Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   While the IRS central scrutinizer was singling out right-wing groups for nitpicking, they were waving through liberal groups' applications. In other news, Tea Party changes its name to Mother Gaia's Nuanced Vegans for Appeasement   (usatoday.com) divider line 321
    More: Followup, Champaign Tea Party, IRS, right-wing, appeasement, Florida Legislature  
•       •       •

905 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 May 2013 at 10:55 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



321 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-15 06:41:33 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: A Dark Evil Omen: Honest question: Do you consider that a strike against Guevarra?

Not in and of itself, no. There are any number of reasons to kill a number of human beings in an armed conflict. And while one could certainly expect that a man who was an active participant in guerilla warfare would have killed more people directly than the general of a large army, it is the context and circumstances of many of Che's killings that create the moral gulf between these two men.


And yet Washington did not shy away from executions either, nor were most of the people in the Continental Army who engaged in their own atrocities and war crimes against Loyalists ever punished, only deserters and traitors. Many more Americans were executed by Washington and his people than by Guevara, and often for less cause.

War is hell; the lesson should be that we should never NEED people like either George Washington or El Che, but that seems to so often be lost in a search for heroes.
 
2013-05-15 06:42:37 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Many more Americans were executed by Washington and his people than counter-revolutionaries by Guevara


I am grammar good k.
 
2013-05-15 06:45:33 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.

SithLord:

 Bill Ayers ring a bell?  Occupy Wall Street ring a bell?  I don't recall any Tea-Party types blowing up buildings, or looting or raping or pillaging the cities they staged marches in.

Zasteva:
 [img.math-fail.com image 750x600] (ie: Fractal Wrongness, world view wrong at every level)

BojanglesPaladin: Great pic, but do you REALLY think it is wrong to say that liberals groups have also threatened the country and resorted to terrorism?

Or could you maybe clarify more precisely what you mean with your memepic?


Sure -- what I mean by that is that SithLord's post reflects a world view that is so heavily distorted from reality that even from a number of different angles and levels of meaning it is wrong. Give or take a little hyperbole on my part :-)

Some examples:

1. Bill Ayers, despite his criminal activity, was careful not to harm people.
2. Bill Ayers probably had no impact on the course of the war, and certain didn't threaten the very existence of the country
3. He thinks SithLord is a cool name, which throws doubt on his ability to recognize Good vs. Evil
4. He thinks OWS was a liberal group.
5. He thinks OWS threatened the very existence of the country
6. He implies that OWS was looting, raping or pillaging the cities they marched in
7. He doesn't recall "Tea-Party types" blowing up buildings

Now, to your other question, Liberal groups have done acts of civil disobedience which included property damage in the US.

The violent groups that could be considered to have some sort of left wing agenda were the Black Liberation Army, the Weather Underground, and the May 19th Communist Organization.

Communists are not, by definition, Liberals, so the May 19th Communist Organization is obviously out.

BLA was a black nationalist organization, which embraced many of the same ideas as liberals -- anti-imperialist, anti-racist, and anti-sexist. However, they were also anti-capitalist and embraced the socialist concept of class struggle, which puts them outside Liberal ideology.

The Weather Undergound was a revolutionary extremist left wing group whose anti-government radicalism was pretty far removed from Liberal ideology.

So, if you want to argue that left wing extremists have done some really bad things too, you'll get no argument from me, though the number and scale of the attacks have been far lower the right wing extremists. But you both said "liberal", not left wing, and that's a different thing. Left wing extremists are to the left of liberals, i.e.:

right wing extremists -- conservatives -- moderates -- liberals -- left wing extremists
 
2013-05-15 07:09:25 PM  

Zasteva: 1. Bill Ayers, despite his criminal activity, was careful not to harm people.


I think that is highly debateable. At best, his compatriots were certainly not.

3. He thinks SithLord is a cool name, which throws doubt on his ability to recognize Good vs. Evil

Yeah. No argument from me on that one.

4. He thinks OWS was a liberal group.


They weren't? Do THEY know that?

7. He doesn't recall "Tea-Party types" blowing up buildings

I don't either.

The violent groups that could be considered to have some sort of left wing agenda were the Black Liberation Army, the Weather Underground, and the May 19th Communist Organization....Communists are not, by definition, Liberals ...they were also anti-capitalist and embraced the socialist concept of class struggle, which puts them outside Liberal ideology...a revolutionary extremist left wing group whose anti-government radicalism was pretty far removed from Liberal ideology.etc. "

There is a clear challenge of shared definitions here. By your selective application of the term "liberal" to exclude any group that is "too" far left, suprisingly none of the groups on your list qualify under your definitions.

