Are we losing the ability to resist our government? Should we be?

The Political Left has seized upon every opportunity to limit the access for ordinary citizens to own and carry guns.  It’s been a priority of the Progressive movement for some time.  They have a very particular end in mind.  To render one of the fundamental purposes the second amendment was supposed to preserve: the ability of the people to forcefully resist a government they believe has become tyrannical.  The framers sought to prevent a government from holding so much power that the citizenry was no longer in control of it.

The Political Left doesn’t believe the government should be resisted, certainly not by force anyway.  The government is the end of the line, it has the final say.  To even speak of forceful resistance is not to be countenanced.  In fact, that’s considered a reason to prevent someone from keeping and bearing arms.  They don’t seem to believe the citizens have the right to forcefully oppose their government.

Unfortunately, proponents of the principle that the American people have a fundamental right to own guns and resist if necessary are losing, and have essentially lost.  What the Political Left has been unable to quell through restrictive legislation, they’ve been able to achieve through raw power of government.

Any group or individual who believes in the principle that the government can and should be resisted if necessary are quickly described as crazy or domestic terrorists.  Think about this, what would be reported about a prominent member of the Political Right or self-described conservative who publicly stated either of the following:

  • What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.
  • I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.

Both quotations came from the pen of Thomas Jefferson.

I’m not suggesting or urging forceful resistance.  But I am saying Progressivism has enabled the government to snuff out any attempt before it gains any traction, and that is dangerous to liberty.  You see, we are used to living with liberty for the most part.  Maybe not to the same degree as at our founding.  But we’ve never lived under rule like that of the USSR, China, Cuba, or the kind of government which led to the American Revolution.  Slowly, however, our local police departments have become military forces in their own right.  Many use military grade weapons, vehicles, uniforms, and tactics.  What purpose do tanks, armored vehicles, and machine guns serve to local police departments if not to protect the government from the people.

The people’s ability to resist a government with too much power is nearly null.  Limits on the kinds, capacities, and abilities of firearms has been legislated to the degree where resistance is literally futile.  Nearly.

At some point the American people will come to rue what the country has become.  They will inevitably realize they are the frog in the boiling pot of water that is their government.  Once this realization has taken place, it will be near impossible to turn off the burner.

Even if you don’t believe the government should be resisted, it would behoove the Progressive to leave themselves that option even if it’s never exercised.  Can it be a good thing to cede insurmountable power or leverage to any government? People shouldn’t be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people.

Comments

  1. Well said.

    The left tends to believe that because we reserve the right to oppose the government in the most forceful way possible, that we intend to do so at the drop of a hat. It is the same idiocy that states that one who demands the right to bear arms intends to shoot people the first chance one gets. The left is judging others based on the fact of their own lack of self-discipline. Because they cannot, or will not, control themselves, they believe the right equally incapable.

    • The Left likes to proclaim that loosening gun restrictions would turn the country into the wild west. But theres already 300 million guns out there, why isnt it already?

      But to the point, I find it disconcerting that some people would applaud others who rebel against their government: Syria, Egypt, Russia, et al. But not us. For us its crazy, its unheard of, and its unhinged.

      If we lose the ability to resist, whether it ever comes to that or not, we’re operationing not on freedom, but on what the government thinks we should have and do.

  2. Regardless of one’s alignment with the left or right, does anyone actually believe for a second that any one individual or even local militia has any kind of chance against the forces of the United States military? These soldiers will always have more advanced equipment and technology and are sworn to defend this country against attack, both foreign and domestic. I find it ironic that the same folks that want the ability to resist government (if necessary) are usually the same ones who support government spending virtually unlimited funds to have the most advanced military in the first place.

    Do you think that citizens should also have access to the same weaponry? How close do you feel we are to the point that a physical conflict is needed? Would it make you feel more secure knowing that you (collectively) could overthrow your government if you really wanted to?

    • Z

      Your first paragraph is the problem. At the time of the founding, the citizens had the same arsenal as the military which was the citizens. The fact that we have essentially a standing army, which they opposed which is why the military need to always be refunded, is the problem. We as free citizens are pretty much out of luck unless there is a large enough organized movement.

      I think, if we continue on the same track, there will be forceful resistance in around 25 years. Probably not sooner but who knows.

    • Keep in mind too that the founders, by and large, didnt Want to revilt and fight, they were eventually pushed beyond their point of acceptability.

  3. 2 questions:

    – So you think it’s a sound idea to give citizens access to the same weaponry and technology as the military?

    – In the larger picture, who do you feel actually controls our government?

    • I think Marshall made this point at one time or another, the issue shouldnt be the weapon, the issue should be the person. For example, Mother Teresa or pope John Paul in possession of military grade weapons or even access to nuclear weapons doesnt pose much of a threat, would you agree?

      Well, as it stands, the military and above are merely comprised of ordinary citizens. What safeguards are in place to prevent military personnel from just going on a rampage? An oath? Whats the fundamental difference between a PFC in the Army or Marines and me?

      Why should I be prevented from access to some of the same weapkns as the military if Sargeant so and so and I are just men who love our country? What makes him safer? What makes me a threat?

      Im not a conspiracy theorist. I think politicians run the cojntry with their primary goal of reelection. Some are really good with the priper intents and interests. Some have selfish and malicious (relative to the founding principles) intents. Most fall somewhere in the middle. The bad ones think the people cant be trusted with freedom amd liberty. Amd too many of them are in a position to restrict it.

  4. Despite the weaponry available to the colonies in the 1700s, they were not akin to the British army. Yet, they prevailed.

    As to Z’s questions, it seems the first is another of the tired “citizens with nukes” argument, which always forgets that at some level, a citizen is in control of our nuclear arsenal. So what’s the difference?

    Of course the difference does exist. But the point is that we allow some of our own to control the most devastating weapons, while denying the average citizen access to far less firepower as if there is no way the average citizen could bear the responsibility maturely. If I don’t trust my neighbor, it really doesn’t matter what types of weapons he possesses. If I do trust my neighbor, it really doesn’t matter what types of weapons he possesses.

    Of course, as some try to reduce our military, the need for the most sophisticated weaponry to thwart government oppression goes down. If there’s only few hundred thousand troops, a couple hundred million people with single shot pistols might be enough to turn the tide. But could it be enough to prevent the tide from rolling in our direction in the first place as well as that same amount with automatic weapons?

    The desire and right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with how likely their need might be realized, anymore than having auto insurance has anything to do with how likely you might be involved in an accident. The likelihood might be extremely low, but the possibility still exists.

    Z’s second question is also irrelevant to the point. My mother could control the government and still be corrupted by the power that control affords her. While we hope to have leaders who are representative of our desires, with our best interests at the fore, there is no absolute safeguard against corruption taking a toll and turning those leaders against the people’s interests. For example, we see this already as both elected and appointed government officials have chosen to ignore the will of the people as regards marriage, as well as the willful dismissal of their duty to enforce laws that were already on the books when they took office.

    At some point, the people may decide they have had enough, and if they have no recourse once their representatives choose to no longer represent them, then their right and duty to remove such corrupted leaders from office, by force if necessary, must never be denied.

  5. Gentlemen,
    I do not pose these questions as someone who represents any particular side of the argument. I just ask them to try and understand your viewpoint and I think the questions are quite clear, yet the answers seem somewhat muddled.

    As a citizen, I am not comfortable knowing that anyone armed like our military has the ability to go off at any second just because they have a bad day or feel threatened. You are free to distrust your own government or military, but is it worth it to me if my life is danger because of it? I’m more likely to feel threatened by a random citizen over a Marine who’s gone through basic training. He’s been trained to obey a chain of command and Joe Shmoe has not.

    As for controlling the government, let’s not fool ourselves. I do not think the elected officials mostly represent our best interests. The vast majority are backed by special interests – bought and paid for. Just follow the money and you’ll see that many of our elected officials are merely puppets who represent them, not us.

    I agree – at some point this country will reach a tipping point between the “haves” and “have-nots” and this nation will fall. Meanwhile, the echo-chambers keep recycling the same old fears and those with the real power try to avoid that tipping point while exploiting us for all they can.

    • What about joining the military ensures someone wont just “go off”? If im stable, I won’t “go off” whether I join the military or not. If im not stable, joining the military wont stop me from doing it.

      Im trying to figure out what the fundamental difference is between an individual member of the service is and an individual member of society is.

      Do you really think people need to be trained OUT of noy going on a rampage?

      300 million guns out there and the huge vast vast vast majority havent gone through trainjng to obey a chain of command, as if that means anything, and yet there are more people killed by bare hands or hammers than any rifle every year.

      Aside from your uncomfortableness, what evidence is there that military personnel are more responsible and citizens are irresponsible?

  6. paynehollow says:

    Just to point out the obvious. Where John says…

    The Political Left doesn’t believe the government should be resisted, certainly not by force anyway. The government is the end of the line, it has the final say.

    Of course, the Left reserves the right to disagree and resist the gov’t. Of course, we would oppose tyranny. We do it all the time. Have you forgotten the Bush years?

    Now, that we don’t believe in taking up arms against brothers over petty political disagreements is not the same as saying we would not oppose an actual tyrannical gov’t. But I’m not going to encourage anyone to shoot a fellow citizen because we disagree about abortion or about reasonable limits to weaponry or because we believe the right to practice religion ENDS at forcing others to practice your religion.

    When you make ridiculous, insane-sounding claims, you lose the argument and the respect of decent people, who write such claims off as the ravings of the irrational and fearful.

    And finally, of course, we can and should reasonably and morally restrict weapon ownership. That we disagree on where to draw the line is not an indication of anything other than we disagree on where to draw the line. Only a madman wants average citizens owning bombs and nukes and missiles.

    Those who think that NO lines should be drawn are also written off as irrational and immoral, to boot.

    That should be about enough of that.

    ~Dan

  7. paynehollow says:

    To answer your titular question in a rational way: No, we are not losing the ability to resist the gov’t. ANY gov’t with sufficient firepower and bombs and immorality can oppress a people, but a people can resist oppression by overcoming evil with good, by refusing to fight their way, by taking a non-violent stand in the face of oppression.

    Is that a guarantee of success against missiles, germ warfare, nukes and the will to use them all against civilians? No. But is having rifles and pistols a guarantee of success against the same? No.

    I’ll place my confidence in my God and reasonable, moral non-violent direct resistance. I have no fears that my fellow citizens will want to engage in a civil war again, killing brothers and sisters and children in the name of an ideology. And even if the some few were to choose that route (and really, John, no matter how much you may disagree with people like me, are you really willing to kill me over it?), I would still not embrace their methods to fight deadly family/neighbor-killing fire with fire. I think I’m smarter, more rational and more moral than that.

    No, we are not losing the ability to resist “gov’t” (ie, our neighbors and family). Of course we aren’t.

    ~Dan

  8. The Political Left doesn’t believe the government should be resisted, certainly not by force anyway. The government is the end of the line, it has the final say.

    The American Political Left may not, or at least most of them may not. But the Left is responsible for the vast majority of political terrorism throughout the world’s history. Violence is NOT anathema to Leftists; not even close.

    • T

      Its a unique thing with the American political left. There is mever any justification to use force against our own government. But its ok in other parts of the world.

  9. @John
    If you’re not stable, I doubt the military would let you continue weapons training, would they? Doesn’t the military screen candidates and have prerequisites for service? My point there is that soldiers are taught discipline and respect for their responsibility whereas we just assume the ordinary citizens are responsible.

    Your statement about more people being killed by bare hands and hammers makes me wonder about how many more would have been killed if those killers had access at that time to a more effective arsenal.

    The Political Left has seized upon every opportunity to limit the access for ordinary citizens to own and carry guns.

    What laws have been passed in the past 6 years that you have found prohibitive regarding your ability to own a gun? Did they make guns illegal in Connecticut?

    I would be interested in a response to the last two paragraphs of my last reply on this post. Would you agree and what’s the last straw?

    • They outlawed certain guns that are literally functionally identical as legal hunting rifled. They limited the number of bullets you can have in a magazine. If I leave my house with 11 in the magazine but the chamber is empty, thats a felony. If I chamber a round so theres one in the chamber and 10 in the magazine, thats legal.

      There’s not much by way of psychological screening.

      Tell me what you know about what those in the military are taught. I think youre making assumptions that arent so.

  10. paynehollow says:

    The Jews used nonviolent tactics against hitler too, how’d tjat turn out?

    Not so well. Then again, with some 60 million people killed – 2.5% of the world’s population at the time – it’d be hard to argue that war was a great solution, either.

    Regardless, your question is about the US. We ARE able to resist our gov’t. Our gov’t – our brothers and sisters, neighbors and family members – are not Nazi Germany. Any suggestion that we need to own bombs to defend ourselves against my Aunt Shirley and your Uncle Ben or your little daughter or son, that is insanely preposterous. Delusional.

    Are you suggesting you’re thinking we need to prepare for civil war? Who are you prepared to kill because they disagree with your political opinions?

    I’m willing to be that, delusional or not, you are not prepared to kill anyone simply because they disagree with you, even on topics of importance to you.

    You see, with actually oppressive gov’ts, the gov’t isn’t representative of the people, it’s rule by the few. When people disagree with them and dissent from them, it’s over actual life and death disagreements.

    Our disagreements in the US are about where do we draw lines on liberties? Is it okay to criminalize/restrict atomic weapons? Of course it is. Is it okay to restrict missiles? Hand grenades? TNT? Yes, most people think so. Is it reasonable to have some limits and regulations on various firearms? People disagree about where to draw that line. And that’s okay. No one who isn’t crazy isn’t going to kill their neighbor because they disagree on where to draw that line.

    Or where to draw the line on pollution questions. Or where to draw the line on religious liberties (the question about marriage equity isn’t about depriving anyone of their religious liberty, but whether someone can force their religious opinions on others, and we disagree on where to draw that line…). These are all simple disagreements and in our nation, we are not going to start killing our friends and family because they disagree over these simple line-drawing questions.

    ~Dan

  11. Those specific laws may be flawed, but I guess you still have the ability to own and carry a gun…

    As for our government being controlled, the NRA is a strong lobby. This week Real Sports on HBO has an interesting piece on the gun industry and their attempts to promote guns to our youth.

    We don’t allow kids to drive a vehicle, buy alcohol, cigarettes or an adult magazine, but it’s perfectly fine to own and shoot guns… it’s an interesting story that’s worth a watch. What a strange culture we have in this country.

  12. John,

    And note how neither of these leftists decided to challenge my assertion. Perhaps because they know it’s the truth. And if so, then maybe they’ll explain why the American Political Left is so different.

  13. What a strange culture we have in this country.

    Yep. In many states, children can get an abortion without parental consent. I totally agree, Z.

    But strangely, I don’t see you protesting that…Maybe that’s because you liberals are all the same, no matter the country or culture. You guys want what you want, period, and all’s fair so long as THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS. You Leftists are the most disgusting, tyrannical people in the history of the world, as history PROVES!

  14. Once again we see Dan making the most idiotic arguments to counter the sound notion of an armed populace. I’ve got news for you, Dan. Unlike you, I would indeed take arms against my Aunt Shirley if the old girl was in cahoots with a tyrannical government oppressing the people. But that’s aside from the point.

    No one is saying our nation is anything like Nazi Germany. No one is saying that they’d take up arms over some legislative quibbling. Try to at least pretend your head isn’t up your backside. No one is saying that armed resistance would ever be the first step in trying to overturn idiotic legislation, otherwise we’d have seen it already, especially during this idiot Obama’s reign. (There was absolutely nothing “tyrannical” about the Bush administration. Talk about delusional!)

    “Then again, with some 60 million people killed – 2.5% of the world’s population at the time – it’d be hard to argue that war was a great solution, either.”

    Of course not. Far better to let 6 million Jews and many other Gypsies, minorities (read “non-Aryan”) and effeminate homosexuals die while Dan Trabue-level idiots try talking Hitler out of his evil plans. THAT would’ve worked.

    War was the ONLY solution back then. The problem is you’re too kumbaya to do anyone any good. Serious people of character and honor realize sometimes risking and laying down one’s life is necessary. Idiots believe such people are returning evil for evil. Pathetic!

  15. These comments show how difficult it is to have a rational discourse in this country.

    Name-calling does not promote discussion. Abortions have absolutely nothing to do with this conversation. Your assertion about the political left being responsible for most of political terrorism is an interesting one that could have its own tangent, but I’m actually more interested in the theme of this post.

    John is concerned about the ability to resist our government with the underlying tone that our liberties and freedoms are being taken away.

    This is asked to all readers: Please list the top 3 things that you feel your current government is prohibiting you to do freely.

  16. paynehollow says:

    Marshall…

    I would indeed take arms against my Aunt Shirley if the old girl was in cahoots with a tyrannical government oppressing the people. But that’s aside from the point.

    No, this is the point exactly. Our Aunt Shirleys, Uncle Bens, college-age neighbor Juan, Barack Obama, George Bush, you and me… NONE of us are in cahoots with a tyrannical gov’t encouraging the oppressing of people. NO ONE. Our gov’t is not actively oppressing people. It ain’t happening, not ten years ago, not today, not even under the deeply flawed Reagan administration (although each of these administrations/time periods have had our presidents involved in foreign policy that actively caused the deaths of innocent foreigners). But the point is, this is the US. We’re not going to get into supporting an actively oppressive regime.

    And if we did, armed revolution would not be the best answer.

    Z asks a good question: ARE you being prohibited from freely doing anything you think you ought to be allowed to do? I’m not, not by the gov’t. Industries are actively polluting our air and water and gov’t is not doing enough to regulate that, but that’s mostly an industry thing, moreso than gov’t.

    As to this…

    ar better to let 6 million Jews and many other Gypsies, minorities (read “non-Aryan”) and effeminate homosexuals die while Dan Trabue-level idiots try talking Hitler out of his evil plans. THAT would’ve worked.

    Well, we don’t know how an active Just Peace Theory solution would have worked in that setting, since we didn’t try it. I’d be willing to bet that it could have resolved it more efficiently and with far fewer deaths than 60 million people (and twice that number?? in non-fatal casualties?), but we’ll never know. And just to be clear: It was the nations of the world who ALL support war-as-solution who allowed the 6 million Jews, etc be killed by the Nazis. There were zero nations that had pacifist or just peacemaking leaderships in place, so you HAVE to lay those deaths at the feet of war-supporters, if you want to lay the blame someplace.

    ~Dan

  17. paynehollow says:

    Marshall…

    Serious people of character and honor realize sometimes risking and laying down one’s life is necessary.

    Just to clarify this mistake: Pacifists and Just Peacemakers have always been willing to risk and lay down our lives to stop evil. What we’re NOT willing to do is to engage in evil to “beat” evil. We’re NOT willing to drops bombs on innocent civilians and children.

    So if you want to talk character and honor, let’s do so, but let’s start from a place of understanding reality, not a place of delusion.

    ~Dan

  18. Name-calling does not promote discussion. Abortions have absolutely nothing to do with this conversation. Your assertion about the political left being responsible for most of political terrorism is an interesting one that could have its own tangent, but I’m actually more interested in the theme of this post.

    Leftism is disgusting and tyrannical. And while abortion may not be directly connected to this discussion, YOU’RE the one complaining about the NRA hawking guns to minors. I merely pointed out that Planned Parenthood hawks abortion to minors and you seem to have no problem with that.

    Don’t challenge me on my assertion that the majority of political terrorism is leftwing. You’ll lose. Pol Pot and Joseph Stalin – leftwingers – were brutal dictators who used terrorist tactics to gain control, and then murdered millions. You already lost and I haven’t even made the argument that Adolf Hitler was a leftwinger.

    • I wouldnt even point to political leaders for terrorism. Its individuals and small groups who commit acts of terrorism which arent Islam related are done by the political left. Theyre the ones who steal signs, vandalize, douse with paint, glitter bomb, throw things, and other things. No matter the country, no matter the act, its almost always someone on the left.

  19. paynehollow says:

    Terrance…

    Don’t challenge me on my assertion that the majority of political terrorism is leftwing. You’ll lose. Pol Pot and Joseph Stalin – leftwingers – were brutal dictators who used terrorist tactics to gain control, and then murdered millions.

    To the degree that some might call these fascists “left wing,” it has nothing to do with modern US Left, any more than Nazi Germany (called by some a right wing dictatorship) has anything to do with the modern US Right. Trying to imply some connection is delusional and goofy as hades. IF anyone is trying to make that connection.

    You aren’t trying to make that delusional connection, are you Terrance?

    ~Dan

  20. paynehollow says:

    The facts point to the false nature of your claim.

    In brief, conservatives/right wingers who have engaged in acts of violence/terrorism to oppose “foreigners,” Muslims, liberals, Democrats, abortion providers, etc:

    Tim McVeigh
    Eric Rudolph
    Frank Silva Roque
    Shelly Shannon
    Scott Roeder
    Jim David Adkisson
    Paul Jennings Hill
    James Charles Kopp
    David Lane…

    …for starters. It is a complete falsehood to make the stupid-ass claim that those who kill and cause harm are always on the Left.

    In the US Left (and most of the modern Left, around the world), there is usually a starting place of at least respect for NVDA and pacifism, if not outright support. It’s just a silly claim, John. Admit it.

    ARE there those on the modern political Left who’ve caused harm to others? Sure, but they have to abandon leftist values to do so. On the other hand, those on the Right have a greater tendency to affirm and embrace the notion of “good violence,” often mocking the notion of pacifism and NVDA.

    And “glitter bomb…”? Really? Do you think tossing glitter on political opponents is in any way comparable to the sort of actual violence embraced by McVeigh, et al?

    Get serious.

    ~Dan

    • no one said always. Youre a lying liar.

    • It was not the fear of conservative violence that caused Ann Coulter’s speech to be cancelled this week.
      It was a liberal who bit the finger off a man who disagreed with him on healthcare.
      It was Obama-loving Amy Bishop who took a gun to work and murdered co-workers.
      Joseph Stack flew his plane into the IRS building after writing an anti-conservative manifesto.
      It was liberals who destroyed AM radio towers outside of Seattle.
      It’s liberals who burn down Hummer dealerships.
      It was progressive SEIU union thugs who beat a black conservative man who spoke his mind.
      It’s doubtful that a conservative fired shots into a GOP campaign headquarters.
      In fact, Democrats have no monopoly on having their offices vandalized.
      Don’t forget it was Obama’s friend Bill Ayers who used terrorism as a tool for political change. SDS is still radical, with arrests in 2007 and the storming of the CATO Institute in July 2008.
      It was a liberal who was sentenced to two years for bringing bombs and riot shields to the Republican National Convention in 2008.
      It was a liberal who threatened to kill a government informant who infiltrated her Austin-based group that planned to bomb the RNC.
      It was liberals who assaulted police in Berkeley.
      It was liberals who intimidated and threw rocks through the windows of researchers.
      The two Black Panthers who stood outside polls intimidating people with nightsticks were probably not right-wingers.
      Every time the G20 gets together, it’s not conservatives who destroy property and cause chaos

      I have a list much longer than yours dan, this is the tip of the iceberg. liberals are ok with their violence because the ends justify means

  21. paynehollow says:

    So you can point to liberals who misbehave and I can point to conservatives who misbehave. It’s NOT “almost always” a leftist. That is a falsehood. My fault for leaving out the “almost” but the lie is still a lie. It is NOT “almost always” someone on the Left.

    Lacking any data to support your claim, I’d suggest an honest man would admit he misspoke. If that honest man was not delusional.

    ~Dan

  22. paynehollow says:

    Here’s a short list of well over 100 plots and attempts at violence by right wingers documented by the SPL Center…

    http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/terror-from-the-right

    …involving way over 200 right wing nutbags attempting or doing violence.

    ~Dan

    • Spl center has just been shown in a study not by right wingers to be an ideological organization and not an unbiased source for hate watchers.

    • Oh, and just reading the “examples” noting actually points to their being “right wingers” its merely assumed because of the targets or use of particular weapon. Splc is a joke.

  23. paynehollow says:

    John makes a claim…

    All around the world, yes, it’s almost always liberals.

    And it goes unsupported with any data. Duly noted. John believes this based on nothing in the real world other than the thoughts in his head, it would appear.

    ~Dan

  24. paynehollow says:

    Yes, when the SPL cites the KKK, they were actually a LIBERAL branch of the KKK. And those reports of the skinhead groups? Liberals. Those people who were killing abortion providers? Liberals. Those who plotted to kill liberals and Democrats? Secretly, they were liberals.

    Get serious, John. You misspoke, be a man and admit it.

    The data is there. It’s real. It’s solid, regardless of the source.

    You, on the other hand, have cited zero data. You got nothing to support your false charge. I’ve demonstrated it’s false with actual data.

    You lose.

    Come back when you have, you know, facts.

    ~Dan

  25. paynehollow says:

    Yes, I cited the SPLC, which has as the first on the list on that page:

    “Antigovernment extremist Charles Ray Polk is arrested after trying to purchase a machine gun from an undercover police officer, and is later indicted by federal grand jury for plotting to blow up the Internal Revenue Service building in Austin, Texas.”

    This is a real world incident. You can google his name and find the facts. He was an anti-gov’t type who attacked the IRS. It’s a matter of record.

    They go on to cite Willie Ray Lampley, who plotted to attack civil rights organizations (including the SPLC). Here’s a news story on him…

    http://www.albionmonitor.com/9607a/lampleysentence.html

    That story says…

    Witnesses testified that Lampley believed the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center were part of a New World Order designed to destroy resistance in the United States to a single world currency and government.

    Is that talking about a liberal or a conservative, John? Clearly, not a liberal.

    Story after story, John. You can research each one yourself. They’re not made up, the stories can be found in multiple sources.

    And rather than providing data to back up your ridiculous and delusional-sounding claim, you just deny the real stories because I cited them all gathered together at an organization that you don’t like.

    You do know that just because you don’t trust the source doesn’t make the stories false, right?

    Back up your claim or admit that it’s based on nothing. Be honest, John.

    ~Dan

  26. paynehollow says:

    You don’t like SPLC? How about West Point (as in West Point Military Academy of the US Marine Corps! – hardly a bastion of liberalism…)?

    Here’s their report on violent or potentially violent groups amongst the Right in the US…

    http://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/challengers-from-the-sidelines-understanding-americas-violent-far-right

    Titled, “Understanding America’s Violent Far Right…”

    Their report on “America’s Violent Far Left…”? It doesn’t exist.

    Hmmm.

    From the report…

    “Although in the 1990s the average number of attacks per year was 70.1, the average number of attacks per year in the first 11 years of the twenty-first century was 307.5, a rise of more than 400%,” writes Dr. Arie Perliger, Director of Terrorism Studies at the CTC.

    Hard data from the Marines. Do you have any such hard data to support your claim? Or do you suspect that the US by-God-Marines are in cahoots with those pansies at the SPLC? …and thus can be written off as biased and extremist and liberal?

    Or do you want to admit that maybe you got a bit carried away and misspoke?

    ~Dan

  27. paynehollow says:

    And just for the record, you cited 14 unsupported claims of alleged “liberal violence” over an untold number of years. The Marines are citing an average of 307 acts of conservative violence per year over the last decade.

    14. ish. Maybe.

    307.

    Just to shine a bit of light on the facts.

    ~Dan

    • Why did they only list “right wing” incidents? How did they define right wing? What are the facts of the cases? Remember the IRS targeting conservatives? Maybe theres some skewing?

    • In the splc “source” it seems that militia members were arrested just for owning certain weapons. How does that equate to terrorism? They also presume Nazi=Right Wing.

      Theyake a lot of leaps and assumptions.

  28. John,
    First, Dan has spoken, resistance is futile.
    Second, The KKK, an organization with it’s very roots in the democratic party. Which as we know is the political home of the vast majority of those on the political left. See Byrd, Robert (D).

    Third. Unabomber-liberal. Various environmental tree spikers-liberal.

    Fourth. I haven’t found anything resembling an unbiased source that confirms Dan’s hunch that Polk was conservative. Ditto, Lampely. Frankly Lampley sounds much closer to Fred Phelps (democrat), than he does to any actual conservative.

    Fifth, I’d agree that the SPLC is hardly the place for unbiased information.

  29. paynehollow says:

    Again, fellas, now I’m citing the Marines. You think the Marines are a bunch of liberally-biased posers? Okay, where is your evidence for that?

    I’m citing data. You all are citing hunches.

    And Craig, get serious: It is well-known that the Dems of 150 years ago were the conservatives of the day, not the liberals.

    Here’s a hint, guys: Just don’t cite that tired nonsense about “the Dems supported slavery 150 years ago…” as if it proves something. It just furthers your image as delusional and lacking in basic understanding of history or science or, you know, knowledge. You’re becoming laughingstocks, not worthy or honorable fellow citizens capable of holding up your end of an adult conversation.

    Deal with the Marines, Craig. Take it up with them.

    And John, How did they define right wing? What are the facts of the cases? Why don’t you find and read the report rather than make crazy-sounding insinuations that the US MARINE CORPS is part of a vast left wing conspiracy.

    Good Lord, have mercy.

    ~Dan

    • I wouldnt have thought the irs would target people for their political views, but here we are.

      I remember when they classified tea partiers as potential terrorists amd the fort hood muslim jihadist shouting allahu ackbar as an instance of workplace violence. Its not the marines themselves, but the appointed administration incharge of policy and training I find suspect.

  30. To the degree that some might call these fascists “left wing,” it has nothing to do with modern US Left, any more than Nazi Germany (called by some a right wing dictatorship) has anything to do with the modern US Right. Trying to imply some connection is delusional and goofy as hades. IF anyone is trying to make that connection.

    Hence my question: “And note how neither of these leftists decided to challenge my assertion. Perhaps because they know it’s the truth. And if so, then maybe they’ll explain why the American Political Left is so different.

    You aren’t trying to make that delusional connection, are you Terrance?

    You don’t read so good, do you Dan?

  31. Dan,

    Shut up. Right to Life was characterized as an “extremist group,” for crying out loud. In fact, that idiot Governor of New York, Cuomo, said the same thing. If you disagree with a liberal, you’re an extremist. It’s a rhetorical game the left plays and it’s largely effective.

  32. It’s NOT “almost always” a leftist.

    On the world stage, it most certainly is.

  33. paynehollow says:

    Terrance, take it up with that bastion of liberality – the USMC. They are all part of the plot, though, so you better be careful, or you’ll end up on their list and the next thing you know: Waterboarding!

    Terrance…

    You don’t read so good [sic], do you Dan?

    I read pretty well, thank you. Why?

    You think I should seriously address why the US Left is so different? It’s a goofy and crazy question. But here’s the straight up answer to your goofy question:

    We’re different BECAUSE WE ARE NOT NAZIS, FASCISTS, THUGS, RAPISTS or KILLERS. We are your brothers and sisters. Your next door neighbors. We’re the deacons and Sunday School teachers and pastors and rabbis and priests and nuns and fire fighters and crossing walk guards and teachers at your school and your mail carriers, your sons and daughters… all of whom are generally opposed to killing people and oppression of the sort you cite by repressive regimes (“Left” AND “Right” oppressive regimes).

    Can you read and understand that, Terrance?

    ~Dan

  34. I could be wrong but Robert Byrd lived much more recently than 150 years ago.

    A few more thoughts.

    1. There is no possible way that anyone could have read and digested a 148 page report in enough detain to seriously cite it as evidence of anything.

    2. I’m not sure how much credence to give to anyone who demonstrates such a high degree of ignorance about some basic facts. As long as you continue to insist that you are citing “the Marines”, i am forced to conclude that you are delusional.

    2a. The report is written by Arlie Perlinger. this gentleman is clearly not a Marine. If he was his name would be preceded by some rank abbreviation (ie Col.) and followed by either USMC or USMC (ret.). Therefor Arlie Perlinger does not = “the Marines”.
    2b. The first text on page one after the title and author is “The views expressed in this report are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of the Combating
    Terrorism Center, U.S. Military Academy, Department of Defense or U.S. government.” Again, clearly not “the Marines”.
    2c. The actual title of the institution is the United States Military Academy (USMA), not ” West Point Military Academy of the US Marine Corps!”. Again, not “the Marines”.
    2d. The USMA, which is physically located in West Point NY, is the service academy that graduates officers for the US Army. The service academy that graduates officers of “the Marines” is the United States Naval Academy which is located in Annapolis MD. Again, not “the Marines”.
    2e. While it has been (and I assume still is) theoretically possible to be commissioned into “the Marines” upon graduation from the USMA, there is no possible way in whcih anyone could possible make a rational argument that the USMA is actually “the Marines”.

    Given this inability to even correctly identify the source of this alleged supporting document, it is certainly reasonable to question the interpretation of the supporting document.

  35. “…take it up with that bastion of liberality – the USMC.”

    Of course, this insistence that the USMC supports Dan’s hunch is clearly evidence of a delusion. Again, how seriously can anyone take someone who simply chose the first title that popped up on his Google search and offered it as evidence, while not actually knowing where said ‘evidence’ actually originated.

  36. paynehollow says:

    Yes, West Point and the Marines are all part of the conspiracy, Craig. I get it.

    How about you? Are you agreeing with John’s unsupported and nutty notion that “almost all” acts of political violence are acts by political liberals? In the US? Do YOU have any data to support such a claim that is, on the face of it, insane?

    Or do you agree with me that there are bad actors in all camps and that you’ve heard and read nothing to support John’s silly and unsupported claim?

    ~Dan

  37. Dan,

    Given your clearly delusional ignorance of the actual source of your source combined with your refusal to acknowledge what must be either colossal ignorance or delusion, why would any rational human accord you any credence. The fact that you have provided one source that is hopelessly biased toward your default left leaning position, and another that you clearly don’t even comprehend makes it seem abundantly clear that you have no real substance to support your hunches.

    Correct your massive ignorance, then get dismissive, demeaning, and demanding. Unless you’d like to do that then you should probably just stop.

  38. paynehollow says:

    To clarify, I noted that this was from the West Point’s website, specifically their Combating Terrorism Center page. West Point is the military academy for the Marines. Thus, I went with the assumption that West Point’s CTC would not publish an opinion that they disagree with and that the Marines disagree with. That seems like a reasonable hunch to me, but it IS a hunch, to be clear.

    Do you suspect that the Marines have been kept out of the loop on this Left Wing Conspiracy and that it’s only the CTC? Or that even West Point is not part of the conspiracy?? Could be. I’d entertain some hard evidence to support any of these guesses.

    Do you have any evidence to support such a hypothesis…?

    No, I did not think so.

    So, rather than deal with the clear mistake that John can’t man up and admit to, you all just attack the messenger.

    More confirmation of delusion on your part.

    Less reason to take you as anything but immoral, irrational jokes.

    Sorry.

    ~Dan

    • Dan

      Why arent you responding to Craigs initial response to you, the one where he exposes your source as not really being an official Marine assessment.

  39. I read pretty well, thank you. Why?

    I wrote good because I wanted to dumb it down for ya, Dan, since you have comprehension problems.

    You think I should seriously address why the US Left is so different? It’s a goofy and crazy question. But here’s the straight up answer to your goofy question:

    So you agree that “leftism,” in general, is a violent political movement? Good. The evidence is overwhelming.

  40. paynehollow says:

    My fault. West Point is the Army, not the Marines. I was mistaken on that point.

    That is how an apology is done when a mistake is made. See how it’s done?

    So, my fault. You all think that the US ARMY is involved in a vast Left Wing conspiracy, not the Marines.

    That’s so much more rational and not crazy at all…

    ~Dan

    • will you also note that it also contains a disclaimer that the information is not military information, but only the opinion of the author, who essentially equates being racist and being right-wing?

  41. paynehollow says:

    Will you note that your claim is nonsense and delusional and that you were clearly mistaken?

  42. paynehollow says:

    Really? Making a mistake and owning up to that mistake makes someone look “foolish” in your delusional mind?

    That explains the lack of adult decision making on your part, I guess. You fear looking foolish and weak and think admitting an honest mistake makes you appear thusly.

    Grow up, John. Embrace reality.

    Oh, and never mind that the “mistake” I made does not impact the validity of my point or the cold hard facts. Facts which you write off as a vast conspiracy theory.

    Why do I bother?

    ~Dan

  43. “So, rather than deal with the clear mistake that John (Dan) can’t man up and admit to, you all just attack the messenger.”

    Pot, meet kettle.

    “My fault. West Point is the Army, not the Marines. I was mistaken on that point..”

    This could actually be a first. Of course, it loses some effect since Dan chose to ignore the fact that this bit of trivia was pointed out to him earlier, and he still continued to insist that it was “the Marines”.

    “You all think that the US ARMY is involved in a vast Left Wing conspiracy…”

    Actually, this is an item that I addressed earlier, yet Dan has chosen to pretend otherwise.

    Quite frankly the actual paper (which I still suspect Dan hasn’t read beyond the title), specifically contradicts Dan’s false claim. Had he paid attention earlier he’d have known this.

    “Oh, and never mind that the “mistake” I made does not impact the validity of my point…”

    Actually as I’ve pointed out it kind of does. The fact that you did a quick Google search, and latched onto the first thing with a title that sounded like it supported your hunch, without actually reading the document or understanding the source, seriously undermines your alleged point.

    “…or the cold hard facts.”

    Not sure that I’ve seen anything that I’d describe as “cold hard facts”.

    “Facts which you write off as a vast conspiracy theory.”

    Please provide a quote that demonstrates that anyone has written off anything as a “vast conspiracy theory”.

    I haven’t seen it, but I could be wrong. In which case you can provide the quote to demonstrate this.

    John,

    Another thing I noticed about a third of the way is is that the author is pretty clear that he is talking about an incredibly tiny group of folks who he consistently refers to with some sort of modifier (extreme or fringe or something similar) before the term right wing.

    Again, I just skimmed about the first half, and it doesn’t seem to provide the sweeping support for Dan’s hunch that he seems to think it does. I’m not really sure that offering a “source” that one hasn’t read, from a source that the offerer is clearly ignorant of does not demonstrate a bit of the delusional.

  44. Also interesting that if one looks beyond the report Dan cites I would suspect that there is very little else that the CTC does which would meet Dan’s approval.

    I’m going to go out on a limb and guess they don’t teach a class on how to non violently stop the Al Haqqani network, or what’s the best posture when the jihadi wants to behead you.

  45. I’ve also begun reading Dan’s slam dunk link and though I haven’t gotten too far, I did notice that the author cites three different groups, with the third being just another form of the first. Interesting. At the point I’m at thus far, I have seen no indication of how any of the “three” groups necessarily constitute “right wing”. I’m guessing that for the 1st and 3rd, it is due to racism, and as we all know, we right-wingers are totally racist hate-mongers. But I’m expecting to see voting records and examples of financial support for Ted Cruz. Hopefully, I’ll also see clear examples of what constitutes and act of terrorism or violence.

    In the meantime, it wasn’t so long ago that we had a good comparison when we saw the peaceful gatherings of Tea Partiers, along with how clean they left the areas where they gathered, versus the Occupy Wall St type protests and the crime and filth connected with their presence.

    I would also like to point out that there exists no example of “Just Peace Theory Solutions” stopping anyone like a Hitler, Amin, Pol Pot, Hussein, or any of the head chopping islamists. “Just Peace Theory” isn’t even worthy of the title “theory” for its idiocy and reality-free understanding of true evil in the world.

    Of course, Dan, I welcome you to prove me wrong by taking part in talking the most despotic out of their belief system. Good luck. I’ll pray for you.

    • I have hundreds of links to news citing violence rape murder done at occupy rallies and by occupiers. Zero such news stories exist for tea party rallies. Z.e.r.o.

      • How apropos is it that while Dan calls me a loony for thinking there’s some vast conspiracy, that Senate Democrats killed a bill that would have prevented the IRS from targeting political opponents.

        “(a) Offense. — It shall be unlawful for any officer of the Internal Revenue Service to, regardless of whether the officer or employee is acting under the color of law, willfully act with the intent to injure, oppress, threaten, intimidate or single out and subject to undue scrutiny for purposes of harassment any person or organization of any state –

        “(1) based solely or primarily on the political, economic or social positions held or expressed by the person or organization; or

        “2) because the person or organization has expressed a particular political, economic, or social position using any words of writing allowed by law.”

        http://watchdog.org/131307/irs-political-discrimination/

  46. paynehollow says:

    IN summation:

    You all have cited an amazing 14 ! unsupported claims of alleged “liberal violence” over an untold number of years.

    The West Point Combating Terrorism Center cited an average of 307 acts of conservative violence per year over the last decade +.

    14. ish. Maybe. UNsupported claims.

    307.

    To be clear: I’m making the rational and supportable claim that people on both the Left and Right have behaved badly, embracing and supporting violence. Both sides.

    I’m making the claim that the West Point Combating Terrorism Center has issued a documented study showing an average of 307 acts of violence by conservative extremists. There is NO such study I know of about the violence of liberal extremists. As far as I know, it does not exist in the real world, only in the immoral and imagined mind of the deluded and ruthlessly partisan.

    I have to suspect the number is MUCH lower, but would be open to documented EVIDENCE of claims to the contrary.

    Without documented evidence, I don’t really care what fantasies you may have in your mind or what the voices in your head tell you.

    The claim that violence is “almost always” from the political left has been exposed as fallacious and stupid-as-hell. Just looking at the evidence.

    You can’t ask people to take you at your word when you make unbelievable, delusional-sounding claims. In fact, when you make such claims, you just get laughed at or, at best, pitied, as delusional and immoral.

    It’s all about the evidence.

    Or lack thereof, in your case.

    ~Dan

  47. paynehollow says:

    Okay, so you got, what SIX entire stories where you say some alleged liberals have behaved badly? Very good, John.

    What of it?

    Had I made the claim that liberals never behave badly, that would be VERY GOOD evidence to debunk the claim.

    But I never made that claim.

    No, YOUR claim – which is still entirely unsupported is that liberals are “almost always” the ones who perpetrate violence. That is what you need to provide evidence of.

    I bet I could cite a dozen or more instances of liberals behaving badly, too. And obviously, I can cite hundreds of instances of conservatives behaving badly. All of which supports my claim: That bad behavior is not unique to one side or the other of the political spectrum.

    Here’s another claim: Acts of violence are almost never done by pacifists and Just Peace Theory activists and, when they are done (as I’m sure it must happen sometimes), it’s in direct contradiction to the teachings of pacifism and JPT, not because of it.

    How about debating and supporting the argument you made, not irrelevant strawmen?

    Look, John, it’s easy. Two questions:

    1. DO you have hard data to support your delusional-sounding claim that it is the left who “almost always” use violence?

    2. Lacking any evidence to support the claim (and there is none), will you be an honest man and admit you misspoke?

    The answer to the first question is obvious to all rational people: No, you have no – zero, nada, none, zilch – hard data to support your made up, delusional claim.

    The answer to the second remains to be seen.

    ~Dan

    (Oh, and about the violence done at some Occupy events: You can’t merely cite that a violent attack happened at one of these events, you have to provide evidence that the perpetrator was a liberal acting on behalf of liberal ideas. From what I’ve read, at least some of the rapes/attempted rapes were done by known sex offenders, not by “liberals.” It sounds like a known sex offender made his way to these events to try to take advantage of liberals, not because he was a liberal…

    And again, even if you can turn up another dozen or two instances of actual liberals perpetrating violence – and I’m sure you can if you look hard enough – that is not evidence that supports your actual claim.

    It’s all about real evidence, not superficial hunches and delusional, disordered thinking.)

  48. paynehollow says:

    And looking at your “evidence” that some alleged liberals behave badly (which is a strawman, since I have repeatedly noted that some liberals behave badly – that is not what is at contention, here, but the delusional claim that “almost always” it’s liberals who commit violence), you cite Joseph Stack in an article from the HuffPo.

    There is nothing in the article that suggests that Stack was anything but deranged and unhappy with the IRS (typically, a more conservative target, but not exclusively). He was an anti-gov’t type with a crazed range of interests that were from both more liberal and more conservative sources. His deadly attack, though, was one against Big Gov’t, not for a liberal cause.

    So, I guess that brings your list from 14 down to 13.

    Keep trying. When you’ve reached a number that represents “almost all” liberals, let me know. As it stands now:

    An average of 307 acts of violence a year: conservative.

    13 over an undisclosed number of years/decades: allegedly liberal (maybe 15 – 17, if you count throwing glitter at someone as an “act of violence…”).

    (I suspect that if I looked further into your links, I would find that you are not citing someone acting on liberal principles, but more likely, someone who was deranged or just behaving badly for selfish reasons, not for liberal principles.)

    ~Dan

  49. paynehollow says:

    re: “Six,” sorry, I didn’t see the links above the video.

    Like the link to Amy Bishop, who, according to your link, killed people because “In March 2009, Bishop had been denied tenure at the university and was beginning her last semester there per university policy.”

    There is no mention of her being a liberal. No mention of her acting on behalf of liberal principles.

    Or what about your link to a USA News story that mentions a GOP building being shot at. No arrests were made, so, we factually do not know the motives of the shooter(s), do we?

    Or the link to the Bush office break-in, that concluded, “We obviously have no idea who did this and are not going to cast aspersions…”?

    Or what about your link to statesman.com, which was a broken link, no story there at all?

    Yeah, You’re right… six was probably being generous.

    Anyone can throw up links, John, but they have to actually support your claim.

    Nothing you’ve done has supported your claim, unless you think six acts of violence over – what? decades? – represents the “almost always liberal” majority of violent offenders.

    But then, that would be delusional, not in accordance with reality.

    But thanks for the laughs.

    ~Dan

  50. paynehollow says:

    Re: your Occupy post, you yourself say…

    The extra-curricular activities of the Occupiers exposes their anarchistic outlook.

    IF these folk who are misbehaving are anarchists (NO gov’t, NO rules), then they are not liberals (believe in a reasonable gov’t and governmental regulations), are they? Those who are misbehaving are acting under anarchistic and hedonistic – maybe even libertarian principles, not liberal ones.

    So, thanks for the support for my point.

    But how about trying to support your claim (you know, your ACTUAL point, not the revised silliness that SOME alleged liberals misbehave)?

    ~Dan

  51. The difference between the Tea Party gatherings and the OWS gatherings demonstrates what conservative gatherings look like compared to non-conservative gatherings, thereby demonstrating the chasm-like difference between conservatives and so-called “peaceful and tolerant” leftists.

  52. paynehollow says:

    And here…

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/59766195@N00/sets/72157608622289320/

    …is what a real liberal gather looks like. Old and young. Black, asian, white. Gay and straight…. all playing, dancing, singing, working, cleaning up after ourselves, praying, seeking, studying together for a healthier life and world.

    No litter. No attacks. No harm. Only love and sweet, sweet grace and communion.

    But don’t let reality interfere with whatever fantasies you might want to construct for yourselves.

  53. No, Dan. Your kumbaya offerings do not show a typical liberal gathering. Despite the unfortunate political leanings of members, likely influenced by what you’ve demonstrated are poor and leftist influenced teachings, a church gathering is usually unlikely to be violent or disruptive regardless of those political leanings of its members. I’d say nice try, but it really isn’t one.

    I also wish to compare the results of your link to leftist violence around the world and throughout history. What can compare to the ultimate leftism and violence of the various communist and socialist regimes throughout history?

    The only fantasy and delusion is coming from you, who so desperately wishes to draw parallels between two disparate ideologies and the actions that flow from them.

    Still reading your link. Still not seeing what makes a violent act typical of the right wing, or even what makes any of the groups listed right wing, except that the left wants them to be.

    • notice too, he claimed my initial list was unsupported, then I provided links and for some reason those werent good enough. But his original splc link had no links either.

      dan’s a hypocrite(shown here), a liar (from earlier about me saying ALL attacks are liberals) and he is a racist (from previous convos saying there are too many of a particular race in certain organizations)

  54. paynehollow says:

    Again John, you seem to have trouble accepting mistakes. You corrected me about “ALL attacks” and what did I say? I quote:

    My fault for leaving out the “almost” but the lie is still a lie. It is NOT “almost always” someone on the Left.”

    I made a simple mistake in not providing the full quote. I APOLOGIZED for that mistake and pointed out how the slight change did not change my point. Thus, I am not a liar. That charge is, itself, a lie.

    Indeed, I have at least twice in this thread graciously admitted a mistake (no matter how small – no matter that the mistakes did not impact my point), apologized for it and moved on. Demonstrating for you how it is done.

    How about it, John? Can you be even half the man I am and admit a simple, obvious mistake? I know you’re comparatively a child in years, compared to me, but still, you’re old enough to be a man and to know right from wrong and admit a mistake.

    Man up or have the shame to at least give up and admit it when you’ve embarrassed yourself. Don’t dig a deeper hole.

    ~Dan

  55. Of course we can always cite union thuggery to further support the notion that we have far more to fear from the left than the right.

  56. paynehollow says:

    ? Do you not understand that I am not saying that there are no people who identify as liberals who misbehave? Clearly, there are. This is not an argument about whether there are bad actors in the Liberal camp.

    The claim was NOT that there are some violent liberals. The claim by John was that it is “almost always” liberals who are going to be violent.

    THAT is the stupid claim. THAT claim has not been supported. Not with facts or data.

    That you can list (maybe) a few violent liberals is not evidence to support that claim.

    And again, for every individual violent liberal you can dredge up (and you’re really stretching it when you include throwing glitter on people!), the US Army stands ready to identify dozens of far right extremists. The US Army does not appear to find the problem on the Left, but on the Right, predominantly.

    So, UNTIL such time as you can provide a documented research paper, “The problem with violent Far Left Extremists,” I’d say the burden is on you to defend your own wing who are the nazis, the skinheads, the anti-gov’t rebels, the racists, the anarchists, the extreme libertarians, the murder-as-solution camp. I’ve been trying to be generous and say that this is a problem across-the-board, Left and Right. But that was being generous.

    Clearly, the problem is predominantly on the Right, not on the Left, IF you want to start picking sides with the real problem.

    You all have nothing but anecdotal, scattered stories. You got nothing.

    Come back and talk with me when you have peer-reviewed research, data, hard evidence… you know, facts.

    In the meantime, see you Looney Tunes on the cartoon network.

