Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I am not well versed in the Transformer verse, but I am sure its fanboys would disagree and claim it as his greatest role.
how many people own a copy of Citizen Kane, or even, War of the Worlds (and not that new bullshit one, but like, the revolutionary radio broadcast)?
how many people own the transformers movie?
/game, set, match
Originally posted by Bardock42
Lol, you weak!
yes, but at least I am innoculated from everyone else's chronic underachievement
Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm with her on quoting Reagan “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”
I've agreed with this for a long; why I find it ridiculous that mothers try and blame a video-games as the reason why they're little precious went out and raped a school-mate or set fire to a litter of puppies. Your child is just ****ed up, deal with it.
Palin is not at fault here, the shooter's an obvious loon; it's all on him. Now it would he hahaha-funny is someone said on the air "Palin should be shot" and some other loon went out and did it, even if it's just a bullet in her ass.
Originally posted by Bardock42
She is a goddamn idiot. She draws up a map with crosshairs on democrats, tell her followers to help her prescribe the (final?) solution, and to "reload"...yeah would have been great if the shooter had reloaded, maybe he could have killed a couple more kids. Now we don't know whether he was inspired by her propaganda, but I don't think it matters, I'm with her on quoting Reagan “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”, Sarah Palin should ****ing take responsibility for inciting violence and calling for attacks (however slightly disguised), she should apologize for it and then she should be tried for it, cause it's not legal to tell people to go out and kill people (and yes, she did....SHE DID!).The blood libel thing just shows her stupidity on top of her maliciousness, using a phrase that originated because of the severe persecution Jews faced by Christians and the fabricated lie that they killed Christian babies (unlike the correct accusation that she told her followers to shoot certain people) is in bad taste at the best of times (and this, a time a Jewish person you wanted gone having been shot, is not one). It's like pissing on someone's face after you just punched them to the ground.
Now, some of that may be hyperbole, but she should take a step back, reflect and realize that her rhetoric can and does cause violence and she should apologize for it and she should stop it in the future. Show some humility, goddammit, unless of course, she is, like I said, on top of stupid, which is a fact, just plain evil.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
This entire post demonstrates the liberal mindset in all of its moral and logical failings.
yes, the moral high ground of both encouraging violence against a specific person and subsequently feeling victimized when that person is attacked.
I see your "conservative" logic in its entirety. Take responsibility for your own actions, unless of course you can explain away the consequences as being "someone else's fault"
Originally posted by Robtard
I've agreed with this for a long; why I find it ridiculous that mothers try and blame a video-games as the reason why they're little precious went out and raped a school-mate or set fire to a litter of puppies. Your child is just ****ed up, deal with it.Palin is not at fault here, the shooter's an obvious loon; it's all on him. Now it would he hahaha-funny is someone said on the air "Palin should be shot" and some other loon went out and did it, even if it's just a bullet in her ass.
Yeah, the shooter is fully responsible for what he did. And Palin for what she did. If you are a public person (and to some degree a private one) you can't call for violence, even if you try to do it sneakily. And I do believe that she doesn't want any violence to happen, but she wants to use the violent rhetoric that appeals to her followers and so she has to be careful what she says, and take responsibility when she ****s up
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, the shooter is fully responsible for what he did. And Palin for what she did. If you are a public person (and to some degree a private one) you can't call for violence, even if you try to do it sneakily. And I do believe that she doesn't want any violence to happen, but she wants to use the violent rhetoric that appeals to her followers and so she has to be careful what she says, and take responsibility when she ****s up
To any person with even half-sensibility her bulls-eye targets on the map and her verbiage wasn't her saying "we're taking it back by killing". She's a dumb hick and her metaphors reflect that, but that's all they are.
She is a [bigger] retard and a scumbag for playing the victim now though, but she shouldn't apologize for inciting violence, which she didn't, imo. She should apologize for being a retard.
Originally posted by RobtardLike I said, she's trying to walk the line between outright saying it, but her rhetoric is incredibly violent, and she has to realize that there will be certain parts of the population who will take her implications at face value. She's not to blame for anyone's actions but she is to blame for what she said and people pointing that out is a good thing.
To any person with even half-sensibility her bulls-eye targets on the map and her verbiage wasn't her saying "we're taking it back by killing". She's a dumb hick and her metaphors reflect that, but that's all they are.She is a [bigger] retard and a scumbag for playing the victim now though, but she shouldn't apologize for inciting violence, which she didn't, imo. She should apologize for being a retard.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Like I said, she's trying to walk the line between outright saying it, but her rhetoric is incredibly violent, and she has to realize that there will be certain parts of the population who will take her implications at face value. She's not to blame for anyone's actions but she is to blame for what she said and people pointing that out is a good thing.
We're at an impasse. I don't believe she was trying to imply actual violence in any shape or form. She uses that verbiage because she's a dumb hick and 'reload', 'lock-n-load' etc are metaphors she just uses. That shooter likely would have done what he didn't hadn't she used targets and gun metaphors, imo. Could I be wrong though? Yes.
We can agree on her idiocy though; just about every time she opens her mouth it's shown. Why anyone would listen to her besides for a laugh is beyond me.
Originally posted by inimalist
yes, the moral high ground of both encouraging violence against a specific person and subsequently feeling victimized when that person is attacked.
Few points to make.
1. It's become increasingly clear that the shooter was not swayed by any politics at all. High School friends of his are saying that he was not political, he didn't listen to politicians. He was simply a violent pyschopath.
2. As far as Sarah Palin specifically, she can't be blamed for this one. While I think her rhetoric and verbiage is extremely reckless in general with her over use of gun metaphors, the shooter was clearly not swayed by her. In fact, it seems he had been planning this for years, well before Palin was even known to anyone outside of Alaska, and certainly before I fantasized about jerking off on her face.
3. That all said, her statement was incredibly stupid. To put it out on the same day as Obama's, who gave a well reasoned, high spirited and uplifting speech, was just dumb. Especially since hers was more or less playing victim, whing about people being mean to her. Sorry lady, you aren't the victim here, not when there are people dead. No one but her most fervent supporters are going to take what she said yesterday seriously (I.E., Other people who want to jerk off on her face, but don't realize it yet). Just shows how self centered and dim she really is.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Unless you can prove that she encouraged violence against Giffords, please do us a favor by accomplishing what no liberal in history has yet accomplished: shut the **** up.
so, in the world you inhabit, putting crosshairs on someone and listing them by name, then stating "reload", doesn't qualify as something Palin should be even embarassed about?
how about this:
Someone shoot Zeal Ex Nihlo
if it happens, there is no way you could possibly blame me
Originally posted by Robtard
We're at an impasse. I don't believe she was trying to imply actual violence in any shape or form. She uses that verbiage because she's a dumb hick and 'reload', 'lock-n-load' etc are metaphors she just uses. That shooter likely would have done what he didn't hadn't she used targets and gun metaphors, imo.
you don't think a culture of violent political rhetoric might encourage crazy people to, oh I don't know, be politically violent?
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Everyone freaks out.After being blamed for causing the Tucson shooting, Sarah Palin made a video in which she used the term "blood libel." Liberals then went absolutely insane--as they often do whenever Sarah Palin speaks--and went into a mentally-challenged rage full of the cheerful, hypocritical hatred they are so fond of.
Here's the text of the video.
Bold text is (obviously) mine.
Originally posted by inimalist
you don't think a culture of violent political rhetoric might encourage crazy people to, oh I don't know, be politically violent?
In the broad sense, yes, it likely could. Look at Nazi rhetoric during the 30's and the crimes committed on Jews from their non-Jew neighbors. I don't think Palin was doing that though.
Anne Coulter's 'kill all rag-heads" rant, now that's different and intended to be as is.
Originally posted by inimalist
you don't think a culture of violent political rhetoric might encourage crazy people to, oh I don't know, be politically violent?
This reminds me of Richard Harter's analysis of The Cold Equations. He mentions that people have a hard time getting their mind around the idea that multiple individuals can be at fault for something that happens.
He uses old factory workers as his example. The industrialists said it was the workers' fault that they lost their limbs. To combat this they spent a lot of time making sure the workers new to be careful. It never occurred to them that their failure to make safe machinery might also be a factor in what happened.
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Sarah Palin says something.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Everyone freaks out.
Sure, everyone freaks out. It's because she's a brainfart of some right-wing blogger who, through the stupidity and desperation of the party, ended up perfectly defining everything wrong with the right wing. But, what the hell do you want? You spend so much time talking about how ****ed up the republican party is, and how far they've wandered from their true principles, and then act like there's something wrong with how they compete with the mental midgets you think of the democrats. You don't say much, other than what comes across as practice runs for a college thesis. Everyone understands you're smart and the media, democrats and Sarah Palin are ****tards. Get back to talking about 90% corporate tax rates during the Eisenhower administration.
Originally posted by inimalist
it was all just leading up to Unicronbut yes, I'd also probably be drunk
I find your barganing position highly dubious. It pleases me to be the first. Proceed....on your way to oblivion.