Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Jodie Foster is not responsible for him shooting Reagan.

11 (47.8%)

Jodie Foster is responsible for him shooting Reagan.

12 (52.2%)

Total Members Voted: 23

[The Doctor]

What the hell is going on in this thread?


It's more confusing then a chaste brothel.

[Nikov]

I think its safe to say he would have latched on to left wing verbiage if he went off the deep end any number of years prior. After all, Nixon was the one who took us off metals-backed currency. He was simply going to go after whoever was prominent. Further I would say being constitutional isn't of interest to him. It was simply that the government 'broke its own rules' and thusly was immoral through contradicting itself. The government said it would only use a metals-backed currency, the government stopped using a metals-backed currency. The government broke its own rules and is thusly immoral. The congresswoman is a member of the government. The congresswoman is immoral. Some of this is speculation, but that may well have been his thought process. We'll figure out soon enough. It is worth noticing his videos contain no mention of conservative pundits, and he was apparently angered by receiving a bible from the military when he listed his religion as none. Was that the trigger? Again, we'll figure out soon enough.

I am reminded that last year or so we had another crazy bust into the TLC headquarters raging about evil babies and saving the planet. If I recall some of the same people insisting that event was just a crazy person and the left is without fault are now insisting this crazy person is influenced and the right is to blame.

I think we can come to agree this sword cuts both ways and it does no good to be swinging it.

[G-Flex]

I think its safe to say he would have latched on to left wing verbiage if he went off the deep end any number of years prior.

That's wonderful, but the point that I (and plenty of other people) am making is that the Tea Party movement and those surrounding it are engaging in violent, revolutionary rhetoric without giving it a second thought, and that's what is of utmost political relevance here. It's not whether he was inspired by them or not, or would have latched onto another party's rhetoric or not; it's that when we see the reality of armed violence against our political opponents, we really ought to question whether or not we should act as if casual talk using violent and revolutionary imagery, and implications of violent insurrection, are normal or should be encouraged, and that these things need to be taken seriously.

I think we can come to agree this sword cuts both ways and it does no good to be swinging it.

In this case, I don't think that's true. I don't see the Democratic party engaging in the same kind of talk as Sarah Palin and the Tea Party when it comes to, let's say, watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants, or the violent/gun imagery, or acting like we're about to start an armed revolution, or "second amendment remedies" to political problems.

Basically, you're missing the point just as much as the people you're decrying.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

People who are so far gone that "batfuckingshit insane" is too light a term to describe them going and doing batfuckingshit insane things doesn't reflect on a party. An incidence of someone actually going and doing what extremely prominent members of one political party are calling for day in and day out, makes it all too clear just what they're saying people should do, even if the act itself is committed by a lunatic without the slightest association with any human strain of thought.

[Nikov]

I don't see the Democratic party engaging in the same kind of talk...

Whatever.