    ~Dan

  57. paynehollow says:

    Marshall…

    Of course we can always cite union thuggery

    By all means, cite your evidence. West Point’s anti-terrorism group says that there are on average 307 violent incidents conducted by far right extremists each year.

    How many violent acts by the unions? Ten? Five? What you got?

    Evidence, guys. You got nothing.

    ~Dan

  58. Dan,

    The fact your source doesn’t include any left wing terrorism – the five, ten, whatever – is proof of the author’s bias.

  59. paynehollow says:

    John…

    It was insinuated that all racists and neo-nazis are right wing.

    I hate to break this to you, big fella…

  60. paynehollow says:

    Terrance…

    The fact your source doesn’t include any left wing terrorism – the five, ten, whatever – is proof of the author’s bias.

    You think it odd that he does not include any alleged left wing terrorism in a report on “Understanding America’s Violent Far Right…”? Really? How many reports on left wing terrorism would you have included in a report on the violent far right?

    I know you’re a young man, fella, but use your head.

    Again, by all means, produce the research about America’s problem with a violent far Left.

    It’s all about the evidence, young fellas. You got to produce some to be taken seriously.

    ~Dan

  61. I find it kind of interesting that the report Dan cites (which he obvious hasn’t read) doesn’t actually seem to provide any support that the acts it catalogs are actually committed by anyone on the “right wing”. For example, the author uses the category of the KKK as one of his “far right” groups. Yet, there is no evidence to support the notion that all members of the KKK are “right wing” (Again see Byrd, R.). Further, there is no evidence to support the notion that all of the violent acts attributed to the KKK were all committed by people who would be considered “right wing”. This presumption extends to all of the sub groups the author identifies.

    Further there is no evidence presented that those committing the acts were acting on behalf of conservative principles. It seems that Dan is willing to excuse those who do violence on the left since there is “No mention of her acting on behalf of liberal principles.”. This is enough for him to dismiss the act mentioned.

    “It’s all about the evidence, young fellas. You got to produce some to be taken seriously.”

    To be fair I actually agree with Dan on this point. Unfortunately, Dan hasn’t really actually produced much evidence to back up his point. He’s given one incredibly biased group (SPLC) who’s list of evil right wing groups was used to precipitate a violent attack on one of the groups listed. It seems safe to discount this as any sort of objective unbiased evidence. Then he trolls Google and finds one source that seems to back up his hunch. Of course he misrepresents the actual source. Then he misrepresents it as the position of some official entity (USMA, USMC, AUS, West Point, or someone else official). This disregards the clear disclaimer contained on the very first page of the report (again it helps to read the source you offer). Then he chooses to ignore the unsupported generalizations assumed by the author.

    I don’t know, is this really producing evidence?

  62. “It was insinuated that all racists and neo-nazis are right wing.”

    “I hate to break this to you, big fella…”

    Dan you seem to be suggesting that all racists and neo nazis are right wing. If so, could you please produce some evidence to back up this claim so you can be taken seriously?

  63. Why look a scholarly study questioning the methodology of the SPLC.

    The Southern Poverty Law Center’s “Hatewatch” fails to use objective criteria in determining which organizations should be labeled a “hate group,” George Yancey, professor of sociology at the University of North Texas, finds in a new study, “Watching the Watchers: The Neglect of Academic Analysis of Progressive Groups,” published in the January issue of the journal Academic Questions.

    SPLC’s list dubiously lists Family Research Council as a hate group while ignoring anti-Christian groups that use similar rhetoric, which demonstrates that the list is more about mobilizing liberals than providing an objective source for hate groups, Yancey argues. SPLC has escaped critical analysis of its work in academia because of a liberal bias among academicians, the study additionally claims.

    SPLC’s Hatewatch has become the definitive guide among some scholars, authors and media organizations to what is, or is not, a “hate group.” Conservatives have long criticized the list for labeling social conservative organizations, such as Family Research Council, as hate groups.

    […]According to SPLC, Yancey explains, FRC is a hate group because it intentionally makes hateful and untrue statements about the LGBT community, which can lead to violence even though FRC does not engage in violent actions. (Yancey noted the irony that while SPLC does not cite any examples of FRC-inspired violence, SPLC’s Hatewatch actually did incite violence in the case of Floyd Corkins.) To support this contention, SPLC notes that FRC reports on studies showing that the child molestation rate is higher among gays and same-sex parenting harms children, and quotes FRC President Tony Perkins saying that LGBT activists seek to “persuade kids that homosexuality is okay and actually to recruit them into that lifestyle.”

    If this is the standard for labeling an organization a hate group, Yancey says, then the anti-Christian MRFF should also be on the list.

    In a Huffington Post blog, Michael Weinstein, founder of MRFF, claimed that Christians will be responsible for ushering in “a blood-drenched, draconian era of persecutions, naturalistic militarism and superstitious theocracy.” And Weinstein has written books claiming that Christians are willing to use mass murder to bring about their goals.

    “In these few comments Weinstein has violated some of the same norms SPLC used to designate FRC as a hate group. Weinstein is promoting a myth of Christian violence not substantiated by previous research and has attributed motives to conservative Christians that he cannot document,” Yancey contends.

    Yancey does not argue that MRFF should be on Hatewatch, or that FRC should be off Hatewatch. Rather, he argues that if Hatewatch is to be an objective source for labeling hate groups, both groups should either be on the list or off the list.

    One possible explanation for why SPLC does not include anti-Christian groups on Hatewatch, Yancey speculates, is that Hatewatch is a tool for mobilizing liberals, rather than an objective source of hate groups.

    “As our society became more politically partisan, SPLC cemented its position as speaking for those with progressive political and social attitudes. Rather than developing into an objective clearinghouse for the identification of hatred – no matter where the source of that hatred may develop – SPLC has become a useful organization for progressives to legitimate their battle against conservatives. Since conservative Christians are categorized as opponents there is little, if any, incentive for SPLC to recognize hateful expressions against Christians, because doing so actually works against the social vested interest of the group,” he wrote.

    Yancey’s analysis of SPLC, though, is in service of a larger point. There is not enough critical analysis of liberal groups in academia, he argues, because too many in academia share the viewpoint of liberal groups.

    “This is a critique of the social biases within academia that preclude critical analysis of progressive social groups,” Yancey wrote. “Such neglect serves academics with progressive, secular perspectives by allowing progressive, secular social groups to make claims of truth and objectivity. Such claims enhance the social power of these progressives. But this neglect damages any real scientific attempt to assess social and political factors in our society. Scrutiny directed at conservative and religious groups – and they should be scrutinized – while progressive organizations are given a pass creates a distorted understanding of reality. In doing this, social science scholars replace an objective examination of our society with a biased approach serving progressive social and political interests.”

    Keep in mind that the SPLC materials are being used by government agencies, including the FBI and the U.S. Army.

    You might remember that I blogged before about George Yancey’s work on liberal bias in academia.

  64. paynehollow says:

    Guys, it’s simple. Read and learn:

    THE KKK ARE NOT LIBERALS. THEY HOLD TRADITIONALLY CONSERVATIVE VALUES. Like you guys.

  65. As I trudge through the left-wing drivel that is Dan’s link, I have come through, early on, to this:

    “In the context of the far right worldview, nationalism takes an extreme form of full
    convergence between one polity or territory and one ethnic or national collective. Two elements are required for the fulfillment of this version of the nationalist doctrine. The
    first is that of internal homogenization, i.e., the aspiration that all residents or citizens of
    the polity will share the same national origin and ethnic characteristics. The second is the element of external exclusiveness, the aspiration that all individuals belonging to a
    specific national or ethnic group will reside in the homeland. As will be demonstrated later, in the context of the American far-right the tendency is to emphasize the first element.”

    I’ve never met a conservative for whom either of those two points had any importance. Thus far, it seems that the author’s whole point is to merely assert that the groups which comprises the bulk of his focus are “far-right”.

    I spent a little time looking for info on the author. I found a few Israelies quite upset with Perliger’s assessments of “the far right” in Israel, suggesting strongly that he does little to study the islamic side of the equation. And article provides a few others with credentials that also have issues with Perliger’s “report”.

    Still, I trudge on. I have little hope of finding true objectivity. Since Dan hangs his hat on this study, there’s no reason to have any hope at all.

    What I’m seeing so far, both in this “report” and in the implications of Dan’s comments, is that if it is legitimate to say that opposition to, say, abortion, is a right-wing position, then anyone who kills an abortionist is a right-winger and thus can be added to the list of far-right incidents of violence and terrorism. As such, it doesn’t take much to compel a leftist to accuse the right of anything.

  66. “THE KKK ARE NOT LIBERALS. THEY HOLD TRADITIONALLY CONSERVATIVE VALUES.”

    Harry S. Truman
    Robert C. Byrd
    Theodore G. Bilbo
    Hugo L. Black
    David Bibb Graves
    Clifford Walker
    David Duke

    All of the above? Democrats and Klansmen. Sure, one can find Republican Klansmen in elected office. I don’t know if any were president. Black said he’d join anything for votes. Typical Dem. David Duke eventually switched parties. Twice.

    -The Klan claims a strong Christian foundation.
    So does Dan. Dan is not a conservative.

    -The Klan claims a strong respect for the Constitution.
    Shouldn’t every American?

    -The Klan believes blacks are an inferior race.
    The left believes blacks are incapable of rising above their station without the help of liberal policies, such as affirmative action.

    -The Klan believes America was meant for white people.
    I can’t find any conservative group that believes such a thing.

    Which traditionally conservative value does Dan have in mind, exactly?

  67. You think it odd that he does not include any alleged left wing terrorism in a report on “Understanding America’s Violent Far Right…”? Really? How many reports on left wing terrorism would you have included in a report on the violent far right?

    You have to stop being so predictable, Dan. I knew you were going to say that because I know how you operate. You never want to address the point a person is making because doing so destroys half your arguments.

    I’ve searched and searched this author and came up with no mention – in any work of his – of leftwing terrorism. And I wonder why that is? Instead of simply looking at homegrown terrorism, he chooses to focus on “far right” terrorism. Why? Bias, perhaps? I think so.

  68. paynehollow says:

    Terrance…

    And I wonder why that is? Instead of simply looking at homegrown terrorism, he chooses to focus on “far right” terrorism. Why? Bias, perhaps?

    It could be. You have no evidence to support this claim about this fella you know nothing about, but sure, he could be biased. I don’t know him, either. Where is the evidence?

    The OTHER possibility, Terrance, is that we don’t have a serious problem with “far left” terrorism in the US. It may just be the case that there are no far left equivalents of the KKK, Skinheads, militant militia types, etc.

    Which is not to say that there are no violent far left individuals, but have you considered the possibility that it simply isn’t as great a problem as it is with the far right? And for that reason, no one has studied and reported on it – because it isn’t as large a problem.

    The only serious examples I can think of are the eco-terrorist types and, because liberals don’t endorse or approve of violence as a fundamental part of who we are, these groups are not growing or prospering and tend to be more isolated and tend to be violence against property (“rescuing” animals from labs, for instance, involving breaking and entering/vandalism or tree-sitting… hardly comparable to actual acts of violence). Which is not to say that there are no “tree spikers” who cause potential harm to human life out there, just that it is a rarity and really, contrary to liberal values.

    You can guess (with no evidence) that the author of this report – posted by West Point and with no disapproval from the US Army that I can find – is biased. My guess is that it’s just not as large a problem. I cite the lack of evidence in support of my guess.

    It’s all about the evidence guys. You got none to support John’s claim.

    Here’s what I think is happening: John is aware of some violence perpetrated by people he considers liberal, THEREFORE, in John (and the rest of your?) head, this anecdotal examples suggest TO HIM that it is “almost always” liberals who engage in violence.

    It’s all about the evidence. You’ve got none. You’ve presented none.

    ~Dan

  69. paynehollow says:

    Marshall…

    Democrats and Klansmen.

    You DO understand the difference between liberal and Democrat? Especially when we’re talking 50+ years ago? Are you all entirely unfamiliar with History? Read about it.

    The KKK/skinhead/militia type groups hold conservative values, they oppose liberal values.

    They are anti-abortion/pro-life, they are anti-pacifism, they are anti-welfare, they are anti-big gov’t, they are anti-EPA and those sorts of regulations, they tend to be traditional Christians… They hold conservative values and are venomously opposed to liberal ones, at least as a rule. They are conservative-based groups.

    Note: I am not saying that racism is a conservative value. Just that these groups tend strongly towards conservative values.

    Don’t believe me? Listen to THEIR words. From the Texas KKK website:

    “Welcome to the Texas Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. We are a fundamental, Bible believing, right wing, Conservative, Christian organization.”

    From the Tennessee Klan website…

    “IF YOU ARE FOR A PURELY CHRISTIAN AMERICA – IF YOU ARE AGAINST COMMUNISM – IF YOU ARE AGAINST RACE MIXING – IF YOU ARE OPPOSED TO MUSLIM EXTREMISTS INFILTRATING OUR COUNTRY – IF YOU BELIEVE THAT EVERY AMERICAN HAS THE RIGHT TO OWN AND BEAR ARMS – IF YOU ARE A TRUE PATRIOT – THEN JOIN THE KLAN”

    From kkk.com…

    “Keep loving your heritage and keep witnessing to others that there is a better way than a war torn, violent, wicked, socialist, new world order. That way is the Christian way – law and order – love of family – love of nation. These are the principles of western Christian civilization.”

    Posted by “Pastor Robb.”

    These groups tend to hold conservative values. Everyone knows this reality. You wouldn’t seriously suggest these are liberal-valued groups??

    That would be delusional.

    ~Dan

  70. paynehollow says:

    From KKKknights.com…

    “Our Government for the past few years have been working hard to bring in the New World Order. They have already took God out of our schools. They have already passed Hate Crime Bills to silence the word of God on Gay marriages.These bills keep preachers from talking about Homosexuals in the churches.The Government is allowing all these illegal immigrants into our nation.”

    I forgot to point out how virulently opposed to “the gays” and their “gay-loving supporters” the Klan is. So, y’all have that in common with the KKK and with Russia, as well!

    From a Kentucky KKK site…

    “WE BELIEVE the entire Bible, both Old and New Testaments, as originally inspired, to be the inerrant, supreme, revealed Word of God…

    WE BELIEVE Yahshua the Messiah (Jesus the Christ) to be the incarnate begotten son of God, the Word made flesh (John 1:14), born of the Virgin Mary in fulfillment of divine prophecy…

    WE BELIEVE that God the Son, Yahshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ), became man in order to redeem His people Israel (Luke 1:68) as a kinsman of the flesh (Heb. 2:14-16; Rom. 9:3-5)/ died as the Passover Lamb of God on the Cross of Calvary finishing His perfect atoning sacrifice for the remission of our sins (Matt. 26:28); He arose from the grave on the third day (I Cor. 15.4) triumphing over death; and ascended into Heaven where He is now reigning at the right hand of God…

    WE BELIEVE membership in the church of Yahshua or Messiah (Jesus Christ) is by Divine election…

    [they believe in a literal Adam, like you fellas, albeit with a twist…]

    WE BELIEVE that the Man Adam (a Hebrew word meaning: ruddy, to show Blood, flush, turn rosy) is father of the White Race only. As a son of God (Luke 3:38), made in His likeness (Gen. 5:1), Adam and his descendants, who are also the children of God…

    WE BELIEVE men and women should conduct themselves according to the role of their gender in the traditional Christian sense that God intended. Homosexuality is an abomination before God and should be punished by death…”

    In short, these folk are extremely traditional, extremely fundamentalist Christian, extremely conservative. Or at least tend that way (I’m sure there may be some individual KKK types that hold some liberal positions, but by and large, such positions would get you kicked out of these types of organizations).

    I’m sorry to be the one to break the news to you. I thought you knew…

    ~Dan

  71. “THE KKK ARE NOT LIBERALS. THEY HOLD TRADITIONALLY CONSERVATIVE VALUES.”

    1. Why the ALL CAPS?
    2. Can anyone provide any evidence that everyone in the KKK is not liberal?
    3. Can anyone provide evidence that the violence attributed to the KKK in the report Dan hasn’t read was strictly perpetrated by “conservative” members of the KKK
    4. Can anyone show me where things like racism, cross burning, intolerance etc. show up in any list of “traditionally conservative values?

    “It’s all about the evidence. You’ve got none. You’ve presented none.”

    So actual literal news stories about actual literal liberals engaging in violent acts is not evidence? So, it appears that Dan is suggesting that liberals who cause property damage when they “rescue” chimps are somehow not a problem, while someone who damages an abortion clinic is.

    It appears that Dan is willing to give a pass to lefties because the left really doesn’t endorse violence etc. while asserting that endorsing violence is part and parcel of conservatism.

    Proof?

    But, hey it’s nice to see Dan admit that liberals are pro-abortion/anti life.

    “law and order – love of family – love of nation.”

    What evil horrible things. I guess it’s now official Dan thinks only conservatives are for law and order, love of family, and love of nation.

    The most interesting thing about this whole line of conversation is how the mainstreams of each side react to those who are violent and identify with whichever side.

    Conservatives virtually always are vocal and prompt in denouncing acts by these sorts of groups.

    Liberals, either ignore their folks or (like Dan has done here) come up with some sort of rationalization to excuse them.

    I’m still waiting for any sort of response to the problems identified with the one bit of alleged evidence that Dan has provided, and some sort of reason why (other than a vague association with the USMA) this one paper is the be all and all slam dunk proof of this massive violence problem on the far right.

    I’m also waiting for something to be provided to counter the study of the SPLC’s biases in methodology.

    I guess that’s a bit much to hope for, since that would require more than a cursory Google search.

  72. One other thing. If you actually look at the numbers of people cited in the report, such as they are. It becomes clear that we are talking about an incredibly tine number of actual people involved. It’s hard to be certain, but given the numbers cited, probably not more than 4,000-5,000 people in the US.

  73. paynehollow says:

    Craig, the All Caps was copied and pasted from their website, that’s why.

    Craig…

    So actual literal news stories about actual literal liberals engaging in violent acts is not evidence?

    I don’t know if you’re just ignorant or if you’re being deliberately belligerent or if you are delusional, but the reality of misbehaving liberals is not the question. IF I held the position, “Liberals never misbehave,” then that would be evidence to counter the argument. But, since I have acknowledged the reality that liberals misbehave (duh), then not so much.

    No, the question being discussed is John’s delusional-sounding claim that violence is “almost always” from the Left. So, evidence to support that claim would be research that shows how violent acts are done 70-80-90% of the time by liberals for liberal reasons.

    So, pointing to individual accounts of an alleged liberal being violent is not evidence to back the claim.

    So, to answer your question: NO, point to actual individual liberals doing violence is NOT evidence to that support that claim.

    Understand now?

    ~Dan

  74. paynehollow says:

    Craig…

    1. Why the ALL CAPS?

    Sorry, answered too quickly. I wrote that in all caps to HELP YOU UNDERSTAND REALITY, because lower case was not working. It appears upper case didn’t work either. Live and learn.

  75. paynehollow says:

    Craig, if the question is, “Where is the evidence that ‘almost always’ violence is perpetrated by those on the Left?” do you really think pointing to a handful or a dozen incidents of violence done by some allegedly on the Left is really rational evidence to support that claim? Or are you not delusional?

  76. DAN,
    THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ANSWERING ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I ASKED. I WAS UNAWARE THAT TYPING IN ALL CAPS WAS AN ACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTE FOR EVIDENCE, BUT NOW I KNOW. THANKS.

    So far I have seen more evidence presented in this thread for actual documented violent actions by leftists, than in support of the claim that all members of the KKK are conservative.

    So, no I’m not being either deliberately belligerent, ignorant (we’ve seen massive ignorance in this thread and it’s not coming from me), or delusional. I don’t feel a need to support a statement I didn’t make. I’m mostly focusing on correcting your (significant) earlier errors and trying to get you to demonstrate that you have some understanding of the “proof” you provided beyond the title of the report.

    It’s interesting that you are attempting to set and limit the scope of the discussion to only that which you feel is the lowest hanging fruit.

    “No, the question being discussed is…”

    I was unaware that this type of forum was limited to only one question, and that a visitor to the blog was the person who was allowed to set these types of limits.

    I would suggest that there are a number of questions in play, just a few examples.

    1. Is there evidence that definitively demonstrates that all members of the KKK are conservative?
    2. Is there evidence to rebut the study documenting the dishonest methods used by the SPLC?
    3. Is there any reason why any non partisan reasonable person would accept the SPLC as a non biased source?
    4. Has Dan actually read more that the title of the one report he cited? Or, more properly, did Dan actually read the report before he cited it?
    5. What about the methodological questions raised about the report?
    6. If the WPCTC is such a wonderful source of information, are we to assume that Dan feels like ALL of their papers are equally valid and correct?

    These are all examples of questions that fall beyond your artificial scope of discussion, yet are all reasonable and rational questions. The fact that they are inconvenient or would require some effort to answer does not invalidate the questions, or exempt you from the same sort of behavior you expect of others.

  77. John,
    A couple of suggestions to end the silliness.

    1. Point out that your “virtually all” comment was merely hyperbole and not intended as a statement of fact.
    2. Point out that you are simply expressing your opinion and therefore exempt from providing support for your opinion.
    3. Re-state the premise using the words “It seems to me…”

    Any of these approaches will render Dan (if he is consistent) unable to counter.

  78. It could be. You have no evidence to support this claim about this fella you know nothing about, but sure, he could be biased. I don’t know him, either. Where is the evidence?

    I’m sad to say I don’t have a smoking gun, Dan. (I should though, being a “right-wing extremist” and all.) I can find nothing Arie Perliger has said that would indicate an obvious, clear bias. As far as I know, he’s never cried, “I hate conservatives! I’m a left-wing loon completely unconcerned with facts!”

    I have no direct evidence, that’s true. But the sheer tonnage of circumstantial evidence is enough to give the whole issue a second look.

    Professor Perliger claims to profile those who “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights.”

    Honestly, what the hell does that even mean? Am I being accused of “extremism” for not trusting the government and believing my Second Amendment rights are in danger? Seriously?

    Quite simply, the government is corrupt, and has been for the last half-century. And do I honestly need to expound on my Second Amendment fears, particularly when halfwits like Diane Feinstein say stupid things: “Mr. and Mrs. American, turn them all in!”

    Am I not supposed to be concerned? Should I sit idly by or should I, within the confines of the law, protest and speak out against what I perceive as tyranny? Get real, Dan.

    Additionally, Professor Perliger claims that right-wing extremists fall into the following categories: anti-federalists, fundamentalist Christians, survivalists, pro-lifers, libertarians, Second Amendment advocates,. and Norquist types.

    How many pro-lifers, Dan, have bombed abortion clinics or shot at abortion workers? What? Five? Ten? How many?

    It wasn’t worth the time to mention the left-wing and their “five or ten” bad apples, but it’s perfectly okay to mention the five or ten bad apples within the pro-life movement. Yep. No bias here, folks. Move along.

    Get real, Dan.

    Like other so-called left-wing intellectuals, Perliger applies the awful actions of a few to the entire conservative movement in order to discredit it. Simply, there is no other explanation for these shameful characterizations.

    You can’t look at this issue objectively, Dan. You continually assert that violence is somehow anathema to the political left even though all evidence is to the contrary. Throughout history, the left-wing has used violence as a means to a justified end. Of course, you’ll stupidly claim this isn’t “true leftism,” whatever the hell that means. Fact is, the left -and right, for that matter – have used violence since the beginning of time to accomplish their goals.

    Roosevelt went to war, Truman went to war, Kennedy ordered military campaigns, Johnson went to war, Jimmy Carter tried to go to war, Bill Clinton went to war, and Barack Obama went to war. So, please, unless you’re willing to say that none of these people are “true liberals,” then stop pretending liberals have some sort of moral objection to violence. They quite evidently do not.

  79. I would add, Terrance, that objection to abortion does not imply one is conservative as much as simply objecting to the killing of the unborn, a violent act supported by Dan himself. Now, he will say he doesn’t support abortion, but only supports the ability of others to abort. This is called “equivocation” and Dan is good at it.

    In the meantime, I found documentation. All points have at least one link that leads to said documentation. Some appear as if they may be repetitive. I say “may be” because I didn’t read them all. I note that a snippet of a George Will piece claims no assassination of a president (or attempted assassination) has ever been shown to be perpetrated by a conservative.

    Near the end of the piece, one can see the response to Dan’s photo evidence of his peace loving liberal fellow church members. One of Dan’s pics showed him and others proudly displaying their pro-Obama T-shirts. The piece to which I link shows others also displaying their pro-Obama T-shirts.

    Perhaps Dan wishes to point to the body count totals for those he would regard as far-right extremists. Considering the high percentage of leftists who support abortion in this country, I would have to insist he add the totals of unborn put to death as a result of that support. That alone puts far-left extremism as a greater danger to our fellow Americans.

    But body count alone cannot be the sole legitimate criterion for a claim of from which side of the aisle the greatest threat arises. As Dan is a great believer of the notion that violence equals evil, he cannot dismiss the violent behavior of leftists as insignificant simply because the violence doesn’t result in death.

    This current administration, which Dan supports, does all it can to frame the right as most likely to be a true threat to the nation. When the Tea Party, fundamentalist Christians, and those who prefer a more Constitutionally centered government are regarded as “extremists”, it is easy to dismiss what any leftist says about their opponents.

    • Marshall

      Dan doesnt say he supports other people having abortion. No, he is much more deceptive. He says he supports a family’s right to make their own medical decisions. And abortion is a medical decision.

  80. paynehollow says:

    Craig…

    in this thread for actual documented violent actions by leftists, than in support of the claim that all members of the KKK are conservative.

    Okay, so maybe I’m not dealing with the delusional. Maybe you all have learning disabilities. If that is the case, then you all take good care of yourselves and be careful crossing the street. Listen to your mommas, boys.

    Take care, little buddies.

    ~Dan

  81. John,

    Like I’ve said numerous times before, elective abortion is as much a medical decision as slipping on a condom. Which is to say, not one at all.

  82. paynehollow says:

    Craig…

    in this thread for actual documented violent actions by leftists, than in support of the claim that all members of the KKK are conservative.

    Just for a last clarification:

    1. No one has said that there are no liberals who misbehave. No one. If you want to keep arguing a point that no one is making, go ahead. I’ll pass.

    2. No one is arguing that all members of the KKK are conservative. I will note on this one, though, that I’ve never heard of anything that sounds remotely like a liberal KKK member.

    Craig, do you actually think that there are liberal KKK members out there? If so, what do you base that on? Do you know KKK members who support welfare assistance? Who are supportive of abortion? Who embrace pacifism? Who encourage big gov’t expenditures? Have you heard of or documented any KKK members who reject fundamentalist protestant Christian tenets?

    The point that I’m making remains solid: It’s delusional to suggest that “almost all” violence comes from Liberals. Now, if John wants to, as you suggest, back off from the claim, admit he misspoke and note, of course, that there is zero evidence to back that claim, then maybe he and you all are not delusional and are able to, you know, understand English words and all.

    But at over 100 comments and days to clear up his delusional mistake, I have to think that my estimation that you all are disconnected from reality and morality is probably the most accurate option.

    Or there is the learning disabled option.

    ~Dan

  83. Dan,
    Shockingly you continue to ignore much of what is directed yo you. But for the record, YOU are the one who continues to insist that the entire KKK is conservative. You have continued to state this as a fact, without any documentation. Somehow you believe this sort of thing to be acceptable when you do it, yet delusional when others do.

    For the 30 or 40th time.

    Robert Byrd

  84. Just to be clear. Robert Byrd was the liberal Democratic senator from West Virginia who was the Grand Dragon or Kleagle of the KKK. It’s a pretty well known fact, I’m surprised you didn’t know this.

  85. John, i did see that. I just gave up asking for proof since it’s a waste of time to ask Dan for proof.

  86. paynehollow says:

    Craig…

    YOU are the one who continues to insist that the entire KKK is conservative. You have continued to state this as a fact, without any documentation.

    For the record, the KKK are the ones insisting that they are conservative. I documented it WITH THEIR OWN WORDS. What part of their own words is not documentation?

    Do you understand the word, “Documentation…”?

    Again, I apologize for trying to push you all too hard into accepting reality. I guess you’re just doing the best you can. Good luck, keep working on it. I believe in your potential, you can do it.

    ~Dan

  87. ” I’ve never heard of anything that sounds remotely like a liberal KKK member.”

    Craig and John continue to refer to Byrd. I’ve put up a list of others. All Democrat.

    “For the record, the KKK are the ones insisting that they are conservative.”

    For the record, Dan continues to insist that he’s a Christian. So there ya go. He also insists he used to be a conservative, but he hasn’t given any proof he understands what a conservative is.

    For the record, Dan continues to insist that to be a liberal is to embrace pacifism. Yet I’ve provided a link to a list of less than pacifistic libs, as has John. Dan has his own definition of liberal, just as he has his own definition of “Christian”, “marriage”, “reality” and “medical procedures”.

  88. paynehollow says:

    1. I have not said that liberals all embrace pacifism. I have said that they tend to at least honor and respect pacifism, unlike conservatives like you who openly mock that faithful belief and trust in God, rather than arms.

    2. I’m pointing out the reality that Klan-types are overwhelming self-identifying as conservatives and the reality that they tend to hold conservative values – anti-immigration, anti-welfare, anti-big gov’t, anti-gay, anti-commie, pro-fundamentalist Christian beliefs, etc, etc.

    3. Since I have allowed that there MIGHT exist a liberal KKK member, even if Byrd was a liberal Klansman, that does not impact my actual point. I would suggest from what I’ve read is that, back in the 30s and 40s, when Byrd was in the Klan, he did so as part of his conservative, anti-commie stance, not for liberal reasons.

    Welcome to reality, fellas.

    Again, when you have actual data to support any thing like an actual argument, let me know.

    ~Dan

    • It would impact your point Dan because you said racist = conservative. Ever notice how liberals treat conservative blacks? Hever hear the names theyre called by white and black liberals?

  89. Robert, tax and spend never met a pork barrel project he didn’t like, Byrd is a conservative. Now who’s delusional?

    So now cherry picking a couple of quotes from random Klan sites equals documentation that all Klan members are conservative.

    There have been multiple actual arguments offered here, as well as challenges to you ONE offer of proof, yet all have been ignored. I’m beginning to suspect you wouldn’t know an actual argument or challenge to your argument if it bit you in the ass. Why do you keep asking for what you will just ignore or dismiss?

  90. I heard an interview with a conservative black woman who was afraid to come out to her black lib friends because of their response.

    In Dan world that would mean that Ben Carson is a racist while Rev. Jeremiah Wright isn’t.

    • Liberal tolerance and pacifism:

      The Oregonian — The National Labor Relations Board accused longshoremen this week of assaulting United Grain Corp. security officers and threatening to rape a manager’s daughter and harm a boss’s children.

      After investigating charges filed by the company, Hooks alleged longshore picketers shone spotlights into vehicles entering and exiting United Grain’s terminal, blocking drivers’ vision and causing permanent eye injury to a security officer. Hooks alleged locked-out workers recklessly pursued company vans, threatened to harm Columbia River pilots and pinned a security officer’s leg under a moving vehicle.

      Hooks alleged that Local 4 members “threatened to rape the daughter of one of the employer’s managers,” and implied threats to harm a manager’s children by telling him they would “see his children at school” and asking, “are (his) children okay today?”

      This kind of behavior is not uncommon among union members protesting.

  91. Dan,

    “1. I have not said that liberals all embrace pacifism. I have said that they tend to at least honor and respect pacifism, unlike conservatives like you who openly mock that faithful belief and trust in God, rather than arms.”

    First of all, we have shown numerous examples that suggest “liberals = pacifist” is a delusion. It would be far more accurate to say that “some” liberals will not engage in violent behavior. The rest, at best, pay lip service to non-violence.

    Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that strength is required to maintain peace (which is a plain fact), and that pacifistic action in the face of absolute despotism is foolhardy, to say the least. (We DO, however, mock YOU for your reality-free position on things like war and general self-defense.) Conservatives have great faith and trust in God, but do not believe that Scripture teaches us to allow ourselves to be annihilated.

    “2. I’m pointing out the reality that Klan-types are overwhelming self-identifying as conservatives…”

    The best you can say, if honesty means anything at all to you, is that their websites make the claim that they are conservatives. BUT….

    Conservatives are not “anti-immigration”. This is a lie people like you enjoy stating about conservatives. We are anti-illegal immigration. You even know this, as it has been stated to you continually over the years.

    Conservatives are not “anti-welfare”, as we well know there exists in our society those who are in true need of assistance. We prefer a strong economy that results in fewer people available to fill all job openings so that welfare is not as necessary. You even know this, as it has been stated to you continually over the years.

    Conservatives are for smaller government because the current situation has the federal government involved in areas for which it was never intended for federal government involvement, as well as the fact that for most, if not all of these areas for which their involvement was never intended, they are incredibly inefficient. You even know this, as it has been stated to you continually over the years.

    Conservatives are not “anti-gay”. At least not as you believe that to mean. We are anti-sexual immorality, of which homosexual behavior is clearly a manifestation. We are for traditional marriage and family because that is the proper context for human sexuality. You know this, as it has been stated to you continually over the years.

    Of course conservatives are anti-communist, as one must have one’s head firmly planted up one’s own backside to believe that communism is a viable alternative to the capitalist system under which we now operate. The fact that not every BUT conservatives know this to be true is not a negative for conservatives, but a negative for leftists as well. Even the Klan understands this obvious reality.

    Of course it is common for the conservative to be more fundamental in his Christian understanding. But where the Klan differs is akin to the gap between the conservative understanding and the self-serving leftist understanding. That is to say, for all the poor understandings, YOU have more in common with the Klan than does any typical conservative.

    The above serves to prove my assertion that you never were a conservative and have no idea of what it means to be one. Thanks for the help.

  92. Here’s the actual quote from MPR I referenced earlier.

    “So just how far does the GOP need to travel? Look no further than Copeland’s fiance, Carol Smith. Carol is actually her middle name; she doesn’t want to give her full name, she says.

    “Because I’m not ready to be outted,” she says. “I’m not ready to come out of the Democratic closet.”

    Smith says she’s gotten a warm reception from CPAC attendees, but the social stigma of the Republican label is too much to bear right now.

    It’s hard, as a black woman, she says, to say she’s no longer a die-hard Democrat.

    “In private, no, but in public, yes,” she says. “When I have these conversations with friends and family, I’m vilified.””

    From Weekend Edition Sunday.

  93. “West Point’s anti-terrorism group says that there are on average 307 violent incidents conducted by far right extremists each year.”

    “Thus, I went with the assumption that West Point’s CTC would not publish an opinion that they disagree with…”

    “… the US Army stands ready to identify dozens of far right extremists. The US Army does not appear to find the problem on the Left, but on the Right, predominantly.”

    These are quite unambiguously a flat out lies. Had Dan read past the title of his report he would know this.

    I’d seriously hope that Dan might actually deal with the multitude of problems raised about the report he offered. I’d seriously hope that Dan wouldn’t think that ONE report actually constitutes evidence.

    But, hey, Dan seems like he thinks the SPLC is some sort of unbiased source. I guess it’s too much to hope for.

  94. I think that I can say without much fear of contradiction that unions are overwhelmingly liberal organizations.
    If there is any doubt, take a look at the top donors to political campaigns and which sides they supported.
    https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
    So it seems safe to say that violence by unions could reasonably be considered “liberal” violence.
    Given that, here goes.
    http://www.nilrr.org/2014/02/19/former-union-member-recounts-reign-of-terror-in-new-york/
    http://www.nilrr.org/2014/01/10/if-youre-looking-at-an-illegal-means-and-a-legal-end-youll-be-ok/
    http://www.redstate.com/2013/12/30/after-waging-campaign-of-violence-terror-three-union-thugs-plead-guilty-to-extortion/
    http://www.redstate.com/2013/01/20/50000-reward-for-info-on-alleged-union-related-arson/
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/11/teachers-call-out-as-protests-rev-up-against-michigan-union-bill/
    http://www.redstate.com/diary/laborunionreport/2011/11/09/on-violence-death-threats-feces-unions-pass-their-trade-secrets-on-to-ows/
    http://www.redstate.com/diary/laborunionreport/2011/11/09/on-violence-death-threats-feces-unions-pass-their-trade-secrets-on-to-ows/
    http://www.redstate.com/2011/08/16/developing-ohio-business-owner-shot-for-being-non-union-police-investigating/
    http://www.redstate.com/diary/laborunionreport/2010/06/28/vandalized-and-beaten-for-being-non-union/
    http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/30/big-labors-federal-union-violence-exemption-has-cost-workers-their-lives/
    http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/federal-court/legality-of-union-violence-at-heart-of-court-case-20140104
    http://articles.philly.com/2014-02-25/news/47639621_1_chestnut-hill-quaker-federal-authorities-meetinghouse
    http://articles.philly.com/2014-02-25/news/47639621_1_chestnut-hill-quaker-federal-authorities-meetinghouse
    http://articles.philly.com/2014-02-25/news/47639621_1_chestnut-hill-quaker-federal-authorities-meetinghouse
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/371514/philadelphias-union-thugs-indicted-jillian-kay-melchior
    http://www.nrtw.org/d/big_labor_special_privileges.htm
    http://www.nrtw.org/d/big_labor_special_privileges.htm
    http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/FBI-Racketeering-Bust-245978371.html
    Just a few examples of union violence and corruption for your reading pleasure.

  95. Interesting, that as more and more evidence against Dan’s hunch piles up here, he chooses to migrate over to another post and start in on that. One wonders, why is that? Does it become too inconvenient to continue to act like you haven’t actually seen the challenges to your hunch? Is it too difficult to actually read the report you cite as well as all of the other links? Is it somehow satisfying to just bail when things get too hard?

  96. That’s because Dan is so married to his wacky perspective that he cannot bear to divorce himself from it. Paradigms don’t often shift easily. And when one has postured one’s self as some self-styled epitome of Christian character based on those warped perspectives, too much is at risk should one decide to give in to truth.

  97. paynehollow says:

    Craig, you’re arguing some point I’m not disagreeing with. As already noted, if you want to argue with yourself, go ahead. But I’m not going to defend points I have not made.

    Last time, seriously: IF (do you understand that word?)

    IF I, Dan Trabue (with me so far?)

    IF I were making the case that liberals never misbehave, are never violent, then CONGRATULATIONS! You have successfully made the case that liberals DO misbehave.

    But (and here is the critical point, so follow closely):

    BUT, I HAVE NOT MADE THAT CASE.

    I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ALL LIBERALS ARE WELL-BEHAVED.

    Do you understand those words?

    So, you can cite another 20 instances of liberals misbehaving and you will have not touched…

    Oh, forget it. I’ve already made this point repeatedly.

    Stay out of the traffic, kids.

    ~Dan

  98. Dan,
    You keep asserting that somehow violence (you even try to soften it by using the term misbehaving) is anathema to liberals. You’ve asserted that conservative=violent and liberal=nonviolent. You’ve asserted that when conservative use violence that it is a natural outgrowth of their political philosophy, but when liberals use violence it contravenes their political philosophy. Yet we now have plenty of evidence that you are incorrect in your assumption. So, it seems that I am dealing with assertions you made and you would rather pretend otherwise. Further you made much of the fact that your study shows 307 incidents of conservative violence per year, while your anecdotal evidence demonstrated that there were only a tiny number of acts of liberal violence. Again the actual evidence seems to suggest otherwise.

    Look we all expect you to run when your position becomes untenable, just don’t expect us to let you off the hook as easily as you’d like.

    Or you could just answer questions.

  99. paynehollow says:

    Craig…

    You’ve asserted that conservative=violent and liberal=nonviolent.

    Dan [rolling eyes…]:

    Have not. Quite literally, no, I have not. Ever. Don’t believe it. Didn’t say it.

    But why would I bother pointing that out?

    It does no good to answer questions that delusional people who lack basic understanding of words and communication are asking. If they didn’t understand my point the first 20 times I made it and re-stated it and re-stated it again, why would they (you) understand it the 21st time?

    ~Dan

  100. paynehollow says:

    Here’s a chance for clarifications, Craig. I’ll start with my own. You and John have repeated that I have said that “conservative=violent and liberal=non-violent.” I have not made either claim. Simply, factually, no, I have never made either claim.

    IN FACT, I have claimed the opposite, that of course there are non-violent conservatives (I was one, my parents and much of my family and old friends are non-violent). And of course, there are both liberals and conservatives who have done violence.

    I have NEVER factually claimed otherwise.

    Do you understand this reality? A simple yes or no will suffice.

    Now, I see where John took my statement, “I hate to break this to you, big fella” in response to HIS statement…

    There was no definition given as to what constitutes a right wing extremist. It was insinuated that all racists and neo-nazis are right wing.

    …to mean I was implying that all racists are right wing. That was not my point. In context of the conversation, which was about the KKK and neo-nazis, I was speaking about THOSE fellas who consistently tend to be conservative and specifically ANTI-liberal. Those folks consistently tend to be conservative/hold conservative views and are opposed to liberal views. I allowed that I’m sure it’s possible that there are liberal-minded KKK members, but I was unaware of any, because that would run contrary to the consistently conservative values espoused by the KKK.

    Now, with that clarification (and an apology if I was misunderstood), do you understand that factually speaking, I have not ever said that conservative=violent? And, that I’ve now clarified that indeed, all wings have violent people in them and all wings have non-violent people in them (which was my VERY FIRST point on this post)?

    Yes? We can agree to that reality?

    Okay, you also have clarified in the newer post that it appears you disagree with John’s claim that violence “almost always” comes from the Left. Could you please clarify if, indeed, that is the point you are making? That no, there is no evidence that violence “almost always” comes from the Left and that John has no data-based reason to make that claim?

    Yes, can we agree to that reality?

    Clarify away, Craig.

    Thanks,

    Dan

  101. Dan,
    What I find fascinating is that I made ONE claim at the other thread.

    What I have done is demonstrated that your claim of, “… individual acts of violence by a dozen or two dozen individuals allegedly on the Left. ”, is quite clearly made up out of thin air.

    That is the claim I made. I’ve given you ample evidence that YOUR claim is quite clearly false. So, instead of dealing with what I actually said, you know, a claim I actually made, you have chosen to go a different route. That begs the question, why is it so hard to limit your response to the ONE claim I actually made, instead of numerous claims I haven’t made.

    So, here’s what I’m going to do to make the point. I will respond to your diversions, in the hope that when I do that you will actually respond to the ONLY claim I have made.

    “You and John have repeated that I have said that “conservative=violent and liberal=non-violent.” I have not made either claim. Simply, factually, no, I have never made either claim.”

    I’ll grant that you have not used the shorthand (conservative=violent liberal=nonviolent), what you have said (without providing support) are the following.

    ” I have said that they tend to at least honor and respect pacifism, unlike conservatives like you who openly mock that faithful belief and trust in God, rather than arms.”

    “You think I should seriously address why the US Left is so different?”

    “We’re (one can only presume you are referring to the US left) different BECAUSE WE ARE NOT NAZIS, FASCISTS, THUGS, RAPISTS or KILLERS.”

    It would seem that your point is that while the US left is NOT the above things, the US right somehow is>

    “We are your brothers and sisters. Your next door neighbors. We’re the deacons and Sunday School teachers and pastors and rabbis and priests and nuns and fire fighters and crossing walk guards and teachers at your school and your mail carriers, your sons and daughters…”

    Again, are you seriously arguing that these only apply to the US left?

    “…all of whom are generally opposed to killing people and oppression…”

    Yet as I have amply demonstrated the last is patently false, it is clear that there are plenty on the left who actively engage in violence and opression.

    “14. ish. Maybe. UNsupported claims.”

    Or many more supported instances.

    “There is NO such study I know of about the violence of liberal extremists. As far as I know, it does not exist in the real world, only in the immoral and imagined mind of the deluded and ruthlessly partisan.”

    Or it really, actually literally exists in the links I thoughtfully provided for you.

    ” because liberals don’t endorse or approve of violence as a fundamental part of who we are,”

    Except, that there is plenty more evidence cited in the links above that suggest that your rose colored view of liberalism is not in synch with actual literal reality.

    That would be a sample of why one could reasonably consider your characterizations of conservatives and liberals to be a bit partisan and self serving. Remember, the above are your words not mine. So, while you did not use the exact formulation, it is clear that you consider conservatives to be violent and liberals to be pacifistic.

    Again, to be fair, you have said that conservatives are violent, while some tiny amount of liberals might misbehave. So, while covering yourself, it seems clear that you believe that liberal violence is a tiny number of folks who aren’t really liberal. Again, unfortunately, the evidence doesn’t seem to support this. It is certain that the conservatives are NOT attempting to use the US court system to legitimize violence by unions. Yet, this is actually documented.

    As to John’s claim, it is John’s. I have not made the claim, I have not argued that it is correct. Quite honestly I don’t know if John’s claim is true or not. After some research, I think it’s closer to reality than you would like to admit. But, ultimately it’s not my claim, it’s John’s. I do not have access to John’s data, and cannot evaluate it, I really don’t understand why you don’t comprehend this simple fundamental reality.

    OK< Now that I've clarified the problems you seem to have, now can you finally actually address the point I actually literally DID make and stop attempting to hold me accountable for a statement that John made.

    So, in the interest of clarity, I'll use another comment to clarify my actual and only point so that you can respond.

  102. What I have done is demonstrated that your claim of, “… individual acts of violence by a dozen or two dozen individuals allegedly on the Left. ”, is quite clearly made up out of thin air.

    This is my one and only claim at this point. Obviously there is much more that could be dealt with but for now, I’ll keep in down to one simple point.

    You claimed that the extent of liberal violence was, ” … individual acts of violence by a dozen or two dozen individuals allegedly on the Left. ”.

    Those are your very own quoted words. My one and only claim is that the above claim has been demonstrated to be false.

  103. paynehollow says:

    ?????

    Craig…

    I’ve given you ample evidence that YOUR claim is quite clearly false.

    ??? What claim do you think I have made, Craig?

    I think your problem is you are not understanding my words. You keep responding to points I have not made. Right here, I have NO idea what point you think you are responding to, what “claim” you think I have made. So, how about clarifying that?

  104. paynehollow says:

    Craig…

    You claimed that the extent of liberal violence was, ” … individual acts of violence by a dozen or two dozen individuals allegedly on the Left. ”.

    Those are your very own quoted words.

    ? No, Craig, I did not claim that. You see where YOU WROTE, “you claimed that the extent of liberal violence…”? That part is YOUR words, not mine. I noted that you all had CITED some dozens examples of violence done by alleged liberals.

    I did not claim that this was the extent of liberal violence.

    Do you understand now that this was NOT my claim?

    Certainly, there are untold hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of individual acts of lesser or greater violence done by those who hold to both liberal and conservative viewpoints. Do you see that sentence and get the point?

    This has BEEN my point from the very beginning of this thread about John’s false “almost always” claim. Here are my words, right after that false claim:

    “So you can point to liberals who misbehave and I can point to conservatives who misbehave. It’s NOT “almost always” a leftist. That is a falsehood. My fault for leaving out the “almost” but the lie is still a lie. It is NOT “almost always” someone on the Left.”

    “YOU can point to liberals.” “I can point to conservatives.” BOTH sides misbehave. There is NO evidence to suggest that it is predominantly one side. This has been my point all along. Did you not understand that? DO you understand it now?

    ~Dan

  105. Dan

    If that was your point then you’ve done a poor job of making it clear. As I noted your own words clearly suggest that you would prefer to minimize violence on the left while presenting it as more normal on the right.

    If you are actually agreeing that there are significant elements on the left that embrace violence, that’s great. I just don’t see that your actual words bear this out.

  106. paynehollow says:

    Dang, lost a comment somewhere. Try it again, dealing with your attempt to answer one of my questions. You said…

    “You and John have repeated that I have said that “conservative=violent and liberal=non-violent.” I have not made either claim. Simply, factually, no, I have never made either claim.”

    I’ll grant that you have not used the shorthand (conservative=violent liberal=nonviolent)

    So far, so good, but you then throw a “BUT” in there by saying…

    what you have said (without providing support) are the following.

    ” I have said that they tend to at least honor and respect pacifism, unlike conservatives like you who openly mock that faithful belief and trust in God, rather than arms.”

    ? Yes, liberals DO tend to honor and respect pacifism, even if they ultimately disagree. I’ve been around liberals a good bit, I’ve read liberals some. The only comments about pacifism I’ve seen from liberals have been positive agreement or positive, but with the caveat that they just don’t think it will work. I’ve never known a liberal to criticize pacifism, and certainly not to mock it or to mock pacifists. I don’t know, maybe they exist, but I’ve never seen it.

    Do you know of liberals who openly mock pacifists/pacifism?

    Moving on to the second half of my statement (written in response specifically to something Marshall had said), I said “unlike conservatives LIKE YOU (and Marshall isn’t the only one) who openly mock” pacifists/pacifism. Do you recognize that this is not a claim against all conservatives, just the ones, like Marshall, who mock pacifism?

    So, I’m not sure what your quoting me here is supposed to prove, but it certainly doesn’t prove that I think “conservative=violent” or “liberal=non-violent.”

    Do you understand that?

    You go on to quote me saying…

    “You think I should seriously address why the US Left is so different?”

    “We’re (one can only presume you are referring to the US left) different BECAUSE WE ARE NOT NAZIS, FASCISTS, THUGS, RAPISTS or KILLERS.”

    And again, I’m not sure what you think this proves. The US left is NOT approving of nazis, thugs, rapists or killers…

    Were you gleaning from that the notion that there never are liberals who haven’t killed or raped? Because that is NOT what I was saying. Why would I say that when clearly, people claiming both liberal and conservative ideology do violence regularly?

    Want to clarify what that was supposed to prove?

    You conclude…

    It would seem that your point is that while the US left is NOT the above things, the US right somehow is

    ? I don’t see how you get that from my words, Craig, because – and this is critical – I DID NOT SAY, NOR DID I HINT, NOR DO I THINK that conclusion of yours. If you thought I was saying that, you could have asked, but I would think that was clear since, again, THAT was the point I was making from the very beginning.

    Do you think that when someone says, “Liberals do not approve of hard drugs,” that this is evidence that the person was actually claiming that no liberals have ever done hard drugs? By stating “liberals are not nazis, fascist, thugs and killers” that is speaking, in my mind, quite clearly about our ideals.

    Do you NOW understand my position?

    ~Dan

  107. paynehollow says:

    Craig…

    If you are actually agreeing that there are significant elements on the left that embrace violence, that’s great. I just don’t see that your actual words bear this out.

    But that was the point of my comments. Again, look at my words:

    So you can point to liberals who misbehave and I can point to conservatives who misbehave. It’s NOT “almost always” a leftist. That is a falsehood.

    …and one of my very first questions to you in this thread was…

    Or do you agree with me that there are bad actors in ALL camps and that you’ve heard and read nothing to support John’s silly and unsupported claim?

    Do you see I’m pointing to and acknowledging that BOTH liberals and conservatives commit acts of violence/misbehave? What part of misbehaving in “ALL camps” sounded like I was referring only to conservatives??

    Okay, regardless: NOW do you understand that when I said that there are those who misbehave in ALL camps that I was NOT saying that conservative=violent and liberal=non-violent?

    ~Dan

  108. paynehollow says:

    Oh, and in response to my saying that liberals are “your family, your sunday school teachers, your neighbors,” etc, you asked…

    are you seriously arguing that these only apply to the US left?

    In case you didn’t get it from the above, NO, of course that is not what I was saying. You can tell that by the way I did not say that. When I defend liberals (who were accused of “almost always” being the cause of violence) by noting that they are our neighbors, family, etc, that isn’t to say conservatives are NOT our neighbors, etc.

    The difference, Craig, is that I was not making the case that conservatives are the source of all violence. I was NOT saying “conservative=violent,” so there was no need for me to point out the obvious.

    Do you understand that now?

    Going on, I suggested that there was no research of which I was aware that cited a problem with liberal violence. You responded…

    Or it really, actually literally exists in the links I thoughtfully provided for you.

    But no, you didn’t. You provided links to cases of liberals misbehaving. But I WAS NOT making the claim that liberals never misbehave. What I was asking about was quite specifically about any RESEARCH supporting the claim that “almost always” violence comes from the Left.

    Do you understand that now?

    Do you have any research about the topic “Violence ‘almost always’ comes from the Left Wing…”? If not, can you just say, “NO, I am aware of no such research” so we can be clear on that point? (that is, the point I was actually making, not this other point about “Are there those on the Left who do violence” which was NOT my point).

    Craig cited a quote from me and responded…

    ” because liberals don’t endorse or approve of violence as a fundamental part of who we are,”

    Except, that there is plenty more evidence cited in the links above that suggest that your rose colored view of liberalism is not in synch with actual literal reality.

    That would be a sample of why one could reasonably consider your characterizations of conservatives and liberals to be a bit partisan and self serving. Remember, the above are your words not mine.

    Yes, my words said that “Liberals DO NOT endorse or approve of violence as a fundamental part of who we are.” Do you disagree? Then provide the liberal Plank where we advocate violence as a fundamental part of liberalism. Something official please.

    Here’s one quick source, where they reference George Lakoff who says that modern liberals advocate 1. Fairness/the Golden Rule, 2. Assisting those who can’t assist themselves, 3. Protecting those who can’t defend themselves, 4. Fulfilling one’s self and 5. Caring for one’s self… but there’s nothing in there about advocating violence…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States#Philosophy_of_modern_liberalism

    You got ANYTHING?

    OR, can you admit the reality that, no, Liberalism has NO plank, NO tenet advocating violence?

    As to my question,”That no, there is no evidence that violence “almost always” comes from the Left and that John has no data-based reason to make that claim?” you say…

    Quite honestly I don’t know if John’s claim is true or not. After some research, I think it’s closer to reality than you would like to admit.

    So, you don’t know if John’s claim is true or not. But my question was, do you concede that there has been no researched, scholarly answer with actual data to support the claim?

    Again, rather than admitting the reality, “No, John has put forth no scholarly, data-based evidence to support the claim,” you give the wishy-washy – STILL unsupported – response, “I think it’s closer to reality than you’d like to admit…”

    I don’t really care too much what you think – outside of all data and research. My question is about the real world: DO you have any research data to support what you “think” that MAYBE “almost always” violence comes from the Left?

    Clarify, please, with a direct answer. IF you have data (and please, God, NO more citing data that there are liberals who misbehave, since no one is disputing that) to support the claim, please provide it. If not, please admit it.

    That’s what I’ve been asking since the beginning.

    Thanks.

    Dan

    (An aside to Kevin, if you’re reading this: Do you see now how I am asking for clarifications and I’m providing my own clarifications to their repeated misunderstandings of my positions? And how hard it is to get a direct answer to the question being asked? What is “loaded” about my question? John made a claim that seems obviously false. I’ve asked for them to provide the data to support the obviously false claim or to admit that there is no data to support the claim and here, dozens and dozens of comments later, I’m still waiting. What specifically is “loaded” about my asking for the support or the admission that they have no support?)

  109. paynehollow says:

    Just to make sure I touched on this, Craig said…

    If you are actually agreeing that there are significant elements on the left that embrace violence, that’s great.

    A. If you are saying that there are both those individuals on the Left and the Right who do violence, we agree.

    B. If you are saying that there is, in the US, some vast number of groups and organizations dedicated to using violence to accomplish a specifically liberal political agenda, define “vast” and provide evidence.

    C. Do you think those numbers outnumber the KKK, skinhead, dangerous militia types (not all militias, mind you, but the more extreme groups that tend to sound violent)? Provide some comparison numbers, please, if you’re going to make that claim.

    D. We have groups that many of us trust to keep an eye out on violent extremists, but you all don’t trust SPLC. Do you have some other source you can cite to support this “significant” claim?

    I guess there are two angles to consider on political-types and violence

    1. The instances of a given act of violence that, as it turns out, was done by a person identifying themselves as a political liberal or conservative; and

    2. The instances of groups who accept/advocate violence as a way to achieve political goals – liberal or conservative.

    For the most part, I’ve been assuming we are speaking of the latter, not the former. Of course, individuals from all political camps have acts of violence in their lives sometimes. I know of absolutely NO data (or reliable way of checking) that would suggest individually, people from one wing or the other is more likely to engage in violence, as in murder, rape, assault. Are we pretty much both talking about organized groups with a liberal/conservative ideology who advocate violent solutions?

    ~Dan

  110. Dan,

    It would appear that you just posted 4 comments arguing against a position I do not hold. How in the world can you possibly think that is helpful

    I have made very clear and limited claims for which I have provided support. Yet you write volumes about things I never actually claimed.

    So, what I’m going to do is not indulge your inability to differentiate between people.

    I think you’ve done a masterful job of communicating your hunches while still being able to deny that you actually said what your words clearly imply. I’m sure you’re proud of this, I’m not sure why.

    One final thought , it’s the US left that is attempting to secure constitutional protection for unions to use violence against those with whom they disagree.

    Just a bunch of liberal pacifists.

  111. paynehollow says:

    See Kevin? Simple direct questions asking for a clarification, and this is what I get!

    Craig…

    Yet you write volumes about things I never actually claimed.

    I wrote about some specific things. You argued AGAINST the points I made. Now, it seems like maybe you didn’t actually disagree with me. Or maybe you do. I don’t know.

    Craig, since you don’t answer direct questions directly, I don’t know what you believe. That is why I ask you to clarify by answering direct questions, directly.

    If you don’t disagree with my positions, then why the criticism?

    If you DO disagree with my position, then clarify your position and provide support.

    That’s all I know to say.

    I’ve made my points abundantly clear in my ACTUAL words. I’ve clarified and re-clarified. I do NOT think conservative=violent. Never said it. Said the opposite.

    Now, if you want to guess I mean the OPPOSITE of my actual words, you are free to do so, but I’m just saying that is irrational, delusional. Do you get that?

    ~Dan

  112. It never ceases to amaze me just how often people will point out to Dan how his very own words imply what Dan will then whine isn’t what he is saying. Now he appeals to Kevin for validation. Perhaps Kevin will show up and weigh in.

    In the meantime, I have never mocked pacifism. I mock YOU, Dan, for you idiotic position on the power of pacifistic strategies having any real hope of turning back the type of despots against whom real pacifists arm themselves to defend. Your “theories” are ludicrous and have never been successfully applied to anyone who is willing to oppress and destroy. You believe you’ve seen it work because a few gang members repented, while the gang itself goes on.

  113. paynehollow says:

    Marshall, if I did not intend the meaning you assign to them (and indeed, my words are the OPPOSITE of what meaning you assign to them), then my words are not, in fact, implying what you think they mean. They imply what I say and what I clarify that they mean.

    So like, for instance, when I say that people on ALL SIDES do sometimes use violence, only a delusional person or one not conversant in the English language or someone with a petty partisan agenda would READ INTO my actual words, “Hey, he’s saying that only conservatives are violent…” Beyond that, you are using the word “imply” incorrectly.

    http://grammartips.homestead.com/imply.html

    “Imply” is what the one making the point – the writer or speaker – does. “I am implying that this is not hard to understand…” If a listener/reader finds some other meaning other than the direct literal words, then that reader is INFERRING something.

    So, “Dan literally SAID that he thinks violence is on all sides, but by the way he’s talking about it, I’m inferring that he means something else…”

    The words don’t “imply” or “infer” anything on their own.

    Now, my words quite literally said violence is from all sides. Why would you infer some other meaning beyond what they literally said?

    I appealed to Kevin because he criticized me for failing to ask for clarification. I was pointing out to him how difficult it is to get clarification from you fellas because you don’t answer direct questions directly. Kevin said that one problem was my questions are “loaded.” I was asking him to help me out and demonstrate how my questions were loaded.

    I keep hoping to find in these pages a reasonable conservative who can engage in conversations reasonably, answer questions directly. I am almost certainly at least partially to blame in our communication problems and I was asking for assistance.

    We’ll see if any is forthcoming.

    ~Dan

    • Maybe dan is right about his words. Remember passages in the bible he finds distasteful he just interprets to mean the opposite of what they say. Maybe when he says somethjng he means the opposite. Our problem is we dont know when he’s doing it.

  114. paynehollow says:

    This is silly. Did you all really think I was saying “conservative=violent…” EVEN THOUGH my words never said that? EVEN THOUGH I said violence comes from ALL SIDES?

    If you just take my words for, you know, what they actually say, you’d be okay. Your problem is you all keep reading into my words something that I didn’t say and, sometimes, something the OPPOSITE of what I’ve said. That’s where you run into problems.

    Do you or do you not recognize that I said this is a problem on ALL sides, not just conservatives? DO you or do you not recognize that I never said “conservative=violent…”?

    More direct, easy questions that will go unanswered because, presumably, they clash with your apparent delusions or basic inability to understand words.

    ~Dan

  115. Despite your alleged intentions, your words imply regardless of whether YOU think they do or not. If they did not, it would be difficult to infer those meanings. You can only INTEND to imply a meaning by your choice of words. Whether you are successful or not in rendering that meaning is determined by those words you’ve chosen, and your ability to choose properly. Apparently you fail miserably in this as so many people infer the same things when reading your words.

  116. paynehollow says:

    So, when you say that “despite my alleged intentions, your words imply regardless of whether you think they do…” you appear to be saying that, “I, Marshall, do not understand words or how they work in communication in the English language.” That is what your words are “implying” to me, so it doesn’t really matter if that was your intention, that’s what they say.

    Okay, I see how it works.

    Thanks!

    ~Dan

  117. So, it would seem that Dan is having trouble distinguishing the one claim I made and backed up with claims made by others.

    If you are referring to the direct questions you asked in your fourth comment, the reasons I didn’t answer them were two fold.

    One I was at work and was being respectful of my employer. Two, after the three incoherent rambling comments I pretty just ignored the fourth . Maybe less incoherent rambling would help.

    MA,

    I’ve come to believe that Dan carefully structures his comments in such a way as to be able to credibly deny anything he says. In the past he’s accused me of slander for cutting and pasting quotes of his own written words. I think he’s like Alan in that he writes to provoke, but unlike Alan he phrases things in such a way as to be able to act shocked and persecuted when people actually get his exact meaning. Also, as seen by his repeated refusal to fact check his “it’s the Marines” idiocy earlier in this thread, his default is disagreement no matter how obvious and innocuous a point is made by his opponent. For example, look at his response to the Margret Sanger quotes. Not shock, not , no outrage, just “maybe it’s a misunderstanding . It didn’t even generate enough interest to do some research. I’d guarantee you’d get a totally different response had the same quotes been attributed to someone who hadn’t founded the holy grail of liberals PP. Any more it just doesn’t even surprise me.

  118. Dan,

    While ignoring your rambling convoluted comments, I will as a courtesy answer your direct questions, all the while knowing that I will not be extended a similar courtesy.

    a. Yes, there are those on both sides who use violence. However, as I have done research i have found that the violent left is much more prevalent than you’d have us believe. Further the least fringe of the “violent right” is the KKK and at this point they’re pretty fringe. However when one looks at the “violent left” one finds PETA, Earth First, the AFL-CIO (and various other unions) which are decidedly less fringe. Further, you don’t see those on the right trying to use the court system to give their violence legal sanction.

    b. I’ve provided evidence, as to whether you’d agree on any definition of vast I’d propose, who cares. Again, I see no right wing groups trying to sanction violence through the courts.

    c. I see no reason to do your research for you. Labor unions represent 14.5 million members in the US and are a significant source of violence on the left. According to the (leftward biased SPLC) there are 5-8000 KKK members. Had you read the report you claimed as evidence you would have known that the majority of “groups” referenced in that report are less than 500 people. PETA 3 million, Earth First hides membership numbers. The FBI says the Eco Terrorism “”It remains what we would probably consider the No. 1 domestic terrorism threat,…” and “In the 1990s, right-wing extremism overtook left-wing terrorism as the most dangerous domestic terrorist threat to the country. During the past several years, special interest extremism, as characterized by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), has emerged as a serious terrorist threat.” I also linked to a DHS report that might be helpful.

    d. I’ve already cited the DHS report as well as a report that details the problems with the SPLC methodology as well as the FBI quotes above. Please, note this question was actually answered before you asked for it.

    2. I am only referring to violence for political gain not random violence by someone who happens to be liberal. Which means I haven’t included the recent mass shooters who are turning out to be much more politically liberal that the media would like.

    There specific answers.

  119. A quick check shows at least one reference to over 9000 instances of union violence since 1975. Which rounds out to about 215 per year. Over a 39 year period. We wouldn’t want to forget that these wonderful folks are attempting to make this type of violence legal.

    I predict, that Dan will seriously try to suggest that Eco Terrorist and union folks are really not liberal, but in fact secret conservatives.

  120. A few more bits of research

    “American counter terrorism officials consider those who commit violent acts in the name of the
    environment and animal rights a serious threat to homeland security. ”

    “One of today’s most serious
    domestic terrorism threats come from special interest
    extremist movements such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), the Earth Liberation
    Front (ELF), and Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) campaign” (U.S. Senate
    Committee on Environment & Public Works
    Hearing, May 18, 2005a).”

    John Lewis
    ,
    Deputy Assistant Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation
    “The intimidation and fear that these crimes were designed to inflict continues to this
    day. Scientists, business owners and farmers around the United States
    still live in fear
    that a bomb will be waiting for them the next time they go to their offices, farms, or
    laboratories” (Arnold 1997, 53).

    Michael H. Dettmer
    , U.S. Attorney speaking about
    Rodney Coronado’s interstate actions in the name of
    environmental conservation and
    animal rights

    “As noted, the FBI estimated that animal rights extremist and eco-terrorists
    together committed between 1,800 and 2,000 criminal incidents accounting for
    more than $110 million in damages from 1979 to early 2009.”

    Honestly, when I started down this road I kind of assumed that there would be more right wing violence than left wing, but wanted to make the point that the left wing does in fact utilize violent tactics more than one would think given Dan’s touchy feely Kum By Yah hunches. But what I’m finding out is that it seems that the numbers average about the same for both sides (I’m kind of assuming that Dan’s 307 number is somewhat close. I also keep finding more and more studies of left wing violence which may change the numbers), however the left wing incidences are much more significant in terms of monetary damage as well as extending back for more years than Dan’s study of the right. At this point, I’d have to say that it is not a stretch to say that left wing violence is a significant concern as the FBI and DHS quotes demonstrate, and that in fact left wing violence may be the bigger ongoing threat. One theory holds that the left folks are on a bit of a hiatus as they perceive the P-BO regime as being more friendly to their cause, but that the advent of a administration they perceive otherwise would trigger a jump in activities.

    Finally, a quote from Dan.

    “There is NO such study I know of about the violence of liberal extremists. As far as I know, it does not exist in the real world, only in the immoral and imagined mind of the deluded and ruthlessly partisan.”

    Just one more example of when you should engage your brain before typing. I’ve linked to enough (1) to prove this claim false. I’ve actually seen at least 6 (in some pretty limited search), have read through most of two and have another three to look at when I have time. Again, this claim of yours is well and truly demonstrated to be false.

  121. Sorry, more.

    “A congressional subcommittee held a hearing on eco-terrorism last month in which lawmakers, keyed up about terrorists since the Sept. 11 attacks, likened America’s green underground to al-Qaida. An FBI official testified that the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front had become the nation’s most active and destructive domestic terrorist groups.”

    “Eco-terrorism escalated across the nation in the late 1990s. Underground saboteurs, claiming to act on behalf of the natural world, repeatedly struck such enterprises as logging, skiing, genetic research, home building and auto sales. They are suspected in 69 major attacks since January 1999, including 14 in the Pacific Northwest, The Oregonian found in an ongoing analysis of the crimes.”

    “James F. Jarboe, who was then domestic terrorism chief for the FBI’s counterterrorism division, told the panel that the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front had become the nation’s most destructive domestic extremist groups. Jarboe credited the groups with more than 600 criminal acts, causing $43 million damage, since 1996. “

  122. paynehollow says:

    Craig…

    I’ve come to believe that Dan carefully structures his comments in such a way as to be able to credibly deny anything he says.

    This is, of course, inane. I say what I mean (in this case, NEVER saying “conservative=violent” and, in fact, saying the opposite) and you all interpret it to mean something else which I repeatedly correct. WHY would I want to repeatedly correct your repeated misunderstandings?

    I’m NOT denying what I’ve said. I’m telling you that when you infer meaning into my words that I never intended, that you have done so mistakenly.

    See the difference?

    As to this…

    I predict, that Dan will seriously try to suggest that Eco Terrorist and union folks are really not liberal, but in fact secret conservatives.

    No. I just want to see some evidence that it was liberals acting for liberal causes, as opposed to two guys getting in a fight and one of them happened to be a union guy.

    Craig…

    We wouldn’t want to forget that these wonderful folks are attempting to make this type of violence legal.

    Fortunately for you (and all of us), liberals would oppose any such legislation. You know why? Because liberals don’t support violent acts. My guess is you’re probably referring to some group opposing limits on FREE SPEECH, not on violence, as I can’t imagine anyone – Left or Right – actually lobbying to make violence legal. So, that you claim this does not make it so, in my sight.

    Still about the evidence.

    As to your alleged 200/year acts of violence by union members: IF that turned out to be a valid number, you’re still over 100 acts of violence shy of the conservative violence average.

    Which would only go to support MY opinion that this is a problem on all sides AND CERTAINLY, any claim that violence is “almost always” from the Left is incredibly silly. That you’re working so hard to dredge up numbers to try to reach that same number is only supporting my point. That you want to hedge your bets with mealy-mouth hints of “Well, maybe it really IS true that violence is ‘almost always’ from the Left.” Of course it isn’t.

    SO, this is my final word on this until such time as you provide data that some 75-90% of the time, violence is from the Left.

    I’m saying that these sorts of claims are petty partisan goofiness and an indication of an inability to reason or, you know, count.

    ~Dan

  123. “I just want to see some evidence that it was liberals acting for liberal causes…”

    Provided

    “Fortunately for you (and all of us), liberals would oppose any such legislation. ”

    Unfortunately for you liberals are currently advancing this very premise through the courts.

    “As to your alleged 200/year acts of violence by union members: IF that turned out to be a valid number, you’re still over 100 acts of violence shy of the conservative violence average. ”

    Unless you add the 100 odd Eco Terrorist acts, and ignore the quotes from the FBI and DHS.

    This is the problem when you let your preconceptions get in the way of the actual evidence.

    The other problem is that I was NOT defending a claim I never made, I was answering TWO DIRECT QUESTIONS from you.

    I’ve provided ample evidence to support the point I ACTUALLY made, as well as to answer your questions.

  124. paynehollow says:

    Craig…

    This is the problem when you let your preconceptions get in the way of the actual evidence

    You have provided, at best, “evidence” that liberal people have engaged in acts of violence maybe to the same level as the data I cited for conservative people. But do you understand that this merely makes Liberals almost (or about, give or take) as violent as Conservatives? And do you realize that this is not the same as saying “almost always” violence comes from the Left?

  125. “I’m saying that these sorts of claims are petty partisan goofiness and an indication of an inability to reason or, you know, count.”

    So you’re seriously suggesting that the FBI and DHS are engaging in “petty partisan goofiness”.

    The only partisan goofiness here is you. I’ve already provided more evidence to support my ACTUAL point, that you have for your contention that there is an overwhelming mountain of conservative violence.

    The problem here is that you originally staked out a position (Liberals don’t like violence, they’re pacifists or words to that effect, that you can’t support.

    NOte your own actual literal quoted qords.

    ““There is NO such study I know of about the violence of liberal extremists. As far as I know, it does not exist in the real world, only in the immoral and imagined mind of the deluded and ruthlessly partisan.”

    Except for the simple unarguable literal fact that YOU ARE WRONG about this.

    As long as all you have left is to ignore the direct answers to direct questions that you insisted on and to continue to be unable to distinguish between claims made by John and claims that I have made, they you truly have nothing and your refusal to acknowledge the clear evidence just confirms your hopeless partisan goofiness.

    ”It (Eco Terrorism) remains what we would probably consider the No. 1 domestic terrorism threat,…”

    From the goofy partisan hacks at the FBI.

    I’m sorry you can’t defend your original premise. I’m sorry you didn’t read the report you fobbed off as evidence. I’m sorry the evidence keeps mounting against the left. I’m sorry if you didn’t expect me to actually prove you wrong. I’m sorry if all you have left is to change your position and lie about my position.

  126. “And do you realize that this is not the same as saying “almost always” violence comes from the Left?”

    Unfortunately you don’t seem to realize (which is strange since I’ve pointed it out to you many times), that I NEVER ever ever said that violence “almost always” comes from the left. I literally never ever actually used those words. The fact that you continue to delude yourself into thinking that I said that (again I’ve been very clear about what I actually said), that I said something that I clearly didn’t say leads me to believe that you feel that your only remaining tactic is to lie about what I said, then argue against the lie.

    If you’d like to deal with the actual evidence, great. If you’re just going to pretend it doesn’t exist, great. Just stop the lies.

    Again I remind you what you actually said.

    ““There is NO such study I know of about the violence of liberal extremists. As far as I know, it does not exist in the real world, only in the immoral and imagined mind of the deluded and ruthlessly partisan.”

    Except for the simple unarguable literal fact that YOU ARE WRONG about this.

    Again from the partisan hacks at the FBI.

    ”It (Eco Terrorism) remains what we would probably consider the No. 1 domestic terrorism threat,…”

  127. paynehollow says:

    I’m sorry you just can’t understand my position.

    If you ever want to re-read it and get my actual point, let me know. In the meantime, you can keep arguing against yourself on these points that I have not made. I give up trying to help you see my actual points.

    And please, stop twisting my words, stop lifting quotes out of context and applying different meanings to them. Please, try to understand that when I say “this is a problem on both sides,” that I am not saying “conservative=violent.”

    And, if you ever want to agree with my actual point and give up your waffling on the point (that there is ZERO evidence that violence is “almost always” from the Left), let me know.

    ~Dan

  128. Dan,
    One thing is abundantly clear in this exchange. You simply cannot allow yourself to accept that I have never said “that violence is “almost always” from the Left)”.

    Do you understand the meaning of the word never? Why do you insist in perpetuating this lie. You could (as in many other instances) solve this whole problem by showing actual evidence to support your delusion. One must ask, why doesn’t Dan simply do just that? Good, reasonable, rational question, why not indeed?

    The obvious answer is because he can’t. It just isn’t there. So instead of checking links, reading reports, or even acknowledging that credible evidence even exists it’s just easier to repeat the lie, and pretend that the evidence provided doesn’t rise to the level of the ONE (yes that’s right only ONE) study who’s title seems to support your contention.

    As to your quotes, everyone of them is taken from this thread, the context and meaning are available for all to see. They have not been edited or distorted an any way. They are YOUR words. If your words come back to embarrass you, that’s hardly my problem.

    So again, your actual, literal, accurately quoted words.

    ““There is NO such study I know of about the violence of liberal extremists. As far as I know, it does not exist in the real world, only in the immoral and imagined mind of the deluded and ruthlessly partisan.”

    I’m sorry you felt compelled to make such a stupid and easily disproved statement, just don’t expect me not to point it out as long as you persist in your delusion that this goofiness is true. Hint, IT”S NOT TRUE. The fact that you seem to be afraid to confront the truth isn’t my problem either. Earlier you provided a link to the SPLC website to prove your point, concerns were raised (and later documented) about the methodology of their work. So you provide another link to a study. Unfortunately, you didn’t read much past the title and many of your assertions about that report were proven to be incorrect. At that point, you offered absolutely nothing else and just pretended that your chosen study had no flaws and was the be all and end all of the last word on domestic terrorism. During that period you made the above stupid comment, and a little research came back to bite you on the ass. At that point, it’s all about the stall and the misdirection and the lie.

    So, I don’t care if you agree with the FBI who said that ”It (Eco Terrorism) remains what we would probably consider the No. 1 domestic terrorism threat,…”, but for you to just dismiss the FBI as a bunch of partisan fools just shows how little support you have for your side.

    Yes, I know that you’ve modified your position to excuse violence from your side a quote from your very first comment on the thread.

    “Now, that we don’t believe in taking up arms against brothers over petty political disagreements is not the same as saying we would not oppose an actual tyrannical gov’t. ”

    Now unless you are somehow going to claim that the “we” there doesn’t mean folks on the political left, or liberals, or progressives, your very first comment clearly stakes out the position that “we don’t believe in taking up arms against brothers over petty political disagreements”, unfortunately for you the first position you took in this thread has been proven wrong.

    TO BE CLEAR, I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE MAJORITY OF VIOLENCE COMES FROM THE LEFT.

    I am saying the it is very factually, undeniably clear that in fact liberals DO believe in taking up arms (I guess you could argue that things like clubs and fire are not arms in an attempt to rationalize your comment) over political disagreements.

    Anyway, if you’d care to address my actual positions, not the position you’d prefer I had, great. If not maybe you should just move on and please stop lying.

  129. paynehollow says:

    Craig…

    One thing is abundantly clear in this exchange. You simply cannot allow yourself to accept that I have never said “that violence is “almost always” from the Left)”

    One thing is abundantly clear: I have repeatedly asked you to clarify, “SO YOU AGREE THAT JOHN’S CLAIM THAT VIOLENCE IS ‘ALMOST ALWAYS’ ON THE LEFT…?” and you repeatedly have chosen not to directly answer, choosing instead to say things like…

    However, as I have done research i have found that the violent left is much more prevalent than you’d have us believe.

    and…

    After some research, I think it’s closer to reality than you would like to admit.

    Why not just say, “NO, there IS no research or data to support the claim that “almost always” violence is from the Left. We have no reason to believe that claim…”? Instead of saying “I didn’t say that… BUT…”?

    Feel free. Clarify, show you can do it.

    Or keep arguing that “Hey, both Conservative and Liberals use violence… and it’s wrong when both do it…” and YOU and I will be making the SAME POINT and you will have no reason to continue this crazy, “I didn’t say… but I won’t deny… but I didn’t say… but he has a point… but I didn’t say… but I won’t admit there is no data to support that…” circle.

    As I’ve said no doubt a dozen times in this thread, IF you are only arguing that both sides use violence, then we agree and you can quit disagreeing with me on something we agree on.

    Dan

  130. Dan,

    Once more since you just seem to be stupid or delusional. I did not ever argue that most of the violence comes from liberals, hence I’ve never tried to support a statement I’ve never made. I feel no need to do so. What I AM finding as a result of my ongoing research is that the FBI considers liberal violence to be the #! domestic terrorist threat, that liberals are actively trying g to gain legal sanction to use violence, and that every new study I read confirms that liberal violence is a large ongoing problem.

    So when you said ““Now, that we don’t believe in taking up arms against brothers over petty political disagreements is not the same as saying we would not oppose an actual tyrannical gov’t. ”, most native English speakers would interpret that to mean that Liberals (we) don’t engage in violence over political differences. This was quite clearly, in your own words, your position in your first comment on this thread.

    A few comments later, this was your position.

    “…we are not going to start killing our friends and family because they disagree over these simple line-drawing questions.”

    Then this.

    “In the US Left (and most of the modern Left, around the world), there is usually a starting place of at least respect for NVDA and pacifism, if not outright support.”

    It is clear that your initial position at the outset of this conversation was the above. AT some point, your position changed to what we see below.

    “IF you are only arguing that both sides use violence, then we agree and you can quit disagreeing with me on something we agree on.”

    So, now that we all agree that there has been a shift in your stated position. I’ll allow for the possibility that you really didn’t mean to be quite so dogmatic in your first statements. But clearly you staked out an indefensible position.

    Later as evidence mounted that a) your “proof” lacked a certain “proofieness” and b) there was clearly enough left wing violence to render your original position untenable. Interesting that the first wave of evidence against your initial position was EXACTLY the same as your first try at demonstrating the violence of conservatives-news stories. You dismissed those and said.

    “Again, by all means, produce the research about America’s problem with a violent far Left.”

    “It’s all about the evidence, young fellas. You got to produce some to be taken seriously.”

    So lo and behold, more evidence starts coming in to prove your original point wrong, and you produce ONE (Only ONE, not TWO or THREE or TEN, just ONE), study that purports to be the final word on violence in the US.

    Then you say, secure in the knowledge that there can’t possibly be an actual study documenting violence on the left.

    ““There is NO such study I know of about the violence of liberal extremists. As far as I know, it does not exist in the real world, only in the immoral and imagined mind of the deluded and ruthlessly partisan.”

    So in response to this comment, as well as DIRECT QUESTIONS from you, that you wanted answers to, I produced, “research about America’s problem with a violent far Left.”. You know actual evidence. So I assumed that if I produced “research”, that “”It’s all about the evidence, young fellas. You got to produce some to be taken seriously.”, would come into play and it would be taken seriously.

    Unfortunately, all you’ve done is to continue to insist that your NEW position (everybody does it, so liberals are OK), is the same as your OLD position.

    Unfortunately, you continue to insist that I provide support for a statement I DID NOT MAKE, not HAVE I AGREED with as if you simply demanding something automatically gives it some sort of gravitas.

    So, instead of simply repeating your inconsistencies back to you, since you obviously have problems with your own words coming back to haunt you, I will take a look at the 3-4 additional studies I’ve found about the glut of liberal violence, I will provide more evidence for you to take seriously, and I will see what conclusion can be reasonably drawn from the actual literal evidence.

    Or I could just go with the FBI, who thinks…

    ”It (Eco Terrorism) remains what we would probably consider the No. 1 domestic terrorism threat,…”

  131. A study in implications;

    1. “Now, that we don’t believe in taking up arms against brothers over petty political disagreements is not the same as saying we would not oppose an actual tyrannical gov’t. ”

    2, “…we are not going to start killing our friends and family because they disagree over these simple line-drawing questions.”

    3. ““In the US Left (and most of the modern Left, around the world), there is usually a starting place of at least respect for NVDA and pacifism, if not outright support.””

    Each of the above Trabue statements imply something quite clear to honest, objective and rational readers. Each states actions that liberals/US Left would not take. Stated as what the left won’t do clearly implies that someone is doing that. Since it was stated that the left/liberal won’t take such actions, the implication is that the right will or would. Did Dan “intend” to imply such things? He’ll say no, as he has been dancing away from that position in at least a few of his recent comments. But I have been speaking of what his chosen words do indeed imply, not what he intended them to imply.

    Dan believes that his intentions, if we are to truly believe he is honest in expressing them once his words bite him in the ass, dictate the implications of his chosen words. Clearly, they do not seeing as how so many people over the years have so easily inferred the same things about the words Dan chooses to use. More likely is, as has been suggested many time over the years, Dan does not like how his words are reflected back to him, and thus the dancing begins.

    Is it possible to infer from Dan that which his words cannot possibly convey? That might be supported should most infer one thing, yet one person infers another. But that doesn’t really happen, unless you’re counting the frog in Dan’s pocket. I don’t read too many comments from left-leaning posters defending Dan’s explanations of his chosen words. Nothing like, “No. I don’t believe Dan means that at all.” This never happens, so it is likely that even some who might believe as Dan, do not infer what Dan thinks his words should be implying, any more than we on the right do.

    So Dan, rather than whine about us twisting or misrepresenting your words, simply refine your thoughts and replay them with words better chosen, apologizing for not making yourself clear. OR, admit your position is the crap it usually is and reject it like the allegedly honorable man you wish to portray yourself as would.

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: