It would seem that the simple and necessary reactions to unfettered thievery that are being outlined by this movement are harrumph-proof. Peej is a good writer and it's a shame he has his head up his butt. If you try and steamroll an entire populace and grab whatever isn't nailed down, one of two things will happen. You will tun out of sh* t to steal - for which the corporate whores are quite ready- or people will start breaking your hand when you reach into their fridge. I don't think this is gonna end all free m&ms and puppies for anybody, especially the swine who decided that if you CAN take more than you give, you should. This isn't bored hippies listening to Airplane records and smoking dope. This is fed up America.

I'm totally stoched about this development.

Surveyor's marks, that's all they were!

Well, the first step in combating anything in america is coming up with a sinister-sounding pejorative to label it with, so I guess this is a step in the right direction.

It's a real thing. I remember Mr. Salingers trial for his role in the attempted assassination of President Reagan.

Why do you think his book is so heavily censored in the US?

This is one of the dumbest phrases ever:

BECAUSE the words of one person do not incite another person to violence

especially IF the person who is allegedly being incited against says "We need to kill the other guy"

thats down right orwellian language use there by the lesbian young lady

Jackson Herring: Well it's better than stoichiometric terrorism that's for sure.

You sound unbalanced.

karasoth: BECAUSE the words of one person do not incite another person to violence

Never?

Jackson Herring: Well it's better than stoichiometric terrorism that's for sure.

Is that worse than psychrometric terrorism?

Too many multisyllabic words in that headline subby....I made it up to "public figures" and stop read.

PanicMan: Jackson Herring: Well it's better than stoichiometric terrorism that's for sure.

Is that worse than psychrometric terrorism?

I dunno. Is that worse than kodachromadic terrorism?

HotWingConspiracy: karasoth: BECAUSE the words of one person do not incite another person to violence

Never?

Never: those people have a desire to do violence, anything that makes them think they have social sanction will do

even if its a black chocolate lab

karasoth: This is one of the dumbest phrases ever:

BECAUSE the words of one person do not incite another person to violence


This guy's quote ->

"The struggle for world domination will be fought entirely between us, between Germans and Jews. All else is facade and illusion. Behind England stands Israel, and behind France, and behind the United States. Even when we have driven the Jew out of Germany, he remains our world enemy."

is a classic example of speech inciting violence

/yeah, I went there

Is this more frightening than neobeastioprophylactic terrorism?

Karma Curmudgeon: PanicMan: Jackson Herring: Well it's better than stoichiometric terrorism that's for sure.

Is that worse than psychrometric terrorism?

I dunno. Is that worse than kodachromadic terrorism?



Oh would you please take this seriously... and pass the strawberries.

karasoth: This is one of the dumbest phrases ever:

BECAUSE the words of one person do not incite another person to violence

especially IF the person who is allegedly being incited against says "We need to kill the other guy"

thats down right orwellian language use there by the lesbian young lady

you have your head on backwards.

the person crying about being killed was the person doing the inciting.
of course no one on the OWS side is screaming I CAME UNARMED THIS TIME
or are the talking about 2ND AMENDMENT SOLUTIONS
or are they BRINGING GUNS TO THE PROTESTS
or are they TALKING ABOUT AMMO BOXES INSTEAD OF BALLOT BOXES
or are they WATERING THE TREE OF LIBERTY WITH THE BLOOD OF TYRANTS

pure projection by the right. they were absolutely okay when that rhetoric was coming from their side.
but let the poor start rising up and standing to be counted and start redressing their grievances and suddenly they're coming to kill us!

such pussies
go be afraid somewhere else.

This is why we have Rachel Maddows.

Another attempt at silencing those who use a harmless, if heavily pathos-laden, rhetorical technique. These metaphors do not cause violence. Those who feel fear from these are not being reasonable.

I wonder is anyone will ask Mitt if it's true that Main st and Wall st are connected then why haven't the jobs come back?
If main St and Wall st are connected then why has the income of the average working Joe for the last 30 yrs been stagnant while the top 1 % has seen unprecedented growth?
why have wages been flat while productivity has been steadily rising?
why haven't the unprecedented low taxes for the top 1% and all the deregulation resulted in job creation?

you lie Mitt and you know it. Anyone worth 200 million and claims to be middle class is nothing but a goddamned liar

I thought the headline was perfectly cromulent.

Gorn.

Millennium: Another attempt at silencing those who use a harmless, if heavily pathos-laden, rhetorical technique. These metaphors do not cause violence. Those who feel fear from these are not being reasonable.

Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords would politely disagree.

PonceAlyosha:
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords would politely disagree.

Loughner was just plain nuts. He hated many politicians according to his friends, including Bush. He wasn't incited to violence by any specific rhetoric other than perhaps the voices in his head (but those are difficult to regulate).

He had it out for her since at least 2007, well before the tea-party or any of the things being referenced in this original article.

PonceAlyosha: Millennium: Another attempt at silencing those who use a harmless, if heavily pathos-laden, rhetorical technique. These metaphors do not cause violence. Those who feel fear from these are not being reasonable.

Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords would politely disagree.


THIS

because Dogwhistle wasn't clever enough, or easy enough to remember?

watson.t.hamster: PonceAlyosha:
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords would politely disagree.

Loughner was just plain nuts. He hated many politicians according to his friends, including Bush. He wasn't incited to violence by any specific rhetoric other than perhaps the voices in his head (but those are difficult to regulate).

He had it out for her since at least 2007, well before the tea-party or any of the things being referenced in this original article.



Login: watson.t.hamster
Account created: 2011-10-11 09:55:10

/alt like typing detected?

People at OWS are saying

"Change won't come without Bloodshed"
":Eat the Rich"
"Death to capitalism"
"Lets hoiste out Madame Guilotine"

oh I am sorry your moral equivalency argument is wrong

Hobodeluxe: karasoth: This is one of the dumbest phrases ever:

BECAUSE the words of one person do not incite another person to violence

especially IF the person who is allegedly being incited against says "We need to kill the other guy"

thats down right orwellian language use there by the lesbian young lady

you have your head on backwards.

the person crying about being killed was the person doing the inciting.
of course no one on the OWS side is screaming I CAME UNARMED THIS TIME
or are the talking about 2ND AMENDMENT SOLUTIONS
or are they BRINGING GUNS TO THE PROTESTS
or are they TALKING ABOUT AMMO BOXES INSTEAD OF BALLOT BOXES
or are they WATERING THE TREE OF LIBERTY WITH THE BLOOD OF TYRANTS

pure projection by the right. they were absolutely okay when that rhetoric was coming from their side.
but let the poor start rising up and standing to be counted and start redressing their grievances and suddenly they're coming to kill us!

such pussies
go be afraid somewhere else.

PonceAlyosha: Millennium: Another attempt at silencing those who use a harmless, if heavily pathos-laden, rhetorical technique. These metaphors do not cause violence. Those who feel fear from these are not being reasonable.

Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords would politely disagree.

As do George Tiller, Balbir Singh Sodhi, and the congregants of the Knoxville Unitarian Universalist church.

Millennium: Another attempt at silencing those who use a harmless, if heavily pathos-laden, rhetorical technique. These metaphors do not cause violence. Those who feel fear from these are not being reasonable.

No one thinks "metaphors" cause violence. It's more the systematic and heedless use of metaphors and other loaded imagery and inflammatory speech to portray a particular individuals or classes of people as "enemies" or somehow less than human in a way that justifies violence against them.

It's called "eliminationist" speech. Quite a few people have written about it. It's a "thing".

And the right wing in particular uses this quite frequently and their social impact is significant due to the utter ubiquity of their propaganda outlets on the Radio, TV and Internet.

But sure. I'm sure that someone somewhere once claimed that the issue is that someone used martial imagery in their election campaign. That someone might be wrong, but that doesn't mean that this other stuff doesn't happen, every single day.

Dayummmm...P.J. O'Rourke got pwnd.

Wadded Beef: Dayummmm...P.J. O'Rourke got pwnd.

Actually, he was P.J. Wned.

The term "stochastic terrorism" isn't really new. Not brand-new, anyway. It made its way around some of the lefty commentators/blogs after the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, I think it was.

Skleenar: Wadded Beef: Dayummmm...P.J. O'Rourke got pwnd.

Actually, he was P.J. Wned.

I see what you did there. Well played.

karasoth: BECAUSE the words of one person do not incite another person to violence

So you're in the "we shouldn't have killed Bin Laden" camp.

Cyber_Junk: watson.t.hamster: PonceAlyosha:
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords would politely disagree.

Loughner was just plain nuts. He hated many politicians according to his friends, including Bush. He wasn't incited to violence by any specific rhetoric other than perhaps the voices in his head (but those are difficult to regulate).

He had it out for her since at least 2007, well before the tea-party or any of the things being referenced in this original article.



Login: watson.t.hamster
Account created: 2011-10-11 09:55:10

/alt like typing detected?

actually Loughner is a crazy bastard. sick in the head.
that type of dementia really can't be attributed to any sort of external influence.

Cyber_Junk: PonceAlyosha: Millennium: Another attempt at silencing those who use a harmless, if heavily pathos-laden, rhetorical technique. These metaphors do not cause violence. Those who feel fear from these are not being reasonable.

Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords would politely disagree.


THIS

Dear idiots: Loughner was an apolitical paranoid schizophrenic who developed an obsession with Giffords and eventually decided to kill her, as per documented behavior profiles for certain psychotic stalkers. No one incited this violence; aberrant neural synaptic firing and excessive dopamine in certain partitions of his brain produced visual and auditory hallucinations that lead to the Jan 8th shooting.

karasoth: This is one of the dumbest phrases ever:

BECAUSE the words of one person do not incite another person to violence

especially IF the person who is allegedly being incited against says "We need to kill the other guy"

thats down right orwellian language use there by the lesbian young lady

So you don't support the claim that Awlaki was an enemy of the US either then, right? Because no evidence currently exists that he did anything other than talk. He was a "stochastic terrorist" and we killed him for it.

Will no one rid us of these turbulent protesters?

watson.t.hamster: PonceAlyosha:
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords would politely disagree.

Loughner was just plain nuts. He hated many politicians according to his friends, including Bush. He wasn't incited to violence by any specific rhetoric other than perhaps the voices in his head (but those are difficult to regulate).

He had it out for her since at least 2007, well before the tea-party or any of the things being referenced in this original article.

the right wing's media demonization of liberals didn't start with the advent tea party. that's such a weak strawman.

what about the fan of Sean Hannity and Michael Savage Jim Adkisson?




This guy listened to right wing radio,Fox news and read all their books then went out and killed a bunch of people in church because they were liberals and were tolerant of gays.

or the guy who killed those cops because he thought Obama was going to take his guns away? Where'd he get that idea?



or the guy who killed George Tiller after O'Reilly had been advocating action against him on his show?




the list goes on and on. From Harvey Milk to MLK

right wing violence against liberals is a tradition.

Heron: karasoth: This is one of the dumbest phrases ever:

BECAUSE the words of one person do not incite another person to violence

especially IF the person who is allegedly being incited against says "We need to kill the other guy"

thats down right orwellian language use there by the lesbian young lady

So you don't support the claim that Awlaki was an enemy of the US either then, right? Because no evidence currently exists that he did anything other than talk. He was a "stochastic terrorist" and we killed him for it.

and Rwanda radio never led to anything bad either I guess
or if you want to Godwin the thread Goebbels hands were clean too right?

Millennium: Another attempt at silencing those who use a harmless, if heavily pathos-laden, rhetorical technique. These metaphors do not cause violence. Those who feel fear from these are not being reasonable.

I hate to be the one to Godwin this thread, but that's all Hitler ever did. He gave speeches exulting the German people and blaming outsiders for their problems; those speeches got him power, those speeches gave him a following, and those speeches created the moral and intellectual framework that let millions of Germans feel perfectly fine about people they'd known since childhood being harassed, beaten, shot, carried off into cattle trucks, and burned.

I'm not comparing, say, Limbaugh and Hitler; I'm merely pointing out that your argument that words are "just" words that have no impact on behavior or thought is piffle.

Hobodeluxe: the right wing's media demonization of liberals didn't start with the advent tea party. that's such a weak strawman.

Indeed.


It's almost as if the right wing thinks the fact that Loughner exists erases all of the marks against them on the scorecard.