right wing gun nut jobs try to kill NYC mayor

Rational thinking does not show the left to behave that way, and it shows the right to, in fact, behave that way. Using your brain to make left/right decisions in favor of the left shows a clear bias: a bias towards sanity and reality. If one "side" is considerably more violent and paranoid than the other, it is a totally fair and realistic bias to assume that they would do something that matches their sentiments and goals, and uses the violence that they are prone to.

Oh my god, that's fucking priceless, coming from you.

You said that somebody could have done it so that they could start this thread. You singled out rj, but none of the 7 billion other people on the planet. This is actually a pretty strong implication.

Despite what the right likes to think, implications don't JUST exist in the arguments of their opponents, they themselves are not immune from the reality of implied meanings, from gay marriage to this. If you're going to play semantics games you need to have an understanding of the way language and communication actually works, which is, in large part by way of implication. I mean, of course you really understand it, you imply all sorts of things, and then deny that implication exists.... grow up.

As for obama, or anything else, holy fucking straw-mans, batman -- your implications here have nothing to do with my opinion of obama -- I don't like him because he's repeatedly betrayed the people of the US and the people of the world, and all signs point to him having no plan to change his game. It simply has nothing to do with his race, or with any implication about his race -- pointing out that he's a traitor, and why, is entirely race neutral.

Fair enough, my mistake. I suppose I read in that the right is more concerned about civil liberties, and thus what's right, than the left. (on that matter, I think whichever party is not in the white house crows more about that sort of thing, but they both march right along and toe the line, with regards to flushing rights)

 

Roo,

I think StpLSD25 hit the nail exactly on the head, you really DO see the world in black and white.

 

Well, running with your obama example, you're saying that to a guy who thinks obama has betrayed the american people -- and I still have the obama sticker on my car, from when I gave him money -- because it's all shades of grey, and the alternate shade was even worse.

 

thats not true.roor don't see the world like that.he is fair.

 

Oh yeah this is a totally fair statement; Despite the fact that his "black," "white," and "grey," are all pretty grey. In fact, there was no difference between Obama and Romney Policy wise and Obama has had 3 scandals (just that we know of.)

So what you see as "fair," people who are neither Con or Dem, see's his rhetoric as rather bias.

 

What I implied, or rather what I actually stated was that rj took advantage of the incident to denigrate those who lean Right, the NRA, and Republicans collectively.

Obviated in:
1. The thread title - "right wing gun nut jobs try to kill NYC mayor"
2. The OP - "Anyone wanna bet it wasn't an NRA member, or a registered republican?"

Not to mention the implication that each of those are accused of being fascists. "Yeah, the fascists are willing to kill to get their way."

You and several others seem to be guilty of playing the semantics game, constantly looking to imply rather than deal with the proven facts. Perhaps it is time that YOU grow up.

Yet I frequently see those who disagree with Obama or the Democrat party being called racists, or Uncle Toms if they happen to be black.

As for this thread, it appears that a felony criminal act has been committed, and the perpetrator should be held responsible and punished applicable to our laws, regardless of the political interests held by the perpetrator, rather than attempt to apply guilt collectively to those who may have 'some political interests' in common.

LetLovinTakeHold,

I tend to agree more with you and the Libertarians, and see the Democrat and Republican parties as more or less one and the same, and until more persons recognize that, 'change for the better' is very unlikely to occur in U.S. politics.

 

Individual= Mr. Tryhard.

No matter how many times you repeat your various assertions, they don't become true. You assert, ignore criticism of that assertion, dodge supporting that assertion, and assert again. You lend no credibility to those who share your opinions.

 

I agree, let's start dealing with proven facts in all the threads on these forums, rather than continually asserting that one political philosophy is right and all others are wrong.

I might add that while you and others who flagrantly and persistantly denigrate those who disagree with and/or promote anything that remotely opposes your collectivist political opinions, irrationally do so by attempting to imply a sameness based upon the misuse of any similarity. I've yet to find any two humans who agree totally with each other, although it would appear that those who reside on the Left side of the political spectrum seem to feel it is the duty and responsibility of government to impose such upon those it governs.

 

"yeah, let's make it about facts. I've noticed that it seems like I, Individual, should make up some crazy bullshit about the left"

:2thumbsup:

 

Why do you feel it necessary to make up any crazy bullshit at all, if there is any intent to discuss or communicate relating to an issue or solve any apparent problems?

 

I agree with Indi... If RJ or Roor had ANY intentions to converse, they would stop attacking everyone who sways "Right," and instead ask why so many leftist are suddenly swaying right.

It's because Liberalism has been a big lie from the government!

 

I wish ppl would just stop debating along lines of left and right altogether considering we have a puppet government and it doesn't matter which "side" the puppet is on.

 

Or, perhaps, if individual or STP had any intention at honest conversation, they would stop attacking anything/anyone that they think sways "left", and actually examine their own positions.

 

I "sway right" a lot of the time and Roos only attacked me on accident and always apologizes after. I think your "holier than thou" attitude may have more to do with it than your actual ideals. Because after all, you and I agree on most things politically. I just try to respect others opinions.

 

Actually, I don't have a "holier than thou" attitude. In fact, you're effective describing yourself, Lovin'; Because I have never attacked you, and even with Roor and most people on this site I try to stay chill, and I get attacked for having views that sway "right" (I believe in the right to bear arms, and don't like president Obama.) I don't care if someone is a Liberal or sways Left but as soon as I ask for answers to things that I see hypocritical, either about Liberals or about the president, suddenly I'm "one sided and inconsiderate of anyone else's views." That's completely untrue; I just want Liberals to answer to the hypocrisy of demanding disarmament of the citizenry meanwhile, supporting infinite power to Obama to kill America citizens with plastic flying death machines. They're also hypocritical when they say they believe in "Human Rights" and, "ending the drug war," well they've totally abandoned these principles as well, Obama was no different than Romney who would rather we smoke dangerous Research Chemicals than a natural God given herb! However, Once I point out these hypocrisies, leftists tend to get angry and say "well he's better than the other guy."

And it's like "No, He's Not." taxing the rich and spending more and more, is not going to help us. Then Obama supporters say "No, he's lowering the deficit." But they also don't understand the the "deficit" is how much they expect the budget to raise, so we're still drastically borrowing money daily, and living above our means. I'm trying to wake people up before it's too late, like a good friend. Unfortunately, so many leftist and "like minded" people feed off of the biased idea that the other guy did it, so it's okay. It's okay until the lights go off on the whole country, then a lot more Liberals would realize why people they considered "Right-wing nutjobs" were talking about Constitutionally limited government!

But I totally resent what you said. I stick to my principles, and I'm hated for it!

 

Ehh, I really agree with him on a lot, or I would, except for his 'us and them' type attitude. He constantly describes, in a very general sense, a heap of issues, and then says that it's the left.... no, it's the left and right, the far left and the far right are both off doing our own insane things..... the country has been flushed in a bipartisan effort, and now they're both taking turns plunging it, while saying things that simply don't reflect reality, about who is doing what.

I'm highly left, which meets far right on many issues. But STP would rather explain how my "leftist agenda" or whatever is really all about disguised big government, than deal with the reality of the "sides".

It's just easy to say it was all the liberals, or all the conservatives.

 

STP,

You haven't attacked me because we agree on just about everything. But you are known on these boards to go ape shit and sling personal attacks on people who don't share our ideals. Which is in no way a productive method of persuading people to open their eyes. It's about as effective as the evangelical Christians shoving the bible down people's throats and telling them they'll burn in hell if they don't fall in line.

It's been better since your little break, though.

 

In any case... all the stuff you were mentioning (stp) about stuff that Obama is or isn't doing- or what Romney would or wouldn't do that is worse... what some people do not get is that all those things are going to happen anyways no matter which president is "in charge". So, really it doesn't make any difference who is saying it because they are saying the same thing... ppl perceive it to be diff based on whether its a rep or dem president but that is just perception.
Also, yea, to what someone else said, I noticed back when I considered myself "very liberal" or "very to the left" that the far right tended to agree- esp. in more recent years that is-on many issues. I no longer consider myself to be either but that's because it's all just a distraction game. I pretty much just feel like people should be left alone but that is not gonna happen.

 

You sound like somebody who should, if you do not already, look up and support wolf-pac.

In fact, everybody should.

It's very "left" though, stp probably couldn't get down with leftists taking government back from corporations and all those other shadowy interests he blusters about.

 

Mayor Mike is right on about controlling illegal weapons on the street and his recent comments on political corruption in New York are spot on. If he wants to veer of the ranch about my salt shaker or my big gulp I will grant him that vanity. Those who seek to succeed him in the next election are indifferent to the public fisc.

Sarah Palin appeared with a Big Gulp at a CPAC convention; but that is hardly the issue when New York politicians are indicted for theft and corruption with corrupt charities and non-profit foundations; accepting public matching funds at a 6 to 1 ratio in an election with no opponent.
Let The IRS come to New York to investigate our corrupt non -profits.

I don't care if Anthony Weiner is e-mailing shots of his wiener. If he is for the integrity of the public fisc, good.
If he will drive us all into bankruptcy whilst prattling about pre-school and global warming he deserves contempt.

The City of Detroit is considering the sale of art works in the public museem, Detroit is broke and facing bankruptcy. Do we want to go there?