This reminds me of the movie stereotype of a mobster telling a shop owner, "Nice store... it would be a shame if something were to happen to it."
But they're not mobsters, they're respectable businessmen, right?
MrVyngaard on
"now I've got this mental image of caucuses as cafeteria tables in prison, and new congressmen having to beat someone up on inauguration day." - Raiden333
This reminds me of the movie stereotype of a mobster telling a shop owner, "Nice store... it would be a shame if something were to happen to it."
But they're not mobsters, they're respectable businessmen, right?
Right.
She had the opportunity to say something not-insane, like "Despite my serious grievances with the way our country is going, I don't think it's a tyranny yet," or "I trust the American people to do the right thing in November" or even "Just because one candidate doesn't get elected, doesn't mean that democracy has failed us."
But instead she said "I'm hoping that we're not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems." The direct, obvious implication of that is "If you don't vote me in, then it's morally acceptable for people to take up arms."
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
This reminds me of the movie stereotype of a mobster telling a shop owner, "Nice store... it would be a shame if something were to happen to it."
But they're not mobsters, they're respectable businessmen, right?
Right.
She had the opportunity to say something not-insane, like "Despite my serious grievances with the way our country is going, I don't think it's a tyranny yet," or "I trust the American people to do the right thing in November" or even "Just because one candidate doesn't get elected, doesn't mean that democracy has failed us."
But instead she said "I'm hoping that we're not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems." The direct, obvious implication of that is "If you don't vote me in, then it's morally acceptable for people to take up arms."
Yeah, this has basically been my point so far. We have a person running for elective office, whose base of support are people who are angry. Now, that is alright, sometimes people need to be angry about things for them to get fixed, anger can be a useful emotion. However, the way I see it if you are a person who is a leader of such angry people, a spokesperson for them, it is also your fucking moral responsibility to help channel that anger constructively. If you instead suggest that violence might be necessary in a situation where violence is way fucking out of bounds, than I'm going to consider you somewhat morally culpable if some of your angry followers decide to employ violence.
Right she just hopes people will elect Harry Reid out of office so they don't have to use a remedy that involves the second amendment.
The OP asked:
THE QUESTION: WHAT CONSTITUTES REAL DOMESTIC TERRORISM, AND WHEN ARE THEY JUST BEING AN ASSBASKET?
Maybe these comments are douchey, but they're not domestic terrorism by any objective or legal standard.
I think people worried about Tea Party brownshirts trying to violently overthrow the government are just a a bunch of nervous Nellies with no knowledge of history. We have very little history of political violence in this country, and this election cycle is no different.
So people getting curb stomped was common in previous elections?
People getting assaulted during election time is, and always has been, quite rare in the US. Each election, including this one, you can probably count such events on the fingers of one hand.
Yeah, a few people will get overheated and engage each other physically during election time. But given the literally thousands of political events going on around the country, those occurrences are almost statistically non-existent.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
They were the first ones to call themselves that at events and on Fox. Then Obama called them that and they decided they just now figured out what it meant and didn't like it. Hannity went from calling them tea baggers to bitching about Obama calling them tea baggers in the space of like 4 days.
So, the point you're making is that some (not all) Tea Partiers, who did not know the sexual connotations of the term "tea-bagger," used the term for several days, so it is perfectly acceptible to refer to them with a clearly dismissive, pejorative, and vulgar term months or years later? It was not long ago in the span of human history that the n-word was perfectly accepted as a term for blacks. So, it would not make me seem unreasonable in your view to continue referring to them as such.
I don't like Hannity. He annoys me. So, I was unaware of him using the term. When the Tea Parties first started, I was invited to attend by some enthusiastic friends, none of whom referred to themselves as "tea-baggers." (I was unable to attend because I was strapped for cash and did not want to ask for time off from a job I had just started for anything shy of an emergency.) The first instance of the term I encountered personally was Keith Olbermann shouting, "Let the tea-bagging BEGIN!"
Whatever the origin of the slur, does it's use contribute to "debate and discourse?" Would I seem reasonable if I referred to Obama's supporters as "libtards" or "n#####-lovers"? Or would my seemingly ignorant vulgarity merely alienate you and reduce your desire to treat me as a presumed equal?
They were the first ones to call themselves that at events and on Fox. Then Obama called them that and they decided they just now figured out what it meant and didn't like it. Hannity went from calling them tea baggers to bitching about Obama calling them tea baggers in the space of like 4 days.
So, the point your making is that some (not all) Tea Partiers, who did not know the sexual connotations of the term "tea-bagger," used the term for several days, so it is perfectly acceptible to refer to them with a clearly dismissive, pejorative, and vulgar term months or years later? It was not long ago in the span of human history that the n-word was perfectly accepted as a term for blacks. So, it would not make me seem unreasonable in your view to continue referring to them as such.
I don't like Hannity. He annoys me. So, I was unaware of him using the term. When the Tea Parties first started, I was invited to attend by some enthusiastic friends, none of whom referred to themselves as "tea-baggers." (I was unable to attend because I was strapped for cash and did not want to ask for time off from a job I had just started for anything shy of an emergency.) The first instance of the term I encountered personally was Keith Olbermann shouting, "Let the tea-bagging BEGIN!"
Whatever the origin of the slur, does it's use contribute to "debate and discourse?" Would I seem reasonable if I referred to Obama's supporters as "libtards" or "n#####-lovers"? Or would my seemingly ignorant vulgarity merely alienate you and reduce your desire to treat me as a presumed equal?
Well for starters I was answering a question about the origins of the words usage, so calm down.
And you're comparing the use of the word "teabagger" to the n-word? Really?
I'm of the opinion that groups should be referred to by whatever name they prefer (within reason, of course). I find the use of the term "anti-choice" to be as obnoxious as "pro-abortion. "
So, if you're interested in having a real discussion, I think you'd want to use the term "Tea Party" rather than snickeringly using a sexual term like some 12 year-old.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
I'm of the opinion that groups should be referred to by whatever name they prefer (within reason, of course). I find the use of the term "anti-choice" to be as obnoxious as "pro-abortion. "
So, if you're interested in having a real discussion, I think you'd want to use the term "Tea Party" rather than snickeringly using a sexual term like some 12 year-old.
Agreed. There's no need to call them teabaggers, they make themselves look bad enough without being so sophomoric. But its some serious dishonesty for the right to act offended when they themselves used the term for months.
DEATH PANELS TO EUTHANIZE GRANDMA! MANDATORY ABORTIONS!! FEMA CONCENTRATION CAMPS!!!
And, on the other side of the aisle, we have...
-Republicans will kill all animals and plants on the Earth and we'll choke to death on our own filth.
-Republicans' stance on gun control will lead to every argument ending in a Wild West shootout.
-Republicans support the right of a father to rape his nine year old daughter and force her to carry the pregnancy to term.
-Republicans want everyone to die from easily treatable diseases.
-Republicans want to enslave everyone to work in the salt mines except for the wealthiest 1/2% who will spend their days in drunken Roman orgies.
-Republicans support the right of business owners to kill all of their customers.
Consider for a moment the essential rhetoric of the Democrat party. Republicans acknowledge that Democrats want to make the country and/or world a better place. Republicans just believe that Democrats are doing it the wrong way (The road to hell being paved with good intentions). Democrats, however, repeatedly state that Republicans are out for nothing more than the enrichment of themselves and their big business allies.
A Democrat once said to me could not fathom why a "working class" person would vote for a Republican, unless they were so driven by sexism, homophobia, and racism that they would go against their own interests just to shaft the people they hate.
So... Saying that your party is the only alternative to sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigotted tyranny is NOT fear mongering?
Right she just hopes people will elect Harry Reid out of office so they don't have to use a remedy that involves the second amendment.
The OP asked:
THE QUESTION: WHAT CONSTITUTES REAL DOMESTIC TERRORISM, AND WHEN ARE THEY JUST BEING AN ASSBASKET?
Maybe these comments are douchey, but they're not domestic terrorism by any objective or legal standard.
I think people worried about Tea Party brownshirts trying to violently overthrow the government are just a a bunch of nervous Nellies with no knowledge of history. We have very little history of political violence in this country, and this election cycle is no different.
Eh most of us are more dismayed at the continued use of pathetic scare tactics and that they actually work on so many people.
DEATH PANELS TO EUTHANIZE GRANDMA! MANDATORY ABORTIONS!! FEMA CONCENTRATION CAMPS!!!
If you vote for Goldwater, this little girl and her meadow full of daisies will get nuked!
Right she just hopes people will elect Harry Reid out of office so they don't have to use a remedy that involves the second amendment.
The OP asked:
THE QUESTION: WHAT CONSTITUTES REAL DOMESTIC TERRORISM, AND WHEN ARE THEY JUST BEING AN ASSBASKET?
Maybe these comments are douchey, but they're not domestic terrorism by any objective or legal standard.
I think people worried about Tea Party brownshirts trying to violently overthrow the government are just a a bunch of nervous Nellies with no knowledge of history. We have very little history of political violence in this country, and this election cycle is no different.
So people getting curb stomped was common in previous elections?
People getting assaulted during election time is, and always has been, quite rare in the US. Each election, including this one, you can probably count such events on the fingers of one hand.
Yeah, a few people will get overheated and engage each other physically during election time. But given the literally thousands of political events going on around the country, those occurrences are almost statistically non-existent.
And yet, a woman's head was stomped on, by a paid employee of a Senate candidate's campaign. Despite being 'statistically nonexistent', it happened.
I'm of the opinion that groups should be referred to by whatever name they prefer (within reason, of course). I find the use of the term "anti-choice" to be as obnoxious as "pro-abortion. "
So, if you're interested in having a real discussion, I think you'd want to use the term "Tea Party" rather than snickeringly using a sexual term like some 12 year-old.
Agreed. There's no need to call them teabaggers, they make themselves look bad enough without being so sophomoric. But its some serious dishonesty for the right to act offended when they themselves used the term for months.
I can still find blacks who use the n-word, therefore any black who gets offended when I call them that is dishonest.
I'm of the opinion that groups should be referred to by whatever name they prefer (within reason, of course). I find the use of the term "anti-choice" to be as obnoxious as "pro-abortion. "
So, if you're interested in having a real discussion, I think you'd want to use the term "Tea Party" rather than snickeringly using a sexual term like some 12 year-old.
Agreed. There's no need to call them teabaggers, they make themselves look bad enough without being so sophomoric. But its some serious dishonesty for the right to act offended when they themselves used the term for months.
I can still find blacks who use the n-word, therefore any black who gets offended when I call them that is dishonest.
Blacks who get offended when you use the n-word are hypocrites if they use it yes. Any black? No.
And you're still conflating the n-word with tea bagger dude. You should stop that. Its like godwining a thread about stem cell research or something.
DEATH PANELS TO EUTHANIZE GRANDMA! MANDATORY ABORTIONS!! FEMA CONCENTRATION CAMPS!!!
And, on the other side of the aisle, we have...
-Republicans will kill all animals and plants on the Earth and we'll choke to death on our own filth.
-Republicans' stance on gun control will lead to every argument ending in a Wild West shootout.
-Republicans support the right of a father to rape his nine year old daughter and force her to carry the pregnancy to term.
-Republicans want everyone to die from easily treatable diseases.
-Republicans want to enslave everyone to work in the salt mines except for the wealthiest 1/2% who will spend their days in drunken Roman orgies.
-Republicans support the right of business owners to kill all of their customers.
Consider for a moment the essential rhetoric of the Democrat party. Republicans acknowledge that Democrats want to make the country and/or world a better place. Republicans just believe that Democrats are doing it the wrong way (The road to hell being paved with good intentions). Democrats, however, repeatedly state that Republicans are out for nothing more than the enrichment of themselves and their big business allies.
A Democrat once said to me could not fathom why a "working class" person would vote for a Republican, unless they were so driven by sexism, homophobia, and racism that they would go against their own interests just to shaft the people they hate.
So... Saying that your party is the only alternative to sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigotted tyranny is NOT fear mongering?
WHEW thankfully I'm not a democrat so I don't really feel obligated to answer this. But, I'm not saying that voting D is the alternative to R shitheels. I'm just saying don't vote for R shitheels. Vote for another party candidate (preferably not a shitheel) if you don't like D. If they're R and not a shitheel, not a problem. But I haven't been presented with any on my ballots.
Plus you've conflated the worst-case-outcomes of a party platform, or projecting intent, to outright fucking lying.
DEATH PANELS TO EUTHANIZE GRANDMA! MANDATORY ABORTIONS!! FEMA CONCENTRATION CAMPS!!!
And, on the other side of the aisle, we have...
-Republicans will kill all animals and plants on the Earth and we'll choke to death on our own filth.
-Republicans' stance on gun control will lead to every argument ending in a Wild West shootout.
-Republicans support the right of a father to rape his nine year old daughter and force her to carry the pregnancy to term.
-Republicans want everyone to die from easily treatable diseases.
-Republicans want to enslave everyone to work in the salt mines except for the wealthiest 1/2% who will spend their days in drunken Roman orgies.
-Republicans support the right of business owners to kill all of their customers.
Consider for a moment the essential rhetoric of the Democrat party. Republicans acknowledge that Democrats want to make the country and/or world a better place. Republicans just believe that Democrats are doing it the wrong way (The road to hell being paved with good intentions). Democrats, however, repeatedly state that Republicans are out for nothing more than the enrichment of themselves and their big business allies.
A Democrat once said to me could not fathom why a "working class" person would vote for a Republican, unless they were so driven by sexism, homophobia, and racism that they would go against their own interests just to shaft the people they hate.
So... Saying that your party is the only alternative to sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigotted tyranny is NOT fear mongering?
Right she just hopes people will elect Harry Reid out of office so they don't have to use a remedy that involves the second amendment.
The OP asked:
THE QUESTION: WHAT CONSTITUTES REAL DOMESTIC TERRORISM, AND WHEN ARE THEY JUST BEING AN ASSBASKET?
Maybe these comments are douchey, but they're not domestic terrorism by any objective or legal standard.
I think people worried about Tea Party brownshirts trying to violently overthrow the government are just a a bunch of nervous Nellies with no knowledge of history. We have very little history of political violence in this country, and this election cycle is no different.
So people getting curb stomped was common in previous elections?
People getting assaulted during election time is, and always has been, quite rare in the US. Each election, including this one, you can probably count such events on the fingers of one hand.
Yeah, a few people will get overheated and engage each other physically during election time. But given the literally thousands of political events going on around the country, those occurrences are almost statistically non-existent.
And yet, a woman's head was stomped on, by a paid employee of a Senate candidate's campaign. Despite being 'statistically nonexistent', it happened.
And people get struck by lightning on golf courses. But it's hardly a danger that you need to worry about.
Yeah, that chick got stomped. But the danger of physical violence to campaign workers and protestors in this country is a little above nil.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
I'm of the opinion that groups should be referred to by whatever name they prefer (within reason, of course). I find the use of the term "anti-choice" to be as obnoxious as "pro-abortion. "
So, if you're interested in having a real discussion, I think you'd want to use the term "Tea Party" rather than snickeringly using a sexual term like some 12 year-old.
Agreed. There's no need to call them teabaggers, they make themselves look bad enough without being so sophomoric. But its some serious dishonesty for the right to act offended when they themselves used the term for months.
I can still find blacks who use the n-word, therefore any black who gets offended when I call them that is dishonest.
yes
dehumanizing racial slur used for centuries to refer to an enslaved people later used as a source of pride in themselves and their culture but still carrying much historical baggage = term that astroturf political group used to refer to themselves for several months before they were informed it had a raunchy sexual meaning
these are clearly very similar and the use of one is equivalent to the use of the other in analogous circumstances
Republicans acknowledge that Democrats want to make the country and/or world a better place.
Oh really.
Absolutely. I mean, Republicans believe that Democrats are taking the country down a road to bad things, the "Road to Serfdom" as Hayek put it. But they don't deny that Democrats mean well, outside some examples of really flagrant hypocrisy. The instances of hypocrisy do not, in and of themselves, delegitimize the entire movement or ideology that drives the party.
I am not a Marxist revolutionary, but I would not view a Marxist revolutionary as some Dr. Evil/Skeletor/Cobra Commander-like figure bent on spreading evil for the sake of evil. I would consider them misguided, not necessarily because of what he could do to me, but because I believe he would be ultimately disappointed by the results of his own revolution.
I'm of the opinion that groups should be referred to by whatever name they prefer (within reason, of course). I find the use of the term "anti-choice" to be as obnoxious as "pro-abortion. "
So, if you're interested in having a real discussion, I think you'd want to use the term "Tea Party" rather than snickeringly using a sexual term like some 12 year-old.
Agreed. There's no need to call them teabaggers, they make themselves look bad enough without being so sophomoric. But its some serious dishonesty for the right to act offended when they themselves used the term for months.
I can still find blacks who use the n-word, therefore any black who gets offended when I call them that is dishonest.
yes
dehumanizing racial slur used for centuries to refer to an enslaved people later used as a source of pride in themselves and their culture but still carrying much historical baggage = term that astroturf political group used to refer to themselves for several months before they were informed it had a raunchy sexual meaning
these are clearly very similar and the use of one is equivalent to the use of the other in analogous circumstances
Ooooh, Ooooh! Are we taking another trip on the false equivalence bus? Where do I get tickets?
I'm of the opinion that groups should be referred to by whatever name they prefer (within reason, of course). I find the use of the term "anti-choice" to be as obnoxious as "pro-abortion. "
So, if you're interested in having a real discussion, I think you'd want to use the term "Tea Party" rather than snickeringly using a sexual term like some 12 year-old.
Agreed. There's no need to call them teabaggers, they make themselves look bad enough without being so sophomoric. But its some serious dishonesty for the right to act offended when they themselves used the term for months.
I can still find blacks who use the n-word, therefore any black who gets offended when I call them that is dishonest.
Blacks who get offended when you use the n-word are hypocrites if they use it yes.
No.
I get to complain about my mom. Someone else says to me, "Your mom is a bitch", and suddenly we've got a problem. Because she's MY mom.
Republicans acknowledge that Democrats want to make the country and/or world a better place.
Oh really.
Absolutely. I mean, Republicans believe that Democrats are taking the country down a road to bad things, the "Road to Serfdom" as Hayek put it. But they don't deny that Democrats mean well, outside some examples of really flagrant hypocrisy. The instances of hypocrisy do not, in and of themselves, delegitimize the entire movement or ideology that drives the party.
I am not a Marxist revolutionary, but I would not view a Marxist revolutionary as some Dr. Evil/Skeletor/Cobra Commander-like figure bent on spreading evil for the sake of evil. I would consider them misguided, not necessarily because of what he could do to me, but because I believe he would be ultimately disappointed by the results of his own revolution.
Do you listen to your party? I think you are trying to conflate yourself with your party. Your party thinks Democrats are socialists out to destroy America from within and must be stopped at all costs.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Republicans acknowledge that Democrats want to make the country and/or world a better place.
Oh really.
Absolutely. I mean, Republicans believe that Democrats are taking the country down a road to bad things, the "Road to Serfdom" as Hayek put it. But they don't deny that Democrats mean well, outside some examples of really flagrant hypocrisy. The instances of hypocrisy do not, in and of themselves, delegitimize the entire movement or ideology that drives the party.
I am not a Marxist revolutionary, but I would not view a Marxist revolutionary as some Dr. Evil/Skeletor/Cobra Commander-like figure bent on spreading evil for the sake of evil. I would consider them misguided, not necessarily because of what he could do to me, but because I believe he would be ultimately disappointed by the results of his own revolution.
Pretty much every major conservative figure or elected republican official is saying the opposite. So good for you in your enlightened state of realizing what is obvious about the average person on either side, but don't go claiming that the republican establishment acts or believes that the Dems are just doing what they think best.
I get to complain about my mom. Someone else says to me, "Your mom is a bitch", and suddenly we've got a problem. Because she's MY mom.
Pretty much every major conservative figure or elected republican official is saying the opposite. So good for you in your enlightened state of realizing what is obvious about the average person on either side, but don't go claiming that the republican establishment acts or believes that the Dems are just doing what they think best.
Obama seems to have a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.
DEATH PANELS TO EUTHANIZE GRANDMA! MANDATORY ABORTIONS!! FEMA CONCENTRATION CAMPS!!!
And, on the other side of the aisle, we have...
-Republicans will kill all animals and plants on the Earth and we'll choke to death on our own filth.
-Republicans' stance on gun control will lead to every argument ending in a Wild West shootout.
-Republicans support the right of a father to rape his nine year old daughter and force her to carry the pregnancy to term.
-Republicans want everyone to die from easily treatable diseases.
-Republicans want to enslave everyone to work in the salt mines except for the wealthiest 1/2% who will spend their days in drunken Roman orgies.
-Republicans support the right of business owners to kill all of their customers.
Consider for a moment the essential rhetoric of the Democrat party. Republicans acknowledge that Democrats want to make the country and/or world a better place. Republicans just believe that Democrats are doing it the wrong way (The road to hell being paved with good intentions). Democrats, however, repeatedly state that Republicans are out for nothing more than the enrichment of themselves and their big business allies.
A Democrat once said to me could not fathom why a "working class" person would vote for a Republican, unless they were so driven by sexism, homophobia, and racism that they would go against their own interests just to shaft the people they hate.
So... Saying that your party is the only alternative to sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigotted tyranny is NOT fear mongering?
WHEW thankfully I'm not a democrat so I don't really feel obligated to answer this. But, I'm not saying that voting D is the alternative to R shitheels. I'm just saying don't vote for R shitheels. Vote for another party candidate (preferably not a shitheel) if you don't like D. If they're R and not a shitheel, not a problem. But I haven't been presented with any on my ballots.
Plus you've conflated the worst-case-outcomes of a party platform, or projecting intent, to outright fucking lying.
"Death Panels for Grandma!" Worst-case outcome. Every society with a national health service has some methodology for determining what treatments and medications will be covered by the plan. "Death Panel" is a melodramatic way of describing the process.
"Mandatory Abortions" Worst-case/projecting intent. Let me first say that I am a politics junkie, and I don't know who the hell is saying that this is going to happen. That aside, it's a melodramatic but arguably inevitable result of environmental policy. Eventually, you have to hit a point where you have to say, "I can let this person have another kid, or we can have enough food to go around... Decisions..."
"FEMA Concentration Camps" Projecting intent. Again, gonna have to say that this is one of those things that I'd get laughed at for if I suggested to the average Republican that I know, and the same goes for "Birthers." However, it's a projection of Democrat intent to say that they'll eventually round conservatives up for treason (or whatever reason legendary Democrat Franklin D Roosevelt used to arrest the Japanese). Signs that Democrats intend to make being a Republican a crime would include an increase in people calling for the arrest of Sharron Angle.
Pretty much every major conservative figure or elected republican official is saying the opposite. So good for you in your enlightened state of realizing what is obvious about the average person on either side, but don't go claiming that the republican establishment acts or believes that the Dems are just doing what they think best.
Obama seems to have a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.
As evidenced by what?
And what the hell is "white culture?" Is it Two and a Half Men? Because if so, I have a deep seated hatred for it as well.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
DEATH PANELS TO EUTHANIZE GRANDMA! MANDATORY ABORTIONS!! FEMA CONCENTRATION CAMPS!!!
And, on the other side of the aisle, we have...
-Republicans will kill all animals and plants on the Earth and we'll choke to death on our own filth.
-Republicans' stance on gun control will lead to every argument ending in a Wild West shootout.
-Republicans support the right of a father to rape his nine year old daughter and force her to carry the pregnancy to term.
-Republicans want everyone to die from easily treatable diseases.
-Republicans want to enslave everyone to work in the salt mines except for the wealthiest 1/2% who will spend their days in drunken Roman orgies.
-Republicans support the right of business owners to kill all of their customers.
Consider for a moment the essential rhetoric of the Democrat party. Republicans acknowledge that Democrats want to make the country and/or world a better place. Republicans just believe that Democrats are doing it the wrong way (The road to hell being paved with good intentions). Democrats, however, repeatedly state that Republicans are out for nothing more than the enrichment of themselves and their big business allies.
A Democrat once said to me could not fathom why a "working class" person would vote for a Republican, unless they were so driven by sexism, homophobia, and racism that they would go against their own interests just to shaft the people they hate.
So... Saying that your party is the only alternative to sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigotted tyranny is NOT fear mongering?
WHEW thankfully I'm not a democrat so I don't really feel obligated to answer this. But, I'm not saying that voting D is the alternative to R shitheels. I'm just saying don't vote for R shitheels. Vote for another party candidate (preferably not a shitheel) if you don't like D. If they're R and not a shitheel, not a problem. But I haven't been presented with any on my ballots.
Plus you've conflated the worst-case-outcomes of a party platform, or projecting intent, to outright fucking lying.
"Death Panels for Grandma!" Worst-case outcome. Every society with a national health service has some methodology for determining what treatments and medications will be covered by the plan. "Death Panel" is a melodramatic way of describing the process.
"Mandatory Abortions" Worst-case/projecting intent. Let me first say that I am a politics junkie, and I don't know who the hell is saying that this is going to happen. That aside, it's a melodramatic but arguably inevitable result of environmental policy. Eventually, you have to hit a point where you have to say, "I can let this person have another kid, or we can have enough food to go around... Decisions..."
"FEMA Concentration Camps" Projecting intent. Again, gonna have to say that this is one of those things that I'd get laughed at for if I suggested to the average Republican that I know, and the same goes for "Birthers." However, it's a projection of Democrat intent to say that they'll eventually round conservatives up for treason (or whatever reason legendary Democrat Franklin D Roosevelt used to arrest the Japanese). Signs that Democrats intend to make being a Republican a crime would include an increase in people calling for the arrest of Sharron Angle.
but still, I have no clue what white culture is supposed to be. Is it Dharma and Greg?
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Do you listen to your party? I think you are trying to conflate yourself with your party. Your party thinks Democrats are socialists out to destroy America from within and must be stopped at all costs.
I never said that Republicans don't think that Democrats are socialists out to "fundamentally change"/destroy America. I said that Republicans think that Democrats believe that it is the best thing for the country and/or world. I look at Democrats and I see people who sincerely believe that they can make the world a better place by doing things that I REALLY don't want them to do. I would actually consider taking up arms to stop some of the changes I have heard a few of the more extreme Democrats suggest because I am that philosophically opposed to them.
Democrat President Jimmy Carter firmly believed that Americans would have to accept a reduction in their standard of living. Did he believe this because he hated America? No. He saw it as a necessary concession that America would have to make to the rest of the world if we were going to achieve some harmonious future. He was also concerned about the looming threat of catastrophic global cooling.
But, Jimmy didn't lead us down the path of enviro-totalitarianism, in large part because the average American voter wants to be told that the environment will be saved AND you can run your air conditioner all day while you're at work so it's nice and cold when you get home. Throw in the simultaneous desires for moral leadership and free porn, and the voting public generally doesn't let the extreme of either party in for long, if at all.
I never said that Republicans don't think that Democrats are socialists out to "fundamentally change"/destroy America. I said that Republicans think that Democrats believe that it is the best thing for the country and/or world
So you don't think they're bad people, you just think they're trying to do what's best, which for them is destroy America.
Right.
Your posts here have been all kinds of weird conflations. Like "Angle is an idiot" and "Democrats are going to kill old people".
This may already have been addressed, but Brandenburg doesn't work the way you think it does.
Brandenburg reversed a conviction for doing functionally what Angle did. Brandenburg says that generalized advocacy of violence, even generalized advocacy of or reference to potential lawbreaking, is protected speech. It's only when speech advocates specific instances of violence against individuals that it becomes criminal, and "Harry Reid getting elected might result in violent resistance" doesn't rise to that level.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
"Death Panels for Grandma!" Worst-case outcome. Every society with a national health service has some methodology for determining what treatments and medications will be covered by the plan. "Death Panel" is a melodramatic way of describing the process.
Oh, this is ridiculous. Every society has a mechanism for rationing health care, because health care isn't an infinite resource. The method used by the U.S. until now has been "how much money do you have?" The Democratic Party generally believes this is a pretty crappy way to do things, which Republicans apparently do not agree with.
...
"FEMA Concentration Camps" Projecting intent. Again, gonna have to say that this is one of those things that I'd get laughed at for if I suggested to the average Republican that I know, and the same goes for "Birthers." However, it's a projection of Democrat intent to say that they'll eventually round conservatives up for treason (or whatever reason legendary Democrat Franklin D Roosevelt used to arrest the Japanese). Signs that Democrats intend to make being a Republican a crime would include an increase in people calling for the arrest of Sharron Angle.
This is likewise pretty laughworthy; "projection" isn't something you do when you're honestly interpreting the motivations of another party, it's when you interpret their actions through the lens of your own motivation. That conservatives are the only ones talking about rounding up political opponents and putting them in camps doesn't speak well of their beliefs about resolving political differences.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Posts
But they're not mobsters, they're respectable businessmen, right?
"You see, your window was smashed by the Invisible Hand. Move along, nothing more to it."
Right.
She had the opportunity to say something not-insane, like "Despite my serious grievances with the way our country is going, I don't think it's a tyranny yet," or "I trust the American people to do the right thing in November" or even "Just because one candidate doesn't get elected, doesn't mean that democracy has failed us."
But instead she said "I'm hoping that we're not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems." The direct, obvious implication of that is "If you don't vote me in, then it's morally acceptable for people to take up arms."
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yeah, this has basically been my point so far. We have a person running for elective office, whose base of support are people who are angry. Now, that is alright, sometimes people need to be angry about things for them to get fixed, anger can be a useful emotion. However, the way I see it if you are a person who is a leader of such angry people, a spokesperson for them, it is also your fucking moral responsibility to help channel that anger constructively. If you instead suggest that violence might be necessary in a situation where violence is way fucking out of bounds, than I'm going to consider you somewhat morally culpable if some of your angry followers decide to employ violence.
Yeah, a few people will get overheated and engage each other physically during election time. But given the literally thousands of political events going on around the country, those occurrences are almost statistically non-existent.
Rigorous Scholarship
So, the point you're making is that some (not all) Tea Partiers, who did not know the sexual connotations of the term "tea-bagger," used the term for several days, so it is perfectly acceptible to refer to them with a clearly dismissive, pejorative, and vulgar term months or years later? It was not long ago in the span of human history that the n-word was perfectly accepted as a term for blacks. So, it would not make me seem unreasonable in your view to continue referring to them as such.
I don't like Hannity. He annoys me. So, I was unaware of him using the term. When the Tea Parties first started, I was invited to attend by some enthusiastic friends, none of whom referred to themselves as "tea-baggers." (I was unable to attend because I was strapped for cash and did not want to ask for time off from a job I had just started for anything shy of an emergency.) The first instance of the term I encountered personally was Keith Olbermann shouting, "Let the tea-bagging BEGIN!"
Whatever the origin of the slur, does it's use contribute to "debate and discourse?" Would I seem reasonable if I referred to Obama's supporters as "libtards" or "n#####-lovers"? Or would my seemingly ignorant vulgarity merely alienate you and reduce your desire to treat me as a presumed equal?
Well for starters I was answering a question about the origins of the words usage, so calm down.
And you're comparing the use of the word "teabagger" to the n-word? Really?
So, if you're interested in having a real discussion, I think you'd want to use the term "Tea Party" rather than snickeringly using a sexual term like some 12 year-old.
Rigorous Scholarship
Agreed. There's no need to call them teabaggers, they make themselves look bad enough without being so sophomoric. But its some serious dishonesty for the right to act offended when they themselves used the term for months.
And, on the other side of the aisle, we have...
-Republicans will kill all animals and plants on the Earth and we'll choke to death on our own filth.
-Republicans' stance on gun control will lead to every argument ending in a Wild West shootout.
-Republicans support the right of a father to rape his nine year old daughter and force her to carry the pregnancy to term.
-Republicans want everyone to die from easily treatable diseases.
-Republicans want to enslave everyone to work in the salt mines except for the wealthiest 1/2% who will spend their days in drunken Roman orgies.
-Republicans support the right of business owners to kill all of their customers.
Consider for a moment the essential rhetoric of the Democrat party. Republicans acknowledge that Democrats want to make the country and/or world a better place. Republicans just believe that Democrats are doing it the wrong way (The road to hell being paved with good intentions). Democrats, however, repeatedly state that Republicans are out for nothing more than the enrichment of themselves and their big business allies.
A Democrat once said to me could not fathom why a "working class" person would vote for a Republican, unless they were so driven by sexism, homophobia, and racism that they would go against their own interests just to shaft the people they hate.
So... Saying that your party is the only alternative to sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigotted tyranny is NOT fear mongering?
Oh really.
If you vote for Goldwater, this little girl and her meadow full of daisies will get nuked!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExjDzDsgbww
I can still find blacks who use the n-word, therefore any black who gets offended when I call them that is dishonest.
Blacks who get offended when you use the n-word are hypocrites if they use it yes. Any black? No.
And you're still conflating the n-word with tea bagger dude. You should stop that. Its like godwining a thread about stem cell research or something.
WHEW thankfully I'm not a democrat so I don't really feel obligated to answer this. But, I'm not saying that voting D is the alternative to R shitheels. I'm just saying don't vote for R shitheels. Vote for another party candidate (preferably not a shitheel) if you don't like D. If they're R and not a shitheel, not a problem. But I haven't been presented with any on my ballots.
Plus you've conflated the worst-case-outcomes of a party platform, or projecting intent, to outright fucking lying.
Conservatives say the only good Liberal is a dead Liberal.
Lime'd for truth.
Yeah, that chick got stomped. But the danger of physical violence to campaign workers and protestors in this country is a little above nil.
Rigorous Scholarship
yes
dehumanizing racial slur used for centuries to refer to an enslaved people later used as a source of pride in themselves and their culture but still carrying much historical baggage = term that astroturf political group used to refer to themselves for several months before they were informed it had a raunchy sexual meaning
these are clearly very similar and the use of one is equivalent to the use of the other in analogous circumstances
Absolutely. I mean, Republicans believe that Democrats are taking the country down a road to bad things, the "Road to Serfdom" as Hayek put it. But they don't deny that Democrats mean well, outside some examples of really flagrant hypocrisy. The instances of hypocrisy do not, in and of themselves, delegitimize the entire movement or ideology that drives the party.
I am not a Marxist revolutionary, but I would not view a Marxist revolutionary as some Dr. Evil/Skeletor/Cobra Commander-like figure bent on spreading evil for the sake of evil. I would consider them misguided, not necessarily because of what he could do to me, but because I believe he would be ultimately disappointed by the results of his own revolution.
Ooooh, Ooooh! Are we taking another trip on the false equivalence bus? Where do I get tickets?
No.
I get to complain about my mom. Someone else says to me, "Your mom is a bitch", and suddenly we've got a problem. Because she's MY mom.
Do you listen to your party? I think you are trying to conflate yourself with your party. Your party thinks Democrats are socialists out to destroy America from within and must be stopped at all costs.
Pretty much every major conservative figure or elected republican official is saying the opposite. So good for you in your enlightened state of realizing what is obvious about the average person on either side, but don't go claiming that the republican establishment acts or believes that the Dems are just doing what they think best.
Getting off topic.
Obama seems to have a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.
"Death Panels for Grandma!" Worst-case outcome. Every society with a national health service has some methodology for determining what treatments and medications will be covered by the plan. "Death Panel" is a melodramatic way of describing the process.
"Mandatory Abortions" Worst-case/projecting intent. Let me first say that I am a politics junkie, and I don't know who the hell is saying that this is going to happen. That aside, it's a melodramatic but arguably inevitable result of environmental policy. Eventually, you have to hit a point where you have to say, "I can let this person have another kid, or we can have enough food to go around... Decisions..."
"FEMA Concentration Camps" Projecting intent. Again, gonna have to say that this is one of those things that I'd get laughed at for if I suggested to the average Republican that I know, and the same goes for "Birthers." However, it's a projection of Democrat intent to say that they'll eventually round conservatives up for treason (or whatever reason legendary Democrat Franklin D Roosevelt used to arrest the Japanese). Signs that Democrats intend to make being a Republican a crime would include an increase in people calling for the arrest of Sharron Angle.
As evidenced by what?
And what the hell is "white culture?" Is it Two and a Half Men? Because if so, I have a deep seated hatred for it as well.
These are some pretty impressive apologetics.
And he was quoting Glenn Beck sentry.
but still, I have no clue what white culture is supposed to be. Is it Dharma and Greg?
He means evangelical southern culture. You know, real America.
And I'm being nice, it has a different name.
Don't expect a useful answer any time soon!
Although I may be mis-remembering I think someone may have attempted a what is white culture? thread here once. Or was that another place?
Pottery Barn and Dave Mathews Band.
I never said that Republicans don't think that Democrats are socialists out to "fundamentally change"/destroy America. I said that Republicans think that Democrats believe that it is the best thing for the country and/or world. I look at Democrats and I see people who sincerely believe that they can make the world a better place by doing things that I REALLY don't want them to do. I would actually consider taking up arms to stop some of the changes I have heard a few of the more extreme Democrats suggest because I am that philosophically opposed to them.
Democrat President Jimmy Carter firmly believed that Americans would have to accept a reduction in their standard of living. Did he believe this because he hated America? No. He saw it as a necessary concession that America would have to make to the rest of the world if we were going to achieve some harmonious future. He was also concerned about the looming threat of catastrophic global cooling.
But, Jimmy didn't lead us down the path of enviro-totalitarianism, in large part because the average American voter wants to be told that the environment will be saved AND you can run your air conditioner all day while you're at work so it's nice and cold when you get home. Throw in the simultaneous desires for moral leadership and free porn, and the voting public generally doesn't let the extreme of either party in for long, if at all.
So you don't think they're bad people, you just think they're trying to do what's best, which for them is destroy America.
Right.
Your posts here have been all kinds of weird conflations. Like "Angle is an idiot" and "Democrats are going to kill old people".
Brandenburg reversed a conviction for doing functionally what Angle did. Brandenburg says that generalized advocacy of violence, even generalized advocacy of or reference to potential lawbreaking, is protected speech. It's only when speech advocates specific instances of violence against individuals that it becomes criminal, and "Harry Reid getting elected might result in violent resistance" doesn't rise to that level.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com
Oh, this is ridiculous. Every society has a mechanism for rationing health care, because health care isn't an infinite resource. The method used by the U.S. until now has been "how much money do you have?" The Democratic Party generally believes this is a pretty crappy way to do things, which Republicans apparently do not agree with.
...
This is likewise pretty laughworthy; "projection" isn't something you do when you're honestly interpreting the motivations of another party, it's when you interpret their actions through the lens of your own motivation. That conservatives are the only ones talking about rounding up political opponents and putting them in camps doesn't speak well of their beliefs about resolving political differences.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget