Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-13-2014, 02:28 PM
 
21,426 posts, read 10,507,691 times
Reputation: 14081

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123 View Post
Yep, the OP is correct.

Look, I've lived my whole life - over 30 years - in "blue" states, and I have yet to meet a "liberal extremists" like the boogie-men that get trotted out on this forum. I've known some people on the far-left, sure, and the "scariest" things they would propose are higher taxes on the rich and fewer guns, and while both of those ideas won't solve anything, that was about the extent of their bad proposals.

On the other hand, I've had the "pleasure" to work side by side with right-wing extremists - loud and proud supporters of the Tea Party, and their world view was simply disgusting. One key thing they all had in common - aside from the bigotry and ignorance - was bloodlust.

The right-wing loons I worked with had, as expected, gun fetishes - and we're not talking responsible gun owners here. One of them brought a friggin gun to work to "show it off" - completely against company policy - and the oldest pair of them couldn't go a week without giving the "day of killing speech" - you know, "When the day comes - when the REAL patriots are willing to do what needs to be done and kill the people who need killing!" Which, of course, included: blacks, gays, people in the government, NATO stormtroopers, "communists," and the list just went on and on... their words, not mine - they made it very clear they wanted to "kill those people."

So, when the average right-wing lunatic loudly fantasizes about killing people he doesn't like as he parrots back the hatred drilled into his brain by right-wing extremist media, why are we surprised when some of these nutballs snap and finally act on this hatred?
Where the heck do you work? I live in a red state and I have not ever met one person like the people you've described. Honestly you must work with some real crazies, because I can tell you that is not typical of right wing people.

 
Old 06-13-2014, 02:48 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,933 posts, read 12,869,476 times
Reputation: 7399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
Don't you believe that conservatives think liberals are "warping this nation into their narrow, insane vision"?

You believe those on the political left don't want to tell us how to live? Those on the political left want to control what I eat, what I drive, where I live, who my doctor is. Liberals think they own my life and my property. It is effectively illegal for me to purchase anything without their approval. They are the politically-correct "thought police". They are statists, nationalists, and internationalists. United Nations one-world government types. And who want to strip away all ability for me to defend myself, while relying on the corrupt police bully control freaks who don't actually protect anyone.


I don't know how "bigoted minorities" would have the power to force their will on anyone. Since they are a minority. If you are arguing that they do so with violence. Then you must still recognize that they are a minority. How exactly is the minority using violence to control anything in this country? Do you have examples of such violence?

If you are arguing that "the Millers" used violence to control this country. Were they actually telling anyone how to live? Were they pushing the government to monitor bedrooms? Because it looked to me like they just didn't want the government to be doing anything. Basically they were saying "leave everyone alone".


Look, I am not saying that I agree with neo-conservatives/religious conservatives. I'm largely a "libertarian". But when you say things like "Freedom of speech aside, people may have the right to be crazy, but they do NOT have the right to warp this nation into their narrow, insane vision".... I have no clue what in the hell you are talking about. It sounds like you are saying people don't have a right to freedom of speech if they are using it to "warp the nation into their insane vision". Which to me sounds pretty damn insane.


I understand, you don't like conservatives. But you seem to be incapable of making a distinction between religious-conservatives, libertarians, neo-nazi's, and anarchists. For some reason, people have declared these groups to be on the "political right" and you are incapable of distinguishing between them.
Excellent post!
 
Old 06-13-2014, 02:56 PM
 
Location: Just over the horizon
18,415 posts, read 7,048,342 times
Reputation: 11671
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
Sure blame everyone but the violent people who do these murders. Typical liberal thinking and why it will continue. Does that mean Democrats and Obama are directly responsible for all the murders in Chicago?
Criminals are never responsible for their own actions in liberal la-la land.

it's always someone else's fault
 
Old 06-13-2014, 03:01 PM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
11,120 posts, read 10,668,910 times
Reputation: 9771
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmmjv View Post
They encourage that kind of action. When the crazies blather on about "second amendment solutions" how "we came unarmed, this time" or "if the ballot box doesn't work there's always the ammo box" When the crazies advocate armed rebellion and even state that armed rebellion is their constitutional right and then are told by people like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin et al that they're patriots and real Americans, that's giving them the go ahead for an armed uprising. Then when you add into that mix yammering and yapping about how Obama's a dictator and he's coming to take away all the guns and you have people like Hannity, Limbaugh, and Palin agreeing with that and saying yeah Obama is a dictator well now gee what was it those crazies were saying about dictators and tyranny and second amendment solutions? Yeah that's right, sooner or later some of those crazies are going to do exactly what they said they would do, exactly what Fox News and the other right wingers encouraged them to do, and people, most likely government officials, are going to be shot and killed
So now it's acceptable to blame other people for the actions of criminals because they made a public statement?

Cool, in that case Obama can be blamed for the actions of the Millers because of the stupidity he spouted after Sandy Hook.
 
Old 06-13-2014, 03:03 PM
 
Location: Maryland
7,795 posts, read 6,366,001 times
Reputation: 9927
Hmm who spews more hatred toward law enforcement. Conservatives or the Occupy retards?
 
Old 06-13-2014, 03:06 PM
 
58,749 posts, read 27,092,933 times
Reputation: 14186
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmmjv View Post
They encourage that kind of action. When the crazies blather on about "second amendment solutions" how "we came unarmed, this time" or "if the ballot box doesn't work there's always the ammo box" When the crazies advocate armed rebellion and even state that armed rebellion is their constitutional right and then are told by people like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin et al that they're patriots and real Americans, that's giving them the go ahead for an armed uprising. Then when you add into that mix yammering and yapping about how Obama's a dictator and he's coming to take away all the guns and you have people like Hannity, Limbaugh, and Palin agreeing with that and saying yeah Obama is a dictator well now gee what was it those crazies were saying about dictators and tyranny and second amendment solutions? Yeah that's right, sooner or later some of those crazies are going to do exactly what they said they would do, exactly what Fox News and the other right wingers encouraged them to do, and people, most likely government officials, are going to be shot and killed
Sorry, I don;t read ANYBODY WHO ISN'T INTELLIGENT ENOUGH to know how to turn off Bold!
 
Old 06-13-2014, 03:58 PM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
14,856 posts, read 8,179,887 times
Reputation: 4590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123 View Post
The problem is that there is no such thing as "no government"

Without government, you get "might makes right," and I think we can quickly see how bad that gets really fast... unless one is to consider Somalia a haven of freedom and independence.
First, you are wrong. There is such a thing as "no government". It is usually referred to as a "state of nature".

State of nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Secondly, you need to learn a little about the state of nature before you start making assumptions about it. A state of nature neither means might makes right, nor does it mean rule by force.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For Locke, in the state of nature all men are free "to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature." The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, and that law is Reason. Locke believes that reason teaches that "no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, and or property"; and that transgressions of this may be punished.


Morality is not a societal construct, but rather "natural" in the sense of "innate", an outgrowth from man's instinctive disinclination to witness suffering, from which arise the emotions of compassion or empathy.


In Rousseau's philosophy, society's negative influence on men centers on its transformation of amour de soi, a positive self-love, into amour-propre, or pride. Amour de soi represents the instinctive human desire for self-preservation, combined with the human power of reason. In contrast, amour-propre is artificial and encourages man to compare himself to others, thus creating unwarranted fear and allowing men to take pleasure in the pain or weakness of others.



The best way for me to describe the state of nature. Is to ask you to imagine some island somewhere. The only two people on the island are you and me, and there is no government. If you believe that anarchy is always rule by force and might makes right, then without government, we would immediately be trying to kill each other or enslave each other, or generally abusing each other at any opportunity. But is that what would actually happen?


No, without government the two of us would always seek to resolve any differences of opinion amicably to avoid conflict with each other. In fact, without government, we would actually be far more cautious about offending the other person. We would always make attempts to right any wrongs. Because neither of us would want to risk injury from the other.


To understand how the state of nature actually works. You would have to read about "primitive" societies, since governments have existed basically all over the rest of the world for quite some time. Especially learn a little about the theory of the "Noble Savage".

Noble savage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Care and Labour of providing for Artificial and Fashionable Wants, the sight of so many rich wallowing in Superfluous plenty, whereby so many are kept poor and distressed for Want, the Insolence of Office . . . and restraints of Custom, all contrive to disgust [the Indians] with what we call civil Society. - Benjamin Franklin


For the most part, you and I could get along just fine even in the absence of government(even if we chose merely to never talk to each other). In my view, the major problem when it comes to the state of nature, and society in general, has to do with a "disparity of force". As long as you and I are relatively equal, there is no benefit to conflict. Only when there is a huge disparity of force, could one side or the other ever desire conflict.

To understand the concept, understand how nuclear weapons effectively stop wars. When people are equal, war can only mean death of all.

Thus in a sense, if everyone was equal, then there would be little, if any violence.

My goal largely is to try to eliminate or minimize all disparities of force. Which could also be the "corruptions of power". And the greatest power in the world, are governments.

I am simply not convinced of their necessity.

Last edited by Redshadowz; 06-13-2014 at 04:16 PM..
 
Old 06-13-2014, 04:15 PM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
14,856 posts, read 8,179,887 times
Reputation: 4590
Quote:
Originally Posted by katygirl68 View Post
If you don't think we should have our current form of government, and you posted a quote that the country should be ruled by a group of men smarter than everyone else, what are you talking about? I'm confused. You haven't really said what kind of government you want, only what you don't want.

I didn't say that it should be ruled by men smarter than everyone else. I was trying to point out the fallacy that a society could ever be ruled by intelligent or virtuous men. Thus I was really just trying to explain that all societies are ruled by jerks.

And people know it is true. They love to complain about politicians. They call them liars, cheaters. They are corrupt, and unethical. They complain that they play politics, ignore their constituents, and go against the interests of the people.

They refuse to recognize the real problem. The system is flawed.

It reminds me of George Carlin. Compare this video to my original quote.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07w9K2XR3f0

Rousseau's Theory of the State

Quote:
Who would fulfill the functions of the State?

The best citizens, would be the answer, the most intelligent and the most virtuous, those who understand better than the others the common interests of society and the need, the duty, of everyone to subordinate his own interests to the common good. It is, in fact; necessary for these men to be as intelligent as they are virtuous; if they were intelligent but lacked virtue, they might very well use the public welfare to serve their private interests, and if they were virtuous but lacked intelligence, their good faith would not be enough to save the public interest from their errors. It is therefore necessary, in order that a republic may not perish, that it have available throughout its duration a continuous succession of many citizens possessing both virtue and intelligence.

Let us assume that, in an ideal society, in each period, there were a sufficient number of men both intelligent and virtuous to discharge the principal functions of the State worthily. Who would seek them out, select them, and place the reins of power in their hands? Would they themselves, aware of their intelligence and their virtue, take possession of the power?

If they used persuasion, we might remark that he can best persuade who is himself persuaded, and the best men are precisely those who are least persuaded of their own worth. Even when they are aware of it, they usually find it repugnant to press their claim upon others, while wicked and mediocre men, always satisfied with themselves, feel no repugnance in glorifying themselves. But let us even suppose that the desire to serve their country had overcome the natural modesty of truly worthy men and induced them to offer themselves as candidates for the suffrage of their fellow citizens. Would the people necessarily accept these in preference to ambitious, smooth-tongued, clever schemers?
For reference, I consider this the "Candidate Jesus" problem. Basically, if someone who was "perfect"(like Jesus) was running for president, would we elect him? Don't we prefer liars who just tell us what we want to hear and refuse to answer most questions? Wouldn't the honesty of a "Jesus" work against him?

If a "Jesus" couldn't win an election in this country, isn't that an admission that our system sucks?

Last edited by Redshadowz; 06-13-2014 at 04:33 PM..
 
Old 06-13-2014, 04:19 PM
 
Location: NJ
23,446 posts, read 17,113,855 times
Reputation: 17479
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmmjv View Post
They encourage that kind of action. When the crazies blather on about "second amendment solutions" how "we came unarmed, this time" or "if the ballot box doesn't work there's always the ammo box" When the crazies advocate armed rebellion and even state that armed rebellion is their constitutional right and then are told by people like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin et al that they're patriots and real Americans, that's giving them the go ahead for an armed uprising. Then when you add into that mix yammering and yapping about how Obama's a dictator and he's coming to take away all the guns and you have people like Hannity, Limbaugh, and Palin agreeing with that and saying yeah Obama is a dictator well now gee what was it those crazies were saying about dictators and tyranny and second amendment solutions? Yeah that's right, sooner or later some of those crazies are going to do exactly what they said they would do, exactly what Fox News and the other right wingers encouraged them to do, and people, most likely government officials, are going to be shot and killed
\
Don't forget to blame rap music, violent videos and your friend who buys illegal drugs and supports the gangs who do 99% of the killing.

What did hoffa jr mean when he told his members to 'take out your enemies" a moment before obama got up to speak. Obama said nothing to mitigate hoffa's threat. Blame obama. Blame Biden who told us to get a shotgun and fire it off to scare away bad guys..Ooop! that would be a felony.

Your butterfly effect has stretched so far it has snapped back and knocked you senseless.

Maybe it was Eve's fault or perhaps Caimn who killed his brother. That's as far back as you can go.
 
Old 06-13-2014, 09:09 PM
 
4,911 posts, read 3,423,613 times
Reputation: 1257
Quote:
Originally Posted by toryturner View Post
Could you please provide the claim.
In this book I make a claim that will seem startling at the outset. The cultural left in this country (such people as Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, George Soros, Michael Moore, Bill Moyers, and Noam Chomsky) is responsible for causing 9/11.

The term “cultural left” does not refer to the Democratic Party. Nor does it refer to all liberals. It refers to the left wing of the Democratic Party—admittedly the most energetic group among Democrats, and the main source of the party’s ideas. The cultural left also includes a few Republicans, notably those who adopt a left-wing stance on foreign policy and social issues. Moreover, the cultural left includes organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Organization for Women, People for the American Way, Planned Parenthood, Human Rights Watch, and moveon.org.

In faulting the cultural left, I am not making the absurd accusation that this group blew up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I am saying that the cultural left and its allies in Congress, the media, Hollywood, the nonprofit sector and the universities are the primary cause of the volcano of anger toward America that is erupting from the Islamic world. The Muslims who carried out the 9/11 attacks were the product of this visceral rage—some of it based on legitimate concerns, some of it based on wrongful prejudice—but all of it fueled and encouraged by the cultural left. Thus without the cultural left, 9/11 would not have happened.

I realize that this is a strong charge, one that no one has made before. But it is a completely neglected aspect of the 9/11 debate, and it is critical to understanding the current debate over the war against terrorism. Here in America, the political right routinely accuses the left of being weak in its response to Islamic terrorism. For example, conservatives often allege that the left’s desire to “understand” the roots of Islamic discontent dilutes American resolve in fighting the enemy. If this is true, then fortifying the left’s resolve becomes the obvious solution. My argument is quite different. It is that the left is the primary reason for Islamic anti-Americanism as well as the anti-Americanism of other traditional cultures around the world. I intend to show that the left has actively fostered the intense hatred of America that has led to murderous attacks such as 9/11. If I am right, then no war against terrorism can be effectively fought using the left-wing premises that are now accepted doctrine among mainstream liberals and Democrats.

The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11 | Dinesh D'Souza

To put it in a nutshell, the terrorists attacked America because us liberals weren't moral enough. We don't share their values.
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.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:43 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top