I think the complaint by conservatives is that many of them are branded with a broad brush as terrorists when others such as the killer of the Marines, or the Ft Hood shooter and others are branded as "work place violence" or anything but terrorism.
Seems many in the mainstream media and in government bend over backwards to keep from offending one group, but have no problem offending WASP conservatives, and lumping them all into one bucket.
Apparently, it's ok to paint with a broad brush with respect to the WASP conservative, but not for any other group. If it's anything other than the WASP conservative, well, it's an individual act.
How about consistency. If you can't (and you shouldn't) judge a group based on the actions in a place like Ferguson, then why is it ok to judge a group based on the actions of the SC shooter?
If you go after one of the confederate battle flags based on the actions of the SC shooter, what other flags should we go after to remain consistent?
I think that's what many conservatives are looking for, consistency. If pattern A is bad, then why is it only bad when it's a WASP conservative? Why isn't it just as bad when it's an Islamic extremist, or an environmental extremist, or a left-wing extremist?
What is the goal? Do we really want a dialog, where all perspectives are heard, or do we want to silence those who have a differing view point, because their questions are uncomfortable and don't mesh with a preconceived worldview?
In my opinion, and it's just that, only an opinion. Most of these issues are not racial or religious, or gender, or political issues. They are character issues.
Bad character is well represented in all socioeconomic strata. There is not moral high ground for the left or the right. Neither for men, nor women. Equally true based on race.
All races have been enslaved at one time or another. All races has fought against such slavery from one time to another as one example. As another example, some think men have more affairs than women. Really? Who are they having affair with, other men? Of course not. Both genders are equally represented in the breaking of marriage vows.
Yet we have these misguided notions that because I'm in group X or Y or Z, I have some moral superiority.
Simply is not true. No matter what some leader of that group would like to tell you. If they are trying to teach you that, they are setting you up to justify their immoral actions, "for the greater good."
It's a time tested pattern.
If anyone is suggesting their group is morally superior, run, don't walk.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
...
I mean...Nazism, fascism, and racism is a "point of view". But one that is unacceptable in a modern civilized society. Right?
Says the guy who just said he is sick of "rednecks".
I don't know? Was the SC church shooter that or a moonbat. Are white terrorists extreme conservatives or moonbats? Its moonbats we have to locate and watch?
I was listening to some conservative radio station yesterday. It seems they are up in arms that the president considers the SC shooter a terrorist. I mean how can a white guy possibly be a terrorist, hey Oklahoma city? This is what they spend all day talking about?
