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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Teabaggers take a break from muttering about "Second Amendment Solutions," just long enough call a man who actually used force against a corrupt and unjust government a terrorist   ( talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line
    More: Ironic, GOP, use of force, President of South Africa, House Majority Leader  
•       •       •

2116 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Dec 2013 at 11:07 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-12-09 09:23:34 AM  
So the take-away is that "Second Amendment Solutions" are sometimes appropriate, therefore significant restrictions on the ownership of firearms by citizens is bad?
 
2013-12-09 09:29:50 AM  
Nice base you got there.
 
2013-12-09 09:30:36 AM  

dittybopper: So the take-away is that "Second Amendment Solutions" are sometimes appropriate, therefore significant restrictions on the ownership of firearms by citizens is bad?


No, the takeaway is that tea party people have no internal consistency.
 
2013-12-09 09:33:12 AM  

RexTalionis: dittybopper: So the take-away is that "Second Amendment Solutions" are sometimes appropriate, therefore significant restrictions on the ownership of firearms by citizens is bad?

No, the takeaway is that tea party people have no internal consistency.


I find them to be unerringly racist.
 
2013-12-09 09:38:13 AM  

dittybopper: So the take-away is that "Second Amendment Solutions" are sometimes appropriate, therefore significant restrictions on the ownership of firearms by citizens is bad?


You do realize that the ANC's brief campaign of violence failed to do accomplish anything, and the end of Apartheid actually came decades later through peaceful negotiations with F.W. de Klerk, right?
 
2013-12-09 09:39:13 AM  

Diogenes: RexTalionis: dittybopper: So the take-away is that "Second Amendment Solutions" are sometimes appropriate, therefore significant restrictions on the ownership of firearms by citizens is bad?

No, the takeaway is that tea party people have no internal consistency.

I find them to be unerringly racist.


And painfully stupid.
 
2013-12-09 09:46:34 AM  

dr_blasto: Diogenes: RexTalionis: dittybopper: So the take-away is that "Second Amendment Solutions" are sometimes appropriate, therefore significant restrictions on the ownership of firearms by citizens is bad?

No, the takeaway is that tea party people have no internal consistency.

I find them to be unerringly racist.

And painfully stupid.


And self-destructive self-inflicting spiteful punishers.
 
2013-12-09 09:48:14 AM  

Sgt Otter: dittybopper: So the take-away is that "Second Amendment Solutions" are sometimes appropriate, therefore significant restrictions on the ownership of firearms by citizens is bad?

You do realize that the ANC's brief campaign of violence failed to do accomplish anything, and the end of Apartheid actually came decades later through peaceful negotiations with F.W. de Klerk, right?


Absolutely.  And I also realize that it was only the strength of Nelson Mandela's character that prevented South Africa from becoming another Zimbabwe.

Of course, we know more about him *NOW* than we did on his release from prison back in 1990.  What he did after his release is his true legacy.

But that's not what I was talking about:  It's the recognition that sometimes, albeit rarely, shooting people is the best course of action.   Nobody likes to admit it, but I'm one of those willing to say so, and I don't care whether the people in question are to the left or right of me, just that they are totalitarian in nature, and severely abusing the people under them.  Doesn't matter if they are fascist or communist.

/Not shooting random people, though, that's always wrong.
 
2013-12-09 10:01:26 AM  

dr_blasto: Diogenes: RexTalionis: dittybopper: So the take-away is that "Second Amendment Solutions" are sometimes appropriate, therefore significant restrictions on the ownership of firearms by citizens is bad?

No, the takeaway is that tea party people have no internal consistency.

I find them to be unerringly racist.

And painfully stupid.


And they do consistently project their flaws on everybody else.

So, they're a KIND of consistent.
 
2013-12-09 10:10:32 AM  

dittybopper: But that's not what I was talking about: It's the recognition that sometimes, albeit rarely, shooting people is the best course of action.


The problem with some of the really serious "gun enthusiasts," shooting somebody is considered the first solution, not the last.
 
2013-12-09 10:35:11 AM  
dittybopper:  It's the recognition that sometimes, albeit rarely, shooting people is the best course of action.

You would be surprised how often the most expedient course of action is mistaken for the best course of action.

There is a certain social aspect to Newton's third law of physics:  Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.  Violence always causes more violence.  Always.
 
2013-12-09 11:08:42 AM  

RexTalionis: dittybopper: So the take-away is that "Second Amendment Solutions" are sometimes appropriate, therefore significant restrictions on the ownership of firearms by citizens is bad?

No, the takeaway is that tea party people have no internal consistency.


They're consistently inconsistent.
 
2013-12-09 11:09:39 AM  
Easy reply.

You are defending apartheid.
 
2013-12-09 11:10:39 AM  
Is it "ironic" if the cognitive dissonance is expected?
 
2013-12-09 11:11:57 AM  

JusticeandIndependence: Easy reply.

You are defending apartheid.


a.abcnews.com
"So?"  -- proud apartheid supporter Dick Cheney
 
2013-12-09 11:12:52 AM  
Not surprising when the people in question are described below:

i13.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-09 11:14:32 AM  
The highest form of patriotic is descent letting a freedom-fighter rot in prison because white privilege and exceptionalism.
 
2013-12-09 11:15:53 AM  

JusticeandIndependence: Easy reply.

You are defending apartheid.


And do you think they would take that for anything other than praise?
 
2013-12-09 11:16:16 AM  
Progressives take a break from calling 2nd Amendment supporters terrorists in order to honor a man who actually did use violence against his fellow citizens.

Am I doing that right?
 
2013-12-09 11:22:11 AM  

Talondel: Progressives take a break from calling 2nd Amendment supporters terrorists in order to honor a man who actually did use violence against his fellow citizens.

Am I doing that right?


Nope, because they're morons, not terrorists.  And the people who were doing the fighting with Mandela didn't have that basic tool that right-wing-idiots do: voting.
 
2013-12-09 11:24:34 AM  

dittybopper: So the take-away is that "Second Amendment Solutions" are sometimes appropriate, therefore significant restrictions on the ownership of firearms by citizens is bad?


It's just a weird coincidence that the left wants to disarm their political opponents.
 
2013-12-09 11:26:21 AM  

ikanreed: Nope, because they're morons, not terrorists.  And the people who were doing the fighting with Mandela didn't have that basic tool that right-wing-idiots do: voting.


Exactly.  There's a huge difference between people who are being ignored by their government resorting to violence and people who are not at all ignored by their government (and just happen to hold unpopular views) resorting to violence.
 
2013-12-09 11:27:20 AM  

Ambivalence: dittybopper:  It's the recognition that sometimes, albeit rarely, shooting people is the best course of action.

You would be surprised how often the most expedient course of action is mistaken for the best course of action.

There is a certain social aspect to Newton's third law of physics:  Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.  Violence always causes more violence.  Always.


Wrong.

It might *APPEAR* that way, because some level of violence is a constant in any society, but that's just wrong.

If violence invariably begat violence, then we wouldn't arm the police and we wouldn't have a military.  Problem solved:  No more violence, right?

You see, you take the simplistic view that violence is always, at least in some respect, wrong.  It's not.  There are times when violence is not only not wrong, it's a positive moral duty incumbent upon you as an individual in a just and ordered society, to use it appropriately against those who are actively and severely ignoring the social contract.   Whether you do it yourself, or whether you call upon others to do it for you*, doesn't change your responsibility to employ violence, or at least the threat of it, one whit.

*For instance, by summoning the police.
 
2013-12-09 11:30:15 AM  

dittybopper: Ambivalence: dittybopper:  It's the recognition that sometimes, albeit rarely, shooting people is the best course of action.

You would be surprised how often the most expedient course of action is mistaken for the best course of action.

There is a certain social aspect to Newton's third law of physics:  Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.  Violence always causes more violence.  Always.

Wrong.

It might *APPEAR* that way, because some level of violence is a constant in any society, but that's just wrong.

If violence invariably begat violence, then we wouldn't arm the police and we wouldn't have a military.  Problem solved:  No more violence, right?

You see, you take the simplistic view that violence is always, at least in some respect, wrong.  It's not.  There are times when violence is not only not wrong, it's a positive moral duty incumbent upon you as an individual in a just and ordered society, to use it appropriately against those who are actively and severely ignoring the social contract.   Whether you do it yourself, or whether you call upon others to do it for you*, doesn't change your responsibility to employ violence, or at least the threat of it, one whit.

*For instance, by summoning the police.


Fighting for peace is like farking for virginity.
 
2013-12-09 11:32:26 AM  

dittybopper: There are times when violence is not only not wrong, it's a positive moral duty incumbent upon you as an individual in a just and ordered society, to use it appropriately against those who are actively and severely ignoring the social contract.


Those times are more infrequent than some "gun enthusiasts" think they are.
 
2013-12-09 11:34:03 AM  
CSB:  I lost a dear friend to the rightwing noise machine; he used to be a fairly decent, thoughtful guy but has spent far too much of the last few years listening to Rush, Beck, et al.  Last time he and I had a discussion of any importance, he said that Obama was a Kenyan Marxist socialist who's destroying America by trying to make everyone equal.  I replied that words mean things, and the words 'Kenyan', 'Marxist', and 'Socialist' actually have pretty well-defined meanings which preclude them from applying to Obama.  He responded that over fifty percent of Americans believe that they DO apply to Obama, so they actually DO.

I also pointed out that by supporting Republicans, my friend was supporting a fight against equality and justice in the USA.  He replied that equality and justice were Socialistic, and therefore bad - because Socialism is evil.

This guy graduated college and holds a fairly respectable job.  He's of above-average intelligence.  And he believes that equality and justice are BAD for America.

THAT'S how good a job of brainwashing people the rightwing noise machine is doing.
 
2013-12-09 11:34:08 AM  
It's like they and their base can't be decent human beings...about anything.  Not one single issue.
 
2013-12-09 11:34:24 AM  

JusticeandIndependence: Easy reply.

You are defending apartheid.


Well, let's look at it from a fearful-conservative view. To these people he was a terrorist and there will be no way to talk them out of this mindset.  There is no reply, no rebuttal that will make them think twice. You have a group of people here in the US who are scared to death of the current economic conditions (why they praise Ayn Rand, cling to their pocket-books/disability checks and stomp on the poor. At the same time, they feel that everyone is out to get them. It is simple Siege Mentality and it wont stop because it's working.

To hear them tell it, conservatives are always the underdog,  kept down by those with the "real" power (blah people, homosexuals, Jews, etc.). With the help of Fox News, Bachmann, Beck and the like, the average GOP voter feels that hanging an American flag on their porch could bring a Molotov cocktail thrown through their front window by gangs of socialists, a Christmas tree will get you arrested, a picture of Bush will get you shot, owning a hunting rifle will get you sent to "fema camps," etc. etc. Every Right newspaper title says the same, "power grab", "death panels", "Your next"--the message is invariably the same: evil liberals are out to get you, your children and everything you hold dear.
 
2013-12-09 11:34:57 AM  

paygun: dittybopper: So the take-away is that "Second Amendment Solutions" are sometimes appropriate, therefore significant restrictions on the ownership of firearms by citizens is bad?

It's just a weird coincidence that the left wants to disarm their political opponentseverybody.


There you go.
 
2013-12-09 11:35:10 AM  

dittybopper: Sgt Otter: dittybopper: So the take-away is that "Second Amendment Solutions" are sometimes appropriate, therefore significant restrictions on the ownership of firearms by citizens is bad?

You do realize that the ANC's brief campaign of violence failed to do accomplish anything, and the end of Apartheid actually came decades later through peaceful negotiations with F.W. de Klerk, right?

Absolutely.  And I also realize that it was only the strength of Nelson Mandela's character that prevented South Africa from becoming another Zimbabwe.

Of course, we know more about him *NOW* than we did on his release from prison back in 1990.  What he did after his release is his true legacy.

But that's not what I was talking about:  It's the recognition that sometimes, albeit rarely, shooting people is the best course of action.   Nobody likes to admit it, but I'm one of those willing to say so, and I don't care whether the people in question are to the left or right of me, just that they are totalitarian in nature, and severely abusing the people under them.  Doesn't matter if they are fascist or communist.

/Not shooting random people, though, that's always wrong.


But you said that when the revolution starts, patriots will be murdering liberals at the grocery store, and it will be their victims fault for previously opposing them on a narrow political question.
 
2013-12-09 11:35:20 AM  
those who are actively and severely ignoring the social contract.


you mean libertarians?
 
2013-12-09 11:35:59 AM  
Like the old adage with the hammer, when the only tool you have is a gun, everything looks like a target.
 
2013-12-09 11:36:02 AM  

grxymkjbn: He replied that equality and justice were Socialistic, and therefore bad - because Socialism is evil.


That's fascinating. Equality and justice are evil? I wonder if these people ever listen to themselves.
 
2013-12-09 11:36:23 AM  

ikanreed: Talondel: Progressives take a break from calling 2nd Amendment supporters terrorists in order to honor a man who actually did use violence against his fellow citizens.

Am I doing that right?

Nope, because they're morons, not terrorists.  And the people who were doing the fighting with Mandela didn't have that basic tool that right-wing-idiots do: voting.


Can you guarantee to me that the United States will not fall?

I can almost certainly guarantee to you that in its current form, it will.  Democratic republics don't last forever.  Eventually, they fall, usually for the worse.

I don't expect it to happen in my lifetime, of course, but neither you nor I can predict what will happen 25 years from now, much less 50, 100, or 200 years from now.  Unless you take what is considered a "typically American" short view of things, you have to concede the very real possibility that the democratic institutions we know, love, and cherish may fail in the future, and I'd rather not be reviled by future Americans as the generation that pissed away the means to resist.

Of course, if your view of this sort of thing is as short-term as that of the corporate executroid who can't see past the next quarterly earnings statement, then, well, that sort of argument isn't going to impress you very much.
 
2013-12-09 11:36:41 AM  

HMS_Blinkin: ikanreed: Nope, because they're morons, not terrorists.  And the people who were doing the fighting with Mandela didn't have that basic tool that right-wing-idiots do: voting.

Exactly.  There's a huge difference between people who are being ignored by their government resorting to violence and people who are not at all ignored by their government (and just happen to hold unpopular views) resorting to violence.


The only major campaign of political violence in modern America that comes to mind is the one against abortion and that's constitutionally protected such that it can't be practically voted against.

Did I miss some car bombs at the IRS or something?
 
2013-12-09 11:37:00 AM  

RexTalionis: Like the old adage with the hammer, when the only tool you have is a gun, everything looks like a target surveyor's mark.


/ftfy
 
2013-12-09 11:37:42 AM  

grumpfuff: dittybopper: Ambivalence: dittybopper:  It's the recognition that sometimes, albeit rarely, shooting people is the best course of action.

You would be surprised how often the most expedient course of action is mistaken for the best course of action.

There is a certain social aspect to Newton's third law of physics:  Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.  Violence always causes more violence.  Always.

Wrong.

It might *APPEAR* that way, because some level of violence is a constant in any society, but that's just wrong.

If violence invariably begat violence, then we wouldn't arm the police and we wouldn't have a military.  Problem solved:  No more violence, right?

You see, you take the simplistic view that violence is always, at least in some respect, wrong.  It's not.  There are times when violence is not only not wrong, it's a positive moral duty incumbent upon you as an individual in a just and ordered society, to use it appropriately against those who are actively and severely ignoring the social contract.   Whether you do it yourself, or whether you call upon others to do it for you*, doesn't change your responsibility to employ violence, or at least the threat of it, one whit.

*For instance, by summoning the police.

Fighting for peace is like farking for virginity.


WW2 would like a word.
 
2013-12-09 11:38:37 AM  

dittybopper: You see, you take the simplistic view that violence is always, at least in some respect, wrong. It's not. There are times when violence is not only not wrong, it's a positive moral duty incumbent upon you as an individual in a just and ordered society, to use it appropriately against those who are actively and severely ignoring the social contract.


You might say that it's the last resort; the first several thousand involving nonviolent means of conflict resolution.

Also, you're not interested in reconciliation when you call the cops or send in the troops. You're interested in resolving the immediate conflict, perhaps by enforcing a separation of the parties. The reconciliation happens after the violence has abated, when rational people can make rational decisions.

That's what "killing for peace is like farking for virginity" means.

// otherwise, cops would just shoot people who appeared to be committing crimes - problem solved
// waitaminute...
 
2013-12-09 11:39:52 AM  

dittybopper: ikanreed: Talondel: Progressives take a break from calling 2nd Amendment supporters terrorists in order to honor a man who actually did use violence against his fellow citizens.

Am I doing that right?

Nope, because they're morons, not terrorists.  And the people who were doing the fighting with Mandela didn't have that basic tool that right-wing-idiots do: voting.

Can you guarantee to me that the United States will not fall?

I can almost certainly guarantee to you that in its current form, it will.  Democratic republics don't last forever.  Eventually, they fall, usually for the worse.

I don't expect it to happen in my lifetime, of course, but neither you nor I can predict what will happen 25 years from now, much less 50, 100, or 200 years from now.  Unless you take what is considered a "typically American" short view of things, you have to concede the very real possibility that the democratic institutions we know, love, and cherish may fail in the future, and I'd rather not be reviled by future Americans as the generation that pissed away the means to resist.

Of course, if your view of this sort of thing is as short-term as that of the corporate executroid who can't see past the next quarterly earnings statement, then, well, that sort of argument isn't going to impress you very much.


Why do gun people always have this dream about America falling?
 
2013-12-09 11:40:09 AM  

RexTalionis: dittybopper: There are times when violence is not only not wrong, it's a positive moral duty incumbent upon you as an individual in a just and ordered society, to use it appropriately against those who are actively and severely ignoring the social contract.

Those times are more infrequent than some "gun enthusiasts" think they are.


Really?  Because I've had it happen several times.

I've been attacked while out walking, for nothing more than the color of my skin and the length of my hair.  And I fought back because it was appropriate to do so.

I've called the police numerous times on a former neighbor who was beating the shiat out of his wife.

See, I notice that you selectively quoted me and you left this part out:

 Whether you do it yourself, or whether you call upon others to do it for you*, doesn't change your responsibility to employ violence, or at least the threat of it, one whit.

*For instance, by summoning the police.
 
2013-12-09 11:40:45 AM  

Ned Stark: Did I miss some car bombs at the IRS or something?


There was that Austin guy who flew his plane into an IRS building. Don't worry. You can accidentally overlook planes flying into buildings and still become Secretary of State.
 
2013-12-09 11:43:32 AM  

grumpfuff: Fighting for peace is like farking for virginity.


Farking leads to children.  Children are born virgins.  So farking can and usually does increase the supply of virgins.

It's intuitively obvious to the most casual observer.
 
2013-12-09 11:43:37 AM  

RexTalionis: dittybopper: So the take-away is that "Second Amendment Solutions" are sometimes appropriate, therefore significant restrictions on the ownership of firearms by citizens is bad?

No, the takeaway is that tea party people have no internal consistency.


They are too busy claiming to have no actual "leaders", and instead are a part of some weird kind of cooperative independent coalition, or something. All it really does is keep them from having to take responsibility for the words and actions of ANY other Tea Bagger.
 
2013-12-09 11:44:14 AM  

dittybopper: You see, you take the simplistic view that violence is always, at least in some respect, wrong. It's not. There are times when violence is not only not wrong, it's a positive moral duty incumbent upon you as an individual in a just and ordered society, to use it appropriately against those who are actively and severely ignoring the social contract. Whether you do it yourself, or whether you call upon others to do it for you*, doesn't change your responsibility to employ violence, or at least the threat of it, one whit.


People seem to forget that escalating into violence is exactly what Mandela was in the process of doing before he went to prison.

However, his first step into violence was to hold the line at sabotage and only target things, not people.

If that didn't work he was prepared to go farther.
 
2013-12-09 11:44:47 AM  

EyeballKid: Ned Stark: Did I miss some car bombs at the IRS or something?

There was that Austin guy who flew his plane into an IRS building. Don't worry. You can accidentally overlook planes flying into buildings and still become Secretary of State.


Didn't his journals just turn out to be full of all out crazy rather than any sort of political agenda though?

/even so, a lone actors suicide attack does not a campaign make.
 
2013-12-09 11:45:06 AM  

dittybopper: So the take-away is that "Second Amendment Solutions" are sometimes appropriate, therefore significant restrictions on the ownership of firearms by citizens is bad?


Second Amendment Solutions are only acceptable when white conservatives advocate them, otherwise you're a terrorist socialist Marxist.
 
2013-12-09 11:45:59 AM  

Sgt Otter: You do realize that the ANC's brief campaign of violence failed to do accomplish anything, and the end of Apartheid actually came decades later through peaceful negotiations with F.W. de Klerk, right?


I guess it really boils down to if one thinks that deep inside their own hearts a person can change or not. I think that some people can but most people cannot. I think Mandela did change but his (ex) wife Winnie did not. I say that based upon after he left office the ANC has devolved back into a more violent and racist organization with some deep tribal rifts, with his (ex) wife in front of it. Mandela was (and still is by these types of comments from TFA) getting tarred by the brush of his (ex) wife's actions. Like it or not Mandela was the face of the ANC from when he was imprisoned until he died and anything that happened under the name of the ANC (both good and bad) during that time was attached to him in some way by extension. I really think that any criticism of him today is based upon the bad actions of the ANC as a whole in the past, even though there is little evidence to support that any of those actions were sanctioned by him after he left prison (his wife is a different story).
 
2013-12-09 11:47:54 AM  

Radioactive Ass: Sgt Otter: You do realize that the ANC's brief campaign of violence failed to do accomplish anything, and the end of Apartheid actually came decades later through peaceful negotiations with F.W. de Klerk, right?

I guess it really boils down to if one thinks that deep inside their own hearts a person can change or not. I think that some people can but most people cannot. I think Mandela did change but his (ex) wife Winnie did not. I say that based upon after he left office the ANC has devolved back into a more violent and racist organization with some deep tribal rifts, with his (ex) wife in front of it. Mandela was (and still is by these types of comments from TFA) getting tarred by the brush of his (ex) wife's actions. Like it or not Mandela was the face of the ANC from when he was imprisoned until he died and anything that happened under the name of the ANC (both good and bad) during that time was attached to him in some way by extension. I really think that any criticism of him today is based upon the bad actions of the ANC as a whole in the past, even though there is little evidence to support that any of those actions were sanctioned by him after he left prison (his wife is a different story).


So the *real* take-away is don't stick it in crazy?
 
2013-12-09 11:48:16 AM  
So, are they going to do this every day for the next few weeks?
 
2013-12-09 11:50:43 AM  

the_innkeeper: WW2 would like a word.


Yes. Opposing a country that basically declares war on everybody is totally the same as shooting a politician.

dittybopper: grumpfuff: Fighting for peace is like farking for virginity.

Farking leads to children.  Children are born virgins.  So farking can and usually does increase the supply of virgins.

It's intuitively obvious to the most casual observer.


Fine, I'll rephrase it since you want to be intentionally dense.

Fighting for peace is like farking to keep your virginity.
 
Displayed 50 of 87 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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