‘Civil’ Discourse: A One-Way Street?
In the wake of the attempted murder of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, and the murders of six of her constituents who went to see her at a local Safeway grocery store, the American people have been hearing a lot about the need to return to “civility” in our political discourse.
What exactly does that mean? It depends upon whom you ask.
Within hours after the horrific event perpetrated by Jared Lee Loughner, left-wing pundits accused Sarah Palin of being behind his lunacy — because she (or her staff) had posted a map of Democrats who had voted for ObamaCare on her Facebook page. Each “offending” district on the map appeared to be marked by a set of crosshairs. To think that she actually wanted to have these individuals eliminated, not just voted out of office, is almost as crazy as Loughner’s act — but that didn’t stop those who have had Palin in their own “crosshairs” from creating the connection.
With a majority saying that right-wing political speech had nothing to do with Loughner’s actions, the American people aren’t buying the spin. Unfortunately, those with the agenda are the ones whose voices get the airtime. And, of course, it’s morphed from just blaming Sarah Palin (who seems to have replaced George W. Bush as the scapegoat for everything that goes wrong under the sun) to blaming the Tea Party, conservative talk radio, and blogs.
And yet, despite evidence that politics had nothing to do with the politically unaffiliated Loughner’s hatred of Giffords — which seems to go back as far as 2007 — Palin has not only been pilloried for her so-called culpability in the case. Remarkably, she has also been attacked for inserting herself into the tragedy by defending herself against these public attacks. What was she supposed to do, bend over and say, “Thank you sir, may I have another?”
Bingo.
Let there be no doubt: Whenever we hear about the need for more “civil” political discourse, it usually has to do with trying to stifle speech to the right of center. It’s all about shutting up the competition. Thus those who criticize Barack Obama are called racists — one of the worst things one can be called in our society — and charismatic conservative politicians are blamed for horrific acts of violence by deranged individuals.
But where’s the call for civility when conservatives are attacked by their liberal counterparts in the name of public discourse? Michelle Malkin put together a comprehensive list of much of the anger and hyperbole offered by the left over the last decade, and the Media Research Center has helpfully compiled a list of death wishes made by mainstream media figures against conservatives. This one in particular is a gem:
So, Michele, slit your wrist! Go ahead! I mean, you know, why not? I mean, if you want to — or, you know, do us all a better thing. Move that knife up about 2 feet. I mean, start right at the collarbone. — Montel Williams, talking about Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., on Air America’s “Montel Across America,” Sept. 2, 2009.
Interestingly enough, when the left-wing blogosphere put Rep. Giffords in their own set of “crosshairs,” nary a peep was heard.
The call for a “civil” discourse is a diversion and a danger.
The real public policy issue raised by Loughner is how we handle the mentally ill. The real scandal about Loughner is how the Tuscon sheriff totally failed his job. The real images to recall from the pep rally that was suppose to be a memorial were the collectivist slogan “Together We Strive” and Obama’s failure to call the noisily supportive crowd to order while he gave his overly long address.
The response of “you’re not being civil” is too easy when a hard but fair hitting statement is made. Expect “liberals” (actually, they’re left wing facsists) to use the response when “conservatives” (actually, they’re classical liberals with traditionalist values) expose the political left.
Obama’s declaration of “I won” is all we need to know about this inflatable puppet. It illustrated his absolute depth of character.
From William F. Buckley’s book; “God And Man at Yale”, first published in 1951:
“I myself believe that the duel between Christianity and atheism is the most important in the world. I further believe that the struggle between individualism and collectivism is the same struggle reproduced on another level. I believe that if and when the menace of Communism is gone, other vital battles, at present subordinated, will emerge to the foreground.”
No offense to Buckley or the religious but those two battles are not connected in a cause and affect manner. Perhaps there is some correlation in that there are probably more non-religious on the left than on the right but there are many non-religious people who are fiercely individualistic and many religious people who think like collectivists. The significant battle of our time is individualism versus collectivism or runaway statism versus a limited government that protects and enables freedom.
I was searching for the quote that “we will miss communism”, but, this seemed appropriate even though the flack was so loud at the introduction. Perhaps if I do this:
My intent will be more obvious.
Buckley could be circumlocutory, making it difficult to nail down his precise target. Or making it easy for someone to get distracted.
yes the left are always trying to quiet the conservative voice (which is by far the majority voice in the USA)
…and the vulgar show called a memorial, where the president uses as a campaign stop with both the left and left of centre right call a great speech by the usurper president.
enough ….the bag of wind AKA as Barry should not have come to the memorial. it should have had enough class to just make a two minute speech from washington …right after it happen and then SHUT the F2%k up.
President Obama’s mentor and spiritual adviser speaks out on love and tolerance:
Advance copy of Jeremiah Wright sermon for January 16, 2011:
Brothers and sisters, as we gather here today, we must consider the cancer of hatred that consumes this country, we must face the cancer of hatred that consumes this country and we must defeat the cancer of hatred that eats away at this country! Now, you may be asking yourselves, how can we defeat the hatred that is festering like an infected boil stuck on the end of your nose? There is only one way, my brothers and sisters, that we can defeat hatred, and that is with MORE HATRED! That’s right, you heard me, we have got to OUT-HATE THE HATERS!
Sometimes a fire gets out of control, and it burns and burns and burns up everything, just like that cow of Mrs. O’Leary’s that burned down this fine city that one time (and you KNOW that them O’Learys were white folks!) and it gets so bad there is only one way to fight it: You have to FIGHT FIRE WITH FIRE! Hear me, my brothers and sisters! You cannot overcome evil with good, you have to overcome evil with even stronger evil! That’s in the Bible! Don’t bother looking, I already looked it up for you, just give me an AMEN! Can I get an AMEN!
Okay, here’s how it is. Out there we got the Tea-Baggers, we got Sarah Palin, we got Rush Limbaugh, we got Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, Fox News and a whole new bunch of white devils who even have a couple of Uncle Toms taking Congress away from our beloved Democrat Party! And how did they do it? Through HATE, that’s how. They’re hate is killing people in Arizona. It’s killing people in Afghanistan. It’s killing people in Iraq. It’s killing people in North Korea, Syria, Cuba, Lybia, Venezuela and Russia! And if we don’t get our own hate on, it’s going to kill us too! We have got to have a stronger HATE than their hate. We have to get rid of this foolish notion of loving our enemies. We have got to HATE our enemies, because their chickens are coming home to roost! AMEN and AMEN! And we have got to take those chickens by the feet and beat those white devils and ofays to death with them…. Read the rest here…. http://beautifulletters-bls.blogspot.com/2011/01/jeremiah-wright-preaches-on-love-and.html
What a crazy SOB. Somebody put him in a round, rubber room. Sheesh.
Please follow the link. Beautiful Letters is a satire site. I don’t want people to use citations from there as if they were true. It weakens our case. Enjoy the brilliant satire, but recognize it for what it is.
It’s satire. Wright didn’t write it. It’s a fake. Try googling it.
Is this guy an ordained minister? Did he go to School or just get a social promotion?
*shakes head in disbelief*
Make an effort to google it and you’ll discover that is satire. It not written by wright, it’s written by this guy:
http://beautifulletters-bls.blogspot.com/
So, did you know that?
Guys? Any comment?
Hello?
For the Left there are no ethical standards. “Good”, and “right” are what helps them seize or keep power.
Sometimes when things are so unreasonable and outrageous is better not to respond but under the progressives relentless “campaign of the absurd’ to cash-in in the Tucson criminal event, it as a good option to treat them with satire. Relegating it only to its Facebook section of his main page, http://www.robbingamerica.com comments on “The Lizard of Arizona” which turns out to be an illegal alien from Australia with a “blue tongue”. Picture included.
We’re talking about these issues as if the premises the anti-liberty extremists keep bringing up had any legitimacy. Once we bite, they have won the argument.
Sarah Palin said it best: “Don’t retreat, reload.” There is no need to have a ‘legitimate disagreement’ anymore. We know the enemy, and they have made their goals perfectly clear.
The conservatives – I prefer Americans – have tried to have a civil discourse for … God knows how long, and the end result is the destruction of our country.
The hate is unbelievable.
We ought not to give in one more inch.
Agree 100%. The left has to learn that nothing works. Not tantrums. Not insults. Not unctuous sermons. Not lies. Not crocodile tears. Not slurs. Not mock executions. Not death threats. Not bowdlerized history. Nothing.
C’mon, get Dave S. to tell you about the right to hate. He’s got it down pat.
I hate Illinois Nazis.
Trying to make sense out of an insane act is its own form of insanity.
If people who committed murder were the type of people who obeyed indirect rhetoric they heard then it is far more likely they would obey all the rhetoric about NOT killing people that is infinitely more common in America than supposedly veiled or entirely rhetorical semantics.
What imperative are people more likely to obey, one where a mock assassination video is trotted out or someone hung in effigy and other totally indirect forms of disdain or repeated and specific injunctions from all sectors of society to not harm people?
This entire debate is cripplingly stupid. The act of murder is its own argument that such people who commit it listen to nothing.
Civil discourse is the same as his call for Bipartisanship in the last election. It means shut up and do what I tell you. The only thing that has changed is that the left got spanked and they will use any opening to silence and discourse. That is all they can do since any real discourse would just show how insane their objectives are.
The only reason the left is calling for “civil discourse” is they are losing badly in the war of political rhetoric. The left would rather turn back the calendar to when there was no Fox News, internet or Talk Radio, back to when the corrupt and heavily biased traditional media was king. Now that the American people have not only soundly rejected the Marxist political agenda of the left, but have discredited their phoney media as well, it is far too late to return to the “good old days” of unchallenged leftist lies and deceit.
Bulls eye!Oops; PC bans all references to targets, even though one big Target is a store. Er, um, er; you present an intelligent analysis of a complex paradigm that might be described using a number of nuanced memes. Your comments drive
a screwan inclined plane rotated about a central axis, through the left’s attempt to shut down opposing speech.Puhlease! The false-flag-er-flogging of Sarah Palin in the name of bringing “Civil Discourse” is a big, fat J-O-K-E.
There is not ONE “Progressive/Lefty” asshat who could live up to “Civil Discourse” ever, which is why this is so utterly laughable! They [the prog-trogs] would tie themselves in knots if they had to hold their own tongues and self-edit/self-monitor/self-censor their own words.
Can you just imagine the psychos like ‘Michael Moore/Wanda Sykes/Reverend Wright/Frances Fox Piven/Louis Farrakhan/The New Black Panthers/et al’ having to STFU? Never gonna happen.
A couple years ago when they were pushing the Fairness Doctrine, Rush Limbaugh said that if it went through, he wanted to be the first Conservative to speak on NPR.
If they keep pushing this, then they should be given a list of which Conservatives to have on MSNBC. O’Reilly on Countdown. Glenn Beck on Hardball.
It doesn’t work like that, unfortunately. They put a conservative straw-man like Tucker Carlson who makes idiotic, caricature conservative arguments, that are shot down by the sensible liberal, and that is what passes for equal time. They would probably couch Stephen Colbert as an actual conservative in their dog and pony show.
In fact, I think Conservatives should beat them to the punch. Hire actors to play liberals on their shows.
I think you have a splendid idea; And call it MSNBC2; “Main Stream Nut Ball Conversation”. They have no hesitation in stealing or plagiarism.
Ms. Meister:
When all is said and done, it’s ALWAYS all about the STFU, ain’t it?
The ‘calls for civility’ have only come about because “Shut up, racist!” wasn’t working. And just like the “You’re a racist” slurs were ignored so should this empty talk of ‘civility’ be. Especially when it’s clear the left won’t act with civility in return.
“The ‘calls for civility’ have only come about because “Shut up, racist!” wasn’t working.”
Thank you; you made my day
Ms. Meister why will you watch this year’s address at all..?
You already know the kind of person Mr. Obama is.
You know that will never change.
When you watch Mr. Obama on TV you are also supporting the network and station advertising sponsors that pay for his time.
If you and I and every decent American citizen refused to even turn on the TV or tune into the event on a radio, that means that literally millions of people will have simultaneously sent the same message to those sponsors.
That message is, “You support him and his ilk and we; the American people will shut you down – put you out of business in less than one hour flat.”
Why not?
Civil political discourse began its rampage in the mid 1950s. That is when citizens, folks sat on the rumps and let one woman, one woman succeed in throwing God out of our school system and start the ball rolling on 5 straight decades of virtually silent civil discourse while liberal democrats, International Socialists ripped and shredded every decent, blood earned part of our country into pieces that are too small to even make fish bait with them.
In short, we gave the bastards all of the civil political discourse that they needed to destroy us.
Now they want more, right?
Guess what?
Sitting down with each other during Obama’s address as an act of “civil political discourse” is an outright insult to those who elected you and to our country. You will be embracing the very poppycock and rubbish that you were elected to get rid of.
You are now on the People’s time Congress. Use it wisely! Their patience is growing very thin.
I am encouraged by the events this week. I detect a bellwether: the attempt to Krugman the story about the murders in Arizona was exposed as fraudulent and subsequently ineffective.
Accusing innocent people of a murder you know they did not commit is an action properly called a “blood libel” and has no place in American politics.
Civil discourse is a worthy goal. Unfortunately, those who need to lead the way, lack the capacity for it.
Looks to me like the Obama Regime wants ‘Tunisian’ discourse.
“With a majority saying that right-wing political speech had nothing to do with Loughner’s actions, the American people aren’t buying the spin.”
I’m sorry, but that really isn’t what that poll says. According to gallup the same percentage of people believed that heated rhetoric was probably a factor influencing the shooter. But there is a majority who believe that public focus on CONSERVATIVE rhetoric is MOSTLY an attempt to embarrass conservatives. I think there independent results – you can’t just combine them to make conclusions you happen to like, particularly when another question shows 53% of respondents believing that republican rhetoric had gone “too far”.
I really don’t think you can conclude from those results that most americans believe that conservative rhetoric “had nothing to do with” the shooting. Not even if you squint. At least – not on the 11th of Jan.
And there’s an obvious problem I see with the conservative response to this. You guys want to make the focus entirely sarah palin (which liberals aren’t doing) and you want to make out that this shooting was the only (alleged) consequence of heated rhetoric – and it isn’t, as liberals keep trying to tell you. It’s just the one that threw the problem into the national spotlight.
We already know of attempted violence that was pretty darn obviously motivated by glenn beck. And the secret service (allegedly) reported a huge spike in threats against obama (as candidate) after the palin and glenn beck started pushing an “anti-american”, “palling around with terrorists” line against obama. The congressional research service has claimed that the secret service was seeing (in 2009) a 400% increase in the number of threats against the president and members of congress. It was apparently considered normal behavior (until mccain grew a pair) to shout things like “kill him” and “treason” and “he’s a n—-” at mccain/palin rallies. How is this rational? How is that civilised, or even democratic?
Congressmen are being directly threatened at a greater rate than before – and they believe it’s due to the level or anger being (deliberately) stoked by the far right (I wouldn’t personally call them the far right, but they’re terms you’d understand).
What’s most strange here is that the same far right is going ballistic in an attempt to try to hold on to that tactic. They COULD say “oh, crap, jeeze, we’re really sorry – but you guys are just as bad, so how about we ALL tone it down” but they’re not. As david brock (aptly) points out – making people irrationally angry is palin’s business model. She makes money from that, and so does beck. It’s their entire strategy. Without that, they’ve got nothing.
Oh, it’s very Democratic, Matthew.
“And there’s an obvious problem I see with the conservative response to this. You guys want to make the focus entirely sarah palin (which liberals aren’t doing) and you want to make out that this shooting was the only (alleged) consequence of heated rhetoric – and it isn’t, as liberals keep trying to tell you. It’s just the one that threw the problem into the national spotlight.”
Sorry Matthew, I did not get the memo.
Is this the new line we are pushing?
Andy
“And there’s an obvious problem I see with the conservative response to this. You guys want to make the focus entirely sarah palin (which liberals aren’t doing) and you want to make out that this shooting was the only (alleged) consequence of heated rhetoric – and it isn’t, as liberals keep trying to tell you. It’s just the one that threw the problem into the national spotlight.”
Is this the new line we are pushing?
Most of the posters on this site are, yes. I don’t see any threads about a spike in threats to congressmen (mostly on the left) going back to the last presidential elections and if you were to rely on this site for your information you’d have to conclude that the only person in the US who is accused to heated rhetoric is sarah palin. You’d also have to conclude that the “heated rhetoric” begun and ended with a map containing crosshairs. Unless you could obama’s “gun to a knife fight” comment, of course.
So yes, that is the line you’re pushing. Any time anyone says “cool the rhetoric” somebody says “stop picking on palin”.
You want civility from the Right?
Then the Left must consistently act with intellectual honesty, instead of seeking to expand their power/further their agenda by any means necessary.
Progressive intellectual dishonesty is what has inspired the anger … a righteous anger, for we have tried civility in the past, only to have the intellectually dishonest exploit it to further the Progressive agenda, at the expense of our liberty and ability to pursue happiness.
We have learned the hard way, that civility in response to intellectual dishonesty is counterproductive to the defense of liberty.
It’s real simple …
WE’LL STOP THE YELLIN’ … WHEN Y’ALL STOP THE LYIN’!
That’s a completely meaningless post. As far as I can tell, you’ll stop yellin’ when the left ceases to contest elections, and not before.
Meaningless?
Matthew, I’ll stop yellin’ when the Left exhibits the honesty needed to admit that their proclivity to centralize power in the hands of a few Best and Brightest has not worked as advertised time and time and again … and that it is a greater threat to their and my personal liberty than the PATRIOT Act.
I’ll stop yellin’ when they admit that their proclivity for growing government INCREASES the opportunities for the crony capitalism that leads to the very corporate “oppression” they decry.
I’ll stop yellin’ when they apologize for miring millions in intergenerational poverty in the name of a Great Society, by promising to solve peoples’ problems FOR them … and creating a safety-net that for some is more comfortable than going out and solving their problems.
I’ll stop yellin’ when they promote energy policies that do not consider the laws of physics and economics, but are driven by political correctness … and when they show some understanding that a strong economy fosters environmental protection; when people start to wonder where their next meal is coming from, they’re more likely to fillet Willy than free him.
I’ll stop yellin’ when they admit that leaving Saddam Hussein in power in 1991, in the name of “diplomacy” was a mistake of the highest order … and that “cowboys” like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have done more to establish the conditions for a sustainable peace than all their non-confrontational “diplomacy” ever did.
I’ll stop yellin’ when they have the honesty to question themselves and return the favor of their opposition by criticizing the opposition’s views on their merits … instead of dismissing us as Neanderthals and racists because we refuse to accept their faith in evolution and “their guy” in the White House, respectively.
I’ll stop yellin’ … when Progressives are honest enough to admit that some of their most fundamental tenets are tenets of faith … blind faith in human omniscience … not of reason, backed by objective principle and history … and state faith as faith, theory as theory, and fact as fact, not resorting to appeals to authority or perponderance of the evidence as a substitute for conclusive proof.
Ritchie, I wish you all the best of luck for asking what you claim.
What gauge are you using to measure “lying?” How is it different from the concept of “point of view?”
The history of politics shows that those in power have bent facts, deliberately used incomplete data, and used faulty reasoning. Every political movement does this. The only way to ensure they do not get their way is to call them on it, to correct or add to the facts, and to correct faulty reasoning. The news media has not yet reported any facts that support the utter hatred spewed by the leftist liberals against the rest of their country. Yet they continue to demand civility.
It’s a two way street. Calling the opposing view a lie is not going to further any political discussion.
Truly, if the calls for “civility” were real, I would join in. I’ll pay attention when those who hurled blood libel against every person right of center realize that they too were at fault. Let’s start with the good Sheriff Dupnik and work from there, shall we?
Gork, when an adversary has the honesty to state faith as faith/theory as theory/fact as fact …
… accurately recognize the limits of human perception, instead of persisting in a blind faith in human omniscience …
… admit the limits and shortcomings of their position, especially when challenged and no rebuttal in objective terms exists …
… justify their arguments with fact, reason, and history …
I will engage them with civility, even if their point of view disagrees with mine.
However, such adversaries usually have more that I can agree with, than I can disagree with … because their honesty has led them to many of the same conclusions I have reached.
The problem I have with Progressives is that they start from a fundamentally-flawed position … that a few Best and Brightest are always more effective and efficient in solving our problems FOR us, than we 300 million American problem-solvers can ourselves … and that therefore the wholesale transfer of our resources and decision-making authority to them is justified, without leaving any timely work-arounds or recourse in the event of error on the part of our leaders.
Compared to that soft-and-cuddly worldview, George III was a libertarian.
And let me add … Progressives then proceed to base their entire view of governance upon that cracked foundation, never seeming to question their fundamental assumptions even when history shows evidence that they are flawed.
That is the source of the conflict … and there is no middle ground on this position that we can hold in common.
Matthew, How many death threats does Sarah Palin get?
Do you know?
I see…your foaming-at-the-mouth attempts to blame us for the actions of one deranged individual who had more in common with you than with us failed pretty spectacularly, so now you’re falling back to plan B, “we’ve all got to be more civil.” Of course, we were “civil” from the start, but to you the word means, “you have to shut up and take whatever we call you.” Sorry, won’t happen. From now on, resign yourself to taking shot for shot (nope, I won’t apologize for the metaphor) and blow for blow. You’re in a fight now; we’re standing up to you bullies.
Thank you. You’ve made my point perfectly.
The shooter was a communist. One of his favorite books was the communist manifesto. You left wingers are shooting each other. How the F..k is that our problem. You on the left are the ones that threaten with violence all the time. You also commit the violence. And on top of that, you have the audacity to accuse the right of being racist and inciting violence. Without any proof what so ever. The hypocrisy is beyond pale. It’s blood libel. It’s evil. You Mathew are evil.
“We already know of attempted violence that was pretty darn obviously motivated by glenn beck”.
Mantra of the left – keep repeating utter nonsense lies and eventually people will believe it. Pea brain embicile.
Yes I suppose they will start calling conservatives “Uncivil” next. During most of the last Bush administration the left called conservatives, both real and imagined, Nazis and fascists, after the Obama regime assumed power and the “Tea Partiers” and other conservative and moderate Americans started to push back against the Progressive agenda the leftists increased the use of racist, taking advantage of having the first African American President, adding that phrase and overusing it along with the others, started to diminish the effectiveness of all of the epitaphs used to slander everyday Americans. The “Loughner Left” thought Jared Loughner had given their invective a new lease on life thinking they could now add Murderer to their litany of calumnies routinely used to smear conservatives. The problem for the left is that the murderer meme sank as soon as it was launched.
So what’s next, what new smear can they incorporate in their litany of negative characterizations they use for conservatives. They will call us uncivil, pretty weak tea.
I’m going to say something that is probably going to be construed as utterly crazy…but…
I’m sayin’ it.
Some of the Lefties who post here, strike me as real human beings and not just trolls trying be jerks. There are some real hearts and souls who unfortunately feel implored to spew Leftist talking points.
That’s something I have never understood. “Talking points”? I speak my mind and I sure as heck don’t let anyone speak my mind for me.
I know what it is like to stand in a food-bank line…I know what it is like to beg… I also know what it is like to rise above and to better myself.
The more we demonize the successful, the more we will propagate poverty and failure.
I can’t afford to hate rich people. Can you?
This is a hole in the ground > O This is Matthews ass > O Can anyone see a difference?
This is a hole in the ground > O This is Matthews ass > O Can anyone see a difference?
That makes no sense. The point of that joke isn’t to compare the shape of the orifices. That’s not the funny part. The FUNNY part is to imply that the subject (e.g. me) is too stupid to know the difference, particularly given that one of them is attached to their/my body.
So asking everyone else if they can see the difference is nonsensical. What are they supposed to say? Yes? No? What then? What’s your punchline? “Oh, well, then you’re … um …”?
I’m sorry, but you really flubbed that one. Do you want to try again?
Meanwhile, hum a bit of Randy Newman’s “Rednecks” and think about why I might find this quite funny
As the typical liberal that you are, you are trying to make the argument into verbal jousting, whenever truth and logic is not on your side.
Verbal jousting is for 6th graders. Grow up. Better yet stop being liberal. You’ll find it much more gratifying to actually having to defend policies that accomplish what they claim.
I’m not sure why I’m bother with this, but …
You DO understand that I was lampooning an attempt at abuse, right? It was a joke.
When the lady protests too much it reveals a chink of guilt over dead abortionists lately demonized by O’Reilly and gay supervisors by a self-styled “defender of the home, the family and religious life against homosexuals, pot smokers and cynics.”
The best defense is not always a good offense. I’m not buying any “I Promise I Won’t Kill You.” t-shirts any time soon.
As I had written in my previous post that in English gematria, the system of assigning numbers to letters, if you enter Sarah L. Palin, which is her full name with the middle initial, you will get the numeric value of 666. For those who don’t understand, Google – English gematria. I have included two separate links to two separate English gematria calculators below for you to see it first hand for yourself. See it and heed its meaning. I had always foreseen this since the 2008 election campaign. Now I proved it for everyone to see.
But wait, what do we have in store for the future? Here it is below so look into these words in the English gematria calculators in the links also —
American beast = 666
Lady of evil = 666
A martial law = 666
Anarchy U.S.A. = 666
http://prophecy.landmarkbiblebaptist.net/count.html
http://real-world-news.org/numerics/english-gematria.html
MODERATOR!
Cuckoo for coco puffs?
You do realize that you come across as pretty insane with this stuff, right?
Remember “kill the terrorist!” and “kill the muslim!” being screamed by people at Sarah Palin’s rallies back in the 2008 election campaign?
“Remember “kill the terrorist!” and “kill the muslim!” being screamed by people at Sarah Palin’s rallies back in the 2008 election campaign?”
Umm…nope? I went to a couple and never heard such rhetoric. Funny thing is, neither did the Secret Service.
“Remember “kill the terrorist!” and “kill the muslim!” being screamed by people at Sarah Palin’s rallies back in the 2008 election campaign?”
Umm…nope? I went to a couple and never heard such rhetoric. Funny thing is, neither did the Secret Service.
Sorry to bust your meme all up like that. Sucks to be you.
Satan = 330
Sorry, Dave, I don’t think your system really works.
Adolf Hitler and Osama Bin Laden in English gematria has a numeric value of 660, which is the approximate number of the beast. But only Sarah L. Palin has the numeric value of 666, which is the biblical number of the beast. For Satan, instead try “A Great Dragon” and you will get the numerica value of 666.
Dave is right. Using an English gematria calculator online, I have identified his finding plus I have identified the other person with the mark. This is getting scary. I’m sure Dave knows this too.
Here are the results:
Sarah Palin = 594
Sarah L. Palin = 666 BINGO!
Sarah Louise Palin = 1080
Michele Bachmann = 666 BINGO!
Michele M. Bachmann = 744
Michele Marie Bachmann = 942
Now read this disturbing story in the link below:
http://www.borowitzreport.com/2010/04/11/palin-bachmann-seek-two-additional-horsemen/
Here are the info on the 2 beasts of Revelation 13 in Wikipedia below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beast_(Bible)
Death threats made to Tea Part member….
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/15/nation/la-na-arizona-shooting-threat-20110116
http://uppitywoman08.wordpress.com/2011/01/15/j-eric-fuller-video-dated-january-14-2011/
Keith Olbermann, Roy Wilson, Chris Matthews and all the other commentators blamed conservatives, the Tea Party and Sarah Palin for the tragedy at Tucson whipping up hostility. Now one of the victims has made a death threats against a member of the Tea Party.
Are they now, according to their own logic, an accessory to the crime?
I did my own HIGHLY SCIENTIFIC political civility check by googling ‘liberal traitor’ and ‘conservative traitor’ both without quotes.
The former gave me mostly conervatives calling liberals traitors. The latter gave me mostly conservatives calling other conservatives traitors because they were showing insufficient zeal.
Whereas, when I look tried the same thing with ‘conservative idiot’ and ‘liberal idiot’, I got liberals calling conservatives idiots and liberals calling conservatives idiots in equal measure.
Maybe this is an example of the kind of problem which is vexing us; that there is a trend, which is more common in conservative speech and writing, to characterize political opponents as evil rather than just wrong. What, after all, should happen to traitors?
What your analysis is missing Roy, is that liberals consider “treason” a positive virtue, so it’s not a term they use as an epithet.
You’ve half a good point there. Not that liberals consider treason to be positive ‘cos thats just a shocking! example of the not-just-wrong-but-evil thinking I was getting at; but the good part about what you said is that if liberals were going to use a term that meant a conservative were evil it wouldn’t be traitor it would be something else, so my approach ws biased from the start.
So Just for grins I’m goint to try a more unbiased Highly Scientific Study on Political Civility. I’m googling ‘conservative’ at democratic underground and ‘liberal’ at pajamas media for 2010 and getting the adjectives from the first 20 hits each (ordered by date if I can).
Will report back
Should have been “liberals calling conservatives idiots and conservatives calling liberals idiots in equal measure” Must read BEFORE posting.
Didn’t you get the memo that said the Progressive agenda is exempt from criticism? [end sarcasm]
For your amusement. This is how our wonderful lefties up here in the frozen north target their political opponents. Not sure but I think these folks are about the farthest left you can get in North America and still get elected to office at local, provincial[state]and federal levels.Taking Aim.How can you lose with darts and maybe a few beers?
http://www.ndp.ca/takingaim
Jared is a follower of Marx, Mao, Alynski Che and others. He has a strong hatred for Christians, conservatives and capitalists. Why isn’t anyone willing to look at the facts and say what is obvious. Jared is a “Radicalized Progressive” who expected to be a martyr for his faith.
The attempt to get the Republicans and Democrats to sit together is nothing but a veiled attempt to water down the opposition to the Obama Regime and his suckling media. Next, they’ll want the Chief Justices interspersed so they can intimidate them into applause, and not responding to any of Obama’s attacks.
It immediately reminded me of “The Spider and the Fly”. And the ultimate agenda of the Obama Regime.
My real concern is; Have I cast my last vote as an American Citizen?
Civil’ Discourse. New words.
The left loves new words. Remember when the word “Progressives” used to be the word “Liberal?” It’s like having a new “race” card. When your losing elections, try, and try again.
This is a struggle for the existence of America as a Republic, a war against an evil ideology that history has proven to bring hellish conditions on humanity. pResident Obama and his criminal cronies are taking our freedoms; they believe freedom is theirs to dole out, like a government stimulus check, or to take away, like an automobile dealership. We will fight, or be slaves to the power of a socialist government and its many bureaucrat party-member dictators. We will soon know if R or D makes any difference in our elected officials, and whether we need to make The Tea stronger next time.
Well … YOU’VE drunk the kool-aid.
How long have you been predicting the imminent downfall of US democracy? A year? A decade?
REPLY TO #33 TWOLANEFLASH
BRAVO! I like the part about ‘making the Tea Stronger next time’. VGood!
when discussing ANYTHING with a liberal, I am extremely civil. I make sure I never drop down to their level and call them names . I can get sarcastic I admit, and although sarcasm isn’t nice… it is still civil. I would suggest no matter what we think of our left brothers and sisters that we don’t go around calling them asses or libtards or demonrats or democraps…. it really gets us nowhere. And especially on the web, when other people are reading what we write-it just makes you look bad.
Thank you for not dropping down to my level. I think.
That kind of sarcasm?