Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Uh... that's the whole subject of the thread. Every reply in this thread is posted in that context. Whether people who subscribe to a particular ideology may or may not be likely to engage in acts of violence.
That's the topic of the thread in which we are posting.
And as I asked another poster - if you're really that upset about me being pretty much the only one here pointing out that conservatives are historically more likely to resort to bombings and ambush shootings than rioting, where is your outrage at the other 11 1/2 pages? The 11 1/2 pages of conservatives talking about liberals being prone to rioting? Where's your indignation there?
Who ya callin' "clueless" there, pilgrim?
I'm not upset, I think you are clueless and full of b.s. when you say that conservatives are historically more likely to resort to bombings and ambush shootings than rioting.......you have no data or stats to back up anything you say.
and then you say that because rioters do their crimes by mob violence that is not cowardly?
so if I shoot you to steal from you by ambush is cowardly but if I shoot you in your face is not?
continue, I'm having fun of the silly things people write here.
I'm not upset, I think you are clueless and full of b.s. when you say that conservatives are historically more likely to resort to bombings and ambush shootings than rioting.......you have no data or stats to back up anything you say.
When white males of the far right carry out violent attacks, neocons and Republicans typically describe them as lone-wolf extremists rather than people who are part of terrorist networks or well-organized terrorist movements. Yet many of the terrorist attacks in the United States have been carried out by people who had long histories of networking with other terrorists. In fact, most of the terrorist activity occurring in the United States in recent years has not come from Muslims, but from a combination of radical Christianists, white supremacists and far-right militia groups.
New America's tally shows 18 instances of right-wing terrorist attacks causing fatalities since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. These were the 2015 Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting (3 killed), the 2015 Charleston church shooting (9 killed), the 2014 ambush attack on Las Vegas police officers (4 killed), the 2014 Overland Park Jewish Community Center shooting in Kansas (3 killed), the 2014 Pennsylvania State Police barracks attack at Blooming Grove, Pennsylvania (1 killed), a 2012 tri-state killing spree by white supremacists (4 killed), a 2012 ambush of St. John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana police (2 killed), the 2012 Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting (6 killed), the 2011 FEAR group attacks (3 killed); a murder in 2010 in Carlisle, Pennsylvania (1 killed), a 2010 suicide attack by airplane in Austin, Texas (1 killed), the 2009 shooting of Pittsburgh police officers (3 killed); the 2009 United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting (1 killed), the 2009 assassination of George Tiller (1 killed), the 2009 murders of Raul and Brisenia Flores in Pima County, Arizona (2 killed), the 2009 murders in Brockton, Massachusetts (2 killed), the 2008 Knoxville Unitarian Universalist church shooting (2 killed), and the 2004 bank robbery in Tulsa, Oklahoma.[38]
Law enforcement agencies around the country are training their officers to recognize signs of anti-government extremism and to exercise caution during routine traffic stops, criminal investigations and other interactions with potential extremists. “The threat is real,” says the handout from one training program sponsored by the Department of Justice. Since 2000, the handout notes, 25 law enforcement officers have been killed by right-wing extremists, who share a “fear that government will confiscate firearms” and a “belief in the approaching collapse of government and the economy.”....
In contrast, right-wing extremists averaged 337 attacks per year in the decade after 9/11, causing a total of 254 fatalities, according to a study by Arie Perliger, a professor at the United States Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center. The toll has increased since the study was released in 2012.
OK. There's some data and stats backing up what I said, as you requested.
And if Hillary wins, she will be the Best President Money can Buy, and will sell this Country to the highest bidders, (or donators.) he is already a Joke, so nothing will change there.
I'm not enthusiastic about Hill, but she's by far the better option here.
Riots because the majority of American people voted for him? That's how it is supposed to go. In elections, there is only one winner. Throwing a tantrum, looting, destroying property, burning flags and attacking police, their horses and dogs is not appropriate no matter who wins.
If Hillary wins, I sincerely doubt Republicans would react that way and riot.
Probably not but the Republicans in Texas will probably threaten to secede again.
Last edited by vanguardisle; 09-15-2016 at 03:30 PM..
