It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 6
20
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by NeverApologize
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


Really? Attack my statement instead of posting vomit.
He may be a registered independent, since you refuse to say otherwise, but he is a Left Minded nutcase! It has been stated and proven. Sorry! Do not pass go!

edit on 12-1-2011 by NeverApologize because: (no reason given)


Stated and proven are two different things and I have yet to see any proof he was any kind of lefty other than one girl who says she knew him 4 years ago. Are you sitting on something?




posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 



Someone just lost credibility..

You posted a photoshopped image. Not just photoshopped, but obviously, poorly photo-shopped

Check the one that says "Behead those who insult Obamacare" Both Obamacare and SEIU were editted in.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
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?


No I do not
Violence is never the answer, it will only hurt the movement more than it will help it



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by trailertrash
Here is the deal and it is easily provable. Liberals are the ones who eschew violence. It is we who are anti-war. We are the ones who defend the little folk who get stomped on by the "system". It is we who still believe that the primary purpose of a free press is to safeguard our democracy by actively investigating and reporting to the public when anyone or any organization is found to be engaging in dishonest or illegal practices. Investigative journalism is what it is called.


Are you going to Vote for Obama in 2012?
Out of curiosity?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 



Violence is never the answer, it will only hurt the movement more than it will help it


Hurt "the movement".
What movement?

To what or which movement do you you refer?


edit on 1/12/2011 by ladyinwaiting because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
I think everyone needs to stop and read THIS THREAD by SkepticOverlord because this is how I feel about these back and forth arguments over whether Sara Palin or Obama is responsible for the shooting. It makes me want to rip my hair out and vomit on my screen how anyone with a brain can argue these points. Its the height of ignorance.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   
From what I understand Jared Lougners political affiliation, or even his exact "reason" for his actions has not been disclosed, or possibly even determined. Trying to read the tea leaves of his chance comments is painting a rather more complex political ideology than simple left/right partisan politics. I would be surprised however, if he fits the paradigm of either side even in the extreme. Arguing about whether he is liberal, conservative, marxist, or anarchist is pointless. I don't think he is going to fit in any of the nice neat boxes folks.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ararisq
I think everyone needs to stop and read THIS THREAD by SkepticOverlord because this is how I feel about these back and forth arguments over whether Sara Palin or Obama is responsible for the shooting. It makes me want to rip my hair out and vomit on my screen how anyone with a brain can argue these points. Its the height of ignorance.


Absolute truth, my friend. Good post.

You know, i was watching "Gran Torino" the other day. Eastwood takes the kid into the barber shop, and is explaining that there is a certain way that men speak to each other, and for him to observe. He then opens the door and Eastwood and the barber greet each other with a bunch of "guy talk" insults.

He then turns around and tells the kid "Your turn". The kid throws out his insult, and Eastwood and the Barber both feign anger, busting the kids chops a little i guess. Perhaps what the kid said was out of line in their minds...but the point is, he did was he was instructed to do by his elders, and then they threw a fit over it.

Same thing with this violence debate. One side made a living out of hating a president during the Bush years. Then, all of a sudden, they forget about their history and start talking like the core belief in their ideology is peace.

So then you get the "right" getting angry at the hypocrisy, and then the left turns that around to "why so sensisitve?"

You are correct. The whole argument is stupid. It represents a lack of honesty and pure madness on the part of The People. Abandon parties. If you want to join a party, join the "Bigfatfurrytexan Party". Our platform has 1 key point: think for yourself, make your own decisions, and be responsible for them on your own."



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
For those of you who think words are to blame for people's irrational actions, you need to move to another country.

For those that can't handle free speech go to a place where one persons opinion won't make you infringe upon the rights of another persons.

For those that believe that "words" are harmful, there are plenty of country's whose laws will not allow you to become psycho from others "words."

There's a reason this country is/was great. And it has nothing to do with limiting "words."

The problem now is that certain types of people can get away with blaming others, and sympathizers who believe the same way that person attempt to blame our freedoms on others actions.

If you are the type of person who believes like the type I've stated above, you're not a true American and your ideology is more fitting of another country.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
Guys.... You really need to stop responding to political trolls. Stop letting them draw you in. Divide and conquer has always been the plan, don't let the trolls deepen the divide.


Thanks for that reminder, TKDRL. I had all these "reasonable" responses and/or points I thought could be made or reinforced, but your post reminded me that there's nothing reasonable about this disscussion in the first place, at least not in the context of this thread.

Let's pause for a minute - do you really think the families of the victims are trying to "prove" with images - photoshopped or otherwise, which side of the political divide is to blame??

The practice of politics has lost all touch with humanity.


edit on 1/12/11 by sjrily because: typo



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
The inability for the " left leaning " to comprehend that the very same inflammatory remarks, could and should be used against them. I've reviewed the JPEGS that were input on this thread, Kill Bush, Kill Christians and so forth, and yet those who portray the Demoncrats in the same light, OH now we don't want to address that? There perfect little angels?
Avoidance much?

Laughable at best.
edit on 12-1-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 





I have recently become disgusted more than ever at the liberal media...


Remember WHO owns the Media. The Liberals are just the dupes of the bankster/Corporate Cartel. To bad they never seem to figure that out.


U.S. Congressional Record February 9, 1917: J.P. Morgan interests bought 25 of America's leading newspapers, and inserted their own editors, in order to control the media. www.mindfully.org...


JP Morgan: Our next big media player? (April 13, 2010) JP Morgan controls 54 U.S. daily newspapers,and owns 31 television stations. www.newsandtech.com...


Interlocking Directorates

Media corporations share members of the board of directors with a variety of other large corporations, including banks, investment companies, oil companies, health care and pharmaceutical companies and technology companies. This list shows board interlocks for the following major media interests:
www.fair.org...






posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 





I have recently become disgusted more than ever at the liberal media...


Remember WHO owns the Media. The Liberals are just the dupes of the bankster/Corporate Cartel. To bad they never seem to figure that out. :@@



I guess it is too bad that conservative politicians consistently side with the corporate entity or create new regulation/deregulation which allow for Trillions of theft??? Or the supreme court judges that constantly grant personage to corporations?

Our country was fiscally healthy before Reagan, the king corporatism set the new bar, so I suggest you examine who constantly greases the way for big business in a consistent fashion
You are the ideology of management, embrace it already!



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
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.


While both sides are involved in pretty insane use of symbolic violence during their rallies, I can't help but notice from the pictures already posted the the images and words used by the right are far less "symbolic" and more to the point, which is exactly the use of a firearm. The left can parade a model guillotine, an effigy of Bush being hanged etc, but the right are"on target" -- "If Brown can't stop it, browning can", "we came unarmed but see what happens next time", then there was that dude with AR-15 at a peaceful rally, and then there was a visit by a Republican governor to a hunters' club where he traded jokes how cool it would be if there was an official season and licenses to actually hunt Obama.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red
I guess it is too bad that conservative politicians consistently side with the corporate entity or create new regulation/deregulation which allow for Trillions of theft??? Or the supreme court judges that constantly grant personage to corporations?


This is just straight denial
Are you saying that lobbyists don't have Obama in their pocket?
What about all the massive bailouts that he forced upon the American people despite hundreds of protests?

"Too big to fail just means friends in high places" - Ron Paul



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Look, no one is directly saying Palin or Beck or whomever is responsible for what Loughner did. What is being said is that their violent rhetoric broadcasted to millions every day has created an atmosphere wherein those who listen to and agree with them are becoming bolder in their use of the same violent rhetoric. Its called conditioning. And more and more are being incited to violence because they are being led to believe their very freedom is at risk of being taken away by someone with an agenda to do so. In America, we are taught that we must defend our freedom even if it means taking up arms. How else could people be expected to act if they are led to believe these things?

Obviously Sarah did not cause this guy to kill 6 and injure 12. But NO ONE can deny that she and others have used this type of language implying or even overtly suggesting that guns should be used against those who disagree with them. People are furious over her complete lack of acknowledgment that her use of these kinds of "metaphors" and imagery is WRONG. The guy running against Giffords even has a rally inviting people to shoot his automatic weapon with him while asking supporters to help him remove her from office.

If they don't really mean they want her to be killed with a gun, what did they mean and why the hell did they use that specific terminology?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
When Tea Partiers have banners saying "Take Our Country Back" Liberals completely paint the extreme as if it MUST be a form of a militia rethoric that equates to a call to arms, as opposed to simply voting within a republic and bringing the country back to constitutionalism.


OK so these guys are only kidding?





Give me a break. When you make overt threats I think the message is quit simple to understand. Not blaming Palin directly mind you, but where ther's smoke there is usually fire.
The message is loud and clear.




I read the OPs...and was about to respond..then the seen this post and realized this thread was already over before it began...anything that came after it is simply the details of a flailing argument's death.

Nice post



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
then there was that dude with AR-15 at a peaceful rally,


Wait a minute...i can agree with some of what you are saying to a point. Mind you, you are still splitting hairs over what imagery and rhetoric is worse. It is a fully subjective conclusion you have arrived at, and one that is in contrast to quite a few people's own subjective conclusion.

But what is wrong with a citizen of the US deciding to lawfully and legally practice his right to bear arms?

Perhaps he is not making a statement at all. Perhaps he is. But is there a specific time and place that a citizen of the US should lawfully practice their rights so as to not be considered "provocative"?

If i am not mistaken, that happened in Arizona. There are a lot of guns carried around in Arizona. That guy is like several people..only sensationalized and politicized to drive the fear of the "right" among viewers.

On the way home today, here in West Texas, I saw 2 trucks with rifles in the back window. Am I to assume that they are intending a threat with the rifles? Or could it just be that they have a right, and leave it at that?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Keep in mind, regarding thread title, when I say Liberal New Years resolution I meant Liberal Media not every progressive in the country.

Also some, not all, elected officials, but mostly media even more than Dems.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
While both sides are involved in pretty insane use of symbolic violence during their rallies, I can't help but notice from the pictures already posted the the images and words used by the right are far less "symbolic" and more to the point, which is exactly the use of a firearm. The left can parade a model guillotine, an effigy of Bush being hanged etc, but the right are"on target" -- "If Brown can't stop it, browning can", "we came unarmed but see what happens next time", then there was that dude with AR-15 at a peaceful rally, and then there was a visit by a Republican governor to a hunters' club where he traded jokes how cool it would be if there was an official season and licenses to actually hunt Obama.


I have consistently stated the same that all walks of life engage in distasteful rhetoric at their rallies, but I am not sure that you can differentiate between "We came unarmed [this time]" from "...Kill Bush, Bomb his f___ing House" as not the same.

While all we can do is speculate and make assumptions to the intent of both slogans and those that made them, the message is the same, political dissent. My stance here, as else where is that political dissent, no matter how distasteful it is to you or me, is and should remain protected. The persons who made those signs did not engage in the acts, yet people have been quick to levy the blame square on one side or the other.

It has gotten so to the point that logic no longer has any place in this debate or discussion because people are acting like sports fans. For sides that don't really care one way or another how they root except for the money they bring in. My shouting from a soapbox will serve no politician anymore than the rabid fan who gets heated because a person that likes the other team is sitting next to them.




top topics



 
20
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join