Left-Wing Violence Rocks Seattle... Police Attacked... Businesses Destroyed

Wake up dude. Tea party isn't 'No Government' its 'Less Government'. With the nitwit we have running this country at this time you should be able to see that. Even a blind person could.

 

They were having a party. Just like they do in Washington on their work days.

 

Thats because most on the left just don't understand...they like to sit back and watch hopeing to understand whats going on at a later date.

 

More like...(bounced) check.

 

And I bet they danced all the way through the riot while watching it.

 

My problem with some of the comments in threads like these is that they're aimed at discrediting or showing the other side to be wrong, yet they mock the actions of a few, not the characteristics actually inherent in their political ideology. Throwing bombs isn't a necessary component of either liberalism or conservatism. There are, within these ideologies, those who advocate violence, and there are those who don't. It's not fair to extend the fact that their allies have some opinion to them just because they're in the same group. If someone disagrees with bombings as a tactic then that settles it. Nothing after that can shame him about bombings, even if every last person in his group except he were advocating violence - he has separate views on that.

Some Liberals litter at rallies, some Conservatives litter at rallies. It's not a factor necessary in defining either ideology, therefore it is of no concern.

 

Uh... no. Assaulting police, rape and murder are not littering. Only the leftists do this at leftist protests.

 

Sorry but no. The personal accountability, and respect for the property of others, is night and day here in the US between a group of liberals and a group of conservatives. We see it virtually every time such groups assemble. And it ain't close.

 

I addressed the exact nonsense that you said. And I am not a socialist or a communist, I am a libertarian. Your ad hominem straw man is boring to say the least. I am also quite successful, that just doesn't preclude me from thinking critically.

I am unsure what part of my post defended anything government does. More straw men, in lieu of actually addressing anything I said substantially. And politicians win elections by votes technically, but they are actually beholden to their campaign contributors. You will be super shocked to hear, that both Democrats and Republicans have their contributions coming from the same elite financial interests. Democrats are just as much in the business of entitling the very wealthy as Republicans are.

More straw men!! The fallacious nature of all your arguments makes any debate pointless. I don't vote for Democrats. Democrats are an embarrassment and awful, just like their Republican counterparts.

The list is far too long to post here, but I'll provide a very tiny list of examples. Copyrights and patents are government granted monopolies which enrich the wealthy in ways that would be impossible under free market conditions. Bailouts saved elite financial institutions from bankruptcy at tax payer expense. Subsidies enrich already very wealthy institutions at the expense of the tax payer. No bid government contracts the same. Obamacare is a giant handout to insurance companies, which mandates people to buy insurance from private insurers, thus ensuring them millions of new customers (it hurts smaller businesses of course, but government doesn't care about small businesses). The regulations that exist in most industries are written by the industry. Environmental regulations are simple for huge corporations with large amounts of capital to comply with, but create an unnavigable quagmire for any potential competition. A good example of this is the law against competition across state lines for health care. It protects wealthy health care companies from competition, allows them to charge above market rate, and protects capitalist profit. Here is another example.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/10/national/nationalspecial2/10COW.html

On top of that, many times very large corporations are given exemptions from the regulations that are put into place. Look at this website, which has all sorts of data on the exemptions large corporations have. I have linked to the exxon mobil page, and notice who their second largest set of contributions went to (the socialist Barack Obama). So the regulation often doesn't even apply to large corporations, but smaller business must comply, or they are fined. Also the fines that exists which may cripple smaller companies, are a drop in the bucket for larger companies.

http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/exxon-mobil/819555dfc3d449d2be54286f0cb385e2

Our foreign policy is committed NOT to the safety of America, and does little to "defend our freedoms." What it actually does is protect the flow of Gulf Oil and American capital interests around the globe.

Honestly stop!! You are making debate SO boring. I never said business owners were evil. I said that elite interests manipulate the system to stack the deck in their favor. A fundamentally different statement. Try to keep up. Also, you are irrelevant to government. Unless your business is a multinational corporation spending millions of dollars a year on lobbying, you are not part of this conversation. The businesses I am talking about spend much more every year just on lobbying and campaign contributions than your company will make throughout the entire course of your business. You are the one being hurt by all this. In this country there IS redistribution of wealth. It just doesn't go from rich to poor. It goes from the middle to the top and to the bottom. Wake up and stop making excuses for people who manipulate the system to promote and protect their ability to make profits. You had to work hard and struggle to where you got, it isn't fair that so many at the top are handed things without having to make that same sort of struggle.

 

Again, the fact that many on one side might use violence doesn't make it a necessary feature to the ideology. Plenty of others disagree. You can't use the transgressions of others due to differing positions to attack the position of the law-abiding.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, you completely miss the point.

Significantly more leftists play video games than those on the right I'd guess, does this making gaming a characteristic of leftism? Surely you see the distinction? It's not a necessary component of the ideology. In any case, it's wrong to criticize other non-gaming leftists as gamers just because most leftists also play them. They're separate positions.

 

Sort of like not smearing all Nazis as Jews killers?

 

Again?

This is our first exchange.

Significantly more people without political affiliation play video games than those with. That is how marginalizing works.

That leftists are second in line... does that surprise me? No... it makes perfect sense.

It is absolutely a component of the ideology. I do not require you to get it.

 

My post was to everyone here, someone responded to me. I had very similar issues with your response as I did to the other guy's, so I said again. Sorry for any misunderstanding, my wording was poor in retrospect.

This, I feel, misses the point. An individual has no responsibility for the positions of others, only his own. If you can show that he personally views violence as a positive then go right ahead and criticize him, otherwise you have no basis to, regardless of what most others in his group think.

Nobody requires anyone to get anything. We're just exchanging perspectives here, that's the entire point of politics forums.

I disagree. If advocating violent resistance is a necessary component of leftism then fine, most 'leftists' aren't in fact leftists. Either way, if its not their position that violence should be used then why do you (people generally of your persuasion on this point, not you personally), insist on straw-manning their positions? They don't hold the position, so it's illogical to attack them for it.

I didn't mean to come off as combative here, it's difficult to be opposed in opinion and sound anything else.

The analogy is flawed. Jew killing is a necessary component of Nazism, but not of fascism. Leftism is more akin to Nazism in that it's a broad category that doesn't make specific claims about issues, it's a general political persuasion. Nazism by definition requires submission to the party will, which required approval of Jew killing.

Nevertheless, it would be wrong to attack a "Nazi" for Jew killing if this was something he disagreed with the rest of the party on. He would no longer be a Nazi, he'd be a less specific sort; a fascist.

The Animal Liberation Front is of the same sort as Nazis (in that they both have specific positions that by definition categorize their respective positions). Leftism and fascism are of the same category in that they are rough approximations; neither has specific positions on issues.

I hope I've made the distinction clear, if I haven't let me know

 

My post was to everyone here, someone responded to me. I had very similar issues with your response as I did to the other guy's, so I said again. Sorry for any misunderstanding, my wording was poor in retrospect.

This, I feel, misses the point. An individual has no responsibility for the positions of others, only his own. If you can show that he personally views violence as a positive then go right ahead and criticize him, otherwise you have no basis to, regardless of what most others in his group think.

Nobody requires anyone to get anything. We're just exchanging perspectives here, that's the entire point of politics forums.

I disagree. If advocating violent resistance is a necessary component of leftism then fine, most 'leftists' aren't in fact leftists. Either way, if its not their position that violence should be used then why do you (people generally of your persuasion on this point, not you personally), insist on straw-manning their positions? They don't hold the position, so it's illogical to attack them for it.

I didn't mean to come off as combative here, it's difficult to be opposed in opinion and sound anything else.

 

You asked about video games. Being rooted in fantasy I think has a lot to do with liberalism... I would absolutely expect more gamers are liberal. You appear to be trying to make a non-sequitur argument. Nobody is suggesting that the majority of leftists advocate violent resistance... I would suggest that most will do nothing to interfere with violent resistance of a group they are in... so in their inaction, they are advocates of those who do.

That is how liberals do a lot of evil really... by inaction.

 

It was an example I used to make a point, I didn't mean to get into a discussion about gaming and liberalism, but alright. I too expect more gamers to be liberal. Liberals are generally younger.

The impression I got was that people were arguing that instances like these, on left or right, point to a flaw within the broad political persuasion of the left rather than just the group/individuals that are performing the violence. Somehow the view of leftism by most leftists isn't 'real' leftism, which is violent, and thus we can point to leftists generally as being responsible for the violence even though they don't advocate it themselves. My point was that this is judging the entire group on the basis of the actions of a few, without linking these actions definitely to what it means to be a leftist. In this case they would disagree with leftism, so why are you attacking them for it? People don't slot cleanly into ideologies, they have many opinions on many different topics. You must address these opinions and not the supposed characteristics of others.

If you're doing this then fine, I have no problem.

Personally I view only action as worthy of condemnation, because as a 'rightist' I feel nobody has natural obligations, only those they consent to themselves. This is a difference in values and I don't blame you for this, just giving my perspective

 

I'm confused. Are leftists pro-big-government, or anti-big-government?

 

I was at Fort Lewis for about a month after leaving Germany, where I had been for 2 years. Germany has summer for about two weeks in July. Fort Lewis never stopped raining for the month.

I'd be pissed too.

 

I believe if we had taken custody of Bin Ladin when he was offered to us for his role in multiple terror attacks, including the first WTC bombing, then 9/11 wouldn't have happened. I believe everyone has natural obligations to do their best to prevent loss of life... whether or not they voluntarily put themselves at risk defines their finer character. This is why, for instance, I respect LEO, first responders, our military and militia.

Without such characterization I am not sure how one can hold respect for anyone... or at least no more or less for any person which I would find very near sociopathy. All that is required for evil to flourish is for...

To be ineffective at your charge by whim to address an injustice, is to be an accomplice to it. Our legal system frowns on accomplices. Our society does. If you allow someone to harm your child repeatedly I find you culpable precisely because of natural obligation.

 

Leftist's are pro whatever government is necessary to transfer wealth. That defaults to "bigger".

 

...But anarchists are against any and all government.

 

These are people who want free stuff. And who decide that they can break stuff and take stuff when they don't get it. How hard is that to understand ?

 

Both. Some leftists are extreme statists. Some on the left are radically opposed to the state. I consider myself a leftist, but I am radically opposed to government power. Though I consider myself more left libertarian than an anarchist.

The same is true of the right. Some on the right oppose state power, but most love the military, government handouts that are "pro-business," state impositions to impose morality, etc.

For me the most coherent way of seeing the right vs left divide does not divide between government size, but instead one that puts opposition to hierarchy on the left and support for hierarchy on the right (of course that is still reductive, but all right vs left scales are, I think this one is the least so). There are also questions of support for the status quo historically, but that is no longer as relevant in American politics, where the right tends to be reactionary and the "left" more conservative.

 

That is simply an absurd straw man. Both sides are FINE with giving people free stuff. The difference is that while neither side likes giving free stuff, the left believes that if free stuff needs to be given it should be given to the poor. The right want free stuff given away, just not to the poor. They advocate that we give all the free stuff to the rich, because they are the "job creators" and we cannot hurt their feelings, and must bribe them to create more jobs.

PS. You clearly understand NOTHING about anarchism. Anarchists DO NOT support "anarchy" in the way it is most usually conceived of. They simply oppose hierarchical power. The only very significant difference between anarchists and real libertarians, is that libertarians support the perpetuation of capitalism, where as anarchists correctly realize that capitalism and state power are inexorably linked, reinforce each other, and create the conditions of possibility for each others existence. So their opposition to state power leads them to an anti-capitalist stance.