Print

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

[Phmcw]

The problem isn't the criticism, it's the threat of violence, and the "gunspeech". "Don't retreat, reload","apply second amendement remedies", "here are your target", "let's get target-shooting with your favorite republican congressman, hey look, the target's have democrat's name on them, too!".
The extreme criticism, deliberately dumb to impress the weak minded are just the icing on the cake.

9/11 = Reichstag?  Conspiracy theorist nuts, and of both camp.


Guantanamo = Auschwitz? No, but still an illegal torture camp were civilian, some of them completely innocent are being held without trials. Some of them have been illegally kidnapped, too. There are minors among them too.
All these statement are facts you can't oppose.

[Aqizzar]

Sure thing. I'm none to interested in a "but point to a X who said Y" fight because I don't want to be here for the next ten hours, however.

Well, mainly because you don't want it to turn out to be a 1:50 ratio, but fine.  As matter fact, I don't even have to work at it.

Here's a list of 205 wild statements by Republican politicians (and the occasional media figure who may as well be one), over the last ten years.  Heck, it's from March so it's not even up to date with all the lunatic claims thrown around during the last elections.  You can pick it apart at your leisure if you want.  But unless you can point to a similarly sized list of genuinely influential Democrats making the equally ludicrous statements, saying "both sides are the same but mine is still better" is the same grown up, hollow version of "I know you are but what am I" it always was.

[Leafsnail]

No. No no no. I don't like Guantanamo but comparing it to Auschwitz is too far. The only possible American comparison to Auschwitz is the internment camps, and even there it's a matter of large degree.

Ah, I meant "I heard people comparing it to it", not "it's accurate".

[Phmcw]

"Keith Ellison, a convert to Islam, has cultivated a moderate image since being elected last November "
"After his speech was reported, Mr Ellison said he accepted that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. But his demagogic comments threaten to plunge him in controversy."
So, you got a democrat that was moderate, go ballistic at one meeting then retract his statement under the wide disapprobation of is party? A real shame for the democrats as a whole.

Also, Bush DID use the 11/9 as a Reichstag Fire : accusing Iraq to support al quaida while knowing perfectly well that it was false (proved), and then to attack the liberties of Americans, followed by a deliberate radicalization of Americans against Islam.
He didn't planned it, but it served him damn well.

[Aqizzar]

Let's stay on point here.  When has accused you of equating 9/11 with the Reichstag Fire, it's already a battle of hyperbole meant to embarrass the accused.  When it's that one in particular, trying to carve a distinction that says it's not true but still has merit to the comparison is not the right response.

And in case you haven't Nikov, Phmcw is not an American, so don't try to lump him into anybody's camp.

[Nikov]

Sure thing. I'm none to interested in a "but point to a X who said Y" fight because I don't want to be here for the next ten hours, however.

Well, mainly because you don't want it to turn out to be a 1:50 ratio, but fine.  As matter fact, I don't even have to work at it.

Why do you even talk to me if you assume I am constantly lying?

[Aqizzar]

Why do you even talk to me if you assume I am constantly lying?

I didn't say you were lying.  What I have seen you do over and over is make wild statements about what the "other side" has said or done, find one thin example of such, and when confronted with, storm out in a huff still insisting "both sides are the same, deal with it, yet mine is still better no matter what".  I used to talk to you in the vain hope that someday you'd actually admit to being wrong about something, or at least admit to being hypocritical.  Now I basically do it to prove it to anyone who might believe you, and because you're so insufferable that's it's just hard to ignore.  What can I say, my whole education revolved around debating theory and fact, and I can't walk away from the Immovable Object.

If what you really meant by "lying" is why do I accuse you of riling people up on purpose; it's because I find it hard to believe that somebody could make so many ridiculous statements so many times, in so many places without any prompting, over any issue under the sun, immediately try to tar people with the thinnest connection while acting fighting mad when anyone even sounds like they're doing the same to you, start fights over sarcasm while calling people childish and vindictive for doing likewise, and keep on coming back after saying "that's it, you're all hopeless", and not come the conclusion that it has nothing to do with facts or theory.  That it only has to do with purposefully making a spectacle.  I just have to applaud you for doing it in such a consistently creative way, which what holds my attention, because you wouldn't be able to do it if you weren't smart enough to recognize what to say.

[fqllve]

I honestly don't think Nikov is trying to say that his side is any better about this.

I remember the Bush administration, and I remember bashing Bush a lot. And I also remember constant comparisons of Bush (but mostly Cheney) to Hitler. And that both of them were evil and attempting to steal our freedoms. Those kind of statements are just as damaging to the political climate as suggesting that your political opponents should be shot. If we actually believe that the other side is evil then the logical solution to that problem is revolution. In fact, we could say that the Tea Party's current statements are a direct consequence of demonization masquerading as political dialogue. If Republican commentators hadn't spent so much time trying to paint the left as evil commies then maybe no one would find the idea of suggesting their assassinations acceptable. It's not really important if elected officials are the ones doing it, because they can't say things like that until a sufficient number of people agree with them.

[Phmcw]

Anyway, equating Guantanamo and Auschwitz is excessive, but equating the health care reform and the holocaust is... Actually I don't have word for it. And if the former has been done occasionally and with the complete disapproval of the mainstream democrats, the later was even on our television, when Sarha Palin and Rush Limbaugh went on their "death panels" insanity.

And that both of them were evil and attempting to steal our freedoms. Those kind of statements are just as damaging to the political climate as suggesting that your political opponents should be shot. If we actually believe that the other side is evil then the logical solution to that problem is revolution.

When the hell was it true? It's evil, then kill them all? Are you aware that you live in a democracy? If it's evil vote them out. or go on strike. Or organize a protest.
A country mean several million person living together, a good percentage of them hating he guts of someone else. Living in a civil state mean solving your problem within he limits of the laws.
The second amendment solution is an idiocy, and America should really realize that.

[fqllve]

Are you aware that you live in a democracy?

No, I was not, in fact, aware of that.

If it's evil vote them out. or go on strike. Or organize a protest.

If the other side was actually evil, and actually comparable to Nazis, then I don't think they would willingly give up power. And even then, if they're commiting crimes against humanity then waiting until the next election to stop them seems a bit irresponsible.

Anyway, I wasn't actually suggesting revolution or saying that revolution is a good idea. Instead I was drawing a link between political demonization and revolutionary sentiment.

[Phmcw]

If the other side was actually evil, and actually comparable to Nazis, then I don't think they would willingly give up power. And even then, if they're commiting crimes against humanity then waiting until the next election to stop them seems a bit irresponsible.

Anyway, I wasn't actually suggesting revolution or saying that revolution is a good idea. Instead I was drawing a link between political demonization and revolutionary sentiment.

So what, they can't be committing genocide because else you'd have to revolt? (Well rest well until now it was only war crime.)
Let me ask you a question : what would you do if they were? When do you think you have the right to take your weapon and fire on your officials?

Let me give you a bit of perspective : in France, Sarkozy and generally the UMP are widely criticized. Sarkozy is at all time low in the surveys, there have been huge protest, and we have yet to hear a single call to murder from either the socialist or the communist party.
Because that would not be tolerated. He can be called a liar, a fascist, a collaborators of the Africans Dictators (and he is all of that) but not one call for his murder. And no member of the UMP have been shoot. Incredible?

In England? Riot, the majority is at all times low... no shooting? No bomb? Wow!
In Belgium, the country is condemned to die in all the newspaper, both side are fighting for the capital and... no violence (in Belgium, no riot).

But I guess it have nothing to do with ultraviolent rhetoric, loose gun control or social inequalities. Everything that actually make a difference between Europe and America. A cultural gap maybe? The cultural gap is the way firearm are treated.

[fqllve]

You are completely missing the point I was making.

So what, they can't be committing genocide because else you'd have to revolt? (Well rest well until now it was only war crime.)
Let me ask you a question : what would you do if they were? When do you think you have the right to take your weapon and fire on your officials?

This... is very offensive. Not all Americans own guns. Just because I'm an American I don't think it's acceptable to shoot anyone I disagree with. I don't ever think I have a right to fire a gun at my own officials.

Again

I was drawing a link between political demonization and revolutionary sentiment.

Whether it is only true for America is unimportant. The point is that it is true for America.

[Bouchart]

The point is, eventually the "political demonization" will turn into an actual shooting war so you'd better make preparations for it now.

[Phmcw]

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you, actually I was expecting this response : you never have the right to shoot at your official.

I then feel that it's logical to say that the thing that is condemnable is to say such thing, and not to oppose strongly unjust policies.
There are things that are worth fighting : if Nikov think that this new health-care put his health at risk (or those of his children), for instance by being doomed to bankrupt, he may call it wasteful stupid, or even a suicidal folly if it's what he believe.
I think that the two wars led by the American are a criminal folly, and I have every right to say it. But you won't ever hear a call for violence from me, or from Stallman, Chomsky, Glenn Greenwald,...
But when some poeple downright calls to arm against their opponent, and they cross the line.
The other line to cross is of course to take said arms, but it seems obvious that the two are linked.

Bouchard are you depressed?  All your political post so far have been warning of impending doom.

[Nikov]

The point is, eventually the "political demonization" will turn into an actual shooting war so you'd better make preparations for it now.

Taking a while to get there, thankfully.