quote:

Originally posted by TheDisciple:

quote:

Originally posted by RainbowHed:
...and when the young folks in the uniforms come home shot to hell or missing parts, they just have to fade into the woodwork. The parade is over!

...and when the Giants win the Super Bowl, it takes the same NYC mayor Bloomberg that denied returning troops a ticker-tape parade through the Canyon of Heroes two days to throw one together for the Super Bowl winning team of HIS city.

It might have offended someone, ya know.

Here's a story by FOX News about the protests going on in Russia...

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2...ed-as-russia-itself/

Very respectful piece on the struggles by the "little people" of Russia to get their government to hear them and change the power structure to a more people friendly type.

On THIS side of the Big Pond, this is Andrew Breitbart, voice of the right wing, giving his brand of respect towards OUR protesters that are trying to get the government to hear them and change the power structure to a more people friendly type.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...aks-o_n_1270390.html

NOTE: Andrew is inciting a crowd and instead of getting tazed or sprayed with pepper spray, he's gently escorted off after accusing the crowd of being rapists.

quote:

Occupy Supporter Threatens to 'Storm' Wall St. and Capitals with guns in USA Today -

A letter to the editor of USA Today is drawing considerable attention after it calls on protesters to consider using their “Second Amendment-sanctioned guns“ to ”storm Wall Street and our nation’s capitals.”

The author, Rich Latta from Austin, TX, is upset over a USA Today editorial that characterizes the Occupy movement as “fading into a whimper.”

“But with the recent clearing of encampments in Washington, D.C.— one of the last cities in which they still existed — a movement that came in with a bang appears to be going out with a whimper,” that original editorial reads. “Future political operatives might view it as a case study in how not to organize a lasting movement.”

It continues: “They did nothing day after day, week after week, under the mistaken belief that camping in public plazas would prompt some kind of action from others. … The Occupiers lacked identifiable leaders and clear goals. And they presented bewildering messages to the public, epitomized in the irony of people sitting idle to protest those who had made fortunes.”

For Latta, though, that just wouldn’t do.

“Anyone who claims the ‘Occupy’ movement has no clear message is either trying to discredit it or simply isn’t paying attention,” he writes in his response, the passion nearly visible in his keystrokes. “This protest always has been about economic injustice and the fact that a small handful of people have corrupted our system in their favor.”

He then boils over:

quote:

USA TODAY’s editorial is right to say that Occupy might lack clear goals on how to move forward, but the movement has accomplished its main original goal: to protest these injustices, not by simply holding a rally and going home, but by keeping the rally going to underscore the seriousness of this problem. Your piece accuses the protesters of sitting around and doing nothing. So maybe they should take up their Second Amendment-sanctioned guns and storm Wall Street and our nation’s capitals. If our country doesn’t change, it could very well come to that one day. [Emphasis added]

Ironic for a movement that has claimed to be so peaceful to attract someone who would make such a suggestion. And on top of that, it’s worth pointing out the letter is dated February 15, which means it’s over a week old. Jim Treacher explains why that is curious:

quote:

It’s headline news when a Tea Party guy gets arrested for going to the airport and trying to check in an unloaded, registered weapon in a lockbox as part of his luggage.

But an Occupier publishes a letter in a national newspaper about “storming Wall Street” with guns, and I don’t find out about it until a week later. It’s not seen as a credible threat, despite the fact that Occupy’s rap sheet dwarfs that of the Tea Party.

yeah, it's terribly ironic for any movement to attract wackadoos.

When was this letter in USA TODAY?

I found it.

'Occupy' achieved main goal

Anyone who claims the "Occupy" movement has no clear message is either trying to discredit it or simply isn't paying attention. This protest always has been about economic injustice and the fact that a small handful of people have corrupted our system in their favor ("Editorial: 'Occupy' movement fading out in a whimper").

The fact that so many elites were alarmed and frightened by the initial outcry (including members of Congress, who are supposed to represent all the people — shame on them!) goes to show that they are in fact living in a house of cards.

USA TODAY's editorial is right to say that Occupy might lack clear goals on how to move forward, but the movement has accomplished its main original goal: to protest these injustices, not by simply holding a rally and going home, but by keeping the rally going to underscore the seriousness of this problem. Your piece accuses the protesters of sitting around and doing nothing. So maybe they should take up their Second Amendment-sanctioned guns and storm Wall Street and our nation's capitals. If our country doesn't change, it could very well come to that one day.

Rich Latta; Austin

Dude can't read for context?

why am I asking....

key words: "IF and MAYBE and COULD"

quote:

Originally posted by podunk:
I found it.

What I posted above linked to the original USAToday piece Rich was responding to...as well as Rich Latta's response:

quote:

“Anyone who claims the ‘Occupy’ movement has no clear message is either trying to discredit it or simply isn’t paying attention,” he writes in his response, the passion nearly visible in his keystrokes. “This protest always has been about economic injustice and the fact that a small handful of people have corrupted our system in their favor.”

He then boils over:

quote:

USA TODAY’s editorial is right to say that Occupy might lack clear goals on how to move forward, but the movement has accomplished its main original goal: to protest these injustices, not by simply holding a rally and going home, but by keeping the rally going to underscore the seriousness of this problem. Your piece accuses the protesters of sitting around and doing nothing. So maybe they should take up their Second Amendment-sanctioned guns and storm Wall Street and our nation’s capitals. If our country doesn’t change, it could very well come to that one day. [Emphasis added]

quote:

So maybe they should take up their Second Amendment-sanctioned guns and storm Wall Street and our nation's capitals. If our country doesn't change, it could very well come to that one day.

Please read for context. I am fairly confident that this sentence does not pass the "threat" test which is what FBI and police officers would use to determine if the author merited investigation.

Compared to the actual plots, assassination attempts, vandalism, and real terroristic threats from various militia groups associated with Tea Party, this one person's letter is rather mild. Not sure why you think it's so heinous.

quote:

Originally posted by glitterbootygirl:
Please read for context. I am fairly confident that this sentence does not pass the "threat" test which is what FBI and police officers would use to determine if the author merited investigation.

Compared to the actual plots, assassination attempts, vandalism, and real terroristic threats from various militia groups associated with Tea Party, this one person's letter is rather mild. Not sure why you think it's so heinous.

I love your deflecting excuses, they are always humorous..."this guy said maybe and should and if and could, geesh, no threat here". Its an implication of action that could get those to see them as serious in their belief. It is suggestive speak. By your logic...if someone said something should be done against a top government official if their beliefs don't change, it could very well come that one day...would not be a threat. As all the should's, if's and could's are in there.

quote:

Originally posted by TheDisciple:

quote:

Originally posted by glitterbootygirl:
Please read for context. I am fairly confident that this sentence does not pass the "threat" test which is what FBI and police officers would use to determine if the author merited investigation.

Compared to the actual plots, assassination attempts, vandalism, and real terroristic threats from various militia groups associated with Tea Party, this one person's letter is rather mild. Not sure why you think it's so heinous.

I love your deflecting excuses, they are always humorous..."this guy said maybe and should and if and could, geesh, no threat here". Its an implication of action that could get those to see them as serious in their belief. It is suggestive speak. By your logic...if someone said something should be done against a top government official if their beliefs don't change, it could very well come that one day...would not be a threat. As all the should's, if's and could's are in there.

Your responses are always so emotional when you haven't read for context.

CONTEXT is everything.

The definition of a terroristic threat is not what that guy wrote. Go talk to some FBI agents.

He's talking about the whole government and the whole business world, not an individual, and the threat is not direct nor stated.

CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING

And you just added a hypothetical at the end of your post that isn't analogous.

As I stated, compared to the actual threats, the plots to murder LEOs, the assassination plots, the vandalism etc from militia groups associated with Tea Party, this guy's letter is rather mild.

Compare that guy to this Tea Party leader, wouldja?

quote:

A couple days ago, Mark D. Quick threatened a couple of legislators on a Sussex County blog:

My tomahalk and musket….. Remember gloves off… I never put any on… May’s Tea Party meeting should have sent a clear message attack us we don’t back down…. The Republican Party is not going to control our groups… While failures like Gary and Alison allow our communities to be subjected to the UN and keep allowing our country to be stolen for foreign interests… Agenda 21 I guess you traitors should be glad its not 1776….. Great great great great great great Uncle Tom would have known how to handle you…. To bad Tomahalks and muskets went out of fashion…
This isn’t anything new for candidate Quick, who is running with RoseAnn Salanitri for Assembly. Last year, Quick ran for Congress against Congressman Scott Garrett (NJ-5). During his campaign, Quick so harassed the Congressman’s office staff that the police had to be called. In addition to this, a debate had to be cancelled last year because of “security concerns”. The Express-Times reported (10/27/10):

Or how about a little Allen West (dontcha love the smell of napalm, man, the screen melts when this guy's words are on it)

...snip....West's latest outburst: that President Barack Obama will lose the 2012 election in a brutal bloodbath, was shocking to some. But it's pretty standard fare for the Florida Congressman, who called on his supporters to "gather their muskets" and go to Washington to throw the "tyrant" Obama out of office. ...snip.....

And this just makes me cry, Gabby Giffords on the Violent Tea Party rhetoric (before she was shot) and yes, I know the guy that shot her wasn't with the Tea Party, but Giffords was one of ten Dems targeted with threats and violence for their vote on health care

Now srsly disc, you think that LTE is anywhere close to all the evidence of threats and violence I just posted? You might want to start reading for context.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: glitterbootygirl,

quote:

Originally posted by TheDisciple:

quote:

Occupy Supporter Threatens to 'Storm' Wall St. and Capitals with guns in USA Today -

A letter to the editor of USA Today is drawing considerable attention after it calls on protesters to consider using their “Second Amendment-sanctioned guns“ to ”storm Wall Street and our nation’s capitals.”

The author, Rich Latta from Austin, TX, is upset over a USA Today editorial that characterizes the Occupy movement as “fading into a whimper.”

“But with the recent clearing of encampments in Washington, D.C.— one of the last cities in which they still existed — a movement that came in with a bang appears to be going out with a whimper,” that original editorial reads. “Future political operatives might view it as a case study in how not to organize a lasting movement.”

It continues: “They did nothing day after day, week after week, under the mistaken belief that camping in public plazas would prompt some kind of action from others. … The Occupiers lacked identifiable leaders and clear goals. And they presented bewildering messages to the public, epitomized in the irony of people sitting idle to protest those who had made fortunes.”

For Latta, though, that just wouldn’t do.

“Anyone who claims the ‘Occupy’ movement has no clear message is either trying to discredit it or simply isn’t paying attention,” he writes in his response, the passion nearly visible in his keystrokes. “This protest always has been about economic injustice and the fact that a small handful of people have corrupted our system in their favor.”

He then boils over:

quote:

USA TODAY’s editorial is right to say that Occupy might lack clear goals on how to move forward, but the movement has accomplished its main original goal: to protest these injustices, not by simply holding a rally and going home, but by keeping the rally going to underscore the seriousness of this problem. Your piece accuses the protesters of sitting around and doing nothing. So maybe they should take up their Second Amendment-sanctioned guns and storm Wall Street and our nation’s capitals. If our country doesn’t change, it could very well come to that one day. [Emphasis added]

Ironic for a movement that has claimed to be so peaceful to attract someone who would make such a suggestion. And on top of that, it’s worth pointing out the letter is dated February 15, which means it’s over a week old. Jim Treacher explains why that is curious:

quote:

It’s headline news when a Tea Party guy gets arrested for going to the airport and trying to check in an unloaded, registered weapon in a lockbox as part of his luggage.

But an Occupier publishes a letter in a national newspaper about “storming Wall Street” with guns, and I don’t find out about it until a week later. It’s not seen as a credible threat, despite the fact that Occupy’s rap sheet dwarfs that of the Tea Party.

Considerable attention from you and The Blaze.

quote:

Originally posted by glitterbootygirl:
And this just makes me cry, Gabby Giffords on the Violent Tea Party rhetoric (before she was shot) and yes, I know the guy that shot her wasn't with the Tea Party, but Giffords was one of ten Dems targeted with threats and violence for their vote on health care

Now srsly disc, you think that LTE is anywhere close to all the evidence of threats and violence I just posted? You might want to start reading for context.

Again, you excuse everything from the left, its a tiresome rhetoric from you that just has no bite. Look at what you do here, the guy wasn't a part of the Tea Party, yet it is still their fault because of their rhetoric you claim was there, but a guy that wasn't part of their group, didn't follow their group, was still prompted by them. Plus, the entire argument about the Gifford and being on someones list was already brought out a year ago:

quote:

Originally posted by TheDisciple:
From January 6th, 2011 on the Daily Kos:


Huh...someone that worked on Gifford's campaign "like a dog" writes something and titles it "My CongressWOMAN voted against Nancy Pelosi! And is now DEAD to me!"

Ewww, what about when Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos that had his "bulls eye" on Gifford back in June 2008? I believe his exact words were "Not all of these people will get or even deserve primaries, but this vote certainly puts a bulls eye on their district..." Oddly enough he was one of the first to point the finger at Palin's "crosshair's"...forgetting that above in 2008 was stated by him. He also stated in 2008 that "Well, I'd argue that we can narrow the target list by looking at those Democrats who sold out the Constitution last week. I've bolded members of the Blue Dogs for added emphasis." In this list in bold was Rep. Gabrielle Giffords name.


What about back in 2004 the DNC's use of a "Targeting Strategy"?


What about this montage of the lefts call for civil unrest:
The Left Calls for American Civil Unrest Riots...VanJones, Frances Fox Piven...

Interesting....but, I suppose this isn't the first you've heard of this as well...

So excuse it all you like, its becoming a joke that to you the left are immune because they aren't the right...nice try...

Now we're moving the goalposts and taking on the whole left vs. right rhetoric? I thought we were talking about the LTE you posted which you thought was soooo heinous.

Now in re: to this part of your post, once again you did not read for context. You said:

quote:

Again, you excuse everything from the left, its a tiresome rhetoric from you that just has no bite. Look at what you do here, the guy wasn't a part of the Tea Party, yet it is still their fault because of their rhetoric you claim was there, but a guy that wasn't part of their group, didn't follow their group, was still prompted by them.

What I said (paraphrasing)was "I know the guy that shot her was not part of the Tea Party, HOWEVER she was on the receiving end of threats for her vote on Health Care." Did you view her youtube video? She's BLAMING the Tea Party for the THREATS against her and 9 other Dems (this obviously happened prior to her shooting, listen to her! She can speak! She has long hair!). I did not blame the Tea Party for shooting her, good grief, I do wish you would read the posts and attempt to garner the context.

In re: to Gabby Giffords' former employee: "He's dead to me" means "He no longer exists in my world". Apparently you did not understand the context of the metaphor and took it literally? You might want to look up some common metaphors that have the word "dead" in them. Like "a dead ringer, dead to the world, dead and buried, dead on arrival"...all of these metaphors usually do NOT mean a person is actually NOT ALIVE, or worse, KILLED.

And the montage, so what? If you want to open a thread on whether the left is worse than the right I can prove you wrong, and I have done it, repeatedly, in the past. THIS thread was supposed to be about OWS and I was responding to the point of debate you raised about the OWSer who wrote such a "threatening" LTE. No he didn't. What he wrote was rhetoric but it was pretty mild compared to what Tea Party leaders have been dishing for several years.

We can all see who and what is a joke, "nice try" blah blah blah