That is an excellent analysis.
Health Care Bill Debate
- Thread starter madanthonywayne
- Start date
Open carry is legal and not uncommon in Arizona. Violent hate groups aren't so common. Anywhere.
Did this guy have a history of violence like the Black Panthers do? I would find a psycho with a big stick to be more of a threat than a law-abiding citizen with a gun.
I agree with that too, and it's fucking nuts.
They aren't sparse. They're just mainstream, so they don't stand out as much. People who think non-whites should be subjected to discrimination are "hatemongers". People who feel the same about white people can even earn the title of "civil rights activist".
Really? What did he do?
I agree. Too bad the rest of his post was biased crap. :shrug:
He packed a handgun to a political rally involving his Congressman, and displayed it while holding up a well-known terrorist threat slogan (adopted by, for example, Timothy McVeigh).acid said:
That's more than Fred Hampton ever did.
Well make up your mind. Better yet, realize that "they" don't stand out as violent hate groups because they aren't violent and don't spread hatred.acid said:
So packing a gun (which is legal) and holding a sign (also legal), neither of which are violent, gives him a history of violence?
A history of politically stupid behavior, perhaps. But violence? No.
So they advocate discrimination against certain groups of people because they love them?
A matter of sensitivities
That's largely a matter of sensitivities. The right wing is at least as oversensitive as they have accused liberals of being over the years.
I think your comparison is inaccurate in this sense. When it comes to civil rights, conservatives take an extremely short-term view. The end result is that conservatives generally argue that the only fair thing to do when it comes to black and white is to preserve the traditional inequality blacks have suffered under. Or that the only equality, such as we hear in the gay rights discussion, is superiority. And that leads toward an example related to the war of the sexes. Some people accuse that women have unfair advantages these days, but if you treat men the same way women are treated, they absolutely freak out. In any of these cases, adopting the simplistic, myopic equality conservatives advocate will only perpetuate the injustices that lead to so many other problems.
Take the "Acorn response", in which conservatives, backed to the wall on an issue, will pull out wild-eyed Acorn accusations. To hear some conservatives tell it, Acorn runs the country. Yet the same explanations and even excuses offered up on behalf of conservative causes just don't fly with those people. Does Acorn have problems? Yes. We need to find a different way to run voter registration drives in general. But the same people who are afraid that Mickey Mouse will show up and vote on election day don't seem to give a damn when a prominent Republican-associated voter registration effort is busted for actually destroying registrations with the effect that some voters will show up on election day and find out they aren't allowed to vote.
A lot of the evil that is "just mainstream" actually doesn't exist. It's a fantasy. And this is part of the reason why conservatives are so often regarded as a laughingstock.
I don't know if people are finally adapting to information overload, or perhaps conservatives have just pushed too far, but the initial surge of opinion caused by these conservative town hall thugs appears to be wearing off. Even the docile media, that needed them in order to have an interesting headline—as if a new Supreme Court justice, the inner workings of the bailout, and the realities of our current health care system weren't enough, speak nothing of the plentiful sex scandals among politicians and civic leaders—is starting to call them out.
To the other, I'll split a point with you. I agree that polling stations are just off limits. But I disagree with your statement about a psycho with a stick. I could just as easily accuse you of racism: White man with gun = law abiding citizen. Black man with stick = psycho. Good one. I'm sure that's not what you intended, but neither did you stop to think about that implication, either.
So I would ask what people would have said if someone brought a gun into George W. Bush's immediate presence with the intention of presenting an image of intimidation. I think conservatives would have been infuriated. But, hey, it's a black man in the White House, so it's all good. Right?
(See what happens when you don't account for implications?)
Or, of course, we could just say it's a communist vampire in the White House who is trying to give away the store to large corporations, so it's just fine to go carrying guns into the presence of the President of the United States.
Really, who was the last president, in your opinion, where toting gun in his presence wouldn't have been cause for alarm?
So while Stone, the author of the article provided in the topic post, is appalled, I think conservatives should thank the president for extending the realm in which their precious boom-sticks are acceptable.
But, of course, the president is a Democrat, so that ain't gonna happen, is it?
Acid Cowboy said:
That's largely a matter of sensitivities. The right wing is at least as oversensitive as they have accused liberals of being over the years.
I think your comparison is inaccurate in this sense. When it comes to civil rights, conservatives take an extremely short-term view. The end result is that conservatives generally argue that the only fair thing to do when it comes to black and white is to preserve the traditional inequality blacks have suffered under. Or that the only equality, such as we hear in the gay rights discussion, is superiority. And that leads toward an example related to the war of the sexes. Some people accuse that women have unfair advantages these days, but if you treat men the same way women are treated, they absolutely freak out. In any of these cases, adopting the simplistic, myopic equality conservatives advocate will only perpetuate the injustices that lead to so many other problems.
Take the "Acorn response", in which conservatives, backed to the wall on an issue, will pull out wild-eyed Acorn accusations. To hear some conservatives tell it, Acorn runs the country. Yet the same explanations and even excuses offered up on behalf of conservative causes just don't fly with those people. Does Acorn have problems? Yes. We need to find a different way to run voter registration drives in general. But the same people who are afraid that Mickey Mouse will show up and vote on election day don't seem to give a damn when a prominent Republican-associated voter registration effort is busted for actually destroying registrations with the effect that some voters will show up on election day and find out they aren't allowed to vote.
A lot of the evil that is "just mainstream" actually doesn't exist. It's a fantasy. And this is part of the reason why conservatives are so often regarded as a laughingstock.
I don't know if people are finally adapting to information overload, or perhaps conservatives have just pushed too far, but the initial surge of opinion caused by these conservative town hall thugs appears to be wearing off. Even the docile media, that needed them in order to have an interesting headline—as if a new Supreme Court justice, the inner workings of the bailout, and the realities of our current health care system weren't enough, speak nothing of the plentiful sex scandals among politicians and civic leaders—is starting to call them out.
To the other, I'll split a point with you. I agree that polling stations are just off limits. But I disagree with your statement about a psycho with a stick. I could just as easily accuse you of racism: White man with gun = law abiding citizen. Black man with stick = psycho. Good one. I'm sure that's not what you intended, but neither did you stop to think about that implication, either.
So I would ask what people would have said if someone brought a gun into George W. Bush's immediate presence with the intention of presenting an image of intimidation. I think conservatives would have been infuriated. But, hey, it's a black man in the White House, so it's all good. Right?
(See what happens when you don't account for implications?)
Or, of course, we could just say it's a communist vampire in the White House who is trying to give away the store to large corporations, so it's just fine to go carrying guns into the presence of the President of the United States.
Really, who was the last president, in your opinion, where toting gun in his presence wouldn't have been cause for alarm?
So while Stone, the author of the article provided in the topic post, is appalled, I think conservatives should thank the president for extending the realm in which their precious boom-sticks are acceptable.
But, of course, the president is a Democrat, so that ain't gonna happen, is it?
Now, now, we are supposed to play nice. A line in the sand has been drawn.
I do not understand how one can legitimately compare Obama to Hitler in any way. Obama restored habeus corpus, made torture illegal again, so how can you call him a tyrant? It simply makes no sense.
Show me some things that Obama has done that Hitler did? I am waiting.
I do not understand how one can legitimately compare Obama to Hitler in any way. Obama restored habeus corpus, made torture illegal again, so how can you call him a tyrant? It simply makes no sense.
Show me some things that Obama has done that Hitler did? I am waiting.
What lead to so many problems was allowing the government to discriminate and/or require discrimination against certain groups of people. You can't have an equality-based society if you aren't willing to treat all citizens equally under the law.
Screwing over Person A because, once upon a time, people who looked like him oppressed people who looked like Person B isn't going to solve anything. It's only going to cause resentment in Person A, and rightly so.
I didn't know the race of the man carrying the gun, nor did it matter to me. My response would have been the same regardless of the race of the gun owner or who the president was.
And it's true that I didn't think of that implications of my comment because I don't bother to worry about all the idiotic and irrational ways in which my posts could be twisted.
I don't know what "people" would have said, but I know what I would have said. Who cares, as long as the guy doesn't violate anyone else's rights?
It doesn't bother me with any president, as long as the gun owner isn't a convicted criminal and isn't threatening people. A person's right to defend himself doesn't go away just because some political big shot is in town.
Both worked to expand the size and influence of their respective governments. But in that regard, you could compare almost all politicians to Hitler.
[
Come again, when was it taken away and when was torture legal? Now, I 'm waiting.
Back up your shit just as YOU tell everyone else to do.
Come again, when was it taken away and when was torture legal? Now, I 'm waiting.
Back up your shit just as YOU tell everyone else to do.
AC it isn't the Hitler comparisions, because as you rightly point out expanding government is something all politicians are guilty of, it is a totality of national socialism, or more commonly understood as fascism; at least Hitler's version of fascism.
It's not at all like Hitler's fascism, it's more like modern Germany's socialism, which most people in Germany are perfectly happy with.
Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right.
How did George Wallace do in the South when he ran for president as a segregationist?
It's a health care system that works for them. They might pay higher taxes, but at least they don't have a corporate bureaucrat telling them they aren't going to pay their bill. In fact, they never have to think about the bill because there isn't one! And they don't have those annoying pharmaceutical ads on TV.
My point is that there is nothing sinister about modern Democratic Socialism. It doesn't lead to a dictatorship or totalitarianism, in fact Germans are more free than Americans. They can smoke wherever they want (except for hospitals), drive as fast as they want, drink beer while driving, and they can show tits on TV.
My point is that there is nothing sinister about modern Democratic Socialism. It doesn't lead to a dictatorship or totalitarianism, in fact Germans are more free than Americans. They can smoke wherever they want (except for hospitals), drive as fast as they want, drink beer while driving, and they can show tits on TV.
On the other hand, they can go to jail if they say that only 3 million Jews died in the Holocaust instead of 6 million, they can barely own guns and the government confiscates a higher percentage of their earnings. They are more free in some ways and less free in others.
Yes they pay higher nominal taxes, but in order to be fair since their tax includes healthcare premiums, so you have to add in American healthcare premiums in order to get a true apples to apples comparison of taxation. And when you do that you find Americans are the ones with the higher tax rates not the Europeans or Canadians.
So when you do a actual comparison heads to heads, tails to tails, Americans are the ones with the higher tax bill. In America we are really good at disguising taxes whereas in other industrial countries they are pretty straight up about it. Somehow we in the US think that if you do not call it a tax it is not a tax. But such is not the case. I am more concerned about the hidden taxes than stated taxes as there is always a reason why someone is hiding the tax...and it is usually not good, as in the case of healthcare.