- This topic has 6 voices and 34 replies.
-
Posts
-
I dont have a problem with the right as you should know. I do have a problem with the extreme right however. The extreme right, in my opinion, tends to be just as flaky as the extreme left. I consider DailyKos to be pretty representative of the extreme left; they come up with ideas like the right wants to kill people and put in place some kind of police state or more recently they expand on the rhetoric is responsible for vile acts meme. The extreme right comes up with flaky crap like the “birther” argument or that the left wants to create an extreme socialist state along the Soviet model but more sinister. How you can get more sinister than the Soviets, who killed 30-40 million of their own, I don't know. I just think extremes of any sort are kind of pathetic. I am not a centrist, I definitely fall to the right sight of the political spectrum, I just like to think my arguments and positions are inged with a touch of realism. the extremes lack that touch of realism. It is not much of a leap to go from the “birther” argument to alien abduction or 9/11 conspiracy theories.For the record, I am glad that LTC Lakin was convicted, he deserved the conviction and whatever penalty is certified by the convening authority for his retarded "principled" stand that was nothing more than political grandstanding.
I'm not as extreme as the birthers by any means, but I have no intention whatsoever to be civil to the Left. As a matter of fact, I want them destroyed. People who kill unborn children and force their offensive gay lifestyles in our faces don't deserve civility, they deserve the wrath of God.
I'm not as extreme as the birthers by any means, but I have no intention whatsoever to be civil to the Left. As a matter of fact, I want them destroyed. People who kill unborn children and force their offensive gay lifestyles in our faces don't deserve civility, they deserve the wrath of God.
I agree with you to an extent. However, I don't want them destroyed; I want to see them toothless and in despair at seeing their plans for destroying our society in ruins. I would rather see them suffer the failure of their plans, and see conservatives enjoy their humiliation at their knowledge of their failure. I want to gloat over their failure. I am certain they will fail, if only those of us on the right have the courage of our convictions and maintain it.We can disagree without being uncivil; incivility by the right only helps their cause. I don't suffer fools lightly but getting in their face helps them not us, it is much better to destroy them with a smile on your face. It hurts them more. ;D
This is much much more than just disagreement though. I'm uncivil to them not because of disagreement but because they are evil. Anyone who destroys our country and world deserves no mercy. I don't care if their intentions are good. They are not and they need barbarian righties to point that out. Equating the sinfulness of homosexuality with black's and women's rights is offensive.Removing God from society is offensive.Killing unborn children is offensive.Making the middle class pay for lazy welfare recipients or drug addicts is offensive.
I think, though, that it is important to consider intentions and to separate subjective evil from objective evil. With intentions, there are those on the left who legitimately desire good objectives. It is absolutely vital to recognize this if we are to have any hope of “getting along” with those we otherwise disagree with. The person on the left and the right both want to help the poor rise out of their misery in life; the difference is how this can be achieved, and this makes a world of difference.
If you begin to hate then you are sinking to their level. Is it not always better to take the high ground?
And the Nazis wanted a better Germany, so even those who disagreed found a common ground because they thought their intentions were good. Yup, look how that turned out.
I said take the high ground in debate, not find common ground so that they get at least some of what they want. I can disagree with someone and find their opinions and positions odious without wishing death on them, especially misguided products of my own society. I dont see how hating them makes opposing their policies any more productive.Islam and Islamic terrorists are another matter entirely.
So we are just to remain civil or take the high ground while our grocery bill goes up weekly because of Leftist policies like this?In early America, we the people would have taken up arms against them or captured them and had them executed. And if we did that now, I wouldn't oppose it. I would encourage it or participate.http://mcclintock.house.gov/2011/01/water-water-everywhereexcept-for-californias-farms.shtml
I seriously hope you are engaging in hyperbole here.Yes, that is a pretty stupid move by the DOI. I still don't think that reaches the level of requiring armed rebellion. Do I think things might reach that level? Bluntly, yes I think they might, but we are not there yet. I don't think things are so bad today that we need an insurrection, the elections in November were proof of that. Now, if the elections were clearly won by conservatives and declared invalid, that would mean rebellion in my eyes. Or if prominent conservatives started "dissapearing" or being charged with patently flase charges and put in jail, that too would call for rebellion. We have not reached that pass yet, and I hope it does not come to that.I have been to hellholes way worse than what is happening in the States so maybe my threshold of tolerance is a little higher than yours.
And the Nazis wanted a better Germany, so even those who disagreed found a common ground because they thought their intentions were good. Yup, look how that turned out.
You may begin with the common ground. Hitler sold his ideas in part on bringing Germany out of its misery in the aftermath of WWI, so I don't think that the average German citizen in the early stages was in the same boat as Hitler. But it's also easy to see that the means by which the Nazis tried to accomplish their purported plans meant the steamrolling of any number of moral (and legal?) rules regarding universal rights. That clearly overshadows any "good" intentions and makes the whole plan wrong. There are far more cases in politics nowadays that we may disagree with the left about, even though they don't involve the violation of universal rights. Even the average supporter of abortion may have an intention which they believe to be "good". It is our job to help explain why the means chosen to accomplish that are in themselves wrong, and goes well beyond mere intention.So I'm not saying intention is the only thing to look at by any means. But it should be understood.
I seriously hope you are engaging in hyperbole here.
Not really. They start messing with the food supply ON PURPOSE, as is the case here, I expect there to be major battles over it. Wars over food shortages are going to happen, and probably in our lifetime. The only civility I'l show is to make sure to tell others who should be targetted.
I seriously hope you are engaging in hyperbole here.
Not really. They start messing with the food supply ON PURPOSE, as is the case here, I expect there to be major battles over it. Wars over food shortages are going to happen, and probably in our lifetime. The only civility I'l show is to make sure to tell others who should be targetted.
What? What are you referring to?
I seriously hope you are engaging in hyperbole here.
Not really. They start messing with the food supply ON PURPOSE, as is the case here, I expect there to be major battles over it. Wars over food shortages are going to happen, and probably in our lifetime. The only civility I'l show is to make sure to tell others who should be targetted.
What? What are you referring to?
The article by Rep. McClintock. If true, they are purposely diverting the water away from farms and wasting it. Here's a commentary by Victor Davis Hanson about the same thing.Two Californias
