Democrat Congresswoman Calls Millions Of Americans "Domestic Security Threats"

[kpt018]

Sounds like you agree that the Congresswoman is full of shit then when calling them a domestic security threat. Nuts with guns buying even more of them is actually good for the economy. Kinda the opposite of a threat.

No, she is not full of shit. Threats of violence are to be taken seriously regardless of the unlikelihood of occurring.

Now you're changing the subject to an economic argument? We can think of many better ways to help the economy than scaring people into buying guns.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

He offered to bet that no right wing loonie would attack the New York Times as a result of the video. It's so specific it doesn't seem he's very confident in his own logic.

In the video I watched it was the Times being represented as the enemy. Logically speaking that would be the likely target of the violence you're saying is being called for. You not making a counter-bet on any violence is what's telling in the area of lacking confidence.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think you made a few logical leaps there which I did not. I do not hate liberals, and this ad does not make me hate liberals.

You don't think the intention of the ad is to stoke fear and hatred of liberals? Isn't that the "they" they're referring to?

There isn't currently a spate of hate-driven attacks on liberals or angry right wingers trying to assassinate liberals.

Don't know about that. Two congressional candidates have recently had to drop out because of a wave of death threats. Also a very common occurrence on Twitter for anyone who runs afoul of the right.

No, I was clear. I think it is innocuous. I don't think it is a call to a violent revolt and I don't think any political violence will be the result. It's projection from the left, which has been both explicitly and implicitly calling for violence, with some effect, for months now.

It sounded like you were both trying to distance yourself from the ugliness and engaging in whatabouttism against people who found it to be shocking. But now you're explicitly endorsing an ad calling Obama "their ex-president," saying that "they" use "their" media to exterminate real news, implying that cops have no choice but to murder or beat civilians, etc.?

 

[Jack V Savage]

He offered to bet that no right wing loonie would attack the New York Times as a result of the video. It's so specific it doesn't seem he's very confident in his own position.

Oh, yeah, that's way the fuck too specific. No journalists will be murdered by right-wing nuts would be a bolder one.

Sounds like you agree that the Congresswoman is full of shit then when calling them a domestic security threat. Nuts with guns buying even more of them is actually good for the economy. Kinda the opposite of a threat.

How is it good for the economy?

 

[kpt018]

In the video I watched it was the Times being represented as the enemy. Logically speaking that would be the likely target of the violence you're saying is being called for. You not making a counter-bet on any violence is what's telling in the area of lacking confidence.

So you're going to keep ignoring what I said? Fucking unreal man. It's like you want to remain dumb.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

<18><18><18><18><18><18><18><18>

Full retard dude. Find me a reputable source that says increasing the sale of domestically manufactured goods isn't of benefit economically. I'll wait.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

1. Your argument for Nazi Germany being socialist was because it was in their name NSGWP.
2. Then you tried to support their being a socialist government by pointing to their healthcare program that predates the NSGWP by ~ 50 years.
3. Now your'e what, Idk what you're doing here.

1: It is, and it is.

2: This was just one program that was expanded under national socialism. That would be enough proof for any rational, objective observer.

Since I suspect you will only accept as proof, policies that began and ended under Nazi Germany, here's a little gem from 1938:

When a large share of Mefo’s five-year promissory notes fell due in 1938, the National Socialist government employed “highly dubious methods” where “banks were forced to buy government bonds, and the government took money from savings accounts and insurance companies,” due mainly to a serious government cash shortage.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany

I would love to hear the argument of how this policy was anything other than socialist.

3: I'm still just waiting on a valid refutation or counter argument. None of your arguments have disproven the fact that the Nazis were Socialist.

The Nazi Party is a far right fascist party. The only people who try and paint it as an example of socialism are people on the right who blame socialism for everything bad in the world, just like Hitler did.

This paragraph was just you trying to attach labels without presenting any proof or arguments.

If you make an assertion that something is "X", you have to actually prove why something is "X", like I did.

 

[TheStruggle]

264 posts and no one has explained the "call to violence" against the NYT. It's almost as disingenuous as Trump's so called "Call to violence" retweet a Wrestling meme with CNN's logo over Vince McMahons face.

 

[dontsnitch]

this is the one.

She's not all wrong. The media has consistently been against Trump, and has not always been objective and truthful, and this hasn't aided in making calmer heads prevail. Ultimately, her message is nonsensical because buying fire arms doesn't promote truth in any direct way, but this is obviously a sensational ad to promote gun sales. She may be full of crap in a transparent sort of way, but I disagree that she, or this message, is a security threat.

If we're saying this constitutes a security threat, we are redefining the concept. I think it's fair to say Kathleen Rice is using rhetoric to push her agenda, no different than Dana is. It's par for the political course.

 

[Cuzcatlan]

Seems to me that with their recent ad campaign, the NRA is openly calling on the gov't to use violence to silence political dissent.

"Political dissent"

My favorite:

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

How is it good for the economy?

What's "good" for the economy? I'll see if I can fit it into a category.

So you're going to keep ignoring what I said? Fucking unreal man. It's like you want to remain dumb.

What exactly wasn't addressed?

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Shes likely telling the truth based upon the stores here in the WR. The guy who shot those Congressmen at a baseball game and the guy who just shot his neighbor. Just the tip of the iceberg .

 

[HomerThompson]

My position is there's no call to violence and to say there is without predicting any sounds disingenuous.




Then we all agree this Congresswoman is being silly by suggesting there's a looming domestic security threat. Great.

I do agree to that, so what? All my points still stand, and aren't contradicted in any fashion by this.

 

[kpt018]

What's "good" for the economy? I'll see if I can fit it into a category.




What exactly wasn't addressed?

I give up. You're wasting time.

And your economic angle is hilarious. Obviously you're changing the topic, but hilarious.

 

[HomerThompson]

Full retard dude. Find me a reputable source that says increasing the sale of domestically manufactured goods isn't of benefit economically. I'll wait.

You're better than this horse shit.

 

[Jack V Savage]

What's "good" for the economy? I'll see if I can fit it into a category.

You said it was good for the economy. What did you mean?

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

You don't think the intention of the ad is to stoke fear and hatred of liberals? Isn't that the "they" they're referring to?

No. I think it is to instill the need to oppose this hateful agenda. They are drumming up political support, not inciting violence or hatred. The ad spends more time showing that "they" hate NRA memebers than showing why NRA members ought to hate them.Is the "they" liberals? Yes, but in a broad based sense.

Don't know about that. Two congressional candidates have recently had to drop out because of a wave of death threats. Also a very common occurrence on Twitter for anyone who runs afoul of the right.

How many Democrat Congressman have been shot by right wingers of late? How many neighborhoods burned down by right wing riots?

It sounded like you were both trying to distance yourself from the ugliness and engaging in whatabouttism against people who found it to be shocking. But now you're explicitly endorsing an ad calling Obama "their ex-president," saying that "they" use "their" media to exterminate real news, implying that cops have no choice but to murder or beat civilians, etc.?

I'm not distancing myself from the ugliness. I am distant from this ad and the NRA. I haven't seen the ad prior to this thread and I'm not an NRA member. Also, I do not find it ugly. It isn't ugly to point out that children are being taught that Trump is like Hitler. It is ugly to constantly compare Trump to Hitler.

As far as whataboutism, I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm not excusing political violence from the right by saying the left does it too. I'm pointing out that there is very little political violence coming from the right at all but a good deal coming from the left. I'm pointing out your palpably selective outrage and hypocrisy. You are silent when it comes to actual leftist political violence and politically violent rhetoric from the left, which our airwaves have been filled with for months. But your fevered mind sees this ad as somehow especially dangerous or hateful? It is neither.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I do agree to that, so what? All my points still stand, and aren't contradicted in any fashion by this.

Ok.

I give up. You're wasting time.

And your economic angle is hilarious. Obviously you're changing the topic, but hilarious.

As usual, you can't just simply articulate yourself in an effort for clarity. You don't discuss in earnest and that's why I usually don't wast my time with you.

You're better than this horse shit.

Sorry you can't provide anything that actually contradicts me.

You said it was good for the economy. What did you mean?

http://rooseveltinstitute.org/six-reasons-manufacturing-central-economy/

 

[kpt018]

As usual, you can't just simply articulate yourself in an effort for clarity. You don't discuss in earnest and that's why I usually don't wast my time with you.

I have and you can't understand it. And I am honest 100% of the time so you can shove your personal attack up your ass.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

She's not all wrong. The media has consistently been against Trump, and has not always been objective and truthful, and this hasn't aided in making calmer heads prevail. Ultimately, her message is nonsensical because buying fire arms doesn't promote truth in any direct way, but this is obviously a sensational ad to promote gun sales. She may be full of crap in a transparent sort of way, but I disagree that she, or this message, is a security threat.

If we're saying this constitutes a security threat, we are redefining the concept. I think it's fair to say Kathleen Rice is using rhetoric to push her agenda, no different than Dana is. It's par for the political course.

I agree it's not a security threat, but it is deliberately inflammatory.