Liberals responsible for Giffords murder - Earth Empires Forum

BlackMamba

Member
185

Jan 10th 2011, 1:33:01

http://www.americanthinker.com/...-01-08-at-1-56-04-pm1.png

That's a screen shot from the dailykos.com website, a haven for extreme left wing liberals.

Also note that one of the killer's favorite books is the communist manifesto.

An interview with someone who knew him states that he was a liberal.

http://newsbusters.org/...hes-liberal#ixzz1AaDWIeoT

I think it's time to throw everyone who works for or writes on dailykos.com into prison (per Detmer logic).

Detmer

Member
4280

Jan 10th 2011, 3:58:42

Ummm... what? What did dailykos do? Someone posted something that didn't advocate any sort of violence or anything? I know you're an idiot but this is reaching new levels....

You are left wing BlackMamba. Since I said it, that makes it true, regardless of all the things you have said to the contrary. Who cares if he likes the Communist Manifesto? He also likes Mein Kampf which is a book where Hitler talks about how he hates communism... the guy was deranged and not strongly affiliated with any traditional political ideology.

The point is it is reprehensible to promote settling politics through violence. Some people are incapable of drawing the line between metaphor and reality and having political leaders and media figures constantly urging violence, even if they don't mean it to happen, is completely inappropriate.

Dragonlance

Member
1611

Jan 10th 2011, 4:25:59

He also liked To Kill a Mockingbird according to media reports...

NOW3P

Member
6503

Jan 10th 2011, 5:31:22

about as relevant as the Sarah Palin reference.

There's enough realistic stuff to complain about in the world today. Why do people feel they need to make fluff up to discuss issues?

~I wrote this with my penis~
http://i85.photobucket.com/...s/k48/jdbates/hobosig.jpg
FoG

BlackMamba

Member
185

Jan 10th 2011, 10:36:33

Originally posted by Detmer:

Ummm... what? What did dailykos do? Someone posted something that didn't advocate any sort of violence or anything? I know you're an idiot but this is reaching new levels....

You are left wing BlackMamba. Since I said it, that makes it true, regardless of all the things you have said to the contrary. Who cares if he likes the Communist Manifesto? He also likes Mein Kampf which is a book where Hitler talks about how he hates communism... the guy was deranged and not strongly affiliated with any traditional political ideology.

The point is it is reprehensible to promote settling politics through violence. Some people are incapable of drawing the line between metaphor and reality and having political leaders and media figures constantly urging violence, even if they don't mean it to happen, is completely inappropriate.

An interview described the killer as a left wing pot head. Liberals were angry at Giffords for not supporting Pelosi, as evidenced by liberals on dailkos talking about how "my congresswoman (giffords) is dead to me" two days before Giffords was shot. Now the liberal's own kind is responsible for Giffords shooting and they are trying their best to associate it with Palin.

Detmer

Member
4280

Jan 10th 2011, 14:06:07

An interview described the killer as a left wing pot head. Liberals were angry at Giffords for not supporting Pelosi, as evidenced by liberals on dailkos talking about how "my congresswoman (giffords) is dead to me" two days before Giffords was shot. Now the liberal's own kind is responsible for Giffords shooting and they are trying their best to associate it with Palin.

So someone saying it in an interview makes it true?

Your point is in no way like my own, which just goes to show that you don't understand the point I am making.

mrford

Member
21,378

Jan 10th 2011, 15:34:06

Actually, it's exactly the same, if not more valid.

You are interperting a photo of political targets to be a death list. A pretty harsh and large leap in logic.

"my congress woman is dead to me" is a much harsher action IMO and has very little room for interpertation.

If you can interpert a simple political tool as a death list, then by that logic you can absoluetly not ignore the "she is dead to me" statment.

I'm sure even you can follow that line of logic.

Swagger of a Chupacabra

[21:37:01] <&KILLERfluffY> when I was doing FA stuff for sof the person who gave me the longest angry rant was Mr Ford

Detmer

Member
4280

Jan 10th 2011, 15:48:17

Originally posted by mrford:

Actually, it's exactly the same, if not more valid.

