Bernie Sanders supporter fires on congressional members at GOP baseball practice

[Phantom1]

But what is a 'good' man?

Is a good man someone who'd kill for his beliefs?

Is a good man someone who respects someone's beliefs and understands the other person has rights to their own beliefs as well?

Or is a good man a man who follows the laws, and stands up for his rights and the rights of others through laws and being heard, with voice and by right rather than by possibly killing innocents?

And what is an evil man?

Is an evil man a man that doesn't share your beliefs?

Is an evil man a man that listens and doesn't act?

Good and evil are flawed concepts to begin with.

(I was a philosophy/sociology and anthropology student back in the day, shhhh)

 

[Hands]

But what is a 'good' man?

Is a good man someone who'd kill for his beliefs?

Is a good man someone who respects someone's beliefs and understands the other person has rights to their own beliefs as well?

Or is a good man a man who follows the laws, and stands up for his rights and the rights of others through laws and being heard, with voice and by right rather than by possibly killing innocents?

And what is an evil man?

Is an evil man a man that doesn't share your beliefs?

Is an evil man a man that listens and doesn't act?

Good and evil are flawed concepts to begin with.

Well my grandad was a good man and he sure as hell didn't just sit back and respect Hitler's beliefs.

Scalise is trash, racist, sexist, homophobic trash who voted against helping kids with medical insurance but happily backed companies who wanted to remove Co2 regulations on them. He's not a good man. The man who shot him believed in helping as many people as you could, in making a society that was fair and just and put human life above profit. He was a good man. I don't like that he shot a cop who was just doing his job, but if Scalise were to die from his wounds then America would wake up a better place.

 

[gimmepie]

Scalise was a terrible person sure... but shooting someone because you don't like them or disagree with them is pretty damn terrible too.

 

[Phantom1]

Well my grandad was a good man and he sure as hell didn't just sit back and respect Hitler's beliefs.

Scalise is trash, racist, sexist, homophobic trash who voted against helping kids with medical insurance but happily backed companies who wanted to remove Co2 regulations on them. He's not a good man. The man who shot him believed in helping as many people as you could, in making a society that was fair and just and put human life above profit. He was a good man. I don't like that he shot a cop who was just doing his job, but if Scalise were to die from his wounds then America would wake up a better place.

And the man that followed Hitler and shared in Hitler's beliefs thought he was a good man too. It's all subjective.

And what would shooting someone who is 'evil' do in the long run? Hm? It doesn't eliminate people that shared the same mind set. It doesn't change anything, in fact, it HURTS the cause more than it helps it. The better option would have been to discredit Scalise - to prove your own beliefs and stances in a way that doesn't bring about a bad taste in everyone's mouth. Shooting him brings other arguments to the table that will over saturate their ideals . Gun violence and terrorism being high on the list. His reasoning behind the shooting will be hid behind a curtain while people argue about gun laws. That's about it.

It's identical to the protests with BLM, they are hurting their cause more than they are aiding it.

 

[Hands]

Scalise was a terrible person sure... but shooting someone because you don't like them or disagree with them is pretty damn terrible too.

Is. He is a terrible person. Sadly he;'s recovering. Lemme put it this way. Hitler is in front of you, its 1937 and you have a gun. You just let him live right?

And the man that followed Hitler and shared in Hitler's beliefs thought he was a good man too. It's all subjective.

And what would shooting someone who is 'evil' do in the long run? Hm? It doesn't eliminate people that shared the same mind set. It doesn't change anything, in fact, it HURTS the cause more than it helps it. The better option would have been to discredit Scalise - to prove your own beliefs and stances in a way that doesn't bring about a bad taste in everyone's mouth. Shooting him brings other arguments to the table that will over saturate their ideals . Gun violence and terrorism being high on the list. His reasoning behind the shooting will be hid behind a curtain while people argue about gun laws. That's about it.

It's identical to the protests with BLM, they are hurting their cause more than they are aiding it.

I'd happily shoot any man who agrees with Hitler.

 

[gimmepie]

I'm getting really tired of the Hitler comparisons all the time tbh

Scalise is a shit stain upon the underpants of humanity but he doesn't even compare to Hitler. All you're doing right now is spouting the same kind of rhetoric you'd condemn your opposition for.

 

[Hands]

I'm getting really tired of the Hitler comparisons all the time tbh

Scalise is a **** stain upon the underpants of humanity but he doesn't even compare to Hitler. All you're doing right now is spouting the same kind of rhetoric you'd condemn your opposition for.

You're saying we should never use violence over politics, I'm asking you if you only hold that value when it suits you.

 

[Lucid]

You're saying we should never use violence over politics, I'm asking you if you only hold that value when it suits you.

I'm not disagreeing that he's a gross person, but what do you think his death would accomplish? It's not going to end his racist/prolife/sexist/homophobic rhetoric, there are a ton of guys ready to take his place with the same agenda. He doesn't weild the power of Hitler and before the shooting he wasn't widely known by name.

 

[Varius]

that's subjective. Attacking the people you put into economic desperation via the banking crash and constant attacks on the middle and working class by removing their and their family members access to affordable health care and basic assistance with the cost of living is absolutely justification for retaliation in my eyes.

There is no justification for any political violence, whether it be from cutting down the welfare state to the riots that have been happening at free speech rallies. If you can honestly justify any form of political violence (which is, by definition, terrorism), then you are defending terrorist activities.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=a.....69i57j0l5.4471j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

i mean, you're outright wrong.

Most of those riots seem to be in Italy and Greece, which happen to have really terrible economies. Terrible economies bring civil unrest, not cutting the welfare state, else there would be much more rioting in places like Poland where there is a lot less welfare.

Did he? What are you basing this on? The fact he supported Sanders? It's easier for you to believe his acts were inspired by a center left socdem who promotes non violence than it is to consider this an act against the Republicans for their behaviour and (lack of) morals? His FB has very few mentions of Bernie, however it is full of criticisms of Trump and the GOP. Including the attacks on "obamacare".

Did he read Marx? Maybe he was a fan of Malcolm X? Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Lenin, Mao or Robespierre? The link to Bernie is completely irrelevant to his actions.

Oh, I don't know, the fact that he literally wanted to shoot Republicans over political differences? That in itself is a political motivation, and it's not because of the GOP but because of rhetoric like this. I am not saying the Bernie is to blame, but instead, extreme rhetoric. There is a big difference.

well i mean anyone can check his fb and twitter and see how much this was based around the behaviour and actions of the Republican party as opposed to any inspiration from an old man who preaches calm protest.

Anyone with a normal mind wouldn't go shooting Republicans over that. Anyone who's been radicalized by rhetoric would.

 

[BlazingCobaltX]

Can I just say that I had never heard of your government parties having baseball teams until I heard this news report and I found it rather funny.

 

[gimmepie]

You're saying we should never use violence over politics, I'm asking you if you only hold that value when it suits you.

I'm saying we should never use violence over a viewpoint. If you're defending yourself against violence, have at it.

 

[Trev]

Even I'm disagreeing with you, Hands. I would take a look at my first post above and read about the Julius Ceasar production I mentioned.

 

[Hands]

I'm saying we should never use violence over a viewpoint. If you're defending yourself against violence, have at it.

And I'm saying that that's your viewpoint. As far as I'm concerned forcing millions of Americans into a situation where many will die of completely treatable illnesses is violence. Reducing help for children and lowering their quality of life is violence. Removing hate crime protections for LBGT people is violence.

"Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people who were oppressing them." - Assata Shakur

The difference between us really is if I was in Cuba in the 50s I'd of followed Castro to my death and I'd of had no qualms taking Batista's followers with me. Peaceful protest has achieved nothing in America. POC are still second class citizens, women are still second class citizens, the poor are still subject to almost Victorian conditions, schools are still shot up at an alarming rate (whilst the republicans repeatedly deny there is a gun epidemic in America) and the sick are still left to die in one of the richest countries in the world because the minimum wage doesn't come close to covering basic costs, never mind medical insurance. You're either a nuisance of little importance who might get some token appeasement or you're a threat that they take so seriously they'll change almost anything to stop you. I'd rather be the threat.

Even I'm disagreeing with you, Hands. I would take a look at my first post above and read about the Julius Ceasar production I mentioned.

As much as I value your opinion Trev it is genuinely of little importance to me if people agree with me or not.

There is no justification for any political violence, whether it be from cutting down the welfare state to the riots that have been happening at free speech rallies. If you can honestly justify any form of political violence (which is, by definition, terrorism), then you are defending terrorist activities.

Sure if you want to be deliberately disingenuous instead of providing a real counter, I'm defending terrorism. I mean, you've wildly skewed the definition but instead of humoring you with facts again I'll just take your bluff.

Greece rioted because of austerity, as did France, as will Britain. You keep attacking the poorest in society then they will one day fight back.

 

[Trev]

It's not just my opinion. It's entirely relevant to the conversation. The production literally says that those who defend democracy through undemocratic means destroy what they want to protect. That's exactly what this guy did.

 

[Hands]

It's not just my opinion. It's entirely relevant to the conversation. The production literally says that those who defend democracy through undemocratic means destroy what they want to protect. That's exactly what this guy did.

"I believe that there will ultimately be a clash between the oppressed and those that do the oppressing. I believe that there will be a clash between those who want freedom, justice and equality for everyone and those who want to continue the systems of exploitation." — Malcolm X

This has been a long time coming. Understand this, if nothing else. Robespierre is a hero of mine, Malcolm X is a hero of mine, Fidel Castro is a hero of mine, Lenin is a hero of mine, Nadezhda Krupskaya is a hero of mine. All of these people have something in common. They fought, and were willing to kill if necessary, for a better tomorrow for the people, not for themselves. America is the only country in the developed world where it is ok to gun down a man for the crime of being black. The establishment have always been violent to the poor, Scalise is far from an innocent man. The right wing have thrived on the deaths and misery of the working class and the poor, so excuse me for not shedding a tear when the oppressed and their allies decide enough is enough.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-scalise-crystal-griner_us_59490f1ee4b0cddbb0095752

The greatest irony of all is a black, queer woman (three groups Scalise has spent his political life oppressing and attempting to do his utmost to harm) saved his life. Her life will continue to get worse because of who she is, how she looks and whats between her legs and it'll be people like the waste she just saved who ensure this reality. The left have taken the route of unconditional tolerance and kindness for too long now. Scalise didn't deserve to be saved. Call me wrong all you want, but when someone like Scalise's votes leaves some of you homeless and without access to basic medical care, come and tell old Uncle Hands how much better you are than me for turning the other cheek whilst your families starve. Come and show me how much being decent to these wastes has benefited your lives.

 

[Varius]

Sure if you want to be deliberately disingenuous instead of providing a real counter, I'm defending terrorism. I mean, you've wildly skewed the definition but instead of humoring you with facts again I'll just take your bluff.

Greece rioted because of austerity, as did France, as will Britain. You keep attacking the poorest in society then they will one day fight back.

I'm not being disingenuous here. You are defending a domestic terrorist, and there is no "wildly skewed definition". Just about any dictionary you open will say that terrorism is something as so:

the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

So please tell me, if Hodgekins went out and used an unlawful form of violence to go kill some civilians (Scalise and some other congressmen) in pursuit of a political motive, is it not terrorism by definition?

Also, from what I am seeing from those Anti-Austerity Riots from looking it up, most of the riots seem to be in Greece and we both know their economy is going down the shitter. Otherwise, most of the other riots were outliers to the protests. Where are the protests in the Eastern European countries with much less welfare and unemployment benefits?

 

[Hands]

I'm not being disingenuous here. You are defending a domestic terrorist, and there is no "wildly skewed definition". Just about any dictionary you open will say that terrorism is something as so:



So please tell me, if Hodgekins went out and used an unlawful form of violence to go kill some civilians (Scalise and some other congressmen) in pursuit of a political motive, is it not terrorism by definition?

Also, from what I am seeing from those Anti-Austerity Riots from looking it up, most of the riots seem to be in Greece and we both know their economy is going down the ****ter. Otherwise, most of the other riots were outliers to the protests. Where are the protests in the Eastern European countries with much less welfare and unemployment benefits?

So why did no one call Oswald a terrorist? Why is no one calling the US Terrorists for their 600+ attempts on Castro's life?

Eastern European countries like Poland that have seem mass exoduses of their populations and Ukraine that had an outright civil war?

 

[Varius]

So why did no one call Oswald a terrorist? Why is no one calling the US Terrorists for their 600+ attempts on Castro's life?

Eastern European countries like Poland that have seem mass exoduses of their populations and Ukraine that had an outright civil war?

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure most people agree that Oswald is a terrorist and an assassin. Now, for Fidel Castro, from what I understand from the time, he was technically the leader of the military as well which technically makes him a military leader, not civilian.

Plus, you know, he sided with the Soviet Union, which we were at conflict with.

Ukraine's Civil War was due to Russian separatists and not over social welfare. Poland has a mass migration originally had a crap economy due to them getting out of a failing economic system. Despite their economically terrible start, Poland is starting to have their population growth rate go back into a positive rate (it's currently at 0%).

 

[twocows]

According to White House statements, Trump never actually visited Scalise. Its very disappointing.

IDK if anyone mentioned it, but that was retracted. Trump did, in fact, visit Scalise.

 

[Esper]

The general position that Hands is taking on the use of violence isn't necessarily a bad one. It's definitely conditional on how you view the current state of the American government (or any government that you want to look at). Because Americans are generally down with the idea that a bad government can or should be taken down by force if it's necessary. I'm not normally an advocate for violence, but I also think that, if it is in fact necessary, that violence could be beneficial. Key word is "necessary." I don't know that I'd say it's at that point yet.

I think that's difference among most people, how bad they think the government is. Because the amount of violence that is warranted is conditional on the amount of harm that it stops, but it is also conditional on the amount of harm done through the use of violence. The damage that a government is doing has got to outweigh the damage that you do by using violence. If someone turns to violence because their taxes go up 0.5% that's a disproportional response and it just makes that person and people like them seem crazy and violent. If someone turns to violence because the government arrested members of their family without good cause and tortured them I would be much more sympathetic personally, but I would still worry about how they use violence and who or what they target with it.

Example time: In the 60s and 70s there was a group called the Weathermen (later Weather Underground) who used bombings of government buildings as protests (mostly toward elements of the Vietnam war). An important thing they did was to warn people ahead of time that they were going to bomb a particular building. Because of that the only people who were harmed by their actions were some of their own members who died in an accident. That example might still seem extreme, but given that over a million died because of that war, which also saw many war crimes and other atrocities, it might not seem as extreme.