Welcome to Muse Songwriters Message Board

Register now to gain access to all of our features. 

 

This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Barneyboy

Political Hate

67 posts in this topic

This morning an ardent supporter of Bernie Sanders, armed with a rifle, went to a baseball field where Republican congressmen and senators were practicing. He then opened fire wounding one of the leaders of the Republican House along with an aide and 2 policemen. He was eventually shot and later died.  Is this the first shot fired as a prelude to another civil war?  The left's hatred for President Trump is now reaching a point where people are in actual danger of getting killed.  We see it in the violent attacks against Trump's supporters by antifa and blm groups.  Broadway plays like the one showing the assassination of Trump and Griffin holding the severed head of Trump only encourages evil leftists to act out as has this deceased Sanders supporter.  It seems that history is repeating itself with the democrats firing the first shots again.  I have yet to see any democrats, specifically Sanders supporters, condemn this vicious attack.  The only response from a democrat, so far, has been the Virginia Governor, Terry McAluff,  using this tragedy to call for more gun controls.  He also said that 93 million Americans a day are being killed by guns which only confirms his lunacy credentials. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am amazed that in the midst of such a tragedy you have chosen to promote your political agenda in such a hateful and self-serving manner, devoid of compassion and empathy but full of accusations, finger-pointing and name calling. Where is the humanity...?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, EmilyEmily said:

I am amazed that in the midst of such a tragedy you have chosen to promote your political agenda in such a hateful and self-serving manner, devoid of compassion and empathy but full of accusations, finger-pointing and name calling. Where is the humanity...?

 

You tell me, Emily.  Have you read the social media posts by liberals celebrating this shooting? Liberals are calling Scalise a racist and a KKK sympathizer who got what he deserved. Is that what you call compassion and empathy? One even suggested that though the bullet didn't kill the congressman maybe the hospital might.  Are you gong on their sites to condemn them for their inhumanity?  What did I post that was wrong, false or self-serving?  Do you deny the deep hatred of the President within the democrats?  Do you deny the mock assassinations of the President?  Do you justify Griffin's stunt of holding the severed head of the President?  Do you think an episode like this might trigger a response in kind? I am saying that liberals who condone and applaud violence against our sitting President only encourages the lunatics within to carry out these acts.  I am saying for those on the left who still have some sanity to start condemning the demonstrations of violence before another attack like this takes place. I don't know if you feel on edge but I'm uneasy and am afraid that all hell will break loose if this hate toward Republicans, in general, and to our President, in specific, continues. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Bernie Sanders put it well.

 

I have just been informed that the alleged shooter at the Republican baseball practice is someone who apparently volunteered on my presidential campaign. I am sickened by this despicable act. Let me be as clear as I can be. Violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society and I condemn this action in the strongest possible terms. Real change can only come about through nonviolent action, and anything else runs against our most deeply held American values.
My hopes and prayers are that Representative Scalise, congressional staff and the Capitol Police Officers who were wounded make a quick and full recovery. I also want to thank the Capitol Police for their heroic actions to prevent further harm.

 

https://www.facebook.com/berniesanders/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED&fref=nf

 

Violence of any kind is unacceptable.

 

I think there is much to protest about, but violent protest simply breeds violence and will not bring about anything good in a democracy.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m talking to you as a “friend” or acquaintance who has communicated with you through this website and who has developed a professional familiarity with you based on our mutual interest in songwriting.

 

I am not promoting, defending or debasing a political point of view. I am simply speaking with you as one adult to another.

 

I found your response to this event to be unfortunate, inflammatory and sad.

 

It was just very disappointing to read your initial posting, as well as your response to what I wrote. Both are overflowing with the language of accusations, divisiveness and discord. I’m sorry that you are so full of rage.

 

I have no more to contribute to this conversation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alistair S said:

I think Bernie Sanders put it well.

 

I have just been informed that the alleged shooter at the Republican baseball practice is someone who apparently volunteered on my presidential campaign. I am sickened by this despicable act. Let me be as clear as I can be. Violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society and I condemn this action in the strongest possible terms. Real change can only come about through nonviolent action, and anything else runs against our most deeply held American values.
My hopes and prayers are that Representative Scalise, congressional staff and the Capitol Police Officers who were wounded make a quick and full recovery. I also want to thank the Capitol Police for their heroic actions to prevent further harm.

 

https://www.facebook.com/berniesanders/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED&fref=nf

 

Violence of any kind is unacceptable.

 

I think there is much to protest about, but violent protest simply breeds violence and will not bring about anything good in a democracy.

Kudos to Sanders.  I hope more liberals of prominence will speak out against such atrocities. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading over the other remarks on this thread, I don't think anything Bob has said in the original post has been used to foster his own political agenda. He cares about what is going on whether people agree with him or not. He's telling it exactly as  he sees it and often exactly as it is.  And as someone who has for the most part over the course of my life, voted democratic, it troubles me, that while the Republican party in the United States of America has its problems, so to do the Democrats and the biggest problem the Democrats face is their current state which has been hijacked by the far left with social media at the forefront.  From the nut job that shot at congress to that obnoxious, asshole comedian Kathy Griffin, there is a disturbing trend that has been surfacing to silence any and all who oppose their ideology. "You're hateful". "You're a bigot". You have no compassion. You're stupid.  Fuck you to any and all who think like this.   Is it finger pointing to tell the truth? Hey, folks once again for any and all who are thick headed, I'm no Republican. I loathe things about them as much as I loathe things about the Democrats but people who get violent and act out as well as those who promote their agenda and don't want to hear differing points of view, trying to silence those who are not like them in their thinking and or trying to make others look stupid or foolish who they don't agree with are becoming more intolerant than all the folks they've complained about for years.  No matter what side of the isle these individuals come from, as a society we must turn and face the mirror because the picture ain't pretty.  

 

We need to find a middle ground (where there is compromise) in light of the madness going on everywhere these days at home and abroad.

 

Thanks to Alistair for posting the quote from Sanders and thanks to Bob (Bernabby/Barneyboy) for starting the thread.  

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/15/2017 at 16:40, spanishbuddha said:

I don't think anything Bob has said in the original post has been used to foster his own political agenda.

 

I don't think I can comprehend how you can believe that this might possibly be the case.

 

Honestly.  I am stunned.

 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lazz said:

 

I don't think I can comprehend how you can believe that this might possibly be the case.

 

Honestly.  I am stunned.

 

 

Honestly, I'd be stunned if you actually had the balls to post a lyric for critique instead of always pointing out what you believe to be (with your self proclaimed informed opinion) mistakes others make with the things they say. 

 

Here we go folks. Get out the violins.  :P

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Lazz said:

 

I don't think I can comprehend how you can believe that this might possibly be the case.

 

Honestly.  I am stunned.

 

 

Lazz, one thing is certain, we can always count on you to get off your meds just to take a cheap shot at me.  Why don't you grow a spine and respond to me directly instead of posting your self righteous blabber on someone else's post. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wholeheartedly agree with Barneyboy, Alistair, and Carl (Spanishbuddah)!

All this vile rhetoric has gotten out of hand. It's time we stop, and fire up a peace pipe.

Those who insist on having the last word are the ones that are going to drive us into complete civil chaos!

Now, does anyone here really want that??

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reality Check:  True to past form, the majority of Americans eligible to vote in the last election did not do so.  Thus, the majority of Americans aren't really on opposite political sides - at least not strongly so.  I think the majority of Americans are too apathetic, lazy, stupid or disgusted to even bother making the effort to actually take a side.  What's that saying about something only needing that good people do nothing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2017 at 14:10, Barneyboy said:

The only response from a democrat, so far, has been the Virginia Governor, Terry McAluff,  using this tragedy to call for more gun controls.  He also said that 93 million Americans a day are being killed by guns which only confirms his lunacy credentials. 

 

Funny, all it confirmed for me is that he misspoke, and that he then corrected himself to make clear he meant to say 93 individual people a day.  

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/06/14/mcauliffe_calls_for_gun_control_after_republican_shooting_we_lose_93_million_people_a_day.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, HoboSage said:

 

Funny, all it confirmed for me is that he misspoke, and that he then corrected himself to make clear he meant to say 93 individual people a day.  

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/06/14/mcauliffe_calls_for_gun_control_after_republican_shooting_we_lose_93_million_people_a_day.html

Yeah, I think we all know that but had Trump said the same thing about abortions the press would have gone bananas and made that the lead story for months.  He's still an idiot for not immediately correcting himself - that's what happens when he reads from a script and so anxious to promote his gun control agenda - the more he can exaggerate the statistic the better his case for grabbing guns.  In fact, he said it twice and only corrected his statement when a reporter asked him if he meant 93 per day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott Pelley from CBS asked if Scalise's wounds were in part self inflected.  Meaning: justified. Presumably because of Scalise's political views.  I think Barney has a point.  Some in the media are actively attempting to incite violence, it seems. I too have concerns that the country has become bipolar.  And I don't see Barney promoting a political agenda with this post. He's asking what  is happening to civil discourse in the United States.  The angst that the left is experiencing at the thought of a Trump presidency is not much different than the angst the Republicans and Conservatives experienced the last 8 years, but the manifestation of this angst has become completely unhinged in 2017.  Barney is conservative. He owes nobody an apology for this view.  He has threatened no one's life here on this site. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Barneyboy said:

Yeah, I think we all know that but had Trump said the same thing about abortions the press would have gone bananas and made that the lead story for months.  He's still an idiot for not immediately correcting himself - that's what happens when he reads from a script and so anxious to promote his gun control agenda - the more he can exaggerate the statistic the better his case for grabbing guns.  In fact, he said it twice and only corrected his statement when a reporter asked him if he meant 93 per day. 

 

The reporter only asked him if he really meant 93 million as that seemed like a very large number, and then the governor did immediately realize he misspoke and corrected himself with the correct number.  Again, not "lunacy," and also not idiocy.  And, we both know the right-wing media is all abuzz ripping the Democratic governor for misspeaking, and we both know Trump never corrects himself and if he had done this, he would have said something like "that's the number I was told," or "that's the number reported in the Enquirer." <heh-heh>  I dunno, kind of looks to me like you might be spreading "fake news" and hurling personal insults at a progressive governor to further your political views? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ad hominem attacks, rather than facts, seem to be very popular these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

12 hours ago, HoboSage said:

 

The reporter only asked him if he really meant 93 million as that seemed like a very large number, and then the governor did immediately realize he misspoke and corrected himself with the correct number.  Again, not "lunacy," and also not idiocy.  And, we both know the right-wing media is all abuzz ripping the Democratic governor for misspeaking, and we both know Trump never corrects himself and if he had done this, he would have said something like "that's the number I was told," or "that's the number reported in the Enquirer." <heh-heh>  I dunno, kind of looks to me like you might be spreading "fake news" and hurling personal insults at a progressive governor to further your political views? :)

He said 93M twice without hesitation.  The reporter corrected him and that is when he corrected himself.  He did misspeak but he did not correct himself until urged by the reporter. He either said 93M or he didn't.  If he said 93M and he said it twice how is it that I am spreading fake news? The man is a lunatic because all he had in mind with his presser was for more gun control - no sympathy for the victims of the shooting no condemnation of the shooter.  He probably did misspeak but it still was a stupid thing to say and quite hilarious. What's wrong with having some fun at the expense of a progressive governor? 

Edited by Barneyboy
bad sentence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Barneyboy said:

 What's wrong with having some fun at the expense of a progressive governor? 

 

 

Obviously, this is coming from the hypocrite who started this thread asserting that such pot shots from the left against the right have resulted in real shots being fired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On June 19, 2017 at 17:56, kuya said:

Scott Pelley from CBS asked if Scalise's wounds were in part self inflected.  Meaning: justified. Presumably because of Scalise's political views.  

 

Self-inflicted doesn't mean justified. Justified would mean that the shooter was at least partly in the right to take the shots, and that's not what Pelley was saying at all, nor was he suggesting that Scalise somewhat deserved to be wounded because of his political positions. Rep. Scalise is a gun lobbyist's dream congressman with an A+ rating from the NRA. He's for all pro-gun legislation and opposed to all gun control legislation. He and his political allies are why guns are so easy to buy in this country, why it's so hard to obtain accurate data on shootings, why it's so hard to close gaping loopholes in our gun laws, why it's so hard for pediatricians to talk to parents about guns kept in their homes, and why it's so hard to make laws that would keep guns out of the hands of people with mental illnesses. Rep. Scalise was shot by a man with a gun who shouldn't have had a gun. I think that's why Pelley asked whether the wounds were in part self-inflicted: because Scalise position on guns makes it arguably easier for people who mean to do harm with firearms to obtain firearms. It might be too soon to point that out, with Scalise still in the hospital in bad shape from his wounds, but it's a fair point to make. The trouble with waiting until it's no longer "too soon" to say something, is that by then there's been another big shooting, which makes it again "too soon" to politely bring the subject up on the air. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Joan said:

 

Self-inflicted doesn't mean justified. Justified would mean that the shooter was at least partly in the right to take the shots, and that's not what Pelley was saying at all, nor was he suggesting that Scalise somewhat deserved to be wounded because of his political positions. Rep. Scalise is a gun lobbyist's dream congressman with an A+ rating from the NRA. He's for all pro-gun legislation and opposed to all gun control legislation. He and his political allies are why guns are so easy to buy in this country, why it's so hard to obtain accurate data on shootings, why it's so hard to close gaping loopholes in our gun laws, why it's so hard for pediatricians to talk to parents about guns kept in their homes, and why it's so hard to make laws that would keep guns out of the hands of people with mental illnesses. Rep. Scalise was shot by a man with a gun who shouldn't have had a gun. I think that's why Pelley asked whether the wounds were in part self-inflicted: because Scalise position on guns makes it arguably easier for people who mean to do harm with firearms to obtain firearms. It might be too soon to point that out, with Scalise still in the hospital in bad shape from his wounds, but it's a fair point to make. The trouble with waiting until it's no longer "too soon" to say something, is that by then there's been another big shooting, which makes it again "too soon" to politely bring the subject up on the air. 

And "self-inflicted" means he shot himself!!

You go ahead and rationalize that Joan!! Ya....that makes perfect sense to all of those who believe that 1+1=11. I'm a huge supporter of the second amendment..... so does that mean, if, by some chance of bad luck, someone shoots me while I'm having a cup of coffee at an outside cafe,  it would be considered, by you, to be a self-inflicted wound??

That's some damn shallow logic, Joan!!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ironknee said:

And "self-inflicted" means he shot himself!!

You go ahead and rationalize that Joan!! Ya....that makes perfect sense to all of those who believe that 1+1=11. I'm a huge supporter of the second amendment..... so does that mean, if, by some chance of bad luck, someone shoots me while I'm having a cup of coffee at an outside cafe,  it would be considered, by you, to be a self-inflicted wound??

That's some damn shallow logic, Joan!!

 

Christ, man. How I would hate for anything like that to happen to you.

 

The quote was "in part self-inflicted." Meaning that in some literal or figurative sense, the person shot had placed the weapon into the shooter's hands. In this case that would be referring to all the pro-gun legislation that had been sponsored, co-sponsored or actually introduced by Rep. Scalise, and all the gun control legislation he had worked to block. The TV journalist was in no sense whatsoever claiming the shooting had been justified, as Kuyo argued, or that the congressman had shot himself. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bob.

 

I had nothing to say which would add to what was already said - hence I had neither need nor desire to engage with your original propagandising post.

 

My challenge was to Carl’s denial of its undeniably transparent partisan status.

 

Brad Carver is the G.O.P head of a Georgia congressional district neighbouring the one where Tuesday’s contest took place.  He put it this way - “I’ll tell you what: I think the shooting is going to win this election for us”.  And, indeed, attack ads targeted the democrat candidate not only by alleging connections with San Francisco liberals, Hollywood, Al Jazeera and Osama Bin Laden, but also by claiming that “the unhinged left is endorsing and applauding shooting Republicans”

 

However normalised this strategy may have become, the exploitation of an act of senseless violence for political advantage remains shabby, cheap, and contemptible.

 

The pretence that this is not what’s going on in your post is ludicrous.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to Joan, i will concede that my definition was rather inexact and could have been said better.  However i disagree that scalese's position on the second amendment somehow figuratively placed the gun in the shooter's hands.  That's too simple an explanation. Millions of americans have access to guns. Just as millions of americans have access to knives and automobiles, which are also quite capable of killing people. Heck, i have a yoyo or two in my house. They were originally weapons. The point is (for me at least) what is driving people to become so unhinged now that they think this violence against some elected people is now justified, or at least can be written off as, in part self inflicted?  I have to watch news television for almost 40 hours per week as part of my work, and i can tell you that some of these national networks seem to be enjoying raising the level of hysteria throughout the country.  "Can we survive a Trump presidency?" some  tv pundits ask almost daily. Hmmm.  I think there are implications to asking a question like that repeatedly because  the implication is that the answer is now very much in doubt, and therefore maybe taking things (guns) into your own hands now is somehow understandable. this kind of talk is certainly legally protected speech but it's also not helpful in helping the unhinged on the far left to come in off the ledge. Trump will be president for another three and a half years.  Just as i didn't want anything to happen to obama, so too do i want trump to finish his term.  It's depressing when your candidate doesn't win but feeding unrealistic fantasies to the side that lost ( assassination, impeachment, his gunshot wounds are in part self inflicted) is not helpful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kuya said:

In response to Joan, i will concede that my definition was rather inexact and could have been said better.  However i disagree that scalese's position on the second amendment somehow figuratively placed the gun in the shooter's hands.  That's too simple an explanation. Millions of americans have access to guns. Just as millions of americans have access to knives and automobiles, which are also quite capable of killing people. Heck, i have a yoyo or two in my house. They were originally weapons. The point is (for me at least) what is driving people to become so unhinged now that they think this violence against some elected people is now justified, or at least can be written off as, in part self inflicted?  I have to watch news television for almost 40 hours per week as part of my work, and i can tell you that some of these national networks seem to be enjoying raising the level of hysteria throughout the country.  "Can we survive a Trump presidency?" some  tv pundits ask almost daily. Hmmm.  I think there are implications to asking a question like that repeatedly because  the implication is that the answer is now very much in doubt, and therefore maybe taking things (guns) into your own hands now is somehow understandable. this kind of talk is certainly legally protected speech but it's also not helpful in helping the unhinged on the far left to come in off the ledge. Trump will be president for another three and a half years.  Just as i didn't want anything to happen to obama, so too do i want trump to finish his term.  It's depressing when your candidate doesn't win but feeding unrealistic fantasies to the side that lost ( assassination, impeachment, his gunshot wounds are in part self inflicted) is not helpful. 

Kuya, if you're a lawmaker who is perpetually on the side of easier firearms access for more people, of course you must own the fact that some who shouldn't have access, do. The whole point is that some of the millions who have guns, shouldn’t. This guy shouldn’t have had legal access, but he did. This alcoholic, abusive hothead who shot rounds at his foster daughter's dates, whose foster daughters complained repeatedly to the proper authorities about his physical violence, had no problem obtaining and keeping his weapons and his ammunition. People like this gravely wounded congressman — may he recover quickly and fully — make careers out of impeding common-sense efforts to rein in the gore. Yes, you can kill with a knife, with a knitting needle, a vial of poison, a box-cutter or a spork. You can make a shank out of a toothbrush and slice open someone's carotid artery. But it’s easier to kill, and to kill more people from a distance, if you’re using projectiles propelled with gunpowder. Guns don’t kill people but shooters do. That’s where the snark and irony and sarcasm come from, when one of these people who make it more dangerous for us all is caught up in it himself. If your next-door neighbor is armed, I sincerely hope that person has a steady temperament and an amiable outlook on life. So many of the gun guys I know are twitchy, foul-tempered, intimidating, and always with the veiled and not-so-veiled threats. Not all gun owners, just way too many of them are. I live in the country and I can see the type coming from a mile away. Our property is sometimes fired upon during hunting season, despite the numerous posted warnings not to, and despite the quadrupled fines for firing on property with posted No Hunting warnings. Plus, we have gun guys who live on bordering acreage. Not everyone who keeps firearms is a gun guy, just the ones who talk about them all the time and won't go anywhere without them. If that's their hammer and every problem seems like a nail to them, we're all in trouble.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Joan said:

So many of the gun guys I know are twitchy, foul-tempered, intimidating, and always with the veiled and not-so-veiled threats. Not all gun owners, just way too many of them are. I live in the country and I can see the type coming from a mile away. Our property is sometimes fired upon during hunting season, despite the numerous posted warnings not to, and despite the quadrupled fines for firing on property with posted No Hunting warnings. Plus, we have gun guys who live on bordering acreage. Not everyone who keeps firearms is a gun guy, just the ones who talk about them all the time and won't go anywhere without them. If that's their hammer and every problem seems like a nail to them, we're all in trouble.

 

I also live in a small rural red county. I know a lot of people like you described above. What a bunch of nutbags! Their whole lives revolve around guns. Personally, I think they are a bunch of pussies. If you're scared to go anywhere without a gun. YOU'RE A FUCKING PUSSY! But that's just my opinion. 

 

Kuya, no offense, but if I hear one more person say something like "guns don't kill people" I'm going to lose my fucking mind. Or "people have access to knives and automobiles" give me a fucking break! If someone is using those words to back up their beliefs they lose whatever small amount of respect I might of had for them before they said something so fucking ignorant. How about Twinkies?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Joan,one of  the reasons we even have a nation is because we had access to better weapons (kentucky long rifles) than the average redcoat we were shooting against. They had these black busses i think they were called that were only good for shooting at a line of soldiers. We were almost invaded by japan in ww2 but they quickly realized that america was so well armed that submission would be impossible.   That argument is what is driving the 2nd amendment folks and its true. Give up our personal weapons and we give up any way of truly protecting our freedom. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pushing for gun control is not fighting to ban personal weapons. It’s about keeping guns away from violent offenders and people with dangerous mental disorders. People with diagnosed mental health disorders, who are so impaired by those disorders that they can’t hold a job and are getting disability checks, who are so impaired that those mental disability checks go into the bank accounts of their guardians instead of to them directly, can legally buy guns. Most gun owners agree that this is a problem, but the NRA does not agree, so neither do the congressmen and senators who do the NRA's bidding. This congressman who just got shot was one of the legislators who blocked the bill that would have turned that around, that would have raised the bar just that little bit for being able to legally buy firearms. Which I’m sure you already know if you follow bills as closely as most people do who care about these things. Does it make you feel safer knowing that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Joan i don't know all the particulars of where Scalese stands on every bill. I also agree with some reasonable restrictions for mentally ill people as you do. 

         I too live in the boondocks down a 1000 foot dirt road in a camp with no phone service or internet or for that matter electricity, where sometimes it takes 45 minutes for a cop to arrive in an emergency.  My neighbors probably have guns and i'm glad they do. But not the nutjobs i hope. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Joan said:

 

Christ, man. How I would hate for anything like that to happen to you.

 

The quote was "in part self-inflicted." Meaning that in some literal or figurative sense, the person shot had placed the weapon into the shooter's hands. In this case that would be referring to all the pro-gun legislation that had been sponsored, co-sponsored or actually introduced by Rep. Scalise, and all the gun control legislation he had worked to block. The TV journalist was in no sense whatsoever claiming the shooting had been justified, as Kuyo argued, or that the congressman had shot himself. 

 

1

Hi Joan......Scott Pelley is a seasoned professional who has proof readers, and "think tanked" opinions which he publishes and airs. We do not. He has an agenda......ours may coincide, or may not. When you agree with this man's opinion it sorta puts you in his corner. Scalise was shot, and Pelley mitigates the happening by hammering out his views in a most disgusting tone. We as Americans have to be better than this. I am/was not a Obama supporter........and I would never, ever wish anything bad to him, or the people who did support him.....no matter how dopey their logic is ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I watched this editorial opinion, and in my mind, Scott Pelley was not saying the recent ballpark shooter was justified or that Scalise personally incited the shooter, and Palley was not blaming the second amendment or any particular political side.  In my mind, he was clearly asking if we all need to ask whether the current level of vitriol and hateful rhetoric coming from all sides in our political discourse has made politically-inspired physical violence by people who are not mentally balanced something we, as a society, shouldn't find all that surprising. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HoboSage said:

 

I watched this editorial opinion, and in my mind, Scott Pelley was not saying the shouter was justified or that Scalise personally incited the shooter, and he was not blaming the second amendment or any particular political side.  In my mind, he was clearly asking if we all need to ask whether the current level of vitriol and hateful rhetoric coming from all sides in our political discourse has made politically-inspired physical violence by people who are not mentally balanced something we, as a society, shouldn't find all that surprising. 

As creative people should understand, there are always a thousand angles to approach an idea. That WE all must tone it down.......and to mildly suggest that anything was "self-inflicted" is not only clever in the most divisive way, I find it rather insidious. He's a clever man and this has already proven to divide us even further

The Whaaaaat? Me????? What I saaay?? debate gets us nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ironknee said:

As creative people should understand, there are always a thousand angles to approach an idea. That WE all must tone it down.......and to mildly suggest that anything was "self-inflicted" is not only clever in the most divisive way, I find it rather insidious. He's a clever man and this has already proven to divide us even further

The Whaaaaat? Me????? What I saaay?? debate gets us nowhere.

 

I don't find anything Palley said to be" insidious" at all.  I think you're choosing to take it that way, and that you are and expressing that in an online public square to attack him with such unjustified alarmist hyperbole, I think only serves to help make Palley's point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, HoboSage said:

 

I don't find anything Palley said to be" insidious" at all.  I think you're choosing to take it that way, and that you are and expressing that in an online public square to attack him with such unjustified alarmist hyperbole, I think only serves to help make Palley's point.

Well.....you sure got me pegged! B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2017 at 11:42, Lazz said:

Hi Bob.

 

I had nothing to say which would add to what was already said - hence I had neither need nor desire to engage with your original propagandising post.

 

My challenge was to Carl’s denial of its undeniably transparent partisan status.

 

Brad Carver is the G.O.P head of a Georgia congressional district neighbouring the one where Tuesday’s contest took place.  He put it this way - “I’ll tell you what: I think the shooting is going to win this election for us”.  And, indeed, attack ads targeted the democrat candidate not only by alleging connections with San Francisco liberals, Hollywood, Al Jazeera and Osama Bin Laden, but also by claiming that “the unhinged left is endorsing and applauding shooting Republicans”

 

However normalised this strategy may have become, the exploitation of an act of senseless violence for political advantage remains shabby, cheap, and contemptible.

 

The pretence that this is not what’s going on in your post is ludicrous.

Maybe you missed the part where a high level democrat official in Nebraska was caught on a live mic saying how glad he was that Scalise was shot and he wished him dead. There are also several other examples of dems in the media either laughing about this shooting, blaming Scalise for getting shot and other disgusting responses to the shooting.  You now have a prominent actor, Johnny Depp, threatening to assassinate the President. Should we say nothing and be thankful lest the great Lazz will not shame us for exploitation just for the purpose to gain cheap, shabby and contemptible political points? Your response is no different than others from the left.  Instead of condemning this vile act you try to deflect the seriousness of this attack by attributing anything said about it as propaganda.  You are a disgusting person. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2017 at 21:23, Joan said:

 

Self-inflicted doesn't mean justified. Justified would mean that the shooter was at least partly in the right to take the shots, and that's not what Pelley was saying at all, nor was he suggesting that Scalise somewhat deserved to be wounded because of his political positions. Rep. Scalise is a gun lobbyist's dream congressman with an A+ rating from the NRA. He's for all pro-gun legislation and opposed to all gun control legislation. He and his political allies are why guns are so easy to buy in this country, why it's so hard to obtain accurate data on shootings, why it's so hard to close gaping loopholes in our gun laws, why it's so hard for pediatricians to talk to parents about guns kept in their homes, and why it's so hard to make laws that would keep guns out of the hands of people with mental illnesses. Rep. Scalise was shot by a man with a gun who shouldn't have had a gun. I think that's why Pelley asked whether the wounds were in part self-inflicted: because Scalise position on guns makes it arguably easier for people who mean to do harm with firearms to obtain firearms. It might be too soon to point that out, with Scalise still in the hospital in bad shape from his wounds, but it's a fair point to make. The trouble with waiting until it's no longer "too soon" to say something, is that by then there's been another big shooting, which makes it again "too soon" to politely bring the subject up on the air. 

Typical left speak.  Re-define or rename self-inflicted in order to give wiggle room for the disgusting reporter who suggested that Scalise deserved to get shot.  Sounds like you, too, Joan, are trying to justify that Scalise needed to be shot because he supports the NRA.  Maybe you should re-read the 2nd amendment and the Supreme Court rulings.  The shooter obtained his gun legally he happened to use his gun illegally.  Onewholovesrock was right when he said guns don't kill people, people kill people. There are over 300M guns and some 80M gun owners in the US yet it does not appear that we have some kind of gun epidemic.  Do you agree, Joan?  Sure, we have a crazy every now and then but gun violence in terms of the proportion to the number of guns and gun owners is miniscule.  That argument, in and of itself, speaks volumes as to why our forefathers were so wise as to make gun ownership a right and the second most important right  Personally, I believe it should have been number 1 because without the 2nd there would be no other rights.  Believe me, government is getting out of control. The perfect example is this latest stunt from California where employees have been ordered not to visit some 8 red States. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Barneyboy said:

Typical left speak.  Re-define or rename self-inflicted in order to give wiggle room for the disgusting reporter who suggested that Scalise deserved to get shot.  Sounds like you, too, Joan, are trying to justify that Scalise needed to be shot because he supports the NRA.  Maybe you should re-read the 2nd amendment and the Supreme Court rulings.  The shooter obtained his gun legally he happened to use his gun illegally.  Onewholovesrock was right when he said guns don't kill people, people kill people. There are over 300M guns and some 80M gun owners in the US yet it does not appear that we have some kind of gun epidemic.  Do you agree, Joan?  Sure, we have a crazy every now and then but gun violence in terms of the proportion to the number of guns and gun owners is miniscule.  That argument, in and of itself, speaks volumes as to why our forefathers were so wise as to make gun ownership a right and the second most important right  Personally, I believe it should have been number 1 because without the 2nd there would be no other rights.  Believe me, government is getting out of control. The perfect example is this latest stunt from California where employees have been ordered not to visit some 8 red States. 

You know what’s hardest for me whenever I see the text of the Second Amendment, Bob? It’s the commas where no commas should be. When a phrase is set off with commas, like the phrase about what a well-regulated militia is necessary for, that phrase is supposed to support the phrase it comes right after. But here it doesn’t. But it seems to be trying to. But it’s written with punctuation that isn’t used these days. So there’s that. I’ve read that the Second Amendment was a concession to Southerners sitting on the fence about joining the other colonial states in the rebellion against England, that what they were most concerned for was their continued ability to form organized, armed fugitive slave patrols. I haven’t reached any conclusions on that myself, but don’t worry. Your Second Amendment is safe from the likes of me. You can keep your firepower, you don’t worry me. It’s the crazies and the hotheads and the depressive alcoholics who brood vengefully when their wives move themselves and their kids out of the family domicile to get away from the threats and the yelling and the throwing and the black eyes. Those are the ones who worry me. Nobody’s dangerous with a legally obtained weapon until they are in a high liquid funk. You’re not that kind, I can tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2017 at 20:31, Joan said:

Pushing for gun control is not fighting to ban personal weapons. It’s about keeping guns away from violent offenders and people with dangerous mental disorders. People with diagnosed mental health disorders, who are so impaired by those disorders that they can’t hold a job and are getting disability checks, who are so impaired that those mental disability checks go into the bank accounts of their guardians instead of to them directly, can legally buy guns. Most gun owners agree that this is a problem, but the NRA does not agree, so neither do the congressmen and senators who do the NRA's bidding. This congressman who just got shot was one of the legislators who blocked the bill that would have turned that around, that would have raised the bar just that little bit for being able to legally buy firearms. Which I’m sure you already know if you follow bills as closely as most people do who care about these things. Does it make you feel safer knowing that?

I see and was this Hodgeskinson fellow so diagnosed as mentally impaired?  It's so easy to make general statements as you have made.  The $64 question is how do you make these arbitrary decisions without intruding into one's personal freedoms.  It sounds like a big brother tactic used in commie countries where everybody, friend or family, rats on someone for using 4 sheets of toilet paper instead of 2. Sounds like you are again blaming the congressman for getting shot because he voted on some legislation.  You are also incorrect in your first statement as a gun ban is the ultimate goal of gun control.  For example, AR-15's and other so called assault rifles have been banned in California.  Magazines holding more than 10 bullets have been banned in California. So you see gun control is much more than running a background check. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Joan said:

You know what’s hardest for me whenever I see the text of the Second Amendment, Bob? It’s the commas where no commas should be. When a phrase is set off with commas, like the phrase about what a well-regulated militia is necessary for, that phrase is supposed to support the phrase it comes right after. But here it doesn’t. But it seems to be trying to. But it’s written with punctuation that isn’t used these days. So there’s that. I’ve read that the Second Amendment was a concession to Southerners sitting on the fence about joining the other colonial states in the rebellion against England, that what they were most concerned for was their continued ability to form organized, armed fugitive slave patrols. I haven’t reached any conclusions on that myself, but don’t worry. Your Second Amendment is safe from the likes of me. You can keep your firepower, you don’t worry me. It’s the crazies and the hotheads and the depressive alcoholics who brood vengefully when their wives move themselves and their kids out of the family domicile to get away from the threats and the yelling and the throwing and the black eyes. Those are the ones who worry me. Nobody’s dangerous with a legally obtained weapon until they are in a high liquid funk. You’re not that kind, I can tell.

My response is give that wife a gun and show her how to use it if that drunken husband lays a hand on her or her kids.  One less drunken crazy isn't going to make me lose any sleep. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Barneyboy said:

My response is give that wife a gun and show her how to use it if that drunken husband lays a hand on her or her kids.  One less drunken crazy isn't going to make me lose any sleep. 

 

Is that what you do, Bob? How many times have you bought a gun for an abused wife and taken her out to the firing range to make sure she knows how to load and fire it? Or are there more abused spouses out there, even whom we know personally, than we know what their situations are because nobody's talking about it? Because there's always an innocuous alternative explanation for a black eye or a dislocated shoulder or a broken tibia? Leaving an abusive spouse is one of the most physically dangerous moves a person can make. That's the point where the danger really ratchets up, so good for you with your one-on-one self-defense courses. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2017 at 19:38, HoboSage said:

 

 

Obviously, this is coming from the hypocrite who started this thread asserting that such pot shots from the left against the right have resulted in real shots being fired.

Hi, Hobo.  Sorry, I missed this one.  You did not disappoint.  I guess that Bernie supporter shooter was only firing a water gun.  Maybe that play with the assassination of Trump didn't happen.  Perhaps, that was a purse being held by Kathy Griffin.  You know, I'm gonna write it off as a coincidence that real shots were fired by a Bernie guy shortly after these displays of terror from the left. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Joan said:

 

Is that what you do, Bob? How many times have you bought a gun for an abused wife and taken her out to the firing range to make sure she knows how to load and fire it? Or are there more abused spouses out there, even whom we know personally, than we know what their situations are because nobody's talking about it? Because there's always an innocuous alternative explanation for a black eye or a dislocated shoulder or a broken tibia? Leaving an abusive spouse is one of the most physically dangerous moves a person can make. That's the point where the danger really ratchets up, so good for you with your one-on-one self-defense courses. 

I have not bought any weapon for an abused wife nor have I taken any to the firing range.  Having said that, I would be willing to help any, if asked. I agree leaving an abusive relationship may be very dangerous.  As an aside, I cannot understand why a woman would not leave a relationship the first time a man put a hand on her.  I know, it's easy for me to say something like that but it, nevertheless, baffles me.  I hope you will agree with me that a woman alone with an abusive husband/boyfriend is virtually helpless.  I hope you also agree that evening out the playing field is her best defense.  Just showing the gun and her readiness/willingness to use it may diffuse further abuse and give her the opportunity to get out of the relationship.  If that doesn't work and he continues to advance shoot for the chest area as that is the biggest target. I recommend a semi-auto as it is easier to get off multiple shots, if needed. Better to have the police sort out the confrontation than for the wife to be hospitalized or even murdered. A woman knows early on whether or not her partner is a psycho abuser.  Don't hang around expecting him to change - it could be fatal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Barneyboy said:

I have not bought any weapon for an abused wife nor have I taken any to the firing range.  Having said that, I would be willing to help any, if asked. I agree leaving an abusive relationship may be very dangerous.  As an aside, I cannot understand why a woman would not leave a relationship the first time a man put a hand on her.  I know, it's easy for me to say something like that but it, nevertheless, baffles me.  I hope you will agree with me that a woman alone with an abusive husband/boyfriend is virtually helpless.  I hope you also agree that evening out the playing field is her best defense.  Just showing the gun and her readiness/willingness to use it may diffuse further abuse and give her the opportunity to get out of the relationship.  If that doesn't work and he continues to advance shoot for the chest area as that is the biggest target. I recommend a semi-auto as it is easier to get off multiple shots, if needed. Better to have the police sort out the confrontation than for the wife to be hospitalized or even murdered. A woman knows early on whether or not her partner is a psycho abuser.  Don't hang around expecting him to change - it could be fatal. 

 

Bob, I haven’t been through the agony of an abusive relationship myself. You’re not alone in wondering why anyone would stay. The easy answer, though it doesn’t always apply, is that in some homes violence feels normal because it’s reminiscent of scenes a person had grown up with. I’ve seen friends through family violence and leaving a time or two, and have had a lot of conversations with other friends who’d been through it before I knew them. Here are a few of the constants: 
 
1. By the time he’s first laid a hand on her, she’s already very much under his control because of all the steps leading up to it. By then she’s isolated and alienated from all her friends, most of her family, and sometimes her livelihood. Sometimes the people she reaches out to are his friends and family, who tend to be more sympathetic to his point of view than to hers because they know him better than they know her, and they've never seen that side of him. 
 
2. She blames herself for him not being himself. She doesn’t want to change him, she just wants him to get back to being that guy she first fell in love with who was so sweet and gallant to her. And she blames herself for a lot of what he does. 
 
3. She keeps waffling between staying and leaving, which makes her incredibly difficult to support. If you know them as a couple and are under pressure to socialize with the two of them after the things you’ve heard, you can feel kind of manipulated yourself. 
 
4. If you know her through the guy, it crosses your mind more than once that whatever happened, she had provoked him into violence he wasn’t really prone to. Unfair, unkind, and maybe untrue, but it does cross your mind. 
 
5. Some of the help she needs is difficult to provide. Like babysitting her wild kids who might be prone to beating up on your kids. Things like that. 
 
6. Sometimes the abused one is the husband. A friend of mine killed herself a couple of weeks ago, the first friend i ever lost to suicide. A depressed and alcoholic friend who physically attacked her husband, also a friend, just as he thought she was about to go for inpatient rehab treatment for her out-of-control drinking. He left the house for his own safety, and she hanged herself while he was gone. You never know all of what’s going on with people, or what a dark and dangerous place they might be in. 
 
7. i couldn't see myself adding firepower to the mix with any of these people under any circumstances. But I do know that it’s more complicated than helping someone who asks, because asking means telling, and telling brings on the shame. And at least one (female)friend who left an abusive husband did arm herself, and did feel safer for it. In fear for your life, sometimes there's a place for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before the thread goes over to another discussion about guns in America, I'd just like to say that there is a problem with political discourse, in my opinion. It's become almost tribal and much of it appears to me to revolve around the use of selective facts at best and deliberate lies at worst. The truth gets lost in the spin and the misinformation.

 

With the rise of social media and the proliferation of the media in general there isn't enough factual news to fill the time available and sell the advertising, so the news is polluted with opinion pieces and we get to listen to the "news" that we choose to listen to.

 

The result appears to be that we each end up living in a bubble of our own making. Maybe it was always this way, at least to an extent - we would buy the newspaper that reflects our own worldview - but it seems to me that we had better balance when I was younger, with more sources that would challenge the version of the news that we received from any one source. 

 

I'm now becoming aware that many people rely on Facebook and Twitter for their news - and both sources are unreliable, to say the least.

 

I have a Facebook account. I barely post on it (I set it up to see what my kids were up to when they were younger, if I'm honest!) but I do look at it to keep up with what people are doing and to see any messages I have been sent. In the latest election, it struck me that I saw very few dissenting voices in my "news feed". It was dominated by one political point of view which likely reflected the type of people I "friended". I suspect this is true of most people, and it isn't good if we want a balanced view of the world and don't look elsewhere for that balance.

 

We can also find ourselves thinking in a certain way about the world because we see things repeated and because memes can be powerful. But are they true?

 

Let's take the "political hate" and violence thing, as that is what this thread is about. 

 

I believe that there are people at each end of the political spectrum who are violent. There are also people who are violent and/or disturbed, irrespective of their political leanings. They have always been with us and they could be stimulated into violence by the hyperbole and nonsense around the political discourse. However, the vast majority of people are NOT violent, even when they attend political protests. A protest can attract the violent and any violence will attract the media's attention, but I believe that most protesters are peaceful, from all sides.

 

Is the rhetoric from the left violent and hateful? Well, yes, some of it is - and this isn't new. It comes from all sides of the spectrum, left and right. 

 

Yes, there was a version of Caesar put on in Central Park that had Caesar played by a Trump lookalike and that has caused some outrage. It is perhaps interesting to note that this isn't the first time the play has been staged using modern political figures - there was a version while Obama was President with an Obama lookalike and there has even been a version with a female lead, based on Hillary Clinton. It's a way of bringing the play into modern times and make us think about the story in a fresh way. However, as Cicero says in Act 1 Scene 3 "Indeed it is a strange-disposed time; but men may construe things after their fashion, clean from the purpose of the things themselves".

 

What about Kathy Griffin and the severed head? It was poorly judged and wrong, of course. 

 

Is this type of stuff new? Well, let's see ... here are just a couple of examples ...

 

CGStTA8W8AAG_GY.jpg?1433437201pha1nl69s02qbwe.jpg

 

It's not OK when either "side" does it.

 

Has it always been this way and we are only now seeing it on a daily basis because it can be posted up so easily? Maybe. Does that encourage it to escalate so we see more of this kind of stuff? Maybe.

 

Either way, it isn't OK. 

 

But we live in bubbles. Barneyboy says he didn't see anyone on the left condemning the shooting. All I saw was condemnations.

 

Was Scalise the first person to be shot? Well, it brought to mind Gabrielle Giffords back in 2011 who was also shot by a deluded individual. There was some talk at the time that a Sarah Palinl ad could have inspired it - which was nonsense. Linking things that happen around the same time is something people do, but that doesn't mean there is any causal link.

 

So, what's my point? I go back to the start - that there is a problem with political discourse (and with the increasing polarisation of society as we sink into our bubbles). I don't think it is about one side or the other and the vast majority of people are peaceful - but we all need to pay more attention to how we discuss our disagreements and we need to take far greater responsibility to question the memes and spin that surrounds us on a daily basis - to question what we are told and to make ourselves better informed. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said Alistair.  

     

       By the way Joan,  the constitution was written many years after the revolution was over. In the interim we were held together by the articles of confederation. 

        Alistair i had never seen those photos you posted before. I was aware from reading online that Obama attracted his share of wingnuts, but i don't recall anyone of any prominence threatening him with violence or death, whereas today it's almost a daily thing. Well known people publicly threatening Trump almost daily is quite an alarming development to me. I realize they are not going to follow through, but they encourage others to.  I personally would like to see some of these people arrested as a way to dial some of this back. 

         I'm old enough to remember jfk, rfk, mlk, and the ford and  reagan attempts, some of which were successful, and traumatic. 

         

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Barneyboy said:

Hi, Hobo.  Sorry, I missed this one.  You did not disappoint.  I guess that Bernie supporter shooter was only firing a water gun.  Maybe that play with the assassination of Trump didn't happen.  Perhaps, that was a purse being held by Kathy Griffin.  You know, I'm gonna write it off as a coincidence that real shots were fired by a Bernie guy shortly after these displays of terror from the left. 

 

Get a clue.  I was using your concerns to point out that you then turning around and expressing that there's no harm in having "some fun" by hurling insults at Terry McAuliffe (without even spelling his name right), is hypocritical of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kuya said:

Well said Alistair.  

     

       By the way Joan,  the constitution was written many years after the revolution was over. In the interim we were held together by the articles of confederation. 

        Alistair i had never seen those photos you posted before. I was aware from reading online that Obama attracted his share of wingnuts, but i don't recall anyone of any prominence threatening him with violence or death, whereas today it's almost a daily thing. Well known people publicly threatening Trump almost daily is quite an alarming development to me. I realize they are not going to follow through, but they encourage others to.  I personally would like to see some of these people arrested as a way to dial some of this back. 

         I'm old enough to remember jfk, rfk, mlk, and the ford and  reagan attempts, some of which were successful, and traumatic. 

         

 

Well, there was always Ted Nugent and Joe Walsh. I'm not clear that what any of these celebrities said actually amount to "threats" though ...

 

There were, however, a series of real threats (and attempts) ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_threats_against_Barack_Obama

 

As far as the state of the dialogue is concerned, I believe we all (including the current President) share some responsibility for the current atmosphere.

 

a5fba993c071c71aa7a7ca806b4a0c28--republ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kuya said:

 

       By the way Joan,  the constitution was written many years after the revolution was over. In the interim we were held together by the articles of confederation. 

       

Yes, you're right. After the Revolutionary War but before the War of 1812, still touch and go as to whether the colonies would hang together as a nation. If you dispute my larger point, that the Second Amendment was a concession to the South enacted to help preserve slavery, would you be willing to share your reasoning on that? If I'm remembering correctly what I've read, the South pushed for the Second Amendment both as a tool for subordinating slaves and for facilitating duels, which were far more prevalent in Southern than in Northern culture at the time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll tell you how far the climate has worsened in my lifetime. For most of my voting life, it's been more or less true that conservatives think liberals are stupid, and liberals think conservatives are evil. Now, conservatives think liberals are both evil and stupid, while liberals think conservatives are both venomous and vacuous, both dim-witted and duplicitous. I don't know what it'll take to take things back to where they were in the 1990s and the early 2000s.

 

As lately as the George W. Bush years, it seemed to me people could separate their feelings for political leaders from their feelings for those who'd voted them in. We'd give each other a pass, as in, "Okay, you wanted lower taxes, I get it. And you couldn't get them without bringing on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and making promises to the pro-lifers. You give something to get something, I don't like it but you didn't do it; it's not personal between you and me." Similarly, no matter how much conservatives might have hated Bill Clinton, it didn't necessarily poison their feelings toward their liberal friends, families, co-workers. There was still a lot of dating across party lines. In 2017 that's mostly out the window. There's actually a lot of divorce this year along party lines. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We may all live in bubbles, but here in Hawaii, we live in "Tiny Bubbles"

 

But seriously, bubbles, or not, the contemporary rhetoric of this day is pushing people over the edge....whether we are "choosing" to jump, or being subliminally pushed into jumping by insidious remarks, it will continue to get worse if we don't start coming together.

When facing off with pointed fingers, there is always the possibility that one, or both, might go off.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.