You are interperting a photo of political targets to be a death list. A pretty harsh and large leap in logic.

"my congress woman is dead to me" is a much harsher action IMO and has very little room for interpertation.

If you can interpert a simple political tool as a death list, then by that logic you can absoluetly not ignore the "she is dead to me" statment.

I'm sure even you can follow that line of logic.

Well I say it is less valid as that term, to my knowledge, does not encourage any action. It is a statement of position. However I see that I have been operating on a premise that I thought I had posted here, but in review had not. So I apologize for that. As I posted on another forum, it is the repeated violent rhetoric, not just the single isolated image, that is why her messages are so inappropriate.

Again, I apologize for not being clear on this. I can see why this would sound ludicrous as an indictment against one single item.

Dibs Ludicrous

Member
6702

Jan 10th 2011, 15:55:33

http://peyoteway.org/

why blame it on the pot?

There are no messages in your Inbox.
Elvis has left the building.

Klown

Member
967

Jan 12th 2011, 4:16:04

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=13647

http://www.dailykos.com/.../25/1204/74882/511/541568

What's this? Dailykos said Giffords has a BULLSEYE on her district because she voted against something or another.

Yes, Liberals shot Gifford.

You're a freaking moron Detmer.

Detmer

Member
4280

Jan 12th 2011, 4:41:27

Originally posted by Klown:

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=13647

http://www.dailykos.com/.../25/1204/74882/511/541568

What's this? Dailykos said Giffords has a BULLSEYE on her district because she voted against something or another.

Yes, Liberals shot Gifford.

You're a freaking moron Detmer.

So someone votes a way that you don't like so you point a bullseye over them and start make general references to shooting your political opponents. Those were the liberals doing that? My bad.

I can assure you that you are the moron.

Klown

Member
967

Jan 12th 2011, 13:44:03

Did you look at my links dumbfluff?

Klown

Member
967

Jan 12th 2011, 13:45:01

Your posts are far worse than anything Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh has ever said btw. You're disgusting.

Detmer

Member
4280

Jan 12th 2011, 14:04:35

Originally posted by Klown:

Your posts are far worse than anything Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh has ever said btw. You're disgusting.

How is that? When have I advocated killing anyone? What have I said that is disgusting? As far as I can tell you disagree and thus think I am stupid and terrible. It sounds to me like you are incapable of reasoning.

And yeah, I looked at he links. Did you read what I wrote? It is not just one thing. If Sarah Palin had a map with just cross hairs, whatever. It is the constant use of violent language and imagery. Also, those maps you linked look like they are encouraging people to use a bow and arrow if they are indeed encouraging violence (obviously no such language was used) and more realistically it looks like one of them is encouraging people to go shopping...

The fact that your level of discourse is mostly just insulting me, rather than discussion, tells me a lot.

Klown

Member
967

Jan 12th 2011, 14:32:33

Because you are using a tragedy to further your political agenda. That would be sad even if the tragedy were related to politics, but since it isn't its really pathetic.

Detmer

Member
4280

Jan 12th 2011, 15:00:29

Originally posted by Klown:

Because you are using a tragedy to further your political agenda. That would be sad even if the tragedy were related to politics, but since it isn't its really pathetic.

What is my political agenda?

This underscores the need to remove violence from political rhetoric. That is my point. Do you think that is not bipartisan? Do you think that violence is an essential part of politics? Sarah Palin isn't a politician in either party and I have not mentioned any political party/ideology as being at fault here. The fact that you seem to think this is an attack against one particular political group just tells me that you think one group in particular is at fault here.

Klown

Member
967

Jan 12th 2011, 15:55:40

"Sarah Palin isn't a politician in either party"

?

The fact is you are inciting hatred and encouraging more violence by placing blame where no blame is due. Clearly there shouldn't be violence in our politics and discourse. However, a map displaying targets for political defeat is not violent and does not encourage violence.

NukEvil

Member
4328

Jan 12th 2011, 15:57:15

Wait, why did we create another thread to discuss the same issue? You ARE aware that our threads don't stop at 100 posts anymore, right?

I am a troll. Everything I say must be assumed to be said solely to provoke an exaggerated reaction to the current topic. I fully intend to bring absolutely no substance to any discussion, ongoing or otherwise. Conversing with me is pointless.

Dibs Ludicrous

Member
6702

Jan 12th 2011, 16:01:54

think that Beatrice Kiddo created the thread to counter Detmer's inadequate abilities.

There are no messages in your Inbox.
Elvis has left the building.

Detmer

Member
4280

Jan 12th 2011, 16:08:53

Originally posted by Klown:

"Sarah Palin isn't a politician in either party"

?

The fact is you are inciting hatred and encouraging more violence by placing blame where no blame is due. Clearly there shouldn't be violence in our politics and discourse. However, a map displaying targets for political defeat is not violent and does not encourage violence.

Yes, that is right. Sarah Palin is not a politician. She is a media personality. She is a former-politician.

Placing blame incites violence and hatred? When did you turn into a hippie? The thesis of the argument, which you keep ignoring, is that the ongoing violent rhetoric, which the cross-hairs image is a part of, is the problem. Not one single thing is the problem. It is the *overall* discourse. How hard is that to understand? I am saying this event underscores the need to start debating civilly and intelligently and to not just rally people with inflammatory language. I feel like you have keyed in on one point and not taken it in the context of everything else I have been saying.

Klown

Member
967

Jan 12th 2011, 16:58:04

Do you know what a straw man is? I guess not. And Sarah Palin is absolutely a Republican politician and to say otherwise is silly. She was the vice-presidential candidate and is likely to run for president in 2012 (albeit that is horrifying).

Dibs Ludicrous

Member
6702

Jan 12th 2011, 17:00:57

didn't those crosshairs come with like a November 2nd expiration date?

personally, i think the politicians should take more time and effort shooting at each other. well, least if i'm not the one required to cleanup the mess.

Edited By: Dibs Ludicrous on Jan 12th 2011, 17:06:42
See Original Post

There are no messages in your Inbox.
Elvis has left the building.

TheORKINMan

Member
1305

Jan 12th 2011, 17:07:55

I don't think the crosshairs caused this or was a big deal. However the general sentiment of armed revolution if they don't get their way was pervasive in the Tea Party movement. I doubt many people ever seriously thought of that sentiment as anything but symbolic, however it was there nonetheless and was wholly inapropriate.

Smarter than your average bear.

Detmer

Member
4280

Jan 12th 2011, 17:07:58

Originally posted by Klown:

Do you know what a straw man is? I guess not. And Sarah Palin is absolutely a Republican politician and to say otherwise is silly. She was the vice-presidential candidate and is likely to run for president in 2012 (albeit that is horrifying).

I guess if you believe she will really have a continued career as a politician then that would be a straw man argument - I think she is done though (not by her choice... at worst she runs for some office one more time and loses).

Dibs Ludicrous

Member
6702

Jan 12th 2011, 18:18:45

just out of curiousity, how many demoncrats were voted out of office because of that map?

There are no messages in your Inbox.
Elvis has left the building.

Thorndike

Member
22

Jan 12th 2011, 18:22:09

I think Jared Laughner was to blame...

Detmer

Member
4280

Jan 12th 2011, 19:05:40

Originally posted by Thorndike:

I think Jared Laughner was to blame...

Whoosh

trumper

Member
1558

Jan 12th 2011, 19:15:15

The complaints about the "violent words" is patently ridiculous. What do we call the process by which candidates work to win an election? We can't call it a campaign since that comes from military terminology. What do we call Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania: close states? We can't call them battleground states anymore. Do we censure President Obama for saying don't bring a knife to a gun fight? Senator Manchin for shooting the cap and trade bill? Sarah Palin for her map of 'targeted seats'? Senator Schumer for talking about the "tortured path?" We probably shouldn't use the word "cut," only reduction. Definitely shouldn't refer to the "budget ax." And oh my, imagine if we said 'draconian' and 'cuts' together!

Dibs Ludicrous

Member
6702

Jan 12th 2011, 19:18:40

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...rds-shooter_n_806229.html

UPDATE: The shooter has been identified as Jared Lee Loughner. Much more info on him here.

--

Jared Laughner, the person reportedly being held under suspicion of shooting Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), was described by eyewitnesses as a young white man who looked like a "fringe character."

i have no idea who is responsible because the bloody journalists haven't learned how to hit F7 yet.

There are no messages in your Inbox.
Elvis has left the building.

Detmer

Member
4280

Jan 12th 2011, 19:19:59

Originally posted by trumper:

The complaints about the "violent words" is patently ridiculous. What do we call the process by which candidates work to win an election? We can't call it a campaign since that comes from military terminology. What do we call Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania: close states? We can't call them battleground states anymore. Do we censure President Obama for saying don't bring a knife to a gun fight? Senator Manchin for shooting the cap and trade bill? Sarah Palin for her map of 'targeted seats'? Senator Schumer for talking about the "tortured path?" We probably shouldn't use the word "cut," only reduction. Definitely shouldn't refer to the "budget ax." And oh my, imagine if we said 'draconian' and 'cuts' together!

Some of the things Obama has said aren't really necessary... obviously some of things you posted make no sense... or do you think that is logical reasoning? Maybe the problem is that so many people are incapable of drawing logical distinctions in what is provocative and what is colloquial speech and it is all just viewed as one big slippery slope?

trumper

Member
1558

Jan 12th 2011, 20:17:22

Originally posted by Detmer:

Originally posted by trumper:

The complaints about the "violent words" is patently ridiculous. What do we call the process by which candidates work to win an election? We can't call it a campaign since that comes from military terminology. What do we call Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania: close states? We can't call them battleground states anymore. Do we censure President Obama for saying don't bring a knife to a gun fight? Senator Manchin for shooting the cap and trade bill? Sarah Palin for her map of 'targeted seats'? Senator Schumer for talking about the "tortured path?" We probably shouldn't use the word "cut," only reduction. Definitely shouldn't refer to the "budget ax." And oh my, imagine if we said 'draconian' and 'cuts' together!

Some of the things Obama has said aren't really necessary... obviously some of things you posted make no sense... or do you think that is logical reasoning? Maybe the problem is that so many people are incapable of drawing logical distinctions in what is provocative and what is colloquial speech and it is all just viewed as one big slippery slope?

I think what happened was a tragedy, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the so-called violent political rhetoric. If Kim Jung Il uses a nuke against us, would we say it's because the politicians discussed the 'nuclear option' 6 years ago when it came to judicial nominees? Of course not. We would say it's because Kim Jung Il's crazy. Same situation here. Jared Laughner didn't shoot up the event because Palin targeted political seats to capture or because Obama said don't bring a knife to a gun fight, he did it because he's delusional.

Dibs Ludicrous

Member
6702

Jan 12th 2011, 20:20:23

those of us who still actually spend most of our time in the real world, don't actually know why he did it.

There are no messages in your Inbox.
Elvis has left the building.

Detmer

Member
4280

Jan 12th 2011, 20:29:23

Originally posted by trumper:

Originally posted by Detmer:

Originally posted by trumper:

The complaints about the "violent words" is patently ridiculous. What do we call the process by which candidates work to win an election? We can't call it a campaign since that comes from military terminology. What do we call Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania: close states? We can't call them battleground states anymore. Do we censure President Obama for saying don't bring a knife to a gun fight? Senator Manchin for shooting the cap and trade bill? Sarah Palin for her map of 'targeted seats'? Senator Schumer for talking about the "tortured path?" We probably shouldn't use the word "cut," only reduction. Definitely shouldn't refer to the "budget ax." And oh my, imagine if we said 'draconian' and 'cuts' together!

Some of the things Obama has said aren't really necessary... obviously some of things you posted make no sense... or do you think that is logical reasoning? Maybe the problem is that so many people are incapable of drawing logical distinctions in what is provocative and what is colloquial speech and it is all just viewed as one big slippery slope?

I think what happened was a tragedy, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the so-called violent political rhetoric. If Kim Jung Il uses a nuke against us, would we say it's because the politicians discussed the 'nuclear option' 6 years ago when it came to judicial nominees? Of course not. We would say it's because Kim Jung Il's crazy. Same situation here. Jared Laughner didn't shoot up the event because Palin targeted political seats to capture or because Obama said don't bring a knife to a gun fight, he did it because he's delusional.

Ok, that is nice, but my point is that this highlights the low level of political discourse which needs to be altered. I am not attempting to prove causation between his actions and the political rhetoric.

trumper

Member
1558

Jan 12th 2011, 20:43:49

Originally posted by Detmer:

Originally posted by trumper:

Originally posted by Detmer:

Originally posted by trumper:

The complaints about the "violent words" is patently ridiculous. What do we call the process by which candidates work to win an election? We can't call it a campaign since that comes from military terminology. What do we call Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania: close states? We can't call them battleground states anymore. Do we censure President Obama for saying don't bring a knife to a gun fight? Senator Manchin for shooting the cap and trade bill? Sarah Palin for her map of 'targeted seats'? Senator Schumer for talking about the "tortured path?" We probably shouldn't use the word "cut," only reduction. Definitely shouldn't refer to the "budget ax." And oh my, imagine if we said 'draconian' and 'cuts' together!

Some of the things Obama has said aren't really necessary... obviously some of things you posted make no sense... or do you think that is logical reasoning? Maybe the problem is that so many people are incapable of drawing logical distinctions in what is provocative and what is colloquial speech and it is all just viewed as one big slippery slope?

I think what happened was a tragedy, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the so-called violent political rhetoric. If Kim Jung Il uses a nuke against us, would we say it's because the politicians discussed the 'nuclear option' 6 years ago when it came to judicial nominees? Of course not. We would say it's because Kim Jung Il's crazy. Same situation here. Jared Laughner didn't shoot up the event because Palin targeted political seats to capture or because Obama said don't bring a knife to a gun fight, he did it because he's delusional.

Ok, that is nice, but my point is that this highlights the low level of political discourse which needs to be altered. I am not attempting to prove causation between his actions and the political rhetoric.

What's high level political discourse? Everyone saying "you're so nice Sam, but I most respectfully disagree. May I present to you the following three points?" Give-me-a-break. Politics has always been peppered by emotionally-charged and sometimes heated rhetoric precisely because of the issues the discourse deals with.

It is a mistake to think everything should be like Mr. Roger's neighborhood.

Detmer

Member
4280

Jan 12th 2011, 20:52:37

Originally posted by trumper:

What's high level political discourse? Everyone saying "you're so nice Sam, but I most respectfully disagree. May I present to you the following three points?" Give-me-a-break. Politics has always been peppered by emotionally-charged and sometimes heated rhetoric precisely because of the issues the discourse deals with.

It is a mistake to think everything should be like Mr. Roger's neighborhood.

So the only appropriate emotional response to something is violence? Are people really not capable of portraying emotions without pretending they are shooting people?

And why shouldn't everything be like Mr. Roger's neighborhood? Sure, it will never/could never happen, but I think it would be really nice if everyone got along.

NukEvil

Member
4328

Jan 12th 2011, 20:54:07

Quit using the word 'rhetoric', as it means nothing at all in this case.

The word everyone's looking for is obviously 'regurgitation'.

I am a troll. Everything I say must be assumed to be said solely to provoke an exaggerated reaction to the current topic. I fully intend to bring absolutely no substance to any discussion, ongoing or otherwise. Conversing with me is pointless.

Dibs Ludicrous

Member
6702

Jan 12th 2011, 20:55:07

probably because Mr. Rogers was tripping on acid and had difficulties with recognizing reality.

