Is it equally prophetic that DailyKOS had a post allegedly from one of her constituents proclaiming her dead to him? [Because she didn't vote for Pelosi for minority leader]
Is it equally prophetic that Rep Giffords was well regarded with respect to the right to keep and bear arms?
Are you utterly incapable of withholding judgment until you have more information?
It won't be long now before someone accuses Giffords, just shot in the head, as playing left right politics and scoring political points. Still can't face the dearth of wackos on your side, can you juris?
dearth of wackos? I would think you mean surfeit. Words sure can be troublesome things - having meanings and all that. Maybe you'd like to borrow some of that nutjob's "grammar"?
"Again: this talk did not cause this crime. But this crime should summon us to some reflection on this talk. Better: This crime should summon us to a quiet collective resolution to cease this kind of talk and to cease to indulge those who engage in it."---David Frum.
which is what Mark is saying. Your right on dearth. I was thinking "wealth" and for some reason wrote dearth. My mistake.
"It is legitimate to discuss whether there is a connection between that tone and actual outbursts of violence, whatever the motivations of this killer turn out to be. At a minimum, it will be harder for anyone to talk -- on rallies, on cable TV, in ads -- about "eliminating" opponents, or to bring rifles to political meetings, or to say "don't retreat, reload."--James Fallows, The Atlantic.
LOL, apparently no one ever told Frum that this particular construction tends to invalidate whatever precedes the "but". Let us see some actual linkage between overheated rhetoric and this particular individual - we certainly don't know that as yet.
and to cease to indulge those who engage in it
Wonder what kind of counsel Frum and Fallows would've given Patrick Henry or Tom Paine. Hey guys, good stuff, but you might want to tone it down a bit. All this inflammatory talk might start an uprising or something.
Anytime M wants to invite me to leave his living room (blog), I will respect that and depart. Or are you saying I should stop reading this blog because of the way M engages in his own over the top eat the rich kind of rhetoric?
I was thinking "wealth" and for some reason wrote dearth.
No worries, though I really am curious for you to tell me about "my side". I mean, you've got something better than ol' W I presume: you're either with us or against us.
This crime should summon us to a quiet collective resolution to cease this kind of talk and to cease to indulge those who engage in it.
...unless it's people in my own party that are doing it (which is about 50/50 as has already been shown), because, well, that's different.
and,
It is legitimate to discuss whether there is a connection between that tone and actual outbursts of violence, whatever the motivations of this killer turn out to be.
...unless you consider possible connections between that tone and actual outbursts of violence that my allies use as well, in which case you're "blaming" and "attacking".
Mark: Conservatives need to take responsibility when they say that liberals should be killed, which they do all the timeeven when they don't.But liberals should never have to take responsibility when they say conservatives should be killed because they never say that,even when they do.
"The best thing for Sarah Palin to do at this point (and, quite frankly, if she were to do this I'd just about fall on the floor in shock and surprise) would be to issue a statement fessing up to the misguided and inflammatory gun imagery that she has used in political contexts, promise to refrain from doing so in the future, and shut the fuck up for awhile, out of respect for the victims of this senseless tragedy."
“To be clear, if you’re using this event to criticize the ‘rhetoric’ of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you’re either: (a) asserting a connection between the ‘rhetoric’ and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you’re not, in which case you’re just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?"
17 comments:
I saw this as well. Consequences, indeed. Just chilling.
Is it equally prophetic that DailyKOS had a post allegedly from one of her constituents proclaiming her dead to him? [Because she didn't vote for Pelosi for minority leader]
Is it equally prophetic that Rep Giffords was well regarded with respect to the right to keep and bear arms?
Are you utterly incapable of withholding judgment until you have more information?
It won't be long now before someone accuses Giffords, just shot in the head, as playing left right politics and scoring political points. Still can't face the dearth of wackos on your side, can you juris?
dearth of wackos? I would think you mean surfeit. Words sure can be troublesome things - having meanings and all that. Maybe you'd like to borrow some of that nutjob's "grammar"?
So tell me exe what exactly is "my side"?
So tell me exe what exactly is "my side"?
The "side" that refuses to believe Satanism is caused by the influence of D&D, apparently. Does that make you an "extremist"?
"Again: this talk did not cause this crime. But this crime should summon us to some reflection on this talk. Better: This crime should summon us to a quiet collective resolution to cease this kind of talk and to cease to indulge those who engage in it."---David Frum.
which is what Mark is saying. Your right on dearth. I was thinking "wealth" and for some reason wrote dearth. My mistake.
"It is legitimate to discuss whether there is a connection between that tone and actual outbursts of violence, whatever the motivations of this killer turn out to be. At a minimum, it will be harder for anyone to talk -- on rallies, on cable TV, in ads -- about "eliminating" opponents, or to bring rifles to political meetings, or to say "don't retreat, reload."--James Fallows, The Atlantic.
this talk did not cause this crime. But
LOL, apparently no one ever told Frum that this particular construction tends to invalidate whatever precedes the "but". Let us see some actual linkage between overheated rhetoric and this particular individual - we certainly don't know that as yet.
and to cease to indulge those who engage in it
Wonder what kind of counsel Frum and Fallows would've given Patrick Henry or Tom Paine. Hey guys, good stuff, but you might want to tone it down a bit. All this inflammatory talk might start an uprising or something.
Anytime M wants to invite me to leave his living room (blog), I will respect that and depart. Or are you saying I should stop reading this blog because of the way M engages in his own over the top eat the rich kind of rhetoric?
I was thinking "wealth" and for some reason wrote dearth.
No worries, though I really am curious for you to tell me about "my side". I mean, you've got something better than ol' W I presume: you're either with us or against us.
No worries on the word-fail, it happens. Like "your" instead of "you're". [very evil grin]
More interested for you to tell me about "my side".
[and blogger seems to be eating comments again]
...which is what Mark is saying.
Is it? It sounds to me as if he's saying
This crime should summon us to a quiet collective resolution to cease this kind of talk and to cease to indulge those who engage in it.
...unless it's people in my own party that are doing it (which is about 50/50 as has already been shown), because, well, that's different.
and,
It is legitimate to discuss whether there is a connection between that tone and actual outbursts of violence, whatever the motivations of this killer turn out to be.
...unless you consider possible connections between that tone and actual outbursts of violence that my allies use as well, in which case you're "blaming" and "attacking".
I call bullshit.
Mark: "A says this against B and it's bad"
Others: "But mark, B says similar this's against A - what is the difference?"
Mark: "No! You are not listening. A says this against B and it's bad."
Others: "But what about when B says this against A? Isn't that essentially the same thing?
Mark: "You are trying to win the argument again. Why can't you understand what I am saying? A says this against B and it's bad."
Others: "So what? B says this against A, why are you only commenting about A?"
Mark: "You are all blind/stupid/biased and you will not understand unless you....(I don't know, somehow magically understand Marky's logic)"
Mark: Conservatives need to take responsibility when they say that liberals should be killed.
Others: Liberals say that conservatives too...n'yah n'yah
Mark: Conservatives need to take responsibility when they say that liberals should be killed, which they do all the time even when they don't. But liberals should never have to take responsibility when they say conservatives should be killed because they never say that, even when they do.
Fixed it for you.
They aren't equal, dude. Not even close.
"The best thing for Sarah Palin to do at this point (and, quite frankly, if she were to do this I'd just about fall on the floor in shock and surprise) would be to issue a statement fessing up to the misguided and inflammatory gun imagery that she has used in political contexts, promise to refrain from doing so in the future, and shut the fuck up for awhile, out of respect for the victims of this senseless tragedy."
http://jezebel.com/5729050/sarah-palin-currently-enjoying-backpedalapalooza
I think this is what Mark would like as well.
and shut the fuck up for awhile, out of respect for the victims of this senseless tragedy.
Golly, sure coulda pointed that advice at Markie huh Angela?
Why should Sarah Palin apologize for something that was not her doing? Is this part of some 'collective guilt' you lefties feel?
You don't have a clue that this unfortunate lunatic even gave a shit about Palin.
I can't put it any better than this:
“To be clear, if you’re using this event to criticize the ‘rhetoric’ of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you’re either: (a) asserting a connection between the ‘rhetoric’ and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you’re not, in which case you’re just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703667904576071913818696964.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
Post a Comment