to reiterate one more time

[daveman]

sure

I use the same words that you and willow and liability and lonestar and palerider use.....


what's the problem?

do only deranged right wing hatefilled scumsucking sissyboy conservative morons have the right to free speech?

Oh, no. I want the whole nation to hear your opinions.

How you doing Dave? Make any substantial posts today, impart any wisdom or luminosity?

Anything's possible. But I have a feeling that our ideas of wisdom and luminosity vary wildly.

 

[daveman]

LOL. You are so like the punks who express their manhood from the cage in the back seat of a patrol car. For someone who claims to value reason it is readily apparent you're controlled by your emotions as this most recent post suggests.
In all seriousness, I suggest you find a therapist. For by taking the anger which controls you out into the street, you put yourself and others at risk.
I hope you're not a gun owner, for sometimes anger is self directed and the risk is to others and yourself.
Get help.

I can tell you're sincere because you've criticized rikules for the same thing.


Oh, wait...

He doesn't have to.


look, daveman...you stupid nit wit (good lord just how fkn stupid are you?)


here are the rules for team play....

players on one team can say the worst possbible things (regardless of how untrue) about the OTHER team

players on the same team do NOT have to chastise each other for rude, unciviled remarks nomatter how untrue


(you stupid piece of conservative sh-t)
That means that liability can say terrible things (which he did)
and YOU do NOT have to chastise him for it (which you NEVER did)

get it? you stupid moron......

in fact....

deranged hatefilled scumbags on YOUR side can say terrible things about the OTHER side and YOU can defend it!


which you do....

because you are a hatefilled ignorant scumbag (NOT hate speech....OPINION!)

now stop whining like the ignorant sissyboy you so obviously are and just play the game

Hey, if Wry doesn't mind being a flaming hypocrite, I don't mind pointing it out.

 

[daveman]

Oh, no. I want the whole nation to hear your opinions.

How you doing Dave? Make any substantial posts today, impart any wisdom or luminosity?

he'd have to go to a chinese restaurant and steal some cookies in order to impart any wisdom.


He has GOT to be one the stupidest posters on this board....


on the other hand......there are so many conservatives to choose from.....

Oe noes! An anonymous internet moron doesn't like me!

 

[daveman]

The far left is flailingly desperate to connect Laughner with right-wing rhetoric.

So far, the only proof they have is "We really really really really want it to be true!!" They've convinced themselves (because they're quite gullible), but nobody else is buying it.

IT's true that most people don't buy it but that doesn't mean that there is no connection.

in this particular case there may be no connection but certainly people who study the effects of hate speech can draw connections between hate speech and violence

even someone as stupid as you will understand the connection between hitlers hate speech and the atrocities committed by people NOT NAMED HITLER during WWII

hitler, in fact, didn't kill anyone...

he merely said things like;

liberals are the ENEMY of America (...ooops...I mean....germany)
and
liberals are trying to DESTROY America! (ooops...I mean germany)

drawing the cross hairs on his enemies.....

can I assume that you think hitler was just as innocent of hatecrimes/atrocities as limbaugh and palin are?

if some wacked out leftwinger, acting on his own, shot a conservative would you say "there is no connection between liberal hate speech and this act of violence!"?

of COURSE you wouldn't

we both know you would be whining about "liberal hate speech leading to violence"

Y'know, repeating "I really really really really want it to be true!!" AND stamping your feet in a little hissy fit still doesn't make it so.

 

[Liability]

I took another look at this thread and you can scarcely imagine my shock to find the hypocritical flaming lib trolls are still flailing away at their tasks.

What a surprise.

 

[Article 15]

Rush has 20 million listeners. Loughner was not one of them.

Beck, Oberman, Hannity, Rhodes, Levin, Lykis, all have their followers. Loughner was not one of them

How the hell do you know what shows Loughner did or did not watch?

Your premise is a lie.

Wrong, Quicks Draw McGraw.

Loughner had friends who have shared what he didn't watch or listen to. At most, therefore, you might say that what his friends said is not necessarily fully accurate or complete. But to say that what Baruch Menachem posted is a "lie" is stupid of you.

There IS evidence suggesting that Loughner was not a listener to political talk radio (conservative or otherwise) or a viewer of conservative television programming.

Correct.

There is an interview with Loughner's "friend" who claims he didn't watch political TV and/or radio, however, the same "friend" also said he hadn't spoken with him in two years and that he was unrecognizable to the person he used to know.

 

[WillowTree]

ya'll progressive. liberal dimwit democrats have got yourselves a huge PR problem. and you did it all to yourselves.. dig dig dig and dig some more. it's gonna take ya a long time to splain away your hatred.. you own it.

we hate you because you hate us....

do you feel the need to explain away YOUR hatred?

or...are you yet another conservative who is SO STUPID he doesn't believe he engages in hate speech?

Sorry, it wasn't me that jumped on the airwaves and spouted all the bullshit about it being S. Palin's fault, the teaparty's fautl, the Republicans fault. Youse guys got you a massive PR problem. I can help ya with it. You own it.

 

[Liability]

How the hell do you know what shows Loughner did or did not watch?

Your premise is a lie.

Wrong, Quicks Draw McGraw.

Loughner had friends who have shared what he didn't watch or listen to. At most, therefore, you might say that what his friends said is not necessarily fully accurate or complete. But to say that what Baruch Menachem posted is a "lie" is stupid of you.

There IS evidence suggesting that Loughner was not a listener to political talk radio (conservative or otherwise) or a viewer of conservative television programming.

Correct.

There is an interview with Loughner's "friend" who claims he didn't watch political TV and/or radio, however, the same "friend" also said he hadn't spoken with him in two years and that he was unrecognizable to the person he used to know.

I don't disagree with what you just said there, Article. So, although it's dated, the last information we have available (to our general knowledge) is that the shooter was not a right wing ideologue -- or, at least, that there's no information to support any claim that he was or even may have been.

I agree that there is then a void in our general knowledge of what was on his "mind" in the last roughly two years. But, since it's a void, thee is also (at present at least) NO basis whatsoever to justifiably claim that he was motivated in any way by right wing political discourse.

I agree that we simply don't know.

And that's all I am saying. Was he crazy? I don't know. Maybe. There is certainly some information now disseminated from which that speculation seems warranted. But I agree, too, that we cannot yet reasonably make that claim.

Since all of the forgoing is true, the shooting itself provides essentially nothing upon which we can construct any "lesson" about the uncivil nature of current political discourse by either side.

 

[Article 15]

Wrong, Quicks Draw McGraw.

Loughner had friends who have shared what he didn't watch or listen to. At most, therefore, you might say that what his friends said is not necessarily fully accurate or complete. But to say that what Baruch Menachem posted is a "lie" is stupid of you.

There IS evidence suggesting that Loughner was not a listener to political talk radio (conservative or otherwise) or a viewer of conservative television programming.

Correct.

There is an interview with Loughner's "friend" who claims he didn't watch political TV and/or radio, however, the same "friend" also said he hadn't spoken with him in two years and that he was unrecognizable to the person he used to know.

I don't disagree with what you just said there, Article. So, although it's dated, the last information we have available (to our general knowledge) is that the shooter was not a right wing ideologue -- or, at least, that there's no information to support any claim that he was or even may have been.

I agree that there is then a void in our general knowledge of what was on his "mind" in the last roughly two years. But, since it's a void, thee is also (at present at least) NO basis whatsoever to justifiably claim that he was motivated in any way by right wing political discourse.

I agree that we simply don't know.

And that's all I am saying. Was he crazy? I don't know. Maybe. There is certainly some information now disseminated from which that speculation seems warranted. But I agree, too, that we cannot yet reasonably make that claim.

Since all of the forgoing is true, the shooting itself provides essentially nothing upon which we can construct any "lesson" about the uncivil nature of current political discourse by either side.

Totally agree that at this point there is nothing to base any legit claim that any type of discourse/talking head/whatever motivated this guy.

My personal opinion is that he's nuts but I am curious to learn what was going on with this guy. I mean, what happened was terrible but it's historical too.

My observation on the whole political rhetoric thing is that if the climate and rhetoric is at a point where it even may have played a role in pushing a nutter over the edge and sparked such a fiery debate in the wake of this shooting then perhaps things have gotten out of hand. I've said some really dumb over-the-top crap, that's for sure.

 

[Ravi]

How the hell do you know what shows Loughner did or did not watch?

Your premise is a lie.

Wrong, Quicks Draw McGraw.

Loughner had friends who have shared what he didn't watch or listen to. At most, therefore, you might say that what his friends said is not necessarily fully accurate or complete. But to say that what Baruch Menachem posted is a "lie" is stupid of you.

There IS evidence suggesting that Loughner was not a listener to political talk radio (conservative or otherwise) or a viewer of conservative television programming.

Correct.

There is an interview with Loughner's "friend" who claims he didn't watch political TV and/or radio, however, the same "friend" also said he hadn't spoken with him in two years and that he was unrecognizable to the person he used to know.

well...I don't watch political TV or radio either...but I do read some of it on the net.

 

[Trajan]

denial IS a river running through Frank Richs backyard.


No One Listened to Gabrielle Giffords
By FRANK RICH
Published: January 15, 2011


OF the many truths in President Obama’s powerful Tucson speech, none was more indisputable than his statement that no one can know what is in a killer’s mind. So why have we spent so much time debating exactly that?

The answer is classic American denial. It was easier to endlessly parse Jared Lee Loughner’s lunatic library — did he favor “The Communist Manifesto” or Ayn Rand? — than confront the larger and harsher snapshot of our current landscape that emerged after his massacre. A week on, that denial is becoming even more entrenched. As soon as the president left the podium Wednesday night, we started shifting into our familiar spin-dry post-tragedy cycle of the modern era — speedy “closure,” followed by a return to business as usual, followed by national amnesia.

If we learn nothing from this tragedy, we are back where we started. And where we started was with two years of accelerating political violence — actual violence, not to be confused with violent language — that struck fear into many, not the least of whom was Gabrielle Giffords.
For the sake of this discussion, let’s stipulate that Loughner was a “lone nutjob” who had never listened to Glenn Beck or been a card-carrying member of either the Tea or Communist parties. Let’s also face another tragedy: The only two civic reforms that might have actually stopped him — tighter gun control and an effective mental health safety net — won’t materialize even now.
Gun and ammunition sales spiked last week, especially for the specific varieties given the Loughner imprimatur. No editorial — or bloodbath — will move Congress to enact serious gun control (which Giffords herself never advocated and Obama has rarely pushed since 2008). Enhanced mental health coverage is also a nonstarter when the highest G.O.P. priority is to repeal the federal expansion of health care. In Arizona, cutbacks are already so severe that terminally ill patients are being denied life-saving organ transplants.

The other inescapable reality was articulated by Sarah Palin, believe it or not, in her “blood libel” video. Speaking of acrimonious partisan debate, she asked, “When was it less heated — back in those calm days when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols?” She’s right. Calls for civility will have no more lasting impact on the “tone” of American discourse now than they did after the J.F.K. assassination or Oklahoma City. Especially not in an era when technology allows all 300 million Americans a cost-free megaphone for unmediated rants.

Did Loughner see Palin’s own most notorious contribution to the rancorous tone — her March 2010 Web graphic targeting Congressional districts? We have no idea — nor does it matter. But Giffords did. Her reaction to it — captured in an interview she did back then with Chuck Todd of MSNBC — was the most recycled, if least understood, video of last week.



"more" at-
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/opinion/16rich.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Both sides have folks who discourse in using violent metaphor. The aggravating thing here is that the assumption is that if anything goes wrong, it is the fault of only one side's metaphor. The important consideration any time there is a tragedy is not how can we score on the other guy, but what I personally can do to ameliorate the issue. The request for us to reduce the discourse level sounds less like "Lets make things better" and more like "Shut up or we will shut you up."

There is also the whole issue of instant assumption that any loon is a right wing loon.

There can be a great deal more comity if folks allow others the right to speek and don't assign things as facts before they have any basis.

 

[rightwinger]

Isn't "reiterate one more time" redundant?

 

[Liability]

Isn't "reiterate one more time" redundant?

No.

You could, for example, iterate. Then, you could (by repeating your original iteration) "reiterate." Then, you could risk undue redundancy by reiterating again. If you have already reiterated, you can always make any future reiteration your last one.

No redundancy at all.

 

[rightwinger]

Isn't "reiterate one more time" redundant?

No.

You could, for example, iterate. Then, you could (by repeating your original iteration) "reiterate." Then, you could risk undue redundancy by reiterating again. If you have already reiterated, you can always make any future reiteration your last one.

No redundancy at all.

But then again..

You reiterate

 

[Liability]

Isn't "reiterate one more time" redundant?

No.

You could, for example, iterate. Then, you could (by repeating your original iteration) "reiterate." Then, you could risk undue redundancy by reiterating again. If you have already reiterated, you can always make any future reiteration your last one.

No redundancy at all.

But then again..

You reiterate

Yeah. One more time.