Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
Very well, Bob. I will address your points, which you claim you stick to the facts and the issues. I didn't respond before because it will simply turn into anther culebra (Spanish for soap opera) in which you will respond, I will respond to your response, you will respond to mine and, when one doesn't continue the responses, the other will say "Why aren't you responding to my responses?"
With regards to the New Yorker,Bob, that was simply my comment, my opinion to something that was brought up by someone else. Why should I want to waste my time discussing it with the New Yorker? If you were to express an opinion that Lady Gaga had a lousy voice, does that mean you would want to hop a plane so you could tell her directly? I really don't care what the New Yorker has to say. I'm free to read it or ignore it, as I choose.
I understand that you might have found my comments unsatisfactory in some way, but suggesting that I had some sort of personal flaw did not, to me, seem like a response that actually addressed the nature of the discussion. Actually, it seemed to address what you dislike about liberal politics and perhaps about me.
I'msorry, Bob, but I don't follow that. I said nothing about a personal flaw in you...actually, I've done my best (and fairly well, I think) not making my comments too personnel. I did say that I couldn't understand your way of thinking. Is that the flaw you refer to?
I tried my best to offer the sort of examples that you'd specifically asked for, and I notice that you haven't responded to my attempt to carry on that thread of the conversation. Your really did quite literally ask for the response, so I'm puzzled why you haven't responded to the response that was offered. Did you find the responses offensive in some fashion — I made every attempt to keep them factual and well modulated.
Very well, Bob, I will be happy to do so and let's discover together how factual and well-modulated they are...
Former Governor Palin published a hit list of people whom she thought should be voted out of office. Her rhetoric on the subject was very inflammatory. She characterized these folks as targets. I do think she was somewhat taken aback when a psycho with no discernable party affiliation started to open fire on the congresswoman in Arizona, but I also believe her rhetoric was not helpful.
What rhetoric do you refer to as being "very inflammatory"? Produce it, please, and show me one that can match "If they bring a knife, you bring a gun." The bullseyes were used by democrats before Palin was even in the public eye....and I feel confident you know that they mean nothing having to do with violence. When a psycho..., you say? Exactly right...a psycho, and having nothing to do with Palin's comments, which almost everyone from the left from the President down has acknowledged...with the exception of a few far left wackos looking for any excuse to sling mud.
In fact, the notion that the president is not a citizen is in itself a notion that is designed to de-legitimize the government, isn't it?, though it's presented in terms that are difficult to disallow in any open-minded discussion.
No, it is a notion to de-legimitize Obama. Open-minded discussion? Sure, bring it on. So many people saying a birth certificate exists and so many people not being able to produce it...sure seems a little strange that a little certificate can be so elusive, doesn't it? But that doesn't matter to me? Am I a birther? Maybe, if I thought about it lonf enough but it's not going to get Obama out of office so why bother? The major conservative talk show hosts treat it the same way, as a basic non-issue.
The entire notion of the tea party harks back to the basic metaphor of the Boston Tea Party, doesn't it? Lest it escape notice, this was one of the initial violent acts that led to the Revolution. That is the metaphor that the right wing of the Republican Party has been using for at least the past two years.
Since the original Tea Party had violence in it, then it is not suitable to be used as a metaphor? Really....?
On your second point, regarding the second amendment, we are in agreement on much of it. I, too, would like to see illegal arms off the streets. I would like to see automatic weapons gone, too, includine Ouzis and AR-15's, along with the rest. It's simply a question of how and who is pulling the trigger (pun). Therein lies the rub. Many people do not trust giving that right to the government of the moment (any moment).
The demonstration last year, I believe, in Washington by ome of the tea party folks has to be rescheduled mto Virginia because of the Washington firearms laws. That suggests that there were several people with guns. That's one example.
Guns and political events are probably not a great combination. Guns and booze are not a great combination. Guns and adreneline should probably be avoided as well, even with experienced shooters.
I think that's what you may be talking about, but I'm not certain.
Thisis your comment, Bob...I simply want to try to keep this about the facts and the issues....and then you refer to what something "suggests" to you. I see nothing in the above comment that is factual, only what is suggestible. I contend that what is suggestible to you is whatever supports what you would like for it to suggest. There have been no issues about guns at tea-party rallies, no shots fired, no massacres, no threats. Just as stating that palin using bullseyes "suggests" to you that there could be a connection with the Tucson shooting, it is without fact or merit.
Does the left wing encourage people to show up to demonstrations carrying firearms?
Does the right wing? If so, please show me where. Once again, you are producing something non-factual.
As far as the tapes, it is very interesting that, in issues involving the right, you want to see proof. In issues involving the left, you don't, such as the infamous spitting incident, an issue that not one of hundreds of reporters saw, no one video taped and was never proven, along with the racial slurs that no one heard. You were satisfied that all those things happened, without any verification at all. Yet, in this video, you do an about-face and condemn it as having the possibility of being non-factual....nice to have it both ways.
I am still shaking me head at, in a thread showing lefties yelling to kill a supreme court justice and his family, string up or send the black man back to the fields where he belongs, and other comments of violence and crimes, you bring up issues trying to portray how violent the right is. I would think it would have been simple, and proper, to say something like, "If the video is valid, then these people were out of line". Neither of you could even say that.....and, to me, that says it all.
Have a nice day....