Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 8212
Location: Central CA
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 5:16 am Post subject: More F*****g Morons | |
|
More Idiots Exposing Their 5.56 millimeter IQs At Presidential Functions
If anything should happen to this president as a result of these numskulls being whipped into a frenzy by the running mouths of the media... Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh should be the second and third persons arrested. |
|
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Posts: 6045
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 6:41 am Post subject: targets of oppurtunity | |
|
Yeap except those morons don't realize that they were targets in the prez's protective detail sniper scopes . And I don't think the scopes were the only thing pointed at their butts.
On one hand I admire local law enforcement for still enforcing the open carry laws . On the other I can't believe they can't demand that everything be unloaded and on safe . Or be kept at a minimum distance . Could you go in the building with a hand gun ? The Prez is already done his honeymoon so why try to blatantly make a point like this ? . I don't think the Prez but someone will get hurt or have a heart attack during one of these meetings,protests or rallies. And just to play a devils advocate conspiracy theorist. I wouldn't put it past zealots in the administration to discredit the opposition by using plants like this. Of all the policy/legislation to get combative about as well ?????? |
|
Joined: 26 Aug 2008
Posts: 269
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 4:47 pm Post subject: | |
| I heard a radio interview with that guy. Unbefrikkinlievable. The funny thing about all of this, is that if it happened during a Bush event, the individuals would have been labeled left wing whacko terrorists. | |
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 8212
Location: Central CA
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 6:13 pm Post subject: | |
| They wouldn't have gotten within miles of a Bush event. People were rounded up and moved out of those for wearing the wrong color Tshirt. | |
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Posts: 270
| Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 2:12 pm Post subject: Re: More F*****g Morons | |||
Yes by all means lets arrest people for exercising their 1st ammendment RIGHT to FREE SPEECH, just because you dont agree with them doesnt mean they should be arrested, sounds like what they did in ummmmm Soviet Russia, has Limbaugh ever called for the Violent overthrow of the government? answer no, he said he wanted Obama to fail, his policies I dont want obama policies to win either, he's a Lib plain & simple and he makes Bill Clinton look like Conservative, btw Keith Olberman said nasty things about Bush, never heard me calling for the mans arrest |
|||
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 8212
Location: Central CA
| Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 5:10 pm Post subject: | |
|
It has nothing to do with me not agreeing with them.
I say some bad things about Obama myself. I'm not a Democrat and I'm not happy with a whole bunch of the things he's doing and the way he's doing them. Every president draws his share of criticism, much of it justified. But I have never advocated the kind of violence that is being inspired and/or advocated against a sitting President Of The United States as I'm seeing now. I've been a voter in this country for 45 years now, most of those as a registered Republican... starting with the beginning of the modern conservative movement... which is NOT the "conservative" movement that exists today, by the way... and in those 45 years I have never seen ANY of the kind of rhetoric against ANY president that we're hearing now. I have never seen people openly armed with pistols and assault rifles show up at ANY presidential event... and yes, before you get started, these people are only exercising their SECOND amendment rights. It's just that nobody ever felt the need to openly display their weapons in such a manner until now, when the hate speech has ramped up to the point that it's all you hear from most venues. Hauling assault rifles around to political events has one purpose and one purpose only... to intimidate the people on the "other side" and show them that you "mean business" whatever the business is. People that have to resort to this kind of display in order to make their points are pinheads. They're pinheads if they're Republicans or Conservatives and they're pinheads if they're Democrats or Liberals. The increasing shrillness of the rhetoric and the incitements to outright violence by the "leaders" of the Republican party were the primary factors in my leaving the Republican party completely (and no, I didn't vote for Kerry either) and I am now an Independent (not a Democrat) and a follower of most of the principles of Teddy Roosevelt. Yes, Limbaugh and Beck and that type are only exercising their right to free speech. But they are treading very thin line between free speech and solicitation to commit violence. They are not encouraging opposition to the president's policies...they're deliberately whipping up hatred for the man himself. Every one has to draw their own line and that's where I draw mine. I'm pretty sure that if I went out found myself a moron with an AR-15 and I kept hammering at him that Worker71 was a dangerous person... that he was going to kill the moron's granny or send his kids to labor camps... that he was a terrorist, a Communist or it's ideological opposite, a Nazi... that he was taking America down the road to dictatorship... that he was going to lead an uprising and establish a black dictatorship... that he was a racist and that he hated white people... hell, you know the drill... anyway if I kept hammering at him that Worker71 was all these things and he finally snapped and blew Worker71 away, I'm pretty sure I would be held responsible for the part I played in the affair, and rightfully so. I know damned well I'd be morally responsible and I know damned well that the family and friends of Worker71 would HOLD me responsible. That's all I'm saying about Limbaugh and Beck and those that refuse to differentiate between opposition to the policies of a political leader and blind hatred for the man himself. I use rhetoric and hype myself... some people will say, probably rightfully so, that I do it to excess. Yep, I'm guilty. They're useful for establishing a position and reinforcing what I feel to be certain points in an argument or discussion and not being a professional writer or commentator, I most likely tend to overstate my case often. I think we all do that to various degrees, especially as a discussion or disagreement heats up. But this kind of talk has progressed far beyond simple hyperbole. Again, People are no longer simply opposing presidential policies... as is their right. What they're doing now is deliberately inciting virulent hatred and violence against the man himself, and I'm just not sure to what degree that particular right exists... at least in a moral sense. |
|
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Posts: 270
| Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 9:15 pm Post subject: | |||
Its not an AR-15, you need to investigate this alittle bit further, I dont know what was reported in the news about the guys weapon, but if they say it was an ar-15 then they are idiots and the people that just are sheeple that say what ever the news say are just as bad, that being said an AR-15 is only allowed to be owned and used by the Miltary (national guard or reservists) or the Police, Its a COLT SPORTER RIFLE that has semi-auto only, how do I know this and they dont? I served my country for 10 years, AND I OWN ONE!!! (its federal law) and come on how many people called bush hitler? kerry said our military were like genghis kahn & pol pot, im not going to defend bush here he wasnt a conservative, I voted for him twice, did he do things that i didnt agree with, sure did we get attacked after 911? nope allthough they tried, but you act like it started with the current office sitter, a movie was made about the assaination of a sitting president for god sakes, not with a fake name but using bushs name!!! where was your outrage then??? I remember seeing your posts bush this and bush that havent seen the same since obama became pres, if your a goldwater conservative then I applaud you he was the true father of the modern conservative movement, Rush makes fun of people, all the time, he doesnt make fun of ted kennedy lately out of respect for his condition, but telling people to start a fight where people are hurt? tell me the date you heard him say this and I will play the entire 3 hours back and prove you wrong. Ive gone to tea parties and my own congressmans "town hall" 10 minute speech no questions he left the stage there was no shouting or guns there, and I guess you never heard of bill clinton before, this stuff went on during his administration too, it just wasnt reported as heavily, maybe the media was still trying to be even handed in reporting the news back then instead of so tillted one way, theres a reason fox news has the highest ratings, they dont tell the people they dont know whats good for them and cram crap down there throats and thats what obama is doing, like one of the rallying cries "READ THE BILL" |
|||
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 1700
| Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:42 pm Post subject: | |
|
Don't you wonder what kind of person it is that feels the need to strut around with a gun strapped to his leg... or slung over his shoulder?
I have great issue with these people. Their egoes are either inflamed or non existent. Either way, I think they have problems. Yes, 71, they have the right. But their inability to display their protest in less hysterical means worries me. 71 - answer honestly. Would you be happy if one of the "need for armory" folks *snapped* and started shooting? Isn't that the purpose of a gun? To shoot to kill things? |
|
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 8212
Location: Central CA
| Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 12:11 am Post subject: | |||||||
So once again, we're getting a whole lot of smoke... same old talking points and sound bites thyat we've been getting but little or no substance. Move along folks, nothing to see here. First off, I'm not even sure what you just said in that jammed together paragraph so if I go off track here, my apologies. My military service was over and done with in 1961 and though I have owned firearms of various types since I was 11 years old (and STILL own a few), I guess I somehow owe somebody an apology for supposedly misidentifying someone's weapon at one of those rallies. Or at least you decided to make that your first "point". So will I. Not only have I never felt the need to own assault style semi-autos... except for my old Ruger Mini-14 which I think I bought originally out of nostalgia... so therefore have not kept up with the various evolutions of the AR-15... which started life back in my day as a Colt produced semi-auto civilian (SPORTER) version of prototype that it and the M-16 derived from, but I never saw the weapon actually in question on the video until about an hour ago and merely quoted one of the news media outlets as to the type. Here's the wiki on the AR-15:
Good enough? The main battle rifle when I did my stint back in 1960-61 was the M-14 in 7.62 (.308) NATO which was a full auto evolution of the best rifle the army ever issued, the M1 Garand and was directly derived from the M1-A1 prototype. it was later reproduced in 5.56 (223) by Ruger as the Mini-14, a rifle with which I had more fun than any I've ever owned and which I've been trying to get my ungrateful whelp of a nephew to sell back to me for several years now. But again I digress. I still consider the M-14 a superior weapon to the original M-16 and will always believe that the 7.62 NATO round had far superior stopping power to the 5.56 but obviously the military decided that if you can teach them to spray, they don't need to be able to shoot that well. But that's just personal opinion and I digress. Thanks for the firearms lesson. Since you've seen fit to school me on what it wasn't... what was it? I'm curious now. Now... I can give you example after example of inflammatory rhetoric by all kinds of talking heads... even some LEFT wing ones. Wouldn't do any good... at least for the right wing ones... simply because they/you have a different idea as to what constitutes inflammatory rhetoric than I do. To you, any criticism of president Bush... no matter how small and innocuous... was hateful and divisive and therefore inflammatory. In fact, I was once informed by one of your predecessors here that to criticize President Bush during a time of war was TREASON, pure and simple and the intimation was that I should be arrested and tried for same. Fast forward to today and any kind of criticism of the current president... no matter how hateful and inflammatory... is simply exercising one's right to free speech. You see the double standard? Probably not. You can't argue or reason with that kind of mindset. I know, I've tried. And even if I somehow managed to convince you that even one of those instances actually was hate speech or inflammatory rhetoric, you would... just as every one of your predecessors has before you... simply fall back on the tried and true (read "lame" old "No, all (insert talking head name here) was doing was making a joke." routine and chastise the target for being too thin skinned. In fact, I believe there's a reference to that in your post where you talk about Rush always making fun of people. I remember a couple of bullies from my school days who were always "just making fun of people". It didn't keep their asses from getting kicked when they finally carried it too far. And yeah, I know, I just wasted another perfectly good allegory, didn't I? ZING! There's a HUGE difference between "making fun of someone" and deliberately fomenting hate for that person among an audience that has already shown a proclivity for violence by bringing guns... of WHATEVER type... to a presidential rally. If you don't understand that difference, then I'm certainly not equipped to explain it to you and if I were, it wouldn't be worth the time or trouble it took to do so. I have no idea what your sarcastic reference to my not having heard of Bill Clinton has to do with anything so I'll just write it off as an attempt to be sarcastic. Same for the reference to Kerry... Cambodia... Pol Pot. At no time nor at any point in my response to you did I say anything negative about our military so what the hell was up with that part of the Kerry reference. What the hell is it with you folks that you can NOT stick to damned subject but have to drag up every manner of irrelevant outdated bullshit you can come up with? In fact, I don't see where you answered ANY of the points I actually made in my original response to you so I doubt that there's anything to be gained by going over them again. It's also been my experience that if they don't get it the second time they never do... usually because they don't want to. Let me just elaborate on Magnolia's question a little...
let me just ask you this 71... if you DON'T agree with what Mags says here... how about letting us in on exactly what it is that you think IS accomplished by showing up armed in this manner at presidential rallies? I'll bet he doesn't carry it to the local PTA meeting or his town's council meetings or to church or the grocery store or the barber shop or the Trip A baseball games. Why a political town hall and more so, why one at which the president was appearing if his goal wasn't intimidation? You're telling me I'm wrong... so tell me what's right. I'd be really interested in hearing what YOU think the motivation was without all the references to Bush, Clinton or other water that went under the bridge months or years ago. Anything else is just the same old windmill tilting rhetoric and I've heard it all before... too many times to want to go through it all again. |
|||||||
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Posts: 270
| Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 2:34 am Post subject: | |
| no reason to use profanity here, if you cant keep it civil an exchange of ideas your as bad as the people you are hateful of | |
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 8212
Location: Central CA
| Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 2:35 am Post subject: | |
| Profanity? Keep it civil? | |
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 8212
Location: Central CA
| Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 3:33 am Post subject: | |
|
You know what sonny? If words like "damn" and "hell" and "bullshit" offend your tender little sensibilities then maybe you shouldn't wander the Internet getting in people's faces in the first place.
That certainly would be fine with me. You came here and challenged ME, remember? Started muttering some inane crap about Rush Limbaugh's right to free speech... which was NEVER an issue in the thread. Then, when it was pointed out to you that neither Rush Lambaugh NOR his right to free speech were the issue here, you attempted to school me on the subject of firearms... something you obviously forgot to study up on first... and then wandered all around the map with vague references to Clinton and Kerry and Cambodia and Pol Pot and Bush and how mean those bad old liberals were to him... in short you spent an entire post mumbling about whatever popped into your pointy little head and none of it having anything to with... well... ANYTHING. As far as I'm concerned, I've answered you with one HELL of a lot more "civility" than your own posts warranted or that you spoke to me with in your opening salvo and you have STILL to address a single one of the issues this thread is all about. Look back at your maundering wandering second post... an exchange of ideas? What ideas were you offering? The only thing even remotely resembling an "idea" you've offered through this whole thing is that Rush Limbaugh has a legal right to say anything he wants and I agreed with you on that. There was never an argument about what he has or hasn't the legal right to do. Unfortunately, you do not seem capable of grasping the more subtle nuances or the moral and ethical aspects of hate speech and agitation directed at persons who's emotions are already keyed to the point that they feel the need to go armed... sometimes HEAVILY armed... to simple little political functions such as town halls where the President Of The United States is appearing. To me that HARDLY smacks of any desire "civil" discourse or exchange of ideas. It smacks of the desire to intimidate one's opponents. It's intimidation and inadequacy on so many levels. I've tried everything to find out what your ideas ARE on that subject... including asking you outright... and you've offered anything and everything you could grasp to keep from answering the question. And now I really don't care to exchange "ideas" or viewpoints with you. If you can't stand the heat... don't come bulling your way into my kitchen telling me how to cook and that's as civil as I intend to get after all of this. I've already wasted more of my time on this thread than it ever required. You don't like the way I talk, then rest assured, it's 100% mutual so like I said at the beginning, don't flipping get in my face in the first place and I won't come looking for you any more than I did this time. I can't make it any plainer than that. |
|
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 1700
| Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 9:33 pm Post subject: | |||
Actually - I never called Bush "Hitler". I HAVE called him: An Ass A Butthead A Jerk ... but my most accurate is LIAR. And I certainly haven't changed my mind. |
|||
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 8212
Location: Central CA
| Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 11:41 pm Post subject: | |||
I don't know. I never counted them. Do you have an answer or was that just another rhetorical attempt to change the subject? |
|||
Joined: 30 Nov 2008
Posts: 773
Location: CA
| Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:25 pm Post subject: | |
|
wow, what a thread! I agree with Nofsdad.
But wait; Glenn Beck said, on air, that he wanted to murder Michael Moore. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctwqnkWdCJg And let's not forget the latest from Beck joking about putting poison in Speaker Pelosi's wine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UudQuVOwSds This is a case of free speech taken a bit too far. |
|
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 8212
Location: Central CA
| Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:42 pm Post subject: | |
Enlighten me... which was he doing in all of these examples... exercising his First Amendment right to incite hatred or just making harmless fun of people?
|
|
Joined: 30 Nov 2008
Posts: 773
Location: CA
| Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:36 pm Post subject: | |||
He's always inciting hatred, just like Hannity, Savage, Levin, Beck, etc. |
|||
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 8212
Location: Central CA
| Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:06 pm Post subject: | |
Or maybe we should ask how it looks with the shoe on the other foot. Cheap shot or just poking harmless fun at someone?
|
|
Joined: 30 Nov 2008
Posts: 773
Location: CA
| Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:20 pm Post subject: | |||
If it's true, then it's neither a cheap shot or poking fun. It's sick. |
|||
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 8212
Location: Central CA
| Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:06 am Post subject: | |
|
I have no reason to suppose it's true... at least the small boy part. The rest pokes fun at him based on actual news reports of the time... anymore than he has any reason to suppose the kind of things he says in the preceding post are true.
It's just that when HE says HIS things and people express sentiments similar to your own, people pop up from all over ranting about the First Amendment and him just making jokes and blah, blah, blah. When someone posts something like the second picture, those same people trample each other to be the first to denounce whoever posted it for all kinds of mean nasty things from taking cheap shots to being traitors to America. Just more of the double standard being applied by people who lack the intelligence to be subtle. In addition, I seriously doubt in my own mind that the person who photoshopped the cruise ad ever intended for anyone to take it seriously. Just a guess, mind you. We've all had a laugh or two at Rush's drug hypocrisy and the Viagra bust after the Dominican trip. On the other hand, people ARE supposed to take Mr. Limbaugh's pronunciations from the throne seriously and millions do. People just don't tune in for 15 hours a week to hear the constant repetition of the same talking points he's been using (ramped up in vitriol to reflect the increase in his competition) since the Clinton days if they're not taking them VERY seriously. |
|
Joined: 30 Nov 2008
Posts: 773
Location: CA
| Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:17 am Post subject: | |||
Well, he's not the only person that repeats his talking points day after day. Hannity is another who's subject never changes day after day; month after month. |
|||