97 users responded in this post

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url
mygif

Well, Sean, Salmo, I’m still waiting for someone to explain what “second amendment remedies” means.

While you’re at it, explain what “the ballot box or the ammo box” and “ballots or bullets” means. Because both those phrases were used by speakers at Republican rallies in the last election cycle.

And, even if the shooter at in Tuscon never, ever heard these thing, please explain how those are not calls for political violence.

ReplyReply
mygif

Honestly I could care less about the rhetoric used by republican or democratic politicians. It means nothing….targets, crosshairs, battleground states are metaphoric expressions used by politicians for decades.

This murderer was a Satan worshiping lunatic. Those murders had nothing to do with bullseyes on maps or the neighbors dog talking to him. It’s empty rhetoric. What did right winged lunatic said “if they bring a knife we bring a gun”? Oh yeah that was your president. I wonder what he meant by that?

This is just a disgusting attempt by the left to capitalize on the deaths of these people for political gain, by attempting to enact stricter gun laws and freedom of speech. (Congressman Brady of Pa.) Interesting that the Fairness Doctrine is being tossed around…like Rham Emanuel always said, never let a good crisis go to waste. The left has no shame.

You lefties will take any opportunity, as vial as it may be in the wake of these deaths, to attack the right and attack Sarah Palin.
.
Yes, the Daily Kos is a rag, and Sarah Palin is not an elected official. She doesn’t introduce bills, she doesn’t vote on them, and she has no active influence in anybody’s life last time I checked.
And RTam or whatever the fuck your name is yes the Daily Kos is a fucking rag as you put it, but how about this from the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council)
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171

Wow those look like targets to me!!

And look what all you peace loving Democrats caused…I was gonna say “happy now?”, but I’m sure that you really are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxgJKNpjSNI

ReplyReply
mygif
Candlejack said on January 11th, 2011 at 11:57 pm

So…the calculated rhetoric of politicians who have polished their speeches to a shine means nothing, but the quick-fire Twitters of random angry people are worth getting mad over?

‘Kay.

ReplyReply
mygif

So just to be clear, Sean, your stance is- This guy was crazy, but using this as impetus to enact stricter gun laws, perhaps in order to ensure that crazy people can’t buy guns, is a vile attempt by the left to exploit this for political gain. Stay angry, my friend.

ReplyReply
mygif

I image the President mean to quote from a well known Oscar winning film when he used that quote. And ever time I’ve ever heard anyone use that quote not one of them was ever talking about, you know, shooting someone in a fight. It was always about having more determination than the other guy to get the job done.

Now saying “second amendment remedies” is NOT a quote from a well known Oscar winning film, and as far as I can tell, is not metaphorical in any way.

Can you honestly not tell the difference there?

And I notice you didn’t answer my question. Even if the shooter was a satan worshiper and had never heard any of the rhetoric, what exactly, if not this, is a second amendment remedy to an election?

ReplyReply
mygif

Oh I got it John- thanks! I missed the part where Obama was talking about Oscar winning films at the time when he said “if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun” I thought he was talking about beating down Republican adversaries. Silly me…boy do I feel embarrassed!

What do you think Democrat Paul Kanjornski meant when he said “Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him” when he was talking about Rick Scott Governor of Florida?

Do all you lemmings really believe only inflammatory rhetoric comes from the right?????

And Candlejack- easy question for you since you missed the entire point of my comment. I’ll make it multiple choice to help you a little because obviously you are a little slow.

Who is more likely to murder somebody?
A. a member of Congress
B. a random angry person on Twitter
(pick B pick B!!!)
this is the product of the left wing hatred toward Sarah Palin- yes all those angry harmless people on twitter!

ReplyReply
mygif

**note to all politicians

Violent and inflammatory rhetoric is permissible if you are simply quoting from a movie

see John 2.0

ReplyReply
mygif

Sean, the President said that when he was running against McCain, and he was talking about how he would respond to any attacks the McCain campaign made against him.

Saying that, if someone attacks you, you will respond with greater force than they used is not the same thing as when, say, Sharron Angle said that if she wasn’t elected, someone might have to then shoot Harry Reid.

Context is a wonderful thing, is it not?

ReplyReply
mygif

In what context do you think Democrat Kanjornski’s comment was meant? Still looking it up??

ReplyReply
mygif
Candlejack said on January 12th, 2011 at 12:22 pm

Hey, sean, maybe when you’re talking about how dangerous crazies are angry people on the internet, you should try to turn down your own anger dial. I didn’t attack you, just questioned your stance. Your over-the-top reaction? Yeah, that’s why people think the angry rhetoric comes mostly from the right….

ReplyReply
mygif

So are you admitting that you were wrong about Obama’s remark, Sean, or just trying to change the subject?

As for Kanjornski, he was wrong to say that, just as Sharron Angle was wrong to say that if she lost to Harry Reid, people would have to resort to “Second Amendment solutions”.

ReplyReply
mygif

I am not changing the subject, or admitting I am wrong, or giving any other answer that you decide for me.
I am wondering if you think it’s OK for our president to use analogies or metaphors using guns or knives as long as it comes from a movie?

I understand what Obama meant when he used that term. He also talked about the folks in Philly who like a good brawl. I know that he didn’t intend for anybody to bring a gun to strike down his political enemies, just like Sarah Palin didn’t mean for anyone to assassinate political adversaries. And yet the left cannot let it go- there are thousands of news media, columnists, and bloggers who continue the assault on Palin.
I will reiterate my point one last time…Both sides are guilty of using inflammatory rhetoric, but I don’t believe they are intentionally inciting murder, although Sharron Angle’s comments may have been. And yet the left turned on the Palin attack machine. I am very confused by this. The only thing that comes to mind is that the left is afraid of her-possibly running for president or some other obscure reason.

FYI I am an armed conservative- not a Sarah Palin fan-I like her conservate beliefs and patriotism, but I think she’s unelectable and wish she would go away.

ReplyReply
mygif

sean: Who cares if you’re armed?

ReplyReply
mygif

If I had a high-profile blog where I said “Y’know, somebody should really rise up and take out Person X once and for all”, and then some crazy person went and shot Person X dead, I might not feel directly responsible, but I’d at least feel bad about it.

I don’t see any demands anywhere for Palin to be arrested or Rush Limbaugh to be tried for murder. Only impassioned suggestions that maybe, just maybe, we can try having political debate without thinly (or un-) veiled threats of violence against specific opponents, and see if that helps.

I mean, it’ll be pretty hard for anyone to avoid saying “gun” ever again, even if they don’t quote movies. But how hard can it be to avoid saying “Gosh, somebody should really rise up and take out Person X once and for all, whose picture I’ve helpfully provided in this sniper-sight frame?” Is that really so much to ask?

ReplyReply
mygif

Sean, I’ve been a public servant for 10 years. In that time I’ve had to evacuate a building because of a bomb threat (my state legislative building, right before a vote on a tax increase), I’ve had the cops come to my building becasue someone down the hall from my office open a threatening letter that contained white powder, I’ve had the EPA come to my building because someone dropped off a gallon of toxic subsances to the front desk, and I’ve had the person who in the office directly above mine recieve a call tellint her there would be “another McVeigh” (a call that prompted my boss to remove my office’s physical address off the web). So I take statement of politically motivated violence quite seriously.

“Both sides doing it” is not what propted a Republican distric chair in AZ to step down, it was the worry that a Tea Party Member was going to shoot up his house. (http://www.azcentral.com/community/ahwatukee/articles/2011/01/11/20110111gabrielle-giffords-arizona-shooting-resignations.html#ixzz1AowZXHq1)

The fact that your status as a gun owner is part of your political self-identification is part of the problem.

ReplyReply
mygif

MacReady- very well and passionately put. I acquiesce to your point…

However, I haven’t seen any blog that said those words,“Y’know, somebody should really rise up and take out Person X once and for all”.
I saw a blog with targets put on political opposition, which has been done for years. I also saw a high profile liberal blog with a bullseye over Giffords for not being liberal enough, but I don’t hear the outrage, or even a mention.
As I previously pointed out, battle ground, bulls eye, targeted, and even “campaign” are all terms that refer to political war and war zones. And that terminology has been used for decades. You have a nut case that attempts an assassination on a member of Congress, which by the way he has been shown to be obsessed with Giffords since 2007- before anyone heard of Sarah Palin and before the Tea Party(fyi)
You have this Sheriff Dupnik and liberal media going on the tour blaming Rush, FoxNews, conservative talk, etc. and as a result, there is talk of stricter gun laws, Fairness Doctrine, etc. Sadly, it is fueling the distrust, anger, and even hatred that the political parties suffer from.
So as a result, I thinks it’s a fair assessment that the left is using this tragedy for political gain.
I hope the president urges our country come together in his speech tonight. There is a lot of healing that needs to take place. Personally I think he’s enjoying the mileage and the divide-I hope I’m wrong.

Hey Zurn I fucking care…how’s that?

ReplyReply
mygif

John 2.0 the statement that I am a gun owner describes why I am passionate of the argument to defend the 2nd amendment, And why I am angry at law makers for politicizing these murders to advance a gun control position. There are 68 million legal gun owners who didn’t murder anybody yesterday.

ReplyReply
mygif
MainstreamCrazy said on January 12th, 2011 at 2:44 pm
mygif

To be fair there are also millions of car owners who didn’t murder anybody yesterday. But we’re still pretty strict as to who’s allowed to drive a car.

