Are you suggesting Angle was not advocating violent revolution?
No. It’s about both.
Yes. But one might speak of the Second Amendment in metaphorical fashion when acting as a rhetor, without meaning to invoke the actual use of firearms.
I am withdrawing that claim, because, having had my attention directed to her other quote, which brooks no ambiguity at all, it’s now obvious what she meant with the Reid quote, too.
Yes. I did make a similar point earlier in this thread (or possibly in the other thread).
While I might be willing to concur this is possible in a vacuum, I believe it’s vanishingly unlikely in practice–especially given the First Amendment rights to assembly/petition that are literally right next door.
At best, I think, one could be charitable and believe the Second Amendment could be used in a metaphorical fashion to call for overthrow of the government by not-necessarily-violent extralegal means.
Even in a vaccuum, I don’t see the second amendment as a metaphor for elections, the first amendment or our right to petition our government.
The second amendment is our bloody failsafe for when those things fail. When elections are rigged and our first amendment rights are curtailed and it becomes pointless to petition our government because they don’t really need our votes anymore. THAT is when second amendment remedies become relevant.
You might make an argument that we are already there but because of monied interests, not because of Reid and Democrat policies.
It says a lot about the sort of people that Angle hangs out with if she really thinks people are on the verge of second amendment remedies.
But I didn’t start my analysis in a vacuum. I started by essentially assuming the conclusion: that no major party candidate could possibly have meant to suggest violence in the event of a loss, and anyone claiming otherwise has a huge burden to overcome.
I’d argue that’s a dangerous assumption, and has been since the beginning of our fair Republic.
It also seems to me that you’re doing said major-party candidates a disservice by assuming that they are not capable of understanding the meaning and import of their words *sans *metaphor, since there is a noticeable contingent of the public who do not see such things as metaphor, sarcasm, hyperbole, etc.
I was being sarcastic. Bricker is claiming that his statement was perfectly reasonable and only under the excessive scrutiny of all of the liberals on this board was it shown to be flawed.
In reality, it was so fucking “haha wtf, seriously?” that anyone who’s not completely ideologically opposed to criticizing their own side would immediately and obviously agree that it was just silly bullshit.
Anyone else see the movie Dodgeball? The scene where Ben Stiller’s character asks Christine Tyler’s character out on a date?
“There’s no reason we need to be shackled by the strictures of the employee-employer relationship. Unless you’re into that sort of thing. In which case, I got some shackles in the back. I’m just kidding. But seriously, I’ve got 'em.”
In other words, “I’m saying something outrageous. If you agree with it, I was serious. If you’re appalled by it, I was just making a joke and using a metaphor.”
I don’t uniformly reject all metaphor.
But when a major party candidate’s words might be held to advocate violent overthrow of the US Government, I bend over backwards to find an interpretation that does not reach that interpretation.
Now that you’ve learned this lesson (ie that a Republican candidate can be a total whackjob), I urge you to use caution in the future when automatically “bending over backwards” to defend other Republican whackjobs who will no doubt surface.
I think your default assumption that “no Republican candidate could say something this crazy” has now been shown to be false.
I think you would have had an easier time selling armed but non-violent insurrection.
“We’re going to stock up on ammunition, we’re going to strap on our guns, we’re going to march to Washington, and we’re going to hold up a lot of signs.”
How would you advise I treat Democratic candidates?
Are you actually implying that you apply the same standard of interpretation, scrutiny, and literal-mindedness in giving leeway to Democrats and Republicans equally?
FFS Bricker, you’re a lost cause. You get completely embarassed holding a position that’s absolutely absurd to anyone who is remotely level-headed, you finally find a straw to grasp to escape that position, and then do you take that as a learning experience? “Hmm, maybe I should think about what I’m saying rather than go Baghdad Bob defending even the most ridiculous shit”? No, you pull your 100% reliable “Uh… your side does it too. Probably. Gotcha ya! Hypocrite!”
Because ALL SIDES ARE ALWAYS EQUALLY GUILTY NO MATTER WHAT, RIGHT? This is your only guiding principle. IT NEVER MATTERS that you’re wrong, or that the people you defend are wrong, because as long as you buy into the idea that all sides are equally guilty no matter what, then you can always attack the person for their hypocrisy in attacking your side.
When was the last time a democrat called for violent revolution or the party made it a significant part of their platform? The radicalized republicans of the last few years have made a very deliberate effort to encourage the crazies - they paint things in apocalyptic terms (COMMUNISTS WANT TO DESTROY EVERYTHING YOU LOVE! DEATH PANELS! TRAITORS! NOT REAL AMERICANS!) and then hint at violent, revolutionary rhetoric. It’s not only not surprising that someone like Angle would rise and say something like that, but it’s actually a logical conclusion to the republican policies, rhetoric, and empowerment of the base. This is a very specifically Republican problem.
So what have you learned from this whole episode? ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING. Even in this very thread, you’re pulling the “all sides are equally guilty, therefore if I am to consider that a republican might be saying something whacky, well then, democrats must be also saying equally whacky things, so don’t you dare criticize me hypocrite!”
I’ve always gone out of my way to praise your intellect and stuff - even in this thread. I’ll say “it’s clear you’re smart and blah blah and I’m sad to see you’re unwilling to think critically or be anything but an utterly blind partisan hack”, but no longer. I am no longer willing to defend you or give you any sort of credit. You are almost as worthless to this board as Shodan, and for similar reasons.
The reason I say this now is that this is the most extreme thing that could happen to potentially shake up your ridiculous partisanship. If you had even the slightest bit of objectivity, you’d realize how utterly absurd your position was. You’d be embarassed and think “wow, I must be really biased if I actually thought that was a reasonable position”
So if there was ever a moment when you could say “maybe I should make more of an effort to think about what I’m doing in an unbiased way before I do it”, it would be this. And what’s your response to this whole episode? “Oh the democrats would do it too! You just caught me this once because you’ll criticize the republican crazies and not the democrat ones!” - you don’t even give even the slightest consideration to the idea that maybe both sides are not exactly 100% equal, maybe one side caters to crazies more than the other. Nope, all sides are equally guilty, and the only reason anyone would criticize your stances is because they’re as 100% kook-aid drinking democrat as much as you are 100% kool-aid drinking republican. So everyone is equal, therefore everyone is equally wrong.
But you’re wrong. Can you even intellectually admit that there’s a logical position in which the republicans actually are more likely to encourage crazies than democrats? If so, wouldn’t you give a different level of assumptions and scrutiny about the motivations and what they say?
If anything was ever going to knock you on the head and make you even remotely rational on this issue, it was this. And yet it completely passed you by - your only response was “ok, so I accept (because it’s absurd for me not to at this juncture) that republicans can field crazy candidates… THEREFORE DEMOCRATS MUST ALSO, AND TO THE SAME DEGREE, BECAUSE IF THERE’S ONE FUCKING THING I KNOW IN THE ENTIRE WORLD IT’S THAT ALL SIDES ARE ALWAYS EQUALLY GUILTY AT ALL TIMES!”
Which is why I say you’re a lost cause. If this little episode couldn’t break through your thick skull and make you recognize how fucking ridiculous you are, nothing will. The only thing you’ll take from this is “gee SenorBeef must be a democrat apologist in the same way that I’m a republican apologist, because there are only two sides and both are equally guilty, so if he’s criticizing me he must just be biased in an equal and opposite way as me!” - how strange then that I never offer any sort of apologetics for the democratic party even 1/100th as intense as you offer routinely for republicans and that I have no interest in defending them. No, the idea that someone could be giving an opinion that didn’t stem from an utter partisan dedication to one side or the other doesn’t even register in your world view, so if I’m against you, I must be for the other guy in a way equal and opposite to you.
I can only hope that this thread, that this issue, serves as a microcosm of your entire participation on this board, and since you’re completely unable to change for the better, then people should realize they need to stop wasting their time with you.
I advise that you assume that, just like a Republican, a Democratic candidate could say something crazy, and don’t assume that they are (by default) always correct.
Not that you’d ever do that of course.
Uh huh.
Cynthia McKinney, a sitting US Representative at the time, accused George Bush of advance knowledge about the September 11 attacks, which he allowed to happen in order to make profits for the Carlyle Group, an owner of defense contractors with Bush had connections.
But that’s not all that crazy, because… hey, it’s Bush. It could have been true. Right?
:rolleyes:
Yes, both sides cater to crazies. My mistake was in ruling out the call to violence as being virtually impossible. And I’ll even allow that in today’s climate, maybe that’s something more likely to come from the right than the left.
But I remember Abbie Hoffman and Chicago, and the Black Panthers, and the Weathermen, and I don’t agree that even that statement is some kind of eternal truth. The left had a period in my living memory where they were the ones advocating violence.
Cynthia McKinney was soundly defeated in the primary the very next time she came up for reelection, so that example supports his argument more than yours.
Man, that hurts. You’re a pigfucker, but do I ever bring that up?
No.
Oops.