The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel

Post Reply New Topic

The self-appointed Guardians of the Constitution naturally demand the right to use Second Amendment Remedies in order to Water the Tree of Liberty, that the constitutional framers wanted such a vigilante gang to exist. Surely you people are unaware of this line of thinking that has been expressed by many of the Teabaggers.

More like you misinterpreted the whole overthrow the government thing. It's not supposed to mean overthrowing the government just because you disagree with it, it means having the means of overthrowing it when it becomes tyrannical. It's a last resort, not some overzealous crap left wingers make it out to be. Besides I haven't seen left wingers being blamed for eco-terrorism yet...

Oh, and I've heard the "But the government has tanks, planes, bombs, nukes etc..." argument before. First off, the government has to set up tyranny first by incrementally doing away with the checks and balances. They can't rule with an iron fist right off the bat when there are too many checks and balances. Secondly, who says the entire military will obey the government? They don't wanna shoot at their own family and friends, and most of em certainly don't want to shoot innocent people. Also who says members of the military don't also believe in overthrowing a tyrannical government?

Also, bombs and nukes would destroy infrastructure which would also be detrimental to the government. Wars aren't usually about killing everyone and sparing no one, it's usually about how many losses are acceptable before you surrender.

lol

I ask you for violent rhetoric spewed by a main liberal figure like what teabagger leaders and Palin do daily and you give me V for Vendetta?

Really?

So, you think V for Vendetta was about conservatives? Hehe. If your best example to equate with the crazy teabagger rhethoric is a movie, then I feel very, very sorry for you guys.

Alan Moore BTW never wanted to imply V's way is the solution and in fact indulged a lot of doubt into it, I think in real life it doesn't work and that was Moore's point. But of course, we probably forgot that conservatives lack the gray matter to differentiate between fiction and reality.

Anyway, just lol.

lol.

I'll remember the sillydom in this discussion in the future when you make a new thread and pretend to have the slightest idea what you are talking about. I will direct newcomer people that buy your stuff to this thread so they can witness the movie debacle, will be funny.

Not really, this is so silly there may be no space in my brain to remember it. And at the end, you don't need help to devastate your own arguments anyway. Congrats for denigrating yourself to Inuyasha's level.



And thus, you have finally found out that widespread guns are not necessary at all to counter tyranny. That's how revolutions happen when guns are outlawed, the army becomes aware of the tyranny and coups.

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 23 Jan 2011, 4:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.

The conservatives weren't the stars who the movie was about, but instead the conservatives were the evil paranoid imperialistic villains of the script.

Yeah, we're held hostage socially by a bunch of socially backwards people and we're held hostage economically by a bunch of thieves who have no problem threatening the entire country's economy to secure their own absurd level of opulence.


Land of the free, indeed.

Again, based on responses here it looks like we have more to worry about liberals being prone to violence than Conservatives. I haven't called for any violence, I've called for using the ballot box to vote people out of office. Yet, here you two spout off about civil wars and other utter nonsense.



Is this what your teachers taught you to believe?!?! I mean seriously, you maintain your beliefs that Conservatives are somehow evil and/or stupid despite all the evidence to the contrary.

It's hopeless dude, it looks like we'll have to vote against his right to live from the rooftops. Never mind that any sane right winger would find it hypocritical to advocate freedom of speech yet go out of their way to kill dissenters

1) Since when has sanity been a defining characteristic of right-wingers?
2) Since when has the Right had any misgivings about their own rampant hypocrisy?

Last I checked we weren't the ones saying we would watch someone die and laugh just because we did not agree with them.





People are fallible, however just because one can fail at something doesn't mean we should give up on our morality, because of the fact at times we may not live up to it.

I would argue the danger of moral relativism (which is what Liberals subscribe to) is that the ends justify the means and there is no real right and wrong.

That's probably a bit of an over generalization. Of course liberals consider there to be both right and wrong: Left is right and Right is wrong.

1) By sane right wingers, I'm talking about the ones that aren't on the fringes. Face it, most people from both sides are sane enough not to resort to killing people. And I hate repeating myself, but insanity swings on both sides of the pendulum.

2) Care to point out those hypocrisies? btw don't bother with being pro-life and in favour of the death penalty, there's nothing incongruous about being against aborting a baby who has done nothing and being in favour of sentencing a criminal to death because the criminal has done something to deserve it. btw hypocrisy isn't exclusive to one side of the spectrum, it's something we're all fallible to as long as there's the part of our brains that differentiate between our self identity and everything else.

People like Inuyasha are more common on the right than people like Xenon13 are on the left; I would consider them to be roughly equivalently crazy (crazy does not have to mean homicidal, but if you want to use that definition you definitely have more right-wing than left-wing loons). Honestly, a number of right-wing positions require being completely oblivious to the facts, and polling on a number of issues shows that a large portion of the Republican base is batshit crazy.


Plenty of hypocrisies. Cry about budget deficits, and then run up huge deficits once in power. Rail against earmarks, then ask for them. In favor of "small government" and "getting the government out of people's lives" and then favoring massive government involvement in people's personal lives- eg issues of gay rights, the war on drugs, and general civil liberties issues. And of course if you remember the Republican response to the Democratic use of the filibuster during the Bush administration (you probably don't) and compare that to their use of it during the Obama administration, you will find some amusing contrasts.

I could go on. Republican hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Seriously, at this point I would lump you in with xenon13, you aren't as out there as xenon13, but you are certainly in the Twilight Zone.

The fact you can casually toss me into the same category with xenon13, when I don't advocate violence towards people is just sad.



For the record, the Deficit started to go up substancially when Democrats took the House and Senate. Yes there was deficit spending under Bush, but we also had 9/11, a shaken economy, and 2 wars.



Which is why I don't care for Ron Paul.



The gay marriage song and dance affects other people's lives, because next we'll see the pro-gay activists push for criticizing the homosexual lifestyle a hate crime. We've seen it happen in other countries including the UK.

War on Drugs could be argued as legitimate for multiple reasons.
1. There is a Border Issue involved (US, Mexican Border)
2. Drug addicts can be a danger to society as a whole.
3. Drug dealers often will try to market to kids and teens even on school grounds.



If I recall that had to do with the Bush tax cuts, and quite frankly that was why there was an expiration date and the thing about judges was resolved.



So people are fallable I'm not claiming Republicans are perfect. I could spout off about Democrats having no moral standards, but I do know there are a few Democrats out there that do (seems to be fewer and fewer).

Yeah he's definitely further left than I thought when I first started exploring this part of the forum.

I don't like Bush neither do I dig neoconism, but yeah he gets more s**t slung at him than he deserves. The whole WMD in Iraq thing is either a communication breakdown in intel or faulty intel, I can't remember exactly which but Bush didn't lie about it and intel is never crystal clear. Neocons do tend to be more liberal about spending and a welfare state than other types of conservatives.

That's ridiculous. All this crap about drugs being sold to kids is a bunch of drug propagandist BS. Drug dealers have no reason to sell to kids. The legal consequences are more severe, it's considered by other criminals to be unethical, it draws way too much heat, kids don't even have much money which makes em sh***y customers, and it's too easy for em to OD even if they had money so there's no point of selling to em. Teens usually sell drugs to other teens so what you're saying about kids being customers is complete BS.

And whatever happened to separation of church and state? If the church doesn't wanna recognize it as a real marriage, that's fine but as a legal contract it should be recognized by the state. Call it whatever you want, but the state and the church are two separate things. And the slippery slope of hate crime can apply to other minorities, it isn't exclusively a gay thing.

But yeah, the border policies in the states definitely needs to be dealt with.

I believe intrinsic morality exists in all social beings, but "family values" and religious values sets things in stone when it isn't even determined how much of em are either social construction or have a basis in nature.

Well, you lump everyone to the left of Hannity in with Marx, so I'm not surprised. But I am way to the right of xenon13, as is pretty much everyone else in the world. My point was that you and he are similar in being completely unreasonable, and evidently incapable of even understanding the other side.


The deficit skyrocketed in 2008 because of the financial sector collapse and the emergency measures that Bush (and Obama the next year) took to try to stop it.


Paul is hardly the only Republican to do that.


I've never advocated that at all, and that is a terrible slippery-slope argument to make. You are still in favor of denying legal rights to a certain class of people.


Blah blah blah. You have no idea what you're talking about, and I'm not interested in explaining this issue to you. This position is still incongruous with your normal "small government" claims. Not to mention the massively bloated military, and the multiple cabinet-level departments that Bush invented.


The Bush tax cuts barely passed even with reconciliation (they had to have Cheney break the tie in the Senate). The Democratic filibuster which was blocking the appointment of activist judges was "resolved" by Republicans threatening to eliminate the filibuster entirely and Democrats (eventually) backing down. This was after Republican legislators and pundits spent months on every news outlet parroting the talking point about how the issue deserved an "up or down vote" and accusing the Democrats of being obstructionist and subverting the will of the people. Compare this to Republican use of the filibuster during the Obama administration- near-constantly, and on all issues, including relatively minor issues where the Democrats, had they been in the minority, would simply have taken the vote and accepted the loss.

That your perception of me has changed does not mean I have in any way misrepresented myself. It simply means that your perceptions were mistaken either then or now.

Though honestly, I seldom promote unambiguously liberal positions, with the exception of my support for a progressive income tax*. Support for gay marriage and opposition to the war on drugs are just as easily labeled libertarian, especially given that my stance on drugs is completely outside the mainstream view within the Democratic party, and my stance on gay marriage is not significantly represented at the level of national Democratic leadership. On abortion I take a relatively centrist stance (to the extent that that is even possible in that debate). I oppose interventionist foreign policy regardless of whether it is pursued by a Democrat or a Republican, and that stance can also be labeled libertarian just as easily as it can be called "liberal." The issue is mainly that I find right-wing rhetoric more obnoxious than left-wing rhetoric, probably largely because I grew up around so much right-wing drivel.

*And support for a progressive income tax isn't even some kind of radical liberal belief. Adam Smith was in favor of it. Virtually everyone in the mainstream of American politics (more specifically, everyone to the left of Mike Huckabee) supports progressive taxation, and even Huckabee and his followers claim to do so as well.