tvashtarkatena

Have you read Ted Rall's book, "The Anti-American Manifesto?" Have you read his interview with liberal journalist Dylan Ratigan? (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/msnbc-guest-suggest-violent-revolution/ -- aretarded source, I know, but that's not the point.) I'm sure you'll have a comeback for that. Yeah, I have a comeback: Who? Anyone NOT know who Glenn Beck, Bill Oreilly, or Sara Palin (feel free to ad to this LONG list) is?

Rob is attempting to also consider the tea bagger movement has somehow being as healthy as the general liberal movement that has brought us from pre-war peasantry to enlightened prosperity. It's not. It's an inherently destructive, unhealthy movement, in that it is an irrational one based on the emotions of fear and anger that targets, well, other people. It has openly attacked the middle class (toll takers and teachers, right FW?) and advocated continued wealth concentration amongst the upper few percent. It is anti gay, anti constitution, and anti compassion. It proposes no solutions, only the marauding of decades of liberal policies that made this country a more just, enlightened, compassionate, and prosperous place for everyone. There is not a single shred of what I consider true American values: liberty (the right to marry who you want), compassion (a healthy middle class being the best way to get there), fairness (tea bagger racism needs no introduction), stewardship (nor does their anti-environmental, drill baby drill, anti regulation, climate change denying leanings). It should be viewed as what is really is: an irrational threat to the future health and well being of this country (and the world). It should be dealt with as was the Fundamentalist movement, which has largely lost its bid to recreate this country into its own grotesque image.

it's one of many intimidation quotes from a tea bagger candidate who got a little too full of herself...and now she's paying for it big time. Google 'Second amendment Remedies' - her actual words. Oh...you'll get right to it, I guarantee you.

BTW, it would be in your best interest to get together with me this week so we can scream in person. Ya know....

Did you read the article about the crimes she was accused of? This is the first sentence. (italics added) Again, explain to me how property damage and murder are equivalent in any way. My point is that we live in an extremely polarized politcal climate, and the fault of that does not lie ONLY with the republicans. My point has nothing to do with which side is "worse." It's an easy point to grasp. I know you can do it. 'Polarized' does not equal 'advocate or imply violence or having the ability to do violence'. That tendency is clearly in the Right camp, not the Left at this time. No, it's not hard, but you also hate to lose, even when it's obvious that you're arguing from what is essentially a non-position. Where, um, are the Left wing pundits or politicians advocating 'second amendment solutions', eh Rob. Yeah...that would be no where.

I believe there's a significant portion of the tea bagger movement, which, given its agenda, violent rhetoric, and irrationality, attracts a more sociopathic membership...and enough of those people are celebrating (wrongly) what they perceive as an event that has increased their ability to intimidate their political opponents. I certainly am not going to swallow that every member of that movement is as shocked as the rest of us. Think I'm wrong? Read the replies to any news story or blog about this incident and think again. You'd probably need to be a sociopath to applaud this event. The problem is, given the tea baggers agenda of racism, xenophobia, homophobia, extreme religiosity, gun fetishism, gold standardizers...it's a perfectly engineered movement for attracting and concentrating America's 4% or so of sociopaths into a single movement. I'd wager 10% or more of the tea bagger movement is made up of clinical sociopaths because of this concentration effect. Palin, the movement's primary spokeperson, is obviously a sociopath. How many of them applaud this attack? Enough, I'm sure, to give us pause.

Quit being a dumbshit. That's what I object to the most, here. Don't try that shit on me. The pervasive, daily, violent rhetoric from the Right for the past decade - GREATLY increased in volume by the tea baggers - do you have anything recent and even in the same universe in volume, magnitude and now, effect, from the Left, Rob? No. So kindly respect our intelligence and quit playing rhetorical games with what is not a light hearted issue. I refuse to believe your arguments are anything but strawman or devil's advocate (and not a good one, at that)...you're much smarter than that.

ummmm i don't recall anyone asking that.... and if they did, perhaps examples other than tree spiking might better bolster your position? perhaps the tone of the responses to your equivocation and conflation seemed to you to be "left-wing" violence apologetics or dismissal? Hence...the self quote game.

Congresswomen. Point blank, in the head. 9 year old. Judge. Retiree.... You're done here, Rob.

1987. Spiking denounced afterward by Earth First. No one confirmed it was a tree spike to begin with. One incident. Non fatal. Not to mention that Earth First, unlike the tea baggers, were never a very popular movement among the Left or anyone else. NEXT STREEEEEEETTTTTTCCCCCCCHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDDD analogy?

1944?

You're debating ME, man, not Billcoe or some other dumbshit!

Oops.... "One possible injury from tree spiking occurred in the United States in 1987. California mill worker George Alexander was seriously injured when the bandsaw he was operating was shattered by either an old nail or a tree spike. This led many many progressive Earth First! groups to denounce tree spiking.[1] Other activists[citation needed] were led to either reject this form of sabotage entirely, or take some precautions, such as putting warning signs in the area where the trees are being spiked. Tree spiking is condemned by opponents as eco-terrorism as they claim it is potentially dangerous to loggers or mill-workers,[2] although only this one injury possibly resulting from tree spiking has been widely reported.[1]"

Poor loggers! Watch out for them spikes, man!

Actually, a lot of logging operations don't even use chain saws anymore.

Yeah, a bucking chain saw is pretty much the same as shooting somebody point blank in the head for their political representation. Great argument, buddy...followed by a very logical conclusion. Good job.

You'd think public outcry would be enough, but so far, most Darlings of the Right remain completely unapologetic and in denial of their role in creating and disseminating the kind of gun focused, violent memes that are now so pervasive. This leads me to support increased government scrutiny of talk shows etc for criminal speech. Just the threat of a investigation is often enough to tone things down a bit, even as the talk show host continues to rail against the intrusions of 'Big Gubbamint', the prospect of going up against the DOJ would probably result in a quite omission of formerly incendiary rhetoric involving 2nd Amendment Solutions. Talk show callers should be prosecuted as well as their hosts for any criminal speech. I'm a free speech advocate - as one essential pillar of a free society. Violent intimidation has no place in a free society. It's not protected speech, nor should it be. Comprehensive gun bans DO work, as expected, to reduce gun crime, which reduces the lethality of crime in general. Mostly domestic violence; the majority of gun deaths (and suicide). They absolutely keep guns out of the hands of the criminally psychotic. Not in America, though, thanks to a particularly paranoid, xenophobic culture, ignorance, cherished myths, and convenient 'updating' of our founding history. Politically feasible? Probably not. Perhaps the debate, which has largely died, might start once again, however.

Sergeant Nick Penis was tougher. He didn't even need a parachute.

The thought is that if we shun the kind of violent rhetoric we've seen the Right adopt in the past few years, we'll be able to conduct our affairs with fewer people getting shot. The problem with the tea bagger movement is that it is, at its core, a sociopathic one that seeks to circle the wagons in an effort to further concentrate dwindling wealth at the expense of the country as a whole. Rather than band together during a difficult time, they've chosen to jump in the lifeboats first. The logical strategy would be to disenfranchise everyone else, which, of course, they are actively seeking to do.

Yeah, you are wrong this time, buddy. There really is no comparison between the violence of the rights agenda, legislation, and rhetoric and the lefts in recent decades. Tree spiking...come fucking on.

Half the libtard response here is to attempt to deny that a significant proportion of the tea bagger movement isn't clapping its hands right now. This is a movement which lives, breaths, and laps up gun fantasy rhetoric. Intimidation after this attack? Wasn't our idea, but we'll take it! Pull your heads out, guys. This is for realz.

Oh, you forgot to include the burned dumpsters at WTO

Please come up with more. None of your examples are direct, violent attacks involving guns. You know, like shooting a congresswomen point blank in the head, then spraying a crowd with bullets. Compare that to McVeigh, the Texas plane attack, abortion docs, shooting congressmen and judges.... Very weak.

Dude, where is the historical record of leftist vitriol congruent with violent action in the last 30 years much less the last three? Your "dude abides", "same as it ever was", and "it's all the same, left or right" doesn't correspond with historical reality. Pull your head out. There were plenty of left-leaning anti-war activist groups that undertook violent opposition against bomb-factories, offices, etc during the 1960's. Is that why you said "30 years" instead of 40? That won't work, because many of these anti-government, left-leaning activist groups and anarchists carried on through most of the 70's. There are also plenty of examples of left-wing minority activist groups taking violent action. There have been plenty of violent responses from left-leaning groups. Do you really need a re-education on that? Decades old. The Left has largely abandoned violence as a tactic. Both Left and Right have changed completely since the 70s, which pretty much renders any discussion of either during that time irrelevant. Kinda like KKK's repetitive habit of resurrecting Stalin whenever j.b. mentions the health care bill, ya know? Not all that hard hitting.

Guns are the number one vehicle of lethal violence in the US, and the Right has long advocated, as a center of their platform, unrestricted gun rights. When something like this happens, the Right says "Oh, that's just one crazy...we had nothing to do with it." Combine that with recent tea bagger rhetoric embracing assassination via "second amendment solution", the target graphic, and blogs raving about the right to armed insurrection and you have the number one threat to national security in this country right here at home. Regarding crazies: as schizophenics typically flip from normal to whack job within a few days, and sociopaths become exceptionally good at hiding their condition, coupled with a population of just these two conditions of over 15 million Americans, the only way to keep guns out of the hands of the criminally insane is a comprehensive ban. Yes, the Right is not only part of the problem, it is the problem. A citizen's right to self defense need not, and should not, include gun ownership. There are a number of other safer, more effective avenues towards safety that can and should be taken. We have much higher violent crime rates than nearly every other free society, most of which substantially restrict or prohibit gun ownership. Such ownership is obviously not a prerequisite for a free society. The only gun ownership I support is for hunting. Yes, these weapons are used in crimes...very rarely. They are generally superior for home defense, as well, removing that argument.