Left is mean but right is meaner, says new study of political discourse

Feb 11, 2011

While the tragic shooting in Arizona has spotlighted the vitriol that seems to pervade political commentary, objective research examining the scope of this disturbing phenomenon has been lacking. In the first published study of its kind, social scientists at Tufts University's School of Arts and Sciences have found that outrage talk is endemic among commentators of all political stripes, but measurably worse on the political right, and is more prevalent than it was even during the turmoil of the war in Viet Nam and the Watergate scandal.

In their study, Tufts Assistant Professor of Sociology Sarah Sobieraj and Professor of Political Science Jeffrey Berry systematically scrutinized what they call "outrage talk" in leading talk radio, cable news analysis, political blogs and newspaper columns. Their findings, "From Incivility to Outrage: Political Discourse in Blogs, Talk Radio, and Cable News," appear in the February 2011 issue of the journal Political Communication, available online February 8.

The term "outrage talk" refers to a form of political discourse involving efforts to provoke visceral responses, such as anger, righteousness, fear or moral indignation, through the use of overgeneralizations, sensationalism, misleading or patently inaccurate information, ad hominem attacks and partial truths about opponents.

The Tufts scientists' analysis of both ideologically conservative and liberal content revealed that outrage talk, often infused with hateful terminology and imagery, is pervasive, not just an occasional emotional eruption.

During a 10-week period in the spring of 2009, four researchers reviewed evening cable TV, national radio talk shows, ideological and mainstream newspaper columns for 13 variables, such as insulting language, name calling and misrepresentative exaggeration. Researchers also judged overall tone of each sample and proportion of outrage language.

Almost 9 out of 10 cases sampled, or 89.6 percent, contained at least one outrage incident. One hundred percent of TV episodes and 98.8 percent of talk radio programs contained outrage incidents, while 82.8 percent of blog posts incorporated outrage writing. In some cases, outrage speech or behavior occurred at a rate of more than one instance per minute.

More Outrageous: Liberals or Conservatives?

When it comes to inflammatory language, is one side really worse than the other? Yes, found the Tufts researchers: "Our data indicate that the right uses decidedly more outrage speech than the left. Taken as a whole, liberal content is quite nasty in character, following the outrage model of emotional, dramatic and judgment-laden speech. Conservatives, however, are even nastier."

The data showed the political right engaging in an average of 15.57 outrage acts per case, while the left engaged in 10.32 acts per case.

However, as Sobieraj and Berry noted, although the left and right do not use outrage equally, they use it in ways that are remarkably similar.

"Whether it's MSNBC's Keith Olbermann spitting out his coffee because of some conservative transgression or radio host Michael Savage venomously impugning the character of immigrants, cable television, talk radio and blogs overflow with outrage rhetoric, and even mainstream newspaper columns are not above the fray," they said.

New: Outrage in Newspapers

Unexpectedly the Tufts researchers found that outrage language is now common among the nation's leading newspaper columnists. To determine whether this outrage is new, or simply more of the same, Sobieraj and Berry studied 10 widely syndicated columnists during 10-week periods in both 1955 and 1975. They chose these dates to see if the tumultuous period of the civil rights movement, the Vietnam War protests and the Watergate scandal led to greater outrage in newspapers at that time. They found the answer was no.

"Outrage is virtually absent from both the 1955 and the 1975 columns, in contrast to the columns of 2009 which contain, on average, nearly six instances of outrage per column," said the Tufts scholars. "The titans of American journalism in 1955 and 1975 remained restrained in their language despite the impassioned politics of protest."

In contrast, according to the researchers, today's model of outrage-oriented political commentary succeeds because of an increasingly polarized populace and content providers facing an incredibly competitive environment who are desperate to attract audience members and in turn advertisers.

Whether outrage is ultimately corrosive, constructive or both to the health of democracy is still an unanswered question, said the authors.

Explore further: Decoding ethnic labels

Provided by Tufts University

3.9 /5 (25 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Outrage follows strict Calif. smoking ban

Jan 29, 2007

A proposed strict ordinance seriously limiting the places one can smoke cigarettes in Belmont has caused outrage among many throughout the California city.

Australian kangaroo cull prompts outrage

Oct 02, 2009

The culling of some 140 kangaroos on one of Australia's most famous race car tracks prompted outrage Friday from environmentalists and animal rights activists.

Recommended for you

Congressional rift over environment influences public

7 hours ago

American citizens are increasingly divided over the issue of environmental protection and seem to be taking their cue primarily from Congress, finds new research led by a Michigan State University scholar.

Decoding ethnic labels

Jul 30, 2014

If you are of Latin American descent, do you call yourself Chicano? Latino? Hispanic?

Local education politics 'far from dead'

Jul 29, 2014

Teach for America, known for recruiting teachers, is also setting its sights on capturing school board seats across the nation. Surprisingly, however, political candidates from the program aren't just pushing ...

First grade reading suffers in segregated schools

Jul 29, 2014

A groundbreaking study from the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute (FPG) has found that African-American students in first grade experience smaller gains in reading when they attend segregated schools—but the ...

User comments : 100

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Quantum_Conundrum
1.4 / 5 (19) Feb 11, 2011
You want to know what is outrageous?

The murder and abortion rates in America and the rest of the "civilized" world.

It is an outrage that blacks finally got their freedoms, and now they exercise their "right" to kill their own offspring 30% of the time.

It is an outrage that ten guys stood around and watched while another 10 took turns raping a girl...in America...and I haven't heard ANYTHING on any of them having been prosecuted.

It is an outrage that a guy who guns down nearly 20 people with hundreds of eye-witnesses is still awaiting a trial and considered an "alleged" gunman, as if there were any question as to whether or not he did this...
RHaston
4.3 / 5 (9) Feb 11, 2011
Let me guess - your comments?

How about we get rid of advertising as a way to fund news? We need information providers, not sensation providers.

As the report said, the media today aren't providing information, they selling eyeballs to their sponsors, who strive to get us to spend money we don't have to buy things we don't need in the vain attempt to impress people we don't know.

Now that's outrageous.

ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (8) Feb 11, 2011
And Tufts is unbiased?
They should compare this with the political discourse of the Jefferson Adams campaigns.
PinkElephant
4.9 / 5 (11) Feb 11, 2011
The consumer gets what the consumer wants. The rest of the consumers no longer watch the "news", because the shallowness and the vitriol are sickening.
Doug57
5 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2011
This synopsis is inadequate to review the study's methods so an independent assessment can be made of the reported conclusions.
Author: We are more intelligent than this. Details please. Details.
At least provide a link to the original study in full text.
geokstr
2.2 / 5 (15) Feb 11, 2011
Right. A group of "unbiased" "objective" "non-partisan" "non-political" "social scientists" (98% of whom lean left) finds that rightwing fascist racist Hilterites are more mean than the flower children on their own side.

Puke.
Thrasymachus
3.3 / 5 (16) Feb 11, 2011
1st rule of dogmatism: when the facts contradict your beliefs, deny the facts. Of course, I'd like to see a link to the study itself as well, but it won't really matter, because political thinking and discourse in this country has devolved to the point where anybody who produces unwanted facts is automatically an agent of the other side. At least, the discourse that seems to drive actual policy.

I also appreciated the finding that blogs were generally more reserved than TV and radio pundits. It seems that bit of "common wisdom" that blogs were too vitriolic pushed by the TV and radio pundits turns out to be as true as all the other outrage bunk they try to push on us.
PinkElephant
4.3 / 5 (12) Feb 11, 2011
@geokstr,

Was that supposed to be a sample from the study's data set?

Actually, I don't mean to pick on you personally. I'd say of the above 7 posts (including one of mine), 6 demonstrate outrage of some kind, and 3 out of those 6 demonstrate right-wing outrage (whereas perhaps 3 others are expressing something like centrism.) The right-wing ones (including your own) do sound a lot angrier.

Pretty much in line with the study's findings ;)
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (8) Feb 11, 2011
More data for the 'researchers':
"Just after the election of 2006, Cusack said conservatives "speak for all that is cruel and stupid and vicious in the American character. They are the racists and hate mongers among us - they are the Ku Klux Klan." He added: "I piss down the throats of these Nazis."

Read more: http:/newsbusters.org/blogs/dan-gainor/2011/02/11/gainor-column-journalism-dying-and-newsies-decide-nowhere-left-go#ixzz1DiLy8saW
"
ArtflDgr
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2011
I wonder if they weeded out trolls from their political blog scans for language. their coding for specific phrases implies they did word search counts.

if so, they would have not weeded out the vitriol form trolling leftists, which is a constant and they tend to use the phrases there more than on their own sites.

[as to the klan, they were the thugs of the democrats against the radical republicans. hayes tilden election. see google for knights of the white camelia and their efforts to stop all republican voting in landry parish. you can also find the testimony to congress of a pinkerston (or some name close to that but not pinkerton) who was mutilated and left for dead but lived. almost no one voted republican in those parishes]
ekim
4.4 / 5 (14) Feb 12, 2011
You want to know what is outrageous?

We're all ears.

The murder and abortion rates in America and the rest of the "civilized" world.

Compared to the uncivilized world? Where is that exactly?

It is an outrage that blacks finally got their freedoms, and now they exercise their "right" to kill their own offspring 30% of the time.

Sounds racist without facts to back it up.

It is an outrage that ten guys stood around and watched while another 10 took turns raping a girl...in America...and I haven't heard ANYTHING on any of them having been prosecuted.

Links to stories are nice.

It is an outrage that a guy who guns down nearly 20 people with hundreds of eye-witnesses is still awaiting a trial and considered an "alleged" gunman, as if there were any question as to whether or not he did this...

This is the law. Innocent until proven guilty, and it's not like he is walking free. He is behind bars and will probably be there the rest of his life.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2011
"Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals. "
http:/www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html?_r=1&ref=johntierney
How biased are the Tufts researchers?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2011
(can't edit)
"If a group circles around sacred values, they will evolve into a tribal-moral community," he said. "They’ll embrace science whenever it supports their sacred values, but they’ll ditch it or distort it as soon as it threatens a sacred value." {sounds like AGWites, too}

http:/www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html?_r=1&ref=johntierney
SteveL
4 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2011
You know, it seems a misnomer when the likes of Rush L., Michael S. and Ann C. are grouped with "conservatives". I consider myself a conservative, but I find little in common with thier outrageous and inflammatory talk. Republicans, yes - but I certainly don't consider them to be "conservative".

Conservative is an attitude and a mindset where you think of the consequences before you open your pie hole. A conservative shouldn't attempt to confront and be combative unless they simply have to because they are supposed to realize that confrontive discource is nearly always a waste of time and energy.
SteveL
4.2 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2011
Psychologists were also used heavily in pre-WWII Germany by the National Socialist party (Nazi) to convince the public that the Gypsies, Blacks, Jews and other "inferior" races were breeding like rats and deserved to be removed from the face of the earth. If that is an example of "tribal-moral community" I want none of it.
geokstr
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 12, 2011
Well, Pinko, let's reverse this scenario. Let's say a few rightwing "social scientists" (yes, I know that they're more rare than unicorns, but just for the sake of argument) put out a study that reached the conclusion that leftlings were much meaner than righties.

Of course, your moderate and centrist opinion would be the first to comment here on how reasonable that all seems right? Non? Why am I not surprised?

I've seen enough of your comments to know that you are on the far left.

And to tell you the truth, after 50 years of being Alinsky'd, Cloward-Pivened, Marx'd and Ayers'd by the likes of you, we've pretty much had it with Mr Nice Guy.

And we're still a lot less violent than your side. After all, we don't have the blood of 100 million poor bastards who disagreed with us, or wore eyeglasses, or other stupid nonsense on our hands like your team does. And that's the citizens of their own workers' utopias, not casualties of war.
frajo
4.1 / 5 (10) Feb 13, 2011
And to tell you the truth, after 50 years of being Alinsky'd, Cloward-Pivened, Marx'd and Ayers'd by the likes of you, we've pretty much had it with Mr Nice Guy.
I believe you. After some time in an excited state the energy is used up and one defaults to one's ground state of being nasty. That's the definition of rightwing.

The leftwing ground state is "nice guy". Only when excited they get combative.
frajo
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2011
It is an outrage that blacks finally got their freedoms, and now they exercise their "right" to kill their own offspring 30% of the time.
You are proposing a connection between abortion and slavery for non-whites. Like non-whites don't deserve non-slavery when aborting. You refrain from proposing such a connection for whites. Like they don't deserve freedom when aborting.
frajo
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2011
I have yet to find someone from the left as well-known as Glenn Beck who matches his "They believe in communism. They believe and have called for a revolution. You're going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you".
The situation is clearly not symmetrical.
Especially for those among us who object to death penalty and to the killing of innocents via "collateral damages".
Rightwings, however, typically have no problem with killing innocent persons.
ennui27
not rated yet Feb 13, 2011
Right. A group of "unbiased" "objective" "non-partisan" "non-political" "social scientists" (98% of whom lean left) finds that rightwing fascist racist Hilterites are more mean than the flower children on their own side.

Puke.


I understand that the figures are more like 80% can be described as 'left thinking' (even if not necessarily Democratic) - in the social sciences ... (that reverses in business courses, but your point is well taken.

Despite honest and diligent attempts to get rid of researcher bias, it is still a continuing problem.

That being said, denying all their conclusions and is somewhat ..... counter productive.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2011
And we're still a lot less violent than your side. After all, we don't have the blood of 100 million poor bastards who disagreed with us, or wore eyeglasses, or other stupid nonsense on our hands like your team does. And that's the citizens of their own workers' utopias, not casualties of war.
Actually that's bullshit, and I think you already know it.
Pol Pot didn't kill millions in Cambodia, your right wing scholars always seem to get this wrong. The majority of Cambodians died of starvation or bombing runs when the US entered the Vietnam war. Many more were killed by Vietnamese. Many political prisoners, on the order of 75-100 thousand were killed by the Khmer Rouge.

I think you may need an education on the matter.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 13, 2011
Now SH is defending Khmer Rouge:
"the Khmer Rouge regime was responsible for the deaths of approximately 1.7 million people by execution, starvation and forced labor."
http:/www.cambodia.org/khmer_rouge/
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (6) Feb 13, 2011
Now SH is defending Khmer Rouge:
No, I'm not. I'm correcting your ignorance of reality. One cannot prevent horrible things from happening if they do not understand the root causes for said horrible things. For example, the starvation of Cambodia was because the US killed over 75% of the draft animals used for planting and harvesting rice when we bombed the countryside of Cambodia. This drove peasents to join the Khmer Rouge. The forced evacuations were also due in part from US bombing because these peasents were driven into the already starved cities, creating a den of disease.

Your ignorance could potentially cause genocide. Happy with that?
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2011
Now SH is defending Khmer Rouge:
No, I'm not. I'm correcting your ignorance of reality. One cannot prevent horrible things from happening if they do not understand the root causes for said horrible things. For example, the starvation of Cambodia was because the US killed over 75% of the draft animals used for planting and harvesting rice when we bombed the countryside of Cambodia. This drove peasents to join the Khmer Rouge. The forced evacuations were also due in part from US bombing because these peasents were driven into the already starved cities, creating a den of disease.

Your ignorance could potentially cause genocide. Happy with that?

So, like Stalin, Pol Pot was a great savior of his people?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 13, 2011
"the Khmer Rouge seized Phnom Penh and immediately began to drive the city's 2 million residents into the countryside. This was the first stage in its brutal attempt to transform Cambodia into a primitive communal utopia. In reality, the Khmer Rouge turned the country into an enormous forced labor camp. Money, property, books and religion were outlawed. Cambodia's economy, already severely damaged by years of bombing and civil war, ground to a halt. All decisions in the newly renamed Democratic Kampuchea came from a shadowy and unquestionable leadership known simply as angkar,or "the organization." "
http:/www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/cambodia/tl03.html
How does US bombing of Cambodia justify the Khmer Rouge murders?
SH sounds like another socialist apologist claiming socialists have the best intentions, but just went astray.
All socialist Utopians MUST resort to violence when they are opposed or their Utopian fantasies collapse.
ekim
not rated yet Feb 13, 2011
"Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals. "
http:/www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html?_r=1&ref=johntierney
How biased are the Tufts researchers?

Haidt found that Americans who identified as liberals tend to value care and fairness considerably higher than loyalty, respect, and purity. Self-identified conservative Americans value all five values more equally, though at a lower level across the five than the liberal concern for care and fairness. Both groups gave care the highest over-all weighting, but conservatives valued fairness the lowest, whereas liberals valued purity the lowest.

geokstr
1 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2011
The majority of Cambodians died of starvation... (anti-US BS snipped) Many political prisoners, on the order of 75-100 thousand were killed by the Khmer Rouge. I think you may need an education on the matter.

That confirms it. You're another 12 yr old like Taliban if you really believe that Pol Pot didn't kill millions of his own. From wiki, hardly a right wing shill:
Estimates of the total number of deaths resulting from Khmer Rouge policies, including disease and starvation, range from 1.7 to 2.5 million out of a population of around 8 million.


That's one out of every four people in the freakin' entire country. And this was AFTER the war, not during. But you claim 100 thousand and I need an education?

I served in VietNam for 19 months (voluntarily) when they taught real history and the MSM sometimes reported actual facts, not leftist drivel like today. I didn't get fed the Zinn revisionism back then.

And Pol Pot was a piker compared your other heroes, Mao and Josef.
geokstr
1 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2011
The majority of Cambodians died of starvation...

And one more thing...

Apparently, to you anyway, deliberately causing the starvation of millions for disagreeing with Marxism is somehow just hunky-dory, because they're not really "killing" killing them, right? They poor bastards are just "dying" without having to shoot them, which of course doesn't make them any less dead, or any less the fault of the People's Dictators.

A hefty chunk of Mao's bloody legacy of 60-70 and Stalin's 25-35 MILLION dead were due to starvation caused by his deliberate polices, while (at least in China's case) the state had overflowing granaries taxed away from those who starved. You lefties are just such wondrous humanitarians.

And you have the monstrous cojones to say that we're "meaner" than you?
geokstr
1 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2011
Especially for those among us who object to death penalty and to the killing of innocents via "collateral damages".
Rightwings, however, typically have no problem with killing innocent persons.

Well, you leftlings have the advantage of having defined the meaning of "persons", now, haven't you? All those lumps of pre-cancerous uterine tissue that get discarded, some after having their spines snipped or their skulls pierced and brains suctioned out, are suddenly not "persons", some of which are even born live and healthy before being butchered.

There have been some 75 MILLION of those "non-person" lumps discarded so you can avoid the horrible indignity of having to keep your zipper up or your legs crossed.

They're not "collateral damage" though, are they?

But it's typical leftling, to compare a few innocent people who might be executed after 20 yrs and millions in tax-paid appeals, to the 100 MILLION dead from Marxism and the 75 MILLION dead from abortion.

Disgusting.
geokstr
1 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2011
It is an outrage that blacks finally got their freedoms, and now they exercise their "right" to kill their own offspring 30% of the time.

Sounds racist without facts to back it up.

Well, then scream at the site's owners for not allowing easy posting of links like 99.9% of the other blogs do. Maybe too, you should learn that google is your friend.

I've quoted from both the CDC and other PRO-abortion sites here in the past from searching on "abortion by ethnicity", but here is one again since you're too lazy to find them yourself:
From "RH Reality Check" a pro-abortion site:
In the United States, the abortion rate for black women is almost five times that for white women...The abortion rate among Hispanic women...is double the rate among whites.

To NOT to want to do something about that is racist, but pointing out that there is a problem with racial implications NOT racist.

AGorilla
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2011
To equate people in this country who want universal health care or a more regulated banking (or any other) industry with Pol Pot or Stalin is typical of the right. What the majority of left leaning individuals want for us looks a lot more like Denmark, where by the way the standard of living and the quality of life exceed that in the USA.
Isn't there another recent study that linked right wing tendencies with a more active fear center in the brain? Why yes there is, google "Conservatives have larger "fear center"

It explains a lot.
Anvilicious
5 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2011
Wow. What are we? Little kids having a fight? "So and so is being meeeaaann!!!" This whole argument is pretty pointless. Everybody already knows that both sides can get pretty outrageous. And apparently petty, too.
paulthebassguy
5 / 5 (6) Feb 13, 2011
The comments on this article are a perfect example of the point the researchers were trying to get across in the first place. Haha, so ironic.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2011
Haidt found that Americans who identified as liberals tend to value care and fairness considerably higher than loyalty, respect, and purity.

That sounds about right.
It like Churchill said:
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
'Liberals' care more about forcing individuals to be equally miserable than caring about creating a 'fair' opportunity for every individual to be what ever they wish to be.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2011
What the majority of left leaning individuals want for us looks a lot more like Denmark, where by the way the standard of living and the quality of life exceed that in the USA.

What is the left doing to make all in the US has happy as the Danes?
Some research has been done with Scandinavian socialism. Some key elements of its 'success' is a homogeneous population, a common culture, common language, common religious heritage. This helps to limit corruption. It's also very small geographically and in population. It is roughly the size of MA, VT and NH with the approximate population of MA. So when comparisons are made, please keep this in mind. MA is not as happy as Denmark because it is quite corrupt and not very homogeneous.
NH, ND, SD, MT may be a better comparison for homogeneity and less corruption.
bloodyanarch
5 / 5 (1) Feb 14, 2011
What is it with American's having to have a Side... a team. It seems that the media has queued into the fact that since the big bad Russians are gone and we obviously need someone to hate, we can use the Political system to divie up sides and get right back to hating the other team. i thinkthis study nailed it. I would like to know though if the "Outrage incidents" that were looked at were only political left vs right.. I seemd to remember a lot of Us vs Russia speach back then.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2011
Bloody, there have always been sides: dark,light; right,wrong; good,evil; life, death; liberty, tyranny;
'Liberals' have demonstrated their support for death: euthanasia, abortion, .... and tyranny.
For me it is quite easy which side to support.
Justsayin
not rated yet Feb 14, 2011
Reminds me of Gail Wynand a character in "The Fountainhead".
GSwift7
2.3 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2011
@ Pink_E:

The right-wing ones (including your own) do sound a lot angrier.


That may be true but it is a bit subjective. From my point of view, it seems that the left leaning people on this site tend to do a lot more name-calling. You know how outspoken I am about that issue, so I tend to take note of who does any namecalling and I rate any namecalling comment as 1/5 regardless of what else they say in the post. That could be skewed though. I strongly suspect that several of the name-calling accounts here are actually owned by a handful of people who have social issues and feel the need to run multiple accounts.

I wonder if they looked at that effect in the media. The loudest voices do not always reflect the views of the majority in a group.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2011
And one more thing...

Apparently, to you anyway, deliberately causing the starvation of millions for disagreeing with Marxism is somehow just hunky-dory, because they're not really "killing" killing them, right? They poor bastards are just "dying" without having to shoot them, which of course doesn't make them any less dead, or any less the fault of the People's Dictators.

You and your cohort Marjon don't seem to understand facts and history. Do you know why the people were forced into the countryside? Because they were starving to death and the transit systems were destroyed. The farm equipment, (animals) were bombed by overzealous US fly overs.

So they couldn't get food into the cities, force the people to the food.

Then again, if the US HADN'T STOPPED DELIVERING FOOD, the starvation and forced relocations wouldn't have happened.

So you two gents can take your McCarthist mindsets back to school and crack a few books on the topic.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 15, 2011
There have been some 75 MILLION of those "non-person" lumps discarded so you can avoid the horrible indignity of having to keep your zipper up or your legs crossed.

-Where do you get your numbers from? Do you have them suctioned out of your ass? Stop making shit up. The number is ONE BILLION.
http
://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/index.html
ekim
5 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2011
Bloody, there have always been sides: dark,light; right,wrong; good,evil; life, death; liberty, tyranny;
'Liberals' have demonstrated their support for death: euthanasia, abortion, .... and tyranny.
For me it is quite easy which side to support.

That's your mind set?
There can only be two sides.
Mine and not mine.
Agree with me or your EVIL just like everybody who doesn't agree with me.
It must be a terrifying to live in your world where the majority of people are so EVIL.
Personally I have many friends in this world who don't agree with me on a range of topics ranging from gun control to the death penalty. I've never considered any of them to be EVIL for disagreeing with me. Of course none of my friends preach hatred of others based on race, religion, nationality or political preference.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2011
There can only be two sides.

Depends upon the issue.
I've never considered any of them to be EVIL for disagreeing with me. Of course none of my friends preach hatred of others based on race, religion, nationality or political preference.

What if one of your friends likes to force children to have sex, (assuming you believe this is wrong)?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2011
Then again, if the US HADN'T STOPPED DELIVERING FOOD, the starvation and forced relocations wouldn't have happened.

SH once again defends a murdering communist tyrant.
kaasinees
4 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2011
Then again, if the US HADN'T STOPPED DELIVERING FOOD, the starvation and forced relocations wouldn't have happened.

SH once again defends a murdering communist tyrant.


and letting people die of starvation is any better?
hypocrit much?
ekim
5 / 5 (1) Feb 16, 2011
What if one of your friends likes to force children to have sex, (assuming you believe this is wrong)?

It's wrong and illegal. They wouldn't be my friend for long either.

If a woman decides to have an abortion, you and I have two choices, weather it is illegal or not. An illegal abortion could cost the life of both the mother and fetus, while the legal abortion only kills the fetus. Two lives versus one, I would chose the lesser of two evils. It would be nice to live in a world where we didn't have to make such choices, just as it would be nice to live in a world without war and poverty, but we don't. You would pick the so called moral choice while I would pick the choice that costs fewer lives. For choosing life, would you call me evil?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Feb 16, 2011
It's wrong and illegal. They wouldn't be my friend for long either.

So you agree that abortion is legal and evil.
I would pick the choice that costs fewer lives.

Millions of aborted babies is fewer lives?
If it were illegal for anyone to perform abortions, the mother would have a choice, risk her own death to kill her baby or deliver the baby and put it up for adoption. I suspect this path would cost fewer lives and would not be evil.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2011
Then again, if the US HADN'T STOPPED DELIVERING FOOD, the starvation and forced relocations wouldn't have happened.

SH once again defends a murdering communist tyrant.


and letting people die of starvation is any better?
hypocrit much?

When did Pol Pot ask for food aid from the UN to feed his starving people?
Why did Pol Pot execute educated people and those who wore glasses?
Why are so many defending a murdering communist?
kaasinees
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 16, 2011
Why are so many defending a murdering communist?

Nobody here is defending any murder besides you.
You are blinded by your own biased opinion of communism you can't see your own hypocrisy.
YOU are defending murdering people(letting them die of starvation), does letting people die of starvation, wether they are controlled by a 'tyrant' or not, make you any better than a 'tyrant'?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2011
blinded by your own biased opinion of communism

"The United States had supported and supplied the Cambodian military government of General Lon Nol. But the American Congress ended all aid to him with the withdrawal of the United States from the Vietnam War in 1973. "
"Many intellectuals and middle-class Cambodians were disgusted with the everyday corruption of the government, and were willing to try anything that brought change, even Communism. The Khmer Rouge was cheered, and there were public and private celebrations.

But before the people could settle down and enjoy a few days of peace, the Khmer Rouge began doing the unimaginable: they turned their weapons on the 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 inhabitants of the capital and with angry yelling, shouting, hand-waving, threats of immediate death, and actual shooting, demanded that everyone get out of the city."
"Failure to evacuate meant death. "
http:/www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/WF.CHAP6.HTM
Yes, I am biased towards LIFE.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2011
"Primarily, this was done as a matter of ideology. The Khmer Rouge saw the city as the home of foreign ideas, capitalists, and their supportive bourgeoisie intellectuals; and as thoroughly corrupt and requiring a thorough cleansing. And those the Khmer Rouge believed the city had corrupted, its professionals, business people, public officials, teachers, writers, and workers, must either be eliminated or reeducated and purified. And to the Khmer Rouge, the best way of remaking those "corrupted minds" that they allowed to survive was to make them work in the fields along side pure peasants. "
http:/www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/WF.CHAP6.HTM
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2011
Here is a chart to compare Pol Pot with others:
http:/www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB9.3.GIF

And once again, Pol Pot tops the list:
http:/www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB9.1.GIF
ekim
5 / 5 (2) Feb 16, 2011
So you agree that abortion is legal and evil.


Of course abortion is legal, and like I said it the lesser evil. Much like war, an evil can be less evil than the alternative.

Millions of aborted babies is fewer lives?
If it were illegal for anyone to perform abortions, the mother would have a choice, risk her own death to kill her baby or deliver the baby and put it up for adoption. I suspect this path would cost fewer lives and would not be evil.

It would be nice to live in a world where abortions didn't exist. That world would probably be devoid of poverty and war as well. Making abortions illegal will not eliminate abortions, just as making war or poverty illegal will not eliminate war or poverty.
If you really wanted to change the world for the better you would try to fix the cause of these evils rather than trying an easy fix.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2011
Making abortions illegal will not eliminate abortions,

Never said it would.
But that was not your justification. Your justification for legal abortions was the number of lives saved.
Illegal abortions may result in a mother's death, but that is HER decision. She will be forced to make a more difficult, responsible choice.
Now, pro-abortionists do not want anyone to encourage a woman NOT to abort.
The easy fix for poverty and war is well established, liberty and prosperity. This requires a govt that protects individual liberty and property.
The trend is towards MORE govt control (socialism) which leads to more abortions, less liberty, less prosperity and a higher risk of war.
It is happening as we speak as now the Obama regime supports Islamic tyranny and attacks democratic ally Israel. Obaman wants to take more wealth from the taxpayers and impose more regulations, socialism.
ekim
5 / 5 (1) Feb 17, 2011
But that was not your justification. Your justification for legal abortions was the number of lives saved.

The possible loss of two lives per abortion versus one. If an abortion is to take place, legal results in less death overall.
Illegal abortions may result in a mother's death, but that is HER decision. She will be forced to make a more difficult, responsible choice.

You speak of HER decision yet in the next sentence you speak of force. If a man were to force a woman, with the threat of possible death, to have sex we would call it rape. Yet you see no harm in forcing a woman, with the threat of possible death, to carry an unwanted fetus.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Feb 17, 2011
Making abortions illegal will not eliminate abortions,
Never said it would.
But that was not your justification. Your justification for legal abortions was the number of lives saved.
Illegal abortions may result in a mother's death, but that is HER decision.
So you have no problem with the preventable death of adult women, but fetuses, oh no, those can't die....

How ridiculously brain damaged do you have to be to consider this a reasonable proposition?
Birger
5 / 5 (3) Feb 17, 2011
"1st rule of dogmatism: when the facts contradict your beliefs, deny the facts"

Yes. And a good example of this (applied to historical figures) is the outrage of Rush Limbaugh when confronted with the fact that Ronald Reagan did, in fact, raise taxes during his stint as governor, did in fact negotiate with terrorists and so on. Historical figures have all the ambiguity and contradictions of all other mortals, but for some nutters, any historical figure must either be a devil or a saint.
In regard to Pol Pot: -Have you guys already forgotten that Khmer Rouge became an ally of the west after the (pro-Soviet) Vietnamese drove them out of the cities? Whether a movement is portrayed as good or bad is purely a matter of political convenience.
Another case of rejection of ambiguity and/or facts: Street crime has dropped significantly after the generation born after abortion became legal grew up. So a lot of those unwanted children would -unsurprisingly- have fed the statistics of crime.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2011
the preventable death of adult women

Women can help to prevent their own death by NOT killing their babies.
By 'liberal' 'standards', adult women are irresponsible and helpless children that must be protected by that nice eugenic supporting Planned Parenthood.
legal results in less death overall.

You assume that all women will choose risky abortion procedure that would threaten their lives.
Abortionists sell their procedure as safe to attract more business and the pro-death abortion supporters resist efforts to encourage women NOT to kill their babies. It is illegal in many places to post pictures of aborted babies near an abortion clinic.
Don't 'liberals' support freedom of speech?
So a lot of those unwanted children would -unsurprisingly- have fed the statistics of crime.

Kill all the people and there would be zero crime.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2011
"The president's political machine worked in close coordination Thursday with state and national union officials to get thousands of protesters to gather in Madison and to plan similar demonstrations in other state capitals. "
http:/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/17/AR2011021705494.html
What happened to the call for civility from the 'liberals'?
The govt of WI is following the LAW and the the govt employees don't like it?
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Feb 18, 2011
Marjon, I think this world would be a better place if your mother had gotten an abortion.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2011
Marjon, I think this world would be a better place if your mother had gotten an abortion.

How typical of 'progressive' civil dialog!
The left not only WISHES people were dead they actually take actions to ensure that it accomplished by supporting and encouraging abortion and euthanasia.

Their fellow comrade socialists have murdered millions for the cause.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (1) Feb 18, 2011
The left not only WISHES people were dead they actually take actions to ensure that it accomplished by supporting and encouraging abortion and euthanasia.

Their fellow comrade socialists have murdered millions for the cause.


Yeah right, cause people FORCE others to take an abortion? And why do you stereotype this with lefties? Also what if everyone just breed like rabbits. Do you want everyone to die of starvation? There is a limit of population that a land can hold, just look at china, africa or indonesia, do you want your country to turn into those?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2011
nd why do you stereotype this with lefties? Also what if everyone just breed like rabbits. Do you want everyone to die of starvation? There is a limit of population that a land can hold, just look at china, africa or indonesia, do you want your country to turn into those?

Because it it the socialists who believe in Limits to Growth.
Those who support market based solutions know, because data is readily available, that the limits you decry are artificially imposed by governments.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Feb 18, 2011
Because it it the socialists who believe in Limits to Growth.
Is that why the right defends agra-subsidies that pay people to not grow food?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2011
Those who support free markets support the end of ag subsidies.

"In winning the congressional elections last year (2006), Democrats portrayed themselves as reformers willing to take on special interests for the benefit of average families.

This year's farm bill gives them a chance to prove it. They should end subsidies for well–off farmers, remove agricultural trade barriers to cut food costs for families and reduce the debt load being imposed on young Americans."
http:/www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8459
The left failed to do the job in 2007.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2011
So- then what happens when farmers need to sell their land because imported produce is cheaper, and the land irreversably becomes malls and housing; and then in a gen or 2 when imported produce is no longer available because foreign pops have exploded, the US no longer has the ability to produce sufficient food for it's own people?

Free marketeers don't care about the future or strategic management of resources, but only profit.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2011
Free marketeers don't care about the future or strategic management of resources, but only profit.

Any capitalist, like a farmer who wants to continue to farm DOES care about the future and takes care of his land for himself and his family.
The newly elected Congresswoman from SD had to work hard to save their ranch from death taxes. That is the most common reason so many farmers have to sell, death taxes.
New Zealand ended subsidies and their farms are quite productive an profitable exporting what they produce best to the world. (It's called comparative advantage.)
I wonder how much rice California would grow if their water was not subsidized? Ending subsidies and trade barriers will encourage long term ag policies that preserve the land and make a profit.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2011
"The fortune of farmers now depended on their ability to meet consumers' demands. Overproduction no longer occurred. One year, under the subsidy regime, six million lambs were rendered into fertilizer because no one wanted them; sheep farming had been the crown prince of the subsidy king. Without subsidies farmers were forced to diversify and produce those goods that were most sought after in the marketplace. Sheep stock decreased, while the number of dairy cows increased. Over time, the agricultural sector diversified into not only new crops and livestock, but also rural tourism."
"farmers fit their production to the land. Marginal land, which was only farmed to receive subsidies, went out of production and reverted to native bush."
"Farmers learned not only how to survive, but to thrive in a subsidy-free world. Common sentiment now is that subsidy elimination was "the best thing that ever happened to farming.""
http:/www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2007/05/kiwi-fruit-for-america.h
kaasinees
1 / 5 (1) Feb 19, 2011
oh god... who is paying you to advertise for capitalism? or are you this stupid?
frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2011
oh god... who is paying you to advertise for capitalism? or are you this stupid?
As he is self-contradictory every day and thereby ridiculing himself and the values he claims to promote it's highly unlikely anyone is paying him for his display of an intellectual mess.
Neither would I plead for simple stupidity as stupid people do not tend to be aggressive on his scale.
Rather it seems to be an obsession, in a medical sense.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2011
oh god... who is paying you to advertise for capitalism? or are you this stupid?

Evidence abounds that capitalism promotes individual liberty and prosperity.
Socialism, just the opposite.
Zimbabwe is a classic case. Before Mugabe forced white farmers from the county, food was exported. Now, the country must import food.
"The order came into effect at midnight on Monday and the farmers now have 45 days to leave their farms or face imprisonment under a deadline imposed by Zimbabwe's government.

The Commercial Farmers' Union (CFU) says farmers do not want to leave their crops to rot at a time when a severe food shortage is affecting millions of Zimbabweans

The confiscation of white-owned farms was begun by President Robert Mugabe over two years ago. "
http:/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/2062528.stm
The Soviets had to allow people to sell the produce from their farms to keep people from starving. Cuba is not allowing capitalism and Venezuela's socialism creates food shortages.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2011
"the total output of the agricultural industry in Zimbabwe in 2000 was 4.3 million tons of agricultural products, worth, at today's prices, some US$3.347 billion. This output has declined to just over 1.348 million tons of products in 2009, worth some US$1 billion—a decline of 69 percent in volume and a decline of 70 percent in value.1

It is not often appreciated that smallholder farmers have been just as badly affected as the large-scale commercial farmers. Their production in 2008 was 73 percent lower than their production in 2000. According to the government-appointed Utete Commission, during the first three years of land reform, some 250,000 people and their 1.3 million dependents were forcibly displaced from commercial farms alone.2"
http:/www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10206
The left is starving people. That's not nice.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2011
"As Hayek explained, central planning leads to massive inefficiencies and long queues outside empty shops. A state of perpetual economic crisis then leads to calls for more planning. But economic planning is inimical to freedom. As there can be no agreement on a single plan in a free society, the centralisation of economic decision-making has to be accompanied by centralisation of political power in the hands of a small elite. When, in the end, the failure of central planning becomes undeniable, totalitarian regimes tend to silence the dissenters - sometimes through mass murder. "
http:/www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4028
Where is the data to support that socialism leads to individual liberty and prosperity?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2011
New Zealand ended subsidies and their farms are quite productive an profitable exporting what they produce best to the world. (It's called comparative advantage.)
No, it's called Australian drought.
Where is the data to support that socialism leads to individual liberty and prosperity?
When are they going to put the heads of the major banks in jail for gaming the system illegally?

You're not defending capitalism or freemarkets. You're defending paying your way out of jail for breaking the law. That's corruption, and that is what leads to tyranny.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2011
When are they going to put the heads of the major banks in jail for gaming the system illegally?

The politicians that enable them should be first.
SH supports all the complex regulations and govt power and then complains when the govt fails to enforce all its laws.
I support limiting the power of the govt to control all markets as the consumer is the most viscous and swift regulator of any market.
Some markets are flat out illegal, BANNED by the govt, yet they thrive because of consumer demand. I am sure many who read this participate in the illegal drug trade.
What about Australian drought? It was New Zealand that ended ag subsidies and they are profiting for it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2011
I support limiting the power of the govt to control all markets as the consumer is the most viscous and swift regulator of any market.
But the CEOs are cleverer. That's why they are where they are. They've already found ways around all govt regs which is why they're so complex, and they will typically seek to bribe officials and collude to fix prices and control markets.

Consumers, like workers, will always lose without active protection because the cleverest and most resourceful always tend to end up ON TOP. Law of nature. Gods will. While the rest of us are busy doing our jobs and making our lives work, CEOs are busy doing theirs. And they are much better at it than we are.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2011
Consumers, like workers, will always lose without active protection because the cleverest and most resourceful always tend to end up ON TOP.

The trouble with a corporate structure is there are limited opportunities to be ON TOP.
Therefore, the 'cleverest' strike out on their own creating competition. TRW was started by former Hughes employees.
More govt regulations favor the big, existing corporations because it adds to the start up costs for their potential competitors.
Without the collusion with the govt, corporations must compete for business and if they fail to satisfy, competitors, probably former employees from their own company, will create the competition. This has been well documented.
Sam Walton started working for JC Penney, but he had a better idea.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2011
"Sam Walton was a management trainee for J.C. Penney in 1940 is Des Moines, Iowa. While there, he was exposed to the Penney Idea. It directly impacted his view of business and to this day has shaped how Wal-Mart has developed."
"Sam Walton purchased a Ben Franklin store in 1945 after serving in World War Two. The store was a big success. Wikipedia notes, " It was here that Walton pioneered many concepts that would prove to be crucial to his success. Walton made sure the shelves were consistently stocked with a wide range of goods at low prices. His store also stayed open later than most other stores, especially during the Easter season. He also pioneered the practice of discount merchandizing by buying wholesale goods from the lowest priced supplier. This allowed him to pass on savings to his customers, which drove up his sales volume. Higher volumes allowed him to negotiate even lower purchase prices with the wholesaler on subsequent purchases.""
http:/www.worldhistoryblog.com/2006/0
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2011
The trouble with a corporate structure is there are limited opportunities to be ON TOP.
And there are a limited number of people who have the talent to be on top.
Therefore, the 'cleverest' strike out on their own creating competition. TRW was started by former Hughes employees.
When competition is deemed necessary, when it is required to further Progress, it is Provided for. When it is deemed to be a detriment, those who attempt it are squashed like the rooadkill you had for dinner last night. Like any Microsoft competitors. Because the computer age had to proceed with a limited number of operating systems, because that was obviously all it could handle. And so competition was eliminated.

Your free market has its place, and sometimes it does not. We can observe when it is utilized to best effect and when it is suppressed. 'Everything is beautiful in its own Time... There is a [Proper] Time for everything under the sun.' I'm sorry but this just seems obvious to me.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2011
But the CEOs are cleverer. That's why they are where they are. They've already found ways around all govt regs which is why they're so complex, and they will typically seek to bribe officials and collude to fix prices and control markets.
But we can see that this condition is also self-destructive and so cannot be allowed to operate Unfettered. There is simply NOTHING that we can observe from our perspective which can function for long without becoming dysfunctional due to the incessant pressures of Malthusian forces.

ANY ordinary human institution is fatally susceptible to the Cycle: growth, decay, collapse, and rebirth in a weaker state. But civilization PERSISTS. Progress PERSISTS and is accelerating. WHY?

It HAS to be because we are being Managed and forced to compromise, sacrifice, surrender and tolerate despite our natural aversion to these things. We are being Herded for our own good and for the Survival of the species. There is no other way to explain the world.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2011
we are being Managed

Does this make you feel better? With this attitude you don't have to be responsible for your actions.
'THEY' are controlling me.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2011
SH supports all the complex regulations and govt power and then complains when the govt fails to enforce all its laws.
Strawman. Every professional sports game needs rules and a referee. If the ref makes a bad call, you certainly should complain.
I support limiting the power of the govt to control all markets as the consumer is the most viscous and swift regulator of any market.
And that's factually false. Marjon supports survival of the fittest in the commercial world. He'd like to prevent regulations that force large companies to pay their bills on time. He promotes marketplace irresponsibility.
Some markets are flat out illegal, BANNED by the govt, yet they thrive because of consumer demand.
Yes, mostly guns and drugs. Aren't you a big time gun supporter? Don't forget, 90% of the firearms taken from cartel agents are sold in the good ole USA. Primarily Arizona. Must be great that they want to drop firearms sales restrictions. Gotta arm those dealers faster....
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2011
we are being Managed

Does this make you feel better? With this attitude you don't have to be responsible for your actions.
'THEY' are controlling me.
'Thy Rod and thy Staff they comfort me.' Ha.

"Sarah Palin weighed with a Friday night posting on her Facebook page that urged [Wisconsin] "union brothers and sisters" not to ask taxpayers to support "unsustainable benefits packages."

"Real solidarity means everyone being willing to sacrifice and carry our share of the burden," Palin said in her post, which did not indicate whether she would join conservatives in Madison this weekend."

-Fat chance eh marjon? They may concede, but then it just starts all over again. Humans can never govern themselves. Obviously. Everybody wants what they want and thats that. And when there is not enough to go around, which is always eventually the case, mayhem ensues.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2011
Yes, mostly guns and drugs. Aren't you a big time gun supporter? Don't forget, 90% of the firearms taken from cartel agents are sold in the good ole USA. Primarily Arizona. Must be great that they want to drop firearms sales restrictions. Gotta arm those dealers faster....
Of course, the black market being a free market (until the hitman shows up, just like in the 'legal' world), they would just go elsewhere. Brasil has many very excellent manufacturers.

You cant get full-auto weapons in the US. If I was a cartelier I would want kalashnikovs from china. Hell with AR-15s and mini-30s. I wonder how much of this 'guns from the US' is just anti-gun bullshit.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2011
Every professional sports game needs rules and a referee. If the ref makes a bad call, you certainly should complain.

But you don't complain.
Your analogy is a poor one as people play games together all the time without a professional referee because they want or need to play. When someone cheats, the cheater is not allowed to play anymore. It is called shunning and works quite well to regulate without govt.

As for AZ, if the federal govt enforced the border laws or stopped hindering AZ from enforcing border laws, there would be much less crime.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2011
But you don't complain.
You've got your head firmly up your ass with both ears well blocked if you think I've never complained about bad government regulations or court decisions.

Your analogy is a poor one as people play games together all the time without a professional referee because they want or need to play.
And that's at a professional level? There's a significant difference between a Bruions game and 10 kids fucking around on a frozen pond. It's called scope.
When someone cheats, the cheater is not allowed to play anymore.
LOL. You haven't played backyard sports then either. Considering your immense girth I wouldn't be surprised.
It is called shunning and works quite well to regulate without govt.
Yep, try shunning your electric company.
As for AZ, if the federal govt enforced the border laws or stopped hindering AZ from enforcing border laws, there would be much less crime.

And that's factually false.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2011
The electric company has a govt granted monopoly.

The US govt is trying to stop AZ from protecting its citizens from illegal alien invasion. Quite factual.
""The bottom line is we've known all along that it is the responsibility of the feds," Brewer told The Associated Press. "They haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."

The Mexican government praised the judge's decision. Foreign Minister Patricia Espinosa told reporters that the injunction was a "first step in the right direction."

Read more: http:/www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/28/federal-judge-rules-arizona-immigration-law-dispute/#ixzz1EVP5BWOK

I've never complained about bad government regulations or court decisions.

You defend and promote the govt ALL the time. You have provided no evidence to the contrary.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2011
"Police officers in Madison detained and subsequently released a labor union operative who attempted, somewhat successfully, to destroy the speaker system at the Tea Party counter rally Saturday.

When a Tea Partier, Luke Bacher, confronted the man ripping the speaker wiring out, Bacher said the man physically assaulted him. That caused police to get involved and detain the union operative.

Read more: http:/dailycaller.com/2011/02/19/union-operative-attempts-to-destroy-tea-party-rally’s-speaker-system-video/#ixzz1EVWXBfmK
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2011
The US govt is trying to stop AZ from protecting its citizens from illegal alien invasion. Quite factual.
So the National Guard units sent to the AZ border are there to ferry illegals across the border in your mind?
""The bottom line is we've known all along that it is the responsibility of the feds," Brewer told The Associated Press. "They haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."
Quotes from a woman who lies about headless bodies in the desert don't support your case well.
You defend and promote the govt ALL the time. You have provided no evidence to the contrary.
No, I defend and support regulations. Regulations are not the government, they are the laws which companies, and the government itself, must adhere to and abide by. When either business or the government does not adhere to regulations, I cry foul. You would rather have a backyard game with arbitary rules and nonsense "assumed guidelines".
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2011
. Regulations are not the government,

If they are created by and enforced by the govt, they ARE the govt.
Of course there are non-govt methods by which market players create rules and a process by which those rules are enforced. Why would participants in a free market choose to regulate themselves? Because it is in their self interest to do so.
The non-govt IIHS tests autos for safety more strictly than the govt does and publishes results. Auto makers use those results to increase the safety of their products and use the IIHS data to promote their products in the market.

"The problem is that National Guard troops have no power to make arrests"
". Of the 1,200 troops deployed, 524 went to Arizona, 224 to California, 72 to New Mexico and 250 to Texas"
http:/washingtonindependent.com/100202/will-national-guard-troops-at-the-border-make-a-difference

Not long ago civilians sat on the border and reported crossings to the BP. The govt called them vigilantes.

Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2011
If they are created by and enforced by the govt, they ARE the govt.
Then since you're a component of the government, meaning you actuall ARE the government, why haven't you resigned?
"The problem is that National Guard troops have no power to make arrests"
". Of the 1,200 troops deployed, 524 went to Arizona, 224 to California, 72 to New Mexico and 250 to Texas"
Obviously written by an ignorant person. The only reason why the National Guard wouldn't have power of arrest in a Federal matter would be if the presiding state governor refused to grant agreement of provisional arrest power. Brewer is the one stopping the effectiveness of the National Guard. Brewer would be the one making it possible for illegals to cross the border in that instance. Your hero is your villian.
Not long ago civilians sat on the border and reported crossings to the BP.
You referring to the Minutemen? They're self affirmed National Socialists (Nazis). S: Denverpost June 2010.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2011
Then since you're a component of the government, meaning you actuall ARE the government, why haven't you resigned?

You should be more skeptical.

""The customer is DHS, and DHS determined what they wanted from the National Guard and, in this case, they did not want National Guard in a law-enforcement capability."

I asked DHS spokesman Matt Chandler why his boss, Janet Napolitano, wouldn't want the Guard to guard. He e-mailed me this response: "The Guard's role at the border - to provide support for intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance, and counternarcotics enforcement - was agreed upon by DHS and DoD and is consistent with the Administration's view that border security is a law enforcement responsibility.

Read more: http:/www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2010/09/08/20100908roberts0908.html#ixzz1EYVnOY8P
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2011
You open with
You should be more skeptical

Then you link a poor source and don't check it.

You make me laugh every day.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2011
You open with
You should be more skeptical

Then you link a poor source and don't check it.

You make me laugh every day.


Prove your assertion that the National Guard are prohibited from arresting illegal aliens.
Most law enforcement do NOT want any military personnel, unless they are MPs, trying to make arrests as they are NOT trained to do so.
So all the NG or any military personnel can do is observe and report. EXACTLY was the AZ minutemen did on the border a few years ago, much to the appreciation of the Border Patrol.

"The Government Accountability Office report, released this week, found that only 129 miles are under "full control" of the Border Patrol, leaving the rest "vulnerable to cross-border illegal activity.""
http:/www.minutemanproject.com/newsmanager/templates/light.aspx?articleid=6830&zoneid=1
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Feb 21, 2011
Most law enforcement do NOT want any military personnel, unless they are MPs, trying to make arrests as they are NOT trained to do so.
And the exact same view can be applied to Federal law enforcement not wanting untrained Sherrif Joe Arpaio clones performing federal arrests that they are not trained for.
The Government Accountability Office report, released this week, found that only 129 miles are under "full control" of the Border Patrol,
You should have actually read the GAO report. So now you're going to get stomped with your own source again. From the report.
GAO's preliminary analysis of the 873 border miles under operational control in 2010 showed that about 129 miles (15 percent) were classified as controlled and the remaining 85 percent were classified as managed.
Controlled means full lockdown, everyone crossing is apprehended before reaching the border. Managed means all attempting to cross are interceptible shortly after crossing.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Feb 21, 2011
I think it's funnier that you continually call anyone who has a more liberal view than you do a NAZI, then you go and toss your lot and viewpoibnts in the mix with a bunch of self affirmed NAZIs. You've tossed your lot so far into the mix with the neo-nazis that you're using their sources and investing your intellectual integrity in with their sources. Care to explain that to us, Herr Swenson? If you're a freedom lover, as you claim to be, why would you produce and attempt to forward neo-nazi propaganda? After all, since you've called me a socialist and a fascist so many times I think you owe us an explanation as to why you're using Nazi propaganda to establish a "basis of fact" for your opinion on immigration.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Feb 21, 2011
Maricopa county deputies ARE trained to make arrests that will stand up in a court of law. ALL law enforcement officers swear an oath to support and defend the US Constitution and its laws.

"The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reports that the nearly 2,000-mile U.S. border with Mexico is vulnerable to cross-border illegal activity."
"Border Patrol reported achieving varying levels of operational control for 873 of the nearly 2,000 southwest border miles at the end of fiscal year 2010,"
"Border Patrol stated that operational control does not require its agents to be able to detect and apprehend all illegal entries. "
http:/www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-374T

Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Feb 21, 2011
Maricopa county deputies ARE trained to make arrests that will stand up in a court of law.
All law enforcement officials are trained to make arrests under the pertinent laws. This is a nonsense rebuttal.
ALL law enforcement officers swear an oath to support and defend the US Constitution and its laws
And this is a flat out lie. One would expect you'd know better.

Of course, what else would we expect from a Neo-nazi sympathizer.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Feb 21, 2011
not wanting untrained Sherrif Joe Arpaio clones

You asserted Maricopa county deputies are NOT trained.

"In addition to any other form of oath or affirmation specifically provided by law for an officer or employee, before any officer or employee enters upon the duties of the office or employment, the officer or employee shall take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:

State of Arizona, County of ______________ I, _____________________

(type or print name)

do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona, "
http:/www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/38/00231.htm&Title=38&DocType=ARS
"I, A.B. do solemnly swear, that I will bear faith and true allegiance to the United States of America and the state of New Hampshire, and will support the constitution thereof. So help me God."
http:/www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Feb 21, 2011
not wanting untrained Sherrif Joe Arpaio clones

You asserted Maricopa county deputies are NOT trained.
No, your reading skills are just very poor.

Nice job picking two of 50 states. Secondly, those are state police pledges, so out of the tens of thousands of law enforcement organizations, you pick two and assume that every other station uses the exact same format. That's a ridiculous Marjon generalization. This is why we call you a liar.

Why don't you look up the pledge for your town and tell us what it says:).