There are no messages in your Inbox.
Elvis has left the building.

trumper

Member
1558

Jan 12th 2011, 21:02:14

Originally posted by Detmer:

Originally posted by trumper:

What's high level political discourse? Everyone saying "you're so nice Sam, but I most respectfully disagree. May I present to you the following three points?" Give-me-a-break. Politics has always been peppered by emotionally-charged and sometimes heated rhetoric precisely because of the issues the discourse deals with.

It is a mistake to think everything should be like Mr. Roger's neighborhood.

So the only appropriate emotional response to something is violence? Are people really not capable of portraying emotions without pretending they are shooting people?

And why shouldn't everything be like Mr. Roger's neighborhood? Sure, it will never/could never happen, but I think it would be really nice if everyone got along.

In your world someone drawing a political cartoon of a Governor with a big ax and the word budget on it would suddenly be promoting ax-murdering. That's ridiculous. I don't assume people are incapable of distinguishing literal from figureative.

And, quite frankly, I don't want people treating me like I'm 8 years old and living in Mr. Roger's neighborhood. The world can be a scary place.

Detmer

Member
4280

Jan 12th 2011, 21:13:04

Originally posted by trumper:

In your world someone drawing a political cartoon of a Governor with a big ax and the word budget on it would suddenly be promoting ax-murdering. That's ridiculous. I don't assume people are incapable of distinguishing literal from figureative.

1) Slashing a budget is very different from slashing a person
2) I have said that it is not any one usage that is the issue. It is when it has become the theme that it is the problem.
3) Some people ARE incapable of distinguishing literal from figurative. Those people are crazy and hence the ones who are liable to go do something.

Again, maybe the problem is that people are incapable of drawing logical distinctions in what is provocative and what is colloquial speech?

Dibs Ludicrous

Member
6702

Jan 12th 2011, 21:16:20

dude, you ain't putting a mind control chip in me simply because some guy in Arizona got too much sun or ate too much peyote.

There are no messages in your Inbox.
Elvis has left the building.

Detmer

Member
4280

Jan 12th 2011, 21:18:23

Originally posted by Dibs Ludicrous:

dude, you ain't putting a mind control chip in me simply because some guy in Arizona got too much sun or ate too much peyote.

That is why I make you learn math and try to control your grammar...

Dibs Ludicrous

Member
6702

Jan 12th 2011, 21:20:20

technically, there's a good probability that i learned both math and grammar before you were born.

There are no messages in your Inbox.
Elvis has left the building.

trumper

Member
1558

Jan 12th 2011, 21:20:33

1) Agreed. I would say the same thing applies to targeting a race. Declaring a battleground state. Etc.

2) That's a broad brush to use. I mean, the media calls PA, FL and OH "battleground states" and it's a theme, so will some people battle there?

3) IF someone is incapable of distinguishing literal from figurative then what makes you think they won't draw other illogical connections? Perhaps suggesting something innocous as English grammar is actually a secret government plot to brainwash? In other words--using the violent language or not using it becomes irrelevant because delusional folks will find violence in a peace dove image and peace in a bloody murder scene.

Detmer

Member
4280

Jan 12th 2011, 21:45:12

1) Check

2) Calling them battleground states is fine. If people start saying. "The dems are at war in PA and better start loading up on bullets", followed by a politician saying "we've got to go guerrilla on the republicans and start..." and then starts a chant "Kill the opposition". Then even though I am sure no one rational thinks it means anything harmful, it becomes hazy to less lucid members of society.

3) I am sure they will draw other illogical connections. I am also sure that even if all interaction between politicians is completely peaceable that there will still be wackos who murder politicians for political purposes. Just because a problem can never be completely solved does not mean it should be mitigated.

trumper

Member
1558

Jan 12th 2011, 22:02:35

Originally posted by Detmer:

1) Check

2) Calling them battleground states is fine. If people start saying. "The dems are at war in PA and better start loading up on bullets", followed by a politician saying "we've got to go guerrilla on the republicans and start..." and then starts a chant "Kill the opposition". Then even though I am sure no one rational thinks it means anything harmful, it becomes hazy to less lucid members of society.

3) I am sure they will draw other illogical connections. I am also sure that even if all interaction between politicians is completely peaceable that there will still be wackos who murder politicians for political purposes. Just because a problem can never be completely solved does not mean it should be mitigated.

No one is saying two in that manner. Does someone say this is a targeted race? Sure. Do they say they won the campaign using guerilla tactics? Sure. I've even heard of insurgent campaigners. But i've never heard the 'let's go kill them' except in a figurative sense as a pep talk before a big sports game.

As for the third item, my point was these delusional folks aren't drawing their delusions from the political lexicon.

Detmer

Member
4280

Jan 12th 2011, 22:16:59

No one is saying two in that manner. Does someone say this is a targeted race? Sure. Do they say they won the campaign using guerilla tactics? Sure. I've even heard of insurgent campaigners. But i've never heard the 'let's go kill them' except in a figurative sense as a pep talk before a big sports game.

I was merely making up things I found would be undeniably inappropriate. At McCain-Palin rallies people shouted out "Kill him" at times (in reference to Obama) and those were not rebuked. That isn't the same thing, but it is the same ilk of vitriol that is over the line.

As for the third item, my point was these delusional folks aren't drawing their delusions from the political lexicon.

There is a gray-scale between sanity and delusional. The worst case scenario for toning down the violent language is increased civility...

NOW3P

Member
6503

Jan 12th 2011, 23:04:18

Better start locking up football players for some of their pre-game rituals then. Cuz if Sarah Palin is inciting murder, they're inciting mass genocide!

~I wrote this with my penis~
http://i85.photobucket.com/...s/k48/jdbates/hobosig.jpg
FoG

Detmer

Member
4280

Jan 12th 2011, 23:51:20

Originally posted by NOW3P:

Better start locking up football players for some of their pre-game rituals then. Cuz if Sarah Palin is inciting murder, they're inciting mass genocide!

Since when are football pre-game rituals the same thing as political discourse...?

I appreciate non sequiturs as much as the next guy but I feel like you were trying to maybe actually make a point...

trumper

Member
1558

Jan 12th 2011, 23:53:49

Originally posted by Detmer:

No one is saying two in that manner. Does someone say this is a targeted race? Sure. Do they say they won the campaign using guerilla tactics? Sure. I've even heard of insurgent campaigners. But i've never heard the 'let's go kill them' except in a figurative sense as a pep talk before a big sports game.

I was merely making up things I found would be undeniably inappropriate. At McCain-Palin rallies people shouted out "Kill him" at times (in reference to Obama) and those were not rebuked. That isn't the same thing, but it is the same ilk of vitriol that is over the line.

As for the third item, my point was these delusional folks aren't drawing their delusions from the political lexicon.

There is a gray-scale between sanity and delusional. The worst case scenario for toning down the violent language is increased civility...

I work in the political arena and so I've been to more rallies than I care to remember. I have never once heard someone say to kill the opponent. The closest I've ever heard was someone say they wished a member of the opposition passed away to which they were sternly rebuked by those present and that's not even the same as saying kill them. I don't want to call you a liar, but I suspect you're exaggerating here.

With that said I have seen crazy people. In one office I worked in we received a letter from a woman demanding passage of legislation to have the local sheriff stop spying on her brain or she would have to kill him. She was patently nuts and we promptly provided the letter to the sheriff so they could followup. But these are the exceptions and not the rule. And they're generally driven by a mental disorder.

Detmer

Member
4280

Jan 13th 2011, 0:16:19

Originally posted by trumper:

I work in the political arena and so I've been to more rallies than I care to remember. I have never once heard someone say to kill the opponent. The closest I've ever heard was someone say they wished a member of the opposition passed away to which they were sternly rebuked by those present and that's not even the same as saying kill them. I don't want to call you a liar, but I suspect you're exaggerating here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw3o3y77MaA