|
|
Post by davdesid on Jan 11, 2011 15:31:04 GMT -8
Reynolds nails it: tinyurl.com/2a5ub4ySquirming left wing maggots feasting on the flesh of a tragedy. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jan 11, 2011 15:36:14 GMT -8
Reynolds nails it: tinyurl.com/2a5ub4ySquirming left wing maggots feasting on the flesh of a tragedy. His last paragraph was spot on. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jan 11, 2011 15:46:51 GMT -8
Reynolds nails it: tinyurl.com/2a5ub4ySquirming left wing maggots feasting on the flesh of a tragedy. His last paragraph was spot on. As was the first... "Shortly after November's electoral defeat for the Democrats, pollster Mark Penn appeared on Chris Matthews's TV show and remarked that what President Obama needed to reconnect with the American people was another Oklahoma City bombing." Sick, squirming, left wing maggots dancing in blood... and feasting on the flesh of a tragedy. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jan 11, 2011 16:11:54 GMT -8
Examples to justify your unhinged rant? C'mon you phony, you can do it, right? It is an opinion formed through observation. For example, there are some people who are such whack jobs that they would mischaracterize my opinion as an "unhinged rant" and call me a "phony" for having posted it -- rather than address the substance of what I said. It doesn't aid communication; they confuse belittling others with having a stronger, more defensible position. Belittling people doesn't create winning arguments -- but it passes for it on Faux. It's the difference between George F Will and Rush Limbaugh and his contemporaries. Will can back up his right wing opinions with actual facts; Limbaugh and the like rarely have actual facts. They back up opinions with bombastic bluster. Will adds to understanding and seeks to find solutions to problems. Limbaugh et al, create confusion and stir people into angry frenzies because it drives ratings and makes them money. The last thing that they want is compromise and solutions. Their point is to divide, not bring people together. Now go away. You are not someone capable of engaging in discourse. All you care about is dispensing blame. Yoda out... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2011 16:20:50 GMT -8
Oh please. Personally, I think that right wing vitriolic attacks against everyone and everything that they don't find acceptable is damaging to this country. Discourse becomes impossible when communication is replaced by shouting down. And I believe that Faux News, their commentators and their ilk, have done more to undermine respect for the institutions in this country than all the worlds communists have done put together. For that reason, I believe that Faux is guilty of what I call "soft core treason" -- all the while claiming to be paragons of patriotism. But... This guy is a nut case and I have not seen anything whatsoever that leads me to believe that his actions are a result of a lack of civility on the right. And the desperate counterclaims of the rightists that attempt to lay this at the liberals feet are even more absurd than the claims of those on the left. Sometimes a nut case is just a nut case. Yoda out... Just so we're clear; you think it's only the right that level "vitriolic" attacks? Was your omission of condemnation of the left simply an oversight? I'm sure as a reasonable person you recognize that this "vitriol " problem, to the extent it represents a problem is a two way street. What if not "vitriol" is the allegation that Sarah Palin has "blood on her hands" because she published a map with registry marks on it? What if not "vitriol" is the continuous and ubiquitousness of the racist charged levelled against any conservative that holds a different opinion than that of Caty Couric and Rev. Al? Awaiting an actual, reasonable response. [holding breath] |
|
|
|
Post by sandiegopete on Jan 11, 2011 16:27:43 GMT -8
I have come to agree with the republicans that vitriolic political rhetoric not only does no harm but that it is vital to the preservation of the nation. What the republicans know and the democrats refuse to accept, is that there is a war going on between the right and left and there is room for only one side in this country. The time has come for a final show down and if the weak-kneed democrats can't take the heat they should get out of the kitchen.
Rather than tone down the rhetoric we need to be ramping up the vitriolic political rhetoric. It is the only way either side can energize their supporters to stand up and take the actions necessary for total victory.
There are so many things that can be done to promote ultimate victory. For instance, if we could find some way of identifying specific businesses as democrat or republican leaning then potential customers could choose which business they want to patronize. After all, why would a republican want to give money to a business run by a democrat and vice versa since a part of the profits of that business may well be going to the side the customer is fighting?
Its like Limbaugh said, the democrats are using this shooting by a liberal democrat to play politics. He said today that the democrats were helping the shooter.
Hannity said the democrats complaints against political rhetoric were an attempt to silence their critics.
Regardless of whether the democrats like it, now is the time to increase vitriolic political debate. It does nothing to encourage violent behavior and instead forcefully points out the serious problems that exist with the other side.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2011 16:31:25 GMT -8
I have come to agree with the republicans that vitriolic political rhetoric not only does no harm but that it is vital to the preservation of the nation. What the republicans know and the democrats refuse to accept, is that there is a war going on between the right and left and there is room for only one side in this country. The time has come for a final show down and if the weak-kneed democrats can't take the heat they should get out of the kitchen. Rather than tone down the rhetoric we need to be ramping up the vitriolic political rhetoric. It is the only way either side can energize their supporters to stand up and take the actions necessary for total victory. There are so many things that can be done to promote ultimate victory. For instance, if we could find some way of identifying specific businesses as democrat or republican leaning then potential customers could choose which business they want to patronize. After all, why would a republican want to give money to a business run by a democrat and vice versa since a part of the profits of that business may well be going to the side the customer is fighting? Its like Limbaugh said, the democrats are using this shooting by a liberal democrat to play politics. He said today that the democrats were helping the shooter. Hannity said the democrats complaints against political rhetoric were an attempt to silence their critics. Regardless of whether the democrats like it, now is the time to increase vitriolic political debate. It does nothing to encourage violent behavior and instead forcefully points out the serious problems that exist with the other side. What color is the sky on your planet? michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/ |
|
|
|
Post by sandiegopete on Jan 11, 2011 16:35:02 GMT -8
Blue
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jan 11, 2011 16:37:26 GMT -8
I have come to agree with the republicans that vitriolic political rhetoric not only does no harm but that it is vital to the preservation of the nation. What the republicans know and the democrats refuse to accept, is that there is a war going on between the right and left and there is room for only one side in this country. The time has come for a final show down and if the weak-kneed democrats can't take the heat they should get out of the kitchen. Rather than tone down the rhetoric we need to be ramping up the vitriolic political rhetoric. It is the only way either side can energize their supporters to stand up and take the actions necessary for total victory. There are so many things that can be done to promote ultimate victory. For instance, if we could find some way of identifying specific businesses as democrat or republican leaning then potential customers could choose which business they want to patronize. After all, why would a republican want to give money to a business run by a democrat and vice versa since a part of the profits of that business may well be going to the side the customer is fighting? Its like Limbaugh said, the democrats are using this shooting by a liberal democrat to play politics. He said today that the democrats were helping the shooter. Hannity said the democrats complaints against political rhetoric were an attempt to silence their critics. Regardless of whether the democrats like it, now is the time to increase vitriolic political debate. It does nothing to encourage violent behavior and instead forcefully points out the serious problems that exist with the other side. Hey, why stop there. Let's paint symbols on businesses owned by Democrats and RINOs. How about making them wear some sort of identifying armband, mark, or tattoo? That way they can be singled out for 'treatment' later cause they must be truly sick if they don't think exactly like you.  I hope the quote above was nothing more than a "Troll", otherwise...... |
|
|
|
Post by sandiegopete on Jan 11, 2011 16:41:03 GMT -8
Afan doesn't seem to like my comments. Like I said, weak-kneen liberals that can't take the rhetoric should get out of the way. I haven't even started with the vitriol and already afan is making negative comments about it. Gee, if that has offended his or her sensitivities then that person should consider sitting on the sideline with the rest of the liberals.
