We've officially moved beyond the stomp down the hallway and into advocacy of armed insurrection.
But, hey, if you want to feel lighthearted about it, play a drinking game in which each time appeal to fear is used in a speech, you have to drink.
You'll be drunk in less than five minutes.
50 comments:
As 'entertaining' as Mr. Stewart is, neither you nor him have presented a case where 'insurrection' is being advocated.
That would be, at least in your case, because you are a liar.
So, you weren't disturbed by anything you saw in the speeches?
So, you're not denying being a liar?
I am absolulety denying it. Were you disturbed by the speeches? Yes or no? Answering with a question basically means denial and avoidance:)
I am disturbed by you quite often. That doesn't mean I think you are advocating insurrection. Why? Because, unless you are an idiot, you know those are two different words with two different meanings.
So whether or not I am 'disturbed' has no meaning whatsoever to 'advocating insurrection'. Which is the point you are in actuality avoiding (because of denial).
You are denying being a liar? Great - then present some sort of case that backs up your accusation. I doubt you can, because basically... well you're lying.
Great - then present some sort of case that backs up your accusation.
The speeches at this year's NRA convention. Let's focus on Wayne LaPierre's speech and Rick Santorum's speech. I think they are advocating armed insurrection. You don't. Why? If I am wrong, what are they advocating?
Wait, you mean it's not in the comedy central piece that you presented in the beginning?
So in other words you did not, in actuality, present any evidence in support of your slander.
You really are a piece of work.
Wait, you mean it's not in the comedy central piece that you presented in the beginning?
So in other words you did not, in actuality, present any evidence in support of your slander.
You really are a piece of work.
Wait, you mean it's not in the comedy central piece that you presented in the beginning?
So in other words you did not, in actuality, present any evidence in support of your slander.
You really are a piece of work.
Hmm...comments must be acting weird...sorry, GD.
I presented this piece because Stewart did a better job than what I would have done commenting on the speeches. If you don't agree with him, explain why. If you think he took things out of context, explain why.
I think they are advocating armed insurrection. You don't. Why? If I am wrong, what are they advocating?
Funny M, but aren't you the one arguing that it is only the threat of punishment that causes people to obey laws? If so, shouldn't the threat of rebellion cause politicians to obey the Constitution? Why is one threat right and good and the other wrong and evil?
You got a lot of nerve demanding that I explain anything when not only have you failed to explain your slander, you've yet to even present a quote or link that your slander is supposedly based upon
I think the explanation Stewart gives is good enough. I can see if you might be pissed about the context remarks. That's where you come in to illustrate how he and I are wrong.
Consider the remarks at the most fundamental of levels. LaPierre and Santorum are talking to a room full of people who are armed to the teeth about all of the threats they face on a daily basis and how they should be afraid of them. From the I Heart Quora thread...
the world is full of sinister conspiracies--malevolent, omniscient forces are always at work in the world and target them specifically
You don't see a problem with this? If not, why not?
the world is full of sinister conspiracies--malevolent, omniscient forces are always at work in the world and target them specifically
Does that worry me? Hell no, it makes me laugh. Because it is the same shit you and Nikto peddle. The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy ring any bells? People are suckers for all kinds of conspiracy theories.
Anyone who believes in omniscient forces - whether malevolent or not - is someone living in their own reality. The wonderful thing about the Internet is how it brings those people together.
Now, why exactly is it wrong for the govt to fear the people; Thomas Jefferson seemed to think that a nearly ideal condition.
Well then I stand by my earlier position. Neither you nor Stewart have presented a case where 'insurrection' is being advocated.
Stewart piece doesn't mention it, you can't present a quote. Yup, you are a liar.
Oh well. I think it speaks volumes that you aren't disturbed by things that were said at this year's NRA convention.
M that comment is only deserving of one response - a good bitch slapping.
Didn't say I wasn't disturbed. In case you missed it earlier - "So whether or not I am 'disturbed' has no meaning whatsoever to 'advocating insurrection'. Which is the point you are in actuality avoiding (because of denial)."
Can you or can you not present a quote or make a case out of the piece presented that could in any way whatsoever be construed to mean someone is advocating insurrection?
Seeing comments like this makes me wonder if you stand for anything, GD. You've advocated similar ideas on this site to what is being said in the videos. When pressed, you don't quite stand behind stuff like this because you don't want to come off as being nuts.
Nikto stopped by yesterday after a bike ride and we got to talking about the NRA conference. I wondered how someone could not easily see what LaPierre and Santorum were doing (advocating armed insurrection). He just laughed and remarked that there are sadly still people who believe in solving problems with violence. He agreed that's exactly what the speakers were doing.
So, there isn't any one quote, GD. It's the progression of ideas laid out in these speeches. It's all of it. It reminds me a lot of how conservatives talk about lazy black people on porches or how black people are uppity at times and then express outrage when you accuse them of being racist. Who, us? RACE BAITERS!!!
Same thing here. You hope that accusing me of being a liar that somehow, someone will question what I am saying and then the psychotic nonsense at the NRA conference will be forgotten. You set up a faux standard (just like you always do) and then I "fail." Well, dude, I don't have to prove anything. Their words speak for themselves.
What color is the sky in your world? A shiny purple haze?
And BTW, you can go fuck yourself. You're doing a fantastic job of smearing shit on your strawmen, but that's all you're doing.
Yawn. Wake me up when you've got something a little less delusional.
He just laughed and remarked that there are sadly still people who believe in solving problems with violence.
Yes and that certainly includes liberals who want to pass laws that force people to behave as liberals wish them to behave.
Or have you forgotten that the threat of punishment (i.e. violence) is what makes people comply with the law?
Oh I got no problem standing for something Mark. But I refuse to let you off the hook by changing the subject off of your lies and slander and on to me.
So, back on topic (finally) - you really don't have anything to back up your bullshit insurrection claim then?
That's what I thought.
And no, I am not disturbed by what Stewart edited together there, mainly because I am unsurprised by the attempts by certain types of people to portray other certain types of people in the most negative light possible. Hmmm, just like you tried to do with your unsupported crapola here.
I submit both speeches as evidence. Here they are in their entirety so there won't be any accusations of sound bites.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jm2IBUZxZ0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBTXaG3YHM4
Watch both from start to finish.
Based on all the words collectively in each speech, I think they are advocating armed insurrection. Simply stating I am a liar without supporting your assertion with what you think they are advocating isn't an argument. This is a common problem with TSMers. You think you are the ultimate authority on everything. You are not. How am I a liar?
Both of these speeches, btw, serve as great examples of how simply letting these psychotics talk is all that is necessary:)
Huh. I listened to both speeches. There's some hyperbole. But insurrectionist?! Are you tripping? No, for real. Are you on acid? Because that's just at a Centerpoint AMR-level of ludicrosity and miscomprehension.
Simply stating they are advocating insurrection without supporting your accusation with either a DIRECT QUOTE that unambiguously states such or by presenting a case to support it isn't an argument either.
YOU HAVE NOT DONE SO, and insisting I follow some rules that you can't even be bothered to follow is a common problem with you.
To follow the EXACT type of reasoning you are using here....
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com
Based upon the words taken collectively I think you are a liar.
Now, is that an argument? No.
What is an argument is that you have not done ANYTHING MORE THAN THAT to support your assertion of insurrection.
If you cannot support such an assertion - which you haven't - then it is appropriate to consider it untrue. If it it untrue and you continue to assert it - which you have - then it is appropriate to consider you to be lying.
Because that's just at a Centerpoint AMR-level of ludicrosity and miscomprehension.
Can you imagine if M actually was on acid - considering how detached from reality he can be without any chemical assistance?
Oooo...must be on to something if the posse is now involved. At least Larry took a step towards doing GD's job.
The speeches aren't very long, GD. Certainly not as long as my blog so your comparison is straw man (again) and lazy (again). What do you think each man is advocating if not armed insurrection? Why? Listen to the entire speech and don't take anything out of context:)
Read my link for proof that you are a liar.....
IT IS INCUMBENT UPON YOU TO PRESENT A CASE. NOT ME TO DO YOUR WORK FOR YOU.
Speaking of posse's, it sure has been nice to not be subjected to the Yippee Little Dog posse since signing-in made keeping that drawer full of sockpuppets so inconvenient.
Yeah, they all went to Qoura and a couple are now following me. Gee, I wonder why:)
GD, I offer both speeches with no interpretation, sound bites or commentary from me as my proof. If you disagree, explain why. What are they advocating? How am I a liar? You're not doing my work for me if you disagree. You're doing your work for you...something you always seem to have a problem with. Why?
No Mark, YOU are the one who made the assertion that they are advocating insurrection. YOU did.
The speeches do not contain specific quotes stating that the speaker is advocating insurrection - by your own admission.
Your assertion is YOURS to support. Normal people do that WHEN THEY MAKE THE ASSERTION. What you have done is assert it and then demand we prove you wrong.
YOU made the assertion. It is up to YOU to at least make the initial support for it.
YOU have done NOTHING other than to make an unsupported statement - then you have the gall to demand we prove it false.
The only possible answer to that is a simple 'no'. Do your own work.
As usual M demands that we prove or disown things no one here ever said while anything he says can never be challenged.
Double standards - twice as good as a shared one!
We can't have any sort of substantive discussion until you explain why you think I a liar. What does each speech advocate? It's not all that difficult. I watched then and think they are advocating armed insurrection. You watched them and thought what? This speaks to the very difference in perception between liberals and conservetives.
You should also bear in mind that it's silly to ask for direct quotes. Like the demand that racism is only there if the n word is used, you are being childish and simplistic. I think you may need to a brush up on how words can be used as propaganda.
I already explained why I think you are a liar.
I did it in two different ways.
First I did it using the EXACT same type of explanation that YOU are using to explain why you think the speakers at the NRA are advocating insurrection.
To refresh: Based the the totality of the statements found at this site:http://markadelphia.blogspot.com
Since you are expecting me to accept THAT EXACT amount of explanation, then you should have no problem accepting it too. Right?
But I did go further and explained that you are a liar in a way that does actually explain my position. RE: YOU have made an unsupported assertion and cannot or will not offer any support of it and continue to assert it without retraction. Hence - you are lying.
THAT is more explanation than you have given about the so-called insurrection thingie.
I watched then and think they are advocating armed insurrection
Fucking great! But that does nothing to explain why you think so, nor does it support in any way your accusation.
Consider the amount of time you have wasted being a dick and not answering my question, GD. We could have moved forward if you had just watched both videos and taken a stand on what you think they are advocating.
I think they are advocating armed insurrection. Guard Duck thinks Mark is a liar because they are, in fact, advocating ___________ instead. All you have to do is fill in the blank (honestly) and then we can move forward.
OK.
I don't think they are advocating insurrection based upon all the words collectively in each speech.
Happy now?
That doesn't do much to convey ANY information does it? But that is what you are expecting us to go on.
I think you are the one wasting time Mark. You are wasting time, deflecting from the fact that you have nothing you can use to explain what you think. There is nothing to put in words because your entire accusation is based upon raw emotion. You can't say "they are advocating insurrection because they said 'this' and 'this' and 'this' and put together that implies 'this' and 'this' and 'this'."
You don't have any logical thought pattern in this matter. You can't write it down because it's emotion, not logic.
Well, emotion doesn't put forth a case. And thus your case is unsupported.
If you cannot or will not support your case you can either retract it, or wilfully continue with an unsupported case - and thus wilfully be a liar.
Actually I did offer why I think they advocate insurrection. It's not just one quote. It's the whole speech. Both of them. It's the theme of both speeches and ALL of the words together are a means to that end. Picking out a few phrases here or there isn't enough. You have to look at all of the words in both speeches. Why do you have such trouble understanding this?
So, you don't think they are advocating insurrection. We already knew that. What are they advocating? What was the point of their speeches? The general theme? No need to type more then a few honest words.
The general theme is standing up and fighting in the political arena to preserve 2nd Amendment and other rights, you daft twit. Just like abortion rights activists "stand up and fight" for their rights. Or unions "stand up and fight" for what they believe in. I have difficulty believing anybody is actually that fucking dimwitted that they can't understand that. But then I remember Centerpoint AMR, and it makes perfect sense.
You have to look at all of the words in both speeches.
And use the super-duper liberal "conservative code" decoder ring!
Actually I did offer why I think they advocate insurrection
No you didn't any more than I offered any substantial reply by saying this: "I don't think they are advocating insurrection based upon all the words collectively in each speech."
Why are you having such a problem verbalizing why you think what you think? Why are you expecting me to provide the type of explanation that you yourself refuse to do?
Why do I have to provide what I think they are saying when you WILL NOT even provide the barest explanation for your assertion? YOU have provided NOTHING.
You haven't presented a case. I would like to be able to say that you haven't provided a legitimate case - but you have presented NO CASE WHATSOEVER.
What would stating what I think they are saying accomplish? Especially if I provide the same level of explanation as you expect to be adequate for yours.
For example -
Based upon the totality of their words and phrases I think they are advocating for purple M&M's. Therefore what you think about it is wrong.
Notice, my case has the same amount of support as yours. My case therefore is as legitimate as yours. You cannot argue against it without actually presenting some sort of case. Either by presenting a case against mine or by presenting a stronger case for yours.
Yeah. I think I'll go with it then.
Based upon the totality of their words and phrasing I think they are advocating for purple M&M's. Therefore you are wrong.
Hmm...Larry gave a pretty good answer that was honest and to the point. Why couldn't you do that, GD? Do you agree with him? I'll give you another chance to either echo him or put forth your own position. Otherwise, I'll be carrying on the discussion with him. At least I know where he stands.
Uhhm, I'm not going to answer your question Mark - because it's STILL your turn to STATE your position.
That's how conversations work.
You did the conversational equivalent of taking a crap in the middle of the room and then expect me to do the work of cleaning it up.
You made an assertion. Before you can expect others to provide counter assertions - especially when you demand they provide a 'why' to explain their assertion - you have to provide the 'why' to your own fucking position.
That's all I'm asking Mark.
You keep asking my the question of what I think and "WHY". Why don't you think you should provide the fucking WHY to your own assertion before asking me?
You want to know 'where I stand'?
Wow. Yeah, that's what I want to know before I enter this conversation with you. Your assertion, without providing a why, leaves me guessing as to whether you are a liar, mentally unbalanced delusional or if you actually have some logical argument.
YOU'VE provided NOTHING.
That's why, from me, you get nothing in return.
Forgot the most important part.
Are you seriously claiming that I didn't answer your question? Really?
Funny that, considering I ANSWERED IT in the EXACT same manner with the EXACT amount of detail as you have given to your position.
If you have a problem with my answer, LOOK IN THE MIRROR.
The general theme is standing up and fighting in the political arena to preserve 2nd Amendment and other rights, you daft twit.
Larry, the tactics that both use are quite similar. They start off with gratitude from their minions and then segue quickly into defining their enemies who are constantly attacking them (liberals, media, Obama etc) and the ones they should be afraid of who "scheme to destroy our country." They are tapping into their fear and fomenting anger by mentioning Obamacare and other issues which are "coming at it" (aka coming after you). They end each speech with talk of fighting and defending themselves from the ongoing assault.
Santorum talks about how our country is changing and how the other side is winning...unless something is done quickly. Right after this he not so slyly starts talking about the American Revolution and how many things are "under assault." He spends some time lying about liberals and then speaks of how freedom lovers like those in the audience are always under assault or attack. Towards the end he talks about fighting, risk and sacrifice. Sacrifice what, exactly?
LaPierre was even worse. The IRS is a weapon? The NRA not go quietly and they will fight? Let's see who crushes who? Ready to fight like hell to defend your liberty and never back down? Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Likely you will say that both were using hyperbole and metaphor and that they don't really mean those words literally. But aren't you one of the people who say that words have meaning? Do you think their audience understands that? Don't underestimate the dark heart of American populism, especially this strain.
Every person in that room would cheer if someone killed the president. Every.Single.One.
Every person in that room would cheer if someone killed the president. Every.Single.One.
You. Are. Out. Of. Your. Mind.
Seek help.
Oh and as a side note, congratulations. It only took nine fucking days for you to present some sort of case to support your assertion. Must be some kind of record.
No, I don't think they are advocating insurrection. They are using hyperbole and metaphor to encourage their members to defeat, politically, those who oppose their values - politically.
I also don't think you are a liar any more. But that's not because you finally produced some sort of case, but rather because you actually believe what you just wrote.
That's not lying.
It is however an obvious case of delusion. You want what you say to be true SOOOOOooooo bad that you actually believe it.
But it's not. And you are out of your mind. You really need help.
Every person in that room would cheer if someone killed the president. Every.Single.One.
Who was it again that made a movie about murdering the President - some deranged right-winger, right? Oh, no, that's right it was a deranged left-winger during the Bush Admin.
You are fucking certifiable. It must be so much fun to fuck with people that aren't disturbed.
Every person in that room would cheer if someone killed the president. Every.Single.One.
That's some barking moonbat crazy you've got going on in your head to come up with that idea, Barkadelphia. That's just idiotic, and kind of scary if you actually believe that.
Post a Comment