Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It was a damn dumb thing to say.
All the rationalization in the world isn't going to change that.
Should he lose his job?
Probably not...I think he has likely learned his lesson.
Who hasn't said something stupid in the pursuit of a passionately held belief?
But if this would have been something along the lines of "These liberals should have a family member murdered, then they wouldn't be so opposed to the death penalty", Liberals would be up in arms over it.
I find that conservatives, often in threads where they are "up in arms" over something that a supposed liberal has said or done, often quip that "if a conservative had said it, you libs would be up in arms over it".
I find this type of argument to be particularly vapid....and way overused. I think I could find three examples of it from threads I read yesterday alone.
Now....please understand....there are a few liberals who use this lame debate tactic as well. But.....the one who just used it here claims to be a well researched thinker who does not parrot talking points. He is representative of the MAJORITY. Of conservatives here. Most of them use this tactic routinely.
Let us consider......everyone here....even the liberals who are using this guy's statement to rile the nutters up about gun control....think what he said was stupid. Every liberal here believes that his employer has every right to shitcan him and are not complaining about it. That he is being defended, my friends, is something that you are inventing in your puny little brains.
Lets make a deal, shall we. Lets agree to try not to use the "if it was a ________who said it the __________s would be _________. OK?
The truth is the truth.
It is not a vapid argument.
It is highlighting how a change in perspective realigns peoples opinion.
How many times have we seen this of late.
When Bush was president, the liberals vehemently opposed war, the patriot act, NSA spying and conservatives defended it.
Now that Obama is president, liberals defend what they once opposed and conservatives oppose what they once defended.
It makes a person question the sincerity of the argument, does it not?
It comes down to consistency.
If you defend this guys first amendment right to wish death on the children of NRA members, then you should also support the first amendment right of someone who wishes death on YOUR children in response for a position you hold.
Does your opinion change when the shoe is on the other foot?
Then there is likely some bias involved in the method used to formulate that opinion.
That is only a vapid discourse to those who argue without proper consideration.
I'm glad he stood by his statement. He's right. I'd like to see more NRA members get cut down in these mass gun massacres. Then they'd suffer from the policies they support, and maybe be more willing to change their mind.
Your IP should be reported. You're advocating terror. Another baby killing progressive doing his thing.
You people, ESPECIALLY you should talk 
Everytime I see this, I think of USMB's dearest allie lol. Whatever happened to allie anyway. 
She used to be one of the most irritating posters on this forum.
It was a damn dumb thing to say.
All the rationalization in the world isn't going to change that.
Should he lose his job?
Probably not...I think he has likely learned his lesson.
Who hasn't said something stupid in the pursuit of a passionately held belief?
But if this would have been something along the lines of "These liberals should have a family member murdered, then they wouldn't be so opposed to the death penalty", Liberals would be up in arms over it.
I find that conservatives, often in threads where they are "up in arms" over something that a supposed liberal has said or done, often quip that "if a conservative had said it, you libs would be up in arms over it".
I find this type of argument to be particularly vapid....and way overused. I think I could find three examples of it from threads I read yesterday alone.
Now....please understand....there are a few liberals who use this lame debate tactic as well. But.....the one who just used it here claims to be a well researched thinker who does not parrot talking points. He is representative of the MAJORITY. Of conservatives here. Most of them use this tactic routinely.
Let us consider......everyone here....even the liberals who are using this guy's statement to rile the nutters up about gun control....think what he said was stupid. Every liberal here believes that his employer has every right to shitcan him and are not complaining about it. That he is being defended, my friends, is something that you are inventing in your puny little brains.
Lets make a deal, shall we. Lets agree to try not to use the "if it was a ________who said it the __________s would be _________. OK?
Spare me. The only time Republicans go after other Republicans is when they are discovered to be gay. Every else is forgivable. Do you want examples? Like standing ovation after being cause visiting paid whores or being elected to national office after skipping off to South America with a mistress while in office as a governor?
I find that conservatives, often in threads where they are "up in arms" over something that a supposed liberal has said or done, often quip that "if a conservative had said it, you libs would be up in arms over it".
I find this type of argument to be particularly vapid....and way overused. I think I could find three examples of it from threads I read yesterday alone.
Now....please understand....there are a few liberals who use this lame debate tactic as well. But.....the one who just used it here claims to be a well researched thinker who does not parrot talking points. He is representative of the MAJORITY. Of conservatives here. Most of them use this tactic routinely.
Let us consider......everyone here....even the liberals who are using this guy's statement to rile the nutters up about gun control....think what he said was stupid. Every liberal here believes that his employer has every right to shitcan him and are not complaining about it. That he is being defended, my friends, is something that you are inventing in your puny little brains.
Lets make a deal, shall we. Lets agree to try not to use the "if it was a ________who said it the __________s would be _________. OK?
The truth is the truth.
It is not a vapid argument.
It is highlighting how a change in perspective realigns peoples opinion.
How many times have we seen this of late.
When Bush was president, the liberals vehemently opposed war, the patriot act, NSA spying and conservatives defended it.
Now that Obama is president, liberals defend what they once opposed and conservatives oppose what they once defended.
It makes a person question the sincerity of the argument, does it not?
It comes down to consistency.
If you defend this guys first amendment right to wish death on the children of NRA members, then you should also support the first amendment right of someone who wishes death on YOUR children in response for a position you hold.
Does your opinion change when the shoe is on the other foot?
Then there is likely some bias involved in the method used to formulate that opinion.
That is only a vapid discourse to those who argue without proper consideration.
Did I support military intervention in Syria? Did Thom Hartmann, did Ed Shultz? Did Rachel Maddow? Did Alan Grayson? Did Bernie Sanders?
All of those people opposed the Iraqi invasion. You are not correct in your assessment.
To me, the word that I can't say should be in jail!Suspended? That's it? Fire his ass.
Anti-gun radicals ignore the fact that considerably less than one percent of the firearms in the hands of ordinary Americans are misused.I'm glad he stood by his statement. He's right. I'd like to see more NRA members get cut down in these mass gun massacres. Then they'd suffer from the policies they support, and maybe be more willing to change their mind.
Anti-gun radicals ignore the fact that considerably less than one percent of the firearms in the hands of ordinary Americans are misused.I'm glad he stood by his statement. He's right. I'd like to see more NRA members get cut down in these mass gun massacres. Then they'd suffer from the policies they support, and maybe be more willing to change their mind.
Guns are not the reason for so many killings in America. There is something seriously wrong with our culture and limiting availability of firearms will not address the problem anymore than the drug war has reduced the availability and misuse of recreational drugs.
One thing all of the mass shooters in our recent history had in common is all were suicidal. They were ready to die. Such individuals will spare no expense in obtaining the kind of weapons they want. Combine that with the fact that there are hundreds of millions of unregistered guns in the hands of Americans -- all kinds of guns. Most of them are for sale if the price is irresistible. And a suicidal individual will pay any price for the kind of gun he wants.
So rather than focus on the guns, and such pro-gun organizations as the NRA, we need to look more closely at the underlying cause of the increasingly frequent suicidal impulses that drive the mass murders -- which I believe are raging suicidal compulsions turned outward.
We need to start looking at the psychological effects of our increasingly alienated social order, its divisive political structure, the emphasis on materialism, and the flagrant corruption, hypocrisy, stupidity, and incompetence at all levels of government. It is the outcome of these combined factors which are producing the suicidal crazies. It's not the guns that are doing it.
Take away the guns and they will make bombs and set fires.
You're quite right. That is a significant factor not mentioned in my comment:I think it's time to take a good hard look at all the drugs we're prescribing to people for ailments that didn't even seem to exist a hundred years ago. If you examine the backgrounds of most of these shooters the one constant you will almost always find is that they had been taking or were taking some type of "medication" for mental health issues. These are the same drugs that when they run ads warn that suicidal thoughts may occur! So why are we pumping these drugs out like M&M's if they make people suicidal?
I'm glad he stood by his statement. He's right. I'd like to see more NRA members get cut down in these mass gun massacres. Then they'd suffer from the policies they support, and maybe be more willing to change their mind.
Rights end when they impede the rights of others. He's calling for acts of terror on NRA members. He doesn't have the right to do that, it's illegal.
Inciting terror.
So you were vocal against Beck here when he incited violence against the tides foundation I take it?
All liberals are insane, they all want to murder children , not just the children of NRA members, but children of conservatives , non cult members, 1%ers and white kids.
It's a disease, a mental disease!!
All liberals are insane, they all want to murder children , not just the children of NRA members, but children of conservatives , non cult members, 1%ers and white kids.
It's a disease, a mental disease!!
You're quite right. That is a significant factor not mentioned in my comment:I think it's time to take a good hard look at all the drugs we're prescribing to people for ailments that didn't even seem to exist a hundred years ago. If you examine the backgrounds of most of these shooters the one constant you will almost always find is that they had been taking or were taking some type of "medication" for mental health issues. These are the same drugs that when they run ads warn that suicidal thoughts may occur! So why are we pumping these drugs out like M&M's if they make people suicidal?
Kip Kinkel was withdrawing from Prozac and had been prescribed Ritalin when he murdered his mother and stepfather then shot 22 classmates, killing two, in 1998.
Christopher Pittman was withdrawing from Luvox and from Paxil when he killed his paternal grandparents in 2001.
Elizabeth Bush, who fired at fellow students in Williamsport, Pa., in 2001, wounding one, was on Prozac.
Jason Hoffman, was on Effexor and Celexa when he opened fire at his El Cajon, Calif., high school, wounding five.
Shawn Cooper of Notus, Idaho, was on antidepressants when he fired a shotgun on students and staff.
T.J. Solomon, on antidepressants, wounded six at his Conyers, Ga., high school.
Eric Harris was taking Luvox when he and fellow student Dylan Klebold killed 12 students and a teacher and wounded 24 others before turning their guns on themselves at Columbine High School in Colorado.
At Virginia Tech in 2007, where 32 were murdered, authorities found prescription medications related to the treatment of psychological problems had been found among Mr. Chos effects, according to the New York Times.
Read more at Psych meds linked to 90% of school shootings
Someone at dinner last night was commenting about the latest "Zombie" movie they'd been dragged to see.
Another person commented that if zombies ever DO attack that liberals would be shit outta luck because they won't have guns to protect themselves.
But then someone else pointed out that zombies favorite food is brains so the libs would be perfectly safe.
So you've got THAT going for you, board liberals!!!
Someone at dinner last night was commenting about the latest "Zombie" movie they'd been dragged to see.
Another person commented that if zombies ever DO attack that liberals would be shit outta luck because they won't have guns to protect themselves.
But then someone else pointed out that zombies favorite food is brains so the libs would be perfectly safe.
So you've got THAT going for you, board liberals!!!
Given how zombies appear to shamble about with one, single-minded purpose, killing and eating for "free", I'm guessing most liberals will voluntarily join the zombie hordes.
