What the fuck is that??
A set of reasonable, defensible arguments? Get the fuck outta here with that!
I disagree with both premises, but (unlike the Palin idiocy) you raise two very debatable and cogent points in an insightful and logical manner.
You don’t belong on this board. Go away.
Far away.
Okay, the guy could have gotten off 11 rounds, not 10.
Happy now? Do you really think that was the point of the discussion? :rolleyes:
That grip isn’t going to find itself, ya know.
Here. Regular sentiments from regular liberals:
I only wish we conservatives could aspire to this calm discussion of the Palin issue.
How do you know they’re liberals? You’re not particularly fond of Palin yourself.
Um, no, Chuckles, I already explained in detail why you were wrong, and that wasn’t it. Really now, I’ve seen you work, and this is another in your bag of tricks: “deliberately avoid admitting something by admitting something else and pretending like it was the first”, or “Elvis Dishonest Debate Tactic #8.”
BZZZT! Wrong. You lied about the scope of the AWB, I posted a citation proving you were wrong, and given how smart you think you are and given your long history in gun control debates, you can’t plead ignorance. You lose.
You’re really obsessed with gripping things. Entertain the possibility that you may have an anger management problem. Am I going to be stalked next? I guess we’ll have to wait and see…better bookmark this thread.
That’s true. A statement
-made by an entertainer who I know almost nothing about and don’t care about
-and I don’t know what the context was (bot what show it was on, and what the tone and surrounding comments were)
-and it was 10 years ago
has not caused my rage to burn with the fury of a thousand suns. You got me. Particularly given that I’m entirely happy to admit that, being a flawed human being I’m not 100% objective about things, nor did I ever claim to be.
She’s inarguably prominent and influential. “Respected” is a bit dicier, I agree… but the rank and file tea partiers, to the extent that there are rank and file tea partiers, certainly seem to hold her in high esteem.
It is to your credit that you have so frequently pointed out your dislike and lack of respect for Sarah Palin. But it’s only because she IS such a national figure in Republican politics, that you, being a thinking and reasonable Republican, have felt a need to do so. I have rarely, if ever, pointed out my lack of respect for Ward Churchill because it would take a crazy person to think that some random college professor somewhere speaks for me, but it’s far less preposterous that Sarah Palin might speak for you.
Agreed. Sarah Palin clearly has political goals which she thinks are valuable and will benefit the US. And she has a bully pulpit to achieve them. And she has various options of what tone and what types of language and metaphor she is going to adopt from that bully pulpit. And her choices will influence both how effective her message is, and what potential side effects it will have.
I certainly don’t think it’s prima facie ridiculous that when a person of her stature, in this climate, adopts such militaristic and violent imagery and rhetoric; the results will include a non-trivial (albeit still very very small in an absolute sense) risk of inciting actual violence. Is that risk so great that it overwhelms any perceived benefit? Well, that’s between her and her God, at some level, but I don’t think it’s something that we should refuse to discuss.
Dude, seriously, what’s your point?
Random jackasses on the internet are random jackasses on the internet. Want me to start making youtube videos of posts at FreeRepublic.com and claiming they’re “regular sentiments from regular conservatives”?
As has been said over and over and over and over, the issue is not “some random conservative person said something bad and we liberals all have our panties in a knot”, it’s “specific extremely prominent and influential conservatives said something bad, and the vast majority of other conservatives didn’t seem particularly alarmed by this, and we liberals all have our panties in a knot”. There’s a huge huge huge difference there, and yet you respond by posting this silliness? You’re better than that.
That would have been done, inferences or no inferences. The guilty flee when no man pursueth.
No more calls; we have a winner!
Joe Nobodies obviously don’t count; there is an inevitable noise level of idiots in all factions. However, if the people who are in a position where they are expected to know better and behave better fail to do so, and are not held to account for it by their colleagues and followers, there is something fundamentally wrong with their institutional culture.
Indeed. The cherry on the bullshit sundae is that Bricker thought he would get away with this sleazy innuendo precisely because Kilborn was relegated to obscurity after the outrage that (quite properly) resulted from this bit of tasteless idiocy.
Which is what needs to happen to Palin.
The goal posts are fixed; political factions are responsible for the people they elect and nominate to office and for allies who work hand-in-glove with the party machinery.
Perhaps we could draw a map with two surveyor’s marks for the fixed position of the goal posts and the current position of your argument (fumbled on your own one-yard line).
The interesting thing is that it shows that they themselves don’t believe that this sort of rhetoric is really divorced from this sort of outcome – if they did, they would stipulate that the gunsight crosshairs are exactly what they look like and argue that this fact is irrelevant.
No she doesn’t.
Irrelevant. She isn’t playing the victim card to avoid being blamed for the murders (a charge nobody outside the irrelevant peanut gallery is making). She is playing the victim card to avoid taking any responsibility for tastelessly debasing the tone of public debate, a charge of which she is guilty, guilty, guilty.
To be ruthlessly fair, I think she is bringing the debate down to her own level. Bless her heart, she doesn’t know any better.
I just want to step in and thank Jesus that I live in Texas, where they will never come to pry my open-carry theodolite from my cold dead hands.
Do you have cites for all of those assertions?
Hey I dropped a few F bombs in there, and the premise of the OP is that Palin *should *take responsibility for this tragedy, which I agreed with. Just not for the bullshit reasons everyone is obsessed with and splitting hairs over.
So fuck Palin for helping to promote a Wild West-style society that glorifies guns and demonizes social programs, which directly facilitated the Tucson shootings! Fuck fuck fuckity fuck fuck fuck her!
Some of them are true. He did list Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto as two of his favorite books. Then again he also listed two books by George Orwell. I have not heard that he stalked Giffords. I think some people who knew him said he obsessed about their one public meeting in 2007. I haven’t heard anything about the occult or his voting preferences. He was arrested for having drug paraphernalia once, and his friends did say he began using drugs more as his mental state deteriorated (who knows which caused which, if either) and we know the military rejected him because he failed a drug test.
In this article, he’s described as a nihilist (although who knows if the acquaintance is using the term accurately or literally - we all know nihilists are cowards ;)).
I don’t see anything occult or liberal about that. On the other hand I guess we have the answer to the question “What color is the sky in this guy’s world?”
And by the way, it’s 2011. Liberals aren’t the only ones who smoke pot. Pat Robertson came out in favor of legalizing marijuana last month. I doubt he’s a pothead, although heavy drug use would explain more than a few things, but there is no shortage of libertarian conservative types who share that view. The odds that none of them smoke pot is rather slim. It wasn’t that long ago people were using the phrase “South Park conservative” with a straight face. I think there might have been just a few pot smokers in a demographic that referred to youngish people who watch a late-night cartoon on Comedy Central.
Hey son, you got a permit for that there surveyin’ gadget?