OT: Sad day for America

[CA renter]

[quote=Arraya]Actually, Grathwohl was an FBI informant- part of:

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

It would not be the first time false quotes were attributed to groups for political reasons. Left or right.

During the turn of the century you can directly link the rise of police forces to suppressing factory workers from organizing. During the depression there were socialist and communist groups on street corners of most manufacturing cities handing out literature. It was seen as a major threat to the ruling part as it is today.[/quote]

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Anti-government is not the same as small government. Militant does not equal military.[/quote]

Bingo!

And the leadership of the mainstream right is conveying the exact opposite message.

That’s why:

1) The national debate on important issues is not focused on what really matters.

2) We have been experiencing, and will continue to see unnecessary violence.

I don’t know how to access the law enforcement databases you’ve referenced. Even if I could, what would I search for in order to prove/disprove any trend? If you want to cite those as support for your argument, you’ll need to provide some data.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Anti-government is not the same as small government. Militant does not equal military.[/quote]

Bingo!

And the leadership of the mainstream right is conveying the exact opposite message.

That’s why:

1) The national debate on important issues is not focused on what really matters.

2) We have been experiencing, and will continue to see unnecessary violence.

I don’t know how to access the law enforcement databases you’ve referenced. Even if I could, what would I search for in order to prove/disprove any trend? If you want to cite those as support for your argument, you’ll need to provide some data.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Anti-government is not the same as small government. Militant does not equal military.[/quote]

Bingo!

And the leadership of the mainstream right is conveying the exact opposite message.

That’s why:

1) The national debate on important issues is not focused on what really matters.

2) We have been experiencing, and will continue to see unnecessary violence.

I don’t know how to access the law enforcement databases you’ve referenced. Even if I could, what would I search for in order to prove/disprove any trend? If you want to cite those as support for your argument, you’ll need to provide some data.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Anti-government is not the same as small government. Militant does not equal military.[/quote]

Bingo!

And the leadership of the mainstream right is conveying the exact opposite message.

That’s why:

1) The national debate on important issues is not focused on what really matters.

2) We have been experiencing, and will continue to see unnecessary violence.

I don’t know how to access the law enforcement databases you’ve referenced. Even if I could, what would I search for in order to prove/disprove any trend? If you want to cite those as support for your argument, you’ll need to provide some data.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Anti-government is not the same as small government. Militant does not equal military.[/quote]

Bingo!

And the leadership of the mainstream right is conveying the exact opposite message.

That’s why:

1) The national debate on important issues is not focused on what really matters.

2) We have been experiencing, and will continue to see unnecessary violence.

I don’t know how to access the law enforcement databases you’ve referenced. Even if I could, what would I search for in order to prove/disprove any trend? If you want to cite those as support for your argument, you’ll need to provide some data.

[jstoesz]

I can not believe we are still talking about this. Does anyone really believe that Beck and Limbaugh and Obama and Maher are really the ones causing these crazies to lose it. Are you really trying to pin blame for these murders on them, for the way they expressed themselves.

As a society we need to look past what “caused” someone to do something. Bad people do bad things, because they are bad people. They could become good people, but they choose to be bad. We should not care if some serial rapist was molested as a child. Or why some wife beaters actions are not so bad because, after all, his dad beat him too. Move past the vitriol rhetoric and place the blame solely and absolutely on the bad person…Stop looking for other people to ensnare who have nothing to do with it.

No matter what I say, short of a “charles manson” maneuver, I can not make you commit mass murder. I think that liberals like going down this blame road, because at the heart of it, they think most people are stupid and incapable of acting independently with wisdom. So when a Limbaugh incites the rabble, the rednecks are just puppets of the puppet master. This liberal attitude becomes all the more clear when you consider all the laws liberals make to protect people from themselves.

Now that is condescension, and it makes me pretty damn angry. But, whew, it is a darn good thing I live in CA and guns are so hard to come by…

[jstoesz]

I can not believe we are still talking about this. Does anyone really believe that Beck and Limbaugh and Obama and Maher are really the ones causing these crazies to lose it. Are you really trying to pin blame for these murders on them, for the way they expressed themselves.

As a society we need to look past what “caused” someone to do something. Bad people do bad things, because they are bad people. They could become good people, but they choose to be bad. We should not care if some serial rapist was molested as a child. Or why some wife beaters actions are not so bad because, after all, his dad beat him too. Move past the vitriol rhetoric and place the blame solely and absolutely on the bad person…Stop looking for other people to ensnare who have nothing to do with it.

No matter what I say, short of a “charles manson” maneuver, I can not make you commit mass murder. I think that liberals like going down this blame road, because at the heart of it, they think most people are stupid and incapable of acting independently with wisdom. So when a Limbaugh incites the rabble, the rednecks are just puppets of the puppet master. This liberal attitude becomes all the more clear when you consider all the laws liberals make to protect people from themselves.

Now that is condescension, and it makes me pretty damn angry. But, whew, it is a darn good thing I live in CA and guns are so hard to come by…

[jstoesz]

I can not believe we are still talking about this. Does anyone really believe that Beck and Limbaugh and Obama and Maher are really the ones causing these crazies to lose it. Are you really trying to pin blame for these murders on them, for the way they expressed themselves.

As a society we need to look past what “caused” someone to do something. Bad people do bad things, because they are bad people. They could become good people, but they choose to be bad. We should not care if some serial rapist was molested as a child. Or why some wife beaters actions are not so bad because, after all, his dad beat him too. Move past the vitriol rhetoric and place the blame solely and absolutely on the bad person…Stop looking for other people to ensnare who have nothing to do with it.

No matter what I say, short of a “charles manson” maneuver, I can not make you commit mass murder. I think that liberals like going down this blame road, because at the heart of it, they think most people are stupid and incapable of acting independently with wisdom. So when a Limbaugh incites the rabble, the rednecks are just puppets of the puppet master. This liberal attitude becomes all the more clear when you consider all the laws liberals make to protect people from themselves.

Now that is condescension, and it makes me pretty damn angry. But, whew, it is a darn good thing I live in CA and guns are so hard to come by…

[jstoesz]

I can not believe we are still talking about this. Does anyone really believe that Beck and Limbaugh and Obama and Maher are really the ones causing these crazies to lose it. Are you really trying to pin blame for these murders on them, for the way they expressed themselves.

As a society we need to look past what “caused” someone to do something. Bad people do bad things, because they are bad people. They could become good people, but they choose to be bad. We should not care if some serial rapist was molested as a child. Or why some wife beaters actions are not so bad because, after all, his dad beat him too. Move past the vitriol rhetoric and place the blame solely and absolutely on the bad person…Stop looking for other people to ensnare who have nothing to do with it.

No matter what I say, short of a “charles manson” maneuver, I can not make you commit mass murder. I think that liberals like going down this blame road, because at the heart of it, they think most people are stupid and incapable of acting independently with wisdom. So when a Limbaugh incites the rabble, the rednecks are just puppets of the puppet master. This liberal attitude becomes all the more clear when you consider all the laws liberals make to protect people from themselves.

Now that is condescension, and it makes me pretty damn angry. But, whew, it is a darn good thing I live in CA and guns are so hard to come by…

[jstoesz]

I can not believe we are still talking about this. Does anyone really believe that Beck and Limbaugh and Obama and Maher are really the ones causing these crazies to lose it. Are you really trying to pin blame for these murders on them, for the way they expressed themselves.

As a society we need to look past what “caused” someone to do something. Bad people do bad things, because they are bad people. They could become good people, but they choose to be bad. We should not care if some serial rapist was molested as a child. Or why some wife beaters actions are not so bad because, after all, his dad beat him too. Move past the vitriol rhetoric and place the blame solely and absolutely on the bad person…Stop looking for other people to ensnare who have nothing to do with it.

No matter what I say, short of a “charles manson” maneuver, I can not make you commit mass murder. I think that liberals like going down this blame road, because at the heart of it, they think most people are stupid and incapable of acting independently with wisdom. So when a Limbaugh incites the rabble, the rednecks are just puppets of the puppet master. This liberal attitude becomes all the more clear when you consider all the laws liberals make to protect people from themselves.

Now that is condescension, and it makes me pretty damn angry. But, whew, it is a darn good thing I live in CA and guns are so hard to come by…

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=afx114]I’m not implying that you or all conservatives are like those whackos — you know I don’t believe that. I’m just trying to argue that the philosophies of activists who use guns and tough-guy bravado to take down “the man” often overlap with the philosophies of the right. This is evidenced by the list so graciously provided by pri_dk.

I look forward to your list of anti-government gun-wielding military-porn addicted leftist assassins.

Or maybe I’ve just had too much whiskey.[/quote]

Afx: First off, you cannot have too much whiskey, unless you’re drinking Jim Beam or some similar rotgut.

Second, you’re off into the weeds again with your connection of Rightist to right-wing. The main point I’ve been making is that extremism exists in both parties and that both parties, to a certain extent, have been co-opted by these extremes.

The other point was that whackos like the ones that pri used as examples are exactly that: Whackos. Their choice of “tools” as it were (guns, propaganda, symbols, etc) doesn’t reflect an ideology consistent with “right-wing”, it reflects a mindset consumed with symbols of power, hence the fetishization you see with Nazi symbology. This fetishization doesn’t reflect an attraction to Nazism as a political cause, but Nazism as a means to power and its oppressive use against one’s foes.

Mao once famously said that “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”. Does this make Mao right-wing? Nope. It simplys illustrates the realization that guns represent power.

You can easily debunk the mythology of the Soviet October Revolution by pointing out that, while peasants were being slaughtered in the streets by the Czar’s Cossacks, Lenin and Co. overthrew the government by smuggling revolvers into the Duma (Russian Assembly) and taking it literally at gunpoint. Was Lenin right-wing? Or was he a guy that would have agreed with Al Capone’s saying that, “You get more with a kind word and a gun, than just a kind word”.

My point with the above examples is that the guns, and the symbols, and the propaganda stand separate and distinct. I asked pri to show the connection between the alleged right-wing hate speech and the examples of the various loons he offered. I haven’t seen it yet because it doesn’t exist.

But let’s say it does. Now what? Legislation to limit such speech? And who is the judge of that? And is our speech now more dangerous and venomous than the past? Our past history is replete with examples that say, no, it isn’t. In point of fact, our past history was even MORE rambunctious than our present, with politicians physically attacking one another (and in one egregious case, committing murder), carrying guns and using inflammatory language far in excess of what you see now.

To me, at least, it seems like there is a more insidious rationale at work here and that is the desire to stifle certain forms of expression. It started with the whole PC movement and has now progressed to the point that anything that even remotely resembles upsetting words or symbols needs to be eliminated.

I bet Orwell would love this.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=afx114]I’m not implying that you or all conservatives are like those whackos — you know I don’t believe that. I’m just trying to argue that the philosophies of activists who use guns and tough-guy bravado to take down “the man” often overlap with the philosophies of the right. This is evidenced by the list so graciously provided by pri_dk.

I look forward to your list of anti-government gun-wielding military-porn addicted leftist assassins.

Or maybe I’ve just had too much whiskey.[/quote]

Afx: First off, you cannot have too much whiskey, unless you’re drinking Jim Beam or some similar rotgut.

Second, you’re off into the weeds again with your connection of Rightist to right-wing. The main point I’ve been making is that extremism exists in both parties and that both parties, to a certain extent, have been co-opted by these extremes.

The other point was that whackos like the ones that pri used as examples are exactly that: Whackos. Their choice of “tools” as it were (guns, propaganda, symbols, etc) doesn’t reflect an ideology consistent with “right-wing”, it reflects a mindset consumed with symbols of power, hence the fetishization you see with Nazi symbology. This fetishization doesn’t reflect an attraction to Nazism as a political cause, but Nazism as a means to power and its oppressive use against one’s foes.

Mao once famously said that “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”. Does this make Mao right-wing? Nope. It simplys illustrates the realization that guns represent power.

You can easily debunk the mythology of the Soviet October Revolution by pointing out that, while peasants were being slaughtered in the streets by the Czar’s Cossacks, Lenin and Co. overthrew the government by smuggling revolvers into the Duma (Russian Assembly) and taking it literally at gunpoint. Was Lenin right-wing? Or was he a guy that would have agreed with Al Capone’s saying that, “You get more with a kind word and a gun, than just a kind word”.

My point with the above examples is that the guns, and the symbols, and the propaganda stand separate and distinct. I asked pri to show the connection between the alleged right-wing hate speech and the examples of the various loons he offered. I haven’t seen it yet because it doesn’t exist.

But let’s say it does. Now what? Legislation to limit such speech? And who is the judge of that? And is our speech now more dangerous and venomous than the past? Our past history is replete with examples that say, no, it isn’t. In point of fact, our past history was even MORE rambunctious than our present, with politicians physically attacking one another (and in one egregious case, committing murder), carrying guns and using inflammatory language far in excess of what you see now.

To me, at least, it seems like there is a more insidious rationale at work here and that is the desire to stifle certain forms of expression. It started with the whole PC movement and has now progressed to the point that anything that even remotely resembles upsetting words or symbols needs to be eliminated.

I bet Orwell would love this.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=afx114]I’m not implying that you or all conservatives are like those whackos — you know I don’t believe that. I’m just trying to argue that the philosophies of activists who use guns and tough-guy bravado to take down “the man” often overlap with the philosophies of the right. This is evidenced by the list so graciously provided by pri_dk.

I look forward to your list of anti-government gun-wielding military-porn addicted leftist assassins.

Or maybe I’ve just had too much whiskey.[/quote]

Afx: First off, you cannot have too much whiskey, unless you’re drinking Jim Beam or some similar rotgut.

Second, you’re off into the weeds again with your connection of Rightist to right-wing. The main point I’ve been making is that extremism exists in both parties and that both parties, to a certain extent, have been co-opted by these extremes.

The other point was that whackos like the ones that pri used as examples are exactly that: Whackos. Their choice of “tools” as it were (guns, propaganda, symbols, etc) doesn’t reflect an ideology consistent with “right-wing”, it reflects a mindset consumed with symbols of power, hence the fetishization you see with Nazi symbology. This fetishization doesn’t reflect an attraction to Nazism as a political cause, but Nazism as a means to power and its oppressive use against one’s foes.

Mao once famously said that “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”. Does this make Mao right-wing? Nope. It simplys illustrates the realization that guns represent power.

You can easily debunk the mythology of the Soviet October Revolution by pointing out that, while peasants were being slaughtered in the streets by the Czar’s Cossacks, Lenin and Co. overthrew the government by smuggling revolvers into the Duma (Russian Assembly) and taking it literally at gunpoint. Was Lenin right-wing? Or was he a guy that would have agreed with Al Capone’s saying that, “You get more with a kind word and a gun, than just a kind word”.

My point with the above examples is that the guns, and the symbols, and the propaganda stand separate and distinct. I asked pri to show the connection between the alleged right-wing hate speech and the examples of the various loons he offered. I haven’t seen it yet because it doesn’t exist.

But let’s say it does. Now what? Legislation to limit such speech? And who is the judge of that? And is our speech now more dangerous and venomous than the past? Our past history is replete with examples that say, no, it isn’t. In point of fact, our past history was even MORE rambunctious than our present, with politicians physically attacking one another (and in one egregious case, committing murder), carrying guns and using inflammatory language far in excess of what you see now.

To me, at least, it seems like there is a more insidious rationale at work here and that is the desire to stifle certain forms of expression. It started with the whole PC movement and has now progressed to the point that anything that even remotely resembles upsetting words or symbols needs to be eliminated.

I bet Orwell would love this.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=afx114]I’m not implying that you or all conservatives are like those whackos — you know I don’t believe that. I’m just trying to argue that the philosophies of activists who use guns and tough-guy bravado to take down “the man” often overlap with the philosophies of the right. This is evidenced by the list so graciously provided by pri_dk.

I look forward to your list of anti-government gun-wielding military-porn addicted leftist assassins.

Or maybe I’ve just had too much whiskey.[/quote]

Afx: First off, you cannot have too much whiskey, unless you’re drinking Jim Beam or some similar rotgut.

Second, you’re off into the weeds again with your connection of Rightist to right-wing. The main point I’ve been making is that extremism exists in both parties and that both parties, to a certain extent, have been co-opted by these extremes.

The other point was that whackos like the ones that pri used as examples are exactly that: Whackos. Their choice of “tools” as it were (guns, propaganda, symbols, etc) doesn’t reflect an ideology consistent with “right-wing”, it reflects a mindset consumed with symbols of power, hence the fetishization you see with Nazi symbology. This fetishization doesn’t reflect an attraction to Nazism as a political cause, but Nazism as a means to power and its oppressive use against one’s foes.

Mao once famously said that “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”. Does this make Mao right-wing? Nope. It simplys illustrates the realization that guns represent power.

You can easily debunk the mythology of the Soviet October Revolution by pointing out that, while peasants were being slaughtered in the streets by the Czar’s Cossacks, Lenin and Co. overthrew the government by smuggling revolvers into the Duma (Russian Assembly) and taking it literally at gunpoint. Was Lenin right-wing? Or was he a guy that would have agreed with Al Capone’s saying that, “You get more with a kind word and a gun, than just a kind word”.

My point with the above examples is that the guns, and the symbols, and the propaganda stand separate and distinct. I asked pri to show the connection between the alleged right-wing hate speech and the examples of the various loons he offered. I haven’t seen it yet because it doesn’t exist.

But let’s say it does. Now what? Legislation to limit such speech? And who is the judge of that? And is our speech now more dangerous and venomous than the past? Our past history is replete with examples that say, no, it isn’t. In point of fact, our past history was even MORE rambunctious than our present, with politicians physically attacking one another (and in one egregious case, committing murder), carrying guns and using inflammatory language far in excess of what you see now.

To me, at least, it seems like there is a more insidious rationale at work here and that is the desire to stifle certain forms of expression. It started with the whole PC movement and has now progressed to the point that anything that even remotely resembles upsetting words or symbols needs to be eliminated.

I bet Orwell would love this.

[Author]

Posts