Repubs have a predisposition for violence?

Pinworm

Pinworm

Well-Known Member
[video=youtube;MeJhXaC5WPg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeJhXaC5WPg[/video]

We know. We know. Talking about stuff is hard and stuff...
 
If you actually look at political motivated violence and assassinations, the left is the offensive actor more times than not, by a long shot.

JFK, assassinated by a commie.
Reagan, shot by a lib.
Rfk, shot by a foreign socialist militant.

Compare the relative violence of tea party marches compared with that group that always shows up at G8 summits.

I'm speaking of modern violence, not stuff from hundreds of years ago.

I'm sure there have been conservatives shoot liberal politicians. I'm just saying more often it is a far left guy making the political violence.
 
Pinworm said:
Yea. Republicans absolutely abhor violence....unless it's against women, gays, minorities, etc..

When Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization bill late last month, more than 130 House Republicans voted against ... (Just one quick example)
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.

And violence against those groups is not what I would call political motivated violence. Random acts of violence, or violence resulting from bigotry isn't the same as wanting to shoot a president to keep him from enacting a policy.
 
BigNBushy said:
Random acts of violence, or violence resulting from bigotry isn't the same as wanting to shoot a president to keep him from enacting a policy.
Click to expand...

So, violence is acceptable as long as it's not politically motivated? Yikes....
 
All coercive institutions require violence or threats of violence to maintain their grip on power. Republicans and Democrats are no different in how they view violence as an acceptable means.
 
Rob Roy said:
All coercive institutions require violence or threats of violence to maintain their grip on power. Republicans and Democrats are no different in how they view violence as an acceptable means.
Click to expand...

I will not debate one's perception of violence, or how/if they view it as a "tool" to be used to "maintain power". Stay on topic or go back to FB.
 
Pinworm said:
I will not debate one's perception of violence, or how/if they view it as a "tool" to be used to "maintain power". Stay on topic or go back to FB.
Click to expand...


Cognitive dissonance is dreadful this time of year, you appear to have caught a bad case of it.

Your premise is that when Democrats use coercion as a means it is okay, but when Republicans do it, it is not? How about when ANYBODY does it, it is wrong? Enjoy your self delusions that violence as a means is acceptable when the "good people" do it. Peace.
 
Rob Roy said:
Cognitive dissonance is dreadful this time of year, you appear to have caught a bad case of it.

Your premise is that when Democrats use coercion as a means it is okay, but when Republicans do it, it is not? How about when ANYBODY does it, it is wrong? Enjoy your self delusions that violence as a means is acceptable when the "good people" do it. Peace.
Click to expand...

Coercion? Who the...? Wait...I'm talking about Republican's obvious predilection for, and tolerance of violence. TOPIC!!! Violence is obviously something I'm opposed to. When "used" by anyone against anyone. Even a delusional mind could pick that up from what I have posted. But, if they couldn't, now they can. I'm not debating who is "good people", simply making an observation of the behavior that I have seen displayed by your compatriots.
 
Pinworm said:
Coercion? Who the...? Wait...I'm talking about Republican's obvious predilection for, and tolerance of violence. TOPIC!!! Violence is obviously something I'm opposed to. When "used" by anyone against anyone. Even a delusional mind could pick that up from what I have posted. But, if they couldn't, now they can. I'm not debating who is "good people", simply making an observation of the behavior that I have seen displayed by your compatriots.
Click to expand...

I'm not a republican or a democrat. My "compatriots" include people that abide by the golden rule. If you accept that both Democrats and Republicans use violence as a means we are on the same page. If you don't accept this, you are still caught in a fallacy. If you are opposed to violence by ALL, I commend you and offer my apology for misunderstanding.
 
Rob Roy said:
I'm not a republican or a democrat. My "compatriots" include people that abide by the golden rule. If you accept that both Democrats and Republicans use violence as a means we are on the same page. If you don't accept this, you are still caught in a fallacy. If you are opposed to violence by ALL, I commend you and offer my apology for misunderstanding.
Click to expand...

I appreciate that. I should mention that I don't have any sort of allegiance to any party, but, I do lean to one certain side from time to time - which is sort of inescapable when one commits to the premise of a two party system. I'm just confused as to what one would consider "violence used" as coercion or otherwise (by either party). An example would be cool, but, it's not really that important. Because, I feel like you understand where I'm coming from.
 
Pinworm said:
I appreciate that. I should mention that I don't have any sort of allegiance to any party, but, I do lean to one certain side from time to time - which is sort of inescapable when one commits to the premise of a two party system. I'm just confused as to what one would consider "violence used" as coercion or otherwise (by either party). An example would be cool, but, it's not really that important. Because, I feel like you understand where I'm coming from.
Click to expand...


Threats of violence are behind every edict a coercive government utters. Failure to comply brings actual violence. This is the same whether the "law" is a law to protect a persons property or just a mala prohibitum (because we say so law). The number of parties a person can be part of is not important if all the paths lead back to a coercive government that relies on coercive means.
 
Rob Roy said:
Threats of violence are behind every edict a coercive government utters. Failure to comply brings actual violence. This is the same whether the "law" is a law to protect a persons property or just a mala prohibitum (because we say so law). The number of parties a person can be part of is not important if all the paths lead back to a coercive government that relies on coercive means.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. Just because you need to reserve the right to threaten someone into getting what you want (sound familiar?) doesn't mean us real people need to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top