reply to post by OutKast Searcher
You know it is interesting to me, my friend, that you actually believe the full text quoted of Doc's doesn't sound any better than what the ADL
quoted out of context, and of course, that post of Doc's is clearly out of context when you read the first sentence of that post:
Not quite sure who you're talking about here...
Obviously, to anyone who would read the entirety of that post, it is clear that it is a post in reply to another, and indicative of a conversation
happening between he and another, but what the ADL quoted:
When you start talking about terrorists imposing their will on our nation,” explained “Doc Velocity” on the Above Top Secret forums on March 24,
“you must realize that Congressional Democrats are the terrorists who in no way represent the MAJORITY of the American People.
Has no context to it at all and appears as if he has an unexplained revulsion for Congressional Democrats. Yet his entire post:
Not quite sure who you're talking about here... You mean the MAJORITY of Americans who definitely oppose the bill, or the handful of politicians in
Washington who FORCED this unconstitutional piece of legislation down the throats of the American people against their will?
When you start talking about terrorists imposing their will on our nation, you must realize that Congressional Democrats ARE the terrorists who in no
way represent the MAJORITY of the American People.
America didn't ask for this sort of "change"... And it's highly unlikely that Obama would have even been elected if he had admitted, during his
campaign, that "Change" included forcing every American to purchase health care under penalty of law. That, my liberal friend, is called
While still out of context, explains exactly what his revulsion with Congressional Democrats is, and it is the FORCED health care legislation. I am
not typing FORCED in all caps because Doc did as much as it is clear why Doc did so. Doc is no idiot by any stretch of the imagination, and his use
of caps for the word FORCED is not so subtle, but a nuance that should not be ignored.
He is not placing that word in caps because he is being histrionic, he is making clear that if the federal government intends to enforce this
legislation, it will be done so through FORCE. In this context, and further in the context of a site that by and large has serious problems in the
way the word "terrorist" is being used so loosely by the government lately, it is not so hard to understand Doc's point, and recognize the irony he
If it is okay for the government to expand their usage of the word "terrorist" then why should one of the holders of the inherent political power in
this country be expected to refrain from the same thing? Not that Doc is in favor of expanding the definition of terrorism, and I don't know really,
but my guess is that he is not, and is using irony to communicate his point. Just as Maxmar's pointed out below your post:
I wonder, was the estate of Salinger ever sued or tried for the words he wrote purportedly 'causing' violence?
I don't know if Salinger was ever sued for his brilliant A Cathcer in the Rye
, but I know that he stopped writing shortly afterward, as if
committing suicide of the heart and soul, and while I was very fortunate to have read this book while in High School, and I don't believe it was
banned from school, it certainly was never on any list of required reading, not in the library, and never spoke of while I was in school, by my
I say I was fortunate to have read it in high school, because Holden Caufield represented an iconic figure who had dared to suffer through that angst
filled time of tumult known as adolescence in a way I wholly related to...well, not that I had a nervous break down or anything, but I had baby
sisters of whom I reveled in their innocence, while I myself the oldest, struggled to deal with a broken family of alcoholic parents, in a world more
confusing than I could ever hope to understand at that age, and for all of Holden's profanities and muttering threats to kill this person and that
thing, he was a man child who lamented the loss of innocence while finding his adulthood.
My point is, that booked helped me get through some tough times, and yet, in many places, this great piece of literature has and does face banning and
even book burning and now in this modern age where terms such as "hate speech" are bandied about as if the utterances of Holden, Doc, and Boondock
are spoken of as if they are criminal, we are marching ever closer to thought crimes. What a travesty indeed, that the subtlety and nuance of
language is expected by a militant PC crowd to be whitewashed and neutered to meet the expectations of ideologues who have more than a difficult time
expressing what it is they actually believe in.
Call me crazy...but that sounds like a direct threat of violence towards "DC".
You make this remark about Boondock's quote in its entirety, which is:
DC is still not listening
I think I remember an old adage from long ago,
can't remember where I heard it or who said it,
maybe somebody here can help with the source
but it went something like this:
If a man won't change his ideals with words
then you change his mind with a bullet
maybe dialogue from a movie
"go tell the spartans" comes to mind but can't be sure
Outkast, if I thought you were crazy, I wouldn't even bother to post this and appeal to your sanity, but that interpretation is crazy. That post,
taken only in that context, could just as easily be interpreted as a lament that DC is willing to change minds with bullets rather than through
discourse, and given the federal governments willingness to fight wars in perpetuity, given our most recent Presidents endorsement of assassinating
political opponents, and given Go Tell the Spartans is a book and film about he Vietnam war and the American soldiers who were first sent there, I
would be inclined to make the interpretation I just offered.
But, I couldn't be sure, only reading that post alone and out of context, however, you felt compelled to post yet another "damning" post of
Boondocks which was:
there are also some who post here that would just love
to throw a brick thru a window, or show up in DC and protest
but do not have the physical capabilities to do so. Some even sit
in wheelchairs or use crutches to get around and/or totally
disabled. Those folks rely solely on somebody else to do their
bidding for them. Sitting behind a screen and stating their
minds is the ONLY recourse those folks have. But they would
be in the fringe if they could. How else is their voice gonna
be heard??? Their mind still works even if their bodies do not.
So tread very lightly when even considering calling those type
folks cowards. For some, it was valor in war that put them in those
Your response to this is:
That clearly says to me that he would like to go throw some bricks through a window in DC.
This is nothing more than reactionary histrionics on your part based upon Boondocks much more subtle grumblings. Given it is prose is it so hard to
imagine his use of the phrase "throw a brick thru a window" is metaphorical outrage? Are metaphor's and similes no longer allowed in this day and
age of "anti defamation" and punishment for hate speech?
If Boondock were an author, (and of course, being in this site posting regularly, he is indeed one), and I were a teacher and you were my student
writing a report of Boondock's writing as literary exercise, your summation would compel me to ask you to go back and read that post again. There is
a very real and quantifiable character that has been described in that post, and if you need it explained to you now, that the character in that post
is disabled, and likely so, due to injury from war fought in the name of country, who is lamenting his disability and attempting to reconcile it with
his actions as a poster, then of course, if I were your teacher, there would be much work to be done on my part, to somehow teach you how effective
subtlety and nuance can be when speaking to the human condition.
I have read many posts by Boondock, but that post in particular I had never read until you quoted it, (and thank for doing so), and it is, quite
frankly, a very poignant and wistful piece of prose worthy of admiration. To reduce it down to a threat to throw bricks in D.C.'s windows, is to
miss the entire point of that post, and my experience with you is that you are much, much, much, more intelligent than that, my friend.