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.
The greatest difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberal inhabit a more complex intellectual space than conservatives do. The conservative universe is filled with binary choices; good v. bad, block v. white, up v. down, male v. female. The liberal universe is filled with continua between extremes, and the understanding that almost everybody lays somewhere between the poles, not at one or the other.
Liberals do not "circle the wagons" around motive. That's the conservative reflex. Liberals understand the world to be more complex than a single motive, cause, influence or reason. Liberals understand that if you really want to be able to prevent such attack you need to understand the complete motive, rather than lazily chalking it up to some convenient caricature. There are more than a billion Muslims on the planet, and most of them did not bomb Boston last week. Thinking people understand from that single fact that figuring out why these guys committed this particular atrocity is probably just a teeny bit more complicated than just because they were Muslim.
First, who says what you assert is even true? I distinctly remember Oklahoma City and the big question was also, why?
Second, when 'the white guy who shot up a school,' he was immediately caught and his mental history was quickly available. We didn't have to ponder his motive, he was nuts.
Thus, I conclude that you proceed from a false premise. The 'left' doesn't circle the wagons around motive only when the perpetrators are Muslims.
I conclude your full of it with an sh. The left ran for months no years around McVeigh being a radical religious nut. Holmes and Lanza could not be spun as they were crazy, but Laughner was spun as a radical right wing nut job and turns out he was more to the left. When that was found out it was just let die quietly. I say your totally wrong and have no point at all.
Politicians, including Obama, who assign motives other than jihadist terrorism when the perp is Muslim do so b/c a big portion of their constituents are Muslim. They don't want the Farrakhan types here in the USA to get upset with them. End of story.
Congrats, another post of ignorance sends you to my ignore list.
Thanks for the heads up so I don't have to read any more of your nonsense.
Does it give you some kind of warm feeling inside to make things up about what liberals supposedly think and then attack them?
It sure must because it's done umteen times a day of this forum. It's also usually 100% incorrect in fact and misrepresented as something it's NOT.
I have been hoping for years that because these types are constantly obviously wrong and are always making fools of themselves that it would become increasingly unpopular to be one of them. It seems it will take longer than I though for these people to die out.
The greatest difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberal inhabit a more complex intellectual space than conservatives do. The conservative universe is filled with binary choices; good v. bad, block v. white, up v. down, male v. female. The liberal universe is filled with continua between extremes, and the understanding that almost everybody lays somewhere between the poles, not at one or the other.
Liberals do not "circle the wagons" around motive. That's the conservative reflex. Liberals understand the world to be more complex than a single motive, cause, influence or reason. Liberals understand that if you really want to be able to prevent such attack you need to understand the complete motive, rather than lazily chalking it up to some convenient caricature. There are more than a billion Muslims on the planet, and most of them did not bomb Boston last week. Thinking people understand from that single fact that figuring out why these guys committed this particular atrocity is probably just a teeny bit more complicated than just because they were Muslim.
You missed the point completly. You ran a bunch of double speak to miss the point on purpose. The point is they do circle the wagon. Look at Maddow piece on motive is not important, LO did a similar piece. Also when it was McVeigh it was he was a right wing nut who was uber religious. When it was Laughner it was he was a right wing nut who shot a poor liberal Dem. When it was the Oak Creek shooter it was how anti Muslim extremists are promoting hate toward Msulims. Your wrong and your trying to double speak to hide the fact.
I think part of your perception that this is true is based in the fact that in my case, I expect better behavior from American citizens like McVeigh than I do from individuals that are influenced by people from other countries.
It sure must because it's done umteen times a day of this forum. It's also usually 100% incorrect in fact and misrepresented as something it's NOT.
I have been hoping for years that because these types are constantly obviously wrong and are always making fools of themselves that it would become increasingly unpopular to be one of them. It seems it will take longer than I though for these people to die out.
Liberals die out just as conservatives do. I am not a conservative, nor a liberal. I don't need a nanny state to tell me what gun or soda I can have. I also think we need a national health care system. I don't walk in lock step to one party. If you can not think for yourself and need someone to hold your hand and tell you how to feel about an issue, don't put it off on the rest of us who do think for ourselves.
I conclude your full of it with an sh. The left ran for months no years around McVeigh being a radical religious nut. Holmes and Lanza could not be spun as they were crazy, but Laughner (sic) was spun as a radical right wing nut job and turns out he was more to the left. When that was found out it was just let die quietly. I say your totally wrong and have no point at all.
Huh? I agree with what HistorianDude said and need not repeat.
According to Wiki, while someone who attended college with Loughner, described his political views prior to 2007 as "left wing, quite liberal," "radical," he was a registered Independent and:
Quote:
In the aftermath of the shooting, the Anti-Defamation League reviewed messages by Loughner, and concluded that there was a "disjointed theme that runs through Loughner's writings", which was a "distrust for and dislike of the government." It "manifested itself in various ways" – for instance, in the belief that the government used the control of language and grammar to brainwash people, the notion that the government was creating "infinite currency" without the backing of gold and silver, or the assertion that NASA was faking spaceflights.[45]
Any rational person would conclude that Loughner had no coherent political views.
So, to repeat, this threat assumes as fact things that are not facts.
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.
