It means your right is more enforce its things on people, our right is more enforce things against government reach. Or are at least supposed to be.
edited 11th Jan '11 3:53:55 PM by Pykrete
To what degree should we distinguish between the Tea Party and the rest of the Republican Party in terms of rhetoric used? (This is an open question—I've sort of lost track of how that whole movement has mutated.)
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful![]()
Yeah, cause the fascists have a right to speak just like anyone else. Also, French fascist rethoric focuses its hate on immigrants, and is more subtle about it, because it's still pretty taboo. What they don't do is make any of the horrible suggestions I see fairly mainstream republicans and extreme democrats making. Also, "fascism" is kind of a weird way of calling them, they don't have anything as nearly coherent, they're more of a conglomerate of populists and reactionaries who feel marginalized by the mainstream right.
I can't get over the Ann Coulter baseball bat quote. It got stuck in my head.
Why is that stupid Tea Party given so much screentime? Why is there no news of the American Far Left in the media? You know, they're active on a local scale, they have conventions and all that...
edited 11th Jan '11 4:11:16 PM by RawPower
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?Le Pen, The National Front candidate who lost to Royale and Sarkozy in the first round of the election a while back, outright said he was in favor of racial inequality. In America, even the white supremacist groups don't say that openly!
Edit: As I said, the right in America really is crazier than the left at the moment.
edited 11th Jan '11 4:15:06 PM by silver2195
Currently taking a break from the site. See my user page for more information.^^What ^ said, and also they have even less impact on anything ever.
[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.![]()
![]()
The nature of the vocal extremists tends to be inversely proportional to the prevailing politics of the party in charge, relatively speaking. Thus, when a republican is in charge, the far left gets worked up; when a democrat is in charge, the far right.
That's what I thought.
edited 11th Jan '11 4:20:23 PM by OscarWildecat
Please spay/neuter your pets. Also, defang your copperheads.Well, if the Left plays into their hands...
On the other hand, the French don't have the experience of segregation and the Civil Rights era. For them it was rather the reverse. Suddenly in the seventies they found they had a big minority of "guest workers". And it was okay. But then those people stayed. Had kids. Those kids had kids. In those shoddy, provisional neighborhoods. Social tension increased instead of diminishing.
On the other hand, the French far-right, apart from the racism, might be more progressive than the American. At one point, they said "we're the people who offer to achieve the promises the Socialist Party couldn't keep". As I said, it's a very "white trash" party.
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?@silver, looking at Michelle Malkin's "cites" tends to be a waste of time, since she often fabricates stuff whole cloth and her links don't support her claims. Such as "Michelle Malkin's crazy unemployment theory debunked by the economist she quotes,"
"Malkin Cites Imaginary ABC News Report For 2 Million Protesters,"
and "Michelle Malkin flat out lies in defense of Sean Hannity"
. And that's just the stuff she makes up; she's also happy to perpetuate lies from other people, such as Malkin claiming Obama's dog flies on his own jet plane
(debunked here
).
The simple truth is that Malkin wanted to build a career out of "female conservative saying outrageous stuff." Unfortunately for her, Ann Coulter already mined that vein...
—R.J.
Yes, well, that the person telling you something is a douchebag doesn't necessarily mean that the something is false.
[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.Still, Ad Hominem is Ad Hominem.
Though in her case it's a valid heuristic to a priori disbelieve anything she says.
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?Well, you're going to get farther by finding some blogger who pointed out that all of those are shops or something than by reiterating that.
[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.I'm not going to defend crazy violent rhetoric on "the left". But lets look at actual violent actions. I'd like to be reminded what "the left" has done in violent political action since Weather Underground vandalized a couple buildings. Let's see, I count one policeman dead in their 1970 bombing and two dead in the Brinks security van robbery in '81. In the past few years? We've had the murder of George Tiller. We've had Richard Poplawski and James von Brunn. We had Tim Mc Veigh in Oklahoma back in '95. What has Earth First! done, again?
As for Obama arresting more people, of course he would. He's a Democrat. Republicans seize power, Democrats quietly consolidate it. Bush's reign saw vast increases in the size of no-protest zones, so protestors wouldn't get close to the cameras, and protestors who came to the distances at which they could protest before risked arrest. If Obama arresting more protestors surprises you, I'll be you're wondering why he hasn't closed Gitmo yet either. Remember people, the real response of the opposition to a power grab that violates civil rights isn't "that's not fair, citizens shouldn't be victimized like that!" it's "that's not fair, why can't we do that too?".
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.I'm not sure about America, but some extreme environmental and animal rights do use some rather unsettling rhetoric and have been involved in acts of organised violence, although not to as great an extent as the groups with more obvious political motivations like the Basque Separatists or the IRA. Based on what I see on the internet, the PETA are probably more likely to be seen as a joke than a threat, but I don't know if they've been involved in violence to a significant extent. Most of the extreme animal rights groups in the UK aren't very well funded.
Overall, I don't think many left-wing groups are as well organised as right-wing ones generally seem to be. Therefore, much of the violence carried out in the name of left-wing causes is carried out by people who identify with their goals but aren't necessarily associated with their movement (as far as I know Pim Fortuyn was shot dead by an animal rights activist unaffiliated to any particular group).

What do you mean by that, exactly?
edited 11th Jan '11 3:50:51 PM by RawPower
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?