• 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!

Breitbart: We have the guns

The only time I come across anything from Breirbart is when it is duplicated elsewhere because of the over the top nature of what he said - much like this topic.
 
Wake said:
You mentioned a couple of nutcases. I mean the socialists in the political left who desire revolution.
Click to expand...

Yes, there are a couple nutcase socialists. That is it. The fact that you think there are more than a handful does not make it reality. Even most of those socialists don't want or are working for revolution. It is pure paranoia to think otherwise.

What Breitbart was actually doing was using over the top rhetoric to get a reaction. Defending his position is ludicrous. The left ain't gunna revolt, there is zero evidence the left is going to revolt, and if he actually thinks it, he is ****ing retarded and then why would people care what he thinks.
 
VanceMack said:
Surprisingly though a large number do...just like a large number listen to Limbaugh. Never have really understood that phenomenon. The plain truth is that Breitbart was involved in a discussion with people talking about the 'coming' revolution...basically talking about the very small minority of idiots that find that notion desirable. I agree that Breitbarts comments werent very bright...he follows a trend. That being said...I think intelligent and reasonable people have seen the violence perpetrated in London recently and would stand for the appropriate forces queling such an event in this country as swiftly as possible.
Click to expand...

My joke apparently fell flat.
 
Redress said:
Yes, there are a couple nutcase socialists. That is it. The fact that you think there are more than a handful does not make it reality. Even most of those socialists don't want or are working for revolution. It is pure paranoia to think otherwise.

What Breitbart was actually doing was using over the top rhetoric to get a reaction. Defending his position is ludicrous. The left ain't gunna revolt, there is zero evidence the left is going to revolt, and if he actually thinks it, he is ****ing retarded and then why would people care what he thinks.
Click to expand...

The fact that you say there is only a handful does not make it reality. That is why the "IF" is so convenient; that way we don't have to empirically know the threat, but be ready none-the-less should anything arise, however unlikely that may be. Look at history. Were those who suspected treachery and bloody revolutions paranoid as well? Thing is, we don't know; that alone doesn't mean people can't be prepared if their wisdom tells them something may unfold in the future.

Breitbart may or may not have been a fool. Just yesterday I debated someone on this forum who thought revolution, a socialistic one, was a darn good idea. That the time was right. If there's only a handful as you say then I suppose I must be extremely lucky that one of the very few in that handful showed up here and made a thread about the possibility of revolution. Yeah, revolts never happen. History shows that. To me, it is wise to be prepared, silently.
 
Wake said:
The fact that you say there is only a handful does not make it reality. That is why the "IF" is so convenient; that way we don't have to empirically know the threat, but be ready none-the-less should anything arise, however unlikely that may be. Look at history. Were those who suspected treachery and bloody revolutions paranoid as well? Thing is, we don't know; that alone doesn't mean people can't be prepared if their wisdom tells them something may unfold in the future.

Breitbart may or may not have been a fool. Just yesterday I debated someone on this forum who thought revolution, a socialistic one, was a darn good idea. That the time was right. If there's only a handful as you say then I suppose I must be extremely lucky that one of the very few in that handful showed up here and made a thread about the possibility of revolution. Yeah, revolts never happen. History shows that. To me, it is wise to be prepared, silently.
Click to expand...

Socialist party USA membership - 1000. Some think revolution is necessary, but no more than 50 %

Social Democrats, USA - membership unknown, but it's headquarters is a PO box, which should give you a hint.

Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee - membership was claimed to be 250 according to the founder.

Democratic Socialists of America - membership 5707(2009), Does not call for or advocate revolution.

All numbers taken from wiki.
 
Redress said:
Socialist party USA membership - 1000. Some think revolution is necessary, but no more than 50 %

Social Democrats, USA - membership unknown, but it's headquarters is a PO box, which should give you a hint.

Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee - membership was claimed to be 250 according to the founder.

Democratic Socialists of America - membership 5707(2009), Does not call for or advocate revolution.

All numbers taken from wiki.
Click to expand...

In order to be a socialist you have to join a party and get membership?

There can't be, like, people who are socialists who don't/haven't joined a party/club/membership?

My cousins are socialists. They aren't in a group. Maybe they don't care to spend the time or money and would rather debate here like you and I?

Don't think that joining a club for "x" means that only the people in that club is the sign of all "x" people.
 
Last edited:
Breitbart: We have the guns
Click to expand...
Guess Breitbart doesn't realize the government he wants to take up arms against has bigger guns.

You can put 'Briet' in Breitbart but that still doesn't make him bright.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Guess Breitbart doesn't realize the government he wants to take up arms against has bigger guns.

You can put 'Briet' in Breitbart but that still doesn't make him bright.
Click to expand...

Where did you get the notion of "the government he wants to take up arms against"?
 
Wake said:
Where did you get the notion of "the government he wants to take up arms against"?
Click to expand...
He was talking about Liberals starting some kind of war with the right and from what I see, his complaints are about what Liberals are doing with the government when they have control.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Guess Breitbart doesn't realize the government he wants to take up arms against has bigger guns.

You can put 'Briet' in Breitbart but that still doesn't make him bright.
Click to expand...

We have far bigger guns than those we are fighting in Afghanistan. It doesn't seem to matter.
 
Redress said:
1) It is a stretch at best, totally inaccurate at worst to call some of those "Leftists".

2) None of those have anything to do with modern US liberalism.

3) Your choice was a pure appeal to emotion.

4) Godwinn
Click to expand...

You say that Pol Pot, Stalin, the leaders of the French Revolution, and Ho Chi Minh aren't Leftists, and you called ME stupid?
 
Redress said:
My joke apparently fell flat.
Click to expand...
Flatter than Mega's eggs...then again...Ive been on the road a lot and am a little fatigued so my joke o meter may be a little off...
 
Wasn't one of the main objectives of elections as a means of selecting leaders to avoid violence as a means to achieve a political goal? Breitbart's answer is that of barbarians, not of civilized people in the 21st century.
 
Paschendale said:
Wasn't one of the main objectives of elections as a means of selecting leaders to avoid violence as a means to achieve a political goal? Breitbart's answer is that of barbarians, not of civilized people in the 21st century.
Click to expand...

What do you think he means?

Then, what did he actually say?
 
Wake said:
In order to be a socialist you have to join a party and get membership?

There can't be, like, people who are socialists who don't/haven't joined a party/club/membership?

My cousins are socialists. They aren't in a group. Maybe they don't care to spend the time or money and would rather debate here like you and I?

Don't think that joining a club for "x" means that only the people in that club is the sign of all "x" people.
Click to expand...

Did I say that? What I illustrated is that a tiny portion of liberals are socialists. Democratic party membership - 72 million in 2004. In the 30 states where one can register as a libertarian, there are 225 thousand registered. So compared to even a fringe group like the libertarians, socialists are not even remotely as populous. And many socialists do not advocate revolution. So this idea that there are all these socialists waiting in the wings to revolt is just ludicrous.
 
Redress said:
Did I say that? What I illustrated is that a tiny portion of liberals are socialists. Democratic party membership - 72 million in 2004. In the 30 states where one can register as a libertarian, there are 225 thousand registered. So compared to even a fringe group like the libertarians, socialists are not even remotely as populous. And many socialists do not advocate revolution. So this idea that there are all these socialists waiting in the wings to revolt is just ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Would you start a thread directly about your claim, or should I?

I honestly think there are more people who believe in socialism than you think.
 
Wake said:
Fallacy: Argument by Question.
Click to expand...

no, its an honest question.

you claim that there are a lot more people that believe in Socialism, than folks believe.

in order to investigate your claim, we must first establish how YOU define "Socialism".

so, what is your definition of Socialism?

thanks.
 
Thunder said:
no, its an honest question.

you claim that there are a lot more people that believe in Socialism, than folks believe.

in order to investigate your claim, we must first establish how YOU define "Socialism".

so, what is your definition of Socialism?

thanks.
Click to expand...

That question is dubious, of course.

I think there are more people who believe in socialism than those socialists who are part of a membership.

If you want to start a discussion on socialism, make a thread. Otherwise, I'm not wasting my time.
 
Wake said:
That question is dubious, of course.

I think there are more people who believe in socialism than those socialists who are part of a membership.

If you want to start a discussion on socialism, make a thread. Otherwise, I'm not wasting my time.
Click to expand...

Ummm...you brought up socialism and have led the discussion in it. Further, whose definition of socialism do we use? is it the one that was used to call Buffett a socialist for supporting a higher capital gains tax? Is it some dictionary definition? Which dictionary? How do you know how many people there are if you cannot define it? If you reject all the numbers given, and offer none yourself, why can you not actually define what it is you are calling socialism so people can actually debate your claim that you have not bothered to back up yourself?
 
Redress said:
Ummm...you brought up socialism and have led the discussion in it. Further, whose definition of socialism do we use? is it the one that was used to call Buffett a socialist for supporting a higher capital gains tax? Is it some dictionary definition? Which dictionary? How do you know how many people there are if you cannot define it? If you reject all the numbers given, and offer none yourself, why can you not actually define what it is you are calling socialism so people can actually debate your claim that you have not bothered to back up yourself?
Click to expand...

<----------- what he said.
 
Captain America said:
Oh, it gets stupider. Stick around. Pull up a chair.

You have to admit, it can be quite entertaining. You can't BUY this kind of comedy. LOL!
Click to expand...

Like this?

Captain America said:
Leftwingnut tree-hugger extremists notwithstanding, (as there just as few of them as there are rightwingnut extremists) I can safely say that amongst my friends, both liberal and conservative, I do not see any marked difference in the amount of guns one side has over the other.

PLENTY of liberals own guns and staunchly defend their right to do so. To think otherwise, simply because of a handful blowhard lefties, if just about as stupid as saying that the Teabaggers are in the majority of anything.

Does anybody want to come over and try to break into THIS liberal's house thinking I am unarmed? I wish you would try. :) I am waiting for that day to come.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom