DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Kramer on January 08, 2011, 03:35:44 PM
-
WE have little details yet. My bet is the gunman will turn out to be a Liberal.
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/08/132764367/congresswoman-shot-in-arizona (http://www.npr.org/2011/01/08/132764367/congresswoman-shot-in-arizona)
-
http://twitter.com/caitieparker (http://twitter.com/caitieparker)
-
Yup
I have to admit it but my prediction was a no-brainer.
-
Hello....my name is Jared Lee Loughner
(http://townhall.com/tipsheet/KatiePavlich/2011/01/08/shooting_suspect_jared_lee_loughner)
-
Palin blew it by taking down the target map.
The internet has a long memory. Nothing really disappears.
-
???
-
Palin blew it by taking down the target map.
The internet has a long memory. Nothing really disappears.
The ObamA TEAM STILL TRIES
-
I'm more than certain that the Lib press will down-play the Lib connection.
-
Palin blew it by taking down the target map. The internet has a long memory. Nothing really disappears.
I guess the liberal Daily Kos did too!
January 09, 2011
Is Daily Kos to blame for Gifford attack?
By Rick Moran
There's no link to the diary entry at Daily Kos that is described in this posting from Hillbuzz.
That's because Kos scrubbed it. Thankfully, several bloggers were able to capture screen
shots of the post that used the word "dead" in relation to Rep. Giffords several times.
Diary headline: "My CongressWOMAN voted against Nancy Pelosi! And is now DEAD to me!"
There are also several references to "dead" in the comment thread.
All of it now deleted - something Kos does on a regular basis when he wishes to change history.
Kos also seems to have forgotten a posting of his calling for putting a "bullseye" on Giffords' district.
The New York Times insinuated something about Sarah Palin's use of crosshairs in connection with
the shooting, but so far as we have noticed, has not mentioend leftist violent rhetoiric and imagery.
(http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/screen-shot-2011-01-08-at-1-56-04-pm1.png)
By the left's own idiotic definition, Kos helped create a climate of violence that directly led to the
shootings in AZ yesterday. And what about all the over the top rhetoric directed against Blue Dog
Democrats after many of them voted against Obamacare? Giffords voted for the measure but as
Kos made clear in his 2008 post, he lumped Gifford in with the other more moderate Dems.
Let's just say that consistency is not one of the left's strong points.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/01/is_daily_kos_to_blame_for_giff.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/01/is_daily_kos_to_blame_for_giff.html)
-
What the libs do or did really has nothing to do with what Palin does or did.
If the map OK Friday, why was it not OK Saturday?
-
What the libs do or did really has nothing to do with what Palin does or did.
And what Palin did really has nothing to do with what the Libs do or did.
It works both ways BT.
But I know you will go to earth's end to demonize Palin and conservatives
and remain quiet as rat about the Left in your new more recent personality.
-
What the libs do or did really has nothing to do with what Palin does or did.
And what Palin did really has nothing to do with what the Libs do or did.
It works both ways BT.
But I know you will go to earth's end to demonize Palin and conservatives
and remain quiet as rat about the Left in your new more recent personality.
So you think that Palin was correct in taking down the target map after Gifford was shot?
And it wasn't me who compared Palin to the Daily Kossacks. That would have been you.
-
What are you talking about Bt? Excuse my ignorance here, but what "target map", or more so, what is a "target map" and how did Palin "talk this map down"??
-
(http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs454.ash1/24972_382925783587_24718773587_3655178_2736968_n.jpg)
That map. But apparently it was falsely reported that it was taken down. So Palin didn't blow it.
http://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/dont-get-demoralized-get-organized-take-back-the-20/373854973434 (http://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/dont-get-demoralized-get-organized-take-back-the-20/373854973434)
-
I'm a little slow so please explain what Palin did?
-
I'm a little slow so please explain what Palin did?
Apparently nothing.
It had been reported she had taken down the map with targeted seats after one of the targets had been shot. That report turns out to be untrue.
I had claimed Palin had blown it by taking down the image, which if she had i would have stood by my claim, but she didn't, so my claim is moot.
-
I'm a little slow so please explain what Palin did?
Apparently nothing. Thank you Bt for the update on what you were talking about
-
OK Got it.
I hope the Congresswomen makes it. There is some hope today that she may recover but I don't know if that means she will be able to continue to spoil Liberals fun as a Blue-dog Dem Congresswomen.
So it's looking like CongressPeople might end up with security guards as a result of this crazy Liberal madman shooting people he disagrees with.
Gee whiz and we all thought Liberals were against guns. Strange how Liberals are always against things like guns, free speech, etc, unless Conservatives and people they don't agree with want them.
Libs hate MacDonalds unless of course they want a Big Mac, then it's OK. But God forbid I want a Big Mac. XO, don't bother trying to understand my analogy because the required abstract thought process might cause you to blow a gasket in your brain.
-
The hypothetical question still remains however.
If Palin had taken down that facebook post, as had been reported, would that have been the right or wrong thing to do.
I would say it would have been the wrong thing to do.
-
Agreed. Those "targets" had nothing to do with the pathology behind this killer or in any way a facilitator for someone to go killing politicians, in order for a conservative to take their place. Merely a rhetorical tool to focus resources on trying to unseat, via the ballot box, a politician they believe could be unseated
That said, watch the MSM go apesnot on if more gun control legislation and more governmental regulation of the airwaves were in place, this would have never happened. Then watch the subsequent calls for such. The sheriff giving the press conference yesterday all but advocated such
-
That said, watch the MSM go apesnot on if more gun control legislation and more governmental regulation of the airwaves were in place, this would have never happened. Then watch the subsequent calls for such. The sheriff giving the press conference yesterday all but advocated such
Which is exactly why the map should not be taken down. To do so, gives credence to those who say graphical expressions such as this are in fact causative of isolated violence.
As a side note, Palins staff did take down the site takebackthe20.com which also had the target map on it.
-
It's interesting, if not bizarre, how suddenly this is the fault of Conservatives.
-
I don't think it is the fault of conservatives, nor do i think it is the fault of liberals.
I think it is Loughners fault.
It is not surprising that both sides out of the gate were wanting to point their fingers at the others.
-
That said, watch the MSM go apesnot on if more gun control legislation and more governmental regulation of the airwaves were in place, this would have never happened. Then watch the subsequent calls for such. The sheriff giving the press conference yesterday all but advocated such
Which is exactly why the map should not be taken down. To do so, gives credence to those who say graphical expressions such as this are in fact causative of isolated violence.
Which is why I was in agreement
-
I don't think it is the fault of conservatives, nor do i think it is the fault of liberals.
I think it is Loughners fault.
It is not surprising that both sides out of the gate were wanting to point their fingers at the others.
What conservatives on their "side", right out of the gate, were claiming liberals were the cause of this? Just curious, as I must have missed it
-
I don't think it is the fault of conservatives, nor do i think it is the fault of liberals.
I think it is Loughners fault.
It is not surprising that both sides out of the gate were wanting to point their fingers at the others.
What conservatives on their "side", right out of the gate, were claiming liberals were the cause of this? Just curious, as I must have missed it
::)
-
"Don't retreat, reload!" + The Crosshairs Map = Go kill anyone who is in our way.
That "right wing wacko" who Giffords defeated had a fundraiser where donors were invited to shoot an automatic weapon.
The right's fascination with guns and "might makes right" set the stage for this massacre.
Guns should be banned.
Palin is done politically unless we want a for real Hitler as an American president.
But you guys keep on thinking that it's all just happenstance. K? Thanks,loveyou,meanit,don'teverchange!
-
"Don't retreat, reload!" + The Crosshairs Map = Go kill anyone who is in our way.
That "right wing wacko" who Giffords defeated had a fundraiser where donors were invited to shoot an automatic weapon.
The right's fascination with guns and "might makes right" set the stage for this massacre.
Guns should be banned.
Palin is done politically unless we want a for real Hitler as an American president.
But you guys keep on thinking that it's all just happenstance. K? Thanks,loveyou,meanit,don'teverchange!
I agree that guns should be banned from the hands of wackos. Further, you should not ever be able to own or handle knives, axes, box-cutters or a gun, period, end of story. Nor should any other of your wacko Liberal buddies be able to have any type of adult weapon. The nut job that killed all those people was a pot smoking Liberal, and no doubt he and you have similar if not identical beliefs, hobbies, friends and issues. Oh and one more thing is you and your buddies should not be allowed to have matches or any type of flammable liquids, period.
The signs were clear that the nut job was going to hurt people. Clearly a preemptive strike on this guy would have helped to stop this event from ever happening.
-
The dems also had a map with targets in 2004.
(http://www.ndol.org/upload_graphics/BP_0405_heartland1.gif)
I am surprised that you would be advocating censorship in political discourse when the slippery slope would tend to also mean more intense censorship in films and literature. I was quite surprised to see that "Catcher in the Rye" was not on his book list. Perhaps it was removed from the library after a previous nutcase claimed the book as influential.
Palin had nothing to do with this. And apparently the left still likes to manipulate any crisis to their own ends.
-
The dems also had a map with targets in 2004.
(http://www.ndol.org/upload_graphics/BP_0405_heartland1.gif)
I am surprised that you would be advocating censorship in political discourse when the slippery slope would tend to also mean more intense censorship in films and literature. I was quite surprised to see that "Catcher in the Rye" was not on his book list. Perhaps it was removed from the library after a previous nutcase claimed the book as influential.
Palin had nothing to do with this. And apparently the left still likes to manipulate any crisis to their own ends.
That map is interesting. Was it a map put out by a Democratic presidential nominee who is also fond of gun rhetoric?
I doubt there will be any censorship to come out of this. In fact, I would wager that there will be more assassinations of left-leaners or Dems.
While it is true that Giffords was something of a Blue Dog Dem, she was definitely liberal for an Arizonan.
Also, Loughner seems just a little too perfectly "wacko".
-
Also, Loughner seems just a little too perfectly "wacko".
I dunno. He has the prerequisite 3 name thing going for him.
-
Also, Loughner seems just a little too perfectly "wacko".
I dunno. He has the prerequisite 3 name thing going for him.
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Barrack Hussein Obama
-
(http://patterico.com/files/2011/01/Markos-2-600x452.jpg)
-
I don't think it is the fault of conservatives, nor do i think it is the fault of liberals. I think it is Loughners fault.
It is not surprising that both sides out of the gate were wanting to point their fingers at the others.
What conservatives on their "side", right out of the gate, were claiming liberals were the cause of this? Just curious, as I must have missed it
::)
so....no back up to the claim, I have to assume? I guess I didn't miss anything, after all
-
so....no back up to the claim, I have to assume? I guess I didn't miss anything, after all
Oh was that question to be treated seriously?
The title of the thread might help.
-
Gifford apparently was pro 2nd amendment.
(http://www.newsweek.com/content/newsweek/2010/10/28/target-practice/gabrielle-giffords/_jcr_content/body/image.img.jpg/1288223953125.jpg)
-
so....no back up to the claim, I have to assume? I guess I didn't miss anything, after all
Oh was that question to be treated seriously?
Most are
The title of the thread might help.
The title of the thread was specific to who did the killing...not what nebulous mass facilitated it, analogus to what Brass, the Sheriff, and soon to be most of the MSM will be pushing. Your claim appeared to cast a huge accusatory net at both "sides" claiming the other side prompted this act. If not, you needed to, dare I say, clarify yourself a tad better
and yea, she was and to the best of my knowledge, still is pro 2nd amendment. I read she has a Glock herself. What a tragic irony that is, having been shot by the same brand of pistol.
Compliments her Blue Dog Democrat credentials, as she is apparently a staunch pro-abortionist and pro "comprehensive immigration reformist". Which makes her election win all the more impressive, as she was one of the very few blue dog democrats, that supported Obamacare & some path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, and yet still won her election. In Arizona, even
-
The title of the thread was specific to who did the killing...not what nebulous mass facilitated it, analogus to what Brass, the Sheriff, and soon to be most of the MSM will be pushing.
I'm sure the content of the thread provides all the clarification needed.
-
Still waiting for these apparent copious examples of "the right" claiming that this is the fault of "the left"? So far all we have is 1 title, specific to the killer himself. Can we expect a modification to your earlier claim of It is not surprising that both sides out of the gate were wanting to point their fingers at the others, any time soon? Or are we being provided the "obvious" validation tact?
-
Still waiting for these apparent copious examples of "the right" claiming that this is the fault of "the left"?
I never claimed they were copious. But i did claim examples are in this very thread.
And they are. So no modification needed.
-
Still waiting for these apparent copious examples of "the right" claiming that this is the fault of "the left"?
I never claimed they were copious. But i did claim examples are in this very thread.
And they are. So no modification needed.
I didn't claim it, I predicted it, and then you posted Tweets that confirmed my prediction was indeed true.
-
I didn't claim it, I predicted it, and then you posted Tweets that confirmed my prediction was indeed true.
And the relevance of your prediction? Was there linkage between his politics and his actions?
-
Gun controll is 80 or 90 percent effective.
Note than in this croud of Arizonans the only one that was carrying a gun was the malfactor.
If totally unarmed crouds were not so common , would such attacks be attempted , or succeed?
This shooting is a measure of the success of makeing gun carrying scarce in social settings.
-
I didn't claim it, I predicted it, and then you posted Tweets that confirmed my prediction was indeed true.
And the relevance of your prediction? Was there linkage between his politics and his actions?
So no actual examples of your earlier claims of "the right" claiming "the left" as responsible for this act. Merely repetitions of some apparent obviousness, that only you share, all the while the thread & Kramer were specific in referencing the killer as responsible. Albeit a liberal psychopath apparently
-
Apparently you can't bother to read through the thread.
Here is one ( though i'm sure it is tongue in cheek)
http://tinyurl.com/4va7zpy (http://tinyurl.com/4va7zpy)
Still waiting for you to show where i claimed copious. Must have been rhetorical or some other word for this is a strawman, don't take me seriously.
-
I have read the thread. I see no "obvious" claims of the right claiming it's the left's fault. I AM seeing examples, more and more, of the left claiming it's the right's fault....talk radio, show hosts, "vitriole", etc. Where are your examples of "the right side" claiming this murder is at the hands of "the left side", as you have opined? NOT that the killer was leftist (since apparently that's a moot point, he is. Even your tweets says so), but that the murder was caused, in some way, analogus to talk radio, by the left? THAT was your claim. Simply directing folks to go back and read something that you yourself apparently are the only one to have caught, isn't going to cut it
-
NOT that the killer was leftist (since apparently that's a moot point, he is. Even your tweets says so), but that the murder was caused, in some way, analogus to talk radio, by the left? THAT was your claim.
Where did i claim that the charges from the right were in the same vein as those from the left?
This is what I said:
It is not surprising that both sides out of the gate were wanting to point their fingers at the others.
Do you dispute that?
If so, how.
-
>>Also, Loughner seems a little too perfectly "wacko". <<
Oh, here we go, and Bush was involved in 9/11.
bsb
-
NOT that the killer was leftist (since apparently that's a moot point, he is. Even your tweets says so), but that the murder was caused, in some way, analogus to talk radio, by the left? THAT was your claim.
Where did i claim that the charges from the right were in the same vein as those from the left?
asked and answered.....It is not surprising that both sides out of the gate were wanting to point their fingers at the others.
THAT appears pretty equal and "in the same vein" as painting both the right and left as going after each other, fairly equally
This is what I said:
It is not surprising that both sides out of the gate were wanting to point their fingers at the others.
Do you dispute that?
If so, how. [/color]
Yes, I do. I DON'T see any one from the "right side.....right out of the gate" pointing fingers at the left as the facilitator of this psychopath's rampage
So, 1 last time....who from the right side, right out of the gate, per your claim, began pointing fingers at the left as the casue of this fella's dip into the dark side of murder??
-
Where did i say that the right was saying left was the facilitator of the shooter? Where did i claim the finger pointing was equal in scale or manner and method?
Was it in the same post i allegedly used the term copious?
But to answer your question, minus the misrepresentations and strawmen, Kramer seems to think the shooters politics had something to do with this.
And CU4 took major exception to may claim that Palin had made a major tactical error if she had removed that target map from her websites, she did from one, but not another. Because by doing so she admitted that something was inherently wrong with the map, which i don't believe. He pushed back by linking some target activity emanating from The Daily Kos Site.
-
Where did i say that the right was saying left was the facilitator of the shooter? Where did i claim the finger pointing was equal in scale or manner and method?
asked and answered, yet again. It is not surprising that both sides out of the gate were wanting to point their fingers at the others.
Minus your inability to back up your own claim, as well as the bogus charge that I said you USED the term copious, you could have saved yourself some embarrassment and a little credibility, by merely clarifying yourself a tad better
But to answer your question, Kramer seems to think the shooters politics had something to do with this.
Yea....and? It was specific to the shooter himself, and in no way laying some claim that "the left side" was behind the shooter, analogous to how the left is trying to portray, i.e. pointing fingers at the right side as somehow having pushed this fella over the edge, as you were apparently inaccurately claiming about the "right side"
-
What came first the madness or the politics?
I believe, as Dr Savage claims, that Liberalism is a mental disorder. Therefore, I believe, the madness, craziness, mental illness (in Liberals and the shooter in particular) are all manifest prior to a person gravitating towards Liberalism, Liberal causes, and anti-social behavior. I believe Liberalism is anti-social. I believe, based on their statements and beliefs that Liberals are paranoid, delusional, and terribly unhinged. This infliction has little to do with politics and more to do with psychological disorders or even physiologic disorders or both. The fact that you can never debate a Liberal, or that logic doesn't get through to them is a bit of proof their minds are flawed. The fact that more often then not they are deviate, dishonest, and corrupt, indicates they have a predisposition to sociopath tendencies. The fact that they lie with ease, worse they lie and believe their lies, proves they are not of sound mind or able to live cohesively in our society, and specifically in a free society. The shooters mental disorders were clearly visible (documented by other students at college) that he should have been detained & examined by experts. Clearly a madman should never be able to get a gun or any weapon as they are a danger to society and themselves.
But the politics to this tragedy all came after the facts.
-
Not really BT.....I actually think it would not be a mistake or an admission of anything
except good taste if Governor Palin took down something for a few days. For example
if someone had a banner up in town the week of a game against a team with a name
like Indians....and the banner said "Destroy The Indians" and the same week there
was a mass killing or plane crash involving Indians then it would be in poor taste to
leave it up....dont ya think? Sure the Left is going to race to somehow wrongly associate
this whackjob that loved Karl Marx Manifesto with Republicans....sure the Left will race
to see if this tragedy can help them take away gun rights which they had put on a
backburner because as is typical the American People dont agree with the leftists.
-
There isn't a thread of evidence that the shooter was "liberal". There is some evidence that he was into conspiracy theories, gold and silver over cash, the individual over the oppressive government, etc. But, at this point the weight of the evidence points to him being primarily a total nut-job.
bsb
-
At the risk of being at odds with most in here, I'm going to drop a P.Z. Myers blog quote and run:
What we have here is an attempted assassination of a politician by an insane crank at a political event, in a state where the political discourse has been an unrelenting howl of eliminationist rhetoric and characterization of anyone to the left of Genghis Khan as a traitor and enemy of the state?and now, when six (including a nine year old girl) lie dead and another fourteen are wounded, now suddenly we're concerned that it is rude and politicizing a tragedy to point out that the right wing has produced a toxic atmosphere that pollutes our politics with hatred and the rhetoric of violence?
Screw that. Now is the time to politicize the hell out of this situation. The people who are complaining are a mix of lefty marshmallows whose first reaction to the fulfillment of right-wing fantasies by a lunatic is to drop to their knees and beg forgiveness for thinking ill of people who paint bullseyes on their political opponents, and right wing cowards who are racing to their usual tactic of attacking their critics to shame them into silence. This is NOT the time to back down and suddenly find it embarrassing to point out that right-wing pundits make a living as professional goads to insanity.
And a cartoon.
(http://www.farleftside.com/2011/1-10-2011.jpg)
-
There isn't a thread of evidence that the shooter was "liberal". There is some evidence that he was into conspiracy theories, gold and silver over cash, the individual over the oppressive government, etc. But, at this point the weight of the evidence points to him being primarily a total nut-job.
bsb
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/01/jared_loughner_alleged_shooter.php (http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/01/jared_loughner_alleged_shooter.php)
-
Ha, ha, a "classmate" twitted that he was a left-wing pothead and that's all the evidence Kramer needs.
bsb
-
point out that right-wing pundits make a living as professional goads to insanity.
The progressive "climate of hate:"
An illustrated primer, 2000-2010
January 10, 2011
(http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/1ahit.jpg)
The Tuscon massacre ghouls who are now trying to criminalize conservatism have forced our hand.
They need to be reminded. You need to be reminded.
Confront them. Don't be cowed into silence.
And don't let the media whitewash the sins of the hypocritical Left in their naked attempt to suppress the law-abiding, constitutionally-protected, peaceful, vigorous political speech of the Right.
They want to play tu quo que in the middle of a national tragedy. They asked for it. They got it.
***
The progressive climate of hate: A comprehensive illustrated primer in 8 parts:
I. PALIN HATE
II. BUSH HATE
III. MISC. TEA PARTY/GOP/ANTI-TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE HATE
IV. ANTI-CONSERVATIVE FEMALE HATE
V. LEFT-WING MOB HATE ? campus, anti-war radicals, ACORN, eco-extremists, & unions
VI. OPEN-BORDERS HATE
VII. ANTI-MILITARY HATE
VIII. HATE: CRIMES - the ever-growing Unhinged Mugshot Collection
***
I. PALIN HATE
Flashback: pointing a fake gun at the head of a Sarah Palin likeness sitting next to a cardboard cutout of her daughter in a museum display:
(http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/1agettypalin.jpg)
Getty has since yanked the photo, but as one commenter who saw the photo at Getty's site before it was yanked noted: "To see that image presented as if it were completely normal and purchasable was shocking."
Flashback trendy "ABORT Sarah Palin" stickers:
(http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/1abortp.jpg)
(http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/1abortp2.jpg)
Flashback Palin-hating artwork designating her an "M.I.L.P." (Mother I'd Like to Punch).
Hat tip: Edge of Forever:
(http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/1apunch.jpg)
Flashback: Mocking Palin for being a nursing mom:
(http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/dusp3.jpg)
II. BUSH HATE
Flashback: anti-Bush assassination chic
(http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/killbush.jpg)
(http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/bushgun.jpg)
(http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/killbush003.jpg)
(http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/bushbeheaded.jpg)
(http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/dope.jpg)
(http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/bushassasslondon.jpg)
Death of a President Spoof of killing Bush
(http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/1ajgblood.jpg)
Syndicated liberal talk show host Mike Malloy call for Glenn Beck to commit suicide:
Libtalker Mike Malloy: I Hope Glenn Beck Commits Suicide Live On The Air (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNHuXU8nQ7M#)
ACORN mob chartered a bus, with twice as many outrage-stoking MSM photographers in tow
to menace AIG executives in their homes.
(http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/aig.jpg)
Enviro:
(http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/ZZ18CCF8DB.jpg)
UC Santa Cruz ambush on campus military recruiters:(http://hotair.cachefly.net/media.michellemalkin.com/archives/images/vandals.jpg)
(http://hotair.cachefly.net/media.michellemalkin.com/archives/images/vandals002.jpg)
(http://hotair.cachefly.net/media.michellemalkin.com/archives/images/david_mccally_400.jpg)
Gainsville, Fla., Democrat David P. McCally was charged with battery after he allegedly barged into a local GOP office, assaulted a cardboard cutout of President Bush, and punched a local Republican chairman in September 2004. (Credit: Alachua County Jail.)
(http://hotair.cachefly.net/media.michellemalkin.com/archives/images/carol_lang_400.jpg)
In March 2004, Carol Lang, a campus secretary at City College in New York, reportedly assaulted a
police officer trying to arrest unruly anti-war protesters. Police arrested Lang and charged her with
second-degree assault, disorderly conduct, and obstructing governmental administration.
(Credit: New York Police Department.)
(http://hotair.cachefly.net/media.michellemalkin.com/archives/images/justin2.jpg)
(http://hotair.cachefly.net/media.michellemalkin.com/archives/images/nicholas2.jpg)
At the same protest at which Carol Lang was arrested, police arrested students Justin Rodriguez,
left, and Nicholas Bergreen. They charged Rodriguez with resisting arrest and disorderly conduct.
They charged Bergreen with assaulting a police officer. (Credit: New York Police Department.)
(http://hotair.cachefly.net/media.michellemalkin.com/archives/images/corey2.jpg)
Police arrested Corey Robert Cooke of Ellicott City, Md., in September 2004 and charged him
with malicious destruction of property after he allegedly used a power tool to cut down a
Bush-Cheney sign. (Credit: Howard County Police Department.)
(http://hotair.cachefly.net/media.michellemalkin.com/archives/images/Nathan%20Winkler.bmp)
Nathan Winkler of Tampa, Fla., was arrested and charged with aggravated stalking in March 2005 for allegedly terrorizing a mother who had a Bush-Cheney bumper sticker on her car. Winkler reportedly had a handmade
sign in his window that read, "Never forget Bush's illegal oil war murdered thousands in Iraq."
(Credit: Tampa Police Department.)
(http://hotair.cachefly.net/media.michellemalkin.com/archives/images/Barry%20Seltzer.bmp)
Florida Democrat Barry Seltzer allegedly tried to run down congresswoman Katherine Harris with his Cadillac
as she was campaigning in Sarasota, Fla., in October 2004. See the arrest report here.
(Credit: Sarasota Police Department via The Smoking Gun.)
(http://hotair.cachefly.net/media.michellemalkin.com/archives/images/omokunde.JPG)
Sowande Ajumoke Omokunde, son of congresswoman Gwen Moore (D-Milwaukee), was one of
five paid Kerry campaign workers in Milwaukee who allegedly slashed the tires of 20 vans that
had been rented by Wisconsin Republicans as part of their Election Day 2004 get-out-the-vote effort.
(Credit: Milwaukee County Police.)
(http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ZZ6971D4CA.jpg)
March 2009 ? Document drop: FBI charges anti-Semitic nutball with threats against GOP Rep. Cantor & family;
??you receive my bullets in your office, remember they will be placed in your heads.?
-
Ha, ha, a "classmate" twitted that he was a left-wing pothead and that's all the evidence Kramer needs.
bsb
You said, and I quote, "There isn't a thread of evidence that the shooter was "liberal"."
To me that seems to be more evidence than you have. At least I have something over your nothing! At the very least you don't have a thread of evidence for your position!!!
-
You have nothing, Kramer.
You know nothing.
This guy was insane. All assassins are insane. Not one assassin has accomplished any goal other than perhaps his own death wish in the US since Booth shot Lincoln.
The worst thing that we can do is to allow insane people to buy dangerous guns.
Since there are too many guns to control, and since we do not lock up people like Loughner up, and make it easy for them to buy guns, this will continue.
-
You have nothing, Kramer.
You know nothing.
This guy was insane. All assassins are insane. Not one assassin has accomplished any goal other than perhaps his own death wish in the US since Booth shot Lincoln.
The worst thing that we can do is to allow insane people to buy dangerous guns.
Since there are too many guns to control, and since we do not lock up people like Loughner up, and make it easy for them to buy guns, this will continue.
No, I have what I have and you have nothing. In the end when it turns out I am right and you are wrong you won't admit it. You are a Liberal through and through and it's not in your DNA to admit wrong. You are happy reading the Liberal press and their cover-up of facts. You are happy reading Liberal press and their lies about Conservatives. You enable people like the SHOOTER. You might as well have been the shooter!
-
Where did i say that the right was saying left was the facilitator of the shooter? Where did i claim the finger pointing was equal in scale or manner and method?
asked and answered, yet again. It is not surprising that both sides out of the gate were wanting to point their fingers at the others.
Minus your inability to back up your own claim, as well as the bogus charge that I said you USED the term copious, you could have saved yourself some embarrassment and a little credibility, by merely clarifying yourself a tad better
But to answer your question, Kramer seems to think the shooters politics had something to do with this.
Yea....and? It was specific to the shooter himself, and in no way laying some claim that "the left side" was behind the shooter, analogous to how the left is trying to portray, i.e. pointing fingers at the right side as somehow having pushed this fella over the edge, as you were apparently inaccurately claiming about the "right side"
Again this is what I said:
I don't think it is the fault of conservatives, nor do i think it is the fault of liberals.
I think it is Loughners fault.
It is not surprising that both sides out of the gate were wanting to point their fingers at the others.
Pay particular attention to the last sentence. Pay particular attention to the first sentence.
Now pay attention to the middle sentence.
Now tell me where you get quantitative finger pointing (copious)
Now tell me where you get qualitative finger pointing (facilitating the shooting)
or any of the other numerous misrepresentations that you felt necessary to read into three simple sentences.
Did Kramer link liberal politics with the shooter. Yes he did.
Was the political thinking causative or symptomatic of an underlying illness , we don't find out until the 5th page of this thread. Finger pointing from the right to the left occurred.
CU4 posted the American Thinker article blaming Kos for the shooting. Finger pointing from the right to the left occurred.
And we know that the left thinks Palin did it through the subliminal messaging from a campaign flyer.
Finger pointing from the left to the right occurred.
-
"At a time like this, it is terrible that we do have to think about politics. No matter what the shooter's motivations were, the left is going to blame this on the Tea Party movement. While we need to take a moment to extend our sympathies to the families of those who died, we cannot allow the hard left to do what it tried to do in 1995 after the Oklahoma City Bombing. Within the entire political spectrum, there are extremists, both on the left and the right. Violence of this nature should be decried by everyone, and not used for political gain," Phillips said.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/09/pima-county-sheriff-sets-debate-price-free-speech/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/09/pima-county-sheriff-sets-debate-price-free-speech/)
There probly isn't a political solution to the problem posd by the idiots and insane who will be dangerous because they crave attention. John Lennon was shot because he was so well known that he became well known to his assassin, are we going to have no one famous at all?
I can't think of a flawless solution, at some point you have to do the best that can be done and accept the diffrence from perfection as necessacery.
The Tea party rallies were as good examples of decorm as any political rallys in recent years could expect. There is little organisation in the TEA party , I think it just appeals most to the sort of people who pick up after themselves. If this loon had more exposure to the tea party would it have made him worse , or maybe better?
Odds are that no sort of political retoric would have been theraputic to him .
-
Not really BT.....I actually think it would not be a mistake or an admission of anything
except good taste if Governor Palin took down something for a few days. For example
if someone had a banner up in town the week of a game against a team with a name
like Indians....and the banner said "Destroy The Indians" and the same week there
was a mass killing or plane crash involving Indians then it would be in poor taste to
leave it up....dont ya think? Sure the Left is going to race to somehow wrongly associate
this whackjob that loved Karl Marx Manifesto with Republicans....sure the Left will race
to see if this tragedy can help them take away gun rights which they had put on a
backburner because as is typical the American People dont agree with the leftists.
Actually I don't think it would be in poor taste to leave it up. Because by doing so we allow critics to redefine the intentions and meaning of the newly offending banner. Prior to the tragedy all but the most dishonest critics would have to agree that contextually the meaning of the sign meant that you wished the team named the Indians should be soundly defeated in the upcoming sporting event. Not that you wished all Native Americans to be summarily lined up and shot by a firing squad. And why would the meaning of that banner change because of a non sporting event related occurrence? If the beef is with the name of the team, critics should focus on that instead of using the death of others to further their own agenda.
Critics don't get to define your words. You do. And you certainly don't have to waste time defending your words just because some critic is too dense to understand contextually their meaning or so devoid of honesty that they will misrepresent your words just to shift the debate.
-
i hear ya....but i think i would take something down just out of respect
in a situation like that.....i can see both sides of the coin on this one.
some said if Def Leppard's album Pyromania would have come out
right after Sept 11 it would have had to have had a different album cover.
(http://www.gibson.com/Files/aaFeaturesImages2010/def-leppard_Pyromania.jpg)
-
Where did i say that the right was saying left was the facilitator of the shooter? Where did i claim the finger pointing was equal in scale or manner and method?
asked and answered, yet again. It is not surprising that both sides out of the gate were wanting to point their fingers at the others.
Minus your inability to back up your own claim, as well as the bogus charge that I said you USED the term copious, you could have saved yourself some embarrassment and a little credibility, by merely clarifying yourself a tad better
But to answer your question, Kramer seems to think the shooters politics had something to do with this.
Yea....and? It was specific to the shooter himself, and in no way laying some claim that "the left side" was behind the shooter, analogous to how the left is trying to portray, i.e. pointing fingers at the right side as somehow having pushed this fella over the edge, as you were apparently inaccurately claiming about the "right side"
Again this is what I said:
I don't think it is the fault of conservatives, nor do i think it is the fault of liberals.
I think it is Loughners fault.
It is not surprising that both sides out of the gate were wanting to point their fingers at the others.
Pay particular attention to the last sentence.
Good gravy Bt, that's PRECISELY what we've been paying particular attention. And to this date, unless I've missed it in a subsequent post, as I've only just now logged on, we have yet to see any of these examples of the "right side" pointing at the "left side" as the cause/facilitator, analogous to what the MSM and left side are CURRENTLY doing by pointing fingers at the "right side". Any "finger pointing from the right has been consistently on this 22year old. Yea, it includes his probable politics and "motivations", but they are again specific to the person that actually perpetrated the crime. Not some mass "right side" pointing at the "left side"
In other words, you got half the accusation to your last sentence, after paying particular attention to it, correct. I'm left to assume your effort here is to placate a sense that it's no one's fault, but the shooter himself. And in that, you'd be correct. It's trying to claim that "right out of the gate", that "the right side" was trying to make some nebulous pointing of fingers at "the left side" for creating this monster. He created himself, and to date, you haven't presented any examples contrary to that for the "right side" for your "both sides...." claim
Unless I've missed it of course. Feel free to post it specifically, in context, if you have. Simply pointing at the thread and infer that its just obvious, isn't going to cut it, I'm afraid
-
My three sentences are self explanatory.
I gave examples for the third.
That should suffice.
What you read into those three sentences is up to you.
My intent and meaning remain intact.
-
and apparently 50% inaccurate, to boot. Especially the last sentence that we've all been able to "pay particular attention" to
-
and apparently 50% inaccurate, to boot. Especially the last sentence that we've all been able to "pay particular attention" to
So the left isn't pointing fingers at the right?
Because both Kramer and CU pointed fingers at the left.
You do realize that your acceptance of my position has nothing to do with the accuracy of my statement.
Not some mass "right side" pointing at the "left side"
mass? where did i claim that? and if i didn't claim it, why are you expecting me to provide evidence of it?
-
BT....you did see this sentence in the article I posted in my first post right?
"By the left's own idiotic definition, Kos helped create a climate of
violence that directly led to the shootings in AZ yesterday"
the keys words being "idiotic definition"
-
BT....you did see this sentence in the article I posted in my first post right?
"By the left's own idiotic definition, Kos helped create a climate of
violence that directly led to the shootings in AZ yesterday"
the keys words being "idiotic definition"
Yes I did. Is American Thinker a left wing blog?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/the_left_not_the_right_owns_po.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/the_left_not_the_right_owns_po.html)
-
and apparently 50% inaccurate, to boot. Especially the last sentence that we've all been able to "pay particular attention" to
So the left isn't pointing fingers at the right? Because both Kramer and CU pointed fingers at the left.
At the apparently leftist shooter....yea. Though it does appear that C is making references to "the left" now
You do realize that your acceptance of my position has nothing to do with the accuracy of my statement.
Your statement, not mine. Your claim, my simple request for some valid back-up
Not some mass "right side" pointing at the "left side"
mass? where did i claim that? and if i didn't claim it, why are you expecting me to provide evidence of it?
So, who the hell is "the right side", in your both sides doing it right out of the gate claim??
-
No BT....but I think you are missing the point.
That article is basically in jest....it is saying
if you want to use an idiotic definition then
that same idiotic definition can be turned
against you. The key word again being
"idiotic definition".
-
Ahh, clarification. Thanks, C. Bt should try that sometime ;)
-
SIRS.....I don't like BT's style
In my mind he has a passive-defeatist style
Both articles I posted are responses to the national media Left
that quickly attempted to use this tragedy for political gain.
BT wants this assault by the Left to basically go unchallenged
so he can say "well only side is doing it".....but I think it is
important to not allow only one side to be heard. What the
hell does BT want to do while the Left tries to sell to the
American public that this is Sarah Palin's fault or the Tea Party's fault?
Why not say "using your asinine logic Tim Matthews the Left is just as much
or in my mind more at fault". I like offense.....I like to run the ball down
a bully's freakin gut...punch back harder!.....BT wants to stand around on defense....
I'm with Sean Hannity, Beck, Rush, Michelle Malkin that are going to challenge
the bullshit the Left tries at every inch....being nice gets Obamas elected.
-
No BT....but I think you are missing the point.
That article is basically in jest....it is saying
if you want to use an idiotic definition then
that same idiotic definition can be turned
against you. The key word again being
"idiotic definition".
No I'm not missing the point.
http://tinyurl.com/4q9gfwq (http://tinyurl.com/4q9gfwq)
But i also linked a second article from that same right wing site which probably is not tongue in cheek, nor is the update to the original article you posted.
Update -- Keith Olbermann at least understands that he is far from without sin when it comes to rhetoric. HuffPo:
He concluded his special comment [yesterday] with this powerful statement, including an apology for his own actions: "Violence, or the threat of violence, has no place in our Democracy, and I apologize for and repudiate any act or any thing in my past that may have even inadvertently encouraged violence. Because for whatever else each of us may be, we all are Americans."
-
Quote from: ChristiansUnited4LessGvt on Today at 10:14:11 PM
SIRS.....I don't like BT's style
In my mind he has a passive-defeatist style
Both articles I posted are responses to the national media Left
that quickly attempted to use this tragedy for political gain.
BT wants this assault by the Left to basically go unchallenged
so he can say "well only side is doing it".....but I think it is
important to not allow only one side to be heard. What the
hell does BT want to do while the Left tries to sell to the
American public that this is Sarah Palin's fault or the Tea Party's fault?
Why not say "using your asinine logic Tim Matthews the Left is just as much
or in my mind more at fault". I like offense.....I like to run the ball down
a bully's freakin gut...punch back harder!.....BT wants to stand around on defense....
I'm with Sean Hannity, Beck, Rush, Michelle Malkin that are going to challenge
the bullshit the Left tries at every inch....being nice gets Obamas elected.
Where did i ever say that.
In fact i said just the opposite (http://tinyurl.com/4nd4qec)
-
But i also linked a second article from that same right wing site which probably
is not tongue in cheek, nor is the update to the original article you posted.
Sure the Right is going to punch back! Why shouldn't it?
Stand around on defense....let the enemy stay on offense....whats the score at the end of that game?
I was responding to you saying "CU4 posted the American Thinker article blaming Kos for the shooting" ".
That is in fact not true. The article intent is to point out idiotic logic from the Left with analogous examples.
-
And the second article i linked to?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/the_left_not_the_right_owns_po.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/the_left_not_the_right_owns_po.html)
From the same site, which i believe is a right wing blog. In case Sirs is looking for more examples.
But you didn't answer where i claimed the right should not respond to the blood libel from the left.
Fact is they (the right) have their shit together a whole lot better now than they did when they got slammed after Katrina.
-
Where did i ever say that.
"It is not surprising that both sides out of the gate were wanting to point their fingers at the others"
More of the typical BT "well we are guilty"...both sides are equally guilty moral equivalence.
Massive assault by the left major media and when it is met with a response BT says "well both sides are at fault".
BT do you not get that KRAMER is not equal to the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman?
Sure BT Kramer blamed a Lib and Krugman read by millions blamed Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.
Do you not see the difference?
Kramer is read by a dozen people and Krugman by millions all over the globe.
Can you supply sources of anyone on the Right of Krugman's stature blaming Liberals from the moments after this tragedy?
-
Stand around on defense....let the enemy stay on offense....whats the score at the end of that game?
Defense is taking down the target map. I don't believe i advocated that. And your position was?
-
"Defense is taking down the target map"
No it's not...it is in good taste to take down an LA Police billboard
that reads "LA Police Serve & Protect" that may have been
at the corner where the LA Police almost beat Rodney King to death.
(http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/www/external/pubs/monographs/2009/MG881.jpg)
-
Where did i ever say that.
"It is not surprising that both sides out of the gate were wanting to point their fingers at the others"
More of the typical BT "well we are guilty"...both sides are equally guilty moral equivalence.
Massive assault by the left major media and when it is met with a response BT says "well both sides are at fault".
BT do you not get that KRAMER is not equal to the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman?
Sure BT Kramer blamed a Lib and Krugman read by millions blamed Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.
Do you not see the difference?
Kramer is read by a dozen people and Krugman by millions all over the globe.
Can you supply sources of anyone on the Right of Krugman's stature blaming Liberals from the moments after this tragedy?
Are you fucking kidding me?
Three simple sentences.
I don't think it is the fault of conservatives, nor do i think it is the fault of liberals.
Translated for the reading impaired. The conservatives did not pull the trigger. The liberals did not pull the trigger.
I think it is Loughners fault.
Loughner pulled the trigger.
It is not surprising that both sides out of the gate were wanting to point their fingers at the others.
Kramer is of the right and he blamed the left. And the left blamed the right.
So where was my statement wrong.
And you took that to mean that i don't think the right should push back against this blood libel from the left?
How in the world did you come to that conclusion.
And would someone explain to me how Loughner got a gun permit with the legal run ins he has had.
No wonder the Sheriff is shifting the blame.
-
"Defense is taking down the target map"
No it's not...it is in good taste to take down an LA Police billboard
that reads "LA Police Serve & Protect" that may have been
at the corner where the LA Police almost beat Rodney King to death.
(http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/www/external/pubs/monographs/2009/MG881.jpg)
So you are saying it is not the Police's mission to protect and serve in neighborhoods that Rodney King might frequent?
-
"Are you fucking kidding me?"
No I am fucking not!...lol
It is not surprising that both sides out of the gate were wanting to point their fingers at the others.
More of the moral equivalence crap!
Can you not help yourself?
One side has a worldwide megaphone and you compare that to Krugman and imply....yeah dats bout equal guilt!
Kramer is of the right and he blamed the left. And the left blamed the right.
So where was my statement wrong.
Did you not read my Krugman analogy?
Yeah BT Charles Manson and a jaywalker both break the law...so yep...lets lump 'em together as "LAW BREAKERS"! ::)
-
Did you not read my Krugman analogy?
Yeah BT Charles Manson and a jaywalker both break the law...so yep...lets lump 'em together as "LAW BREAKERS"! Roll Eyes
Can you not help yourself?
One side has a worldwide megaphone and you compare that to Krugman and imply....yeah dats bout equal guilt!
So the left is better than the right when it comes to playing the blame game because they are louder and more numerous or what? Is that your point?
::)
I don't believe i quantified guilt, what i said was that both sides would fingerpoint. And they did.
-
So you are saying it is not the Police's mission to protect and serve in neighborhoods
that Rodney King might frequent?
