It is somewhat perturbing to see how many of you are letting your political perceptions color these events.
You're not really better than any of these politicians.:o
It is somewhat perturbing to see how many of you are letting your political perceptions color these events.
You're not really better than any of these politicians.:o
Than, not then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supermarioman
I must've missed those, links?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
I understand your little doubleposting bumps when you think you're being ignored, but damn, at least read the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
The video's don't count, Julian Assange is not even an American let alone a Democrat, plenty on the left have said aggressive things about him too.
Glenn Beck never called for Michael Moore to be assasinated and is not an elected Republican, unlike the Democrat Congressman who called for a Republican governor candidate to be "put against the wall and shot".
What double-posting bump, that was not a double-post, but I've still been ignored. That was in reply to this quote: "Never heard of it. Was it put out by a PAC, calling for some of these violent liberal groups to kill him???"
Still awaiting a source of a PAC calling for someone to kill anyone.
wait, violent rhetoric only counts when its againist american politicans? You don't see the issue of talking heads calling for the murder of regular citizens as a greater problem? :bulb: Pretty sure we could play this "doesn't count" game all day.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
No one made the assainated claim, but physically, and personally strangling someone is just as bad, no?Quote:
Glenn Beck never called for Michael Moore to be assasinated and is not an elected Republican, unlike the Democrat Congressman who called for a Republican governor candidate to be "put against the wall and shot".
and you don't see the already abused practiced of politicans using 3rd parties to convey messages?:|
The bumps where you are basically talking to yourself because, for whatever reason, you think you're to important for the thread to move on.Quote:
What double-posting bump, that was not a double-post, but I've still been ignored.
Those "talking heads" were (A) not Republicans, (B) not referring to Democrats, (C) not talking about domestic politics and (D) talking about someone they view as a terrorist. It is worth noting that although in some of the highest elected offices, Hillary Clinton, the US Attorney General and others have referred to Assange in very similar language to being a terrorist. I don't agree with Clinton or anyone else regarding that and said so here at the time, but its hypocritical to point at one wing only.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
If he meant it yes, its quite clear even in the page you linked to that he was neither going to do so nor was he calling for others to do so.Quote:
No one made the assainated claim, but physically, and personally strangling someone is just as bad, no?
and you don't see the already abused practiced of politicans using 3rd parties to convey messages?:|
It is indeed aggressive, but do you honestly consider it to be more aggressive than an elected politican calling for another politician to be "put against the wall and shot"? Yes or no?
No, the bump was because a claim was made and not backed up, its still not being backed up. It seems that its easier to throw shit than to stand by it. If you're happy to acknowledge the claim that a PAC called for someone to kill someone is nonsense then I'm happy to move on, if you're happy to provide a link I'd love to see it.Quote:
The bumps where you are basically talking to yourself because, for whatever reason, you think you're to important for the thread to move on.
I believe the US government is also discussing prosecuting him as a terrorist.
terrorist = assassinate. gotcha :up:
Err, yes. Have you honestly never heard of any Al'Qaeda operatives being assassinated? Are you playing dumb or just ...
PS its a bit ironic to pretend that the right is the only side using aggressive language while not just (and still) ignoring plenty of comments from left-wing politicians, activists and journalists but to reference someone talking about Michael Moore. Yes, because Michael Moore has never said an aggressive thing about anyone in his life, right. "Gotcha :up:"
you don't see the difference between prosecuting a terrorist thats not a physical threat, and military operations during a "war"?
Thats slightly more alarming than how you're trying to explain away everything that isn't againist a wall:bulb:
I do see the difference, I said that I didn't agree with Hillary and co in calling him a terrorist.
However according to Secretary of State Clinton, the Attorney General and plenty of others Assange is providing a real and physical terrorist threat to both lives and security. I don't agree with that, but you should take your beef to them not me.
Many think Assange's organization does pose a massive physical threat to many international interests and foreign informants. Not everyone fetishises what he's doing. So yes, some think that's reasonable given the imminent harm he's causing. I don't really agree, but the sentiment isn't that hard to explain.
He hasn't even been prosecuted as a terrorist yet, but because he is someone these people (who aren't judges or juries) view as a terrorist, that makes it all ok to call for his death. You don't see the problem with that thinking Rand?
This doesn't have anything to do with what side said what. You made a claim that your "againist the wall" was the worst thing said, and I call bullshit because you didn't read the thread. So far your best excuses include tit-for-tat on Moore, and because you don't agree with what wikileaks has done.
Whole lot of justification for death based on what a lot of out the loop people want to think. Serious problem with that line of thought.
You're not listening are you. I have no problem with what wikileaks did, I said so here at the time, need me to dig the thread up?
The Attorney General, the Secretary of State, generals and others have refered to Assange as a terrorist, the US assinates terrorists, QED some US talking heads called for his assination. From Clinton onwards I disagree with them all. Not just one side, but all of them, unlike you who glosses over half of them.
I stand by the claim that in the context of domestic politics, which this thread was about, the "against the wall and shoot" (interesting how you deliberate drop the shoot word isn't it?) quote was the worst so far. Calling for Assange's assasination is no worse than calling for a governors murder, both are equivalent except one was outside the context of the discussion. Even if you include it, its no worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
that is allQuote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Aha, all we need is to label someone as terrorists then he is outlawed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Sure. When I say I would support reasonable limitations on political speech, I'm not just talking about conservatives.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
EDIT: <sigh> I long for the days when assassination wasn't openly considered an acceptable solution to international criminals; when we at least pretended the rule of law, the trying of criminals, was the proper course of action. Today we freely accept find 'em and shoot 'em....
With the consequence that the US lost a lot of support for being the "World Police" over here.
The Assange assasination bit I'd missed, as I said, so your selectively quoting my quotes means nothing if you ignore that. I acknowledge that across the whole political spectrum many Americans are acting like douchebags regarding Assange, do you? And its not just Americans either ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
These word games are fun!Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Suppose its easier for you to selectively quote out of context than actually answer proper questions though. "I acknowledge that across the whole political spectrum many Americans are acting like douchebags regarding Assange, do you?"
but now I'm curious, how do the videos not count, if you missed them (or viceversa)?
Maybe you did miss them (which explains the first bullshit only violent quote claim), but then you tried to explain them away as not being related, only to backtrack and admit they are at least equivalent to your violent quote.
Either way you look at it, at this point you're only arguing with yourself :haha:
Let's break this down really simply for you.
1: We were talking about aggressive language in politics, I claimed that only violent quote so far in the thread from the right to the left was the "second amendment solutions" one
2: You refer to the videos and choking.
3: I didn't see the video's or choking references, as I said.
4: You post the links
5: I see them for the first time (if you see throughout the thread I never referred to them at all before now) and respond to both for the first time.
6: After seeing the videos, I think they don't demonstrate anything relevant to the thread and say so, and respond to the Michael Moore quote too.
Entirely consistent throughout, I missed them originally as I said. We're on page 9 now afterall. Now is that enough petty quoting or are you going to continue to avoid answering any questions?
Generally, if you're thinking about assassination, it's someone who you're convinced will never be in the hands of your criminal justice system anyway. Even in countries where the rule of law doesn't mean much, China is the only one where you still expect a dissident in jail to disappear and be killed. Most others view locking people up as effectively neutralizing themQuote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
edit: reacted to a post from page 2. Nevermind.
Instead, a twitter that could already have been posted by the likes of OG.
http://i.imgur.com/8ZHvX.png
:haha:
Out of interest and I don't want to go OT beyond this post and your response, but given we share similar parliamentary systems I am interested: how can someone be stripped of being an MP other than for a criminal act? You can lose party endorsement but in the Westminster system parties have no power over an MPs right to sit within the term for which they were elected.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I'm surprised it hasn't been posted yet, but Obama weighs in:
SourceQuote:
Using the massacre to address the nation's spiritual state, the president decried the small-minded nature of political debate. "If this tragedy prompts reflection and debate, as it should, let's make sure it's worthy of those we have lost," he said in a speech that was frequently interrupted by applause and cheers from the audience.
"Let's make sure it's not on the usual plane of politics and point scoring and pettiness that drifts away in the next news cycle."
At a time when "we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do," Obama said, the killings should make Americans ask themselves "Have we shown enough kindness and generosity and compassion to people in our lives?"
She opened hr eyes for first time this morning, and reached for her husband. This seems to be further evidence of higher brain function giving the doctors and her loved ones even more reason for optimism. Go Gabby Go, give it the good fight girl.