No, that was Sue Lowden, another Nevada Republican.
:crosses Nevada off as possible retirement location:
Well, Dr. Maeglin. You sure have a big vocabulary for someone form New Jersey!
Words like “clear” are hard, I know.
You’re whooshing me on the NJ joke, though. Sorry.
But I think he found that “n” you were looking for the other day…
I used to love you
But I have to kill you.
For those playing at home, that’s called an allusion.
Wouldn’t it be cool if the nutbar shooter listened to Rush?
Then Rush could go on record condemning Rush.
Heck, Rush could have Rush on his show, and perhaps Rush and Rush could get into a huge argument, which would culminate in Rush forcing Rush to listen to their music over and over again.
It’s an old SNL gag from the Rosanne Rosanadana days. Some guy (I think it was always Dr. Feder) from Fort Lee, NJ would write a letter to her, and she’d always start off her reply with: Well, Dr. Feder. You sure have a big vocabulary for someone from New Jersey!
I do believe Angle was dog-whistling to her followers that if she lost the election, they should take Reid out. It couldn’t be clearer. And by “Take Reid out” she meant violence.
True story, I was riding with a co-worker who was listening to the Rushbo program – but it wasn’t Rush the dude because he had the day off, so he had a replacement on. They also didn’t use the same bumper music. Instead of the Pretenders, it was … well, I’ll give you one guess.
I’ll tell you exactly what Angle was doing… it’s so transparent that it’s even got its own TV Trope. She’s not telling you she’s going to overthrow the government, heavens no, just that it would be a downright shame if someone did. (Which fortunately can be averted if you [del]buy into her protection racket[/del] vote for her.
I don’t think she was intentionally fomenting violence, but it’s criminally negligent to ignore the likelihood of it as a side effect.
Nice little country you got there. It would be a shame if anything happened to it.
I don’t see why it’s so hard to believe Angle meant what she said. She’s a kook. During the campaign she insisted the media be under her control, that she be let to control the content of their coverage, and when they didn’t, she and her campaign staff would physically run away from them. She has all sorts of whacky beliefs.
I think most of you are operating under a deep internal assumption that “no one like that could really make it that close to being a US Senator, so she must’ve been playing some sort of politician game”, but welcome to the new level of political discourse we have, where people who really believe the stuff will get support from a significant portion of the right-leaning population.
She’s radical, she’s kooky, and there’s no reason to suspect that she didn’t mean what she said. The scary part is just how close she came to being one of the 100 US Senators.
Haven’t looked at the GD thread, so I have no idea.
Okay, so then it’s okay to call people fascist if they are advancing fascist ideas, right? And, furthermore, the right-wing doesn’t like to talk about actual socialists like Sanders. It prefers to use the word as an epithet for people who want to raise the top marginal tax rate by 3%–hell, some of them went to “Marxist” in their moronic zeal.
I don’t know who you’re labelling as “my guy” here. If you’re referring to the democrats who said stuff like “we need to target this state”, then yes, obviously that isn’t in the same category as an entire rhetorical campaign hinting at armed insurgency and revolution.
Are you seriously trying to contend that democrats and republicans use the rhetoric of armed insurrection equally?
Honestly, Bricker, I think you’re probably one of the smartest people on the boards. Which makes it sad for me that you’re so absurdly partisan that you will staunchly defend the most nonsensical positions in order to never concede the other side may have a point, or that your side has flaws. Saying “second amendment solutions” are a metaphor, or that the democrats have an equal amount of apocalyptic rhetoric hinting at armed revolution is just absurd stuff that even a child could see through, so why do you do it?
Is it sort of a game, like, you’re willing to advocate silly stuff against all comers just for the challenge? Or is it just rabid partisanship, my side right or wrong, spin spin spin no matter what? You could be so much better than this.
Obviously “dog whistling” is exactly the opposite of what I should have said.
Anyone would recognize what Angle was calling for.
In my view, I have been more willing than the vast majority of posters on this board to concede error when I’m wrong, and change a position when I can’t defend it.
You call me a rabid partisan, but who on the other side has been half as willing as I have been to admit when I’ve been outargued and publicly change my stance?
Who?
“Quite clear”? Not at all, sir.
So, “Second Amendment solution” is a metonym for something that has nothing to do with arms? What, exactly?
Is there a recognized name for a “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?!” type of statement?
Does my keyboard only type invisible letters or something?
“Second Amendment Remedy” is a ***euphemism ***for using firearms to solve a problem as much as “Bumping Uglies” is a ***euphemism ***for fucking.
That guy is on the right to me, and I am definitely leftist. But That guy goes around the world from the right to the left, to the mouth to the balls and out the poop chute on the political spectrum to me… That guy is a delusional right wing gay with a streak of sado-masochism… That’s a leftie courting right over an overdeveloped sense of feminine cruelty…