The progressive “climate of hate:” An illustrated primer

Nice spin Archer.

travelingirl wrote:

Scruffy wrote:

travelingirl wrote: In other words, Nmysys, to permit is to promote.

I am not permitting anything, 285Bound is permitting the speech here. Using your logic and the "facts" of Nmysys and Outdoor338, that would mean that 285Bound is celebrating and encouraging the shooter.

Now that's a stretch! Try again!

Alright, let me try again using the same logic. You do not specifically condemn Outdoor338's lying about LJ's supposed "cheering on the shooter," therefore you approve of his lying.

travelingirl wrote: Nice spin Archer.

no spin involved, one either walks the talk, or they don't. If you don't, why would you expect others to?

neptunechimney wrote:

Scruffy wrote: Guilt by association is not a logical deduction.

rofllol rofllol

Every German in WW2 approved of Hitler's holocaust plans. After all, they lived in Germany, so therefore they must have approved of his actions. Guilt by association.

Scruffy wrote:

neptunechimney wrote:

Scruffy wrote: Guilt by association is not a logical deduction.

rofllol rofllol

Every German in WW2 approved of Hitler's holocaust plans. After all, they lived in Germany, so therefore they must have approved of his actions. Guilt by association.

I should have been clear. Anything that has Scruffy and logic in the same room together makes me rofllol
Thanks.

Still no condemnation of LJ's Pimping of HATE!!!

neptunechimney wrote:

Scruffy wrote:

neptunechimney wrote:

Scruffy wrote: Guilt by association is not a logical deduction.

rofllol rofllol

Every German in WW2 approved of Hitler's holocaust plans. After all, they lived in Germany, so therefore they must have approved of his actions. Guilt by association.

I should have been clear. Anything that has Scruffy and logic in the same room together makes me rofllol
Thanks.

Glad I could help.

Nmysys wrote: Still no condemnation of LJ's Pimping of HATE!!!

How would you know? You have most liberals on ignore. And I still haven't heard about your intervention in your neighbor's spousal abuse.

And let's not forget our fearless leader, Do!h!bama promoting hate:

President Obama told Univision recently,“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, 'We're going to punish our enemies and we're going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,' if they don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it's going to be harder."

He's a lefty, right?

Scruffy wrote:

travelingirl wrote:

Scruffy wrote: Do you think it was a scope crosshair or a surveyors marker that the Palin website had placed over the Congressional Districts that she targeted?

I think it was metaphoric. Both of them.

Thanks. I appreciate a straight answer. I disagree with you, as I think they were scope crosshairs and may have been interpreted literally by more than a few. I'm sure thare are those that will say it was "tongue in cheek" and was not meant to be interpreted as a command to kill.

I do not know if this wacko was influenced by Palin or not.

The problem is that the "more than a few" who sought to attach a literal interpretation were all from the political left who did so in an attempt to disparage their political rivals. Clearly the intent was to convey the idea that these politicians were being targeted for defeat in the elections, no one would be foolish enough to deny that. The very idea that they were intended to convey something more than this, however, is simply an introduction of intrigue by those who wish to discredit Palin and others who share a political ideology similar to hers and thus create a controversy where none exists. There would be no point in targeting DeGette for defeat given the makeup of her district, there is no realistic hope for success. Other Democrats were targeted because they were not as entrenched as DeGette is. Yes, the TEA Party was targeting specific seats where they had a chance to replace a Democrat with a Republican in last fall's elections. That is true and that is what the ads said they were doing. The "more than a few" who hoped to change the message and to have a sinister meaning associated with the ads were the ones who introduced the idea that there might be an additional meaning hidden within the ads beyond the political one that was obvious to all sane and rational people.

Me, I think they did so in the hopes that someone would turn targeting at the ballot box into targeting with physical harm so that their political opponents would be weakened in the aftermath of the event. They could then use the outrage resulting from the event itself and turn it into outrage for their political opponents. After all, you can't let a crisis go to waste if it will help advance your political agenda.