"Malcolm X is a much better example of an individual specifically promoting violence to further his agenda."
No, Malcolm X advocated against non-violence in the face of racial discrimination and threats from both public and private sources. I can't recall a single thing about him ever calling for armed revolution, merely that people should be able to defend themselves when the government cannot or will not.
Clearly, you are incapable or unwilling to see any nuance. I understand that you were simply choosing someone on the left an blaming them for the actions of a leftwing nutjob. That's why your analogies suck. I'm not randomly choosing Jack and assigning him blame because he's pro-gun. Malcolm X is a much better example of an individual specifically promoting violence to further his agenda. Of course, it would be much easier to justify his call to arms based on the systematic violence and repression waged on the black community at that time. Gun nuts have no such justification, they are perfectly capable of full participation in the crafting of laws and regulations involving their rights and should not have to resort to violence to achieve their ends.
Again, you are unwilling to see what is clearly written by Jack. I point out that he wrote, CAN NEVER BE TOO EXTREME, and you try to ignore the plain meaning of the words or attribute them to someone else. Now you fall back into your horrible analogies in which to simply link two people on the left and claim it's the same thing as what I've said. You really don't understand how analogies work. At this point I'm wasting my breathe trying to define "inciting violence" to you. I'm sure it was simply coincidence that this crazy person had a gun and a bunker and picked this time to try to kidnap someone. And it was simply coincidence that I told you this was going to happen 3 weeks ago. Just like it was coincidence that the militia groups began attacking federal authorities after Wayne La Pierre called them "jack-booted thugs" in the early 90's. The party of personal responsibility is hardly ever willing to take personal responsibility for anything.
Are you really that literal? I'm using Maddow as an example of someone on the left that disagrees with the FRC on gay marriage. I could've used any number of liberals in the media who disagree with them. I was trying to illustrate a point for you. Don't like Maddow? Take your pick of anyone else; it doesn't matter. Your point is Jack is somehow responsible for what happened in Alabama, and your point is ridiculous. I was trying to show you how ridiculous it is by making the same point about somoene on the left and using the violence at the FRC.
How about this instead? Malcolm X..."by any means necessary"...Black Panther violence. Do you blame their acts on Malcolm X? I certainly don't.
In response to your comment on the other thread (because I don't feel like jumping back and forth anymore), it's you that's putting words in Jack's mouth. A clear call to arms? Seriously? That's not what I read. And, no, it's not up to Jack to repudiate anyone else. Do we call for mat to repudiate Stalin? He probably agrees with him on some things, but I don't foolishly assume mat's pro gulag. Try not taking columns that simply call for less government and protection of gun rights and making a great illogical leap into assuming that's a call for domestic terrorism.
Also, it's another great leap to assume the guy in Alabama's actions were motivated by politics. Seems more like pedophilia to me, but we don't know everything yet. Was the guy some kind of right wing survivalist? Sounds like it, but both sides have thier crazies. Do right wing survivalists regularly kidnap kids for political statments? Nope.
Your analogy is ludicrous. Maddow didn't ever write or say that all tactics used against the FRC were justifiable. Hunter, in contrast, is making the case that these violent tactics (indeed ANY tactics) are justifiable in defense of 2nd amendment rights. Therefore he shares responsibility for the tactics of the most extreme, whereas Maddow does not.
I think we've gotten to the point where we have the same arguments in both threads, so let's just keep it here now.
My point is that you can't take what someone writes and assign blame to them for another's actions. The guy in Alabama...I don't blame what he read on the web or who he listened to on talk radio. I blame him. By the way, he kidnapped a kid. Doesn't the motivation in that seem more likely to be pedophilia, not politics? He didn't go shoot up city hall or kidnap the mayor.
Blaming Jack for what he did would be like blaming Rachel Maddow for Floyd Corkins shooting the guard at the Family Research Council. It's preposterous in both cases.
There are two huge differences there. Hitler achieved his goals because he gained control of the government and expanded it's power (kind of how the Left always wants to see government grow). Also, Hitler called for violence against Jews. Who has Jack called for violence against? He's said not to budge on gun rights, like we shouldn't have budged on 4th Amendment rights. He hasn't called for assassinations of any politicians that promote gun control. I'm sure he'd like to see them voted out, but not killed.
Paulius, certainly you see the fallacy in your logic? I guess we've reached the point of Godwin's Law because I'm compelled to point out that Hitler never personally killed any Jews. How can he be held responsible for the crazed antisemitism that gripped Germany following his speeches that blamed the Jews for all of Germany's ills? I'm not claiming Jack is Hitler....he's more like some low level lackey of Joseph Goebbels. But Jack's point was to encourage the same degree of extremist behavior from paranoid and delusional people. Now that they've taken him up on his suggestion, he cannot claim to be ignorant of the consequences. Of course this rightwing lunatic might not have read Jack Hunter's column. Hunter himself is marginal and irrelevant. But he is part of the right-wing propaganda machine that coordinates and systematically pushes this nonsense (ie the Nazi Party).
Fish, you probably didn't write anything that would make me think that...but a crazed anti-cyclist might've seen it that way. Under the standard you set for Jack, you'd be responsible for whatever action that person took. What has Jack written that leads you to believe he's responsible for someone kidnapping a kid and killing a bus driver? Is Al Gore responsible for the actions of ecoterrorists? Is Christopher Nolan responsible for the Aurora shooting? Are inner city murders the fault of Lil' Boosie?
Paulius, you are so clever! You snared me in a rhetorical trap that I never would have recognized had you not pointed out how clever you were. It's not like there was a looong history of people like Hunter inciting violence on which to base my (now realized) prediction. Please quote anything that I have written about bicycles that made you believe you could never be too extreme in your desire to see them ride on the sidewalk.
You all deserve to sit through this entire thing.
Fish, what makes you think that guy ever even heard of Jack Hunter? Do you have some knowledge you're not sharing? Was he a relative of yours? See what I just did there? It's called speculation.... same thing you did.
Also, do you remember when Joe Riley was talking about putting a bike lane on the Ashley River Bridge? Some of the comments you wrote against that almost made me run down some cyclists. That was a very dangerous game you were playing back then.
And right on que, a man from Midland, Alabama who has been described as an angry anti-government survivalist killed a bus driver and kidnapped a 5 year old boy and held him hostage in his underground bunker for the past 5 days. When will Hunter take responsibility for inciting this behavior? He is an agitator whose sole purpose is to fan the flames of angst and insecurity. His readership is clearly mentally challenged and unable to discern fact from propaganda and therefore susceptible to a paranoid reactionary response. As I've said for the past 3 weeks, this is a very dangerous game that Hunter is playing. Now we're beginning to see the violent consequences of his call to arms.
look what america has generated in the public school system since the 1960's and in our institutions of higher learning . America is failing so fast.
SS is an entitlement, one works for many years to build up their benifit amount that will be given back at retirement. There are requirements to draw SS, i would suggest most read them first. Even when i was in the military we paid SS tax, passed in 1955 by Congress for all Military persons . Medicare is also an entitlement, paid for "Part A "by a tax on each worker while in the work force. Part "B" is paid for out of ones SS check at the clip of about 100.00 a month. There are also requirements for that , read them.
medicaid, SSI, welfare green cards , etc. are not entitlements, people on these programs mostly do not pay for them in a tax or other means , these are government handouts. those on Medicare fund "Medicaid and other programs" that is why Medicare is costing so much, government gives Medicare an IOU each month, but we will never see that money in Medicare. Notice how they always raid Medicare to pay for other healthcare programs like medicaid ? Obama has done this twice already to Medicare to fund his obama care program.
More coming down the road with Big Government, soon all americans will be on some Government program where they will not have to work to get food or care......what a nation that will be !!! Oh ! well
Wow Cutler, that was full of fallacies and mistakes. So we can't learn anything from the past huh? Guess learning in 1920 that reducing the size and scope of government cures recessions faster than government stimulus has no bearing on today's economy, huh? And you might want to know that Jack Hunter opposed the Iraq War and other unconstitutional interventions just like Ron Paul does. And usually, the less the government "gets done" the better. The Citizens United decision is not what has corrupted the government. It is the unconstitutional relationship government has with business that does this. If the government would stay within its constitutional limits, we would not have to fear the government colluding with large corporations. Campaign contributions from corporations are a symptom, not a cause of our political situation.
Please look deeper into the facts Cutler, your missing the points.
Man, I was on the wrong thread. These guys replying to Ron should read my comment on Chris's post. Not that it will make any difference though. It's like talking to the desk I'm sitting at. Got one guy talking about finances in 1962? Who gives a damn about 1962? We live in the year 2013! Your so-called conservative movement decided to go apes#@t for Iraq after we already discovered the problems in Afghanistan! We are all paying for that $10 trillion dollar war that happened BEFORE the so-called "liberals" got into office. You've got your own news network that has somehow absolved the whole administration from this HUGE and MONUMENTAL fiscal problem. And you say things are getting out of control because the "liberals" are at fault. How about we all agree that we can't get anything done right now because the two sides are really all just paid in full by the grandest decision in politics ever, "Citizens United". Do you know who voted for that? Your beautiful, wise, and esteemed conservative Supreme Court justices.
Education is a very large business. In this country, it produces more college graduates than it knows what to do with, or what private industry can employ. This could prevent a serious problem for academia when job growth in the private sector diminishes. But since many educators are bureaucrats, the public sector comes to the rescue. Which of course means that the government grows and taxes increase, further weakening the private sector and often stifling entrepreneurship. The beauty of this is it leads to a greater welfare state and increased crime and so, more public sector jobs for college graduates.
The connection between elitist educators/government/politicians/industrialist/media/press, and even immigration is very clear. After all, not many college grads are going to pick grapes. The problem is that so many hollow jobs are created. Fortunately the good atheistic people of China make 90% of what Americans buy at Christmas cheaply enough to pay for all the shipping and leave a profit margin.
Ultimately, this country will almost certainly become a totalitarian state, where government controls the weapons and the economy. Might as well get use to it..
It is teh one we use to start fire to burn out capitalist scumdog and imperialist enemy of people, Comrade.
What is a marxist matchbook?
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2017,
Charleston City Paper