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jan 11, 2011 16:51:41 GMT -8
Examples to justify your unhinged rant? C'mon you phony, you can do it, right? It is an opinion formed through observation. For example, there are some people who are such whack jobs that they would mischaracterize my opinion as an "unhinged rant" and call me a "phony" for having posted it -- rather than address the substance of what I said. It doesn't aid communication; they confuse belittling others with having a stronger, more defensible position. Belittling people doesn't create winning arguments -- but it passes for it on Faux. It's the difference between George F Will and Rush Limbaugh and his contemporaries. Will can back up his right wing opinions with actual facts; Limbaugh and the like rarely have actual facts. They back up opinions with bombastic bluster. Will adds to understanding and seeks to find solutions to problems. Limbaugh et al, create confusion and stir people into angry frenzies because it drives ratings and makes them money. The last thing that they want is compromise and solutions. Their point is to divide, not bring people together. Now go away. You are not someone capable of engaging in discourse. All you care about is dispensing blame. Yoda out... I asked for examples. If Will can back up his opinions with facts, surely a master like you can. But no. Like all liberals, when called on the carpet to explain their various incantations, exhortations, and hallucinations, by citing FACTS, what do we get? NOTHING. Now go enjoy your din-din: SMOKED CROW  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jan 11, 2011 16:58:33 GMT -8
Guess you did not view the video then... I did see the video, but I was not refering to the video. It was more pointed and personal. It is you and folks like you who are the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jan 11, 2011 17:03:25 GMT -8
Just so we're clear; you think it's only the right that level "vitriolic" attacks? Was your omission of condemnation of the left simply an oversight? I'm sure as a reasonable person you recognize that this "vitriol " problem, to the extent it represents a problem is a two way street. What if not "vitriol" is the allegation that Sarah Palin has "blood on her hands" because she published a map with registry marks on it? What if not "vitriol" is the continuous and ubiquitousness of the racist charged levelled against any conservative that holds a different opinion than that of Caty Couric and Rev. Al? Awaiting an actual, reasonable response. [holding breath] I think that the left is perfectly capable of vitriol and there are lots of people willing to engage in it. I just don't think that the left is as good at it. And I don't think that they have nearly the platform that Faux gives the right. But if they did, I'm sure that they would take full advantage of it. I'm not sure what map you are referring to -- I've heard comments about her bulls eye over a district (or a congressperson?) and her "reload" quote. I don't think that those things are helpful but I think that they are relatively harmless. It's more branding than anything -- Sarah Palin, tough talking frontier woman. I don't think that she incites passions like Beck does, for example. I don't like her at all mind you -- but that is less a reflection on her positions on issues than what I perceive as her underlying ignorance. I have no idea what opinions Caty Couric has but Al Sharpton is pretty far left. The left is far more about entitlement than the right is and the right seems to have a monopoly on the "patriotic confrontation" and gun rights, etc. Not sure I've answered your question. Have I? Yoda out... |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jan 11, 2011 17:09:36 GMT -8
I asked for examples. If Will can back up his opinions with facts, surely a master like you can. But no. Like all liberals, when called on the carpet to explain their various incantations, exhortations, and hallucinations, by citing FACTS, what do we get? NOTHING. Now go enjoy your din-din: SMOKED CROW I'm not a liberal -- not even close. I've said many times that I consider myself "radically moderate". On social and environmental issues, I'm left of you -- although I reject entitlement and have a strong belief in the importance of personal responsibility. On fiscal issues, I'm probably well right of you. But a lot of right wingers like to call anybody who disagrees with them "liberals". When you have no substance to your arguments, you have to rely on labels and pictures of dead crows. Yoda out... |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jan 11, 2011 17:26:50 GMT -8
I asked for examples. If Will can back up his opinions with facts, surely a master like you can. But no. Like all liberals, when called on the carpet to explain their various incantations, exhortations, and hallucinations, by citing FACTS, what do we get? NOTHING. Now go enjoy your din-din: SMOKED CROW I'm not a liberal -- not even close. I've said many times that I consider myself "radically moderate". On social and environmental issues, I'm left of you -- although I reject entitlement and have a strong belief in the importance of personal responsibility. On fiscal issues, I'm probably well right of you. But a lot of right wingers like to call anybody who disagrees with them "liberals". When you have no substance to your arguments, you have to rely on labels and pictures of dead crows. Yoda out... I asked for examples to support your charges of "soft core treason". Your use of the term "Faux" news is deliberately pejorative. You claim Limbaugh "and the like" rarely have facts. Examples that prove a rule that Fox is "faux" or that Limbaugh, et al, "rarely" have facts are what I want you to provide. If you can't do it, then you are the phony, just blowing liberal smoke out of your ass. And yes, you can go eat your din-din. SMOKED CROW |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jan 11, 2011 17:58:05 GMT -8
Some "right wing vitriol" from a GOP congressman... Oh, wait!.... spectator.org/blog/2010/11/09/kanjorski-on-gov-elect-rick-sc"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him." |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jan 11, 2011 19:10:58 GMT -8
Sorry. I didn't read it. I was going to but I had to get me some Liberal-baiting merchandise from "The Largest Selection of Liberal-baiting Merchandise on the Net!" Nice source. Seriously, as quoted the Democrat deserves to get the same treatment that the Republicans do. I do wish I could see the quote in its entire context as I don't trust your source. But there aren't too many contexts where that quote doesn't deserve criticism. Yoda out... |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jan 11, 2011 19:41:03 GMT -8
I asked for examples to support your charges of "soft core treason". Your use of the term "Faux" news is deliberately pejorative. You claim Limbaugh "and the like" rarely have facts. Examples that prove a rule that Fox is "faux" or that Limbaugh, et al, "rarely" have facts are what I want you to provide. If you can't do it, then you are the phony, just blowing liberal smoke out of your ass. Yes, Faux News is a deliberate pejorative. The "softcore treason" reference is grounded in my observation that they have done more to undermine confidence in this nation's government and its institutions that all the communists the world has ever known. And they do it for money. That's not something that's provable; it's an observation and an opinion. Here's an example of Beck's accuracy... www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-3-2010/glenn-beck-airs-israeli-raid-footageAnd here's on that shows how Fox blurs the line between news and opinion. www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-29-2009/for-fox-sake-Yoda out... |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Jan 11, 2011 19:43:56 GMT -8
I'm not a liberal -- not even close. I've said many times that I consider myself "radically moderate". On social and environmental issues, I'm left of you -- although I reject entitlement and have a strong belief in the importance of personal responsibility. On fiscal issues, I'm probably well right of you. But a lot of right wingers like to call anybody who disagrees with them "liberals". When you have no substance to your arguments, you have to rely on labels and pictures of dead crows. Yoda out... I asked for examples to support your charges of "soft core treason". Your use of the term "Faux" news is deliberately pejorative. You claim Limbaugh "and the like" rarely have facts. Examples that prove a rule that Fox is "faux" or that Limbaugh, et al, "rarely" have facts are what I want you to provide. If you can't do it, then you are the phony, just blowing liberal smoke out of your ass. And yes, you can go eat your din-din. SMOKED CROW Well, I hope you are joking Sid if you can't see the difference between Limbaugh, Hannity etc. and Will, Buckley etc. Guys like Will and Buckley were at least respected by the "opposition" because they delivered information that was well researched and they presented an argument based on fact, and not emotion and embellishment. I have a nephew who works for the American Civil Liberties Union. He tells me he could make 3 times the money if he worked for the far Right. He understands (like I do, FOX etc.) the exact playbook for that particular audience. The more you get the target audience frightened and pissed off, the more money you make. O.K....one tiny tiny example. You tell the audience (Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh all did this) that the Central Valley farmers have lost their water rights solely because the radical environmentalists are trying to save an endangered fish or "minnow" (the Delta Smelt). What you don't tell the audience is that all of California's commercial salmon fisherman (who tend to be conservative) lost their boats and livelihoods because the main tributaries experienced a reduction in water quality that drove populations below the critical point. This was due to too many users combined with drought. Will or Buckley would tell the whole story and let the audience decide...we know what the "hucksters" would tell the audience. Yoda is right. |
|
|
|
Post by sdtosf on Jan 11, 2011 23:06:15 GMT -8
So Aztecs Win. You don't like freedom of speech I can see. Only your views are correct? You are the dangerous one.
|
|
