• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mass Shooting at Sikh Temple Outside Milwaukee [W:211]

Uh, no.. I said we would need to become LESS tolerant of right wing hate. So MORE trying to close down the businesses of right wing hatemongers.
Look at you being all the perfect model of 'wing' hatred and stuff... Way to set the example.
 
What could possibly be more right wing than beating up a Sikh because you thought he was Muslim and you hate Muslims? That's so right wing that even Bachmann would be a bit uncomfortable about it... Somebody who does that is hard core right wing by definition...

While I understand what you're saying, I think it best to, for the time being, focus our thoughts on supporting these families and also reaching out to those in our own communities that may feel concerned in the wake of this event.

I would suggest we avoid speculation, let the police to their jobs and report in when they've gathered all the information.
 
I don't even get what you guys are saying... You don't think beating up or killing people because they are from a different demographic background than you is right wing? What do you think social conservatism is about? ...snip....

This is not some strange aspect of a right wing ,conservative mindset....this is a crazy F@ck.

claiming a political opponent led to a shooting is just silly.
 
I don't even get what you guys are saying... You don't think beating up or killing people because they are from a different demographic background than you is right wing? What do you think social conservatism is about? Killing somebody for being from a different demographic background than you are is the most extreme form of social conservatism. Maybe level one is wanting to favor your own demographic group in various ways (eg, pushing for government funding for religious organizations from your religion, seeking to have creationism taught in public schools, etc), level two is to try to get government to give clear indications that it considers your group superior to others (eg, English as a national language bills, banning cultural studies courses, etc), level three is seeking to oppress members of other demographic groups (eg, forbidding gay people from getting married, fighting not to allow mosques to be built, etc), level four is physical violence against other demographic groups, level fix is killing members of other demographic groups for being different than you. You see what I'm saying, right? I mean, certainly one can argue that the top couple levels are extreme enough to no longer be called "social conservatism", but it is all the same thing, just more and more extreme amounts of it, right?

Racism and violence is not in the sole possession of right wing groups.
You're just poisoning the well, by automatically ascribing these attributes to these people.

It's no different than, what than what the people you're attempting to profile, do.
 
This is not some strange aspect of a right wing ,conservative mindset....this is a crazy F@ck.

claiming a political opponent led to a shooting is just silly.

But liberals do it ALL THE TIME.
 
I don't even get what you guys are saying... You don't think beating up or killing people because they are from a different demographic background than you is right wing? What do you think social conservatism is about? Killing somebody for being from a different demographic background than you are is the most extreme form of social conservatism. Maybe level one is wanting to favor your own demographic group in various ways (eg, pushing for government funding for religious organizations from your religion, seeking to have creationism taught in public schools, etc), level two is to try to get government to give clear indications that it considers your group superior to others (eg, English as a national language bills, banning cultural studies courses, etc), level three is seeking to oppress members of other demographic groups (eg, forbidding gay people from getting married, fighting not to allow mosques to be built, etc), level four is physical violence against other demographic groups, level fix is killing members of other demographic groups for being different than you. You see what I'm saying, right? I mean, certainly one can argue that the top couple levels are extreme enough to no longer be called "social conservatism", but it is all the same thing, just more and more extreme amounts of it, right?

byrd.jpg

This guy was not a right-winger.
 
Look at you being all the perfect model of 'wing' hatred and stuff... Way to set the example.

Er, what are you talking about? How is boycotting a business that engages in right with hate itself hate? That's the opposite of hate.
 
Racism and violence is not in the sole possession of right wing groups.
You're just poisoning the well, by automatically ascribing these attributes to these people.

It's no different than, what than what the people you're attempting to profile, do.

Violence certainly is not the sole possession of right wing groups. Violence pops up all over the spectrum. But racism is inherently right wing. It is extreme social conservatism. That's what it is.
 
For the 100th time Sikh =/= Islam.

"There are roughly 500,000 Sikhs in the U.S., according to estimates." wow
 
Last edited:
Violence certainly is not the sole possession of right wing groups. Violence pops up all over the spectrum. But racism is inherently right wing. It is extreme social conservatism. That's what it is.

Sorry that's just not true.
But way to post material emulative of those you supposedly dislike so much.
 
How long can CNN maintain video images of the surrounding parking lots?
 
Violence certainly is not the sole possession of right wing groups. Violence pops up all over the spectrum. But racism is inherently right wing. It is extreme social conservatism. That's what it is.

The KKK was founded by Democrats.

Racism is not inherently right wing. It is inherent to humans, of all political leans.
 
The KKK was founded by Democrats.

Racism is not inherently right wing. It is inherent to humans, of all political leans.

How can you say that? Leftists love everybody.
 
For the 100th time Sikh =/= Islam.

"There are roughly 500,000 Sikhs in the U.S., according to estimates." wow

Indeed, in fact as modern Pakistan was being created as a home for Indian Muslims and the Muslims were being partitioned to the new state, the Sikhs formed a gauntlet and murdered as many as they could. They are opposing groups.

Got to say though, I feel a bit unclean having this discussion in a thread about a horrendous event that has to be tearing the hearts out of family and friends of the victims.
 
Last edited:
Sorry that's just not true.
But way to post material emulative of those you supposedly dislike so much.

Not sure how you mean. The fundamental proposition of social conservatism is "my demographic group is superior to those that differ from it". In its weakest form, that manifests as somewhat harmless things like wanting to teach creationism in school. In its strongest form, that manifests as concentration camps. It's all the same spectrum.
 
Not sure how you mean. The fundamental proposition of social conservatism is "my demographic group is superior to those that differ from it". In its weakest form, that manifests as somewhat harmless things like wanting to teach creationism in school. In its strongest form, that manifests as concentration camps. It's all the same spectrum.

Do you by any chance have a source for this claim, or are you just making it up?
 
Not sure how you mean. The fundamental proposition of social conservatism is "my demographic group is superior to those that differ from it". In its weakest form, that manifests as somewhat harmless things like wanting to teach creationism in school. In its strongest form, that manifests as concentration camps. It's all the same spectrum.

Umm no it's not.
Now you're just making things up.
Social conservatism is dependent on who runs each group and on what values the group wants to preserve.

Nice try though, trying to shoe horn Nazism into social conservatism.
 
What do you mean? I'm not sure I follow what part of it you disagree with.

"The fundamental proposition of social conservatism is "my demographic group is superior to those that differ from it". In its weakest form, that manifests as somewhat harmless things like wanting to teach creationism in school. In its strongest form, that manifests as concentration camps. It's all the same spectrum."

Do you have a source, or are you just making it up?
 
Umm no it's not.
Now you're just making things up.
Social conservatism is dependent on who runs each group and on what values the group wants to preserve.

Hmm, so you see social conservatism as being about preserving the past. I don't think that explains, for example, why social conservatives seem psyched about Romney saying that Jews are culturally superior to Palestinians. In the US, since the US used to be more demographically homogeneous than it is now, preserving things the way they were before overlaps somewhat with the whole demographic superiority thing, but where they don't overlap, social conservatives seem to still come down on the pro-bigotry side of issues, so the time thing can't be the real explanation.

Nice try though, trying to shoe horn Nazism into social conservatism.

Er, what? You don't agree that Nazism was socially conservative? Are you kidding me? That is the absolute most extreme textbook case of social conservatism... Some people argue that Nazis were not really right wing extremists because their economic policies were kind of middle of the road, but I've never in my life heard somebody argue that they were not right wing in terms of their social policies... I mean, if that isn't right wing social policy, what the heck would be?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom