18 Jan 2011, 6:10 pm
marshall wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Guns not only give people a means to defend themselves from crooks and foreign invaders, they also give em the means to overthrow the government should the government become tyrannical. And no, that doesn't mean rising up in arms just because you disagree, but doing when it becomes tyrannical to the extent of dictatorship. Outlawing guns completely is seen as an incremental step to that. A lot of people think the part about overthrowing the government is crazy since the government's got tanks, bombs, planes, etc. First off, bombing its own population would be impractical since the government would be destroying part of the infrastructure of society, which means they can't keep tabs on people, they lose means of intel, and they lose the means of transportation as well as having to waste money cleaning up that mess.
Listen, I'm not opposed to using force against a government that is actually tyrannical. The problem I have is when people like Glenn Beck who would like to insinuate that the current administration is tyrannical because of health care reform.
Shows how little you know of the repercussions and unintended consequences of Obamacare (in this case though I would argue that the consequences were actually intended). If Obamacare is ruled Constitutional, it would essentially give the Government power to dictate every aspect of your life through the Commerce Clause, thus becoming totalitarian.
marshall wrote:
Yet, when polled, around 50% of the US population is actually supportive of health care reform.
If you're referring to Obamacare, that poll is has been shown to be invalid. They deliberately skewed their sample of individuals to influence the results.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ap- ... 33774.html
Well kinda proves O'Reilly's point about the AP's loss of credibility.
marshall wrote:
Therefore when right-wingers bring up the rhetoric of revolt against a tyrannical government in the context of the current health care legislation, they sound mighty belligerent. Might not the people who supported healthcare reform not also have guns? Might these people not appreciate thier little right wing insurrection? Or do these people want a civil war on their hands?
That argument has already been proven to be bull. You want to destroy your credibility even more, go right ahead.
Orwell wrote:
As are most of his comments. Inuyasha appears to be among the most severely irony-impaired Aspies on this subforum.
It wasn't right wingers coming up with the bogus claim that their critics were accessories to murder.
Fact is the longer this continues the more it seems I'm gaining credibility, because the argument that is being made by the left on this board is so blatantly false that it is hysterical.
18 Jan 2011, 6:25 pm
@ Inuyaha
Inuyasha wrote:
You're source/statement has no credibility. Blah blah blah....
<link to blatently biased right wing source>
<link to blatently biased right wing source>
I'm beginning to wonder if you're even a real person. I bet someone could make a lot of money writing a computer script that automatically generates a typical right-wing response. It's so formulaic. Seriously, are you a bot?
18 Jan 2011, 6:31 pm
marshall wrote:
@ Inuyaha
I'm beginning to wonder if you're even a real person. I bet someone could make a lot of money writing a computer script that automatically generates a typical right-wing response. It's so formulaic. Seriously, are you a bot?
Inuyasha wrote:
You're source/statement has no credibility. Blah blah blah....
<link to right wing source>
<link to right wing source>
I'm beginning to wonder if you're even a real person. I bet someone could make a lot of money writing a computer script that automatically generates a typical right-wing response. It's so formulaic. Seriously, are you a bot?
My sources aren't the ones trying to smear people by calling them accessories to murder. Furthermore, do you understand what cherry-picking a sample means?
Also, New York Times and CBS have been caught pulling a similar stunt.
Actually, as Bruce Kesler cleverly discovered, what the poll really found was that most Obama voters support substantial changes to healthcare and are willing to pay higher taxes for a government run system:
[A]ccording to the actual poll data, of the 73% of respondents who said they voted in 2008 only 34% voted for McCain and 66% for Obama.
As can be plainly seen on page 7 of the poll's data, only 73 percent of respondents divulged who they voted for last November. 48 percent said Obama, 25 percent McCain.
What this means is this poll surveyed 66 percent Obama supporters versus 34 percent McCain.
As the final tally last year was 53 percent to 46 percent, this poll WAY oversampled Obama voters.
And you wonder why the survey found so much support for Obamacare?
http://soundpolitics.com/archives/013028.html
Further, if those left wing sources of yours were remotely credible, the Democrats wouldn't have been beaten so badly back in November that it made 1994 look like a good year for Democrats.
18 Jan 2011, 6:33 pm
18 Jan 2011, 6:35 pm
18 Jan 2011, 6:39 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
@ Inuyaha
I'm beginning to wonder if you're even a real person. I bet someone could make a lot of money writing a computer script that automatically generates a typical right-wing response. It's so formulaic. Seriously, are you a bot?
Inuyasha wrote:
You're source/statement has no credibility. Blah blah blah....
<link to right wing source>
<link to right wing source>
I'm beginning to wonder if you're even a real person. I bet someone could make a lot of money writing a computer script that automatically generates a typical right-wing response. It's so formulaic. Seriously, are you a bot?
My sources aren't the ones trying to smear people by calling them accessories to murder. Furthermore, do you understand what cherry-picking a sample means?
Also, New York Times and CBS have been caught pulling a similar stunt.
Actually, as Bruce Kesler cleverly discovered, what the poll really found was that most Obama voters support substantial changes to healthcare and are willing to pay higher taxes for a government run system:
[A]ccording to the actual poll data, of the 73% of respondents who said they voted in 2008 only 34% voted for McCain and 66% for Obama.
As can be plainly seen on page 7 of the poll's data, only 73 percent of respondents divulged who they voted for last November. 48 percent said Obama, 25 percent McCain.
What this means is this poll surveyed 66 percent Obama supporters versus 34 percent McCain.
As the final tally last year was 53 percent to 46 percent, this poll WAY oversampled Obama voters.
And you wonder why the survey found so much support for Obamacare?
http://soundpolitics.com/archives/013028.html
Further, if those left wing sources of yours were remotely credible, the Democrats wouldn't have been beaten so badly back in November that it made 1994 look like a good year for Democrats.
Listen. If you want to talk about liberal media bias and scandals start your own damned thread about it. All I see is you putting up red herrings because you're incapable of directly addressing your opponents' arguments in a logical manner. What you do is the equivalent of screaming "You Lie!! !" at the top of your lungs every time someone says something you disagree with and then posting a bunch of completely off-topic crap from your favorite right-wing propaganda sites.
18 Jan 2011, 6:46 pm
marshall wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
@ Inuyaha
I'm beginning to wonder if you're even a real person. I bet someone could make a lot of money writing a computer script that automatically generates a typical right-wing response. It's so formulaic. Seriously, are you a bot?
Inuyasha wrote:
You're source/statement has no credibility. Blah blah blah....
<link to right wing source>
<link to right wing source>
I'm beginning to wonder if you're even a real person. I bet someone could make a lot of money writing a computer script that automatically generates a typical right-wing response. It's so formulaic. Seriously, are you a bot?
My sources aren't the ones trying to smear people by calling them accessories to murder. Furthermore, do you understand what cherry-picking a sample means?
Also, New York Times and CBS have been caught pulling a similar stunt.
Actually, as Bruce Kesler cleverly discovered, what the poll really found was that most Obama voters support substantial changes to healthcare and are willing to pay higher taxes for a government run system:
[A]ccording to the actual poll data, of the 73% of respondents who said they voted in 2008 only 34% voted for McCain and 66% for Obama.
As can be plainly seen on page 7 of the poll's data, only 73 percent of respondents divulged who they voted for last November. 48 percent said Obama, 25 percent McCain.
What this means is this poll surveyed 66 percent Obama supporters versus 34 percent McCain.
As the final tally last year was 53 percent to 46 percent, this poll WAY oversampled Obama voters.
And you wonder why the survey found so much support for Obamacare?
http://soundpolitics.com/archives/013028.html
Further, if those left wing sources of yours were remotely credible, the Democrats wouldn't have been beaten so badly back in November that it made 1994 look like a good year for Democrats.
Listen. If you want to talk about liberal media bias and scandals start your own damned thread about it. All I see is you putting up red herrings because you're incapable of directly addressing your opponents' arguments in a logical manner. What you do is the equivalent of screaming "You Lie!! !" at the top of your lungs every time someone says something you disagree with and then posting a bunch of completely off-topic crap from your favorite right-wing propaganda sites.
And I'm supposed to just sit here why you post a smear campaign towards conservatives and not call you on the fact your sources are not credible. Sorry, but that's not happening.
I have posted actual conspiracies that have happened which debunks your Conservatives are crazy argument. I have also shown that your sources have serious credibility issues and a substancial bias when it comes to Conservatives.
If you don't like the fact I've deconstructed your entire argument, tough.
18 Jan 2011, 6:48 pm
18 Jan 2011, 6:51 pm
18 Jan 2011, 7:06 pm
marshall wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/david-brock-tells-matthews-glenn-beck-has-been-responsible-for-3-thwarted-assassination-attempts/
Check the link for the actual video clips, I don't feel any need to comment myself.
Quote:
Media Matters founder David Brock appeared on Hardball and revealed to Chris Matthews his allegation that “Glenn Beck himself has been responsible for three thwarted assassination attempts this year.” Brock listed three occurrences where a crazed assassin targeted a liberal politician or institution, and where evidence later emerged that the assassin may have been a viewer of Beck’s show.
Matthews just nodded in astonishment, not questioning whether such tangential evidence truly would establish Beck as somehow “responsible” for each assassination attempt. Ron Reagan was slightly less inflammatory with his criticism of Beck, merely asserting that Beck, “constantly refers to political opponents on the left as traitors, treasonous, Marxists, fascists, Nazis, [and saying] we’ve got to do something about it, we may have to take to the street. You can see that as entertainment, but some people like Mr. Loughner are not going to see that as entertainment, they are going to take it seriously. . . . We all expected something like this, awful like this, was going to happen and it did.”
In a discussion about toning down the rhetoric on both sides, it seems as if the founder of Media Matters and Ron Reagan may have missed the memo.
Watch the clip from MSNBC below:
Matthews just nodded in astonishment, not questioning whether such tangential evidence truly would establish Beck as somehow “responsible” for each assassination attempt. Ron Reagan was slightly less inflammatory with his criticism of Beck, merely asserting that Beck, “constantly refers to political opponents on the left as traitors, treasonous, Marxists, fascists, Nazis, [and saying] we’ve got to do something about it, we may have to take to the street. You can see that as entertainment, but some people like Mr. Loughner are not going to see that as entertainment, they are going to take it seriously. . . . We all expected something like this, awful like this, was going to happen and it did.”
In a discussion about toning down the rhetoric on both sides, it seems as if the founder of Media Matters and Ron Reagan may have missed the memo.
Watch the clip from MSNBC below:
Check the link for the actual video clips, I don't feel any need to comment myself.
I'm sorry, but I'm sick of people on the right defending Beck merely because he is "on your side". I don't see anything wrong with David Brock's statements regarding Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck clearly has singularly influenced the three shooters he mentioned. Also, Glenn Back does constantly refer to his political opponents as Marxists and fascists. He also insinuates bogus motives to people and organizations on the left, even going so far as to compare Obama to Lucifer. He's not content just to disagree with policy, he must stoke irrational fear and fill gullible people's heads with unfounded distrust and paranoia.
Nobody is saying we want the government to forcibly silence him or charge him with inciting murder. We merely would like the freedom to point out that the guy really is a f***ing a**hole and that he does clearly influence violent people. The world is not black-and-white as conservatives like to see it. There are degrees of responsibility, and people like Glenn Beck clearly bear some in the cases mentioned responsibility.
@ Orwell
He didn't come out and say it explicitly but it is implied.
Orwell wrote:
It is nice to see that you have finally backed down where you were obviously wrong. I honestly never expected it to happen.
I apologized a while ago Orwell, I got you confused with Skafather84.
marshall wrote:
I'm going to repost what I said because Inuyasha is just trying to bury it with his inanity.
I'm guessing "cause and effect" as well "connecting the dots" was never your strong suit.
marshall wrote:
What the actual percentage is that supports health care reform is irrelevant. The point is there is a significant chunk of the population that doesn't want to repeal health care reform.
Depends on how you word the poll, and quite frankly what a significant percentage wants is irrelevant unless it is a substancial enough margin to pass a Constitutional Amendment to let Government run people's healthcare.
Obamacare is unconstitutional because it expands the Commerce Clause to tyrannical levels, I have already explained this in prior threads. In other words, it doesn't matter what a bunch of left wingers want in this case because the entire thing is in violation of the United States Constitution. The Constitution exists to prevent Government from gaining too much power. Also those that want Obamacare to remain in place are not the majority either.
marshall wrote:
Yet, Tea Partiers are claiming they represent "the will of the people" as if they are representing all the people. Then at the same time they act belligerent by talking about "overthrowing" the "tyrannical" government. I'm just saying you guys are full of sh**. If the right wants to repeal healthcare legislation down the barrel of a gun then they must be prepared for civil war. If not then the Tea Party needs to STFU.
Uh, the tea party's weapon happens to be the ballot box as far as we've seen thus far. If the tea party wasn't supported by the American People, the Democrats would control the House of Representatives. Oh that's right, the Dems were beaten so badly that it made 1994 look like a good year for Democrats.
18 Jan 2011, 7:24 pm
18 Jan 2011, 7:33 pm
18 Jan 2011, 7:43 pm
18 Jan 2011, 7:51 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
Orwell, have you ever heard of saying that they are not accusing someone of something when they actually are. It is a classic tactic Orwell, I've seen it used before.
Looks to me the issue is more of a case of you not reading between the lines.
Orwell wrote:
So... yeah, the issue here is still your lack of reading comprehension.
Looks to me the issue is more of a case of you not reading between the lines.
Oh, of course. The much more rational explanation is that marshall means the exact opposite of what he says. All your posts suddenly make so much more sense!
The issue here is that you are delusional and constantly attribute false beliefs and motives to other people.
Quote:
[quote="Orwell"I remember you apologizing for a different lie (that I had called Beck an anti-Semite). You had not backed down from your lie about me accusing the right of being accessories/accomplices to murder.
I was using a generalization, I wasn't referring to you specifically.[/quote]
That is a grotesque and deliberate lie. You have stated, repeatedly, that I accused right-wingers of being accessories to murder, and doubled down on that claim when called out on it.
You should wait more than two or three days before embarking on such blatant revisionism. If anyone has destroyed their own credibility, it is you with such laughable claims as what you just said. I mean, it's not even debatable. You are simply wrong, and unless you are even stupider than I thought, you know it, which means you can only be lying.
18 Jan 2011, 7:58 pm
18 Jan 2011, 8:02 pm
Macbeth wrote:
Oh dear. Did I spell your name wrong? How DID I manage to do that? I do apologise, Inyourasshat...INtenselyDeludedHaHa. Inyublahblah. Something like that. Whatever. Not important.
Are you always this juvenile?
Macbeth wrote:
Did I call you dangerous? No. Do I have to spell it out? Clearly you misunderstood the reference.. again. I'm calling you DELUDED. That fellow in his bunker wasn't DANGEROUS by the time he started really ranting and drooling. He was just deluded. Sad, ill, and completely batshit crazy. I think you just decided that I was calling you "dangerous" by pulling thoughts out of your ass. So, once more with feeling... I remember another right-winger who KEPT ON claiming credibility long after his sphere of influence had shrunk down to the boundaries of his own office. Claiming things long after the whole world knew that it was nothing but dust and BS. Now I think about it, its a very common failing.
It doesn't look like I'm the one ranting here.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
|
Am I Too Blame?
in Bipolar, Tourettes, Schizophrenia, and other Psychological Conditions |
07 Jul 2026, 7:09 pm |
| Are there a lot of crazy people in this world? |
21 Jul 2026, 7:31 am |
| My game is just released on steam! And for free! |
18 Jul 2026, 7:59 am |
