• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Dem Registration Way Down in OH, FL, IA, NH...

rocket88 said:
Oh boy, now you've opened up the ****storm. TAKE COVER!
Click to expand...

I'm actually sad that you're wrong about this. Apparently the reaction we'll receive is "LOL, that's a desperate reach!"
 
Grim17 said:
The desperation to find something... anything to make the right look as violent and destructive as the left is rather amusing. I don't suppose just being honest with yourself and admitting that they simply aren't is an option is it?

Who am I kidding.
Click to expand...

oklahoma-city-bombing-4.jpg

nuff said.
 
Grim17 said:
The desperation to find something... anything to make the right look as violent and destructive as the left is rather amusing. I don't suppose just being honest with yourself and admitting that they simply aren't is an option is it?

Who am I kidding.
Click to expand...

No evidence is good enough for you, is it?
 
tessaesque said:
I'm actually sad that you're wrong about this. Apparently the reaction we'll receive is "LOL, that's a desperate reach!"
Click to expand...

Some of them are. Some of them are legit. I see the problem with the story is an attempt to make the story look bigger than it is by widening the categorization of whats right wing to fit the narrative rather than just being truthful. Loughner was NOT right wing---he was ****ing nuts.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Some of those are quite tenuous in categorizing them as right wing.



Assumed---there isnt even a suspect.

This guy just sounds nuts.

Uhh, most of those on the right dont target the military.



This type of story is why I dont like Crooks and Liars as a source, they tend to plant a but of truth then use that as a platform to raise as much untruth as they care to.
Click to expand...

That is actually a pretty accurate account of what the guy did and why, per the notes he left behind. I actually got to see that building the weekend after it was hit.

AND most of those incidents include links to other sources. Not to mention you're only citing a small handful of the total list.

But if you want another source, google, "right wing violence in the U.S.". I just posted the first comprehensive link with sources, but several came up.
 
Grim17 said:
The desperation to find something... anything to make the right look as violent and destructive as the left is rather amusing. I don't suppose just being honest with yourself and admitting that they simply aren't is an option is it?

Who am I kidding.
Click to expand...

Yes yes the people wanting to go to war and have guns are nice and peaceful.
 
tessaesque said:
The dishonesty and lack of awareness in your posts is almost as disturbing as the violence you're denying.
Click to expand...

I said that in the context of my disussion with Rocket... He claimed that conservatives are just as likely to riot if Obama wins, as liberals are if Obama loses. I asked him for recent examples that support that belief and all he came up with was something I didn't even bother to look into, from nearly 40 years ago.

His statement is unsupported, partisan BS.
 
Grim17 said:
I said that in the context of my disussion with Rocket... He claimed that conservatives are just as likely to riot if Obama wins, as liberals are if Obama loses. I asked him for recent examples that support that belief and all he came up with was something I didn't even bother to look into, from nearly 40 years ago.

His statement is unsupported, partisan BS.
Click to expand...

Ive got to agree with Grim. Examples of conservatives rioting are few and far between. Hanging your hat on lone examples of violence and even groups of less than 5 doesnt make for widespread rioting.
 
Grim17 said:
His statement is unsupported, partisan BS.
Click to expand...

So is the statement that Liberals are likely to riot if Obama loses. So I stand by my statement that it's just as likely, which is to say not very likely at all.

How about a bet? If Romney wins and there's no riots, you come back and apologize for your mistake. If Obama wins and there's no riots, I'll come back and back up my statement that it isn't very likely at all.
 
rocket88 said:
So is the statement that Liberals are likely to riot if Obama loses. So I stand by my statement that it's just as likely, which is to say not very likely at all.

How about a bet? If Romney wins and there's no riots, you come back and apologize for your mistake. If Obama wins and there's no riots, I'll come back and back up my statement that it isn't very likely at all.
Click to expand...

I think it's a possibility that there will be riots, but I don't think it's likely. My posts early in this thread were nothing but sarcasm aimed at the fools who said if Obama wins there would be riots.

My entire conversation with you centers around your baseless, politically motivated (and ridiculous) statement, that it's just as likely conservatives will riot, as it is that liberals will. Recent history just doesn't support your statement.
 
Last edited:
Grim17 said:
My entire conversation with you centers around your baseless, politically motivate (and ridiculous) statement, that it's just as likely conservatives will riot, as it is that liberals will. Recent history just doesn't support your statement.
Click to expand...


I don't think it's likely either way. Therefore, I think that it is just as likely to happen on either side -- in other words, extremely unlikely. My statement was also directed at those making the ridiculous statement that there would be riots if Obama lost. I think it's equally unlikely to happen no matter who wins. You could say that I think it's equally likely, but I think that the probability is extremely low on either side.
 
rocket88 said:
I don't think it's likely either way. Therefore, I think that it is just as likely to happen on either side -- in other words, extremely unlikely. My statement was also directed at those making the ridiculous statement that there would be riots if Obama lost. I think it's equally unlikely to happen no matter who wins. You could say that I think it's equally likely, but I think that the probability is extremely low on either side.
Click to expand...

Saying that it's equally likely just doesn't fit with what we know about both. That's why you had to go back 40 years to find anything close to a riot by conservatives, while evidense of liberals rioting is abundant... Just look at the Occupy movement alone.
 
rocket88 said:
Pinochet took power in 1973 with the backing of Nixon and the CIA. 39 years is not that long ago.

Sorry, but there is history before your lifetime. You should learn something about it before making a fool of yourself.
Click to expand...

Sorry, what's all this nonsense? Maybe it was addressed later in the thread but I see what was done here so just wanted to refocus.

Since this is all a discussion about the right rioting if Obama wins and the left rioting if Romney wins (and therefore is a bit ridiculous in any event), the issue is not what global right or left wing movements would do but what AMERICAN left and right wing movements would do. to that end, I don't care if right wingers seized power in Chile or Stalin massacred tens of millions of people. Because it is irrelevant.

What DOES seem relevant, and which seems to address your questioning of history, is that American left wing mass movements seem to involve more violence than right wing movements. Certainly OWS involved more violence and more crime than the tea party stuff.

Now it may be because left wing movements tend to be driven by bad economics and various social injustices or whatever, but I'm having trouble thinking back to the last time where a mass of right wing Americans rose up to wage unfocused vioelnce on property and/or the police. Seems to almost exclusively be drunk kids, stanley cup losses (at least here in Canada), or left wing movements against "the man".

Any cases in point to focus our attention on the other side in North America (I'll throw you Canada too cause just for the hell of it, but Chile is a bit ... distant).
 
poweRob said:
Whadaloada ****... you asked for examples of right-wing riots. rocket88 showed you examples of it within the last 100 years including in Spain and you dismissed it for being too old...LOL... Not that it was in Spain. Then I come up with an example that is right ****ing now and you dismiss it because it was in England. Your excuses are pathetic. Worthy of a hearty laugh... but pathetic nonetheless.
Click to expand...

The original point which led to all this was an assertion that there were equal chances of Obama supporters and Romney supporters rioting if they lost. To this end someone led argument that if you look at the past you see a trend. Makes sense, as far as argument goes. Problem is those on the left, who want to argue the point but can't, now need to go further afield, importing an assumption into their arguments that the republican right is no different than the European right or the Chilean right from the 1970s in order to maintain the equivalence they asserted.

But that, of course, doesn't make any sense.
 
rocket88 said:
The idea that Liberals are going to riot if Obama loses are NOTHING BUT UNFOUNDED CONSERVATIVE BULL****. Bull**** isn't even a strong enough word.
Click to expand...

Now that's a fair enough point. Far better than "well, conservatives do it too" considering that isn't really true and certainly isn't as true as left wing public violence in the US.

But I'm also not so convinced. The problem with populist pandering is that it is very easy to lose control of the rabble.
 
Grim17 said:
Saying that it's equally likely just doesn't fit with what we know about both. That's why you had to go back 40 years to find anything close to a riot by conservatives, while evidense of liberals rioting is abundant... Just look at the Occupy movement alone.
Click to expand...

The Occupy people are recently guilty of attacking Obama's election office in Oakland, CA. So they're not likely to be so happy either way. They might riot if Obama WINS.
 
CJ 2.0 said:
Sorry, what's all this nonsense? Maybe it was addressed later in the thread but I see what was done here so just wanted to refocus.

Since this is all a discussion about the right rioting if Obama wins and the left rioting if Romney wins (and therefore is a bit ridiculous in any event), the issue is not what global right or left wing movements would do but what AMERICAN left and right wing movements would do. to that end, I don't care if right wingers seized power in Chile or Stalin massacred tens of millions of people. Because it is irrelevant.

What DOES seem relevant, and which seems to address your questioning of history, is that American left wing mass movements seem to involve more violence than right wing movements. Certainly OWS involved more violence and more crime than the tea party stuff.

Now it may be because left wing movements tend to be driven by bad economics and various social injustices or whatever, but I'm having trouble thinking back to the last time where a mass of right wing Americans rose up to wage unfocused vioelnce on property and/or the police. Seems to almost exclusively be drunk kids, stanley cup losses (at least here in Canada), or left wing movements against "the man".

Any cases in point to focus our attention on the other side in North America (I'll throw you Canada too cause just for the hell of it, but Chile is a bit ... distant).
Click to expand...

It was simply an example of "here's some right wing political violence." Coups are usually violent.

While I would say it's true that OWS involved more violence than the TP, that may be more of a generational thing at work. TP crowds tended to be much older. There weren't so many retirees camping out in the park.
 
rocket88 said:
The Occupy people are recently guilty of attacking Obama's election office in Oakland, CA. So they're not likely to be so happy either way. They might riot if Obama WINS.
Click to expand...

Speaks volumes about the noble class warfare fermented by the democrats as a response to the, what's your term for them, "teabaggers"?

Like I said, rousing the rabble is a dangerous game. Always has been.

They are difficult to contain once you have set them in motion. Once they feel they are entitled to something that is not theirs, they become difficult to stop.
 
CJ 2.0 said:
Speaks volumes about the noble class warfare fermented by the democrats as a response to the, what's your term for them, "teabaggers"?
Click to expand...

My term was "TP." Fits with "OWS" as a convenient acronym. Too many fights about who initiated the "teabagger" moniker (self-inflicted, BTW).

Like I said, rousing the rabble is a dangerous game. Always has been.

They are difficult to contain once you have set them in motion. Once they feel they are entitled to something that is not theirs, they become difficult to stop.
Click to expand...

Notice how careful Romney's been to say, "We're not going to touch your entitlements" without saying that exact sentence. I get the feeling more than a few Romney voters don't want their Medicare f-ed with. "Reform entitlements. Unless they're my entitlements. I'm entitled to them." Romney's far too...flaccid to be effective. No way he'll stand up to what needs to be stood up to to balance the budget. Can you really see him going to TPers and saying "I'm going to cut your medicare" or standing in front of GOP House members and saying "We need to cut the defense budget?" I sure as hell can't. 4 years of Romney and we'll be in the same boat deficit-wise.
 
rocket88 said:
My term was "TP." Fits with "OWS" as a convenient acronym. Too many fights about who initiated the "teabagger" moniker (self-inflicted, BTW).
Click to expand...

Your term is not the left's term. They prefer teabaggers. Which I get, as an effort to dehumanize people who seemed a lot more normal (for what it's worth) than the ones who turned out en masse with paper mache efigies when Bush was in office. Because the left does not want to engage with them on substnace, it wants to ridicule them so that no one listens to their message.

Notice how careful Romney's been to say, "We're not going to touch your entitlements" without saying that exact sentence. I get the feeling more than a few Romney voters don't want their Medicare f-ed with. "Reform entitlements. Unless they're my entitlements. I'm entitled to them." Romney's far too...flaccid to be effective. No way he'll stand up to what needs to be stood up to to balance the budget. Can you really see him going to TPers and saying "I'm going to cut your medicare" or standing in front of GOP House members and saying "We need to cut the defense budget?" I sure as hell can't. 4 years of Romney and we'll be in the same boat deficit-wise.
Click to expand...

But he's not. And that's the thing. Once you reconcile to the fairly obvious reality that Obama and his party lies repeatedly about the other side (more in fact, than Romney and his team lie about Obama, which is a lot), you start seeing things a bit more clearly. They are not going to change stuff for people over 55. They have to keep saying that because Obama keeps telling people Romney will do the opposite. But I think he has said it will change for younger people, while Obama is just pretending you all will be able to enjoy the same benefits as today's seniors even though that's impossible.

Ultimately, you need someone like Romney to govern you into a better position.

Romney may not be your guy. But Obama sure isn't.
 
CJ 2.0 said:
Your term is not the left's term. They prefer teabaggers. Which I get, as an effort to dehumanize people who seemed a lot more normal (for what it's worth) than the ones who turned out en masse with paper mache efigies when Bush was in office. Because the left does not want to engage with them on substnace, it wants to ridicule them so that no one listens to their message.
Click to expand...

Well, my feeling is that if you don't want to be called a "teabagger," don't call what you're doing "teabagging." Which was done on multiple occasions.



Romney may not be your guy. But Obama sure isn't.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. I won't be voting for either of them.
 
This "polls are wrong" talking point is being perpetrated by FoxNews....who's OWN poll shows Obama winning.....LOL......it is amazing though how the Foxbots come out of their holes and start regurgitating the propoganda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom