Assessing the Damage

[BT]

So your response to my original query was not actually a response to my query since you never claimed that XO had wished anyone silenced.

And since you had never said that XO had made that uttering I'm curious why you bothered to respond to my query.

But as long as you are projecting leftist powers how would a leftist fascist government enforce ignoring certain specific speakers.

outside of silencing those certain specific speakers, of course.

Which kind of brings us back full circle.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Sorry you are having so much trouble with the words "should" and "Ignored", sirs. I see these as entirely unambiguous.

[sirs]

So your response to my original query was not actually a response to my query since you never claimed that XO had wished anyone silenced.

Precisely.  Only that if hard core leftists, like him, had the power, they'd likely exercise it

But as long as you are projecting leftist powers how would a leftist fascist government enforce ignoring certain specific speakers.

Behind "legislation", then behind a badge, to enforce said legislation

[Christians4LessGvt]

And in the end it reflects on your own credibility. If that is important to you.

i can assure you...when you are in this mode.....my credibility with you.....is not very important to me

[Christians4LessGvt]

Nice strawmen. But my question was related to whether XO had used the term silenced as CU stated.

By the way Mr Literal....
You are wrong again.
Go back and read.
I did not state XO used the term "silenced".
I used the word "silenced".....thats my description of what I think he would like to see
I never said he used that term.

Not sure why you are inserting yourself into the conversation.

Why should Sirs not enter the conversation when I directed a question to him that you commented on?
How is it that you can enter a conversation/question directed at SIRS, but he should stay out of it?
More "silence" needed?



 

[BT]

I used the word "silenced".....thats my description of what I think he would like to see

Right! So you misrepresented what he said (ignore) to match the template of how you see him. Some fascist socialist willy nilly silencing people with differing opinions.

Which was my point exactly. If he didn't say it why misrepresent his message?

[Christians4LessGvt]

Right!

No you are wrong again!

So you misrepresented what he said (ignore) to match the template of how you see him.

LOL....BT how is it that am "misrepresenting" what he said when I clearly state what I view
as his end goals? Your jumping to wild conclusions to connect your wrong assumptions is
funny when the facts clearly do not side with you.

Which was my point exactly. If he didn't say it why misrepresent his message?

But again you are missing the point to jump to your predictable conclusions.
You are assuming you "own" my point....that you understand "my" point better than I do.
That is clearly insane....and an obvious desperate attempt to salvage your mis-calculation.
My point in my remark to SIRS is that I have come to conclusion that XO would like to see
Conservatives silenced by various methods....by ridicule, by law, by savage personal attacks, witch hunts, whatever.

Again I never stated what you said I stated.
In a thread the topic sometimes evolves to the next point someone makes...
building off whats already said....thus a quote to build off of
sometimes a "bigger point" can be made as happened here.
I was "taking the next step" to the point SIRS was making....adding my opinion.
and you wrongly assumed I was only talking about the exact words SIRS or XO used.
i guess I can understand how you could easily make that mistake.

[BT]

how is it that am "misrepresenting" what he said when I clearly state what I view
as his end goals?

And you came to conclude his end goals (silencing differing opinions) were based on what? What was the tip off? What word did he use that gave you that aha moment?

My point in my remark to SIRS is that I have come to conclusion that XO would like to see
Conservatives silenced by various methods....by ridicule, by law, by savage personal attacks, witch hunts, whatever.

Good to see that liberals are not the only ones capable of those tactics.

[Xavier_Onassis]

If they are silenced by ridicule, it is because they clearly perceive that their own followers are drifting away because they see the ridicule as genuine and do not wish to be ridiculed themselves for being a follower of a ridiculous person. This is what happened to both Cain and Perry. Cain claimed up to the last that all charges against him were phoney and said that he was only "suspending" his campaign, when in fact it is over. Perry could not remember his own stupid stump speech and revealed that he was a goober: a less educated and more ignorant clown than Juniorbush.

Ridicule only works when people perceive it as ridiculous. Mitt Romney's alleged Holy Temple Garment Mormon underwear is apparently not sufficiently ridiculous or is seen as off-limits to ridicule. Of course, a president's underwear could not possibly cause a president to make dumb decisions. Both Cain and Perry revealed that they were less than mentally agile, and that WAS seen as important.

[sirs]

My point in my remark to SIRS is that I have come to conclusion that XO would like to see
Conservatives silenced by various methods....by ridicule, by law, by savage personal attacks, witch hunts, whatever.

Good to see that liberals are not the only ones capable of those tactics.

And what "tactics" are those??  Examples of Cu4, myself, or even any other Conservative expressing how others SHOULD be ignored, would be helpful, that dovetails with a philosophy of a larger government exercising what "should" be done to the populace, will be helpful

[Xavier_Onassis]

Exaples of Cu4, myself, or even any other Conservative expressing how others SHOULD be ignored, would be helpful, that dovetails with a philosophy of a larger government exercising what "should" be done to the populace, will be helpful

================
Why? Helpful for what purpose?

[sirs]

Why, to demonstrate apparently similar "tactics" as liberals.  That was the claim.  Time for some back-up now

[BT]

So taking a statement and extrapolating from that a completely exaggerated representation of what was actually said, including the cooperation of a bigger government in silencing the great unwashed would not qualify as a tactic of the left and now apparently the right?

various methods....by ridicule, by law, by savage personal attacks, witch hunts, whatever.

[sirs]

Still waiting for some examples. 

And, no, one who has a political ideology that sees ever expanding government, with ever increasing rules, regulations, mandates, and laws, as a good thing, does not make an extrapolating statement of what should occur, farfetched, or a "completely exaggerated representation"

And also NO, that also does not equate to claiming Xo is on record as wanting to silence conservatives either........just in case you were going to try that misrepresentation tactic

So, what again are these tactics, and examples of such, that the right are using, analogus to the left again?  Did I miss someone claiming that Xo should be ignored, or Conservatives supporing an ignoring of.......let's say Michael Moore, and also supports a Government bent on enforcing all the "should" dos??

[BT]

What you fail to understand is XO never said what you in your and CU's fevered imagination project him to have said.

What you and your fellow alinsky-ites did was take his statement and turn it into some  Reductio ad absurdum charge. In other words lies were told about what he said and what he meant.

Any visions of enforced ignoring came from your fevered brows.