BF2S Forums right-wing wacko arrested; sent fake anthrax letters to top libs

IRONCHEF wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

He sent a nonhazardous substance with some death threats.  He was arrested, he has issues, who cares.  He is obviously not part of "honorable conservatives" and his actions are wrong whether conservative or lib, so no condemnation is needed.  If some liberal nut sent the same thing to conservative leaders I'd say the same thing.  I wouldn't demand an apology from you libs.  We know all Dems wouldn't want to kill conservatives, just as all Reps don't want to kill liberals.   This thread is lame.

But honestly, WHICH of the two parties are known for their violent protests/actions?  You'd be hard up to find a democrat (let alone hard-core liberal) who has done crazy chit like this.  Liberals simply use their heads more.

GorillaTicTacs wrote:

Deep down base psychology plays a big role in whether or not someone leans liberal or conservative. 

The basis of Conservative thought:  Father is strict and knows best.  Loyalty over principle.
The basis of Liberal thought:  Parents encourage their children.  Principle over loyalty.

These two basis are NOT necessarily opposites, and neither are "Right" or "Wrong", there are liberal Conservatives and conservative liberals.  It is how these roots manifest themselves in some total ideologies that  creates conflict between the two groups.  That's exactly why these two groups, when aligning themselves with an ideology cannot get along, everything is in a frame based on your basic perceptions.  If something falls outside that frame of thought, then it is revolting to you. 

Republicans can definitely count more violent criminals, "whack jobs", and sexual offenders in their ranks because of the root of conservative thought.  How your friends percieve you is far more important that who you actually are and how you behave.  A Baptist minister that snorts cocaine of the asses of gay male hookers makes perfect sense in this context.  They are aware and believe in a "higher authority", they don't have any control over themselves, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't try to perpetuate this concept as it is for the greater good.  It is like a kid trying to get away with something, if father doesn't know, then it's ok.  If father finds out, they expect to be punished.  They want to be punished in some way.  This punishment off-shoot plays also heavily into the abortion issue.  If you really think it's about "human life", you're kidding yourself as it stands in direct contrast to their views on the slaughter of innocent little brown people in foreign countries (1 in 100 people killed might have been a terrorist) and their medievel treatment of criminals back home.  The root is punishment...the girl was a slut, she needs to have this kid she doesn't want.  Pleasure without responsibility MUST have consequences (explains gay hatred as well).

Right-wing whackos aren't really whackos at all, they're just toeing the party line

http://www.thinkingpeace.com/Lib/lib108.html

http://www.intellectualconservative.com … -thoughts/

http://www.tnr.com/blog/openuniversity?pid=54417

http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2004/10/10_401.html

sergeriver wrote:

lowing wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

I'll take that as a compliment.

you go right ahead, serge, you go right ahead. lol

You don't find The_Shipbuilder intelligent?  I would like to know your opinion.  He clearly thinks different than you, but does that make him less intelligent?  I'm surprised the way you label a person who doesn't agree with you.

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

Perhaps some other things could be said about this story that are more important that being on the defensive and covering your own butt?

I thought that if I was, as you say, 'covering my butt' that I, as a conservative, would automatically resort to a personal attack against you.

Launching an offensive attack is not the same thing as protecting one's self. Hawks often willfully confuse the subtle distinction.

By 'covering your butt' I meant that, when confronted with a piece of news about a right-wing wacko, the first instinct is to take it personally, as a threat against one's own pride, and thus to speak out in defense of right-wingers in general.

Another tendency is to resort to personal attacks to break a stalemate or to redirect a losing debate.

I don't mean to imply that conservatives have a monopoly on either tendency - Both are belief-agnostic displays of immaturity.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Uh-oh. All other right-wingers must be exactly alike.

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

A lot of investigative googling done by left-wing bloggers are pointing out that he is likely posting on conservative supersite Free Republic under the pseudonym Marc Costanzo. Story here, link to the Marc Costanzo Free Rebublic bio here.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-11-16 01:44:48)

GorillaTicTacs wrote:

That post went off the deep end of overgeneralization, despite the underlined. My parents encouraged me more than anyone I've ever heard of directly, yet my father is the most conservative man I know, personally. As to your following (above) rant about right-wingers, I could turn around and say that left-wingers want to protect criminals, unless they're Republicans, but that doesn't necessarily make it true; just commonly perceived.

¹A little self-reflection never hurt anyone.  If you agree with a certain policy or you believe a talking point, take a second to figure out why it makes so much sense to you.  Then, try to see it from the other side.  Could they possibly be using a different set of facts to base their opinion (opinion vs. fact)?  How much do your emotions color your perception of the situation (passion vs. logic)?  Does the policy try to change human nature or deal with it logically (discipline vs. tolerance)?  Is it a benefit to all parties involved or just you/your religion/your country/your town/your family at the expense of others (loyalty vs. fairness)?  If you can do that, congratulations, you're a liberal.

²As far as coddling criminals, I can't speak for this mystery group of hard-core liberals, but I can speak as a constitutional libertarian.  Fact: By our Constitution, EVERY MAN (human) has a right to a fair trial in a court of law before he is considered guilty or not guilty.  Everyone gets their day in court.  That same man is "innocent" until he is "proven guilty".  If he happened to commit a crime in front of 1000's of witnesses, he still has a right to his day in court.  There are no exceptions to the system.  This makes the system fair.  If the man is found guilty, carry out the proscribed punishment.  Do this swiftly and in accordance with the law, by all means.  If the person has not committed a crime, set him free immediately.  Throwing the blanket term "terrorism" over the whole deal does not nullify any of these principles which we fought a war of Independence for the right to enforce.  True "political conservatives" know this.  What else would they be "conserving"?

³Sorry, just pissed that our way of life is being slowly destroyed for the sake of preserving some fantasy version of "our way of life".  Socialists, fascists, and fundamentalists are all to blame.  I'm also pretty tired of every debate where if I take on the far right (which happens to be the ones in charge and doing the most damage the last 6 years) I'm labeled far left...and ironically, back in Clinton's days, I was accused of being a right-winger for disgreeing with his policies.  Even more ironically, Clinton was just right of center on most issues...tells you how far right on the spectrum American politics have been for the last 50 years or so.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-11-16 05:40:00)