Liberal New Years Resolution:: We Must Become The Scum Of Society and Promote That Jared Loughner I

reply to post by kinda kurious


You are engaging in chicanery for no other purpose to maintain an argument that really isn't all that clear. You have shown your cards, with the post with the pictures. When refuted and confronted with evidence that all walks of life engage in the same acts, you claim that you don't wish to engage in a tit-for-tat. This is where your trickery comes in.

You have no intent in discussing the topic. To debate and critically think about how to come to a point of understanding between yourself and other posters. Instead, you maintain the facade and only respond with other moments of political outrage. Which is relevant to this OP's ideas presented, you again dodge and disengage as if others' counter arguments are of no merit.

It is that which has led me to believe that you have no intent than to engage in civil discourse. You continue with the hit pieces that serve no argument other than maintaining the chicanery you have built upon since your first response. Unable to even recognize that the rhetoric, as ugly as it may be, resides every where. Left, right, black, white, young and old. Rich and poor. Yet, in your mind or in your agenda, you continue to deny to even understand that you just are maintaining some silly little game that you have yourself all proud over.

You want to see the problem? Look in a mirror. Ask yourself if you can have a discussion with someone without dragging a political jab into it. Ask yourself if you can disagree yet maintain the engagement to understand the whole of the argument.

You continue to attack the smallest and weakest points presented to you, which creates a straw-man every time yet fail to be able to take on the larger and harder arguments to break. That is not a sign of someone who researches nor studies all sides of the debate. That is a lessor path that those with weak arguments take knowing that they have been beaten.

Round and round we shall continue though.

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Nontheless you have only responded to ONE of the images I posted
One and Only one, why don't you reply about the other images?

LOL if I take a swig of milk and it is spoiled, I don't need to drink the entire carton to be sure.

If you were duped it makes me question your sources/validity of the others.

Now, i know you from around the boards. Knowing you, i know that you generally seem to lean a little left, if i recall correctly. And that is cool. I have some rather liberal bents myself.

However, i have to ask if you are not being a little prejudice here. You mock the OP for his "tit for tat" methodology, yet that seems to be what you are doing to him...and then just shrugging off his "tit" when presenting your "tat", as if it didn't exist.

Surely you have to admit that there is inflammatory rhetoric coming from both sides of the aisle, and that the "hot button" pundits of both ideologies say things repeatedly that are far out of line, right? I mean, you can't really believe that this inflammatory rhetoric meme thing is only in the Tea Party, right?

Have you ever considered that those "Tea Party Whacko's" only ramped up there rhetoric in response to the way Bush was treated? No, it isn't any better that they stooped to that level...but they certainly didn't write the book on it, either.

I think if you could just acknowledge that there is a streak of crazy in all political ideologies, it might go a long way to toning down the emotions in this thread. I mean, that is the one thing both sides should be able to find agreement on.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Wow and you were able to assess my entire persona from a few posts in a discussion forum? You are good. I have spent many years on my path of enlightenment and work on self enrichment daily in addition to my years of sobriety and progress as a recovering substance abuser. But now due to your pervasive powers to analyze me from a few passionate posts on a Conspiracy Forum, I suppose I need no longer strive for self improvement and further awakening. If I know anything, it is about denial and I have to work on that constantly.

You know nothing of me nor my virtues so I suggest you drop your Junior Sigmund Freud module off at the shop for a tune up. As a reminder, the headline of this thread is:

Liberal New Years Resolution:: We Must Become The Scum Of Society and Promote That Jared Loughner

Not exactly a Mensa topic. If I'm guilty of anything it is responding to your wholesale judgement of me while casting blind aspersions. It is my privilege, duty and right as a member here to voice my opinion in any manner I choose within T&C. Your failed attempt at character assassination only inspires me further. Bring it.

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
You seem to believe that violence is in the blood of right-wingers and lefties are incapable of it

I wonder why on earth I would think that?

no don't just respond to this statement, respond to all of the above and the other images I posted!!

I'm not sure why you and the little drummer boy keep barking out orders at me, but I suggest you try another tree.

These aren't "thugs." These men were trying to protect Rand Paul from someone who might be a potential assassin. She was there in disguise with a blonde wig on. There was ONE guy there that overstepped the boundaries of decency by putting his foot on that woman's head. That was totally unnecessary and inexcusable. He was stopped by the other Rand Paul supporters from going further. In any case, he was chastised and banned from the Rand Paul rallies.

There's far worse from the Left.

SeaWind

Originally posted by SeaWind
There's far worse from the Left.

Any examples are appreciated.

Thanks.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
However, i have to ask if you are not being a little prejudice here. You mock the OP for his "tit for tat" methodology, yet that seems to be what you are doing to him...and then just shrugging off his "tit" when presenting your "tat", as if it didn't exist.

I concede it was a weak defense. No excuses.

Wish I could have framed my argument a little better.

reply to post by Jenna


Yeah...guess it is that time...oh wait...it never stops here lately. I was going to call this high-school behaviour, but then realized it would probably be an insult to even most first graders to liken their actions to what's going on with some people in this country. I know we can be better that this. It's really beginning to seem like some people don't want to though..

The mentally ill shooter listed himself as "independent" on his voter registration, according to CNN.

Independently insane and homicidal, as we see.

Can't we just leave it at that?

Once again, you didn't even address the points of argument. I never once claimed to assess your entire persona, rather I detailing your actions and responses specifically to this post. I never once claimed to know your virtues nor will I even guess. It is not in my power to do so and is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

The topic and the manner in which it was presented in the OP is something I disagree with. Not entirely in substance, but in the manner in which it was presented.

I have not engaged in character assassination. I have questioned the entirety of your postings here, in this post and no where else, to be shown nothing of discussion, but rather quite the opposite. I have made no mention to your persons nor called for or mentioned you are out of line. I have not disparaged your privileged to engage your opinion, just as I have engaged my own.

---------------------
Nice and clear:

What purpose does your continued blind following of that you have presented here and now serve? Why do you not acknowledge that those on both sides have actively engaged in equally idiotic rhetorical statements? How does posting pictures and then denying the others that refute your pictures and stance serve to strengthen your stance?

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by SeaWind
There's far worse from the Left.

Any examples are appreciated.

Thanks.

edit on 11-1-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)

There are so many examples. One of the best was a video taken during the 2008 presidential campaign where a Black Conservative was beaten up by White Union thugs. Video was very clear, but it's disappeared.

Here's a more recent one where a Black Conservative selling flags & buttons at a Tea Party rally is beaten up by four Union men:

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Too many youtube videos on this topic to list here.

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/159487a9f269.jpg[/atsimg]

Dude you've been pwnd. That has got to be the worst photoshop job I have EVER seen. The 'font' doesn't even resemble the hand written sign.

Back on Topic:

Rather telling that you start a thread that lambasts your political rivals as hypocrites and yet resort to tit for tat to my visual examples related to your topic with imagery that is not.

edit on 11-1-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)

Yup. You don't even have to take a second look.

And with all due respect to the OP, I don't believe this is a war on the Tea Party, though the Tea Party may be promoting it as such.

At this point it looks like the "trigger" was Jared's unanswered question to Giffords: "What is government if words have no meaning?"

The shooter is a fruit cake, and yes, the ENTIRE COUNTRY needs to tone down this INSANE rhetoric. Do the two have anything to do with each other? What difference does it make? Is rhetoric an excuse for murder? Of course not! If rhetoric had nothing to do with this does that mean we shouldn't worry about being more responsible? I hope not...

Words DO have meaning - in or out of the political arena.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
What purpose does your continued blind following of that you have presented here and now serve? Why do you not acknowledge that those on both sides have actively engaged in equally idiotic rhetorical statements? How does posting pictures and then denying the others that refute your pictures and stance serve to strengthen your stance?

Since you seem to enjoy generalizations. Lets just say there are two political parties, Party A and Party B. Each with two distinctive sets of traits.

Party A tends to be:

Peace loving / Anti war / Non violent / Pacifists
Environmentally sensitive
Spiritual rather than religious but open to all forms of religion
Sympathetic to Foreigners coming to America in search of a better way of life
Embrace the concept of paying their fair share for education, parks, arts and culture
Believe that the purpose of government is for the greater good of society

Party B tends to be:

Ethnocentristic
Pro war / Pro Corporations
Refuse to believe mankind is responsible for climate change.
Religious but intolerant of non evangelical-Christian beliefs
Greedy desiring to be exempt from taxes, shirks paying fair share
Anti-Immigrant / Anti-government

Without mentioning any names, I tend to align with Party A, how about you? Which of the above do you think is more likely to inspire violence?

At the start of an investigation, what appears to be a good lead may have little/no connection to the incident. I think this is what happened with this tragedy, in an attempt to make sense of it all, to find a motive. A politician who had been in cross hairs on a map, gunned down perhaps by someone using a "2cd amendment remedy", and so the lead was followed.

What can be no doubt now is the severe mental illness of the shooter. Motive will be explored, necessitating dealing with his twisted thoughts feeding on anger. While the investigation will continue to sniff out leads to motive, several areas for public discussion have already arisen because of this tragedy. Uncivil political discourse, status of civilian firearms/ammunition and purchasers, confronting how best to understand and handle mental illness.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
that is the one thing both sides should be able to find agreement on.

Indeed. A truce is in order.

Instead of the Home of the Brave, we have been made to become fearful, which leads to anger and separation from the very things that we need to be brave and hold it all together, each other..

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Party A tends to be:

Peace loving / Anti war / Non violent / Pacifists

Anti-War
So now that a Dem is in power where is the Anti-War movement?
Obama increased military budget by 11%
There are also many threads here where obama supporters beat up conservatives during the elections

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Environmentally sensitive

Environmentally sensitive?
Monsanto has Obama in their pocket, look who Obama put as Food Czar
Also Obama told all coast guards to limit press coverage of the BP Spill
Obama also didn't allow an in-dept investigation against the Oil Spill
Liberals completely ignore this!

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Sympathetic to Foreigners coming to America in search of a better way of life

Many liberals detest India and outsourcing jobs to India rather than hating the corporations that outsource

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Embrace the concept of paying their fair share for education, parks, arts and culture

Pshhhh
Here's some learning points
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Being kindhearted is great, being intelligent is better for society overall!

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Believe that the purpose of government is for the greater good of society

Yes, there's absolutely no evidence that Govt. is not for the greater good of society
Saints, all of them saints
Politicians are saints

Politicians are for the greater good of society as long as you do not look at their voting records

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Party B tends to be:

Ethnocentristic

Aren't you being partisancentrisic?

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Pro war / Pro Corporations

The left has given up on the anti-war movement now that a Dem is in power
The Tea Party however has not!

Pro Corporations?
You mean pro Free-Market? Pro Competition?
Massive Difference!

Perhaps you meant to have this in the other party description with all the massive bailouts

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Refuse to believe mankind is responsible for climate change.

Do some research on what is happening on other planets other than Earth

Many liberals love wikileaks
What did Wikileaks release again regarding climate change?

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Religious but intolerant of non evangelical-Christian beliefs

Quite the generalization

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Greedy desiring to be exempt from taxes, shirks paying fair share

I agree with you if you believe religious institutions should not be tax exempt
aside from that most tax money goes towards spying on you, wars, more regulations, prison industrial complex

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Anti-Immigrant / Anti-government

When you say Anti-Govt. do you mean pro govt.?
I mean doesn't believing that to restore the govt. to the true role of govt. equate to being pro-govt.?
If one believes that Govt. should limit itself to it's true role and what it was intended to do isn't that being pro govt.?

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Without mentioning any names, I tend to align with Party A, how about you?

Oh my apologies, you didn't mention any names

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
What they are basically saying is that Jared Loughner is innocent however Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and every member of the Tea Party are the ones who pulled the trigger.

That simply put is a falsehood. I have listened to NPR, MSNBC and a few others almost exclusively since the Tucson Massacre and one thing I keep hearing from them over and over is that Sarah Palin et al are NOT responsible for Loughner's actions. What they are saying is that the vitriolic political rhetoric of the GOP, the Tea Parties and all the other right-wing fringe groups has got to stop because it might spur a lonewolf like Loughner to violent action. They are also calling for expanded gun control laws such as outlawing high capacity magazines like the one Loughner used. And they are also apologizing. Yes. Apologizing for anything which they may have said in the past which might have contributed to the violent rhetoric which is destabilizing our nation and our system of government. Something which I have not heard from any of the so-called "patriots" on the right.

And why would the right apologize for their treasonous threats of armed insurection? How many of them when they heard the first news about the "assassination" thought it was the first shots of their hoped for revolution? They actually thought or hoped Loughner was one of them - that is until the full horror and depravity of his crimes that day became apparent and then they quickly washed their hands of him. "He m-m-must be a liberal!" they say. Interesting, to say the least.

reply to post by Lilitu



First, to be fair and honest, the vitriolic hate speech really began with the liberals when they wanted Bush dead. It was everywhere. It is what made me defend Bush. Not because i liked him, but because the hate was so strong as to make me ill. It is funny how the liberal news shows completely miss that point, and take the opportunity to disgustingly politicize this as a "right wing" issue. As Modern Academia said, they are blaming an ideology that the shooter had nothing to do with.

And armed insurrection is not treasonous. It is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. How can it be treasonous when it was written into our Constitution?

Perhaps your misunderstanding of the two above realities could indicate a need to rethink?

reply to post by ModernAcademia


I've got a question for you here, in light of your OP concerning the unfair treatment of the rightwing. Do you feel that there is justification for removing all democrats who supported the healthcare bill from office through violent means? Do you think violence is acceptable to stopping what you see as an unconstitutional government?

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
reply to post by kinda kurious

 

I don't know if they are kidding, but tell me something

Are these people kidding?

No - but these images you show are outliers...

The TEA party and the like had events attended by millions of people collectively and the movement and the rhetoric was extremely publicized and mainstream. Surely that idiot is to blame and surely the talking corporate shills ala Palin, Beck, Oxyblob were very successful at spreading violent sounding vitriol into the public square.
You seem to think one negates the other fact, unfortunately both things can exist separately... I WILL say that I believe the violent sounding stuff was just "good marketing", or intentional rhetoric intended to motivate and piss off the conservative base, NOT to create a climate rich in terrorism, murder or civil war

Socialist, tyrants, trees of liberty, rattlesnakes and guns - in this regard OP would be disingenuous to overlook
the campaign and the manner of marketing used to instate a GOP comeback. The difference is the reach and sway these pundants have, the amount of people they influence makes their approach, for profit; piss poor and ignorant. Advertisers, P.A.C, tour buses and an entire TV station dedicated (the 2nd most popular in the US?)

responsibility is mutually inclusive or it is just a talking point based upon the one who wants to point it out?

Lets be honest - it did get you the HOUSE didn't it?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a6efefd7f3b7.jpg[/atsimg]

When it comes to the political rhetoric coming from both sides they are responsible for the atmosphere that they have created they don't want nor are their backers interested in "civil discourse."polite discussion does not fire up the bases of either party.It's bread and circuses that bring in the money.