Domestic Terrorism & Right Wing Violence

[B_VinylBoy]

I was thinking twice about posting this here, as I can already sense what some of responses this thread will generate, however, I think it should be addressed. Especially since the majority of the the threads on this board have been rhetorically driven to criticize one side of the political spectrum.

Back during the presidential primary, I had a heart to heart with a couple of my closest friends about what would happen with this country if Obama actually won. We came to the conclusion that although we wanted Obama to win and it would be great for our nation, it could also have an adverse affect on our society as it would bring out the worse in people who embrace indifference. And now, with the attack coming from conservatives on Sotomayor calling her a "reverse racist", to the assassination of George Tiller by an extreme pro-lifer, to the recent attack on a Holocaust Museum by a white supremacist all within the last month, I'm wondering just how long prominent Republicans and Conservatives are going to stay silent before trying to inflict ANY kind of damage control and make a real effort to criticize people who invoke and antagonize people with statements full of hate. And whether or not these isolated incidents are just that, or imagery to darker social times ahead.

And now, the disclaimer...
This isn't an issue about the 1st Amendment or denying people the right to Free Speech. This isn't about being "politically correct" or focusing on some kind of "liberal agenda". This isn't another thread to become an argument about one's morality about torture, abortion or baby foreskin. I hope this becomes a thread that focuses on accountability for what people say, the message it portrays even if it doesn't say it by exact words, and acknowledging the fact that actions do sometimes result in negative reactions that could do more harm than good. Discuss.

 

[B_starinvestor]

I don't see where any of those events has anything to do with the price of tea in China.

Those acts weren't motivated by having a black president.

Let's see, an anti-abortion nut, an anti-semite, and a remark about Sotomayor being a reverse-racist have what to do with Obama?

The only acts that are directly related to Obama are the tea parties.

And there is going to be a doozie in D.C. on July 4th.

Unfortunately, I'll be in Texas that weekend. Maybe play a round of golf with HazelGod. Lol.

 

[D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse]

VB:

A Gallup poll released June 1, 2009, says that 89% of the GOP is white. By contrast, 64% of the Democratic Party is white.

Slightly more than one out every repub is non-white (11%). Yet more than one out of every three democrats is non-white (36%; dems are a political party more accepting of diversity).

The GOP is now the White Party.

This Holocaust shooter was a white supremacist, a Holocaust denier. A "birther" (he believed that Barack Obama was not a legitimate U.S. citizen). Of course Obama elected president will push some of these extremists over the edge.


Look closely at those youtube clips of Sarah Palin rallies in the South from October. "Birthers" and white supremacists did not like McCain so much -- but they loved Sarah (remember those shouts of "Kill him!", meaning kill Barack Obama from Sarah's crowds - after she riled them up? --- YouTube - DN! "KILL HIM!!![OBAMA]." PALIN SAYS NOTHING IN RESPONSE. --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw3o3y77MaA&feature=related).

 

[javyn]

Also, don't forget the o'reilly / tiller connection as well as the sean hannity / hal turner connection. The Republican party truly is the the party of white supremacist hatred.

 

[Industrialsize]

Seems like Janet Napolitano and the Department of Homeland Security were right:

Conservative Media Freaked Out Over DHS Report On Right Wing Extremists (VIDEO)

 

[oralhijinks]

I'm actually very disappointed by this thread. Based on other threads I have read I thought you guys presented good debate but this thread is just silly and expounds the very hatred it is attempting to reveal. The statistic about what is the "whiter" party is really meaningless. The nature of statistics will state that one party will have more white people regardless of political position. It happens that conservative viewpoints attract more white people. That is the nature of the beast. There is nothing wrong with this as other parties attract different people for their viewpoints. To set one as more right or wrong is to do a disservice to the very thing that makes us Americans, the freedom to choose. No party recruits a particular type of person and is successful. Either the party meets their viewpoints or it doesn't.

To call the republican party the party of white supremacist hatred is to call the democratic party the home of atheist marxist leftist death squads. Neither assessment is remotely correct.

If you want to identify extremists you need look no further than yourselves by posting such things. People do things for their own personal reasons not because they affiliate with any particular group. Healthy debate is great. I've actually been adding my thoughts on various issues here but it is very painful to see such broad accusations from people who should know better. Logical debate based on facts trumps argument based on fallacy and stereotype. This is relevant to both sides. Forgive my high and mighty position but some things just are pointless to argue.

 

[D_Cleon W Ballbreath IV]

...
To call the republican party the party of white supremacist hatred is to call the democratic party the home of atheist marxist leftist death squads. Neither assessment is remotely correct.

...

Logical debate based on facts trumps argument based on fallacy and stereotype. This is relevant to both sides. Forgive my high and mighty position but some things just are pointless to argue.

So what are the facts?
How many have been killed by those "leftist death squads" in the US?
How many have been killed by those on the other side?

This month we're already at 0-2.

 

[Wntabigone]

The differences mentioned here between the left and the right are correct. The left are much more pacifist, and as of the present, seem to be somewhat spineless, unfortunately.

However, for the last 30 years or so we have seen the violent nature of the right wingers, if they don't get their way. They behave themselves as long as they are in power, but as soon as they see any of that power dwindling (boy, did it dwindle this time), they resort to violence to regain that power. Very scary people.

I do hope the progressives will become more assertive and address the violent tactics the right always likes to resort to.

 

[Industrialsize]

Right wing extremists are such nice people:

"[SIZE=+1]The lives of innocent babies scheduled to be murdered by George Tiller are spared by the action of American hero Scott Roeder.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]George Tiller the Babykiller reaped what he sowed and is now in eternal hell.[/SIZE] "

Army of God

 

[Jonesy98]

First off, I'd like someone to state what in the hell makes someone a right wing extremist vs. a left wing extremist?

If it's based on the accepted US party spectrum then the label is completely null and void. Modern "right wing" politicians believe in the same BS that modern "left wing" politicians believe in: a leviathan gov't. Massive spending, massive taxation, complete disregard for Constitutional law, etc.

These white supremacist bastards, if they're "right wing", they should be conservatives right? WRONG. They believe in restricted freedoms and a superior race, neither of which has any place in conservative ideology (a la Barry Goldwater or Ron Paul... the modern day Jeffersonian Democratic Republicans).

My country would be much better off (and be without misleading labels) if it viewed the political spectrum differently, as a right triangle, where the distance between the hypotenuse and the base is representative of a gov'ts power in any particular ideology.

Now, for my purposes the right angle will be on the left. So, on the far right we have Anarchy, the complete absence of gov't. Here, no one is free, as everyone fights for their own, and is confined to their own property in order to defend it from those who would take from them.

On the far left are the totalitarian forms (socialism, communism, fascism, corporatism, dictatorships and oligarchies, etc). Here, gov't has total power to do as they wish, unbound by any sort of contractual obligation. This is where the majority of US politicians sit (surprise surprise!). Many Dems and Reps in Congress/White House/Court House feel they have the power to do what they please without any reverence for their well-defined powers in the Constitution (which, of course, sits in the center of the hypotenuse).

So, before you go spewing this non-sense about neo-Nazi's being a representation of some repressed white anger (and I don't blame you for this, so don't take offense... the American media has done its absolute best to introduce these meaningless terms and associate them with negative connotations) please consider the graph I described, then go from there.

And please... Faux News is not conservative media... it's owned by Rupert Murdoch for crying out loud. Why doesn't anyone know the history of JP Morgan's adventures into US media???

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I don't see where any of those events has anything to do with the price of tea in China.

Those acts weren't motivated by having a black president.

Let's see, an anti-abortion nut, an anti-semite, and a remark about Sotomayor being a reverse-racist have what to do with Obama?

The only acts that are directly related to Obama are the tea parties.

And there is going to be a doozie in D.C. on July 4th.

Unfortunately, I'll be in Texas that weekend. Maybe play a round of golf with HazelGod. Lol.

For once, this is a political thread that ISN'T about Obama. So sorry that the topic doesn't cater to your already nauseating, political bashing tactics. I guess this means you'll have to actually use your negative energy for something else this time. Perhaps you should try jacking off more frequently and get rid of some of that inner angst?

I'm actually very disappointed by this thread. Based on other threads I have read I thought you guys presented good debate but this thread is just silly and expounds the very hatred it is attempting to reveal. The statistic about what is the "whiter" party is really meaningless. The nature of statistics will state that one party will have more white people regardless of political position. It happens that conservative viewpoints attract more white people. That is the nature of the beast. There is nothing wrong with this as other parties attract different people for their viewpoints. To set one as more right or wrong is to do a disservice to the very thing that makes us Americans, the freedom to choose. No party recruits a particular type of person and is successful. Either the party meets their viewpoints or it doesn't.

To call the republican party the party of white supremacist hatred is to call the democratic party the home of atheist marxist leftist death squads. Neither assessment is remotely correct.

If you want to identify extremists you need look no further than yourselves by posting such things. People do things for their own personal reasons not because they affiliate with any particular group. Healthy debate is great. I've actually been adding my thoughts on various issues here but it is very painful to see such broad accusations from people who should know better. Logical debate based on facts trumps argument based on fallacy and stereotype. This is relevant to both sides. Forgive my high and mighty position but some things just are pointless to argue.

I didn't intend this thread to become an issue over which party is "whiter" than the other. In fact, I didn't even mention any particular race in my OP. It's not my fault if you immediately assumed that, but it does expose some of your own hidden demons in the process. How about we look at the two most recent incidents of Domestic Terrorism and Right Wing Violence from the viewpoint of the victims? One of them was a security guard in Washington DC and he was black. The other, being George Tiller, was caucasion. In other words, race is NOT the issue here no matter how much you try to turn it into one. And to add gasoline to the fuel, keep in mind that my lover of the last 5+ years is caucasion, as well as my previous lover. Plus, I went to a predominantly caucasion school system from the elementary level all through high school, all the while living in a city that was predominately minority. Think twice before you call someone an "extremist" for no good reason beyond your own uneducated hypotheses about a thread topic and its starter.

The only points I'm focusing on is the sudden rise of Domestic Terrorism and Extreme Right Wing Violence, and how people who could be voices to help tone down the antics do absolutely nothing. I would have generated the same topic if it was an issue of "Left Wing Extremism", unfortunately, none of their actions seem to result in senseless murder & death these days. Now do you have something to contribute worth discussing or are you going to start calling me a "reverse racist" on your next post? Your call...

 

[oralhijinks]

Wow, I guess when you say "discuss" it means to agree with what is said. Frankly, I fail to see where I said anything about you yet you unleash a tirade of insults against someone who frankly thinks the polarization and stereotyping of the thread was more the issue, and said nothing about race, just statistical distribution information based on a post not your own. I guess I should have known better as you seem to take things very personally. You seem very angry and I don't know why.

 

[B_starinvestor]

Wow, I guess when you say "discuss" it means to agree with what is said. Frankly, I fail to see where I said anything about you yet you unleash a tirade of insults against someone who frankly thinks the polarization and stereotyping of the thread was more the issue, and said nothing about race, just statistical distribution information based on a post not your own. I guess I should have known better as you seem to take things very personally. You seem very angry and I don't know why.

Um, wouldn't you be angry if you were repeatedly proven wrong on nearly every subject in which you engage?

 

[VeeP]

Jeremiah Wright: 'Them Jews' Keeping Him from Obama - washingtonpost.com

In a Tuesday evening interview, Wright told a Virginia reporter that Jewish members of the White House staff had kept him from talking to his former church member, President Obama, since last November's election.

"Them Jews ain't going to let him talk to me," Wright told the Daily Press in Newport News, Va. "I told my baby daughter that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office."


Who's dangerous now?

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Wow, I guess when you say "discuss" it means to agree with what is said. Frankly, I fail to see where I said anything about you yet you unleash a tirade of insults against someone who frankly thinks the polarization and stereotyping of the thread was more the issue, and said nothing about race, just statistical distribution information based on a post not your own. I guess I should have known better as you seem to take things very personally. You seem very angry and I don't know why.

You don't have to agree with me. However, I have no idea who you are and you're calling me an extremist. That I will take offense to. Again, read my OP. Where is the mention of race? There isn't one. What "stereotype" am I basing my thread on? There isn't one... unless you want to deny the fact that two men of two different races died due to the hands of Domestic Terrorists with extreme right-winged ideology within the last 2 weeks.

Where am I bashing all Republicans or Conservatives for having these extreme beliefs? I'm not. In fact, I wish there were more sensible Republicans out there that would have the balls to call these people out and put them to task for condoning and inducing violent action on the innocent. I know the voices of the "extreme" are small compared to the rest of the world. But right now, they're the ones we hear the most and they're the ones doing the killing.

The only one thinking in a polarizing and stereotypical matter in this thread is YOU (and starinvestor, but then again we already know he's a loser so fuck him). Don't associate this thread with that kind of mentality because that was not the intention.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Jeremiah Wright: 'Them Jews' Keeping Him from Obama - washingtonpost.com

In a Tuesday evening interview, Wright told a Virginia reporter that Jewish members of the White House staff had kept him from talking to his former church member, President Obama, since last November's election.

"Them Jews ain't going to let him talk to me," Wright told the Daily Press in Newport News, Va. "I told my baby daughter that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office."


Who's dangerous now?

And when some extreme left-winging nutjob who listens to Jeremiah Wright goes out and kills a Jew, then we'll talk. Until then, stick to the topic.

 

[Industrialsize]

Jeremiah Wright: 'Them Jews' Keeping Him from Obama - washingtonpost.com

In a Tuesday evening interview, Wright told a Virginia reporter that Jewish members of the White House staff had kept him from talking to his former church member, President Obama, since last November's election.

"Them Jews ain't going to let him talk to me," Wright told the Daily Press in Newport News, Va. "I told my baby daughter that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office."


Who's dangerous now?

We're talking about Violent Domestic TERRORISM and you bring up that old song"J wright". Jeremiah Wright may say whacked out things, but he has never resorted to violence and is not a domestic terrorist.

 

[ZOS23xy]

Um, wouldn't you be angry if you were repeatedly proven wrong on nearly every subject in which you engage?

Tell US all about it Star Investor, since you are a good place to point out a bad example of this nature.

 

[oralhijinks]

The only one thinking in a polarizing and stereotypical matter in this thread is YOU...

Jesus man, take some of your own advice. My post is in reference to the 3rd (willtom27) and the 4th post (javyn) in the thread. I should have made a pointed reference so as not to challenge your mightiness.

I find willtom27 quite knowledgeable but I thought his reference was not relevant in this thread. The post by javyn was outright polarizing and way off base.

My statements tend to be point of fact about day to day goings on. I'm sorry you felt threatened but I shall leave you to your devices. You choose to fight your battles your way but I prefer to leave the name calling and personal insults at the door as ad hominem proves nothing about an issue.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Jesus man, take some of your own advice. My post is in reference to the 3rd (willtom27) and the 4th post (javyn) in the thread. I should have made a pointed reference so as not to challenge your mightiness.

I find willtom27 quite knowledgeable but I thought his reference was not relevant in this thread. The post by javyn was outright polarizing and way off base.

My statements tend to be point of fact about day to day goings on. I'm sorry you felt threatened but I shall leave you to your devices. You choose to fight your battles your way but I prefer to leave the name calling and personal insults at the door as ad hominem proves nothing about an issue.

So now you decide to be more informative about your post and who it referred to? It's not beneath me to apologize if I assumed wrong. I can be abrasive and highly sarcastic at times, which is something I'll work on.

However, your first post didn't mention a single name, it discredits the thread before any real discussion began, and you started calling people "extremists". Perhaps if you were a bit more clear the first time we wouldn't be bumping heads now? Just a thought for next time... if there ever is one.