So who is the Glenn Beck of the left wing?
Michelle Bachman?
Sharon Angle?
No, I don’t remember that at all.
Ya know, that post referencing the Weathermen got me to remembering, and comparing. I did not admire the Weathermen. But at least they were wrong for some serious reasons.
But what is this posturing, this flirtation with violence, these stern oaths to resist dreadful tyranny about? Health insurance? Whether Bruce can marry Bruce? Can they join the Army? Whether banking and financial firms should be regulated? Whether a Keynesian approach to our economic crisis is the best? These issues are the Big Hairy Ass Deal?
Even if the violence is merely metaphorical, just a matter of dramatic symbolism, why even that? Its like fragging your Mom because she made you eat your vegetables!
Militant anarchists = project youths…
Yeah.
Right.
Hey, let’s see what the real Left is up to. Ya know, the one we hear about that *opposes *Obama.
Okay, so they’re talking about “hope.” I knew it! They support Obama!
No, wait. “Resisting the state”? I knew it! They’re no different than the tea party! And look at those military uniforms!
Huh? We shouldn’t succumb to “fear, despair, and apathy”? Why are they chaining themselves to the White House fence…to protest war?! That’s surrender!
WTF?! I thought they’d attacking, or at least fomenting violent rebellion. Some militant Left this is!
“Hope posits that people are drawn to The Good, by the Good.” Where is the fear?
Yes, that’s true. But my comment was intended to highlight the absurdity of the recent GD thread on this subject, wherein the OP defended his own “no basis” questions as unobjectionable because they were framed as questions.
Garbage. You quoted Hume’s statement with disapproval. You mocked it, as though the very idea that it wasnot okay to use Nazi but okay to use socialist was worthy of nothing but ridicule.
You can’t back away from it by feigning wonder at my lack of comprehension. It IS appropriate to call people socialists if they are advancing socialist ideas or if they self-identify as socialists. There are people in American politics and commentary who are appropriately called socialists. You may disagree about what level of socialist advocacy issufficient to earn someone the label, but that’s not a matter of objective fact.
Do these people also disgust you?
Damn you, [strike]false[/strike] - actually, pretty dead-on - equivalence!
I missed where they dissembled, and called their symbol anything other than a target.
Bricker, a target is not the same thing as a crosshairs. Let it go, because otherwise when people read this thread and never again think of you as anything other than either a retard or a douchebag, you’ll have no one to blame but yourself.
Well, when a white guy shoots other white people, of COURSE them dirty Messicans are to blame!
Duh!
I think there is a difference in nuance between putting a target on an entire state that meets certain electoral criteria and a target on particular individuals, especially when combined with other violent rhetoric. Not all targets are created equal.
Holy Christ. To the rightarded, a map with states being shown as targets to flip from red to blue is just like a map with crosshairs associated with people’s names.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
No, they do not.
Come on. Could their iconography be a little better? Perhaps. But a target in and of itself is not meant to evoke violent imagery, especially when it’s not accompanied by rhetoric that encourages voters to not retreat, but reload.
What sticks out to me is when people call them ‘gunsights’. Certainly, anti-Palin people can come up with better criticisms.
Once again someone has said it much more eloquently than I ever could…
John Scalzi…“If your political messaging traffics in rhetoric heavy on gun imagery and revolution of the overthrow-y sort, then when someone shoots a congressperson who you opposed, then guess what: You get to spend some uncomfortable moments in the spotlight being asked if it’s not reasonable to suspect a connection between your rhetoric and the actions of a shooter targeting someone you’ve opposed. You also get to spend time being asked if, in fact, your rhetoric isn’t overblown, simplistic and on balance detrimental to the nation’s body politic. Querulous complaints about the unfairness of this can be reasonably overruled by others; the time to complain about your bed is before you make it.”
You can see the whole post here
Oh, they’re 1960’s-style death rioters. I had no idea there was a type of riot specific to the '60s. I assume this means there was some really good music?
“BEHIND ENEMY LINES.” It’s right there on the graphic.
And there was the Democratic politican that said, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”
But since they’re liberals, I understand that all is forgiven.
How about the Hollywood liberal Democratic supporter who said, “If we were in other countries, we would all right now, all of us together, all of us together would go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death! We would stone him to death! [crowd cheers] Wait! Shut up! Shut up! No shut up! I’m not finished. We would stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes and we’d kill their wives and their children. We would kill their families.”
When he is nominated by the Democratic Party for Vice President, or the US Senate, we will talk.