World Politics

[Anonymous]

Radicals become radicals for various reasons. The right does so by presupposing a high moral ground to conserve its positions, the left by presupposing a right to rebell (against those who presuppose owning the high moral ground).

Yet in this particular case, in terms of how religious belief in America interferes with serious personal issues such as euthanasia and abortion, the "hate" among the left is more than justified than the "hate" among the right. Because, as far as I remember, I don't ever recal any pro-choice advocates shooting those among the anti-abortionist brigade, whereas we have seen more than one instance when a radical anti-abortionsist has gone and shot up an abortion clinic. Of course with the alibi of a Christian, so-called, ethic to "defend." Big difference, wouldn't you say? Though where is the real "hate" coming from? From a few mohawk punks with provocative signs, or form some riffle owning biggots with an "agenda" to uphold with whatever force is necessary?

In the same vein, I don't want anyone because of their religious beliefs, determining whether or not if I am teminally ill (and perhaps in dire pain) or in a vegetal state without prospect of recovery, to dictate whether or not I can with assistance end my own existance with all that remains of my personal dignity.

Your position is thus merely propagandistic and without substance, and is neither objective in its considerations nor rational in its conclusions. Something which is usual from what I have gathered form your posts.

Well you've completely missed the plot. My pointing out extremes was not limited to or really even aimed at pro-abortionists. My point was the extremes on the left are capable of being offensive.

As for the highlighted part, I'm not a student of yours and it's not particularly impressive to be lectured by you.

 

[BroDeal]

So only the right aligns with kooks? blah. blah blah

Let us know when these guys are regulars on Matthews, Olberman, and Maddow; the Democratic Party is sponsoring events for them; and influential left wing websites attempt to legitimize for their views.

 

[Anonymous]

Really? Among other things I've stated I'm not impressed with the tea-party. I've stated a willingness to offer hand-ups to people in my community. I've stated a concern for the direction of this Country regarding the rate of debt accumulation.

The radicals on the right are out of their minds. If you think, for one second, there are no fringe freaks on the left.... then Hugh, you are the one for which there is no help.

I have to jump in here (yes I realize I have 2 more pages to read), but I have to side with Scott here. Left radicals are just as fringe and useless as are the radicals on the right. "Raging against the machine" has about as much effect as urinating on the ground and expecting to form the Grand Canyon. Like it or not, the forces of power actually HAVE power, and changing anything that involves moving them takes patience and time. However, radicals do have their usefulness in that they produce the philosophical base for more moderate and useful views.

I am just not a fan of violent rhetoric because I know that regardless from whence it comes, there are stupid, unstable people who will take the message to the extreme. I also do believe that people like Rush and Coulter incite in ways that suggests that contrary to their protestations, they would love to see some violence enacted by their followers. Then again, so did the Black Panthers, and many other groups on the left. In fact, the guy that just flew the plane into the IRS office sure sounded like a Liberal to me when you read his journal entries.

I do not for one second believe Scott to be radically situated in his beliefs. If you would read his posts on this thread, you will see someone who does see the middle as useful.

 

[Anonymous]

Let us know when these guys are regulars on Matthews, Olberman, and Maddow; the Democratic Party is sponsoring events for them; and influential left wing websites attempt to legitimize for their views.

Yup. Too bad the press didn't bother to vette Obama. I doubt if Matthews, Olberman or Maddow even know who these folks are. Prolly didn't give CM the same thrill running up his leg.

 

[Anonymous]

Yup. Too bad the press didn't bother to vette Obama. I doubt if Matthews, Olberman or Maddow even know who these folks are. Prolly didn't give CM the same thrill running up his leg.

This is where I do differ with you. Obama is less radical than 3 presidents in the 20th century that we all are familiar with, and to suggest otherwise is to judge him from a basis of political rhetoric and not reality. He has done nothing that any modern Democrat wouldn't have tried to do, only he happened to succeed. That just makes Republicans angry, but doesn't mean he is somehow different from mainstream Democratic politicians. Regardless of what is said, the guy isn't even close to being a socialist. He believes in a mixed system, it is just that his mix is a little different than the mix favored by moderate Republicans, but certainly not enough to brand him a "radical." This is why I do believe his race is a factor. There is some extra ingredient creating the apocalyptic tone the Right uses to paint him, and I would suggest that race is definitely a factor in that.

 

[BroDeal]

Yup. Too bad the press didn't bother to vette Obama. I doubt if Matthews, Olberman or Maddow even know who these folks are. Prolly didn't give CM the same thrill running up his leg.

Get a clue, dude. Over the last twenty years the Democrats have made a conscious effort to move their party closer to the political center, much to the chagrin of the far left. Meanwhile, the Republicans have done just the opposite, and they are now actively courting the crazies. Next stop, Lyndon Larouche.

 

[Hugh Januss]

It may be a bit of a generalization but left wing radicals seem more interested in overly theatrical public displays designed (maybe misguidedly) to sway public opinion. Whereas right wing radicals tend more often to arm themselves and talk openly of revolt and murder. Just sayin'.
Also none of us here are really the problem, we could probably get together and run a country. It is the ones that trend far out from our opinions on either extreme that cause the trouble, and it is the ones on the right who are making the most noise with the least reasoned thought behind it.

 

[Hugh Januss]

This is where I do differ with you. Obama is less radical than 3 presidents in the 20th century that we all are familiar with, and to suggest otherwise is to judge him from a basis of political rhetoric and not reality. He has done nothing that any modern Democrat wouldn't have tried to do, only he happened to succeed. That just makes Republicans angry, but doesn't mean he is somehow different from mainstream Democratic politicians. Regardless of what is said, the guy isn't even close to being a socialist. He believes in a mixed system, it is just that his mix is a little different than the mix favored by moderate Republicans, but certainly not enough to brand him a "radical." This is why I do believe his race is a factor. There is some extra ingredient creating the apocalyptic tone the Right uses to paint him, and I would suggest that race is definitely a factor in that.

I entirely agree with that.

 

[Anonymous]

Get a clue, dude. Over the last twenty years the Democrats have made a conscious effort to move their party closer to the political center, much to the chagrin of the far left. Meanwhile, the Republicans have done just the opposite, and they are now actively courting the crazies. Next stop, Lyndon Larouche.

So the George Soros group has not been effective?

Rose colored glasses? I think so.

 

[Anonymous]

This is where I do differ with you. Obama is less radical than 3 presidents in the 20th century that we all are familiar with, and to suggest otherwise is to judge him from a basis of political rhetoric and not reality. He has done nothing that any modern Democrat wouldn't have tried to do, only he happened to succeed. That just makes Republicans angry, but doesn't mean he is somehow different from mainstream Democratic politicians. Regardless of what is said, the guy isn't even close to being a socialist. He believes in a mixed system, it is just that his mix is a little different than the mix favored by moderate Republicans, but certainly not enough to brand him a "radical." This is why I do believe his race is a factor. There is some extra ingredient creating the apocalyptic tone the Right uses to paint him, and I would suggest that race is definitely a factor in that.

Look, if we are going to say that only the right in this Country has crazies in their midst, then there is not much more to say. I don't think that's your position, but just imagine if those same folks mentioned earlier were aligned with any Presidential candidate on the Republican ticket. There would be much discussion over how the right is aligning itself with the extremes (actually like right now).

But somehow it's just easily overlooked when one has similar political beliefs. I don't think Obama is a lunatic but it is beyond ridiculous to say that the only weirdos are on the right. It just ain't so.

 

[Anonymous]

Look, if we are going to say that only the right in this Country has crazies in their midst, then there is not much more to say. I don't think that's your position, but just imagine if those same folks mentioned earlier were aligned with any Presidential candidate on the Republican ticket. There would be much discussion over how the right is aligning itself with the extremes (actually like right now).

But somehow it's just easily overlooked when one has similar political beliefs. I don't think Obama is a lunatic but it is beyond ridiculous to say that the only weirdos are on the right. It just ain't so.

I guess you didn't read my post where I said that radicals on both sides are useless?

 

[BroDeal]

So the George Soros group has not been effective?

Rose colored glasses? I think so.

Now you are grasping for straws. What power does Soros have over the Democratic Party?

Are you denying that the Republicans have moved to the right over the last few decades?

The Democrats have moved so far to the center that Clinton has been snarkily described by conservatives as the best Republican president ever.

 

[Anonymous]

Now you are grasping for straws. What power does Soros have over the Democratic Party?

Are you denying that the Republicans have moved to the right over the last few decades?

The Democrats have moved so far to the center that Clinton has been snarkily described by conservatives as the best Republican president ever.

So Moveon.org actively pursuing moderate dems in primaries with more left-wing dems means what in your world?

Repubs moving to the right fiscally? Really? When did that happen?

 

[Anonymous]

I guess you didn't read my post where I said that radicals on both sides are useless?

I read it and agree with your take on the party radicals.

 

[BroDeal]

Again are you going to deny that the Republican Party has moved right and the Democratic party has moved to the center?

I can pick out any number of rich guys, like Richard Mellon Scaithe, who spend money influencing the political process. What matters is what the actual result is. The movement of the two parties is unmistakeable.

 

[Anonymous]

Again are you going to deny that the Republican Party has moved right and the Democratic party has moved to the center?

I can pick out any number of rich guys, like Richard Mellon Scaithe, who spend money influencing the political process. What matters is what the actual result is. The movement of the two parties is unmistakeable.

Further evidence you and I don't agree on much.

A move toward universal healthcare is hardly centrist. Nationalization of GM is not centrist. Pay Czar, this czar, that czar... not centrist. Unsustainable growth in govt is not centrist.

Again, Repubs moving in a fiscally conservative direction when? Not under GWB, not under GHWB. You'd have to go back to Reagan and he was out of office in January, 1989.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Look, if we are going to say that only the right in this Country has crazies in their midst, then there is not much more to say. I don't think that's your position, but just imagine if those same folks mentioned earlier were aligned with any Presidential candidate on the Republican ticket. There would be much discussion over how the right is aligning itself with the extremes (actually like right now).

But somehow it's just easily overlooked when one has similar political beliefs. I don't think Obama is a lunatic but it is beyond ridiculous to say that the only weirdos are on the right. It just ain't so.

I never said only, but certainly in this country the preponderance of mindless violent lunatics inhabit the far right. I don't recall where any of the people you mentioned earlier have armed and organized themselves into "militias" and made plans to attack police or citizens. Mostly they talk about ideas and ideals, last time I checked that was not only legal but protected by that Constitution that the right wing spends so much time talking about but then ignores to suit their fancy.

 

[Anonymous]

I never said only, but certainly in this country the preponderance of mindless violent lunatics inhabit the far right. I don't recall where any of the people you mentioned earlier have armed and organized themselves into "militias" and made plans to attack police or citizens. Mostly they talk about ideas and ideals, last time I checked that was not only legal but protected by that Constitution that the right wing spends so much time talking about but then ignores to suit their fancy.

E.L.F., Animal Liberation Front, Earth First, Ted Kaczinsky, Weather Underground, SEIU thugs, New Balck Panthers, the wacko who threatened to kill Rep. Cantor and his entire family... eco-terrorism was invented by Greenpeace for crying out loud -spiking trees and the like.

Hardly legal stuff and hardly protected by the constitution. It's surprising there's no middle ground to be found on a point such as this. We can't even agree there are bad people on both fringes without the proverbial.." well you got more on your side than we do over here...."

This Country is in big trouble when there is no common ground. Like now.

 

[Hugh Januss]

E.L.F., Animal Liberation Front, Earth First, Ted Kaczinsky, Weather Underground, SEIU thugs, New Balck Panthers, the wacko who threatened to kill Rep. Cantor and his entire family... eco-terrorism was invented by Greenpeace for crying out loud -spiking trees and the like.

Hardly legal stuff and hardly protected by the constitution. It's surprising there's no middle ground to be found on a point such as this. We can't even agree there are bad people on both fringes without the proverbial.." well you got more on your side than we do over here...."

This Country is in big trouble when there is no common ground. Like now.

So your answer is to come up with a complete different list of special interest groups that don't for the most part qualify as right or left wing politically but just animal rights or ecology concerns, and therefore lumped in with liberals in general in your rhetoric.

 

[BroDeal]

Further evidence you and I don't agree on much.

A move toward universal healthcare is hardly centrist. Nationalization of GM is not centrist. Pay Czar, this czar, that czar... not centrist. Unsustainable growth in govt is not centrist.

Again, Repubs moving in a fiscally conservative direction when? Not under GWB, not under GHWB. You'd have to go back to Reagan and he was out of office in January, 1989.

Further evidence that you cannot read and attempt to twist others words to mean what you want them to mean, There is more to being "right" or "left" than financial differences.

Government injection of spending into the system to make up for a slowdown in the private sector is basic economics. It is why we don't have regular depressions like we did before the Great Depression.

Pay czar. Oh, noez!!!! If a company is run by incompetents and is so large that, at a critical moment, it has to bailed out to save the larger economy then the taxpayers have a say in how much the incompetents get paid. Don't like it? Then hire competent businessmen to run the company.

 

[BroDeal]

Uh-oh. The flat earthers' climategate has not quite lived up to expectations.

A parliamentary panel investigating allegations that scientists at one of the world’s leading climate research centers misrepresented data related to global warming announced Wednesday that it had found no evidence to support that charge.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31climate.html

 

[ChrisE]

E.L.F., Animal Liberation Front, Earth First, Ted Kaczinsky, Weather Underground, SEIU thugs, New Balck Panthers, the wacko who threatened to kill Rep. Cantor and his entire family... eco-terrorism was invented by Greenpeace for crying out loud -spiking trees and the like.

Hardly legal stuff and hardly protected by the constitution. It's surprising there's no middle ground to be found on a point such as this. We can't even agree there are bad people on both fringes without the proverbial.." well you got more on your side than we do over here...."

This Country is in big trouble when there is no common ground. Like now.

Scott, you just about have me convinced. I'm a lost soul politically, wandering in the forest with a heavy heart after what Obama is doing to the country. I can't stand the stock market up 3000 since he took office and enacted all of these socialist ideals.

Keep up the good work.

 

[Anonymous]

So your answer is to come up with a complete different list of special interest groups that don't for the most part qualify as right or left wing politically but just animal rights or ecology concerns, and therefore lumped in with liberals in general in your rhetoric.

We'd disagree on the color of the sky.

This happened today in Los Angeles;

http://cbs2.com/local/book.signing.karl.2.1598578.html

The fans came to get their books signed, but they never got that chance.

One woman, the co-founder of the anti-war group Code Pink, approached him with handcuffs and said she was there to make a citizen's arrest. Jodie Evans charged him with "outing a CIA agent...you lied to take us to war..." and "totally ruining the country."

KCAL 9's Dave Bryan was there and said Rove "was shouted down and forced to leave the stage."

Another woman screamed at Rove, "The only comfort I take is that...you're going to rot in hell."

Rove, meanwhile, charged that the people shouting him down were an example of the "totalitarianism of the left...they don't believe in dialog...they don't believe in courtesy. They don't believe in first Amendment rights for anyone but themselves."

Whatever let's you sleep at night, I suppose.

 

[Hugh Januss]

We'd disagree on the color of the sky.

This happened today in Los Angeles;

http://cbs2.com/local/book.signing.karl.2.1598578.html



Whatever let's you sleep at night, I suppose.

So.....Karl Rove outed a CIA agent and lied to get us into a bad war that we had and have no business being in. I would punch his **** ing lights out if I ran into him in public. I think she acted with all due restraint.

 

[BroDeal]

As long as we are engaging in Scott's favorite debate tactic, posting random articles:

According to the indictment, the group had been plotting for two years to assassinate federal, state or local police officers. "Possible such acts which were discussed," the indictment says, "included killing a member of law enforcement after a traffic stop, killing a member of law enforcement and his or her family at home, ambushing a member of law enforcement in rural communities, luring a member of law enforcement with a false 911 emergency call and then killing him or her, and killing a member of law enforcement and then attacking the funeral procession motorcade" with homemade bombs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/29/AR2010032901891.html