Obama hunting: is it a violent image?

[edthecynic]

As for the hilarity (if you can call it such) over the move, I do remember there were some from the left who thought it was great and couldn't understand why anyone would have a problem with it. I thought that was a sad time in our history, that someone would stand up for that movie.

Immie

If you know so much about that movie, much more than I knew about it, then I have to guess that you saw it or at least knew about it which makes you wrong when you say:



Immie

How typical of CON$, commenting on a movie he never saw while condemning someone who knows more about the facts than he does for the CRIME of being better informed.

But you are right about one thing, I should have said, "no one saw not even the CON$ who condemn it."

Question:

Where did I condemn you? And where did I comment on the movie? I commented on the reactions people had to the production of the movie, not the movie itself.

Immie

Nice backpeddalling!
Obviously you condemned me as someone who defended the actual theme of the movie, a theme that CON$ pretend to support, namely the loss of personal freedom.

The movie actually goes after the VICE president who takes over after Bush's death and uses the power of the federal government to suppress the personal freedoms of individuals in the name of "national security."

 

[Annie]

Do you really see a flippant comment out of nowhere to be a serious threat?

Maybe I have a different definition of serious...

Not sure which flippant comment you are referring to.

The one this thread is based on.. "What about an Obama tag"?

While far be it from me to give credence to any TM posts, what that guy said seems over the top to me. Threatening the President, even to make a point, is wrong, IMO.

 

[Immanuel]

As for the hilarity (if you can call it such) over the move, I do remember there were some from the left who thought it was great and couldn't understand why anyone would have a problem with it. I thought that was a sad time in our history, that someone would stand up for that movie.

Immie

How typical of CON$, commenting on a movie he never saw while condemning someone who knows more about the facts than he does for the CRIME of being better informed.

But you are right about one thing, I should have said, "no one saw not even the CON$ who condemn it."

Question:

Where did I condemn you? And where did I comment on the movie? I commented on the reactions people had to the production of the movie, not the movie itself.

Immie

Nice backpeddalling!
Obviously you condemned me as someone who defended the actual theme of the movie, a theme that CON$ pretend to support, namely the loss of personal freedom.

The movie actually goes after the VICE president who takes over after Bush's death and uses the power of the federal government to suppress the personal freedoms of individuals in the name of "national security."

No, you misunderstood me.

I was laughing in that you said, no one had watched it or even knew anything at all about it. But, you appear to have seen it or at least have known about it, therefore you were simply wrong.

You were not even standing up for the movie in this thread. You simply commented that no one had seen it is how I read your post. edit: Seeing the movie does not equate to defending the movie. You can't criticize the movie if you have not seen it. Also, I did not criticize the movie in the first post you quoted. I criticized people who had "stood up for it" and had not even seen it. They laughed about the killing of a President, not some theme that you took out of it.

Immie

 

[Lonestar_logic]

When dealing with someone from Idaho, just smile and nod. It is just better to ignore their comments, otherwise you spend a lot of time pissed off. Trust me, I am related to half the state.

A product of inbreeding I'd guess.

 

[goldcatt]

Not sure which flippant comment you are referring to.

The one this thread is based on.. "What about an Obama tag"?

While far be it from me to give credence to any TM posts, what that guy said seems over the top to me. Threatening the President, even to make a point, is wrong, IMO.

Yep. It's tasteless, it's wrong, but it sounds like he got stomped in the court of public opinion for it already. If he ever had a prayer it's done for. For the level of "threat" he made that sounds about right to me.

 

[rikules]

The Idaho GOP's Pro-Militia Candidate | Mother Jones


Idaho veterinarian, elk rancher, and political hopeful Rex Rammell first attracted national attention last year when he joked about buying "Obama tags" to hunt the president. Now the conservative activist is running to be the GOP's candidate for governor of Idaho. His platform? Revving up right-wing militias so they are "prepared" to deal with the growing threats to freedom posed by a federal government bent on "socializing" the country.

On ABC's "Nightline" on Tuesday, Rammell explained why it's reasonable for those unhappy with the Obama administration to threaten violence:

“I don't think anyone would argue that America is getting more and more enemies all of the time—both foreign and domestic," said Rammell. "I think the way politics is going in the United States and the Tea Party movement—the whole atmosphere promotes people wanting to get prepared. And I think that is what this is about...

"It's because of the current administration's politics—the more they force upon the states, the more noise there is," Rammell said. "The more concern people have, the less freedom there is. Lots of Idahoans believe the health care bill is very intrusive on our individual rights. ... We are not going to allow them to come into the state and make what we believe are unconstitutional mandates. Even if they can get them passed in D.C., we are not going to all that to happen. These guys want to show a little force behind the scene... I don't have a problem with that."

"It's because of the current administration's politics—the more they force upon the states, the more noise there is," Rammell said. "The more concern people have, the less freedom there is. "


speaking kindly...


this is all nonsense

being more blunt....


it's BS

so far, other than health care, obama hasn't accomplished much of anything

and NOBODY has lost ANY rights or freedoms

these jerks are using FEAR and LIES to promote HATE and VIOLENCE

 

[beowolfe]

Why does it seem that GOP politicians like to joke about killing people????

It's already been brought up.....but the dems did the same thing with Bush. Mind telling everyone what the difference is?

I don't recall a single Dem politician or candidate telling jokes about killing Bush. Do you?

 

[Skull Pilot]

The Idaho GOP's Pro-Militia Candidate | Mother Jones


Idaho veterinarian, elk rancher, and political hopeful Rex Rammell first attracted national attention last year when he joked about buying "Obama tags" to hunt the president. Now the conservative activist is running to be the GOP's candidate for governor of Idaho. His platform? Revving up right-wing militias so they are "prepared" to deal with the growing threats to freedom posed by a federal government bent on "socializing" the country.

On ABC's "Nightline" on Tuesday, Rammell explained why it's reasonable for those unhappy with the Obama administration to threaten violence:

“I don't think anyone would argue that America is getting more and more enemies all of the time—both foreign and domestic," said Rammell. "I think the way politics is going in the United States and the Tea Party movement—the whole atmosphere promotes people wanting to get prepared. And I think that is what this is about...

"It's because of the current administration's politics—the more they force upon the states, the more noise there is," Rammell said. "The more concern people have, the less freedom there is. Lots of Idahoans believe the health care bill is very intrusive on our individual rights. ... We are not going to allow them to come into the state and make what we believe are unconstitutional mandates. Even if they can get them passed in D.C., we are not going to all that to happen. These guys want to show a little force behind the scene... I don't have a problem with that."

"It's because of the current administration's politics—the more they force upon the states, the more noise there is," Rammell said. "The more concern people have, the less freedom there is. "


speaking kindly...


this is all nonsense

being more blunt....


it's BS

so far, other than health care, obama hasn't accomplished much of anything

and NOBODY has lost ANY rights or freedoms

these jerks are using FEAR and LIES to promote HATE and VIOLENCE

The fucking government forcing me to buy a product I may not need or want is not a loss of freedom?

 

[edthecynic]

As for the hilarity (if you can call it such) over the move, I do remember there were some from the left who thought it was great and couldn't understand why anyone would have a problem with it. I thought that was a sad time in our history, that someone would stand up for that movie.

Immie

Question:

Where did I condemn you? And where did I comment on the movie? I commented on the reactions people had to the production of the movie, not the movie itself.

Immie

Nice backpeddalling!
Obviously you condemned me as someone who defended the actual theme of the movie, a theme that CON$ pretend to support, namely the loss of personal freedom.

The movie actually goes after the VICE president who takes over after Bush's death and uses the power of the federal government to suppress the personal freedoms of individuals in the name of "national security."

No, you misunderstood me.

I was laughing in that you said, no one had watched it or even knew anything at all about it. But, you appear to have seen it or at least have known about it, therefore you were simply wrong.

You were not even standing up for the movie in this thread. You simply commented that no one had seen it is how I read your post. edit: Seeing the movie does not equate to defending the movie. You can't criticize the movie if you have not seen it. Also, I did not criticize the movie in the first post you quoted. I criticized people who had "stood up for it" and had not even seen it. They laughed about the killing of a President, not some theme that you took out of it.

Immie

Still backpedaling.

The people you say were on the "left" who "stood up for it" were NOT laughing about the killing of a president. That is just typical CON$ervative PROJECTION.

They, in fact, were standing up for the theme of loss of personal freedom, not the killing of a president. They were smart enough to recognize that an assassination of a president was simply the VEHICLE to get Cheney into the presidency and the justification of the abuse of freedoms in the name of national security. If had Bush died of a heart attack say, Cheney would not be able to abuse the national security rationalization, thus the use of an assassination. Please show links of people who stood up for the film who were laughing!

And you said NOTHING about people who didn't see the movie until I brought it up.

 

[Truthmatters]

The fucking government forcing me to buy a product I may not need or want is not a loss of freedom?

You domnt have to buy it ,just pay the fine

 

[Truthmatters]

excuses , excuses


Nothing that is said will ever be too much as long as you are on the right huh?

more dishonesty from you

from your own link:

His comments were universally condemned by fellow Idaho Republicans. "Rex Rammell's comments are in very poor taste and should not have been said," said Sen. Mike Crapo. "I disgree often with the President and his policies. But the comment was totally unacceptable and should not have been made," said Sen. Mike Risch. Rep. Mike Simpson and former Idaho Gov. Phil Batt also offered harsh rebukes.

And then thy let him run for office under the republican umbrella

 

[goldcatt]

excuses , excuses


Nothing that is said will ever be too much as long as you are on the right huh?

more dishonesty from you

from your own link:

His comments were universally condemned by fellow Idaho Republicans. "Rex Rammell's comments are in very poor taste and should not have been said," said Sen. Mike Crapo. "I disgree often with the President and his policies. But the comment was totally unacceptable and should not have been made," said Sen. Mike Risch. Rep. Mike Simpson and former Idaho Gov. Phil Batt also offered harsh rebukes.

And then thy let him run for office under the republican umbrella

Um, each State has these things called election laws. Once a candidate jumps the hoops required in order to get on the ballot, he's on it. The Party bosses can't just take him off because he said something dumb.

 

[Jarhead]

excuses , excuses


Nothing that is said will ever be too much as long as you are on the right huh?

more dishonesty from you

from your own link:

His comments were universally condemned by fellow Idaho Republicans. "Rex Rammell's comments are in very poor taste and should not have been said," said Sen. Mike Crapo. "I disgree often with the President and his policies. But the comment was totally unacceptable and should not have been made," said Sen. Mike Risch. Rep. Mike Simpson and former Idaho Gov. Phil Batt also offered harsh rebukes.

And then thy let him run for office under the republican umbrella

Again, you are correct. The GOP should not have allowed him to run on their ticket.

But after Murtha referred to me and my mine as rapists and murderers with no proof of such, exactly why did the democratic party not reprimand him for it? When my buds were proven ionnocent of those rediculous charges, why did the democratic leadership not make a statement of apology?

You see, it is people like you that are so wrapped up in finding fault with one party, you allow the other party to get away with things that are just as repugnant.

BOTH PARTIES HAVE EXTENDED THEIR WELCOME and need to be re-manned.

And you, Truthmatters, and me, and all others need to stop supporting one party over another party and start supporting the American People.

I know I am. Are you?

 

[Jarhead]

more dishonesty from you

from your own link:

His comments were universally condemned by fellow Idaho Republicans. "Rex Rammell's comments are in very poor taste and should not have been said," said Sen. Mike Crapo. "I disgree often with the President and his policies. But the comment was totally unacceptable and should not have been made," said Sen. Mike Risch. Rep. Mike Simpson and former Idaho Gov. Phil Batt also offered harsh rebukes.

And then thy let him run for office under the republican umbrella

Um, each State has these things called election laws. Once a candidate jumps the hoops required in order to get on the ballot, he's on it. The Party bosses can't just take him off because he said something dumb.

Each state has a party boss. They can.

 

[Truthmatters]

Can you get me the Murtha quote?

 

[Jarhead]

Can you get me the Murtha quote?

I know you are having computer issues so I will do it for you.
But I must admit that I am saddened that you are not aware of it.
It makes me believe that many are not aware of it and it makes me wonder why.

 

[Truthmatters]

It never happened my friend , that quote was made up.

 

[goldcatt]

And then thy let him run for office under the republican umbrella

Um, each State has these things called election laws. Once a candidate jumps the hoops required in order to get on the ballot, he's on it. The Party bosses can't just take him off because he said something dumb.

Each state has a party boss. They can.

Link to the Idaho election law that allows the State party boss to unilaterally remove a candidate from the ballot? I'm sure a LOT of party officials on both sides would be interested to know they can boot their unwanted and/or embarrassing candidates at their pleasure.

 

[Immanuel]

Nice backpeddalling!
Obviously you condemned me as someone who defended the actual theme of the movie, a theme that CON$ pretend to support, namely the loss of personal freedom.

The movie actually goes after the VICE president who takes over after Bush's death and uses the power of the federal government to suppress the personal freedoms of individuals in the name of "national security."

No, you misunderstood me.

I was laughing in that you said, no one had watched it or even knew anything at all about it. But, you appear to have seen it or at least have known about it, therefore you were simply wrong.

You were not even standing up for the movie in this thread. You simply commented that no one had seen it is how I read your post. edit: Seeing the movie does not equate to defending the movie. You can't criticize the movie if you have not seen it. Also, I did not criticize the movie in the first post you quoted. I criticized people who had "stood up for it" and had not even seen it. They laughed about the killing of a President, not some theme that you took out of it.

Immie

Still backpedaling.

The people you say were on the "left" who "stood up for it" were NOT laughing about the killing of a president. That is just typical CON$ervative PROJECTION.

They, in fact, were standing up for the theme of loss of personal freedom, not the killing of a president. They were smart enough to recognize that an assassination of a president was simply the VEHICLE to get Cheney into the presidency and the justification of the abuse of freedoms in the name of national security. If had Bush died of a heart attack say, Cheney would not be able to abuse the national security rationalization, thus the use of an assassination. Please show links of people who stood up for the film who were laughing!

And you said NOTHING about people who didn't see the movie until I brought it up.

Bullshit. They thought the killing of a President was a great idea. Very few of them had any idea about the theme of the movie because they had not seen it. So, you are simply lying here.

And once again, I only laughed at the fact that you said no one had seen it or knew about it, yet you obviously did. Unless you are "no one" then you are wrong. That is all I said... no one.

Immie

 

[Jarhead]

Can you get me the Murtha quote?

Here is one of his quotes found on Wikepedia ( I know you trust wikepedia, thus why I went there)

"It's much worse than reported in Time magazine. There was no fire fight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. And that's what the report is going to tell."

And, of course, the report showed otherwise. He had absolutely NOTHING to base such an accusation on. He was not there and he had no other information to base his comment on, other than what Time reported.