Guns, homicides, and Sarah Palin -- Discuss (FSZ)
Quote: EvenBobWhat a pantload of stereotypical nonsense. Of course MKL said it, who else..
Thoughts you don't agree with aren't "nonsense", Bob. They're thoughts you don't agree with.
Though I should note, if a conservative hears or reads something he doesn't agree with, he calls it "nonsense". Conservatives brook no disagreement. That's why one shot nineteen people and killed six of them earlier today in Tucson.
Quote: wgcatlgaGuess it's not difficult to determine how you vote...
Actually, you would probably guess wrong.
Quote: mkl654321Thoughts you don't agree with aren't "nonsense", Bob. They're thoughts you don't agree with.
So you don't think all the nonsense was stereotypical? Sure you do, but you wrote it, so it gets an exemption. Not..
Quote: EvenBobSo you don't think all the nonsense was stereotypical? Sure you do, but you wrote it, so it gets an exemption. Not..
Didn't say it wasn't "stereotypical". Bob. It was deliberately so; it was tongue-in-cheek; you seem to have missed that, and taken it absolutely literally.
Sigh. Conservatives have no sense of humor.....
Quote: mkl654321Didn't say it wasn't "stereotypical". Bob. It was deliberately so;..
How entertaining. Yawn..
Quote: EvenBobHow entertaining. Yawn..
My goal, Bob, believe it or not, was not to entertain you.
Quote: mkl654321My goal, Bob, believe it or not, was not to entertain you.
And you did a crackerjack job of it..
Quote: mkl654321Conservatives brook no disagreement.
That's why one shot nineteen people and killed six of them earlier today in Tucson.
Please back this up with facts. The guy that did this looks like a certifiable loon.
I was going to start a poll on how long it would take someone to claim conservatives were responsible, but I knew it would not take long for someone to expose themselves.
If we follow your thought process, then the nutcase Ted Kacinski was a tool of the liberals.
You seem to be full of animosity towards people that think differently than you. Perhaps you could comment on the fact that conservatives are much more generous with charitable contributions than liberals. If you choose to respond, please site facts and studies that show that conservatives are the evil people you claim them to be.
Quote: timberjimPlease back this up with facts. The guy that did this looks like a certifiable loon.
I was going to start a poll on how long it would take someone to claim conservatives were responsible, but I knew it would not take long for someone to expose themselves.
If we follow your thought process, then the nutcase Ted Kacinski was a tool of the liberals.
You seem to be full of animosity towards people that think differently than you. Perhaps you could comment on the fact that conservatives are much more generous with charitable contributions than liberals. If you choose to respond, please site facts and studies that show that conservatives are the evil people you claim them to be.
MKL is proving what I knew would be the reaction of liberals to the shooting, namely that it is all the fault of conservatism. Had the guy been a muslim people like MKL would be saying how we need to "be sure we blame the guy as an individual" and "islam is still a religion of 'peace.'"
We should have a poll on how long it is going to take Obama to want to ban more gun purchases because of this. After Columbine Clinton took about 3 days to want to shut down a form of gun purchases.
No-one knows the shooters motivations yet. Or if they do, The Arizona police might like a word. I think its in very poor taste to be accusing people of being like the gun man so soon after the tragedy. Six people are dead.
Quote: thecesspitExcept, Mkl isn't a liberal as far as I know. He's more of a libertarian...
No-one knows the shooters motivations yet. Or if they do, The Arizona police might like a word. I think its in very poor taste to be accusing people of being like the gun man so soon after the tragedy. Six people are dead.
It is in very poor taste, but watch it happen.
Sunday shows start about 10 mins from when I am writing this so I will see how the left plays it. Hopefully they act like adults and have class.
Quote: timberjimPlease back this up with facts. The guy that did this looks like a certifiable loon.
I was going to start a poll on how long it would take someone to claim conservatives were responsible, but I knew it would not take long for someone to expose themselves.
If we follow your thought process, then the nutcase Ted Kacinski was a tool of the liberals.
You seem to be full of animosity towards people that think differently than you. Perhaps you could comment on the fact that conservatives are much more generous with charitable contributions than liberals. If you choose to respond, please site facts and studies that show that conservatives are the evil people you claim them to be.
Sarah Palin's adorable little "gunsight crosshairs" map of "targets" in the 2010 elections would be a good start.
Also, the congresswoman who was shot--her office was vandalized not long after she voted on the health care bill.
Arizona has recently been the site of a LOT of conservative jumping up and down and screaming. They've regressed as a society by a few hundred years, in terms of p[olitical discourse. And I say that as personally neither a liberal nor a conservative. Read some of the letters to the editor in the Phoenix or Tucson papers if you don't believe me.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt is in very poor taste, but watch it happen.
Sunday shows start about 10 mins from when I am writing this so I will see how the left plays it. Hopefully they act like adults and have class.
The Pima county sheriff blamed the incident on the "vitriol" of recent public debate and political conflict. I don't think he was in poor taste; I don't think he was wrong, either. As a society, we are far too inclined to solve problems/air grievances with violence.
Quote: AZDuffmanMKL is proving what I knew would be the reaction of liberals to the shooting, namely that it is all the fault of conservatism. Had the guy been a muslim people like MKL would be saying how we need to "be sure we blame the guy as an individual" and "islam is still a religion of 'peace.'"
We should have a poll on how long it is going to take Obama to want to ban more gun purchases because of this. After Columbine Clinton took about 3 days to want to shut down a form of gun purchases.
Nope. I would say it is the result of Islamic extremism.
I am SOOOO curious to know why conservative, Christian, right-wing extremism is OK but other extremism isn't. I get the unmistakable impression that Bible-Belt conservatives don't object to regimes like Iran or Saudi Arabia--quite the contrary. The only trouble with those authoritarian regimes is that their god is "wrong".
Be that as it may, neither I nor anyone else said it was the fault of conservatism per se--it is the fault of the shrill, angry, vitriolic, and yes, violent atmosphere that conservatives have recently created.
And as far as gun control goes--that's a shibboleth of the conservative right. Anyone with a passing comprehension of the Second Amendment knows that it does NOT guarantee the "right" to personal gun ownership--I can't believe that anyone could ignore the dependent clause in that amendment, as well as the distinction between "the people" and "a person". Of course, conservatives argue that the "right" to wake up in the middle of the night, grab yer shootin' iron, and heroically blow away that intruder (who is actually the neighbor's cat) is worth the occasional nutjob losing it and blowing away a couple of dozen people.
Quote: timberjimYou seem to be full of animosity towards people that think differently than you. Perhaps you could comment on the fact that conservatives are much more generous with charitable contributions than liberals. If you choose to respond, please site facts and studies that show that conservatives are the evil people you claim them to be.
I'm full of animosity toward extremism and ideological thinking. Conservative OR liberal.
My comment on the statistic you quote (let's assume you're correct about that) is that most of conservatives' charitable contributions go toward organized religion, a social institution that does active harm to society. They advocate a belief system that is not only false, but destructive, and the major source of human conflict over the past three millenia. So I don't give conservatives any brownie points there.
I also never said that conservatives are "evil". In fact, I agree with many conservative tenets. What I do object to is how rigid and doctrinaire many conservatives have become. I also think that the conservative movement has been largely responsible for the polarizing of American politics, as well as its present gross incivility. I for one oppose Obama, and think he's a terrible President, but I cannot countenance the things currently being said about him, nor the conservatives' single-minded agenda of reflexively opposing him, to the exclusion of all other issues.
Way to go guys! You've killed yet another thread with your continual arguing and off-topic debates! Now I remember why I minimized my visits.
CAN WE PLEASE TRY TO STAY ON TOPIC?!?!?!?!?! If you want to argue about conservatives versus liberals, start a new thread for it, okay? If you want to talk about abortion, start a new thread! THIS THREAD IS ABOUT SMOKING VS NON-SMOKING LAWS AND THEIR IMPACT ON CASINOS!
Sorry about yelling there, but sometimes you have to scream louder than the children to get their attention!
Quote: mkl654321Sarah Palin's adorable little "gunsight crosshairs" map of "targets" in the 2010 elections would be a good start.
Also, the congresswoman who was shot--her office was vandalized not long after she voted on the health care bill.
Arizona has recently been the site of a LOT of conservative jumping up and down and screaming. They've regressed as a society by a few hundred years, in terms of p[olitical discourse. And I say that as personally neither a liberal nor a conservative. Read some of the letters to the editor in the Phoenix or Tucson papers if you don't believe me.
So a clever "gunsight ad" is a call to actual violence now? What is next, claiming that a commentator who said we need to "eliminate" deficit spending is saying to "eliminate" a senator?
Yes, conservatives in AZ are upset. You would as well if every other time you went to get a burger you had to be panhandled by an illegal alien on the way into the restaurant. Or if you had to keep going by a line of illegals looking for work on your way into Home Depot. Or had 25 of them living in a 3 bedroom house on your block. And then the reaction of your government and even president to your concerns was that YOU WERE JUST BEING A RACIST.
Your rage is pretty confined to conservatives. Liberals spent the entire Bush Administration jumping up and down and screaming. Heck, Obama put a 9-11 truther in his administration! That group has still not let it go.
Quote: mkl654321Nope. I would say it is the result of Islamic extremism.
I am SOOOO curious to know why conservative, Christian, right-wing extremism is OK but other extremism isn't. I get the unmistakable impression that Bible-Belt conservatives don't object to regimes like Iran or Saudi Arabia--quite the contrary. The only trouble with those authoritarian regimes is that their god is "wrong".
Please cite some "Christian Extremism." Please cite where leaders of any christian group (not a lone-wolf nutjob at an abortion clinic) are calling for an artist to die because of an editorial cartoon. Or what christian denomination calls for women to be stoned because they were a rape victim. For that matter, show me what christian group approved of this in Iran and Saudi-Arabia but the god is wrong.
Quote:Be that as it may, neither I nor anyone else said it was the fault of conservatism per se--it is the fault of the shrill, angry, vitriolic, and yes, violent atmosphere that conservatives have recently created.
You ignore the atmosphere that liberal created starting in 2000. I actually trace it to the Clinton Tax Increase of 1993. Dems united to pass a tax increase they wanted without GOP support. Then cheered about it, literally as well as figuratively. After that they would defend Clinton to any point. When they could not steal the FL vote they spent 8 years attacking Bush. Now they expect the other side to compromise (ie: vote for the liberal line without question) on everything or else they call conservatives "racists" for not doing so.
Quote:And as far as gun control goes--that's a shibboleth of the conservative right. Anyone with a passing comprehension of the Second Amendment knows that it does NOT guarantee the "right" to personal gun ownership--I can't believe that anyone could ignore the dependent clause in that amendment, as well as the distinction between "the people" and "a person". Of course, conservatives argue that the "right" to wake up in the middle of the night, grab yer shootin' iron, and heroically blow away that intruder (who is actually the neighbor's cat) is worth the occasional nutjob losing it and blowing away a couple of dozen people.
Hmmm, we are supposed to not read the second ammendment but are supposed to see the right to get an abortion and the right of congress to make you buy health insuance? "the people" means the population at large. And yea, I will "put up with the occasional nut job" because far more lives will be saved by allowing people to have a gun for security. Look at places with the most restrictive gun laws and they tend to have the most gun violence. Criminals don't like to rob someone who might pull a gun when they demand their wallet.
Quote: AZDuffmanSo a clever "gunsight ad" is a call to actual violence now? What is next, claiming that a commentator who said we need to "eliminate" deficit spending is saying to "eliminate" a senator?
It will be interpreted by some people as such, and only an incredibly obtuse person (such as, Sarah Palin) could fail to realize the potential of such language and imagery.
Is it directly her fault if some nutjob decides to take the "kill all the liberals" rhetoric literally? No, but such language is a causal factor in the violence.
Saying "eliminate deficit spending" can't be interpreted as an incitement to murder. "Eliminate Senator X", together with a graphic of gunsight crosshairs on the state where he lives, can. I'm sorry, but those who spout hate rhetoric are responsible when someone takes that rhetoric literally. I know you're a staunch AZ right-winger, but you should be ashamed of what your party has done, not DEFENDING it. Beyond a certain point, it is NOT honorable to stand up and thrust your fist in the air, saying, "My party, right or wrong."
I would love to see Palin and all the wingnuts acknowledge some kind of culpability for all this, but that has zero chance of happening.
Quote: mkl654321
Is is directly her fault if some nutjob decides to take the "kill all the liberals" rhetoric literally? No, but such language is a causal factor in the violence.
Saying "eliminate deficit spending" can't be interpreted as an incitement to murder. "Eliminate Senator X", together with a graphic of gunsight crosshairs on the state where he lives, can. I'm sorry, but those who spout hate rhetoric are responsible when someone takes that rhetoric literally. I know you're a staunch AZ right-winger, but you should be ashamed of what your party has done, not DEFENDING it. Beyond a certain point, it is NOT honorable to stand up and thrust your fist in the air, saying, "My party, right or wrong."
I would love to see Palin and all the wingnuts acknowledge some kind of culpability for all this, but that has zero chance of happening.
It has zero chance of happening because it is a silly proposition. Have you been to a Tea Party Rally? Nothing but peaceful statements. Compare that to Rev Wright who Obama followed for 20 years.
And at the Glenn Beck one they left the place as clean as they found it, unlike the liberal one a month later where there was trash everywhere.
Why can't you just say a nutjob did something when a nutjob did something? And why do you only call for conservatives to be "ashamed?"
Quote: mkl654321Sarah Palin's adorable little "gunsight crosshairs" map of "targets" in the 2010 elections would be a good start.
.
I knew it was Sarah Palin or George Bush's fault. Its always never the shooters fault. It turns out that guns DO kill people, and shooters are just the unwitting TOOL of the gun. LOL!
Quote: mkl654321I'm full of animosity toward extremism and ideological thinking. Conservative OR liberal.
My comment on the statistic you quote (let's assume you're correct about that) is that most of conservatives' charitable contributions go toward organized religion, a social institution that does active harm to society. They advocate a belief system that is not only false, but destructive, and the major source of human conflict over the past three millenia. So I don't give conservatives any brownie points there.
I also never said that conservatives are "evil". In fact, I agree with many conservative tenets. What I do object to is how rigid and doctrinaire many conservatives have become. I also think that the conservative movement has been largely responsible for the polarizing of American politics, as well as its present gross incivility. I for one oppose Obama, and think he's a terrible President, but I cannot countenance the things currently being said about him, nor the conservatives' single-minded agenda of reflexively opposing him, to the exclusion of all other issues.
I am still waiting for you to prove your statement that the shooter is a conservative. After numerous posts, you have not provided a single fact concerning this individual to back up it up. We can only assume you have none.
The most recent study concerning charitable contributions that I know of is from Arthur Brooks of Syracuse University. He set out to show that liberals are the most compassionate in charitable giving. Across the economic spectrum, he found that conservatives always gave significantly more than liberals that had the same income. Lets ignore the religous giving. Surprise, conservatives led the way in secular donations as well. Study after study has found the same. Again, I simply ask you to back up your statements with facts. I understand if you cannot.
Please give us, lets say, 4 or 5 of the "many conservative tenets" that you agree with.
I respectfully ask that you answer this without changing the subject or ignoring facts. Remember that statements that you believe to be true or that are your opinion are not facts.
Quote: timberjim
I respectfully ask that you answer this without changing the subject or ignoring facts.
Good luck with that, you're are dealing with MKL. You're lucky if you get an answer at all. The media is going nuts today blaming Palin and Bush. It wasn't a Muslim shooter for a change, and they're beside themselves with glee..
Speaking of headaches, this thread is giving me one.
I'll say this though. It's probable that both Republicans and Democrats are both equally guilty of going nuts. But with the divide in politics today, it's only somewhat surprise that this crap is happening.
I'm going to give me conservative wife an extra cuddle tonight and say something bad about Obama - that'll make her feel better. :)
Quote: boymimbo
I'll say this though. It's probable that both Republicans and Democrats are both equally guilty of going nuts.
But if she had been a Republican that got shot, the Libs would all be sympathizing with the shooter, calling him a hero who had just 'had enough'. You think I'm kidding?
Quote: timberjimI am still waiting for you to prove your statement that the shooter is a conservative. After numerous posts, you have not provided a single fact concerning this individual to back up it up. We can only assume you have none.
The most recent study concerning charitable contributions that I know of is from Arthur Brooks of Syracuse University. He set out to show that liberals are the most compassionate in charitable giving. Across the economic spectrum, he found that conservatives always gave significantly more than liberals that had the same income. Lets ignore the religous giving. Surprise, conservatives led the way in secular donations as well. Study after study has found the same. Again, I simply ask you to back up your statements with facts. I understand if you cannot.
Please give us, lets say, 4 or 5 of the "many conservative tenets" that you agree with.
I respectfully ask that you answer this without changing the subject or ignoring facts. Remember that statements that you believe to be true or that are your opinion are not facts.
Well, YOU have no "facts" other than those "studies" you quote, so in the absence of that, we're both simply speculating. And that guy Brooks, if he "set out to show...", reached the desired conclusion BEFORE interpreting the data, so I don't think you can place much store in his "study". In any case, he's only one man, and we don't know whether his methodology was rigorous or not. I suspect the latter.
I have no particular urge to post my political views in detail just so you can crap on them--which is the only reason you are asking.
If you would like to mine some data on the charitable contributions of people who call themselves "conservatives", be my guest. I doubt that such data is readily available, since charities don't usually collect data on contributors' political leanings. In any case, whether liberals or conservatives as a group contribute more or less to charities is kind of beside the point. Though it's hard to argue that religious organizations aren't recipients of a major portion of conservatives' charitable contributions.
We don't know much about the shooter--but when did I say he was a conservative?????? I said that the culture of vitriol and violent language in American politics today was largely brought about by conservatives--not that the shooter himself was (though he may turn out to be).
Quote: EvenBobGood luck with that, you're are dealing with MKL. You're lucky if you get an answer at all. The media is going nuts today blaming Palin and Bush. It wasn't a Muslim shooter for a change, and they're beside themselves with glee..
Spoken like a conservative. And here we thought you were the epitome of evenhandedness, given your screen name.
Quote: mkl654321Well, YOU have no "facts" other than those "studies" you quote, so in the absence of that, we're both simply speculating. And that guy Brooks, if he "set out to show...", reached the desired conclusion BEFORE interpreting the data, so I don't think you can place much store in his "study". In any case, he's only one man, and we don't know whether his methodology was rigorous or not. I suspect the latter.
So quoting a sientiffic study is not a citable fact? Hey, I guess the gallup poll can't be quoted as a source because it is a "poll?" What will you accept, a cite from msnbc.com?
BTW: If you read carefully the guy thought liberals were more compassionate in charitable giving yet the oppisite was shown to be true and the study was still published.
Quote: AZDuffmanSo quoting a sientiffic study is not a citable fact? Hey, I guess the gallup poll can't be quoted as a source because it is a "poll?" What will you accept, a cite from msnbc.com?
BTW: If you read carefully the guy thought liberals were more compassionate in charitable giving yet the oppisite was shown to be true and the study was still published.
No, merely quoting a study isn't enough. You say it was a "scientific" study; but how do YOU know that? Do you know the study's methodology? I mentioned the difficulty of correlating the recipients of charitable giving and the political leanings of the donors. How did this study overcome that?
I'm sure I could scour the internet for, and find, a "scientific study" that drew exactly the opposite conclusion. But I'm not going to bother, because as I said, which side gives more money to charity isn't relevant to the discussion.
Quote: mkl654321Well, YOU have no "facts" other than those "studies" you quote, so in the absence of that, we're both simply speculating. And that guy Brooks, if he "set out to show...", reached the desired conclusion BEFORE interpreting the data, so I don't think you can place much store in his "study". In any case, he's only one man, and we don't know whether his methodology was rigorous or not. I suspect the latter.
I have no particular urge to post my political views in detail just so you can crap on them--which is the only reason you are asking.
If you would like to mine some data on the charitable contributions of people who call themselves "conservatives", be my guest. I doubt that such data is readily available, since charities don't usually collect data on contributors' political leanings. In any case, whether liberals or conservatives as a group contribute more or less to charities is kind of beside the point. Though it's hard to argue that religious organizations aren't recipients of a major portion of conservatives' charitable contributions.
We don't know much about the shooter--but when did I say he was a conservative?????? I said that the culture of vitriol and violent language in American politics today was largely brought about by conservatives--not that the shooter himself was (though he may turn out to be).
I referenced the most recent reputable study I could find. You cannot reference any.
You said that you subscribe to "many conservative tenets". I only ask for them because none of your writing espouses anything but the standard liberal agenda trying to hide as a libertarian or centrist. We all understand why you refuse to state any.
And I quote "Conservatives brook no disagreement. Thats why one shot nineteen peope and killed six of them earlier today in Tucson." ---- " but when did I say he was a conservative???????" Do you care to revise these statements.
You are so easy to refute because, when confronted, you change the subject or ignore facts. I have asked some very simple, straight forward questions, and you are unable to respond. Every question I put to you is based on your own statements.
Quote: timberjim
You are so easy to refute because, when confronted, you change the subject or ignore facts.
Look up the words 'squirm', 'wiggle', or 'obfuscate' in the dictionary, and you'll find different pics of MKL next to each. He's the master at making blanket statements with nothing but hot air to back them up.
Quote: mkl654321No, merely quoting a study isn't enough. You say it was a "scientific" study; but how do YOU know that? Do you know the study's methodology? I mentioned the difficulty of correlating the recipients of charitable giving and the political leanings of the donors. How did this study overcome that?
I'm sure I could scour the internet for, and find, a "scientific study" that drew exactly the opposite conclusion. But I'm not going to bother, because as I said, which side gives more money to charity isn't relevant to the discussion.
If you are wondering about the methodology you can go look for it. As to difficulty of correlating it I don't see the problem. It looks like it was done as a poll, asking people what they gave and to whom. Do this in a projectable way (the population of the sample represents the population at large, etc) and you can correlate it.
Until you want to find something showing liberals to give more you are just blowing smoke. As to relevance, that is simple. You have spent the last day and a half protraying conservatives as a bunch of evil people who spend our evenings cleaning our guns and talking about how much we hate Obama while liberals like yourself (your posts show you to be far-left no matter what you say) just want to get along and compromise. You have been challenged on many points and at each challenge you call conservatives nut-jobs and change the subject.
Quote: timberjimI referenced the most recent reputable study I could find. You cannot reference any.
You said that you subscribe to "many conservative tenets". I only ask for them because none of your writing espouses anything but the standard liberal agenda trying to hide as a libertarian or centrist. We all understand why you refuse to state any.
And I quote "Conservatives brook no disagreement. Thats why one shot nineteen peope and killed six of them earlier today in Tucson." ---- " but when did I say he was a conservative???????" Do you care to revise these statements.
You are so easy to refute because, when confronted, you change the subject or ignore facts. I have asked some very simple, straight forward questions, and you are unable to respond. Every question I put to you is based on your own statements.
1. You quoted a study. That's all. Whether it's "reputable", or scientifically accurate, is not in evidence. I am not going to bother to dig up a similar study that reaches an opposite conclusion, though it would be very easy to find one, because such a study might be just as flawed in its methodology as the one you quote. And for the last time, it's not relevant anyway.
2. You don't know, in fact, what my motivations are for what I choose to say or not say, and claiming that you do is silly. You also have no idea of what my political leanings are. You make the standard conservative's argument that anyone who opposes ANY conservative ideal must be a flaming gay liberal.
3. You are correct--I did call him a conservative. I assumed that someone who targeted a Democratic Congresswoman for murder would be. So yes, I do revise that statement. Gold star!
4. I'm responding to you in straightforward fashion, but you will soon lose that privilege.
5. You haven't "refuted" anything I've said, but I do understand that it gives you comfort to say so. You disagree with my opinions, and the reflexive nature of that disagreement, and your hostility therefrom, suggests that you are emblematic of the problem--vehement political opinions, and vitriol toward anyone who does not share them. I hope that that is not actually the case.
Quote: EvenBobLook up the words 'squirm', 'wiggle', or 'obfuscate' in the dictionary, and you'll find different pics of MKL next to each. He's the master at making blanket statements with nothing but hot air to back them up.
The above will be reported to the Wizard to consider whether it violates his new standards against personal insults.
Quote: AZDuffmanYou have been challenged on many points and at each challenge you call conservatives nut-jobs and change the subject.
I added 7 new handguns to my collection last year. In MKL's mind, that means I'm just a hairs breadth away from 'going postal' on somebody. To him life is simple. Conservative+handgun=nutjob. Always, theres no middle ground.
Quote: mkl654321
3. You are correct--I did call him a conservative. I assumed that someone who targeted a Democratic Congresswoman for murder would be. So yes, I do revise that statement. Gold star!
Now we finally get to it! It can't be that the guy is criminally insane or anything like that, it is just that MKL thinks conservatives settle problems with guns. I have to ask why on earth would you think that? For example:
Lee Harvey Oswald targeted a democrat president and he was not a conservative. In fact he was a known communist!
Ronald Reagan was targeted and no one said Hinkley was a liberal. He was nuts, he did it to impress Jodie Foster.
Sirhan Sirhan was not a conservative who targeted RFK. It was RFK's pro-Israel positions which would today be more in line with the GOP.
So, why would you assume it had to be a conservative who targeted a blue-dog democrat?
Quote: mkl654321The above will be reported to the Wizard to consider whether it violates his new standards against personal insults.
Nope, truth is not insults, you said so yourself. Hoisted by your own petard yet again.
Quote: EvenBobI added 7 new handguns to my collection last year. In MKL's mind, that means I'm just a hairs breadth away from 'going postal' on somebody. To him life is simple. Conservative+handgun=nutjob. Always, theres no middle ground.
Only reason to add 7 new handguns to your collection is because you couldn't find 8 you like. AZ my roommate was a gun broker. I tell you, I never felt so safe in a house. Though I admit it was weird pulling into the driveway and seeing your roommate carrying a machine gun in the yard (or taking some apart on the dining room table) and thinking nothing of it. BTW: that last part is true. We joked about it.
He was amazed when I showed him my handgun he had no idea was in the house. I was amazed when he said how much it was then worth as Colt stopped making them.
I think the equation is Conservative without handgun = nutjob. Liberal with handgun = nutjob. We could put it in a simply Venn diagram if you wish.
Quote: mkl654321
3. You are correct--I did call him a conservative. I assumed that someone who targeted a Democratic Congresswoman for murder would be.
.
And somebody who shoots a conservative is what, a hero?
Quote: boymimboGeez, Bob, let's hope not. Because if you were, you would have alot of firepower to go postal with.
7 guns last year, I've been collecting guns for decades. I have 20 that are Saturday Night Specials sold from 1890 to about 1920. Cool stuff.
I still have a headache from all of this smoke at Mohegan Sun, or perhaps the perfume. Which is it?
Quote: EvenBob7 guns last year, I've been collecting guns for decades. I have 20 that are Saturday Night Specials sold from 1890 to about 1920. Cool stuff.
It's very cool if you want to start a militia... ;)
Quote: boymimbo
I still have a headache from all of this smoke at Mohegan Sun, or perhaps the perfume. Which is it?
The Venetian always does that to me, its perfume.
Quote: EvenBobAnd somebody who shoots a conservative is what, a hero?
No, he's a criminal.
Quote: EvenBobI added 7 new handguns to my collection last year. In MKL's mind, that means I'm just a hairs breadth away from 'going postal' on somebody. To him life is simple. Conservative+handgun=nutjob. Always, theres no middle ground.
I can't speculate on your reason for owning all them shootin' irons. Certainly, it can't be because you are expecting a zombie attack or anything like that--you can't fire them all at once, after all.
I don't see what is so glamorous or compelling or erotic about guns, but people collect all sorts of things. I don't, despite what you say, equate gun ownership--even a Waco-style arsenal--as ipso facto proof of nutjobness. It merely increases the likelihood.
Quote: AZDuffmanNow we finally get to it! It can't be that the guy is criminally insane or anything like that, it is just that MKL thinks conservatives settle problems with guns. I have to ask why on earth would you think that? For example:
Lee Harvey Oswald targeted a democrat president and he was not a conservative. In fact he was a known communist!
Ronald Reagan was targeted and no one said Hinkley was a liberal. He was nuts, he did it to impress Jodie Foster.
Sirhan Sirhan was not a conservative who targeted RFK. It was RFK's pro-Israel positions which would today be more in line with the GOP.
So, why would you assume it had to be a conservative who targeted a blue-dog democrat?
Because there's too strong a correlation with the state this happened in, the recent political climate, and violence-exhorting rhetoric like the Sarah Palin ad. Granted, he could simply be a crazy person. But that wouldn't rule out him being a conservative. I assume that if he were a liberal, he would have sought out a conservative to blow away--it's a much easier species to find than liberals, at least in Arizona.
Quote: mkl6543215. You haven't "refuted" anything I've said, but I do understand that it gives you comfort to say so. You disagree with my opinions, and the reflexive nature of that disagreement, and your hostility therefrom, suggests that you are emblematic of the problem--vehement political opinions, and vitriol toward anyone who does not share them. I hope that that is not actually the case.
You continue to ignore facts or try to change the subject. I accept the fact that you cannot substainiate any of your statements made in this thread.
Please quote a single statement I have made that was hostile. If you cannot, then I expect an apology.
Your own statements exhibit "vitriol toward anyone who does not share them."
Quote: timberjimYou continue to ignore facts or try to change the subject. I accept the fact that you cannot substainiate any of your statements made in this thread.
Please quote a single statement I have made that was hostile. If you cannot, then I expect an apology.
Your own statements exhibit "vitriol toward anyone who does not share them."
You have forfeited the privilege I alluded to in my previous post.
