Please produce a cite that anyone who has attempted to assassinate a US President did so because he believed that capitalism is God’s way.
Projection as argument becomes wearying after a while.
This is exactly what I was thinking–I know for sure there are at least a few hundred, if not thousands, of fundamentalists out there thinking it would be neat to shoot Obama in the head, and then watch him get up and bamboozle the world into thinking he’s Jesus.
-FrL-
:rolleyes: I have no intention of providing a cite for something I didn’t say.
I suggest you stop imagining other people projecting, then.
I’m not that familiar with fundamentalist whackjobs, so could you describe the synchronicity you see between current events and Revelation?
There hasn’t been one that I know of, because the American gov’t (and the corporations who run them behind the scenes) have always been 100% pro-capitalism and mainly conservative, at least since Nixon and probably before. The only would-be assassin I witnessed during my lifetime was John Hinkley, and he was just a random whackjob obsessed with Jodie Foster with no political leanings at all.
If the U.S.A. was to suddenly swing left and become more like Europe & Canada in terms of a socialist democracy (and I feel such a paradigm shift has already happened behind the scenes, although the signs aren’t as apparent as they were in mid-October) and especially if the Grand Old Party abandons the right-wing Christian Fundamentalists who have controlled the Republicans since Bush The Elder, then yes, a would-be assassin might perceive US President = Socialist = Antichrist. (God, I hope I’m not putting ideas into anyone’s head…)
I’d love to, but I’m having a busy week. I’ll try and start a Great Debates discussion re: Biblical Prophecy later this month.
Oh, come on. Der Trihs never said that anyone has attempted to assassinate a US President because he believed that capitalism is God’s way. You’re either being disingenuous or unbelievably dense.
Actually, yes he did.
And here are the people he was referring to as “these crazies”.
The topic of the thread is assassination attempts against Obama. (See the title.) So he is making accusations, and refusing to back them up.
Now, you know as well as I do that he made this up. That’s why I asked for a cite. Not because he was going to produce one - none exist. Because showing his nonsensical rants for what they are is the only way to deal with them.
You must not be serious.
He said some of “these crazies” associate socialism with the anti-christ. He said this in response to someone asking why socialism would be worse than Islam for some fundamentalists. He did not say this in order to characterize any past presidential assassins or attempted assassins.
He said some on the right equate socialism with demonic evil. He did not say anyone who has tried to assassinate the president has thought socialism was demonically evil. He is implying that some future assassin could well have such a thought and be motivated by it. But he has neither said nor implied what you’re saying he did.
-FrL-
Are you serious? How are “right wingers” and “some of these crazies”, in two completely separate posts on completely separate topics, supposed to be equivalent? “Some of these crazies” clearly refers to a small minority of right wingers.
Well, I’m not willing to say he didn’t.
…On something he didn’t say? Come on, this is a stretch. If you were really sincere on this, you would have asked for a cite on what he actually said, which was that some right-wingers equate socialism with the Antichrist.
So you read neither the title, nor any of his other posts. I guess I can’t blame you for that, but it makes it a bit harder to sustain the notion that you know what he was talking about.
At any rate, he said right-wingers are the ones assassinating people, and that they did so because of their belief that socialism is the anti-Christ. So we need a cite for that.
None is going to be forthcoming.
Nor is it any wonder that Frylock is sticking up for Der Trihs - he said something almost equally silly -
Would you like to produce a cite showing that hundreds or thousands of fundamentalists are plotting assassination for Obama, so he can rise from the dead?
Since you “know it for sure”, no doubt you can prove it. Then you can report these folks to the Secret Service, as you should already have done, instead of blathering about it on a messageboard.
So, cite? Please make it a credible one.
:rolleyes:
He didn’t say that. Not here, not in this thread.
In fact, I don’t think you could find a post here in this thread where ANYONE said
with or without caveats about their reasons or beliefs.
You get no cite for something unsaid.
That’s bullshit and you know it.
Actually, no, you are the one who made that link. Where’s your cite?
You are rebutting a statement that was not made.
Knock off the personal insults in Great Debates.
= = =
On the other hand, demanding cites for a statement that was not made is not really appropriate behavior, either:
Der Trihs’s comments addressed his perception of the mindset of people who have expressed approval for violence; he made no claim that any assassination plot was the direct result of those views.
The bumper sticker was real.
A senator actually did make a veiled reference that Clinton’s life would be in danger if he visited a Southern state.
There have been cries of “Kill him” against Obama at McCain/Palin rallies.
While generally limited to the fringe, more folks on the Right than on the Left have advocated violence against the governmnet following Ruby Ridge and Waco.
Doctor’s at abortion clinics have been murdered, ostensibly to “save lives.”
Beyond that, you asked for a citation regarding assassinations when responding to a statement that people on the Religious Right considered socialists to be more evil than being Muslim or foreign born or associated with terrorists–a complete non sequitur.
I disapprove of people posting insults in GD. I also disapprove of people posting and then defending false accusations against other posters. It happens, but it hardly makes you a victim in this case.
[ /Moderating ]
For the record, I rarely have much respect for anything Der Trihs says or the way he says it. (Even though we are both, I suppose, leftists.)
I didn’t say anything requiring a cite. I said “I’m sure that…” I marked my comment specifically as an example of my own speculation.
The reason I so speculate is that I was born and raised* amongst these types and I know what goes on in their every day conversations and in the books they read.
Notice that hundreds is a vanishingly small fraction of the number of fundamentalists out there. So for that matter is thousands.
-FrL-
ETA: On rereading, I see my words were “I know for sure that…” Again, my intention in typing that was to mark my post as speculation, and I think this is consistent with normal english usage, when the snippet is taken in its conversational context.
*On second thought, I should say I was raised, but not born, amongst these types. My own family has spent some time on the edges of this mindset, but never, I think, taken the plunge.
There are Republicans and Right Wing Nuts, and some times the two overlap, but that doesn’t mean that the party leadership is gleefully looking forward to dancing on Obama’s grave. Decent Republicans will be horrified if Obama is assassinated.
Furthermore, the Right does not have a lock a violence; in the '60’s the Left was setting the bombs (often characteristically ineffectually).
Look, when you start frothing at the mouth and demonizing Republicans, you are buying into the Wing Nuts’ agenda!
Move on!
We have a chance here, to put a stop to the politics of hatred; if over half the country can vote for an African American (and however the college falls out, Obama will win the popular vote), that means something. That means we can look passed labels, if nothing else.
Oh, please. The 60’s were a long, long time ago. The left these days barely exists, much less sets bombs.
No, I’m not. They want everyone to agree that they are right and everyone who disagrees is evil. They want the Democrats to keep doing what they’ve been doing; keep pretending the other side is civilized, and keep trying to cooperate with people who have no desire to do so and just look at it as a weakness to be exploited.
No, we don’t. The right wing hates too much, and the “left” * not enough. You seem to think that Obama can just declare cooperation and the Right will go along; he might try, but he’ll fail. The only “cooperation” they tolerate is complete obedience to them.
- moderate right would perhaps be better; there really isn’t a significant left here
No, they weren’t. 40 to 50 years was not long ago, in another galaxy, far away. The 60s are in fact much closer in time than most racial lynchings.
It is true that Lefties from that era are no long setting bombs; they are sitting on boards with candidates for presidents.
Ok, stop, look, and listen:
You are as embarrassing to me as those you excoriate are to many Republicans.
I think you pick and chose information so as to support your opinions and agenda. I think you select and misrepresent facts to use as ill-aimed bludgeons. I think we have a chance here, but I fear that Wing Nuts like you on both sides of the aisle would rather crush our hopes rather than see any good on the other side.
You know, assassination requires more than a gun and a steady hand; it requires the inability to see the target as a person. It requires a wild-eyed obedience to an obsession. It requires a determination to win, rather that to be just, and informed, and right.
When you demonize your opponents, you feed the will to assassinate. You feed that will in everyone.
I don’t believe that violence is never necessary to effect change, but I do know that hatred will never effect a change for the better.
Most of the people now alive were either unborn or children. And the left rather notoriously sold out and gave up it’s principles. So yes, the 60s were another world.
They have quite thoroughly demonized themselves what with invasions and torture and so forth. And I fail to see why meeting these people halfway is either ethical or desirable.
Nonsense. Hatred is neither good nor bad; it’s just another emotion. And often a quite constructive one; few tyrants would be overthrown or resisted without it. Hatred isn’t always bad. Love isn’t always good. Compromise isn’t always the best position. And so on; those absolutes don’t work.
Ronald (6) Wilson (6) Reagan (6).
See, what we have, Ah say, what we have here, is an instance of Poe’s Law.
