Re: Roger Ailes...
- From: Frank <fazed1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:44:24 -0500
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 19:25:36 -0500, Buzz <buzzard99@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 15:02:58 -0500, Frank <fazed1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 14:28:08 -0500, Buzz <buzzard99@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 14:11:59 -0500, Frank <fazed1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 14:04:27 -0500, Buzz <buzzard99@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:51:55 -0500, Frank <fazed1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
... instructed his talkers to defend their positions intellectually
without resorting to "bombast"; a sensible position on his part.
A position that could be adopted here though I won't hold my breath
until it is.
Did he mention the importance of MAKING a position intellectually?
"He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn?t listen to
political radio. He didn?t take sides. He wasn?t on the left. He
wasn?t on the right." - Zach Osler, a high school friend of Jared
I wouldn't expect to go to any forum making wild , unsubstantiated and
hysterical claims and not be called on it. Of course, what you choose
to do is up to you. But, at least you know what to expect.....
And just what "wild, unsubstatiate and hysterical claim did I make?
""It was just a matter of time until some deranged person thought
violence was an acceptable way to express political differences. Did
the level of heated and sometimes wacky discourse i.e. Palin's cross
hairs map and Sharron Angle's "Second Amendment remedy" among others,
have anything at all to do with what erupted in Arizona? Maybe, maybe
not, but if the political rhetoric isn't cooled down don't be
surprised to see more of the same. A cautionary tale if ever there was
""there have been others and there will be more. My
point, and surely you can see that, is that things will get uglier if
the angry if the heated discourse continues to escalate.""
There is absolutely zero reason to even inject political discourse
into the Arizona shooting conversation. There was not and apparently
still is not any evidence whatsoever that politics played a role.
Had you MADE your position intellectually, you would have stuck to
mental health issues or mental care issues perhaps. Your decision to
try to make the shootings an expression of political differences was
illogical. Your decision to drag Palin and Angle into it just tipped
your hand as to your motives.
if you will re-read my initial post you should note that it was both
equivocal and speculative and neither wild, unsubstatiated nor
hysterical. The recent revelation that the shooter did not seem to
have a political motive falls under the "Maybe, maybe not,..." portion
of my comments. The possibility that some mentally unstable and easily
suggestable person will act as a result of the currently inflamatory
rhetoric that is thrown so casually about is speculation on my part,
but I think it is a distinct possibility. So, I ask once again, just
what "wild, unsubstatiated and hysterical claim" did I make?
If you can type all that with a straight face, good for you.
"My point, and surely you can see that, is that things WILL get uglier
if the angry if the heated discourse continues to escalate."
That is a given. There was no mention of guns or attempted
assasination in case you didn't notice in your rush to paint me with
your wild, unsubstantiated and hysterical paint brush. Nice try but no
Equivocal and speculative? Really?
Yes, wih one given, or do you deny that too?
"The trouble with quotes on the Internet is that you can never know if they are genuine."
~ Abraham Lincoln
- Re: Roger Ailes...
- From: Buzz
- Re: Roger Ailes...
- Prev by Date: Re: Complete mindlessness
- Next by Date: Are Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, and the rest of the gang guilty of stochastic terrorism?
- Previous by thread: Re: Roger Ailes...
- Next by thread: Re: Roger Ailes...