Aaron, I like you because you are snarky. Welcome.
You’re dangerously ignorant. The Haymarket Massacre was in 1886, and the Ludlow Massacre was in 1914, merely for example. We liberals can be very ruinous to rifle bullets. Once a bullet glances off one of our ribs, it’s pretty much useless.
For every one of us who falls, ten rise. Motherfucker. 
I don’t think that someone’s general political bent makes them more or less predisposed to tyranny (or acceptance thereof). While there are certain powerful arguments that can be made regarding economic systems and their implications on personal freedom, even when accounting for the subtle interplay between economics and politics one cannot arrive at a logical conclusion that *generalized beliefs *in what we currently refer to as conservative or liberal ideology implies anything about tyrannical predilections.
This is why the Constitution and the Bill of Rights comprise such a magnificent framework for government.
The mainstream Republicans *are *crazy. Rational conservatives are an endangered species. I’ve met a few of them (Really!) but that whole party is degenerating rapidly into the loony bin. So I guess I agreed with Bricker about one thing from the beginning: There wasn’t really an either/or. The bulk of Republicans have lost their everloving minds, *and *Fox News anchors don’t know what the hell they’re talking about and make shit up.
You’re still very popular here. How often do people fondly remark on your blimp story?
Some people get political in the pit and it tarnishes everything they post outside of it. Really unpleasant people.
You are not such a one.
Except for such intellectual adventures as insisting that Charlie Manson is a leftist. Which carries the faint scent of batshit.
But I quite agree, domestic comedy is your brightest gift, and encourage you to put more of your vast creative energies into it. Said so many times. I feel that any effort you make to become the successor to the late, great Erma Brombeck will harvest rich rewards, both for you and your many, many fans.
Amen! If you or Sampiro ever published, I’d start a book club.
ps: Don’t lump yourself in with posteRRs who use the Pit to make ad hominem insults of people’s famililies. We don’t.
Well, they’re not alone.
Here is a YouTube’d clip from MSNBC. At about 40 seconds in, they show a man, edited to show only his body from the shoulders down, carrying a rifle at one of the events we’ve discussed. The commentator says, “There are questions about whether this has racial overtones. I mean here you have a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns …”
Well, that’s reasonable.
Except if you look at these pictures.
Now, extra credit for students of logic: does my observation constitute a tu quoque? Why or why not?
Yes, if one, single gun toter is black, that means none of the others are racist. Great logic.
ETA, that particular guy was part of a radio stunt, by the way, so he’s not exactly representative.
Yes, because Clinton got a blow job?
The fact that one black guy with a gun was there does not preclude the possibility that several of the white people with guns that were also there (confirmed from multiple media sources) might have contributed to some larger racial tensions. I’d admit it’d be more of a leap if there wasn’t all those Obama/Hitler/socialism signs fueling the hate that also had an undeniable (if not necessarily representative) presence at the event.
Why don’t they say “some people are stupid and don’t know how to act”? - That describes people like this, without having to comment on the pros or cons of the bill, and without giving a perception that this behavior is condoned or excusable.
They should. That they don’t is a very legitimate criticism.
What you say is true. However, taking that one picture of the black guy and editing it so you couldn’t see he was black and using that to accompany words about possible racial overtones is slimy journalism and dishonest.
Hmmmmm. I wear glasses. I am Hitler! :eek:
True. My grip is not with the claim that there might be a racial element inferred from all this – it’s that the specific clip that they used, with the scariest gun, was the one clip that didn’t support their thesis. They invite us to conclude that the specific man they show us is part of the “white people carrying guns” group that they comment upon, and that isn’t the case.
It doesn’t weaken their claim about the fact that there are white peopel carrying guns, but it does suggest their willingness to edit clips in a deceptive way.
Can I get either Scylla or Bricker to answer my question about whether Sarah Palin is representative of the fringe or the mainstream?
If the Republican party were a rugged, buckskin jacket Sarah Palin would be the fringe on the sleeves. Praise Jesus!
Ten toes, anyway.