There's an awful lof of Tea-Baggers Posting on DU...

[OneAngryDemocrat]

I posted, earlier, a short treatise on right-wing terror.

The central theme of my piece was simple enough to wrap your head around:

"Conservatives will blame anything and everything (for the terrorism killing progressives in America) but modern-day conservatism, which preaches that liberals and democrats are the bona fide enemies of America and threats to the nation's very existence.

Only the most naive or apologetic of political observers could doubt that different right-wing conservatives would deal with the perceived threat liberals and democrats pose to them in different ways, and that some would, inevitably, resort to violence.

And as long as that is the case, as long as liberals and democrats are "the enemy" the bodies will continue to pile up."

I've received almost 100 responses, and a full half of them attempted to refute the conclusion I came to, namely that liberal democrats are surrounded and under siege from some heavily armed, blood-thirsty right-wingers.

But no one... NO ONE... challenged my assertion that "right-wing conservatives would deal with the perceived threat liberals and democrats pose to them in different ways, and that some would, inevitably, resort to violence."

I don't see how someone could accept my premise about conservative psychology, and NOT also accept my conclusions.

Yet... dozens have done just that.

Where's the disconnect? I can only assume that Tea Baggers, with their twisted, hypocritical world-view, are writing most of the responses here at the Democratic Underground.

And that's a damn shame.

[Scootaloo]

1. Fetishization of the "center."

A lot of posters around here have this deep, longing need to be "fair" in all things, even if it means tipping themselves so far to the right that they make Barry Goldwater look like Mother Jones. I think it's related to whatever neurosis produces the "concern troll" impulse, honestly.

Basically they want to cling to the belief that the psychos and sociopaths on the right are really, truly rational people who are "just confused" or "we just don't understand their point of view" or whatever dewy-eyed, hand-wringing stuff that comes in that vein. It's hard to accept the notion that so many people really, honestly are emotionally defective.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

2. I gave up on educating the "right"...

I gave up on educating the "right" with the first "Fuck you!"

[Scootaloo]

5. I had a similar result to you, when I made a post making close to the same point

Basically that the right's primary goal is to cause pain and suffering in other people; even if they have to suffer it too, it's "worth it" to see others suffer.

Lots of harrumphing and accusing me of "sinking to their level"

[OneAngryDemocrat]

7. You Need To Enlist...

You need to enlist with the Rockford Sons of Liberty, ma'am.

Dedicated to saving our Republic from the deprivations of corporate domination, the original "Sons of Liberty" were formed by American patriots to protect the rights of the colonists from the British crown and the King's corporate sponsors.

They are best remembered for throwing the King's corporate East Indian Company tea into Boston Harbor.

If you're ready to throw the corporate tea into the sea like our forefathers did, visit us on facebook @ http://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/RockfordSOL/

[Scootaloo]

8. It's "sir" actually...

Don't worry, easy mistake to make at a glance :lol:

[OneAngryDemocrat]

9. LOL!!!

What pretty eyes your DU icon has, sir!

I'm not trolling for dates, though... we need aggressive liberals who've had enough of RW BS and abuse to join our ranks.

http://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/RockfordSOL/

[Skip Intro]

3. So the half of respondents who disagreed with you are "Tea baggers," because

they disagreed with you?

Is that what you're saying?

Gotta link?

[OneAngryDemocrat]

6. That's NOT What I said...

I didn't say that half of the respondents who disagreed with me are "Tea baggers" simply because they disagreed with me.

I said that no one challenged my premise, but did challenge my conclusions.

And THAT made them Tea Baggers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002990311

[2pooped2pop]

14. I'm not sure if baggers would have understood your post

However, there does seem to be a lot of disrupter's on this site.

DU is absolutely the best info site out there for me. I've been reading it daily since 04 and join now and again. I am thinking of giving up my membership though because the people seem to really try to be snarky and shitty, and that makes me snarky and shitty. So I am thinking that if I can't post, I can't get involved too deeply and won't feel shitty so much of the time.

I think some are disrupter's and some are actually more like us but get more out of an argument than a discussion or something like that. Certainly the argument ive threads get all the posts.

I have tried just not posting but never can. I think I will have to cut my membership so that I can't answer posts.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

4. How many of them used the word liberty? I've seen that a lot lately. nt

[HooptieWagon]

10. Wow, somebody is channelling crazy-eyes Bachman.

I am sorry that not all Democrats pass your purity test, but that hardly makes them teabaggers...

[OneAngryDemocrat]

11. And I'm Sorry...

And I'm sorry that I consider your comment bullshit.

I didn't post a purity test.

If my premise is accepted, then I'd like to know why my conclusions aren't as well.

Your response didn't address that question, nor refute my premise.

Feel free to go back and try again. We're playing this game for free.

[RedStateLiberal]

12. I just read your other OP

You should include a link to it here.

I didn't read all the threads but maybe some don't like that you are implying that the shooter was politically motivated because they don't want it to seem like we're jumping to conclusions without all the facts.

On your central theme, I agree with you. When right-wingers act like wingnuts with no regard for facts or being reasonable and show nothing but irrational hatred for Dems, I too think some could be capable of violence. They have completely bought into the "us vs. them" mentality. Their thinking process comes across as delusional to me. They certainly do act like fascists sometimes and history tells us where that leads.

Perhaps liberals think most people (even conservative) are basically good so they don't want to believe that some would resort to violence due to politics. Maybe they think the wingnuts are all talk and no action. Maybe it's denial.

I've never personally experience physical violence from a wingnut, but have been threatened.

Before the '08 election I had a large homemade plywood Obama/Biden sign taken from my property and slung into the middle of the busy 55mph 2-lane highway in front of my house. Luckily I heard the commotion and got there before a car could hit it. No respect for public safety from whoever did that. Just a reaction and a response. That's what I'm afraid of. I had a local sheriff tell me to be careful on election day if Obama gets elected. Nothing happened, but I was, and will be vigilant.

I live in a very rural area in Alabama. I know for a fact there are militia groups nearby. I can easily imagine wingnuts and racists freaking out if the black guy gets re-elected. If the campaign rhetoric keeps heating up, I think that will exacerbate the issue. Hell, I've even had my own cousin call me a "baby killer" and claim Obama is "evil." I have also had death threats online due to expressing my political beliefs.

I am not really paranoid about it but I am definitely prepared. Some wingnuts really believe they will fight a new revolution in this country and want liberals dead. If they want a fight I will defend myself.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

13. Well said...

I think it is RATIONAL, for no other reason than self-preservation, to go ahead and make some conclusions about the Aurora massacre based on similar past incidents, and change that evaluation as more facts become available, if need be.

I stand by by first comment that the DU apparently has an awful lot of Tea Bagger infiltrators, though.

I can understand someone not wanting to jump the shark. But I can't comprehend someone who can't accept that we're knee deep in both a class struggle and culture war against our conservative neighbors, especially when they freely admit to it.

[maddezmom]

17. what are you trying to say here?

Those of us who swore to uphold and defend the US Constitution, know what it will take and are willing to do it, many here are not.

[pinboy3niner]

18. Wrong. DU has a lot of vets, including combat vets of various eras.

And "holding hands and making nice," as a generalization about DU, is a far cry from reality.

What do you mean about those who know "what it will take and are willing to do it"? That sounds somehow menacing, but I wouldn't want to mistake your intent without benefit of further elaboration by you.

[Le Taz Hot]

16. Oh, please.

One of DU's regular Party Faithful accused me of being a teaklanner the other day just because I posted something that wasn't of their liking. Disagreeing with The Party Line does not make one a teaklanner or a Republican or a Romney voter (all accusations made in response to the same subject). So, after 11 years, I'm either none of those things or I'm a very good troll.

[sendero]

19. If I had a nickel..

.. for every time I was accused of being winger here I could buy this site.

Guess what, not every progressive believes all of the idiotic nonsense that many seem to. And I'm betting that not everyone that disagrees with you is a closet bagger.

[pinboy3niner]

20. What you're missing...

,,,is that, while many may agree with your background info on stochastic terrorism, they can't make the leap that you do to Limbaugh in this case in the absence of any evidence that Holmes was even exposed to Limbaugh's rants.

That is leaping to a conclusion without a shred of evidence to connect those dots. Insisting on evidence--even a shred of evidence--does not make one a 'teabagger' or a defender of Limbaugh. And there is no reason to slam DUers as 'teabaggers' merely for thinking that conclusions require at least some kind of support.