Modern-day conservative rhetoric 101

Cain said:
Come say that to my face and I'll kick your ass you lil' bitch. I'm almost as tough on the Internet as I am in my car!

And I agree with Lowpro. You can't expect a Republican to know his Bible. He's just hoping Obama's a one-term president. In his heart of hearts, he does not want Obama to die because then Democrats will get the sympathy vote.
Click to expand...

That last bit would require both an uncharacteristic amount of forethought and the uncharacteristic assumption (on part of the Republican) that the rest of the electorate wouldn´t be just as ecstatic to get rid of Obama as he is.
 
Neally said:
I take it you avoid comprehending what Angle said in your link.

"I'm hoping that we're not getting to Second Amendment remedies"
Click to expand...

So wait... are you try to interpret Angle's comments as some kind of earnest plea against violence?

Seriously?

That's utterly hilarious.
 
Yes, because in the English language absolutely everything anyone ever says can be completely taken at face value with absolutely no subtext.
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
Yes, because in the English language absolutely everything anyone ever says can be completely taken at face value with absolutely no subtext.
Click to expand...
Sure, if by "subtext" you mean edit and twist so that someone explicitly stating they hope armed violence doesn't happen is made into someone advocating for armed revolt against the government.
 
Tricky said:
No. Apparently Kansas Republicans save that sort of thing for Mexicans.
Click to expand...

No Bible verse in there though, just a good ole boy being...an idiot. I doubt Republicans have cornered the market on stupidity, but I'm definitely sure their numbers are the majority of its shareholders in it.

I dunno, really I'm criticising the Freethoughtblog post because it's misrepresenting the issue of the biblical passage, and I think that's actually clear. I mean to the credit of the FTB post they may have read past the face value of the passage and gathered context from the source material (the Bible) but I don't think that's what Mike O'Neal had implied.

In short, he's too damn stupid to understand anything more than the face value of the passage (There's no room for doubt that's he stupid BTW) , and because of that, I don't think he was praying for the death of Obama, just him losing the election so that another (probably with O'Neal's party values) will replace him.

But that's just me, I don't see much in the way of threats to Obama's life or spirit.
 
Last edited:
Neally said:
Sure, if by "subtext" you mean edit and twist so that someone explicitly stating they hope armed violence doesn't happen is made into someone advocating for armed revolt against the government.
Click to expand...

Your tutorial on linguistics has been compelling and unerring.

It is an established fact that people never, under any circumstances, say the opposite of what they mean.

You have my sincere gratitude for correcting me on this point.
 
johnny karate said:
Your tutorial on linguistics has been compelling and unerring.

It is an established fact that people never, under any circumstances, say the opposite of what they mean.

You have my sincere gratitude for correcting me on this point.
Click to expand...

English professor: While sometimes a double negative implies a positive, there is no case where two positives imply a negative.

Student: Yeah, sure.
 
AlBell said:
"2nd amendment remedy": Something that would fix a lot of problems, but once one started shooting politicians and their wall st/big bank buddies it would be hard to know when to stop.
Click to expand...

That's the problem with mob justice. Once they shoot a few politicians and bankers, the standard for being a politician or banker will just get lower and lower, and the next thing you know they're liquidating the kulaks as a class.
 
Neally said:
Sure, if by "subtext" you mean edit and twist so that someone explicitly stating they hope armed violence doesn't happen is made into someone advocating for armed revolt against the government.
Click to expand...
Given that the whackadoodle was suggesting that voting didn't seem to be working well, it does seem that she thought that it was one of the alternatives. It would, apparently, be a less desireable alternative, but she does seem to consider it an alternative.

Given the number of illegal militia formations training up in the country now, it would also seem that there are many in the audience she addressed who consider it an acceptable alternative.

She is smoking in the magazine.
 
Lowpro said:
In short, he's too damn stupid to understand anything more than the face value of the passage (There's no room for doubt that's he stupid BTW) , and because of that, I don't think he was praying for the death of Obama, just him losing the election so that another (probably with O'Neal's party values) will replace him.
Click to expand...

Small comfort in that, if true. When arrogant demagogues or would-be tyrants say dumb things around dedicated but stupid followers, bad things can happen.

"Will noone rid me of this meddlesome priest?"
 
leftysergeant said:
Small comfort in that, if true. When arrogant demagogues or would-be tyrants say dumb things around dedicated but stupid followers, bad things can happen.

"Will noone rid me of this meddlesome priest?"
Click to expand...

I don't subscribe to that kinda fear mongering =\
 
johnny karate said:
It is an established fact that people never, under any circumstances, say the opposite of what they mean.
Click to expand...
Your facetious comment is an appeal to probability fallacy. You have the obligation to prove that she was lying, not me.
 
Neally said:
Your facetious comment is an appeal to probability fallacy. You have the obligation to prove that she was lying, not me.
Click to expand...

And you, of course, can prove beyond a doubt what her followers, the militias, the white supremicists, the new south movement, etc, all heard her say?

Let's hear your excuse.
 
jj said:
And you, of course, can prove beyond a doubt what her followers, the militias, the white supremicists, the new south movement, etc, all heard her say?
Click to expand...
I have no idea and make no claims as to what others may have heard her say. If you are claiming that others misinterpreted what she said, it's up to you to support that claim.
 
Neally said:
Your facetious comment is an appeal to probability fallacy. You have the obligation to prove that she was lying, not me.
Click to expand...

Even taken in the most positive light, Angle comments were still characterizing the people she represents as violent and unstable. So fine, you can have it your way. Instead of an implied threat, Angle was actually offering a sincere hope that the very real possibility of Republicans shooting people didn't come to pass.
 
Neally said:
I have no idea and make no claims as to what others may have heard her say. If you are claiming that others misinterpreted what she said, it's up to you to support that claim.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you have implied that her statements could not possibly have had any effect on anyone. So prove it or drop it.

ETA: Some more interesting statements by various people, some of them sane, some of them nutty.

http://www.crackpotchronicle.net/

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/02/22/83337/disabled-abortion/?mobile=nc
http://www.alternet.org/belief/1537...hristianity_would_make_them_unelectable_today
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom