How much violence will the ultraright have to commit?

Post Reply New Topic

I would put it to more of he's played into the Left Wing's talking points of: "Liberals Good, Conservatives Bad!"

Which reminds me of Animal Farm which I had to read in High School the thing the sheep kept saying to stifle disagreement: "Four legs good, two legs bad."



That isn't the only stunt they have pulled but ELF isn't actually the worst Left Wing Group.



To clarrify the event, it seems the stomping on head incident isn't as cut and dry as what we saw on the news.
http://www.redstate.com/rs_insider/2010 ... stomp-vid/

Read through article there is a video of her running up and shoving her sign into Rand Paul's SUV passenger side front window. In otherwords while that person shouldn't be excused for stomping on a person's head, the lady shouldn't be excused for acting in a manner that could be construed as threatening the physical safety of a Senatorial Candidate either.



Remind me how many acts of violence actually occurred at Glenn Beck's rally? I can tell you there were none, they also didn't leave litter all over the place either and cleaned up after themselves.



Actually, I'd say this falls more under propaganda and demonization to slander an entire segment of the population. Straight out of Saul Allinsky's playbook I might add.

If they disagree with you, they must be evil, eh?


It's interesting that a similar incident with a Coakley aide taking out a reporter during Massachusetts special senatorial election basically disappeared without a trace. It seems that the difference isn't in how much violence there is on either side, but rather that conservatives are willing to recognize when some outrageous action done by a liberal is an unusual special case, while liberals are more likely to try to paint things as some vast conspiracy.

That's the difference between Bush and Obama, Bush never called his political opponents his enemies.

[/quote]

I could go further and say it is entirely possible that the Rand Paul incident was a set-up and the lady had every intention of provoking a physical confrontation. I would also point out the mainstream media wouldn't report the Coakley incident because they are corrupt and basically an arm of the Democrat Party.

^^ clearly he needs to watch fox and read drudge. then he would have the facts instead of political talking points.... i think you should consider how your above statement would apply to you if you were to switch the political adjectives around.



really? an eco-terror group that is widely known didn't just do one thing? and i didn't pull out the most extreme example? how terrible. i'm glad i know this now.



read the now bolded descriptor. better yet, read what i write before you respond to it. i fail to see how calling her an instigator implies that she should be excused. you're really confusing me, here.



i can see how you might have misread that if you were assuming that everything coming out of my keyboard is "liberals good, conservatives bad." perhaps you aren't aware of the response to proposed austerity measures in europe. perhaps you don't agree with me that the pushback against these austerity measures is coming from a liberal ideology. i don't think glenn beck's rally is an example of a liberal protest that turned violent.

seriously, if you're going to respond to me, respond to what i say. or do i need to draw it up on a chalk board?



who is this propaganda promoting? douches? a**holes? seriously? i'm sitting here, demonizing the propagandist approach -demonizing oversimplification!- and your response is to simplify that into "propaganda."

maybe reiterating the context of my post would help.



dox was right to point out that the thread title is implying a falling sky. he's also right to point out that "ultraconservative" isn't a useful term in this context, if at all.

the "ultraconservatives" that mp is referencing aren't ultra-conservative. dox (rightly) points this out and often derides the use of such inflammatory and inaccurate language. i think that mp has a good point to make but that it will be impossible to make that point until we can accurately attribute the sources of intimidating or violent behavior. who we vote for might be related but whether we identify as "conservative" or "liberal" isn't likely to be the dividing line.

sorry if that's too complex for your tastes. i guess you could just choose to see that as "four legs good, two legs bad" but if you think everyone fits neatly into one of two categories, i think you fit into one of the two i proposed earlier.

If you bothered to look at Drudge Report you would see it is just a collection of links to stories from various news agencies. They even have had links to articles from the New York Times. Drudge Report rarely reports things on its own.



ELF is considered to be left wing on the political spectrum yes they are a bunch of wing nuts, but they aren't the most violant. Weather Underground was way more violent than ELF (considering I don't recall ELF trying to murder a Judge and his family in the middle of the night with car bombs).



I'm saying that she should be brought up on charges along with the guy that tried to stomp on her head. Him for assaulting her (or excessive force take your pick), and her for attempting to assault Rand Paul.



I was giving an example of how a conservative rally was portrayed and what they actually did. Some of what I was saying was to elaborate what you posted up. You just happened to have the statements which were best to use for my comments.

You making a claim isn't the same as 'we've been over this.'
There's enough of an accepted legal definition that people are arrested, convicted, fined, and/or put in jail.

if only you'd bothered to read any of them as anything but a caricature of what you think you're standing up against.



and seriously, everyone knows drudge report is aggregated. the point is that the stories aggregated are mostly conservative leaning. this clashes with reality's noted liberal bias.

if you consider "drudge report" to be nonpartisan, neutral, or centrist, you probably consider "fox news" to be fair and balanced.

i know, i know. they're "fair and balanced" because they present "both sides."

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGArqoF0TpQ&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

The mere existence of a legal definition is enough to be convicted.(that is to say people being convicted only validates a law in a a legal sense) A widely accepted definition however implies that people agree on what terrorism is legally. Since people don't agree on what terrorism is legally i see no reason to use one legal definition over another, And seeing how this isn't an argument concerning law. I see no reason to use a legal definition at all. Which is why I am promoting a more textbook definition.

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

Prison camps are, in some ways, worse than mere execution. Yakov Dzhugashvili, if some accounts are to be believed, ran into an electric fence rather than bearing the pain of time in a Nazi POW camp.

A better analogy would be between a dictator who kills children and elders associated with a subversive person they dislike versus a dictator who orders thugs to blow up the subversive person's bathroom when they're away. Clearly, the former is much worse than the latter.

Not really they both have around the same effect its just one is arguably more effective than the other. This is of course assuming both actions are intended to scare the subversive into compliance. And of course saying that one is better than the other is meaningless as both should be condemned fully.

You know, it was initally my position that I'd just ignore Dox47, as he has an odd habit of completely misinterpreting everything I write or ignoring the relevant points, typing lengthy screeds on why I'm not worthy of his debunking time because I frame issues in a way he doesn't like, portraying himself as an "average Joe" independent, and later commits every vice he ascribes to me in other posts. But since waltur has some concern over the definition, let me refer back to a definition I gave (which Dox47 ignored or completely misunderstood, especially when it came to the "monolith" part):

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf140592-0-30.html

If you want me to list some of the various "family resemblances" some ultraconservatives share in America, it would be

A) They watch and believe what Hannity, Glenn Beck, Bill O', and Michael Savage say.
B) They believe "socialists" are taking over the government.
C) They believe Obama is a "black nationalist".
D) They would rate themselves as "very conservative" on various ideological self-identification surveys.

Now, naturally, they don't have to met all requirements. One or two is sufficient. Wittgenstein long ago showed the folely in trying to come up with "essentialist" definitions.

And, no, I don't think claiming that ultraconservatives aren't sufficiently condemnatory of violence is equivalent to claiming extremists are extreme. Pacificists are very extremist in their views, yet would probably denounce anti-war protesters who engage in violence, for instance.

The fact of the matter is that the ultraconservative movement in America is showing similar signs of depravity as the Catholic Church does in the Sex Scandal. Rather than owning up to the fact their conspiracy theories and outright lies are fueling a fire that makes violence a likely outcome, they try to ignore the violence or try to minimize the perception that there is a problem.

You know, I'm just going to have to quote somebody from a private message, which I regard as very succinct here;



I find it infantile to accept a binary notion of "good" and "evil" with no intermediates. Somethings are good, others are not-so-good, others are bad, and others are worse.

@ Master_Pedant

If the facts that you turn up in your research end up matching what Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly are saying are you saying we should just disregard them and the facts because some talking head in the mainstream media says so?

Seriously, when Sean Hannity started talking about Obama's 'aquaintances' I did my own research. I found out that Sean Hannity had done his research. You immediately dismiss someone because they happen to be conservative, did it ever occur to you that maybe you are the one being deceived.

Barack Obama is the only American President that has ever called his fellow Americans that disagree with him on policy, "the enemy." Even Richard Nixon didn't go that far.

I have an extremely good memory when it comes to major incidents in politics at the national level, if I've heard about it or seen it, I tend to remember it.

Also, the fact you have individuals like George Soros spending millions of dollars just to try to discredit Fox News, actually adds to their credibility. If people are trying that hard to wipe out a news organization, if you have a sitting President of the United States going after a News Agency because he doesn't like their coverage, then excuse me it sounds like they may be on to something that someone doesn't want exposed.

perhaps they don't see the problem from the same perspective as we do. i would say that visagrunt's explanation of conservatives is much more prevalent than these "ultraconservatives" you're talking about. i agree with what you're saying about the people you're describing, i just don't think they fit at the polar end of conservatives. i think they may imagine themselves there, but this is one of the problems with our language. we say "extremist" but we don't always mean "the extreme." we mostly mean "askew."

take those "environmentalist extremists," the ELF. if you cause more pollution by burning down a hummer dealership than all of the hummers you destroyed would have put into the air, in what sense are you "extremely environmentalist?"

and you shouldn't expect conservatives to react differently to your comparison than a vegan would if you suggested he wanted to "kill all cows" or something ridiculous like that.

the term "conspiracy theory" should be rephrased "conspiracy wild-ass-line-of-reasoning-that-might-work-if-everyone-who-disagrees-is-either-stupid-or-in-on-it."


glenn beck is an entertainer. even he admits it. fox news is only news in the sense that pro wrestling is wrestling. conservatives deserve better.

But we are not talking about 'simple' vandalism or murder. We are talking about terrorism and when considering terrorism and its punishment it is of my opinion that neither method or effect is important, that full condemnation of the action should be the response from all sides. This discussion isn't about whether or not vandalism is worse than murder. Its about whether or not some terrorists are preferable to others, and in my eyes the answer is no. No terrorists should be the only goal under consideration. No terrorist should be treated better than the other just because he gave a warning both tried to use violence and fear to coerce their opponents. What they set out to do should not be forgotten simply because they chose a less effective method.