Another Right-Wing Loon Makes the News

[tvashtarkatena]

I'm just responding to rediculous claims of "Show me just ONE example of left-wing violence."

 

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.

[ivan]

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.

well duh - they're evil, and mean spirited, and duplicitious, and dim-witted...but sweet jesus, there sure are a whole hell of a lot of them! far too many to wipe out at any rate, even if you happened to catch'em for the 2 milli-seconds a day they're not locked n' loaded

[tvashtarkatena]

I could be wrong, but I believe the practice of shooting congresswomen in the head at grocery stores is also denounced, Pat.

 

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.

Edited January 10, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[rob]

Do you believe that the conservatives on this board secretely applaud this shooter?

 

Do you believe republican party leaders do? Republican politicians?

 

What percentage of tea-baggers do you think are secretely applauding this psychotic's actions? I'm curious.

 

Clearly, the right has taken advantage of extremely divisive and angry rhetoric among right-leaning citizens. But's that's not really my point. You seem to miss my point, entirely. You're like a dog with a bone.

Edited January 10, 2011 by rob

[Bosterson]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Ann_Duke

 

Did you read the article about the crimes she was accused of? This is the first sentence. (italics added)

 

The bombings were claimed by the "Armed Resistance Unit" and were designed to inflict property damage; warning phone calls were made and no one was injured.

 

Again, explain to me how property damage and murder are equivalent in any way.

[Kimmo]

I stand corrected, tree-spikes are not a problem.

 

duuuude. did you read your link?

 

you're as off as the rabid anti-vaccine crowd.

 

meow.

[rob]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Ann_Duke

 

Did you read the article about the crimes she was accused of? This is the first sentence. (italics added)

 

The bombings were claimed by the "Armed Resistance Unit" and were designed to inflict property damage; warning phone calls were made and no one was injured.

 

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.

Edited January 10, 2011 by rob

[Kimmo]

Do you believe that the conservatives on this board secretely applaud this shooter?

 

Do you believe republican party leaders do? Republican politicians?

 

What percentage of tea-baggers do you think are secretely applauding this psychotic's actions? I'm curious.

 

you are missing the point.

 

i don't try to step on ants when i'm hiking, but a consequence of me hiking is stepping on ants. and yet i continue hiking. even though i might apologize to an ant.

 

ok? meow.

[Kimmo]

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."

 

if you would have said so in the first place, you might have avoided outing your naivety to like, 3 or 6 people.

[Bosterson]

Also, as enlightening as it is to debate over which political party has more violent rhetoric, it's about as relevant as the more general discussion post-shooting about political rhetorical vitriol in general. That's a totally legitimate subject (why is political rhretoric so vitriolic right now, and why do we stand for it?), but doesn't really have that much to do with Saturday's shooting (as the details stand now, at least).

 

The kid seems like he had some serious mental illness issues going on. I am interested to hear more about that once the details are released. That kind of thing transcends political party affiliation and really makes the politics irrelevant to any discussion of what happened. Yes, he may have targeted a politician (a highly visibile target, it should be said), and he may have discussed issues relevant to politics, but he also made nonsensical Youtube videos about mind control. The political vitriol makes a good story, but as some Tea Party founder said on NPR (and loathe as I am to agree with anything he'd say), you can't blame Sarah Palin for this. He also noted that one of his neighbors was killed in the shooting, and really, no one is discussing the other victims in detail. It was a tragedy for a lot of people, not the least of which are the ones who weren't politicians or judges or 9 year old girls.

 

If we insist on turning this event into the genesis of a political discussion, what is relevant is how this obviously unwell kid got ahold of a semiautomatic Glock in the first place...

 

Today, the amazing thing about the reaction to the Giffords shooting is that virtually all the discussion about how to prevent a recurrence has been focusing on improving the tone of our political discourse. That would certainly be great. But you do not hear much about the fact that Jared Loughner came to Giffords’s sweet gathering with a semiautomatic weapon that he was able to buy legally because the law restricting their sale expired in 2004 and Congress did not have the guts to face up to the National Rifle Association and extend it.

 

...Loughner’s gun, a 9-millimeter Glock, is extremely easy to fire over and over, and it can carry a 30-bullet clip. It is “not suited for hunting or personal protection,” said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign. “What it’s good for is killing and injuring a lot of people quickly.” (link)

[tvashtarkatena]

Do you believe that the conservatives on this board secretely applaud this shooter?

 

Do you believe republican party leaders do? Republican politicians?

 

What percentage of tea-baggers do you think are secretely applauding this psychotic's actions? I'm curious.

 

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.

Edited January 10, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Ann_Duke

 

Did you read the article about the crimes she was accused of? This is the first sentence. (italics added)

 

The bombings were claimed by the "Armed Resistance Unit" and were designed to inflict property damage; warning phone calls were made and no one was injured.

 

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.

Edited January 10, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[Kimmo]

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."

 

if you would have said so in the first place, you might have avoided outing your naivety to like, 3 or 6 people.

 

sorry, that wasn't nice, getting all ad hominem and stuff. i love you robbi. even if you are a republican.

[tvashtarkatena]

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

 

Ya know....

[Kimmo]

Where, um, are the Left wing pundits or politicians advocating 'second amendment solutions', eh Rob.

 

Yeah...that would be no where.

 

waddaya mean "2nd amendment solutions"? not sure what yer talking about here.

[tvashtarkatena]

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.

Edited January 10, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[Bosterson]

My point is that we live in an extremely polarized politcal climate, and the fault of that does not lie ONLY with the republicans.

 

Dude, the Elizabeth Ann Duke thing happened like twenty years ago. Not so relevant to the current climate of anything...

 

And if that's your point, I completely agree with you. Contemporary US politics are retarded on both sides. However, political polarization and politically-motivated violence are different things. Just so's we're clear.

[rob]

Where, um, are the Left wing pundits or politicians advocating 'second amendment solutions', eh Rob.

 

Yeah...that would be no where.

 

Have you read Ted Rall's book, "The Anti-American Manifesto?"

 

"There's going to be an intense, violent, probably haphazard struggle for control. It's going to come down to us versus them. The question is: What are you going to do about it?"

 

"A war is coming. At stake: our lives, the planet, freedom, living. The government, the corporations, and the extreme right are prepared to coalesce into an Axis of Evil. Are you going to fight back? Will you do whatever it takes, including taking up arms?"

 

 

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.)

 

"In terms of passive resistance, the American left has been very peaceful since the early 70s, since the Kent State shootings and where has it gotten us?"

 

"Millions of people marched against the war in Iraq. What did it do? The tanks rolled in just the same."

 

"We don't really have time to wait. We've got a real unemployment rate of almost 20 percent. The economy is in deep trouble. People are getting thrown of their homes, over 10 million of them. The planet's in trouble. This is unsustainable. The system is really in deep trouble," Rall continued.

 

"We know that the unemployment rate is going to keep going up. Not one attempt at a jobs program from this president, so what are we going to do? It's up to the people. John Locke said the people have an obligation to revolt when their governments fail."

 

 

I'm sure you'll have a comeback for that.

 

Edited January 10, 2011 by rob

[Bosterson]

attracts a more sociopathic membership... You'd probably need to be a sociopath to applaud this event... attracting and concentrating America's 4% or so of sociopaths into a single movement...

I think you're misusing this word...

 

I'd wager 10% or more of the tea bagger movement is made up of clinical sociopaths because of this concentration effect.

You must be confusing this with corporate America...

[rob]

there is a lot I don't know, and a lot I'm wrong about, but one thing I'd fairly certain about is that I think this mess is a lot more complicated than "us good, them bad."

[prole]

The fact that you have to dig up a tree-spiking incident from the '80s or that you have to look really hard for the existence of an American leftist calling for an insurrection just proves the point that such incidents are practically non-existent in the contemporary American political scene. Contrast this with the list I reposted above of the dozens of acts of violence in the last three years stoked by voices in the conservative mainstream. What are you missing here?

[tvashtarkatena]

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.

 

 

Edited January 11, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[Kimmo]

"In terms of passive resistance, the American left has been very peaceful since the early 70s, since the Kent State shootings and where has it gotten us?"

 

"Millions of people marched against the war in Iraq. What did it do? The tanks rolled in just the same."

 

"We don't really have time to wait. We've got a real unemployment rate of almost 20 percent. The economy is in deep trouble. People are getting thrown of their homes, over 10 million of them. The planet's in trouble. This is unsustainable. The system is really in deep trouble," Rall continued.

 

"We know that the unemployment rate is going to keep going up. Not one attempt at a jobs program from this president, so what are we going to do? It's up to the people. John Locke said the people have an obligation to revolt when their governments fail."

 

 

I'm sure you'll have a comeback for that.

 

i think the point rob is the degree to which one political party has implicitly embodied violence as a means to an end.

 

i'm sure you can find a mennonite who espouses violence, but does that really say a thing about mennonites as a whole? meow.

Edited January 11, 2011 by Kimmo

[tvashtarkatena]

Where, um, are the Left wing pundits or politicians advocating 'second amendment solutions', eh Rob.

 

Yeah...that would be no where.

 

Have you read Ted Rall's book, "The Anti-American Manifesto?"

 

"There's going to be an intense, violent, probably haphazard struggle for control. It's going to come down to us versus them. The question is: What are you going to do about it?"

 

"A war is coming. At stake: our lives, the planet, freedom, living. The government, the corporations, and the extreme right are prepared to coalesce into an Axis of Evil. Are you going to fight back? Will you do whatever it takes, including taking up arms?"

 

 

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.)

 

"In terms of passive resistance, the American left has been very peaceful since the early 70s, since the Kent State shootings and where has it gotten us?"

 

"Millions of people marched against the war in Iraq. What did it do? The tanks rolled in just the same."

 

"We don't really have time to wait. We've got a real unemployment rate of almost 20 percent. The economy is in deep trouble. People are getting thrown of their homes, over 10 million of them. The planet's in trouble. This is unsustainable. The system is really in deep trouble," Rall continued.

 

"We know that the unemployment rate is going to keep going up. Not one attempt at a jobs program from this president, so what are we going to do? It's up to the people. John Locke said the people have an obligation to revolt when their governments fail."

 

 

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?

[tvashtarkatena]

there is a lot I don't know, and a lot I'm wrong about, but one thing I'd fairly certain about is that I think this mess is a lot more complicated than "us good, them bad."

 

I don't know about us being good, but them's definitely bad, and definitely anti-constitutional, which makes them Anti-me and Anti-American in my book, for the numerous value and action based reasons I've detailed. Anything you find heart warming about that agenda, Rob?

 

This is not demonizing. This is making a rational decision based on the observed actions and statements of that movement. It's fascism lite, plain and simple, and its a clear and open threat to all of us.