Republican Newsletter Calls For "Armed Revolution"

[Trotskylvania]

Yours are just totally out of touch with reality, and far more numerous.

No true Scotsman, right?

"We don't have any extremists!"

"Really? What about Fred Phelps?"

"Um...He's not a TRUE Democrat."

Extremists in your party believes black people can only get lower grades, that's why they made affirmative action. Your party treats poor minorities like pets and not responsible adults who can lead successful lives.

Quo usque tandem abutere, Mongol Ilkhanate, patientia nostra?

Numerous problems with your post. First of all, I simply stated the truism that at this moment, the amount of left-wing extremists of any kind is very small. They also have a tendency to shun violence for a naive faith in pacifism. I never stated we don't have extremists, nor did Fred Phelps ever enter into this conversation.

But let's look at Fred Phelps. His party registration is irrelevant, because the politics he espouses with the WBC are reactionary right-wing. All his registration status means is that he at one time voted in a Democratic primary and hasn't since changed it.

Furthermore, I am not a Democrat, and I have no love for the Democratic Party. I ted to think they're naive and misguided at best. But in no way do they consider minorities to be "pets" or believe they can only get lower grades.

There's no point in trying to be nice about it, since you've already thrown the gauntlet. You're an abusive jerk who continues to survive on this forum only because the Moderators don't want to deal with the bawing that would come from banning your trolling ass. Unfortunately, reactionaries like you have become rather mainstream in America, so we're forced to suffer your ignorance out of a misguided feeling of fairness. Enemies of open societies like yourself have no place at the table in any sane society. Because you're just a short step away from Freikorps

[Gauntleted Fist]

You've never heard of the Weather Underground, have you? No? How about Mao's Great Leap Forward? Stalin's Purges? Pol Pot? Robespierre's Reign of Terror? Don't pretend like your ideology is squeaky clean.

None of those were perpetuated by Progressives in the United States.

Hi, eugenics.

[Trotskylvania]

None of those were perpetuated by Progressives in the United States.

Hi, eugenics.

They were hardly the only ones.

[Maurepas]

None of those were perpetuated by Progressives in the United States.

Hi, eugenics.

Eugenics? I was unaware of it ever being officially implemented in the United States.

Not that the post I was responding to mentioned Eugenics at all of course.

[Gauntleted Fist]

Hi, eugenics.

Eugenics? I was unaware of it ever being officially implemented in the United States.

Not that the post I was responding to mentioned Eugenics at all of course.

But it does involve Progressives in the United States not being squeaky clean.

Also you've never read about the history of California, have you? Very forced sterilization happy. Nazi Germany used their eugenics program as a model, even! They complemented eugenics programs in the US quite thoroughly.

They were hardly the only ones.

Of course not. Eugenics was one of the few things many Americans agreed upon. (A very large majority by today's standards.)

Fascinating. And repulsive.

[Maurepas]

Eugenics? I was unaware of it ever being officially implemented in the United States.

Not that the post I was responding to mentioned Eugenics at all of course.

But it does involve Progressives in the United States not being squeaky clean.

Well I wouldn't say Progressives are squeaky clean, nobody is squeaky clean, just that the idea that any of the things mentioned in that post have any bearing at all on the United States or on the fact that Conservatives often call for some form of armed insurrection in the US, is ludicrous.

[Antoniland]

Conservatives advocating the use of violence to achieve their ends. What else is new?

You've never heard of the Weather Underground, have you? No? How about Mao's Great Leap Forward? Stalin's Purges? Pol Pot? Robespierre's Reign of Terror? Don't pretend like your ideology is squeaky clean.

I believe that violence should only be used for self defense. Conservatives on the other hand admire the violent war that gained us independence (I think it could have been solved peacefully) and they love rattling their war swords when a country even remotely opposes our policies. I am not talking about all conservatives of course but it seems to be most conservatives.

[Silent Majority]

You've never heard of the Weather Underground, have you? No? How about Mao's Great Leap Forward? Stalin's Purges? Pol Pot? Robespierre's Reign of Terror? Don't pretend like your ideology is squeaky clean.

I believe that violence should only be used for self defense. Conservatives on the other hand admire the violent war that gained us independence (I think it could have been solved peacefully) and they love rattling their war swords when a country even remotely opposes our policies. I am not talking about all conservatives of course but it seems to be most conservatives.

Nah, it's just a vocal minority.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

No true Scotsman, right?

"We don't have any extremists!"

"Really? What about Fred Phelps?"

"Um...He's not a TRUE Democrat."

Extremists in your party believes black people can only get lower grades, that's why they made affirmative action. Your party treats poor minorities like pets and not responsible adults who can lead successful lives.

Quo usque tandem abutere, Mongol Ilkhanate, patientia nostra?

Numerous problems with your post. First of all, I simply stated the truism that at this moment, the amount of left-wing extremists of any kind is very small. They also have a tendency to shun violence for a naive faith in pacifism. I never stated we don't have extremists, nor did Fred Phelps ever enter into this conversation.

But let's look at Fred Phelps. His party registration is irrelevant, because the politics he espouses with the WBC are reactionary right-wing. All his registration status means is that he at one time voted in a Democratic primary and hasn't since changed it.

Furthermore, I am not a Democrat, and I have no love for the Democratic Party. I ted to think they're naive and misguided at best. But in no way do they consider minorities to be "pets" or believe they can only get lower grades.

There's no point in trying to be nice about it, since you've already thrown the gauntlet. You're an abusive jerk who continues to survive on this forum only because the Moderators don't want to deal with the bawing that would come from banning your trolling ass. Unfortunately, reactionaries like you have become rather mainstream in America, so we're forced to suffer your ignorance out of a misguided feeling of fairness. Enemies of open societies like yourself have no place at the table in any sane society. Because you're just a short step away from Freikorps

How interesting you should quote Cicero. First oration against Catiline? Now you're going to call me a traitor?

I think Cicero, in my position, would agree with me. Cicero, was described as a reactionary, as you have described me. He was proscribed, as I'm sure you're aware. The man gave his life fighting tyrants, trying to choose the lesser evil, the continuation of the Senate, but with it, the Tribunes of the Plebs, rather than cede power to Caesar. A man who believed that arms must cede to the toga. That in the midst of arms, law is silent. You wanting me censored, I find in that regard, funny.

[Trotskylvania]

Quo usque tandem abutere, Mongol Ilkhanate, patientia nostra?

Numerous problems with your post. First of all, I simply stated the truism that at this moment, the amount of left-wing extremists of any kind is very small. They also have a tendency to shun violence for a naive faith in pacifism. I never stated we don't have extremists, nor did Fred Phelps ever enter into this conversation.

But let's look at Fred Phelps. His party registration is irrelevant, because the politics he espouses with the WBC are reactionary right-wing. All his registration status means is that he at one time voted in a Democratic primary and hasn't since changed it.

Furthermore, I am not a Democrat, and I have no love for the Democratic Party. I ted to think they're naive and misguided at best. But in no way do they consider minorities to be "pets" or believe they can only get lower grades.

There's no point in trying to be nice about it, since you've already thrown the gauntlet. You're an abusive jerk who continues to survive on this forum only because the Moderators don't want to deal with the bawing that would come from banning your trolling ass. Unfortunately, reactionaries like you have become rather mainstream in America, so we're forced to suffer your ignorance out of a misguided feeling of fairness. Enemies of open societies like yourself have no place at the table in any sane society. Because you're just a short step away from Freikorps

How interesting you should quote Cicero. First oration against Catiline? Now you're going to call me a traitor?

I think Cicero, in my position, would agree with me. Cicero, was described as a reactionary, as you have described me. He was proscribed, as I'm sure you're aware. The man gave his life fighting tyrants, trying to choose the lesser evil, the continuation of the Senate, but with it, the Tribunes of the Plebs, rather than cede power to Caesar. A man who believed that arms must cede to the toga. That in the midst of arms, law is silent. You wanting me censored, I find in that regard, funny.

Your self-importance is wholly unwarranted. Like a child throwing a temper-tantrum, or an abusive person who contributes nothing to discussion but hurling insults and disrupting an otherwise civil atmosphere, you should be promptly shown the door.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

How interesting you should quote Cicero. First oration against Catiline? Now you're going to call me a traitor?

I think Cicero, in my position, would agree with me. Cicero, was described as a reactionary, as you have described me. He was proscribed, as I'm sure you're aware. The man gave his life fighting tyrants, trying to choose the lesser evil, the continuation of the Senate, but with it, the Tribunes of the Plebs, rather than cede power to Caesar. A man who believed that arms must cede to the toga. That in the midst of arms, law is silent. You wanting me censored, I find in that regard, funny.

Your self-importance is wholly unwarranted. Like a child throwing a temper-tantrum, or an abusive person who contributes nothing to discussion but hurling insults and disrupting an otherwise civil atmosphere, you should be promptly shown the door.

Who exactly is being insulting here? Have I attacked you, or your personality once?

[Choronzon]

If the lunatic fringe in this country wants a civil war can we just do this already so we can shut them up?

[Antoniland]

If the lunatic fringe in this country wants a civil war can we just do this already so we can shut them up?

A better thing to do is to shut that particular chapter of the Republican Party down.

[Choronzon]

If the lunatic fringe in this country wants a civil war can we just do this already so we can shut them up?

A better thing to do is to shut that particular chapter of the Republican Party down.

That wont stop either them or people like them from advocating armed revolution.

[Miss Defied]

Quo usque tandem abutere, Mongol Ilkhanate, patientia nostra?

Numerous problems with your post. First of all, I simply stated the truism that at this moment, the amount of left-wing extremists of any kind is very small. They also have a tendency to shun violence for a naive faith in pacifism. I never stated we don't have extremists, nor did Fred Phelps ever enter into this conversation.

But let's look at Fred Phelps. His party registration is irrelevant, because the politics he espouses with the WBC are reactionary right-wing. All his registration status means is that he at one time voted in a Democratic primary and hasn't since changed it.

Furthermore, I am not a Democrat, and I have no love for the Democratic Party. I ted to think they're naive and misguided at best. But in no way do they consider minorities to be "pets" or believe they can only get lower grades.

There's no point in trying to be nice about it, since you've already thrown the gauntlet. You're an abusive jerk who continues to survive on this forum only because the Moderators don't want to deal with the bawing that would come from banning your trolling ass. Unfortunately, reactionaries like you have become rather mainstream in America, so we're forced to suffer your ignorance out of a misguided feeling of fairness. Enemies of open societies like yourself have no place at the table in any sane society. Because you're just a short step away from Freikorps

How interesting you should quote Cicero. First oration against Catiline? Now you're going to call me a traitor?

Wow you can copy/paste into Google. Impressive.

[Trotskylvania]

Your self-importance is wholly unwarranted. Like a child throwing a temper-tantrum, or an abusive person who contributes nothing to discussion but hurling insults and disrupting an otherwise civil atmosphere, you should be promptly shown the door.

Who exactly is being insulting here? Have I attacked you, or your personality once?

You said people who supported affirmative action were racists and extremists.

[Erucia]

Just read my sig, and then add Democrat to the mix.

[Haktiva]

As a teenage American who's been somewhat brainwashed by violent media, has very little faith in humanity, and fantasizes constantly; this would be very interesting and possibly fun. Well as much fun as possible civil war can be, but hey; read the disclaimer.

To be honest I doubt there will be civil war, more like home grown terror attacks and martial law, which again I find interesting in a good way.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

You said people who supported affirmative action were racists and extremists.

You played a nice little sleight of hand there. I said "extremists from the democrat party believe in affirmative action". You flipped that around to be "people who believe in affirmative action are democrat extremists". Affirming the consequent.

The fact is, lowering the bar for blacks, native Americans, and so on is unfair, to them and to others. It is racist, because it takes race into consideration.

Wow you can copy/paste into Google. Impressive.

Cicero was and is my hero. I will admit I lazily copypasta'd into google translate, but I recognized the phrasing in the output and recognized where it was from immediately. BTW, Pro Roscio Amerino was one of my favorite orations ever, and one summer in high school I read the Phillipics. (Cicero's, of course, not Demosthenes')

[Trotskylvania]

You said people who supported affirmative action were racists and extremists.

You played a nice little sleight of hand there. I said "extremists from the democrat party believe in affirmative action". You flipped that around to be "people who believe in affirmative action are democrat extremists". Affirming the consequent.

The fact is, lowering the bar for blacks, native Americans, and so on is unfair, to them and to others. It is racist, because it takes race into consideration.

Uh, no. Here's the simple fact of the matter: if believing in affirmative action is the mark of an extremist, than the majority of democrats are extremists. You called them all racists and extremists, and no amount of wealing will change that.

You also, as a matter of fact, do not understand what affirming the consequent is. Affirming the consequent occurs when a simple conditional is treated as a biconditional. P therefore Q does not imply Q therefore P. That's affirming the consequent.

Besides, semantically, your two sentences are hardly different at all, since regardless, you are treating belief in affirmative action as the mark of an extremist. Hence your insinuation that they are also racists, and somehow equivalent to people calling for the violent overthrow of a democratically elected government.

[Trotskylvania]

Cicero was and is my hero. I will admit I lazily copypasta'd into google translate, but I recognized the phrasing in the output and recognized where it was from immediately. BTW, Pro Roscio Amerino was one of my favorite orations ever, and one summer in high school I read the Phillipics. (Cicero's, of course, not Demosthenes')

Funny you should mention that, since Cicero was an authoritarian opportunist par excellence. Considering that most historians consider his charges against Catiline to be entirely fabricated in the so-called "first conspiracy", as well as his unprincipled support for the tyrant Sulla.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

That's my whole point about affirming the consequent.

All democrat extremists (P) believe in affirmative action (Q).

You believe in affirmative action (Q), therefore you are a democrat extremist (P).




Here's a less obvious one.

Chairman Mao likes Wheat Thins.
You like Wheat Thins
Therefore you are Chairman Mao.

There we can clearly see the illogical nature of such a conclusion.

if believing in affirmative action is the mark of an extremist, than the majority of democrats are extremists

Show me where I said it was.

somehow equivalent to people calling for the violent overthrow of a democratically elected government.

Another sleight of hand. By that logic, we should never call people communists.

Chairman Mao and Stalin were communists who killed millions.
You are a communist
Therefore you kill millions.

Just because SOME extremists want to overthrow the US government (like the weather underground), doesn't mean ALL do.

[Socialdemokraterne]

As a teenage American who's been somewhat brainwashed by violent media, has very little faith in humanity, and fantasizes constantly; this would be very interesting and possibly fun. Well as much fun as possible civil war can be, but hey; read the disclaimer.

To be honest I doubt there will be civil war, more like home grown terror attacks and martial law, which again I find interesting in a good way.

Not even that, I expect. It's just an article by an editor who went too far. No major damage done to the republic, and no need for martial law.

[South Crapistan]

1
3. If they don't like the government which gets elected, no one is stopping them from emigrating to some third-world hellhole where they can start up their own theological junta.

I would actually oppose this. Just because a country is a "third-world hellhole" doesn't mean it's fine for us to just take over for the purposes of creating a political fantasy.

[Trotskylvania]

That's my whole point about affirming the consequent.

All democrat extremists (P) believe in affirmative action (Q).

You believe in affirmative action (Q), therefore you are a democrat extremist (P).

Except that's not what you said. You're shifting the terms of your argument because you quite transparently fucked up.

You said explicitly: "Extremists in your party believes black people can only get lower grades, that's why they made affirmative action. Your party treats poor minorities like pets and not responsible adults who can lead successful lives."

You clearly implied that the entire purpose of affirmative action was entirely racist and extremist. No consequents are being affirmed. The structure of your argument makes it clear that you group everyone who supports affimrative action as racists and extremists. Hence your comment "that's why they made affirmative action." Or the even more abusive "Your party treats minorities like pets and not responsible adults who can lead successful lives."

More properly, your argument would be something more like ∀p → ∀q, p ↔ r , r ↔ q ∴ ∀p↔r.

Biconditionallity was an inherent feature of the way you argued your points. Why else would you say that "your party treats poor minoritiesl ike pets and not responsible adults"

Show me where I said it was.

You argued affirmative action was inherently racist and extremist. You explicitly stated that the Democratic Party treats minorities like they are less than human.

Another sleight of hand. By that logic, we should never call people communists.

We're not dealing with simple syllogisms and other fairy tales you learn about in intro logic courses. The complexities of even basic arguments cannot fully be rendered by simple predicate logic. Hence, my use of first order symbols to characterize your argument.

But that's neither here nor there really, since it only pertains to your foolish attempts to use a pedestrian understanding of logic as a rhetorical cudgel. It's not sleight of hand. You brought up this whole tangent to deflect from the very topic of this thread: Republicans advocating the violent overthrow of a democratically elected government because they can't get their way.

So, shenanigans. You don't get to separate your tangent from the topic of the thread. I will drag you back to the topic whether you want it or not.