What percentage of the Earth Liberation Front supports violence (albeit not harm to living people or animals) to further their agenda? Would it be higher that 13%?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:No one could reasonably infer from that post that your goal was to illustrate the evil of over-the-top rhetoric from both political parties--the purpose you retroactively have claimed once your nonsensical linkage to Palin was disproved.

Well, clearly you can't. What I intended was indeed to illustrate the potential danger of over-the-top rhetoric.

Hey, here's a suggestion: maybe the next time you want to illustrate something you should actually say it.

freeman wrote:Poll indicates that 13% of Tea Party members think violence is justified against the current American government. http://www.dailykos.com/weeklypolling/2011/1/14. No risk of inflaming that group with violent rhetoric, right?

Given the margin of error, how is that different than the number of Latinos who hold the same opinion?

By citing that poll, are you trying to incite racial hatred?

Btw, in the same poll, 12% of Republicans have a favorable view of Obama's performance vs. 13% of Tea Party members!

How many "tea party" members were in the survey? The total for the whole survey was 1000. So, 50? Less? Is that meaningful?

freeman wrote:Poll indicates that 13% of Tea Party members think violence is justified against the current American government. http://www.dailykos.com/weeklypolling/2011/1/14. No risk of inflaming that group with violent rhetoric, right?

Sounds to me as though those folks are already inflamed. Some might think it worthwhile to, as so many lefties have advised with respect to inflamed Muslims, explore (and address) the reasons that they are so inflamed. It does seem odd that one should be willing to extend a courtesy to an avowed foreign enemy that one is unwilling to extend to a fellow citizen.

On the other hand, given the incidence of "false flag" operations where lefties have posed as tea partiers, one wonders whether Kos's poll should be given even the slightest credence.

Dr Fate wrote:How many "tea party" members were in the survey? The total for the whole survey was 1000. So, 50? Less? Is that meaningful?

There were 170 tea party members in the surey as compared to 710 non-tea party members. Thirteen percent of them would be about 22 people (well, 22 and a tenth). It is interesting to note as well that while all the other statistics add up to 1000 people (incidently this gives a total of 60 people advocating the use of violence against the American goverment, so Tea Party supporters make up a third) the Tea Party/Non Tea Party block only adds up to 880 people. I do note thatsome 90 refused to answer, so that brings the total up to 970 people, but you are still missing 30 people there.

On the other hand, these figures seem very round. Exactly ninty refused to answe, exactly 170 were members of the Tea Party, exactly 710 were not members etc. In fact, there is not a single number in the whole Demographics section that is not a multiple of ten. This would cause me to raise some questions about their methods. You never get exact numbers.

Edit: Edits were to get the quote button working

Doctor Fate wrote:Hey, here's a suggestion: maybe the next time you want to illustrate something you should actually say it.

I did. I was shocked by the rhetoric being used. Here's a suggestion for you: maybe you should stop assuming what people are saying from what they are not saying, and just read what they do.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Hey, here's a suggestion: maybe the next time you want to illustrate something you should actually say it.

I did. I was shocked by the rhetoric being used. Here's a suggestion for you: maybe you should stop assuming what people are saying from what they are not saying, and just read what they do.

Here's a suggestion: maybe you should learn to express your thoughts. No one would read your initial post and derive what you are now claiming you always meant. So, either you have shifted your message or you are an incompetent communicator. I lean toward the former, as you cite no specific rhetoric other than Palin and Giffords' opponent. You sought to link the shooting with the rhetoric with the shooting. Now, you're not just backtracking, you're sprinting in reverse.

danivon wrote:How cynical are you?

Not cynical enough to try to score points on a hated political figure within 24 hours of a horrific shooting. I mean, what kind of morality would I need to subscribe to to stoop that low?

Is it cynical to point out the shifting narrative? After Obama himself himself stated flatly that there was no connection between the shooting and rhetoric then the focus shifted to gun control and health care.

Is it more cynical to squeeze every last iota of political power out of this tragedy or to point out that people are trying to?

Has Loughner's medical history been released yet? Have we been able to point to times the health system as it stands failed? Or are you "just saying" again Dan?

<paraphrase>
"Oh I wasn't deliberately pointing a finger at Palin...I was just saying." "I never explicitly said anything...I was just saying"

Ahhh, you were "just saying". Well then, I must be some sort of cynic to hold you accountable for those things you "just said".

PCHiway wrote:

danivon wrote:How cynical are you?

Not cynical enough to try to score points on a hated political figure within 24 hours of a horrific shooting. I mean, what kind of morality would I need to subscribe to to stoop that low?

Is it cynical to point out the shifting narrative? After Obama himself himself stated flatly that there was no connection between the shooting and rhetoric then the focus shifted to gun control and health care.

Is it more cynical to squeeze every last iota of political power out of this tragedy or to point out that people are trying to?

Has Loughner's medical history been released yet? Have we been able to point to times the health system as it stands failed? Or are you "just saying" again Dan?

<paraphrase>
"Oh I wasn't deliberately pointing a finger at Palin...I was just saying." "I never explicitly said anything...I was just saying"

Ahhh, you were "just saying". Well then, I must be some sort of cynic to hold you accountable for those things you "just said".

At least he doesn't engage in "whataboutery."

It's actually a very sophisticated form of bomb-throwing by implication.

I'm just sayin'.

But he clearly said he didn't accuse her of anything ...he was "just saying", so it's quite different!?

PCHiway wrote:Ahhh, you were "just saying". Well then, I must be some sort of cynic to hold you accountable for those things you "just said".

It's trying to hold me accountable for things I didn't say that I have a problem with.

Interesting though. After all, Palin was "[i]Just sayin" that Giffords should be removed from office and using a gunsight to signify her district. Kelly was "just saying" shoot an M-16 with me and remove Giffords from office.

You can read between my lines, but if I try to read between theirs it's unacceptable to you?

We could do with a 'strokey-goatee' smilie here: Hmmmmm.

Seems that I am as bad to you as Palin is to me. When my rhetoric involves oblique references to shooting individuals, then you'd be right.

Hadn't I made that clear? It's not your rhetoric I object to Dan. You're more than welcome to use whatever images and draw whatever conclusions you like. You don't need anyone's permission as a matter of fact...

It's your misplaced moralizing that brought me off the pine. After kicking off this thread with a contention that was, while well within your rights to submit, in bad taste...you then took a morally superior position to Tom and myself in your defense of said implication. When we pointed to the holes in your glass house you held up your rhetorical hands with the "Hey, I didn't explicitly say what you're accusing me of you mean old meanie."

Indeed you didn't. But you don't get to stake out the moral high ground this time without getting called on it. You made a bad-taste post. Hey, we've all done it. Your refusal to admit it means I categorically reject any moral superiority you think you've earned with your eyebrow-lift-of-doom.

Just sayin' is all...

pc

Is it cynical to point out the shifting narrative? After Obama himself himself stated flatly that there was no connection between the shooting and rhetoric then the focus shifted to gun control and health care

When a disaster occurs, isn't it natural to begin the examination of why it happened and what can we do to avoid it happening again?
What exactly is cynical about seeking to improve society? Or is it it also cynical to ask why politicans and 9 year olds die in such circumstance and whether something can be done to affect a change in circumstance that can prevent a repeat?
As far as I can tell, you seem to accept the status quo and that there should be no change in any circumstance that might have contributed to this event. The status quo portends more shootings...
Isn't it entirely cynical to accept the status quo unreservedly and without reflection?

mach

On the other hand, given the incidence of "false flag" operations where lefties have posed as tea partiers, one wonders whether Kos's poll should be given even the slightest credence

.

Always a conspiracy isn't there Mach?

You lefties seem to think so. After all, this is the thread where you starting out claiming Sarah Palin caused the Tuscon shootings.