The Arkansas Democratic Party chairman has died from gunshot wounds...

[editec]

That's a twist. Daily was a Democrat. I'm not sure inter-party shennanigans fallis within the context of the discussion.

Sure it does. You asked if anyone could point to a riot of the right. I did.

However, I will give it to you. Look how far back you have to go, and who you have to choose (old guard Democrats) to make your case; which, makes my point.

If your point is that the left can get people on the streets complaining about our government, and the right typically cannot, I quite agree with you about that.

Odd, given that the rightists constantly tell us how much they oppose government, don't you think?

What I think is that most people who claim to hate government interferring in their lives, really love authoritarian goverment.

There are exceptions of course...the KC bomber comes to mind, for example.

 

[Gunny]

Umm yeah.. this proves my point.. These assinine preconceived notions about liberals being parroted by the right justify the need to rid this nation of the liberal scourge. How many times has it been mentioned on this board that Libs hate america, are traitors and will bring about the death of this nation...

If you believe the windbags here, its almost like its every conservatives duty to pick up a gun now (while you still can) and take out as many libs as possible.

The only thing I'm seeing assinine here is your response. My comment is no "preconceived notion." It's an opinion based on 4 decades of observation, and the nature of the beasts.

Your response projects opinions on ME, by inference, that I do not hold. You have NEVER seen me post that liberals hate America, nor that they are traitors for being liberals, nor have seen me advocate exterminating liberals for their beliefs.

For one thing, that would include most of my family. For another, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are subjective. I was defined as a "liberal" (a rather reactionary, anti-authoritarian one) for the first 25 years of my life.

As editec points out, a liberal and/or Democrat back then (60s -70s) doesn't necessarily equate to what is labelled a liberal now.

But you need to open your eyes. The wingnuts on internet message boards are not representative of the majority of those who hold the same political beliefs. Using your standard, I could say EXACTLY the same of liberals as you have conservatives. The extremists on YOUR side of the aisle are no better than the ones on the right side of the aisle.

 

[Gunny]

there are crazy lunatics on both sides of the political aisle, and even alot of crazies that have no political affiliations....

on the ''right'' there were murderers of abortion doctors....
and Coulter promoting the imprisoning of all liberals....

on the left, the greens, not the Dems promoting ELF....etc

Talk about a "loaded" example. How many actual abortion clinic murders have been committed? Use the last 30 years so you might be able to get into double digits.

You can't just pick and choose who you wish to include as a "Dem." Radicals control the Democratic Party and idiots control the GOP. The extreme elements of each are no better or worse than the other.

 

[sealybobo]

Talk about a "loaded" example. How many actual abortion clinic murders have been committed? Use the last 30 years so you might be able to get into double digits.

You can't just pick and choose who you wish to include as a "Dem." Radicals control the Democratic Party and idiots control the GOP. The extreme elements of each are no better or worse than the other.

I'm a radical. People like me, or Dennis Kuchenich, do not run the party. But extreme Conservatives/NEOCONS/war mongers do run the GOP.

My apology to any real conservatives. I understand that the GOP is not fiscally conservative and only hypocritically socially conservative.

 

[Gunny]

and people can name those on the right that have resorted to violence. this whole argument is stupid. im sorry i asked for evidence. should have just figured it was all opinion

I did not state that no one on the rigth resorted to violence. I stated the left was more prone to resort to violence, and did so WAY more often. While you can point to some screwy individual on the right that has resorted to violence, it does not happen en mass as it does on the left.

You asked a question and I responded. This is your idea of addressing my response? A dismissive "this whole argument is stupid"? I had you pegged as a little better than that.

 

[Gunny]

I wonder why some think there could be no connection between hate and death and words that come to mean in the mind of the listener something bad and should be eliminated. It requires little thought to think what happened to American Indians or Blacks or abortion doctors. Say a word and an image comes to mind. Most can reason through the rhetoric but some cannot. I am listening to the republicans the other morning talk about drilling and what word appears 'liberal,' it is liberals who are stopping the drilling. Could there be a reason so called liberals don't want this? Demonize a person and you can kill them with no conscience. There is very little extrapolation required to step from their words to rush's words to anne's words to come to see this liberal as bad. Reason often has no place in emotions. Name something bad and some people will hate. Think ******, jew, ****, ****, wop, fag, crackers....


"We first kill people with our minds, before we kill them with weapons. Whatever the conflict, the enemy is always the destroyer. We're on God's side; they're barbaric. We're good, they're evil. War gives us a feeling of moral clarity that we lack at other times." Sam Keen


The Copycat Effect: Omaha-Jokela-Columbine

 

[busara]

I did not state that no one on the rigth resorted to violence. I stated the left was more prone to resort to violence, and did so WAY more often. While you can point to some screwy individual on the right that has resorted to violence, it does not happen en mass as it does on the left.

You asked a question and I responded. This is your idea of addressing my response? A dismissive "this whole argument is stupid"? I had you pegged as a little better than that.

you completely misunderstood. i asked a question which then caused people to start saying 'well your side did this! but your people have done this! well lefties have killed millions! prove it! common sense! bla bla bla.' opinions on this topic are just that, opinions, and really cant be quantified. thats what i meant was stupid, an argument over something which is purely subjective and has caused little productive dialogue. we need a change of topic.

but youre right in that its the extremes on both sides that are responsible, who dont fit in with the majority or liberals or conservatives.

 

[Gunny]

Sure it does. You asked if anyone could point to a riot of the right. I did.

I gave you "riot of the right" on technicality; even though, you know as well as I do Daily was not identfied with the right. He as the king of the Chicago Democratic party machine.

If your point is that the left can get people on the streets complaining about our government, and the right typically cannot, I quite agree with you about that.

Nice little nuance there, but I did not use the words "can" and "cannot."

Odd, given that the rightists constantly tell us how much they oppose government, don't you think?

Not odd at all. I firmly believe in protest. IN A PROPER FORUM. Raging outside someone's place of business, convention or what have you is NOT my idea of a proper forum.

What I think is that most people who claim to hate government interferring in their lives, really love authoritarian goverment.

An interesting theory, but contradictory beliefs, by definition.

There are exceptions of course...the KC bomber comes to mind, for example.

 

[Gunny]

I'm a radical. People like me, or Dennis Kuchenich, do not run the party. But extreme Conservatives/NEOCONS/war mongers do run the GOP.

My apology to any real conservatives. I understand that the GOP is not fiscally conservative and only hypocritically socially conservative.

Sure thing, dude. I left the Democratic party because people like YOU got hold of the reins, so try again.

Extreme conservatives do not run the GOP. Traditional conservatives don't run the GOP at all. Liberals who call themselves conservatives do. The hypocrisy is all you leftwingbots that continually attack the GOP for acting like the DNC.

 

[Gunny]

you completely misunderstood. i asked a question which then caused people to start saying 'well your side did this! but your people have done this! well lefties have killed millions! prove it! common sense! bla bla bla.' opinions on this topic are just that, opinions, and really cant be quantified. thats what i meant was stupid, an argument over something which is purely subjective and has caused little productive dialogue. we need a change of topic.

but youre right in that its the extremes on both sides that are responsible, who dont fit in with the majority or liberals or conservatives.

My opinion is based on historical fact. I don't really see the need to go dig up links to every protest by the left and right since the 60s to state the obvious.

My intent was not to point a finger at anyone. It was a counter to a baseless accusation that so far, one person has tried to counter with Democrats attacking Democrats.

The argument is not subjective. It is based on the beliefs of each ideology. Conservatism by its very nature is not going to protest the status quo. It is going to support it. Conservatism dictates low-key, understated, "conservative" behavior.

Liberalism is based on pushing whatever line -- the status quo -- is drawn. Liberal behavior by definition is believing you have the right to say or do whatever you want to, wherever and whenever. It is not allowing restrictions to be placed on behavior, whether dictated by law or self-imposed. And just to clarify ... self-imposed standards of behavior are conservative in nature, not liberal, even if the person doing so defines him/herself as liberal.

There isn't anything subjective about that. They are defining ideologies that dictate behavior based on belief.

 

[editec]

I gave you "riot of the right" on technicality; even though, you know as well as I do Daily was not identfied with the right. He as the king of the Chicago Democratic party machine.

AT the time, Gunny, he was about as right wing as any pol in America.

You don't really think that the right left thing can really be as simple as Rs and Ds, now do you? I know perfectly well from many of your reponses that you are not that niave.

Not odd at all. I firmly believe in protest. IN A PROPER FORUM. Raging outside someone's place of business, convention or what have you is NOT my idea of a proper forum.

Well had the Ds opened the convention to many of those people then perhaps they wouldn't have had to be on the streets.

But the assults on the protestors and media convering them were not the protestors raging, gunny.

They were peacably assembled and the police quite literally attacked them without provocation in hundreds of dccumented cases, many of them on film for America to witness, too, I might add.

It was, just as the government's own study discovered, a POLICE RIOT.

 

[Ravi]

Sometimes messy protesting gets results. Like the Boston Tea Party.

 

[busara]

My opinion is based on historical fact. I don't really see the need to go dig up links to every protest by the left and right since the 60s to state the obvious.

My intent was not to point a finger at anyone. It was a counter to a baseless accusation that so far, one person has tried to counter with Democrats attacking Democrats.

The argument is not subjective. It is based on the beliefs of each ideology. Conservatism by its very nature is not going to protest the status quo. It is going to support it. Conservatism dictates low-key, understated, "conservative" behavior.

Liberalism is based on pushing whatever line -- the status quo -- is drawn. Liberal behavior by definition is believing you have the right to say or do whatever you want to, wherever and whenever. It is not allowing restrictions to be placed on behavior, whether dictated by law or self-imposed. And just to clarify ... self-imposed standards of behavior are conservative in nature, not liberal, even if the person doing so defines him/herself as liberal.

There isn't anything subjective about that. They are defining ideologies that dictate behavior based on belief.

an interesting take on liberal and conservative. if you ask 'libs' today if that is the basis of their beliefs, i think you'll get a no. i understood a liberal to be about considering the truths of others and being open minded. not simply pushing whatever imaginary line youre thinking of. they want people to be treated respectfully and to have equal rights.
a true conservative, to me, is someone who observes and upholds the constitution and a limited govt, while upholding the christian based views on morality. personal freedoms is the word of the day.

 

[Gunny]

AT the time, Gunny, he was about as right wing as any pol in America.

You don't really think that the right left thing can really be as simple as Rs and Ds, now do you? I know perfectly well from many of your reponses that you are not that niave.

Of course I don't believe it's that simple. I am well aware of the split in the Democratic Party that took place during the 60s-70s, culminating in Jimmy Carter. It affected my family and me greatly.

And again, I gave you your point on a technicality. However, the comments being made and that I responded to are the generalized "left" and "right," not the subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle nuances of each.

Well had the Ds opened the convention to many of those people then perhaps they wouldn't have had to be on the streets.

But the assults on the protestors and media convering them were not the protestors raging, gunny.

They were peacably assembled and the police quite literally attacked them without provocation in hundreds of dccumented cases, many of them on film for America to witness, too, I might add.

It was, just as the government's own study discovered, a POLICE RIOT.

I am also aware the police attacked the protestors at the 68 Democratic Convention. Daily was, by the definition of the day, a liberal and Democrat. A definition that wouldn't work today, but that was then. The police worked for him.

By definition, the police attacking protestors was an authoritarian move; which, is conservative in nature. No argument there. Fact remains it was orchestrated by the Democratic mayor of Chicago.

However, within context of the conversation, the identified right -- conservatives, Republicans -- were not conducting a protest that turned violent.

 

[DiveCon]

Sure thing, dude. I left the Democratic party because people like YOU got hold of the reins, so try again.

Extreme conservatives do not run the GOP. Traditional conservatives don't run the GOP at all. Liberals who call themselves conservatives do. The hypocrisy is all you leftwingbots that continually attack the GOP for acting like the DNC.

its clear they dont understand what a "neocon" is
they sure as hell arent extreme conservatives, not by a long shot
most are moderates at best and liberals that actually support a strong defense capability

 

[AllieBaba]

Still waiting for some anti-Repub, anti-gun wack job to explain why gun crime rises on a parallel with gun control.

Also getting sick of the loons jumping on every crime perpetrated by a psycho and claiming the psycho is a conservative, as if random crimes somehow prove that all conservatives are irrational.

I say we do a study on how many lunatics who have committed violent crimes are democrats. Let's start with the inner cities and work our way out.

 

[sealybobo]

its clear they dont understand what a "neocon" is
they sure as hell arent extreme conservatives, not by a long shot
most are moderates at best and liberals that actually support a strong defense capability

So why are so many of you conservatives going to vote to keep the neo cons in power? oh yea, lesser of two evils. i forgot.

just the fact that the gop broke pork records from 2004 and 2006 and you still vote for them tells me you don't know what a conservative is. We know. It's not news to us that the GOP are frauds. This is only news to you! You didn't believe it for 7 years and now you want to pretend like you figured it out first? Ha !

You prove the GOP can fuck you in the ass and you will still defend them. At least they wore a condom, right? Or tell yourself that they did it, but only so the democrats couldn't do it. The democrats like fucking you. The GOP just does it because they care. Right?

Bill Clinton had a surplus and Bush has a record deficit. That's all you need to know to know you don't make any sense. Even if Clinton didn't have a surplus, he sure as hell didn't have Bush's deficit.

Or give credit to Clinton's GOP Congress if you want. But then explain what went wrong with Delay's Congress from 2004-2006. It wasn't all Iraq spending bullshitter, so don't even try it.

 

[AllieBaba]

Clinton can thank Reagan for his surplus. And Bush can thank Clinton for the deficit.

 

[busara]

tone it down, bobo. use facts and logic, not disgusting metaphors

 

[busara]

Clinton can thank Reagan for his surplus. And Bush can thank Clinton for the deficit.

can you support that?