead. Your moment on stage. Show the world where you found that in my post.
You're just so easy to bait... you can't resist, can you. And then after you screw it up again you're left wondering what just happened to what you thought was such stellar wit and comeuppance.
Too bad. I was hoping you'd suggest how I could be a better person!
I am sure you're a good person ralph. You provided above-and-beyond service to the country when it was a time of real problems doing that. That's very commendable and is to be honored.
I am assuming here, but I would guess you raised a family and I trust they are all contributing successfully to the American dream. You're closing in on retirement and I'm sure you've earned everything good thing coming to you it it.
It's rarely about the worth of a person.
But you do have a blind spot. Let me give you an example. I am sure you would agree with the statment, "AR rifles have no use as a hunting rifle."
Yet, just recently, Outdoor Magazine, the premier hunting and sporting magazine listed an AR style rifle as one of their best deer hunting rifles of 2010. There's a link directly to the article from my hub where you can read their reasoning.
Why would they do this? Ad doesn't it give you the slightest pause to stop and think that maybe, just maybe, you might be wrong on this issue concerning this rifle.
Or... knowing that some of the highest regarded hunters and writers having declared that they think the AR is just fine for hunting, and in fact, desirable... are you still going to claim that it has no function as a hunting weapon.
Does knowing something is untrue but posting it anyway make you a better or worse person? Only you can answer that.AR rifles may work fine for hunting, but they aren't necessary for hunting. And they also work fine for drug gangs and assassins. I grew up on Outdoor Life and Field and Stream, and I got my first shotgun when I was 12 for squirrel and dove hunting. And for I time I did a fair amount of hunting. So, I respect the rights of hunters to have appropriate weapons (despite the fact that hunting rifles with scopes are probably the best choice for assassins as in the case of John Kennedy and Martin Luther King). Same for target shooters.
It seems to me that you appear to oppose any additional gun regulations, and perhaps support repealing the ones that are now on the books. If that's the case we are wasting our time debating the subject. However, in my opinion, it should be possible for reasonable people in good faith to come up with improvements in gun laws which would respect the rights of hunters and for people with a demonstrated need for self protection to be permitted to carry handguns. However, the NRA has apparently terrified our representatives in Congress to the point that many of them won't touch gun control with a ten-foot pole. I guess that makes you happy.I agree. Hunters dont need or probably dont even want semi automatic 9 mm glocks.
It goes beyond "reasonable need for self protection", Ralph.
I support gun ownership because I feel that it is best deterrent against totalitarian government.
Of course the evil government I'm worried about would be far different than that feared by those on the Right who would have the same reason, but we do have the same overall feeling.I liked yours and Deeds thoughts on -> Would You Accept an Offer to Execute Loughner?
I support gun ownership because I feel that it is best deterrent against totalitarian government.
What do you think about banning handguns?
Hunters usually dont use them. We can all keep our liberty and defend our property, hunt w/e etc with, shotguns or rifles.
What if we just banned handguns. Would this be just a step to outlawing all guns or could we eliminate part of the problem just by getting rid of that type of gun. There seems to be more problems associated with handguns, they are easy to conceal, and probably easier to buy illegally. It seems to me that handguns are just for killing human beings more than anything.
Since we both support gun ownership how would you feel about just banning handguns?"I support gun ownership because I feel that it is best deterrent against totalitarian government."
There are many much better deterrents such as voting, supporting good candidates, campaign finance reform, government financed elections at the national, state and local levels. Guns in the hands of citizens would not be much of a deterrent to a totalitarian government.
I didn't say all military style weapons should be banned. The bolt action Mauser is okay with me. (I own a bolt action .22 rifle and a Model 12 Winchester shotgun. And I was in the military for 8 years during which time I fired Expert with the M1 and the .45 handgun.) As you well know, military type weapons in the context of gun control refers to automatic or semi-automatic long guns and pistols with large capacity magazines, machine guns, grenades, etc.
1) Oh... so "some" military style weapons that YOU happen to like are ok by you. Others that you don't like should be banned. We got it.
2) And, as you are well aware of, machine guns (automatic weapons) and grenades are already severely controlled by the federal government.
3) And you have no real reason to ban anything else other than you don't happen to like it. Although you do like your mauser action that was designed to kill as many people as possible in a short time.
1.) My mind is open....prove that their ugly rhetoric did nothing to cause this shooting!
2.) A Republican President and his Vice President told the world that a song could cause violence with its words....are you calling them wrong? Or stupid?
3.) Fox is your baby, not mine. I can't stomache to watch it, but you do put credense in what they say, don't you?
4.) No, I know because I'm not brain dead![1.) My mind is open....prove that their ugly rhetoric did nothing to cause this shooting!]
You already said you believe what you read... NOW you say your mind is open? :-)
And again... it is not incumbant upon me to prove a negative. You stated it did... at least have the courage of your own statements to attempt to back them up.
[2.) A Republican President and his Vice President told the world that a song could cause violence with its words....are you calling them wrong? Or stupid?}
Don't try to put words in my fingers. :-)
I am saying that a Democrat powerhouse started the whole idea of labeling records. I have yet to see that you disagree with me.
[3.) Fox is your baby, not mine. I can't stomache to watch it, but you do put credense in what they say, don't you?}
Errrr... YOU were the one who just quoted Mara Liason, FOX news commentator. How quickly you forget.
[4.) No, I know because I'm not brain dead!]
Just brain stupid. I think I would rather be brain dead, but that's just me.
Junko... i just asked you to rephrase the question 'cause I wasn't sure what it was you were looking for.
Jack I'm sorry about the misunderstanding on both our parts. My bad. Earlier I agreed with lovemychris when I was warn to not go in crazy territory. The comments I made was based on my personal feelings. The comments were not fact base. I agreed with chris that comments base on feeling and not facts could always be attacked as crazy. I asked If you agreed with that fact. I also stated the fact that its not what you believe, but what you can prove that counts. I asked, what do you think?
I believe that Paris exists but if you ask me to "Prove" it at this moment I couldn't do it. That, however, is meaningless to the people in Paris at the moment.
Feelings based upon rational facts are often rational. Feelings based upon irrational or mistaken facts can be, and are often irrational feelings.
an example...
Someone may "feel", based upon the fact that these 33 round magazines were unlawful to own during the so-called assault weapon ban that they should be made illegal again. They know they were illegal because they keep reading that fact in the newspapers and hearing from people like the Brady Bunch Against Guns.
The problem is, the "fact" is wrong. These were never, ever, once "illegal" to own at the federal level. Some few states make them illegal, but the AWB never, ever did. Not once.
So is the "feeling" rational or irrational?O'k Jack: I was asking about crazy territory as for as our statements and opinion express on hubpages. The way we handle each other's opinions is sometime disrespectful. I except what you wrote, but it didn't answer my question. I understand the differents between rational, irrational,and rationa llizing. Thanks, for an answer.
Thanks for coming to my defense, Jeff
It appears sarcasm goes over some people's heads.That's a good point, John.
However, it's not all that uncommon to have parents of different parties. I did.
Dad was Republican
Mom came from a diehard New Hampshire Democrat family.
I think some young people veer to the opposite party from their parents as part of their individuation.
Not all, of course.Of course that's just as bad as following them.
True. The important thing is to THINK and UNDERSTAND the value propositions of the party you follow and the candidates running for office.
No wonder so many voters are going Independent.Just curious, PC (or anyone who has an answer).
What would a "crazed left-winger" advocate anyway?Embryonic stem cell research; single payer national health care; effective control of the manufacture, sale and ownership of handguns, and other non-sport firearms; cut the defense budget; close tax loopholes for corporations and high income Americans; remove the cap on earnings subject to Social Security tax; end the war in Afghanistan as soon as practically possible; sign the international treaty banning land mines and cluster bombs; spend more on education and less on weapons; end the war on drugs, emphasizing treatment rather than incarceration; increase international cooperation to deal with terrorism, piracy, disease and hunger; quit talking about climate change and start doing something about it, for starters.
Pure socialism, perhaps. Eugenics?
You'd need to get that far out to be as whacky as the far right.
Jill said "I think the cat crapped on the floor."
Jack tasted of it and said "it is, don't step in it."And ~that's~ the best he can do, eh...
Pitiful... just pitiful. But typical.
Ask Jack, he knows everything. Don't believe it? He'll tell you so himself! DOH!
But just in case you are not worthy of his notice, you can go here:
http://planetsmilies.net/I don't have to know "Everything". Just more than you. And that is easily done by most anyone.
And now you know how much "most anyone" knows compared to me? Wow! Are you sure you're not god?
Found you can't really find any traction on the subject of the thread, eh. Not anything of value you can post so you're going to attempt to make it about me. Okay... but the Dear Readers see the bankruptcy of what you are doing. Totally void of ideas.
Oh, it's not about you? LOL! You deign to condescend and speak for your imaginary supporters with laughable smugness and superiority and it's not about you? HAHAHA!
Come on, tell me again how superior you are. Or, tell me what others think about you, that would be even funnier.As susupected... still nothing to add to the discussion since you've been shot down (parden the expression)on anything you've attempted to say about it.
Go ahead and discuss me some more... while everyone wonders why you don't have anything of real value to add."Everyone" LOLOLOL Stop it Jack, your killing me! LOLOL!
Okay, this has been a hoot. Just let Jack talk people. There's no need to say anything more on this thread. Just listen and he will tell you everything you need to think. Later on "we"! LOL!You do have something of value to add to the discussion, don't you? Oh... you don't?
Everyone sees that.Yes, I will tell you everything... snicker.
And the Dear Readers notice that I give multiple sources for multiple thoughts on the subject and randy gives... well, he gives comments about ME as his best he can offer. :-)
Oh, I can think of at least six or more regulars here who probably think he is simply brilliant.
A lot of eagles, flags and crosses plus some very angry looking faces. All people that I really admire in a fascinated and near mesmerized sort of way. Well, I'm not sure "admire" is quite the word I need.A shame you're offended by eagles, flags and crosses.
I am, actually. They have come to symbolize a mindset I find quite abhorrent.
But it is helpful - when we see the symbols, we do know just what to expect.Well, that tells us much more about you than perhaps you realize.
Of all the people who read my post about giving semiautomatic weapons to mentally disturbed people, you are the only one who even remotely thought I was serious. Most people who know my writing got the point.
Value of contribution is in the eye/mind of the beholder. I probably don't need to point out that more than 1500 hubbers have found sufficient value in my writing to become followers. So when you insult me, you insult them.
And by the way, the correct spelling of the word as you have used it in the above sentence is "role" not "roll."
But I see we're already back to calling other hubbers "son" and denigrating their posts with "that's the best he can do."
And you wonder why people can't take you seriously?I never said I took it “seriously”. I just said it was the best you could do. I also called it inane which is not a synonym for serious.
A “hub counter” eh. Are you going to drag out your fifth grade gold stars next?
I am soooo glad that you feel absolutely confident that you can speak for every single one of those supposed 1500 hubbers to know that they feel “insulted.” Such a might super power. I can see where you get your name.
Are you speaking for all the “people” in the universe when you post “people.” Or are you using it to mean all the people on Hubpages. Or “all the rightminded people who think exactly like I do.” Because if you are using it to mean ~anyone~ other than yourself then Randy is going to get you…Just take some advice from the Pork Chop Express on a dark and stormy night. When some wild-eyed, eight-foot-tall maniac grabs your neck, taps the back of your favorite head up against the barroom wall, and he looks you crooked in the eye and he asks you if ya paid your dues, you just stare that big sucker right back in the eye, and you remember what ol' Jack Burton always says at a time like that: "Have ya paid your dues, Jack?" "Yessir, the check is in the mail."
Now ~this~ is "third person" speak. You paying attention, Mom?
From that notorius rightwing rag, The New Republic...
"How the Media Botched the Arizona Shooting"
The dominant storyline in the press—one that persisted in the face of all the facts—was that right-wing hysteria and lunacy had given rise to Loughner’s atrocity. Only on Wednesday night, when President Obama delivered a speech that effectively told everyone to cut it out, was the stampede halted (one hopes). But it’s still worth reviewing how the nation’s leading periodicals descended into such mindlessness.
Let’s go back to this Saturday. When news of the incident first broke, bloggers began to speculate that this was a Tea Party-related incident. No evidence of that emerged. Once a little more information trickled out, The New York Times and other outlets linked Loughner to a far-right publication called American Renaissance. That likewise had no basis in fact. Over the next day or two, as Loughner turned out to give off numerous indications of mental illness but very few of right-wing ideology, the dominant analysis became, “Okay maybe this guy was nuts, but, still, he was at least indirectly a product of a climate of political hysteria.”
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/814 … a-shootingWell, you know how it is: when you see one nut, you automatically think that it probably came from the sack that is full of them.
Hey, if the media failing to inform and making a fool of themselves is okay with you it's certianly okay with me.
I am not a right-minded person.
I am a left-minded person!
Apparently, you believe you are the only one who has anything of value or can gain traction on this thread.
You are the one making it all about you.
You want to own this thread so badly? Go right ahead.
You're only talking to yourself anywaySeems YOU responded, eh
And just what have you added of "value" to the discussion other than to want to give guns to the mentally disturbed.
PC -- That's what I thought, too.
It's pretty hard to picture a whole "movement" of "rabid extreme left-wingers" isn't it? There is no rallying cry that would mobilize the left fringe the way God & Guns mobilize the right."Workers of the world unite. All you have to lose is your chains." Left wing radicals have torn whole societies up by the roots and left the streets choked with the bodies of the innocent more than once in the last century. It may not have happened in the US - unless your are a scab crossing a picket line - yet.
Yes, UCV, that is true.
Internationally it's easy to cite examples on both sides -- left-wing and right-wing dictatorships, communistic countries, etc.
But with the system we have in the US I don't think that could ever happen.So we are angels? So is that what is meant by American exceptionalism? I am still not sure what liberals mean by right wing? There can be no conservative dictatorship - it is contradictory. There can, however, be liberal dictatorship since it has already happened more than once in history.
The dictatorship we worry abut from the right wing is that of corporate rule.
"There can be no conservative dictatorship - it is contradictory."
How does that follow?Because they hate Federal rule so much.
They love local rule though. Laws against blacks, homosexuals. Laws that put people in their place with none of that liberal "rights" stuff. That's what Home Rule has always done best. Little local dictators, company stores, local pollution, local zoning to keep the undesirables where they belong.
It's all good. But that durn Federal stuff is wrong.Hmmm... I seem to remember that ALL those Jim Crow laws against the blacks were put into place and kept by Democrats. That's why I love my liberals friends so much... I know they are so ignorant of real history.
As we have already seen, you are easily confused by labels.
The laws were made by Conservatives, whatever party label they stitched into their hat brims.
There are Conservative Democrats even today. We had Joe Liebermann as a cross to bear, for one, and there are others.
The divide is not Repubs and Dems, Jack, it is right wing conservativism against those of us who value individual rights. Your imaginary nonsense about collectivism has nothing to do with it either, but of course you are required to sing that song, so sing it you will.
Liberals believe in people. Conservatives believe in control. Corporate control, home rule control. And as close to anarchy as they can get without burning their feathers.Hmmmm....collectivism is a left wing ideal.
And in some ways you've stumbled into a semi-valid point although you have it wrong in many ways. It really isn't about labels... republican, democrat, conservative, liberal, or any other.
It is two completely separate philosophies. Those who want to have control to rule others... and those who just want to have others leave him alone as he leaves others alone.
both parties are infested far too much with the first kind of people, although the new-liberal mantra supports it much more than the conservatives do.Liberals are not interested in socialism or any ism.
We are interested in freedom. Not freedom only for white Christians, but freedom for all. We look for fairness, and as it is unfortunately true that a greedy few will spoil the pot, we look to control with laws. We aren't interested in interfering with your life at all: we only want to interfere with those who abuse other people.
We don't want to destroy capitalism, but we do want to fence it in so that it cannot abuse. We want safe working conditions and safe products.
It shouldn't be such a horrible thing to want, but you conservatives always see it that way.1) Funny how socialism is a liberal ideal when you are not "looking"
2) You look for freedom for people who agree with you. It's really that simple.
3) "Abusing other people" = disagreeing with liberals. And this is exactly who and why you want to "interfere" with the majority of people who don't want to be interferred with.
3) "capitalism abuse = people using money in ways we don't like". And we certainly see your "fence" on that.
True the Jim Crow laws were passed by ignorant, prejudiced Southern Democrats, who long ago were replaced by ignorant, prejudiced, red neck Republicans thanks to the GOP's southern strategy.
You're really having trouble keeping up aren't you?
Nope. He has no idea that he is out in left field. He thinks he is making sense.
Watch: Jim and some of the others will be back soon to congratulate him on his brilliance - and of course to add their own predictable comments - right after they check the latest Fox News taliking points."left field"?
Now we all know you are not paying attention. :-)
You're going to attempt to explain to us that it wasn't the democrats who passed and loved jim crow laws? Go for it.
We have already gone past that, Jack. I know you have trouble, so go back and read my previous reply very SLOWLY.
So it was the democrats who passed and maintained the jim crow laws? thank you...
It didn't prevent us from having for too many years a right wing conservative as a virtual dictator.
read Russel Kirk's The Conservative Mind or anything by Edmund Burke.
UCV.
1. Angels, certainly not! Humans!
2. Yes, that could be American's exceptionalism. Her system of government will not permit dictatorship.
3. Are you saying we have had liberal dictatorship in the US? Under who?Not here, not yet. We came very close, to the continued burden on our culture, during the New Deal and the Great Society.
Dictatorship isn't necessarily by individuals. Dictatorship by organizations is far more common with an individual at the head of the "party." I said close. I did not call them dictators.
Related Discussions
- 42
"PALIN joins Arizona gov. to defend immigration law": Yahoo!
by fishskinfreak2008 14 years ago
Web-site/URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100516/ap_ … pvaW5zYXI-OK this bill MIGHT have SOME supporters, but Sarah Palin is a lunatic with NO credibility and NO political future. Palin wants to prove that she is American by keeping foreigners out and that's it.
- 44
Alaska set to release thousands of Sarah Palin emails
by Stacie L 13 years ago
Alaska set to release thousands of Sarah Palin emails"The messages date from Palin's first days in office in December 2006 through September 2008�a period that covers most of the presidential election, but not her time as McCain's running mate. This release of correspondence also does not...
- 315
Is Sarah Palin the next George Bush?
by rhamson 14 years ago
With all the excitement generated by Sarah Palins new book "Going Rogue" and what some say is an obvious run at the White House, could she be the answer the Rebublican party is looking for?
- 102
Am I Going Rogue Because I'm Actually READING Sarah Palin's Memoir?
by Ghost32 14 years ago
There are a "few" posts in the forums indicating the posters' firm beliefs that Sarah Palin's book is an effort to (A) make money, (B) settle scores, (C) suck in those of us foolish enough to believe she's a person of substance, (D) blow hot air, and/or a number of other negative...
- 587
Could someone please explain the Sarah Palin phenomena.
by rhamson 15 years ago
This past election there was a lot of energy created in the choice by John McCain to have Sarah Palin as his running mate. What do you feel was the reason for this choice and how do you think she was qualified to be the Vice President. Could you please be factual with your replies to...
- 75
Why would anyone in their right mind want Sarah Palin as President?
by tHErEDpILL 13 years ago
These supporters of Sarah Palin must know something I don't know, if so please enlighten me. Otherwise all I have seen from this women is incompetence. In my opinion, this women might be the most unqualified presidential hopeful in the history of the United States of America. We...