You contributed to adding more debt onto the shoulders of future generations than everyone else over the past 200 years! AND, you contributed to the impending total collapse of the U.S economy more than everyone else over the past 200 years!
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/111th-congress-added-more-debt-first-100
Go ahead, blame Bush. It's all you seem to do. But you only have yourselves to blame. Your day of reckoning WILL come, and you will have dragged others down with you.
What will you do when the Dollar collapses and the United States defaults on both its debt obligations and promises to its citizens? What will you do when the Dollar is devalued? What will you do when the World Reserve Currency is no longer the Dollar? It will happen, you know; it's just a matter of time. And it will happen sooner rather than later. (And why is George Soros, Democrat's favorite billionaire, buying up all the gold and silver he can get his hands on - all the while, advocating MORE government spending and debt accumulation?)
When will people realize that America's credit card is WAY over the limit? And it's actually too late to fix it. I've been sounding the warning for twenty-plus years. But no, my detractors claim; I'm just mean-spirited and selfish.
In short, the American people have elected themselves out of the best thing that's ever happened in the history of the world. They've killed the Golden Goose in exchange for their own (selfish) basket of eggs.
P.S. I also blame the weasel and spineless Republicans who were sucked into the Democrats' games, and were, themselves, no more than Baby Democrats. But whatever it takes to get elected, I suppose.
Do you belive such a thing? Do you share such an outlook? If so, what will you do to prepare yourself? If not, why not?
Discussion on:
To those who voted for Democrats two years ago
Tags: off-topic
View:
Show:
The assault overwhelms an individual on many other fronts. Debt and default, however, will grab and spin violently around anyone who has not been paying attention.
Past time to complain about it.
Past time to complain about it.
That's a great description, Santee.
It is - and has been - an assault. It's been an assault on liberty, an assault on freedom, an assault on individual rights, and an assault on the very fabric of what made America great in the first place.
But I'm not complaining about it - at least not any more. I used to, I suppose, but that time has long passed. Instead, I'm starting to plan for the inevitable - although that presents quite the challenge.
Anyone who doesn't believe that the American economy and the American Dollar is on the road of collapse - a road of no return - is simply ignorant or in denial.
It is - and has been - an assault. It's been an assault on liberty, an assault on freedom, an assault on individual rights, and an assault on the very fabric of what made America great in the first place.
But I'm not complaining about it - at least not any more. I used to, I suppose, but that time has long passed. Instead, I'm starting to plan for the inevitable - although that presents quite the challenge.
Anyone who doesn't believe that the American economy and the American Dollar is on the road of collapse - a road of no return - is simply ignorant or in denial.
The way you talk makes me wonder if you're stocking up on canned food, ammunition, and Krugerrands. "An assault" on liberty, freedom, indiviualism, and the sinews of American greatness. Sounds like somebody has declared war against you. But nobody has. No war. Relax a little. Worry about the real problem.
The U.S. has gotten into a financial mess because of a lot of mistakes, but mostly by wishful thinking (house prices can go up forever, bankers' salaries can go up forever, jobs can disappear overseas forever, taxes can be cut forever, and we all will be better because of it.) We had a huge asset bubble that popped, and now we are left with a shrunken economy, mortgages that will never get above water, and no confidence. If you study depression economics, you know that if government spending is slashed to match our lowered government income, then confidence and business activity will fall further. It could potentially increase red ink more than the crazy stop gap spending you hate so much now, once unemployment runs to 20%.
It is going to take years for our 10% unemployment to get back to the 5% level. Probably about five years. We have a special problem right now because businesses, sitting on a trillion dollars in profits, don't see any reason to put it at risk by investing in job-creating projects. Private equity (i.e., American rich guy money in limited partnership investment clubs) is putting its tax-cut savings into foreign investment, because they don't want to risk it here. The private institutions with cash and the power to put it to work behave like they don't believe in this country.
Economic dogma says that lower interest rates should produce higher economic activity, but rates are near zero for short term money and 3% for long term, and the economy has not reacted. Traditional economics says that crazy low interest rates cause inflation, but it's not happening now. Conservative economists say that if taxes are lowered (note: deficit thereby raised) we will automatically see more investment, but it hasn't happened lately. In fact, taxes have been low since 2002 and all we got was anemic growth and a huge bubble. All the things we were sure of about our economy seem the be false today. Economic truths are on a holiday, until the economy comes back.
Economics is not like physics; it's a behavioral science, and right now America is a frightened mob. All it wants to do is conserve its savings and get rid of its stifling mortgages, and it does not invest, no matter how sweet the inducement. If government does not do its job and force economic action, by various forms of stimulus, our economy can and will collapse, until you have 20%-plus unemployment, people dying in front of hospitals that can't afford to admit them, and a generation of kids who won't get a college education. Because, like in the 1930s, when it gets that bad, it stays stuck at the bottom for a decade. Maybe if it gets really bad, you get a revolution. Check the politics of the Depression: Huey Long, Norman Thomas, Father Coughlin, Americal First, fascist clubs.
One last thought: what was it that ended the Great Depression in America? Why, it was the biggest, most wasteful government spending program of all: we paid ten million Americans to dress in funny suits and march in circles, and ten million more to build planes and vehicles that smashed into the ground or burnt or got blown up. It was the Second World War, and we put it on credit.
The U.S. has gotten into a financial mess because of a lot of mistakes, but mostly by wishful thinking (house prices can go up forever, bankers' salaries can go up forever, jobs can disappear overseas forever, taxes can be cut forever, and we all will be better because of it.) We had a huge asset bubble that popped, and now we are left with a shrunken economy, mortgages that will never get above water, and no confidence. If you study depression economics, you know that if government spending is slashed to match our lowered government income, then confidence and business activity will fall further. It could potentially increase red ink more than the crazy stop gap spending you hate so much now, once unemployment runs to 20%.
It is going to take years for our 10% unemployment to get back to the 5% level. Probably about five years. We have a special problem right now because businesses, sitting on a trillion dollars in profits, don't see any reason to put it at risk by investing in job-creating projects. Private equity (i.e., American rich guy money in limited partnership investment clubs) is putting its tax-cut savings into foreign investment, because they don't want to risk it here. The private institutions with cash and the power to put it to work behave like they don't believe in this country.
Economic dogma says that lower interest rates should produce higher economic activity, but rates are near zero for short term money and 3% for long term, and the economy has not reacted. Traditional economics says that crazy low interest rates cause inflation, but it's not happening now. Conservative economists say that if taxes are lowered (note: deficit thereby raised) we will automatically see more investment, but it hasn't happened lately. In fact, taxes have been low since 2002 and all we got was anemic growth and a huge bubble. All the things we were sure of about our economy seem the be false today. Economic truths are on a holiday, until the economy comes back.
Economics is not like physics; it's a behavioral science, and right now America is a frightened mob. All it wants to do is conserve its savings and get rid of its stifling mortgages, and it does not invest, no matter how sweet the inducement. If government does not do its job and force economic action, by various forms of stimulus, our economy can and will collapse, until you have 20%-plus unemployment, people dying in front of hospitals that can't afford to admit them, and a generation of kids who won't get a college education. Because, like in the 1930s, when it gets that bad, it stays stuck at the bottom for a decade. Maybe if it gets really bad, you get a revolution. Check the politics of the Depression: Huey Long, Norman Thomas, Father Coughlin, Americal First, fascist clubs.
One last thought: what was it that ended the Great Depression in America? Why, it was the biggest, most wasteful government spending program of all: we paid ten million Americans to dress in funny suits and march in circles, and ten million more to build planes and vehicles that smashed into the ground or burnt or got blown up. It was the Second World War, and we put it on credit.
Re: The way you talk makes me wonder if you're stocking up on canned food, ammunition, and Krugerrands.
People should have individual disaster plans in place, or at least in mind, to prepare themselves for any number of disasters so they DON'T have to rely on government to do it for them. All one has to do is look at the debacle called Katrina as an illustration.
People should be prepared for medical emergencies by at least having a First Aid Kit, and know how to administer it. For all too many people, the only First Aid they need to know is 911.
People should be prepared in case of massive power outages.
People should be prepared for weather emergencies.
And yes, people should be prepared for some degree of civil unrest and/or social collapse. It can't happen here, you say? Yea, right.
But it's your smug and condescending attitude that exacerbates the problem. And it presupposes that people should not be prepared to take responsibility for themselves. Just wait until we have the nation-wide economic version of Hurricane Katrina. People might wish they were better prepared and relied less on government and more on themselves.
People should have individual disaster plans in place, or at least in mind, to prepare themselves for any number of disasters so they DON'T have to rely on government to do it for them. All one has to do is look at the debacle called Katrina as an illustration.
People should be prepared for medical emergencies by at least having a First Aid Kit, and know how to administer it. For all too many people, the only First Aid they need to know is 911.
People should be prepared in case of massive power outages.
People should be prepared for weather emergencies.
And yes, people should be prepared for some degree of civil unrest and/or social collapse. It can't happen here, you say? Yea, right.
But it's your smug and condescending attitude that exacerbates the problem. And it presupposes that people should not be prepared to take responsibility for themselves. Just wait until we have the nation-wide economic version of Hurricane Katrina. People might wish they were better prepared and relied less on government and more on themselves.
I'm paying down debt, and losing weight. Leaves me less susceptible to two kinds of potential economic misery. Although I'm not building up a year's supply of canned food (like a Mormon), I buy extra when it's cheap. Lots of people like me, holding back on our spending and being very careful of what we do spend it on, contribute to the slow growth of our economy and to the near-zero rates of inflation.
What I'd really like to see is my government get a proper stimulus working, (preferably something that rebuilt our infrastructure so we'd have something lasting and useful to show for the borrowed money,) so we could get the hell out of this panicked recessionary mindset. Then, all of a sudden we'd have inflation and the budget deficit to worry about, which we'd be able to fix, because we'd be rich Americans again.
What I'd really like to see is my government get a proper stimulus working, (preferably something that rebuilt our infrastructure so we'd have something lasting and useful to show for the borrowed money,) so we could get the hell out of this panicked recessionary mindset. Then, all of a sudden we'd have inflation and the budget deficit to worry about, which we'd be able to fix, because we'd be rich Americans again.
Meaning, that, at the moment, you are not prepared for immediate and personal adversity? You look to the kindness of strangers, themselves beset?
I'm still counting on the reasonableness of others.
As Maxwell always indicates, you must look out for number one (yourself and/or your loved ones...your immediate loved ones anyway).
So when you go to the store to buy a $10.00 can of corn and they are out of stock because the country can't afford to import more from the nations you rely on, go and knock on Maxwell's bomb shelter door, it's all his fault for hoarding it.
Not to worry, we;ll send down some bags of food and aid as needed. Maybe those poor folks in Iraq will help out as thanks for all the good you did for them or maybe having the biggest military force in the world will help.
So when you go to the store to buy a $10.00 can of corn and they are out of stock because the country can't afford to import more from the nations you rely on, go and knock on Maxwell's bomb shelter door, it's all his fault for hoarding it.
Not to worry, we;ll send down some bags of food and aid as needed. Maybe those poor folks in Iraq will help out as thanks for all the good you did for them or maybe having the biggest military force in the world will help.
SMUG: I've been sounding the warning for twenty-plus years. But no, my detractors claim; I'm just mean-spirited and selfish.
CONDESCENDING: You contributed to adding more debt onto the shoulders of future generations than everyone else over the past 200 years! AND, you contributed to the impending total collapse of the U.S economy more than everyone else over the past 200 years!
...
Your day of reckoning WILL come, and you will have dragged others down with you.
...
Three words, POT, KETTLE, BLACK, I won't call you the 'H word' though, it's just too obvious.
CONDESCENDING: You contributed to adding more debt onto the shoulders of future generations than everyone else over the past 200 years! AND, you contributed to the impending total collapse of the U.S economy more than everyone else over the past 200 years!
...
Your day of reckoning WILL come, and you will have dragged others down with you.
...
Three words, POT, KETTLE, BLACK, I won't call you the 'H word' though, it's just too obvious.
First off, Oz is not a Canadian citizen.
Secondly, by using my nationality or anyone's nationality as an insulting term, you simply do what you accuse Oz and others of doing. It nullifies your argument and puts you into the catgory of schoolyard bullies.
Secondly, by using my nationality or anyone's nationality as an insulting term, you simply do what you accuse Oz and others of doing. It nullifies your argument and puts you into the catgory of schoolyard bullies.
We have a license to gun them down, right?
After all, they get in the way of air traffic
After all, they get in the way of air traffic
Seriously they hire people to scare them off. I met someone who did it at Newark, they use dogs, in other places they use guns or flares that whistle like fireworks.
Coincidentally, there was a situation in Kelowna, B.C. this week with the police. They received a report that a man had been firing a gun at the local golf course. They found the man, put him on all fours, and the arresting officer wound up and kicked him straight to the face. Turns out the guy had a job scaring Canada Geese off the golf course. He had been trying to tell the officers that he had a license but they didn't stop to ask questions before kicking him in the face. A non involved party had a camera phone and made a video which made it to youtube.
Coincidentally, there was a situation in Kelowna, B.C. this week with the police. They received a report that a man had been firing a gun at the local golf course. They found the man, put him on all fours, and the arresting officer wound up and kicked him straight to the face. Turns out the guy had a job scaring Canada Geese off the golf course. He had been trying to tell the officers that he had a license but they didn't stop to ask questions before kicking him in the face. A non involved party had a camera phone and made a video which made it to youtube.
Some people take out their brains when they put on uniform...
Maybe they don't want it to dribble and stain the crisp fabric?
Maybe they don't want it to dribble and stain the crisp fabric?
Let me know if you get a handle on it. The only thing I sense at the moment, is to remain alert for tipping points.
The Tucson thing doesn't look like it. Close, but no cigar; unless we're in for a spate of them.
The Tucson thing doesn't look like it. Close, but no cigar; unless we're in for a spate of them.
That crazy boy who shot 20 people was schizophrenic, not political. He had some political ideas, but any information or theory in his head was overwhelmed by the crazy.
As much as I blame today's "conservatives" for embittering political talk, I can't assign them the slightest responsibility for this murdering crackpot.
As much as I blame today's "conservatives" for embittering political talk, I can't assign them the slightest responsibility for this murdering crackpot.
Re: ... today's "conservatives" for embittering political talk
We hear that claim all the time, but never accompanied with specific examples. Do you care to post some specific examples of such embittering political talk? Specific examples means full quotes in full context, either written or video.
I'd like to know just exactly what you mean by that. Perhaps others would as well.
We hear that claim all the time, but never accompanied with specific examples. Do you care to post some specific examples of such embittering political talk? Specific examples means full quotes in full context, either written or video.
I'd like to know just exactly what you mean by that. Perhaps others would as well.
I don't think that conservatives are the only ones throwing out nutty talk.
But if you want examples of what I consider to be wacky speach that stirs up hate and divides the country, here goes.
"I hope that's not where we're going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out." Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle, floating the possibility of armed insurrection in a radio interview, Jan. 2010
"This is what Hitler did with the SS. He had his own people. He had the brownshirts and then the SS. This is what Saddam Hussein so but you are comparing that. And I , I mean, I think America would have a really hard time getting their arms around that.''
Glenn Beck, claiming Obama's 'civilian national security force' is the same as what Hitler and Saddam Hussein did, Glenn Beck, FOX News' Glenn Beck show, Aug. 27, 2009"
"We Came Unarmed ? This Time" from a list of 'favorite' signs at Tea Party rallies.
"He has no place in any station of government and we need to realize that he is an enemy of humanity," said Rep. Trent Franks about Obama.
"Our nation was founded on violence. The option is on the table. I don't think that we should ever remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms." Tea Party-backed Texas GOP congressional candidate Stephen Broden, suggesting the violent overthrow of the U.S. government if Republicans don't win at the ballot box, interview with Dallas's WFAA-TV, Oct. 21, 2010
And let me be clear, I don't think that this kind of talk, however reprehensible, is responsible for a nut job with a gun shooting a congresswoman. But there is clearly evidence of embittering talk, on both sides of the aisle.
But if you want examples of what I consider to be wacky speach that stirs up hate and divides the country, here goes.
"I hope that's not where we're going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out." Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle, floating the possibility of armed insurrection in a radio interview, Jan. 2010
"This is what Hitler did with the SS. He had his own people. He had the brownshirts and then the SS. This is what Saddam Hussein so but you are comparing that. And I , I mean, I think America would have a really hard time getting their arms around that.''
Glenn Beck, claiming Obama's 'civilian national security force' is the same as what Hitler and Saddam Hussein did, Glenn Beck, FOX News' Glenn Beck show, Aug. 27, 2009"
"We Came Unarmed ? This Time" from a list of 'favorite' signs at Tea Party rallies.
"He has no place in any station of government and we need to realize that he is an enemy of humanity," said Rep. Trent Franks about Obama.
"Our nation was founded on violence. The option is on the table. I don't think that we should ever remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms." Tea Party-backed Texas GOP congressional candidate Stephen Broden, suggesting the violent overthrow of the U.S. government if Republicans don't win at the ballot box, interview with Dallas's WFAA-TV, Oct. 21, 2010
And let me be clear, I don't think that this kind of talk, however reprehensible, is responsible for a nut job with a gun shooting a congresswoman. But there is clearly evidence of embittering talk, on both sides of the aisle.
..... not from the quote itself:
.... floating the possibility of armed insurrection in a radio interview, Jan. 2010
She didn't float the possibility of an armed insurrection!
.... Glenn Beck, claiming Obama's 'civilian national security force' is the same as what Hitler and Saddam Hussein did
Big friggin' deal! How many times was Bush compared to Hitler?
.... suggesting the violent overthrow of the U.S. government if Republicans don't win at the ballot box
That quote didn't suggest the violent overthrow of the U.S. government!
NONE of those words are direct quotes.
But these are:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Obama_brings_a_gun_to_a_knife_fight.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-latinos-punish-your-enemies-voting-booth_511932.html
http://teresamerica.blogspot.com/2009/10/chris-matthews-wishes-rush-limbaugh.html
I could go on, but I won't.
Besides, I've said many times in these threads that wars are caused by those who take away individual freedom and liberty. Is that also inciting violence? And is it a false statement? When was the last war waged by a people to restore freedom and liberty? When was the last war waged by a people who wanted to give up their freedom and liberty? The former question has many answers. The answer to the latter question is never.
People can - and do - reach a breaking point, as history has proven time and again, when their freedom and liberty is taken away. People have never reached a breaking point with more freedom, only with less.
Are people reaching such a breaking point? You're damn right they are! (Oh my! Is that violent speech?) I've even suggested that the day might come when some states want to secede from the union. Is that suggesting a Civil War? There are those in the media who would add that suggestion after reporting my original comment.
Example:
"..... the day might come when some states want to secede from the union", said Maxwell Edison suggesting the possibility of a second American Civil War. (Of course, I never suggested a Civil War.)
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=340147&messageID=3406784&tag=content;leftCol
Nonetheless, it's not the angry tone of the language that should be condemned, but rather what's causing it. All too many people want to stifle the language as a means to advance an ever-increasing encroachment on individual freedom and liberty.
Thomas Jefferson even noted (I'm paraphrasing) that a rebellion now and then was a good thing to keep government in check.
(I kind of rambled all over the place, but what the heck!)
.... floating the possibility of armed insurrection in a radio interview, Jan. 2010
She didn't float the possibility of an armed insurrection!
.... Glenn Beck, claiming Obama's 'civilian national security force' is the same as what Hitler and Saddam Hussein did
Big friggin' deal! How many times was Bush compared to Hitler?
.... suggesting the violent overthrow of the U.S. government if Republicans don't win at the ballot box
That quote didn't suggest the violent overthrow of the U.S. government!
NONE of those words are direct quotes.
But these are:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Obama_brings_a_gun_to_a_knife_fight.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-latinos-punish-your-enemies-voting-booth_511932.html
http://teresamerica.blogspot.com/2009/10/chris-matthews-wishes-rush-limbaugh.html
I could go on, but I won't.
Besides, I've said many times in these threads that wars are caused by those who take away individual freedom and liberty. Is that also inciting violence? And is it a false statement? When was the last war waged by a people to restore freedom and liberty? When was the last war waged by a people who wanted to give up their freedom and liberty? The former question has many answers. The answer to the latter question is never.
People can - and do - reach a breaking point, as history has proven time and again, when their freedom and liberty is taken away. People have never reached a breaking point with more freedom, only with less.
Are people reaching such a breaking point? You're damn right they are! (Oh my! Is that violent speech?) I've even suggested that the day might come when some states want to secede from the union. Is that suggesting a Civil War? There are those in the media who would add that suggestion after reporting my original comment.
Example:
"..... the day might come when some states want to secede from the union", said Maxwell Edison suggesting the possibility of a second American Civil War. (Of course, I never suggested a Civil War.)
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=340147&messageID=3406784&tag=content;leftCol
Nonetheless, it's not the angry tone of the language that should be condemned, but rather what's causing it. All too many people want to stifle the language as a means to advance an ever-increasing encroachment on individual freedom and liberty.
Thomas Jefferson even noted (I'm paraphrasing) that a rebellion now and then was a good thing to keep government in check.
(I kind of rambled all over the place, but what the heck!)
With regards to Sharron Angle, to me when you suggest second amendment remedies to what Congress is doing and "Taking Harry Reid out" in the same breath, its clear to me what she means.
As to Bush and Hitler, when do two wrongs make a right? Do you believe Obama can be equated to Hitler?
Enemy of humanity? Thats just outrageous inflamatory rhetoric. I would feel the same if someone said it of Bush.
I am well aware of TJ's famous quote. And personally I think in the case of a Hitler, it might be justified. But clearly, the US is not at that point. The US democracy has some huge issues, but it isn't dead yet. Similarly the economy is in bad shape, but can recover. The debt is an issue, but it can be dealt with.
As to Bush and Hitler, when do two wrongs make a right? Do you believe Obama can be equated to Hitler?
Enemy of humanity? Thats just outrageous inflamatory rhetoric. I would feel the same if someone said it of Bush.
I am well aware of TJ's famous quote. And personally I think in the case of a Hitler, it might be justified. But clearly, the US is not at that point. The US democracy has some huge issues, but it isn't dead yet. Similarly the economy is in bad shape, but can recover. The debt is an issue, but it can be dealt with.
Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Mason, Franklin, et al would not recognize this country as the United States. And I would venture to guess, that without exception, every person who signed the Declaration of Independence, and every person who signed the Constitution, and every person who supported both documents, would not stand for the government we have today and would actually rebel against it - armed or otherwise.
You chose, however, to focus not on the quotes but on the (obvious, to me) interpretations.
I'm disappointed.
I'm disappointed.
(Not that either Nick or I lives to please the other.)
For reference, James's message - the one to which I replied:
I don't think that conservatives are the only ones throwing out nutty talk.
But if you want examples of what I consider to be wacky speech that stirs up hate and divides the country, here goes.
"I hope that's not where we're going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out." Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle, floating the possibility of armed insurrection in a radio interview, Jan. 2010
"This is what Hitler did with the SS. He had his own people. He had the brownshirts and then the SS. This is what Saddam Hussein so but you are comparing that. And I , I mean, I think America would have a really hard time getting their arms around that.''
Glenn Beck, claiming Obama's 'civilian national security force' is the same as what Hitler and Saddam Hussein did, Glenn Beck, FOX News' Glenn Beck show, Aug. 27, 2009"
"We Came Unarmed - This Time" from a list of 'favorite' signs at Tea Party rallies.
"He has no place in any station of government and we need to realize that he is an enemy of humanity," said Rep. Trent Franks about Obama.
"Our nation was founded on violence. The option is on the table. I don't think that we should ever remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms." Tea Party-backed Texas GOP congressional candidate Stephen Broden, suggesting the violent overthrow of the U.S. government if Republicans don't win at the ballot box, interview with Dallas's WFAA-TV, Oct. 21, 2010
And let me be clear, I don't think that this kind of talk, however reprehensible, is responsible for a nut job with a gun shooting a congresswoman. But there is clearly evidence of embittering talk, on both sides of the aisle.
----------------------------------------
And these are the direct quotes he posted:
"I hope that's not where we're going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."
and
"This is what Hitler did with the SS. He had his own people. He had the brownshirts and then the SS. This is what Saddam Hussein so but you are comparing that. And I , I mean, I think America would have a really hard time getting their arms around that."
and
"We Came Unarmed - This Time"
and
"He has no place in any station of government and we need to realize that he is an enemy of humanity,"
and
"Our nation was founded on violence. The option is on the table. I don't think that we should ever remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms."
End of quotes.
----------------------------------------
First of all, James started his message saying, "But if you want examples of what I consider to be wacky speech that stirs up hate and divides the country..."
Okay, wacky speech that stirs up hate and divides the country is, at best, a stretch, considering the exact quotes he posted. And that's what we're looking for.
First of all, a pet-peeve of mine is the term, divides the country, as if all of the sudden, all people can agree on all things at all times. It's a silly and meaningless platitude, at best, and with the rarest of exceptions (if ever), this country always has been, and always will be, divided in many regards and/or to some degree. There's absolutely no way around it. There are simply too many Conflicts of Visions (due credit given to Thomas Sowell) among the population.
(That's one of the beauties of individualism, by the way, at least in my opinion (my vision), since it's more conducive for people to live and pursue their own visions without infringing on another's.)
So I dismiss this divides the country nonsense. It's nothing but a tactic used against one's opponent when one does not want to address and/or discuss the REAL underlying issue.
Okay, so now let's try to target those things in his message that stirs up hate.
Oh my, but first, I used a forbidden word, myself! I used the word, target - AS IN GUNS!!!!!!!!! OH MY! Am I using wacky speech that stirs up hate and divides the country?
But I digress.
What exactly is in those quotes that specifically stirs up hate? I hear them and I don't feel hateful towards anyone. Do you feel hateful, Nick (or James) when you hear (or read) them? Heck, using the greeting Merry Christmas stirs up hatred in some people - those who just want to hate someone and/or something in the first place. Hatred is an emotion generated from within, not from without.
So there's nothing hateful in any of those quotes.
Okay, and finally, let's look for anything that might be considered wacky. Well, that's pretty subjective, don't you think? What exactly constitutes wacky anyway?
Personally, I think, like, teenagers, you know, talk, like, you know, kind of, like, wacky; you know, he was, like ...... and she was, you know, like, wacky.
Heck, I also remember when we used to smoke wacky!
Okay, I'll give you that one. Those quotes might fall under the wacky category. And I'll also admit that when I hear people whose policy positions I might support use those kinds of terms, I cringe - not because they use them, per se, but because it only feeds ammunition to their political opponents who will only use it against them, thereby side-stepping the underlying issues.
OH MY!!!!! I DID IT AGAIN!!!!! I used the word ammunition - AS IN GUNS!!!!!!!!! OH MY! Am I using wacky speech that stirs up hate and divides the country?
My guess is that some wacky thinker out there will try to use it against me in a hateful way that will only serve to further divide the country.
And there's probably a joke in here somewhere about a comparison to how Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr settled their political disagreements; but then I'd probably be accused in inciting violence.
For reference, James's message - the one to which I replied:
I don't think that conservatives are the only ones throwing out nutty talk.
But if you want examples of what I consider to be wacky speech that stirs up hate and divides the country, here goes.
"I hope that's not where we're going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out." Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle, floating the possibility of armed insurrection in a radio interview, Jan. 2010
"This is what Hitler did with the SS. He had his own people. He had the brownshirts and then the SS. This is what Saddam Hussein so but you are comparing that. And I , I mean, I think America would have a really hard time getting their arms around that.''
Glenn Beck, claiming Obama's 'civilian national security force' is the same as what Hitler and Saddam Hussein did, Glenn Beck, FOX News' Glenn Beck show, Aug. 27, 2009"
"We Came Unarmed - This Time" from a list of 'favorite' signs at Tea Party rallies.
"He has no place in any station of government and we need to realize that he is an enemy of humanity," said Rep. Trent Franks about Obama.
"Our nation was founded on violence. The option is on the table. I don't think that we should ever remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms." Tea Party-backed Texas GOP congressional candidate Stephen Broden, suggesting the violent overthrow of the U.S. government if Republicans don't win at the ballot box, interview with Dallas's WFAA-TV, Oct. 21, 2010
And let me be clear, I don't think that this kind of talk, however reprehensible, is responsible for a nut job with a gun shooting a congresswoman. But there is clearly evidence of embittering talk, on both sides of the aisle.
----------------------------------------
And these are the direct quotes he posted:
"I hope that's not where we're going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."
and
"This is what Hitler did with the SS. He had his own people. He had the brownshirts and then the SS. This is what Saddam Hussein so but you are comparing that. And I , I mean, I think America would have a really hard time getting their arms around that."
and
"We Came Unarmed - This Time"
and
"He has no place in any station of government and we need to realize that he is an enemy of humanity,"
and
"Our nation was founded on violence. The option is on the table. I don't think that we should ever remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms."
End of quotes.
----------------------------------------
First of all, James started his message saying, "But if you want examples of what I consider to be wacky speech that stirs up hate and divides the country..."
Okay, wacky speech that stirs up hate and divides the country is, at best, a stretch, considering the exact quotes he posted. And that's what we're looking for.
First of all, a pet-peeve of mine is the term, divides the country, as if all of the sudden, all people can agree on all things at all times. It's a silly and meaningless platitude, at best, and with the rarest of exceptions (if ever), this country always has been, and always will be, divided in many regards and/or to some degree. There's absolutely no way around it. There are simply too many Conflicts of Visions (due credit given to Thomas Sowell) among the population.
(That's one of the beauties of individualism, by the way, at least in my opinion (my vision), since it's more conducive for people to live and pursue their own visions without infringing on another's.)
So I dismiss this divides the country nonsense. It's nothing but a tactic used against one's opponent when one does not want to address and/or discuss the REAL underlying issue.
Okay, so now let's try to target those things in his message that stirs up hate.
Oh my, but first, I used a forbidden word, myself! I used the word, target - AS IN GUNS!!!!!!!!! OH MY! Am I using wacky speech that stirs up hate and divides the country?
But I digress.
What exactly is in those quotes that specifically stirs up hate? I hear them and I don't feel hateful towards anyone. Do you feel hateful, Nick (or James) when you hear (or read) them? Heck, using the greeting Merry Christmas stirs up hatred in some people - those who just want to hate someone and/or something in the first place. Hatred is an emotion generated from within, not from without.
So there's nothing hateful in any of those quotes.
Okay, and finally, let's look for anything that might be considered wacky. Well, that's pretty subjective, don't you think? What exactly constitutes wacky anyway?
Personally, I think, like, teenagers, you know, talk, like, you know, kind of, like, wacky; you know, he was, like ...... and she was, you know, like, wacky.
Heck, I also remember when we used to smoke wacky!
Okay, I'll give you that one. Those quotes might fall under the wacky category. And I'll also admit that when I hear people whose policy positions I might support use those kinds of terms, I cringe - not because they use them, per se, but because it only feeds ammunition to their political opponents who will only use it against them, thereby side-stepping the underlying issues.
OH MY!!!!! I DID IT AGAIN!!!!! I used the word ammunition - AS IN GUNS!!!!!!!!! OH MY! Am I using wacky speech that stirs up hate and divides the country?
My guess is that some wacky thinker out there will try to use it against me in a hateful way that will only serve to further divide the country.
And there's probably a joke in here somewhere about a comparison to how Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr settled their political disagreements; but then I'd probably be accused in inciting violence.
"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun" - Barack Obama
"I don?t sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar, we talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick." - Barack Obama
"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida. Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him." - U.S. Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski
"If I hear one more Republican tell me about balancing the budget, I am going to strangle them." - Joe Biden
"You guys see Live and Let Die, the great Bond film with Yaphet Kotto as the bad guy, Mr. Big? In the end they jam a big CO2 pellet in his face and he blew up. I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody?s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he?s going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet. But we?ll be there to watch. I think he?s Mr. Big, I think Yaphet Kotto. Are you watching, Rush?" - Chris Matthews
"I don?t sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar, we talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick." - Barack Obama
"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida. Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him." - U.S. Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski
"If I hear one more Republican tell me about balancing the budget, I am going to strangle them." - Joe Biden
"You guys see Live and Let Die, the great Bond film with Yaphet Kotto as the bad guy, Mr. Big? In the end they jam a big CO2 pellet in his face and he blew up. I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody?s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he?s going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet. But we?ll be there to watch. I think he?s Mr. Big, I think Yaphet Kotto. Are you watching, Rush?" - Chris Matthews
I mean that the tone of politics has become nastier. There are far more cases of politicians, and particularly of commentators with access to broadcast media, who paint opponents as not just wrong on policy, but as treasonous or revenge-driven evil spawn, who want to do nothing but destroy wealth, blacken the future, and sow despair among good people so that America will never prosper again.
Republican-allied forces seem to be making the most of this tactic. If you don't hear it, I imagine your concern about other issues has left you deaf to these tones, and no appeal to reason or evidence would convince you otherwise.
As for specific examples, James has documented a few. Tony has provided opposing material. For every quote, there's a counter-quote. I won't bother, because there's no way to demonstrate what the climate of discourse is by plucking a dozen words from here or there. I've watched enough of Hannity, Palin, Issa, and others to spot that the basic strategy is to get people pissed off.
Republican-allied forces seem to be making the most of this tactic. If you don't hear it, I imagine your concern about other issues has left you deaf to these tones, and no appeal to reason or evidence would convince you otherwise.
As for specific examples, James has documented a few. Tony has provided opposing material. For every quote, there's a counter-quote. I won't bother, because there's no way to demonstrate what the climate of discourse is by plucking a dozen words from here or there. I've watched enough of Hannity, Palin, Issa, and others to spot that the basic strategy is to get people pissed off.
There are people who use inflammatory rethoric to create an illusion of opinion.
They have no opinions. They don't agree or disagree. They just want the votes and the pork and the screwing over the nation some more, from the other end.
And if the common man doesn't smell the stink and turn on, and tear limb from limb, these parasites... well, then the common man has himself to blame for getting screwed over some more.
That's my take on it. They're not wolves, just scabby dogs.
And people are only sheep until they wake up... they are the real wolves, then.
They have no opinions. They don't agree or disagree. They just want the votes and the pork and the screwing over the nation some more, from the other end.
And if the common man doesn't smell the stink and turn on, and tear limb from limb, these parasites... well, then the common man has himself to blame for getting screwed over some more.
That's my take on it. They're not wolves, just scabby dogs.
And people are only sheep until they wake up... they are the real wolves, then.
I mean that the tone of politics has become nastier.
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/the-complete-history-of-dirty-politics-a-qa-on-anything-for-a-vote/
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-08-22/living/mf.campaign.slurs.slogans_1_jefferson-family-sally-hemings-vice-president-jefferson?_s=PM:LIVING
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/the-complete-history-of-dirty-politics-a-qa-on-anything-for-a-vote/
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-08-22/living/mf.campaign.slurs.slogans_1_jefferson-family-sally-hemings-vice-president-jefferson?_s=PM:LIVING
I might need stitches from falling out of my chair while laughing at your statement. Those kinds of statements are made by clueless fearful politicians or money hungry clergy who want to control mindless robots.
What assault on liberty and freedom? Please tell me ONE freedom or liberty you have personally lost since Obama was President? I assume this is who you direct it at. And I'm not a Obama backer. I expected better, but I certainly don't see any of my freedoms and/or liberties going away because of him.
Bush signed the Patriot Act. Cheney flat out revealed the name of a CIA spy, had his staff lie about it, get convicted in court, AND THEN COMMUTED THE SENTENCE!!! Here's someone protecting the US in a certain death situation, and that MF reveals her name simply becuase her husband wrote an unflattering article about the Iraq War!! NOW THAT is losing liberty and freedoms!
They started warrantless wiretaps and actually tried to appoint their personal attorney to the Supreme Court!!! What's your feelings on that?
And the best part of all that, they came off smug and acted like us, the people, should realize they are above us and we simply don't understand that they are protecting the country. Uh...HELLO?? From the people, of the people, by the people? But I guess Lincoln didnt know what he was talking about when he said that.
You want to know who are jeopardizing our freedoms and liberties? Terrorists, not politicians. What do you suggest we do? Nothing since you have already lost tons and tons of your freedoms and liberties?
What assault on liberty and freedom? Please tell me ONE freedom or liberty you have personally lost since Obama was President? I assume this is who you direct it at. And I'm not a Obama backer. I expected better, but I certainly don't see any of my freedoms and/or liberties going away because of him.
Bush signed the Patriot Act. Cheney flat out revealed the name of a CIA spy, had his staff lie about it, get convicted in court, AND THEN COMMUTED THE SENTENCE!!! Here's someone protecting the US in a certain death situation, and that MF reveals her name simply becuase her husband wrote an unflattering article about the Iraq War!! NOW THAT is losing liberty and freedoms!
They started warrantless wiretaps and actually tried to appoint their personal attorney to the Supreme Court!!! What's your feelings on that?
And the best part of all that, they came off smug and acted like us, the people, should realize they are above us and we simply don't understand that they are protecting the country. Uh...HELLO?? From the people, of the people, by the people? But I guess Lincoln didnt know what he was talking about when he said that.
You want to know who are jeopardizing our freedoms and liberties? Terrorists, not politicians. What do you suggest we do? Nothing since you have already lost tons and tons of your freedoms and liberties?
You assume too much. You speculate too much. You know too little about me to make an informed opinion about me.
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=340147&messageID=3408388&tag=content;leftCol
Nonetheless, to answer your question regarding the Obama Administration.
Please tell me ONE freedom or liberty you have personally lost since Obama was President?
Establishing (and/or supporting) a medical care system that FORCES people to buy medical insurance IS INDEED a direct infringement on individual freedom and liberty. Do you disagree?
And if you fail to answer my replies - as you have up to now - you paint yourself an intellectual coward.
P.S.
Re your comment: I might need stitches from falling out of my chair while laughing at your statement.
Are you going to pay for those stiches out of your own pocket, or do you expect other people to pay for them for you? I say that you should pay for them yourself. But Obama wants the "collective" to pay for them.
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=340147&messageID=3408388&tag=content;leftCol
Nonetheless, to answer your question regarding the Obama Administration.
Please tell me ONE freedom or liberty you have personally lost since Obama was President?
Establishing (and/or supporting) a medical care system that FORCES people to buy medical insurance IS INDEED a direct infringement on individual freedom and liberty. Do you disagree?
And if you fail to answer my replies - as you have up to now - you paint yourself an intellectual coward.
P.S.
Re your comment: I might need stitches from falling out of my chair while laughing at your statement.
Are you going to pay for those stiches out of your own pocket, or do you expect other people to pay for them for you? I say that you should pay for them yourself. But Obama wants the "collective" to pay for them.
are the ones giving solace to the ones giving fuel to the ones that go popping caps in people...
You people, for all the good you have, also have one of the most fiicked up political discourses outside of fiicking 1980 Cambodia!
No wonder you have assassinations every now and then. Max - they're politicians.
They're all bad.
There are no heroes in porkville.
So get over it, breathe deeply counting backwards from ten, and get over it some more.
It's not like the other side would have done any better, they'd just have pardoned some more CEOs with that money.
You people, for all the good you have, also have one of the most fiicked up political discourses outside of fiicking 1980 Cambodia!
No wonder you have assassinations every now and then. Max - they're politicians.
They're all bad.
There are no heroes in porkville.
So get over it, breathe deeply counting backwards from ten, and get over it some more.
It's not like the other side would have done any better, they'd just have pardoned some more CEOs with that money.
Are you friggin' serious? I'm witnessing the demise of my own country, and you tell me to get over it?????
P.S. It illustrates - and supports - my basic premise. Less government is the best government. (Due credit given to T.J.)
P.P.S. What's the difference between those who would steal money from another, one by vote and the other by gun?
P.S. It illustrates - and supports - my basic premise. Less government is the best government. (Due credit given to T.J.)
P.P.S. What's the difference between those who would steal money from another, one by vote and the other by gun?
for how long now?
It can't be good for you to have a blood pressure that high all the time.
At the PPS: The former is not theft, and is not in violation of those natural rights you talk about. Nor is it your place to deny the right of another to give their vote according to their rights - so stop whining about it.
Instead of contributing to near-extremist word-warring, thus contributing to the smokescreen that allows the leeches of porkville to have their way with your country and everything in it's reach, you should contribute to a constructive effort to get people to agree to realistic goals.
*None of that "no social security" crap, coz there are people who will have to kill you for food if it goes away.
:Instead help your fellows create a discourse where the actions of government are viewed in a realistic, nonpartizan, nonzealot light. Keep it real.
Or keep having steam come out of your ears like in the OP, whatever.
It can't be good for you to have a blood pressure that high all the time.
At the PPS: The former is not theft, and is not in violation of those natural rights you talk about. Nor is it your place to deny the right of another to give their vote according to their rights - so stop whining about it.
Instead of contributing to near-extremist word-warring, thus contributing to the smokescreen that allows the leeches of porkville to have their way with your country and everything in it's reach, you should contribute to a constructive effort to get people to agree to realistic goals.
*None of that "no social security" crap, coz there are people who will have to kill you for food if it goes away.
:Instead help your fellows create a discourse where the actions of government are viewed in a realistic, nonpartizan, nonzealot light. Keep it real.
Or keep having steam come out of your ears like in the OP, whatever.
You think you understand me, but you don't. I also don't think you understand squat about the U.S. budget. And it's obvious you don't understand the concept of American Democracy - as it was intended.
Re: the right of another to give their vote according to their rights.
A democracy is not three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. So stop whining about trying to make it so.
Re: the right of another to give their vote according to their rights.
A democracy is not three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. So stop whining about trying to make it so.
Goes all the way through, terminus : China.
Did I get that right?
Three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner? And let me guess; the republican-backed corporate rule is the "sheep"... and the "wellfare mothers" are the wolves?
You're dumbing yourself down way too much. This is that "fighting" you've been doing, right? No wonder you're up **** creek with a paddle up your ass - sideways.
You should have done something useful, not ranted uselessly - like you do here, now.
I've yet to hear you say something constructive that doesn't concern pre-19th-century events.
Why don't you let your own history inform you on how to deal with crises? And no, Booth is not what I'm talking about.
Did I get that right?
Three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner? And let me guess; the republican-backed corporate rule is the "sheep"... and the "wellfare mothers" are the wolves?
You're dumbing yourself down way too much. This is that "fighting" you've been doing, right? No wonder you're up **** creek with a paddle up your ass - sideways.
You should have done something useful, not ranted uselessly - like you do here, now.
I've yet to hear you say something constructive that doesn't concern pre-19th-century events.
Why don't you let your own history inform you on how to deal with crises? And no, Booth is not what I'm talking about.
You have seen it coming for 20 years and yet remained to see it come to fruition, merely complaining about other people's actions in the process instead of planning your escape route. Nowhere else to go? That's because maybe you see that every other nation on the planet with any history behind it, eventually separates into classes of rich and poor. American's dreams of every man being wealthy had to end one day, some people will eventually have to live on less and in harder times, again just like every other nation on the planet. A super power never remains a super power and you know that very well too.
Sop what does that leave you with? A nation that you love anyway, home.
Th sun still rises and sets in the most downtrodden places on Earth, people still wake up and live their lives regardless of economic or political situations.
If you find no satisfaction in life itself, then perhaps you should shut yourself in a bomb shelter and simply wait for the end while waving your fists and cursing your fellowman.
But to think that America will always remain a prosperous and financially stable nation where all men can enjoy wealth and success, in a world where you rely on so many for your day to day existence, is simply blind.
That's not 20 years of foresight at all. It;s ignoring the state of the rest of the world. You always say how referring to history offers guidance, in the sense of quoting your founders, however you seem to have ignored the state of other nations with any history.
You constantly comment about how people rely on others and are not self sufficient (which I don't contest at all), yet you seem to ignore the fact that AMERICA relies on others and isn't self sufficient.
How did you hope it was going to work out for you? Everyone prospers, everyone is rich or successful in their own way? Yet everyone still depends on 'something' from others.
It's a given, if you follow history show me where it has been different anywhere else in the world, even for those who have such plentiful lands that they provide America's resources.
So yeah, get over it already, or move somewhere else where you can say how great America is in comparison, a reality check if you will.
Sop what does that leave you with? A nation that you love anyway, home.
Th sun still rises and sets in the most downtrodden places on Earth, people still wake up and live their lives regardless of economic or political situations.
If you find no satisfaction in life itself, then perhaps you should shut yourself in a bomb shelter and simply wait for the end while waving your fists and cursing your fellowman.
But to think that America will always remain a prosperous and financially stable nation where all men can enjoy wealth and success, in a world where you rely on so many for your day to day existence, is simply blind.
That's not 20 years of foresight at all. It;s ignoring the state of the rest of the world. You always say how referring to history offers guidance, in the sense of quoting your founders, however you seem to have ignored the state of other nations with any history.
You constantly comment about how people rely on others and are not self sufficient (which I don't contest at all), yet you seem to ignore the fact that AMERICA relies on others and isn't self sufficient.
How did you hope it was going to work out for you? Everyone prospers, everyone is rich or successful in their own way? Yet everyone still depends on 'something' from others.
It's a given, if you follow history show me where it has been different anywhere else in the world, even for those who have such plentiful lands that they provide America's resources.
So yeah, get over it already, or move somewhere else where you can say how great America is in comparison, a reality check if you will.
..... some guy from Finland tries to come across as an expert on Americans. I don't know about you, but he just rubs me the wrong way. (Of course, from his perspective, it's probably my short-coming, not his.)
I see no right or wrong about what Ansu says. The rub is the thing, alone, for which I am grateful.
.... perhaps I should just get over it.
Courtesy of Google:
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-1035-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=334703&messageID=3343340
Not only your children. They're easy. Elephants of the mind -- they're harder.
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-1035-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=334703&messageID=3343340
Not only your children. They're easy. Elephants of the mind -- they're harder.
Not that it matters.
And I don't try to come across as an expert on Americans.
I know language, and I know meaning.
The way you people use language in political subjects is highly unstable, making it a small step for a madman to go from the normal(1) "They're destroying our country" to the completely postal "I've gotta kill those [Party of Choice] congressmen".
After all, if someone is literally destroying the country, killing them is the usual response, is it not?
(1:normal in your political discourse - not normal in the sense of non-pathological)
And I don't try to come across as an expert on Americans.
I know language, and I know meaning.
The way you people use language in political subjects is highly unstable, making it a small step for a madman to go from the normal(1) "They're destroying our country" to the completely postal "I've gotta kill those [Party of Choice] congressmen".
After all, if someone is literally destroying the country, killing them is the usual response, is it not?
(1:normal in your political discourse - not normal in the sense of non-pathological)
Is what kills you, vaunted language expertise, or not.
Step carefully. Others of us have a handle on language, too.
Step carefully. Others of us have a handle on language, too.
is a property of a society or community as a whole, a collective.
It's the sum of the standard ways the people of that collective speak about the various things they speak about.
I criticize that discourse; specifically the way Mr. Edison contributes to it, a way that seems to me (subjectively, and subject to faulty sampling) to be a widespread phenomenon.
And I can't, for the life of me, find a better way to address the people that make up a collective - specifically as members of that collective - than "you people".
I don't think it to mean "every single one of you people" - on the contrary; I intend it to mean "the resulting, de-facto output of the lot of you taken as a whole".
But I guess I should mind my business, and not talk so much.
It's the sum of the standard ways the people of that collective speak about the various things they speak about.
I criticize that discourse; specifically the way Mr. Edison contributes to it, a way that seems to me (subjectively, and subject to faulty sampling) to be a widespread phenomenon.
And I can't, for the life of me, find a better way to address the people that make up a collective - specifically as members of that collective - than "you people".
I don't think it to mean "every single one of you people" - on the contrary; I intend it to mean "the resulting, de-facto output of the lot of you taken as a whole".
But I guess I should mind my business, and not talk so much.
too close.
And pointing a gun is pointless.
Pointing a gun and pulling the trigger, that's something.
Short of that, it's just holding your dick in public.
And pointing a gun is pointless.
Pointing a gun and pulling the trigger, that's something.
Short of that, it's just holding your dick in public.
Figurative; literal.
You know better.
Pull up your socks.
That PC shilt doesn't work with me.
You know better.
Pull up your socks.
That PC shilt doesn't work with me.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