I am saying you might pull a Sunday Newspaper ad like
"Come and Enjoy A Safe Day With the Family At Six Flags Over Texas"
the day after a Six Flags employee shooting that kills a group of people at Six Flags Over Georgia.
It's called good taste....even though the incident is not connected to Six Flags Over Texas.
I am saying a Police billboard proclaiming their Serve & Protect motto
would be in poor taste on the corner where the NY Cop had just
shoved a broom stick up the anus of a citizen. It's called good taste.
-
So the left is better than the right when it comes to playing the blame game because they are louder and more numerous or what?
Is that your point?
My point is the Leftwing media quickly reacted to take political advantage of a tragedy.
Are they better at this sleaze?
Yeah I think so.
I don't believe i quantified guilt, what i said was that both sides would fingerpoint. And they did.
I know you didnt qualify it....thats my point....you see Manson as a lawbreaker and a jaywalker as a lawbreaker and
conclude they are both lawbreakers.....and leave it at that...and that is of course true....they are both lawbreakers!
But the proof is always in the details.
(bedtime for me....5am comes too soon from 11pm)
-
So you are saying it is not the Police's mission to protect and serve in neighborhoods
that Rodney King might frequent?
I am saying you might pull a Sunday Newspaper ad like
"Come and Enjoy A Safe Day With the Family At Six Flags Over Texas"
the day after a Six Flags employee shooting that kills a group of people at Six Flags Over Georgia.
It's called good taste....even though the incident is not connected to Six Flags Over Texas.
I am saying a Police billboard proclaiming their Serve & Protect motto
would be in poor taste on the corner where the NY Cop had just
shoved a broom stick up the anus of a citizen. It's called good taste.
Sounds symbolic to me.
I say leave both ads and billboards up and get the message out that you are redoubling your efforts to deliver on your promises.
-
they are both lawbreakers.....and leave it at that...and that is of course true....they are both lawbreakers!
Thank you.
I know you didnt qualify it....thats my point
And i happen to agree that the left came out the gate hard. But that doesn't change the truthfulness of my original statement.
And i still don't see where you got i said that the right should not push back.
-
Not some mass "right side" pointing at the "left side"
mass? where did i claim that? and if i didn't claim it, why are you expecting me to provide evidence of it?
So, who the hell is "the right side", in your both sides doing it right out of the gate claim??
Apparently Kramer and Cu4 are all that make up the "the right side" and ....... the vast majority of the MSM, pundits, certain Sheriffs, and Brass are "the left side". Well, that so accurately represents "both sides" so well, doesn't it ;)
-
Not some mass "right side" pointing at the "left side"
mass? where did i claim that? and if i didn't claim it, why are you expecting me to provide evidence of it?
So, who the hell is "the right side", in your both sides doing it right out of the gate claim??
Apparently Kramer and Cu4 are all that make up the "the right side" and ....... the vast majority of the MSM, pundits, certain Sheriffs, and Brass are "the left side". Well, that so accurately represents "both sides" so well, doesn't it ;)
Well it certainly doesn't change the truthfulness of my statement. Both sides were represented.
Left and right.
;D
-
It matters not one whit whether anyone "pushes back". It is stupid to blame anyone but the guy who shot the gun. He was insane. All assassins are insane, because not one in all of American history ever accomplished any objective by his assassination, unless he had a death wish.
-
Not some mass "right side" pointing at the "left side"
mass? where did i claim that? and if i didn't claim it, why are you expecting me to provide evidence of it?
So, who the hell is "the right side", in your both sides doing it right out of the gate claim??
Apparently Kramer and Cu4 are all that make up the "the right side" and ....... the vast majority of the MSM, pundits, certain Sheriffs, and Brass are "the left side". Well, that so accurately represents "both sides" so well, doesn't it ;)
Well it certainly doesn't change the truthfulness of my statement. Both sides were represented.
Left and right.
;D
Because they're so "equal"
-
Because they're so "equal"
Surely you aren't advocating a quota system ::)
-
Nope, just providing the all important context & perspective
-
Good thing i never claimed the pointing of fingers would be equal, contextually speaking of course.
That would be you who inserted that strawman into the conversation, as is your custom.
-
Good thing i never claimed the pointing of fingers would be equal, contextually speaking of course.
Yea, because that's so important to point out that "both sides, right out of the gate...yada, blah, etc.", clearly means 1 side does it far more than the other.
That would be you who inserted that strawman into the conversation, as is your custom.
Well, if we've decided to redefine strawman, as providing context to something so nebulous as not really meaning both as in equivalent, but both as in one side does it more than the other, then guilty as charged
-
I really don't see what the difficulty in understanding that:
It is not surprising that both sides out of the gate were wanting to point their fingers at the others.
Means: It is not surprising that both sides out of the gate were wanting to point their fingers at the others.
Now if you want to make a post that says something different then by all means do so.
I'm quite happy with the way i wrote mine, its meaning and intent and it is not in your realm to change that meaning or intent, try as you may.
-
I really don't see what the difficulty in understanding that:
It is not surprising that both sides out of the gate were wanting to point their fingers at the others.
Means: It is not surprising that both sides out of the gate were wanting to point their fingers at the others.
IMPLIES: both sides are equivalently equal in their pointing of fingers...right out of the gate. Otherwise, its largely a meaningless point, if 1 side is doing it far more so than the other, but we're supposed to get that out of the claim that "both sides out of the gate yada, yada"
-
I really don't see what the difficulty in understanding that:
It is not surprising that both sides out of the gate were wanting to point their fingers at the others.
Means: It is not surprising that both sides out of the gate were wanting to point their fingers at the others.
IMPLIES: both sides are equivalently equal in their pointing of fingers...right out of the gate. Otherwise, its largely a meaningless point, if 1 side is doing it far more so than the other, but we're supposed to get that out of the claim that "both sides out of the gate yada, yada"
If i were to post a statement such as:
During the Viet Nam War, both sides suffered casualties.
Would you believe i meant that the casualties were equal? If so, why?
My statement is true on the face of it. Your reading is not.
And therein lays the problem.
-
And i still don't see where you got i said that the right should not push back.
Ok...I went back and read all the pages...maybe I assumed too much by my
feeling you were implying that all sides were about equal that everybody should shut up
before we had a chance to even respond to the attacks....i hate one way streets and if
you do too we're on the same page.
-
I really don't see what the difficulty in understanding that:
It is not surprising that both sides out of the gate were wanting to point their fingers at the others.
Means: It is not surprising that both sides out of the gate were wanting to point their fingers at the others.
IMPLIES: both sides are equivalently equal in their pointing of fingers...right out of the gate. Otherwise, its largely a meaningless point, if 1 side is doing it far more so than the other, but we're supposed to get that out of the claim that "both sides out of the gate yada, yada"
If i were to post a statement such as:
During the Viet Nam War, both sides suffered casualties.
Would you believe i meant that the casualties were equal?
No, I'd wonder "why is he posting the obvious?". "Was their some expectation that one side wouldn't?" Remember gulf war one, when we hardly suffered any casualties compared to the Iraqis? THAT would be noteworthy, despite that "both sides suffered casualties".
Your statement had a clear inferrence, whether it was by design or not, that both sides were equivalantly going after each other, "right from the gate". Cu4 + Kramer, as conservative as they are, don't equal the public reach that the MSM, pundits like Krugman, and politicians like Clyburn reach. So yea, your statement might be "technically true", but was poorly clarified
And therein lays the problem.
-
Your statement had a clear inferrence, whether it was by design or not, that both sides were equivalantly going after each other, "right from the gate". Cu4 + Kramer, as conservative as they are, don't equal the public reach that the MSM, pundits like Krugman, and politicians like Clyburn reach. So yea, your statement might be "technically true", but was poorly clarified
And therein lays the problem.
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/lb0111cd20110110075901.jpg)
-
Your statement had a clear inferrence, whether it was by design or not, that both sides were equivalantly going after each other, "right from the gate".
My statement said what it said.
If you would like to agree that : "It is not surprising that both sides out of the gate were wanting to point their fingers at the others." is a true statement and then post your own statement that though both sides did point fingers those on the left did it more, i would have no problem with that.
But what you did was misrepresent my statement to mean something it did not mean, instead of just posting your own statement.
Learn from this.
-
Your statement had a clear inferrence, whether it was by design or not, that both sides were equivalantly going after each other, "right from the gate".
My statement said what it said.
Yep, it <It is not surprising that both sides out of the gate were wanting to point their fingers at the others.> certainly did......in full context, still minus any clarification. Might as well claim that the sun rises then sets. It's technically accurate....and just as inciteful as your claim, apparently
If you would like to agree that : "It is not surprising that both sides out of the gate were wanting to point their fingers at the others." is a true statement and then post your own statement that though both sides did point fingers those on the left did it (exponentially) more, i would have no problem with that.
I wonder why you couldn't have. That would have been precisely the clarification that was asked for in request #1
Learn from this.
Oh, the irony
-
Perhaps you can link to the post where you asked for clarification of my sentence.
-
Inquired as to some support to your claim (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/az-congresswomen-shot-dead-betcha-a-lib-did-it!/msg116406/#msg116406), first, given the initial equivalent inferrence being applied, and when it wasn't forthcoming, advocated some clarification (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/az-congresswomen-shot-dead-betcha-a-lib-did-it!/msg116420/#msg116420) on your part, which never materialized, until this recent indirect effort to push that it was apparently my job to clarify your claim (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/az-congresswomen-shot-dead-betcha-a-lib-did-it!/msg116557/#msg116557)
I think not
-
Inquired as to some support to your claim (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/az-congresswomen-shot-dead-betcha-a-lib-did-it!/msg116406/#msg116406), first, given the initial equivalent inferrence being applied, and when it wasn't forthcoming, advocated some clarification (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/az-congresswomen-shot-dead-betcha-a-lib-did-it!/msg116420/#msg116420) on your part, which never materialized, until this recent indirect effort to push that it was apparently my job to clarify your claim (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/az-congresswomen-shot-dead-betcha-a-lib-did-it!/msg116557/#msg116557)
I think not
"Support to your claim"
I answered that question. Kramer and CU4 (via his link to american thinker)
"advocated some clarification"
oh Your claim appeared to cast a huge accusatory net at both "sides" claiming the other side prompted this act.
was a question? Where was the question mark?
Seems like you were telling me what you read, not asking what i wrote.
"my job to clarify your claim"
Ask and you shall receive. Key word ask.
-
Wrong again.......timeline issues I suppose. You made a claim. I inquired based on that pretty transparent inferrence of the claim. Now, if you perceived it to be the wrong, YOUR JOB was to CLARIFY yourself. It was not mine, and you could have done that immediately, vs this "technically true" defense.
I doubt anyone will lay claim that NO ONE from the right pointed any fingers at the left, including messers Cu4 and Kramer, so your fixation with both sides is kinda moot. It's like your reference to casualties in the Vietnam War. Who's arguing that NO ONE from the right side would be pointing fingers at the left? The issue is perspective.
You prompted a statement, that on its face, clearly inferred some equivalent pointing of fingers. When that was questioned, it was on your shoulders to clairify the ominous 1 sidedness to the initial 'both sides did it claim', vs trying to stick with a technincal moot truth.
-
One last time.
I am responsible for what i write.
You are responsible for what you read into what i write.
It's like you are arguing that SCOTUS justices that take the view that the constitution is a living breathing document have the correct view because as long as they can rationalize an inference then it really doesn't matter what the authors wrote.
And surely you are arguing that are you?
Man up. You inferred incorrectly, as I told you numerous times.
-
One last time.
I am responsible for what i write.
You are responsible for what you read into what i write.
And equally, 1 last time, you are responsible for CLARIFYING YOURSELF, if you note some perceived incorrect POV that someone read into what you wrote. You chose not to, even going so far as requiring me to do it for you. Sorry, that wasn't going to happen
-
And equally, 1 last time, you are responsible for CLARIFYING YOURSELF, if you note some perceived incorrect POV that someone read into what you wrote. You chose not to, even going so far as requiring me to do it for you. Sorry, that wasn't going to happen
If asked.
It is not my job to clean up after your faulty assumptions.
That could be a never ending task. And frankly i just don't have the desire to give your strawmen a brain.
-
Apparently it wasn't the last time. So much for learning from this, especially with the non-existant desperate strawman tact. What's that ol saying, throw everything against the wall and see what sticks? 8)
-
Apparently it wasn't the last time. So much for learning from this, especially with the non-existant desperate strawman tact. What's that ol saying, throw everything against the wall and see what sticks? 8)
What sticks is that you inferred incorrectly and don't have the stones to admit it.
Learn from that.
-
LOL......right, that was it.
-
ah at last
agreement
-
Yea, I had to laugh at that too
-
To the attn : BT
From: PT
Dear Sir,
Do you consider one political party or faction more unfair or more opportunist than the other in the case of exploiting events that might be used in the manner of demagogues? Perhaps just slightly?
To the attn : Sirs
From: PT
Dear Sirs,
Do you consider one political faction completely innocent of dirty tricks and free of dirty tricksters?
-
To the attn : Sirs
From: PT
Dear Sirs, Do you consider one political faction completely innocent of dirty tricks and free of dirty tricksters?
Absolutely not. The fact I'm an Independent and not connected to one political faction is one of the reasons for such. The fact I can & do bash any political faction is another testament to the answer to your question.
-
To the attn : BT
From: PT
Dear Sir,
Do you consider one political party or faction more unfair or more opportunist than the other in the case of exploiting events that might be used in the manner of demagogues? Perhaps just slightly?
No
-
8)
-
To the attn : BT
From: PT
Dear Sir,
Do you consider one political party or faction more unfair or more opportunist than the other in the case of exploiting events that might be used in the manner of demagogues? Perhaps just slightly?
No
Really?
Do you place responsibility for dirty tricks and demagoguery on individuals as they indulge in suchlike , or do you see an institutional problem?
-
Individuals
-
As far as this guy being a Liberal, now more than ever I am certain that he was indeed a Liberal, Socialist, Leftist, and not any bit right leaning or Conservative. That will come out soon enough.
-
My belief is that if there was any proof the shooter to be a Conservative we would have about it heard by now. The press is desperate to lay this on the shoulders of the Right so if they had something we would know it.
But secondly, the chances the guy is a Liberal seem so great because how could any 22 year old survive without being exposed to Liberal indoctrination from public schools and college these days? Therefore, anyone in their right mind, could only conclude that this wacko is indeed a Left-wing loon. Sorry but the probability is just too great to deny such odds.