Jump to content

Recommended Posts


What's needed is an increased sophistication of the audience, not a sterilization of media. Even the bullshit media.



Well good luck with that dave. I think what we're seeing is the result of political polarization and a general dumbing down. Government by sound bite and media spin. Maybe the shooting in Arizona will make people think but not for long IMO. The only thing that might make a difference is a rapid improvement in the economy.( But not by printing more money).


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 19k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • chocolat steve


  • Flashermac


  • Coss


  • cavanami


Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hi, Guys, why are you so obsessed with this thread? Why want it locked? Don't like it, just don't bloody read it. Sanuk!  

I do enjoy this guys vlogs. I pretty much disagree with everything he says. But this is very interesting. PS I do like his autoplay video on his home page. I do like his not monetizing the internet

Posted Images

Darn it. There go all my illusions. And I was banking on Palin in 2012. :(


Seriously, that 10% is important. They vote. The rest seem to be in a coma.


The last election proved that the 10% fringe vote is important in the primaries, but not so much in the general elections. See Angle, O'Donnell, et al.


This, of course, is why the Republican party is worried about Palin. She COULD win the republican nomination, but I doubt she could win a presidential election. She, like the Faux News talking heads, is too polarizing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmmm. That's a bit of a slippery slope. Do you honestly think that Limbaugh and Palin want their constituents audience to gun down congresswomen in the streets?


Their vitriol and bullshit should be identified for what it is, you're right about that -- but holding them personally responsible for a murderer, whom we still know little about, because they use terminology like 'cross-hairs' (referencing a gun sight)? No. It's the same as the guys that wanted to prosecute Marilyn Manson and outlaw video games after Columbine.

I think you misunderstand. I am not holding them "personally responsible" but they and their ilk as a group do share the blame. I do not think they really want blood running in the streets, but they encourage the nutters who can't make that distinction as I said. When you start saying "2nd Amendment solutions" and "watering the tree of liberty with blood" and dreaming about "poisoning Pelosi" and encouraging folks to bring firearms to political rallies while saying these things, that's a HUGE issue in my mind. And crosses the line.


I understand what you are saying, but as Chappy said, free speech comes with responsibility, it is not carte blanche to do anything at all. I.e., it is illegal to shout "fire" in a crowded movie theatre (if there is none) for a reason...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave, think about it like this: If Henry II's statement "will no one rid me of this turbulent priest", tho' clearly without intent for it to happen, was enough for him to be blamed for Thomas Becket's death, shouldn't the same criteria be used to judge today's hatemongers?


Note I am not advocating any legal repercussions. Indeed, is true that the Supreme Court has emphatically held in Brandenburg v. Ohio that the First Amendment bars the government from punishing people even for explicit advocacy of violence except where it's designed and likely to result in "imminent" violent acts (the fire in a theatre thing).


I just expect people to own their actions and be responsible. And be shunned for their actions by the more reasonable amongst us. But sadly I feel that is too much to ask of wingnuts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave...your answer should be "no". Aside from LK's quote being "legend", LK already conceded that "clearly" there was no intent by Henry to have Becket murdered. (They, at one time,were close friends.) The world is full of idiots and psychos. "Hatemongers" can not and should not be any more responsible for the actions of those who are deranged than Henry should've been blamed for Becket's death. In other words, if it was wrong then, it would be wrong now. It's like the old "kill the umpire" thingy.


(Interesting notes and a comment: The Congresswoman who was shot was a former Republican, voted against Pelosi's re-election to head the Demoncrap minority, is a supporter of the 2nd Amendment (right to bear arms), and is a gun owner herself. From what I gather, a "moderate" Demoncrap. I'm sure the motive or basis for the attack will be the subject of psychological studies of the attacker. It may turn out that "hatemongers" may have had a part in the perp selecting the Congresswoman, but I'm convinced that he could have just as easily used a schoolyard full of children as his victims as a way of satisfying his need for some kind of attention/relief from that which tortured his mind.)



Link to post
Share on other sites

Convince yourself so you can sleep at night. I understand that.


Ms Gabby Giffords had her office trashed after the health care vote and Democrat Raul Grijalva in the next district received death threats and his office windows were shot out. A protester was arrested when he dropped his loaded weapon at a Giffords event last year. Her Republican opponent invited conservatives to play with M-16s at an anti-Gifford fundraiser at a shooting range.


Tea Partiers openly threatened violence against Democrats: http://tinyurl.com/We-came-unarmed-this-time


Everyone remembers this and knows that it happened. We all lived through it in real time. GOPers can’t wish away memories by raging at liberals or blaming Obama.


HH, the way you conservatives are reacting it seems as if you think you can just deny reality and wait for this to blow over. Y'all treating it like a garden variety wingnut freak out, just making stuff up and hoping no one notices they're lying.


I don't think you/they've fully comprehended how serious this is. Do you really want to relive the 1960s?


Remeber that Neal Horsely, in defending his Nurumberg Files that listed the names and addresses of abortion doctors, then crossing them out with blood as they were executed, explained he never asked anyone to kill anybody, but simply put it up as a warning - in the best interests of the doctors, really - of what was in store for them. And he never asked anyone to kill them, but was talking about their just punishment in the afterlife. Yeah, riiiiiiight.


But hey HH, burying your head in the sand instead of being an adult and assisting in fixing the problem is infinitely easier, innit? I am sure I have read you condemning moderate, non-violent (i.e., all) Muslims for not condemning the radicals in their midst. How is this not the same?


If people like Palin & Beck want to exercise their power of free speech with incendiary remarks, slogans, etc., more power to them; it is their right. But please don't expect sane thinking people to give them a pass when violence occurs. And that's regardless of whether *this* killer was influenced by such or not. Why do a scrub of one's website if one isn't feeling even a tad bit guilty? Palin's "cross hairs" map came back to haunt her with the victim's own words in last year's interview...and that's the clincher.





Link to post
Share on other sites

Either the hate/violence-filled rhetoric of the past two years did influence the shooter or did not. If in fact it did not, then we must conclude that what appears to be a politically motivated assassination was simply coincidence; utterly and completely disconnected from the crosshair mentality of the TeaParty movement and Beck-Palin et al. Does anyone think that an objective observer could possibly draw this conclusion?


Despite your reservations, Loughner's alleged mental illness did not lead him to shoot up a McDonald's, bomb a state building or even attack a Republican congressman in a state full of lousy Republicans. His target was a Democratic Congresswoman who had been targeted by the violent rhetoric of Tea Party.


I know you TeaParty types will deny it furiously (because ignorant, delusional and furious defines the TeaParty mind) but the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. The Tea Party used violent language and imagery, as have you yourself, and violence has ensued. Imagine that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
computer games make young white men to go apeshit with guns?

The weak and mentally ill? Perhaps. Columbine, anyone? Etc., etc., etc.


It certainly desensitizes one to violence. Many studies have proven that.


I am NOT advocating suppressing free speech. I AM advocating personal responsibility. Something that the GOP -- ironically and despite all evidence to the contrary entitled "the party of personal responsibility" -- fails to understand in the least.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...