Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[G-Flex]

You can't be too extreme to identify with one of the parties, you'd have to be too moderate.

How do you figure? The current Democratic party is hardly "extreme" at all.

[Urist is dead tome]

You can't be too extreme to identify with one of the parties, you'd have to be too moderate.

Well than I think I've done the impossible.

My ideas are borderline fascism. Too extreme.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You can't be too extreme to identify with one of the parties, you'd have to be too moderate.

Well than I think I've done the impossible.

My ideas are borderline fascism. Too extreme.

No, that just makes you an extreme fascist, instead of an extreme liberal or conservative.

[Urist is dead tome]

Actually on the fascist scale I'm pretty low.

[alway]

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2011/01/voterrecord.jpeg
As far as wondering about political views, this picture either tells all or is fake, one of the two. Dunno if anyone has seen confirmation of it in any other locations though.

[Urist is dead tome]

This isn't a party problem it's a crime. Keep that in mind people.

[Grakelin]

You can't be too extreme to identify with one of the parties, you'd have to be too moderate.

Well than I think I've done the impossible.

My ideas are borderline fascism. Too extreme.

Fascists are on the far right.

[Urist is dead tome]

Wrong again. Fascism borrows from both sides. Fascism is against tradition (One part I don't like.) when conservancy is indeed about staying conservative with new things. Fascism is about progress.

Not on the far right.

[Virex]

Far libertarian right, far conservative right or far corporatism right?

[Urist is dead tome]

All of them. Except without the anti militarism of the Libertarian party. Fascism is also about war.

[Eugenitor]

Aren't we getting a little off track? This thread is about one crazy guy and what he did, not others. Urist, your political viewpoint is one seldom seen on forums like this one, so why not make a new thread explaining it while I sit here and consume heat-puffed kernels?

[Alexhans]

Let's think for a second...

Even if he was or declared himself a democract, his actions don't reflect the rest of that party.
Even if he was or declared himself a Republican, his actions don't reflect the rest of that party.
EVen if he was or declared himself a _________, his actions don't reflect the rest of that party.

Replace the ________ with Right wing, Liberal, Communist, Socialist, Christian, Atheist, Muslim, Jew, etc.

Let's stop trying to pin the criminal on the other team and pretend it's relevant.

Let's be frigging thoughtful for once.

[G-Flex]

Let's stop trying to pin the criminal on the other team and pretend it's relevant.

Let's be frigging thoughtful for once.

That's what I'm being. If you would read the sort of arguments I'm saying, you'd realize that I'm not trying to "blame" the Republicans or the Tea Party for the shooting; he might have very little to do with them.

What I do blame the Tea Party and Republicans for is their violent, revolutionary, gun-talk rhetoric, which they seem to take very lightly for use as a cheap political tool. You don't do that. That kind of talk is serious, and we can't normalize using rhetorical devices steeped in violence and revolution just for the hell of it. When someone literally goes nuts and shoots his political opponents, that becomes all the more obvious.

Radical talk ("second-amendment remedies") will attract radical nutjobs who will do radical and nutty things, even if they aren't aligned with you politically. Consider this: Even if he's a complete leftist and against the Tea Party in every way, couldn't the Tea Party's talk of violence and revolution still either 1) influence him to think that kind of thought is normal or good, or 2) convince him that the Tea Party is serious about it, and that he should fight back in kind?

[Aqizzar]

The point is that Loughner's own political beliefs, such that they can even be described, are essentially irrelevant to the question of using violent but meaningless rhetoric as a political construction.  There is a specific element of American politics that, especially over the past couple years, has all but reveled in cherishing what they imagine to the philosophical basis of the Second Amendment, attend political rallies in protest carrying weaponry, use unmistakable metaphors for violent action when describing ordinary electoral goals, and hearken to violent quotes of the past as political statements for the modern world.

Sharron Angle's "Second Amendment Remedies" comment for when Congressional votes don't achieve the outcome you want.  Sarah Palin's map of crosshairs for Congresspeople she campaigned and donated money to unseat (which she herself called "targets" before that graphic disappeared this weekend, and her spokespeople now call "surveyor symbols").  Gabrielle Giffords, no enemy of the right to bear arms by any means, herself was witness to a guy waving a Don't Tread on Me flag, who dropped his loaded, unsafety-ed Glock out of his shoulder holster at a previous grocery-store meeting.

Was Loughner influence by any of this rhetorical crap?  It doesn't sound like it.  Do those politicians and groups really believe the literal definition of such metaphors and imagery?  Assuredly not for most of them, certainly not for almost anybody.  But that's only half the issue.  What Loughner did is the logical conclusion of that kind of talk, of violent opposition to personally unacceptable politics.  That he himself wasn't motivated by this talk, or any rational grasp of governance, doesn't change the fact that his action is exactly what "second amendment remedies" to politics looks like when meted out in reality.

[Alexhans]

G-Flex.  I didn't address you specifically, I just expressed a wish.  If you have a clear conscience, that's good enough for me.

But I can give you my opinion on the topic you refer to, if you want.

What I do blame the Tea Party and Republicans for is their violent, revolutionary, gun-talk rhetoric, which they seem to take very lightly for use as a cheap political tool. You don't do that. That kind of talk is serious, and we can't normalize using rhetorical devices steeped in violence and revolution just for the hell of it. When someone literally goes nuts and shoots his political opponents, that becomes all the more obvious.

I agree that violent talk and attempts to put different groups of people against each other harms society.  It may escalate at some point. 

But, after saying that you didn't blame them for the shooting you end up somehow stating that their rhetoric IS responsible for the attack. 

"That's what I'm being. If you would read the sort of arguments I'm saying, you'd realize that I'm not trying to "blame" the Republicans or the Tea Party for the shooting; he might have very little to do with them." - Not blaming, very little to do with the event (define little)
"That kind of talk is serious, and we can't normalize using rhetorical devices steeped in violence and revolution just for the hell of it. When someone literally goes nuts and shoots his political opponents, that becomes all the more obvious." - It becomes the more obvious because he did what he did BECAUSE of the rhetoric?

As you see... I agree with your principles.  I advocate wise rhetoric and repudiate politicians who promote a violent political environment but I question your conclusion when you tie this specific case to that kind of talk.