We already know BearMtnHIB is up for killing anyone who doesn't agree with his politics.
LJ, come on. You don't know that. That is pretty inflammatory.
It is inflammatory, but there is enough in what BearMtnHIB said that allows you to extract what LJ did. It is some what of a reach to say he is up for killing anyone who does not agree with his politics. Having said that, I still think it is irresponsible to make such a statement.
Let's just say that political ideological clashes often do result in violence and one side never holds the monopoly on the violence.
You are absolutely right, there certainly is no evidence that the right wing rhetoric would lead an unbalanced individual to violence against a Democratic politician.
If it does - that's just a bonus!
archer wrote:
BearMtnHIB wrote:
I'll file your
Quote:
Granny may have to pick up the tab on the difference. Sorry Granny - sometimes reality sucks.
with your other famous one about how anybody who doesn't agree with you should die.
Nice to know what you stand for.
Can you provide a source for this claim- or are you just twisting what I said again until it has a totally different meaning.
Typical Commie.
How interesting.....I went back to BaerMtnHIB's post on killing liberals and who would have guessed it but the offending words were taken from the original post.....but not to worry, I had quoted them in a post of my own
BearMtnHIB wrote: Their opinion does matter. We need to know who the enemy is after all. And I don't think we need to kill the entire left because I think if a few thousand of the main players fall, then the rest of you on the left will duck and run and shut up real quick.
Killing a few of the left would make life better for conservatives I guess, same as letting some seniors die....all to make life a little better for BearMtnHIB.
It is inflammatory, but there is enough in what BearMtnHIB said that allows you to extract what LJ did. It is some what of a reach to say he is up for killing anyone who does not agree with his politics. Having said that, I still think it is irresponsible to make such a statement.
Let's just say that political ideological clashes often do result in violence and one side never holds the monopoly on the violence.
Of course I never said I was up for killing anyone who does not agree with my politics- thats all spin and if you read the posts that "somthing the dog drug in" and LJ you will see all the spin. I'm simply saying that violence is in the cards- because there is no peaceful or "ballot box" solution anywhere on the horizon for Americans.
This issue will go violent- and the left will be involved with the right. And I'm just following reality to it's proper conclusion. Anyone who thinks we can dial back government and restore America from here without a fight - is on some pretty good drugs.
Either conservatives will accept a socialist America - or were in for a fight to take it back.
Okay, here is what I think. Bear your statements are not cool. IMO. Advocating violence for any reason is just wrong. I don't know how else to put it.
LJ, I admit I know you like to put all people that are conservatives in the same box so I thought you were being inflammatory.
No offense but there have been people on the left who thought bombs and violence was the way to take america back in the 70's. They are on both sides. My only point is usually that you cannot take the nut cakes and equate them with right and left. Not fair.