The liberal v right wing mentality...

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by alexb123, Jan 25, 2017.

  1. Bells Staff Member

    You mean a response like this one?

    After nine people were killed on Wednesday inside a historic African American church in Charleston, South Carolina, that pattern has largely held – with the glaring exception of one extraordinary comment by a board member of the National Rifle Association, who suggested that worshippers who died in their own church “might be alive” if they had been carrying guns themselves.


    Board member Charles Cotton, however, strayed from the script late on Thursday, when he posted a comment online blaming the pastor killed in the South Carolina shooting, Clementa Pinckney, for the death of his eight congregants.

    Cotton, who did not return a message left at his Houston-area law firm, pointed out on a Texas gun forum that Pinckney was a state senator who had voted against a law allowing gun owners to carry concealed weapons without permits.

    “Eight of his church members who might be alive if he had expressly allowed members to carry handguns in church are dead,” Cotton wrote. “Innocent people died because of his position on a political issue.”

    Or when some on the right tried to deflect and blame everything else but the racist ideology and lax gun laws? Like Rick Perry, for example, who deemed the mass shooting of 9 people in a church as a "drug induced accident" and then blamed Obama for trying to take their guns away?

    Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry on Friday suggested the fatal shooting of nine black people at a church in Charleston, South Carolina, by a white male was a drug-induced “accident”.

    The former Texas governor was asked about the mass shooting at Emanuel AME church during an interview with the conservative NewsmaxTV. A spokesman for Perry later clarified that the Republican presidential candidate meant to say “incident,” but the soundbyte drew immediate attention and backlash.

    Perry, who announced this month that he is running for president again after a failed bid in 2012, said he didn’t know if the tragedy was an “act of terror”, but acknowledged it was “a crime of hate”.

    But Perry then pivoted to what he called the “real issue to be talked about” – drugs.

    “It seems to me – again, without having all the details about this one – that these individuals have been medicated. And there may be a real issue in this country, from the standpoint of these drugs, and how they’re used,” Perry said.

    Some acquaintances of Dylann Storm Roof, the 21-year-old gunman in the Charleston killings, have said he used drugs – a detail that has been seized upon by conservative conspiracy websites such as Infowars.

    But Roof, who was apprehended in North Carolina on Thursday, has confirmed that the killings were both premeditated and racially motivated. The shooting suspect told authorities he wanted to “start a race war”, after confessing to attending Bible study with the victims and then opening fire.

    In addition to steering the conversation away from race and terrorism, Perry also accused Barack Obama of trying to take firearms away from the American people by pushing for stricter gun laws in the wake of mass shootings like the one in Charleston.

    exchemist likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Aside from you saying "that does not even count the mass murders, such as the South Carolina church massacre", even though you clearly listed the Charleston church do know Charleston is in South Carolina, right?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    What makes Timothy "Science is my religion" McVeigh right-wing? Attending gun shows? Serving in the military?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    What about Terry Nichols? What about Eric "I really prefer Nietzsche to the Bible" Rudolph?

    Left-wing attacks classified as terrorism, starting in the 80's like you did:
    1981 -
    Weather Underground member Kathy Boudin captured after killing 3
    UFF members murder New Jersey State Police officer​
    1990 - two Earth First members injured in explosion while transporting bomb in car
    1993 - Colin Ferguson shot and killed 6, injured 17 on Long Island train, professing hatred of whites
    1998 - arson attacks by the Earth Liberation Front at Vail ski resort cause $12 million in damages
    2005 - 4 injured, including several children, by incendiary attacks by suspected animal rights activists
    2009 - abortion protester shot and killed outside a school; the gunman also killed an area businessman
    2012 - 1 guard shot and injured while subduing gunman at Family Research Council offices
    2016 -
    shooting attack killed one civilian, injured one police officer and three civilians
    sniper attack killed 5 police officers, injured 8 police officers and two civilians at protest rally; attacker was killed by police
    shooting attack killed 3 police officers, injured 3 police officers; attacker was shot and killed by police​

    The left is at least far less successful.

    Yeah, I didn't make that claim, woman.

    Senate votes to repeal Obama’s ban on gun sales for certain Social Security recipients

    Obama Calls for Assault Weapons Ban, New 'No Fly, No Buy' Law

    Obama's final shot: Ban on 'traditional ammo'

    Obama to ban bullets by executive action, threatens top-selling AR-15 rifle
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Really? In overwhelmingly liberal cities where the blacks vote overwhelmingly democrat?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Come out from under your rock, mate. were talking about the Iraq War. No one was aware of any Islamism back then, if it existed to any significant degree.
    So are you saying you agreed when Trump said Saddam good at killing terrorists?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Or would you rate that mostly false:
    Hussein actively sponsored terrorism, as well. Indeed, Iraq was on the official U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism between 1979 and 1982, and then again between 1990 and 2004, when Hussein ruled the country.
    "He did kill some terrorists, but he supported others, such as Abu Nidal and the MEK cultists from Iran," said John Limbert, a former high-ranking State Department official who now teaches international relations at the U.S. Naval Academy.

    In the conservative magazine the Weekly Standard, editor Stephen F. Hayes offered a lengthy recap of Hussein's terrorist connections in a piece titled, "Trump Is Clueless on Saddam and Terror."

    "Saddam Hussein opposed terrorists who opposed him," Hayes wrote. "He supported and funded virtually all others—including jihadists who targeted the United States, its interests, and allies."
    LOL! Does commenting solely on the manner of post instead of its actual content really distract people from your transparent intellectual dishonesty?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    A lot more than makes BLM left wing.
    What about him?A simplistic preference for Thus Spake Zarathustra and murder over the Sermon On The Mount and humble good works is a stereotypical field mark of the American fascist.

    You seem to be taking religious belief as a rightwing attribute, which is wrong in both directions:
    - Christianity has a strong lefty faction, beginning with the original communist organization of the early Church and continuing with a deep mistrust of moneylenders. (Check out the centuries of social justice Catholic priesthood in the southern Americas, or the Wendell Berry exemplified intellectual crowd in the US.)
    - the irreligious, technocratic, money-focused, power-hungry, and otherwise unspiritual rightwing asshole is so common as to be a stereotype.

    Gotta love the big font, the bolding - throw in a few exclamation points and it takes me back to January of 2009, when the white male Republican core simply panicked - ran around in public in a bug-eyed, tilt-brained, slapstick mob. I've saved people from drowning who were behaving with more dignity, picked up two year olds in mid-tantrum more amenable to reason, watched six year old girls behave more rationally after finding a spider on their dress.

    And that was the second one, the trivial one, the fun one - the first panic being right after 9/11, and that one was ugly. People dead in the hundreds of thousands. Torture prisons.

    You can't walk that back. You're never living that down. One of the serious characteristics of the rightwing illiberal mentality is its cowardice, its tendency to panic, its yearning for strong daddy leadership to protect it from the monsters in the closet, its readiness to do anything for safety.
    Last edited: May 13, 2017
  8. Bells Staff Member

    Oops, that was my mistake. It showed up under right wing terrorist attacks in the US. My bad!

    Umm let's see.. His association with the KKK while in the military.. His identifying as a Republican in Buffalo and then leaving Buffalo because he felt the State was too 'liberal'. His constant quoting and referencing of The Turner Diaries (pages of it were in his possession when he was arrested and the fact that the book is so closely associated with and to right wing extremist groups.. The constant parroting of right wing ideology about gun rights. I mean really, trying to deny that McVeigh and Nichols were not right wing is pretty pathetic, Syne. Even for you.

    Isn't it a good thing that the left wing terrorist attacks were far less successful?

    But your list is interesting. Can you provide a link to where you got it from?

    Because I find it interesting that you are labeling animal rights terrorism as being left wing, as one example.. The FBI say this about animal rights 'terrorism'..

    During the past decade we have witnessed dramatic changes in the nature of the domestic terrorist threat. In the 1990s, right-wing extremism overtook left-wing terrorism as the most dangerous domestic terrorist threat to the United States. During the past several years, however, special interest extremism, as characterized by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), and related extremists, has emerged as a serious domestic terrorist threat. Special interest terrorism differs from traditional right-wing and left-wing terrorism in that extremist special interest groups seek to resolve specific issues, rather than effect widespread political change. Such extremists conduct acts of politically motivated violence to force segments of society, including the general public, to change attitudes about issues considered important to the extremists’ causes. Generally, extremist groups engage in much activity that is protected by constitutional guarantees of free speech and assembly. Law enforcement only becomes involved when the volatile talk of these groups transgresses into unlawful action. The FBI estimates that the ALF/ELF and related groups have committed more than 1,100 criminal acts in the United States since 1976, resulting in damages conservatively estimated at approximately $110 million.

    Can you please explain why you have lumped them with left wing terrorism? Since they are not politically motivated in the same manner or way that left or right wing terrorists might be politically motivated. They are completely different animals (no pun intended) and their ideology is vastly different from right or left wing terrorist groups or supporters.

    And the sniper attacks in 2016.. Umm more detail? Links? Anything?

    What I quoted to you had embedded links, not to mention I linked the site I got it from. You have not provided any links whatsoever in quoting a big chunk of text.

    Plagiarism is against this site's rules, Syne. Please provide a link or links to support that list.

    You have this repulsive habit of referring to me as "woman" instead of using my name. It just makes you look like an even bigger sexist pig, Syne. If you are going to refer to me or address me, I'd suggest using my name. This has come up repeatedly in my conversations with you on this site and you are well aware that your manner of conversing with me is not appreciated or welcome. I would suggest you rectify it, otherwise I will moderate you.

    Moving on..

    Here is what you said:

    Are you now suggesting you did not say this and that this was not your claim in this thread? Did some else take control of your computer and post that in your name? An alternate personality, perhaps? Have you shared your account with someone else or your password with someone else and they are posting this in your name? Because you did make the claim on this site. Suggesting that you did not just makes you look like a liar.

    Wait, you bought into the moron panic?

    You are the gift that keeps on giving, Syne.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Still confused about the difference between a Democratic voter and a liberal or lefty? Not surprising - the rightwing mentality nurtures ignorance as a virtue.
    Anyone who thinks there is no such thing as as rightwing mentality in the US right now, an identifiable mental disorder, is invited to reread that. That's a sincere belief, on the part of the poster.
    Hussein did not support Abu Nidal in any known terrorist act, expelled him from Iraq and forbade him entry during the time of his terrorism, and killed him when he became inconvenient after gaining re-entry. Saddam's track record of killing Islamic terrorists was a solid one, as they threatened his secular government. As for the MEK - most of Iran's enemies have supported them, including Israel and the US, because they focus on terrorizing Iran's government. The US enforced no-fly zones to protect along the Iranian border during the long conflict, and Israel is thought - assumed, actually - to have supported them recently in return for their services in assassinating Iranian scientists.

    Besides: So?
    Last edited: May 13, 2017
  10. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Go read my post again, woman. I asked you questions. I didn't deny anything at all.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Of course it is. Incompetent terrorists are a good thing. Incompetence just seems to abound on the left.
    Do you deny that environmentalism and animal rights activism are significantly left-wing? Several of your cited terrorist attacks show no evidence of a general right-wing political motivation. A bank robbery? An Austin attack where his suicide note ended with "The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed."? Is displeasure with the government enough to qualify as right-wing? Isn't that "specific issues, rather than effect widespread political change"? A lot of left-wingers sure don't like the government right now.

    Are you just splitting hairs to justify a double standard?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
    1) Not quoted as "a big chunk of text"
    2) Can't you Google?
    Yes, yes. As soon as you think your losing ground you threaten mod action...which means you know you've lost.
    But here, let me help you Google the very first one: "Weather Underground member Kathy Boudin captured after killing 3".
    Can you find the very first search result?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Where in the forum rules does it forbid addressing members by their gender? Oh wait, do you identify as something else?
    Referring to other members
    H4. Refer to other members by their chosen screen names. The deliberate alteration of a member’s name to insult or demean him or her is unacceptable.

    H5. Comments about other forum members that are derogatory, overtly sexual or which constitute harassment are unacceptable.​
    Is your gender harassing? Is gender, itself, "overtly sexual"?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please, do clarify which of these you're threatening mod action over, man.
    I didn't make any of the claims of the article you cited about the NRA...and you know it. I was specifically replying to you saying this:
    You should also note that the article you cited there is from before Obama took office, hence people could only speculate what he might do (fact checked against a campaigning politicians own statements alone). You seem to have completely missed that little detail.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You're such a predictable stereotyping bigot.

    The only gun I bought while Obama was in office was a collector's piece (that I got at a price that I could immediately double my money), and I didn't even buy any ammo. Now that he's out of office, I plan to buy several more...since prices have dropped.
    Did Obama not "really mean" any of that?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Or did I just miss your refute that Obama did, in fact, threaten bans on both weapons and ammo?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  11. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    If you have special definitions that significantly differentiate them, do tell. Is it a secret? Were you sworn to silence?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Or is this just another trolling bare assertion in lieu of argument?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Then where's you evidence of broad knowledge of Islamism leading up to the Iraq War?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You do know the difference between Islam and Islamism, right? No?
    E13. Appropriate supporting evidence or explanations should be posted together with any opinion, especially on contentious issues. Sciforums is not your personal blog, and should not be used to promote your unsupported opinions.​
    Where's your support for those claims?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Nothing? Just more bare assertions in lieu of argument?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Try the dictionary.
    Working and middle class black people are often and usually quite conservative - especially the fundamentalist Baptists and Methodists, as among white people. They don't vote Democratic because they are liberals.
    I don't have any evidence of broad knowledge of Islamism among the fraidy-cat US "rightwing" mob demanding protection from all Muslims at all costs now. Knowledge isn't their thing. Panic at the looming shadow of Osama Bin Laden or whoever, willingness to invade anywhere and kill anybody and torture people at random in case they are terrorists, running around in circles and making old people with arthritis take their shoes off in airports, is what they did then and what they do now.
    You post unsupported opinions that are wrong, I post unsupported claims that are correct. (Actually, since you are getting them from sources like the Weekly Standard, yours are negatively supported. I at least don't source from shitheaps).
    Saddam's treatment of Abu Nidal is recorded history - except he denied killing him outright, claiming rather that he "died under interrogation". The MEK you are free to Google yourself. There's nothing "contentious" about the general situations there.
    Last edited: May 13, 2017
  13. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    No, not liberal in the sense of supporting gay marriage, but certainly liberal on a host of other social/fiscal issues, like redistribution of wealth, etc..
    I already knew that.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    So your lying and lazy. Got it.
  14. Bells Staff Member

    Oh, is that what you were doing?

    Here's the thing, Syne, you are really bad at this sort of game. Questioning in a manner that denies a fact, is denying the fact.

    And I have asked you repeatedly to refer to me by my name. And because you have again refused to do so, I will be issuing you with an infraction.

    So, the right are better at terrorism and murdering people? Okay, you will not find any disagreement from me on that score.

    I have never really thought about it. I always saw environmental and animal activism that leads to terrorism as being in its own little quarter. For the most part, eco activism tend to argue against both sides of the political equation and will favour the side that adheres to their demands, be it left or right wing. I agree with the FBI's interpretation that they are different to left or right wing terrorism, because what they want is so specific and only applies to certain and specific things that will often run counter to left or right wing ideology.

    Do you think that the FBI is incorrect?

    After you kindly provided the link to the website where you obtained that list upon request, I notice that the information on that page is, well, sparse and caters solely to Johnston's interpretation of what he qualified as types of terrorist attacks.

    Ermm the people who committed the bank robbery were members of The Order, a right wing white supremacist group. As well as the robbery, they also bombed a synagogue and murdered Alan Berg, who was known to call out anti-semites and white supremacist groups. Why do you wish to downplay their crimes and describe it as being merely a "bank robbery"?

    As for Stack's suicide attack, where he crashed a plane into a building, killing one and injuring many others, that could go either way. Many attributed his suicide note (a 6 page manifesto of some sort) as espousing the then rising Tea Party movement that was making itself heard on the right.

    You know, when you copy and paste text from other website without providing a link or naming the author, you are essentially plagiarising. Do you know what that means?

    You quoted chunks of texts from Johnston's website and completely failed to link it and even when requested, you become pissy about it. After looking at what you linked, I can see why you were so reticent to cite your sources, because well, it is all based on his personal interpretation and having a look at his site, he is decidedly, ermm, right wing... Is that why you did not provide a link and instead sent me on a bit of a chase to find it by providing the google link as you did?

    Well actually no. You see, you get more chances than anyone else does. Usually the moment people plagiarise, I issue an infraction. I won't be requesting it from you in future and will simply issue you with an infraction when I see you plagiarising. It doesn't take much of an effort to cite your sources, Syne. The least you can do is provide a link. Plagiarism is theft and you were stealing Johnston's work and passing it off as your own. It was clear that those were not your words and it was clear from the formatting that you had not compiled that list yourself. A bit of respect for this site's rules and the people you are copying and pasting from is not a huge expectation. Telling people to just google, when you quoted a chunk of text from someone else's work and what? You expect us to hunt down the obscure site you get your stuff from?

    And then linking it by essentially calling me a "fucking idiot" and "stupid" in your link? You know, that infraction I am issuing you? That just doubled for not only refusing to address me by my name and instead addressing me as "woman" in a manner intended to insult and demean, but also for personal insult. So well done there, Syne.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Read what you quoted again..

    "Refer to other members by their chosen screen names"..

    I have asked you repeatedly and addressed this repeatedly with you in the past and you seem to refuse to do so, and instead, decide to refer to my sex in a manner that is designed to insult. You see, calling someone "woman" like that is usually something that close friends do, in a joking manner, it's a personal address, which is not designed to demean or insult. We are not close friends or dear to each other. We aren't even 'friends' or like each other. So you, Syne, do not get to refer to me as that. And when I ask you to refer to me by my name, it is because you are so repulsive that your referring to me as "woman" makes me want to bleach my skin and then set it on fire, because you garner that kind of response from me, as a woman.

    Understand now?

    My name on this site is Bells. So if you are going to address me, you address me as Bells.

    And read what I was responding to with that line.. Really, it's not that hard, is it?

    And you fail at even insulting people. No, really, you bought into the panic, referred to said panic as though the subject of that panic was fact and you were caught out and now you try and blame other people? It is laughable but not unexpected from you. This is the kind of thing that you do and have done for a long time.

    Ermm okay, so you have a gun?

    And this has what to do with what I said?

    You bought into the stereotype by applying a false argument and stating it as fact. You merely reiterated a moral panic about Obama. Just own it.
    Last edited: May 13, 2017
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Nope. They are not liberals. Your claim that they are liberals because they vote Democratic is silly - whether you are really that ignorant, or simply dedicated to avoiding the issue of why black people do not vote Republican very often, is something only you can determine.

    But this is interesting: you know that many black people are economically and demographically much like white Trump voters - same economic circumstances, same patterns of church attendance and education, all that stuff. You do know that, right? But you assume they are liberals. So the question is why? The topic of the thread is rightwing mentality, and here we have an opportunity to learn: how does somebody with rightwing mentality assume black people who are otherwise much like Trump voters got to be "liberals", in the first place?
  16. birch Valued Senior Member

    That's true, the majority of african-americans do vote democratic even if most of their lifestyle or values, even politics are republican. it's traditional and because they are a minority and they feel democrats would have more their best interests.
  17. birch Valued Senior Member

    it's all smoke and mirrors. conservatives are amoral, unfair, with unethical agendas and liberals are fair (tolerant of differences, but not unethical) but the labels are swapped. isn't that just like nature. the neverending bs and deception.

    conservatives have no problem with exploitation and are intolerant of the superficial such as race, gender, sexual orientation, religion etc. they are strictly tribal with the rest relegated to subservient status. they are not true egalitarians. this is the real reason for that 'conservative' definition because it has nothing to do with ethics because a majority of them are religious.

    liberals on the other hand, tend to be more ethical and egalitarian.

    i mean, look at trump as the quintessential power-mongering, money-hungry, amoral, prejudiced, religious, hypocritcal republican. conservatives tend to be the most liberal when it comes to morals and ethics similar to libertarians. they are like charlatans or keeping up a good front or appearances are what is most important while behind the scenes they will do anything to get what they want or where they want to be or secretly approve of such things.

    they are patriarchal, prejudiced, egotistical, sexist, power-focused, and religious (usually). if this is what joins your camp to influence, then you would have no choice but to join the other camp and switch to differentiate yourself. if the devil starts calling itself an angel then an angel will have to start calling itself the devil and on it goes because life is all about deception, mutation tactics. it takes constant vigilance and re-evaluation to stay aware of the truth.
    Last edited: May 13, 2017
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Apparently not.
  19. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Yes, you're a stereotyping bigot reading what you want inbetween the lines of what was actually written. A denial is an assertion...not a question. You made the assertion, and I wanted you to support it...hence the questions.

    And no, you've never asked me to refer to you by name. You have asked that I don't refer to you as "deary" and "woman", and while I've done the former, you've yet to show how the latter violates forum rules. But thank you, I'll be sure to let you know the very next time someone refers to me by anything but my user name (that I find the least bit offensive)...since that's the precedent you've set here.
    Again, read what was actually written...instead of what you'd like to imagine was written. The left's incompetence was a general statement...that you're apparently happy to agree with.
    You're awfully obtuse if you don't think environmental and animal rights activism are significantly left in the US.
    In the 21st Century, questions about the environment have become increasingly politicized, with the Left generally accepting the findings of environmental scientists about global warming, and many on the Right disputing or rejecting those findings. The left is however divided over how to effectively and equitably reduce carbon emissions; the center-left often advocates a reliance on market measures such as emissions trading or a carbon tax, while those further to the left tend to support direct government regulation and intervention either alongside or instead of market mechanisms.

    The movement predominately comprises upper-class and middle-class white female members, owing this to its associations with the Victorian English animal protection movement and American feminism and environmentalism movements.

    Radical animal rights factions address injustices against a variety of groups, therein emphasizing a connection between discrimination against humans and discrimination against nonhuman animals. An intersectional orientation is seen online, on websites and social media, and also in offline activity. ... Among them were animal rights activists that saw the protests as an opportunity to raise concerns about speciesism. Animal rights activists' involvement in the protests changed the opinions of animal rights movement outsiders who had previously viewed vegan animal rights activists as elitist. This allowed for increased legitimacy and network expansion; the animal rights movement in Istanbul is composed of multi-movement actors from the feminist movement, LGBT+ movement, and antimilitarist movement, and such inter-movement interaction has led to increased coverage of veganism and animal rights by leftist news sites in Turkey.
    Or are you going to claim that the left isn't the prominent driving force in environmentalism and that the ties between feminism and LGBT rights to animal rights are merely coincidental?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The FBI is correct, but this doesn't say what you seem to think it does:
    "Special interest terrorism differs from traditional right-wing and left-wing terrorism in that extremist special interest groups seek to resolve specific issues, rather than effect widespread political change. Such extremists conduct acts of politically motivated violence to force segments of society, including the general public, to change attitudes about issues considered important to the extremists’ causes."​
    Just because special interest terrorism is focused on more narrow issues only make them not "traditional" political terrorism. That doesn't say they are apolitical terrorism. And where does that FBI source say anything about these special interest groups running counter to left-wing politics?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Again, you're reading more into things than what's actually there.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    No, I was asking about "the 2004 bank robbery in Tulsa, Oklahoma." Where's info on that?
    I never passed it off as my own, nor intended any plagiarism. It was a quick, passing reference. You just got shitty about it, so I got shitty right back.
    Again, you inferred the "fucking idiot" never written nor implied.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    And apparently you've never heard of LMFGTFY before.
    The whole forum rule says:
    Referring to other members
    H4. Refer to other members by their chosen screen names. The deliberate alteration of a member’s name to insult or demean him or her is unacceptable.​
    It says nothing about terms of address such as pal, friend, mate, comrade, etc.. It only mentions altering a member's name.
    But again, thank you for setting the new precedent. I'll be sure to let YOU know when it happens to me, and I'll expect you to be just as vigilant to handle it in the future. Otherwise this will just be a blatant conflict of interest on your part.
    And again, you never asked me to refer to you "by name". If so, please, show me where.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I've already cited proof Obama did threaten both gun and ammo bans as president...after the speculation from the NRA during his first presidential campaign. I never disagreed that those NRA speculations were overblown, but you've yet to admit the facts you've already been given.
    Again, having already given you proof of Obama's actions, the reaction to buy ammo and guns while people could was not a "panic" but a reasonable response to a legitimate threat to availability. It's basic economics.
    You seemed to imply that I had "panicked" over Obama's threats, so why is it confusing to show I didn't? It only confuses your little bigoted narrative. You've yet to refute any of things I've cited Obama as having actually done.
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Traditionally, environmentalism has been a major feature of American rightwing factions as well as leftwing, partly due to major factions of the right including wisdom and common sense in their ideologies and partly due to its derivation from scientific research. Not too long ago, there was a strong scientific base and allegiance in the American right wing.

    The takeover of the Republican Party by modern American fascism has obscured this, by evicting essentially all of science except military/industrial complex engineering from the conventional representation of the Right, the Republican Party. By setting the Republican Party in opposition to science in general, this created the appearance of scientific research and discovery being a leftwing endeavor.

    So we saw the major popular science publications - Scientific American prominently - labeled "left" during the Reagan administration, in tandem with that administration's deregulation of industry and promotion of nonsense (creationism, Star Wars, trickle down economics, racism).

    It's not that environmentalism is leftwing, but that anti-environmentalism is Republican.
    You have presented wingnut panicky delusions of the time as fact.
  21. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Care to ever support any of your claims? No? Typical.
  22. Bells Staff Member

    Wait, you are calling me a stereotyping bigot? Aren't you the one who just declared all black people as being "left" without any proof whatsoever? Aren't you the one who just crowed about how good the right are, when it comes to just how good they are at killing others who do not believe as they do? Aren't you the one who kept referring to me as "woman" despite being asked not to? And you call others a bigot? Really, that's rich!

    There was this brilliant article in a scientific blog a few years ago, discussing denial and just how people such as yourself, "ask questions" to push a particular narrative, in your instance, denial. The article was discussing denial surrounding HIV. The opening paragraphs describe you and what you badly try to do, perfectly:

    The “just asking questions” maneuver is familiar to many skeptics. The idea is to feign neutrality, to insulate oneself from accountability or being held to answer for any specific position, but meanwhile to sow doubt about a scientific claim by raising (dubious) questions.

    Sometimes the “I’m just asking questions” gambit also tries to disguise itself as sincere journalism. That’s what journalists do, right, ask the tough questions, uncover the uncomfortable truth?

    I find this approach particularly deceptive. It tries to hide the fact that the journalist is working off of a particular narrative. Asking questions is, in fact, just another narrative style, one that is meant to lead the reader/viewer to a particular conclusion about the subject. The narrative determines what questions are asked and how they are answered.

    Your claims that I never asked you to refer to me by name? I did it in this thread:

    What part of that was so hard to understand, that you just went right on referring to me as "woman" when addressing me?

    Despite my repeatedly making my disgust known for how you referred to me, from "deary" to "woman", you just can't seem to get that I have repeatedly advised you that I wanted you to refer to me by my name. And you have consistently refused to do so.

    See, the rules are pretty open in that regard. If someone tells you that they want you to refer to them by name, when you decide to use nicknames and use them in a way that is designed to demean them, then it's a pretty safe bet that you will be moderated if you keep refusing to refer to them by their name. You were never invited to refer to me by a nickname, Syne. In fact, I had on numerous occasions made you aware that your use of "deary" and "woman" when addressing me, was not welcome and you deliberately chose to keep referring to me that way. What part of you don't get to refer to me as that, didn't you understand, exactly? My friends here? I have no problem with them referring to me by nicknames. You? No. And I made that clear a long time ago. Respecting people's wishes is hard for you to understand?

    Respecting my request that you stop, did not compute for you?

    Just follows the pattern of your personality, I suppose.

    Oh I think we were both clear, weren't we, Syne...?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    And you are being deceptive in your interpretation. Environmental and animal rights groups tend to march to the beat of their own drums and will vote for politicians who give them what they want, regardless of the ideology espoused by the politician.

    From the National Review, a very conservative news site, as one example:

    Joining the animal-protection movement as a conservative can feel a little like being a defector. There’s a necessary period of assimilation and some nearly anthropological intel-gathering as you attempt to make sense of your surroundings. Veganism, body art, knowing what a pangolin is: These are common trappings of a culture much removed from that of many red-state residents and from my own as a former Republican Senate staffer. But as I’ve grown more familiar with the issues over time, one thing has become abundantly clear: Animal welfare is a fundamentally conservative cause.

    As a conservative, I value small government and individual liberty. Though I teeter on the precipice of libertarianism, I believe that state intervention is essential to defend the nation and to conserve our natural resources, including wildlife. For any right-leaning voter, clear entry points to the animal-welfare movement are respect for tradition and for the covenant between present and unborn generations, and a belief in personal responsibility for the environment (property). Ideologically and etymologically, conservation and conservatism derive from the same wellspring.

    Mr Cleveland argues that animal rights and welfare are deeply conservative and should be supported by the right. Mary Eberstadt, also from National Review, argues that conservatives are embracing the animal welfare and animal rights causes, because of a shared value in the sanctity of life.

    I guess the right are trying to buy into every group, to garner votes. These individuals believe that the right should embrace these groups, specifically because they, the right, are anti-abortion.

    And you still wish to keep arguing that it is a 'left' cause?

    Animal rights and environmental groups will go where they get what they want, regardless of the political ideology spouted.

    And there are activists in animal rights groups, for example, who believe that they should be leaning to the right of the political spectrum..

    As I said, these groups tend to go where they get what they want, regardless of political ideology.

    You mean the one by Christopher and Wade Lay?
  23. Bells Staff Member

    You didn't provide a link to it, not did you name the person who wrote it or reference their website. You did not set it apart from your own words or text.

    At the end of the day, you copied and pasted from another website and did not provide a link and when asked for a link, you became even more rude and offensive, not to mention defensive. Which kind of makes sense when one looks through that website you plagiarised from.

    All I asked for was a link to where you had plagiarised from. Instead of doing the right thing, you chose to be abusive about it. That's all on you, Syne.

    It says nothing about it, because it is pretty much accepted that if someone tells you to not refer to them in a particular way, if they express their displeasure at how you address them and the names you use to address them and you keep doing it, then the writing is pretty much on the wall.

    It isn't a precedent, Syne. Well, the alteration of names has a long precedent on this site. But the refusal to respect someone's request about using their name and not calling them something else, not demeaning them with names as you repeatedly, despite knowing full well that I wanted you to refer to me by my name and despite being asked to do so... Really, your intent was clear.

    I doubt anyone would disagree with issuing infractions when someone asks another to stop demeaning them and to address them by their name and the offender just keeps doing it regardless. What you kept doing, qualifies as harassment.

    And once more:

    All of which were proven to be panic headlines..

    For example, the first link you provided. The one that said that had this for their headline: "Senate votes to repeal Obama’s ban on gun sales for certain Social Security recipients"

    The reality of that story:

    A new Social Security Administration rule would add Social Security disability recipients who have been deemed unable to manage their own affairs to the federal background check system for gun purchases.


    The rule would require that the Social Security Administration report to the Attorney General, for inclusion in the NICS, Social Security recipients who have been deemed unable to manage their own affairs due to “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease”:

    Criteria for inclusion in the NICS include that an individual is disabled based on a finding that the individual’s impairment(s) meets or medically equals the requirements of one of the mental disorders listings. These listings consist of medical conditions that we consider severe enough to prevent a person from doing any gainful activity, regardless of age, education, or work experience. Individuals whose impairments meet a listing are the most severely disabled individuals we serve. If we find an individual to be disabled based on a listing-level mental impairment, and he or she satisfies all of the remaining requirements, we are required to report them to the NICS. If we do not find an individual to be disabled based on a mental impairment, he or she has not met the reporting requirements and we will not report them to the NICS.

    Unless of course you wish to argue that people who are mentally unable to manage their own affairs, due to being mentally ill, for example, should be in a position to purchase firearms?

    Your second link: "Obama Calls for Assault Weapon Ban, New 'No Fly, No buy' Law "

    He did not call for outright bans as you tried to badly insinuate. He asked to re-instate an already existing ban that had recently expired to apply for those on the terrorism watch list and he asked to make it harder for terrorists to obtain firearms.

    But no, the right deemed it an outright ban.

    Your third link: "Obama's final shot: Ban on 'traditional ammo'"

    Umm, did you read the article? The ban was aimed at using traditional lead ammunition and fishing tackle in national parks and waterways to prevent further contamination.

    Those on the right carried on as though he as banning all ammunition. Even the headline was deceptive in the extreme. When it was not that at all.

    Moral panic for no good reason. And instead of protecting your wildlife and environment, the right responded by overturning the ban.. And people wonder why that bald eagle went for Trump's face once in that now famous video. Payback's a bitch.

    And now onto the final giant bold link you posted.. "Obama to ban bullets by executive action, threatens top-selling AR-15 rifle"

    This one was my favourite, because it just showed the level of dishonesty from those on the right.

Share This Page