Story Comments
Posted by: jovial 8 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
100%
jovial8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A man named Jim Adkisson walked into a Tennessee church and killed two churchgoers. Adkisson was motivated to attack what he called the "liberal movement." Adkisson was the reader of books by many right wing authors.
Reply
November 2007, a man walked into the Clinton Campaign office in New Hampshire and demanded to speak to Senator Clinton about her mental health plan. A six hour hostage scenario ensued with no injuries.
A 51 year old man walked into Arkansas Democratic headquarters and shot and killed the state chairman, Bill Gwatney.
These are just a few instances of politically motivated violence.
What's going on here? Well, what we are seeing is a growing trend of violence against, Democrats, or as conservatives like to call them, "Liberals." Our airwaves are being filled with vicious and violent language towards the democrats by right wing commentators, and our media is doing nothing about it. No mention of Jim Adkisson's book collection. No mention of Michael Reagan telling his audience to kill a protester. No mention of the daily hostile rants conducted by right wing commentators.-
50%
icewater8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, most murders in this country are committed by people who vote for the Democrats or would if they cared to vote.
Reply
The left has condoned and, in some cases, even endorsed every destructive inner city riot that has occurred in this country since as far back as I can remember. Some have even called these incidents "uprisings" to put a more positive spin on them. I recall Jane "blue eyes" Elliot lamenting the use of tanks during the LA Riots.
Liberals, the really far left ones, at least, are very much intolerant. I notice that conservatives, even the ones I disagree with, at least try to convince others that their points of view are correct. Liberals tend to label those with whom they disagree as enemies to be destroyed. Just look at what happens when a politically incorrect speaker gets on stage on a college campus.-
100%
jovial8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You have a selective memory to say the least. The riots that occurred in LA and other cities were almost always due to what some saw as a an injustice towards minorities in this country. It had little to do with being liberal or conservative. Now if the violent acts were being incited by inflammatory statements coming over the airways everyday, i'm sure that rhetoric would have been shut down a long time ago. In this day and age, however, inflammatory rhetoric by the extreme right wing is actually encouraged.
Reply-
0%
icewater8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yeah, I know, there's always an excuse. Believe me, I remember all of them. Liberals would be SOL if they couldn't use sociology jargon to make their cases. It's kind of hard to always be right when amorphous ******** doesn't count as good support for your argument. Systematic, injustimatic, etc just don't count to me, but it sounds much better than just saying that a bunch of people burned down their own neighborhoods because they had an excuse in the form of a drunk going a hundred miles on the freeway getting the crap kicked out of him by the cops.
Reply
And who is being violent besides one nut case? And who is encouraging this far right rhetoric? Perhaps there's an injustimatic answer for that, too.-
-
Neutral
icewater8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm making the point that right wingers aren't about to rise up, and that they're not the ones who usually do the mass violence thing.
Reply
I'm not one of those people who likes to fight over things like this. It just sort of seems irrational to me to worry over a bunch of couch potatoes who like to sit around and bitch because their side lost the election. These people aren't psychotic, and they're not the ones committing most of the violent crimes in the US.
Nobody ever talks about the murders that occur every day, about the lives lost and those who have to go on without them, unless, of course, mentioning them will serve the cause outlawing handguns or semi-automatic rifles.
Why the judgment for one group of people but not others? Why worry about Glenn Beck when there are plenty of rap groups, college professors, etc. who glorify violence every day..... to a much more receptive audience?-
Neutral
jovial8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My point is they always felt like they were in control so they had no need to be violent. Now they feel like they are losing control and those same violent tendencies that you brag of them not having, are slowly coming to the surface. Of course when conservatives had their way in politics, economics, and almost every other facet of American society they had no need to riot. As their control on society becomes threatened I find they act like any other group that has felt threatened in America. They resort to violence and/or the rhetoric that is associated with violence. What's different today vs. the 1960's that you are citing, is that these conservatives have a platform. They have numerous talk show personalities to carry their message of hate and discontent. None of the other groups in american history had such an advantage.
Reply-
100%
icewater8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You haven't even specified what a "conservative" is, although I imagine that you're just using it as a code word for white people. Well, if you define a conservative as someone who is opposed to socialism and big gov't in general, then conservatives haven't been in charge for a long time. Real conservatives are against war. Real conservatives are against the government telling what to think and believe. Real conservatives put the country first and don't go for our current version of "free" trade, which has put us at a disadvantage, to say the least and put many out of work.
Reply
As far as advantages go, liberals, in some cases violent ones like Bill Ayers, have Hollywood, television, the entire public education establishment and the press on their side and they use all of them to push THEIR beliefs on others. That's the reason we have such a liberal atmosphere today: children are saturated from pre-school to grad school.-
Neutral
jovial8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Defining a conservative is a discussion to lengthy to support here. I provide the following link if you care to find out about it.
Reply
http://www.conservative-resources.com/definition-o...
I think that maybe you are correct in pointing out that the terminology i used was in error. It's the extreme right-wing of the conservatives that is my concern, not conservatives in general. Some of the people that have a platform in the media that represent the conservative or Republican party at this time have hijacked the position of the party. As you may note from the link i provided there are many types of conservatives. What was left out of the definiton there was the "neo-conservative" This is a definition of a neo conservative from Merriam Webster.
: a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means.
As far Bill Ayers goes he's a washed up terrorist/idealist that has no real media platfrom to spread his ideas on a daily basis. Currently, I don't even really know if he holds those same positions he held younger in life. The so-called liberal ideas are pushed on anyone. Most young people have a higher propensity to seek equality, rather than freedom. That gives liberalism a natural advantage to people that are younger in age. As people get older and become successful they tend to become more conservative on issues. They no longer feel that equality is more important than their freedom to keep their money and pursue their dreams to make more even if the parts of their society can't keep up. They feel that everyone has to do what they did in order to become successful. I think that is a wrong approach, because the world economic, and social system is constantly changing. My father may have been able to get a factory job and work for thirty -five years and receive a pension, payed off his house, and can live comfortably off of that nestegg. The head of the company at that time was making more money than the regular workers, but the disparity wasn't as great as it is today. I feel that there should be a balance on freedom and equality. If the pendulum swings to far in either direction, some people will get hurt more than others. Unfortunately, there will always be those that get hurt if we want to make it an equitable system. Concessions have to be made and updated and litmus tested constantly as we Americans move forward.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
loading ...
People Who Liked This Comment (10)
donald51
cushi
gamahuche
alakazam
Will1313
scott4261
DenCuddy
TheRealizer
JEBUS08People Who Didn't Like This Comment (0)
No one voted this comment negatively.
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.