Turning point in the discourse: A reflection on the Arizona shooting

built on a faulty premise, see me after class

meep these idiots. They suggest that their idiotic followers can solve political 'problems' with violence. Then when some nutbag acts on it they pretend they never suggested anything of the sort. After this tragic event, I hope Sara Palin and her ilk become the pariah's that they should always have been.

bad excuse to spread blame

i don't like to agree with him, but Keith Olberman made a good point about this

violence and threats may have no place in democracy, mr olberman, but they certainly do have a place in America god damnit

I don't know how many times Olberman said the word "repudiate," but I do note that he not once suggested that we must repudiate the application of violence to force some people to subsidize the existence of other people--I suppose that kind of violence--violence applied by government proxy--is fully acceptable and has no bearing or influence what-so-ever upon the political discourse in this country.

Maybe if the principle reality that every legislative action that government takes, is an act of violence or the threat of violence, was fully understood by statist, authoritarian asshats, perhaps they'd be less surprised at violent backlashes directed at government institutions and representatives that are inspired by the application of violence embodied by those government institutions and representatives.

Nocal minded retards are going to interpret this as an endorsement for the kind of action this Loughner fellow took--everyone with an intellectual capacity exceeding that of a newt, and a grasp of the English language exceeding that of an infant, can plainly see that no such endorsement is evident. Let's not let our intellectual superiority to these idiots prevent us from pointing an laughing at them.

@Loki Is there an alternative response to these governmental acts of violence that you can endorse?

the shooter was a f***ing whackjob with a gun. can anyone of the right or the left make any sense out of this meephole's gematric gobbledygook?

those who would make political hay out of this are pathetic losers. period.

@MstrLance

@Loki Is there an alternative response to these governmental acts of violence that you can endorse?

Yes. Stop asking them to further take such actions, and to abolish all such past actions.

Don't get confused; the actions I speak of initiate violence--those that I am against--they are not defensive applications of force in response to violence. I am predicting your failure of a relevant example submitted to refute my position.

And now I'm going to have to figure out the formatting bullmeep appurtenant to this new LS reply box.

meep!

Whoah... prediction fullfilled!

Actually, I support your hypothesis of governmental action being predicated on the threat of violence, but I fail to see any effective solutions to that problem. Asking them to stop, or ceasing to ask them to continue, hasn't proven very effective so far.

@LOki

I am predicting your failure of a relevant example submitted to refute my position.

@loki

Maybe if the principle reality that every legislative action that government takes, is an act of violence or the threat of violence, was fully understood by statist, authoritarian asshats, perhaps they'd be less surprised at violent backlashes directed at government institutions and representatives that are inspired by the application of violence embodied by those government institutions and representatives.

Nocal minded retards are going to interpret this as an endorsement for the kind of action this Loughner fellow took

what a disingenuous backpedal this is.

let me simplify the sentence that you made needlessly complex and spliced with commas:

maybe the government would be less surprised by violence if they understood that their own actions are either implicitly or explicitly violent.

that's not an endorsement, but something more weak and ineffectual.

i'm not even going to mention that you seem to form your thoughts the same way as Loughner, but you do. and rape victims dress like they do, and mugging victims walk through neighborhoods at night, and people with families are shot in the head allowing barely-literate internet meepgots to rage against a system that they are too impotent to change.

@nocal

@loki Maybe if the principle reality that every legislative action that government takes, is an act of violence or the threat of violence, was fully understood by statist, authoritarian asshats, perhaps they'd be less surprised at violent backlashes directed at government institutions and representatives that are inspired by the application of violence embodied by those government institutions and representatives.

Nocal minded retards are going to interpret this as an endorsement for the kind of action this Loughner fellow took

>> what a disingenuous backpedal this is.

No surprise at all that the "disingenuous backpedaling" you appear to be referring to is nowhere to be found--cerainly not in the quote you're apparently referencing.

@nocal

let me simplify the sentence that you made needlessly complex and spliced with commas:
>>maybe the government would be less surprised by violence if they understood that their own actions are either implicitly or explicitly violent.

>that's not an endorsement, but something more weak and ineffectual.

As a denier of facts, verifiable by evidence and valid logic, there's no surprise that you'd find valid conjecture upon the consequences of a valid fact of reality to be "weak and ineffectual."

i'm not even going to mention that you seem to form your thoughts the same way as Loughner, but you do.

I have taken no interest in what thoughts Loughner has, or how he has formed them, but I'm certain of yours, and upon that basis (and the fact that you failed to make use of the wide open opportunity to validate your feckless assertion) I am certain that this is just another example of your intellectually dishonest rhetoric.

I'll go further and hypothesize that if there is some congruence between Loughner's thoughts (and/or thought processes) and mine, the source of your every objection to them is where they share factual and moral validity.

and rape victims dress like they do, and mugging victims walk through neighborhoods at night, and people with families are shot in the head allowing barely-literate internet meepgots to rage against a system that they are too impotent to change.

The necessity you feel to project upon me these "truths," is evidence enough that you simply cannot otherwise refute the factual and moral superiority of my position, and that you lack the intellectual integrity to admit it.

Interesting that there is so little correlation between the formatting displayed in the preview window, and the formatting displayed in the final post.