And what rights are being taken away?
Free speech?
Religious freedom?
Assembling rights?
Rights to bear arms?
Warantless searches?
Speedy trial?
Double jeopardy?
What?
Civility in Political Discourse.
- Thread starter Buffalo Roam
- Start date
And what rights are being taken away?
Free speech?
Religious freedom?
Assembling rights?
Rights to bear arms?
Warantless searches?
Speedy trial?
Double jeopardy?
What?
the right not to be a s;ave to your employer. one as a libertarian you disagree with.
because of false information provided to them by the likes of you what you support. in a fair election with fair and equal access to information it would have never happened.Really spider? who is protesting the actions of the Legislature?
Not the majority of the People in Wisconsin who voted the Democrats out of Power.
your not going to get through to him he is a huge supporter of the ugly and malicious campaign waged in the midwest to attack those who stand up for ordinary people.
Being that this doesn't exist in the work force, especially since labor unions have been around for a long time.
Your response smacks of one who is not only not employed but is living in Mommies basement.
"It can't happen here! It can't be one of us! It must a right winger!!!!"
It's truly amazing how so many of you from the left feel the need to invent right wing conspiracies rather than admit that there could be a nut job among you. Such a blind spot to evil in your midst is far from reassuring.
Whether the threat was from a nutjob of the left or right it was reprehensible, but it does not represent the official policy of any political party or movement in the US. It was a nutjob. So get off your high horse and admit that nutjobs are everywhere and of all political stripes.
"It can't happen here! It can't be one of us! It must a right winger!!!!"
It's truly amazing how so many of you from the left feel the need to invent right wing conspiracies rather than admit that there could be a nut job among you. Such a blind spot to evil in your midst is far from reassuring.
Whether the threat was from a nutjob of the left or right it was reprehensible, but it does not represent the official policy of any political party or movement in the US. It was a nutjob. So get off your high horse and admit that nutjobs are everywhere and of all political stripes.
I don't think it was a nut job just some really really pissed off that couldn't deal with the rage. crazy people do thinks for disjointed logical thinking this guy process was probably more sound all though he clearly needs some thearpy to deal with his anger.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Well, there is a simple explanation for that, you guys are evil and we are not.
don't use evil to describe them. it cheapens real and true evil such as genocide, democide, and culturecide.
I don't see where anybody here has denied that there are individual nutjobs to be found in any sizeable collection of people.
But such an equivocation misses the point: the left-wing nutjobs are an anonymous fringe phenomenon. The Teabagger nutjobs are freely-embraced movement leaders. Violent rhetoric from the left is the exception, while violent rhetoric from the right is the norm.
The author of the death threats may well turn out to be a self-identified liberal. In that case, however, the reflection of Teabagger tropes in their rhetoric - to the point where it looks as much like a false-flag op as anything genuine - will still have something nasty to tell us about the damage that years of systematic, unapologetic violent rhetoric from the right have done to the polity as a whole.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
But it is true evil, they legislate for profits over people. They really cause death, destruction, and suffering throughout this land. And they use any dirty tricks they can to accomplish it.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
No word on whether the sender was left.
Did you actually read the email sent? There is no question the sender was a leftist. If you actually read the article and the email provided as evidence, and who it was sent to, the only possibility for not saying the sender was a leftist is either willful ignorance, or denial. I suppose you think it was possibly sent by someone on the right, in what way is that the case? ( I suppose if someone wanted to make one side look bad enough they could/would do it, but as there is no evidence of that, the only logical conclusion is it was sent by the left. Who, by the way, during the 60s proved their capable of violence in defense of an idea.)
http://video.adultswim.com/squidbillies/love-your-feller-man.html
Now fellers, madanthony may just be right about this person being a leftwing nutter!
A rightwing nutter prolly more like above video!
Now fellers, madanthony may just be right about this person being a leftwing nutter!
A rightwing nutter prolly more like above video!
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
There is no evidence either way. Since the right often uses such tactics to discredit the opposition (Scott Walker admitted he considered sending in fake protesters to disrupt the peaceful protests), it's perfectly plausible.
In the fall of 1970, (Karl) Rove used a false identity to enter the campaign office of Democrat Alan J. Dixon, who was running for Treasurer of Illinois. He stole 1000 sheets of paper with campaign letterhead, printed fake campaign rally fliers promising "free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing", and distributed them at rock concerts and homeless shelters, with the effect of disrupting Dixon's rally.(wikipedia)
Karl Rove was a disciple of Lee Atwater:
Atwater's aggressive tactics were first demonstrated during the 1980 congressional campaigns. He was a campaign consultant to Republican incumbent Floyd Spence in his campaign for Congress against Democratic nominee Tom Turnipseed. Atwater's tactics in that campaign included push polling in the form of fake surveys by "independent pollsters" to inform white suburbanites that Turnipseed was a member of the NAACP. He also sent out last-minute letters from Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) telling voters that Turnipseed would disarm America and turn it over to liberals and communists. At a press briefing, Atwater planted a "reporter" who rose and said, "We understand Turnipseed has had psychotic treatment." Atwater later told the reporters off the record that Turnipseed "got hooked up to jumper cables"– a reference to electroconvulsive therapy that Turnipseed underwent as a teenager.[4](wikipedia)
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
Please provide documentation from either the Wisconsin Constitution or the Constitution of the United State that ensconces the right to be saved.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Not to be a slave to your employer, I think he meant to write.
[Edited to correct typo, just for clarity because some people will pick it apart.]
Actually, Libertarians are the ones who don't want anyone to be enslaved to anything, not other people, not jobs, not government. As a party member, and potential (I put togather a group to consider running in a state a couple years ago, and conceded to another Libertarian candidate) Many support legislation that would make corporations involvement in your private lives illegal. (There have been many, many cases hitting the news in the past few years about people loosing their jobs over some issues, but that is another topic.)
Why is it that leftists assign the idea that a union == freedom? More importantly, why do we allow public sector employees to be paid more than the people writing the checks.
Average income in the US (2008) : $49,777 (Wiki)
Average income public sector (2008) : $67,000+ (CATO)
Average income private sector (2008): $59,000+ (CATO)
The pluses are because i rounded down, rather than up.
So, you think it's ok that the people that get funded by private sector work, make more than they do? Don't get me wrong, some jobs are worth the extra cash... i.e. teachers. However, a vast majority of these public sector jobs are not just teachers, and police, and fire.
Explain how you feel the people who are paying the bills should make less than the people they are paying at the end of the day?
What SHOULD happen is the following: Mandatory law decreasing ALL state/(I would love to see it federally too) pay scales to the average income of the people of the state. With minor exceptions, and a lay off of politicians personal work forces, making politicians write, and more importantly READ the bills they are voting on.