Hardly fair, you get a lot more practice.
Well, that last bit was both a metaphor and an analogy. Couple other things, too, but I’m not really sure exactly what. Too many for me, I fold.
This “advocating violence” is too binary, its almost as if so long as Ms. Angle an others of her ilk don’t say “Go plug Harry Reid”, in so many words, then they must be presumed as innocent as lambs frolicking amongst the daffodils.
What is happening is flirting with violence, with a wink and a nod and a say no more. It brings violence closer to acceptable, as though it were even conceivable that you might open fire on a fellow American over…health insurance? Health insurance!?? These are the times that try men’s souls? This is poorly written, the plot is ridiculous, its Steven King and Tom Clancy at the end of a six day drug binge.
But once you begin to flirt with violence, with coy reference to weapons, you’re on the path. You’re not Genghis Khan by a long shot, but you are no longer Gandhi. Would be better if you were more like Gandhi.
Do you really believe this? Really?? That she was actually intending or hoping for Reid to be taken out? If the answer is yes, you need help. Seriously.
Still not enough. You’d have to prove that she meant it and wasn’t just turning a phrase, using a metaphor, or anything else that could possibly keep her from being blamed. Unless you were actually in her head at the time, in a tiny little spaceship like in Fantastic Voyage, and were also trained enough to recognize the “Kill my political rival” neurons firing and not confuse them with something else, like the nearby “hug my political rival so tightly and lovingly that he may very well die from happiness” neurons.
Surely you can at least do that, right?
Ghandi doesn’t get the same headlines. Can you see it? “Fox News Alert: Ghandi does nothing again!” Where’s the sizzle?
Are these invectives and calls to action bolstered by the Great Beck Tea Party leaders and Patriots? Which are really a newly launched and cleverly disguised couched take on McCarthyism and the Nazi Apologists, with every play on words and obfuscation. I can calmly say that I am not affiliated with fascists. Mr. Beck has actively colluded with and incited the same under the banner and distortion of American Revolutionaries… He wouldn’t know history and try to lie about his every intention, if History fell upon him
Why is this so hard to believe? She’s a kook.
I mean - seriously - a candidate for senate from a major party is calling for the assassination of her opponent, and we need help for taking her words at face value? FFS, is this what you’ve become? Is this what political discourse has become to you?
Quite frankly, if you really buy into the right wing rhetoric, that OMG LIBERALS ARE TRAITORS AND DESTROYING THE COUNTRY etc etc. then you’re actually a bunch of pussies for no killing more people. I mean, we’re talking about the very existance of everything you know and love being conquered by a secret conspiracy of communust muslims and lizard people here.
Jared, is that you?
Seriously, I’m having a hard time understanding what your saying.
Yes, how about that? Like, for instance, noting that it was Alec Baldwin appearing on Conan O’Brien (something the talking point you pasted that from didn’t show. For the context, a concept you sadly cannot comprehend:
Jesus Tapdancing Christ, buddy. :rolleyes:
Equivocating me with this Jared, is seriously a foul… I don’t feel as if this is fair.
I am only stating the obvious… I have only seen Beck advocate for exactly this situation… now he backpedals.
If our political compasses are so out of wack as that calling Beck a seditious, wacko, Right Wing Fascist is out of the question then I am afraid the current legal definition of sane is out of my reach.
Ah, I see now. She’s a kook. And since someone who actually would want Reid killed if she lost an election would surely be a kook, Angle, being a kook, meant her words literally.
What seems to be missing from your calculation is that there are different flavors of kook. An easy line to draw is one that separates those who actually commit violence and those that don’t. Our own DT is a kook of the highest order, but I have no reason to believe he’s a kook that would be violent, even though he’s called for the actual death/murder of groups of people.
And it is entirely possible to believe that liberals are destroying the country and to NOT want to kill them. You debate them. You campaign and vote against them. The same non-kook liberals might work against the conservatives they feel are destroying the country.
Did you really need to be told this?
Who was accusing whom of treason then? Remind me.
How about an example or two of “extreme rhetoric” typifying “the left” that didn’t turn out to be absolutely true?
First of all, this is the pit. Second, it was a joke, son. As I thought would be clear by me starting off the next sentence with “Seriously”.
But, may I ask—with zero snark—if English is your first language?
What evidence do you have that she didn’t mean exactly what you said? Personal incredulity that a major candidate for senate wouldn’t do such a thing? Well, they fucking put a kook into a major race for senate. There’s no reason to suspect she didn’t mean exactly what she said.
She’s a fucking senate candidate that got a whole bunch of tea partiers, people who think America is being destroyed by our communist muslim in chief, riled up and supporting her. Then she called for the assassination of her opponent. How in the world is that in any ay remotely similar to people making statements on message boards?
Then why did she fucking call for his assassination, instead of calling for debate?
You are all worthless partisan pieces of shit for rushing to support this woman and being sure she didn’t mean exactly what she said she mean even though her whole fucking rhetorical outlook is consistent with exactly what she said.
Is there fucking ANYTHING a republican could do that you wouldn’t immediately rush to defend?
Oh, you just don’t have a sense of humor.
Actually, and this is more directed to Bricker, I am one of those who has on occasion admitted to being wrong. I highly doubt I am the only one. So sure, we do admit to being wrong. It’s just that, just like you or anyone else, we need to be convinced first.
I must really, really need help because it’s inconceivable to me that it could be interpreted in any other way.
“I hope that’s not where we’re going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out,”
Sharron Angle
Are you frigging kidding. You’re a member who was around during the Bush years. You recall no insults? No over the top invective? I’ll tell you what, how much would you like to bet that a search of Bush and Hitler result in more than zero hits?
And this has nothing to do with whether Bush was right or wrong. It has to do with the level of vitriol coming from those who believed him to be wrong/dumb/bad President.
Yeah, I don’t see any other way I can read that. It’s saying that if she can’t win in a fair election, a good second choice would be violence.