PDA

View Full Version : If, after a tragedy such as last weekend's, your group has to spend countless



Carol
01-11-2011, 09:02 PM
link (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x177493)

Here's a good dose of liberal logic:


wiggs (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Jan-11-11 07:07 PM
Original message
If, after a tragedy such as last weekend's, your group has to spend countless

hours defending itself and justifying its behavior...and a media storm of discussion and analysis is dedicated to possible connections between your group and the violence....and if it is unclear if your group has crossed a line or not...and we're down to posting a dozen kinds of bullseyes and gunsights....and honest people have differing opinions on your group's responsibility...and there are recordings and documents which show that criticisms are not far-fetched or fabricated, then...

...then YOUR GROUP IS DOING SOMETHING WRONG, regardless whether or not in the end 51% of the nation sides with you OR if attorneys general can't find criminal behavior in your group OR if this shooter has no technical connection with your group's message. Clearly, your group is on the WRONG SIDE OF THE ISSUE and no amount of diversion or discussion of who said what or comparing of gunsight graphics can distance your group from the fundamental problem. It has to be made clear that the RW is not absolved of irresponsible, undemocratic behavior just because a photo of Glenn Beck isn't found in Loughner's underwear drawer.

It seems to me that, since this is not a court of law in which there's a guilty or not-guilty verdict, we (public) should be able to handle two conclusions at once....that possibly this guy acted in a vacuum without contact with toxic RW news and pundits...AND...the RW is and has been on the wrong side of the rhetoric issue, playing a terrible, dangerous, and incendiary game of hate, fear, and violence for political and fundraising gain.

The latter point should be self-evident and an easy case to make, since there are probably hundreds of incidents of low-road hateful campaigning and tricks going back only as far as Rove and Bush getting together. I don't see how there could be an easier or more obvious case to make if someone were interested in detailed analysis.

However, just as they did with the torture issue, the RW and their corporatist enablers will see to it that the larger issue is reduced down to something debatable and gray. It doesn't have to be that way.
Translation:

We can accuse you of anything we want and if you defend yourself then it means you're guilty.

And even if there isn't any EVIDENCE or PROOF that you are guilty, you are because we say that you are.

And of course the usual: The definition of hateful and violent words are those WE don't agree with, by those we don't agree with.

They know that they are losing the debate over this so now they are trying to turn it around - and say - well maybe there isn't a direct link, but they are guilty anyway.

I've read a number of threads today saying similar things.

Dan D. Doty
01-11-2011, 10:06 PM
link (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x177493)

Here's a good dose of liberal logic:

Translation:

We can accuse you of anything we want and if you defend yourself then it means you're guilty.

And even if there isn't any EVIDENCE or PROOF that you are guilty, you are because we say that you are.

And of course the usual: The definition of hateful and violent words are those WE don't agree with, by those we don't agree with.

They know that they are losing the debate over this so now they are trying to turn it around - and say - well maybe there isn't a direct link, but they are guilty anyway.

I've read a number of threads today saying similar things.

Nailed first try Carol.

But Moonbats won't be happy until they can censor anyone that disagrees with them, or throw them in jail for disagreeing with them.

They have become slaves to their hate.

FDK
01-12-2011, 12:30 AM
You guys just don't get it do you? It's very obvious that graphics on Sarah Palin's web page turn normal people in their early 20s into murderous paranoid schizophrenics.

/sarcasm

Novaheart
01-12-2011, 12:44 AM
You guys just don't get it do you? It's very obvious that graphics on Sarah Palin's web page turn normal people in their early 20s into murderous paranoid schizophrenics.

/sarcasm

...... with eyes that make Michelle Bachmann look calm and grounded.

Rockntractor
01-12-2011, 12:53 AM
...... with eyes that make Michelle Bachmann look calm and grounded.

Yeah she is crazy alright, the Bachmanns have opened their home to 23 foster children.
What have you done for your fellowman.

NJCardFan
01-12-2011, 12:59 AM
Yeah she is crazy alright, the Bachmanns have opened their home to 23 foster children.
What have you done for your fellowman.
Uhhhhh, act like a complete douche?

Novaheart
01-12-2011, 09:53 AM
Yeah she is crazy alright, the Bachmanns have opened their home to 23 foster children.
What have you done for your fellowman.

I can only imagine what you'd accuse me of were I to run a foster care mill out of my house.

NJCardFan
01-12-2011, 10:16 AM
I can only imagine what you'd accuse me of were I to run a foster care mill out of my house.

So what you're saying is that fostering children is wrong? Well fuck you and all of your own. I'm a newly licensed foster parent you douchebag. So according to your twisted logic, the Bachman's would be better served to let those children stay in some group home instead of taking them into their home where those children can receive the love and attention they sorely need. Also, it's not like she had 23 children at the same time you piece of shit. Amazing that you hate this person so much that you can trash her and her family for doing something this good. You are nothing more than a typical shitbag liberal.

Rockntractor
01-12-2011, 10:39 AM
I can only imagine what you'd accuse me of were I to run a foster care mill out of my house.

You have a persecution complex, I think you thrive on it. You set yourself up with a comment like this and then whine at the result.


And by the way, it's a foster home.

Apache
01-12-2011, 12:39 PM
I can only imagine what you'd accuse me of were I to run a foster care mill out of my house.

Slimeball. Bye

enslaved1
01-12-2011, 01:39 PM
Back on track......

wiggs is just taking the cue from their media masters. Observe.

scroll down to this genius line.. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/01/the-note-obama-palin-and-arizona-a-tale-of-two-speeches.html)


BOTTOM LINE: Sarah Palin, once again, has found a way to become part of the story.

Ummm, what idiots scoured their archives for a way to connect Palin to this attack? YOU IDIOTS!!!!11!!!!! That's who. This whole mess has fallen apart into an abolutely sickening display of liberal hate, double standards, and hypocircy. Every passing day, we find more evidience the accused shooter was just nuts, didn't care about politics, watch the news, or listen to Rush. And with each passing day, we pull up more examples of the left loving stuff like this when it's aimed at evil right wingers. Bill Maher saying Huffington Post should not have scrubbed user comments lamenting the bomb that didn't kill Dick Cheny in Afganistan. A Dem leader commenting in the past that a republican governer should be put up against a wall and shot. The "snipers wanted" scroll under Bush's White House. Legistlatiors jumping at the chance to push gun control laws, hate speech laws, and whatever other pet projects they can think of before the bodies are even cold. Tragedies can bring out the best in many people, but they can just as easily bring out the worst in others, and we are seeing the worst of the opportunistic left of full display.

/rant off, as you were.

Zathras
01-12-2011, 03:25 PM
I can only imagine what you'd accuse me of were I to run a foster care mill out of my house.

I'd wonder who you bribed at the permit office in your town to get the licence to do so.

AmPat
01-12-2011, 07:51 PM
link (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x177493)

Here's a good dose of liberal logic:

Translation:

We can accuse you of anything we want and if you defend yourself then it means you're guilty.

And even if there isn't any EVIDENCE or PROOF that you are guilty, you are because we say that you are.

And of course the usual: The definition of hateful and violent words are those WE don't agree with, by those we don't agree with.

They know that they are losing the debate over this so now they are trying to turn it around - and say - well maybe there isn't a direct link, but they are guilty anyway.

I've read a number of threads today saying similar things.
Good, fair, and accurate analysis Carol. I'd change one thing though, you could have added that: Those same words are not hateful or vile and may be uttered at will, anytime, for any reason, no matter how disgusting or hateful, as long as it is against Conservatives.
The definition of hateful and violent words are those WE don't agree with, by those we don't agree with.

NJCardFan
01-12-2011, 07:57 PM
Wait, let me assess the logic of this DU post:

If you are accused of being party to a mass murder, slandered, libeled, and what else, and you try to defend yourself, you're guilty.

However, if you're accused of being party to mass murder, slandered, libeled, and what else, and you say nothing, your silence proves your guilt.






Oy