DNC Continues To Blame Tea Party For Giffords Shooting

[cybrsage]

The guy was knocking on 80 when he said it. And there is a difference between an occasional candid comment and a consistent reoccurring theme. Though I won't expect any rightwinger to admit to that here.

Oh, so it is ok for dems to do these things if they are old.

You are moving the goalpost ever further. You asked for proof, I provided it. When faced with it, you decided that old people are not actually democrat officials...

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Giffords gets shot by a crazy. It's the goddamned Tea Party and incivility.

Fort Hood shooting, where a guy with radical Islamic tendencies kills 13 people while shouting Allahu Akbar. Woah woah WOAH let's not jump to conclusions.

Funny you bring that up. The right sure loves their profiling when it comes to Arabs and Muslims, but when it comes to the folks who stockpile weapons, plot to take over court rooms, blow up federal buildings with fertilizer bombs, or incite violence against the government, well, that could be anybody.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Oh, so it is ok for dems to do these things if they are old.

You are moving the goalpost ever further. You asked for proof, I provided it. When faced with it, you decided that old people are not actually democrat officials...

Stop the bullshit. There is a world of difference between whatever you can find and the people shouting "don't retreat, reload" with a pistol strapped to their hip or a pile of AR15s under their bed.

 

[PeshakJang]

Stop the bullshit. There is a world of difference between whatever you can find and the people shouting "don't retreat, reload" with a pistol strapped to their hip or a pile of AR15s under their bed.

I seem to recall democrats rallying and openly calling for a certain supreme court justice to be "put out in the fields" and "hung up on a tree" because they thought he had misled people in his finances.

Also, if you don't believe that people called for Bush to be killed on a regular basis during a his second term, you're being purposefully obtuse.

Biden makes a point of saying that republican policies will cause people to be raped and murdered in record numbers, too.

Democrats still compare republicans to nazis fairly regularly.

And we haven't event mentioned the open violence displayed by OWS, which has been openly embraced by the democrat party.

 

[cybrsage]

Stop the bullshit. There is a world of difference between whatever you can find and the people shouting "don't retreat, reload" with a pistol strapped to their hip or a pile of AR15s under their bed.

You asked for it, I provided it. Suddenly, you want something else.

Can you show me the politician who said what you just claimed? Of course, you must also play by your own requirements, and it must be a republican politician saying such things about a democrat.

 

[blackangst1]

The right wing could burn down your house and rape your dog, and they'd find a way to say you had wronged them in all that.

They're masters at the victim game. Gays who don't want to be discriminated against have an evil 'gay agenda' and are out to destroy marriage and families, etc.

People who oppose policies transferring wealth to the top 0.01% 'oppose economic freedom and punish success', while policies to shift it back are 'divisive' and 'class war'.

Well, you're anything but predictable lol

Like a broken record, but wordier.

This.^^^ I remember Democrats using Tea Party language almost word for word when Bush was in office. Now all of a sudden they take the moral high road?

You know, I think we should blame Virginia Tech on the liberals. Guy probably, sorta, maybe thought that Bush. the number one terrorist was going to nail him with the Patriot act and waterboard him in a secret CIA prison, and had been tapping his foreign phone calls for years. Because if you listened to a lot of Democrat opposition groups, that's what the world was coming to under Bush's reign, and it was going to happen to YOU someday.

This.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I seem to recall democrats rallying and openly calling for a certain supreme court justice to be "put out in the fields" and "hung up on a tree" because they thought he had misled people in his finances.

Also, if you don't believe that people called for Bush to be killed on a regular basis during a his second term, you're being purposefully obtuse.

Again, point being, it wasn't by the folks with pistols strapped to their hips or a pile of AR15s under their bed. Nor was it a consistent recurring theme of any Democrat's political platform. The Tea Party courted the fringe vote with this rhetoric and they deserve all the heat that comes from it. But in your eyes that makes them the real victims in this tragedy doesn't it? You're like the Westboro church claiming innocence because you didn't pull the trigger on the soldiers you slander. You're all just victims of those mean vicious liberals.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

You asked for it, I provided it. Suddenly, you want something else.

Can you show me the politician who said what you just claimed? Of course, you must also play by your own requirements, and it must be a republican politician saying such things about a democrat.

You're going to pretend Sharon Angle calling for a "second amendment solution" is something other than a call for violence against her opponents? Or are you pretending to be ignorant of the statement?

 

[PeshakJang]

Again, point being, it wasn't by the folks with pistols strapped to their hips or a pile of AR15s under their bed. Nor was it a consistent recurring theme of any Democrat's political platform. The Tea Party courted the fringe vote with this rhetoric and they deserve all the heat that comes from it. But in your eyes that makes them the real victims in this tragedy doesn't it? You're like the Westboro church claiming innocence because you didn't pull the trigger on the soldiers you slander. You're all just victims of those mean vicious liberals.

OWS, you know, the ones with piles of molotov cocktails under their beds, openly courts the fringe vote of the left. Democrats embrace this, while continuing to stir the pot with their own rhetoric of class warfare and republican misdoings. If you are going to stand there and say this is not the case, there is no point in arguing anymore, since you are obviously oblivious to what is going on around you.

 

[PeshakJang]

“I’m proud to be here with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an email to get you going. Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary.”


When the boss comes callin’ will you stand and fight?
When the boss comes callin’ we must unite,
when the boss comes callin’ we can’t let them win,
when the boss comes callin’ don’t believe their lies
when the boss comes callin’ he’ll take his toll,
when the boss comes callin’ don’t you sell your soul,
when the boss comes callin’ we gotta organize,
let ‘em know, we gotta take the bastards down,
let them know we gotta smash them to the ground,
let ‘em know we gotta take the bastards down.

 

[cybrsage]

You're going to pretend Sharon Angle calling for a "second amendment solution" is something other than a call for violence against her opponents? Or are you pretending to be ignorant of the statement?

Quote it. I do not know everything said by every person who ever said something. I am glad you think I have so powerful an intellect I can recall everything ever said by every person who ever lived, but I have to sadly say it is not true.

 

[thraashman]

The right wing could burn down your house and rape your dog, and they'd find a way to say you had wronged them in all that.

They're masters at the victim game. Gays who don't want to be discriminated against have an evil 'gay agenda' and are out to destroy marriage and families, etc.

People who oppose policies transferring wealth to the top 0.01% 'oppose economic freedom and punish success', while policies to shift it back are 'divisive' and 'class war'.

This is some of the funniest shit I had read from fail234.

I wonder why you find it funny. While the first part is him intentionally being exaggerative, the rest is actually dead on. Hell, look at Rick Perry's infamous ad about gay people and prayer in school. He did exactly what Craig is talking about. And how many people in P&N (hint, almost all) have called any attempt to level the playing field for the 99% "class warfare". Craig tends to go overboard and use a lot of rhetoric, but he's not saying anything here (except the first sentence) that isn't 100% true and can be found dozens of times here in P&N even.

 

[irishScott]

Again, point being, it wasn't by the folks with pistols strapped to their hips or a pile of AR15s under their bed. Nor was it a consistent recurring theme of any Democrat's political platform. The Tea Party courted the fringe vote with this rhetoric and they deserve all the heat that comes from it. But in your eyes that makes them the real victims in this tragedy doesn't it? You're like the Westboro church claiming innocence because you didn't pull the trigger on the soldiers you slander. You're all just victims of those mean vicious liberals.

Hahahahahaha. You sir are a riot. I was going to answer you seriously, then the wiser part of me read your posts throughout this thread. You don't care about violent threats, you only care about the source and that said source suits your partisanship.

You asked for examples of Democrats making violent threats. That was all you asked for.

Link it. Link to any Democratic candidate or elected official outright calling for violence against Bush or Republicans. This is exactly the type of incident the right was inciting, regardless if they directly incited this one or not.

That was your only criteria. Examples were provided, and you nitpicked each one of them and said they "didn't matter" for various reasons. So you didn't like the answer you were given, and instantly modified your original criteria.

So far out of your "defenses" we have:
"Oh, he's pushing 80. 80 year old politicians don't matter."
"There is a difference between an occasional candid comment and a consistent reoccurring theme."
"it wasn't by the folks with pistols strapped to their hips or a pile of AR15s under their bed."

So when faced with examples you modified your original, stated criteria on the spot specifically so the arguments made against you wouldn't fit it. If we kept going you would simply get crazier and crazier to maintain what's left of your pathetic mental security (which is apparently based in part on politics). A bad, under-funded, crime-ridden inner-city high school debate team would laugh at you. Much as I am now. I can't wait to see your defense to this, bring on the lulz.

For that matter, give us the full criteria of what you consider to be a valid death threat. We already know you think anyone over 80, anyone who doesn't own/carry a gun, and "a death threat has to be made at least three times" for it to be considered valid in your eyes. Thank God you're not in law enforcement.

 

[thraashman]

Quote it. I do not know everything said by every person who ever said something. I am glad you think I have so powerful an intellect I can recall everything ever said by every person who ever lived, but I have to sadly say it is not true.

Sharon Angle's made a comment about when she was running against Harry Reid while talking about the 2nd Amendment was:
"Well it's to defend ourselves. And you know, I'm hoping that we're not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems".
So she was indicating that should she not win over Harry Reid that the remedy would include the 2nd Amendment. However, in the GOP's defense (which I will almost never do), you can't judge an entire party by what was arguably its worst member.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Hahahahahaha. You sir are a riot. I was going to answer you seriously, then the wiser part of me read your posts throughout this thread. You don't care about violent threats, you only care about the source and that said source suits your partisanship.

You asked for examples of Democrats making violent threats. That was all you asked for.



That was your only criteria. Examples were provided, and you nitpicked each one of them and said they "didn't matter" for various reasons. So you didn't like the answer you were given, and instantly modified your original criteria.

So far out of your "defenses" we have:
"Oh, he's pushing 80. 80 year old politicians don't matter."
"There is a difference between an occasional candid comment and a consistent reoccurring theme."
"it wasn't by the folks with pistols strapped to their hips or a pile of AR15s under their bed."

So when faced with examples you modified your original, stated criteria on the spot specifically so the arguments made against you wouldn't fit it. If we kept going you would simply get crazier and crazier to maintain what's left of your pathetic mental security (which is apparently based in part on politics). A bad, under-funded, crime-ridden inner-city high school debate team would laugh at you. Much as I am now. I can't wait to see your defense to this, bring on the lulz.

For that matter, give us the full criteria of what you consider to be a valid death threat. We already know you think anyone over 80, anyone who doesn't own/carry a gun, and "a death threat has to be made at least three times" for it to be considered valid in your eyes. Thank God you're not in law enforcement.

If you think finding occasional examples of inciteful Democratic rhetoric win the argument against consistent recurring Tea Party calls for violence you're a fool. And damn right a threat of violence by some right wing gun hoarder is more credible than than some angry 80 year old.

 

[monovillage]

Welcome to P & N.

Thank you, I love this place!

 

[irishScott]

If you think finding occasional examples of inciteful Democratic rhetoric win the argument against consistent recurring Tea Party calls for violence you're a fool. And damn right a threat of violence by some right wing gun hoarder is more credible than than some angry 80 year old.

For the lulz:

I have several guns. I could threaten you right now and nothing would happen. You're more likely to end up in the bad part of the crime statistics of your area than be harmed by any one of my guns, but because I have guns in your mind I'm the more credible threat! BRILLIANT!

And the tea party is by any definition a fringe group. We're comparing the Democrat fringe to the Republican fringe. Deal with it.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

For the lulz:

I have several guns. I could threaten you right now and nothing would happen. You're more likely to end up in the bad part of the crime statistics of your area than be harmed by any one of my guns, but because I have guns in your mind I'm the more credible threat! BRILLIANT!

And the tea party is by any definition a fringe group. We're comparing the Democrat fringe to the Republican fringe. Deal with it.

I own guns too. And I'm tactful enough not to shout shit like "Don't retreat, reload" in public. But don't act like if you were on the receiving end of that it wouldn't take a whole new meaning coming from someone carrying.

And there is no comparison between the two fringe groups- Democratic fringe groups aren't leading the whole party.

 

[xBiffx]

And there is no comparison between the two fringe groups- Democratic fringe groups aren't leading the whole party.

Fucking hilarious right there. Epic troll.

 

[irishScott]

I own guns too. And I'm tactful enough not to shout shit like "Don't retreat, reload" in public. But don't act like if you were on the receiving end of that it wouldn't take a whole new meaning coming from someone carrying.

And there is no comparison between the two fringe groups- Democratic fringe groups aren't leading the whole party.

Neither is the tea party, otherwise Romney wouldn't be doing so well. The Tea Party is a significant fringe group, nothing more.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Neither is the tea party, otherwise Romney wouldn't be doing so well. The Tea Party is a significant fringe group, nothing more.

Romney ain't doing so well. And have you taken a look at who's running the show in congress lately? It's not John Boehner.

 

[monovillage]

I own guns too. And I'm tactful enough not to shout shit like "Don't retreat, reload" in public. But don't act like if you were on the receiving end of that it wouldn't take a whole new meaning coming from someone carrying.

And there is no comparison between the two fringe groups- Democratic fringe groups aren't leading the whole party.

You asked for proof of violent Democrat rhetoric, you got it, why keep denying it?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

You asked for proof of violent Democrat rhetoric, you got it, why keep denying it?

What I deny is that the "proof" equates the two. Tea Party rhetoric is worse in tone, frequency, and source. And all the evidence on the internet is not going to refute the reality of that. It's really not even debatable, but leave it to folks like you to still make a go at it.

 

[irishScott]

What I deny is that the "proof" equates the two. Tea Party rhetoric is worse in tone, frequency, and source. And all the evidence on the internet is not going to refute the reality of that. It's really not even debatable, but leave it to folks like you to still make a go at it.

So you can dismiss violent Democrat rhetoric because the other guy is worse? I guess a serial killer with 8 kills should be let go if one with 12 gets convicted.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

So you can dismiss violent Democrat rhetoric because the other guy is worse? I guess a serial killer with 8 kills should be let go if one with 12 gets convicted.

I don't dismiss violent rhetoric of any kind. But, like I keep saying, when a rightwing gun hoarder bent on a revolution threatens violence it's a bit more concerning than some angry 80 year old. And if you want to keep embarrassing yourself by trying to deny that by all means continue.