Here's your modern day liberal

[gjohnsoniv]

IT'S NOT OUR FAULT!!! Is what the Dem's are saying?

Edited June 7, 2012 by gjohnsoniv

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Regardless of the vast miscarriage of justice with the ordering of new trials for the worthless scum that killed Christian and Newsom.....

Liberals don't exactly have a monopoly on hateful, vitriolic, inflammatory, ignorant and sometimes dangerous rhetoric.

Maybe not a monopoly, but damned near. Where's

the beef?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MattCary]

The video of the guy crying and stating that "democracy died tonight" is absolutely priceless.

[gjohnsoniv]

Democracy died? Seriously?

[MattCary]

Democracy died? Seriously?

I had to start a thread, it's much too enjoyable not to share:

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yeah, wasn't trying to justify poor sports. Just the kinda-related thing was thinking about-- Seems everybody wants to blame stupid voters when their side loses. Not the same as wanting to kill the opposition.

Yep, I'll gladly blame the dumb voter, not because he is dumb, but he is gullible enough to vote for an idiot.

Still, I wouldn't go more than blaming. Rather, I would try to get involved and make the voter more informed

so his choice is based on something more than emotion. But, that's just me. And I do it every day.

I still want to see an example where Republicans have gone off the reservation and have called for someone

to be killed, because of a lost election. I doubt that can be had.

Where's the beef, Garufa?

There was a thread, a while back, showing a Tea Party rally with all kinds of pictures and unsavory slogans

toward Obama. Most of those pics shown were made up by the propaganda masters on the left to make it

appear the Tea Party was racist. Disproven. Some people associate anarchists with the right, but they are

wrong, also. Most anarchists subscribe to The Noam Chomsky types, and I would definitely not consider

him a right winger. More of a communist, like those in power right now.

[Guest bkelm18]

The nature of social media is that it's more of a haven for lefties, naturally they will be more outspoken on it. So I doubt you'll find such a public display of death threats from anyone on the right, though I have little doubt it is just as pervasive. People on the right aren't less morally "corrupt" or whatnot than those on the left. Stupid is stupid. It has no political affiliation.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I almost agree with you on that, Spock, but the evidence won't back up right minded people being in the

same class as the Occupy bunch and the revolutionaries and racist black problem. But, yes, stupid is stupid,

and I would be glad to disassociate with anyone on the right who stoops that low.

[Guest ThePunisher]

The old democratic party has finally been exposed to how far left they have gone off the reservation. There are no longer any conservative Dems in the party. Some falsely claim they are blue dogs Dems, but they walk step in line with Pelosi and Reid. Political power is their only motive, and they act like drunks wildly spending the taxpayers money without listening to their constituents.

There is no comparison of civility of the Tea Party with the Occupy commies. The MSM have decided to side step reporting truth and facts, and obviously have sided with the commies. If you still watch MSM news to get your information of current events, you obviously can't discern lies from the truth. Obama has even made some Dems concerned with his far left communist policies and ideology. Slick Willie is even back stabbing the commie.

Thank goodness that Wisconsinites finally woke up and recognized the destructive path the Dems were trying to take them along. We have a long ways to go in re-taking our country back from the commies, but there does appear to be light at the end of the tunnel.

The Tea Party is trying to rein in the establishment R's and bring fiscal sanity and conservatism back to the party. It's been a slow process, but successful nevertheless, and it's going to take more time to finally kick out all the establishment R's.

A few Dems are in shock at how their party has changed, but the majority of Dems are still in denial to how far left their party has gone. Reagan and many others recognized the paths the democratic party was heading forty or fifty years ago, but some will just not open their eyes or ears to the brainwashing propaganda of those power hungry drunken Dems. Nancy says that they've got to pass the Obamacare bill to know what's in the bill. That kind of logic and leadership is what is destroying our country. Until our country gets rid of the idiots running our country, it's just a short time before we are heading over the cliff.

Edited June 7, 2012 by ThePunisher

[Guest bkelm18]

I almost agree with you on that, Spock, but the evidence won't back up right minded people being in the

same class as the Occupy bunch and the revolutionaries and racist black problem. But, yes, stupid is stupid,

and I would be glad to disassociate with anyone on the right who stoops that low.

Well naturally not all right-wingers are extreme just like not all left-wingers are extreme. However there is no doubt that there are sectors of the right wing that are just as bad as those on the left wing such as the protesters and whatnot. They just aren't as public as those on the left for whatever reasons.

[BrasilNuts]

However there is no doubt that there are sectors of the right wing that are just as bad as those on the left wing such as the protesters and whatnot. They just aren't as public as those on the left for whatever reasons.

Who?

[Guest bkelm18]

Who?

Who what?

[BrasilNuts]

Who what?

However there is no doubt that there are sectors of the right wing that are just as bad as those on the left wing such as the protesters and whatnot. They just aren't as public as those on the left for whatever reasons.

Examples?

Better?

Edited June 7, 2012 by BrasilNuts

[Guest ThePunisher]

If there were any far right wingers acting like the liberal thugs, they would be plastered on MSM 24/7. The MSM tried to falsely portray the Tea Party as extreme racist, but they couldn't even pull that off.

Edited June 7, 2012 by ThePunisher

[Guest bkelm18]

Examples?

Better?

Well as I said those people on the right are not going to be as public as those on the left. In fact many of those people or groups go out of their way to not be publicly known just as a matter of differing philosophies. "Militias", et cetera. Naturally members of either side are going to point out the nut jobs on the other side while somewhat ignoring the nut jobs on their own side. Just the nature of the beast.

[gjohnsoniv]

If there were any far right wingers acting like the liberal thugs, they would be plastered on MSM 24/7. The MSM tried to falsely portray the Tea Party as extreme racist, but they couldn't even pull that off.

Kinda hard to pull some things off when they aren't even remotely true.

[Guest ThePunisher]

Kinda hard to pull some things off when they aren't even remotely true.

Very true.

[MattCary]

Well as I said those people on the right are not going to be as public as those on the left. In fact many of those people or groups go out of their way to not be publicly known just as a matter of differing philosophies. "Militias", et cetera. Naturally members of either side are going to point out the nut jobs on the other side while somewhat ignoring the nut jobs on their own side. Just the nature of the beast.

Translation: "None that can be pointed to or named."

Wanting them to exist for the sake of an argument doesn't count.

Breitbart offered $100,000 for video evidence of the Tea Party spitting on the black caucus, as far as I know, he never paid out.

[mcurrier]

The Liberal-In-Chief

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Yep, I'll gladly blame the dumb voter, not because he is dumb, but he is gullible enough to vote for an idiot.

Still, I wouldn't go more than blaming. Rather, I would try to get involved and make the voter more informed

so his choice is based on something more than emotion. But, that's just me. And I do it every day.

I still want to see an example where Republicans have gone off the reservation and have called for someone

to be killed, because of a lost election. I doubt that can be had.

Hi 6.8

There are ornery people of all stripes though I'm not trying to imply equal moral equivilancy or whatever. Some folk keep their mouth shut and their powder dry, as it were. How hard is it to find folk opining, "If it gets any more commie then eventually there will be a shooting war." In fact, Wolfe's "Shoot the Bastards" quote below seems used about equally by hotheads on the left, right, libertarian or green.

Claire Wolfe-- http://www.freerepub...s/2412352/posts

Snips from the article--

America is at that awkward stage.

It’s too late to work within the system,

but too early to shoot the bastards.

Morally, of course it’s time to shoot the bastards. Obviously, I voiced something a lot of people have been thinking about. Four years have passed since I flippantly said it’s too early. Is it time yet to shoot the bastards? At least it seems time to take keyboard in hand and give a straight answer — yes, no, maybe and whatever turns your crank... [snip]

Yes-- Morally, of course it’s time to shoot the bastards. It has been since long before I wrote those sentences — before I learned my ABCs, before anybody reading this was born...... [snip]

No-- Too bad there’s no Tyran-O-Meter — a gauge, like the atomic scientists’ Doomsday Clock — that could provide a measure of just how close we are to reaching some critical mass of tyranny. If there were, it might show that some things have actually improved since 1996.... [snip]

Future in the haze-- Unless some unforeseeable trigger event strikes, we may remain at that awkward stage for a long time (maybe decades). Liberty will continue to erode, but not so fast we’ll jump out of the boiling pot. Freedom lovers will continue to shout that they’d rather die on their feet than live on their knees — but will go on living on their knees.... [snip]

Is is time? Morally, yes. Absolutely. If you do it, and if there’s a heaven, I hope you get a good seat. Is it time? Morally, yes. Absolutely. If you do it, and if there’s a heaven, I hope you get a good seat. But if you pot a bureaucrat figuring it’ll light some fire under the cold, dead butts of a complacent nation … good luck.

But I was mainly focusing on sore losers rather than violence. The conservative talking heads had high regard for the intelligence of voters as long as they were winning. After democrats made gains in 2006 and 2008, the MSNBC crowd had high regard for voter intelligence and the Fox crowd decided that voters ain't so smart after all. The 2010 democrat losses, and such as the WI loss, caused the MSNBC and Dem Underground to decide that voters had got real stupid in only two years, but in the opinion of conservatives voters had suddenly got smart again.

So the american voter varies widely in intelligence. Some years he is a freaking genius and then other years he's too dumb to wipe the drool off his own chin.

The most pompous know-it-alls on either side, if their side gets a serious spanking by the voter, they decide the voters are not really smart enough to run the gubmint and something radical needs to be done.

There was a thread, a while back, showing a Tea Party rally with all kinds of pictures and unsavory slogans

toward Obama. Most of those pics shown were made up by the propaganda masters on the left to make it

appear the Tea Party was racist. Disproven. Some people associate anarchists with the right, but they are

wrong, also. Most anarchists subscribe to The Noam Chomsky types, and I would definitely not consider

him a right winger. More of a communist, like those in power right now.

Well, anarchism in a "pure form" just doesn't seem practical, but on the other hand theocracies, monarchies, totalitarian regimes, people's republics and nanny states don't seem especially practical either. Hardly any philosophy in its "pure form" is all-upside with no downside.

There are many flavors of anarchic philosophy. Some of them with which you would agree (with reservations) and others with which you would disagree. About the only people who would completely disagree with any flavor of anarchism would be those poor souls afflicted with the very worst cases of authoritarian personality disorder.

You would be most likely to agree with some flavors of individualist anarchism, though probably wouldn't agree with the "free love" variants. Thoreau was an individualist anarchist. Libertarians are "moderated" individualist anarchists, as was Ayn Rand. The apple pie american view, "As little government as will work." is moderated individualist anarchist. Yer basic "a country boy will survive" good old boy is individualist anarchist, sometimes with a little of other flavors thrown in. A "truly free market" is moderated anarchy. "As few rules and regulations as will get the job done"

Then there are the various collectivist anarchists with which you would typically disagree and which to me seems la-la land castles in the air unrealistic. Those guys are typically left-wing fellow travelers.

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

Anarchism is generally defined as the political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, or alternatively as opposing authority and hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations. Proponents of anarchism, known as "anarchists", advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical voluntary associations.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Hey Lester,

I don't disagree with anything you wrote, there. I do maintain there are dumb voters, regardless of who

wins elections. I meet them every day. Those people who vote for the party they are told to vote for, and

those who will give them a handout, without considering what consequences are attached to their vote.

Well, there is something I question of what you wrote. I don't consider the "As little government as will work"

to be anarchist at all. That's what our country was founded on. Moderate means very little to me, except to

do something in moderation, like moderate your drinking. Moderates in the political spectrum, to me, don't

seem to know what they want. Moderates change their mind too much.

Ayn Rand may have changed her mind on some things, but I would never call her a moderate anything.

Libertarian? Yes. Objectivist? That's her thing.

Are there sore losers in the Republican Party? Sure, but they don't resort to death calls, like the mindless

idiots inside the Democrat Party.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Hey Lester,

I don't disagree with anything you wrote, there. I do maintain there are dumb voters, regardless of who

wins elections. I meet them every day. Those people who vote for the party they are told to vote for, and

those who will give them a handout, without considering what consequences are attached to their vote.

Also, there are those who have voted for the "Working Man's Party", the Democrat Party, all their life, since

that was the way they were raised. Nothing wrong with that, I guess, but that kind of vote has little thought

to it.

Well, there is something I question of what you wrote. I don't consider the "As little government as will work"

to be anarchist at all. That's what our country was founded on. Moderate means very little to me, except to

do something in moderation, like moderate your drinking. Moderates in the political spectrum, to me, don't

seem to know what they want. Moderates change their mind too much.

Ayn Rand may have changed her mind on some things, but I would never call her a moderate anything.

Libertarian? Yes. Objectivist? That's her thing.

Are there sore losers in the Republican Party? Sure, but they don't resort to death calls, like the mindless

idiots inside the Democrat Party.

Damn! I quoted myself.

Edited June 8, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[daddyo]

Sore losers if nothing else. OTOH hardly anybody likes to lose. Not claiming that it is OK for people to pitch such a fit over losing an election.

If you think these folks were sore losers, just wait till The One loses in November. There will be more threats issued against the GOP and the Tea Party than you can shake a stick at. Most of them will come from the Black Panties.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

:rofl:

Yep. The Van Jones types and the panties are trying to start a revolution, anyway. There are quite

a few in and out this administration who think there should be another Red Revolution. They think they can

do things better than Lenin, Marx and friends. They always do.

Edited June 9, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Guest ThePunisher]

:rofl:

Yep. The Van Jones types and the panties are trying to start a revolution, anyway. There are quite

a few in and out this administration who think there should be another Red Revolution. They think they can

do things better than Lenin, Marx and friends. They always do.

And there is about half of the population that thinks so too. Who would've ever thought our country could have gotten to be a communist nation twenty or thirty years ago.

Edited June 9, 2012 by ThePunisher