Oh, God, it's all over the internet. And in right-leaning partisan forums and sites. I've heard it said for years. Politicians don't say that, of course. But it's a common feeling.
1. I've not seen that as any kind of a trend. The only person on these boards I can think of who might have gotten into that is Tigger, who has left us.
2. That being said, finding A-holes saying A-holish things on the internet does not make it a common feeling. I read conservative blogs, conservative books, listen to conservative arguments, and read conservative policy proposals. I cannot think of a time when I have seen someone argue that we should simply abandon the poor to die.
3. In fact, when it comes to online activity,
Liberals are less tolerant than Conservatives.
And it goes without saying that if someone thinks it's okay not to have health insurance because htey can't afford it, then the implication is that it's okay that they should die because htey're poor....because that's what happens, of course.
That is not at all something that goes without saying. Conservatives are full of ideas how to
reform how we provide health insurance and care to our poor. I've provided my own share here on this forum. Simply because liberals charge that anything that reduces state coercion in a program equals destroying it does not make it correct.
I've been posting in political forums for years. I recall only once reading something by a liberal saying he thought someone should die (the other person was sick or had been in an accident or something). Other posters immediately flamed him for saying that. OTOH, I've read such statements by conservatives a number of times, and when written, I don't recall that any other poster flamed him for saying that.
Well, there
are plenty of people who
should die. Mullah Omar, Omar al Sishani, and Abubakr Shekau come to mind. However, again, I think you are a victim here of naturally selective memory, as demonstrated by the greater incidence of real-world violence by liberals.
It's just a difference between the two sides. The ones on the right seem to have a more vitriolic feeling toward those on the other side.
I am thinking that this is confirmation bias for you. I think of
plenty of vitriol coming from the left. The right doesn't fantasize about mass arrests of people who disagree with them about global warming (nor do we think that
stabbing them in the chest is funny).
Take a look at the accusations that the relative anger expresses itself in - the left conspiracy about Bush was that he participated in the mass-murder of more than 3,000 American citizens in the worst attack on the continental united states in more than a century in order to provide a false excuse to drag America into a decade of war in which another 5-6,000 would be killed. The conservative conspiracy about Obama is that his long-form birth certificate is a counterfeit. :roll:
Well, you can read the news and see that it tends to be those on the right who will actually shoot those on the other side, or spit on them. (Remember the far righters spitting on members of Congress a couple of years ago? Even the conservative members of Congress wouldn't say anything bad about the people doing the spitting.)
That is also false, and I advise you to visit
any anti war or occupy protest. When the longshoremen stormed the port in Oregon, they destroyed property and took hostages. When the Tea Party movement had a giant rally in Washington, they left the public areas cleaner than they found them. Spitting? If a conservative spits on a congressman and liberals spit on servicemembers, who has done the greater dishonor to the one who least deserved it?
There has been very little violence in our country by lefties. Far more by righties.
:lol: again, I would urge you to take a look at the comparative protest movements, and observe the violence and destruction of property that takes place on the left but not on the right.
Look at the shooter of the woman Congress person,
Oh, you mean the guy described by his classmates as a
left wing political radical who was obsessed with the 2012 predictions and thought that words had no meaning? The one whom the media attempted to link to Sarah Palin, despite a
complete lack of evidence that he was in any way associated with any conservative movement?
The terrorists who bombed the fed. bldg. in OK years ago, most of the mass shooters (if they have political leanings at all).
Sure; I see your one incidence of a radical right wing bomber in the fed building and raise you the violence from the left of the 1960s and 1970s, and in addition I take your one (false) example of a shooting of a congressman and raise you an assassination of a President. The guy who did the oklahoma city bombing is universally rejected on the right. William Ayers is still active in politics and was a mentor to the current President of the United States.
The mass shooters do not generally have conservative political leanings, despite what CNN will conjecture to you before the facts are known (see your earlier false beliefs about Loughner, formed likely in the immediate aftermath of the shooting).
Liberal preferences that conservatives be pictured as violent
do not actually translate to actual measurable higher violence on the part of conservatives.
However, even the incidents you are discussing are an extremely small minority of actual violence in this country. If you like, we can take the demographics
most likely to engage in violence and overlay them with demographics most likely to vote Republican v Democrat, for example. We could take, for example, 23 year old males, and compare African Americans (heavy dem) to church-going whites (heavy republican).
This makes sense, when you consider that the ones on the right are far more comfortable with guns and weapons (most NRA members are on the right). Not that people who have guns are violent. I have a gun. I'm just pointing that out as one possible explanation.
Again, I'm more than happy to spend some time diving into the violent crime statistics for republican leaning demographics v democrat leaning demographics if you actually want to attempt to make that argument. Since it is an atrociously bad argument, however, I'll also give you a chance to bow out of it.
Both sides have their good points and bad points. But I'm certain which side is more violent, that is for sure.
I'm sure you are. Self-congratulation is a common problem on the Left - which is part of why they feel justified in using coercion. It's not conservatives trying to bring back the Fairness Doctrine in order to squash voices with whom they disagree. Liberal pretensions here is simply lacks what Henry Kissinger used to call "the added benefit of being
true."
That doesn't mean MOST of those on teh right are violent. But most who are violent are on the right.
Again, if you want to compare
actual violence statistics, I'm
more than happy to do so.
That's why those on the right sometimes refer to lefties as "girly men," "pansies," etc. They see those on the left as less manly. And therefore, less violent.
1. They are less manly. You can even see it in how they name their children.
2. Which doesn't make them less violent, unfortunately. Children are always more violent, and the left definitely appeals to the more childish.
