Explosives sent to Clintons, Obama and Soros

[Big Jim]

8 hours ago, Myles said:

Speaking to Variety at the event, he warned of the turn that he sees America taking and cautioned there will be “blood in the streets” if Republicans remain in control.

He may be right, but it will be theirs.  Conservatives may not be as violent by nature but they are better armed.  The turn that is taking place is that more and more people are standing up for their belief in traditional American values.  That's why MAGA has resonated so well.

[F3SS]

I always liked that saying that if 10's of millions of conservative gun owners really were violent, you'd know it. 

[Dark_Grey]

28 minutes ago, F3SS said:

I always liked that saying that if 10's of millions of conservative gun owners really were violent, you'd know it. 

I like that about gun ownership in general. If guns were really the problem, there sure wouldn’t be 350+ million people in the country

[RavenHawk]

14 hours ago, Dark_Grey said:

I like that about gun ownership in general. If guns were really the problem, there sure wouldn’t be 350+ million people in the country

We’re working on 0 tyrants (aka Progressives).

[Farmer77]

On 10/30/2018 at 7:35 PM, Big Jim said:

Conservatives may not be as violent by nature 

Yeah id argue that point all day long.

Statistics do as well

US terror attacks are increasingly motivated by right-wing views

Quote

An analysis of the Global Terrorism Database by researchers at the University of Maryland published in 2017 shows a “sharp increase” in the share of attacks by right-wing extremists, from 6% in the 2000s to 35% in the 2010s. The share of attacks by religious extremists also increased, from 9% to 53% between the two decades.

Meanwhile, the share of attacks by left-wing terrorists and environmentalist extremists dropped from 64% in the 2000s to 12% in the 2010s.

 

[Big Jim]

46 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Yeah id argue that point all day long.

Statistics do as well

US terror attacks are increasingly motivated by right-wing views

 

 

47 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Meanwhile, the share of attacks by left-wing terrorists and environmentalist extremists dropped from 64% in the 2000s to 12% in the 2010s.

Like Hillary said, they're only civil when they're in power.  By your own statistics you're referring only to extremists on both sides.  Almost by definition extremists are violent and certainly not normal.  That's what makes them extreme.  I was talking in general about your normal, everyday conservatives vs your everyday Dems and Liberals.  Whenever we see disruption, orchestrated chaos and violence in place of reasoning, debate and rhetoric it is always coming from the Left.

[Farmer77]

14 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

 

Like Hillary said, they're only civil when they're in power.  By your own statistics you're referring only to extremists on both sides.  Almost by definition extremists are violent and certainly not normal.  That's what makes them extreme.  I was talking in general about your normal, everyday conservatives vs your everyday Dems and Liberals.  

So you think right wingers who cause violence are extremists but left wingers who do so are mainstream? 

I see this alot. Its much along the lines of "democrats want open borders", IMO its simply a case of good propaganda working well.

14 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

Whenever we see disruption, orchestrated chaos and violence in place of reasoning, debate and rhetoric it is always coming from the Left.

How quickly we forget

Tea Party Town Hall Strategy: “Rattle Them,” “Stand Up And Shout”

 

My point isnt really that one side is somehow worse than the other, just that we're all human.

Edited November 1, 2018 by Farmer77

[Big Jim]

22 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

So you think right wingers who cause violence are extremists but left wingers who do so are mainstream? 

How did you get this out of what I said?  I said "I was talking in general about your normal, everyday conservatives vs your everyday Dems and Liberals. "  I wasn't referring to extremists on either side and specifically took exception to your statistics referring only to extremists on either side.  If you want to know what I think read what I write.

[Farmer77]

2 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

How did you get this out of what I said?  I said "I was talking in general about your normal, everyday conservatives vs your everyday Dems and Liberals. "  I wasn't referring to extremists on either side and specifically took exception to your statistics referring only to extremists on either side.  If you want to know what I think read what I write.

I did read what you wrote. That inference was the logical one from your statement. You are claiming that every day liberals are more violent than every day conservatives without offering any kind of supporting evidence. Can you support that vagueness or am I correct that you're assigning any violence from the left to "everyday" folks while conveniently pushing any violence from the right into the "extremist" category?

[+DieChecker]

On 10/30/2018 at 4:22 AM, susieice said:

These polls depend on who they poll. Poll mostly Democrats...results are Democrat. Poll mostly Republicans...results favor Republicans. Few Independents are polled by anyone. Undecided and Not Voting are also pretty high. No news there. Only a small percentage of the voting public vote. That's why they need the dead. How many times have discrepancies like this shown up?

I've recently seen several polls where the "methods" said 1/3 of those chosen responses were each of Democrats, a third Republicans and a third Independants.

The problems I have with that is two  things. One, independents differ by region. And two, they have to "chose" which people to include. Both if which are easy ways to bake in bias.

Edited November 1, 2018 by DieChecker

[+DieChecker]

1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

I did read what you wrote. That inference was the logical one from your statement. You are claiming that every day liberals are more violent than every day conservatives without offering any kind of supporting evidence. Can you support that vagueness or am I correct that you're assigning any violence from the left to "everyday" folks while conveniently pushing any violence from the right into the "extremist" category?

I'm going to agree with you here. With there being roughly 50 million Ds and 50 million Rs, that means 99.99% of each are probably not actually dangerous. So saying one side is more dangerous is probably not provable. Ls have car burning, rock throwing anarchists,  and Cs have neo Nazis, probably in about equal numbers.

I think people holding up the worst on each side as examples are not doing themselves that much of a favor.

Edited November 1, 2018 by DieChecker

[+DieChecker]

17 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

We’re working on 0 tyrants (aka Progressives).

 

The problem with Progressives is that they are tyrants "for your own good", or at least the good as they see it. They use that "for your own good" to justify their tyrannical actions. I'm of the opinion all tyrants are bad.

[+DieChecker]

On 10/30/2018 at 3:41 PM, F3SS said:

I always liked that saying that if 10's of millions of conservative gun owners really were violent, you'd know it. 

I'd agree. Who do we hear about getting killed most? Liberal voters (Just an assumption based off statistical cause of death, ethnicity, and region.)

[RavenHawk]

10 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

So you think right wingers who cause violence are extremists but left wingers who do so are mainstream?

I think you meant it the other way around??  Anyone who resorts to violence is an extremist and for purposes of your political spectrum, are inherently “Left” wingers.  However, there is also degrees of intensity and intent.  Someone reacting violently to a violent act is not necessarily inciting violence.  Confronting someone verbally out of frustration is not the same as inciting confrontation.  Progressives try hard to provoke response from Conservatives.  They keep playing with fire and they will get burned it they continue.

 

I see this alot. Its much along the lines of "democrats want open borders", IMO its simply a case of good propaganda working well.

I love this tactic.  There are no more Democrats, they are either Independents or Republicans now.  Progressives do want open borders because that is their voter base.  That is the only way they could win.

 

Tea Party Town Hall Strategy: “Rattle Them,” “Stand Up And Shout”

Do you really think we’d fall for that?  First of all, the audio was poor.  They use a sympathetic message to set the stage, then at the moment of the so-called “attack”, cut to stills so we can’t see what people are reacting to.  The one guy could have been telling the speaker “Hey, your shoe is untied.”

 

My point isnt really that one side is somehow worse than the other, just that we're all human.

The point is that they are.  We are all human driven by ideology.  There are good ideologies and bad ideologies.  Socialism is a very bad ideology.

[Big Jim]

10 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

I did read what you wrote. That inference was the logical one from your statement. You are claiming that every day liberals are more violent than every day conservatives without offering any kind of supporting evidence. Can you support that vagueness or am I correct that you're assigning any violence from the left to "everyday" folks while conveniently pushing any violence from the right into the "extremist" category?

The supporting evidence is in the news.  Look at the Kavenaugh hearings, who was causing the disruption?  Look at which public figures routinely call for violence.  Look at various celebrities who claim to speak for Liberals and are never challenged or disowned by them.  Offer supporting evidence is unnecessary when it's all around us.

[Farmer77]

12 hours ago, Big Jim said:

The supporting evidence is in the news.  Look at the Kavenaugh hearings, who was causing the disruption?  Look at which public figures routinely call for violence.  Look at various celebrities who claim to speak for Liberals and are never challenged or disowned by them.  Offer supporting evidence is unnecessary when it's all around us.

So you believe it to be true so it is....gotcha

Quote

  Look at which public figures routinely call for violence.  Look at various celebrities who claim to speak for Liberals and are never challenged or disowned by them. 

 

"Obama, he's a piece of s---. I told him to suck on my machine gun. Hey Hillary," Nugent said. "You might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless b---  Ted Nugent

"Get him out," he said of a protester. "Try not to hurt him. If you do, I'll defend you in court. Don't worry about it."  D. Trump

Bro, Nugent got invited to the White House after that. Thats kind of the exact opposite of being "challenged or disowned" isnt it?

 

[Farmer77]

13 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Do you really think we’d fall for that?  First of all, the audio was poor.  They use a sympathetic message to set the stage, then at the moment of the so-called “attack”, cut to stills so we can’t see what people are reacting to.  The one guy could have been telling the speaker “Hey, your shoe is untied.”

Are you 12? What do you mean fall for that? It happened, dear god man it was a whole thing the Tea Party was doing, its history google it yourself but damn quit with the willful ignorance.

 

 

[RavenHawk]

19 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Are you 12? What do you mean fall for that? It happened, dear god man it was a whole thing the Tea Party was doing, its history google it yourself but damn quit with the willful ignorance.

Yes, the town hall happened.  And it appears that it got rowdy but the stills make it look worse that it probably was.  Their strategy was to be vocal and sit down.  A town hall is a place to go to make your views known as opposed to stalking someone into a restaurant or elevator and personally assault them.  So what do you think the whole history of the TEA Party is?  Somehow I get the feeling it’s your ignorance.

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, RavenHawk said:

Yes, the town hall happened.  And it appears that it got rowdy but the stills make it look worse that it probably was.  Their strategy was to be vocal and sit down.  A town hall is a place to go to make your views known as opposed to stalking someone into a restaurant or elevator and personally assault them.  So what do you think the whole history of the TEA Party is?  Somehow I get the feeling it’s your ignorance.

Sure the town hall happened, just that one   Clearly I'M the one posting from ignorance