On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 12:52 AM, denstar <[email protected]> wrote: > Come now, you know as well as I that the Democrats haven't been as gun > happy. Hell, that's one of the memes, right? The dems & libs will > take your guns- we want you to bring them to rallies! (metaphorically, > we meant!)
That's pure bullshit and your a fool to say it. Real threats have been coming from your side all along. And now, due to the level of effort your side when through to blame Palin for this, death threats to her have increased at unprecedented levels since the shooting. Stop making shit up and presenting it as known fact. > Don't go 'n' pull the JerryB card, where you equate 3% as being the > same as 33% -- hey, they're both percents, right? "You do it too!" et > al. I know you think facts suck but we like them. Where did you get the 3% number? >> Pretty much. I know, the easiest way to back peddle here is to say >> "taht's not what I meant by that." > You say this because I don't blame Obama for the polarization? I say it because you're blaming Palin for the causing people to shoot senators, but probably not this one. Unrelated topics sharing a thread. > I happen to believe that we are all connected, and thus, yes, have an > effect on each other-- everyone, even. That's deep. But we're discussing a shooting. Are you now saying we influenced this guy even though he didn't watch tv or listen to politics? Are you saying the Dem that said to shoot the guy running for Governor didn't effect him but Palins lock and load comment did? Why are you sneaking in here disguised as a right wing issue when you clearly know it is not? > How much is up for debate, but you cannot deny that there is some relation. I'm denying it. Who retaliated for what. Make that statement clear so when you step back from it I can reference it. > Politicians -- *politicians!* -- capitalizing on an *armed* revolution > -- and poor schmucks falling for it-- *stutter* -- while having the Who, what and where? Be specific. You're intentional vagueness comes in handy down the road but I want to cut to the chase. > nerve to knock "hope and change". *sigh* All this is lost on you > though. You don't have a problem with politicians using fear as their > tool. With leveraging our anger in some sorta Hitler-like way. It's > all the same to you. Black and white, at the same time. Gray, I > guess? Hitler like way? Are you still talking about lock and load or the democrat and his firing squad. I need clarity. > And I figure you'd say the same for the me. I was hoodwinked. How's > that hope and change working out. Obama was the messiah! The One! > Heh. Like living in a comic book. Whaaaa? You're on the wrong thread again. > And in the end-- I don't know if you believe in responsibility or > not-- yes, "we the people" (that's me and you, bub. And Them too.) > are ultimately responsible for the state of our nation. Hell, the > state of the world. Yes. > Why is that thought such anathema to you? Would you rather have > something, or someone to blame? You *want* to be ruled by "the > Media", and evil socialists, etc., no? Absolve yourself, and everyone > else, of any real responsibility? That's you bub. I want to look at facts and it seems this guy was a nutter. You want to blame me, Palin and everyone on the right. I am not responsible for what this guy did. There I said it. Now you try. > You'd be nuts to think that what we say has no effect on one another > though. Is that what you're saying? That "man is an island", so to > speak? Yeah. > What, exactly, *are* you saying? Sometimes people lose it. It happens, pointing fingers at people you disagree with does nothing to help, it only makes things worse. Remember the Fort Hood shooting the first response was don't jump to conclusions. Why didn't that happen this time? > I'm not sure what you are getting at. Save threads? Do you see > discussions on this list as some sort of binary battle? "There's only > two things you can support, and they're both extremes!" "You're with > us, or you're a terrorist!"... maybe you think my underwear is too > old? (but it's so comfortable!) You're discussing to things, this shooting and violent rhetoric that causes shootings. You then claim the two are not related but just happen to be discussed in the same thread. I'm saying you're excuse is you were to lazy to start another thread, which we both know is bullshit. > LOL. Sorry. I honestly don't grok what that is referring t ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:333376 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
