I think it’s adorable how some of the people here on RO find individual incidents of violence, hate, sexual or moral depravity committed by people on the left and then assign those actions to everyone on the left,
Here we have the number of terrorist acts committed by ideology…(Source Global Terrorist Database)
So, I guess, in RET’s words (with an obvious slight altercation), " I have been rejoicing that the right-wing are finally comfortable enough to come out of the closet regarding who they are and what they believe."
I suspect there are many of you here that don’t embrace the idea of groups having rights, rather you embrace individual rights, but are all too happy to embrace the idea of groups when it suits you.
This has GOT to be the most BS bunch of “charts” I’ve yet seen anywhere. WHO decides what attacks are “right wing”, “left wing”, or “other”? How can we trust their judgement not knowing what criteria they use to make that decision? I can think of DOZENS more left-wing incidents in the U.S. in 1917 alone and almost NONE that could be even remotely attributed to the “right-wing.” One death that MIGHT be the result of a “right-wing” perp…the lady hit by a car in Charlottesville, the driver of which was actually fleeing being attacked by lefties and she was hit by accident.
I’ve seen how the Southern Poverty Law Center defines hate groups. Without spending a lot more time with this, you’ll excuse me if I take this kind of statistic with a grain of salt.
I find something more interesting in this anyway. So what? It’s 95 deaths in a single year? If accurate, this is not a good reason to deny our civil liberties, to spy on U.S. citizens, the TSA, to war in the Middle East or the general freakout over terrorism. Yes, folks died. It sucks; but that’s an incredibly small number of folks when you consider that something like 4,000 people drown annually – 20 percent of them kids – according to the CDC. That’s a completely preventable cause of death – and we don’t even blink. We look at but don’t freak out over the 36,000 who die in car crashes. And our population is what 330 million.
Me too, the point is a simple one I expected most to miss. Run with me here for a sec, let’s just say it’s true, just for fun, for a sec…Could I brand everyone who falls within the right-wing as violence loving terrorists?
I get mildly irritated when people here on RO constantly point to individual acts as representative of all people who are Democrat or “left-wing”.
Frankly, I find that sort of labeling, on the right or the left, as an appeal to emotion. Frankly, that’s a very fascist thing to do. And I want to make it clear, there are left and right-wing fascists. People who appeal to emotion rather than facts to push an ideological agenda.
Yeah, and it’s collectivist. All people are not the same. Although the Democratic presidential candidates are virtually indistinguishable.
I question the fact you presented here. You could make the argument just the same as long as even one “right-leaning” terrorist exists. To prove it, you’d have to launch into definitions that will invariably consist of tribalist straw men and would no doubt be unproductive.
I’m no longer convinced that fact-based arguments are better than emotional arguments. As for facts, well facts often “lead” to bad conclusions even when the facts presented are true. “Data-based” decision making is all the rage with local bureaucrats and state officials right now, at least around me – maybe national. It’s driving me a bit nuts because they draw bad conclusions (rarely, not always the wrong ones imo) and use it to pursue the same old agendas (again, rarely, not always the wrong ones). In some cases, they talk the game and flat out deny the data, the facts, in vaping, for example. Perhaps if the fact-based arguments used sound reasoning, they’d be better.
It also drives me nut. These words come and go from the rich bureaucratic in fads. A few years ago, they all talked about “robust” this and “robust” that. Then it was “bold.” Now, it’s all about not working in “silos” and making decisions based on data. Nothing inherently wrong, but I wonder if bureaucrats ever have an idea of their own. It’s unbelievable how often they look to other government agencies for policy ideas and justification. Everyone else is doing it is all the justification they sometimes use. Anyway, tangential rant. Sorry.
Isn’t it convenient that your “chart” makes a lot of declarations about the ideologies of those who commit terror but I see the lack of supporting evidence; care to individually cite these cases of Conservative fueled acts of terror that make up your “chart”?
By the way, I already knew when I asked that question that you would never answer it; you have never once backed up any declaration when I ask you too.
By the way, I have NEVER failed to address your questions head on and without misdirection; not one time, not ever.
That is the difference between people who hold defensible views and those who embrace indefensible views.
Not with you here. The only reason I can see for dismissing fact-based arguments as being no better than emotional arguments is results, and any bad results can only be based on misapplication, not on the foundation. Facts are sound. Feelings aren’t facts.
Facts ARE good arguments. The alternative to “facts” are “speculations”, “feelings” or “opinions,” none of which are good arguments against facts. Facts are TRUTH. Everything else is something other than truth unless the FACTS eventually bear out speculation, feelings or opinions AS factual. For example, in my opinion, nothing in this so-called impeachment inquiry rises to the level of an impeachable offense. Now, IF it can be shown that President Trump DID, in FACT, bribe the new Ukrainian president in some fashion by offering him payment in exchange for a “favor” or some other, tangible benefit TO President Trump, that WOULD be “factual” and WOULD rise to the level of an impeachable offense. According to his own, videotaped comments, VP Biden DID do precisely that so probably SHOULD have been impeached. THAT’S a fact.
That’s because in primaries, candidates generally represent a relatively small group of people. Of course there are differences, but at the core, politicians pander to people that are capable of making the most noise.
There’s no “radical middle”. God only knows if there was, I’d be there.
No. It’s because the Democrats all THINK alike, spout the same “trendy” ideas and refuse to deviate from Party orthodoxy for fear of being ostracized. Why do you think every mainstream media outlet uses IDENTICAL language, especially when describing Republicans? The “term of the day” is passed around via e-mail and they all incorporate it into their respective narratives. Once it was “gravitas”, then with the advent of GOP inroads, it was “racist”, “homophobic”, “xenophobic,” “islamophobic”, “mysogenistic”, etc. Then it was “quid pro quo” which degenerated to “bribery” when they saw the quid pro quo meme wasn’t working.