House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and others shot at congressional softball practice

[Vincent Butler]

This is exactly why I rarely visit the backroom, you get drawn into endless arguments where nobody will win. I was addressing a point to clarify exactly why the Founders gave us the Second Amendment and why the shooter was not acting in that accord.

When did the FBI become a tool of the executive branch?

Ummm...Loretta Lynch was put in place by Obama, James Comey as FBI director answers to the President. It is part of the executive branch, charge with enforcing the law.

this is all right wing radio paranoia. The Clintons are no more corrupt than any other lifer politicians.

Well, I would agree about most lifer politicians being corrupt, few more so than my own representative, who I have heard some say is one of the most corrupt, and he is a Republican. However, it is far from being right wing radio paranoia, as most of the talk shows will agree about the corruption. I would say that the Clintons are more corrupt than most.

Obama was a community organizer. He is used to getting his way by thuggery. Look, that is the way Chicago politics works. He got into office in part because he got both his primary and general election challenger's SEALED divorce court records opened, exposing nasty personal details. We can't do anything personally against him, so he had no problems pushing his agenda of expanding the reach of government into our lives, most of the time using executive order.

I am not a huge fan of irrelevant authoritative appeals. A protector you say? You mean like when an old man with dementia tells the country he is going to get rid of those pesky Mexican rapists? In any case, right wing militias are in no way a manufactured threat. They are well armed and well organized. The whole Bundy debacle reminded us of that. I realize the last decade we have been focused on like the 8 muslims who live in the western hemisphere but there are more insidious threats out there.

Actually, the militias are very little threat, I know in my state they were actually disarmed. Anyway, the militia is the whole of the people, that is why we were allowed to be armed. This is from the founders' own words. As far as Plato goes, I was referencing a couple of quotes I agreed with, and was in no way using that as an authoritative appeal, as I said, I don't care for Plato. That is a logical fallacy, to do that.

Incest is a problem in the Mexican communities. Deny it all you want, as I am sure you will, but it is true. Yes, many of them are rapists and murderers and thieves. That happens here with non-Mexicans, but we don't need more. I don't know how many times I have seen a report of somebody of Hispanic heritage who had deported numerous times who finally commits murder or rape or some other heinous crime.

Let's see...Pulse nightclub...San Bernardino...Fort Hood...Naval Shipyards...attack on Pam Geller's art exhibit...WTC '93...WTC '01 (no conspiracy mentions, we know that the attackers were mainly Saudi)...Boston Marathon...Oklahoma beheading...Navy recruiting facility...and these are just ones on American soil. The only thing you can bring up is Bundy? Or do you mean Timothy McVeigh?

But your violence would be pure because it would be against tyranny? Your violence would come from a place of righteousness and not hate?

I specifically said used violence spurred by hate. Throwing off tyranny is an acceptable use of violence. Defending my family against an attacker is acceptable use of violence. Fighting in defense of country is an acceptable use of violence. Nowhere did I say that any kind of violence was unacceptable. There are legitimate reasons. And throwing off tyranny violently is an absolute last resort, when all others attempts have failed.

Americans mythologize the revolution to a scary degree. 25% of Americans were forced out of the former colonies and had their property seized. British officials were tortured merely for trying to enforce laws. Enslaved peoples were promised freedom, only to see that promise be reneged on. The country only made it out of the 18th century because it centralized power and had a Cincinnatus turned Caeser as the first executive. Funny how little time Washington had for rebellions when he was top dog.

I am not sure if I understand what you are saying here. Are you referring to the Tories who left or were forced to leave? As far as the British officials being tortured, that may have happened, but I very seriously doubt more than a couple of times, and no, that would not have been justified, nor was the imprisonment and torture of Americans, nor was their ignoring of America's attempts at reconciliation. Washington as Cincinnatus? I don't understand the comparison, I am not familiar with Cincinattus, but what would Washington be rebelling against after throwing off the British? Of course he would have little time for rebellion, there was no longer a need for it.

I am not against a central government, the Federalist Papers make the case for that very clearly. I am just for a very limited central government, that only acts in the law or principles of the powers granted it in the Constitution. And for the record. I am in no way calling for the overthrow of the US government, not that anybody was saying that, but just to put it in the conversation.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Strike you already lost the war when you decided to argue with a man who says that Republicans cannot by definition be tyrannical.

[Strike For The South]

This is exactly why I rarely visit the backroom, you get drawn into endless arguments where nobody will win. I was addressing a point to clarify exactly why the Founders gave us the Second Amendment and why the shooter was not acting in that accord.

Well you are wrong. I am addressing that point.

Ummm...Loretta Lynch was put in place by Obama, James Comey as FBI director answers to the President. It is part of the executive branch, charge with enforcing the law.

That would be news to Hoover. In any case, the FBI directors since him have maintained their distance from the executive branch. There is a reason they serve 10 year terms and tend to be pulled from law enforcement. In theory, all these people serve the government and not the executive. Now I will grant that AG relationships have been warmer than others but that does not mean they blindly do the bidding of the president. Trump has found this out very recently.

Well, I would agree about most lifer politicians being corrupt, few more so than my own representative, who I have heard some say is one of the most corrupt, and he is a Republican. However, it is far from being right wing radio paranoia, as most of the talk shows will agree about the corruption. I would say that the Clintons are more corrupt than most.

Everyone starts a foundation. Everyone collects speaking fees. The Clintons are no more corrupt than others with the same amount of power.

Obama was a community organizer. He is used to getting his way by thuggery. Look, that is the way Chicago politics works. He got into office in part because he got both his primary and general election challenger's SEALED divorce court records opened, exposing nasty personal details. We can't do anything personally against him, so he had no problems pushing his agenda of expanding the reach of government into our lives, most of the time using executive order.

If You mention Tony Rezko, I get a bingo. Jack Ryans divorce records were unsealed. Nowhere is there a reputable source saying Obama had anything to do with it. There are a lot of memes and fringe conspiracies implicating him, but those do not exactly pass muster.

The imperial presidency has been a thing long before Obama. Every party out of power has complained about it and every party in power has used it. The power the president now wields is a direct result of Americas nuclear weapons. As long as America has nukes, we will have a strong executive.

Actually, the militias are very little threat, I know in my state they were actually disarmed. Anyway, the militia is the whole of the people, that is why we were allowed to be armed. This is from the founders' own words. As far as Plato goes, I was referencing a couple of quotes I agreed with, and was in no way using that as an authoritative appeal, as I said, I don't care for Plato. That is a logical fallacy, to do that.

Militias exploded after Obama got elected, Imagine that.

Incest is a problem in the Mexican communities. Deny it all you want, as I am sure you will, but it is true.

It is not true at all and is typical slander.

Yes, many of them are rapists and murderers and thieves. That happens here with non-Mexicans, but we don't need more. I don't know how many times I have seen a report of somebody of Hispanic heritage who had deported numerous times who finally commits murder or rape or some other heinous crime.

The number of illegal immigrants who have been convicted of a felony is half that of the general population. Which is all the more amazing considering the fact the drug is in one of its "hot" times.

Let's see...Pulse nightclub...San Bernardino...Fort Hood...Naval Shipyards...attack on Pam Geller's art exhibit...WTC '93...WTC '01 (no conspiracy mentions, we know that the attackers were mainly Saudi)...Boston Marathon...Oklahoma beheading...Navy recruiting facility...and these are just ones on American soil. The only thing you can bring up is Bundy? Or do you mean Timothy McVeigh?

There is a cohesive right wing movement in this country that is seeing its rolls swell with disenfranchised white males. Islamic terrorism is a problem but it is a problem that, at least in our hemisphere, has mostly been contained to those who watched some you tube videos and were self radicalized.

I specifically said used violence spurred by hate.

Almost all violence is spurred by hate.

Throwing off tyranny is an acceptable use of violence.

That is exactly what this man thought he was doing.

Defending my family against an attacker is acceptable use of violence. Fighting in defense of country is an acceptable use of violence.

I agree

Nowhere did I say that any kind of violence was unacceptable. There are legitimate reasons. And throwing off tyranny violently is an absolute last resort, when all others attempts have failed.

I mean maybe. But tyranny, more often than not, is in the eye of the beholder.

I am not sure if I understand what you are saying here. Are you referring to the Tories who left or were forced to leave?

Neither were compensated. See how rebellions get tricky? Simply following the law can deprive you of everything.

As far as the British officials being tortured, that may have happened, but I very seriously doubt more than a couple of times, and no, that would not have been justified, nor was the imprisonment and torture of Americans, nor was their ignoring of America's attempts at reconciliation.

Do you understand what tarring and feathering is? Riding someone out on a rail? Burning down the Governor of Massachusetts house?

Washington as Cincinnatus? I don't understand the comparison, I am not familiar with Cincinattus, but what would Washington be rebelling against after throwing off the British? Of course he would have little time for rebellion, there was no longer a need for it.

You can not lecture me on what the second amendment means, when you are not aware of the Cincinnatus archtype. This is basic, high school level, cherry tree stuff.

Cincinnatus was a Roman. He was twice granted dictatorship to drive out scary invaders and twice he gave up his executive power. He just went back to his fields. Washington is the "American Cinncinatus". He may have been able to be king but he was all like " Martha basically owns all of Kentucky (allegedly) so I am ok". And, of course, when he gave up the presidency.

I mean there was a need for it. If you were a regular who hasn't been paid by the new government, why is this any different? If the American government is taxing you for your whiskey with no Rep, what has changed? See what I mean with the whole "eye of the beholder" thing?


If you would like to learn more about the Revolution, I can start you in two easily accessible places. Robert Middlekauff wrote a great history of the revolution that is part of the Oxford series. It is a bit dated now but still very much holds its own as a primer. Ron Chernow wrote a fantastic biography of Washington just a few years ago. He may be a journalist but he apparently had access to some new archives? In any event, it is fantastic.

[Vincent Butler]

I am not going to bother with most of the points, but I will address several, and then pull out of the thread. We will get nowhere with it anyway. The stats about Mexicans being criminals are subjective in the fact that you can find sources that back up your points, I can find sources to back up mine. I don't think Scalise's shooter thought he was acting against tyranny.

I can lecture on what the Second Amendment was for one simple reason. I am going with what the ones who wrote it said about it, the Founding Fathers. I figure they are the best ones to explain what it is about. The thread took this turn on a comment about that anyway. What Washington did after the Presidency is irrelevant anyway in regards to what the Second Amendment is about.

The right wing extremist bit is all hype. Violence by conservatives, even hard-core right-wingers, is extremely rare, practically non-existent, and those who do engage in it are very quickly decried by others. I can't say the same about the left, Obama and Clinton and Lynch and the leftists did virtually nothing when the police started getting shot, Marilyn Mosby said that the rioters in Baltimore should be allowed to riot, and all the destructive riots after any police shooting of a black man and after election day show that the hatred and violence in this country is concentrated in the left. Whether or not those police were guilty does not give people the right to riot and destroy property.

[Husar]

The right wing extremist bit is all hype. Violence by conservatives, even hard-core right-wingers, is extremely rare, practically non-existent, and those who do engage in it are very quickly decried by others. I can't say the same about the left, Obama and Clinton and Lynch and the leftists did virtually nothing when the police started getting shot, Marilyn Mosby said that the rioters in Baltimore should be allowed to riot, and all the destructive riots after any police shooting of a black man and after election day show that the hatred and violence in this country is concentrated in the left. Whether or not those police were guilty does not give people the right to riot and destroy property.

I guess the KKK is left wing organization then and the Iraq war or the seven countries Trump is bombing right now just don't count as right wing violence because foreigners ain't people.
Or one could just say that right wing nuts aren't violent because despite all the whining about the war on christmas, deep inside they know they rule the country and oppress the others, they basically have as much reason to break free as a slave owner.
The rioting after shootings of black people took quite a long time of repetitions when it became clear that noone was doing anything to stop it. If you ignore the peaceful protests, you get the riots after a while. What you're basically asking for is that black people just shut up and take it. You seem angrier about the destruction of property than the killing of black people...

[Hooahguy]

I know the ADL isnt regarded highly around here, but its an interesting article nonetheless:

Over the past 10 years (2007-2016), domestic extremists of all kinds have killed at least 372 people in the United States. Of those deaths, approximately 74% were at the hands of right-wing extremists, about 24% of the victims were killed by domestic Islamic extremists, and the remainder were killed by left-wing extremists.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It is getting harder to have a conversation with my best friend. All throughout college we would have constructive conversations about politics being from opposite sides of the spectrum.
Last three conversations we have talked about current events he has laid out the following opinions:

1. Emotions are used to manipulate people, so why should I care about empathizing with others who don't have health insurance? I only care about my friends and immediate family, anything else is foolish.
2. I think publicly used businesses should not be able to suppress my right to free speech. (This is in response to an alt-right person kicked out of a movie theater.) Your property rights shouldn't trample my right to free speech.
3. (most recently) I don't think it was right for CNN to doxx someone for expressing their opinion. They have a right to privacy, anyone should be able to express their opinion without having their personal life infringed upon.

I didn't really have a counter point to 1. I disagree, but I am so far not smart enough to put together a cohesive argument on why empathy is a good trait to have.

When I said to him that point 2 leads to a legal slippery slope that if I can't control what someone says on my property, how do I control how it is used? What is to stop people from spoiling movies in the theater and claiming it is their free speech?
He replied back that if gays and blacks have to be served, alt-right people shouldn't be discriminated against. I told him blackness and gayness are arbitrary values to discriminate on. Your political opinion is something you choose to have and is therefore not arbitrary to discriminate on. He said he simply disagrees and wouldn't elaborate.

When I said to him that point 3 is odd because I don't see how you can assert a right to privacy on a public forum (reddit) he said that everyone behaves differently between work, your friends and when you are alone. Posting someones info for sharing an opinion is ruining that person by forcing those worlds together. I understand the benefits of anonymity, but it seems impractical to expect the world to leave you alone when you are re-tweeted by the POTUS.

But, he is still my friend and I hope that I can talk with him some more and understand his position and why the alt-right feel so angry.

[Montmorency]

He replied back that if gays and blacks have to be served, alt-right people shouldn't be discriminated against. I told him blackness and gayness are arbitrary values to discriminate on. Your political opinion is something you choose to have and is therefore not arbitrary to discriminate on. He said he simply disagrees and wouldn't elaborate.

On the other hand, many on the left believe that political orientation should not be a basis for discrimination in, for instance, hiring or employment.

The CNN thing, I have trouble understanding because I'm not clear in general to what extent private individuals can assert their privacy (legally or by tradition) in a relationship with news media, and to what extent these media have broad discretion to name principals as they see fit. "Unnamed sources" are a matter of trust in the sourcing of information and so work on the honor principle, and AFAIK legal restrictions are usually related (in some jurisdictions) to the naming of individuals subject to legal or civil suit. For now my impression of the CNN thing is, like the tennis guy recently, they didn't speak or act inappropriately, but nevertheless gave inelegant or provocative wording.

[Husar]

I didn't really have a counter point to 1. I disagree, but I am so far not smart enough to put together a cohesive argument on why empathy is a good trait to have.

Because I'd like to tie you up and break your bones in various ways just to study what exactly happens, what it looks like and how I can wiggle my finger around in your flesh. But somehow I have empathy and the fear that if this is how our society works, then the next bigger guy will come and do the same to me. In fact that is probably exactly why societies formed and invented government and so on. To protect the weak. And weakness is relative. Different people need to be protected from or helped with different things. If your friend thinks he has no weakness then he may just be dishonest (to himself) or not know his weakness (yet).

Health insurance is a social contract that has others protect you when you need help and in return you help others when they need help. The whole idea of young people being healthy and not needing it is turned on its head when they break their neck partying or speeding or contract some strange little virus that seems so small and yet eats up half their intestines and either kills them or turns them into a little sad sack of helplessness. The reason your friend doesn't have a deformed body from Polio might just be that people care about one another and put a lot of effort and money into getting everyone vaccinated.

The reason he doesn't get robbed by brigands on the way to school might just be that people with money pay taxes for the police to protect everyone. And the people this protects may provide benefits in return. See Dr. Hawking. Without any health insurance of some sort the man would probably have died long ago or not been able to afford all the technology that allows him to continue his work. In return for society buying him a speech computer and an expensive electric wheelchair, he continues to produce science that could one day benefit everyone, including your friend. Which also shows that the weakness of Dr. Hawking does not take away from his genius in other areas.

I don't know how else to explain it, if someone doesn't get it by this point, they should probably be shredded for the benefit of the collective. Hail Sparta!

[Viking]

2. I think publicly used businesses should not be able to suppress my right to free speech. (This is in response to an alt-right person kicked out of a movie theater.) Your property rights shouldn't trample my right to free speech.

[...]

He replied back that if gays and blacks have to be served, alt-right people shouldn't be discriminated against. I told him blackness and gayness are arbitrary values to discriminate on. Your political opinion is something you choose to have and is therefore not arbitrary to discriminate on. He said he simply disagrees and wouldn't elaborate.

You can't necessarily choose what you believe any more than your sexual orientation (or lack thereof), though you can choose (as far as your self-discipline goes) not to express either. At some point in the not-too-distant future, I can only assume that it will be possible to change traits like skin colour through gene therapy, such that you can choose your skin colour (light, dark, blue, orange - whatever).