Democrat Congresswoman Calls Millions Of Americans "Domestic Security Threats"

[HomerThompson]

Whereas I think you're purposefully misinterpreting fairly standard rhetoric. Most every time I've heard someone giving a speech about "fighting" something I've understood that it doesn't mean literal violence. So what violence are you expecting?




Can't imagine how you continue to be confused. The bet is being offered because when push comes to shove I don't believe that you believe this was a call to arms. If you don't believe violence will ensue in some capacity then that indicates you're full of shit.

Also, I don't expect people to go shoot up the NY Times now, but I expect delusional Trumpers to go buy more guns and ammo to protect freedom from people with different ideas than theirs.

 

[HomerThompson]

Don't gov't officials have a civil right not to be criticized?

Seriously, if the NRA was actually just about protecting people's right to own guns, what she said would be right. But obviously, it's more about promoting hatred for certain groups.

In order to stoke fear and drive gun sales.

 

[Jack V Savage]

No, they are a pro Second Amendment rights lobby.

"They use their media to assassinate real news. They use their schools to teach children that their president is another Hitler. They use their movie stars and singers and award shows to repeat their narrative over and over again. And then they use their ex-president to endorse the resistance. All to make them march, make them protest, make them scream racism and sexism and xenophobia and homophobia and smash windows, burn cars, shut down interstates and airports, bully and terrorize the law abiding — until the only option left is for police to do their jobs and stop the madness.

And when that happens, they’ll use it as an excuse for their outrage."

What part of that is about defending the Second Amendment? Who are "they"?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

There is zero confusion on my part. It is a call to arms but I didn't claim it would be successful and I didn't say NRA member types are going to start shooting people over it. My bet is gun sales get a bump, which have been stagnant since Rs took power.

I can believe that a message is shit and dangerous without predicting the end of civilization. I've said this to you before but you can ask for my views and avoid confusing yourself and jumping to conclusions.

If it's not successful than that's pretty good evidence that the target audience has a clearer understanding of the message than you do. Some call to violence when it results in no violence.

Kinda dumb thing to say if you're conflating some act of violence occurring with "predicting the end of civilization".

 

[spamking]

I guess it's not enough to teach gun safety, hunting and shooting for sport.

At least you acknowledge that they teach gun safety. Thanks . . .

 

[Nihongi]

Note she says "going to fisk" and not "going to fist" to old grey hag.

At first I was like


Then I was like

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Not only did Hitler continue it, he expanded it.

But his worst crime of all, was when he weaponized the nationalized Healthcare System against his political opposition.

Honest question, how do you personally arrived at the conclusion that the Nazi party was not socialist?

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.

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.

 

[kpt018]

"They use their media to assassinate real news. They use their schools to teach children that their president is another Hitler. They use their movie stars and singers and award shows to repeat their narrative over and over again. And then they use their ex-president to endorse the resistance. All to make them march, make them protest, make them scream racism and sexism and xenophobia and homophobia and smash windows, burn cars, shut down interstates and airports, bully and terrorize the law abiding — until the only option left is for police to do their jobs and stop the madness.

And when that happens, they’ll use it as an excuse for their outrage."

What part of that is about defending the Second Amendment? Who are "they"?

Interesting choice in the word "assassinate" too. I'm sure that was just a verbal preference...

 

[HomerThompson]

Guns are a civil right and the NRA is very active politically. Now who's being the dullard?

That's not what they do. Their primary purpose isn't to protect the rights of gun owners, it's to sell guns.

 

[kpt018]

If it's not successful than that's pretty good evidence that the target audience has a clearer understanding of the message than you do. Some call to violence when it results in no violence.

Kinda dumb thing to say if you're conflating some act of violence occurring with "predicting the end of civilization".

Terrible conclusion. I can tell people to go murder liberals and if no one listens it doesn't change the meaning of my message.

 

[dontsnitch]

The first video is pretty bad. The one where she says "fisk" (not fist), a word that I, and certainly her target audience, never heard of before, is unremarkable.

It's definitely subjective. It's "bad", but I don't think it's anywhere near criminal.

There is a lot of bias here. For instance, the Loretta Lynch video where she references blood in the streets was at least just as bad as this one. Can we find anyone here that agrees both videos are equally problematic?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Interesting choice in the word "assassinate" too. I'm sure that was just a verbal preference...

It goes on, too. But I like how someone is "using" Obama and he's "their" ex-president. He's the former president of America. There are lots of American gun owners who don't see things this way, and clearly the NRA is not representing them.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I'm sorry you see providing an accurate transcript of what was said for those who might not have heard or seen it as disingenuous. You're free to be wrong about that too.

I'm not sure if you're just acting stupid or if its congenital? Do we need a poll @pcptornado?

There is a reason commercials aren't released as text.

 

[spamking]

Don't gov't officials have a civil right not to be criticized?

Seriously, if the NRA was actually just about protecting people's right to own guns, what she said would be right. But obviously, it's more about promoting hatred for certain groups.

What do you think the NRA does more . . . promote the 2nd or promote hate?

 

[Anung Un Rama]

It's definitely subjective. It's "bad", but I don't think it's anywhere near criminal.

There is a lot of bias here. For instance, the Loretta Lynch video where she references blood in the streets was at least just as bad as this one. Can we find anyone here that agrees both videos are equally problematic?

Lynch's video didn't have propaganda footage spliced in for effect.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

"They use their media to assassinate real news. They use their schools to teach children that their president is another Hitler. They use their movie stars and singers and award shows to repeat their narrative over and over again. And then they use their ex-president to endorse the resistance. All to make them march, make them protest, make them scream racism and sexism and xenophobia and homophobia and smash windows, burn cars, shut down interstates and airports, bully and terrorize the law abiding — until the only option left is for police to do their jobs and stop the madness.

And when that happens, they’ll use it as an excuse for their outrage."

What part of that is about defending the Second Amendment? Who are "they"?

I think the NRA is correct in pointing out an agenda driven culture war, in which one side opposes Second Amendment rights for Americans.

I think there's a shocking amount of hypocrisy in response to this ad (, well, not shocking). The amount of violent imagery and rhetoric being aimed at Trump specifically and republicans in general has been shocking, and it's led to actual violence, riots, and assassination attempts. And now you are clutching your pearls over a relatively innocuous ad from a group with no historical ties to violent extremism?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

That's not what they do. Their primary purpose isn't to protect the rights of gun owners, it's to sell guns.

They are active in promoting a civil right. You can't narrate that away.

Terrible conclusion. I can tell people to go murder liberals and if no one listens it doesn't change the meaning of my message.

Terrible rebuttal. Can you be more absurd than comparing yourself to a national organization with millions of dues-paying members? Have a nice day dude.

 

[spamking]

I'm not sure if you're just acting stupid or if its congenital? Do we need a poll @pcptornado?

There is a reason commercials aren't released as text.

Take your snarky comments and shove it . . . folks in this thread are all being equally stubborn.

Yet nearly every story trying to portray the ad as one inciting violence and hate provided said transcript . . . heck @Jack V Savage even used it to try and make a point . . .

 

[dontsnitch]

Lynch's video didn't have propaganda footage spliced in for effect.

I have too many people on ignore that I must be missing some videos. I only saw the one video. I'd argue that it's no more or less problematic than the Lynch video in terms of language.

 

[kpt018]

Terrible rebuttal. Can you be more absurd than comparing yourself to a national organization with millions of dues-paying members? Have a nice day dude.

Jeez, you're fucking dense.

I am not comparing myself to the NRA. I gave you an example of a case where the message remains unchanged regardless of it's effectiveness. I tried to dumb it down for you but I guess even that isn't enough.