Or he hasn’t gone to a tea party rally.
When someone says that, they usually don’t really mean it, I think the OP really means what he says.
Wait. What? huh? I think you might be confusing SFG with someone else. I don’t recall SFG saying that the vitriol against Obama was mostlyracist rather than partisan. I thought her argument was that Obama is getting it worse than Clinton ever did. I think you responded to someone else who implied that Obama was catching extra heat because he is black 9which you seem to agree with, then you said, Clinton got mroe heat and he’s not black. That’s wher SFG jumped in.
I don’t see her arguing that this is all a race thing anywhere. I think you guys might be talking past each other.
Which amounts to the same thing in this case.
I think you got wrapped up emotionally by reading the more confrontative posts and thus misread my reply. I wasn’t attacking you, I was only pointing out that althoug it would be nice if wilful ignorance wasn’t your problem, or mine, that’s just not the case. Wilful ignorance will affect you, and you don’t want it to, so it IS your problem. And mine. And everyone elses.
Self-defense. Should I wait until I get shot at before firing? As far as I’m concerned, they’ve had me in their sights and are waiting until November to pull the trigger.
What’s the scenario for Tea Partiers killing you? How are they going to do it?
So, you’re in proposing a pre-emptive strike?
Who was it that came up with the Bush doctrine?
I sympathize, really I do. Being President, Treasurer, and Chief Box-Gobbler of the Hillary Fan Club is obviously a demanding set of roles, and it’s perfectly understandable that you might, in all the hurly-burly, lose some perspective. But no matter how much your own butt hurt— and I know it hurt very, *very *badly— when Hillary lost, you can’t project your own sphincteric anguish onto the public at large.
Mind you, I’m not minimizing your pain. You were sore, red, throbbing, and justifiably angry. But it’s a question of frequency and volume, not intensity. If the contest were “who’s angrier over criticism of their candidate,” Hillary would win hands-down because you’d single-handedly blow the curve.
But the question is “who’s taken more shit?” So come on. Let’s not even pretend.
(Spoken, incidentally, as someone who is currently quite disenchanted with Obama and feels that he fully *deserves *a lot of shit, just not of the type we’re discussing.)
What does that have to do with anything?
Maybe he’s(?) just being wary?
CMC fnord!
Some sort of terrorist action. This past week a right wing loony got into a gunfight with some Oakland cops. Cool heads and professionalism prevailed at the Oakland PD and only the body armored perp was hurt, but not killed.
Reportedly the conservative bank robber was planning on taking down the ACLU and Tides Foundation. When you have hot headed conservative lunatics calling for violence on the radio (with a thin veil of course) some sensitive souls are liable to act on it. The same would apply to sociopathic posts like the OP, except they don’t have anywhere near the same reach.
You know who called for mass murder? Godwin.
Curse you Shot From Guns for beating me too the punch!
Actually this is more Stalinist (10 million dead) than Naziist (6? million Jews). I find it hard to see how veiled calls for mass murder are consistent with any moral system, never mind utilitarianism. You are depraved.
Reverend Falwell distributed videos that accused Clinton of murder (google Vince Foster). Read the Wallace literature from the 1960s for more examples of right-wing paranoia.
Conservatives go ape-shit whenever a Democrat is elected President. That the case against Obama is less than threadbare doesn’t really matter – this is a matter of political psychology. In 2008, I thought that the swamps would be even crazier if Hillary was elected Prez: now I am not so sure. Obama is a clean cut guy, IMHO: their attacks provide us with insight into modern conservative personality defects. Thankfully, the left doesn’t have so much of this: I’d argue that the OP is more an exception than the rule.
Bush co liked pre-emptive strikes though they violated age-old rules of war – not that it matters to the modern conservative.
The wider point is that the OP is embedded in the crazy.
And yet, you have no argument.
When evil is armed, words aren’t enough.
Well, the proto-teabaggers were a big part of the cheerleading squad for Bush’s preemptive strike doctrine, so I don’t really see how they can object to having such a doctrine applied to themselves. Unless perhaps they care to admit that they were wrong? Barring that, it’s only fair to let em die by the sword they helped forge.
Of course, we’d all feel bad about it afterwards. 
What’s your evidence for that proposition?
Since he’s blatantly factually wrong, no. As I said; he’s either lying or delusional, probably lying.