How far would you take your politics?

[IronBrig4]

You always read about politicians who get harassed, assaulted, or even killed because of their political views. If you really didn't like a political pundit's viewpoint, would you actually seek to harm them?

I think Michael Moore is a moron, and also think that Anne Coulter's a sanctimonious *****. But I would never think about laying a finger on them. I don't see how anybody could physically hurt someone just because of their political beliefs. I don't care if someone's fascist, communist, liberal, conservative, or whatever. If I hear Hannity or Coulter on the radio, I simply change the station. I'm not gonna lie in wait and try to hit them with a pie.

Thoughts?

[Big War Bird]

Would I kill for my beliefs? Yes I think I should. Heck I even got to vote on it in 2002.

[Guderian]

To put it simply. No. Although if Bush drove himself off a cliff tomorow with Cheney and Rove in the back seat and Pat Robertson his "spiritual adviser" riding shotgun, then it would be a great day for me indeed.

[IronBrig4]

I can understand somebody dying for their beliefs. There are a few beliefs that I'd die for. But I wouldn't KILL for them.

[Oldgamer]

To put it simply. No. Although if Bush drove himself off a cliff tomorow with Cheney and Rove in the back seat and Pat Robertson his "spiritual adviser" riding shotgun, then it would be a great day for me indeed.

Interesting. I used to say the same thing about Clinton, Algore, and Company, almost on a daily basis. The best day in my life, besides my marriage and the birth of my children, was the day that George W. Bush, newly-inaugurated, walked back into the Capital and signed Executive Orders nullifying almost all of Clinton's Executive Orders.

However, that said, I would not kill to see someone elected, or someone else defeated. My name is not Sirhan Sirhan ...

[Phobos]

I wouldn't kill any political figures for two reasons (excepting those of an enemy nation of course):

1. If some random soul who couldn't care less about any part of you besides your ability to vote once every term is capable of so affecting your emotions that you go into a fury any time you see them, then they've won and you're weak-willed. Disliking someone is one thing, but hating them? In actuality such a stance makes yourself look much more radical and uncompromising then the object of your scorn.

2. Assuming #1 is not true, if I truly loathe someone then why on earth would I kill them just so I can spend a life-term in prison for doing so? I dislike such personalities as Hillary Clinton, but I'm certainly not going to ruin my day over her, let alone the rest of my days.

Worse yet, killing them off has the odd tendency of making them martyrs and you a psychotic nut-case that future generations will abhor. Congratu-ma-lations, you've made Bush/Hillary/Moore/Coulter/whoever into a hero.

[Masquerade]

I wouldn't go as far as lifting a finger to write a letter.

[Kanaric]

If your willing to go far on you politics you are an extremist. Everything is better in moderation, these people like Coutier or Moore are like alcohalics... other people who take things too far include Stalin, Mussolini, and Bin Ladin.

I wouldn't go as far as lifting a finger to write a letter.

Exactly, since when do politicians listen to the people? Such a thing is unheard of in this country.

[Hellenic Hoplite]

Why is Michael Moore a moron? He seems to actually do an extreme sport for many people of that country: think.

[danzig]

You always read about politicians who get harassed, assaulted, or even killed because of their political views. If you really didn't like a political pundit's viewpoint, would you actually seek to harm them?

None of the people you mentioned are worth it so no but if talking say a Stalinist or Facist politican who are actual real threats then maybe.

Why is Michael Moore a moron? He seems to actually do an extreme sport for many people of that country: think.

I think you meant if you consider distorting the truth, clever/misleading editing, providing one side of the facts, interperting facts to fit your point of view a sport. The one thing Moore and Courtler dont do is 'think'.

[Erik]

If I met Bush today I would sneeze right in his face.
Haha, thake that! he could get a bad cold like I have and it could last 2, possibly 3 days.

But I wouldn't go out of my way to harm him, if he leaves me alone I leave him alone.

[wilpuri]

I would, definately.

But that depends on the circumstances. For example, as a part of my Nationalist-orientated 'ideology' (= loose collection of vaguely connected ideas) I believe in the right of an independent Finland. If someone tried to take that away, I would try to kill them, most likely. Of course, if its happening non-violently, with the consent of the majority (which isn't that far-fetched as it might sound, its happening as we speak) I would try to agitate and get people to change their minds. Then, I'd try to kill the ****ers.

[Hellenic Hoplite]

Danzig, if you could please be more specific in where he does all that... ?

[danzig]

Danzig, if you could please be more specific in where he does all that... ?

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in626484.shtml
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20040702.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2102723/
http://www.slimindustries.com/~bowling/ (biased site however)

Moore is no different then those he attempts to demonize.

Prime example when questioned about the link between 9/11 and Saddam by a reporter Moore ran a Condi quote:

“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.”

But avoided showing the full quote

“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.”

[bigfootedfred]

hmmm..

well, if bush appeared at my front door, id probably tell him to "f-off"
but then again, i might invite him in, then kill him, chop up the body and feed it to my cats.

depends how much more of an ass hes going to be.

[Masquerade]

Moore's obviously incredibly clever but certainly not entirely honest.

[Hellenic Hoplite]

danzig, thank you for the links you gave me, but I see opinions that are really biased in them, that makes them unreliable. I would completely agree with you thought if you said that truth and honesty is always the best choice.

[danzig]

danzig, thank you for the links you gave me, but I see opinions that are really biased in them, that makes them unreliable. I would completely agree with you thought if you said that truth and honesty is always the best choice.

"But a cursory examination of the claim reveals some flaws in Moore’s arithmetic—not to mention his logic. Moore derives the $1.4 billion figure from journalist Craig Unger’s book, “House of Bush, House of Saud.” Nearly 90 percent of that amount, $1.18 billion, comes from just one source: contracts in the early to mid-1990’s that the Saudi Arabian government awarded to a U.S. defense contractor, BDM, for training the country’s military and National Guard. What’s the significance of BDM? The firm at the time was owned by the Carlyle Group, the powerhouse private-equity firm whose Asian-affiliate advisory board has included the president’s father, George H.W. Bush."

How is that biased? That is fact, it is dubious to somehow link Bush and Bin Laden thru a large company simply because Bush Sr was on the advisory board at one time. Moore's own work is extremely biased so why do you believe that but not this? Certainly Hitchens has as much crediblity as Moore (and I would argue FAR more). The truth and honesty generally are good things but what does that have to do with this? Moore is about as truthful as Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coutler is, they all have their own objective and all out to make a buck. Moore doesnt 'think' he spews just like Ann just like Rush and he does so in exactly the same way, half truths and distortions. These people are part of the problem here in the US, they provide no insight, no truth, no honest debate they are hacks. They hold to one view, regardless of reality and they preach to their audience all while pocketing a nice big paycheck for doing very little honest work.

[IronBrig4]

And the same goes for religion. Sure, those Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons can get annoying, but I'm not gonna hit them. Now, it's okay to mess with their minds. When some Jehovah's Witnesses accosted one of my friends, he replied with, "Interesting. I will have to speak to my Dark Lord Satan about this." And they ran off screaming.

[Hellenic Hoplite]

"But a cursory examination of the claim reveals some flaws in Moore’s arithmetic—not to mention his logic. Moore derives the $1.4 billion figure from journalist Craig Unger’s book, “House of Bush, House of Saud.” Nearly 90 percent of that amount, $1.18 billion, comes from just one source: contracts in the early to mid-1990’s that the Saudi Arabian government awarded to a U.S. defense contractor, BDM, for training the country’s military and National Guard. What’s the significance of BDM? The firm at the time was owned by the Carlyle Group, the powerhouse private-equity firm whose Asian-affiliate advisory board has included the president’s father, George H.W. Bush."

How is that biased? That is fact, it is dubious to somehow link Bush and Bin Laden thru a large company simply because Bush Sr was on the advisory board at one time. Moore's own work is extremely biased so why do you believe that but not this? Certainly Hitchens has as much crediblity as Moore (and I would argue FAR more). The truth and honesty generally are good things but what does that have to do with this? Moore is about as truthful as Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coutler is, they all have their own objective and all out to make a buck. Moore doesnt 'think' he spews just like Ann just like Rush and he does so in exactly the same way, half truths and distortions. These people are part of the problem here in the US, they provide no insight, no truth, no honest debate they are hacks. They hold to one view, regardless of reality and they preach to their audience all while pocketing a nice big paycheck for doing very little honest work.

Even when I believe something, I don't believe it being 100% that it's sure, and Michael Moore's suggestions are not an exception. As you say, it has become a game of liars, and the people cannot really find anyone who they can trust. This is sad, isn't it?

I would ask you to remember Bush's lies though, when he claimed that CIA gave him proof of the existence of WMD in Iraq, which the CIA denied and they were not found anywhere in Iraq. And that this man is in the supreme position in America at the moment. With examples like that, how can anyone expect from the politicians to be honest to the people who vote for them?