Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
I'm at work but do we know a motive or are we just assuming this is a left wing thing?
fox/limbaugh etc. are praying it is.
If he really is a mooslim terrorist the wingnuts in the hills of Pakistan and Texas sure have a lot to rejoice over these past few days.
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: Phokus
Rightwing radical muslims couldn't allow the rightwing radical christians take all the headlines, now could they :|
Op + Lupi are morons for insinuating this guy was a 'progressive' though, no surprise there.
Try lithium.
What's with your hatred of Phokus?
Someone posted a story about the shooting of the military recruiters, and Phokus compared the mindset of the shooters in the two cases of that and the abortion doctor..
Then he criticized anyone who says the shooter in this case - whose motives are unknown - where all we know is his Muslim-sounding name was a 'progressive' political act.
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: Phokus
Rightwing radical muslims couldn't allow the rightwing radical christians take all the headlines, now could they :|
Op + Lupi are morons for insinuating this guy was a 'progressive' though, no surprise there.
Try lithium.
What's with your hatred of Phokus?
Someone posted a story about the shooting of the military recruiters, and Phokus compared the mindset of the shooters in the two cases of that and the abortion doctor..
Then he criticized anyone who says the shooter in this case - whose motives are unknown - where all we know is his Muslim-sounding name was a 'progressive' political act.
He's right, and you are acting nuts with your personal attacks.
I'm not going to say there aren't people who will act violently on their 'progressive' political agenda; there are. In the 1970's, we had a good number, if you stretch the definition of 'progressive', such as the Weather Underground. While the left also has an especially strong non-violence tradition - MLK on the left led non-violence, the freedom riders did not resist while their opponents beat them - there is the potential for violence.
But there's no indication that THIS case involved a 'progressive' agenda. We don't have the facts - and the facts we do have point another direction is likely.
So he was right to say the comments were way off-base.
I could make a case that the right has a lot bigger violence problem, from our main domestic terrorist act in decades being a right-wing conspiracy, to militias being almost entirely right-wing organizations, to the anti-abortion violence, to the anecdotal incidents usually involving right-wing killers like the guy who shot up a Universalist Church because he couldn't get to the liberal leaders named in his right-wing commentators' books, while the radical left tends to - as Phokus said - target property (e.g., animal lab destruction), to chain themselves to trees, to protest non-violently, to ride boats harassing whaling ships, etc., but I do think there is a potential for a left-wing violent movement to grow, just as our founding fathers turned to violence, if the right were to provoke it, so I won't use that argument.
Instead, I'll just note that the posters were baseless to say this shooting was a progressive political act, Phokus was right to say so, and Hyabusa was wrong to attack Phokus for it.
Again. I'd like you to either justify your personal attacks by showing how his posts warrant them, or see you withdraw the attacks and preferably come to your senses and apologize.
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: Phokus
Rightwing radical muslims couldn't allow the rightwing radical christians take all the headlines, now could they :|
Op + Lupi are morons for insinuating this guy was a 'progressive' though, no surprise there.
Try lithium.
What's with your hatred of Phokus?
Someone posted a story about the shooting of the military recruiters, and Phokus compared the mindset of the shooters in the two cases of that and the abortion doctor..
Then he criticized anyone who says the shooter in this case - whose motives are unknown - where all we know is his Muslim-sounding name was a 'progressive' political act.
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: Phokus
Rightwing radical muslims couldn't allow the rightwing radical christians take all the headlines, now could they :|
Op + Lupi are morons for insinuating this guy was a 'progressive' though, no surprise there.
Try lithium.
What's with your hatred of Phokus?
Someone posted a story about the shooting of the military recruiters, and Phokus compared the mindset of the shooters in the two cases of that and the abortion doctor..
Then he criticized anyone who says the shooter in this case - whose motives are unknown - where all we know is his Muslim-sounding name was a 'progressive' political act.
He's right, and you are acting nuts with your personal attacks.
I'm not going to say there aren't people who will act violently on their 'progressive' political agenda; there are. In the 1970's, we had a good number, if you stretch the definition of 'progressive', such as the Weather Underground. While the left also has an especially strong non-violence tradition - MLK on the left led non-violence, the freedom riders did not resist while their opponents beat them - there is the potential for violence.
But there's no indication that THIS case involved a 'progressive' agenda. We don't have the facts - and the facts we do have point another direction is likely.
So he was right to say the comments were way off-base.
I could make a case that the right has a lot bigger violence problem, from our main domestic terrorist act in decades being a right-wing conspiracy, to militias being almost entirely right-wing organizations, to the anti-abortion violence, to the anecdotal incidents usually involving right-wing killers like the guy who shot up a Universalist Church because he couldn't get to the liberal leaders named in his right-wing commentators' books, while the radical left tends to - as Phokus said - target property (e.g., animal lab destruction), to chain themselves to trees, to protest non-violently, to ride boats harassing whaling ships, etc., but I do think there is a potential for a left-wing violent movement to grow, just as our founding fathers turned to violence, if the right were to provoke it, so I won't use that argument.
Instead, I'll just note that the posters were baseless to say this shooting was a progressive political act, Phokus was right to say so, and Hyabusa was wrong to attack Phokus for it.
Again. I'd like you to either justify your personal attacks by showing how his posts warrant them, or see you withdraw the attacks and preferably come to your senses and apologize.
Originally posted by: lupi
And if you still do know why he gets these types of comments, feel free to take off your tunnel vision glasses while reading his crap spam posts.
Originally posted by: alchemize
God damn you work hard to defend another partisan douchebag.
/golf clap
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
A 19 year old kid lie dead and we argue over whether it was a left wing or right wing wacko that killed him.
How sad we have become that every thing gets turned into left vs. right instead of right vs. wrong.
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
A 19 year old kid lie dead and we argue over whether it was a left wing or right wing wacko that killed him.
How sad we have become that every thing gets turned into left vs. right instead of right vs. wrong.
The decision to go to war is very different than walking into an office and killing someone in cold blood.Originally posted by: theflyingpig
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
A 19 year old kid lie dead and we argue over whether it was a left wing or right wing wacko that killed him.
How sad we have become that every thing gets turned into left vs. right instead of right vs. wrong.
Millions dead in Iraq and we argue about left vs right all the time.
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
A 19 year old kid lie dead and we argue over whether it was a left wing or right wing wacko that killed him.
How sad we have become that every thing gets turned into left vs. right instead of right vs. wrong.
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The decision to go to war is very different than walking into an office and killing someone in cold blood.
If you were an adult you might understand that.
Originally posted by: Hacp
Turns out an Islamic Terrorist killed the soldier. After 9/11, bush protected us from terrorism. It just so happens that once Obama takes office, terrorists start repopping up.
Originally posted by: Hacp
Turns out an Islamic Terrorist killed the soldier. After 9/11, bush protected us from terrorism. It just so happens that once Obama takes office, terrorists start repopping up.
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
Originally posted by: Hacp
Turns out an Islamic Terrorist killed the soldier. After 9/11, bush protected us from terrorism. It just so happens that once Obama takes office, terrorists start repopping up.
An interesting correlation. Under the Bush administration the terrorists knew that we would do what was necessary to stop them. Now, it seems that we have shown our weakness publicly, and are now inviting attack.
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: lupi
And if you still do know why he gets these types of comments, feel free to take off your tunnel vision glasses while reading his crap spam posts.
Oh hey look, one of the idiots who insinuated it was a 'progressive' killing. You still haven't answered my question as to how an academic study is comparable to an email chain letter spam (for the 4th or 5th time).
oh yah, you got me. I'm as partisan as they get.Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: alchemize
God damn you work hard to defend another partisan douchebag.
/golf clap
:laugh: pot kettle black :laugh:
Originally posted by: Hacp
Turns out an Islamic Terrorist killed the soldier. After 9/11, bush protected us from terrorism. It just so happens that once Obama takes office, terrorists start repopping up.
Originally posted by: alchemize
God damn you work hard to defend another partisan douchebag.
/golf clap
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The decision to go to war is very different than walking into an office and killing someone in cold blood.
If you were an adult you might understand that.
Iraq did nothing to us, but we still went over there and bombed them and killed the innocent.
Originally posted by: alchemize
oh yah, you got me. I'm as partisan as they get.Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: alchemize
God damn you work hard to defend another partisan douchebag.
/golf clap
:laugh: pot kettle black :laugh:
Kudos, you're really doing a top notch job as the dumbest motherfucker troll on the board, you're still no Dave, but keep it up we all gotta have dreams.
But I prefer to raise the stakes in the internets dramas. Let's have a wager. If you can find 10 posts from me in the last 6 months that would be considered "partisan" - i.e. towing the republican party line, I'll take 6 months off from this board. If I can find 20 from doing the same for the democrat line in the past 6 months, you'll take 3 months off. Deal?
He never said Iraq was as pure as the driven snow, he was talking about the justification of going to war with Iraq which you conveniently sidestepped.Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The decision to go to war is very different than walking into an office and killing someone in cold blood.
If you were an adult you might understand that.
Iraq did nothing to us, but we still went over there and bombed them and killed the innocent.
Pardon me, but your ignorance is showing. I know USAF pilots who had their aircraft shot at by Iraqi forces between 1992-2003. Iraq also invaded Kuwait prior to that, conducted genocidal operations against the Kurds (and to an extent, later against the Shia as well), funded terrorist operations, harbored known terrorists, and previously conducted nuclear and chemical weapons programs plus had a proven record of using WMD against both foreign and domestic people.
Note that I don't address the sufficiency of these actions as justification for going to war, which is a different topic which has been argued many times before, but to imply that Iraq was pure as the driven snow is well beyond ludicrous.
Originally posted by: alchemize
Kudos, you're really doing a top notch job as the dumbest motherfucker troll on the board, you're still no Dave, but keep it up we all gotta have dreams.