• 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!

If Health Care Reform Passes, Will Things Get Violent?

Do You Think The Right Will Get Violent?

  • Total voters
    56
the makeout hobo said:
I dunno. This seems different somehow. I can't put my finger on it, but people on the right seem more riled up, more angry, more itching for a fight. I mean, when in the recent past did you have people shouting out town hall meetings or bringing guns to presidential rallies? It seems to me that the right is trying to intimidate people that disagree. And if intimidating doesn't work, what's next?
Click to expand...
You mean like the liberals in South Central LA?
 
liblady said:
yes, they did so legally. why didn't anyone openly carry guns until obama began speaking?

you wear panties? ;-)
Click to expand...

Maybe people did and the press didn't freak out about it.
 
the makeout hobo said:
The right end of the political spectrum has gotten worked up lately, more worked up and agitated than I can remember people getting in a long time. My fear is this: imagine that Obama gets health care reform through congress. We have people at town hall meetings, one of our oldest democratic traditions, shouting out congressmen. We have people bringing guns to political events (that aren't even gun related), and going on about the blood of tyrants. When I see how much hatred and anger is on the far right at this moment, it makes me scared that if they don't get their way they might turn violent. We're talking about violence on a scale larger than a few nuts here and there. Does anyone else see the same thing happening?
Click to expand...

This is just more of the drivel coming out of the dems trying to shut down the opposition. It is all about the "fear" of the liberals because they know that if they pass HC it will be without the consent of the majority of the population, and it will be taking health care from the seniors and others that need the coverage and giving it to the illegal aliens and young people who don't need it. And increasing the deficit which is already out of control. The entire concept is ABSURD. It's also from the preconception that conservatives are a bunch of gun toting, bible thumping red necks. Yeah, like Krauthammer and Crystal. A better question is since all opposition to Obama is being labeled racist will the black panthers start attacking people or burning down cities. It's happened before.

If there is revolution it will be evident in 2010 when all of the incumbents are voted out and in 2012 when the same will happen again. There might also be an upswelling of independent candidates who now will actually have a good chance of being elected. Last time I voted independent was for Perot and it got me Clinton. If you voted for Paul last election you might feel you made a mistake. We had a poll here "what political party are you" and almost 60% claimed "other". Pass HC and let's see what happens.
 
You folks just don't get it. If you get much crazier than you all ready are, we'll just begin ignoring you. Violence not required.
 
If and when things get violent. It won't be because health care reform passes.

It will be because people refuse to come to grips and admit they lost an election thru every fault of their own and lost it fair and square in tough fought campaign. To a black man.
 
Last edited:
LowRevs said:
This is just more of the drivel coming out of the dems trying to shut down the opposition. It is all about the "fear" of the liberals because they know that if they pass HC it will be without the consent of the majority of the population, and it will be taking health care from the seniors and others that need the coverage and giving it to the illegal aliens and young people who don't need it.
Click to expand...

Firstly, the part about it being taken from seniors and being given to illegals is pure lies. Second, about young people not needing it... a good friend of mine who is 26 got run over by a bus a while back. You tell me she doesn't need medical coverage. She's still dealing with health problems from that.


And increasing the deficit which is already out of control. The entire concept is ABSURD.
Click to expand...
The concept that everyone should be able to get medical care when they need it? So completely absurd.:roll:


It's also from the preconception that conservatives are a bunch of gun toting, bible thumping red necks. Yeah, like Krauthammer and Crystal. A better question is since all opposition to Obama is being labeled racist will the black panthers start attacking people or burning down cities. It's happened before.
Click to expand...
I just wish that Krauthammer and Crystal were the voice of the Republican Party. Instead its the like of Limbaugh and Beck. And not all opposition to Obama is being labeled racist. You are inflating a straw man that has no bearing on reality. If you wish to discuss the true state of things be my guess, but don't float into wishful thinking la la land here.

If there is revolution it will be evident in 2010 when all of the incumbents are voted out and in 2012 when the same will happen again. There might also be an upswelling of independent candidates who now will actually have a good chance of being elected. Last time I voted independent was for Perot and it got me Clinton. If you voted for Paul last election you might feel you made a mistake. We had a poll here "what political party are you" and almost 60% claimed "other". Pass HC and let's see what happens.
Click to expand...

You have to remember that DP is not a fair representation of the political makeup of america. It's as far from that you can get.
 
Things already are violent, with the government initiating the aggression.

The question is - will people finally try to defend themselves?

The answer - probably not, because the strength of government is overwhelming, and running away is a much better option.

Sooner or later, Atlas will shrug!
 
Alex Libman said:
Things already are violent, with the government initiating the aggression.

The question is - will people finally try to defend themselves?

The answer - probably not, because the strength of government is overwhelming, and running away is a much better option.

Sooner or later, Atlas will shrug!
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, back in reality...
 
Alex Libman said:
Things already are violent, with the government initiating the aggression.

The question is - will people finally try to defend themselves?

The answer - probably not, because the strength of government is overwhelming, and running away is a much better option.

Sooner or later, Atlas will shrug!
Click to expand...

Why do you think it is that no industrialized nation has moved of its own volition towards a libertarian state?
 
Redress said:
Meanwhile, back in reality...
Click to expand...

You win many debates with that line?


the makeout hobo said:
Why do you think it is that no industrialized nation has moved of its own volition towards a libertarian state?
Click to expand...

First of all, that isn't true - the more statist / socialist political ideas don't win every single election, so when they lose it could be considered a victory of the libertarian ideas, whether fully understood by the voters or not. Economic freedom is slowly on the rise all over the world!

And second - statists tend to win because they're more willing to lie, steal, cheat, brainwash, torture, and kill tens of millions of people, or do whatever else is necessary to gain and expand their power. Well, pardon me for not being willing to sink to their level... :(
 
Last edited:
goldendog said:
If and when things get violent. It won't be because health care reform passes.

It will be because people refuse to come to grips and admit they lost an election thru every fault of their own and lost it fair and square in tough fought campaign. To a black man.
Click to expand...
Ah, the race card.
Played by those with nothing worthwhile to say.
 
Alex Libman said:
First of all, that isn't true - the more statist / socialist political ideas don't win every single election, so when they lose it could be considered a victory of the libertarian ideas, whether fully understood by the voters or not. Economic freedom is slowly on the rise all over the world!
Click to expand...

There's a difference between statist/socialist parties not winning and libertarians winning. If a moderate party wins, that's people deciding they want to be just a bit less statist, not wanting to be more libertarian. When parties that are very moderately more statist win, it's not a victory for communism.

And second - statists tend to win because they're more willing to lie, steal, cheat, brainwash, torture, and kill tens of millions of people, or do whatever else is necessary to gain and expand their power. Well, pardon me for not being willing to sink to their level... :(
Click to expand...

Uh huh, right. What about in open democratic societies where they can at least get their voices heard?
 
It seems to be the Left that has historically been prone to rioting and violence actually. From anti-war protests to race riots to WTO protests, what else? During the 60s and 70s you had quite a few instances of violence from the Left.

On the Right you have had the Oklahoma City bombing and radical anti-abortion acts of terrorisms, what else?
 
as mad as people are now it will on;y get worse
 
the makeout hobo said:
[...] What about in open democratic societies where they can at least get their voices heard?
Click to expand...
Alex Libman said:
Democracy is the most tyrannical form of government that can remain stable in a modern post-industrialized society. It is characterized by subtle yet highly effective use of brainwashing to allow passive control of the subjects, who are "kept on a long leash" and are allowed to keep a faction of the wealth they create for their own use. They are led to believe that the government exists in their interest, and the lowest common denominator of their opinions is pandered to in some trivial matters (i.e. election of figureheads).

By effectively encouraging blind faith in the government system, democratic governments can get away much higher levels of infringement on individual rights than less manipulative forms of government. History is filled with examples of peasant uprisings against a tyrannical ruler, but in a democracy people's anger is manipulated and misdirected toward trivial rituals (i.e. voting). Since governments always have more influence on the public (i.e. public schooling) than the other way around, and because the system is rigged on other levels as well, there exists no real danger of those rituals ever challenging the entrenched ruling class of government bureaucrats and their allies.

Democracy is the greatest threat that currently exists to the hope of eventual freedom for mankind, freedom of course being based on uninfringeable individual rights that can only exist in a pure free-market capitalist society.
Click to expand...


MyOwnDrum said:
On the Right you have had the Oklahoma City bombing and radical anti-abortion acts of terrorisms, what else?
Click to expand...

There is no substantive difference between the "left" / "liberal" statists and "right" / "conservative" statists, there's just the question of degree to which individual rights (including parents' rights, the natural right to homestead and defend property, etc) are violated. By that definition, all acts of violence originate with the statists, no matter if it's just one petty shoplifter, a bunch of armed anti-abortion nuts, or an organized political elite.

The OKC bombing (assuming it really was masterminded by McVeigh and Nichols alone) was intended as an act of self-defense, and I can agree with that logic to a degree, but not completely. Adults who choose to work for a violent institution may be fair game, but how hard would it be to check if there's a day-care center in that building! There were much better targets for them to choose from...
 
Last edited:
Alex Libman said:
​




There is no substantive difference between the "left" / "liberal" statists and "right" / "conservative" statists, there's just the question of degree to which individual rights (including parents' rights, the natural right to homestead and defend property, etc) are violated. By that definition, all acts of violence originate with the statists, no matter if it's just one petty shoplifter, a bunch of armed anti-abortion nuts, or an organized political elite.

The OKC bombing (assuming it really was masterminded by McVeigh and Nichols alone) was intended as an act of self-defense, and I can agree with that logic to a degree, but not completely. Adults who choose to work for a violent institution may be fair game, but how hard would it be to check if there's a day-care center in that building! There were much better targets for them to choose from...
Click to expand...

Your only objection is that the building had a day care center? :shock:
 
Alex Libman said:
​




There is no substantive difference between the "left" / "liberal" statists and "right" / "conservative" statists, there's just the question of degree to which individual rights (including parents' rights, the natural right to homestead and defend property, etc) are violated. By that definition, all acts of violence originate with the statists, no matter if it's just one petty shoplifter, a bunch of armed anti-abortion nuts, or an organized political elite.

The OKC bombing (assuming it really was masterminded by McVeigh and Nichols alone) was intended as an act of self-defense, and I can agree with that logic to a degree, but not completely. Adults who choose to work for a violent institution may be fair game, but how hard would it be to check if there's a day-care center in that building! There were much better targets for them to choose from...
Click to expand...

You've got to be kidding? You think somehow that the OK city bombing was 'self defense? What were they defending themselves from?
 
if it doesnt it should
 
I am the eternal pessimist,then, as I voted yes on the occurrence of violence which of course, is not good, its never good..
Wonderful to see 80% no votes.:mrgreen: Maybe I am interpreting the Internet bluster as more than what it really is.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Your only objection is that the building had a day care center? :shock:
Click to expand...

Failure to take reasonable steps to avoid killing innocent children should definitely be taboo in any kind of warfare. Of course the government didn't follow this rule in Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc - but one would expect a person acting in self-defense to follow a higher moral standard than the aggressor.


MyOwnDrum said:
You've got to be kidding? You think somehow that the OK city bombing was 'self defense? What were they defending themselves from?
Click to expand...

The government.
 
Goobieman said:
Ah, the race card.
Played by those with nothing worthwhile to say.
Click to expand...

Teaparties....were one goes to rub elbows with racists. But NOOOOOOO it's not about race.
 
goldendog said:
Teaparties....were one goes to rub elbows with racists. But NOOOOOOO it's not about race.
Click to expand...

Riots... where liberals go to "redistribute the wealth"...

err
 
goldendog said:
Teaparties....were one goes to rub elbows with racists. But NOOOOOOO it's not about race.
Click to expand...

From another thread --

Alex Libman said:
Because there's only one thing that 20th century socialism has been right about, and that's opposing racism. (And even that victory comes with a long list of asterisks and qualitative clarifications, but let's be generous. And libertarians have been right about it as well, they just have so many other things to brag about.)

Since being right feels good, socialists are always trying to recapture that high, like hopeless crack addicts, but they just haven't been right about anything else, ever. So they keep bring up racism into the conversation entirely out of context (ex. "How's the weather today? RACISM!"), just to remind themselves that they were right about something, once.
Click to expand...

:roll:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom