Rep. Giffords of Arizona shot

#677
#677
lawgator1 said:
But I do think that they, and we, should take this as an example of how there are some people out there who already are so on the fringe that anything done to make it acceptable to speak in terms of Second Amendment remedies (greeted by hoots and cheers of support) should be reconsidered.
Click to expand...

there was a guy who took ACDC lyrics and decided to kill someone because he felt they spole to him. should they stop producing music? at least 2 serial killers loved catcher in the rye. should we ban the book? crazy people latch on to ANYTHING. there is no proof he latched on to beck or palin. if anything he seemed to hate the right wing. but even if he was a devoted follower i cant' see the logic that they should all of sudden stop pointing out how stupid obama is.
 
#679
#679
lawgator1 said:
Sharron Angle was heavily financed and supported by the Tea Party and the GOP. She said:

"I hope that's not where we're going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."

Would have been nice to have the Tea Party and the GOP at the time say they disavowed that.

But they didn't.
Click to expand...

you can't seriously be arguing that was about killing him.
 
#680
#680
droski said:
there was a guy who took ACDC lyrics and decided to kill someone because he felt they spole to him. should they stop producing music? at least 2 serial killers loved catcher in the rye. should we ban the book? crazy people latch on to ANYTHING. there is no proof he latched on to beck or palin. if anything he seemed to hate the right wing. but even if he was a devoted follower i cant' see the logic that they should all of sudden stop pointing out how stupid obama is.
Click to expand...

I'd rather they just watch what they say knowing they have a rather large fan base and are very influential people, no need to make any sort of laws then. It's only common sense. This goes for both sides.
 
#681
#681
droski said:
there was a guy who took ACDC lyrics and decided to kill someone because he felt they spole to him. should they stop producing music? at least 2 serial killers loved catcher in the rye. should we ban the book? crazy people latch on to ANYTHING. there is no proof he latched on to beck or palin. if anything he seemed to hate the right wing. but even if he was a devoted follower i cant' see the logic that they should all of sudden stop pointing out how stupid obama is.
Click to expand...
I tried this a while back somewhere in the politics forum.
 
#682
#682
lawgator1 said:
You're in Arizona, what's the sentiment out there? Is this a byproduct of the rhetoric? Or purely conicidence that the anti-government nutjob went after a Democrat who just narrowly defeated a Tea Party candidate?
Click to expand...

you do realize this guy had contact with the woman over 3 years ago. obviously he was obsessed with her and it had nothing to do with the current election.
 
#683
#683
VOLatile said:
I'd rather they just watch what they say knowing they have a rather large fan base and are very influential people, no need to make any sort of laws then. It's only common sense. This goes for both sides.
Click to expand...

what are they saying that is oh so dangerous?
 
#686
#686
Lexvol said:
If a "revolution" ever occurs it will be with those making between $250,000 and $2,000,000. IMO it will be a tax revolution. One day enough of them are going to wake up and refuse to carry the burden anymore.

In the scope of things, it is reasonable to eliminate "cross hairs" from political dialogue, but pinning violence on the right is simply intellectually dishonest. I don't really know any other way to classify it.
Click to expand...

I think it will be a "why bother" approach rather than a revolution. Make the tax burden high enough and the investor class diminishes enormously as hurdle rates climb through the roof. The salary types in those ranges will continue to grind it out, but will never transition to hardcore investor class that we need to perpetuate the cycle. In the end, Joe MD out there never becomes an engine of growth as they have for the past 100 years.

Forget the political discourse silliness, as it's just the whiny ranting of folks who don't like the counterpoint.
 
#687
#687
Lexvol said:
If a "revolution" ever occurs it will be with those making between $250,000 and $2,000,000. IMO it will be a tax revolution. One day enough of them are going to wake up and refuse to carry the burden anymore.

In the scope of things, it is reasonable to eliminate "cross hairs" from political dialogue, but pinning violence on the right is simply intellectually dishonest. I don't really know any other way to classify it.
Click to expand...

Their tax burden has steadily decreased since WWII - in a big way. Percentage wise, they are far from "carrying the burden." However, I am surprised that these are some of the people who are very, very angry.

I attributed violence to no one in particular. But to suggest there is not a rhetoric of anger, outrage, and certainly initial rumblings to outright violence from the Right at this time is intellectually dishonest.

Again, it surprises the hell out of me, actually.
 
#688
#688
BigPapaVol said:
I think it will be a "why bother" approach rather than a revolution. Make the tax burden high enough and the investor class diminishes enormously as hurdle rates climb through the roof. The salary types in those ranges will continue to grind it out, but will never transition to hardcore investor class that we need to perpetuate the cycle. In the end, Joe MD out there never becomes an engine of growth as they have for the past 100 years.

Forget the political discourse silliness, as it's just the whiny ranting of folks who don't like the counterpoint.
Click to expand...
Makes perfect sense to me, BPV.
 
#689
#689
utgibbs said:
Their tax burden has steadily decreased since WWII - in a big way. Percentage wise, they are far from "carrying the burden." However, I am surprised that these are some of the people who are very, very angry.

This is patently retarded. Who is carrying the burden?

I attributed violence to no one in particular. But to suggest there is not a rhetoric of anger, outrage, and certainly initial rumblings to outright violence from the Right at this time is intellectually dishonest.

your 800 lb gorilla appears to be doing P90X like a wild...uh...gorilla.

Again, it surprises the hell out of me, actually.
Click to expand...

See bold.
 
#690
#690
utgibbs said:
Their tax burden has steadily decreased since WWII - in a big way. Percentage wise, they are far from "carrying the burden." However, I am surprised that these are some of the people who are very, very angry.
Click to expand...

they pay for a far higher percentage of our total taxes than they did in the 30s. using nominal tax rate comparisons is absurd. particurally considering the loopholes reagan closed.
 
#691
#691
utgibbs said:
Their tax burden has steadily decreased since WWII - in a big way. Percentage wise, they are far from "carrying the burden." However, I am surprised that these are some of the people who are very, very angry.

I attributed violence to no one in particular. But to suggest there is not a rhetoric of anger, outrage, and certainly initial rumblings to outright violence from the Right at this time is intellectually dishonest.

Again, it surprises the hell out of me, actually.
Click to expand...
damn America....who said it? Rhetoric of violence and outrage is just as prevalent on the left. In the end it is just as influential too. It has nothing to do with a psycho using a political rally for target practice.
 
#693
#693
Lexvol said:
damn America....who said it? Rhetoric of violence and outrage is just as prevalent on the left. In the end it is just as influential too. It has nothing to do with a psycho using a political rally for target practice.
Click to expand...

Again, it seems difficult for a country without a Left to have rhetoric of the Left, but I'm listening. No one is offering "2nd Amendment remedies" for Universal Health Care or the removal of the Pacific Railroad vs Santa Clara County Supreme Court decision as far as I'm aware.
 
#694
#694
#695
#695
I found this an interesting read, perhaps others might also.

A Horrid Crime, a Dishonest Debate - Andrew C. McCarthy - National Review Online

I really liked this particular observation.

"It is as stupid to claim that rhetoric causes violence as it is to claim that normal people can be entrapped into terrorism. What vitriolic thing would someone need to say to you, whether the vitriol could be cast as right-wing or left-wing, that would get you to pick up a gun and start spraying bullets at people with whom you disagreed, however vigorously, about some political or social issue? It wouldn’t happen. It couldn’t happen."
 
#696
#696
utgibbs said:
Again, it seems difficult for a country without a Left to have rhetoric of the Left, but I'm listening. No one is offering "2nd Amendment remedies" for Universal Health Care or the removal of the Pacific Railroad vs Santa Clara County Supreme Court decision as far as I'm aware.
Click to expand...
You're right. Violence has never been considered as a remedy to oppression (perceived or otherwise).

As far as the "country without a left" BS....
 
#699
#699
Lexvol said:
What is more left than threatening individual property rights and redistribution of wealth?
Click to expand...

Apparently we can't define American left. We HAVE to have the Europeans involved before we can begin defining our own political views.
 
#700
#700
BigPapaVol said:
Apparently we can't define American left. We HAVE to have the Europeans involved before we can begin defining our own political views.
Click to expand...
Come to think of it.. maybe the establishment of a fake monarchy could help us.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top