You can not be serious. Violent imagery is not found on the left? What about Bill Ayers.? Is he on the left? He killed his own friends and some officers in a bombing. Okay, so maybe you are right, the left doesn’t use imagery, they actually do the bombing.
You make me laugh.
BTW: No one thinks the left is AFRAID OF GUNS. People simply realize that the left wants to control the guns. Maybe it’s the same philosophy that tax cheat Geithener had. You know he’s above the law, but he would put a common smo’ one of his loyal fans even, in a federal pen for dodging taxes like he did.
Step away from the drugs, lefty people, drugs can fry your brain and make you susceptible to brainwashing. Remember it was the liberals who originally championed Hitler and allowed him to rise to power so that he could turn on them and control them.
I said your statement was stupid. An ad hominem attack would be an attack on you as a person.
Yes, I’m aware of his history. That doesn’t make your response to Fear Itself’s post valid. And while his actions probably did not have anything to do with anything anyone said, we don’t know at this point.
I think you’re allowed to make stuff up but everybody else isn’t for some reason.
Yeah, I saw it in that Reefer Madness documentary.
Someone who hadn’t talked to him in years said he was a liberal in high school. Yes, I’m aware.
To continue from my previous post, if I said this proves you’re a complete idiot and that nothing you say should be taken seriously because you are dumber than toejam, that would be an ad hominem.
Here is the definition of Ad hominem. Referring to the person you are conversing with as stupid implied or directly is an ad hominm attack. You can try to spin your way out of it. But you know what you did. If you do not either you are in serious denial about yourself or you need to step away from the drugs.
Since MoGlow is new here, I thought he might have joined just to defend The Fair Sarah. No, he joined to start this thread.
I don’t think Ms Palin has real “responsibility” for the shootings. (The Quitter isn’t very good at taking responsibility for anything.) Some here may have hoped she could make an intelligent, reasoned, compassionate response to the deaths.
Those darn Liberals, always hoping somebody can show a previously unsuspected good side. I’m one, too. But I’ve lived in Texas most of my life & have adjusted my expectations. The bitch is just squirming & whining, as usual…
It’s okay, I know that whenever the left can not make a intellectual argument they resort ti implied insults than foolishly try to spin their way out of it.
I like that. Can you spin some more for me. It kinda makes my point.
Thank you. I was hoping you would link to that thread. Thanks for playing along. You are too easy. Seriously, I thought it would take a bit longer. But you did not read the profile. I am a woman, my dear.
Now tell me, what do you think of Bill Ayers. He has no insight into the fact that he may have done anything wrong. He has even claimed he regrets not doing more. He’s what they call an un-apoligetic terrorist.
I am waiting for the spin. Yeah, Ayers is normal guy, right?
You can’t even read a definition. That kind of ignorance may entertain the Freapers, but you will be held to a higher standard here.
And, for the record, you are posting in the BBQ Pit; ad hominem is what we do here, you spunk-reeking crotch maggot. If you want polite discourse, take it to Great Debates.
No more so than the guy who inspires mayhem by shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre.*
No, all Palin is guilty of is being a jerk, and of wanting violent rhetoric to have nothing but an upside for her and her fellow Republicans.
She can’t help being a jerk, and she doesn’t get to dictate to the nation what kinds of trash talk are acceptable.
*Oh, wait, I chose a poor, if somewhat apt ‘metaphor’ there.
Ooops.
Well, the sedition laws ain’t what they used to be, and that’s, for the most part, a good thing.
Here in Canada, the tone of the editorials has been something like "in the US, folks are consumed with the issue: ‘did the heated political rhetoric contribute to this tragedy’? Few are asking the more pertinant question: ‘did the fact that a clearly insane man could legally buy a Glock without any problem contribute to this tragedy’?
In short, while the question you ask is an important one, all evidence so far received points one way - the guy was crazy, was recognized as dangerously crazy before the shooting by his school, his friends, etc.; that had a grudge against his victim for years for insulting him by making no answer to his insane ramblings; and so while the question of how much his insanity was influenced by the current political climate is of course not answerable definitively, the probable answer is ‘not a lot, or at all’.
To my mind, of far greater moment is the ‘why there is no mechanism to prevent the dangerously insane being armed’ one. So long as crazy people can buy guns, crazy people will, on occasion, shoot others. It is a statistical certainty. Perhaps it is a price worth paying, to have the freedom to buy guns without burdensome procedures. If so, it makes more logical sense that it is there that the debate ought to rest, on the cost vs. benefit, not on the plane of partisan politics.
Indeed, stressing your question, when the evidence is that it is probably answerable in the negative, just seems an extention of the partisan politics that you rightly decry. It is not of course a call to violence like that so often used by the political right, and for which they should be castigated, but it will (I think correctly) piss them off as being unfair and opportunistic - their point being they will resent having the blame for the acts of a crazy person pinned on them, either directly or because they ‘created an atmosphere of fear and paranoia’ which allegedly ‘inspired’ him. In short, it is putting them in the right, by blaming them when they probably do not bear the blame - for this mass murder.
The cruel irony here is that the victim herself was allegedly a champion of gun ownership rights.
That might ultimately be a more substantive issue. And the same goes for the questions this raises about the amount of resources society devotes to people who are mentally ill.
Also, you do know, or maybe you don’t, but google it, anyway, the majority of sociopaths/psychopaths do not physically kill someone. You do know that a preponderance of politicians exhibit sociopathic/psychopathic tendencies, yet they lack insight into this behavior and will deny it, even make excuses for it. Psychopaths are typically blamers, too. Like most dems
But Loughner, like so many other gun attackers before him, had until then been a “law-abidinig citizen” and therefore someone whose Second Amendment “rights” had to be protected. The even broader issue is the extremists’ reflexive antipathy to the very notion of responsible gun control laws, a view that constantly stymies any progress on the problem. Even something as simple and obvious and meager as an assault weapon ban, like the Clinton one that would have prevented Loughner from firing more than 10 bullets from a legal gun, gets demagogued by the fantasists.
Keep whipping the dead horse of denial, instead of adding anything of value with real information that is true and verifiable. Your assumptions amuse me and you do me a favor by posting.
You are too easy. Seriously, I thought it would take a bit longer. But you did not read the profile. I am a woman, my dear.