Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789
Results 161 to 178 of 178
  1. #161
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    "right wing nutcases"... this was a nutcase, but applying right wing as a tag to him is like saying a spinning top is a compass.
    I wasn't talking about Loughner. Though I'm not surprised that is your immediate conclusion. I was referring to these incidents:

    — July 2008: A gunman named Jim David Adkisson, agitated at how “liberals” are “destroying America,” walks into a Unitarian Church and opens fire, killing two churchgoers and wounding four others.

    — October 2008: Two neo-Nazis are arrested in Tennessee in a plot to murder dozens of African-Americans, culminating in the assassination of President Obama.

    — December 2008: A pair of “Patriot” movement radicals — the father-son team of Bruce and Joshua Turnidge, who wanted “to attack the political infrastructure” — threaten a bank in Woodburn, Oregon, with a bomb in the hopes of extorting money that would end their financial difficulties, for which they blamed the government. Instead, the bomb goes off and kills two police officers. The men eventually are convicted and sentenced to death for the crime.

    — December 2008: In Belfast, Maine, police discover the makings of a nuclear “dirty bomb” in the basement of a white supremacist shot dead by his wife. The man, who was independently wealthy, reportedly was agitated about the election of President Obama and was crafting a plan to set off the bomb.

    — January 2009: A white supremacist named Keith Luke embarks on a killing rampage in Brockton, Mass., raping and wounding a black woman and killing her sister, then killing a homeless man before being captured by police as he is en route to a Jewish community center.

    — February 2009: A Marine named Kody Brittingham is arrested and charged with plotting to assassinate President Obama. Brittingham also collected white-supremacist material.

    — April 2009: A white supremacist named Richard Poplawski opens fire on three Pittsburgh police officers who come to his house on a domestic-violence call and kills all three, because he believed President Obama intended to take away the guns of white citizens like himself. Poplawski is currently awaiting trial.

    — April 2009: Another gunman in Okaloosa County, Florida, similarly fearful of Obama’s purported gun-grabbing plans, kills two deputies when they come to arrest him in a domestic-violence matter, then is killed himself in a shootout with police.

    — May 2009: A “sovereign citizen” named Scott Roeder walks into a church in Wichita, Kansas, and assassinates abortion provider Dr. George Tiller.

    — June 2009: A Holocaust denier and right-wing tax protester named James Von Brunn opens fire at the Holocaust Museum, killing a security guard.

    — February 2010: An angry tax protester named Joseph Ray Stack flies an airplane into the building housing IRS offices in Austin, Texas. (Media are reluctant to label this one “domestic terrorism” too.)

    — March 2010: Seven militiamen from the Hutaree Militia in Michigan and Ohio are arrested and charged with plotting to assassinate local police officers with the intent of sparking a new civil war.

    — March 2010: An anti-government extremist named John Patrick Bedell walks into the Pentagon and opens fire, wounding two officers before he is himself shot dead.

    — May 2010: A “sovereign citizen” from Georgia is arrested in Tennessee and charged with plotting the violent takeover of a local county courthouse.

    — May 2010: A still-unidentified white man walks into a Jacksonville, Fla., mosque and sets it afire, simultaneously setting off a pipe bomb.

    — May 2010: Two “sovereign citizens” named Jerry and Joe Kane gun down two police officers who pull them over for a traffic violation, and then wound two more officers in a shootout in which both of them are eventually killed.

    — July 2010: An agitated right-winger and convict named Byron Williams loads up on weapons and drives to the Bay Area intent on attacking the offices of the Tides Foundation and the ACLU, but is intercepted by state patrolmen and engages them in a shootout and armed standoff in which two officers and Williams are wounded.

    — September 2010: A Concord, N.C., man is arrested and charged with plotting to blow up a North Carolina abortion clinic. The man, 26-year–old Justin Carl Moose, referred to himself as the “Christian counterpart to (Osama) bin Laden” in a taped undercover meeting with a federal informant.
    We are told by conservatives these are "isolated" incidents. At what point in time do conservatives come to grips with the reality their violence toned rhetoric is responsible for yet another “isolated” incident.

    I believe Loughner is more like the pathetic character Travis Bickle. Nihilistic is the term I've heard used and I believe is appropriate.


    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    So you disagree with the President and the liberal elite?

    http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/dem...osshairs-maps/
    What qualifies this individual as an elitist?
    Last edited by scfire86; 01-13-2011 at 08:24 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."


  2. #162
    Back In Black ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    We are told by conservatives these are "isolated" incidents. At what point in time do conservatives come to grips with the reality their violence toned rhetoric is responsible for yet another “isolated” incident.
    At the same point that the left decide to finally burn the constitution, like it was a US Flag.

    If you think that extremist attacks are the sole domain of the right wing, your living in a fantasy land. Let's include ELF and the various "green" terrorists that roam this country. Oh and William Ayers....amongst others.

    Gosh, let's reflect on all those liberal students, the various liberal protests against the world bank, etc... So peaceful!

    Hey, can you point to those attacks you listed and tell me how many were caused by this supposed violence toned rhetoric from Republicans or conservatives?

    Its not like they advocated bringing a gun to a knife fight, like Obama did.

    As a matter of fact, explain what "violence toned rhetoric" means...
    Last edited by ChiefKN; 01-13-2011 at 08:51 PM.
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  3. #163
    Back In Black ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  4. #164
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    At the same point that the left decide to finally burn the constitution, like it was a US Flag.
    That is why we have elections. Are you saying laws that are legally passed according to the procedures dictated in our Constitution are justification for violence?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    If you think that extremist attacks are the sole domain of the right wing, your living in a fantasy land. Let's include ELF and the various "green" terrorists that roam this country. Oh and William Ayers....amongst others.
    Really? That's all you got? An enviro group from the 80's and a radical from the 60's? That justifies the current spate of violence? This is what is known as a false equivalency in debate tactics. But....can you point to a liberal candidate for the US Senate that talked about 2nd Amendment solutions or a liberal talk show host that advocated the military leadership to revolt against the CinC?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    Gosh, let's reflect on all those liberal students, the various liberal protests against the world bank, etc... So peaceful!
    And how many conservatives were gunned down in those protests?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    Hey, can you point to those attacks you listed and tell me how many were caused by this supposed violence toned rhetoric from Republicans or conservatives?
    Almost all of them. Folks like Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly have been screaming that Obama is a socialist, commie, facist, etc. The NRA has been bellyaching that Obama is going to take away people's guns. This is especially curious given that no anti-gun legislation is being given serious consideration. In fact, it was Obama who signed legislation allowing guns to be carried in National Parks.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    Its not like they advocated bringing a gun to a knife fight, like Obama did.
    The quote is “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." Aside from the fact that neither Obama or his followers have brought weapons to a political event or campaign, the quote speaks for itself. "If" the opposition doesn't bring a knife, a gun won't be necessary.

    Reading, it's FUNdamental.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    As a matter of fact, explain what "violence toned rhetoric" means...
    Rhetoric that incites violence. I'm surprised you would ask that question. Is this a confusing concept?
    Last edited by scfire86; 01-13-2011 at 10:25 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  5. #165
    Back In Black ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    That is why we have elections. Are you saying laws that are legally passed according to the procedures dictated in our Constitution are justification for violence?
    A law that would take away our right to free speech is not a just law.

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    Really? That's all you got? An enviro group from the 80's and a radical from the 60's? That justifies the current spate of violence? This is what is known as a false equivalency in debate tactics. But....can you point to a liberal candidate for the US Senate that talked about 2nd Amendment solutions or a liberal talk show host that advocated the military leadership to revolt against the CinC?
    ELF is alive and well and Obama's buddy from the 60's was bombing entire buildings... but its okay because he was a liberal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Obama lackey Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
    The liberal senator called for violence if democrats don’t get their historic tax hikes.

    McCaskill told the press that if democrats were not allowed to raise taxes on the rich,

    “It really is time for the people of America to take up pitchforks.“
    Quote Originally Posted by Sen. Mary Landrieu D-LA
    threatened the president of the United States with physical violence on Sunday, saying that if he or any other government official criticizes New Orleans police for failing to keep civil order in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina - "I might likely have to punch him - literally."

    "If one person criticizes [our sheriffs], or says one more thing, including the president of the United States, he will hear from me - one more word about it after this show airs and I - I might likely have to punch him - literally," Landrieu railed on "ABC's "This Week."
    And how many conservatives were gunned down in those protests?
    You still haven't proven that these folks were inspired by conservatives or republicans. The fact that they state they have similiar views is proof of nothing. Thats like saying that Castro was inspired by FDR.

    I'll wait.

    Almost all of them. Folks like Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly have been screaming that Obama is a socialist, commie, facist, etc. The NRA has been bellyaching that Obama is going to take away people's guns. This is especially curious given that no anti-gun legislation is being given serious consideration. In fact, it was Obama who signed legislation allowing guns to be carried in National Parks.
    Great non-sequitar.

    The quote is “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." Aside from the fact that neither Obama or his followers have brought weapons to a political event or campaign, the quote speaks for itself. "If" the opposition doesn't bring a knife, a gun won't be necessary.
    Wow, can't believe you missed the point. The point isn't the reality of the chances of violence. Unless you are delusional to think that Palin or any of these mysterious right wingers who used "violent rhetoric" really wanted people to go hunt these liberals... the point was that you were claiming that violence speech can cause this sort of violence. Well, here is your boyfriend using a violent metaphor.

    Reading, it's FUNdamental.
    Apparently not...

    Rhetoric that incites violence. I'm surprised you would ask that question. Is this a confusing concept?
    Its an unproven one at best. Can you even prove that this nutjob knew about Palin's website? Maybe he got his information from Huffington's crappy website.

    This exploitation by the left is sickening.
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  6. #166
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    A law that would take away our right to free speech is not a just law.
    Whose advocating taking away your right to free speech? Who is advocating any laws in that regard? There are restrictions on free speech. In case you hadn't heard, one can be held responsible for yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
    See above post. BTW, the Bill of Rights specifically states "Congress shall make no law...." It doesn't say anything about the Judiciary or the Executive Branch. Both of whom place restrictions on speech routinely through their actions authorized by the Constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    ELF is alive and well and Obama's buddy from the 60's was bombing entire buildings... but its okay because he was a liberal.
    Why is it okay because he was a liberal?

    Once again, does that justify the acts of violence I detailed earlier?


    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    You still haven't proven that these folks were inspired by conservatives or republicans. The fact that they state they have similiar views is proof of nothing. Thats like saying that Castro was inspired by FDR.
    Their actions speak for themselves and those that lived gave rationale that showed they were inspired by right wing rhetoric from any number of conservative sources.


    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    Wow, can't believe you missed the point. The point isn't the reality of the chances of violence. Unless you are delusional to think that Palin or any of these mysterious right wingers who used "violent rhetoric" really wanted people to go hunt these liberals... the point was that you were claiming that violence speech can cause this sort of violence. Well, here is your boyfriend using a violent metaphor.
    How so? Charles Manson didn't kill anyone either. He just convinced mentally unbalanced people that killing was justified and then put a knife in their hands. Are you saying he wasn't responsible either?

    And did any of his followers take up pitchforks? A GOP candidate stated her belief in 2nd Amendment solutions and I detailed actions by right wing extremists that committed acts of violence that resulted in killing innocent individuals. You really believe the two are similar? Okay then. I've come to realize the fantasy world that conservatives reside.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    Its an unproven one at best. Can you even prove that this nutjob knew about Palin's website? Maybe he got his information from Huffington's crappy website.
    I already explained my position on Loughner. Did you not read my beliefs as it relates to that individual? Apparently not.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    This exploitation by the left is sickening.
    What exploitation? This is yet another of your fantasies.
    Last edited by scfire86; 01-13-2011 at 11:46 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  7. #167
    Back In Black ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    These lunatics were "inspired" by their mental illness. Hundreds of millions of other Americans heard and read the same messages and didn't act. In fact, its still not clear that these folks took their cues from Palin or any other republican's "violent rhetoric".

    Again, just because they stated similar beliefs (although, who knows what they believe, they're crazy after all), there is no proof that there was any motivation by the "violent" rhetoric as opposed to just plain ol' rhetoric. Prove that they did.

    You mention Charles Manson... Systematic brainwashing and political conversation are completely different. What a bizarre comparison

    On that note, are you for real??? Are you really advocating that there should be no public discussion on political topics? How can you have a discussion without opposing viewpoints. Why shouldn't people be passionate about those views.

    The "violent rhetoric" that you and your whiney libs keep referencing are obscure and infrequent instances.

    Don't you see where your position can quickly slide to a limitation of speech that would be in conflict with the constitution?? Unpopular speech shouldn't be illegal (funny that the left, for all their talk of freedom, are the first to attack free speech).

    The fantasy is that you might even understand your own point... is your point that the GOP candidates actually expected someone to go out and kill on their behalf??? Speaking of delusional.

    Speaking of pitchforks....

    Arrayed around a long mahogany table in the White House state dining room last week, the CEOs of the most powerful financial institutions in the world offered several explanations for paying high salaries to their employees — and, by extension, to themselves.

    “These are complicated companies,” one CEO said. Offered another: “We’re competing for talent on an international market.”

    But President Barack Obama wasn’t in a mood to hear them out. He stopped the conversation and offered a blunt reminder of the public’s reaction to such explanations. “Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen. The public isn’t buying that.”

    “My administration,” the president added, “is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”
    The mere fact that someone didn't grab a pitchfork makes no difference. It is either violent rhetoric or not. Advocating that you should stab someone with a pitchfork, punch the president or shoot them are all violent.

    This is the latest attack on free speech by the politically correct. There is no evidence that "violent" rhetoric influence this whackjob at all. The left has co-opted this attack to advance their agenda against the vocal minority who made tremendous political gains by pointing out the unpopular policies of the last two years. Its also another opportunity to attack the popular conservative talk show hosts.

    What's interesting is that this loud debate when it was the left wing during the 1960's has been romanticized and defines the left wing of today. The large majority of those from the right are peaceful and have held numerous peaceful rallies and demonstrations over the last two years. Certainly more peaceful then the left wing rallies by students, environmental groups and those opposed to the world bank, etc.

    The fact that the liberals have to use the actions of one insane person for their political gain is disgusting.

    You are being naive or stupid.
    Last edited by ChiefKN; 01-14-2011 at 12:34 AM.
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  8. #168
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    These lunatics were "inspired" by their mental illness. Hundreds of millions of other Americans heard and read the same messages and didn't act. In fact, its still not clear that these folks took their cues from Palin or any other republican's "violent rhetoric".
    The hundreds of millions of Americans who didn't act aren't the issue. The issue is the few who did act.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    Again, just because they stated similar beliefs (although, who knows what they believe, they're crazy after all), there is no proof that there was any motivation by the "violent" rhetoric as opposed to just plain ol' rhetoric. Prove that they did.
    The remarks by several of those individuals. The person who shot the Pittsburgh PD officers stated he was concerned that Obama was coming to take his guns. Irony aside, where would he have heard those types of statements?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    You mention Charles Manson... Systematic brainwashing and political conversation are completely different. What a bizarre comparison
    Repetitive rhetoric that is demonizing and dehumanizing the victims was done via a different medium. Same result. Hitler didn't directly kill any Jews (or any of the others). He used systematic brainwashing via all available media outlets. Unless you believe he spoke with the individual citizens who were directly responsible for the Final Solution.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    On that note, are you for real??? Are you really advocating that there should be no public discussion on political topics? How can you have a discussion without opposing viewpoints. Why shouldn't people be passionate about those views.
    Not at all. Where have I stated any such thing. What I have said is that words have the power to inflame. An unbalanced person could easily be motivated to do harm based upon that rhetoric. Do you disagree?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    The "violent rhetoric" that you and your whiney libs keep referencing are obscure and infrequent instances.
    Your kidding, right? Every day, O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Beck, Malkin et al are demonizing liberals as facists, commies, socialists, etc. You must not be paying attention.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    Don't you see where your position can quickly slide to a limitation of speech that would be in conflict with the constitution?? Unpopular speech shouldn't be illegal (funny that the left, for all their talk of freedom, are the first to attack free speech).
    I never said unpopular speech should be illegal. However, those who make specious claims about others (ie. "Obama is a Kenyan") should be held responsible for the consequences of that speech. Or do you believe an individual should be allowed to libel and slander another based upon the 1st Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    The fantasy is that you might even understand your own point... is your point that the GOP candidates actually expected someone to go out and kill on their behalf??? Speaking of delusional.
    Where's the fantasy? I bet those three police officers in Pittsburgh don't believe they were shot by a fantasy claiming liberals were coming to take his guns. Of course they're not in a position to believe anything any longer. But their families must deal with the ramifications of an unbalanced individual who had those beliefs.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    Speaking of pitchforks....


    The mere fact that someone didn't grab a pitchfork makes no difference. It is either violent rhetoric or not. Advocating that you should stab someone with a pitchfork, punch the president or shoot them are all violent.
    I'm betting someone whose been stabbed or shot would disagree with you that there is a difference between the act and it only being spoken.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    This is the latest attack on free speech by the politically correct. There is no evidence that "violent" rhetoric influence this whackjob at all. The left has co-opted this attack to advance their agenda against the vocal minority who made tremendous political gains by pointing out the unpopular policies of the last two years. Its also another opportunity to attack the popular conservative talk show hosts.
    There is no attack on free speech other than holding those who use violent rhetoric to incite accountable. Do you believe that is wrong? What if someone accused you of molesting your own children? Would you just sit there and say, "oh well, they have a 1st Amendment right to accuse me of being a pedophile." I'm thinking you might seek out legal options.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    What's interesting is that this loud debate when it was the left wing during the 1960's has been romanticized and defines the left wing of today. The large majority of those from the right are peaceful and have held numerous peaceful rallies and demonstrations over the last two years. Certainly more peaceful then the left wing rallies by students, environmental groups and those opposed to the world bank, etc.
    So what? That was 40-50 years ago. We're talking about now.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    The fact that the liberals have to use the actions of one insane person for their political gain is disgusting.

    You are being naive or stupid.
    What political gain is occurring? Please be specific.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  9. #169
    Back In Black ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Not at all. Where have I stated any such thing. What I have said is that words have the power to inflame. An unbalanced person could easily be motivated to do harm based upon that rhetoric. Do you disagree?
    David Berkowitz was motivated (inflamed) by his dog speaking to him. Guess we should come down on dog owners too....

    Seriously, you are referencing delusional people with mental illness. If they hear Palin's voice in their head telling them to blow up the whitehouse, is she just as liable?

    Your kidding, right? Every day, O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Beck, Malkin et al are demonizing liberals as facists, commies, socialists, etc. You must not be paying attention.
    Your funny... is it "demonizing speech" or is it "violent rhetoric"? Exactly how will the left describe other speech they disagree with. They are demonizing political commentary...

    I never said unpopular speech should be illegal. However, those who make specious claims about others (ie. "Obama is a Kenyan") should be held responsible for the consequences of that speech. Or do you believe an individual should be allowed to libel and slander another based upon the 1st Amendment?
    Now its "specious claims"...

    If it was libel or slander, we already have laws for that, the injured have a remedy. Where is the lawsuit?

    Where's the fantasy? I bet those three police officers in Pittsburgh don't believe they were shot by a fantasy claiming liberals were coming to take his guns. Of course they're not in a position to believe anything any longer. But their families must deal with the ramifications of an unbalanced individual who had those beliefs.
    Liberals have a very strong history of advocating gun control. Is that really a big secret? Did the gunman reference who told him to shoot the cops?

    I'm betting someone whose been stabbed or shot would disagree with you that there is a difference between the act and it only being spoken.
    That was the point going over your head.

    There is no attack on free speech other than holding those who use violent rhetoric to incite accountable.
    Your definition of violent rhetoric is that it is speech that causes violence... pretty broad definition.

    Tell me how you will hold them accountable? Send them to the gulag?

    In this specific case, what would you have happen to whomever you think caused this guy to go insane?

    What political gain is occurring? Please be specific.
    Wow... did you not read the press accounts of Obama's speech? The drool was visible.
    Last edited by ChiefKN; 01-14-2011 at 09:24 AM.
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  10. #170
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    David Berkowitz was motivated (inflamed) by his dog speaking to him. Guess we should come down on dog owners too....
    Certainly the ones who are mentally unstable. Especially those who are prone to act violently.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    Seriously, you are referencing delusional people with mental illness. If they hear Palin's voice in their head telling them to blow up the whitehouse, is she just as liable?
    She certainly bears some responsibility. See above comments regarding mental health. I'm not surprised at this mindset. Those who demand the personal responsibility of others are typically the ones to least accept it.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    Your funny... is it "demonizing speech" or is it "violent rhetoric"? Exactly how will the left describe other speech they disagree with. They are demonizing political commentary...
    Both are occurring. Nice attempt at a deflection.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    Now its "specious claims"...
    Amongst many others, claiming Obama is a Kenyan is specious. Another deflection attempt.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    If it was libel or slander, we already have laws for that, the injured have a remedy. Where is the lawsuit?
    Just because someone hasn't sued doesn't mean it isn't occurring. This is a red herring.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    Liberals have a very strong history of advocating gun control. Is that really a big secret? Did the gunman reference who told him to shoot the cops?
    He stated he believed Obama was coming to get his guns. Where would he have gotten that belief? The Obama Administration hasn't put forth any gun laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    That was the point going over your head.
    In what way? You believe that verbal threats have the same impact as physical threats? Could you explain why someone yelling has the same impact as someone shooting you?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    Your definition of violent rhetoric is that it is speech that causes violence... pretty broad definition.
    If you say so.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    Tell me how you will hold them accountable? Send them to the gulag?
    Not that kind of crime. Finances are a pretty good start. How would you hold accountable the individual who accuses you of molesting your children? I'm amused that you ducked answering that scenario.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    In this specific case, what would you have happen to whomever you think caused this guy to go insane?
    Here you go. This is an easy question. I don't believe anyone caused him to go insane. I believe the constant rhetoric he listened to convinced him to act and indeed justified (in his own mind) those acts.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    Wow... did you not read the press accounts of Obama's speech? The drool was visible.
    Read just about all of them. I didn't read anything that wasn't similar than when Bush stood on the Pile on 9/11 or when Reagan spoke at the memorial service for the Challenger victims. Methinks you are reading way too much into the coverage. Please cite passages that would lead you to believe the press pool was drooling.
    Last edited by scfire86; 01-14-2011 at 11:37 AM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  11. #171
    Back In Black ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    She certainly bears some responsibility. See above comments regarding mental health. I'm not surprised at this mindset. Those who demand the personal responsibility of others are typically the ones to least accept it.
    Personal responsibility means that the shooter was responsible for his actions.

    Unless you can prove to me that Palin intended for people to go and shoot those candidates, you and the left wing whackos have no point. Heck if you can prove that she reached out to him personally, you'd have a point.

    The fact that you would fine someone for their constitutionally protected speech speaks volumes about your extremism.

    As for the assinine comparison to being accused of molestation... I didn't answer because it was a ridiculous question. I would use the legal avenues available to me or simply deny it and move on. Slander is different then political commentary.

    Its an idiotic comparison. The only thing those folks on the "target map" were accused of was passing legislation, which they did.
    Last edited by ChiefKN; 01-14-2011 at 12:23 PM.
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  12. #172
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    Personal responsibility means that the shooter was responsible for his actions.
    So you're saying outside influences and individuals bear no culpability?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    Unless you can prove to me that Palin intended for people to go and shoot those candidates, you and the left wing whackos have no point. Heck if you can prove that she reached out to him personally, you'd have a point.
    I already gave you two separate scenarios. One involving the Manson family and one in Nazi Germany. Manson or Hitler didn't kill anyone themselves. Are you saying that neither individual has no responsibility for the actions of their followers? Did Hitler reach out to all those involved in killing Jews (and others) personally in a one on one contact? If the premise had been that there was "causation" between Palin's incendiarism and Jared Loughner's act, it would have been flawed -- but no one said that, particularly not Paul Krugman, whose recent column is the focus of much of the Right's animus.
    What liberals have been saying from the start is that it was undeniable that the killings took place in a charged atmosphere in which all kinds of violent rhetoric had created an environment in which nearly everyone present on the ground felt something like this was inevitable -- because it creates permission for violent acts, and fuels the irrationality that makes violence possible. Sarah Palin's "target map" was only the most obvious example. So, for that matter, was that "target shoot" fundraiser by her Tea Partying opponent. Imagine your outrage if the situation were reversed. If Dem candidates were stating there should have been 2nd Amendment solutions for the policies adopted by Bush and the GOP congress. Or if they did fundraisers that involved "target shooting." I typically don't like hypotheticals. But if you want to deny violent rhetoric hasn't become part of the GOP narrative, you are living in denial. Which isn't a river in Egypt.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    The fact that you would fine someone for their constitutionally protected speech speaks volumes about your extremism.
    Speech isn't protected if it is accusatory of a crime, slander, libelous, or can be proven to be injurious to the innocent. Can you yell "fire" in a crowded theater? And not to burst your bubble about the 1st Amendment, but Congress has indeed passed laws that limit free speech during our nation's history.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    As for the assinine comparison to being accused of molestation... I didn't answer because it was a ridiculous question. I would use the legal avenues available to me or simply deny it and move on. Slander is different then political commentary.
    Why is it a ridiculous question? What if the political commentary is slanderous? You would use legal avenues. That is my point. The almost two dozen scenarios I listed didn't seek legal avenues. In the case of the person who sought to shoot up the Tides Foundation, his sibling stated he was very much influenced by Glenn Beck. Others admitted they were influenced by right wing dialogue or right wing extremist groups and individuals. Yet according to you, those doing the influencing have no culpability because they didn't directly contact the individual who committed the act.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    Its an idiotic comparison. The only thing those folks on the "target map" were accused of was passing legislation, which they did.
    And there are individuals who were stating that 2nd Amendment solutions might be necessary. Did you notice that Sharon Angle ducked all questions regarding that statement? You know she'd stepped over the line when GOP groups were supporting her opponent. Which did happen.

    Many of those individuals who passed said legislation were also villified as communists, socialists, facists etc. Which they are not.
    Last edited by scfire86; 01-14-2011 at 02:31 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  13. #173
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Memphis Tn,USA-now
    Posts
    5,436

    Default

    I haven't taken the time to read though all this yet but didn't this clown have a copy of the "Communist Manifesto"?How would that mark him as a conservative?
    Furthermore,Arizona has had open carry laws since at least 1988 when I was there last.How many political events have been shot up in that time?THis is the only one that I've heard of and it might be because a Democrat and a child were involved.
    Expecting that the gun laws of Arizona be changed because ONE MAN decided to shoot up a political meeting because the reponse from his congresscritter to a recent letter from him was printed in Spanish is kind of like would be kind of like expecting that motor vehicle laws should be changed if someone uses one to commit murder or assault.
    I know that liberals aren't big on personal responsibility but other than liberal talk shows claiming a connection,I haven't seen anything linking conservative commentators to this tragedy.

  14. #174
    Back In Black ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    So you're saying outside influences and individuals bear no culpability?
    I'm saying that "outside influences" as it pertains to this discussion bear no responsibility. When I say I'm targeting a potential client, I don't want them killed. When I say the Jets are going to Kill the Patriots, I don't expect someone to kill them. If a Jet's Player then kills a Patriot's player am I then in some way responsible???

    Your comparison is faulty. Hitler ordered the killing of the jews, just like Manson ordered the killings by the Manson family. Palin didn't order anyone to kill these folks, nor did anyone else you have vilified.

    What liberals have been saying from the start is that it was undeniable that the killings took place in a charged atmosphere in which all kinds of violent rhetoric had created an environment in which nearly everyone present on the ground felt something like this was inevitable -- because it creates permission for violent acts, and fuels the irrationality that makes violence possible.
    It is most certainly deniable. But even if it did influence the insane... so what? Should we ban all things that "influence" the insane to do insane things?

    Good luck with that.

    Sarah Palin's "target map" was only the most obvious example. So, for that matter, was that "target shoot" fundraiser by her Tea Partying opponent. Imagine your outrage if the situation were reversed. If Dem candidates were stating there should have been 2nd Amendment solutions for the policies adopted by Bush and the GOP congress. Or if they did fundraisers that involved "target shooting." I typically don't like hypotheticals. But if you want to deny violent rhetoric hasn't become part of the GOP narrative, you are living in denial. Which isn't a river in Egypt.
    You and your kind have yet to prove this nutcase even knew those things existed.

    Speech isn't protected if it is accusatory of a crime, slander, libelous, or can be proven to be injurious to the innocent. Can you yell "fire" in a crowded theater? And not to burst your bubble about the 1st Amendment, but Congress has indeed passed laws that limit free speech during our nation's history.
    Again, prove that this contributed to the crime in a material way. Even if it did, if this nutjob somehow saw this obscure map on the web and it caused his disturbed mind to think it was some sort of order, this is the horrible cost of a free society. I love our society and our country, but there will always be evil and there will always be bad things.

    In China, this sort of thing is probably very rare, indeed. I don't want to live in China.


    Why is it a ridiculous question? What if the political commentary is slanderous? You would use legal avenues. That is my point. The almost two dozen scenarios I listed didn't seek legal avenues. In the case of the person who sought to shoot up the Tides Foundation, his sibling stated he was very much influenced by Glenn Beck. Others admitted they were influenced by right wing dialogue or right wing extremist groups and individuals. Yet according to you, those doing the influencing have no culpability because they didn't directly contact the individual who committed the act.
    I go back to David Berkowitz... my point being that crazy people will be influenced by the most mundane. Look at Hinckley... was Jody Foster culpable?

    Do you advocate banning all material that will incite people? What about banning shows like South Park? What about violent video games? Where does it end?

    And there are individuals who were stating that 2nd Amendment solutions might be necessary. Did you notice that Sharon Angle ducked all questions regarding that statement? You know she'd stepped over the line when GOP groups were supporting her opponent. Which did happen.
    And yet....... noone has been shot because of it. So it appears that all violent rhetoric doesn't lead to violence.
    Last edited by ChiefKN; 01-14-2011 at 04:59 PM.
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  15. #175
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    I'm saying that "outside influences" as it pertains to this discussion bear no responsibility. When I say I'm targeting a potential client, I don't want them killed. When I say the Jets are going to Kill the Patriots, I don't expect someone to kill them. If a Jet's Player then kills a Patriot's player am I then in some way responsible???
    Like everything it would depend.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    Your comparison is faulty. Hitler ordered the killing of the jews, just like Manson ordered the killings by the Manson family. Palin didn't order anyone to kill these folks, nor did anyone else you have vilified.
    So to whom is she referring when she discussed reloading and accusing Obama of being a terrorist. What is the purpose of using that type of rhetoric if not to dehumanize the individual and justify killing that individual ("kill him" was heard at her rallies).

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    It is most certainly deniable. But even if it did influence the insane... so what? Should we ban all things that "influence" the insane to do insane things?
    No, but we can most certainly hold those responsible for inflaming the insane. Did you read any of my links on lawsuits being won against the KKK?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    Good luck with that.
    Thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    You and your kind have yet to prove this nutcase even knew those things existed.
    Which nutcase? I cited several. The gentleman who wanted to shoot up the Tides Foundation (according to his sister) was a frequent Glenn Beck listener. The individual who shot Dr. Tiller in the face listened to Bill O'Reilly. BillO referred to Dr. Tiller as Tiller the Killer on numerous occasions.


    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    Again, prove that this contributed to the crime in a material way. Even if it did, if this nutjob somehow saw this obscure map on the web and it caused his disturbed mind to think it was some sort of order, this is the horrible cost of a free society. I love our society and our country, but there will always be evil and there will always be bad things.
    So we should just accept this type of behavior? Pretty tough talk until you or one of your loved takes a bullet in the face.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    In China, this sort of thing is probably very rare, indeed. I don't want to live in China.
    Couldn't tell you. I don't know that much about China. Though my wife and I are thinking of going there next year. I'll let you know.


    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    I go back to David Berkowitz... my point being that crazy people will be influenced by the most mundane. Look at Hinckley... was Jody Foster culpable?
    Both are still in prison. Hinckley never had any contact with Foster, nor did Foster ever use rhetoric that would incite violence against the President. This is an invalid comparison. Palin and other conservative pundits have indeed been engaging in violence toned rhetoric.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    Do you advocate banning all material that will incite people? What about banning shows like South Park? What about violent video games? Where does it end?
    Hypothetical. I'll let you know when that happens.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    And yet....... noone has been shot because of it. So it appears that all violent rhetoric doesn't lead to violence.
    Never said it did.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  16. #176
    Back In Black ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    So to whom is she referring when she discussed reloading and accusing Obama of being a terrorist. What is the purpose of using that type of rhetoric if not to dehumanize the individual and justify killing that individual ("kill him" was heard at her rallies).
    Justify killing them??? I didn't know you got your medical marijuana card!

    Seriously, you've gone off the res with that one.


    No, but we can most certainly hold those responsible for inflaming the insane. Did you read any of my links on lawsuits being won against the KKK?
    Read it, has no bearing on this at all.

    Which nutcase? I cited several. The gentleman who wanted to shoot up the Tides Foundation (according to his sister) was a frequent Glenn Beck listener. The individual who shot Dr. Tiller in the face listened to Bill O'Reilly. BillO referred to Dr. Tiller as Tiller the Killer on numerous occasions.
    So, the hearsay was that he listened to Glenn Beck, so what? What if he also listened to Katie Couric. It means nothing.

    So we should just accept this type of behavior? Pretty tough talk until you or one of your loved takes a bullet in the face.
    That sort of behavior is called free speech. I know that giving folks freedom scares you folks on the left, but thats what those pesky bill of rights allow.

    Both are still in prison. Hinckley never had any contact with Foster, nor did Foster ever use rhetoric that would incite violence against the President. This is an invalid comparison. Palin and other conservative pundits have indeed been engaging in violence toned rhetoric.
    So, which one of the politicians using "violent rhetoric", "demonizing speech" or "specious comments" met with this Arizona nutjob?

    You do realize that you have referenced only a few cases from recent history that could even be considered as relevant (although there is still not one with any direct link).

    Shame that the left wing whackos are so threatened by our freedoms. The real shame is when they start to take them away.

    Here is an example of that violent rhetoric and the consequences:

    http://biggovernment.com/jhoft/2010/...beatdown-case/

    Love this one....

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6b1VOAATNk

    Good article:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...pinion_LEADTop

    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?
    More:

    Theblogprof has a roundup of many examples of inflammatory rhetoric by Democrats:

    ■“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” Barack Obama in July 2008
    ■“I want you to argue with them and get in their face!” Barack Obama, September 2008
    ■“Here’s the problem: It’s almost like they’ve got — they’ve got a bomb strapped to them and they’ve got their hand on the trigger. You don’t want them to blow up. But you’ve got to kind of talk them, ease that finger off the trigger.” Barack Obama on banks, March 2009
    ■“I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!” Barack Obama on ACORN Mobs, March 2010
    ■“We talk to these folks… so I know whose *** to kick.” Barack Obama on the private sector, June 2010
    ■“A Republican majority in Congress would mean ‘hand-to-hand combat’ on Capitol Hill for the next two years, threatening policies Democrats have enacted to stabilize the economy.” Barack Obama, October 6, 2010
    ■“We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.” Barack Obama to Latinos, October 2010

    Truly fascinating stuff here...

    http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10...mer-2000-2010/

    .
    Last edited by ChiefKN; 01-14-2011 at 08:37 PM.
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  17. #177
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    Justify killing them??? I didn't know you got your medical marijuana card!

    Seriously, you've gone off the res with that one.

    Read it, has no bearing on this at all.

    So, the hearsay was that he listened to Glenn Beck, so what? What if he also listened to Katie Couric. It means nothing.

    That sort of behavior is called free speech. I know that giving folks freedom scares you folks on the left, but thats what those pesky bill of rights allow.

    So, which one of the politicians using "violent rhetoric", "demonizing speech" or "specious comments" met with this Arizona nutjob?

    You do realize that you have referenced only a few cases from recent history that could even be considered as relevant (although there is still not one with any direct link).

    Shame that the left wing whackos are so threatened by our freedoms. The real shame is when they start to take them away.

    Here is an example of that violent rhetoric and the consequences:

    http://biggovernment.com/jhoft/2010/...beatdown-case/

    Love this one....

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6b1VOAATNk

    Good article:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...pinion_LEADTop



    More:

    Theblogprof has a roundup of many examples of inflammatory rhetoric by Democrats:

    ■“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” Barack Obama in July 2008
    ■“I want you to argue with them and get in their face!” Barack Obama, September 2008
    ■“Here’s the problem: It’s almost like they’ve got — they’ve got a bomb strapped to them and they’ve got their hand on the trigger. You don’t want them to blow up. But you’ve got to kind of talk them, ease that finger off the trigger.” Barack Obama on banks, March 2009
    ■“I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!” Barack Obama on ACORN Mobs, March 2010
    ■“We talk to these folks… so I know whose *** to kick.” Barack Obama on the private sector, June 2010
    ■“A Republican majority in Congress would mean ‘hand-to-hand combat’ on Capitol Hill for the next two years, threatening policies Democrats have enacted to stabilize the economy.” Barack Obama, October 6, 2010
    ■“We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.” Barack Obama to Latinos, October 2010

    Truly fascinating stuff here...

    http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10...mer-2000-2010/

    .
    I'll let you have the last word. It's been fun watching you rationalize discourse that has resulted in violence.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  18. #178
    Back In Black ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I'll let you have the last word. It's been fun watching you rationalize discourse that has resulted in violence.
    Its funnier watching a liberal advocate suppression of free speech. What great champions of freedom you all are!
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Firefighter critically injured mother's day morning
    By Jasper 45 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-15-2006, 01:19 PM
  2. Great Training question!
    By Drjmilus in forum Testing & Fitness
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-14-2005, 03:52 PM
  3. The NEW YORK TIMES
    By E40FDNYL35 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-14-2002, 11:06 PM
  4. Did anyone see Good Morning America 10/3/01?
    By Chaplain 41 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-05-2001, 04:19 PM
  5. Why not firefighters?
    By FireBabe in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 04-03-2001, 05:37 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts