Republican Tea Party Candidate goons handcuff reporter.

And just what would the big lie be? And referencin Gobbels is not hype?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

More wishful thinking on your part.

Any unbiased observer can clearly see that her head was stomped on along with her shoulder. Your refusal to acknowlege evidence and fact that run contrary to the notions of your masters is just more of the norm with you.

Because those are not the issue at hand and have already been discussed many times before. And nothing in those incidents are as clear or as violent as they are in this case.

YOU ARE GOING OFF THE DEEP END AGAIN...and off topic.

More chaff mr. roam. Yes you do not debate. You do not use relevant facts or reason and you do not stay on topic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Everyone should just vote for "The Rent is Too Damn High" Party and call it a day.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Citation please.

Yes you are, Bells, You are the one running because you insist on the Debate being conducted to your own satisfaction and account, and want the debate limited to only those subjects that you are interested in with out looking at the all the evidence, and intent, from the supposed victim to the supposed perpetrator.

Now Bells it is you who are whining about the lack of debate, I think the debate is going quite well as you continually shift the point of focus to Me, rather than the incident that took place.

It is you Bells who is running and complaining about this not being a debate because it isn't being conducted to your satisfaction and account, yes Bells who is running?

So yes Bells, absent Mizz Valles actions, there is no reason to stomp on Her head.

Absent the fact that high profile politicians, and celebrities have been assassinated in just such a manner.......there is no reason to Stomp on Mizz Valles head.

Absent Mizz Valles intent to provoke a incident and response, there is no reason to Stomp on Mizz Valles head.

But Bells, all of those factor's aren't absent, they are there, and you don't want to give recognition to them because then you have to look at the actions of those you support, and then can engage in Tu quequo.....

So Bells quite whining about a debate and debate, and defend the actions of Mizz Valle and Her being a professional agitator and setting out to deliberately incite a incident for political propaganda.

 

He is a pretty good guy...has his own action figure to boot.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You have a long habit of running away from debates. not just with Bells but others like James R. Why is that mr. roam?

 

Let's be frank here, the only people that see the intelligence in the posts of bells, tiassa, joepisto, pdude, & electric fetus. Is bells, tiassa, joepisto,pdude, & electricfetus.

Your tactics are lame and your politics are worse. Furthermore, you are empowered by the fact that 2 of you are moderators, or is it one bells seems to float between being one and not being one.

Thus your tactics survive because you hold the power.

Buff has his missteps like many here do, but usually he is good at staying on topic and offering challenges. Just because the power here resides with fatally flawed socialists doesn't mean that the opposition isn't properly participating.

All of your references to submarines, running, etc. show how baselessly clueless you really are. Warn me about this string!!

I have just upset the pious applecart of socialists on this board. Now it is time for string to come to your defense by either warning me or banning me.

All it will really prove is that I am right to say it.

Deep down you all know how hopelessly marxist you are. You have fallen for it hook, line and sinker. What's worse is that you have no idea how easily it was for you to become one.

You are truly the best of the simple minded.

If you really want to live, step back from your pious marxist reactions and study up on the history of the socialist infiltration in America and around the world. Then perhaps you will truly become proverbially enlightened.

 

You can't handle the truth. Marxists know they are Marxists. Socialism is moderation is a public good, many of the small towns that conservatives say they admire (while destroying them) actually incorporated socialist ideas, like the town hall, the public square, and later the Grange system.

 

For want of better: "Know thy enemy"?

I wouldn't go that far.

Part of the difference is between rational and irrational fears.

One of the great mistakes of the twentieth century is often attributed to how the British handled the Nazis. Appeasement is very nearly a profane word in politics these days. But appeasement also arose in fragile circumstances. Parts of Europe threw entire generations into the Great War, and weren't anxious to do it again. Any rational examination of the Nazi apparatus over those years should have telegraphed without any room for doubt what was coming. And perhaps from that knowledge, some sort of plan could have evolved to better contain the threat. In truth, though, the best outcome would have been a mild to moderate reduction in the scale of the war.

Rational fear: The Nazis were rising tyrants with great capacity for harm.

Irrational fear: The Jews were taking over the world and ruining the German economy.

In the present situation, the Tea Party only has the potential to present a Nazi-like spectre if we presume that the American people have become so apathetic about their politics that they will not only hand thos candidates the office, but then stand back and say nothing while this bawling, reactionary movement dismantles the Constitution.

We've already seen what apathy can do; centrism in the United States includes warmongering and advocacy of torture. But in those cases, it's far easier to demonize Muslims or other perceived and announced enemies. Certainly, there is some concern among liberals about, say, abortion law. There are several candidates for federal offices, and many for state, who oppose abortion under any circumstances. But can something like five extreme right-wing senators and representatives really destroy a woman's right to self-determination? It is doubtful.

The Tea Party mobilized around emotion. One cannot say they rallied in support of the corporations that fund them, as the Tea Party opposes bailouts. But if you ask the Tea Partiers what they stand for—instead of against—in terms of the effects of their policies, the implications shift dramatically. No bailouts? Sounds great, sure. But how about that unemployment that everyone is so concerned about, and the Tea Party is so angry about? If you add up the Tea Party arguments about business and finance, the result would be even greater unemployment. Original constitutionalists? I would think the extreme suggestions of amending the Constitution should put that rhetoric to rest. Transparency? Well, that certainly doesn't mean the Tea Party thinks the people should know who's backing them with money.

One perspective that arises from trying to add up the Tea Party's contradictions is that they really don't have any clue what they're trying to do. Certainly, they are venting anger, but what is the rational structure of that expression? It's a neurotic outburst that includes some built-in devices to perpetuate anger. We already have one TP candidate in the Senate, and he's already danced the Beltway Shuffle. If the O'Donnell, Miller, and Angle win the office, what will they actually do? If they ride into town with their emotional six-guns blazing, they won't get anything done; this will anger their supporters because the establishment is against them. If the TP candidates win office and play the game in order to get things done, their supporters will feel betrayed.

The Tea Party isn't scary for its ferocity or extremity; rather, it's unsettling for its idiocy. Do we fear it like some sort of political Freddy Kreuger, or is it more like that one kid in the class who was prone to wild and destructive tantrums? One of my favorite examples of the Tea Party's disorganization is that you could go to a rally and find one guy denouncing Obama as Hitler, turn around, and ten feet away find another accusing Democrats of being Jews. Yet they share a common identity, the Tea Party.

What we've found is that as the Tea Party has stoked its steam for the elections, its candidates are just flat nuts. Miller admires East Germany. Angle proposed bartering chickens for health care. O'Donnell ... well, she's just Christine O'Donnell, as much a living laugh track now as she was over a decade ago when trying to force her entry into teenagers' sex lives.

There's the recreational Nazi in Ohio. Conservative humorist P. J. O'Rourke said he's always been annoyed at Dayton's tendency to go with the Democrats, but witnessing Rich Iott's candidacy, that frustration abates somewhat, as the reason why seems a bit obvious.

I encountered last week a guy who was trying to remind people that "sieg heil" means "hail victory", in order to present it as an innocuous phrase that everyone gets unnecessarily worked up about. Of course, the old Communist standard of "from each/to each" is a Biblical concept (Acts 4), but people don't care. That some of these Tea Partiers don't understand that aspect of perception and human behavior is telling. They're naîve cynics, which is not so oxymoronic as it seems. I mean, come on, being cynical is a national pastime at least on par with baseball in the United States, but that doesn't mean people know how to do it. "Question authority" doesn't mean you need to argue against the Theory of Gravity.

Cynicism is like anything else; it takes a certain amount of practice.

Naîve cynicism: It's not actually that Christine O'Donnell might have dabbled in witchcraft, and thus might annoy the evangelical right; rather, it's just the incredible stupidity she showed in that clip, compounded with the fact that many people like me just don't believe it. Or Joe Miller's admiration for East Germany; it's not so much that he admires a tyrannical outcome, but that he doesn't seem to understand how that border worked. Sharron Angle? Whether it's chickens, or Hispanics as Asians, it's not so much that she's some sort of sinister racist or industry shill, but rather that she's as stupid as they come.

One Christine O'Donnell in the Senate isn't going to overturn the First Amendment. The irrational fear there is that she might somehow screw up free speech so badly. The rational concern, of course, is that she's a moron. Her best hope as a senator right now seems to be that she will get there and do absolutely nothing of value to anyone. That's not a whole lot to bank on.

If we take the time to understand the dialectic of neurosis represented by the Tea Party movement, we find that we don't really need to freak out. At their most effective, the Tea Party is just a throwback to Reagan. Most days, though, they seem to be a bunch of pissed off people who aren't thinking their arguments through.

The strongest weapons against this kind of movement is calm, rational, and, ultimately, intelligent consideration not only of their vaguely polished political rhetoric, but also the behavioral phenomenon we're witnessing.

Many people disdain psychology because it's not a science like chemistry. To the other, though, many of those cynics of psychology are adherents to various theories of economics, which is likewise a flexible scientific proposition. Nearly everyone, though, tries to psychoanalyze. This weekend I listened to an episode of Backstory about spiritualism in American history. The guests included a women's studies professor, an historian turned reporter, and a spirit medium; the hosts are history professors. Yet all of them were trying to psychoanalyze the movement in relation to abolition, the rise of feminism, and the emotional needs of the people at large.

Every armchair cynic is also an armchair psychologist. And in the end, it might do us some good if people studied the fundamentals of this discipline. Even the armchair quarterbacks need to know a few things about football, right? The box score critics questioning the relief pitching need to know a bit about baseball.

Whether it's a grand evil like the German National Socialists, or a petit-mal seizure like the Tea Party, there is great value in understanding the thought processes. And it is easier to address the perceived threat if one has some idea how that menace is going to behave. It is doubtful that the Tea Party will ever ascend to such stellar evil like the Nazis. But if it somehow happens, it will come about because We, the People, allowed it to. That is, we sat back and tried to respond according to our own version of common sense without taking the time to consider whether or not it's possible to argue reality on someone else's nearly delusional terms. You cannot bring the psychologically dysfunctional back to reality through forceful repetition of reality. That reality must be rendered in such a manner as to be accessible to the dysfunctional. Otherwise, yes, you can condition certain outcomes, but you seed a hundred new neuroses for every one you suppress.

And I don't mean political suppression here. I refer to something more fundamentally psychological; you can condition people into ego defense—e.g., repression, suppression, or even sublimation—but such an outcome does nothing to reconcile the underlying neurotic conflict.

In this context the Tea Party is an expression of how low American culture has fallen before its asserted principles. We cannot, literally or figuratively, beat the dysfunction out of these people. Why would we want to? That's a cruel result that never worked for paranoia or identity confusion. Ego defenses like displacement and projection are mere symptoms. In order to address the underlying disorder, we must spend some considerable effort understanding.

Where does it hurt? The head? Well, is that dehydration? Nervous inflammation? A nail in the skull? Similarly, what has them so scared and angry? For the most part, the answers come in the form of mythopoeic constructions. We need the Tea Party to start understanding the flow chart in American politics. Yes, it's a bothersome, messy, even reckless construction, but that's also why I don't do my own automotive repair. Or surgery.

But in order for us to understand the Tea Party, so that we might communicate with them, we do need to understand the nature of those mythopoeic elements, and whence they come.

One might be correct that this or that individual in the movement is just an exasperated racist, but that does nothing toward alleviating the underlying insecurity, or reconciling the neurotic conflict, that moves them to that racism.

Without that foundation, we cannot rationally address the movement as a whole, but merely stand in the street and punch it out with them. And even if we beat them down that way, we only drive them further into that insecurity, deeper into that conflict.

Some might suggest that we owe them no such effort, but at some point that idea fails. Something—someone—somewhere has to give. It is not ours to presume the provenance of salvation; nor is it ours to decide who deserves it. In the end, these malcontents need to reconcile with society, else they will carry it to the grave. And, frankly, I don't look forward to the next fifty years of enduring these dysfunctional people.

I don't want to wait and find out if they become Nazis or American jihadis.
____________________

Notes:

Virginia Foundation for the Humanities. Backstory with the American History Guys. KUOW, Seattle. October 31, 2010. BackStoryRadio.org. November 1, 2010. http://backstoryradio.org/2010/10/american-spirit-a-history-of-the-supernatural/

 

Honestly I don't see intelligence in my own posts

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Anyone calling themselves a Marxist may as well call themselves "dupe" but its really a pipe dream with a nightmare ending. Unfortunately we live in reality and i have no time for dictators and tbh, we have some very frustrated dictators right here. This is actually normal and reflected in society but when you combine low IQ or even average IQ with Dictator and its never a good outcome.

NEVER...NEVER...NEVER.

 

I doubt that. The USSR was the subject of many complaints and books by socialists regarding it's perceived failure to be a real socialist state.

 

And who are you responding to?

 

To add to that: I hardly ever concentrate on one word descriptions because people can make that one word reflect anything they want.

 

You! It's not inevitable for a Marxist state to be totalitarian. I maintain that the USSR was like that due to it's culture, it inherited the totalitarian nature of the Czar.

In any case, it's beside the point. Germany has plenty of experience with dictators and yet it incorporates many mild socialist ideas into it's government. In fact our constitution in calling for the government to care for the "general welfare" requires socialist institutions to be created on behalf of the people.

 

But to discuss things that hardly exist and in actuality never have existed, to which i would say that communism has never been shown to be like its actual definition by any govt. There are reasons for this though and in the end this is not the true nature of humans. Even if USSR called itself communist but was it really communist? Not if you go by the definition. I learned that in the eigth grade from my German teacher, no less, and at the time i was surprised but it turned out that as far as i can tell he was correct. Even from a U.S perspective (we say U.S but not entirely a U.S perspective) that to be against "Communism" was not to be against people who lived on communes.

Not to go beyond the scope of this thread though.

Germany is not socialist. I mean people can think what makes them happy but is this not a fact?

 

It is not a fact, most of Europe is governed by Democratic Socialism. Even the conservatives support programs that would make an American conservative's head explode.

 

Either you are living in a fantasy or most of Europe is.

 

Spider, guess where the Congress has it's retirement programs invested?, not in Social Security Bonds........

Why do you think they were so ready and willing to bail out Wall Street?