ieatcrayonz Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Wrong. Remember the Harvey Milk assassination, the two assassination attempts on Gerald Ford, the assassination attempt on Reagan, the riots in Chicago during the 1968 Democratic national convention, the assassination of RFK, the assassination of JFK, the assassination of MLK. Comparably speaking this is child's play. Now speaking of children....run along. One of the Ford attempts was by Squeally Fromme who was in love with Charles Mason because she went to college there. Bottom line is that this dude had weird reasons as did Squeally and their politics were all different. I would bet money that Squeally was a pot head too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Did you really just compare Phelps to Cindy Sheehan? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Yes. Yeah, I thought so. I saw a few kind of nutty things on there. And a lot of things I happen to agree with. I did not see "God hates fags". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Nah. You're wrong as usual. Removing that piece of excrement from the planet would only make the world a better place. When his God Hates Fags people are out protesting that 9 year old's funeral, I'd like someone to grab him (and as many of his followers as want to join in) and drive him out of earshot of the funeral, and conserve his (their) oxygen. I respectfully disagree... It may make the world a better place for a spell... In the end, we would be worse off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Wrong. Remember the Harvey Milk assassination, the two assassination attempts on Gerald Ford, the assassination attempt on Reagan, the riots in Chicago during the 1968 Democratic national convention, the assassination of RFK, the assassination of JFK, the assassination of MLK. Comparably speaking this is child's play. Now speaking of children....run along. You know I am not going to go through year by year and say which one was worse because you know what? IT DOESN'T MATTER!! IT HAS NO BEARING ON WHAT IS GOING ON RIGHT NOW!!! I put that in all caps so MAYBE it would sink into your brain. What matters is that people need to think about what they are saying before they release anything. Knowing full well that some idiot may follow their moronic words to a "T". Do you understand that? And by the way... Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man to be elected was assassinated because of that. He was openly gay. The attempt on Ronald Reagan as Hinkley said was "the greatest love offering in the history of the world,". In other words, he was crazy. Gerald Ford - one assassination was by a woman believed to be a follower of Manson (crazy) and the other by another woman who was believed to be part of some radical anti-war group. The 1968 DNC, before my time as well... again anti-war. All of those were NOT based on political rhetoric/statements being released by the actual politician. Just nut jobs going after polarizing people. So for you to use those as examples, well it just shows that your throwing nonsense at the wall to see what sticks. Speaking of running along... do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Yeah, I thought so. I saw a few kind of nutty things on there. And a lot of things I happen to agree with. I did not see "God hates fags". Do not mix the words with the sentiment and actions. Sheehan did protest funerals of soldiers, told people their sons were dying for nothing but Bush's terrorist war on the world, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Do not mix the words with the sentiment and actions. Sheehan did protest funerals of soldiers, told people their sons were dying for nothing but Bush's terrorist war on the world, etc. I think the words, sentiments and actions are all worth considering. I do disagree with the idea of demonstrating at a soldier's (or anyone's) funeral. But I also think it was shameful that she was forced to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Did you really just compare Phelps to Cindy Sheehan? Not that much of a stretch. They're both ignorant zealots. You know I am not going to go through year by year and say which one was worse because you know what? IT DOESN'T MATTER!! IT HAS NO BEARING ON WHAT IS GOING ON RIGHT NOW!!! I put that in all caps so MAYBE it would sink into your brain. What matters is that people need to think about what they are saying before they release anything. Knowing full well that some idiot may follow their moronic words to a "T". Do you understand that? And by the way... Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man to be elected was assassinated because of that. He was openly gay. The attempt on Ronald Reagan as Hinkley said was "the greatest love offering in the history of the world,". In other words, he was crazy. Gerald Ford - one assassination was by a woman believed to be a follower of Manson (crazy) and the other by another woman who was believed to be part of some radical anti-war group. The 1968 DNC, before my time as well... again anti-war. All of those were NOT based on political rhetoric/statements being released by the actual politician. Just nut jobs going after polarizing people. So for you to use those as examples, well it just shows that your throwing nonsense at the wall to see what sticks. Speaking of running along... do so. So all that violence was simply because of "nut jobs going after polarizing people," but when a nut job goes after a non-polarizing person, it's the political climate? You're an idiot. If only for calling Gerald Ford "polarizing". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted January 13, 2011 Author Share Posted January 13, 2011 Not that much of a stretch. They're both ignorant zealots. So all that violence was simply because of "nut jobs going after polarizing people," but when a nut job goes after a non-polarizing person, it's the political climate? You're an idiot. If only for calling Gerald Ford "polarizing". I have to say pbills, you are really bad at debate and even worse at the game played on this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 I think the words, sentiments and actions are all worth considering. I do disagree with the idea of demonstrating at a soldier's (or anyone's) funeral. But I also think it was shameful that she was forced to. How was she forced to protest the funerals of soldiers who died heroically on the same battlefield as her innocent son? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 I'm not really interested in rehashing the Iraq War. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted January 13, 2011 Author Share Posted January 13, 2011 I'm not really interested in rehashing the Iraq War. We aren't talking about the Iraq war per se. We are discussing Cindy Sheehan and her reaction to the war. I do not consider her as bad as Phelps. The people who advised her however; well, they may well be worthy for a ring of hell alongside him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 You know I am not going to go through year by year and say which one was worse because you know what? IT DOESN'T MATTER!! IT HAS NO BEARING ON WHAT IS GOING ON RIGHT NOW!!! I put that in all caps so MAYBE it would sink into your brain. What matters is that people need to think about what they are saying before they release anything. Knowing full well that some idiot may follow their moronic words to a "T". Do you understand that? And by the way... Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man to be elected was assassinated because of that. He was openly gay. The attempt on Ronald Reagan as Hinkley said was "the greatest love offering in the history of the world,". In other words, he was crazy. Gerald Ford - one assassination was by a woman believed to be a follower of Manson (crazy) and the other by another woman who was believed to be part of some radical anti-war group. The 1968 DNC, before my time as well... again anti-war. All of those were NOT based on political rhetoric/statements being released by the actual politician. Just nut jobs going after polarizing people. So for you to use those as examples, well it just shows that your throwing nonsense at the wall to see what sticks. Speaking of running along... do so. Apparently you have no capacity for comparative analysis and despite all the evidence to the contrary, you keep hammering away. Are you actually saying that the anti-war movement was not a political movement/ I guess it just happened to take place during political conventions? The Weather Underground or Black Panthers weren't motivated by politics? Image of Goldwater setting off a nuke wasn't political? That's quite the shovel you got there son. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Im loving the fact that the guy who is a total tool of labor unions, the ULTIMATE "us vs. them" thugocracy is lecturing people on "tone" and "discourse" and how we carry ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Im loving the fact that the guy who is a total tool of labor unions, the ULTIMATE "us vs. them" thugocracy is lecturing people on "tone" and "discourse" and how we carry ourselves. Show me ONE time where I said ANY union rep should as you say be a thug? ONE time. And talk about labeling every union person as a bad person. So dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Show me ONE time where I said ANY union rep should as you say be a thug? ONE time. And talk about labeling every union person as a bad person. So dumb. I didnt say YOU said that. but thats what they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Apparently you have no capacity for comparative analysis and despite all the evidence to the contrary, you keep hammering away. Are you actually saying that the anti-war movement was not a political movement/ I guess it just happened to take place during political conventions? The Weather Underground or Black Panthers weren't motivated by politics? Image of Goldwater setting off a nuke wasn't political? That's quite the shovel you got there son. I find it funny how you can't understand the difference between someone acting out against a war vs. someone acting out because someone incited a group with a statement. There is a difference there. You understand that right? Also, did I say the anti-war movement is not political at some level? No. I do love how people try to make points by saying someone said something, when in fact they didn't. I didnt say YOU said that. but thats what they are. Um no that's you're dumbass statement and belief. Fact of the matter... not true. "thugocracy" nice made up word you got there Sarah. Oh but no,you didn't insinuate that unions were thugs... nooooo Last time. If you believe that the rhetoric should not be toned down. Give me a reason why... not stating things like "well, 200 years ago... it was heated so it's fine". An actual reason why politicians should not strive for civil discourse between both sides of the aisle, the tv/radio hosts and their supporters. Now don't stray from this SIMPLE question. Not that much of a stretch. They're both ignorant zealots. So all that violence was simply because of "nut jobs going after polarizing people," but when a nut job goes after a non-polarizing person, it's the political climate? You're an idiot. If only for calling Gerald Ford "polarizing". First off... EVERY president is polarizing one way or another. Secondly, I said "All of those were NOT based on political rhetoric/statements being released by the actual politician. Just nut jobs going after polarizing people." That being said I NEVER claimed that the attack in Arizona was because of the political climate. Fact of the matter is that no one knows why he did it as of yet. I say now and HAVE said that the rhetoric SHOULD be toned done. Simple enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 The A-hole we have as a president had t-shirts handed out at the memorial service. Was it a memorial service or a political rally?? I saw photos of it and Giffords' husband (the astronaut) looked VERY pissed at Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Giffords opened her eyes for the first time since the shooting. BRAVO Joe Scarborough!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Um no that's you're dumbass statement and belief. Fact of the matter... not true. Oh no? Unions dont use us vs. them rhetoric? Go look up some of Trumka's quotes? Whats a strike, but the ULTIMATE strong-arm tactic? Give us what we want or we will mount a massive bad PR casmpaign against you." And Im sure when I was a kid and my pop got a new job, the nightly calls from the union bosses imploring him to join the union or else were just nice calls. "thugocracy" nice made up word you got there Sarah. Oh but no,you didn't insinuate that unions were thugs... nooooo I dont insinuate they are thugs. I outright say it. And Ive used those little things called FACTS AND EXAMPLES to prove my point. Try it sometime. Last time. If you believe that the rhetoric should not be toned down. Give me a reason why... not stating things like "well, 200 years ago... it was heated so it's fine". Its called perspective you dummy. Look up the meaning. An actual reason why politicians should not strive for civil discourse between both sides of the aisle, the tv/radio hosts and their supporters. Now don't stray from this SIMPLE question. Heres you answer...I refuse to be told to "tone it down" by the same cretins who made a cottage industry out of tearing down the last Republican president. And like I said...using that stupid little thing called history to provide perspective, the "rhetoric" out there today is outright mild. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts