Friday, December 11, 2015

Why Are Left Wingers So Violent and Full of Hate? Imagine Trump Saying This...

ACLU official calls for Final Solution on Trump voters:
Colorado ACLU Board Member: Shoot Trump Voters ‘Before Election Day’

"Loring Wirbel, board member of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Colorado chapter and co-chair of the ACLU’s Colorado Springs chapter, called for supporters of GOP presidential hopeful Donald Trump to be shot before they vote for the billionaire businessman.

Comparing Trump to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels, Wirbel wrote in his Facebook page:
The thing is, we have to really reach out to those who might consider voting for Trump and say, “This is Goebbels. This is the final solution. If you are voting for him I will have to shoot you before election day.” They’re not going to listen to reason, so when justice is gone, there’s always force, as Laurie would say."
So now it's OK to SHOOT voters? There's always FORCE? GOEBBELS?
Oh well, it's just the usual from the ACLU.

17 comments:

Hugo Pelland said...

How can you say this is usual for the ACLU? They dissociated themselves almost instantly from that guy; this just in:
http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/11/colorado-aclu-chairman-resigns-after-writing-about-shooting-trump-supporters/
So, clearly, that 1 guy was 'not' representative of the ACLU nor of the anti-hate anti-violence Left in general. His speech was extremely disturbing; suggesting to shoot people for their political leaning is insane!

Stan said...

Good for the ACLU. It's about time that they took some notice of their local chapters.

Here in Missouri, the Missouri ACLU has fully supported the little campus tyrants, and has ignored real civil rights violations which have occurred on and off campus. One recent example is that they remained silent on the subject of faculty harassment and attempt to silence reporting of the demonstrators' activities on a public campus. they remained silent when a preacher was attacked in the Free Speech Zone in order to shut him up.

And if Ferguson was/is as bad as rumored, then where was the ACLU when it could have counted for something other than supporting demonstrators and rioting thugs who made the MSM news based on a flawed principle?

Why doesn't the ACLU take a position that ALL human lives matter?

That Free Speech matters?

That public campus speech and priviledge restrictions are anti-civil liberty and are Constitutional violations?

Hugo Pelland said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hugo Pelland said...

Well, these are all unrelated anecdotes with respect to your original post, and I don't see how they support the opinion that you seem to be putting forward, which is that the ACLU is some terrible organization that value only certain human lives, only certain aspect of free speech, or even support violence to shut someone up.

Hugo Pelland said...

Oh and by the way, regarding something that actually relates to Trump more directly:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/10/living/mosques-attack-study-2015/index.html

I think I was clear enough on the fact that I don't support Islam in any way, but I don't support violence against its followers either. This increase in intolerance can only make them, the Muslims, even more intolerant and isolated, thus more likely to become radical, more likely to have some of them join ISIS or commit domestic acts of terrorism.

Shame on Trump for encouraging that kind of behavior, indirectly, with his anti-immigration speeches based on fear of a specific religion.

Stan said...

OK, so you are asserting the Shame Meme. That is a moral accusation, which asserts two things:

1. There is a Constitutional and moral Human Right to come into the USA.

2. That Human Right is, at a minimum, to NOT be questioned about your worldview belief system, including socio-politico-religious (Islam is all three).

On what grounds do you base this conclusion, other than fear of further radicalization?

The concept of "prevention of further radicalization" is an overt fear of Islam, and its potential to generate - in congruence with the Qur'an and the Prophet - violence against infidels.

So asserting this fear, the fear of radicalization, demonstrates Islamophobia, does it not? And is not that fear a rational conceptualization of Islam and its potentials? Or is it a true phobia, an irrational fear?

Trump has addressed this fear in a constitutionally sound and rational fashion. It is a different, but legal and with precedent, approach to the fear of radicalization.

I consider fear of radicalization to be cowering in a corner so as not to poke the python in the room. The python is in control, unless enough courage is summoned to deal effectively with the python. We can either live in fear of the python (who breeds ever more pythons), or we can deal with it in a courageous fashion.

I choose the latter. I refuse to live in a python pit.

Don't bother with any discrimination/racist charges: Islam is not a race; it is a worldview based on a closed, discriminatory Narrative with violent overtones.

Stan said...

The ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union. Civil liberties are contained in the US Constitution, including the tenth amendment.

It is my observation that the ACLU tends strongly to fight for only those liberties which are beneficial to the Left at the moment. They took NO actions to prevent the racial discrimination in Ferguson (for example). Ferguson exploded when it could have been prevented with a legal intervention. How many more Fergusons are out there?

Where is the evidence that the ACLU is beneficial to, say, ghetto blacks BEFORE the ghetto blacks have to demonstrate/riot? It's a legitimate question, there might be some evidence. But I doubt it.

Keep in mind the history of civil rights in the US: the Democrats fought the civil war to prevent civil rights for blacks. The Democrats asserted Jim Crow laws and spawned the KKK to suppress civil rights for blacks from 1865 to 1964. The Democrat majority fought the 1964 Civil Rights bill, which was, like all Civil Rights Bills before it, passed by Republican majorities. The Democrat president, LBJ, took credit for passing that Civil Rights Bill, and from that time on the Democrats have claimed civil rights as their program, and claimed that Republicans are the racists.

As the Democrats have gone ever Leftward, the blue model has continued with suppression of blacks in major ghetto areas by eviscerating their educations with Victimhood and Egalitarian tropes, and not reading writing, 'rithmatic, leaving them to fail in their attempts to assimilate outside the ghettos.

Get some Thomas Sowell books; he gives data and analytics on this subject. Of course he won't make Leftists happy, but Oh Well.

Stan said...

Hugo,
I finally read the link you provided. Let's summarize the data there.

In November:
Harassment of Islamics: 17 incidents
Shootings of Americans: 34 shot.

Hm. 2:1, in favor of Islamics.

OK, that's not what the article was about, exactly. But there is this fact: this will only increase as the Islamic mosques continue to increase, to speak in arabic, and to import more of them.

And this fact: we know with empirical certainty that you can work next to jihadis who were vetted 6 times and still not know that they really really really want to kill you. Because of their strict and correct interpretation of Qur'anic Islam.

Stan said...

Oops, correction: 35 Americans shot by Islamics in November.

Hugo Pelland said...

. Shame Meme; what is that? What comes to mind though is the fact that you're the one with a blog whose main purpose is to expose, shame, a particular set of positions, but not support yours. But I would rather say it's just a discussion, not a shaming competition either way...

. There's no Constitutional right for non-US citizen, true, the process of immigration, heck just visitation, is already complex and overly regulated in the US though. But fear of letting a few bad Muslim apples makes it even tougher on moderate Muslims to enter, some of which are fleeing violence. Canada is welcoming a lot more refugees per capita than the US. Nothing will happen...

. The concept of preventing radicalisation applies both at home and abroad. Some terror attacks are done by home grown terrorists who are sick and tired of being margalized because of their religion and/or color of their skin. Their responses are even worse, much worse sometimes, but it doesn't excuse some of Trump's ideas, which are absurd.

. Because yes, he did propose some anti-constitutional things, such as removing the citizenship of people born in the US. And he also proposes blocking more than just immigration but also traveling, based on one's religion. When you get even Dick Cheney to call out Trump on this, I mean... that's not the Left anymore.

. The pythons analogy is great, because it shows what's wrong here: Muslims are seen as a group of pythons, living in a python pit. But why can't we try to, instead, see that there are actually mostly non venomous snakes around? And then ask: sure, snakes are bad pets, but is it enough of a reason to ban them? There are lot of other bad pets out there and we manage to all live together, mostly...

In short... being extreme doesn't help reducing extremism, of any kind. Unfortunately, why does it seem like you are buying a lot of extreme rethoric?

Stan said...

”Nothing will happen... ”

That’s a brave prophesy. Let’s hope you’re right. Canada has supported at least some terrorists who were captured as they entered the US – from Montreal, as I recall.

”Trump's ideas, which are absurd.”

Well, the Panama Canal was absurd; fighting two wars, Europe / Pacific was absurd; landing on the moon in less than a decade was absurd; incarcerating 120,000 Japanese-American Citizens was absurd; we could list absurdities that came to fruition all night. The more direct judgment would be: are the ideas legal? Have they any precedents in American history? The answers being yes, and yes. The USA has done far more radical and absurd things than what Trump proposes..

”. Because yes, he did propose some anti-constitutional things, such as removing the citizenship of people born in the US.”

I don’t think so. I think he said to stop creating anchor babies, which are used as a loop-hole around legal immigration. What that entails is to return illegal aliens who are 8.8 months pregnant to their own homeland to give birth, and then allow them to use the legal immigration system. It would take a Constitutional amendment to change that statement to its proper meaning. Here is the clause:

Amendment XIV, Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Note the two qualifiers: jurisdiction, and residence in a state. Because of those qualifiers, it is not constitutionally guaranteed that babies born to illegal aliens are automatically citizens. To claim otherwise is to make a claim against the actual wording in the text.

I'll modify the analogy to fit your extensions: you are in a room with many snakes, and some of them are deadly poisonous and hate humans, but you don't know which ones because they all look exactly alike. You feel that it is worth the risk to you to be nice to all the snakes, because snakes have rights to come into your room, too. And besides, some snakes are friendly, ya know.

”Unfortunately, why does it seem like you are buying a lot of extreme rethoric?”

Right off hand I’d say that it’s because you, like the Left, choose to interpret the US Constitution in manners which are outside of the boundaries drawn in the actual text. Or that you feel that the US Constitution is not a binding document, despite the swearing of elected officials to uphold it. Or that you just don’t care about the US Constitution because it doesn’t fit your progressive worldview (that’s the most common reason, I’d say).




Hugo Pelland said...

"That’s a brave prophesy. Let’s hope you’re right. Canada has supported at least some terrorists who were captured as they entered the US – from Montreal, as I recall."

True, I can only hope, but the fact that our Prime Minister stopped the bombing in the Middle East and personally went to the airport to welcome the first batch of refugees sends the right message to the moderate Muslims, who are the majority.

And yes, also true, there were a few radicals from Montréal who were found to be ISIS supporters. This actually triggered a complex issue with some guy who was using a school's classroom for Islamic studies. It was found that some of these guys who turned radicals attended some his class. He personally did not know them but was banned from using the classrooms. There was an interview where he looked both good and bad at the same time, because he was right to be annoyed that he would not be allowed to have a meeting group, but he was also unnecessarily aggressive with the interviewer who kept asking stupid questions such as 'but are you in favor of beheading people?' Instead of just calmly saying 'No, I am against violence in general', which he did mention, he got agitated because of the questions... Again, he was right to be agitated, he does not need to dissociate himself from the actions of radicals, but he was also wrong in not keeping his cool. People judge by appearance a lot, we all do, so it would have been smarter of him to show how Muslims can be down to Earth and smart. In response, some people said he should get the hell out and go home if he's not happy... but he is a 20-year Canadian citizen, so he is already home.

"Note the two qualifiers: jurisdiction, and residence in a state. Because of those qualifiers, it is not constitutionally guaranteed that babies born to illegal aliens are automatically citizens. To claim otherwise is to make a claim against the actual wording in the text"

Interesting... so the part stating "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means that they are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" because they were born of illegal immigrants and thus never citizen in the first place? I did not know that... and I am not sure it means what you want it to mean.

Because, what about cases where the kids grew up in the US, went through all of high school, only to find out they don't have a SSN and cannot apply to college. Should they also be kicked out? To go where?

That's the big problem I see here... what kind of other requirements would be used if not the place of birth? Would there be a delay?

Hugo Pelland said...

"Right off hand I’d say that it’s because you, like the Left, choose to interpret the US Constitution in manners which are outside of the boundaries drawn in the actual text. Or that you feel that the US Constitution is not a binding document, despite the swearing of elected officials to uphold it. Or that you just don’t care about the US Constitution because it doesn’t fit your progressive worldview (that’s the most common reason, I’d say). "

Well, I heard Americans, just like you, make the exact same comments but they disagree with you, so I am just looking at both sides and I don't see why your interpretation is necessarily the best. Also, that's not really what I meant regarding being 'extreme'. It's more about this notion that ALL Muslims are to be suspected. So, to use your analogy:

"you are in a room with many snakes, and some of them are deadly poisonous and hate humans, but you don't know which ones because they all look exactly alike"

That's the problem. They don't, by default, look like anything special. There happen to be more poisonous snakes among Muslims, statistically, but it's way too extreme to say that they all look exactly alike and we should thus be suspicious of ALL of them. So yes, I would rather do this:

"You feel that it is worth the risk to you to be nice to all the snakes, because snakes have rights to come into your room, too. And besides, some snakes are friendly, ya know."

But also not as extreme as you put it here. I tell you, you exaggerate on both sides... because it's not about being 'nice' to all; it's about applying the same rigorous mechanisms of selection to all, regardless of their religion. Because MOST snakes are friendly, but ALL snakes, and ALL other animals, have poisonous members among their ranks and that's what we should fight against. Trying to fight an entire species, all the snakes, is not helping anything. I think... do you agree at least with some of that or it's too soft? I am curious honestly...

Phoenix said...

It's true, not all muslims are terrorists but most muslims give the terrorists their moral support. Whenever "moderate" muslims appear to condemn terror attacks, it is always done with some reservation and once again the victims are to be implicated. For example, muslims will say that Al Qaeda does not represent Islam and is a bad ideology and in the same breath they'll either blame the US for sponsoring Al Qaeda or they'll remind us of the Crusades and Inquisition.

We too should remind muslims that we are banned from becoming citizens of Saudi Arabia, building churches and practising our religions in public and that jews are not allowed to even enter the country or fly overhead the "holy" cities of Mecca and Medina.

Stan said...

”Because MOST snakes are friendly, but ALL snakes, and ALL other animals, have poisonous members among their ranks and that's what we should fight against. Trying to fight an entire species, all the snakes, is not helping anything. I think... do you agree at least with some of that or it's too soft? I am curious honestly...”

Are you seriously saying that you would share a space with creatures as venomous as a black mamba, just because you refuse to get all the snakes out of your space and into their own environment? When the snakes crawl under the sheets with you, (analogy to the San Bernardino workplace, Fort Hood, recruiter station, etc), you would rather guess that it is a friendly rather than a black mamba type killer?

Or is it more that you are willing – a la Scott Adams – to sacrifice others’ lives at the altar of “universal tolerance for all behaviors” (*) because you don’t seriously think your life is in danger? Personally I think that position, which actually is the minority position in the USA, is very cold.

*Except dissent, of course. Your exception to dissent was to assert moral “shame” first, then to assert non-specific "absurdity".

”Because MOST snakes are friendly, but ALL snakes, and ALL other animals, have poisonous members among their ranks and that's what we should fight against. Trying to fight an entire species, all the snakes, is not helping anything. I think... do you agree at least with some of that or it's too soft? I am curious honestly...”

I do not agree with that, not because of “softness”, but because it doesn’t acknowledge the true character of Islam, meaning the entire [set::Islam]. Friendly Islamists/peaceful Islamists are not considered True Islamists by many of the other factions within the {set:: Islam]. The "friendly/peaceful" faction are, in fact, condemned to Hell in the Qur’an. They are apostates, and as apostates they are to be punished with death. Apostates are hated even more than outsiders by those who adhere to Qur'anic verse as it is actually written (rather than re-interpreted). This has not been the kill issue so far, because the killers use the apostates as convenient cover. And by supporting the apostates, the outsiders are being “useful idiots” who are also being anti-rational dupes in support of Jihad.

Stan said...


There will be a time when ISIS or something like it will start to attack other Muslims in the west. Right now that’s not their focus in the west. But by even casually observing the middle east one can see factions within the [set::Islam] killing each other virtually every day. And these days they have escalated from Sunni/Shia slaughter to Sunni Qur’anics/Sunni Apostate slaughter – as well as all non-Sunni Quranics. (Not to mention the enslavement of women for sex slaves, and the enslavement of children for general slavery, including warfare).

Your statement above presumes what I feel is a false equivalence between unconnected sets. While it is true that probably every “social set” contains bad/evil elements, right now the [set::Islam] has bad elements which are demonstrably far more destructive and evil than any other set I can think of (except possibly for their enablers, such as the unelected PC diktat element of the EU in Brussels).

In a codependent relationship (enabler/addict) both parties are responsible for the situation, and both parties must be held responsible. The Left and Islamic radicals are codependent. (E.g. the Left always supports Palestinian atrocities and condemns Israeli response; The Palestinians mouth compatible Leftist principles to which they do not adhere, but which encourage Leftist support). And the "friendly" Islamics are both enablers and targets.

As Phoenix points out above, most Islamic controlled regimes (or environments, if you will) are totally closed, unyielding and intolerant. That is consistent with the Qur’an and the Prophet.

What do you feel when you hear Islamic Imams living in Europe claim, “we will outbreed you and ultimately overtake and destroy your culture as we install Sharia”? All semblance of tolerance will be closed out; women demoted to property, homosexuals killed by fire or being thrown off buildings, all free thinking and Atheism will summarily be wiped out. This is not speculation. It is based on empirical, if inductive only, observation. But the deduction is simple and logical; none of [set::Islam] is actually compatible with western standards. (I suspect that is why Islam is so readily accepted by violent prisoners in US prisons: they are not compatible with conventional US liberalism but they are compatible with the presumption of being part of a dictatorship.)

Frankly, I think this is a valuable conversation; it matches some of the national controversy. Thanks for the civil exchange. And if you have better analogies than mine, go ahead and detail them. All analogies fail at some point, some sooner than others. But they can be useful before the point of failure.

Hugo Pelland said...

I also think this was very valuable talking points and, from my point of view, I think we agree a lot more than you seem to think. We disgree only on 1 detail really: the proportion of radicals among the 1+ Billion Muslim population. This informs how we think we should approach the current issues of refugees, visitation and immigration.

So, I will leave at that for now. Thanks!