• 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!

LA Times says conservative white men worse than terrorists, monitoring needed

If there that widely known then you should have no problem coming up with a name for me then. Surely from a list of 10 weekly Op-Ed columnists that are now in place at the TIMES you should be able to come up with proof that at least one outa ten is a “rabid leftists “. Right?:2wave:


Yep. Can’t be a civil rights organization and have the below quote as your motto and not have a bias.:roll:

I don't care what they say they are dedicated to do. I listen to what they say...and what they do. Same for the Times.

It's kind of like Obama saying he'll have the most transparent government...LOL!!...but look at what he's done from his first day in office.
 
I can tell that most commentators criticizing the LA Times editorial in this thread didn't actually read the whole thing. (which isn't very long)
 
It's a sad day in America to see people saying conservative white men are worse than radical terrorists who murder hundreds of people. Was it too mainstream to call them all Nazis? The people perpetuating this terrible lie should be ashamed of themselves and apologize.
 
I don't care what they say they are dedicated to do. I listen to what they say...and what they do. Same for the Times.

Yep.Cant have these handicapped children getting educated can we?Gotta keep them on welfare for the rest of their lives so we can use them as a wedge issue in elections.:roll:
 
Yep.Cant have these handicapped children getting educated can we?Gotta keep them on welfare for the rest of their lives so we can use them as a wedge issue in elections.:roll:

Given the eye-roll you included in your post, I take it you recognize your own strawman.
 
Given the eye-roll you included in your post, I take it you recognize your own strawman.

Nah.That was for the Obama part of your post that i erased.:2wave:
 
It's a sad day in America to see people saying conservative white men are worse than radical terrorists who murder hundreds of people. Was it too mainstream to call them all Nazis? The people perpetuating this terrible lie should be ashamed of themselves and apologize.

Did you actually read the LA Times editorial?
 
It's a sad day in America to see people saying conservative white men are worse than radical terrorists who murder hundreds of people. Was it too mainstream to call them all Nazis? The people perpetuating this terrible lie should be ashamed of themselves and apologize.

They won't.

It isn't new for the far wrong to demonize, to that degree, those who still stand for the values on which this country was founded.

After the mass murder of Branch Davidians at Waco, I have a fairly clear memory of seeing Janet Reno on the news, saying something similarly outrageous. I later came across the quote online. There've been many sources since then that denied that she ever said it, but my memory of seeing and hearing her saying it is rather clear. Here's the quote…

“A cultist is one who has a strong belief in the Bible and the Second Coming of Christ; who frequently attends Bible studies; who has a high level of financial giving to a Christian cause; who home schools for their children; who has accumulated survival foods and has a strong belief in the Second Amendment; and who distrusts big government. Any of these may qualify, but certainly more than one would cause us to strongly look at this person as a threat, and his family as being in a risk situation that qualified for government interference. Waco was one of those situations that qualified under our definition of people being at risk that necessitates government action to save them.”
 
No s***!





LA Times says conservative white men worse than terrorists, monitoring needed - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com

According to an op-ed at the Los Angeles Times, conservative white men who support the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms are worse than international terrorists and need to be monitored by the federal government, Infowars reported Wednesday.
The op-ed, written after the Southern Poverty Law Center demanded the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security "crack down on Americans expressing opposition to an increasingly tyrannical federal government," claims there are "cells of angry men in the United States preparing for combat with the U.S. government."
"They are usually heavily armed, blinded by an intractable hatred, often motivated by religious zeal," the Times wrote.
Kurt Nimmo accused the paper of racism for singling out white men as the culprit that needs to be dealt with by the federal government.
"They are white, right-wing Americans, nearly all with an obsessive attachment to guns, who may represent a greater danger to the lives of American civilians than international terrorists," the Times said.


I like this part from the Times:

So, you're saying that you support outright racism and sexism? You would welcome a new version of Jim Crow that would target white males? Target American citizens because of their race, gender and political ideology?
 
Looks like this OP touched a nerve with the usual suspects of gun culture denizens and conservative flamebots who love to dish it out, but can't take it

Does that mean you support racist policies, as well?
 
The gun nuts should have little room to complain about this. How many threats have come from them about watering the tree of liberty, or something much more direct? Then there is their statements that the second amendment deters unjust laws and the removal of freedoms through the overt threat that the people have guns and will shed blood. The whole idea of carrying a weapon is an overt threat. It is supposed to say criminals don't screw with me because i will shoot your ass.

of course, when people bring that up thn comes the bumbling and idiocy as they realize they just made a huge case for them being violent and scary. After that it is either insults, or really bad excuses like they just want a gun to butter their toast and would never shoot someone with it.

this is why no one can get an honest discussion about firearms from the right. i will give you guys the left has it's own problems, but it is like a comedy of errors every time you try to get a guntard into one of these conversations. It normally ends with the guntard making up some insults because they know their own story conflicts itself at almost every turn. It is like the idea of peace through superior firepower. it is a blatant contradiction but they love the concept.

maybe one of the gun people can answer this question. Are you a dangerous threat to the government because you might use your guns to "protect yourself" through deadly force, or are you just a bunch of harmless people who the government should not be concerned about? because if you are the supposed heroes protecting the rights of the free, then you are terrorists using the threat of gun violence to deter and prevent oppressive actions. You also become a threat to the safety of every one around you and deserve to be monitored. If you are not a threat because you would never use your gun for violence, then you don't need much more than a bolt loaded .22 for shooting some cans. make up your minds which story you are going to use, and then stick to it.

I'm extremely dangerous to a tyrannical government that would rob us of our civil liberties.

Should the government decide that it no longer has to abide by the laws set forth to keep government from growing out of control, then I am no longer ablige by any laws, either.
 
I would love a world full of responsible people who can handle freedom. until you find a cure for idiocy we need government stepping in.

The idiocy we need to cure, is that that believes that only the government can make the world run smoothly.
 
I'm extremely dangerous to a tyrannical government that would rob us of our civil liberties.

Should the government decide that it no longer has to abide by the laws set forth to keep government from growing out of control, then I am no longer ablige by any laws, either.

So yes you are a dangerous person and an admitted threat. hence why you get treated as such.
 
Ayup. All of it. Did you, ya little peep?

Because this:
"What can be done to reverse this tide of belligerent ignorance? Not much. The typical patriot acts within his free-speech and 2nd Amendment rights, and in fact most patriot activity consists of venting steam by meeting with like-minded Neanderthals and firing off blog posts threatening civil war. Yet such blather tends to get under the skin of the Timothy McVeighs of the world. These groups should be closely monitored, with resources adequate to the task, even if it means shifting some homeland security money from the hunt for foreign terrorists."
LA Times

Does not say this:
"....conservative white men are worse than radical terrorists who murder hundreds of people...."
Originally Posted by Solaris
 
So yes you are a dangerous person and an admitted threat. hence why you get treated as such.

He didn't say he was a dangerous person. He said he was dangerous to a tyrannical government.

Are you in support of a tyrannical government and think they should treat him as a threat?
 
Because this:
"What can be done to reverse this tide of belligerent ignorance? Not much. The typical patriot acts within his free-speech and 2nd Amendment rights, and in fact most patriot activity consists of venting steam by meeting with like-minded Neanderthals and firing off blog posts threatening civil war. Yet such blather tends to get under the skin of the Timothy McVeighs of the world. These groups should be closely monitored, with resources adequate to the task, even if it means shifting some homeland security money from the hunt for foreign terrorists."
LA Times

Does not say this:
"....conservative white men are worse than radical terrorists who murder hundreds of people...."
Originally Posted by Solaris

You are correct. What you quoted does not say that. But, what the OP quoted does.

They're not jihadists. They are white, right-wing Americans, nearly all with an obsessive attachment to guns, who may represent a greater danger to the lives of American civilians than international terrorists.
 
No s***!





LA Times says conservative white men worse than terrorists, monitoring needed - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com

According to an op-ed at the Los Angeles Times, conservative white men who support the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms are worse than international terrorists and need to be monitored by the federal government, Infowars reported Wednesday.
The op-ed, written after the Southern Poverty Law Center demanded the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security "crack down on Americans expressing opposition to an increasingly tyrannical federal government," claims there are "cells of angry men in the United States preparing for combat with the U.S. government."
"They are usually heavily armed, blinded by an intractable hatred, often motivated by religious zeal," the Times wrote.
Kurt Nimmo accused the paper of racism for singling out white men as the culprit that needs to be dealt with by the federal government.
"They are white, right-wing Americans, nearly all with an obsessive attachment to guns, who may represent a greater danger to the lives of American civilians than international terrorists," the Times said.


I like this part from the Times:
SPLC is a parasite organization that is a front for the creeping crud of communist malignancy
 
how does that statistic shake out when comparing that white man to say...a black man? Or a Hispanic man? You know... Statistically speaking...

well 52% of the murderers in the USA are black and that is 6% of the population (black males)
 
Well free ain't ever and never will be safe. The biggest terrorist threat to us all is the government itself.

and the left wing haters who want to use the government to punish people who don't buy into their far left views on taxation, gay rights, guns etc
 
Yes, we know violence is your answer when you have an opinion.

what is funny is that far left extremists tend to want the government to inflict violence on others while right wing extremists tend at least not to outsource dirty work to others
 
He didn't say he was a dangerous person. He said he was dangerous to a tyrannical government.

Are you in support of a tyrannical government and think they should treat him as a threat?

So he is not dangerous but dangerous. Did you read that after you typed it, or are you arguing my point? Oh, and yes i do believe any government that wants to stay in power, every government in that case, will take threats seriously. Do you really think they are just going to let themselves get shot because you think that would be fair? No i need to go get some asprin for this headache. Stupid face palm.
 
The LA Times, this doesn’t surprise me. According to Janet Napolitano of the DHS, I, being a retired military person is a potential terrorist. Isn’t that comforting knowing what our government thinks of those who defended her.
 
So he is not dangerous but dangerous. Did you read that after you typed it, or are you arguing my point? Oh, and yes i do believe any government that wants to stay in power, every government in that case, will take threats seriously. Do you really think they are just going to let themselves get shot because you think that would be fair? No i need to go get some asprin for this headache. Stupid face palm.

Words have meanings, my dear, and you cannot say that a person who is dangerous to a tyrannical government = a dangerous person and say that you think he should be treated as a threat...unless you are in support of that tyrannical government.

(by the way, tererun, I didn't fail to notice that you sidestepped that portion of my question to you. Why was that? Hmmm?)

(another by the way...pay attention to the part I highlighted in my post. It matters.)
 
Back
Top Bottom