And I don’t believe the people you’re angry at are thinking “nyah ha ha, at last an excuse to implement our evil scheme”. I think they are honestly trying to implement the best solution to minimize the likelihood of future tragedies. That is to say, they are (and have been) proposing policy in response to events, not gathering events as tools to advance their predetermined policies.

ReplyReply
mygif

“I understand what Obama meant when he used that term.”

Then why did you quote it out of context, Sean?

Also, in what way was Sharron Angle’s statement about “Second Amendment solutions” not either an incitement toward violence or “merely” a veiled threat toward her opponent?

ReplyReply
mygif

I didn’t quote it out of context Prodigal-I don’t think I can help you anymore. Your redundancy is tiring.

ReplyReply
mygif

MacReady- I would like to think you are right, but I am much more cynical on issues like this. Obama has a very long history on gun control.

ReplyReply
mygif

Indeed he does… and the USA has an even longer history of gun violence.

ReplyReply
mygif

That’s true..I wonder if the majority of violent criminals in the jail system are republicans or democrats??

Fortunately for us law abiding gun owners we have the protection of the Constitution.

ReplyReply
mygif

The difference is that when someone on the left says something stupidly violent, we cringe and think it was stupid (and transparent toadying towards conservative voters.) When someone on the right says something stupidly violent, which happens far more often and with more ferocity, the right rears up to defend him/her.

And really, you still think a requirement of psychological evaluation in order to buy a gun is unreasonable?

ReplyReply
mygif

There you go again over-generalizing the right. Do you have any factual basis for your conclusion?

I don’t think it’s unreasonable-how exactly would you institute that?

ReplyReply
mygif

Personally, I think any kind of violent imagery used by a person in a position of power aginst an identiiable group of people is abhorrent. I don’t care what “side” they’re on.
It just so happens that this kind of imagery is used most pervasivly by right wing politicians. They simply use it with more intensity and frequency.
And yes maybe AZ could use stricter gun laws. If they had laws like several other states that banned the type of extended magazine the shooter used, he would only have gotten 15 shots instead of 33. That kind of thinking isn’t “capitalizing on a tragedy for political gain”, it’s saying “Hey, maybe we should change some stuff so tragedies like this are less likely to happen.”
Also, when your country has a much higher rate of gun-related violence than other developed countries, maybe you should take a look at fixing that. To say that America doesn’t have an epidemic of gun violence is laughable.

ReplyReply
mygif

I don’t believe that inflammatory words are pervasively used more by the right…it is just under reported by the liberal media which most of you watch…Most of you FoxNews haters don’t realize that you are only getting half the news.

ReplyReply
mygif

This memorial is a travesty…surprised they are not passing out foam fingers

ReplyReply
mygif

Man, Sean didn’t just drink the kool-aid, he’s been soaking in it!

ReplyReply
mygif

Anything to pimp the reich-wing nationalist paranoia, eh, sean?

The abusive economic values. The obsolete social values. The moral values based on believing that metaphor for the unknown you call “god” is real.

Yeah, your “half” just has so much to offer the world.

ReplyReply
mygif

so MirrorMan did you think all the cheering, clapping and howling was dignified wise ass??

ReplyReply
mygif

Zenrage go take your holier than thou drug infested BS somewhere else. Do you honestly think I give two fucks what you think?? I’m just killing some time with you halfwits to amuse myself.

ReplyReply
mygif
Chibikonatsu said on January 12th, 2011 at 9:32 pm

So…

I’m honestly surprised that this is continuing at this point. Sean, do you have a point you’re trying to make here? Because from where I’m trying to stand you have a) ignored answering a fundamental question about your position, b) quoted people out of context and made random topic-shifts when you’re losing ground, and c), which is really the thing that gets me here, completely ignoring the point that MGK was making here in the first place, to whit that this is a matter of APPROPRIATE CONTEXT, not blame of any sort.

ReplyReply
mygif

Are you smoking dope in here seriously??? or are you just that stupid?
I didn’t quote anybody out of context. I was drawing a parallel between PalinPac’s bullseyes and Obama’s quote from a movie…neither was meant to directly cause harm to another person. So why is one acceptable and the other…well you get the idea.
I didn’t randomly change an argument because I was losing ground, but if it makes you feel good..have at it. I randomly posted an expression about the travesty of a memorial service-I’m sure all you Libs think it was solemn and dignified. Yes it wasn’t on point, so fucking what.
Most of you are a just lemmings in here…most haven’t addressed most of what I have written…like a kid on ADD, just repeating the same mantra, same questions..read on- the answers are right there. You only hear what you want.

There are some intelligent and sincere people in here, and I appreciate your dialogue, but most are internet tough guys sitting in the wings taking potshots anonymously from your couch. And if you start losing ground hoping one of your Lib friends will come and rescue with some obscure fantasy argument.

My favorite response the conclusion Chimikonatsu- I cannot help your ignorance and inability to form an accurate conclusion based on reality. Keep that fantasy going in your head if it’s working for you! I’ve wasted enough time with you half wits-take care.

ReplyReply
mygif

Sean, I don’t have a problem with the funeral. I’ve seen Irish wakes and New Orleans funerals that were about three thousand percent wilder. The people present chose to mourn as they saw fit, and honestly, you have zero right to judge that. There is no mandatory requirement that funerals be depressing.

ReplyReply
mygif

That’s…odd. I remember a similar, almost identical criticism on message boards after the Mel Carnahan memorial service in 2000 (Carnahan was running for Senate when he died in a plane crash). The phrase that sticks out in my mind is “they did everything short of pass out pom-poms”.

After Googling: yep, there’s the ‘foam fingers’ line from both a Michelle Malkin tweet and Pajamas Media websites.

ReplyReply
mygif
HonestObserver said on January 13th, 2011 at 12:28 am

Good points, all, but ultimately: Loughner has been obsessed with Giffords since 2007. It’s really premature at this time, mere days after the attack, to blame it on violent rhetoric from ANY party.

ReplyReply
mygif

Sean, It wasn’t Islamic liberals that slammed those planes into the WTC on 9/11.

ReplyReply
mygif

Look, Sean, you don’t know know me, and I don’t know you. But judging from your posts, I am damn glad I don’t. You have been nothing but an unabashed conservative screaming about how wronged your political heroes are about this whole thing, and from everything I have read on a multitude of sites (both progressive AND conservative) I have come to the personal conclusion that the majority of the people you seem to hold as ‘heroes’ couldn’t pour piss out of a boot with directions on the bottom.

This comment above all strikes me as as the most asinine of all you have stated:
“Most of you FoxNews haters don’t realize that you are only getting half the news.”

Really? You think Fox News is ACTUALLY truthful?

Look, you may have bathed in the Kool-Aid as I thought, but let me tell you one thing that may have escaped you:

The HUGE majority of people in this country are really F*&KING tired of politicians screaming at each other and being obstructionist about going about the business of running this country! You can blame whatever goddamn side you wish, but at the end of the day, THE END OF THE DAY, it has been the conservative, bible-sucking, holier-than-you-can-ever-fu$%ing-hope-to-be-and-you-are-going-to-hell-because-of-it Republican party and their mouthpieces on FAUX News who have been spewing this crap, and all of your pathetic attempts to defend your morally bankrupt group of Gestapo-wannabees are doing noting more to expose you as being just as much a useless bunch of crap as they are.

The majority of people in this country want to get the business of government DONE. And we REALLY don’t give a rats ass about what people choose to do in the privacy of their own bedroom! But you, and, it seems, your CONSERVATIVE MASTERS, need to be sure that you are fully armed in case someone breaks into your apartment looking for extra lube.

You are so busy looking for someone who is out to take your stuff, and so ready to shoot them for it, that you wouldn’t recognize Jesus himself if he came begging for a scrap of bread.

You aren’t just sad, you’re pathetic. And I think the only reason you are on this thread is that you were looking through the RSS feeds and saw something on Palin that wanted you to wave your dick around and look like a bigshot.

Good luck with that.

ReplyReply
mygif

Sorry, MGK, I am usually better than this. But sometimes these POS’s just get me going the wrong way! I will try to behave better in the future.

ReplyReply
mygif

I need to make a correction to my previous comment: I meant the Paul Wellstone memorial service in 2002.

ReplyReply
mygif

It sounds like you’re creating troubles yourself by trying to clear up this problem instead of taking a look at why
their is a dilemma within the 1st place

ReplyReply
mygif
Candlejack said on January 13th, 2011 at 11:45 am

The pres said exactly what sean said he wanted to hear, and people applauded, and he still wasn’t happy. *shrug* Anger troll is angry.

ReplyReply
mygif

@MirrorMan

The one right that Conservatives will fight to maintain moreso than the right to bear arms is the right to remain ignorant, regardless of the cost.

ReplyReply
mygif

Here’s a smarter person than me talking about how to implement psychiatric check-ups as a requirement for gun ownership: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-m-appel/want-a-gun-get-a-prescrip_b_806359.html

ReplyReply
mygif

If i could possibly clone myself ten times the will perform all other Search-engine Optimization business I require by hand.
I can’t therefore I exploit Ultimate Demon in place

my homepage: freelance blogging delhi (Debora)

ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please Note: Comment moderation may be active so there is no need to resubmit your comments