I agree with you, but you're wasting your time, because- 1. you keep saying the same thing over and over (to the point that even I, someone who actually agrees with what you're advocating, have stopped reading your posts) and more importantly 2. these people aren't going to change their minds. Things will worsen and continue to do so until we fight a Second American Civil War. All we're missing is something important enough to fight over. Luckily, this country is a joke, the citizens are barely literate, and as long as we have new reality shows to watch and cell phones to take pictures of our private parts, most idiots will be too content to wage war on anything. So that war is probably a while off. Enjoy your garbage in the meantime.
You are probably right about this. I guess I keep saying the same things over and over because I'm entirely baffled that anyone regardless of their political affiliation would find fault with criticizing literal, violent, political rhetoric. I guess I just had faith that most of those would take a moment look at the rhetoric and take what seems or if not why they find fault in asking that. It is truly bizarre that people hold on to political allegiances with such fierce zeal that rather than criticize literal calls to violence if elections go contrary to their "teams" wishes, that I keep hoping some people would stop the madness.
so tell me FB, is it his love of pot and Karl Marx, or his belief that the US government was behind 9/11 that marks him as a Tea Party/Sarah Palin neo-fascist?
isn't it just as likely the shooter was upset Giffords voted against Nancy Pelosi for minority leader?
Plenty of conservatives smoke pot too. As for this Karl Marx thing, I get the feeling that his list of 'favorite books' was merely contrived in hopes of making people think he was a deep/extreme thinker. Sitting alongside the Communist Manifesto are Mein Kampf and anti-Soviet Orwell books. This article argues that the common thread there is anti-government themes. Same with his objection to currency not backed by gold, and to grammar, and other conspiracy theories. It all definitely sounds paranoid, like when my shizophrenic friend told me that the plane flying overhead was the military keeping tabs on him. I would put him in the anti-government and crazy McVey/Unabomber camp, except not as articulate as those guys, given his relative youth.
Cosidering that your last two ventures into identifying political violence have given us embarrassments like "the backwards B" and "the magic bullet" - probably not.
I never claimed he was a tea party sarah Palin neo-fascist. I pointed out that Fox News has information from the DHS that they believe he was a right wing extremist belonging to the American Renaissance group. That isn't from me, and I even said that I thought the shootings had more to do with him being crazy than any political affiliation. I've said over and over, that there was no reason to think the shootings had more to do with a political affiliation than they did with him being deranged. I have yet to see anything that says he loved Marx. But that's beside the point. I'm only talking about toning down rhetoric that sensible people should be able to see is over the line. I have never accused the shooter of any political affiliation at all.
Prophet proclaimed by God talks to burning Bush following the post-noon shepherding of flock in 1351 BC. Apples to Oranges to Coconuts....stop posting
Again, I'm totally with you. I understand that the repetition comes from your frustration with people who deny an idea that seems to be one of common sense, if not common dignity. But if they don't see the problem with Second Amendment remedies and bullets to correct ballots the first or second times, they probably won't give in the third and fourth times. If anything, they fight harder. I understand this too, as it comes from a frustration with having the violent slogans and tough talk that they love thrown back at them as evidence that it could possibly incite the violence they seem to be begging for. This is America. We love all kinds of guns, any kind of violence, and kicking every kind of ass (especially Muslim, lately). Politicians just give the people what they love, because that's what gets them elected and later reelected. That's why a guy like George Bush, who stayed in Texas to avoid fighting in Vietnam, can get behind a podium and talk tough about fighting in Afghanistan. Because Americans don't care. We just love to hear stuff like that. Even Obama (who I support but kind of seems like a pansy) will use violent language to strike a chord with the average American voter. The average American voter is exactly that- average. Easily manipulated, totally controlled, blissfully unaware. So basically, I agree that politicians should quit talking about shooting their rivals. But it's not going to happen.
Just an update to that particular story but it appears DHS is now denying they have supplied such evidence to anyone: Link: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/dhs_has_not_determined_possibl.html
Excellent. That's exactly why I said I thought FOX was premature in posting that without more confirmation. Sloppy journalism indeed.
name that party. Spoiler <object width="853" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xIJORBRpOPM?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xIJORBRpOPM?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="853" height="505"></embed></object>
