Progressive Writers Agree: Those Republicans Deserved To Get Shot
This is a good example of the fact the nation should be declared insane. Had anyone ever said this during the Obamanation Empire, there would have been riots, Justice Department Investigations and a hue and cry against the "evil right wingers". Yet these clowns feel it is perfectly OK to basically tell their nut job constituents to "go get more". Time to make mainstream media go black, permanently end twitter. This is now out of control and beyond anything Ayn Rand ever saw coming.
This is an example of the philosophy of the left taken to its logical conclusion. It can only lead to death and destruction. It makes no difference whether the left agenda is promulgated by Socialists, Christians, Muslims, or atheists, the group is irrelevant; the philosophical underpinnings are the same and lead to the same place: the end of civilization. That has been their goal all along. It is the ultimate statement: "If we don't have power, we'll send us all back to caves." In AS, AR wrote, "They do not want to own your fortune, they want you to lose it; they do not want to succeed, they want you to fail; they do not want to live, they want you to die; they desire nothing, they hate existence,and they keep running, each trying not to learn that the object of their hatred is himself." [AS, Kindle Ed. Pg 1046]
However, having said that, the rhetoric used by so many people on the right, the left, or somewhere in-between is often incendiary and frankly, in my opinion, leads to violence. Just look at all the negative terminology and name calling used in these threads, day after day after day. And most don't apologize for it. They consider it rational to throw around labels. Yet, reading it here makes me angry (which is one reason I don't post here all that often).
Many of the citizens of this country are angry, angry with the direction of the country, angry with the decisions being made, and this man must have felt angry enough to do this despicable thing. (Of course, we as citizens may never know what was his issue(s) that made him act this ways, but I digress.) And it WAS a despicable act to target Republicans, but it would be just as despicable act to target Democrats or Muslims or atheists or any other group into which people wish to separate them. This us vs. them mentality has to stop.
The 'us vs them' is imposed on us, it doesn't make everyone who is angry at the perpetrators of violence and the growing statism responsible for it. Even those frustrated conservatives who persistently vent with 'labels' in place of reasoned analysis are not the equivalent of incendiary promoters of violence. Rather, there is a lack of rational, philosophical understanding that is badly needed.
Like my values statement on another thread, they throw around stuff like this because they have no real understanding - or meaning - behind their words... ergo they are, to them, valueless, so it's OK in their minds to throw them around.
"Take away all guns", "Guns are ansty/evil/perverted/wicked/ugly/etc", "No one has any need for guns"... then "Let's shoot xxxxx.... "
I can make the assumption that they are truly, as shown by their own meaningless words, deranged.
She did not "ignore" the Second Amendment, what ever that swipe is supposed to mean, and did not ignore Trump, who did not exist as any public influence and could not be ignored or not ignored -- she did warn of the possibility of an anti-intellectual man on a white horse movement on the way down to dictatorship or civil war and chaos.
She strongly advocated the necessity of advocating for reason and individualism in reforming the course of the nation (and the world); she was not an anarchist and did not support violently lashing out.
In Atlas Shrugged the policies of Mouch et al were neither broadly accepted nor rejected in the stale acquiescence, but the usual philosophical premises of unreason, altruism and collectivism were widely taken for granted -- which is why the propaganda appealed to them. Most people regarded the government platitudes with cynicism, but only a minority with more active minds questioned the premises.
People did resist, but not in the form of a hopeless revolution or civil war except for the roving gangs as the deterioration progressed. Others were radical leftists pursuing the standard false premises, like those who took over California at the end. Many of the better people resisted by dropping out on their own, which was widespread, not just the small number who organized in the the Valley. Some of those dropping out banded together in communes because they had never learned better. The people in general did not like the disintegration all around them, but neither would they reject the philosophical platitudes on behalf of more of the same kinds of policies. They did not know what to "rise up" for.
The "Second Amendment" was not ignored, it did not come up by name just as other parts of the Constitution did not -- Atlas Shrugged is a philosophical novel about basic principles, not tradition, and constitutionality had already been long lost, though guns had not been banned.
In recent years, Obama was originally widely regarded as a savior on a white horse, following the increasingly accepted false premises of collectivism and altruism. He appealed mostly to the left, and the right did not know how to oppose his supposed "idealism". Certainly McCain and Romney didn't, let alone the rest of the Republican establishment or conservatives dwelling on faith and tradition.
The revolt against two terms of that wound up with another anti-intellectual man on a white horse in the form of Trump idolatry. Trump is not an America hater like Obama and Clinton, even though he is a Pragmatist statist himself, but neither he nor his ardent followers know what to do: saving the country is a philosophical undertaking on behalf of reason and individualism, not making better "deals" while appealing to emotional thinking and tradition.
This is the importance of Atlas Shrugged: It is a philosophical novel showing the role of fundamental ideas in human life, and what happens when the wrong ideas are followed. It's not a matter of armed resistance coming to the rescue while invoking the Second Amendment, or supporting a phenomenon like Trump, or foreseeing specific technologies like the internet. Those were not ignored in the novel as something Ayn Rand did not foresee, they are irrelevant to and/or contrary to its theme.
Now they're all lined up waiting for their turn in front of a camera to ask for gun control.
I'm all for gun control. Train, practice, carry and shoot back with a good sight alignment. That's gun control, a good sight alignment. Can you imagine the whole ball team shooting back at that turd. The police response time wouldn't have been fast enough for that turd.
— George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) June 17, 2017"
And the assassin who shot both human beings (and others) was a Sanders supporter. The "universe" didn't do it.
As for the progressive writers cheering on the murderer, this isn't new. When Reagan was shot TV news broadcasts interviewd leftists saying he deserved it.
I have the exact same thought. I hope it's just that it's easier for the idiots to run their mouths on Twitter now. Maybe 30 years ago the same people were with us, but the editor would not have published their letter on the op-ed page. Maybe they would have written this crap, realized it was wrong, crumpled it up, and thrown it away, as President Lincoln said he sometimes did.
If my hope is wrong and the crap in this article and name-calling MM describes are the average citizen's view, we are in grave danger.
I honestly don't understand what they're fighting about. I don't understand how people not involved in policy can get fired up about the successes and failures of politicians like President Trump and President Obama. I do not get it at all. This gives me hope it's just idiots running their mouths.
I think he has a natural gift for getting broad attention. I consider marketing an important skill. I think his gift is so good, he does it on autopilot. He's not thinking if it's a good idea for policy. He gets attention for the things around him.
"in that the professionals no longer know who the average citizen is, hence their bad election projections."
I don't know that they're bad expect for with Trump. I think there were logical reasons people might vote for Trump in the general election: concern about gun rights, rejection of PPACA, rejection of candidates anointed by the establishment, etc. But they didn't like Trump's racist, sexist, attention-seeking carnival act. The media really went to down on it. If Trump said one sexist comment and ten comments about PPACA, they focused on the sexism. Most citizens want nothing to do with sexism and racism. So they were loath to admit they were voting for Trump. It's easy just not to answer or to lie than to explain: "Trump, but not all that racist crap. The media are being totally unfair..."
I don't see it at all. Their policies only involve people who make a living getting people worked up, and the few people benefiting from specific programs.
We supposedly just had a highly divisive election. But when it comes to spending, President Trump proposed the same budget levels as under President Obama's forecast. He proposes increasing borrowing from 400 billion to 1 trillion, but Congress will probably not go along. I think spending and borrowing will both end up at the same levels as if Clinton were president. It will be spend on slightly different programs, but still most of it will go to Social Security and military.
When it comes to intrusiveness, President Trump appointed Jeff Sessions, who is not known for decreasing gov't intrusiveness, to AG. I have no illusions about Clinton. She would have appointed people who favor gov't intrusiveness too, so intrusiveness would be the same.
I see no one imposing significantly more or less force. I see no ideology. It all show business for ugly people. Idiots carry on about the freak lurid crime of the day, and it would do me well to ignore it. Reading about it is like reading articles about the lives of healthy people who develop a horrible rare disease and die a painful death. That would drive me crazy. I should quit reading anything about crime beyond a brief factual summary. It does not involve me at all.
Yes, exactly, to your entire comment.
If our eyes and clicks are drawn even briefly to lurid events, the feedback loop of the internet can and will provide the world more of what people click on.
It's as if the gods or fairies caught us rubbernecking at a wreck that happened to be along our path, and they responded by giving us a tour of more wrecks to view.
The spending and controls from both parties is progressively worse, but it makes a difference how much worse. Holder is worse than Sessions. Spending under a Democratic Congress is worse than a Republican Congress pandering to a Democrat or Republican president. Trumpcare will probably be worse in some ways than Obamacare, but not like a Hillarycare 'single payer'. Federal agencies under Clinton and Obama, from the IRS to EPA and Federal land agencies like NPS, were much worse than Bush-II and what appears to be coming from Trump. Hillary would have been much worse picking up where Obama left off.
Of course it "involves all of us". Their actions are not like "rare diseases". If you haven't been directly hit yet in a personal way worse than the routine bureaucracy then consider yourself lucky. But if you're not, how many people have to be shafted before you start to care?
I never said the politicians are having a personal dispute. I'm saying statism is the bipartisan consensus, and the rest is show business.
Statism is a premise that they share; they apply it every time they impose it in different ways to different degrees. There is consensus among them on broad statist ideology but not on different policies. None of it is "show business", it is serious damage promoted by their own propagandist "show business".
Then why does it matter much who wins elections? It matters to me some, enough for me to get out and vote, which really isn't very much work. If you're right that politicians mostly share a believe in statism, why does it matter much? Is it just a question of degrees? If so, are the differences in degree close or far apart? Excluding unusual ones like Rand Paul and Gary Johnson, IMHO the differences in degree are no where near enough for it to be a big deal.
We live in a mixed system, part controlled and part free. The controls are getting worse but some of the politicians and their supporters are imposing it more severely than others. Many of those differences are not widely publicized, but if you are subjected to them you soon learn what they are.
If a tax agency or some licensing board or other agency is harassing you it matters who is charge for whether you can stop it. If you live in a rural area targeted for land use controls and prohibitions or acquisition on behalf of the pressure groups, it matters to you who is running the government and how far he will let it go.
The Democrats are typically much worse because they are more zealous statists. But that doesn't mean that some me-too Republican won't support some odious initiative in Washington or a state legislature. They are all bad, but there are degrees of what you are subjected to and the possibilities of stopping particular instances of abuse.
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
As for the claim that "progressives agree" all that was offered was a few comments by idiots; and we know that such people are everywhere. As I was listening to the news on the way to work yesterday morning, my first thought was that the shooter was a conservative super-patriot out RINO hunting.
Such outliers -- left, right, center, off the chart - do not define the group.
Even ewv has fallen in step, claiming that socialism is violence. So, is it the implication that shooting them back first is self-defense? I ask because, ultimately, the evil is not socialism but metaphysical subjectivism. So, do you go to the philosophy departments and hunt them down first? Get the Kantians, then the Lockeans, Cartesians, and Platonists... But ewv has disagreed with me about fine points in Objectivism. That kind of thinking never ends.
I call it "social stalinism" the theory that society cannot be safe until the last threat is removed. Rep. Rodney Davis (R-IL) called it "rhetorical terrorism." Hate speech is not just about race or gender or religion.
One of the many aspects of Ayn Rand's "stunt" novel, Atlas Shrugged that was lost on the people who only saw the movies through their own ideological lenses is that the good guys always kept their benevolent sense of life. Their emotional response to mysticism, altruism, and collectivism was indifference. That is what it means to shrug. A shrug is a body language signal for uncertainty, ambivalence, or indifference, a refusal to commit.
Progressive tolerance of angry special interests, letting them destroy property, set fires, and carry out assault on anyone who doesn't share their beliefs is a big mistake. Rage like this has been fed all too long by an American left that admires socialist extremism, and thinking that an easy hand will allow the rioters to let off steam is a mistake.
The perpetually angry are being radicalized by violence advocated by celebrities and opinion writers. I hope that the DOJ will investigate the radicalization of the latest shooter just as they do with those radicalized by Islamist propaganda.
There's a big leap from simple name-calling and threatening statements. The right wing threatening speech has been generally confined to minor players. No big celebrity or conservative writer of distinction called for the death of Obama, like many on the left are in attacking Trump. I don't buy into the baloney that both sides are equally at fault.
I'll also never expect such an apology from my hero and inspiration, Rush Limbaugh, for saying stuff like "Dingy Harry" (Reid) and calling Al Gore "Ozone Head."
Rush and me dino never stated anything about shooting anybody unless it was Osama Bin Laden and I can't recall even writing that.
How low can me dino still go? Thar still be libtards to blow my nose at.
Here are some higher education snowflakes who can't find their safe zone~https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4hud...
Loved The National Lampoon when I was going to college on the GI Bill, getting even for being drafted.
I was a lib way back then, though. Maybe only part of me grew up. But me dino don't care.
And, oh yes, long live Rush Limbaugh.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4huq...
And Gore's "Ball of Fire" https://youtu.be/OD0jeBhCjz0
Glad I thought to look back at this page.
So you better believe that Evil Hag cackle ring tone his piqued my interest.
Nevertheless, I know for a fact that some telemarketers make multiple calls all at once and take on the first "hit" to answer.
When I worked at that prison for 21 years,a coworker told me his wife did just that for a living.
Now that I'm composed, I'd like to add that I once read somewhere that the essence of humor is the unexpected.
That reply may not have been meant to be humorous but it was truly unexpected.
Never any of their spouses.
It works in conjunction with your telephone service provider. Within the time of the first ring the number is automatically checked, and if it's blacklisted the call is dumped, but the called ID shows up in your phone. You can report new ones and you can whitelist for any problem that may arise.
This is not a "fine point in Objectivism" and Atlas Shrugged is not a "stunt novel".