Dem Operative's Cat Slaughtered, 'Liberal' Painted On Corpse

PrintSmith wrote: Bigotry, and using false accusations to justify it, is an ugly thing archer. There is not a single insistence on my part that Burris or anyone he worked with being possibly linked to the death of his cat. I would be just as surprised as yourself if this proved to be the case. I would not, however, be similarly surprised to find out that such ugly violence was committed by a member of the lunatic left fringe. Lunatics from the left fringe burn down structures at the top of ski runs, spike trees which place the life and limbs of timber workers at risk, destroy property of others and the public, throw red dye onto the clothing of others, endanger human life on the high seas and a host of other things on a fairly regular basis. I would also not be surprised to find out it truly was the act of a lunatic from the right fringe as they too resort to violence. Either is a distinct possibility at this point given the sparsity of the evidence presented. Only the mind of a bigot immediately jumps to blaming the group that they are not a member of and I, unlike some present in this discussion, am not a bigot. That the lunatic who took the life of the cat painted the word "liberal" on the cat's dead body is not conclusive proof that the lunatic was opposed to Burris' candidacy - except, that is, to one who is a bigot. For the bigot, it is all the evidence that is necessary to justify the dark thoughts that exist in their mind about those with whom they disagree.

wow, did you just call me a bigot? Well don't that beat all......you bring up the possibility that it was a fellow liberal that did this, then call me a bigot for mentioning it.

Think I will go back on hiatus......the ugliness here never changes. It's all name calling and trying to cover ones own issues by blaming them others.

Have a nice day PS

archer wrote: Your insistence that either the cat owner or someone he worked with might have done this led me to believe your "sympathy" was not particularly sincere . I would be extremely surprised if that were the case. But yeah...you did manage to muster some sympathy...sorry I missed it among the caveats.

Archer, I know a little bit about PS and his wife. What they will do for cats even exceeds what my wife and myself would be willing to do which is quite a bit.

archer wrote: wow, did you just call me a bigot? Well don't that beat all......you bring up the possibility that it was a fellow liberal that did this, then call me a bigot for mentioning it.

No, I called anyone who immediately jumps to the conclusion that such an atrocity as this had to be committed by one who disagreed with the candidate a bigot. I did bring up the possibility that the atrocious act was committed by a lunatic from the left, but what I didn't do was, as you earlier alleged, insist that said lunatic from the left would have to be either Burris or someone who worked for him.

archer wrote: Your insistence that either the cat owner or someone he worked with might have done this led me to believe your "sympathy" was not particularly sincere. I would be extremely surprised if that were the case. But yeah...you did manage to muster some sympathy...sorry I missed it among the caveats.

I never insisted, or even suggested for that matter, that the cat owner or someone he worked with might have done this, that is a complete fabrication on your part - 100% pulled from some place where the sun never shines. I did suggest that some lunatic from the left might have done it, but I didn't even insist that it was a lunatic from the left was responsible, let alone the owner of the cat or someone who worked for him - which is quite different from the insistence by LJ that it was a lunatic from the right who was responsible. After making such an allegation don't you dare try to pull back to the milder "a fellow liberal" and make some pretense about being offended. If there is someone who has call to be offended by your complete fabrication that someone would be me and you are damned straight I am offended by it.

neptunechimney wrote:

archer wrote: Your insistence that either the cat owner or someone he worked with might have done this led me to believe your "sympathy" was not particularly sincere . I would be extremely surprised if that were the case. But yeah...you did manage to muster some sympathy...sorry I missed it among the caveats.

Archer, I know a little bit about PS and his wife. What they will do for cats even exceeds what my wife and myself would be willing to do which is quite a bit.

I am, naturally, curious what PrintSmith's and his wife's love of cats has to do with his possibly, maybe, sorta saying that this might have been perpetrated by someone on the left and not by the more obvious choice of someone who disagrees with this man's politics and that of the candidate and needed to express a lot of hate. But hey.....a simple "gee....what a really horrible thing to have happened to that little boy and the family" would have sufficed to express sympathy. Then put the partisan accusations, ok partisan innuendo or whatever you want to call it, into another post.....sticking them together like that gave me the impression that his sympathy was tempered by his belief that it really wasn't a rightie that did this.

Enough.....this started as a horrific example of what partisan politics has led us to.....and it ends with more partisan politics....and name calling, and justifications that were not needed, and a really odd definition of bigot. Really? Is this the best we can do for conversation and debate?

archer wrote: Saying that both sides do it should not be an excuse for despicable behavior.

I am in no way condoning this. I said this was sickening and horrible. I was horrified when I saw it.

My comment was only about using this incident for the argument that ALL republicans are crazy. If you want to know what the people think about what happened I think a better way to do that is ask the question rather than assume. Just my opinion.

PrintSmith wrote: Bigotry, and using false accusations to justify it, is an ugly thing. For the bigot, it is all the evidence that is necessary to justify the dark thoughts that exist in their mind about those with whom they disagree.

You are empirical proof...

archer wrote: I am, naturally, curious what PrintSmith's and his wife's love of cats has to do with his possibly, maybe, sorta saying that this might have been perpetrated by someone on the left and not by the more obvious choice of someone who disagrees with this man's politics and that of the candidate and needed to express a lot of hate. But hey.....a simple "gee....what a really horrible thing to have happened to that little boy and the family" would have sufficed to express sympathy. Then put the partisan accusations, ok partisan innuendo or whatever you want to call it, into another post.....sticking them together like that gave me the impression that his sympathy was tempered by his belief that it really wasn't a rightie that did this.

The original post by none other than that paragon of leftist virtue, our own Lady Jazzer, started out with partisan intrigue being offered up as established fact. Since the tone of the thread was already decided, it should come as no surprise to you or anyone else that the same theme would be repeated with minor variations, much as a musical score does.

As to why one would have good cause to hesitate before concluding that the horrific act was perpetrated by "the more obvious choice", that is easily addressed. The "more obvious choice" was not the correct one in the vandalism that occurred at the Democratic Party headquarters in Denver, in the brutal attack upon Representative Giffords and others out in front of that shopping mall last year or in the incident where a plane was flown into an IRS office. Neither was it the case when the Denver Police Department sent in people to pose as part of the demonstrations during the Democratic National convention with the intent of stirring up trouble which they then quashed using pepper spray. While the painting of "liberal" on the cat's corpse could indeed be a true indicator that the lunatic responsible is part of the right fringe, it is also undeniably a tactic that is used when a false flag operation is being run and thus all by itself is insufficient to conclusively establish that a lunatic from the left fringe is not the actual perpetrator of the event.

archer wrote: Enough.....this started as a horrific example of what partisan politics has led us to.....and it ends with more partisan politics....and name calling, and justifications that were not needed, and a really odd definition of bigot. Really? Is this the best we can do for conversation and debate?

LJ is not interested in conversation or debate archer. Both of us are honest enough to admit that to ourselves by now, aren't we? For the record, my use of the term bigot is more than consistent with the definition of the word - one who regards or treats members of a group with hatred or intolerance - and the accusation leveled by LJ in her OP.

LadyJazzer wrote: But then, it's Arkansas, and the Righties there are about as bat-sh*t-crazy as it gets...

The comment can only be described as bigoted archer - both towards "Righties" and citizens of Arkansas. If one were to say in regards to the latest drive by shooting of a black youth in the 8 mile section of Detroit, "But then, it's 8 Mile, and the blacks there are about as bat-sh*t-crazy as it gets", there would be no hesitancy to call such a statement racist and bigoted, would there?

An yes LJ, you are empirical proof. Q.E.D.