Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 194
Like Tree2Likes
  1. #121  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Saying it doesn't mean anything if you ignore it whenever it's most expedient.

    Like I said.
  2. #122  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    It's really interesting watching you three squirm away from making the simple statement that you reject any candidate (note the word "candidate") who raises the possibility of the use of guns or violence in a campaign. You just can't say it, can you?

    I can.
    I can't speak for anyone but myself, but my point is that some people seem to be under the impression that if the candidate (from whatever party) says "we are going to kill (insert name) in this upcoming race" is not meaning that they are going to really kill anyone. Do you not see that? You apparently believe that some ***** would take that as "code" to go out and kill that particular person....I disagree. Now....if the same candidate were to say, "I want someone to go out and do harm to my opponent"....well....that ain't right. That would be a direct threat and I believe that would be illegal, right? And so under that scenario I would agree with you.

    So maybe we do disagree....I guess it depends on what you mean by the "possibility of the use of guns or violence in a campaign." For example, if Romney were to end up being the front runner for the Republican nomination in 2012, I would not freak out if Tim Pawlenty came out and said that Romney had a target on his back. That does not mean that Pawlenty wants Romney to be shot at. It simply means he is the candidate that needs to be beat (and, that does not mean to be beaten up....but rather, the candidate who is expected to win).Do you not get that?
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  3. #123  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Are you kidding? There's over the top rhetoric constantly from both sides. I'm talking specifically about using violence and firearms as political attractions and threats. My opinion alone, possibly, but that raises things to a different level than calling someone a socialist.
    Please start by denouncing @Kenanator's violent signature, please.
  4. #124  
    Semantic nonsense. It's a simple statement. Like I said, you can determine what you consider over the line. There is no need to invoke any kind of gun imagery, now, is there? Unless, of course, you are trying to provoke a certain segment of the population, in my opinion. And as you point out, I am a gun owner. But I don't take them to political meetings just because I can. I see that as dangerous and provocative behavior. But I see that you don't. Fine, we disagree.
  5. #125  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    Please start by denouncing @Kenanator's violent signature, please.
    Violent? Hey, you interpret it (and obsess about it) however you want. Doesn't sound violent to me. And he's not a candidate, and there's no mention of guns or specific individuals. And it doesn't seem like anyone else is willing to take your side on the reaction his signature might invoke. Certainly you can find more important things to fear.
  6. #126  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Semantic nonsense. It's a simple statement. Like I said, you can determine what you consider over the line. There is no need to invoke any kind of gun imagery, now, is there? Unless, of course, you are trying to provoke a certain segment of the population, in my opinion. And as you point out, I am a gun owner. But I don't take them to political meetings just because I can. I see that as dangerous and provocative behavior. But I see that you don't. Fine, we disagree.
    So you don't believe a person should be allowed to carry a gun? That is your right to believe that....but not sure what it has to do with the discussion....but I don't have a carry permit so you won't see me with a gun anywhere other than a shooting range or in my home (or obviously in my car going from my home to the shooting range).
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  7. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #127  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    It's really interesting watching you three squirm away from making the simple statement that you reject any candidate (note the word "candidate") who raises the possibility of the use of guns or violence in a campaign. You just can't say it, can you?

    I can.
    Would fall in to this category? To me, use of a gun in a campaign ad is not the same thing as use of violence.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  8. #128  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Would fall in to this category? To me, use of a gun in a campaign ad is not the same thing as use of violence.
    It would fall in that category for me, despite the fact that it is nothing more than begging for the votes of NRA supporters. Let's be honest here...what exactly is the rationale for a gun in a political ad? Does that ad convince you that you should vote for him? Is it really necessary? Do you have to actually show yourself shooting a gun to demonstrate you support the Second Amendment?
  9. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #129  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    It would fall in that category for me, despite the fact that it is nothing more than begging for the votes of NRA supporters. Let's be honest here...what exactly is the rationale for a gun in a political ad? Does that ad convince you that you should vote for him? Is it really necessary? Do you have to actually show yourself shooting a gun to demonstrate you support the Second Amendment?
    All great and worthy questions to debate, but nothing to do with violence.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  10. #130  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    So you don't believe a person should be allowed to carry a gun? That is your right to believe that....but not sure what it has to do with the discussion....but I don't have a carry permit so you won't see me with a gun anywhere other than a shooting range or in my home (or obviously in my car going from my home to the shooting range).
    So if you did have a carry permit, you are saying you really see no difference between a political rally and a shooting range?
  11. #131  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    So if you did have a carry permit, you are saying you really see no difference between a political rally and a shooting range?
    I don't have a carry permit because at this particular time, I don't feel threatened out in society. Some people do feel threatened when out and about and therefore feel the need to protect themselves. One day I may feel the need to carry a gun on my person. If that time were to come about, I would think this would mean I would want a gun on me at all times, regardless of where I was. Heck, wasn't there an instance at a church about 2 years ago when a man burst in while a service was going on and started to shoot? I bet not one of those people in that church that day woke up thinking they would be shot at church....violence can occur anywhere....at a shooting range....at a church....at a corner shopping center in AZ....and even at a political rally. What's your point? I don't think your last post had a point....you're now rambling....so how about just toddle off and have a wonderful evening.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  12. #132  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    It would fall in that category for me, despite the fact that it is nothing more than begging for the votes of NRA supporters. Let's be honest here...what exactly is the rationale for a gun in a political ad? Does that ad convince you that you should vote for him? Is it really necessary? Do you have to actually show yourself shooting a gun to demonstrate you support the Second Amendment?
    The alternative commercial they made had him holding a copy of Hustler magazine in support of the first amendment. But it didn't test as well when they showed it to focus groups.
  13. #133  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I am a gun owner. But I don't take them to political meetings just because I can. I see that as dangerous and provocative behavior. But I see that you don't. Fine, we disagree.
    Let me just go on record as saying that I don't own a gun. If I did, I wouldn't carry it to a political rally, a bank, or a gas station.

    But when I did own a gun, I would probably take it to a gun fight, or to a pheasant hunt.

    I will never forget the first time I walked in to a Texas bank and saw a sign that said "no guns allowed"... I turned to my friend and asked if people in Texas really had to be told not to take weapons into a bank.
  14. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #134  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    It would fall in that category for me, despite the fact that it is nothing more than begging for the votes of NRA supporters. Let's be honest here...what exactly is the rationale for a gun in a political ad? Does that ad convince you that you should vote for him? Is it really necessary? Do you have to actually show yourself shooting a gun to demonstrate you support the Second Amendment?
    Finally denounced a Dem! Nice going! I think you're a bit sensitive about it, but it's nice to see you being consistent. I don't have a problem with the ad because in certain parts of the country there is a world of difference between depictions of gun use and depictions of gun violence. An ad showing a WV politician using a gun recreationally is no different than an ad showing an Iowan politician driving an old beat up pickup with a dog in the back, in my opinion. Politicians always try to portray themselves as being the common man/woman.
  15. #135  
    I understand that very well. I have lived in areas during part of my life where everyone had a gun and used them, including for shooting each other. An urban area? Nope, not close. Having said I understand the population, you have to understand that for a very large percentage of the population guns mean violence and have no part whatsoever in reasoned discourse. Calling somebody a jerk, a fascist or a socialist is not the same as calling to take someone out, or showing up at a political rally for the president with a semiautomatic on your hip. That has never happened before the past few years, as best I know, and anyone who thinks the purpose isn't to intimidate is kidding themselves. It is pandering to a very low denominator...regardless of party.

    As one conservative noted today:

    Beck and Palin aside, I do understand why other conservatives pushed back on the media’s initial response to the Giffords shooting. The avalanche of condemnations that came pouring down on Palin, Fox News and the tea party were off base and offensive. Most of the same outlets calling for restraint after the Fort Hood shooting showed no such discipline after Tucson. The fact that the left predictably played to type did more to unite the conservative movement than any event since President Barack Obama’s election.

    Now that the right has proved to the world that it was wronged, this would be a good time to prevent the next tragedy from destroying its political momentum. Despite what we eventually learned about the shooter in Tucson, should the right have really been so shocked that many feared a political connection between the heated rhetoric of 2010 and the shooting of Giffords?

    Who, other than Palin’s most strident supporters, was not troubled by the bull’s-eye target over Giffords’s district? Or the political advertisement promoting the removal of Giffords from office with the firing of a “fully automatic M16” with her opponent? Or the gunned-down congresswoman’s own warning to NBC’s Chuck Todd that violent words have consequences?


    And who on the right is really stupid enough to not understand that the political movement that has a near monopoly on gun imagery may be the first focus of an act associated with gun violence? As a conservative who had a 100 percent rating with the National Rifle Association and the Gun Owners of America over my four terms in Congress, I wonder why some on the right can’t defend the Second Amendment without acting like *******es. While these types regularly attack my calls for civility, it is their reckless rhetoric that does the most to hurt the cause.



    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1BO28pKLD
    Last edited by davidra; 01/18/2011 at 05:50 AM.
  16. #136  
    Not ONE of these 134 replies should be in this thread except for the non-political ones.

    I really can't fathom how or why this is considered a political issue.

    Everyone will use any tragedy possible to further their political agenda, no matter what wing they're on.

    This thread is a microscopic version of the outside world and its embarrassing rhetoric.

    I do admit, there are some very intelligent people participating. But just like beauty and brains; intelligence and common sense are very rarely in the same container.
  17. #137  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I understand that very well. I have lived in areas during part of my life where everyone had a gun and used them, including for shooting each other. An urban area? Nope, not close. Having said I understand the population, you have to understand that for a very large percentage of the population guns mean violence and have no part whatsoever in reasoned discourse. Calling somebody a jerk, a fascist or a socialist is not the same as calling to take someone out, or showing up at a political rally for the president with a semiautomatic on your hip. That has never happened before the past few years, as best I know, and anyone who thinks the purpose isn't to intimidate is kidding themselves. It is pandering to a very low denominator...regardless of party.

    As one conservative noted today:
    I love the "conservatives" you quote, ROFL. Just the fact that he is a regular on MSNBC tells me all I need to know. I will say he seems to be the normal politician....wasn't he forced to resign from office? I find it odd that you would use him to try and make your point....normally he would be a Republican you would be making fun of.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  18. #138  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Man, the irony in this post is amazing.
    I may be harsh, but at least I'm not ignorant.
  19. #139  
    Back on topic:

    The gunman who shot the AZ rep, was found to be a crazy nut shooting at the world

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...011206637.html



    -- Sent from my Palm Pre using Forums
  20. #140  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    I love the "conservatives" you quote, ROFL. Just the fact that he is a regular on MSNBC tells me all I need to know. I will say he seems to be the normal politician....wasn't he forced to resign from office? I find it odd that you would use him to try and make your point....normally he would be a Republican you would be making fun of.
    You just don't get it, do you?


    I disagree with many of the president's policies, but I believe he is a patriot sincerely intent on using his time in office to advance our country's cause. I reject accusations that his policies and beliefs make him unworthy to lead America or opposed to its founding ideals. And I reject accusations that Americans who vigorously oppose his policies are less intelligent, compassionate or just than those who support them.
    Our political discourse should be more civil than it currently is, and we all, myself included, bear some responsibility for it not being so. It probably asks too much of human nature to expect any of us to be restrained at all times by persistent modesty and empathy from committing rhetorical excesses that exaggerate our differences and ignore our similarities. But I do not think it is beyond our ability and virtue to refrain from substituting character assassination for spirited and respectful debate.

    It does not ask too much of human nature to have the empathy to understand how wrong an injury that is or appreciate how strong a need someone would feel to defend him or herself against such a slur. Even to perceive it in the context of its supposed political effect and not as the claim of the human heart to the dignity we are enjoined by God and our founding ideals to respect in one another is unworthy of us, and our understanding of America's meaning.
    There are too many occasions when we lack that empathy and mutual respect on all sides of our politics, and in the media. But it is not beyond us to do better; to behave more modestly and courteously and respectfully toward one another; to make progress toward the ideal that beckons all humanity: to treat one another as we would wish to be treated.
    We are Americans and fellow human beings, and that shared distinction is so much more important than the disputes that invigorate our noisy, rough-and-tumble political culture. That is what I heard the president say on Wednesday evening. I commend and thank him for it.
    The writer, a senator from Arizona, was the 2008 Republican nominee for president.
    John McCain - After the shootings, Obama reminds the nation of the golden rule
Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 LastLast

Posting Permissions