[Vision2020] evil in Tucson
Gary Crabtree
jampot at roadrunner.com
Mon Jan 10 20:15:08 PST 2011
"How do my claims benefit me or the left?"
That truly is hard to say. In my eyes they don't but you continue to bang the kos/huffington party line drum none the less. The incessant repetition of how all the hateful rhetoric comes from the right despite the voluminous evidence to the contrary. (Michelle Malkin pretty well put that one to bed for good and all) The unending contention that the Tucson murder is under the pernicious influence of a conservative dogma if not an out tea party republican operative despite increasing information that the freak is mostly apolitical and if anything trending left (the Communist Manifesto and an insatiable taste for the chronic not being hallmarks of the right wing lifestyle) Why don't you simply solve this mystery for me and the rest of your puzzled audience? Why do you continue to politicize this horror show?
g
From: Joe Campbell
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 6:39 PM
To: the lockshop
Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] evil in Tucson
You're joking if you think this one case shows the two sides are equal.
And what political points am I scoring? That claim makes no sense. How do my claims benefit me or the left?
You are a great example of the over the top, insulting rhetoric of the right, one that tries to demonize and misrepresent everything the left says, by the way. So keep writing! Every one of your posts helps to make my point!
So you think violent rhetoric is "natural"? That's good to know. I'll save this post!
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 10, 2011, at 5:26 PM, "the lockshop" <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com> wrote:
No "two wrongs" game being played anywhere I can see. In your earlier posts you rather shrilly insisted that the "violent rhetoric" was a one sided phenomenon emanating predominantly from the right and I offered a few examples to show your error. Nothing more and nothing less. I did not contend that anything was OK because the other side was doing it as well. My reason for responding to you at all was that I think that using tragedy to attempt to score cheap political points is not helpful to say the very least.
As to your question of where I stand on the issue, it depends on your sensibilities and semantics. I have no real problem with analogy such as Obama used nor with NSA's. On the other hand, if you say that BHO is evil incarnate, is responsible for all that is ailling the country and must be stopped immeadiately by any and all means possible, I think you've stepped over the edge in the same way that showing photos of GWB with captions saying 'assassinate this man' are over the top. One is analogy and the other is incitement and it doesn't require genius to tell the difference.
In any compitition it's natural to use terms of conflict such as beat, fight, target, eliminate and so on and a reasonable person understands this and doesn't read more into it then is intended. A lunatic might hear it and do something awful. They might also hear something quite innocuous and freak. Should we tip toe about and censor our every word so as not to set off the nut balls? Or should the rhetoric police relax and realize that the crazies will sometimes go off for reasons indecipherable by the sane.
g
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Campbell" <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
To: "the lockshop" <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com>
Cc: "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] evil in Tucson
Gary,
You keep playing this "two wrongs" game.
I'd like to know where you stand on it. My view is that violent
rhetoric is wrong. It was wrong for Obama to make that kind of comment
if it was directed toward his political enemies. Just because I'm a
Democrat and voted for him doesn't make it right. What's your view? Do
you think it was wrong for him to say this and that such violent
rhetoric, directed at one's political opponents is wrong? Or do you
think it is OK for folks to say this sort of thing?
The view can't be that it was wrong for Obama but not for, say, NSA or
Palin. But which is: wrong for both groups or OK for both? I think it
is wrong for both.
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:40 AM, the lockshop <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com> wrote:
> I assume that by violent rhetoric you would include comments made by those
> who are the last word in "viable presidential candidate."
>
> "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said in
> Philadelphia last night. “Because from what I understand, folks in Philly
> like a good brawl..."
>
> I guess from now on instead of targeting voters, candidates, or positions we
> will speak of humanely capturing them to returned to a safe area where they
> can live out the remained of their lives surrounded by love and comfort.
>
> g
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>
> To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 10:05 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] evil in Tucson
>> Furthermore . . .
>>
>> The ONLY person that should be held directly responsible for the murders
>> in Tuscon is Jared Loughner.
>>
>> However . . .
>>
>> The grandizing by Phelps of such heinous murderous activity as that
>> committed by Loughner takes on an even worse stench when coupled with the
>> "target map" and comments like "Don't retread, reload" and "Second
>> amendment remedies" feed the imbalanced minds of those like Jared Loughner
>> with a false sense of patriotism when they commit such acts.
>>
>> Certainly, average, well-adjust people can easily distinguish between
>> controversial commentary and violent rhetoric, but . . .
>>
>> How many Jared Loughners are we to confront before sources of such
>> rhetoric are called in to account?
>>
>> Tom Hansen
>> Moscow, Idaho
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, January 10, 2011 9:47 am, keely emerinemix wrote:
>>>
>>> It took all of five minutes, Visionaires, for my conscience to to remind
>>> me that describing even someone as evil as Fred Phelps as less than human
>>> was wrong of me. I believe his works to be those of an evil man,
>>> something I can't imagine anyone not named "Phelps" would disagree with
>>> and something I think Scripture would affirm, but I used language in
>>> anger
>>> that I have criticized in others, and I'm sorry for it.
>>>
>>> I trust that if Dale Courtney uses my initial Phelps post on his blog,
>>> he'll have the integrity to refer to this one as well.
>>>
>>> Keely
>>> www.keely-prevailingwinds.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: kjajmix1 at msn.com
>>> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 09:35:11 -0800
>>> Subject: [Vision2020] evil in Tucson
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My brother in Tucson says that unmitigated barbarian evil in the form of
>>> the Rev. Fred Phelps will descend later this week on the city as the
>>> first
>>> victims of the shooting will be released from the hospital and funerals
>>> for the dead will begin. Phelps will be praising God for the massacre
>>> and
>>> lauding the work of Jared Lee Loughner.
>>>
>>> The description of Phelps above is mine; my angry and distraught
>>> brother's
>>> words were utterly unfit for quoting, just as Phelps' is utterly unfit to
>>> claim the title "Reverend," or even the designation "human."
>>>
>>> Keely
>>> www.keely-prevailingwinds.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> =======================================================
>>> =======================================================
>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> =======================================================
>>
>>
>> "The Pessimist complains about the wind, the Optimist expects it to change
>> and the Realist adjusts his sails."
>>
>> - Unknown
>>
>>
>> =======================================================
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> http://www.fsr.net
>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>
> ________________________________
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3371 - Release Date: 01/09/11
> 23:34:00
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3371 - Release Date: 01/09/11 23:34:00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20110110/d086f2fa/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list