Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 6 of 15 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 212
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,010
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by North Country View Post
    That's becuase the level of discourse, while not polite, wasn't nearly this bad. There weren't stories of whether or not Bush is the anti-Christ on CNN, no one claimed he was a Kenyan national, that he was Muslim, that he was an anarchist, etc. And no one was going out and shooting members congress or enriching nuclear material in their basement in an attempt to assassinate him.
    Oh lord, can we please not play this game? Let's not compare evils, especially when both sides will have plenty of selectively-remembered and entirely inconclusive anecdotes.

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The North Pole
    Posts
    3,774
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by philab View Post
    Oh lord, can we please not play this game? Let's not compare evils, especially when both sides will have plenty of selectively-remembered and entirely inconclusive anecdotes.
    I don't think it's a game anymore when someone went out and shot a member of congress in the head. I'm not saying it was based on liberal or conservative rhetoric, no one really knows what the guy's intentions were. But I think the rhetoric on both sides should calm down so that we could actually focus on discussing legislation, rather than point out all the things the other party is doing wrong.

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,592
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by North Country View Post
    I don't think it's a game anymore when someone went out and shot a member of congress in the head. I'm not saying it was based on liberal or conservative rhetoric, no one really knows what the guy's intentions were. But I think the rhetoric on both sides should calm down so that we could actually focus on discussing legislation, rather than point out all the things the other party is doing wrong.
    No. You're not saying it. You're just implying it was based on conservative rhetoric.

    It's your attempt to try and get away with blaming conservatives for this shooting, while still having "I never said that though" as an excuse.

    The first sentence of your post makes no sense without some connection between the rhetoric and the shooting.

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,010
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gcoll View Post
    No. You didn't tell the burglar anything. You just made his job easier. And helped inspire your friend to make his house more susceptible to being robbed.

    How is this a good analogy? So...Sarah Palin made the gunman's job easier, by telling Gabrielle Giffords to do what?
    Not easier per se. But she may very well have provided the channel for which this guy's crazy went down. Again, not her fault; we're operating under the assumption that the dude was crazy enough to take somebody out. She just happened to make the decision of "who?" a little easier. And whatever, she can still sleep at night. It just seems like a bad idea to do the same thing again.

    "He was quite aware of the political rhetoric"....there is no evidence to say he was aware. And his writings seem to imply that even if he were aware, he wouldn't care about them. This guy was on his own wavelength.
    Yeah, the guy spent his time reading internet message boards with radical political rhetoric and making YouTube videos about the current state of government and world affairs. He was aware of the political rhetoric.

    And no, he wasn't on his own wavelength. That wavelength may have been shared by some other crazy people, but he certainly didn't think he was murdering rainbows on Saturn either.

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,010
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by North Country View Post
    I don't think it's a game anymore when someone went out and shot a member of congress in the head. I'm not saying it was based on liberal or conservative rhetoric, no one really knows what the guy's intentions were. But I think the rhetoric on both sides should calm down so that we could actually focus on discussing legislation, rather than point out all the things the other party is doing wrong.
    Agreed. And your previous post was "pointing out all the things the other party [has done] wrong." Hence my plea to "not play this game."

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,592
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by philab
    Not easier per se. But she may very well have provided the channel for which this guy's crazy went down. Again, not her fault; we're operating under the assumption that the dude was crazy enough to take somebody out. She just happened to make the decision of "who?" a little easier. And whatever, she can still sleep at night. It just seems like a bad idea to do the same thing again.
    "But she may very well have" is blind speculation based on nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by philab
    Yeah, the guy spent his time reading internet message boards with radical political rhetoric and making YouTube videos about the current state of government and world affairs. He was aware of the political rhetoric.

    And no, he wasn't on his own wavelength. That wavelength may have been shared by some other crazy people, but he certainly didn't think he was murdering rainbows on Saturn either.
    Current state of government and world affairs? Have you seen the stuff he posted on Youtube?

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,010
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gcoll View Post
    "But she may very well have" is blind speculation based on nothing.
    And yet she may still very well have. There's certainly circumstantial evidence.

    In other words, you're missing the point. I don't really care whether she actually influenced the guy or not. He is ****ing crazy. The point is that the crosshairs were in poor taste to begin with, and now that that has been made abundantly clear, any attempt to justify or spin that poor taste is downright disgusting.

    Current state of government and world affairs? Have you seen the stuff he posted on Youtube?
    Yeah. His thoughts on the current state of government and world affairs were crazy, but they do indicate someone who is aware of many political matters. Like if I said that Silvio Berlusconi was going to dance with monkeys at the next G-8 summit in order to save the Canadian dollar. That doesn't make any sense, but it shows that I have some awareness of political matters.

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,592
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by philab
    In other words, you're missing the point. I don't really care whether she actually influenced the guy or not. He is ****ing crazy. The point is that the crosshairs were in poor taste to begin with, and now that that has been made abundantly clear, any attempt to justify or spin that poor taste is downright disgusting.
    How has that point been made abundantly clear?

    Quote Originally Posted by philab
    Yeah. His thoughts on the current state of government and world affairs were crazy, but they do indicate someone who is aware of many political matters
    What political matters? Go watch the videos. His rants are nonsensical. Political themes, but they are nonsensical with no discernible reference to any current events.

    "Political matters" is different than being aware of certain political rhetoric.
    Last edited by gcoll; 01-10-2011 at 11:03 PM.

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,639
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gcoll View Post
    When it is only directed at one side of the aisle, of course it is.

    8 years of Bush. Nobody said **** about the level of discourse. This is political. It's demonizing Fox News, talk radio, and Sarah Palin. That's the goal. Read the Daily Kos. The level of discourse on that site is the bottom of the barrel, they even "targeted" congressman Giffords for voting against Pelosi, yet blaming the level of right wing rhetoric is one of their chief talking points. It's one of the chief talking points on MSNBC for the past few days. Given the personalities on that network espousing those views, I am skeptical about their sincerity on the subject of rational discourse.

    However. Even if the goal is pure, and people want to see a nicer political tone, why make that point on the back of this event when there is no evidence of any connection whatsoever between the two?
    Come on gcoll, lets not boil down the average political discourse to the lowest common denominator. I dont see why on the one hand you want everyone else not to attack people (such as Sarah Palin) for what they perceive her role to be and then bring in a group (even one such as) Daily Kos and assign them the same blame you dont think should be awarded to Sarah Palin for something else.

    We all know that MSNBC doesnt represent the majority of Democrats or Liberals just as Fox News doesnt represent the majority of Republicans or Conservatives. There is no point in letting the loudest voice be the only voice.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,010
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gcoll View Post
    How has that point been made abundantly clear?
    By the attention that was drawn to it because of this nut. Are you serious?

    What political matters? Go watch the videos. His rants are nonsensical. Political themes, but they are nonsensical with no discernible reference to any current events.

    "Political matters" is different than being aware of certain political rhetoric.
    I have watched the videos! Lord, I mentioned them first and THEN told you in the last post that I'd watched them.

    I don't get what your argument is. Yes, the videos are nonsensical, but they indicate someone that is processing information, just in a batshit crazy way.

    I'm not trying to insinuate anything, mind you. You claimed that he may have been unaware of the political rhetoric. I am refuting that claim. That's it.

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,592
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    Come on gcoll, lets not boil down the average political discourse to the lowest common denominator. I dont see why on the one hand you want everyone else not to attack people (such as Sarah Palin) for what they perceive her role to be and then bring in a group (even one such as) Daily Kos and assign them the same blame you dont think should be awarded to Sarah Palin for something else.

    We all know that MSNBC doesnt represent the majority of Democrats or Liberals just as Fox News doesnt represent the majority of Republicans or Conservatives. There is no point in letting the loudest voice be the only voice.
    What blame did I assign to the Daily Kos? I accuse them of hypocrisy, and I use them to point to an example of this event being politicized. My point about them targeting Giffords was to point out hypocrisy, not to accuse them of inciting violence.

    The loudest voices don't need to be the only ones. It'd be easier for me to view the calls for a softening of the rhetoric as not politically motivated if these people were there during the Bush years, which they weren't. In many cases the same people calling for the softening of rhetoric were the ones amping up the rhetoric under Bush.

    As far as the rhetoric. I don't have a problem with it. From any side. I don't get offended by strong language, and I don't think targets on a map cause violence.
    Last edited by gcoll; 01-10-2011 at 11:46 PM.

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,274
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gcoll View Post
    What blame did I assign to the Daily Kos? I accuse them of hypocrisy, and I use them to point to an example of this event being politicized. My point about them targeting Giffords was to point out hypocrisy, not to accuse them of inciting violence.

    The loudest voices don't need to be the only ones. It'd be easier for me to view the calls for a softening of the rhetoric as not politically motivated if these people were there during the Bush years, which they weren't. In many cases the same people calling for the softening of rhetoric were the ones amping up the rhetoric under Bush.

    As far as the rhetoric. I don't have a problem with it. From any side. I don't get offended by strong language, and I don't think targets on a map cause violence.
    I was as opposed to President George W Bush as anyone, and I don't recall my rhetoric approaching anything like what has occurred over the past couple of years. If in fact you find something that in anyway used metaphors for shooting (cross-hairs) or don't retreat, reload coming from me, I will be shocked at myself. So, my calling for a dialing down the rhetoric as political in the partisan sense of the word is dead wrong. SBC is another example. Here are two examples of people whose actual record you know. If your point is that there are some, sure, but you are just plain dead wrong about most of us just being sick and tired of it.
    Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    40,047
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by cabernetluver View Post
    I was as opposed to President George W Bush as anyone, and I don't recall my rhetoric approaching anything like what has occurred over the past couple of years. If in fact you find something that in anyway used metaphors for shooting (cross-hairs) or don't retreat, reload coming from me, I will be shocked at myself. So, my calling for a dialing down the rhetoric as political in the partisan sense of the word is dead wrong. SBC is another example. Here are two examples of people whose actual record you know. If your point is that there are some, sure, but you are just plain dead wrong about most of us just being sick and tired of it.
    Are you saying from politicians, or citizens at rallies?

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,274
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by behindmydesk View Post
    Are you saying from politicians, or citizens at rallies?
    People in leadership positions, toning it down, will in fact influence the entire tone. If leadership makes it wrong then social pressure will work on citizens. Now don't confuse toning down the rhetoric with turning the cheering down. It is more about basing the volume on boosting your cause, what is good about your cause, then vague threats, shouting down the opposition, casting unfounded aspersions etc.
    Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    40,047
    vCash
    1500
    I was more asking when you said you didn't see any metaphors with cross hairs or reload etc. Were you meaning coming from regular people at rallies, or politicians on the left?

Page 6 of 15 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •