[Djshakes]

I’m not sure what “western Democracy” has to do with it but Brazil and Russia are prime examples of stricter laws and higher crime rates.

[Djshakes]

I’m not sure what “western Democracy” has to do with it but Brazil and Russia are prime examples of stricter laws and higher crime rates.

[Djshakes]

[quote=captcha]
I knew people who got killed because they tried to use guns they had.

Criminals would be less likely to own a firearm if access was not that easy.
[/quote]

Too bad they weren’t better shots.

In regards to you not having time to go for your gun when a criminal attacks you, fine. However, the bystander can go for his. You think he is going to help if he doesn’t have a gun?

As a criminal would you rather have a gun or take a chance using a knife because you know the home owner doesn’t own a gun? All your points are stupid assumptions. A criminal wants to get in and out as fast as he can in the most effective way.

[Djshakes]

[quote=captcha]
I knew people who got killed because they tried to use guns they had.

Criminals would be less likely to own a firearm if access was not that easy.
[/quote]

Too bad they weren’t better shots.

In regards to you not having time to go for your gun when a criminal attacks you, fine. However, the bystander can go for his. You think he is going to help if he doesn’t have a gun?

As a criminal would you rather have a gun or take a chance using a knife because you know the home owner doesn’t own a gun? All your points are stupid assumptions. A criminal wants to get in and out as fast as he can in the most effective way.

[Djshakes]

[quote=captcha]
I knew people who got killed because they tried to use guns they had.

Criminals would be less likely to own a firearm if access was not that easy.
[/quote]

Too bad they weren’t better shots.

In regards to you not having time to go for your gun when a criminal attacks you, fine. However, the bystander can go for his. You think he is going to help if he doesn’t have a gun?

As a criminal would you rather have a gun or take a chance using a knife because you know the home owner doesn’t own a gun? All your points are stupid assumptions. A criminal wants to get in and out as fast as he can in the most effective way.

[Djshakes]

[quote=captcha]
I knew people who got killed because they tried to use guns they had.

Criminals would be less likely to own a firearm if access was not that easy.
[/quote]

Too bad they weren’t better shots.

In regards to you not having time to go for your gun when a criminal attacks you, fine. However, the bystander can go for his. You think he is going to help if he doesn’t have a gun?

As a criminal would you rather have a gun or take a chance using a knife because you know the home owner doesn’t own a gun? All your points are stupid assumptions. A criminal wants to get in and out as fast as he can in the most effective way.

[Djshakes]

[quote=captcha]
I knew people who got killed because they tried to use guns they had.

Criminals would be less likely to own a firearm if access was not that easy.
[/quote]

Too bad they weren’t better shots.

In regards to you not having time to go for your gun when a criminal attacks you, fine. However, the bystander can go for his. You think he is going to help if he doesn’t have a gun?

As a criminal would you rather have a gun or take a chance using a knife because you know the home owner doesn’t own a gun? All your points are stupid assumptions. A criminal wants to get in and out as fast as he can in the most effective way.

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Rustico]Brian, When you go around carelessly using labels like “Redneck” and conflating whoever they supposedly are with evil, you are doing what Bush did…you are doing what every bigot from the beginning of time has done.[/quote]

I don’t disagree.

I do it for effect rather than out of belief. You have to talk the language of Glen Beck and Limbaugh for their adherents to understand.

If someone calls you a dumbass, it’s serves no purpose to respond “that was not very polite”.

As Allan has said before, words have meanings and consequences. But will the Right tone down the vitriol first?[/quote]

It wasn’t the right that came out guns blazing point to the left as the reason of the shooting. It was quite the opposite. The left planted the seed most of the media propagated it. The right hand no choice but to defend themselves and the left then points at their defense as vitriol. Give me a break.

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Rustico]Brian, When you go around carelessly using labels like “Redneck” and conflating whoever they supposedly are with evil, you are doing what Bush did…you are doing what every bigot from the beginning of time has done.[/quote]

I don’t disagree.

I do it for effect rather than out of belief. You have to talk the language of Glen Beck and Limbaugh for their adherents to understand.

If someone calls you a dumbass, it’s serves no purpose to respond “that was not very polite”.

As Allan has said before, words have meanings and consequences. But will the Right tone down the vitriol first?[/quote]

It wasn’t the right that came out guns blazing point to the left as the reason of the shooting. It was quite the opposite. The left planted the seed most of the media propagated it. The right hand no choice but to defend themselves and the left then points at their defense as vitriol. Give me a break.

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Rustico]Brian, When you go around carelessly using labels like “Redneck” and conflating whoever they supposedly are with evil, you are doing what Bush did…you are doing what every bigot from the beginning of time has done.[/quote]

I don’t disagree.

I do it for effect rather than out of belief. You have to talk the language of Glen Beck and Limbaugh for their adherents to understand.

If someone calls you a dumbass, it’s serves no purpose to respond “that was not very polite”.

As Allan has said before, words have meanings and consequences. But will the Right tone down the vitriol first?[/quote]

It wasn’t the right that came out guns blazing point to the left as the reason of the shooting. It was quite the opposite. The left planted the seed most of the media propagated it. The right hand no choice but to defend themselves and the left then points at their defense as vitriol. Give me a break.

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Rustico]Brian, When you go around carelessly using labels like “Redneck” and conflating whoever they supposedly are with evil, you are doing what Bush did…you are doing what every bigot from the beginning of time has done.[/quote]

I don’t disagree.

I do it for effect rather than out of belief. You have to talk the language of Glen Beck and Limbaugh for their adherents to understand.

If someone calls you a dumbass, it’s serves no purpose to respond “that was not very polite”.

As Allan has said before, words have meanings and consequences. But will the Right tone down the vitriol first?[/quote]

It wasn’t the right that came out guns blazing point to the left as the reason of the shooting. It was quite the opposite. The left planted the seed most of the media propagated it. The right hand no choice but to defend themselves and the left then points at their defense as vitriol. Give me a break.

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Rustico]Brian, When you go around carelessly using labels like “Redneck” and conflating whoever they supposedly are with evil, you are doing what Bush did…you are doing what every bigot from the beginning of time has done.[/quote]

I don’t disagree.

I do it for effect rather than out of belief. You have to talk the language of Glen Beck and Limbaugh for their adherents to understand.

If someone calls you a dumbass, it’s serves no purpose to respond “that was not very polite”.

As Allan has said before, words have meanings and consequences. But will the Right tone down the vitriol first?[/quote]

It wasn’t the right that came out guns blazing point to the left as the reason of the shooting. It was quite the opposite. The left planted the seed most of the media propagated it. The right hand no choice but to defend themselves and the left then points at their defense as vitriol. Give me a break.

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Rustico] You are kind of scary.[/quote]

I scare myself sometimes.

But you have no choice but to live dangerously when you’re dealing with dangerous people.

“Don’t retreat, reload.”

What are we supposed to do while the other side reloads?

Noting that heated rhetoric was nothing new in an America where politicians used to resort to dueling with pistols, she went on to defend vigorous disagreement. “If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas.”

It would have been good if she had stopped there. But then, with characteristic passion, she turned to what she knew would be her most memorable line: a charge that her critics are the ones guilty of fomenting violence.

“Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn,” she said. “That is reprehensible.”

By “blood libel,” Palin was referring, of course, to the charge that her own rhetoric had somehow increased the likelihood that a mentally disturbed young man would shoot people. And on the substance, she was right: There’s no evidence that her words — or anyone else’s —contributed to Saturday’s tragedy.

But her statement also confirmed something that should disqualify the former Alaska governor from ever seeking higher office: She has no sense of proportion.

A “blood libel” isn’t just a groundless charge that something sparked bloodshed. It is used primarily to refer to the monstrous anti-Semitic charge that Jews kidnapped and killed Christian infants for ritual use, a falsehood that provided a twisted justification for pogroms.

Palin was justified in accusing her critics of unfairness in using the tragedy as a talking point and in pointing a finger at her. But she went much further than that: She asserted that their argument “serves only to incite … violence.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-column-palin-20110113,0,4794503.column

[/quote]

Is our society at a point now where every word is look at under a microscope regardless of its obvious intent? It doesn’t surprise me coming from the LA Times. The author even admits they know what she is saying but if you dissect it really means x. Are politicians suppose to be walking thesauruses now? If this is all the LA Times can come up with they are pretty hurting. No wonder no one subscribes.

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Rustico] You are kind of scary.[/quote]

I scare myself sometimes.

But you have no choice but to live dangerously when you’re dealing with dangerous people.

“Don’t retreat, reload.”

What are we supposed to do while the other side reloads?

Noting that heated rhetoric was nothing new in an America where politicians used to resort to dueling with pistols, she went on to defend vigorous disagreement. “If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas.”

It would have been good if she had stopped there. But then, with characteristic passion, she turned to what she knew would be her most memorable line: a charge that her critics are the ones guilty of fomenting violence.

“Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn,” she said. “That is reprehensible.”

By “blood libel,” Palin was referring, of course, to the charge that her own rhetoric had somehow increased the likelihood that a mentally disturbed young man would shoot people. And on the substance, she was right: There’s no evidence that her words — or anyone else’s —contributed to Saturday’s tragedy.

But her statement also confirmed something that should disqualify the former Alaska governor from ever seeking higher office: She has no sense of proportion.

A “blood libel” isn’t just a groundless charge that something sparked bloodshed. It is used primarily to refer to the monstrous anti-Semitic charge that Jews kidnapped and killed Christian infants for ritual use, a falsehood that provided a twisted justification for pogroms.

Palin was justified in accusing her critics of unfairness in using the tragedy as a talking point and in pointing a finger at her. But she went much further than that: She asserted that their argument “serves only to incite … violence.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-column-palin-20110113,0,4794503.column

[/quote]

Is our society at a point now where every word is look at under a microscope regardless of its obvious intent? It doesn’t surprise me coming from the LA Times. The author even admits they know what she is saying but if you dissect it really means x. Are politicians suppose to be walking thesauruses now? If this is all the LA Times can come up with they are pretty hurting. No wonder no one subscribes.

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Rustico] You are kind of scary.[/quote]

I scare myself sometimes.

But you have no choice but to live dangerously when you’re dealing with dangerous people.

“Don’t retreat, reload.”

What are we supposed to do while the other side reloads?

Noting that heated rhetoric was nothing new in an America where politicians used to resort to dueling with pistols, she went on to defend vigorous disagreement. “If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas.”

It would have been good if she had stopped there. But then, with characteristic passion, she turned to what she knew would be her most memorable line: a charge that her critics are the ones guilty of fomenting violence.

“Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn,” she said. “That is reprehensible.”

By “blood libel,” Palin was referring, of course, to the charge that her own rhetoric had somehow increased the likelihood that a mentally disturbed young man would shoot people. And on the substance, she was right: There’s no evidence that her words — or anyone else’s —contributed to Saturday’s tragedy.

But her statement also confirmed something that should disqualify the former Alaska governor from ever seeking higher office: She has no sense of proportion.

A “blood libel” isn’t just a groundless charge that something sparked bloodshed. It is used primarily to refer to the monstrous anti-Semitic charge that Jews kidnapped and killed Christian infants for ritual use, a falsehood that provided a twisted justification for pogroms.

Palin was justified in accusing her critics of unfairness in using the tragedy as a talking point and in pointing a finger at her. But she went much further than that: She asserted that their argument “serves only to incite … violence.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-column-palin-20110113,0,4794503.column

[/quote]

Is our society at a point now where every word is look at under a microscope regardless of its obvious intent? It doesn’t surprise me coming from the LA Times. The author even admits they know what she is saying but if you dissect it really means x. Are politicians suppose to be walking thesauruses now? If this is all the LA Times can come up with they are pretty hurting. No wonder no one subscribes.

[Author]

Posts