LIBERALS SEEK BAN ON METAPHORS IN WAKE OF ARIZONA SHOOTING

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
LIBERALS SEEK BAN ON METAPHORS IN WAKE OF ARIZONA SHOOTING

After the monstrous shooting in Arizona last week, surely we can all agree that we've got to pass Obama's agenda immediately and stop using metaphors.

At least I think that's what the mainstream media are trying to tell me.

Liberals instantly leapt on the sickening massacre at a Tucson political event over the weekend to accuse tea partiers, Sarah Palin and all conservatives who talk out loud of being complicit in murder by inspiring the shooter, Jared Loughner.

Of course, to make their case, they first must demonstrate:

(a) Right-wingers have called for violence against anyone, especially conservative, pro-Second Amendment Democratic congresswomen;

(b) Loughner was listening to them; and

(c) Loughner was influenced by them.

They've proved none of this. In fact, it's nearly the opposite.

Needless to say, no conservative has called for violence against anyone. Nor has any conservative engaged in any "rhetoric" that was likely to lead to violence. Every putative example of "violent rhetoric" these squeamish liberals produce keeps being matched by an identical example from the Democrats.

Sarah Palin, for example, had a chart of congressional districts being targeted by Republicans. So did the Democratic Leadership Committee. Indeed, Democratic consultant Bob Beckel went on Fox News and said he invented the bull's-eye maps.

Similarly, every time liberals produce an example of military lingo from a Republican -- "we're going to target this district" -- Republicans produce five more from the Democrats.

President "whose asses to kick" Obama predicted "hand-to-hand combat" with his political opponents and has made such remarks as "if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun" -- making Obama the first American president to advocate gun fights since Andrew Jackson.

These are figures of speech known as "metaphors." (Do liberals know where we got the word "campaign"?)

It's not that both sides did something wrong; neither side did anything wrong. The drama queens need to settle down.

The winner of the most cretinous statement of 2011 -- and the list is now closed, so please hold your submissions -- is MSNBC's Chris Matthews, who on Monday night recalled Palin's statement, "We're not retreating, we're reloading," and said, I quote, "THAT'S not a metaphor."

Really, Chris? If that's not a metaphor, who did she shoot?

By blaming a mass killing on figures of speech, liberals sound as crazy as Loughner with his complaints about people's grammar. Maybe in lieu of dropping all metaphors, liberals should demand we ban metonyms so that tragedies like this will never happen again.

As for Loughner being influenced by tea partiers, Fox News and talk radio -- oops, another dead-end. According to all available evidence, Loughner is a liberal.

Every friend of Loughner who has characterized his politics has described him as liberal. Not one called him a conservative.

One friend says Loughner never listened to talk radio or watched the TV news. Throw in "never read books" and you have the dictionary definition of a liberal. Being completely uninformed is precisely how most liberals stay liberal.

According to voluminous Twitter postings on Saturday by one of Loughner's friends since high school, Caitie Parker, he was "left wing," "a political radical" "quite liberal" and "a pot head."

....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/liberalsseekbanonmetaphorsinwakeofarizonashooting


she makes some excellent points, title is hyperbole though
 
it's been said that if the republicans fail to cut back on spending, they are done. If the dems infringe further on the 1st Amendment, they are done.
 
it's been said that if the republicans fail to cut back on spending, they are done. If the dems infringe further on the 1st Amendment, they are done.

nah....people will keep voting for them. unfortunately our country's political system is stuck in a two party mode system. even if a viable third party candidate runs, it is unlikely they will ever get enough to win. and when they do run, they always hurt the party they lean towards...nader/perot....etc...
 
nah....people will keep voting for them. unfortunately our country's political system is stuck in a two party mode system. even if a viable third party candidate runs, it is unlikely they will ever get enough to win. and when they do run, they always hurt the party they lean towards...nader/perot....etc...

that's fine, it just pushes us closer to those Second Amendment remedies.
 
nah....people will keep voting for them. unfortunately our country's political system is stuck in a two party mode system. even if a viable third party candidate runs, it is unlikely they will ever get enough to win. and when they do run, they always hurt the party they lean towards...nader/perot....etc...
Change from within is easier to accomplish than change from without, though it takes more time.
 
that's fine, it just pushes us closer to those Second Amendment remedies.

at what point are you going to draw your gun and use it to effect political change?

Change from within is easier to accomplish than change from without, though it takes more time.

true. this last election soured me on both parties. i voted for bush because i figured he was better than gore and then i voted for him again because kerry is an idiot, so lesser of two

i couldn't believe the pubs put forth mccain against obama. dumbest move ever.
 
at what point are you going to draw your gun and use it to effect political change?



true. this last election soured me on both parties. i voted for bush because i figured he was better than gore and then i voted for him again because kerry is an idiot, so lesser of two

i couldn't believe the pubs put forth mccain against obama. dumbest move ever.
While I sympathize with your dilemma, voting like that accomplishes nothing. I know I'm being morally idealistic rather than realistic, but voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.
 
While I sympathize with your dilemma, voting like that accomplishes nothing. I know I'm being morally idealistic rather than realistic, but voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

and not voting? what if others like me didn't vote? what if mccain would have won....we might not have the disaster called obama care....though i wouldn't be to sure about that
 
and not voting? what if others like me didn't vote? what if mccain would have won....we might not have the disaster called obama care....though i wouldn't be to sure about that
No, vote for the third party that you agree with. You may not win, but you won't contribute to voting for evil either. But like I said, that's idealism.
 
at that point when they attempt to use force or other legal actions that prevent me from pursuing life, liberty, and happiness.

fair enough....but is using a gun the only option? what about those who have been wrongfully convicted, be it a bad jury or a prosecutor (deputy DA) carving another notch in his belt, should they draw a gun and protect their right to life, liberty and happiness?
 
No, vote for the third party that you agree with. You may not win, but you won't contribute to voting for evil either. But like I said, that's idealism.

unfortunately, i could not vote for romney unless i wrote his name in....

it is idealism. and i don't know how to make it realism. my wife and i took a junior college civic class a few years ago (she wanted to bone up on american history, government since she became a citizen and for some reason thought it would be "hot" if we went back to college) and the teacher was also a HS teacher, so the j/c gig was after hours. he was a staunch independent, yet he admitted that, while independents actually make up a large section of registered voters, having a truly independent candidate will not happen until those, middle of the road or independents, stand up and demand something different. he said it is hard because of the money both parties take in and spend.

how do you think raising a viable TP candidate becomes reality?
 
fair enough....but is using a gun the only option? what about those who have been wrongfully convicted, be it a bad jury or a prosecutor (deputy DA) carving another notch in his belt, should they draw a gun and protect their right to life, liberty and happiness?

that is all they have. law enforcement is not going to consider case by case whether they should arrest someone or not. they are going to enforce the laws they are ordered to enforce, despite the constitutionality of the laws or not. So if a sovereign citizen is going to be subjected to the tyranny of unconstitutional enforcement, they are left with two options......trusting to the wisdom of a jury or lethal force to safeguard their liberty. I have zero faith in the wisdom of those on juries due to the policies of courts and prosecutors.
 
how do you think raising a viable TP candidate becomes reality?
Realistically? There are two ways, I advocate both. The first is by electing third parties at the local and state level, where they are more likely to be successful. Second is to get people with third party views elected into one of the two major parties. Ron Paul is a very good example of this.
 
that is all they have. law enforcement is not going to consider case by case whether they should arrest someone or not. they are going to enforce the laws they are ordered to enforce, despite the constitutionality of the laws or not. So if a sovereign citizen is going to be subjected to the tyranny of unconstitutional enforcement, they are left with two options......trusting to the wisdom of a jury or lethal force to safeguard their liberty. I have zero faith in the wisdom of those on juries due to the policies of courts and prosecutors.

so you would go "out" with guns blazing? there are no other options? those guys did time, sometimes 30 years, had they gone out with guns ablaze, they would be dead.
 
so you would go "out" with guns blazing? there are no other options? those guys did time, sometimes 30 years, had they gone out with guns ablaze, they would be dead.

one has to consider, where would you be after 'doing your time'. you'd come out with few rights, less ability to pursue happiness, and handicapped by a criminal record you didn't deserve.

so, yes. it's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees. the only hope is to take out as many of them as possible before you're gone and hope that others follow your example. Remember, when government fears the people, there is liberty. When people fear the government, there is tyranny.
 
one has to consider, where would you be after 'doing your time'. you'd come out with few rights, less ability to pursue happiness, and handicapped by a criminal record you didn't deserve.

so, yes. it's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees. the only hope is to take out as many of them as possible before you're gone and hope that others follow your example. Remember, when government fears the people, there is liberty. When people fear the government, there is tyranny.

do you really believe that the innocent citizens who have done their time and finally, finally, been exonerated, did nothing but live on thier knees? i believe one guy recently from texas went home to his wife after decades of forced seperation. should he have died on his feet, instead of reuniting with his wife?

your last statement has catchy ring to it, however, fear from any side is dangerous. if the government fears its citizens, the government will become a tryant, if the citizens fear the government, they will become an insurgency. that is why our early founders adopted the second amendment. so that there would be a stand off, if you will....
 
Back
Top