SnyderShrugged Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 What is your motivation for asking this?How about everything that pits "us patriots/americans" againt "them socialists/communists/Nazis/marxists/liberals" no motivation, just trying to see what "extremism" is being referred to here in the context of Pelosi's comments and this thread. Seems as though your definition fits pretty much any disagreement between political affiliations. something that has existed, well, since well before our nation was founded. Glad you were able to define it for me, its pretty much what I expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 So pick 40 years. How many people killed by left-wing nutjobs? How many people killed by right-wing nutjobs? Is it NOW a "numbers game" when it comes to deaths?..."The Right/Left nutjobs have killed more than the Left/Right nutjobs"??...Can't we agree that nutjobs on BOTH sides have resorted to violent means, including killing? Guards in armored trucks, innocent patrons at banks, scientists who deal with animal testing...there's a long list of victims of Leftwing nutjob violence readily available in the U.S. history. Either side claiming that "their" side is innocent of this type of violence is insulting and beyond ridiculous. Wanna go back further? How many people murdered for supporting civil rights, and how many for opposing them? This is really an amazingly weak argument you're providing. But since you're so into the number of deaths caused and not simply the violence perpetrated by BOTH sides (yeah, because some lucky mf survived a bomb blast, he doesn't count towards political violence :doh: ), why don't you enlighten us all on exactly how many deaths over the last, say, 50 years have been at the hand of Rightwing and Leftwing nutjobs...as well as how many individual acts of violence have occurred at the hand of rightwing and leftwing extremists...you apparently know exactly how many (far be it from you to talk in generalities that you have no factual basis to back up, of course lol )...So give us the data so that we may all be as enlightened as you are on this matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 So that would be zero in the US. Now what is the death toll for right wingers in the US? Why are we now focusing so much on death tolls?...Pelosi was NOT crying over seeing the blood of fellow citizens spilled on the streets...and most of you were at first commenting on protesters merely carrying guns. Put another way, how many deaths have occurred by those gun-toting protestors so far? Since it's now only the number of deaths that we're consumed with, since NONE of those gun-weilding protesters have killed anyone, why should be even be bothered by them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 no motivation, just trying to see what "extremism" is being referred to here in the context of Pelosi's comments and this thread.Seems as though your definition fits pretty much any disagreement between political affiliations. something that has existed, well, since well before our nation was founded. Glad you were able to define it for me, its pretty much what I expected. What you expected of what it seemed? I'm asking that because I believe the stuff I'm talking about ought to be moderated and it is irresponsible to present it as the disagreement between political affiliations. Unfortunately things appear to be moving in that direction, which is what Pelosi is warning about, which is what GOP appears to be reluctant to moderate, which is irresponsible and dangerous, and that's a problem. More over, that is a specifically right-wing problem that is not replicated on both extremes of the political spectrum... which seems to be the point many people here are trying to convey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 I watched that video- fake as hell imo. no tears in her eyes- she's a terrible actress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianm23 Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Jeffereson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 It wasn't the alt media that put McVeigh over the edge. Isn't it sad how many people buy into that garbage? :doh:... That would be the acts of that strong Democrat at Waco ect. More true than people bother realizing...if you heard what was "motivating" these idiots, you would NOT hear them quoting the likes of Rush Limbaugh...they are severely into the conspiracy theory camp and have their own mouthpieces to energize them. In fact, guys like Hannity and Limbaugh would probably piss them off as much as they'd incite them lol...they need someone who feeds into their conspiratorial belief system ("911 was caused by the U.S. gubmint...Waco was Clinton going on a killing spree to take away our religious freedoms")...mainstream talk radio hosts rarely, if ever, bother to give these viewpoints any validity or credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 What you expected of what it seemed? I'm asking that because I believe the stuff I'm talking about ought to be moderated and it is irresponsible to present it as the disagreement between political affiliations. Unfortunately things appear to be moving in that direction, which is what Pelosi is warning about, which is what GOP appears to be reluctant to moderate, which is irresponsible and dangerous, and that's a problem. More over, that is a specifically right-wing problem that is not replicated on both extremes of the political spectrum... which seems to be the point many people here are trying to convey. What are the indicators of this extremism that is a right wing problem that they should moderate that you mentioned? Before you said ".How about everything that pits "us patriots/americans" againt "them socialists/communists/Nazis/marxists/liberals" Really trying to learn what you are seeing as this dangerous problem that made her cry and how it is different from any other disagreement politically in the past. What is more dangerous and extreme now than was more dangerous and extreme last year, 5 years ago, 10 years ago, etc.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Jeffereson I love how the founding father are only acknowledged when they agree with a position. During the torture debate everyone ignored their position on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Jeffereson The somewhat funny part is, this is what happened in 2008 elections. You may not see it that way, but election of Obama is what rebellions look like nowadays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heyholetsgogrant Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Why are we now focusing so much on death tolls?...Pelosi was NOT crying over seeing the blood of fellow citizens spilled on the streets...and most of you were at first commenting on protesters merely carrying guns. Put another way, how many deaths have occurred by those gun-toting protestors so far? Since it's now only the number of deaths that we're consumed with, since NONE of those gun-weilding protesters have killed anyone, why should be even be bothered by them? That's not the point. It's the political atmosphere, that makes it OK for people to say what they want. This in turn allows crazies to come out and actually make threats against the president and feel OK doing so, because the atmosphere is allowing it (ie. he's not a citizen, he's Muslim bury him with Kennedy, etc). This reminds when I was reading about Kennedy's death. In the Dallas Morning News there was a full page add calling JFK soft on Communist the day he was murdered. -Grant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 You don't want to play this game... somebody may start bringing up a well known European right wing party Sure I do. If it's a numbers game there's no question who's killed more and if I infer what you're alluding too the Nazi, you really need to provide your substantiation to the claim the were "right wing". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 I watched that video- fake as hell imo. no tears in her eyes- she's a terrible actress. Well, if she were a better actress (or better looking) she wouldn't be a Hollywood politician. (I think I'll leave, now.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DixieFlatline Posted September 18, 2009 Author Share Posted September 18, 2009 What you expected of what it seemed? I'm asking that because I believe the stuff I'm talking about ought to be moderated and it is irresponsible to present it as the disagreement between political affiliations. Unfortunately things appear to be moving in that direction, which is what Pelosi is warning about, which is what GOP appears to be reluctant to moderate, which is irresponsible and dangerous, and that's a problem. More over, that is a specifically right-wing problem that is not replicated on both extremes of the political spectrum... which seems to be the point many people here are trying to convey. Please point me to statements of moderation by the Democrats during the Bush presidency. I don't think you'll find any. I don't believe what's happening now is all that much different from the left during Bush's presidency protesting Iraq, Patriot Act, etc... Of course, I don't think we're close to this violence then or now. There are people on both sides that throw out extreme slogans. Just because you hear about it more now doesn't mean we're closer to violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 That's not the point. It's the political atmosphere, that makes it OK for people to say what they want. This in turn allows crazies to come out and actually make threats against the president. For example, in the Dallas Morning News there was a full page add calling JFK a Communist the day he was murdered.-Grant Was there a threat against the president recently? Are there more of these threats than there were a year ago? Hmmm, what is different that has "made it OK" for people to say what they want now as opposed to the recent past? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Nothing is ever anyone's fault. And yet here we stand, on a precipice, and no one is responsible. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 That's not the point. It's the political atmosphere, that makes it OK for people to say what they want. This in turn allows crazies to come out and actually make threats against the president and feel OK doing so, because the atmosphere is allowing it (ie. he's not a citizen, he's Muslim bury him with Kennedy, etc). This reminds when I was reading about Kennedy's death. In the Dallas Morning News there was a full page add calling JFK soft on Communist the day he was murdered.-Grant That was the original point, yes...but this thread devolved into a stupid argument as to which side has murdered more people, the nutjob Left or the nutjob right. I was merely showing how stupid it was to do down that path, because if you DO go down that path, using that logic then the protesters carrying guns are not a threat nor should they be sweated because to date they have not caused any deaths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 What are the indicators of this extremism that is a right wing problem that they should moderate that you mentioned?Before you said ".How about everything that pits "us patriots/americans" againt "them socialists/communists/Nazis/marxists/liberals" Really trying to learn what you are seeing as this dangerous problem that made her cry and how it is different from any other disagreement politically in the past. What is more dangerous and extreme now than was more dangerous and extreme last year, 5 years ago, 10 years ago, etc.? What makes this more dangerous is presence of a progressive black man in the White House that has a determination to solve long-linering problems and has a majority in Congress. Changes need to happen and they will happen. The opposition party refused to participate in a meaningful way and decided to take a hold-the-line approach. Reigns of the backlash movement are in the hands of irresponsible shock jokeys, and there seems to be very few attempts to moderate those elements from people in power. I see these developments as dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heyholetsgogrant Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 That was the original point, yes...but this thread devolved into a stupid argument as to which side has murdered more people, the nutjob Left or the nutjob right. I was merely showing how stupid it was to do down that path, because if you DO go down that path, using that logic then the protesters carrying guns are not a threat nor should they be sweated because to date they have not caused any deaths. fair enough. Sorry, I just jumped in the post now, I'll be honest I didn't was to read 15 pages -Grant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 That was the original point, yes...but this thread devolved into a stupid argument as to which side has murdered more people, the nutjob Left or the nutjob right. I was merely showing how stupid it was to do down that path, because if you DO go down that path, using that logic then the protesters carrying guns are not a threat nor should they be sweated because to date they have not caused any deaths. Actually, I'd point out that I don't think anyone mentioned the people peacefully showing up openly carrying legal weapons. (An act which I don't necessarily support, but I'll concede that, like burning the flag, it's a Right.) I brought the subject up, to point out the number of attempted Presidential assassinations under eight years of Bush vs six months of Obama. Not the people standing on the sidewalk, outside the building, where a Congressman is about to speak, openly carrying. The people hidden inside the building. The ones who's actions look to me like their intent wasn't just to get their picture on TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 What makes this more dangerous is presence of a progressive black man in the White House that has a determination to solve long-linering problems and has a majority in Congress. Changes need to happen and they will happen. The opposition party refused to participate in a meaningful way and decided to take a hold-the-line approach. Reigns of the backlash movement are in the hands of irresponsible shock jokeys, and there seems to be very few attempts to moderate those elements from people in power. I see these developments as dangerous. Despite the color of the man in office (which really hasnt presented any different degree of danger over any other President we've ever had) everything else you have described has been the atmosphere in politics since this great nation's founding. There is always an opposition party, there is almost always a hold the line mentality from said opposition, and the proverbial "reigns" of some fantasy "backlash" movement have always been in the hands of media. I'm actually rather surprised at the assertion that something is different with our current president in office. It is no different than the couple of centuries before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Despite the color of the man in office (which really hasnt presented any different degree of danger over any other President we've ever had) everything else you have described has been the atmosphere in politics since this great nation's founding. There is always an opposition party, there is almost always a hold the line mentality from said opposition, and the proverbial "reigns" of some fantasy "backlash" movement have always been in the hands of media.I'm actually rather surprised at the assertion that something is different with our current president in office. It is no different than the couple of centuries before. I'm not saying this particular situation is more dangerous or somehow fundamentally different from other situations in our nation's long history... :whoknows: This is a dangerous situation that is likely to result in violence unless moderated... as many similar situations have in the past... and apparent lack of moderating attempts from the right is troubling... that is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 I'm not saying this particular situation is more dangerous or somehow fundamentally different from other situations in our nation's long history... :whoknows: This is a dangerous situation that is likely to result in violence unless moderated... as many similar situations have in the past... and apparent lack of moderating attempts from the right is troubling... that is all. I still dont get your assumption that this "is likely to result in violence unless moderated" What makes you believe this, what data are you using to make this assumption? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 This is just another cheap political ploy on Pelosi's part to divert attention away from eroding public confidence in this administration's over-reaching plans. There has not been any violence reported to date and the liberals just cheapen themselves by trying to play the race card. Jimmy Carter may actually be helping the GOP with his recent remarks. There is a very real feeling of tension (for everyone) as it relates to the economy but to boil it down (dumb it down) by using race is just really tasteless. The majority of people just voted this guy in and now they apparently hate him? After 8 months? Does anyone believe this? Jeez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 I still dont get your assumption that this "is likely to result in violence unless moderated"What makes you believe this, what data are you using to make this assumption? Statistical guesstimation... Looking at the seemingly large #s of people who apparently buy into the rhetoric and assuming that a very small % of those people may do something violent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.