Palin throws kerosene on the fire

Onceler said:
Notice how you get ignored a lot, because your strawmen & false analogies & poor reading comprehension are so predictable...
Click to expand...

Onceler said:
See how you ignore #122?

Great to watch you meltdown about it, though...

:)
Click to expand...

how did i ignore it, if replied directly to it? only in onceler's deluded universe is replying to a post ignoring it....and really, what is there to reply to? lies? yeah...i'm really being ignored by you...let's see 5 posts with insults after i post 112, but no actual discussion....yeah, i'm really being ignored!

and why is you still haven't answered post 112?

pussy
 
Damn Yankee said:
You "forgot" all the shit leveled against Bush, including a movie fantasizing about his assassination.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was a bad fictionalized documentary. It wasn't made in America by Americans, and I didn't see it, but you probably still want liberals to take responsibility for it.

Everything about the so-called Clinton deaths was about real people, not characters. It was all dreamed up by RW Clinton haters and passed off as true.
 
Yurt said:
how did i ignore it, if replied directly to it? only in onceler's deluded universe is replying to a post ignoring it....and really, what is there to reply to? lies? yeah...i'm really being ignored by you...let's see 5 posts with insults after i post 112, but no actual discussion....yeah, i'm really being ignored!

and why is you still haven't answered post 112?

pussy
Click to expand...

I actually just checked post 112, because you keep bringing it up, and it's yet another hilarious example of your horribly bad reading comprehension.

Where, in my post that you were responding to, did I mention Bfgrn?

LOL
 
Yurt said:
are you saying palin wanted people to get their guns out and shoot someone?

yes or no.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not saying that. I do think the right likes to bring their guns to political events as a reminder. Tea Parties are based around the rhetoric of the American Revolution, which was a violent insurrection. Because a Democrat is in the White House, suddenly it is an illegitimate government. AND, they cite THIS part of the Declaration of Independence:

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.
 
A sampling of leftie love; nice imagery; and rhetoric.

1abortp.jpg


killbush003.jpg


dope.jpg
 
Damn Yankee said:
Yeah, there should be no doubt that its creators were hard core righties. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You note how she thinks we want liberals to "take responsibility for it" as if THAT has been the trouble posters have had with her screed? (I really think she is just attempting spin with her faux ignorance)

Hey chris-it's the total fucking high horse hypocrisy!

NO it's not about liberal's taking responsibility for it, though it was obviously not written or directed by conservatives- IT'S about YOU and others like YOU calling out shit like this WHEN a liberal does it with the same speed and dedication you call out shit like this when a conservative does it!

Remember Chris you hate ALL violent rhetoric and imagery. And if you really want cred- then start your rallying cry of denouncement among your own rank and file about what they do- What's that saying "clean up your own backyard before you start bitching about someone elses."
 
Damn Yankee said:
Yeah, there should be no doubt that its creators were hard core righties. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the director was British so his political affiliation is irrelevant.

Perhaps you don't remember how angry the British were over the war, and how they called Tony Blair "bush's poodle" and "Tony Bliar".

_38826519_rally_getty300.jpg


Hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets of London to voice their opposition to military action against Iraq.

Police said it was the UK's biggest ever demonstration with at least 750,000 taking part, although organisers put the figure closer to two million.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2765041.stm
 
Bfgrn said:
No, I'm not saying that. I do think the right likes to bring their guns to political events as a reminder. Tea Parties are based around the rhetoric of the American Revolution, which was a violent insurrection. Because a Democrat is in the White House, suddenly it is an illegitimate government. AND, they cite THIS part of the Declaration of Independence:

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.
Click to expand...

alright. if you believed palin was no inciting violence and was not literally telling people to get their guns and go shoot someone, why did you harp on her comments all weekend and ask those on the right (whom you know would not think she meant guns) what she meant? and why did you harp on the consequences statement?

and lastly, why is it you haven't talked about the violent rhetoric on the left? i'm not asking for 50/50 (most of us are partisan, i lean right), but all weekend you were talking about how harmful the right is and continually bringing up palin, and never anything about the left. how does that help our political discourse? especially since you believe palin was not inciting violence.
 
Onceler said:
I actually just checked post 112, because you keep bringing it up, and it's yet another hilarious example of your horribly bad reading comprehension.

Where, in my post that you were responding to, did I mention Bfgrn?

LOL
Click to expand...

yeah right...you just happen to post about exactly what bfgrn and i were talking about in the immediately preceding posts....but oh no....you're weren't referring to that....could you really be any more dishonest...seriously and btw....nothing is stopping you from answering post 112...

chicken
 
Yurt said:
alright. if you believed palin was no inciting violence and was not literally telling people to get their guns and go shoot someone, why did you harp on her comments all weekend and ask those on the right (whom you know would not think she meant guns) what she meant? and why did you harp on the consequences statement?

and lastly, why is it you haven't talked about the violent rhetoric on the left? i'm not asking for 50/50 (most of us are partisan, i lean right), but all weekend you were talking about how harmful the right is and continually bringing up palin, and never anything about the left. how does that help our political discourse? especially since you believe palin was not inciting violence.
Click to expand...

You "lean" right? :lol:
 
NigelTufnel said:
This is why you are an idiot.
Click to expand...

this is why nigel can only spout ad homs

"While the term 'blood-libel' has become part of the English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused, we wish that Palin had used another phrase, instead of one so fraught with pain in Jewish history."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/12/palin-criticized-for-using-blood-libel/?hpt=T1

see, nigel realized after he made his dumb comments that it has taken on a new meaning, but nigel prefers to stick to ad homs in order to make a point
 
Yurt said:
alright. if you believed palin was no inciting violence and was not literally telling people to get their guns and go shoot someone, why did you harp on her comments all weekend and ask those on the right (whom you know would not think she meant guns) what she meant? and why did you harp on the consequences statement?

and lastly, why is it you haven't talked about the violent rhetoric on the left? i'm not asking for 50/50 (most of us are partisan, i lean right), but all weekend you were talking about how harmful the right is and continually bringing up palin, and never anything about the left. how does that help our political discourse? especially since you believe palin was not inciting violence.
Click to expand...

I don't believe Palin was telling anyone to literally go shoot someone. But I do believe she was stoking an element of the right that revels in trying to project an image that is intimidating and hints at 2nd amendment solutions.

You keep accusing me of repeating 'violent rhetoric or imagery and repeatedly saying - they have consequences'

THAT is what the victim said:
“Sarah Palin has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district and when people do that, they’ve gotta realize there are consequences to that action.”
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords

I put more stock in Giffords' words than Palin's. It was her district office that was vandalized during the health care debate, not Palin's.

There is a very unhealthy monologue by the right blaming government for all our problems. Our founding fathers created a government to address our problems. The real problem is government is being controlled more and more by monied interests that don't have the average citizen's interest at heart.


"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482
 
Palin can see Russia from her house, can't she?

And don't forget, her PAC denies putting crosshairs on their web site.

Don't you believe 'em?
 
Bfgrn said:
THAT is what the victim said:
“Sarah Palin has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district and when people do that, they’ve gotta realize there are consequences to that action.”
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords

I put more stock in Giffords' words than Palin's. It was her district office that was vandalized during the health care debate, not Palin's.
Click to expand...

But the words of Gifford tel us nothing about why this tragedy happened, which is the point of these discussions.

That some would seek to blame Palin, the tea party, or whoever, without knowing the actual motivations is rather disgusting, wouldn't you say?
 
Yurt said:
why is that funny? do you actually know my political leanings? tell me what left leaning political leanings you think i have.
Click to expand...

A few "social" type things. I think you're a strong supporter of conservative economics, military and defense spending, not anti-war, not too supportive of government programs that some call entitlements, suspicious of the Middle East except for Israel.

I don't see you as homophobic, pro-DADT or supportive of conservative Christianity in government.
 
WinterBorn said:
But the words of Gifford tel us nothing about why this tragedy happened, which is the point of these discussions.

That some would seek to blame Palin, the tea party, or whoever, without knowing the actual motivations is rather disgusting, wouldn't you say?
Click to expand...

It's clear you will continue YOUR agenda regardless of what I said or didn't say.

You keep starting with a false accusation, and then ask me to respond to that same false accusation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top