The rising tide of left wing extremism and violence - Page 8

Obama is very liberal but you have to ask yourself what that means here. It means he is a limousine liberal just like Kerry and the Kennedys. They don't endorse capitalism. They endorse CRONY-capitalism. They fight off the clearly bad outcomes using good intentions. I also noted before the election that Neo-con is old liberal. Pax Americana is a default liberal position. It was put in place after WWII and remains a core principle for them to this day. Obama's lie was to declare he would end war. We have to remember that every other liberal was declaring they would fight a better war and add Darfur to the mix as well.


Perhaps we should question the need for the system and what it does as well.

BG.com


Good luck trying to find much coverage of hundreds of union thugs storming the home of a private citizen. That doesn't fit into the media smear campaign.

Oh look, some more information that isn't being reported on by the Liberal Media Complex because it doesn't exist and couldn't since it doesn't fit their worldview!

I wonder how much news would be generated if a Klansman had charges dropped against him by a Republican administration for intimidating black voters while video was also available showing him calling for a race war and confronting biracial couples.

I'd guess it would be front page news for about the next month.

Of course the if the media did report on this, they might even gain some viewers instead of losing a million.

Hey was this the tea party? No of course not but we don't need to know who it is burning police cars and looting shops. It's just that loony, non-violent left who breaks the windows, burns the police cars, calls for race wars and then goes and golfs.

Of course we also all remember when those Tea Partiers tore up the city because of that jury trial verdict they didn't like. Oh wait, that didn't happen. Instead it was Oakland being torn up and the oppressor, which apparently is Footlocker, being put in their place.

Well first I wouldn't desire that and second, the KKK isn't actually a very large organization. Wikipedia notes that the whole organization might have a total of 5-8000 members nationwide. They are just a convenient boogieman more than anything else. In fact the KKK was actually so small in the times that folks like Byrd joined it that it really should give one pause to think about how he just "accidentally" came to be a member as part of not really knowing better and wanting to get elected. It's pure horseshit in my view and the he demonstrated that repeatedly throughout his political career. Note the date of that controversy was 2001 not 1961 or some time where ignorance could have been claimed. It only took him until 1982 to realize that black people love their children as much as white people do.

Like all things left, it is to use pun, whitewashed away due to the good intentions. Like all the violence in this thread none of it is ever caused by the parties who engaged in it but justified by what they claim is the source. It is purely analogous to claiming a woman raped was asking for it.

GuardianUK


Sadly more of the same.

I'd love to see the quote for that claim.

I murdered you because you are greedy!

Nice reasoning and truly the most prestine example of good intentions overcoming reality.

Actually in terms of analogy it is shooting the robber in his own home because you know his greed will force him to rob you at some point.

However instead of attempting to fix the bad analogy, we could apply a proper analogy because the rich are not lowly criminals.

So it is actually more like the rich through their greed will at some point, force you into being a robber merely to survive their greed. Thus it is better to kill them in their home now lest you go to jail in of course you get to enjoy their home as well.


Yes, the massive and growing population of the planet and the growing obesity epidemic all appear to support what you are saying if by support you mean complete debunk.


I've never heard conscience defined as willing to kill to prevent alleged misallocation of resources.

Well I guess you wouldn't put it up there with killing Lenin or Mao or the Khmer Rouge.

Instead of asking why Hitler need be assassinated, we should ask what gave rise to him. See we can control those factors rather than believing we can just go along and magically know which brains are the correct ones to randomly put a bullet into with our "greed" detectors.

What gave rise to him was the Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles.

The Guilt Clause aka using GUILT to subjugate an entire nationality, ethnicity or country, leads to bad results.

Learn it, or have it repeat, and declaring that you should get to eat the young of the rich to prevent Hitler won't change that fact.

That's funny. You can look at the Wiki history. It isn't me I assure you. However it is a cute trick to deflect from the lack of historical knowledge and understanding.

Capitalism didn't fail unless by failure you mean, capitalism could not overcome the nature of a grievance and remittance worldview started at WWI and that continues to this day.

It is pretty clear to anyone with half a brain, that the entire continent of Europe had been practicing colonialism and warring with each other for several centuries. The point of noting that is that progress and humans making it are messy, messy business.

The point of Article 231, it takes that messy business, assigned it to Germany after WWI and declared they ought to pay everyone, everywhere for all the damages and costs associated with that war. They were thus as it states SUBJUGATED to the winners of the historical grievance game. It wasn't about peace, quite the opposite.

When you declare that instead of making all parties equal, you get to subjugate future parties for historical grievances, then you create the types of situations that give rise to leaders like Hitler.

The left today with their various grievance industries, and their willingness to kill, burn, loot and harm others to advance them should be stopped by your own reasoning because instead of giving rise to merely one Hitler, they would give rise to a dozen via their subjugation of various parties due to their political aims.

So instead of just Nazi Hitler we might have....

Carbon Trade Hitler
Global Climate Change Hitler
Affirmative Action Hitler
Greedy Bankers Hitler
Etc....

Any place where a grievance group declares they have the right and desire to subjugate another group via their claimed guilt and demands of redress related to that guilt gives rise to various Hitlers.

World War II proved this point. It is indisputable. Now after WWII, instead of forcing the Axis powers to spend the rest of their existence paying reparations to the world for existing, they were granted forgiveness and made allies. Sure specific INDIVIDUALS were held accountable for actions, but the countries as nationalities, races or just people were forgiven. The world has been more peaceful as a result.

So when you see a leftist burning a cop car at the G20 claiming certain individuals owe certain other individuals because of what their ancestors did a hundred years ago. You should see the violence for what it is and assign it to the proper political orientation instead of using good intentions to excuse it.

However if you want to use a little Segovius reasoning, you might wander over and put a bullet in the buggers brain so he or she doesn't help bring about the next Hitler.

Yes, but let's involve the environmental movement in this.
How much longer do we need to wait before they make their genocide plain enough for everyone to understand.

Don't you love how it implies it's okay to cut just about EVERYTHING 10%. How many human deaths would it take to cut down that carbon footprint by 10%?

This is truly disturbing.

That's quite a list of rationalizations to justify such violence.


My mommy said you were made from snakes and snails and puppy dog tails. BR, do you realize half the "thoughts" you post lately are caricatured rants, and the other half are actual cartoons? This is whawt Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and Bill Maher have done to thought on the left. They've turned it from attempts to become lucid and rational to attempts to ridicule and mock.