Are "Progressives" and Democrats more prone to violence than those in other political groups?

reply to post by speculativeoptimist


No, I mean generally...Why are we still doing this?

I blame leftists when I see riots at G20 or the student riots in California.

I blame the extreme right when McVeigh's or Hutaree's(that end of days militia) kill or threaten to kill anyone.

Both of these groups have extreme agenda's who want to bring chaos. Let me refer to this as an example of right wing extremism.

Learn to identify it folks. What we see on the media(Fox/Radio) is not right wing extremism. What we see on MSNBC might be vitriolic and totally biased, but it is their right AND it is not extremist.

Not all who muse about revolution are extremists. But those who froth at the mouth for blood and SHOW IT should be looked out for.

reply to post by schuyler


We could apply the same examination to the right eh?

Right Wing Violence

reply to post by Aggie Man

good pull aggie
if you look closely you can see the difference in his handwriting from 2 yrs earlier. troubled individual.

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
reply to post by bozzchem

 

Can you not see beyond the curtain or are you stuck in the false left/right paradigm with your side chosen and your intent to argue for it regardless?

Yes I can and that is why I responded in this thread to the one who is trying to assign this tragedy to the left.

Assigning this to either the left or the right is the TRUE tragedy!

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Sinnthia

 

What part of "I'm not unbiased" did you not get?

Probably the part where I do not care.

Secondly, my reply was not to the OP it was to speculativeoptimist who answered my question...

Close a few windows and pay attention. This will help. I KNOW. If you read my replies, I even quoted exactly what you replied to. It was just a simple question. What is your issue here?

So what are you not getting here?

I am not sure how else to explain this.

The OP opens with a biased source and you read it and say nothing.

Speculativeoptomist posts a counter source to the OP's biased one and clearly states he is doing it to offer and addition to the "objectivity" of the OP.

Get it? The OP was biased. Someone offered another biased source from the other side to balance things out. They explained exactly that is what it was.

You questioned it? Why? Why are you worried about the bias of huffpo and not Malkin? That was all I wanted to know. You had no issue with the OP offering a biased source but when someoner offers up an alternative view you jumped all over and apparently did not even understand the post. You question made no sense and as many times as I read what you responded to, still does not.

Just seemed like you thought Malkin was okey dokey but anyone pointing out that Malkin was less than biased and offering an alternative warranted your ire. You seem to have a lot going on at once with the deleted posts in wrong threads and all so I will cut you some slack. Besides, it was just a simple curiosity. If you want to turn it into something big, go back and read it all over again and come argue with me in private about it.

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
reply to post by schuyler

 

We could apply the same examination to the right eh?

Right Wing Violence

edit on 11-1-2011 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)

This google search does not denote how many instances of right wing violence there has been. It denotes how may stories have been written and in what volume.

reply to post by bozzchem

Assigning this to either the left or the right is the TRUE tragedy!

Agreed, but who is dishing out more of this right now, left or right pundits? That is why Faux is, imo, a divisive and destructive force in our society. Yes they ALL do it, but not as nasty, self assured and hypocritical as Faux

spec

reply to post by projectvxn

This google search does not denote how many instances of right wing violence there has been. It denotes how may stories have been written.

But the point stands no? They both have had some violence so what is the point saying one is worse than the other. I only brought it up in response.
Additionally, I have not seen Homeland Security issue a statement like this for the left:

First 100 Days
Homeland Security Warns of Rise in Right-Wing Extremism
Read more: www.foxnews.com...

Originally posted by bozzchem
Now I'm guessing you'll state that your source is more reputable?

NO! I have no interest in him being Republican, it's just all I had seen and I was asking for your source. Is that a problem? I'm just trying to get to the truth.

Originally posted by Aggie Man
Here is the proof that this nutjob was registered independent:

Your source goes on to say that he wasn't registered to a party, but wrote IND on the voter card.

Originally posted by makeitso
They didn't print the form because you can't get that form from there without his Voter I.D. or Drivers license #.

I wonder where the "Republican form" came from...

FYI, I do not believe that this shooting was political in any way. I am posting in several of these threads with that message. The OP is obviously trying to make the left out to be responsible. It's ridiculous.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by MMPI2
This question has to be asked, given the Arizona shootings and a few of the discussions here that have followed.

How does politics relate to the AZ shooting, exactly?

Not that politics has anything to do with it, but the shooter was registered as a Republican and he shot a Democrat.

BH I think you're a little off track with Loughners registration status. www.cbsnews.com...

It looks to me as though he registered as a Republican (in 2006) and wrote INDEPENDENT on his voter card in 2006 and 2008 and acted somewhat like a leftist at times.... I am not willing to say that he even knows what any of them stand for. In other words, his political affiliation is completely and utterly MEANINGLESS and as screwed up as his mind is! Which is what some of us have been saying for days now.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Aggie Man
Here is the proof that this nutjob was registered independent:

Your source goes on to say that he wasn't registered to a party, but wrote IND on the voter card.

Oops! Oversight on my part. Obviously one can not register independent, as independent is not a political party.

reply to post by daddyroo45


How do you explain the form on page one, then?

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
reply to post by projectvxn

 

This google search does not denote how many instances of right wing violence there has been. It denotes how may stories have been written.

But the point stands no? They both have had some violence so what is the point saying one is worse than the other. I only brought it up in response.

No it doesn't. This type of google search works very much like"Google Trends" which tracks how many times something was mentioned, it does not track the context in which it was mentioned.

OK, I think the form on page one is faked. (I can't believe I'm linking to free republic)!

freerepublic.com...

So it seems that he is, like me, not affiliated with any political party. He just wrote IND on his 2006 and 2008 voter cards.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


First time for everything BH lol.


At least it's not www.whatdoesitmean.com...

reply to post by projectvxn

No it doesn't.

So that article says nothing to support the idea of right wing extremism or events?
Are you implying that there is none?
I was merely adding a counter point to a post of left wing incidents for perspective and the notion that there are "more" lefty extremist than right.
I am not trying to prove anyone wrong projectvxn, just add balance to the OP's stance. It seems impossible to not bring politics into this tragedy, but it happens.
I will leave this thread now and just wish some peace to all those involved, and a reduction in sensationalist media.

spec

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Sinnthia

 

What part of "I'm not unbiased" did you not get?

Probably the part where I do not care.

Secondly, my reply was not to the OP it was to speculativeoptimist who answered my question...

Close a few windows and pay attention. This will help. I KNOW. If you read my replies, I even quoted exactly what you replied to. It was just a simple question. What is your issue here?

So what are you not getting here?

I am not sure how else to explain this.

The OP opens with a biased source and you read it and say nothing.

Speculativeoptomist posts a counter source to the OP's biased one and clearly states he is doing it to offer and addition to the "objectivity" of the OP.

Get it? The OP was biased. Someone offered another biased source from the other side to balance things out. They explained exactly that is what it was.

Thanks, guys, for an excellent and spirited debate.

With regards to a "biased" source in my original post, while I would agree that Michelle Malkin is "biased" to the right, the statements and facts cited within her article are objective fact. The people she outlines either currently or in the past have identified themselves as democrats or "progressives" or "liberals" and have used violence (or threatened violence) to achieve a political end.

About the SPLC citations, it seemed that most of the citations were aligned with Nazis, Neo-Nazis or with some faction of the aryan brotherhood.

THESE ORGANIZATIONS ARE TECHNICALLY SOCIALIST, OR LEFTIST IN ORIENTATION.

As I have pointed out in other threads, NAZI is an acronym for "National Sozialistische Deutsch Arbeiter-Partei"
That translates into the National Socialists German Workers' Party. The Nazis were, and are, a socialist union. This is fact.

The word Nazi has its origin in German language. Nazis is the plural form of Nazi. Nazi is used as a noun as well as a verb.Nazi is an abbreviated form for National Sozialistische Deutsch Arbeiter-Partei. It means National Socialist German Worker's Party. A person who belongs to this National Socialist German Worker's Party is called a Nazi. This party gained prominence under Adolf Hitler in 1933 but was started in 1919. It remained in power till 1945.

I believe that I know the answer to the question I asked in the title of the OP. I debated on whether or not to post it here, because everybody here actually has excellent points, for the most part, and because the answer I keep coming around to will be EXTREMELY unpopular.

I look forward to your additional responses. I would like to share what I believe the answer is to my question is later on.

Thanks again.

Neither side is any less guilty then the other. And if they BOTH would, for the love of all that is sacred, just stop. Then the point would be a matter of history and we could all move on.

Originally posted by Taliesien333
Neither side is any less guilty then the other. And if they BOTH would, for the love of all that is sacred, just stop. Then the point would be a matter of history and we could all move on.

I think you are deluding yourself, my friend.

One "side" has been suborned by forces that are clearly anti-human and anti-freedom.

Ignoring the problem...ignoring the facts...will not make these facts any less true, any more so than ignoring a malignant, infiltrating tumor would cure a deadly cancer.

Malignancies only become a "matter of history" after the patient is dead and buried.