Also, you excluded other groups like the Black Panthers, Native American groups, The Ohio 7, various Puerto Rican groups, etc. Again, we have a challenge of definitions for the applicability of "liberal".

But it's also worth pointing out that while you disclaim any attempt to equate "left-wing violent extremists" with "liberal, you seem to be willing to conflate "right-wing violent extremists" with "teabagger types".

So at the end of the day, I think SithLord was overly broad and hyperbolic, but I'm not sure he was fundamentally wrong (in the way suggested) when he pointed out that the left has their own stable of violent extremists seeking to do damage to the country. And whil eI am inclined to agree with you that the word "liberal" was used incorrectly, that's a minor technicality, and by any standard Bill Ayers is considered a liberal today.
 
2013-05-15 07:33:24 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Also, you excluded other groups like the Black Panthers, Native American groups, The Ohio 7, various Puerto Rican groups, etc. Again, we have a challenge of definitions for the applicability of "liberal".


Maybe because we realize you're scraping the bottom of the barrel at best and your point is absurd, yet you keep running with it.
 
2013-05-15 07:54:19 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Zasteva: 1. Bill Ayers, despite his criminal activity, was careful not to harm people.

BojanglesPaladin: I think that is highly debateable. At best, his compatriots were certainly not.


I guess that depends on how far you extend the term "compatriots". If you include the folks from BLA or M19CO then sure. If you just stick to the Weather Underground, they didn't hurt anyone other than themselves. But I guess I should have said "careful not to harm other people".

Zasteva: 4. He thinks OWS was a liberal group.

BojanglesPaladin:
 They weren't? Do THEY know that?

Yeah, we (OWS people) do know that. There were a lot of liberals, to be sure, but there were also also anarchists, socialists, conservatives, and even an ex-Tea Party guy in my OWS groups. OWS hoped to include a broad cross section of society from all political views to insist on wall street accountability and reform. We were disappointed with the Tea Party folks, who we thought would be allies, instead decided to oppose us.

Zasteva: 7. He doesn't recall "Tea-Party types" blowing up buildings

BojanglesPaladin:
 I don't either.

Well, as long as we are being pedantic, I think "Tea-Party types" would include people like Timothy McVeigh and Teri Nicholes -- sure, they predated the Tea Party, but they were certainly cut from the same cloth. But I understand your point. Nobody that I'm aware of who belonged to the Tea Party has blown up a building.

Zasteva: The violent groups that could be considered to have some sort of left wing agenda were the Black Liberation Army, the Weather Underground, and the May 19th Communist Organization....Communists are not, by definition, Liberals ...they were also anti-capitalist and embraced the socialist concept of class struggle, which puts them outside Liberal ideology...a revolutionary extremist left wing group whose anti-government radicalism was pretty far removed from Liberal ideology.etc. "

BojanglesPaladin:
 There is a clear challenge of shared definitions here. By your selective application of the term "liberal" to exclude any group that is "too" far left, suprisingly none of the groups on your list qualify under your definitions.

To be fair to myself, I did exclude "right wing extremists" from "conservatives" in a similar fashion in my little text diagram.

And, I think there has to be a limited meaning to the world "liberal" or it ceases to have meaning. If everyone left of center is "liberal", then how do we distinguish between an average American liberal and a socialist? Come to think of it, that does explain a lot about why so many on the right think Obama is a socialist.

BojanglesPaladin: Also, you excluded other groups like the Black Panthers, Native American groups, The Ohio 7, various Puerto Rican groups, etc. Again, we have a challenge of definitions for the applicability of "liberal".

I would generally accept the Black Panthers as a liberal group. The Ohio 7 were a left-wing Marxist organization, not Liberals. I am not familiar with specific Native American groups or Puerto Rican groups. Which of those are planning to overthrow the government?

But it's also worth pointing out that while you disclaim any attempt to equate "left-wing violent extremists" with "liberal, you seem to be willing to conflate "right-wing violent extremists" with "teabagger types".

Yes, that's probably unfair of me. Most Tea Party members are not violent right wing extremists, and the few that are shouldn't unfairly be lumped together with the Tea Party. The Tea Party does tend to be the more right wing part of conservatives in general though, just like animal rights activists and environmental activists tend to be in the more left wing of the liberals in general. So where they do cross over into extremism, it will be there (on both right and left).

So at the end of the day, I think SithLord was overly broad and hyperbolic, but I'm not sure he was fundamentally wrong (in the way suggested) when he pointed out that the left has their own stable of violent extremists seeking to do damage to the country. And whil eI am inclined to agree with you that the word "liberal" was used incorrectly, that's a minor technicality, and by any standard Bill Ayer ...

As I admitted at the start, I was being hyperbolic myself. And if the discussion had centered around "left-wing" rather than liberal then I probably wouldn't have responded.
 
2013-05-15 07:57:11 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: And yet Washington did not shy away from executions either, nor were most of the people in the Continental Army who engaged in their own atrocities and war crimes against Loyalists ever punished, only deserters and traitors. Many more Americans were executed by Washington and his people than by Guevara, and often for less cause.

War is hell; the lesson should be that we should never NEED people like either George Washington or El Che, but that seems to so often be lost in a search for heroes.


No argument that war is hell,  but surely you can see a distinction between the two in terms of adhering to accepted norms for war?

And that's without even starting on things like Che's book burning and executing of dissedent authors, or establishment of labor camps, not to mention that whole oppressive Cuban regime, or his general bloodthirstiness. Che Guevara worked to establish a brutal and oppressive dictatorship, and gave his life trying to spread it.

George Washington never headed up death squads, never ordered the execution of dissident writers. He presided over the establishment of a system of government that enshrined peacable transition of power, protected its citizens from the tyranny of an oppressive government in a way never before seen, and helped enshrine freedom of speech and of the press and of religion.

So yeah, war is hell, and both men have blood on their hands. Neither man was perfect, and like all of us, they had faults. But to genuinely, earnestly and honestly hold up both men as effectively equal in terms of morals and their actions?

I find that kinda sad. But I thank you for an honest answer, and as I said, how boring would the world be if we all agreed on everything.

That's my time. Be sure to tip the waitress.
 
2013-05-15 08:04:47 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: George Washington never headed up death squads, never ordered the execution of dissident writers.


Yeah all those Indians he had a hand in killing and burning their villages don't count.
 
2013-05-15 08:05:43 PM  

Zasteva: As I admitted at the start, I was being hyperbolic myself. And if the discussion had centered around "left-wing" rather than liberal then I probably wouldn't have responded.


Fair enough. I wish I had more time to discuss, but it will have to be another time. Thanks for the detailed response, really wish I had more time.

/One small quibble. The Weather Underground did intend to cause harm to other people. They just botched it. Maybe not Ayers (though as we all know he remained famously unrepentant up to 9/11), but Bernadette Dorn certainly. That was one evil biatch. But sub-diving such a small group does not absolve members from culpability and Ayers was on-hand and complicit if not verifiably participatory for the important bits, if not the explosion.

On the whole, I think we are on the same page. Especially in that SithLord is a stupid name. But also on the larger topic. This is probably as a result of being semi-rational.

Have a great evening.
 
2013-05-15 09:53:30 PM  
So? Liberal groups don't run around threatening not to pay taxes. That's like complaining that the FBI only investigates terror groups...
 
2013-05-15 11:12:01 PM  

BMulligan: Obama's Reptiloid Master: "Perhaps dozens?"

Yeah, that was the line that caught my eye, too. Doesn't really fill me with confidence.

By the way, speaking of being Taxed Enough Already, I've been waiting with bated breath for the Fark thread about the CBO report showing that the federal budget deficit is decreasing at a shocking rate and the national debt has stabilized for the foreseeable future. I'm sure the usual suspects will be there to admit that they've been wrong all this time, and that federal fiscal policy seems to be working.


What's working is the sequester.  We quit spending so much money and the budget deficit shrinks.  There's a real puzzler, huh?
 
2013-05-15 11:42:14 PM  
Lets keep focus. None of these groups; liberal or conservative, should have tax exempt status.
 
2013-05-16 12:50:48 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: skozlaw: Is this actually a thing? I've just been ignoring it on the assumption that it was just another in the seemingly endless right-wing whine fest over nothing. I figured some day they'd actually have a real reason to biatch, though, so is this it?

Oh, it's a thing. A pretty bad thing. Take heart, though, Obama is reacting appropriately, recognizing that it is indeed a thing.


If, by saying "Obama is reacting appropriately" you mean lying, avoiding responsibility, being opaque, disconnected and divisive, yes, exactly

but just hold on,the oceans will begin to teem with life any minute now
 
2013-05-16 08:13:05 AM  

Bungles: As a foreigner, I don't quite get this. Surely a Tea Party group is, by definition, a political entity? And therefore of course should be scrutinised if it claims it isn't for tax purposes.

Does the Communist Party of America have tax exempt status.

And yet, Obama has said it was wrong. Intellectual reporters on the left say it was wrong, like Rachel Maddow. Yet as far as I can see.... it was totally sensible? What am I missing?


I'm not an American either but I'll have a go:

I think you're missing that the Overton window for the past 30 years has shifted so far away from any concept of Government ever being a positive force that even Liberals don't argue that point.

It is therefore conceded that theonly policies that are acceptable involve shrinking the state* and reducing the tax 'burden'.


*Except when Republicans are in control Eg. DoHS, exceptions prove the rule ya know
 
2013-05-16 08:54:52 AM  
This IRS actually targeted around 500 conservative groups for what is basically harassment article pretty much clarifies the problem. Leaves no doubts as to the partisan politics, illegally implemented by the IRS, that tacitly assisted Obama and other liberals in the election cycles.
 
2013-05-16 01:28:05 PM  

lantawa: This IRS actually targeted around 500 conservative groups for what is basically harassment article pretty much clarifies the problem. Leaves no doubts as to the partisan politics, illegally implemented by the IRS, that tacitly assisted Obama and other liberals in the election cycles.


[cryingbaby.jpg]

Also, you're welcome to show the class where any of this "harassment' was illegal.

No, your stupid Teabagger link doesn't count, bro.
 
2013-05-16 01:53:41 PM  

whidbey: lantawa: This IRS actually targeted around 500 conservative groups for what is basically harassment article pretty much clarifies the problem. Leaves no doubts as to the partisan politics, illegally implemented by the IRS, that tacitly assisted Obama and other liberals in the election cycles.

[cryingbaby.jpg]

Also, you're welcome to show the class where any of this "harassment' was illegal.

No, your stupid Teabagger link doesn't count, bro.


Keep beating that drum. Maybe find a circle. Link DOES TOO count. And thanks for the bro, bro. Fistbump.
 
2013-05-16 04:22:48 PM  

lantawa: whidbey: lantawa: This IRS actually targeted around 500 conservative groups for what is basically harassment article pretty much clarifies the problem. Leaves no doubts as to the partisan politics, illegally implemented by the IRS, that tacitly assisted Obama and other liberals in the election cycles.

[cryingbaby.jpg]

Also, you're welcome to show the class where any of this "harassment' was illegal.

No, your stupid Teabagger link doesn't count, bro.

Keep beating that drum. Maybe find a circle. Link DOES TOO count. And thanks for the bro, bro. Fistbump.


Um, no. If you can't provide actual evidence that what the IRS did was illegal, or that even targeting anti-tax groups is unethical, than I suggest you drop the point.
 
2013-05-16 04:39:24 PM  

whidbey: lantawa: whidbey: lantawa: This IRS actually targeted around 500 conservative groups for what is basically harassment article pretty much clarifies the problem. Leaves no doubts as to the partisan politics, illegally implemented by the IRS, that tacitly assisted Obama and other liberals in the election cycles.

[cryingbaby.jpg]

Also, you're welcome to show the class where any of this "harassment' was illegal.

No, your stupid Teabagger link doesn't count, bro.

Keep beating that drum. Maybe find a circle. Link DOES TOO count. And thanks for the bro, bro. Fistbump.

Um, no. If you can't provide actual evidence that what the IRS did was illegal, or that even targeting anti-tax groups is unethical, than I suggest you drop the point.


We'll see, won't we...considering the whole goversphere is eyeballing this issue under a legal microscope, We'll just have to wait until the smoke clears. Until then, I suggest you trop the poinp..
 
2013-05-16 04:51:34 PM  

lantawa: We'll see, won't we...considering the whole goversphere is eyeballing this issue under a legal microscope, We'll just have to wait until the smoke clears.


You're going to be waiting a long time, then. In other news, threatening to abolish the 16th Amendment is going to get you on the IRS's radar.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if some other derpy thread gets submitted where the Tea Party is spinning this as "civil disobedience."
 
2013-05-16 05:14:16 PM  

whidbey: lantawa: We'll see, won't we...considering the whole goversphere is eyeballing this issue under a legal microscope, We'll just have to wait until the smoke clears.

You're going to be waiting a long time, then. In other news, threatening to abolish the 16th Amendment is going to get you on the IRS's radar.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if some other derpy thread gets submitted where the Tea Party is spinning this as "civil disobedience."


Well, I'm not on board with abolishing the 16th Amendment, so there's that. You think you're going to get last post here, don't you? Good luck with that...
 
Displayed 21 of 321 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report