Well can you make a list of the incorrect things in the article? I would love to get a conservatives critique of the article.

 

The article starts out with kids and red crosses over Obama's face. The very first sentence refers to them as "teabaggers"

-just how poisonously dangerous the American populist right is.

-A political and demographic re-alignment is happening before their eyes, and they are reaching back into their old bag of tricks of intimidation, violence, and apocalyptic fearmongering.

-the people who believed in manifest destiny, who delighted in the slaughter of this land's original inhabitants, who cheered a nation into a civil war to support an economic system of slavery that didn't even benefit them. They are the people who bashed the unions and cheered on the anti-sedition laws, who joined the Pinkertons and the No Nothing Party, who beat up Catholic immigrants and occasionally torched the black part of town. They rode through the Southern pine forests at night, they banned non-European immigration, they burned John Rockefeller Jr. in effigy for proposing the Grand Tetons National Park.

-They are with us, the John Birchers, the anti-flouride and black helicopter nuts, the squirrly commie-hating hysterics who always loved the loyalty oath, the forced confession, the auto-de-fe. Those who await with baited breath the race war, the nuclear holocaust, the cultural jihad, the second coming, they make up much more of America then you would care to think.

-I voted for Obama with my fingers crossed, because I knew that as the populist right lost power, they would become more extreme, more concentrated, and more violent. As to dismissing them as only a quarter or so of America, please remember that it only took a quarter or so of Americans to actively support the Confederacy.


I just about copied and pasted the whole article. It sounds like Nancy Pelosi wrote the article.

 

All of those are true though, denial much?

 

The article stated that we are a 'dangerous' people. I feel I and many many other are not a danger to anyone. People of my kind are fighting the wars, and want limiting government control over our lives.

I don't feel we use our 'old bag of tricks' and promote intimidation and violence. Compare a liberal protest to a conservative protest. They have to call SWAT and riot police for liberal protests.

I would not be for the slaughtering of native americans and slavery. But I will be honest, that was a dent on our history and I think it was wrong. Although I do believe that we 'for the most part' did not treat slaves like alot of people seem to believe. Slaves costed as much as a nice piece of property back then, I would not malnurish, beat, and abuse my investment if I had a slave in the first place...

I am not waiting for a race war or a nuclear holocaust

The article also twists the confederacy into evil people when they were fighting for states rights. Yes they have slaves, but I do not agree with that part.

 

If someone makes you their slave then you are weak.

Power to the people and their ability to prosper.

If it means dumping toxic pollution into water supplies, so be it. Its all about me!

If you fail it is on your back!

 

You're right, conservatives aren't dangerous, unless Bill O Riley or Glenn Beck want to misinterpret/lie about something and cause mass panic and violence amongst their viewers.

Everything else from that article seems spot on to me.

 

Bill O riley has the number one most watched news show and ratings for a good reason. He invites the opposition on his show and they 'usually' have good heated discussion.
His opponent is Keith Olberman, so that is a joke. He does nothing but go after conservatives with his 'feelings' and never asks anyone on his show that doesn't agree with him.

I like what Glenn Beck stands for and I catch his show every now and then but could do without some of his ADHD moments because it does make him look like a wacko when I truly believe he isn't one. I think his show is a mixture of getting the facts across and mixing them with entertainment whether it is in good taste or not at times

 

Same way as if your house is burning, I don't want to pay to put out the fire. I don't want to pay to educate your kids. I don't want to pay for your parents or grandparents. I don't want to pay for the investigation if your kid is kidnapped.

You pay your way and I will do likewise. If I can't then I suffer!

 

Just one question, K-MAc---who pays for the roads that YOU and I drive on?

You don't want to pay for anything anyone else uses, so I guess you might as well sell your Expy and any other vehicle, please. Since you are all set on not paying for anything that anybody else may find useful, then you may walk. I figure that, with the taxes that you pay, you would probably, at most, get a mile of asphalt. Knock yourself out.

TSC

 

A Future of Private Roads and Highways

Mises Daily by Walter Block

http://mises.org/story/3416

[Introduction to The Privatization of Roads and Highways. Walter Block writes, "This book is dedicated to my fellow Americans, some 40,000 of them per year who have died needlessly in traffic fatalities. It is my sincere hope and expectation that under a system of private roads and highways in the future, that this number may be radically reduced."]

 

Finally someone that makes sense!

 

You just stole my idea.

That and I have seen first hand socialized medical care as a patient (in France) it is not not a good thing. Their best hospital was worse than the poorest county hospital in the US. We have the best medical services period. We just have to control the cost. Government has NEVER been good at controlling the cost of anything.

 

I'm extremely disturbed by that statement.

 

I have 4 wheel drive on my Expy so I don't need any stinking paved road. It will motivate me to beef up the suspension and get bigger tires!!!

 

I don't know exactly what happened to this thread, but it takes quite a few Government assets just so you can buy tires. They may come from trees, but they don't grow on them.