55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 02:17 pm
@mysteryman,
Quote:
And of course, there are other liberal groups that have resorted to violence.


As I said, I suppose Homeland Security would be equally interested in preventing terrorist attacks from leftwing radicals.

What is the point you making here? There are leftwing extremists who might want to commit terrorist attacks, too - so rightwing extremists shouldn't be that much of a concern?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 02:19 pm
@old europe,
A paragraph from an FBI article:

Quote:
During the past decade we have witnessed dramatic changes in the nature of the terrorist threat. In the 1990s, right-wing extremism overtook left-wing terrorism as the most dangerous domestic terrorist threat to the country. During the past several years, special interest extremism, as characterized by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), has emerged as a serious terrorist threat. Generally, extremist groups engage in much activity that is protected by constitutional guarantees of free speech and assembly. Law enforcement becomes involved when the volatile talk of these groups transgresses into unlawful action. The FBI estimates that the ALF/ELF have committed more than 600 criminal acts in the United States since 1996, resulting in damages in excess of 43 million dollars.


They just can't handle the truth.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 02:19 pm
@parados,
I am argueing that there are liberal groups that resort to terrorism, murder, arson, vandalism, and other acts of violence to get their points across, and I have yet to see any of the liberals on this site admit that.

I have seen however, that liberals on here are quick to point to any conservative they think MIGHT be a terrorist, or that MIGHT hold some of the same views a s a Timothy McVeigh.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 02:21 pm
@cicerone imposter,
If I cant handle the truth, I wouldnt have posted it.
And arent you the one that ran away and claimed to put me on ignore instead of face the truth?

I dont care if you wanna call the PTA or the Boy Scouts a terrorist organization, just make sure you are willing to admit that liberals are just as big a terrorist group as you seem to think conservatives are.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 02:23 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:
I am argueing that there are liberal groups that resort to terrorism, murder, arson, vandalism, and other acts of violence to get their points across, and I have yet to see any of the liberals on this site admit that.


I think there are liberal groups that resort to terrorism, murder, arson, vandalism, and other acts of violence to get their points across.

parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 02:29 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

I am argueing that there are liberal groups that resort to terrorism, murder, arson, vandalism, and other acts of violence to get their points across, and I have yet to see any of the liberals on this site admit that.
You certainly didn't make that clear if that was your argument. And I can't think of any liberal that would disagree with you. There are liberal groups that use terrorism. OK. That isn't evidence that RW groups don't or won't use terrorism.
Quote:

I have seen however, that liberals on here are quick to point to any conservative they think MIGHT be a terrorist, or that MIGHT hold some of the same views a s a Timothy McVeigh.
You seem pretty quick to think "some disgruntled veterans" is ALL veterans and now you seem to think SOME people that hold the view of McVeigh is ALL that do. Your argument is one of extremes MM.

The FBI looks at those that are espouse a certain viewpoint whether they are looking for possible LW terrorists or RW terrorists. Those that go to protests for animal liberation are likely to be looked at. Don't you think the same rules should apply to both sides of the political spectrum?
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 02:34 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Don't you think the same rules should apply to both sides of the political spectrum?


I absolutely do, and I have NEVER said or suggested otherwise.
It just seems that many of the left leaning people on here refuse to recognize that same principle.
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 02:41 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:
It just seems that many of the left leaning people on here refuse to recognize that same principle.


Who, exactly, is refusing to recognize that principle?

You know, this is such a tired old argument. You'll always be able to find some nutjob on either side of the spectrum whose partisanship simple doesn't allow him to acknowledge a certain principle.

But if you're making specific accusations, you should be prepared to back them up. If you're claiming that the "liberals on this site" don't acknowledge that leftwing extremism or terrorism even exists, you should be prepared to come up with an example.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 02:53 pm
@old europe,
I have yet to see CI admit that leftwing terrorism or extremism exists.
He has defended the DHS calling disgruntled vets "right-wing extremist candidates", but he has yet to admit that there is such a thing as "left-wing extremists".

So theres one person right there.

DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 02:55 pm
@old europe,
old europe wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
I am argueing that there are liberal groups that resort to terrorism, murder, arson, vandalism, and other acts of violence to get their points across, and I have yet to see any of the liberals on this site admit that.


I think there are liberal groups that resort to terrorism, murder, arson, vandalism, and other acts of violence to get their points across.


yes. there have been several. and they were wrong. that's what makes the argument such a non-starter.

here, let's supply a little litmus test for our friends to the right, 'kay?

Q. "do you believe Timothy McVeigh was correct to use high powered explosives to kill, injure and terrorize his fellow u.s. citizens in oklahoma city no matter the reason?"

A. if you answered no, then i would not be in favor of the dhs spying on you.
if you answered yes, then i hope that they can arrest you before you do some stupid **** and get innocent people killed.

a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist. so simple people have to make it hard.


0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 03:21 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:
I have yet to see CI admit that leftwing terrorism or extremism exists.


Well, then take it up with him. If you have an issue with what you think might be his position, then that seems to make more sense than making sweeping claims about all liberals on this site.


mysteryman wrote:
He has defended the DHS calling disgruntled vets "right-wing extremist candidates", but he has yet to admit that there is such a thing as "left-wing extremists".

So theres one person right there.


So what? See, I think there are a few problems with your position:

- You seem to be offended by the mere idea that disgruntled vets could be treated as potentially dangerous right-wing extremist, even though there has been at least one major case where a disgruntled vet turned into a dangerous right-wing terrorist.
- You seem to critical of the idea that somebody could mention right-wing extremists while not, at the same time, mentioning left-wing extremists - even when the topic at hand is right-wing extremism.
- You seem to simply assume that c.i. would deny the existence of left-wing extremism, without giving him a chance to reply to that accusation.

I might be wrong on any of the points above, but that's how you come across.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 03:25 pm
@old europe,
mm is a liar; he wrote:
Quote:
mysteryman wrote:

He has defended the DHS calling disgruntled vets "right-wing extremist candidates", but he has yet to admit that there is such a thing as "left-wing extremists".

So theres one person right there.


I want him to show us where I said it? He's already proven himself as a liar. He'll hunt until hell freezes over! LOL

The only reason I'm responding is because I put him on Ignore, and saw your post with his statement.
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 03:31 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I see.

So, c.i., just for the record - what do you think: does left-wing extremism exist, or is there no such thing?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 03:35 pm
@old europe,
eo, According to the FBI report, we had more liberal terrorists before the right-wing terrorists became a bigger threat to our country. I believe that report. I'm sure there are still liberal terrorists in our country even though it might be less.

I also believe the criminal elements in our country consists of all people of all cultures, races, religions, and political affiliation.

JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 03:45 pm
@okie,
okie wrote
Quote:
:"I believe one of the biggest assets of the Fair Tax is the liklihood of stimulating business. First of all, no more corporate income tax, and anything sold here would be taxed the same rate by the Fair Tax, a sales tax, thus any foreign supported manufacturer, regardless of situation, even if subsidized by their governments, their products would be equally taxed if sold here. Also, nobody would pay any income tax, the products would be cheaper when they hit the stores, and people would have more money to buy. The main difference is where the money is extracted in the economic stream, production or consumption. I would love to see serious consideration and debate given the Fair Tax. "


You make a good argument here especially about decreasing the taxes on business; that would help on a number of levels (increased employment and investment) but the Fair Tax like the cigarette tax seems somewhat regressive so those everyday necessities should be exempted...but are we slipping into an old exclusionary habit here ripe for special interest lobbying?

I just noted an increase in Taxes on Ciggs. Didn't Obama say that no one earning under 250K would see their taxes increased? Perhaps he is unfamilair with the demographics of smokers.

JM
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 04:03 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Yeah.... see, I thought that would probably be your position!
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 04:04 pm
Quote:
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Tea parties evoke media jeers
Protests were a success, given the loutishness of its enemies.
Jay Ambrose
Syndicated columnist


Over at lowbrow MSNBC, the jokes about tea parties have been lewd and crude. Some other commentators think such protests are just stupid. And the federal government has been worrying about right-wing extremists.

So it seemed a kind of truth-seeking mission to visit Denver's Tax Day demonstration, a gathering of men and women whose ideas were pretty well summed up in the posters they were carrying.

"Haste, waste and fear is not a plan," said one. "200 years to build a nation, one election to destroy it," said another. In large, Magic-Marker letters, readers were told of the threat of socialism and the blessings of free enterprise. Anyone still suspecting President Barack Obama was the day's hero need only have glanced at this message: "Hail to the thief."

But in contrast to any federal paranoia about a recession-bred willingness to sign up with militias or supremacist groups, the 5,000 or so people gathered in front of Colorado's golden-domed Capitol were everyday folks, mostly cheerful, laughing, having a good time, carrying flags, singing patriotic songs, saying the Pledge of Allegiance and focused on one overriding theme: the government's Obama-directed spending binge.

Repeatedly, a speaker referred to the trillions in debt being piled up, and repeatedly, he and others worried about the burden on future generations and the implications to individual liberty. There was some play with an Obama rhetorical trick " his asking people whether they could do this or that and having them say, "Yes, we can." A speaker asked a series of questions at this session " such as whether the government can take over the economy " and was told by the shouting audience, "No, you can't."

This wasn't a Republican deal, even though some Republican state legislators stood above the crowd on a balcony, encouraging everyone with thumbs-up gestures. How do you suppose they felt when the speaker said, look, Republicans helped get us in this mess " they spent like crazy when it was their turn? The Denver tea party was mostly a grassroots, Internet-coordinated occurrence like some 730 others that took place across the country.

Nor was this an act of mob imbecility, even if Obama insists that economists of all ideological persuasions agree that spending is the only available means of getting us out of the recession. In fact, dozens of economists, including Nobel Prize winners, say differently " that lowering spending would serve us better and that the government should at least not spend crazily.

To me, it is encouraging that at least some Americans care enough about a mindless tumble into jeopardy to make themselves heard. This whole tea party phenomenon " patterned after the 1773 Boston tea party " is at least one signal to Washington that some get it that this spending spree coming on top of an already huge debt could be economically devastating, and that there's a plan for unprecedented levels of spending on new and expanded programs even when the recession ends.

Unlike liberal pundits, these Americans also understand that Obama has already increased tobacco taxes mostly affecting low-income Americans, that his carbon tax plans would hit everyone and that government at all levels is grabbing increasingly outrageous percentages of income from society's most productive members to the detriment of all of us.

Ah, but such understandings can make you suspicious in the eyes of the Department of Homeland Security, which devised a mostly speculative, bias-ridden report about the potential of "right-wing" violence from returning war veterans and different conservative groups, demonstrating, if anything, a rather disconcerting left-wing extremism.

And such understandings make you game for dirty, ridiculing jokes over at MSNBC, where Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and others seem to be intent on seeing just how obnoxiously vulgar they can become. If the value of a cause can be measured by the loutishness of its enemies, the tea party cause must be great indeed.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/government-obama-spending-2366412-tea-one
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 04:04 pm


The FairTax Plan is a consumption tax and the best option I've seen.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 04:05 pm
@mysteryman,
That's interesting MM.


mysteryman wrote:
I have NEVER said or suggested otherwise.

mysteryman wrote:
I have yet to see CI admit that leftwing terrorism or extremism exists.


Don't you think you should give CI the same benefit of the doubt you want for yourself?

0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 04:12 pm
@Foxfyre,
I believe in peaceful demonstrations even when the cause is a stupid one. The teabaggers are complaining about higher taxes at a time when Obama has promised to decreases taxes for the majority of workers.

Tax revenue will continue to decrease as more people and companies go bankrupt; that's a given. Obama will let more people keep more of their income - if they still have a job to pay taxes.

I also believe that Obama is trying to include too many social programs at a time when our country's tax base is suffering. He should have waited until job losses have been turned around, and the tax base begins to increase to pay for those programs.

Everybody is clueless as to how good all the programs Obama has initiated and will initiate in the future will improve our economy. Things will certainly get worse before they begin to improve.

Many financial pundits are now talking about bottoming out because the stock market is close to the bottom. I disagree 100%. As long as we continue to have job losses at these recent rates, nothing will improve.

That's my .02c worth.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 06/21/2025 at 07:58:00