Which is it?

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by DarkDefender

Where has Mr. Obama proclaimed that he hates babies and puppies and what policies has he signed or enacted that are leading to the destruction of the US from the inside (Other than the tax cuts for the wealthy and his renewal of the Patriot Act in February of last year)?

He hasn't. It was sarcasm.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by whell

Actually, this response looks like option A. You're tying the shooter to Palin, Angle and Bachman, when no proof of a connection exists. I'm not getting how this is "Option 3."

The direct connection doesn't matter. There appears to be little you do understand. Are you ever going to answer the question?

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Option #3. We as a nation now see what an actual "2nd Amendment remedy" or "watering the tree of freedom" would look like and we're appalled, regardless of the shooter's motivation. Such "solutions" have been advocated by Palin, Angle, Bachmann and others and now they're trying to back away from them with the able assistance of people like Glenn Reynolds.

Exactly. Not everything is black or white.

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by whell

Actually, this response looks like option A. You're tying the shooter to Palin, Angle and Bachman, when no proof of a connection exists. I'm not getting how this is "Option 3."

Well, let me try to field this one.

Think of it like this. That "ground zero mosque". Do you think anyone at that mosque was part of the 9/11 attacks? Of course, we know they weren't. The people who did it are dead. Even more so, this particular group is very much against the radical ideas of some Muslims. Fox even had them on and praised them at one point.

But a lot of Americans oppose them building that mosque because of 9/11. The oppose it because they find similarities in Muslim beliefs in general and the attitudes that brought about 9/11. By your definition, they're linking the people at that mosque with the 9/11 attacks.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

Well, let me try to field this one.

Think of it like this. That "ground zero mosque". Do you think anyone at that mosque was part of the 9/11 attacks? Of course, we know they weren't. The people who did it are dead. Even more so, this particular group is very much against the radical ideas of some Muslims. Fox even had them on and praised them at one point.

But a lot of Americans oppose them building that mosque because of 9/11. The oppose it because they find similarities in Muslim beliefs in general and the attitudes that brought about 9/11. By your definition, they're linking the people at that mosque with the 9/11 attacks.

No, they oppose it because they think the only Good Muslim is a Dead Muslim. They see the world in black and white, on or off, us and them. They're simpletons, Ed. The concept of a "gray area" is beyond their scope of vision.

Dave

[whell]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

Well, let me try to field this one.

Think of it like this. That "ground zero mosque". Do you think anyone at that mosque was part of the 9/11 attacks? Of course, we know they weren't. The people who did it are dead. Even more so, this particular group is very much against the radical ideas of some Muslims. Fox even had them on and praised them at one point.

But a lot of Americans oppose them building that mosque because of 9/11. The oppose it because they find similarities in Muslim beliefs in general and the attitudes that brought about 9/11. By your definition, they're linking the people at that mosque with the 9/11 attacks.

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

No, they oppose it because they think the only Good Muslim is a Dead Muslim. They see the world in black and white, on or off, us and them. They're simpletons, Ed. The concept of a "gray area" is beyond their scope of vision.

Dave

I'm glad we all agree...

[whell]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

The direct connection doesn't matter. There appears to be little you do understand. Are you ever going to answer the question?

Right. As long as the left can continue to cast aspersions on a particular group or subgroup due to an unrelated event, the facts don't seem to matter....

[Fast_Eddie]

Sorry, why did I waste my time trying to explain that? I'm trying to engage in a discussion, but when you quip something like that you make Dave look right. It doesn't seem that you care to understand, you'd rather just argue.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by whell

Right. As long as the left can continue to cast aspersions on a particular group or subgroup due to an unrelated event, the facts don't seem to matter....

unrelated event my ass.

This garbage you post infuriates me so be happy.

Take some personal responsibility buddy.

[finnbow]

Whell, the fact remains that Palin, Bachmann and Angle were all cheerleaders for the 2nd Amendment solution (phrased differently among them). Along of a sudden, a miscreant perceives a politician with whom he has a bitch and he shoots her, demonstrating to the world what a 2nd Amendment solution looks like.

What should the public be doing - continuing to cheer these 3 gals when they allude to the 2nd Amendment solution? No, such demagogues should be shunned. Simple as that.