View Thread

Atheists Today » Easy Reading » The Lounge
Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 Print Thread
Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shot.
seeker
Kowboy wrote:
seeker:

Please, what point have you proven? I'm not getting it. Please make it easy for me to understand. Something like "I've made the point that xxxxxx, and I've proven it by yyyyyy."

Thanks.


kowboy - LOL, so now you are begging me to brag about how well this discussion has gone for me? Okay

1.) You said:

I tried to find some examples of elected Democrats threatening Republicans but didn't have any luck. Then I tried to find some examples of elected Republicans threatening Democrats and surprise, surprise, had no luck with that either.


I then listed specific examples of Republicans talking about killing Bill Clinton (Rep James Hanson), John Walker (Ann Coulter who, while not a politician, happened to be addressing Republican politicians at the Conservative Political Action Conference, 02-26-02), the Human Relations Commission (Jerry Duncan), Tim Russert (Rep. Peter King), President Barrack Obama (many but the example I cited was made by Trent Franks) and others.

2.) I also included examples of guys like Stephen Broden, Richard Behney and Rick Barber calling for armed insurrection.

3.) I presented several articles and discussions debunking the myth that there is equvalent rhetoric coming from the other side of the political spectrum. Those included this and this

4.) I also included the Homeland Security Report which specifically warns of an increase in right wing rhetoric leading to a rise in right wing violence.

Regardless of your denials I have shown clear evidence that my initial point, that some violence against Democrats was likely given the over the top rhetoric Republicans have been using, is valid.

Your offer has purely been apologetics. Let's be clear, when Bachman talks about making her constituents 'armed and dangerous' that is a simple analogy but cloaked as it is in the language of revolution and with her representations of government as tyrannical and Democrats as treasonous you have to carefully parse her words to take away anything but a call to violence. That is the great problem here.

The best analogy is to the OT. Christians will try to tell you that when the 'loving god' orders the heads of babies dashed against the rocks that he isn't being cruel or that when he orfers the various genocides he orders it is a, somehow, act of kindness. Pretending that those are not violent acts being called for is simply willful ignorance just as pretending Republican calls to kill, revolt etc are not calls to violence.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
 
Kowboy
seeker:

I just wanted to be sure you really thought you had connected the dots between violent rhetoric and violent action. You have not in the least.

Don't believe me? Perhaps you'll believe a friend of the alleged Arizona gunman:

"Osler flatly rejects the theory that the killer was driven by the political rhetoric found on cable news and AM radio. Loughner, he says,
did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn't listen to political radio. He didn't take sides. He wasn't on the left. He wasn't on the right."

http://reason.com...e-assassin

P.S.:

I have sympathy for the mentally ill and unlike you will not exploit them even when they threaten Republicans and Tea Partiers with death, so I won't be playing tit-for-tat with you:

http://www.outsid...discourse/
Edited by Kowboy on 01/16/2011 23:03
 
Kowboy
seeker:

You're right. The left would never advocate the murder of those with whom it disagrees:

http://www.youtub...r_embedded
 
seeker
Kowboy wrote:
seeker:

I just wanted to be sure you really thought you had connected the dots between violent rhetoric and violent action. You have not in the least.

Don't believe me? Perhaps you'll believe a friend of the alleged Arizona gunman:

"Osler flatly rejects the theory that the killer was driven by the political rhetoric found on cable news and AM radio. Loughner, he says,
did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn't listen to political radio. He didn't take sides. He wasn't on the left. He wasn't on the right."

http://reason.com...e-assassin


First off your article contradicts itself. It starts with Loughner's friend claiming that Loughner was not political then goes on to speculate that he was influenced by the conspiracy film Zeitgeist. One of the film Zeistgeist's central claims is that Federal Income Tax is illegal. It really is a very political movie

Secondly words do have consequences

Kowboy wrote:P.S.:

I have sympathy for the mentally ill and unlike you will not exploit them even when they threaten Republicans and Tea Partiers with death, so I won't be playing tit-for-tat with you:

http://www.outsid...discourse/


Of course the other part of the reason is that you are completely unable to go tit for tat as you have neither tits or the ability to tat.

You are trying to compare a guy who took a photo to a guy who shot people. More importantly though this discussion is about the rhetoric and who is pushing the violence. Once again you are trying to defend a Republican Party whose steady calls for violence were bound to result in violence.

Kowboy wrote:
seeker:

You're right. The left would never advocate the murder of those with whom it disagrees:

http://www.youtub...r_embedded


LOL, here is the HUGE difference, the organization involved recognized and apologized for their error instead of becoming defensive and trying to deny reality.
Edited by seeker on 01/18/2011 13:16
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
 
seeker
kowboy - A couple more points to consider here.

While you hide your head in the sand this is what people in Arizona are experiencing, note these are people in the Republican Party. Here is another view.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
 
Kowboy
seeker:

I read this and immediately thought of you:

http://www.weekly...41422.html
 
JohnH
I will not speak for Seeker but I will speak for my two sons. Do not assume that liberals (and I am far to the left of liberals in this country) are into control. There is a difference between control and reasonable protection of the public weal.

My children will not be thwarted by me or any other person. They will be protected from violence but I am forced to accept the help of others to do that.

It is the form of this protection that I must be concerned with. I do not like the idea of the State being required to preform this function. Currently it is the only choice.
Edited by JohnH on 02/11/2011 17:31
 
Bob of QF
Kowboy wrote:
seeker:

I read this and immediately thought of you:

http://www.weekly...41422.html


The weekly standard?

Oh. My.

That paper is so far to the right, it would consider "Hitler" to be moderate.... !

Is it surprising that such an out-of-touch rag would be so unreasonable?
Edited by Bob of QF on 02/11/2011 17:59
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
seeker
Kowboy wrote:
seeker:

I read this and immediately thought of you:

http://www.weekly...41422.html


I'm only worried about when public figures incite violence. You are welcome to stockpile young men all you like.
Edited by seeker on 02/11/2011 18:09
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
 
seeker
Tell you what, there is a simple experiment we could do to prove my point. Let's put you in jail and then have the guards spread a rumor that you area pedophile and see what happens. According to your theory nothing should happen, right?
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
 
seeker
This is why people who advocate violence have no place in politics.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
 
Bob of QF
seeker wrote:
This is why people who advocate violence have no place in politics.


Good find.

If that hate-legislation passes, it would be just one step to add a clause "protecting children's right to believe in gawd", making it legal to kill nonbelievers, who's words might be heard by minors.
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
Jump to Forum:

Similar Threads

Thread Forum Replies Last Post
Anti-Immigration Arizona Law Backfires U.S. Politics 4 05/23/2010 16:23
Arizona Immigration Bill U.S. Politics 14 05/12/2010 14:39
Arizona Sweat Lodge Deaths Other religions, sects and cults 6 10/24/2009 15:31