How many innocent American lives will be lost because of the violent rhetoric found in the names of these companies? How many?
As Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnick will tell you, it’s only a matter of time before some deranged individual is driven to violence by these extreme right wing hate talk contained in these corporate names. Why, we wouldn’t be at all surprised to find out that all these companies are sponsors on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Send us photos of extreme right wing hate talk company names in your town. We’ll add them to the list. Send them to info@ihatethemedia.com.
We are particularly horrified that Shotgun Willie’s welcomes the Democratic National Committee to town. This is obviously an open invitation to assassination.
This post was last modified on February 1, 2011
View Comments (30)
Well then, why the hell aren't they doing away with Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms?
Should be a convenience store, not a government agency...
Ah yes, back to the topic at hand. Companies that must be put out of business to save innocent American lives.
Hooters. You could put an eye out with those things...
Don't forget "The Dirty Bomb Taco Shop". Their slogan is, "Once you try a Dirty Bomb Taco, you'll never have another colon block-o".
OK, I made the whole thing up.
I'll be here all week.
Does this mean that the classic Beatles album "Revolver" will no longer be sold in the US? What about the White Album, with that "Happiness Is A Warm Gun" tune?
Yes, Sharon Angle's comment was a direct appeal to violence if the election didn't go her way.
There is a difference. For example, Sarah Palin saying "we don't retreat, we reload" is not a threat. It's a rallying call and there is no threat intended. Any reasonable person would here that and understand that she is saying you should keep fighting for your cause even in the face of adversity or setback. Yes she uses a gun theme but she's not suggesting using the gun to take office by force.
Sharon Angle saying that if the election didn't go their way that maybe people should start exploring their second ammendment remedies is a call to violence. Same as Joyce Kaufman's ballots or bullets. She wasn't saying that if things don't go our way let's keep fighting, she was clearly saying that if things didn't go their way they'd simply take up guns and murder the lawful election winners.
There's a very clear difference and it's not hard to define. Unfortunately Sarah Palin bore the brunt of the outrage even though her comments were far more mild and weren't actual calls to violence.
• “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” Barack Obama in July 2008
• “I want you to argue with them and get in their face!” Barack Obama, September 2008
• “Here’s the problem: It’s almost like they’ve got — they’ve got a bomb strapped to them and they’ve got their hand on the trigger. You don’t want them to blow up. But you’ve got to kind of talk them, ease that finger off the trigger.” Barack Obama on banks, March 2009
• “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!” Barack Obama on ACORN Mobs, March 2010
• “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.” Barack Obama on the private sector, June 2010
• “A Republican majority in Congress would mean ‘hand-to-hand combat’ on Capitol Hill for the next two years, threatening policies Democrats have enacted to stabilize the economy.” Barack Obama, October 6, 2010
• “We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.” Barack Obama to Latinos, October 2010
Directly above your post I give a lecture on the difference between bravado and threats.
Everything you posted, that was said by Obama is bravado. Just like Sarah Palin's "we don't retreat, we reload" comment. They are not actual calls to violence or calls to use armed force to take office.
Someone saying that "if ballots won't do it, bullets will" or someone saying "if we don't win then perhaps it's time to explore second ammendment remedies" are examples of direct calls to violence. They encourage people to take matters into their own hands if the legitimate or lawful system doesn't work in their favor.
If you are incapable of telling the difference then I don't know what else can be said.
Let me put it this way, if the coach of a football team says "let's get out there and kill-em boys!" that's bravado.
If a football coach says "if we don't win the game we'll sure as hell win the fight in the parking lot" That is a direct call to violence.
Can you see the difference? Bravado is tough talk that centers on doing the lawful or reasonable thing. Calls to violence encourage people to act outside of the rules or law and use force to get their way.
I hope this clarifies things for you. It's a real simple concept. You should'nt be having trouble with this.
So "bring a gun" is OK? COOL!!
I see that you remain intransigent. Look up the word "metaphor" it is an allegory, "if they bring a knife, we bring a gun". It is not litteral. He means whatever they come with we'll have better.
Now if you break the statement apart and say simply "bring a gun" Then that too is fine given the context. Let's say you're heading to the shooting range, or a gun club meeting. It would only make sense to bring a gun.
If on the other hand I said "we're going to the Senator's town hall meeting...bring a gun". Probably a bad idea and most adults, employing common sense would take it as a threat to the Senator.
I hope this helps, by the way are you foreign born? because most people born and raised in the United States can discern these things pretty easily. Most of us know the difference between rhetoric and threat.
Your logic is flawed. I'm still confused on how it is acceptable for a liberal to say 'bring a gun' AT A CAMPAIGN RALLY. Please help me. English is my 4th language and yes, I was foreign born in Michigan.
It's simple really. If you decide to defend ridiculous positions then invariably you're going to have to feign stupidity or ignorance just as your doing now.
I can't possibly make my position any clearer than I have. I'm done with this absurd conversation.
If you want to go on pretending that you don't understand the difference between metaphors and threats then fine. Good luck to you in life and in pretending not to understand everything you don't agree with.
Was this a "note to self" moment?
This is not a metaphor, since you are as proficient with English grammar as Mr Loughner of Tuscon, AZ, this is identifying the political opposition as the enemy.
• “We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.” Barack Obama to Latinos, October 2010
You will have a difficult time trying to convince anybody this was a simple metaphor, and is certainly much more threatening than the innocuous 2d Amendment comment. Funny thing is, we cannot get an enemy defined by our leadership other than our own citizens. Nice. Glad to know this is what my life is worth, not a deterance to an existential foreign threat or multiple foreign threats, but rather, I am the enemy because of my political opinion.
Pretty strong words. He isn't inciting people to go out and take up arms against the opposition, but that is pretty strongly worded.
P.s. If your trying to put me into some type of catagory with a mass murderer you can go f--k yourself maggot.
redacted by admin for cursing.
No, he only defined US citizens as the enemy, to other US citizens. Nothing threatening there, nothing to see, and obviously, nothing worthy of defense. Just a useless deflection from you. Excellent work sparky. As to your love note, I have been subject to all sorts of bad language from people far better than you. Have a nice day, junior.
What are you talking about? I agreed with you that the wording was pretty strong. I don't beleive I would have used those words. It's not as bad as inciting people to armed revolt, but it's probably not appropriate to refer to other Americans as the enemy.
What's more, I never said that no democrat ever said anything incindiary. I said there is a case to be made for reasonable public discourse. What are ten? My argument is that people need to knock it off with the threatening language. After I made a basic statement I then had to explain to you clowns twenty times over the difference between rhetoric and threat. Keep playing stupid. After all, you should go with what you're good at.
You need to grow up and cultivate some adult arguments.
You are not welcome here unless you:
- Think Obama is a socialist
- Also, he's a fascist
- Compare his wife to a variety of humanoid creatures
- Think everything that has gone wrong is purely the fault of Democrats/liberals/libtards/progressives/socialists/leftists (also, these words all mean the same thing)
There is more, but this is a good start, and i should really be working
Obviously the same sh-it applies at sites like democraticunderground, only in reverse
HA! Nice argument using a quote from Malcolm X to condemn conservatives. The Ballot or the Bullet by Malcolm X April 3, 1964
Actually I was referring to Joyce Kaufman and aid to Alan West, (you know the guy who claims to have a higher security clearance than the President. She went on a rant about using guns if the election didn't go their way. She wasn't being rhetorical either, she litterally meant that they should take up guns, call in the militia and take office by force if the election didn't go their way.
I wasn't aware that Malcolm X had made the same statement. Doesn't surprise me, he was an idiot also. But now that you mention it, I bet the same conservatives who admired Joyce Kaufman for saying it would have condemned Malcom X. It's all fun and games until it's someone else's turn to incite violence.
Or Sharron Angle's "2nd Ammendment Remedies"..
Seriously, take up arms if the vote doesn't go your way? This is hardly the intent
Or The Daily Koz's bulls-eye on Congresswoman Giffords.
Tag. You're "it"
I'm sure this is meant in jest, but it does subscribe to a common tactic that conservatives use in nearly every argument.
People saying that if "ballots won't do it, then bullets will" is not a hint or innuendo. Public speaking is different than the name of a restaurant. The reason you give a speech is to motivate people to action. That is the reason politicians and candidates give speeches. To motivate people to action. If you give speeches suggesting that your opponant is an anti American communist and that they are taking over the country and that violence may be necessary, then you are motivating people to action. It's a legitimate argument to say that people should tone down the language they use in politics. To take that reasonable argument, drag it to some ridiculous extreme "restaurant names" and pretend that is the argument that your opponant made is typical and old hat conservative tactics.
Pretty effective though. I mean look at how many people fall for it.
SV you do realize that statement was a twist on one by Thomas Jefferson?
It is sobering to reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. - Charles A. Beard
Wayne
I was not aware that Jefferson said "if ballots won't work, then bullets will" or something to that effect.
Who was Jefferson referring to and what were the circumstances do you know? It's an honost question because if Jefferson was referring to the Brittish then I have to tell you that he meant it litterally and convinced people to actually take up arms and shoot the brittish. Understandable in that situation, he was fighting for independance from England.
If your suggesting that Jefferson or any actions taken by the continental congress against the British are warranted tactics amongst political parties in modern day America then you are way off base.
Unfortunately for you you`re to stupid to realize when Democrats are trying to suppress freedom of speech under the guise of "being more civil".
I sure do miss the good old days when idiot Democrats were calling for George Bush to be hanged...back then dissent was patriotic.
both wings get crazy.. when i step back, reminds me of watching my kids fight over something stupid, like a broken green crayon that none of them really want, or the red PS3 controller (dammit.. i bought that thing.. :)
Better yet, i'm reminded of something someone said somewhere: "like arguing over the bartab on the Hindenburg". The angry shouting, and the unseen flames.. going down down
ohh, sneaky downvote. somebody must thing only ONE of the wings is crazy.. Or, an XBox360 fanboy (disclosure: i got both). There's another quasi-religious battle i won't engage in
What could be more violent than ... SEARS !!! AAAHHHH!!
In a slightly different, but no less ominous, direction there`s the Heart Attack Grill.
Home of the "quadruple bypass burger" and "flatliner fries" they advertise people over 350lbs eat free.
Judging by the size of Michelle`s ass I`m sure she`s a regular.
Check out the owner and one of his hot "nurse`s" discussing the child nutrition bill with Neil Cavuto. http://www.heartattackgrill.com/
its a great gimmick.. the burgers are over the top, but i love the nurse/doc thing. I prefer Lobby's for actual burger quality