We've just witnessed that the FBI has joined the DOJ, Homeland Security, MSM, and the IRS in the deep deep Democrats swamp of corruption. With this amount of powerful players in bed with the Ds corruption, there's no way they will let Trump win.
They will do WHATEVER it takes to stop him.......
Right & Left Violence: Timeline, by leftist Greg Correll, 10 Jan 2011, claims to compare left and right violence in the US since 1990. It has many problems:
It lists a load of personal hate crimes. It is unclear that any of these count as political violence. Even if we include them, it is inconsistent:
It assigns all racist attacks by whites to the "right". But it does not assign all racist attacks by blacks to the "left". It just omits them.
It assigns all attacks on gays to the "right". But it does not assign all attacks by Muslims on Jews to the "left". It just omits them.
It does however include white attacks on Jews, which it assigns to the "right", despite the left's strong hatred of Israel and Zionism.
It omits all Islamic "honour killings" in the US. Why? They are the result of an ideology that - if you had to choose - is on the "left".
It lists inter-racial hate crimes, but it only lists white-on-black crimes, not black-on-white crimes.
There are evil people of all races and all countries, but this list makes it look as if there is only evil by whites.
Every one of those links lists specific incidents and hard data. Are you claiming that because they're published by sources you don't like, they didn't happen? You're going to claim that because a Salon article mentioned Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph, Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph never existed? I mean, I've read enough of your posts to know that you rarely have any clue what you're spouting off about, but I gave you a little more credit than that. Not much, but a little.
If you disagree with the data, make an argument against it. Are you capable of that?
Soooo.... I cite several sources that support my specific point about American conservative violence with significant data regarding right wing shootings and bombings, and you counter it by citing a sloppy webpage about worldwide terrorism in general over the last century. A page that (when it does specifically discuss American terrorism and hate crimes) lists even more examples of right-wing violence in the United States than I had listed myself.
You genuinely think this was a good move on your part? Do you really not realize that your link supports my point more than it does yours?
Did you even bother reading it? And if you did, were you even capable of understanding it? Because it sure doesn't seem like you did.
I reiterate my original point - when American conservatives resort to violence in the pursuit of their sociopolitical agenda, they are historically far more likely to rely on bombings and ambush attacks than rioting. Anytime you want to actually start disproving that argument, you are welcome to begin. Or, if you want to post more links that support my argument, then by all means you're certainly free to do that. I don't mind.
Every one of those links lists specific incidents and hard data. Are you claiming that because they're published by sources you don't like, they didn't happen? You're going to claim that because a Salon article mentioned Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph, Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph never existed? I mean, I've read enough of your posts to know that you rarely have any clue what you're spouting off about, but I gave you a little more credit than that. Not much, but a little.
If you disagree with the data, make an argument against it. Are you capable of that?
Soooo.... I cite several sources that support my specific point about American conservative violence with significant data regarding right wing shootings and bombings, and you counter it by citing a sloppy webpage about worldwide terrorism in general over the last century. A page that (when it does specifically discuss American terrorism and hate crimes) lists even more examples of right-wing violence in the United States than I had listed myself.
You genuinely think this was a good move on your part? Do you really not realize that your link supports my point more than it does yours?
Did you even bother reading it? And if you did, were you even capable of understanding it? Because it sure doesn't seem like you did.
I reiterate my original point - when American conservatives resort to violence in the pursuit of their sociopolitical agenda, they are historically far more likely to rely on bombings and ambush attacks than rioting. Anytime you want to actually start disproving that argument, you are welcome to begin. Or, if you want to post more links that support my argument, then by all means you're certainly free to do that. I don't mind.
the problem that liberals sources have is they ignore crimes from the left like I posted and backed it up.
sure you can copy and paste links from the liberal left all you want, that only shows 1 sided bias and ignores crimes from the left.
More crimes are committed in liberal cities by the left.....something you ignored in your copy and paste.
the problem that liberals sources have is they ignore crimes from the left like I posted and backed it up.
sure you can copy and paste links from the liberal left all you want, that only shows 1 sided bias and ignores crimes from the left.
More crimes are committed in liberal cities by the left.....something you ignored in your copy and paste.
You're damned right I'm ignoring it, because it doesn't have anything at all to do with what I was talking about. It doesn't matter how many times you try to change the subject, I still stand by what I said.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
