Congresswoman Giffords

Minimum moderation and heated debates.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Ragorn » Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:11 am

You thought I was going to blame Sarah Palin, but I'm not.

Here's the deal, neocons and Tea Partiers.

There's no proof that the shooter was associated with any particular political group. For all we know, he shot Congresswoman Giffords to impress Jodie Foster. There's a lot of heresay and second guessing, but until we learn something concrete (if we ever do), there's no point in trying to make this assassination a partisan issue. It's a tragedy, and one that we should all mourn.

That doesn't mean you're off the hook, however.

We've had to listen to you for the last two years make veiled comments about violent takeover of the government. We've listened to right-wing mouthpieces say things like "If ballots don't work, bullets will." We've heard your political candidates endorse "Second Amendment remedies." And now a Congressperson has been shot dead on the street, a Congressperson who supported many of the policies that the right wing and the Tea Party have been so angry about.

This assassination probably wasn't the beginning of an organized, armed rebellion. But really, what did you think was going to happen with all that "don't retreat, reload!" garbage your party's been spewing for the last couple years? Sarah Palin probably didn't say anything to incite this kook to violence... but she sure has been busy scrubbing her twitter, facebook, and website for the last 48 hours.

Oops.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Corth » Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:39 am

Bullshit post. You are attempting to define the political values of half the country through the rhetoric of a few people on the fringe who have absolutely no real influence. Talk about building up a straw man.

The 2nd Amendment is indeed there as a check against tyrannical government. Anyone who is intellectually honest will recognize it as such. This doesn't necessarily mean that anyone other than some fringe militia yokels are actually advocating violent overthrow of this current government. There has been no mainstream movement favoring violent overthrow - nothing close to it - and yet you are trying to label the entire conservative movement as violent and revolutionary. Absurd.

And besides, apparently the shooter was a schizto lefty. I suppose it kind of makes sense - as the left wing in this country is the side seeking to circumvent democracy to get it's policies implemented at any cost. Abortion and universal healthcare being prime examples. Using violence to accomplish political goals, I suppose, is the next logical step when the will of the people is considered irrelevent.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.
Kindi
Sojourner
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:42 am

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Kindi » Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:22 pm

i don't think mein kampf is a lefty book, tho he lists it as one of his favorites. the guy was schitzoid, and labeling him left or right just doesn't work, except to show which "side" you're "fighting"
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Corth » Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:28 pm

NAZI's were a left wing political party. The official name was "National Socialist German Worker's Party". Emphasis on "Socialist" and "Worker's".

But I agree with what you say that it is irrelevent what his politics were. I only pointed it out because Ragorn felt the need to somehow use this lunatic's actions as an indictment against the right wing.

Got a kick out of this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40996934/ns ... nd_courts/. It very nicely describes how batshit crazy this guy was. And then the third comment, in bold: "Thank goodness he is in jail before he could act on any more of Palin's crosshairs!"

Batshit crazy as this guy is... carrying out Sarah Palin's orders. I'm sure Ragorn would probably agree with this.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Sarvis » Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:51 pm

Corth wrote:Bullshit post. You are attempting to define the political values of half the country through the rhetoric of a few people on the fringe who have absolutely no real influence. Talk about building up a straw man.


You mean like 500 Muslim scholars representing millions of Muslims? Funny how it's only a straw man when someone else says it.

The 2nd Amendment is indeed there as a check against tyrannical government. Anyone who is intellectually honest will recognize it as such. This doesn't necessarily mean that anyone other than some fringe militia yokels are actually advocating violent overthrow of this current government. There has been no mainstream movement favoring violent overthrow - nothing close to it - and yet you are trying to label the entire conservative movement as violent and revolutionary. Absurd.


And besides, apparently the shooter was a schizto lefty. I suppose it kind of makes sense - as the left wing in this country is the side seeking to circumvent democracy to get it's policies implemented at any cost. Abortion and universal healthcare being prime examples. Using violence to accomplish political goals, I suppose, is the next logical step when the will of the people is considered irrelevent.


Ignored the will of the people? Last I checked Obama won the election. THAT is the will of the people. Do you seriously think the government is a tyranny because the policy YOU wanted didn't get enacted? You had your voice, you voted or at least could have, and you lost. The majority of voters wanted something else. That is not tyranny.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Sarvis » Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:53 pm

Corth wrote:NAZI's were a left wing political party. The official name was "National Socialist German Worker's Party". Emphasis on "Socialist" and "Worker's".

But I agree with what you say that it is irrelevent what his politics were. I only pointed it out because Ragorn felt the need to somehow use this lunatic's actions as an indictment against the right wing.

Got a kick out of this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40996934/ns ... nd_courts/. It very nicely describes how batshit crazy this guy was. And then the third comment, in bold: "Thank goodness he is in jail before he could act on any more of Palin's crosshairs!"

Batshit crazy as this guy is... carrying out Sarah Palin's orders. I'm sure Ragorn would probably agree with this.


How many left-wing talking heads do you see telling people to go get guns and exercise their second ammendment rights just in case, Corth? You keep telling people to be violent and they will be. The crazy ones just go first.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Corth » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:00 pm

Sarvis,

I established in that other thread that those 500 scholars were representing the majority muslim religious sect of the entire country. Therefore they are a mainstream group. You did not respond to my clear proof on that matter, but now in a separate thread act as if I never even demonstrated that fact. So if you want to re-hash this debate, I suggest you post your evidence in the other thread. FYI - The equivalent situation to what happened in Pakistan would be for a group like the Catholic Church advocating the murder of American politicians. You will not be able to draw any parallels between those two situations because there aren't any.

Second, where did I say anywhere that violent overthrow of the government is justified? I summarized the purpose of the 2nd ammendment - a check upon a potentially tyrannical government. I did not say that the government is tyrannical. In fact I specifically said that anyone who is currently in favor of violent overthow is a 'fringe militia yokel'. As far as I can tell you are either a) purposefully miscontruing what I say, or b) failing to properly read what I say. Hopefully it's just the latter, which reflects upon your intelligence as opposed to your honesty.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Sarvis » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:20 pm

Corth wrote:Sarvis,

I established in that other thread that those 500 scholars were representing the majority muslim religious sect of the entire country. Therefore they are a mainstream group. You did not respond to my clear proof on that matter, but now in a separate thread act as if I never even demonstrated that fact. So if you want to re-hash this debate, I suggest you post your evidence in the other thread. FYI - The equivalent situation to what happened in Pakistan would be for a group like the Catholic Church advocating the murder of American politicians. You will not be able to draw any parallels between those two situations because there aren't any.


Corth, the Catholic Church says lots of things that your average Christian ignores. The comparison here is that you denounce a few voices as being representative of millions of people while at the same time saying a few voices are representative of millions of people. Just because 500 scholars say something doesn't mean every Muslim believes it or will act on it or believe it. Just because the Vatican says something doesn't mean every Christian will act on it or believe it. Just because a few Republican talking heads advocate violence doesn't mean all Republicans are advocating violence.

Get it? 500 people to not define millions of people.


Second, where did I say anywhere that violent overthrow of the government is justified? I summarized the purpose of the 2nd ammendment - a check upon a potentially tyrannical government. I did not say that the government is tyrannical. In fact I specifically said that anyone who is currently in favor of violent overthow is a 'fringe militia yokel'. As far as I can tell you are either a) purposefully miscontruing what I say, or b) failing to properly read what I say. Hopefully it's just the latter, which reflects upon your intelligence as opposed to your honesty.


Ever hear of inference? I'd think a lawyer would be more careful with his words. We're talking about an attack on a Representative and you state flatly that the 2nd Amendment is meant as a check on a tyrannical government, then go on to state that the left wing is trying to circumvent democracy.

I never said you said it was justified, but you DID just remind us what the Second Amendment is for and then called into question the legitimacy of Democratic policies.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Kindi
Sojourner
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:42 am

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Kindi » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:27 pm

I thought nazis followed fascism? They were as left as the democratic republic of the congo is a democratic republic...
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:37 pm

So, out of all the things that are actually wrong with the religious right, you'd rather try to pin this on people who booed the killer and prayed for his victims and their families at the professional bull rider's event the other night.

There were 16,000 other people murdered in the United States in the last year, Republican offices that were shot at, people not affiliated with any party at all killed by drunk driving football players, and somehow, you decided this one was more important than the others? Whatever happened to equality?
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Corth » Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:40 pm

Kindi wrote:I thought nazis followed fascism? They were as left as the democratic republic of the congo is a democratic republic...


You are getting your countries mixed up. The Facist party was in Italy under Mussolini.

Nazis were socialists. They advocated extending the role of government similar to modern days socialists. That in and of itself didn't make them evil. What distinguishes them from modern day Democrats is their support and implementation of genocide.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Corth » Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:47 pm

Sarvis,

I have little to say to you on that point. If you are inferring that I support violent overthrow of the government from my posts then you are either stupid or not looking very closely. I can't really describe it in any other manner. Take a closer look at what Ragorn wrote and my response.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Sarvis » Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:56 pm

Corth wrote:Sarvis,

I have little to say to you on that point. If you are inferring that I support violent overthrow of the government from my posts then you are either stupid or not looking very closely. I can't really describe it in any other manner. Take a closer look at what Ragorn wrote and my response.


Maybe you should take a few more looks at what YOU wrote, Corth.

1) Second Amendment Rights are a check against tyrannical government
2) the left wing in this country is the side seeking to circumvent democracy to get it's policies implemented at any cost.
3) ...?

You can call my intelligence into question all you like. 1 & 2 lead to a conclusion here. Maybe you don't support armed rebellion at this point, but you weren't terribly careful with your language either.

If you can't see how violence against the government could be a valid #3, then I have to question YOUR intelligence.

The funny thing is, you used to be one of the civil ones... but no, go ahead and keep calling people stupid. It worked for Teflor and Kiryan, right?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Ragorn » Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:04 pm

Corth wrote:The 2nd Amendment is indeed there as a check against tyrannical government. Anyone who is intellectually honest will recognize it as such. This doesn't necessarily mean that anyone other than some fringe militia yokels are actually advocating violent overthrow of this current government. There has been no mainstream movement favoring violent overthrow - nothing close to it - and yet you are trying to label the entire conservative movement as violent and revolutionary. Absurd.

Thanks for the link to some guy's blog where he presents some second-hand hearsay he heard from a classmate about Jared Loughner's political affiliation. It makes perfect sense to me why a "radical leftist" would assassinate a liberal democrat who agrees with the liberal President's policies. Fox News and HuffPo are also reporting that this kid had "ties" to right-wing racist and white supremacy groups. All of that is crap. Media nonsense, served up for pageviews. Both sides equally so.

So hey, maybe the shooter had no ties to any political group. There's no evidence right now that he did. Even if that's the case, maybe it's time for the gun nut whackos to scream a little less loudly for armed insurrection, eh? And when a politican starts talking about "second amendment remedies" to our country's problems, maybe you condemn them instead of putting them on Fox News and running them on the party ticket in Nevada.

Calling to arms has been pretty fashionable among Tea Party protests for the past year or so. I'm curious to see whether they escalate their agenda or change their message. And no, I'm not going to let you get off by calling the Tea Party a "fringe" group or trying to claim they're not hinting at violence. They didn't choose to name themselves the Tea Party because they like crumpets.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Corth » Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:53 pm

First off, she was a very moderate Democrat. For instance, she was against gun control.

Second, I agree that there is no reliable information concerning the killer's ideology.

Third, the killer's ideology is irrelevent. He didn't kill on behalf of Sarah Palin just as he didn't kill on behalf of Nancy Pelosi. The only reason I linked to second hand info concerning his supposed leftist ideology is because you felt the need to create a thread condemning conservatives for... bring conservatives, and implying that they are somehow responsible.

Fourth, much has been made of the tea parties use of a gun sight in targeting that district. I will try to find the article but someone made an excellent point that this type of imagery has been used plenty of times by the dems. Anyone who believes that Sarah Palin's minions were literally targetting certain people for murder is a moron.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
shalath
Sojourner
Posts: 310
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 8:46 pm

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby shalath » Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:09 pm

Corth wrote:Nazis were socialists. They advocated extending the role of government similar to modern days socialists. That in and of itself didn't make them evil. What distinguishes them from modern day Democrats is their support and implementation of genocide.


What a wonderful summation of the Nazis. Desperately unflattering and yet likely true.

By the way, Godwin's Law invalidates this discussion.
[Profile edited by Board Admin. If you can't be civil, we'll fix it for you. -ed]
Disoputlip
Sojourner
Posts: 956
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Copenhagen

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Disoputlip » Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:23 pm

What annoys me is the Sarah Palin removed the map with the gunsights.

She should have kept that.

I hope at least she keeps her rethoric
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby kiryan » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:06 pm

You are flipping crazy if you think that a conservative finds mein kampf one of their favorite books.

Sarvis, show me anyone in America praising this guys actions, dancing in the streets over this assassination attempt. Corth is right, you're completely off your rocker (although I bet you have some narrowly defined set of conditions that make it right in your mind).

I don't think its unfair of the infotainment media to assume that this guy was a conservative (true or not). Facts will emerge, but he attempted to assassinate a democrat. We'd be assuming they were liberals if they attacked a GOP legislator... Of course this is a damning criticism of every supposedly legitimate news outlet that made this assumption... including NPR who published completely false information while portraying themselves as a bulwark of journalistic excellence.

Now consider this, do you blame a bee for stinging you when you sit on it? Was it the bee's fault or the antagonistic left? If this guy turns out be a crazy right winger... fine, Rush and Sarah and all the others bear some responsibility along with Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. What if he turns out to be a crazy left winger? Is that still the right's fault?

--

and one last point... you can have tyranny from duly elected officials. The constitution was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority by carefully limiting the power of the federal government. quit fuking saying that there can't be tyranny because the American people elected them. Tyranny occurs when you rule like a tyrant and ignore the will of the people and the constitution. All 3 have been true in the past 2 years.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby kiryan » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:32 pm

This is pretty epic.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/bel ... palin-afte

On November 5, 2009, Maj. Nidal Hasan opened fire at a troop readiness center in Ft. Hood, Texas, killing 13 people. Within hours of the killings, the world knew that Hasan reportedly shouted "Allahu Akbar!" before he began shooting, visited websites associated with Islamist violence, wrote Internet postings justifying Muslim suicide bombings, considered U.S. forces his enemy, opposed American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as wars on Islam, and told a neighbor shortly before the shootings that he was going "to do good work for God." There was ample evidence, in other words, that the Ft. Hood attack was an act of Islamist violence.
...
And it wasn't just CNN. Other media outlets were also filled with speculation about the attack and pronouncements on the state of American political rhetoric. What a markedly different situation from 15 months earlier when, in the face of actual evidence that Maj. Hasan was inspired by Islamist convictions, many media commentators sought to be voices of caution. Where was that caution after the shootings in Arizona?

--Yea, where are the voices of caution on this. Where is Obama getting into the middle of this urging restraint and caution?
Kindi
Sojourner
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:42 am

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Kindi » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:32 pm

"Nazism (Nationalsozialismus, National Socialism; alternatively spelled Naziism[1]) was the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] It was a unique variety of fascism that involved biological racism and antisemitism.[10] Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics.[11]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Ragorn » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:38 pm

kiryan wrote:and one last point... you can have tyranny from duly elected officials. The constitution was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority by carefully limiting the power of the federal government. quit fuking saying that there can't be tyranny because the American people elected them. Tyranny occurs when you rule like a tyrant and ignore the will of the people and the constitution. All 3 have been true in the past 2 years.

No, sorry kiryan. Just because the legislature doesn't pass laws that you approve of, that doesn't make them tyrannical. If you want to talk about unconstitutional governance, we can have a discussion about George Bush's use of signing statements and Dick Cheney's expansion of the powers of the executive branch. Health care reform is not unconstitutional.

Fourth, much has been made of the tea parties use of a gun sight in targeting that district. I will try to find the article but someone made an excellent point that this type of imagery has been used plenty of times by the dems. Anyone who believes that Sarah Palin's minions were literally targetting certain people for murder is a moron.

I think Sarah Palin's gunsight ad was probably just in poor taste, and would have meant nothing without the context of an assassination. It didn't stir any waves at the time, nor would it if this hadn't happened. It's a nonissue. Palin's chief demographic is far-right macho rednecks who love guns. It's only natural for her to work the firearm imagery into her speeches and campaign materials, and she's been doing it for years.

No, I'm talking more about the resistance culture that's been prevalent among the Tea Party for the last two years. Tea Partiers showing up at town hall meetings carrying firearms. Veiled threats of "second amendment solutions to first amendment infringement." Don't retreat, reload. Don't Tread On Me. Sound familiar? You guys thought it was deliriously funny when Tea Partiers showed up at town hall meetings to shout down the Democratic leaders giving speeches.

Image

Any of this ringing a bell? Any of it at all? No? You're shocked, SHOCKED to discover underpinnings of armed violence within the Tea Party?
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Ragorn » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:41 pm

kiryan wrote:--Yea, where are the voices of caution on this. Where is Obama getting into the middle of this urging restraint and caution?

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/01/10/2 ... me-in.html

Right where you'd expect them to be. In the mouth of Obama, hours after the shooting. The same day.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:05 pm

Kindi wrote:"Nazism (Nationalsozialismus, National Socialism; alternatively spelled Naziism[1]) was the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] It was a unique variety of fascism that involved biological racism and antisemitism.[10] Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics.[11]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism


Kindi, from the same page, right near the top:

"They declared support for a nationalist form of socialism that was to provide for the Aryan race and the German nation: economic security, social welfare programs for workers, a just wage, honour for workers' importance to the nation, and protection from capitalist exploitation."

"The self-identification term, used by exponents of the ideology past and present is National Socialism and adherents describe themselves as National Socialists. For instance the best known organisation expousing this system, the German party led by Adolf Hitler was called the National Socialist German Workers Party. Similarly, the second volume of Mein Kampf is entitled The National Socialist Movement.[19]"

"Members of the Nazi Party identified themselves as Nationalsozialisten (National Socialists), rarely as Nazis."
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:28 pm

Ragorn...

Are you forgetting the 1960's? Or do they not count? You are equating macho talk of violence with ACTUAL violence? Liberals can protest war and capitalism (and riot, and destroy property, and burn/loot), but Conservatives can't protest against big government and over-taxation? Days of Rage, Curfew riots, DNC riots...etc? That's the same as saying 'We can unarmed...this time"? Macho slogans vs actual terrorism?

Image

Any of this ringing a bell? Any of it at all? No? You're shocked, SHOCKED to discover a decade of actual armed violence within the Left Wing?
Kindi
Sojourner
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:42 am

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Kindi » Tue Jan 11, 2011 12:01 am

"We are on Sarah Palin's targeted list. The way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of the gunsight over our district. When people do that, they have got to realize there are consequences to that action." ~Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, March 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7046bo92a4 around 2:15
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Sarvis » Tue Jan 11, 2011 12:31 am

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:Ragorn...

Are you forgetting the 1960's? Or do they not count?



You bring up the past alot Adriorn to try to criticize what others did before. Let's take the Days of Rage for example. Nowadays some view them as extremely negative, using modern-day morals as their sword. Had you been living back then, would you have criticized them too? Right now, Ragorn, Kindi and I are criticizing what Republicans are doing. Are you and Corth being apologists for their acts of terror?


We're so very different.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Tue Jan 11, 2011 12:44 am

Sarvis wrote:
Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:Ragorn...

Are you forgetting the 1960's? Or do they not count?



You bring up the past alot Adriorn to try to criticize what others did before. Let's take the Days of Rage for example. Nowadays some view them as extremely negative, using modern-day morals as their sword. Had you been living back then, would you have criticized them too?


Yes, I would have. 100%. I would not have attempted to defend terrorists who killed innocent civilians, but immediately condemned them. Just as I do now. BTW, I wanted to mention all the G8 protesters (all left-wing for the most part) and their acts of violence, since it is a yearly occurrence in present time, but I tried to stay within the US. I was also going to mention all the Death to Bush signs, games, theater play, etc, but again, I tried to keep it to only actual violence.

Sarvis wrote:Are you and Corth being apologists for their acts of terror?


Terror? Any bombings? Any killings? Any riots? Any lootings? You're trying real hard to equate comparing something that happened with the mentality of 500+ years ago, with that of 50 years ago. Fail. As an aside, I do not enjoy seeing when people protest by issuing threats of violence, even if they are just words. But that's the difference Sarvis: words vs actions. I would not want someone to state they are going to come after me, but there's a big difference between saying it and actually doing it.


Sarvis wrote:We're so very different.


Correct.
Kindi
Sojourner
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:42 am

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Kindi » Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:11 am

kiryan wrote:You are flipping crazy if you think that a conservative finds mein kampf one of their favorite books.

i said flipping crazy ppl find mein kampf one of their favorite books. it is both NOT a liberal book and NOT a conservative book. as i keep trying to say THERE ARE MORE THAN TWO SIDES
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Tue Jan 11, 2011 5:22 am

Ragorn wrote:
kiryan wrote:--Yea, where are the voices of caution on this. Where is Obama getting into the middle of this urging restraint and caution?

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/01/10/2 ... me-in.html

Right where you'd expect them to be. In the mouth of Obama, hours after the shooting. The same day.

Sorry, if you're not seeing the difference between the statements, let me spell it out for you:

Obama's Gifford Statement:
"What we do know is that such a senseless and terrible act of violence has no place in a free society."
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/01/10/2 ... z1AhWBpFvk

Obama's Ft. Hood Statement:
"It is horrifying that they should come under fire at an army base on American soil."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... tement.htm

Notice the direct denouncement, the criticism, and the moral authority used in the Gifford statement. Obama directly condemns the shooter in the Gifford statement. In the Ft. Hood statement, it's an off-handed response about how terrible something is that happened.

They're not the same and they weren't meant to be the same. It's because Obama was intentionally trying not to come down as hard on Nidal Hassan as he was on Jared Loughner. Is it because he values his Democrat colleague more than our nation's soldiers? Probably not. Was he just trying not to stoke racial and religious tensions? Probably partial explaination.

But the fact is that this president has a MUCH different response to this tragedy than other similar ones. Jared Loughner got a tongue lashing from Obama from what he did that had no place in society, where as Nidal, the traitor in uniform, didn't even get so much as a mention about that terrible thing that happened in Ft. Hood one day.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Corth » Tue Jan 11, 2011 1:35 pm

Kindi wrote:"We are on Sarah Palin's targeted list. The way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of the gunsight over our district. When people do that, they have got to realize there are consequences to that action." ~Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, March 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7046bo92a4 around 2:15


Obama wrote:If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/1 ... ing-a-gun/

Now my question for you Kindi, is whether you think Obama, as a result of this rhetoric, would have been blamed if some schitzo subsequently decided to shoot John McCain.

Keep in mind that this came right out of Obama's mouth. As opposed to the much discussed 'gun sight' which was certainly on Sarah Palin's web site, but was likely done by a staffer. Or do you think diabolical Sarah, Down Syndrome baby and all, is putzing around with an html editor?
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Corth » Tue Jan 11, 2011 1:43 pm

Kindi wrote:
kiryan wrote:mein kampf ... is both NOT a liberal book and NOT a conservative book


Not sure how this topic came up here but I agree with you on this one. Further researching the topic - there were elements of Naziism on the left (socialism) and on the right (nationalism). That being said, I don't think the policy positions of Naziism are relevant in any manner at all. They could have been free market capitalists, communists, socialists, facists, or whatever. It just simply doesn't matter because the primary attribute of Nazi's - the thing that hopefully is never forgotten by the human race, is that they were butchers of humans. The creators of factories for killing tens of thousands of people a day. That isn't political - just pure unadulterated evil.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Sarvis » Tue Jan 11, 2011 1:56 pm

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:Terror? Any bombings? Any killings? Any riots? Any lootings? You're trying real hard to equate comparing something that happened with the mentality of 500+ years ago, with that of 50 years ago.



What's so magical about the last 50 years, Adriorn? Your stance is that talking about the Crusades is invalid because it was in the past... yet as little as 50 years ago Americans/Christians were still violent. 50 years ago is ALSO in the past. So either we didn't change in 450 years then underwent a rapid change, or we still haven't after 500 years.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:28 pm

Sarvis wrote:
Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:Terror? Any bombings? Any killings? Any riots? Any lootings? You're trying real hard to equate comparing something that happened with the mentality of 500+ years ago, with that of 50 years ago.



What's so magical about the last 50 years, Adriorn? Your stance is that talking about the Crusades is invalid because it was in the past... yet as little as 50 years ago Americans/Christians were still violent. 50 years ago is ALSO in the past. So either we didn't change in 450 years then underwent a rapid change, or we still haven't after 500 years.


That's precisely what the 60's represents, a huge social shift. Social violence, mass protests, demonstrations, the hippies, a drug culture, etc etc etc etc. We underwent a rapid change in that decade. Exactly. Comparing that to the Crusades of 500 years ago is nonsense.

And again, this is about actual terror and violence versus aggresive wordplay.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Ragorn » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:31 pm

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:Ragorn...

Are you forgetting the 1960's? Or do they not count? You are equating macho talk of violence with ACTUAL violence? Liberals can protest war and capitalism (and riot, and destroy property, and burn/loot), but Conservatives can't protest against big government and over-taxation? Days of Rage, Curfew riots, DNC riots...etc? That's the same as saying 'We can unarmed...this time"? Macho slogans vs actual terrorism?

So is your assertion that Jared Loughton killed Congresswoman Giffords because of protest slogans from the 1960s?

Or do you just want to spit and cry and play the b-b-b-b-ut libruls game?

Liberals aren't the ones calling for violent revolution. Conservatives are. Deal with the facts, from this decade, and quit trying to blow smoke up my ass with your irrelevant nonsense from 50 years ago.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Ragorn » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:34 pm

Teflor Lyorian wrote:But the fact is that this president has a MUCH different response to this tragedy than other similar ones. Jared Loughner got a tongue lashing from Obama from what he did that had no place in society, where as Nidal, the traitor in uniform, didn't even get so much as a mention about that terrible thing that happened in Ft. Hood one day.

I don't think I understood your response. Kiryan tried to call out the President, implying that he didn't adequately respond to this incident. You seem to be saying that Obama handled this incident just fine, but he fell short in his response to incidents in the past. I'd agree with that -- the article I linked pretty much says exactly that. Obama delivered a good message this time, though in the past he's been a bit limp-dicked about it.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Corth » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:42 pm

Ragorn wrote:Liberals aren't the ones calling for violent revolution. Conservatives are.


Ragorn,

Again - what conservatives are calling for violent revolution? You take the 100 million some odd people that identify themselves as conservatives in the US, and there are going to be a few nuts involved. It is unfair for you to do that, as it would be for me to label the entire Liberal movement based upon the freaky things done by their most fringe members. I'm still waiting to see how violent revolution is being advocated by Conservatives. Perhaps if you could give a specific example of prominent conservatives or conservative organizations advocating it. And Sharron Angle discussing the historical roots of the 2nd amendment (accurately I may add) does not constitute a call for violent revolution.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Sarvis » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:46 pm

Corth wrote:
Ragorn wrote:Liberals aren't the ones calling for violent revolution. Conservatives are.


Ragorn,

Again - what conservatives are calling for violent revolution? You take the 100 million some odd people that identify themselves as conservatives in the US, and there are going to be a few nuts involved. It is unfair for you to do that, as it would be for me to label the entire Liberal movement based upon the freaky things done by their most fringe members. I'm still waiting to see how violent revolution is being advocated by Conservatives. Perhaps if you could give a specific example of prominent conservatives or conservative organizations advocating it. And Sharron Angle discussing the historical roots of the 2nd amendment (accurately I may add) does not constitute a call for violent revolution.


I believe Ragorn is talking about certain pundits on Fox news as well as actual politicians like Sarah Palin. After all, we know that if a few important people say something it means everyone in that group believes the same thing right?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Sarvis » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:50 pm

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:
Sarvis wrote:
Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:Terror? Any bombings? Any killings? Any riots? Any lootings? You're trying real hard to equate comparing something that happened with the mentality of 500+ years ago, with that of 50 years ago.



What's so magical about the last 50 years, Adriorn? Your stance is that talking about the Crusades is invalid because it was in the past... yet as little as 50 years ago Americans/Christians were still violent. 50 years ago is ALSO in the past. So either we didn't change in 450 years then underwent a rapid change, or we still haven't after 500 years.


That's precisely what the 60's represents, a huge social shift.


As opposed to basically every decade previous? There was no "social change" in the '20s right? Or any time in the 1800s?

Social violence, mass protests, demonstrations, the hippies, a drug culture, etc etc etc etc. We underwent a rapid change in that decade. Exactly. Comparing that to the Crusades of 500 years ago is nonsense.


No Adriorn, because things like that will happen again. We're human, humans don't really change much. We still have all the same instincts, base desires and fears we had 5 centuries ago.

You'd think a person who bases his life around a 2000 year old book would understand that.


And again, this is about actual terror and violence versus aggresive wordplay.


Watch your thoughts, for they become words.
Watch your words, for they become actions.
Watch your actions, for they become habits.
Watch your habits, for they become character.
Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:58 pm

Ragorn wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:But the fact is that this president has a MUCH different response to this tragedy than other similar ones. Jared Loughner got a tongue lashing from Obama from what he did that had no place in society, where as Nidal, the traitor in uniform, didn't even get so much as a mention about that terrible thing that happened in Ft. Hood one day.

I don't think I understood your response. Kiryan tried to call out the President, implying that he didn't adequately respond to this incident. You seem to be saying that Obama handled this incident just fine, but he fell short in his response to incidents in the past. I'd agree with that -- the article I linked pretty much says exactly that. Obama delivered a good message this time, though in the past he's been a bit limp-dicked about it.

I think Kiryan was calling out the president on the difference in his responses - that he treated two similar instances very differently in a way that indicates how weak of a President he is - who the President decides to pick on, and who the President weakly pans when politically convenient for his agenda.

But you may be right, it may just be a learning process - but still, it says a lot about the mentality of this administration. They are anti-American nationalist sentiment. Obama doesn't believe that Americans are special or different - and the way he limp-wrists certain issues, while strongly condemning others shows it.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby kiryan » Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:34 pm

Democrats had overwhelming majorities for the past 2 years. WHAT DID YOU DO TO RESTORE CIVILITY TO THE POLITICAL DISCOURSE? Nothing.

You used every trick in the book to get absolutely everything you could and claim that what you couldn't get were compromises. bullshit.

Now you want to talk about civility after creating this hatred of the right and the reciprocal hatred of the left. Do you remember how Democrats came to power in 2006? Not by offering a choice, but by riding populist anti war rhetoric. Protests at the white house, attempted citizen's arrests on Bush, calling him a liar every day in the news. Doing your damndest to make sure we lost the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so you could blame it on the GOP.

You go first and start with repealing healthcare.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Sarvis » Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:57 pm

kiryan wrote:Democrats had overwhelming majorities for the past 2 years. WHAT DID YOU DO TO RESTORE CIVILITY TO THE POLITICAL DISCOURSE? Nothing.

You used every trick in the book to get absolutely everything you could and claim that what you couldn't get were compromises. bullshit.

Now you want to talk about civility after creating this hatred of the right and the reciprocal hatred of the left. Do you remember how Democrats came to power in 2006? Not by offering a choice, but by riding populist anti war rhetoric. Protests at the white house, attempted citizen's arrests on Bush, calling him a liar every day in the news. Doing your damndest to make sure we lost the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so you could blame it on the GOP.

You go first and start with repealing healthcare.



Kiryan, I get that you view Democrats as the enemy and think they are actively trying to harm America. Do you understand that this is what Republican political strategists have been telling the American public since before Bush got elected?

Protests and citizens arrests? Not something that came from political leadership. Something that came from the PEOPLE that Bush pissed off. The public, not the Democratic party. Even enough Republicans were upset about Bush to elect Obama.

Calling Bush a liar? Well, he lied. You act like Republicans never call Democrats liars... yet that's all we heard through most of the Bush presidency: "Clinton lied!"

Repealing healthcare is a purely partisan issue. You GOT what Republicans wanted. It's been documented that most of the healthcare bill was proposed by Republicans years before Obama ever ran for President. Maybe it should be repealed, who knows? The point is that it has nothing to do with restoring "civility" with the GOP party who has spent a decade turning "Liberal" into an epithet.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Ragorn » Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:21 pm

Corth wrote:Again - what conservatives are calling for violent revolution? You take the 100 million some odd people that identify themselves as conservatives in the US, and there are going to be a few nuts involved. It is unfair for you to do that, as it would be for me to label the entire Liberal movement based upon the freaky things done by their most fringe members. I'm still waiting to see how violent revolution is being advocated by Conservatives. Perhaps if you could give a specific example of prominent conservatives or conservative organizations advocating it. And Sharron Angle discussing the historical roots of the 2nd amendment (accurately I may add) does not constitute a call for violent revolution.

Sharron Angle discussing the historical roots of the second amendment, Corth?

Sharron Angle wrote:“The nation is arming,” she told the newspaper. “What are they arming for, if it isn’t that they are so distrustful of their government? They’re afraid they’ll have to fight for their liberty in more Second Amendment kinds of ways. That’s why I look at this as almost an imperative. If we don’t win at the ballot box, what will be the next step?”

That's Sharron Angle, Tea Party politican, your Republican Senate candidate in the Nevada Senate election in 2010, describing her constituency. Yes Sharron, what will be the next step, when your constituents lose at the ballot box? Are they going to start fighting for their liberty in "more Second Amendment ways?" What does that mean exactly? Your consituents are already carrying firearms to protests and town hall meetings, are you going to start using them?

Stop hand-waving. Stop pretending that the undercurrent of armed insurrection is not promoted by the conservative movement. Better yet, show me a prominent conservative politican who condemns Tea Party members from unnecessarily bringing guns to Democratic town hall meetings.

Oh, sure. I know. "They're just exercising their Second Amendment rights!"

Bullshit. Total and utter ridiculous fabrication. Nobody practices open carry at a political gathering just for the hell of it. It's a scare tactic. It's a threat. To say otherwise is being intentionally dishonest, which is what the entirety of "the conservative movement" is doing this week. Pretending that their fascination with the second amendment for the past two years has been completely harmless and docile.

We'll see if it continues.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:07 pm

Sarvis wrote:As opposed to basically every decade previous? There was no "social change" in the '20s right? Or any time in the 1800s?


Yes, as opposed to previous decades. No social change to the extent seen in a DECADE of the 60's had been seen in recent times. None. Put all the things I listed previously, along with the Civil Rights movements, all the other movements, the good and the bad. Change like that usually took a century to occur, this happened in less than 10 years. And, in 10 years that might be in some of our lifetimes. So I think it was extremely well used as a counter-example of actual violence instead of wordplay.

Sarvis wrote:We still have all the same instincts, base desires and fears we had 5 centuries ago.


And the way we manifest them, civilized and proper, morally and culturally, have changed in those 500 years. Choosing to believe we behave the same way we did 500 years ago is lunacy.

Sarvis wrote:You'd think a person who bases his life around a 2000 year old book would understand that.


Standard anti-Catholic, sarcastic insult. Classy.
Last edited by Adriorn Darkcloak on Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:20 pm

Ragorn wrote:
Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:Ragorn...

Are you forgetting the 1960's? Or do they not count? You are equating macho talk of violence with ACTUAL violence? Liberals can protest war and capitalism (and riot, and destroy property, and burn/loot), but Conservatives can't protest against big government and over-taxation? Days of Rage, Curfew riots, DNC riots...etc? That's the same as saying 'We can unarmed...this time"? Macho slogans vs actual terrorism?

So is your assertion that Jared Loughton killed Congresswoman Giffords because of protest slogans from the 1960s?

Or do you just want to spit and cry and play the b-b-b-b-ut libruls game?

Liberals aren't the ones calling for violent revolution. Conservatives are. Deal with the facts, from this decade, and quit trying to blow smoke up my ass with your irrelevant nonsense from 50 years ago.


Irrelevant nonsense? The events that transpired 42 years ago might be in some of our lifetimes. These aren't century-old examples. Their pertinence is justified, in my opinion, as examples of actual VIOLENCE, and not bumper stickers and rally signs. I also mentioned the G8 protesters in my response to Sarvis, but I guess they don't count since they are calling for international revolution, not just in this country (mainly). What about the anti-Bush signs? Kill Bush games and Bush effigies being burned? Are those too in the past as well? You're playing the same spit and cry game Ragorn, and don't want to admit the Left-wing violence of 42 years ago.

I don't like the tone of some of them, but I take it as machismo. More talk than actual acts. When "Conservatives" start rioting, attacking the police, looting, burning cars, etc, etc in large numbers, I will 100% agree.

Saying you want to throw down the government isn't the same thing as physically trying to do so. Bumper stickers don't equate to Declarations of Independence and actual Revolution. Bush had a shoe thrown at him. That's more violent than any placard.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby kiryan » Wed Jan 12, 2011 12:59 am

lol no one practices open carry at a political rally except as a threat?

Seriously? Both sides engage in the full exercising of their rights often times just to celebrate it / challenge those who would argue they don't have the right. I'm sure there were NO black people at all going into white only clubs just because they could. Nah that would've never happened. Or women dressing like total sluts and filming openly offensive videos just because they were free from the yoke of a male domianted culture nah, they were clearly making threats.

and I'm the close minded unbalanced one, you just think you're right.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Ragorn » Wed Jan 12, 2011 3:12 pm

The partisan denial runs strong in this thread :)

B-b-b-but something libruls did 50 years ago!
I just like to carry my gun! And all that talk about "bullets, not ballots" is just celebrating the founding fathers' intent for the second amendment!

Y'all watch too much Fox News :)

From now on, the Republican Party is the Party of Violence.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Sarvis » Wed Jan 12, 2011 3:49 pm

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:And the way we manifest them, civilized and proper, morally and culturally, have changed in those 500 years. Choosing to believe we behave the same way we did 500 years ago is lunacy.


Choosing to believe they are different because they haven't reached this point yet is lunacy. Choosing to believe we can't still go back to acting that way is lunacy.

There's a LOT that keeps us from getting violent. Much more than what some hippies did in the 60's.

Standard anti-Catholic, sarcastic insult. Classy.


Nope. Truth. People are pretty much the same as they were 2000 years ago, which is why the Bible is still relevant. Which is why you can still go to it to answer the questions you have about life and how you should act.

People haven't changed, our situation has.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Ragorn » Wed Jan 12, 2011 4:10 pm

Sarah Palin describes the idea that conservative rhetoric influenced Jared Loughner as "blood libel."

Blood libel is a term used to describe the Christian persecution of Jews in Europe... specifically, the rumors spread by Christians that Jews murder Christian children for their religious rituals. Congresswoman Giffords was Jewish, Sarah Palin is Christian.

What a gaffe! It would be like the Prime Minister of Germany describing a Jewish murderer as "perpetrating a holocaust."
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby kiryan » Wed Jan 12, 2011 5:51 pm

I don't think I agree with you...

it would be like accusing a jewish mass murderer of a specific race for racial reasons to be commiting a holocaust... that I think would be a somewhat valid accusation (although obviously not on the same scale). Do we still refer to pyrrhic victories in a modern sense, or can that only be used to describe battles between with ancient Romans?

In a similar sense, I don't see a problem with Palin accusing the media and the left of engaging in "blood libel" by making unsubstantiated to downright false accusations, that GOP and conservatives and Tea party are responsible for this guy's murderous rampage. The left is accusing the right of inciting people of like mind to kill people and trying to convince the public at large that the GOP is going to kill their children in the pursuit of corporate greed and cuts to socialist programs and apaprently making actual wackos killing people.
and tonights winner in the Toril EQ lottery is demi belt and skull earring!
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Congresswoman Giffords

Postby Corth » Wed Jan 12, 2011 7:47 pm

Jewish Liberal and Harvard Law Prof Alan Dershowitz defending Palin's use of the "Blood Libel" term:
http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/0 ... ood-libel/

And while I'm dropping links.. Found a pretty impressive collection of recent acts of left wing violence and hate:
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/th ... 2000-2010/
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.

Return to “Current Events & Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest