Political discussions in general

WildWop

WildWop

CAGiversary!
The thing that disturbs me most about the political atmosphere here (and I've seen it elsewhere) is that staunch Republican and Democratic supporters are becoming more and more blind to anything that doesn't directly support their view. They are like fanboys on the GameFaqs boards, they don't present arguments in a manner that provokes thought; rather, they present what they believe as an absolute truth, and the rest be damned.

PS2 IS TEH ROXXXORZ!!!11 GAMCEUBE IZ TEH KIDDIZ!!11

BUSH IS RIGHT!!! KERRY IS SOFT!!
KERRY IS RIGHT!!! BUSH IS A WARMONGER!!!

I've had many animated discussions with a friend of mine that is a hardcore republican. Has been as long as I've known him, and I can remember him sprinting through the frat house banging on people's doors every time they predicted a Bush victory in the 2000 election (he banged on doors quite often that night). Out of these discussions came the prevailiing thought that things are black and white. Good and evil. It permeates a lot of Republican thought these days. There's no perspective on what is good, and what is evil. It is "I am right, I am all that is good, and those who oppose me are wrong, and all that is evil."

I've been a debater at heart for most of my life. I was a Junior Statesman in high school not for the experience, or for the "well rounded" appearance of my resume going into college, but for the fact that I enjoy seeing how people string together their arguments to present a cohesive thought. A good debater acknowledges the arguments of the other side and addresses them in a manner in which no party is offended; they create a comfortable atmosphere for people on both sides to approach the issue with less emotional content.

I don't see this kind of debate raging in this political atmosphere of "I'm right, you are COMPLETELY wrong / don't have a clue." That is sad. It prevents intelligent discussions and progress. Perhaps in a less combative atmosphere, even the people on these boards could have a good discussion about current events. As it stands, this is impossible.
 
you are COMPLETELY wrong.

j/k :)

I agree. I like to debate/discuss. I don't like to argue [I'm married, I get enough of that at home.]
To me, the goal of a debate/discussion is that all parties walk away feeling like A. they have learned something and B. the otherperson has learned something as well.
But political discussion in this day and age, both anonymous message-board discussion and in the media, has turned into 'You suck! We rock!' like you say, similar to console fanboys.

I disagree, however with this comment:

"he prevailiing thought that things are black and white. Good and evil. It permeates a lot of Republican thought these days. There's no perspective on what is good, and what is evil. It is "I am right, I am all that is good, and those who oppose me are wrong, and all that is evil." '

Those are two different things. I think some thigns *are* good, and some things/people *are* evil. [I'm thinking things like slavery, child molestation, Adolf Hitler, etc.] But I also think those two words are bandied about far too often. I'm not a moral relativist, but i think there are mitigating circumstances, exceptions, etc, in most cases. I think absolute perfection, or absolute horribless, is [luckily for us] few and far between. I very rarely rate a video game or movie a 'perfect 10.' There's always something to improve. I don't rate things 'totally worthless, 0/10' either, because there's a redeeming factor to most things. So while I do believe in good/evil, I don't think I'm necessarily 'good' and those who disagree with me necessarily 'evil.'

You make a good point--this is inherent to many of the issues that are relevant in politics, but a danger nonetheless--falling back on 'emotion.' Too many political 'debates' are emotion-laden or use words with a high emotional effect, without discussing any of the underlying facts or logic. It's like if i wanted to discuss war, and the other person just said 'War is for babykillers!' How does one 'debate' that?
When emotions are involved to that level, that blinds people to facts or logic, and turns the 'debate's goal of 'understanding issues' into an argument's goal of 'I gotta win.' No one really wins in that situation.
 
I don't think the issue is bias, at least at this level. Everyone has some level of bias, on some issues. People in certain professions [ie, journalism/news reporting] need to be able to distance themselves from their bias, much like doctors and cops have to distance their emotions from their job in order to do their job well.
The issue is manifold:

* Being openminded--which does *not* mean you cave to whatever anyone else is saying. It merely means you are listening openly, and will not automatically gainsay anything the other person says, after all, that's not an argument.
* Being respectful, and listening. I used to 'debate' with someone in high school. He would get on his soapbox and virtually preach at me his ideas/opinions. Which I listened to. Then when my 'turn' came, he either sat there rolling his eyes, or walked away. Why should I continue subjecting myself to that? Because he *had* to be right, he ended up losing a possible convert.
* Attack the idea/facts/logic, not the person or the messenger. If you say to someone, 'You're stupid' their first reaction is going to be, 'Well, F* you too.' Not real productive. But if you say, 'Your idea of so-and-so is interesting, but here's the problem I have with it' and then follow that up with ideas/facts/logics, you remove the ad hominem attack/defense cycle, and focus both parties attention on the issue. I just scanned the Fahrenheit 9/11 thread, and one big comment was 'Michael Moore is a fatass!' I don't like Michael Moore. He may be overweight. Lots of people are. But saying that does two things: removes the discussion from the issues, and attacks someone personally for something totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. If they said 'he's a registered Communist' and backed that up with logic/facts, that could be relevant. But juvenile namecalling does absolutely nothing.
 
"It permeates a lot of Republican thought these days."

And how bias is that?

I mean your right Republicans all yell and say everything they believe is right and nothing else matters.

Oh yeah and Bush=Hittler.
 
"'Michael Moore is a fatass!' I don't like Michael Moore. He may be overweight. "

But that is a valid point when Michael Moore is saying that Americans are evil because we over consume and take things from others who need. Apparently the only over consumption that is allowed is at the dinner table maybe. When you are a huge fat ass how do you go around telling others that they are wrong/evil because they are fat?

Just calling him fat is a lazy/weak way to make an argument but to point out he is a fat ass to show that he is a hypocrite is a valid point.
 
In all fairness I generally think the tone of arguments have been pressed by tactics and tones used by the left. Let me explain.

I think the general tone of modern incivility in politics and debate began in the 60's. The entire Vietnam experience here and abroad was influenced by leftist groups in how the debate was framed. "HEY HEY LBJ HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY?". This completely minimized the aspects of the war and why it was being fought. That's where the trend begins. Frame the argument in a simple statement regardless of how much truth there is to it. The left pioneered this.

Now as a result of this you can move on to the 80's where more of the well spring of modern debate came. You have segments that decried Reagan as being a warmonger because he wanted a strong military. Hating gays for not immediately stopping and finding a cure for AIDS. Wanting to make people poor by cutting tax rates for "the rich". Every single debating point was lessened down to one soundbite worthy sentence.

During the time of Clinton the Republicans won elections that gave them control of Congress. However they never won an election. They "siezed power" they "took controll" and they didn't have an agenda to be voted on for consideration they had a "Contract On America". During the government shut down the budget wasn't put up for debate. The Democratic leaders sought out cameras and declared Republicans wanted to "Starve old people.", "Cut school lunch programs." and make people decide between food and medicine.

All through the 90's we, the right, asked why no one would stand up to these outlandish lies. Now we have. We do it by dominating talk radio, having a prominant series of news commentators and talking head shows on FOX News. Now that the right finally has some degree of a serious media presence it's too much for the left to handle.

As a result the attacks become more vitriolic. "Bush lied, people died." when there is no reasonable person that can't see that every major intelligence agency in the world was saying the same thing. Iraq had WMD or was certainly acting as if they had programs and materials worth concealing. The DNC and its leaders like Nancy Pelosi stated they would never lose an election again without getting their message out.

Well guess what. Their message is out and the degree of hostility is greater than it ever has been. They are being met as vehemently with people that disagree with them as they think they are right. This is the same group that last week had 150+ members of Congress vote to bring in UN inspectors to oversee US elections. That's the message we're getting and it's perceived as pure unadulterated contempt for American society as it exists today.

We no longer see each other as the loyal opposition. The tone makes people one of two things "War mongers for an exapnsionist imperialistic America where only the rich and coprorations have a say or "Peaceniks who want to make U.S. manifest destiny subservient to the UN and socialize an ever expanding base of the U.S. economy for an unsustainable socialist utopia."

Thats it. That's how the two camps are polarized anymore. It's to the point where Bush could say "Water is wet." and the Democrats would attempt to refute the statement because we're so in tune with immediate rejection to ideas that aren't our own regardless of whether or not they have merit.

I don't understand the sheer vitriol that carries into debates where people are automatically viewed as supsicious, the enemy or flat out liars. I will attempt to convert as many people as I can to my point of view as civilly as possible. I'm on another message board at uncledunkel.com and while I frequently disagree with the owner of the site and board we always discuss our issues with frank candor and a degree of respect.

Bottom line is that both sides think the other is against America "as they see it". When the reality is that the basis of America as it was intended was abandoned with the New Deal. Now we're working with a hybrid of socialism and regulated capitalism. The debate is generally down to what degree government participates in both.

Okay, end of rant.
 
[quote name='Steve Dave']"It permeates a lot of Republican thought these days."

And how bias is that?

I mean your right Republicans all yell and say everything they believe is right and nothing else matters.

Oh yeah and Bush=Hittler.[/quote]

Sorry, I guess that slipped out. It was really a reaction to the whole "evildoer" angle that Bush propagates in his speeches. I recommend you all go read the Non-Sequitur comics from this week, where the little girl uses the flag as a defense for everything. "You disagree with me and you are unpatriotic; you are the enemy." It's that kind of polarization that made it next to impossible for legislators to stand up against any action the administration lumped under the "national security" banner. Voters wouldn't be so happy with a Senator who stood up against something billed as "patriotic," would they? Hence the overwhelming support of the war in Iraq.

Wow, just went off on a tangent there.

Pittsburgh and dtcarson: Those are exactly the kinds of posts I'm trying to encourage with this thread. Thanks.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Why? Because I quote a Democratic supporter? Those aren't my words my friend.[/quote]

"Go fuck yourself" - Vice President, Dick Cheney
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']In all fairness I generally think the tone of arguments have been pressed by tactics and tones used by the left. Let me explain.

I think the general tone of modern incivility in politics and debate began in the 60's. The entire Vietnam experience here and abroad was influenced by leftist groups in how the debate was framed. "HEY HEY LBJ HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY?". This completely minimized the aspects of the war and why it was being fought. That's where the trend begins. Frame the argument in a simple statement regardless of how much truth there is to it. The left pioneered this.

Now as a result of this you can move on to the 80's where more of the well spring of modern debate came. You have segments that decried Reagan as being a warmonger because he wanted a strong military. Hating gays for not immediately stopping and finding a cure for AIDS. Wanting to make people poor by cutting tax rates for "the rich". Every single debating point was lessened down to one soundbite worthy sentence.

During the time of Clinton the Republicans won elections that gave them control of Congress. However they never won an election. They "siezed power" they "took controll" and they didn't have an agenda to be voted on for consideration they had a "Contract On America". During the government shut down the budget wasn't put up for debate. The Democratic leaders sought out cameras and declared Republicans wanted to "Starve old people.", "Cut school lunch programs." and make people decide between food and medicine.

All through the 90's we, the right, asked why no one would stand up to these outlandish lies. Now we have. We do it by dominating talk radio, having a prominant series of news commentators and talking head shows on FOX News. Now that the right finally has some degree of a serious media presence it's too much for the left to handle.

As a result the attacks become more vitriolic. "Bush lied, people died." when there is no reasonable person that can't see that every major intelligence agency in the world was saying the same thing. Iraq had WMD or was certainly acting as if they had programs and materials worth concealing. The DNC and its leaders like Nancy Pelosi stated they would never lose an election again without getting their message out.

Well guess what. Their message is out and the degree of hostility is greater than it ever has been. They are being met as vehemently with people that disagree with them as they think they are right. This is the same group that last week had 150+ members of Congress vote to bring in UN inspectors to oversee US elections. That's the message we're getting and it's perceived as pure unadulterated contempt for American society as it exists today.

We no longer see each other as the loyal opposition. The tone makes people one of two things "War mongers for an exapnsionist imperialistic America where only the rich and coprorations have a say or "Peaceniks who want to make U.S. manifest destiny subservient to the UN and socialize an ever expanding base of the U.S. economy for an unsustainable socialist utopia."

Thats it. That's how the two camps are polarized anymore. It's to the point where Bush could say "Water is wet." and the Democrats would attempt to refute the statement because we're so in tune with immediate rejection to ideas that aren't our own regardless of whether or not they have merit.

I don't understand the sheer vitriol that carries into debates where people are automatically viewed as supsicious, the enemy or flat out liars. I will attempt to convert as many people as I can to my point of view as civilly as possible. I'm on another message board at uncledunkel.com and while I frequently disagree with the owner of the site and board we always discuss our issues with frank candor and a degree of respect.

Bottom line is that both sides think the other is against America "as they see it". When the reality is that the basis of America as it was intended was abandoned with the New Deal. Now we're working with a hybrid of socialism and regulated capitalism. The debate is generally down to what degree government participates in both.

Okay, end of rant.[/quote]

Well, PAD, first off I think you and I have been having some pretty civilized debates in other threads on this site, so I don't think things are quite as dark as the person who started this thread believes.

However, I take issue with your statement that the current low level of the national discourse is the doing of liberals. Throughout all of Clinton's presidency, the American public was subjected to a continual drumbeat of negative, malicious and false rumors from the Republican Noise Machine. Whitewater -- turned out to be nothing but a bad land deal. Vince Foster -- turned out he was not murdered. Low, nasty, vicious rumors that made Clinton out to be some sort of mobster. The worst thing they found against Clinton that had any merit was lying about a blow job, and they tried to impeach him for it. I don't recall any other modern U.S. president being subjected to such a barrage -- not Reagan, and certainly not Bush I. Rush and his ilk get on the airwaves and spew these sort of nasty lies, and then try to turn around and say the liberals made them do it, and I am not buying it. If they want to be fair and balanced, then (1) start allowing other points of view on their shows and (2) stop the hateful rhetoric.

As far as asking UN inspectors to come in and observe our election, if an election in any third-world country went as badly as our last one did, I'm certain we would support sending inspectors there. Black voters disenfranchised due to a bad felons list in Florida. A recount that ping-pongs through the courts and then is quashed by the Supreme Court. And let's face it, with the presence of the new Diebold voting machines (which create no paper record from which to recount votes), the country is facing yet another electoral disaster this year. How is trying to head that off contemptuous? I think it shows more contempt to make no effort to try and stave off another constitutional crisis.

One final note -- I don't think that it's as simple as "Bush lied, people died," but by not acknowledging that he made decisions on the basis of faulty intelligence, Bush sure makes himself look like a liar. And I will repeat, had Bush allowed the weapons inspectors to finish the job in Iraq, he would have known there were no WMDs and we could have avoided the whole mess. But for some reason, he needed a war, so the weapons inspectors were pulled out and off we went.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Why? Because I quote a Democratic supporter? Those aren't my words my friend.[/quote]

"Go shaq-fu yourself" - Vice President, Dick Cheney[/quote]

Good point. I am tempted, in all of my political debates with Republicans, to end them with "Go shaq-fu yourself." I mean, if it's good for the VP, who couldn't bring himself to admit he'd lowered the national discourse.....
 
How to create a utopia in three easy steps:

Step 1: Create a good government: Get rid of all the politicians.

Step 2: Create a fair society: Get rid of all the lawyers.

Step 3: Create a peaceful world: Get rid of all the people.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']In all fairness I generally think the tone of arguments have been pressed by tactics and tones used by the left. Let me explain.

I think the general tone of modern incivility in politics and debate began in the 60's. The entire Vietnam experience here and abroad was influenced by leftist groups in how the debate was framed. "HEY HEY LBJ HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY?". This completely minimized the aspects of the war and why it was being fought. That's where the trend begins. Frame the argument in a simple statement regardless of how much truth there is to it. The left pioneered this.

Now as a result of this you can move on to the 80's where more of the well spring of modern debate came. You have segments that decried Reagan as being a warmonger because he wanted a strong military. Hating gays for not immediately stopping and finding a cure for AIDS. Wanting to make people poor by cutting tax rates for "the rich". Every single debating point was lessened down to one soundbite worthy sentence.

During the time of Clinton the Republicans won elections that gave them control of Congress. However they never won an election. They "siezed power" they "took controll" and they didn't have an agenda to be voted on for consideration they had a "Contract On America". During the government shut down the budget wasn't put up for debate. The Democratic leaders sought out cameras and declared Republicans wanted to "Starve old people.", "Cut school lunch programs." and make people decide between food and medicine.

All through the 90's we, the right, asked why no one would stand up to these outlandish lies. Now we have. We do it by dominating talk radio, having a prominant series of news commentators and talking head shows on FOX News. Now that the right finally has some degree of a serious media presence it's too much for the left to handle.

As a result the attacks become more vitriolic. "Bush lied, people died." when there is no reasonable person that can't see that every major intelligence agency in the world was saying the same thing. Iraq had WMD or was certainly acting as if they had programs and materials worth concealing. The DNC and its leaders like Nancy Pelosi stated they would never lose an election again without getting their message out.

Well guess what. Their message is out and the degree of hostility is greater than it ever has been. They are being met as vehemently with people that disagree with them as they think they are right. This is the same group that last week had 150+ members of Congress vote to bring in UN inspectors to oversee US elections. That's the message we're getting and it's perceived as pure unadulterated contempt for American society as it exists today.

We no longer see each other as the loyal opposition. The tone makes people one of two things "War mongers for an exapnsionist imperialistic America where only the rich and coprorations have a say or "Peaceniks who want to make U.S. manifest destiny subservient to the UN and socialize an ever expanding base of the U.S. economy for an unsustainable socialist utopia."

Thats it. That's how the two camps are polarized anymore. It's to the point where Bush could say "Water is wet." and the Democrats would attempt to refute the statement because we're so in tune with immediate rejection to ideas that aren't our own regardless of whether or not they have merit.

I don't understand the sheer vitriol that carries into debates where people are automatically viewed as supsicious, the enemy or flat out liars. I will attempt to convert as many people as I can to my point of view as civilly as possible. I'm on another message board at uncledunkel.com and while I frequently disagree with the owner of the site and board we always discuss our issues with frank candor and a degree of respect.

Bottom line is that both sides think the other is against America "as they see it". When the reality is that the basis of America as it was intended was abandoned with the New Deal. Now we're working with a hybrid of socialism and regulated capitalism. The debate is generally down to what degree government participates in both.

Okay, end of rant.[/quote]

You blame the left for everything, but I wonder who the people who blow up abortion houses vote for?

You never hear of a militant group coming from the left, do you?

You sound like one of the reporters on Fox News bitching about the liberal media.
 
I think its funny that people say Kerry will do this and that. Do people really think that if he is elected, the next day, he would bring home all the troops?
 
What Kerry has said, if elected, he would work to get an international force into Iraq to relieve our guys there. It is going to be hard for Bush to do somethng like this since he basically spit in the world's face before we went in.
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY']What Kerry has said, if elected, he would work to get an international force into Iraq to relieve our guys there. It is going to be hard for Bush to do somethng like this since he basically spit in the world's face before we went in.[/quote]

and Kerry could make this happen how? Thats my point, how is he going to make all of his promises happen?
 
Kerry is saying what Bush said 4 years ago on the troop issue.

Everyone wants to bring home the troops. but it is not always a possability
 
[quote name='BigNick'][quote name='ZarathosNY']What Kerry has said, if elected, he would work to get an international force into Iraq to relieve our guys there. It is going to be hard for Bush to do somethng like this since he basically spit in the world's face before we went in.[/quote]

and Kerry could make this happen how? Thats my point, how is he going to make all of his promises happen?[/quote]

Well, I think the first way he can make it happen is that he's not Bush. He hasn't stuck his thumb in the eye of all of our foreign allies. Polls overseas show that these countries don't hate America -- they hate Bush. We get Bush out of there and get someone who can actually behave in a diplomatic way, and we stand a much better chance of gettting others on board.
 
[quote name='BigNick'][quote name='ZarathosNY']What Kerry has said, if elected, he would work to get an international force into Iraq to relieve our guys there. It is going to be hard for Bush to do somethng like this since he basically spit in the world's face before we went in.[/quote]

and Kerry could make this happen how? Thats my point, how is he going to make all of his promises happen?[/quote]

Leadership change makes a big difference. Remember that Iran only let go of the hostages once Carter lost the election. Reagan's first big thing in office was the reception of hostages back from their 444 day ordeal [I think it may have been just a day or two after he was sworn in -- though I'm not positive]. Governments can act out of spite just as often as you or I could act out of spite.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark'] You never hear of a militant group coming from the left, do you?

You want to try the Earth Liberation Front?

Here's there website where they take claims for millions of dollars worth of terrorist actions and claim responsibility for them. [/quote]

Hmmmm, not sure these are comparable because the ELF has never....say.... bombed a federal building. Or shot an abortion doctor. Or taken any lives at all. They spike trees and mess up equipment. Ooooooh, scary terrorism, PAD.

Let's face it, any politically prompted bloodletting happens in America, the blood's on the hands of a right-winger.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I didn't realize you measuring terrorism by degree.[/quote]

You're absolutely right. We should judge beheadings, bombings and shootings on the same level of, oh, a flaming bag of dog dirt left on my front door step. Or a spiked tree, or damaged equipment.

I repeat -- any politically inspired bloodletting that happens in America happens at the hands of right-wing Republicans. And if you consider that morally equivalent to a spiked tree, you're in bad shape.
 
Did you even read their website?

Do you realize the degree of arsons this group is responsible for? Do you understand that when you destroy $10 million ski lodge developments and car dealers that firefighters show up in an attempt to save private property, even if it was YOUR private property? Do you not grasp that firefighters die in the line of duty every year and not just in the WTC? Does it not make sense that a firefighter could die trying to say a house, homes, building or buildings these guys torch in the name of saving the environment?

Do you not realize the FBI has a leftist environmental group at the absoulte top of their list for domestic terrorism organizations? I'm not even attempting to deny that Operation Rescue or the actions of Timmothy McVeigh were not right wing. However you insist that these guys just spike trees? Sorry, wrong group Einstein. That's Earth First.

We're talking a new breed of eco-terrorists here. If you took some time out of your busy schedule of saying NYAH NYAH NYAH UR SIDE IS TEH WURST NYAH NYAH NYAH! You'd have a clue. Instead you look like an uneducated fool.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Did you even read their website?

Do you realize the degree of arsons this group is responsible for? Do you understand that when you destroy $10 million ski lodge developments and car dealers that firefighters show up in an attempt to save private property, even if it was YOUR private property? Do you not grasp that firefighters die in the line of duty every year and not just in the WTC? Does it not make sense that a firefighter could die trying to say a house, homes, building or buildings these guys torch in the name of saving the environment?

Do you not realize the FBI has a leftist environmental group at the absoulte top of their list for domestic terrorism organizations? I'm not even attempting to deny that Operation Rescue or the actions of Timmothy McVeigh were not right wing. However you insist that these guys just spike trees? Sorry, wrong group Einstein. That's Earth First.

We're talking a new breed of eco-terrorists here. If you took some time out of your busy schedule of saying NYAH NYAH NYAH UR SIDE IS TEH WURST NYAH NYAH NYAH! You'd have a clue. Instead you look like an uneducated fool.[/quote]

I think you appear the uneducated fool when you stack all those dollars against human life. The dead of Oklahoma City. The dead abortion clinic doctors and workers. People deliberately killed by right-wingers.

You want to contradict me, then cite one person who was deliberately targeted and killed by the ELF.

Then think about who the groups are who deliberately target and kill innocent people. All right-wing.
 
Will you answer the question. I am NOT contradicting you. I am not denying, excusing and burying the fact that abortion doctors murdered and Timmoty MicVeigh 's actions are NOT right wing terrorists. Who is contradicting you?

I'm not even attempting to deny that Operation Rescue or the actions of Timmothy McVeigh were not right wing.

I'm not even attempting to deny that Operation Rescue or the actions of Timmothy McVeigh were not right wing.
Click to expand...

How many ways do you want me to put it in writting for your thick everloving head to understand?

I've said it, I've admitted it as it is factual and not in dispute.

WHO!?!? Is the NUMBER ONE!?!?! DOMESTIC TERRORIST ORGANIZATION ACCORDING TO THE FBI?!?!?! Will you answer that question. Will you please just address the question put fourth and quit running around the ever shaq'fuing mulberry bush??

Is it a left wing or right wing group that is currently the domestic number one terrorist group according to the FBI? Is it.... Operation Rescue.... or is it..... the Earth Liberation Front? Tell me.... which is it.

Good God, you're the same kind of debater that would claim Bush claiming "Water is wet." was wrong!
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Will you answer the question. I am NOT contradicting you. I am not denying, excusing and burying the fact that abortion doctors murdered and Timmoty MicVeigh 's actions are NOT right wing terrorists. Who is contradicting you?

I'm not even attempting to deny that Operation Rescue or the actions of Timmothy McVeigh were not right wing.

I'm not even attempting to deny that Operation Rescue or the actions of Timmothy McVeigh were not right wing.
Click to expand...

How many ways do you want me to put it in writting for your thick everloving head to understand?

I've said it, I've admitted it as it is factual and not in dispute.

WHO!?!? Is the NUMBER ONE!?!?! DOMESTIC TERRORIST ORGANIZATION ACCORDING TO THE FBI?!?!?! Will you answer that question. Will you please just address the question put fourth and quit running around the ever shaq'fuing mulberry bush??

Is it a left wing or right wing group that is currently the domestic number one terrorist group according to the FBI? Is it.... Operation Rescue.... or is it..... the Earth Liberation Front? Tell me.... which is it.

Good God, you're the same kind of debater that would claim Bush claiming "Water is wet." was wrong![/quote]

Ad hominem insults don't prove your point, PAD.

How many people has ELF targeted for death? How many people have died at the hands of ELF? None. Just property damage. That may be more important to people for whom money is the bottom line, but not to people with some sort of moral compass who value human life over the almighty buck.

And as to the "number one terrorist organization" designation by the FBI, I say -- So What? This is Ashcroft's FBI, and I'm sure they're not interested in targeting right-wing terrorists. No one is being killed by the ELF. No one is experiencing deadly violence at the hands of the ELF. Perhaps the FBI should spend more time looking into groups that actually kill people. But......that would mean they would have to investigate -- you guessed it -- right wing groups, because they are the only ones who actually go out and commit murder for their political beliefs.

Why don't you write the FBI and ask them why they're wasting their time going after the ELF when there are groups out there that actually kill people when they aren't getting their way?
 
I'm going to put up a little educational picture for you. It's going to present facts so I know it's going to be hard for your idealogical mind to comprehend. John Ashcroft is not head of the FBI. Here's a picture of the man that is head of the FBI.

mueller_flag.jpg

That's Robert Muller. He's the head of the FBI. NOT.... John Ashcroft.

Now tell me Brainiac. Would you address my point. I know it's my third request. What is the name of the group that is number one at the head of the FBI's domestic terroistic group list. Is it.... Operation Rescue.... or is it....the Earth Liberation front.

What unsolved right wing murderous terrorist plots are the FBI investigating? Would you answer THAT question. I mean, I've freely admitted THREE TIMES that you were right. Would you answer that question? Can you answer that question? Are there any crimes the FBI is currently investigating as far as right wing terrorist groups go? Or are the crimes they are investigating part of a left wing eco-terrorist organization.

What part of this aren't you getting? What part of me conceding the majority of your argument can't you comprehend? Why can't you admit one single bit of absolute fact as it stands? I'm not asking if the listing of the ELF is politically motivated. I'm asking... what is the FBI's number one domestic terrorism threat?

Can you or can you not anwer that question.

EDIT I'm going to help you out here since you are horrible with admitting facts.

News Brief - March 2001:

Earth Liberation Front is now FBI’s No. 1 Domestic Terrorist Threat-
Mainstream media finally pick up on the concern of ecoterrorism

The FBI has put Earth Liberation Front at the top of the list of domestic terrorism threats, above all of the sources of terrorism so well known to the public, Director Louis Freeh told Congress in February. The FBI’s announced priority and the $40 million in damage for which the Earth Liberation Front claims responsibility haven’t erased the mystique that environmental terrorists have with some remaining sectors of the mainstream media, but news coverage is slowly moving ecoterrorism to a level of grave national concern. The question is whether the general public will lose its “inclination to dismiss the group as misguided idealists,” a phrase used by The Wall Street Journal’s editorial on February 14.

During March, the New York Post called the Earth Liberation Front “the new and nasty face of environmentalism,” while sneering at ELF’s claim of being “non-violent.” At the same time, the Post columnist, Stefan C. Friedman, seemed to raise another question about ELF, referring to its “ostensibly” green agenda.

On January 1, ELF caused $400,000 in damage when it burned down the headquarters of the Superior Lumber Company in Glendale, Oregon. Afterwards, the terrorists proclaimed on the ELF web site, “This year, 2001, we hope to see an escalation in tactics against capitalism and industry.”

ELF’s pronouncements of an agenda combining anti-capitalism and environmental extremism are nothing new, considering the socialist face of environmentalism.

ELF’s violence finally got mainstream media attention when it burned a ski resort under construction in Vail, Colorado in 1998, causing $12 million in damage.

On December 31, ELF claimed responsibility for burning down four new luxury homes at Mount Sinai, Long Island, New York. Ten days earlier, ELF boasted that in burning a house under construction in exclusive Miller Place, Long Island, ELF had accomplished its ninth major strike on Long Island in recent months.

However, Mount Sinai arsonist Jared McIntyre was apprehended and on January 9 pleaded guilty to arson. Hopes are that his apprehension will solve the many acts of terrorism on Long Island, including trampling a research cornfield, destroying construction equipment and burning many houses that were under construction.

The informally organized organization brags about its terrorism with a log of destruction on the Earth Liberation Front web page, and works with the radical Animal Liberation Front.

The web page editor for the “North American Earth Liberation Front,” Craig Rosebraugh of Portland, Oregon, solicits donations for “legal fees” and “printing and shipping costs of information” and provides encryption assistance to receive and distribute “anonymous communiques from the underground Earth Liberation Front.”

The media are sharply divided about the level of criminality of the ELF terrorists. The Phoenix New Times carried an article, “Burn, Baby Burn,” this year that quoted environmentalists who were sympathetic for someone burning down houses that were under construction in open country outside Phoenix. Shortly later, the same Phoenix paper carried an “exclusive interview with an unidentified man claiming to be the leader of an Arizona arson ring that has torched nearly a dozen unoccupied houses,” according to an opinion article by James Taranto in The Wall Street Journal on February 7. The Journal concluded, “...journalists who disregard normal moral sense in pursuit of a story give our profession a bad name.”

Comprende amigo?
 
Not to change the topic... but when you're debating with someone. Do you ever feel like Sam Kinison when he described driving meals out to Ethiopians and saying "YOU SEE THIS? THIS IS SAND! YOU KNOW WHAT ITS GOING TO BE IN A THOUSAND YEARS FROM NOW? IT'S GOING TO BE SAND!"
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I'm going to put up a little educational picture for you. It's going to present facts so I know it's going to be hard for your idealogical mind to comprehend. John Ashcroft is not head of the FBI. Here's a picture of the man that is head of the FBI.

mueller_flag.jpg

That's Robert Muller. He's the head of the FBI. NOT.... John Ashcroft.

Now tell me Brainiac. Would you address my point. I know it's my third request. What is the name of the group that is number one at the head of the FBI's domestic terroistic group list. Is it.... Operation Rescue.... or is it....the Earth Liberation front.

What unsolved right wing murderous terrorist plots are the FBI investigating? Would you answer THAT question. I mean, I've freely admitted THREE TIMES that you were right. Would you answer that question? Can you answer that question? Are there any crimes the FBI is currently investigating as far as right wing terrorist groups go? Or are the crimes they are investigating part of a left wing eco-terrorist organization.

What part of this aren't you getting? What part of me conceding the majority of your argument can't you comprehend? Why can't you admit one single bit of absolute fact as it stands? I'm not asking if the listing of the ELF is politically motivated. I'm asking... what is the FBI's number one domestic terrorism threat?

Can you or can you not anwer that question.

EDIT I'm going to help you out here since you are horrible with admitting facts.

News Brief - March 2001:

Earth Liberation Front is now FBI’s No. 1 Domestic Terrorist Threat-
Mainstream media finally pick up on the concern of ecoterrorism

The FBI has put Earth Liberation Front at the top of the list of domestic terrorism threats, above all of the sources of terrorism so well known to the public, Director Louis Freeh told Congress in February. The FBI’s announced priority and the $40 million in damage for which the Earth Liberation Front claims responsibility haven’t erased the mystique that environmental terrorists have with some remaining sectors of the mainstream media, but news coverage is slowly moving ecoterrorism to a level of grave national concern. The question is whether the general public will lose its “inclination to dismiss the group as misguided idealists,” a phrase used by The Wall Street Journal’s editorial on February 14.

During March, the New York Post called the Earth Liberation Front “the new and nasty face of environmentalism,” while sneering at ELF’s claim of being “non-violent.” At the same time, the Post columnist, Stefan C. Friedman, seemed to raise another question about ELF, referring to its “ostensibly” green agenda.

On January 1, ELF caused $400,000 in damage when it burned down the headquarters of the Superior Lumber Company in Glendale, Oregon. Afterwards, the terrorists proclaimed on the ELF web site, “This year, 2001, we hope to see an escalation in tactics against capitalism and industry.”

ELF’s pronouncements of an agenda combining anti-capitalism and environmental extremism are nothing new, considering the socialist face of environmentalism.

ELF’s violence finally got mainstream media attention when it burned a ski resort under construction in Vail, Colorado in 1998, causing $12 million in damage.

On December 31, ELF claimed responsibility for burning down four new luxury homes at Mount Sinai, Long Island, New York. Ten days earlier, ELF boasted that in burning a house under construction in exclusive Miller Place, Long Island, ELF had accomplished its ninth major strike on Long Island in recent months.

However, Mount Sinai arsonist Jared McIntyre was apprehended and on January 9 pleaded guilty to arson. Hopes are that his apprehension will solve the many acts of terrorism on Long Island, including trampling a research cornfield, destroying construction equipment and burning many houses that were under construction.

The informally organized organization brags about its terrorism with a log of destruction on the Earth Liberation Front web page, and works with the radical Animal Liberation Front.

The web page editor for the “North American Earth Liberation Front,” Craig Rosebraugh of Portland, Oregon, solicits donations for “legal fees” and “printing and shipping costs of information” and provides encryption assistance to receive and distribute “anonymous communiques from the underground Earth Liberation Front.”

The media are sharply divided about the level of criminality of the ELF terrorists. The Phoenix New Times carried an article, “Burn, Baby Burn,” this year that quoted environmentalists who were sympathetic for someone burning down houses that were under construction in open country outside Phoenix. Shortly later, the same Phoenix paper carried an “exclusive interview with an unidentified man claiming to be the leader of an Arizona arson ring that has torched nearly a dozen unoccupied houses,” according to an opinion article by James Taranto in The Wall Street Journal on February 7. The Journal concluded, “...journalists who disregard normal moral sense in pursuit of a story give our profession a bad name.”

Comprende amigo?[/quote]

Firstly, PAD, who is the man that Robert Muller answers to? Would that be John Ashcroft? Well, my gosh, I believe it is. So when I say it's Ashcroft's FBI, well, I guess it is, isn't it?

Secondly, the fact that the ELF is the FBI's top terrorist group changes not a single bit of my opinion. My biggest concern is why there aren't real terror groups higher on the list. I suppose the person who sent all that anthrax around in 2001 would be the top of my list, and the top of a lot of people's lists. So why isn't he/she/them first on that list, PAD? Six people died, after all. Why aren't you asking if the listing of the ELF is politically motivated? Why don't you care that the FBI is playing politics with the nation's security? I thought security was what the folks on the right were all about.

And thirdly, I notice you get awfully childish when the argument isn't going your way. I really hope you get your A-game going again, PAD. I mean, the whole point of this thread was how people with different opinions could differ in a polite way, and you've really dropped the ball on this, what with all the insults and such. "Idealogical mind." "Braniac." "Arguing water is wet." Do you really think such brickbats help convince others, other than convincing them that you get vicious when you aren't clearly winning an argument?
 
Secondly, the fact that the ELF is the FBI's top terrorist group changes not a single bit of my opinion. My biggest concern is why there aren't real terror groups higher on the list.

Here we go. You're selectively defining "real terror groups" now? Did you not just do that? So a group that destroys millions of dollars worth of property in the name of a cause is not a "real terrorist group"? A group that uses arson and incindiary devices to further political goals and an extreme environmental and socialist agenda does not qualify by your defininition as a "real terrorist group?

Well now we know. You can burn buildings. Destrory SUV's. You can put people's lives at risk and Dennis_T will give you a pass and claim you're really not a "real terrorist group". Great to know these are tactics you approve of.

I suppose the person who sent all that anthrax around in 2001 would be the top of my list, and the top of a lot of people's lists. So why isn't he/she/them first on that list, PAD?

Did you notice that the article I posted was dated March of 2001? Do you know who the director of the FBI was then? Louis Freeh. Do you know who appointed Louis Freeh? Bill Clinton. Do you know who didn't fire or ask Mr. Freeh to resign? John Ashcroft. So, a Clinton appointee declare the Earth Liberation Front the number one domestic terrorism threat (Before the anthrax scare ever took place.) but John Ashcroft was behind it and it was politically motivated to do harm to the Democratic party and the left in general.

Not only that chances are the ELF was named top domestic terrorisim group in 2000. That's just the first dated article on the subject I was able to locate by google search. Now, who do you think was Attorney General and President in 2000? Oh my God. That would be Janet Reno and Bill Clinton.

Just want to be on the same page as you chief.

Six people died, after all. Why aren't you asking if the listing of the ELF is politically motivated? Why don't you care that the FBI is playing politics with the nation's security?

Of course referring to the anthrax scare of 2001. Well we're not near a conclusion of that probe now are we. We do know that over 5,000 agents were placed on the anthrax case and not even a tenth that amount have ever been assigned to working on the ELF at any given time.

So, the anthrax scare came and went with fatalities. We don't know about the political or practical motivation of it either way now do we?

Meanwhile the ELF claims several times a year that they have engaged in acts of terror. They are active. Is the anthrax mailer? Now, who's attaching politics to terrorism? Who is minimalizing for the sake of trying to win an argument?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']In all fairness I generally think the tone of arguments have been pressed by tactics and tones used by the left. Let me explain.

I think the general tone of modern incivility in politics and debate began in the 60's. The entire Vietnam experience here and abroad was influenced by leftist groups in how the debate was framed. "HEY HEY LBJ HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY?". This completely minimized the aspects of the war and why it was being fought. That's where the trend begins. Frame the argument in a simple statement regardless of how much truth there is to it. The left pioneered this.
[/quote]

Yeah, up until then people were totally understanding of eachothers points of view and only had well thought out arguments. :roll: We should go back to earlier more civil times when people merely caned others on the senate floor or shot at each other on the streets of New Jersey....stupid lefties always ruining everything.
 
[quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I didn't realize you measuring terrorism by degree.[/quote]

You're absolutely right. We should judge beheadings, bombings and shootings on the same level of, oh, a flaming bag of dog dirt left on my front door step. Or a spiked tree, or damaged equipment.

I repeat -- any politically inspired bloodletting that happens in America happens at the hands of right-wing Republicans. And if you consider that morally equivalent to a spiked tree, you're in bad shape.[/quote]

Apparently you're unfamiliar with the great danger spiked trees cause to loggers. Anybody spiking a tree is doing so with the intent to maim or kill.

Left-wing terorist and blood -shedding organizations abound. Might you recall the Black Panthers and SLA, to name a just two sets of murderous left-wing thugs?
 
As for left-wing groups and bloodshed you need only recall the role call of the 20th Century's greatest mass murderers. The Soviets, the Khmer Rouge, don't forget the Nazis were a Socialist movement, Red China, the Baath Party which is modeled on the the Nazi Party, etc.

Just about everywhere you found a really major body count there were leaders involved who thought Karl Marx was really on to something and would work if those pesky unbelievers were eliminated.

Edited to correct spelling/grammar error.
 
[quote name='WildWop']The extremes of both sides suck big time. Lets agree to that and move on.[/quote]

What I would prefer is that discussions that cannot be directly linked to this site's primary purpose be disallowed. There is no shortage of other venues to argue this stuff. I'm here to talk about how to find games and other things for the lowest prices and about games in general since the level is usually superior to unsupervised Usenet groups.

I get dragged into these discussions when I should know better just because I cannot resist when some utterly out to lunch opion or gross falsehood is trotted out. I'd just as soon be spared the temptation. As I said before, there is no shortage of other places for that but only one CAG.

Accept no imitations.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Secondly, the fact that the ELF is the FBI's top terrorist group changes not a single bit of my opinion. My biggest concern is why there aren't real terror groups higher on the list.

Here we go. You're selectively defining "real terror groups" now? Did you not just do that? So a group that destroys millions of dollars worth of property in the name of a cause is not a "real terrorist group"? A group that uses arson and incindiary devices to further political goals and an extreme environmental and socialist agenda does not qualify by your defininition as a "real terrorist group?

Well now we know. You can burn buildings. Destrory SUV's. You can put people's lives at risk and Dennis_T will give you a pass and claim you're really not a "real terrorist group". Great to know these are tactics you approve of.

I suppose the person who sent all that anthrax around in 2001 would be the top of my list, and the top of a lot of people's lists. So why isn't he/she/them first on that list, PAD?

Did you notice that the article I posted was dated March of 2001? Do you know who the director of the FBI was then? Louis Freeh. Do you know who appointed Louis Freeh? Bill Clinton. Do you know who didn't fire or ask Mr. Freeh to resign? John Ashcroft. So, a Clinton appointee declare the Earth Liberation Front the number one domestic terrorism threat (Before the anthrax scare ever took place.) but John Ashcroft was behind it and it was politically motivated to do harm to the Democratic party and the left in general.

Not only that chances are the ELF was named top domestic terrorisim group in 2000. That's just the first dated article on the subject I was able to locate by google search. Now, who do you think was Attorney General and President in 2000? Oh my God. That would be Janet Reno and Bill Clinton.

Just want to be on the same page as you chief.

Six people died, after all. Why aren't you asking if the listing of the ELF is politically motivated? Why don't you care that the FBI is playing politics with the nation's security?

Of course referring to the anthrax scare of 2001. Well we're not near a conclusion of that probe now are we. We do know that over 5,000 agents were placed on the anthrax case and not even a tenth that amount have ever been assigned to working on the ELF at any given time.

So, the anthrax scare came and went with fatalities. We don't know about the political or practical motivation of it either way now do we?

Meanwhile the ELF claims several times a year that they have engaged in acts of terror. They are active. Is the anthrax mailer? Now, who's attaching politics to terrorism? Who is minimalizing for the sake of trying to win an argument?[/quote]

You started off this particular branch of the argument trying to smear the left by saying that the "number-one terrorist organization" is left-wing. You were playing to people's fears about terrorism, and using that to try to demonize the left. And I'm not playing that game.

The ELF is nothing like al Queda, nothing like Operation Rescue, nothing like the Michigan Militia, nothing like any fundamentalist terrorist group with blood on its hands. Do they commit criminal acts? Yes, and they should be prosecuted for them. The FBI wants to consider them the nation's top terror priority? I don't agree, but I agree they should be investigated. But don't run around gassing about how they're a "terrorist" group when all they do is cause property damage. Terrorists kill people. And, as we know, the only folks fitting that description in America today come from the right wing.
 
[quote name='epobirs']As for left-wing groups and bloodshed you need only recall the role call of the 20th Century's greatest mass murderers. The Soviets, the Khmer Rouge, don't forget the Nazis were a Socialist movement, Red China, the Baath Party which is modeled on the the Nazi Party, etc.

Just about everywhere you found a really major body count there were leaders involved who thought Karl Marx was really on to something and would work if those pesky unbelievers were eliminated.

Edited to correct spelling/grammar error.[/quote]

Ummm, I thought this discussion was about domestic terror groups.

And by the way, communist and socialist is not the same thing as left-wing, no matter how many times Rush tells you so. I'm a proud liberal capitalist -- investments, 401K, work for a big corporation -- and trying to link the left to communism is a debate tactic on par with linking the right to fascism.
 
[quote name='epobirs'][quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I didn't realize you measuring terrorism by degree.[/quote]

You're absolutely right. We should judge beheadings, bombings and shootings on the same level of, oh, a flaming bag of dog dirt left on my front door step. Or a spiked tree, or damaged equipment.

I repeat -- any politically inspired bloodletting that happens in America happens at the hands of right-wing Republicans. And if you consider that morally equivalent to a spiked tree, you're in bad shape.[/quote]

Apparently you're unfamiliar with the great danger spiked trees cause to loggers. Anybody spiking a tree is doing so with the intent to maim or kill.

Left-wing terorist and blood -shedding organizations abound. Might you recall the Black Panthers and SLA, to name a just two sets of murderous left-wing thugs?[/quote]

And how active are either of those groups today?
 
You know, you're only making yourself look like a fool by pushing the issue. They've given answers to what you asked, and when they do, you keep changing the question because it infringes upon your baised delicate sensibilities.

There are twisted people of every political bent that do horrible things.. some overt, some covert.
To suggest that one type of political ideology is responsible for all of the world's or nation's problems is laughable. Hell, that's like blaming Islam for all the terrorists.
 
You started off this particular branch of the argument trying to smear the left by saying that the "number-one terrorist organization" is left-wing. You were playing to people's fears about terrorism, and using that to try to demonize the left. And I'm not playing that game.

The ELF is nothing like al Queda, nothing like Operation Rescue, nothing like the Michigan Militia, nothing like any fundamentalist terrorist group with blood on its hands. Do they commit criminal acts?
Click to expand...

I'm not smearing the left. It is an indisputable fact that the number one domestic terrorism threat, according to the FBI, is the Earth Liberation Front. It has been that way for 4 years now. You are playing games pure and simple. You can't acknowledge a simple indisputable fact.

You claim its politically motivated. It is not. The ELF has been atop the FBI's domestic terrorism list since the Clinton Administration.

Next, the Michigan Militia was not responsible for Oklahoma City. Timmothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were members at one point but the militia itself did not participate in the organization, planning or execution of the attack.

So now you're equating Al Qaeda and Operation Rescue? You want to say that an organization that wants to stop the wholesale slaughter of unborn babies is equal to Al Qaeda?

You're so far off the fringe you marginalize your own arguments without realizing it. You cannot and have not admitted one single indisputable fact. It's pointless to talk to you. Everything is politically motivated with you, who is on terror lists, who is a worst terrorist group etc.

You have no ability to grasp the world if they don't fall in line with your prejudices. I'm sorry but it's pointless to even bother responding to your posts anymore. I'm out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top