I certainly think that is fair, considering the thesis of the OP of this thread.
Tea Party Goes Crazier: Burn Russ Carnahan in Effigy
Tea Party organizer vows to burn Pelosi and Perriello in effigy
Have they painted swastikas on their foreheads or put nooses around their necks yet? That was always my favorite image. And the little mustaches inked in were a good touch as well. 
The burning thingy is really old hat. Heck, you couldn’t chuck a dead platypus around without hitting a rally burning Bush in effigy when he was Prez…
-XT
He deserved better? A more respectful treatment?
Deserve? What does deserve have to do with anything? Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life…can you give it to them? Then be not so eager to paint Hitler-esque mustaches or hang someone in effigy, my old padawan friend…
Or something.
-XT
Quick game for you. Guess which party the elected US Congressman who made this quote about the opposite party is:
“They ought to put him against a wall and shoot him.”
Here’s a hint, it was not a Republican
If the left would constrain themselves to just making ‘veiled threats’ like those you indict Republicans for, it would actually be the most peaceful thing the left has said in years.
Peace on you!
Eh. Sooner or later compromise will become nigh-impossible & be abandoned by one side. And it only takes one. Whoever exterminates the opposition writes history.
Sustained peaceful plural democracy is the unsustainable paradigm, not ideological warfare.
Edited to add: Actually, sooner or later ideology mutates anyway. Ethnic warfare is where it’s at. It would be nice to live in the world of liberal democracy, but history & anthropology tell me that if you want power–heck, if you want your grandchildren to live, you’d better be ready to kill for that power & that life. Don’t want to exterminate the other side? Fine. You still have to arm yourselves, & present them with the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction. And sooner or later some fool will take that path anyway.
This. The modern Democratic Party is too dithering–perhaps too decadent or weak in spirit–to stand up to the evils that threaten life on Planet Earth. We don’t need to build up a bunch of McGovernite pussies who would use power to sit around arguing what the meaning of “is” is. Both sides have that at the grassroots; scratch a common Pubbie & you will find doubt & disagreement. But the GOP have a leadership that leads ideologically regardless.
We need an alternate religious party: fanatical & committed, but for social justice & environmental sustainability, not against them. In a way, we need another “Right.” But what we desperately need is a leadership that’s ideologically ideological, instead of ideologically moderate & “non-ideological.”
You know, as I was typing that I was thinking, “God help me, there’s probably some tea partier out there I haven’t heard of, doing exactly what I said isn’t happening.”
So, I’ve gotta score you a point for that one. I shouldn’t have said that as an absolute, given how big the movement is and how many idiots are out there in the world.
That argument might have held some weight, back when “rational people who are right of center” never elected anyone further right-of-center than Nixon. It’s an empty argument since 1980. The GOP has not, since then, been in any sense a party for rational people.
Thank you for your support, x! I will make sure your name goes on the list of enemies of the state whose manner of disposal after the Revolution is guaranteed to be quick and painless (if, at the same time, quite amazingly humiliating and humorous; we’re still working on the details).
Do you really think such leadership would ever produce technologically sensible legislation (or dicatatorial edict)? The thing about ideologues is that every position they hold is determined by that ideology rather than by actual conditions. To use a common popular analogy, they drive into ditches because they’re operating the car with their eyes closed.
Your solution sounds like hell on earth to me, whether your ideologically ideological government believes in social justice & environmental sustainability or religious fervor & public hangings.
I checked, not on the Straight to The Wall List. Currently scheduled for six months at the Jane Fonda Aerobics and Self-Criticism Labor Camp. Might want to bring it up at the next meeting of the SDMB Popular Democratic People’s Front (Trotskyist), or drop a memo to the current Commissar for Merciful Re-Education. Der Trihs, I believe.
:eek: (<—shaking in my boots smiley!)
-XT
I stand corrected on that point.
And if we think about it
And if we talk about it
And the sea goes boiling black
Can you tell me what you’ll do about that?
Midnight Oil, “Put Down That Weapon”
When faced with an enemy—and at this point the opposition have defined us as enemies—determined to drive the whole world into a ditch rather than see the after-tax return on their bonds drop even a little, we have to be as determined to take the reins as they are.
Belief in science, belief that the environment matters, belief that there are more important things than low taxes, those are ideologies. Doesn’t mean we close our eyes.
Maybe we’re defining “ideology” differently.
ETA: And my vision of hell on earth is a bunch of dithering weenies who let evil persist out of a refusal to fight it. “The best lack conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”
Almost definitely. But if you just mean things like rationality or equality or responsibility to our neighbor and our environment, then I’m not sure where you were going with “ideologically ideological” leadership and fanatical commitment against the ‘other side’ of this hypothetical war.
And I also think you’re vastly overestimating the general societal acceptance for extreme political viewpoints. Vehement eliminationism from some sort of organized “Left” establishment would not, in my estimation, result in a fundamental split of American society into Left versus Right. That sort of Crazy Years scenario would asymmetrically pit various loud and lunatic fringe groups against most of society. And committed socialist tree huggers like me would have no more trouble than the Chamber of Commerce folks would in lumping your Ideological Ideologues of the Left in the same crazy camp as the Beckians and the white separatists.
I don’t think that quote means what you think it means.
I disagree. Reagan and Bush 1 were good presidents (yeah, I know, you don’t like them). Bush 2 was an awful president but he was to some degree a response to the Clinton shenanigans. Carter was an awful president and he was a response to Nixon. The recent election had McCain (yeah, I know, you don’t like him) who was relatively moderate.