Massacre In Arizona

Discussion
101

I think it’s fair to reason that Liberals are non-violent and don’t condone that kind of behavior. After all, a liberal who supports violence isn’t a liberal, he’s a Libertarian.

I understand how many conservatives might confuse the two since it requires abstract thinking.

Oh, brother . . . this is just as bad as some of the earlier failures. Some of you so-called liberals and conservatives get so caught up in your retarded good vs. evil, us vs. them mentality (yes, I’m referring to both liberals and conservatives) that you can’t just weigh ideas or thoughts independently and refrain from attaching some lame ass caricature to those you supposedly “oppose”.

You just used the phrase . . . “a liberal who supports violence isn’t a liberal, he’s a Libertarian” to attack someone else’s argument or opinion (maybe mine, I’m not really following too well).

So you define a Libertarian as a liberal who supports violence. You just admitted, inadvertantly, that there are liberals who support violence. For YOU to then imply that no “conservatives” are capable of abstract thinking is just idiotic.

Anyway, I don’t give a rat’s ass who is liberal and who is conservative. And I don’t care what people think I am (I’ve been accused of both) as I refuse to be aligned with either side.

I think people who need to simplify things into such A or B boxes are incapable of reasoning out ideas on their own merit.

Anyway . . . carry on.

102

I think it’s fair to reason that Liberals are non-violent and don’t condone that kind of behavior. After all, a liberal who supports violence isn’t a liberal, he’s a Libertarian.

I understand how many conservatives might confuse the two since it requires abstract thinking.

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

103

HAHA! Awesome! I never knew the term. Thanks.

104

So you define a Libertarian as a liberal who supports violence. You just admitted, inadvertantly, that there are liberals who support violence. For YOU to then imply that no “conservatives” are capable of abstract thinking is just idiotic.

There’s an old joke, or carnard, that goes, “What do you call a Liberal who likes guns? A Libertarian”. It’s been around for decades. There’s a difference between supporting the 2nd Amendment and ‘liking guns’ or using or supporting gun violence as a means to an end. Do Liberals in the US advocate using gun violence as a means to an end? I know of none. Do Right-Wing militias and the politicians and media pundits they follow advocate using guns as a violent threat? You betcha they do. It wouldn’t take long to google dozens if not hundreds of examples.

I’m fully in support of the 2nd Amendment, but I’m also a Liberal and a US Navy Veteran. I also understand the difference between a responsible gun owner and violent gun-nut like Shelley Shannon who, at the instigation and with the blessing of mainstream Right-Wing pundit Bill O’Reilly, murdered a doctor with 5 shots from a handgun.

105

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yRdDnrB5kM

106

Oh, brother . . . this is just as bad as some of the earlier failures. Some of you so-called liberals and conservatives get so caught up in your retarded good vs. evil, us vs. them mentality (yes, I’m referring to both liberals and conservatives) that you can’t just weigh ideas or thoughts independently and refrain from attaching some lame ass caricature to those you supposedly “oppose”.

But we do weigh them. We just weight them faster than others, to the casual observer it may appear like we are quick to follow along but it’s just that the processing is faster. For people that follow them constantly it’s not that we don’t weigh the ideas it’s just that we consistently see the same shit coming from the same “sides” you wouldn’t call somebody who supports the death penalty a liberal not because we are simplifying and categorizing, but because that is consistently something that comes from the right. You wouldn’t call a climate change sympathizer a conservative because that’s consistently a liberal agenda. Those are just simple examples, you start following along with more regularity and more and more issues become easier to spot.

You just used the phrase . . . “a liberal who supports violence isn’t a liberal, he’s a Libertarian” to attack someone else’s argument or opinion (maybe mine, I’m not really following too well).

I didn’t read that as an attack but more support that liberals aren’t violent.

So you define a Libertarian as a liberal who supports violence. You just admitted, inadvertantly, that there are liberals who support violence.

Actually he didn’t. If you look at the contraction “isn’t” (which means “is not”) you’ll see it’s placed in the sentence to show that Liberals aren’t violent. The simpler answer is “they don’t exist.”

See…
“After all, a liberal who supports violence [u]isn’t a liberal[/u], he’s a Libertarian. “
…He ceases to be a liberal and moves into libertarian.

For YOU to then imply that no “conservatives” are capable of abstract thinking is just idiotic.

I think he was kidding about the uptight nature of conservatives.

Anyway, I don’t give a rat’s ass who is liberal and who is conservative. And I don’t care what people think I am (I’ve been accused of both) as I refuse to be aligned with either side.

Well if you follow the issues like some people do (myself included) you would care a little more. I support the side of tolerance and by definition liberals are on the side of tolerance anything less is not liberal. I prefer to “categorize” because without it the lines are blurred and are easily corrupted. All of the horrible shit that is attributed to “liberals” gains traction because people don’t pay attention and therefore don’t know any better.

I like the web site crooks and liars, and their stories and what not tend to be tolerance orientated (if not pointing out the hypocrisy of the right) but if you ever read the comments on that site? Many of those posters are anything but liberal they’re major conservative but on their own issues.

For even more example look how people lazily throw around the idea “that both sides are equally bad” and that goes, for the most part, unchallenged, which is bullshit… you got that list of right wing nuts talking violence, find one of those with liberals, I’m willing to bet you won’t come close to that kind of list.

I think people who need to simplify things into such A or B boxes are incapable of reasoning out ideas on their own merit.

Not really. It’s not like anyone is telling them to put this in A and this in B. they are deciding for themselves. I mean I’m sure some are like that but I would like to think that those are only the casual observer types.

For example if I did that, I would take the commentors at crooks and liars as liberals but I don’t because they’re comments don’t lend themselves to that label.
Late,
grmpysmrf

107

[reply]
by very definition of the left they can not possibly be dangerous

[reply]

In that case religious groups cannot be dangerous, but you know some of them are. Same happens with all ideologies, they can be interpreted the way their members want, and you know there very imaginative and dangerous people out there.

Kim jong il is a lefty like you are, but he is a violent and brutal sociopath and you’re not. The same way, not everybody from American right wing have such an extremist, ignorant and dangerous position like the tea party.

Left/Right are just generalizations and they have attached so many premises and even contradictions and similarities that’s impossible to say: this is pure left or pure right.

108

Non-libertarian leftists who had no problem with guns and/or violence:

Now, I will mention that violent leftists are not so much the norm in 21st Century America. But to pretend that their very existence is oxymoronic is just foolish

109

Non-libertarian leftists who had no problem with guns and/or violence:

Now, I will mention that violent leftists are not so much the norm in 21st Century America. But to pretend that their very existence is oxymoronic is just foolish

I love the bit about the Weatherman wanted in connection of “reported acquisition of firearms”. That’s enough to condemn about 90% of the tea partiers.

And Che? Overthowing Batista was a good and noble thing. Besides…as much as he should be admired, he’s not part of the equation since he’s was’t an American. You’re comparing apples and oranges.

The Black Panthers? Probably the closest leftist American organization that one might compare to the tea partiers and their attitudes towards guns and violence. But if I was a minority that had to regularly put up with the kind of social injustices, not to mention the lynchings supplied by the ancestors of today’s modern tea party (namely rednecks and hillbillies), I might just get a little pissed off myself.

Of course, this was all 40 or 50 years ago anyway. I don’t think any of those examples is even valid.

110

Historically speaking there has been violence from the extremes on both sides in America. President McKinnley’s assassin was an avowed anarchist, but conversely John Wilkes Booth was once a member of the “Know Nothing” party whose anti-immigrant stance has a modern analog in the Tea Party’s heated rhetoric.

111

[reply]
by very definition of the left they can not possibly be dangerous

In that case religious groups cannot be dangerous, but you know some of them are.
[/reply]
I think it would be more accurate to say that not all religious groups are left. Between Southern Baptists, Fundamentalist Christians and Mormons (as institutions) those are some of the most non tolerant religions . Anything less than tolerance is not Liberal

I think for the most part, most organized religions lean way more right than left anyway. Basically completely dismissing the teachings of the guy they say they love.

Same happens with all ideologies, they can be interpreted the way their members want, and you know there very imaginative and dangerous people out there.

Certainly, but because you start out one way doesn’t mean you can’t shift… Look at Jones town if you follow the history of the Jim Jones he started out very liberal, very progressive but as he got sicker and sicker he certainly abandoned those ideals and moved from tolerant leader to fascist murderer.

Kim jong il is a lefty like you are, but he is a violent and brutal sociopath and you’re not.

then that would make him NOT a lefty NOR Like me. When his state is suffering and he is living it up that is not left polices that is socialist dictatorship and very NOT left. Whenever you have one person calling all of the shots and holding others down those are not left ideals. That’s fascism. Now you wanna say that the left can lead to fascism I say ok anything is corruptible but at the moment it’s corrupted it ceases to be what it was. It seems easier to get to fascism through the right (and actually seems to be the ultimately goal of the right in the sense that money and power is the ultimate goal)

The same way, not everybody from American right wing have such an extremist, ignorant and dangerous position like the tea party.

That’s a fair enough point and certainly the truth when it comes down to individuals but when those individuals go to the ballot box they cease to be individuals and just become part of the voting bloc that votes for crap people like Michelle Bachman. Obviously that’s not the case with propositions (unless they’re blatantly partisan like prop 8 or other such nonsense) but definitely so with the candidates you vote for.

Left/Right are just generalizations and they have attached so many premises and even contradictions and similarities that’s impossible to say: this is pure left or pure right.

there is certainly grey area but see above about how based on how you vote is definitely black and white at the ballot box.

Non-libertarian leftists who had no problem with guns and/or violence:

That would make them NOT leftist. Anybody that is/would try to tell others what to do by violence or threat of violence is NOT left. The left is tolerant

Historically speaking there has been violence from the extremes on both sides in America. President McKinnley’s assassin was an avowed anarchist, but conversely John Wilkes Booth was once a member of the “Know Nothing” party whose anti-immigrant stance has a modern analog in the Tea Party’s heated rhetoric.

I would argue that a true leftist is beyond violence. And if pushed to violence it’s only to preserve their own individual lives. Such as che for example, but they do not look for it. The black panther party for the most part was not leftist in the sense that they would openly look for cops and what not to kill… now you look at something like the Montgomery Bus Boycotts, perfect example of a leftist protest. The integration riots where they turned the fire hoses and the dogs on black folks the protesters still did not fight back.

Militants are not lefties. There is no way around it. militants are just a different brand of “right.” Castro is a perfect example, that son of a bitch is in no way tolerant. And lets his people live in poverty. A lefty wouldn’t impose that.

Sorry if I came off assholish, it’s not meant to sound that way. just counterpointing in this discussion. Which I am enjoying more now that’s it’s not just a “Grmpy’s mean thread”

For the Rev: [;)]
[url http://furrybrowndog.wordpress.com/2009/07/22/the-fallacy-of-false-equivalence/] false equivalence fallacy

All that needs for a Scotsman to be true is to be born in Scotland (meals have nothing to do with it) all that one needs to be liberal is tolerance. I.E. not born in Scotland? Not a real Scotsman. No tolerance? not really a liberal.
Late,
grmpysmrf

112

Guns do not kill people, people kill people with guns, knives, ligatures, baseball bats, their hands, rocks, cars, etc. Child molesters are sick people.

Proposed solution: Everyone has to go in for a comprehensive psych eval and if you don’t pass, you get put on a list that says that you can’t purchase a gun, fly on a plane, drive a car, have a child, be around other people or children, have kitchen knives, play baseball, etc.

113

Commies, and Hippies, and Retards, OH MY!!

114

Apparently, liberals do make threats.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-15/justice/arizona.shooting.victim.custody_1_town-hall-event-tea-party-trent-humphries?_s=PM:CRIME

115

Reading this thread gave me brain damage.

116

Apparently, liberals do make threats.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-15/justice/arizona.shooting.victim.custody_1_town-hall-event-tea-party-trent-humphries?_s=PM:CRIME

Trent Humphries, and his “blame the victim” mentality, deserves every insult that can hurled his way. In a recent interview with The Guardian, Humphries even went so far as to claim that he, and the tea party, and his family were the actual victims…not Giffords, not the young 9 year old girl who was murdered, nor any of the other 5 citizens who were killed. Why anybody should venture to defend him is beyond the pale.

117

Wempathy, you’re such a little girl. You’re a bigger cry baby than Grumpy. Grumpy, though, seems like a snarling vicious Commie, which is kind of cool. You just seem like a little butthurt baby all the time.

118

Wempathy, you’re such a little girl. You’re a bigger cry baby than Grumpy. Grumpy, though, seems like a snarling vicious Commie, which is kind of cool. You just seem like a little butthurt baby all the time.

Personal attacks begin when there is no argumentative basis on the side of the attacker. I’ve been political blogging since the advent of the internet so I’ve learned to ignore the trolls. And I’ll be ignoring you henceforth.

119

I’ve been political blogging since the advent of the internet

Great credentials there, Hoss. You’re a regular ol’ Wolf Blitzer, ain’t ya?

120

Apparently, liberals do make threats.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-15/justice/arizona.shooting.victim.custody_1_town-hall-event-tea-party-trent-humphries?_s=PM:CRIME

I would argue that a true leftist is beyond violence. And if pushed to violence it’s only to preserve their own individual lives

You could argue that in light of recent events it’s open season on liberals complete with hunting permit… perhaps he feels like his life is in danger with the leader of the tea party walking around. I couldn’t blame him, seeing as how he was shot while pretty much minding his own business.
Late,
grmpysmrf