The Progverse seems to want a war.

This has kind of reminded me of a situation I was in years ago. About a decade… Something like that.

I was already past my prime… Not the man I once was.

I found myself in a confrontation with some guy who was ready to mix it up with me. And when I say ready I mean he already had his hands up, was doing that shoulder rolling thing and advancing on me.



So I get myself ready to get into it and then I look at him and I say; "You know, I'm going to be lucky to last 15 seconds with you with a fair fight.
So what makes you think I'm going to give you a fair fight?"




And yes, I freely admit that a fair fight was the last thing I was planning to give him. I was really only wondering how bad it was going to hurt before I managed to get in the necessary shots to put him down.

But maybe he saw something in my eyes or heard something in my voice or maybe he just thought about my words for a second… Whatever it was he threw a bunch of unkind speculations regarding my ancestry and sexual proclivities in my direction and walked off.

Don't get me wrong…
I was glad of it and I for damn sure let him keep going.




None of that is really my point of course.



My point is that the behavior of the Progverse has been reminding me of that guy's behavior that day. Only, I don't think they're going to walk away.


If this continued incitement from the political left's leadership continues it will reach a point where it will take on a life of its own and will no longer be stoppable.


At that point the only real question is how ugly it will get before it's over.
«1

Comments

  • The war has been going on for years. They've been trying to defang us for a very long time; really, since 1934 with the NFA.

    And gun owners have been lying down and taking it. What makes you think that will change?
  • Dave, I do think there is a difference in the current environment.  Eric, the best evidence that they're not going to walk away is that they are, metaphorically at least, swinging at us like maniacs.

    Andrew McCarthy has a good piece at NRO at what he identifies as the libel of Sarah Palin by the New York Times in response to this Bernie supporter with a rifle. The gist of it is that the New York Times responded to the Alexandria shooting by noting that Sarah Palin incited the shooting of Gabby Giffords by publishing her image within a set of crosshairs. Never mind that Palin's campaign never did that. (It published an image of a map under crosshairs, not a person.) The New York Times is specifically charging that Palin incited the shooting.

    Also bizarre is the current investigatory atmosphere. Comey, an executive branch officeholder inferior to the president, generates self-serving memoranda each time he meets with the president. The president terminates Flynn, thereby eliminating any potential conflict a compromised cabinet official might have by eliminating the official, then tells Comey, his subordinate, that he would like to see him let go of the Flynn thing. Comey, also confirms that the president is not the target of an investigation.

    The president terminates Comey, as is his right.  Suddenly and impossibly, the cry goes up that the president has obstructed justice, acted corruptly to frustrate a criminal investigation, even though there was no criminal investigation of him and it would not have been corrupt to have ordered the FBI to let it go.

    But then it gets better.  Comey has his friend's leak his own self-serving memos to generate pressure for a special counsel in the Flynn investigation, the same matter the president told him to drop. We know Comey's motive in doing this because he disclosed it in subsequent congressional testimony.

    Then the special counsel's office starts leaking stories about the president being the target of an investigation. These are leaks calculated to produce political pressure, are contrary to FBI practice, and may themselves be prosecutable.

    Finally, for a touch of perspective, recall that the prior attorney general had a half hour meeting with the spouse of the target in a criminal investigation for the mishandling of classified material, and nothing came of it.
  • If you were 18 in 2001 and spent eight years all pissy about Gore losing, would you be smart enough by now, age 35, to understand that HRC losing may be one of the sweetest experiences of your life?
  • Most people are not fit to be called "Citizen" and would likely be happier as subjects.
  • When posturing violence meets pragmatic violence, expect the posturing aggressor to receive a hard lesson they will then try to deny or ignore even while altering their behavior to adapt.

    They want to shame us; antifa and such dream of a future stomping on our faces forever. It's all about their egos.

    We want to be left alone, defend ourselves, friends, families, etc. from the very real physical harm they threaten. It's about our skins and the skins of those who personally matter to us.

    As I said to Eric a little while back, if things reach a level of roaming mobs, I expect them to be turned back hard when they probe towards flyover country. By that time, with adrenaline addiction having already kicked in, they'll then turn towards softer targets just to keep finding prey - suburban and exurban, middle-and-above class blue enclaves.

  • I'd like to find a way for people who want to alienate their rights, to do so without alienating mine.  My concern, for my fellow citizens who don't really want to be citizens, is diminishing.  I'm not proud of that, but I don't see a way to reverse it.

    I don't see a path to winning the culture war.  The Left's lies seem too enticing to most young people with such poor expectations for productivity.  It seems more likely that Millennials will fall into typical patterns of Leftist urban poverty once their parents die.
  • I recall years ago, somewhere around 1984 I think, I was reading something written by a Vietnam Veteran who I would imagine was younger at that time than I am now. Probably in his mid-30's.

    He was talking about how he used to love going to bars in his younger days and for a little while after he got out because it was a lot of fun and of course he could meet girls.

    He had soured on it after a while because some of the bars that were the most fun would also have problems with fights. It wasn't the fighting per se that bothered him, it was the mindset. What he said, and I'm paraphrasing here because this was well over 30 years ago was something like this:

    "We get into a fight and you're standing there with an image in your mind of putting your boots to me after you knock me down; while I'm standing here with an image in my mind of you being dead."

    Apparently he had already had a couple of issues where he took things further than he needed to and while he hadn't had an serious trouble with the law over it yet, he figured that if he kept going to the kind of bars he enjoyed (Honky Tonks) that it was only a matter of time.


    I see a similar dynamic playing out in a different way now.
  • MC Escher said:




    My point is that the behavior of the Progverse has been reminding me of that guy's behavior that day. Only, I don't think they're going to walk away...




    What the hell is the "progverse?"
  • The universe of progressives. The leftist echo chamber.
  • So what element of this "progverse" is coming to get anyone, never mind start an actual war?
  • Antifa would be the first and most obvious one to come to mind. BLM isn't far behind.
  • vwtool said:

    So what element of this "progverse" is coming to get anyone, never mind start an actual war?

    There is also the fellow who Alexandria who came to a baseball game to shoot republicans.  I don't blame vitriolic language for the acts of a shooter, but the unhinged emotion that has flowed since DJT's election has been notable.
  • vwtool said:

    So what element of this "progverse" is coming to get anyone, never mind start an actual war?

    Would this be an official declaration on your part that you have no knowledge of the plans to kick off "Occupy Trump" on November 4th?
  • MC Escher said:

    vwtool said:

    So what element of this "progverse" is coming to get anyone, never mind start an actual war?

    Would this be an official declaration on your part that you have no knowledge of the plans to kick off "Occupy Trump" on November 4th?
    Well Hell, I hadn't even heard about that.
  • dgm said:

    Antifa would be the first and most obvious one to come to mind. BLM isn't far behind.




    Antifa, I understand as a modest threat, but I don't think those knuckleheads have anything like the strength of numbers to do any significant damage. BLM is a puzzler. Other than the random 'member' making horrible comments, what real threat do they pose?
  • MC Escher said:

    ...Would this be an official declaration on your part that you have no knowledge of the plans to kick off "Occupy Trump" on November 4th?




    (Checks inbox) I donated to and briefly worked for the Sanders campaign, but I got nothing.
  • Let's cut through the bullshit...

    We're dealing with the COMINTERN. Their tendency to re-brand themselves every few years changes nothing. This is who they are and make no mistake, they want to tear down our republic and replace it with a Marxist State.
  • To BLM and Antifa, everyone who disagrees with them is a white supremacist or nazi.
  • MC Escher said:

    Let's cut through the bullshit...

    We're dealing with the COMINTERN. Their tendency to re-brand themselves every few years changes nothing. This is who they are and make no mistake, they want to tear down our republic and replace it with a Marxist State.




    So how does this relate to left-leaning people and Dems in general?
  • dgm said:

    To BLM and Antifa, everyone who disagrees with them is a white supremacist or nazi.

    Even if that's 100% true, it doesn't make them a viable threat, does it?  I don't care a whit about antifa, but as far as BLM goes, why not take them at face value, i.e., that they're advocating for better treatment from law enforcement?
  • vwtool said:


    Even if that's 100% true, it doesn't make them a viable threat, does it?




    To what?

    Bernie certainly found them a very viable threat to his ability to campaign when they took the stage to prevent him from speaking during the primary.
  • nbody said:


    To what?

    Bernie certainly found them a very viable threat to his ability to campaign when they took the stage to prevent him from speaking during the primary.




    The topic of the thread seems to be that the "progverse" intends some sort of violent takeover. While I disagree with BLM's tactics in taking the mic away from Bernie, that hardly seems to qualify.
  • vwtool said:


    The topic of the thread seems to be that the "progverse" intends some sort of violent takeover.




    You may be posing questions about that, yet that may not be what the thread is about. I would gauge the inital post to be about the difference between demonstrative or social violence and effective and overwhelming violence.
  • You are free to gauge it any way you wish, but his words are pretty clear: He says the leaders of the political left are inciting people and that incitement will inevitably lead to violence. I asked if he or anyone else thinks this applies to mainstream left/dem politics and not just extremist groups like antifa, but have received no answer yet.
  • vwtool said:

    You are free to gauge it any way you wish, but his words are pretty clear: He says the leaders of the political left are inciting people and that incitement will inevitably lead to violence. I asked if he or anyone else thinks this applies to mainstream left/dem politics and not just extremist groups like antifa, but have received no answer yet.

    What he actually wrote:
    MC Escher said:


    My point is that the behavior of the Progverse has been reminding me of that guy's behavior that day. Only, I don't think they're going to walk away.


    If this continued incitement from the political left's leadership continues it will reach a point where it will take on a life of its own and will no longer be stoppable.



    At that point the only real question is how ugly it will get before it's over.


  • To what do you imagine “ugly”and “no longer stoppable” refer? Sternly-worded letters to the editor?
  • Tool, I really hope you are arguing rhetorically.

  • vwtool said:

    He says the leaders of the political left are inciting people and that incitement will inevitably lead to violence.


    Escher said:

    If this continued incitement from the political left's leadership continues it will reach a point where it will take on a life of its own and will no longer be stoppable.


    Note the bolded language in the part I had previously emphasized in the hope that you would read it.

    "If this incitement continues, it no longer will be stoppable" is readily distinguishable from "The leaders of the political left are inciting people and that incitement will inevitably lead to violence." His statement involves a condition rather than a forecast of inevitability.

    As I noted earlier, individuals are responsible for their acts. That a rhetorical environment may encourage some on the margins to act irresponsibly doesn't absolve the bad actors, but might or should prompt people to think about the way they speak.

    When Alec Baldwin promised to move to Canada if GWB won, he wasn't just being a drama queen with a mic and an empty promise. He was promising to behave to signal a lack of his personal acceptance of the result of an election. Then we had eight years of people saying that the Sup Ct had taken the election from Gore and handed it to GWB, which was false. (Gore v. Bush addressed a train wreck of a state court decision that ignored FL statute.) The attack was on the legitimacy of the legal result.

    DJT fell into the trap of questioning BHO's citizenship, an issue BHO used pretty skillfully to draw the issue out over a long period.

    Then, when DJT wins the election, lots of people, you included, lose the ability to face this reality with any reasonable composure. HRC herself can't stop making excuses, and lots of media can't stop critiques of DJT turned up to 11. Maxine Waters and other democrat elected officials talk about impeachment as part of their tourrettes. The effect is to erode the historical consensus that the winner of the election is the legitimate office holder.

    Political and cultural leaders can't spend decades calling into question the legitimacy of the elected executive and expect that no one will employ illegitimate means, violence, to address it.


  • Context matters.  If the first half of that anecdote - the one in which he disclosed he was carrying a firearm when he either sought or didn't avoid a confrontation with a belligerent lefty - doesn't matter, then why include it?  The "if" that would normally be enough to make this statement appear like a calm observation standing on its own isn't powerful enough to stand up to the preface he chose to include. 

    As to the rest of your remarks, they only serve to illustrate that you are at least as guilty of this as the other side. People were wrong to direct their anger at Bush himself, but they were correct to be angry that the SC effectively ended the election by judicial fiat, rather than letting the recount process continue at the state level.  

    And considering the howling-at-the-moon lunacy Obama had to endure during his tenure, I can't feel much sympathy for a human being as manifestly unsuited for high office as Trump. I never contested the results of the election, or doubted its legitimacy (unlike the winner) but that's not the same thing as noting he's unfit. 
  • edited October 2017
    vwtool said:

    Context matters.  If the first half of that anecdote - the one in which he disclosed he was carrying a firearm when he either sought or didn't avoid a confrontation with a belligerent lefty - doesn't matter, then why include it? 

     
    I encourage you to re-read the first post.  If you can find the part in which he discloses that he is carrying, kindly quote it.
    vwtool said:


    As to the rest of your remarks, they only serve to illustrate that you are at least as guilty of this as the other side. 
    Guilty of what?

    I'm wondering whether you've again read through the lense of some distorted perceptions, the sort that leaves you claiming periodically that I use the term "gals" to describe women, even though the only time the terms comes up near my name is when I correct you on it.

    Since I've never called into question the legitimacy of the election process by which BHO (or WJC, GHWB or GWB for that matter) was elected, I suspect another misreading.
    vwtool said:

    ...but they were correct to be angry that the SC effectively ended the election by judicial fiat, rather than letting the recount process continue at the state level. 

    That's false.  The Sup Ct didn't end an election, they enforced it's result according to state law and gave effect to FL's certification of the result.  There simply was no legal basis in FL law for the selective recount Gore demanded.

    Judicial fiat in this case is an order of the court result from both litigants agreeing to have the matter resolved by that court, and the court issuing a legal order, not an arbitrary order.  For the most part, people who pretend that the order was arbitrary haven't read the decision or the FL decision it reversed.
    vwtool said:



    And considering the howling-at-the-moon lunacy Obama had to endure during his tenure, I can't feel much sympathy for a human being as manifestly unsuited for high office as Trump.
    I don't care whether you can muster sympathy for DJT.  I mean that literally, not idiomatically.  Your sympathy isn't the issue.

    The portion of the population who have a tantrum when their candidate loses and call for impeachment from inauguration on are a symptom of a problem, people who only recognise the legitimacy of elections when they win.  That problem left unchecked is a potentially great problem for constitutional government.
Sign In or Register to comment.