Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Right Wingers More Dangerous Than Jihadists in U.S.

+5
boards of FL
ZVUGKTUBM
Nekochan
Floridatexan
Sal
9 posters

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 3]

Sal

Sal

In fact, since 9/11 extremists affiliated with a variety of far-right wing ideologies, including white supremacists, anti-abortion extremists and anti-government militants, have killed more people in the United States than have extremists motivated by al Qaeda's ideology. According to a count by the New America Foundation, right wing extremists have killed 34 people in the United States for political reasons since 9/11. (The total includes the latest shootings in Kansas, which are being classified as a hate crime).

By contrast, terrorists motivated by al Qaeda's ideology have killed 21 people in the United States since 9/11.

Moreover, since 9/11 none of the more than 200 individuals indicted or convicted in the United States of some act of jihadist terrorism have acquired or used chemical or biological weapons or their precursor materials, while 13 individuals motivated by right wing extremist ideology, one individual motivated by left-wing extremist ideology, and two with idiosyncratic beliefs, used or acquired such weapons or their precursors.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/14/opinion/bergen-sterman-kansas-shooting/index.html?

http://homegrown.newamerica.net/

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


Right-Wing Ideology in a Nutshell

"...When you cut right through it, right-wing ideology is just "dime-store economics" - intended to dress their ideology up and make it look respectable. You don't really need to know much about economics to understand it. They certainly don't. It all gets down to two simple words.


"Cheap labor".


That's their whole philosophy in a nutshell - which gives you a short and pithy "catch phrase" that describes them perfectly. You've heard of "big-government liberals". Well they're "cheap-labor conservatives".

"Cheap-labor conservative" is a moniker they will never shake, and never live down. Because it's exactly what they are. You see, cheap-labor conservatives are defenders of corporate America - whose fortunes depend on labor. The larger the labor supply, the cheaper it is. The more desperately you need a job, the cheaper you'll work, and the more power those "corporate lords" have over you. If you are a wealthy elite - or a "wannabe" like most dittoheads - your wealth, power and privilege is enhanced by a labor pool, forced to work cheap.

Don't believe me. Well, let's apply this principle, and see how many right-wing positions become instantly understandable.

Cheap-labor conservatives don't like social spending or our "safety net". Why. Because when you're unemployed and desperate, corporations can pay you whatever they feel like - which is inevitably next to nothing. You see, they want you "over a barrel" and in a position to "work cheap or starve".
Cheap-labor conservatives don't like the minimum wage, or other improvements in wages and working conditions. Why. These reforms undo all of their efforts to keep you "over a barrel".
Cheap-labor conservatives like "free trade", NAFTA, GATT, etc. Why. Because there is a huge supply of desperately poor people in the third world, who are "over a barrel", and will work cheap.
Cheap-labor conservatives oppose a woman's right to choose. Why. Unwanted children are an economic burden that put poor women "over a barrel", forcing them to work cheap.
Cheap-labor conservatives don't like unions. Why. Because when labor "sticks together", wages go up. That's why workers unionize. Seems workers don't like being "over a barrel".
Cheap-labor conservatives constantly bray about "morality", "virtue", "respect for authority", "hard work" and other "values". Why. So they can blame your being "over a barrel" on your own "immorality", lack of "values" and "poor choices".
Cheap-labor conservatives encourage racism, misogyny, homophobia and other forms of bigotry. Why? Bigotry among wage earners distracts them, and keeps them from recognizing their common interests as wage earners.
The Cheap-Labor Conservatives' "Dirty Secret": They Don't Really Like Prosperity

Maybe you don't believe that cheap-labor conservatives like unemployment, poverty and "cheap labor". Consider these facts.
Unemployment was 23 percent when FDR took office in 1933. It dropped to 2.5 percent by time the next Republican was in the White House in 1953. It climbed back to 6.5 percent by the end of the Eisenhower administration. It dropped to 3.5 percent by the time LBJ left office. It climbed over 5 percent shortly after Nixon took office, and stayed there for 27 years, until Clinton brought it down to 4.5 percent early in his second term.

That same period - especially from the late forties into the early seventies - was the "golden age" of the United States. We sent men to the moon. We built our Interstate Highway system. We ended segregation in the South and established Medicare. In those days, a single wage earner could support an entire family on his wages. I grew up then, and I will tell you that life was good - at least for the many Americans insulated from the tragedy in Vietnam, as I was.

These facts provide a nice background to evaluate cheap-labor conservative claims like "liberals are destroying America."

In fact, cheap-labor conservatives have howled with outrage and indignation against New Deal liberalism from its inception in the 1930's all the way to the present. You can go to "Free Republic" or Hannity's forum right now, and find a cheap-labor conservative comparing New Deal Liberalism to "Stalinism".

Cheap-labor conservatives opposed virtually all of the New Deal, including every improvement in wages and working conditions.
Cheap-labor conservatives have a long and sorry history of opposing virtually every advancement in this country's development going right back to the American revolution.
Cheap-labor conservatives have hated Social Security and Medicare since their inception.
Many cheap-labor conservatives are hostile to public education. They think it should be privatized. But why are we surprised. Cheap-labor conservatives opposed universal public education in its early days. School vouchers are just a backdoor method to "resegregate" the public schools.
Cheap-labor conservatives hate the progressive income tax like the devil hates holy water.
Cheap-labor conservatives like budget deficits and a huge national debt for two reasons. A bankrupt government has a harder time doing any "social spending" - which cheap-labor conservatives oppose, and . . .
Wealthy cheap-labor conservatives like say, George W. Bush, buy the bonds and then earn tax free interest on the money they lend the government. The deficit created by cheap-labor conservatives while they posture as being "fiscally conservative" - may count as the biggest con job in American history.
"Free Trade", globalization, NAFTA and especially GATT are intended to create a world-wide "corporate playground" where national governments serve the interests of corporations - which means "cheap labor".
The ugly truth is that cheap-labor conservatives just don't like working people. They don't like "bottom up" prosperity, and the reason for it is very simple. lords have a harder time kicking them around. Once you understand this about the cheap-labor conservatives, the real motivation for their policies makes perfect sense. Remember, cheap-labor conservatives believe in social hierarchy and privilege, so the only prosperity they want is limited to them. They want to see absolutely nothing that benefits the guy - or more often the woman - who works for an hourly wage.

So there you have it, in one easy-to-remember phrase. See how easy it is to understand these cheap-labor conservatives. The more ignorant and destitute people there are - desperate for any job they can get - the cheaper the cheap-labor conservatives can get them to work.

Try it. Every time you respond to a cheap-labor conservative in letters to the editor, or an online discussion forum, look for the "cheap labor" angle. Trust me, you'll find it. I can even show you the "cheap labor" angle in things like the "war on drugs", and the absurd conservative opposition to alternative energy.

Next, make that moniker - cheap-labor conservatives - your "standard reference" to the other side. One of the last revisions I made to this article was to find every reference to "conservatives", "Republicans", "right-wingers", and "righties", and replace it with "cheap-labor conservatives". In fact, if you're a cheap-labor conservative reading this, you should be getting sick of that phrase right about now. Exxxxcellent..."

http://sideshow.me.uk/annex/defeattherightin3minutes.htm

Nekochan

Nekochan

Right winger--how so?
KKK Byrd was a life long Democrat.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Sal wrote:In fact, since 9/11 extremists affiliated with a variety of far-right wing ideologies, including white supremacists, anti-abortion extremists and anti-government militants, have killed more people in the United States than have extremists motivated by al Qaeda's ideology. According to a count by the New America Foundation, right wing extremists have killed 34 people in the United States for political reasons since 9/11. (The total includes the latest shootings in Kansas, which are being classified as a hate crime).

By contrast, terrorists motivated by al Qaeda's ideology have killed 21 people in the United States since 9/11.

Moreover, since 9/11 none of the more than 200 individuals indicted or convicted in the United States of some act of jihadist terrorism have acquired or used chemical or biological weapons or their precursor materials, while 13 individuals motivated by right wing extremist ideology, one individual motivated by left-wing extremist ideology, and two with idiosyncratic beliefs, used or acquired such weapons or their precursors.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/14/opinion/bergen-sterman-kansas-shooting/index.html?

http://homegrown.newamerica.net/

That's why they call them: "Teajadists."

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Nekochan wrote:Right winger--how so?
KKK Byrd was a life long Democrat.

As Seaoat has so painstakingly pointed out time and again, Byrd was an old-time southern democrat. Why he didn't switch parties is a mystery to me. And he's dead.

Guest


Guest

A demagogue /ˈdɛməɡɒɡ/ or rabble-rouser is a political opportunist in a democracy who appeals to the emotions, fears, prejudices, and ignorance of the lower classes in order to gain power and promote political motives. Demagogues usually oppose deliberation and advocate immediate, violent action to address a national crisis; they accuse moderate and thoughtful opponents of weakness. Demagogues have appeared in democracies since ancient Athens. They exploit a fundamental weakness in democracy: because ultimate power is held by the people, nothing stops the people from giving that power to someone who appeals to the lowest common denominator of a large segment of the population.

Sal

Sal

PkrBum wrote:A demagogue /ˈdɛməɡɒɡ/ or rabble-rouser is a political opportunist in a democracy who appeals to the emotions, fears, prejudices, and ignorance of the lower classes in order to gain power and promote political motives. Demagogues usually oppose deliberation and advocate immediate, violent action to address a national crisis; they accuse moderate and thoughtful opponents of weakness. Demagogues have appeared in democracies since ancient Athens. They exploit a fundamental weakness in democracy: because ultimate power is held by the people, nothing stops the people from giving that power to someone who appeals to the lowest common denominator of a large segment of the population.

Well, they can always strap on their shooting irons to defend the sovereignty of a pigheaded deadbeat rancher.

The tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the milk of welfare cows, after all.

boards of FL

boards of FL

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
That's why they call them: "Teajadists."

Tali-bags!


_________________
I approve this message.

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

Sal wrote:In fact, since 9/11 extremists affiliated with a variety of far-right wing ideologies, including white supremacists, anti-abortion extremists and anti-government militants, have killed more people in the United States than have extremists motivated by al Qaeda's ideology. According to a count by the New America Foundation, right wing extremists have killed 34 people in the United States for political reasons since 9/11. (The total includes the latest shootings in Kansas, which are being classified as a hate crime).

By contrast, terrorists motivated by al Qaeda's ideology have killed 21 people in the United States since 9/11.

Moreover, since 9/11 none of the more than 200 individuals indicted or convicted in the United States of some act of jihadist terrorism have acquired or used chemical or biological weapons or their precursor materials, while 13 individuals motivated by right wing extremist ideology, one individual motivated by left-wing extremist ideology, and two with idiosyncratic beliefs, used or acquired such weapons or their precursors.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/14/opinion/bergen-sterman-kansas-shooting/index.html?

http://homegrown.newamerica.net/

I saw this reported on TV last night. Yes, we are geared up to go to war and all the rest of the homeland security stuff against the jihadists but refuse to notice that more have been killed by the right wingers.

Remember when parts of that study were released (there was a study by the DOJ or someone saying there was danger from right wing extremists) and right wing folks in Congress went ballistic and complained that OMG you can't POSSIBLY think that red blooded total patriots would dare harm fellow citizens!!! They were very insulted and caused the report to not be released. What a bunch of pussy's those bureaucrats were to hide their findings especially since they turned out to be accurate.  

Nekochan

Nekochan

Nice try by my liberal forum friends, but this guy seems to have more in common with KKK Byrd than with the Tea Party.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Seriously, what would happen if PaceDog found himself in the same room as Barrack Obama?  Suspect 



Last edited by ZVUGKTUBM on 4/16/2014, 7:10 pm; edited 1 time in total

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Nekochan

Nekochan

A slightly more balanced article. These nuts, left extremists and right extremists, have more in common with each other than they do with mainstream liberals and conservatives. These people aren't wired right and they are dangerous.

http://homegrown.newamerica.net/overview_nonjihadists

Sal

Sal

Nekochan wrote:A slightly more balanced article.  These nuts, left extremists and right extremists, have more in common with each other than they do with mainstream liberals and conservatives.  These people aren't wired right and they are dangerous.

http://homegrown.newamerica.net/overview_nonjihadists

Ahem ....

.... that's the organization that did the study to which I am referring in my OP.

There's even a link.


lol

Nekochan

Nekochan

Sal wrote:
Nekochan wrote:A slightly more balanced article.  These nuts, left extremists and right extremists, have more in common with each other than they do with mainstream liberals and conservatives.  These people aren't wired right and they are dangerous.

http://homegrown.newamerica.net/overview_nonjihadists

Ahem ....

.... that's the organization that did the study to which I am referring in my OP.

There's even a link.


lol

My link is different but I'm glad you realize that the study includes left wing nuts even though you didn't mention it in your post.  Wink

knothead

knothead

Floridatexan wrote:
Right-Wing Ideology in a Nutshell

"...When you cut right through it, right-wing ideology is just "dime-store economics" - intended to dress their ideology up and make it look respectable. You don't really need to know much about economics to understand it. They certainly don't. It all gets down to two simple words.


"Cheap labor".


That's their whole philosophy in a nutshell - which gives you a short and pithy "catch phrase" that describes them perfectly. You've heard of "big-government liberals". Well they're "cheap-labor conservatives".

"Cheap-labor conservative" is a moniker they will never shake, and never live down. Because it's exactly what they are. You see, cheap-labor conservatives are defenders of corporate America - whose fortunes depend on labor. The larger the labor supply, the cheaper it is. The more desperately you need a job, the cheaper you'll work, and the more power those "corporate lords" have over you. If you are a wealthy elite - or a "wannabe" like most dittoheads - your wealth, power and privilege is enhanced by a labor pool, forced to work cheap.

Don't believe me. Well, let's apply this principle, and see how many right-wing positions become instantly understandable.

Cheap-labor conservatives don't like social spending or our "safety net". Why. Because when you're unemployed and desperate, corporations can pay you whatever they feel like - which is inevitably next to nothing. You see, they want you "over a barrel" and in a position to "work cheap or starve".
Cheap-labor conservatives don't like the minimum wage, or other improvements in wages and working conditions. Why. These reforms undo all of their efforts to keep you "over a barrel".
Cheap-labor conservatives like "free trade", NAFTA, GATT, etc. Why. Because there is a huge supply of desperately poor people in the third world, who are "over a barrel", and will work cheap.
Cheap-labor conservatives oppose a woman's right to choose. Why. Unwanted children are an economic burden that put poor women "over a barrel", forcing them to work cheap.
Cheap-labor conservatives don't like unions. Why. Because when labor "sticks together", wages go up. That's why workers unionize. Seems workers don't like being "over a barrel".
Cheap-labor conservatives constantly bray about "morality", "virtue", "respect for authority", "hard work" and other "values". Why. So they can blame your being "over a barrel" on your own "immorality", lack of "values" and "poor choices".
Cheap-labor conservatives encourage racism, misogyny, homophobia and other forms of bigotry. Why? Bigotry among wage earners distracts them, and keeps them from recognizing their common interests as wage earners.
The Cheap-Labor Conservatives' "Dirty Secret": They Don't Really Like Prosperity

Maybe you don't believe that cheap-labor conservatives like unemployment, poverty and "cheap labor". Consider these facts.
Unemployment was 23 percent when FDR took office in 1933. It dropped to 2.5 percent by time the next Republican was in the White House in 1953. It climbed back to 6.5 percent by the end of the Eisenhower administration. It dropped to 3.5 percent by the time LBJ left office. It climbed over 5 percent shortly after Nixon took office, and stayed there for 27 years, until Clinton brought it down to 4.5 percent early in his second term.

That same period - especially from the late forties into the early seventies - was the "golden age" of the United States. We sent men to the moon. We built our Interstate Highway system. We ended segregation in the South and established Medicare. In those days, a single wage earner could support an entire family on his wages. I grew up then, and I will tell you that life was good - at least for the many Americans insulated from the tragedy in Vietnam, as I was.

These facts provide a nice background to evaluate cheap-labor conservative claims like "liberals are destroying America."

In fact, cheap-labor conservatives have howled with outrage and indignation against New Deal liberalism from its inception in the 1930's all the way to the present. You can go to "Free Republic" or Hannity's forum right now, and find a cheap-labor conservative comparing New Deal Liberalism to "Stalinism".

Cheap-labor conservatives opposed virtually all of the New Deal, including every improvement in wages and working conditions.
Cheap-labor conservatives have a long and sorry history of opposing virtually every advancement in this country's development going right back to the American revolution.
Cheap-labor conservatives have hated Social Security and Medicare since their inception.
Many cheap-labor conservatives are hostile to public education. They think it should be privatized. But why are we surprised. Cheap-labor conservatives opposed universal public education in its early days. School vouchers are just a backdoor method to "resegregate" the public schools.
Cheap-labor conservatives hate the progressive income tax like the devil hates holy water.
Cheap-labor conservatives like budget deficits and a huge national debt for two reasons. A bankrupt government has a harder time doing any "social spending" - which cheap-labor conservatives oppose, and . . .
Wealthy cheap-labor conservatives like say, George W. Bush, buy the bonds and then earn tax free interest on the money they lend the government. The deficit created by cheap-labor conservatives while they posture as being "fiscally conservative" - may count as the biggest con job in American history.
"Free Trade", globalization, NAFTA and especially GATT are intended to create a world-wide "corporate playground" where national governments serve the interests of corporations - which means "cheap labor".
The ugly truth is that cheap-labor conservatives just don't like working people. They don't like "bottom up" prosperity, and the reason for it is very simple. lords have a harder time kicking them around. Once you understand this about the cheap-labor conservatives, the real motivation for their policies makes perfect sense. Remember, cheap-labor conservatives believe in social hierarchy and privilege, so the only prosperity they want is limited to them. They want to see absolutely nothing that benefits the guy - or more often the woman - who works for an hourly wage.

So there you have it, in one easy-to-remember phrase. See how easy it is to understand these cheap-labor conservatives. The more ignorant and destitute people there are - desperate for any job they can get - the cheaper the cheap-labor conservatives can get them to work.

Try it. Every time you respond to a cheap-labor conservative in letters to the editor, or an online discussion forum, look for the "cheap labor" angle. Trust me, you'll find it. I can even show you the "cheap labor" angle in things like the "war on drugs", and the absurd conservative opposition to alternative energy.

Next, make that moniker - cheap-labor conservatives - your "standard reference" to the other side. One of the last revisions I made to this article was to find every reference to "conservatives", "Republicans", "right-wingers", and "righties", and replace it with "cheap-labor conservatives". In fact, if you're a cheap-labor conservative reading this, you should be getting sick of that phrase right about now. Exxxxcellent..."

http://sideshow.me.uk/annex/defeattherightin3minutes.htm


Good post FT, I hope those who disagree with the points here will defend them because that should make for some fun stuff . . . . what part(s) are not true?

Guest


Guest

PkrBum wrote:A demagogue /ˈdɛməɡɒɡ/ or rabble-rouser is a political opportunist in a democracy who appeals to the emotions, fears, prejudices, and ignorance of the lower classes in order to gain power and promote political motives. Demagogues usually oppose deliberation and advocate immediate, violent action to address a national crisis; they accuse moderate and thoughtful opponents of weakness. Demagogues have appeared in democracies since ancient Athens. They exploit a fundamental weakness in democracy: because ultimate power is held by the people, nothing stops the people from giving that power to someone who appeals to the lowest common denominator of a large segment of the population.

Right Wingers More Dangerous Than Jihadists in U.S. Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSNKDtnkovd1Pj2tMuszv4yfCLdsg6jDM6e0_pGguxWMGlEgA7y

Right Wingers More Dangerous Than Jihadists in U.S. Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSxbkiqENNKQKXaT4o5brj_3P9hmqB1OYMCD0e2PGEICUdcAWZhFw

Right Wingers More Dangerous Than Jihadists in U.S. Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQU8lbSyD-yAW6_CWi0_Z1XJNTXovlQDfd7hyjmR2AL9-Gu06y7HA

Gee!..... I wonder which party supports the Occupy Movement that's supposed to represent the 99%?

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx27NL_iqEM

 Laughing 

Nekochan

Nekochan

I started reading Ft's post, knot, but found it very slanted. I personally believe in safety nets for people in need and I have no problem with a min wage (But NOT $15 for a 16 year old inexperienced worker) but I think the States should decide min wage, not the federal gov. Cost of living in FL is much different than in CA, NY, etc. This again is an attempt to generalize or pigeon hole conservatives as being uncaring bastards.


And didn't Clinton sign NAFTA?

Sal

Sal

Nekochan wrote:

My link is different but I'm glad you realize that the study includes left wing nuts even though you didn't mention it in your post.  Wink

Yes, but the point of the thread is that rightwing groups are the most dangerous which is supported by the data gathered in the study.

This despite the fact that a dead Democratic Senator was involved with the KKK in the 1940's and '50s.

I expect that kind of specious argument from Markle.

You can do better.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Nekochan wrote:I started reading Ft's post, knot, but found it very slanted. I personally believe in safety nets for people in need and I have no problem with a min wage (But NOT $15 for a 16 year old inexperienced worker) but I think the States should decide min wage, not the federal gov. Cost of living in FL is much different than in CA, NY, etc.    This again is an attempt to generalize or pigeon hole conservatives as being uncaring bastards.  


And didn't Clinton sign NAFTA?

That's YOU, Neko, but I don't know whether you've noticed...your party has gone completely off the rails trying to demonize segments of the population and promoting Reagan's "vision" of the Cadillac welfare queen, intimating that people who accept welfare are "lazy", while with the other hand they're taking corporate cash by the boatload and writing legislation to take what little remains from the vast majority, who are having a hard time just getting by.

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

Floridatexan wrote:
Nekochan wrote:I started reading Ft's post, knot, but found it very slanted. I personally believe in safety nets for people in need and I have no problem with a min wage (But NOT $15 for a 16 year old inexperienced worker) but I think the States should decide min wage, not the federal gov. Cost of living in FL is much different than in CA, NY, etc.    This again is an attempt to generalize or pigeon hole conservatives as being uncaring bastards.  


And didn't Clinton sign NAFTA?

That's YOU, Neko, but I don't know whether you've noticed...your party has gone completely off the rails trying to demonize segments of the population and promoting Reagan's "vision" of the Cadillac welfare queen, intimating that people who accept welfare are "lazy", while with the other hand they're taking corporate cash by the boatload and writing legislation to take what little remains from the vast majority, who are having a hard time just getting by.

Perfect FT! It is the welfare queen and the food stamp cheaters that are such easy concepts to understand, in reality they are much more rare than many would imagine.

Making the news stories (propaganda) harp on this idea keeps certain elements of the public looking at that shiny object, one perhaps they might have seen up close at the grocery store even.

Personally I think I have rarely been around people who makes megabucks,  no big shot CEO's etc. so these people seem less real. It might be harder to get the point across that the big shots are sucking all the money out of the system when they seem less real. Is it hard to get riled up against a corporation?I don't know. I do know I don't shop at Walmart though.

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:In fact, since 9/11 extremists affiliated with a variety of far-right wing ideologies, including white supremacists, anti-abortion extremists and anti-government militants, have killed more people in the United States than have extremists motivated by al Qaeda's ideology. According to a count by the New America Foundation, right wing extremists have killed 34 people in the United States for political reasons since 9/11. (The total includes the latest shootings in Kansas, which are being classified as a hate crime).

By contrast, terrorists motivated by al Qaeda's ideology have killed 21 people in the United States since 9/11.

Moreover, since 9/11 none of the more than 200 individuals indicted or convicted in the United States of some act of jihadist terrorism have acquired or used chemical or biological weapons or their precursor materials, while 13 individuals motivated by right wing extremist ideology, one individual motivated by left-wing extremist ideology, and two with idiosyncratic beliefs, used or acquired such weapons or their precursors.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/14/opinion/bergen-sterman-kansas-shooting/index.html?

http://homegrown.newamerica.net/

I bet there are a lot more killings going on by leftist in places like Chicago, Detroit, Miami, Orlando etc etc Did someone do a study on that? LOL

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:In fact, since 9/11 extremists affiliated with a variety of far-right wing ideologies, including white supremacists, anti-abortion extremists and anti-government militants, have killed more people in the United States than have extremists motivated by al Qaeda's ideology. According to a count by the New America Foundation, right wing extremists have killed 34 people in the United States for political reasons since 9/11. (The total includes the latest shootings in Kansas, which are being classified as a hate crime).

By contrast, terrorists motivated by al Qaeda's ideology have killed 21 people in the United States since 9/11.

Moreover, since 9/11 none of the more than 200 individuals indicted or convicted in the United States of some act of jihadist terrorism have acquired or used chemical or biological weapons or their precursor materials, while 13 individuals motivated by right wing extremist ideology, one individual motivated by left-wing extremist ideology, and two with idiosyncratic beliefs, used or acquired such weapons or their precursors.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/14/opinion/bergen-sterman-kansas-shooting/index.html?

http://homegrown.newamerica.net/
Really? How many were killed in Boston a year ago? How about at Sandy Hook or the ones by Major Nidal Hassan at Ft Hood? How about the ones killed with the Rep who was wounded in the head? Hmmm all those were NOT right wingers.....

Guest


Guest

PACEDOG#1 wrote:
Sal wrote:In fact, since 9/11 extremists affiliated with a variety of far-right wing ideologies, including white supremacists, anti-abortion extremists and anti-government militants, have killed more people in the United States than have extremists motivated by al Qaeda's ideology. According to a count by the New America Foundation, right wing extremists have killed 34 people in the United States for political reasons since 9/11. (The total includes the latest shootings in Kansas, which are being classified as a hate crime).

By contrast, terrorists motivated by al Qaeda's ideology have killed 21 people in the United States since 9/11.

Moreover, since 9/11 none of the more than 200 individuals indicted or convicted in the United States of some act of jihadist terrorism have acquired or used chemical or biological weapons or their precursor materials, while 13 individuals motivated by right wing extremist ideology, one individual motivated by left-wing extremist ideology, and two with idiosyncratic beliefs, used or acquired such weapons or their precursors.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/14/opinion/bergen-sterman-kansas-shooting/index.html?

http://homegrown.newamerica.net/
Really? How many were killed in Boston a year ago? How about at Sandy Hook or the ones by Major Nidal Hassan at Ft Hood? How about the ones killed with the Rep who was wounded in the head? Hmmm all those were NOT right wingers.....

PD, its ok. all those gang killings are not by right wingers either.

In a typical year in the so-called “gang capitals” of Chicago and Los Angeles, around half of all homicides are gang-related; these two cities alone accounted for approximately one in five gang homicides recorded in the NYGS from 2010 to 2011. < these are obama supporters
https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Measuring-the-Extent-of-Gang-Problems

Sal

Sal

PACEDOG#1 wrote:
Really? How many were killed in Boston or the ones by Major Nidal Hassan at Ft Hood?

They were counted, brainiac. 

Nekochan

Nekochan

Floridatexan wrote:
Nekochan wrote:I started reading Ft's post, knot, but found it very slanted. I personally believe in safety nets for people in need and I have no problem with a min wage (But NOT $15 for a 16 year old inexperienced worker) but I think the States should decide min wage, not the federal gov. Cost of living in FL is much different than in CA, NY, etc.    This again is an attempt to generalize or pigeon hole conservatives as being uncaring bastards.  


And didn't Clinton sign NAFTA?

That's YOU, Neko, but I don't know whether you've noticed...your party has gone completely off the rails trying to demonize segments of the population and promoting Reagan's "vision" of the Cadillac welfare queen, intimating that people who accept welfare are "lazy", while with the other hand they're taking corporate cash by the boatload and writing legislation to take what little remains from the vast majority, who are having a hard time just getting by.


I don't see it that way. I don't see many Republicans saying that they are against all social programs and against helping those in need. I don't see many people saying that they are for cheap labor. I also don't think having religious views or moral views is wrong. When I read this sort of description of conservatives, it's usually from Left wing sites.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 3]

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum