Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Desertdog on August 27, 2010, 03:47:07 PM
-
It wouldn't be so bad, except the Leftist have been known to bomb and kill in the past. Good luck, freedomWorks.
Death threats ae now being made against TEA Party group.
http://politics.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2010/08/25/tea-party-group-hit-with-death-threats
-
To be fair, rightists (righters?) have been known to bomb and kill in the past too.
In general, death threats in US politics from eaither side should be nuked from orbit. I don't want to live in the kind of country that results from that kind of politics.
-
Outside of abortion advocates, who on the right were you thinking of? Those are the only ones I can think of and that was years ago.
I really don't think there is any such thing as a non-violent fanatic.
-
Off the top of my head?
Tim McVeigh.
Although if I wanted to I could make a pretty good case that Islamic Extremists are pretty politically conservitive.
I wasn't try to start an arguement though, just pointing out that the statement: "It wouldn't be so bad, except the Leftist have been known to bomb and kill in the past" is a little disingenous. The problem here is the death threat. It would be just as bad if Tea Party Fanatics were threatening CNN.
-
It's ok. Nobody's spitting on black congressmen. Nothing to see, so move along.
-
Although if I wanted to I could make a pretty good case that Islamic Extremists are pretty politically conservitive.
Really? Islamic Extremists are in favor of individual liberty, economic achievement, and small levels of government involvement in one's life?
-
"It wouldn't be so bad, except the Leftist have been known to bomb and kill in the past" is a little disingenous. The problem here is the death threat. It would be just as bad if Tea Party Fanatics were threatening CNN.
Maybe the stats will prove me wrong, but I think there has been much more violence from left-wing groups in the past, say, thirty years. I'm hesitant to go back much farther than that, because the current conservative/libertarian movement didn't really even exist then.
But anyway, let's all remember the woman with a B scratched in her face.
-
are we counting left wing and right wing groups only in the usa? or world wide?
-
any tea parties outside the US?
-
any tea parties outside the US?
Yes. And one of our own runs it.
-
Really? Islamic Extremists are in favor of individual liberty, economic achievement, and small levels of government involvement in one's life?
Lets be honest, the majority of the American Conservative movement doesn't believe in individual liberty, economic achievment, and small levels of government involvement in one's life.
Again, don't get wrapped around the axle here, all I'm saying is that the threat is not MORE credible simply because a leftist made it. In fact, on average I think a random APS member is much mor likely to have the ability to carry out a threat (not the motivation, mind you, but the ability) then the entire DU combined.
I repeat, for those that are spinning up to type out a list of evil leftists:
In general, death threats in US politics from eaither side should be nuked from orbit. I don't want to live in the kind of country that results from that kind of politics.
-
Yes. And one of our own runs it.
world wide then [popcorn]
-
Lets be honest, the majority of the American Conservative movement doesn't believe in individual liberty, economic achievment, and small levels of government involvement in one's life.
As long as we're being honest, I'll trust you can back up that claim? Conservatism is the belief in limited government and individual liberty. Maybe you're trying to use a centuries-old definition of conservatism, just like some people try to argue that the centuries-old definition of liberal is one who believes in liberties. But we don't live in the 1700s. American conservatives believe in individual liberty. Islamic extremists do not.
-
are we counting left wing and right wing groups only in the usa? or world wide?
USA only. Once we get outside of the U.S., the labels mean much different things.
Lets be honest, the majority of the American Conservative movement doesn't believe in individual liberty, economic achievment, and small levels of government involvement in one's life.
Definition fail. What Ragnar said.
-
Really? Islamic Extremists are in favor of individual liberty, economic achievement, and small levels of government involvement in one's life?
Life(except yours), Liberty(except our wimmins), and the pursuit of happiness(by blowing ourselves up). Small levels of gov't in everyone's life once we kill the gov't.
See, the whackos are more conservative than Dick Cheney.
-
I'm hesitant to go back much farther than that, because the current conservative/libertarian movement didn't really even exist then.
There was, but it took a pretty bad beating in the 1964 election =(
-
Yes. And one of our own runs it.
If bad comes to worse, could we apply to them for military aid?....
-
Once heard Karl Rove talk about death threats. Summary: Everybody significant in Washington receives death threats. It comes with the territory. In this age of cheap stamps, phone calls, and free email, it's more common than ever before. Both sides have nutters who make death threats.
-
Once heard Karl Rove talk about death threats. Summary: Everybody significant in Washington receives death threats. It comes with the territory. In this age of cheap stamps, phone calls, and free email, it's more common than ever before. Both sides have nutters who make death threats.
Yah, it really dissapoints me when I see that crap.
Recently, David Codrea (a pro-gun blogger I follow) bragged about a thinly veiled death threat he made to the EPA over the lead ammo petition.
I mean, come on. It makes you look like a moron to be reduced to that level. I hate it even more when people I agree with do it.
-
Once heard Karl Rove talk about death threats. Summary: Everybody significant in Washington receives death threats. It comes with the territory. In this age of cheap stamps, phone calls, and free email, it's more common than ever before. Both sides have nutters who make death threats.
/thread.
Yes. And one of our own runs it.
That is a great overstatement of my achievements.
-
As long as we're being honest, I'll trust you can back up that claim? Conservatism is the belief in limited government and individual liberty. Maybe you're trying to use a centuries-old definition of conservatism, just like some people try to argue that the centuries-old definition of liberal is one who believes in liberties. But we don't live in the 1700s. American conservatives believe in individual liberty. Islamic extremists do not.
OK, since Micro /'d the thread, thread drift it is.
Now just based on my own experiance, those of us here on APS that care strongly for limited governmnet and individual liberty seem to be a limited subset of american "Conservitives". John McCain and George W. Bush tend to personify the majority of conservitive that I see in central and north florida, as well as what I see written in national op-eds.
I can hear your keyboards spinning up with versions of "They're not conservitive", to which I'd answer that they think they are, most conservitive voters think they are and the liberals think they are, so for all intents and purposes they're part, a large part in fact, of the American Conservitive movement. You can throw the RINO label around as much as you'd like. The cold fact is outside of APS we're the fringe wacko conservitive, and the RINO's are the ones leading the movement.
Now I'm all about changing that, and reforming or kicking out the wanna be's, but denying the truth of that is counterproductive and pretty silly. If you disagree with me about the kind of "Conservitive" most conservitives like, ask JD Hayworth what he thinks. Or how the Hell we elected Charlie Christ governer of Florida. Or how Sherif Joe keeps getting elected. He seems all for limited government, as long as it's not his department that is limited.
Hell, look at the entire US federal government from 2000-2006. It was dominated by the "Conservitive Movement" and I didn't see a whole lot of limited government and pushes for individual liberty.
Before you fail my definition, make sure your's matches reality.
Life(except yours), Liberty(except our wimmins), and the pursuit of happiness(by blowing ourselves up). Small levels of gov't in everyone's life once we kill the gov't.
Life (except abortion doctors and fed agents), Liberty (except for the fags) and the pursuit of happyness (as long as beer on Sunday doesn't make you happy). Small levels of government (after we use it to block a church in a place we don't like).
One of the most annoying things to me, as some one who actually has had to go fight Jihadists, is Americans tendency to lump them all into "Crazy Terrorist" and dismiss them. I'm not defending either their ideas or their tactics, but as someone who's helped kill his fair share, they're not all stupid. Their life seems (is) ugly and repellent from here but for them it's actually pretty well thought out, and the leaders tend to be as well or better educated then us around here. The actual guy wearing the vest is often a moron, but he's not much of a threat.
So the leaders of radical islam believe that men should be free to live as long as it's inside gods will, that they should spread god's word, and that if needed the government should be used to enforce god's laws. Have any of you ever listened to Billy Graham? Because the imams of Iran have more in common with him then Hitler.
And before everyone jumps on me defending the Conservitive movement, save me the trouble of going back and Quote Mining from Sep-oct 2008.
Yes, conservitives in America are more liberty minded then most in the world, and yes there's a small subset (us mostly) that really believe it, but look around you act what is actually the conservitive movement. Most still don't mind the Patriot Act, G-Bay's fine, use the .gov to shut down the GZM, Sure the cops can GPS tag your car, send SWAT after thos nasty weed dealers, and make sure my Social Security gets paid on time.
-
OK, OK, so your mind's made up, you are so out of touch you think that Billy Graham can be compared to KSM, and you think that failing to go in for any made-up right that has been invented in the last fifty years makes a person anti-liberty.
Very well. I won't jump on you, then.
Look at the entire US federal government from 2000-2006. It was dominated by the "Conservitive Movement"
Uh, yeah, OK. =|
-
OK, OK, so your mind's made up, you are so out of touch you think that Billy Graham can be compared to KSM, and you think that failing to go in for any made-up right that has been invented in the last fifty years makes a person anti-liberty.
Not the point I was trying to make at all.
My point was that several of the things that are, in American Politics, "Conservitive" are themselves anti-liberty.
You really don't see the comparisons between folks willing to use the government to enfoce Christan tenants here, and folks using the government to enforce Muslim tenants in Iran? Obviously there's a drastic difference in both the level of government force, and the objective morality of the tenants being enforced, but on a sight where "Slippery Slope" is almost it's own religion I'd have thought the comparison would be more obvious.
It's possable that I am out of touch. I don't actually listen to Billy Graham, so what I know of his views come from my family that does listen to him, and the articles and Blogs I've read about him. So maybe I have an unfair view of him. I don't jump on every made up right. I haven't here, on this forum. But life is very rarely that black and white. In reality, in current american politics, I see some "liberals" that do good things for liberty, and some "conservitives" that do bad things for liberty, and vice versa. Why are you so dedicated to drawing firm ideological lines between liberal and conservitive? They don't seem to be as inflexable as your implying.
Or, to drag it back to my original statement, is your contention that a threat of violence is more credible from a liberal because it comes from a liberal. That's what I took exception to.
-
Look at the entire US federal government from 2000-2006. It was dominated by the "Conservitive Movement"
Uh, yeah, OK. =|
Did I miss something? The Liberals whined that Conservitives were in charge, the Conservitives crowed that they were in charge, the rank and file Republicans thought the Conservitives were in charge. Hell the only folks that thought Conservitives weren't in charge (that I met) were Libertarians.
I'm confused that you think because the Conservitive movement isin't, or wasn't what you'd hope it to be, that it wasn't the Conservitive Movement.
Or am I wrong? Was there some huge groundswell of standard rank and file republicans that thought Bush and the congress were off reservation? The folks that I knew then were either "Don't care about politics", "Bush is the Devil", or "He's saving us from the Liberals/terrorists"? :shrug
-
Why are you so dedicated to drawing firm ideological lines between liberal and conservitive? They don't seem to be as inflexable as your implying.
I don't think I am implying such. Please explain.
Was there some huge groundswell of standard rank and file republicans that thought Bush and the congress were off reservation?
There was widespread discontent from conservatives and libertarians both in and out of the Republican Party. A few issues on which many conservatives differed from Bush and other "RINOs" were:
The Iraq War
The Patriot Act
High levels of spending
Illegal alien issues
Prescription drug subsidies
The Dubai ports deal
Judicial appointments
Probably a few dozen more that aren't coming to mind right now.
-
So basically, ALL liberals are communists because a few liberals believe in communist principles. Makes sense to me. =D
-
It's ok. Nobody's spitting on black congressmen. Nothing to see, so move along.
Wasn't that the guy who claimed this happened in a crowd with 4,327 cameras (or less) rolling and no one can identify any video footage showing anything like what he claimed?
-
Well, Dogmush is correct in that there's been no true reconciliation between nationalism and libertarianism. And too many conservatives embrace something akin to "natural law" in forming their principles. Unfortunately, "natural law" appears, historically, to be on the side of autocracy, with the desire for individual liberty to be a noble thrust against the grain.
-
So basically, ALL liberals are communists because a few most liberals believe in communist principles. Makes sense to me. =D
FIFY....esp. if you've read The Communist Manifesto....
-
1) Conservatism wasn't in charge between 2000-2006, "Compassionate conservatism" was. I don't find giving people government money compassionate nor conservative.
2) I guess when people think that life, liberty and property include that of unborn children, they are the Taliban.
3) Someone has a problem with federalism, I see. No conservative wants to implement blue laws across the country. I do, however, have no problem with localities enacting them on the preference of their majority. Don't like it? There's plenty of places without such laws.
-
2) I guess when people think that life, liberty and property include that of unborn children, they are the Taliban.
That.
1) Conservatism wasn't in charge between 2000-2006,
Of course it wasn't. The fact that one ideological group tends to vote for a certain party doesn't mean that said party does exactly what they want.
-
3) Someone has a problem with federalism, I see. No conservative wants to implement blue laws across the country. I do, however, have no problem with localities enacting them on the preference of their majority. Don't like it? There's plenty of places without such laws.
I take it you disagree with the Lochner reasoning?
-
Lets be honest, the majority of the American Conservative movement doesn't believe in individual liberty, economic achievment, and small levels of government involvement in one's life.
I do not argue your point, but I will take issue with the wording:
A goodly portion of modern-day Republicans do not follow lowercase-c-conservative principles. Just because the word "conservative" is used as a synonym(even a pejorative) for "Republican" does not make it so. As makattak said, the 2000-2006 years were led by "compassionate conservatives", which is another way of saying "center-right moderates". G.W. Bush and Congress did little during those years to cut spending, enforce ethics and control abuses, or advance individual liberties - each of which are unarguably conservative values.
Again, don't get wrapped around the axle here, all I'm saying is that the threat is not MORE credible simply because a leftist made it. In fact, on average I think a random APS member is much mor likely to have the ability to carry out a threat (not the motivation, mind you, but the ability) then the entire DU combined.
An angry fool is a thousand times more dangerous than a level-headed man with ability.
Now just based on my own experiance, those of us here on APS that care strongly for limited governmnet and individual liberty seem to be a limited subset of american "Conservitives". John McCain and George W. Bush tend to personify the majority of conservitive that I see in central and north florida, as well as what I see written in national op-eds.
I can hear your keyboards spinning up with versions of "They're not conservitive", to which I'd answer that they think they are, most conservitive voters think they are and the liberals think they are, so for all intents and purposes they're part, a large part in fact, of the American Conservitive movement. You can throw the RINO label around as much as you'd like. The cold fact is outside of APS we're the fringe wacko conservitive, and the RINO's are the ones leading the movement.
Well, you asked for it. McCain(spit) and G.W. Bush do NOT represent conservative American values. Just because the news media says do, does not make it so. Republicans are AT THIS INSTANT attempting to hijack the conservative movement in America, by playing along, but as has been discussed above, many of the incumbents who are trying to ride the TEA party wave are the same jackasses who pissed away their power in 2000-2006 through corruption, big spending, etc.
On the point that public perception of Republicans makes them conservative - that is simply not true. Apply that line of reasoning to the Second Amendment debate. Suppose that SCOTUS decided that "the militia" means the National Guard, because the militia in the 18th-century sense no longer really exists, and people don't use the word in the same way anymore. That would irritate you, right? 2A means what it meant in 1787, right? Conservative values are, for the most part, what they have been for a hundred years(i.e. what used to be just "American values"). Those who claim to embrace them, for the most part, do not.
Life (except abortion doctors and fed agents), Liberty (except for the fags) and the pursuit of happyness (as long as beer on Sunday doesn't make you happy). Small levels of government (after we use it to block a church in a place we don't like).
The America that abortion-doctor killers would like to see is not an America where I would wish to live.
Gays have the very same rights straights do.
Just because some backward county or state restricts alcohol consumption does not make it a conservative value.
the leaders tend to be as well or better educated then us around here.
It has been my observation that the more "educated" a person is, the less connected with reality he becomes. I suppose that confirms your point :)
Most still don't mind the Patriot Act, G-Bay's fine, use the .gov to shut down the GZM, Sure the cops can GPS tag your car, send SWAT after thos nasty weed dealers, and make sure my Social Security gets paid on time.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety..."
So basically, ALL liberals are communists because a few liberals believe in communist principles. Makes sense to me. =D
You seem to be employing sarcasm, but your statement is truer than you think.
You are not what you say, or what you think. You are what you do, what you vote, and what you publicly support. The modern liberal who voted for Obama(or Pelosi, Boxer, Reid, etc.) and will vote for him again is effecting change toward the enactment of socialist(not communist) principles. Just because they don't consider themselves socialists, communists, or whatever else does not make them innocent. For the same reason that the early-2000s Republican majority is not conservative - because of what they did - the majority of liberals is advancing the socialist cause, one feel-good safety-net program at a time.
On an aside, someone needs to do a comprehensive tally of deaths resulting from right-wing nuts and left-wing nuts. I'm so very tired of hearing Islamic terrorism excused/marginalized by the claim that "people walk into post offices, they walk into schools, that's what Columbine is (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/05/28/pbss-tavis-smiley-far-more-christian-terrorists-muslim-ones-tea-part)"(Tavis Smiley interview, PBS). I am similarly sick of hearing that rightists are dangerous and leftists are not.
-
CRM's nah, progressive repubs just fits them better. kinda like retreads, they look the same as the normal progressives, just don't go as far, or as fast. and if you overheat one it pops. [popcorn]
-
CRM's nah, progressive repubs just fits them better. kinda like retreads, they look the same as the normal progressives, just don't go as far, or as fast. and if you overheat one it pops. [popcorn]
Hey now... I run on retreads ;)
Still waiting for McCain to *pop* :)
-
Lets be honest, the majority of the American Conservative movement doesn't believe in individual liberty, economic achievment, and small levels of government involvement in one's life.
This is a curious statement.
Do you differentiate between freedom and liberty?
And this may seem completely unrelated, but I'm curious what you think: do you object to HOAs?
-
when we are to the point breaking hoa "rules" will earn you jail time (http://www.tampabay.com/news/humaninterest/article847365.ece), where are we?
edit: forgot to change the subject =(
-
when we are to the point breaking hoa "rules" will earn you jail time (http://www.tampabay.com/news/humaninterest/article847365.ece), where are we?
Wonder how much it costs to rent a sprayer truck full of Roundup for a Sunday night drive?....
-
Do you differentiate between freedom and liberty?
Do you? If so, you should start a thread on the subject. I've been told there is a difference, but I've never understood what that might be.
-
geoffrey nunberg tries. [popcorn] (http://www.wehaitians.com/what%20we%20are%20fighting%20for.html)
Wonder how much it costs to rent a sprayer truck full of Roundup for a Sunday night drive?....
i suspect that will be the next step in the (prank?)war. [tinfoil]
-
I gotta wonder how bad the HOA issue would be if they modified the rules on foreclosure just a bit. What would it do if they required them to sell the house at or near actual market value rather than gifting some buddy a sweetheart deal at an auction. Of course, anything over what is owed including probably a real estate agent goes to the homeowner.
Have any of you served as head of an HOA? Have you ever been offered kickbacks for stuff like this?
As an engineer with some responsibility at an operating plant, I have been offered cash for "used" equipment or parts. A number of others I have known said much the same thing. One guy said a dealer pulled out a wad of cash to add to it.
I guess that is a big thread drift. As for the OP, death threats suck, but on the national political scene, they seem to be common.