|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jan 10, 2011 8:16:12 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2011 10:34:58 GMT -8
I guess it depends upon how one perceives the "far" right. Most people on the left define the far right as anyone who disagrees with their "far" left agenda as extremist. The Tea Party is first and foremost an organization that attempts to influence the electorate. They operate well within the system, trying to get their candidates elected. This isn't "anti-government", it is in fact the exact opposite. It is an attempt to get the government to do the things (or not to do the things) it wants and in that sense is no different or no more extreme than any other organization or interest group that does the same thing, right or left. It is part and parcel of our electoral process and is as American as apple pie.
Is "anger" an organizing principle? You bet it is; just as it is on the left when the left is out of power. Did you not experience the "angry" discourse of the left when Bush was president? Were all of those anti war protesters calm and reasonable? Do you not watch the spittle -flecked rants of the MSNBC crowd? The only difference is that you agree with one side, making the "anger" expressed righteous and disagree with the other, making the "anger" expressed dangerous and extreme.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jan 10, 2011 12:04:55 GMT -8
Afan is exactly right. There has been lots of over-heated rhetoric on the far-left and far-right. One thing that skews the debate is that a solid majority of national media operations are very likely to publish articles and on-air opinion pieces that suggest strongly or even state flatly that violence of this kind is the fault of the right. Which, as Afan says, pretty much means anyone who disagrees with them.
As for Palin, Beck, and Limbaugh, I don't think I have ever heard them say anything whatsoever that could be construed by sane people as suggesting that people take violent actions against anyone. Beck is too conspiratorial for my taste. Limbaugh also, though to a lesser degree. Their sin, I guess, is to suggest that the Left in this country has worked hard, and continues to work hard, to remake America into something that denies and discredits the very basis of our constitutional government.
The Left does not seem to mind words like Nazi thrown at Bush, but goes into orbit it Beck or Rush criticizes the radical leftists with with our current chief executive surrounds himself. Double standard deluxe.
As for the nut in Arizona, how is he different from Lee Harvey Oswald? Oh, yes, here's one possible difference; Oswald was a leftist. The present nut-job seems much less easy to categorize. (Need it be said that the nuttier he proves to have been, the less we can connect his actions with any particular group? Maybe he will release his manifesto and tell us that space aliens who made him do it!)
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jan 10, 2011 12:14:07 GMT -8
Gosh, when I was a Radical Conservative I always thought of afan as a disgusting liberal. Now that I am a born again Liberal, afan looks to be conservative. Obviously, afan is unstable. ;^)
|
|
|
|
Post by azson on Jan 11, 2011 10:54:08 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jan 11, 2011 13:24:16 GMT -8
This more than likely really says says it all.  Along with this idea.The guy was a nut and the lefties are rushing to make a political statement before any facts are known. |
|
