Need to point fingers? Use the facts.

[Flopper]

I repeat: Are any of you idiots ever going to prove he was exposed to violent right-wing rhetoric, or are you just going to rely on the Big Lie strategy?

You don't have to listen to hate radio, participate in message boards such this, or read the blogs to be encouraged to commit acts of hate and violence. The message spreads to every nook and cranny of society because there is never a shortage of messengers.

You call that proof?

Every vicious, violent statement by political commentators, politicians, and political groups spread like wildfire on the net. Today, with the Internet there is no such thing as a small audience. The audience is the world.

 

[daveman]

You don't have to listen to hate radio, participate in message boards such this, or read the blogs to be encouraged to commit acts of hate and violence. The message spreads to every nook and cranny of society because there is never a shortage of messengers.

You call that proof?

Every vicious, violent statement by political commentators, politicians, and political groups spread like wildfire on the net. Today, with the Internet there is no such thing as a small audience. The audience is the world.

Uh huh. Think that'll hold up in court?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I repeat: Are any of you idiots ever going to prove he was exposed to violent right-wing rhetoric, or are you just going to rely on the Big Lie strategy?

Noooooooooo......I'm pretty-certain FAUX Noise still maintains the copyright on that. ​

So...you're not even going to attempt to prove it, but instead just keep repeating the lie.

Did you know that only 15% of Americans are buying your bullshit?

Jim Adkisson in 2008 shot up a Unitarian church and killed people, and he was exposed to rightwing rhetoric. He was vehemently anti-liberal and his motive was political. He read people like Savage and Hannity.

Having said that, does that example change anything?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So do you believe that Palin will stick to her guns (lol) and continue to use that sort of rhetoric?

Do you think she should? Shouldn't she? After all, it's just figurative, and her fans love it. Wouldn't she be caving in to unjustified pressure, if she tones it down?

No one? Why is that? What is the logic in

Palin did nothing wrong, but she should never ever ever ever do it again??

Sorry, NYCarb, missed this the first time.

I can't speak for Palin or Obama, but I'm not going to change the way I talk or post out of fear that someone is going to take the figurative literally.

Are you? Cuz' that would be crazy.

The issue is, why would someone stop doing something they insist was 1) their right to do, and 2) not wrong to do?

 

[daveman]

Noooooooooo......I'm pretty-certain FAUX Noise still maintains the copyright on that. ​

So...you're not even going to attempt to prove it, but instead just keep repeating the lie.

Did you know that only 15% of Americans are buying your bullshit?

Jim Adkisson in 2008 shot up a Unitarian church and killed people, and he was exposed to rightwing rhetoric. He was vehemently anti-liberal and his motive was political. He read people like Savage and Hannity.

Having said that, does that example change anything?

Not really.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I repeat: Are any of you idiots ever going to prove he was exposed to violent right-wing rhetoric, or are you just going to rely on the Big Lie strategy?

Noooooooooo......I'm pretty-certain FAUX Noise still maintains the copyright on that. ​

So...you're not even going to attempt to prove it, but instead just keep repeating the lie.

Did you know that only 15% of Americans are buying your bullshit?

He responds to everything with multi colored, underlined rants about "Faux Noise"

He's an imbecile. Ignore him.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

No one? Why is that? What is the logic in

Palin did nothing wrong, but she should never ever ever ever do it again??

Sorry, NYCarb, missed this the first time.

I can't speak for Palin or Obama, but I'm not going to change the way I talk or post out of fear that someone is going to take the figurative literally.

Are you? Cuz' that would be crazy.

The issue is, why would someone stop doing something they insist was 1) their right to do, and 2) not wrong to do?

I didn't matter.. whatever she did would have been met with insane rants of either she's insensitive to have left it u[p, or, The issue is, why would someone stop doing something they insist was 1) their right to do, and 2) not wrong to do?

 

[DiveCon]

Sorry, NYCarb, missed this the first time.

I can't speak for Palin or Obama, but I'm not going to change the way I talk or post out of fear that someone is going to take the figurative literally.

Are you? Cuz' that would be crazy.

The issue is, why would someone stop doing something they insist was 1) their right to do, and 2) not wrong to do?

I didn't matter.. whatever she did would have been met with insane rants of either she's insensitive to have left it u[p, or, The issue is, why would someone stop doing something they insist was 1) their right to do, and 2) not wrong to do?

yup

damned if she does, damned if she doesnt

 

[Flopper]

You call that proof?

Every vicious, violent statement by political commentators, politicians, and political groups spread like wildfire on the net. Today, with the Internet there is no such thing as a small audience. The audience is the world.

Uh huh. Think that'll hold up in court?

Yep, in the court of public opinion which is what this is all about.

 

[daveman]

Noooooooooo......I'm pretty-certain FAUX Noise still maintains the copyright on that. ​

So...you're not even going to attempt to prove it, but instead just keep repeating the lie.

Did you know that only 15% of Americans are buying your bullshit?

He responds to everything with multi colored, underlined rants about "Faux Noise"

He's an imbecile. Ignore him.

It's fun stirring him up. His posts are like a cross between Andy Warhol and the Unabomber.

 

[daveman]

Every vicious, violent statement by political commentators, politicians, and political groups spread like wildfire on the net. Today, with the Internet there is no such thing as a small audience. The audience is the world.

Uh huh. Think that'll hold up in court?

Yep, in the court of public opinion which is what this is all about.

That court doesn't give a shit about the facts. And the left is grandstanding in front of the juror's box.

 

[DiveCon]

Uh huh. Think that'll hold up in court?

Yep, in the court of public opinion which is what this is all about.

That court doesn't give a shit about the facts. And the left is grandstanding in front of the juror's box.

except it isnt really working for them

 

[daveman]

Yep, in the court of public opinion which is what this is all about.

That court doesn't give a shit about the facts. And the left is grandstanding in front of the juror's box.

except it isnt really working for them

Nope. Only 15% are buying it. They're believing their own bullshit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So...you're not even going to attempt to prove it, but instead just keep repeating the lie.

Did you know that only 15% of Americans are buying your bullshit?

Jim Adkisson in 2008 shot up a Unitarian church and killed people, and he was exposed to rightwing rhetoric. He was vehemently anti-liberal and his motive was political. He read people like Savage and Hannity.

Having said that, does that example change anything?

Not really.

In other words, you're confirming what I said yesterday,

which is that all this back and forth about whether or not Loughner listened to, watched, or read rightwing propaganda in the media is irrelevant,

because even if he did you'd still be denying he was influenced by any of it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sorry, NYCarb, missed this the first time.

I can't speak for Palin or Obama, but I'm not going to change the way I talk or post out of fear that someone is going to take the figurative literally.

Are you? Cuz' that would be crazy.

The issue is, why would someone stop doing something they insist was 1) their right to do, and 2) not wrong to do?

I didn't matter.. whatever she did would have been met with insane rants of either she's insensitive to have left it u[p, or, The issue is, why would someone stop doing something they insist was 1) their right to do, and 2) not wrong to do?

I don't stop being pro-choice even though I've had the full arsenal of anti-abortion perjoratives hurled at me, including many an insane rant.

I didn't stop opposing the Iraq war even though I was called every name in the pro-war nuts' playbook for doing so.

Why would someone retreat (instead of reloading) as Palin did?? I say, because she's acknowledging it was tasteless and inappropriate, or,

she isn't able to 'man up' and take the heat.

 

[daveman]

Jim Adkisson in 2008 shot up a Unitarian church and killed people, and he was exposed to rightwing rhetoric. He was vehemently anti-liberal and his motive was political. He read people like Savage and Hannity.

Having said that, does that example change anything?

Not really.

In other words, you're confirming what I said yesterday,

which is that all this back and forth about whether or not Loughner listened to, watched, or read rightwing propaganda in the media is irrelevant,

because even if he did you'd still be denying he was influenced by any of it.

If you can show that he's seen any of it, you might have a point.

But you can't, can you?

 

[Missourian]

No one? Why is that? What is the logic in

Palin did nothing wrong, but she should never ever ever ever do it again??

Sorry, NYCarb, missed this the first time.

I can't speak for Palin or Obama, but I'm not going to change the way I talk or post out of fear that someone is going to take the figurative literally.

Are you? Cuz' that would be crazy.

The issue is, why would someone stop doing something they insist was 1) their right to do, and 2) not wrong to do?

Why did Obama stop bashing Fox News, why did me drop his support for the assault weapons ban, why isn't he trying detainees in NY? It's his right, and his base believes it and loves it, but he stopped. Why?

Same answer applies to Palin.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The issue is, why would someone stop doing something they insist was 1) their right to do, and 2) not wrong to do?

I didn't matter.. whatever she did would have been met with insane rants of either she's insensitive to have left it u[p, or, The issue is, why would someone stop doing something they insist was 1) their right to do, and 2) not wrong to do?

I don't stop being pro-choice even though I've had the full arsenal of anti-abortion perjoratives hurled at me, including many an insane rant.

I didn't stop opposing the Iraq war even though I was called every name in the pro-war nuts' playbook for doing so.

Why would someone retreat (instead of reloading) as Palin did?? I say, because she's acknowledging it was tasteless and inappropriate, or,

she isn't able to 'man up' and take the heat.

Well, nice rant... but... I wasn't implying that Palin will change her stance or suddenly become liberal. I was just pointing out hat no matter what she'd have done, you would have found something wrong.. it's what you do... it's symptomatic of PDS.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you really equating the Rosa Parks of the world with these gun toting goons? The people who bravely faced intimidation with people trying to intimidate? Are you really that scurrilous of an individual?

I have to ask...why did you lie about being a classic liberal? You are nothing but a right wing fanatic.

Are they intimidating you? If no, don't worry about it, if yes, grow up. Their purpose is not to intimidate, and your insistence that it is shows just how out of touch you are with what is happening in the real world. You do have a large group of spiritual brethren though, including the people who tried to make Rosa Parks move to the back of the bus.

I never lied about being a classical liberal by the way, I said that is the closest to my philosophy. It isn't my fault you are so obsessed with putting people into boxes they do not fit into.

I am curious though, what is it you think I am not living up to in this definition?

Liberal political theory, then, fractures over the conception of liberty. But a more important division concerns the place of private property and the market order. For classical liberals — sometimes called the ‘old’ liberalism — liberty and private property are intimately related. From the eighteenth century right up to today, classical liberals have insisted that an economic system based on private property is uniquely consistent with individual liberty, allowing each to live her life —including employing her labor and her capital — as she sees fit. Indeed, classical liberals and libertarians have often asserted that in some way liberty and property are really the same thing; it has been argued, for example, that all rights, including liberty rights, are forms of property; others have maintained that property is itself a form of freedom (Gaus, 1994; Steiner, 1994). A market order based on private property is thus seen as an embodiment of freedom (Robbins, 1961: 104). Unless people are free to make contracts and to sell their labour, or unless they are free to save their incomes and then invest them as they see fit, or unless they are free to run enterprises when they have obtained the capital, they are not really free. Classical liberals employ a second argument connecting liberty and private property. Rather than insisting that the freedom to obtain and employ private property is simply one aspect of people's liberty, this second argument insists that private property is the only effective means for the protection of liberty. Here the idea is that the dispersion of power that results from a free market economy based on private property protects the liberty of subjects against encroachments by the state. As F.A. Hayek argues, ‘There can be no freedom of press if the instruments of printing are under government control, no freedom of assembly if the needed rooms are so controlled, no freedom of movement if the means of transport are a government monopoly’ (1978: 149).
Although classical liberals agree on the fundamental importance of private property to a free society, the classical liberal tradition itself refracts into a spectrum of views, from near-anarchist to those that attribute a significant role to the state in economic and social policy (on this spectrum, see Mack and Gaus, 2004). Towards the most extreme ‘libertarian’ end of the classical liberal spectrum are views of justified states as legitimate monopolies that may with justice charge for their necessary rights-protection services: taxation is legitimate so long as it is necessary to protect liberty and property rights. As we go further ‘leftward’ we encounter classical liberal views that allow taxation for (other) public goods and social infrastructure and, moving yet further ‘left’, some classical liberal views allow for a modest social minimum.(e.g., Hayek, 1976: 87). Most nineteenth century classical liberal economists endorsed a variety of state policies, encompassing not only the criminal law and enforcement of contracts, but the licensing of professionals, health, safety and fire regulations, banking regulations, commercial infrastructure (roads, harbors and canals) and often encouraged unionization (Gaus, 1983b). Although today classical liberalism is often associated with extreme forms of libertarianism, the classical liberal tradition was centrally concerned with bettering the lot of the working class. The aim, as Bentham put it, was to make the poor richer, not the rich poorer (Bentham, 1952 [1795]: vol. 1, 226n). Consequently, classical liberals reject the redistribution of wealth as a legitimate aim of government.

Liberalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Grow up? I suggest you have an adult hold your hand before you cross the street if you can't make the connection that showing up at public political events wearing firearms and carrying signs that refers to killing patriots IS an attempt to intimidate using the threat of deadly force.

I suggest you read this...

Why I Am Not a Conservative
By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek

Why should I read Hayek? Does he tell me why you think classical libearals believe something they obviously do not? Or why you lie about what people are doing and saying?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I didn't matter.. whatever she did would have been met with insane rants of either she's insensitive to have left it u[p, or, The issue is, why would someone stop doing something they insist was 1) their right to do, and 2) not wrong to do?

I don't stop being pro-choice even though I've had the full arsenal of anti-abortion perjoratives hurled at me, including many an insane rant.

I didn't stop opposing the Iraq war even though I was called every name in the pro-war nuts' playbook for doing so.

Why would someone retreat (instead of reloading) as Palin did?? I say, because she's acknowledging it was tasteless and inappropriate, or,

she isn't able to 'man up' and take the heat.

Well, nice rant... but... I wasn't implying that Palin will change her stance or suddenly become liberal. I was just pointing out hat no matter what she'd have done, you would have found something wrong.. it's what you do... it's symptomatic of PDS.

No you're wrong because I expressed my opinion on what she should have done.