ExiledInIllinois Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 You almost done shoveling your manure? Hey it is not my manure... It is yours that I am shoveling through. Look I brought the ant-gov't loon Darin out of hiding to defend his BS honor with no less than his usual nothing post. Shot, score... EiL! Who else will ride to Darin's rescue! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 We, myself included, call this guy a monster for pulling out a weapon to make a point; but what happens when we agree with the guys point? What exactly was his point? And what is yours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 What exactly was his point? That the New World Order is putting flouride in the water to control us, so that they can prepare themselves for the Apocalypse on 12/21/2012 at our expense. And what is yours? Not that, I hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) If you need a shovel there's plenty around. And if you need manure, I have plenty. Shts frozen, so I haven't had a chance to clean it in a few weeks. What exactly was his point? Anger @ the government, misplaced, misunderstood, and misdirected certainly; but anger. And what is yours? Just makes me wonder how many of us would go to defend our freedom, how many of us could pick up arms in a Civil War? What would it take to pick up a weapon to defend your belief that states should have more rights, that abortion should be illegal, that drugs should be available to everyone legally, etc. That the New World Order is putting flouride in the water to control us, so that they can prepare themselves for the Apocalypse on 12/21/2012 at our expense. I would beleive this if I didn't see so many people missing so many teeth and those that have them are neon yellow! Not that, I hope. The 2012 prophecy is silly, government and the New World Order we are most likely helpless against, unless of course, we vote for the new saviour Obama again in 2012...kidding. Edited January 11, 2011 by jboyst62 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) Who are the most nihilistic people on this board? We, myself included, call this guy a monster for pulling out a weapon to make a point; but what happens when we agree with the guys point? Unfortunately he weakened your argument/point... Maybe even turned you into a monster.... That is why one has to control the "monsters from within" one's cause... On the right, that would be Beck's and Palin's watch. Did you watch the History Channel thing on Wilkes Booth? Why wasn't he considered a "hero" upon crossing the Potomac into VA and "the South?" Maybe a couple of years earlier during the war, he would have. Edited January 11, 2011 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Unfortunately he weakened your argument/point... Maybe even turned you into a monster.... That is why one has to control the "monsters from within" one's cause... On the right, that would be Beck's and Palin's watch. This guy was anti-establishment. Beck and Palin are part of the establishment. That's rather like blaming the Jews for Hitler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 This guy was anti-establishment. Beck and Palin are part of the establishment. That's rather like blaming the Jews for Hitler. How many anti-establisment people are they unwittingly inciting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Unfortunately he weakened your argument/point... Maybe even turned you into a monster.... That is why one has to control the "monsters from within" one's cause... On the right, that would be Beck's and Palin's watch. Did you watch the History Channel thing on Wilkes Booth? Why wasn't he considered a "hero" upon crossing the Potomac into VA and "the South?" Maybe a couple of years earlier during the war, he would have. I was not speaking of him directly, I was speaking of anyone -historically speaking or hypothetically speaking, we are all pretty opinionated people and definately toe a party line in most cases - but could we pick up arms? If Glenn Beck had a point one might believe in and someone picked up arms to defend it what would we think? At one point does it become acceptible to go to arms? Does it matter if it is Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck? Are either one of them more credible? Does it have to be a Ron Paul rogue figure? What if it was Al Gore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I was not speaking of him directly, I was speaking of anyone -historically speaking or hypothetically speaking, we are all pretty opinionated people and definately toe a party line in most cases - but could we pick up arms? If Glenn Beck had a point one might believe in and someone picked up arms to defend it what would we think? At one point does it become acceptible to go to arms? Does it matter if it is Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck? Are either one of them more credible? Does it have to be a Ron Paul rogue figure? What if it was Al Gore? It's acceptable when you have enough folks on your side to win. Otherwise, you're a terrorist. That's how history works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Did you watch the History Channel thing on Wilkes Booth? Why wasn't he considered a "hero" upon crossing the Potomac into VA and "the South?" Maybe a couple of years earlier during the war, he would have. You watched that too? That JWB mummy thing was freaky looking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) just watched tonights pbs newshour (recorded). shields and brooks had an excellent discussion of this issue along with two guest academics. these two (brooks and shields) really should be the role models for political discourse in this country. for what it's worth, i thought brooks made the more compelling case (and he's the conservative although probably not conservative enough for many posters here). the prof from yale was asked if she thought any positive change might come from this tragedy. she cited the 16th street baptist church bombing where some crazy person killed several innocent young girls in the middle of the civil rights era. government and societal values and laws were reexamined because of this with changes resulting that i hope all would agree were good for the country. let's hope for similar good results from this tragedy. i won't link as it's available on pbs.com. Edited January 11, 2011 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) You liberals are !@#$ing amazing. !@#$ing retards. http://voices.washin...as-a-regis.html Jared Lee Loughner was a registered independent, didn't vote in 2010 election By Chris Cillizza Suspected Tucson gunman Jared Lee Loughner registered as an independent voter in Arizona in the fall of 2006, according to the Pima County Registrar of Voters. Loughner registered to vote on Sept. 29, 2006, identifying himself as an independent. Records show he voted in the 2006 and 2008 elections but is current listed as "inactive" on the state's voter roles -- meaning that he did not vote in November. The political affiliations of Loughner, who is being charged by state and federal authorities with the shooting of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) as well as 19 other victims outside a Tucson grocery store on Saturday, have become the subject of a white-hot partisan debate in recent days. In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, liberals sought to paint Loughner as an anti-government, tea party conservative. Conservatives retorted that Loughner lacked anything close to a coherent political philosophy -- a case strengthened by subsequent glimpses into his personal life that suggests someone struggling with mental illness. Loughner's decision to affiliate as an independent rather than a Republican or Democrat would seem to affirm the sense that while he targeted Giffords in the attack, it was not a decision born of a set of deeply held political beliefs that fit neatly into either party. Edited January 11, 2011 by erynthered Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) You liberals are !@#$ing amazing. !@#$ing retards. http://voices.washin...as-a-regis.html Jared Lee Loughner was a registered independent, didn't vote in 2010 election By Chris Cillizza Suspected Tucson gunman Jared Lee Loughner registered as an independent voter in Arizona in the fall of 2006, according to the Pima County Registrar of Voters. Loughner registered to vote on Sept. 29, 2006, identifying himself as an independent. Records show he voted in the 2006 and 2008 elections but is current listed as "inactive" on the state's voter roles -- meaning that he did not vote in November. The political affiliations of Loughner, who is being charged by state and federal authorities with the shooting of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) as well as 19 other victims outside a Tucson grocery store on Saturday, have become the subject of a white-hot partisan debate in recent days. In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, liberals sought to paint Loughner as an anti-government, tea party conservative. Conservatives retorted that Loughner lacked anything close to a coherent political philosophy -- a case strengthened by subsequent glimpses into his personal life that suggests someone struggling with mental illness. Loughner's decision to affiliate as an independent rather than a Republican or Democrat would seem to affirm the sense that while he targeted Giffords in the attack, it was not a decision born of a set of deeply held political beliefs that fit neatly into either party. Yeah, some people may be placing blame on the right. I think blame should be given out to both sides of the aisle and others as well. Nice way to start out your post though. Brilliant. Edited January 11, 2011 by pBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) Yeah, some people may be placing blame on the right. I think blame should be given out to both sides of the aisle and others as well. Nice way to start out your post though. Brilliant. Because both sides create crazy people? Everyone does know he tried to kill her because he previously asked her this question at a town hall type rally and she didn't answer it: "What is government if words have no meaning?" He was pissed at her for not answering his question. The guy was a nut and the only blame for this goes to the brain. Sometimes it just doesn't function properly. So blaming any political party for this is stupid. I blame the media. Not for the shooting but for all this blame game stuff. Edited January 11, 2011 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Yeah, some people may be placing blame on the right. I think blame should be given out to both sides of the aisle and others as well. Nice way to start out your post though. Brilliant. I don't think blame should be given to EITHER side of the aisle, because Loughner wasn't even on the same planet as most of us. He thought he was fighting against, among other things, government mind control programs. Is any side of the aisle is responsible for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I don't think blame should be given to EITHER side of the aisle, because Loughner wasn't even on the same planet as most of us. He thought he was fighting against, among other things, government mind control programs. Is any side of the aisle is responsible for that? No blame shouldn't be placed directly on either side. However this event has questioned the rhetoric being tossed about by both parties and those who support them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 No blame shouldn't be placed directly on either side. However this event has questioned the rhetoric being tossed about by both parties and those who support them. The rhetoric should have been questioned LONG ago, on grounds of common decency. And regardless, it had jack **** to do with this. Loughner's not even ON the political spectrum; the idea that over-the-top mainstream rhetoric had any influence on him (or was even heard by him) is as asinine as blaming the lyrical content of '60s rock music for Charles Manson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 The rhetoric should have been questioned LONG ago, on grounds of common decency. And regardless, it had jack **** to do with this. Loughner's not even ON the political spectrum; the idea that over-the-top mainstream rhetoric had any influence on him (or was even heard by him) is as asinine as blaming the lyrical content of '60s rock music for Charles Manson. I agree with you 100%. And as far as I have heard Loughner hasn't stated what drove him to do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 And as far as I have heard Loughner hasn't stated what drove him to do this. He hasn't...and when he does, it probably won't make much sense anyway. Because what is motivation if words have no meaning? The guy's simply whacked out. I doubt we'd get a coherent reason from him outside of it being spoon-fed to him by his lawyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 NEWSFLASH: Anti-gov't was the cornerstone of this guy's beliefs... Who is spreading that load of crap in our society? He ALSO opposed Iraq, Afghanistan Wars and detests Christianity. Who is spreading THAT load of crap in our society?. I sincerely hope you libs, using this for policial game, dont get any red wine on the body of Christina Green, you pathetic POSes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts