Well sure, all the potheads I know are violent, gun-toting anarchists. I actually heard that Leon Czolgosz grew his own special blend called McKindly Bud. And we all know what that led to.
Go to your room.
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2010/06/16/second-amendment-remedies-that-suggests-treason/
It looks pretty clear to me. Armed revolt, the killing (taking out) of Reid (and probably others) and I imagine her installment as ruler. Or something.
Then there is Palin’s “don’t retreat, reload”.
And the following
http://mountainsageblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/2009-06-12-LiberalHuntingSticker.jpg
Last week, I found these pictures ALMOST amusing. They ain’t so damn funny anymore, are they.
It is a bit like a group forming up around their opposition to the Stamp Act, and talking about what a violation of their rights it is, and starting to call themselves sons of liberty, and talking about fighting back to defend their rights, and hanging people in effigy, and burning the person in effigy and threatening the administrators of the Stamp Act, and then suddenly someone throws a rock at Lieutenant Governor Huchinson…
and all of a sudden the group is all "Hey! What the fuck? Who threw a rock! Nobody ever said anything about throwing a rock at the guy! What the fuck kind of a nutcase throws a rock at someone? That’s not on us. That guy wasn’t with us - no way no how! We never, ever, ever called for rocks to be thrown at anyone. I don’t even think that guy was upset about the Stamp Act. He’s just a crazy loner. Sons of what? No, we never called ourselves the “Sons of Liberty.” The British media called us that. We’ve just got some issues with the Stamp Act and we are calling for polite discourse on the subject.
Come on. Who throws a rock? Honestly!"
You’re correct in that she did not say directly "Anyone who puts a bullet through Reid’s head this Thursday afternoon at his rally at 3:00 will get a nice crisp thousand dollar bill from me!
But look at what you just admitted she did say:
“If the majority of people vote for my opponent, those who lost might, just might be so angry that they will march, protest, and yes, maybe even commit violence with guns. But gosh, I sure wouldn’t want to see that. So make sure you vote for me, and nothing bad like that will happen.”
So you’re right. She did not call directly for Reid’s assassination, in a way that would have gotten her investigated, charged and jailed. Bully for her! You may have a cookie!
She merely threatened vaguely that she sure hoped that violence would not break out if she was not elected. What high standards we have for politicians!
And then there’s Robert Lowry, Deborah Wasserman Schultz’s opponent in a the Congressional race in the Broward County, FL district, who attended a campaign event held by the local Republican Club at a shooting range…at which he used a human silhouette with the initials “DWS” written onto it as his target. Don’t get carried away, though…it was just a “joke”. I’m shocked in advance at the lengths you all will go to to misconstrue this “metaphor”.
Well, it’s all in fun until someone loses an eye or takes a bullet to the head. Oopsie, too late. What is WRONG with these people and how DARE they be the ones getting all butt hurt now???
Screw it. Next time some superpatriot gets in my face with his ass kickin’ gun shootin’ rhetoric (and it has happened) my course is clear - take him down and OUT.
I can’t recall offhand you conceding something major. Which isn’t to say it doesn’t happen, but that I have a hard time comparing it to someone else’s level of concession without context.
But I would have to imagine that you conceding anything would have to be either something A) non-political, or B) unambiguously factually wrong. Because if you’re willing to seriously advocate this as an interpretation of her words:
then you can’t really be willing to be called on your own bullshit. This is such a ridiculous statement that I can’t believe you - on an unbiased, intellectual, non-partisan level - could ever take it seriously.
Yet here you are, proposing this as a legitimate defense.
There was no mention of marches or protests. She went right to hinting at gun violence being the next step, and not just gun violence in general, but specifically “we need to take out Harry Reid”
The idea that she’s a concerned person who is concerned that her more motivated followers might get violent, and she wants to prevent that, is absurd. She’s the one stoking the flames of potential violence with her appeal to revolutionary ideals and armed insurrection.
Yes, I don’t doubt that she had no plans to personally commit any violence.
Well - let’s say she wanted to have Reid killed. Obviously she couldn’t just say “hey, someone kill Harry Reid” - she’d be investigated, possibly thrown in jail, and face other consequences. So she’d have to hint at it.
Hypothetically, how would that hinting look different from what she actually said?
“…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.”
Really? Do I have to explain this one?
Really, by taking her words at their most obvious and almost exclusive interpretation, I’m the one “talking out of my ass” here?
The second half of your statement is exactly why her comments were thinly veiled - it was obviously what she meant, but she couldn’t do so much as to directly call for violence for the reasons you stated.
You answered your own question here. She can’t just say “someone kill Harry Reid!”, so all of the language along the lines of “wink wink it sure would be a shame if violence occured!” is a thinly veiled way to do it.
Your interpretations of her actions is far less consistent. You’re essentially saying that she’s worried that her followers were take violent action, so in response she claims to be afraid of that while simultaneously campaigning on rhetoric about how this country is being torn apart by our tyranical leaders and how insurrection may be necesary, etc.
TVTropes calls it the Rhetorical Request Blunder.
Look, from the way the quote goes, it’s hard to construe it as anything else. I mean, it’s possible that this:
is a COMPLETELY separate thought from this:
despite the fact that they are two segments of the same sentence without even a conjunction between them. It’s POSSIBLE. It’s possible she didn’t MEAN to call for his assassination.
Uh huh. Two things.
First, this is a bit like saying “I wouldn’t call Obama a Hitler, you know, but he sure does speak well,” then getting pissed and saying “What? I SAID he’s not Hitler!” But you’ve put the two notions together, butted them right up against one another, conjoining the two images – even unconsciously – in the minds of your listeners. Invoking gun violence and using the ‘take out’ expression common in American English for several decades now and invoking a name that many conservatives would agree is a focus of ire, that’s either a well-crafted disgusting statement or a completely unintentional disgusting statement, especially because supporters can weasel back and say “THAT’S NOT WHAT SHE MEANT!”
If that’s not what she meant, then she’s a piss-poor speaker. I mean really, staggeringly bad, worse than Mr. Bush at his most anosmic. She’s such a terrible politician that she can’t even manage to say “get him out of office” instead of “take him out”. If it was an unprepared, completely off-the-cuff statement, it indicates to me that she’d be delighted – or at least not devastated – if Reid was killed and she took his place.
So, what’s more likely? That she’s smart enough to leave herself just enough wiggle-room while winking at her constituents or that she’s so amazingly stupid that she can’t stop herself from implying that her opponent should be killed?
Anyone know if Angle has commented since the shootings? I googled a little and found nothing.
She’s announced she’s not running for NV State Senate (wonder why, huh?), but that’s all.
If she’s run away and is hiding in a hole, I’d rather she stay in the hole than climb up to make an announcement about anything.
Perhaps a hole much like this one:
Hyuk hyuk.
Let’s assume that’s true. Still, in eleven years of posting, find someone HALF as willing as I to admit error and concede a point or a thread.
It’s amazing that someone calls me a rabid partisan when I can’t think of a single person MORE willing to back up and admit defeat when defeated. Even if that results, as elucidator humorously suggests, from being wrong a greadt deal, it doesn’t seem as though a rabid partisan would do that.
Does it? And it also does seem that in eleven years, those on the other side of the debate would be so perfect in thier views that they so seldom concede error.
So again: if I’m a rabid partisan, who is less partisan than I here, and thus more willing than I to concede a point? Who?
I think that honor goes to John Mace; he dances back and forth across the line so often, I can never tell what side of the fence he is going to come down on. That’s how I measure partisanship, anyway.
Of course, as do I.
But do you believe I’m a “rabid partisan?”
Two that come to mind were the “War on Christmas” and same sex marriage. I started a thread in 2006 defending the idea of a War on Christmas and (after 14 pages) ended up admitting that there was no such thing, and that while there was a slight chilling effect on permissible Christmas celebrations via lawsuits, the same chilling effect extends to many areas and was not in the least Christmas-specific.
And I started many threads supporting civil unions but believing same-sex marriage should not be permitted, but after a mammoth 16 page thread conceded that I was wrong, and that same-sex marriage should in fact be the public policy of our states.
There’s only one way to be sure, we’ll have to test your brain. Please send your brain to the lab at Kansas State University.
This message board must be full of some closed minded idiots if the least partisan person here has only changed his mind twice. My decision to stay out of Great Debates feels better all the time.