HuskieDan Wrote:I extrapolated because you come from a different political belief system.  Works for you.   :rolleyes:

In other words, I've nailed you as a red. 

Sincerely,


Mr. McCarthy.

That's precious, but now you're just embarrassing yourself.

Let's see what I've said in this thread in relation to 1) Any lefties criticizing this, and 2) What I think about the author and their right to publish such tripe.

First 1:

Quote:Soooo, do you or do you not support this type of thing? If so, would you support it had it been written about Kerry or Clinton?

Question I posed to a liberal on this board. As of yet has gone unanswered.

There are also 3 other posts prior to you injecting your babble that have yet to criticize it.

And 2:

Quote:I don't question his right to do it, I question the judgement and character of the person who does it.

Quote:His right to write such crap isn't the issue in my opinion.

Now I know deductive logic is challenging, so let me spell it out for you. If I say I don't question his right to write it, or that just the fact of him writing it isn't the issue, then one, using reason, can deduce I don't think he should be thrown in jail, since I don't think he violated a law in writing it.

In other words, I've nailed you as, well, a liberal.

Sincerely,

Logic.

You begin the thread as a flame:

Quote:The hits just keep coming from the left.

Who will be the first to defend this?

No one has defended the content. There's your answer.

But then you go on to misrepresent what is posted in this thread (by the way, you selectively forgot to include the context in which your "question" you mention came...out of left field):

Quote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:Look up Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Soooo, do you or do you not support this type of thing? If so, would you support it had it been written about Kerry or Clinton?

Schad was commenting on RebelKev's claim of illegality of this type of thing. You turn that into a suggestion that someone may approve of the content. He didn't mention the content. Again, silence is not approval, so his not answering your flame is not acknowledging approval.

But while putting words in people's mouths, why stop at one instance:

Quote:Actually no, I just find it deplorable that someone would write a book about killing our leader. I don't care if it was Clinton, Kerry or Ted Kennedy. There is no room for writing about how you would kill another human being.

I guess your all for it.

Nice extrapolation.

Quote:In other words, I've nailed you as, well, a liberal.

Considering your responses and desire to flame liberals, I'll extrapolate that you are all for liberals being thrown out of the country for treason.

So, you intentionally attempt to flame, then you misrepresent opinions, and then you turn it into a "yeah, but if it happened to you you'd be mad" argument.

Logic.....yeah, right. Try again, sonny.

Quote:You begin the thread as a flame:

That's precious junior but it wasn't flame. First it was a statement of fact, a hit from the left, the author is left.

I asked a legitimate question, who would defend it? Just because your skin is as thin as a sheet of cling wrap doesn't mean your insane assertions about my words are accurate.

Quote:You turn that into a suggestion that someone may approve of the content. 

Keep digging junior. He responded to Reb yes. I responded back asking was if for it or against it? I wanted to know. You're the one assigning meaning to my comments because it fits your angry and delluded view of what my intention was. I didn't assign meaning to anything he said, I asked a question.

Quote:Nice extrapolation.

As I said earlier muskie, both of Doh's responses turned this back on me as paranoia and made light of what the book was about. So I'm left to think that he has no problem with a book that is written that talks about assassinating the president.

Everyone on here, including you oh righteous one, makes extrapolations about people views based on what they don't say as much as what they do. So get off your high horse.

Quote:Considering your responses and desire to flame liberals, I'll extrapolate that you are all for liberals being thrown out of the country for treason.

Feel free. I know it gets you through the night.

Quote:So, you intentionally attempt to flame, then you misrepresent opinions, and then you turn it into a "yeah, but if it happened to you you'd be mad" argument.

I didn't intentionally flame anything. I asked a question and judging by the responses, and lack there of I received I'm left to draw my own conclusion. You said it was moronic that he wrote it. That's what I wanted to know. Who would defend it, and who would criticize it.

Quote:Logic.....yeah, right.  Try again,

I would but you wouldn't get it then either.

Go have a drink and cool down junior. You clearly take this place waaay too seriously.
:drink: :mad:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:I hate the fact that politics in this country has gotten so personal.  Comparing an American president to Hitler...

Rush Limbaugh has likely bought many kilos of hillbilly heroin with the money he has made railing about "femiNazis."

The right has been angry a long, long time.

It seems to me the left is finally gearing up to start responding in kind.

It isn't pretty to watch -- but, then, neither is Rush.

Schadenfreude Wrote:It seems to me the left is finally gearing up to start responding in kind.

Finally gearing up? You have been running in full force for decades. The problem is only now are there avenues for you to be challenged, ie the internet, cable news, talk radio.

The vitrol and personal attacks are very prevalent on both sides. Neither side has a claim on the high ground. For either, right or left, to claim otherwise is in no uncertain terms, bull$h!*.