Tully Mars

Why is there a consistent call of "I don't believe you believe what you wrote" happening on this forum? I can see questioning a public figure, I find I "don't believe they believe" much of what they say. But why would anyone waste their time posting opinions on a tiny web site like this that they don't even believe makes no sense to me.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

Willravel

This is a discussion in which individuals are making arguments intended to compel.

Cynthetiq

Will, I'm not fishing for any argument. I'm speaking my mind and that's it. People are free to make their statements and actions. We are free to determine if we agree or disagree with them. We are also free to ignore them. Get that Will, because I don't denounce a group does not mean I enable them, it means I've marginalized them to mean nothing to me.

Finally we are free to act upon what we believe to be right or wrong. We can also decide not to act. That by itself is a choice and an action.

It makes as much sense as you not paying any mind to whatever is going on in some corner of the world and pinning it on you and saying,"That because you don't say anything about it you're enabling them and you are responsible for them." No sir, that guilt does not belong to me, and I tell that messenger who puts that at my feet, to fuck off. I'm not responsible for it at all.

You're the one fishing for an argument. I've stated what I had to and wanted to say. You disagree. That's it. Plain and simple.

On the other hand, you'd like to hang something onto me for whatever reasons your panties are wadded up. I really don't care.

I see that the left called for Bush and Cheney's demise during the 8 years they were in office. It wasn't much different when Regan or Bush Sr. was in office either. I can't imagine it being any less going back in presidential history. If it wasn't the left it was OTHER people and no one denounced that they should not be talking about such things. No, it was people like you who didn't say anything and enabled them. I guess that makes you responsible too. See what I did there?

Some people act on their impulses, and that's where the difference is here. You'd like it to be stopped at the talking/thinking stage, and I like it to stay at the acting upon stage.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Tully Mars

You believe people on here are so compelled to compel they are willing to lie about what they actually believe? Sounds goofy to me. Ace tells me he believes and likes Palin for X, Y and Z then I believe that's why he likes her. Just as I believe you believe the opinions you post.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

roachboy

will--repetition is basic to the analyses of fascism that look to the role of radio as an ideological mechanism that assured regular turnover/adaptation of Official Attitudes and a running co-ordination between audience and state (in addition creating/reinforcing the sense of immediate identification with the nation-in-motion expressed through the real volk who ran the state)....it's not new the idea that repetition is a powerful conditioning tool. check out pascal's wager sometime.

now i'm curious about this, tho--apart from the considerable literature on the role of radio in the rwanda genocide (sobering stuff to read about if you haven't)---i'll poke around for stuff on repetition and conditioning in the communications database i run for my day gig....

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Cynthetiq

are you suggesting trolling?

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

These aren't always mutually exclusive.
What specifically is standing between you and denouncing them, though? Is it just the comment you made about how this discourse allows you the opportunity to better understand their desperation? Can't you do that while condemning them? I get what you were saying with that argument, but I don't see it as somehow preventing you from being clear that you don't agree with these people. That was really all I wanted clarification on.

So you don't agree with Rush or Beck or Savage when they go on tirades including violent rhetoric? I'm not asking you to tell them to stop talking or whatever, just about condemnation.
We on the left weren't calling for the demise of Bush and Cheney, we were calling for them to be prosecuted for breaking actual laws. That's not the same as what's coming from the right's more radical and noisy voices. Second Amendment remidies was a reference to the Second Amendment's original intention, armed revolution against a tyrannical government. As messed up as things may be, we're not living under a tyrannical government, so using such language is calling for violent revolution against a democratically elected, relatively moderate government. Who on the left did that? Did Michael Moore or Bernie Sanders call on progressives and liberals to take up arms against the Bush Administration, even during its darkest hours? Of course not. We on the left can get just as pissed as people on the right, I redly admit, but violent rhetoric doesn't find a home among progressive ideology the same as it does conservative, seemingly.
It's not intentional. I don't think these are all just long-term trolling or anything like that.
I was curious more to your take on the psychology of this phenomenon. I think I understand in basic terms the modus operandi of the repeated line (lie) in the media becoming truth, or at least acceptable, but your mention of respondent conditioning has me very curious about that angle of whatever one calls this phenomena.
No. Trolling is intentional by nature, and it serves no purpose but to stir up shit. If I'm right, I don't think what you're doing is intentional or just here to stir shit up. You're sharing your take, I just think your bias might be keeping you from reaching a conclusion closer to my own, particularly because of your equivalence argument.

Cynthetiq

No will, you are trying to force me to agree with you and I don't.

I don't have to denounce what they are saying because I don't even acknowledge that they are saying it. Don't you get that? To me those individuals don't exist in my world of information. Why am I going to denounce something that I'm getting 3rd or 4th hand? Why am I going to waste my time on something and someone I don't care about at all?

Will, no matter how much you try, I don't care about those individuals. They don't make it onto my TV schedule, let alone my reading schedule. I don't subscribe to these individuals so why is it again that it is important for me to take an action?

Why is it my responsibility again? Why is it that every time something happens in the world and someone brings it to my attention I must act and do something? Why can I not choose to decide for myself that I cannot be bothered or that I prefer to worry or concern myself with a different cause or even no cause?

Again, this is the question: Why is it that I have to change my behavior because you don't like something that I don't care about?

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

Force you? Stop being so melodramatic. You can't force someone to do something with persuasive arguments.
You don't acknowledge who is saying what? Oh, that's right, you're aware they're saying it regardless of whether or not you're willing to "acknowledge" it or not. Reality is there whether you like it or not. Notice that you're not saying you don't care with this statement, but that you refuse to admit they exist. This is bizarre language.

Why did you even bother to post in this thread and engage in this discussion if you're so very above all of this, if it's outside even of the world you acknowledge?
Your first post in this thread is about how you think this rhetoric is important to our democracy. Since then, you've backed way off this statement, even going so far as to not even acknowledge that this rhetoric even exists to you. Which is it? Do you have an opinion or don't you? And if you do, do you understand that you can be held responsible for that opinion?

---------- Post added at 06:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:21 PM ----------

6/10/10: Glenn Beck calls on his listeners to shoot "radicals in Washington"

Cynthetiq

Will, I don't know what you're drinking but it must be some good shit because you are totally making shit up.

Will, the ability for people to make their statements and claims is an important tent pole for democracy. If you don't see that that's your issue not mine.

I've not backed down from anything. You want me to admit to something that I don't believe in. I don't need to decry anything because I already don't subscribe to their position nor their media or the consumption of their media. Why is that so hard to believe?

I think that they should be able to say what they have been as long as it's within the legal limits (not yelling fire in a crowded theater and not directly threatening someone with violence.) You think that everyone should denounce it and that's fine. I'm more of a live and let live person. Those people can and will continue to create media sensationalism, I don't subscribe to their positions nor do I consume their media. I don't agree with anything they say nor do I agree with it, because I don't really know what it is that they are saying. I think that they should be free to say it since they have the airwaves and their group has paid for it in some fashion.

I don't watch Glen Beck, I don't listen to Rush. I read things for myself and not really need them interpreted and predigested for me. I won't watch your little clip from youtube either because I don't care to watch him.

Why do I need to denounce their opinion? Why do I need to denounce anything that they say? The converse of this is if you'd agree with their position you'd be asking me for an affirmation for something that I cannot affirm either.

No. I flat out disagree with that.

If we had a new party come into power that was like Hamas and called for the destruction of Israel and Jews, I really don't care. I don't need to denounce them. I don't even need to acknowledge them. It's not much different than that. I get to find out that anyone who associates with a group I can decide to find out about someone's associations and then decide at that time if I agree or disagree with them. I get to do it on my terms not yours, not some other media pundit.

I get to put my energy into supporting something that I do care about. I don't care to waste my energy on things that I don't care about nor find that I have to use my energy against something. Why is that so difficult for the Willravel brain to understand?

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

ganon

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." We have two distinct problems here. One, a definition of evil that is common, and two, who are the good men? Political thought is not diametric, we are on a continuum that suprisingly meets at both ends, totalitarianism. I would err on the side of liberalism of expression (certainly not political liberalism as it is defined in our age. That is my own opinion. Ignore it if you want to.) This thread has been rather inconclusive concerning the role of rhetoric as being the casus belli of mentally disturbed people acting out horrific fantasy. To claim that this current state of affairs is somehow different than all of our history as both humans and Americans is a painful demonstration of the ignorance of that writer. We want what we want for whatever motivation we possess. To give our preferences a moral equivilancy is to deny that ground to someone else. We need a higher standard and in our case it is the Constitution, which allows for change if the people desire it. Will, you are making no case, Cynthetiq, you are willfully ignoring evil. The evil is not liberalism or conservatism, violent speech or cuddly kittycats, it is ignorance. THIS IS MY HUMBLE OPINION. User mileage may vary. The Constitution allows for a degree of violent rhetoric because the government should always be aware that it can be replaced. I would prefer the violence of an epically placed vote, but Jefferson did allow for the concept of applied violence for the greater good. Thus the founding of our country. This wack-job in Arizona chose the one, violence, when the other, voting, was a perfectly available and legitimate choice. It is foolish to think that either side of the political spectrum is not frothing at the mouth at the thought of forcing their vision of the ideal state on the rest of us. Will, you would ask us to accept that in willful ignorance, all facts to the contrary. Cynthetiq, you would ask us, perhaps, not to care either way if it isn't in the purvue of our personal reality. Others exist and thus redefine reality in the common arena. This is the game of human interaction and governance. It is a war and we want our side to win; that is the naked truth. We hold a special disdain for those who do not cotton to our views. The goal should be to understand the nature of the game, not to stiffle the conversation with what turns out to be inane self-importance. And yes, I think Olberman is an utter and complete self-involved, bombastic sanctimonious asshole licking jerkwad. SO I DON'T WATCH HIS SHOW!! Again, no violence is necessary as long as the vote exists, however squelching speech is just for one side to gain acendancy over the other. To deny that fact is to be a liar and that is the greatest threat to our democracy. I agree with Cynthetiq that this forum is not a democracy and that compulsive speech is not fact and can be willfully ignored. Will Cynthetiq suffer from a possible lack of information otherwise ignored? Possibly. Is it my, or your, problem, Will? Not really. Just keep trying to win your political war and I will continue to try to win mine. In the meantime we need to identify and treat the mentally imbalanced, as could have happened with this guy, who didn't even listen to talk radio but was however interacted with by police that very day and who gave off warning signals to classmates and teachers for some time.

__________________
"My give up, my give up." - Jar Jar Binks

Tully Mars

So Cynthetiq is ignoring evil when he chooses to opt out of viewing the news but when you decide someone's "self-involved, bombastic sanctimonious asshole licking jerkwad" it's completely acceptable to opt out?

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

ganon

My hyperbole was meant to illustrate a point, that being personal choice and liability for the choice. I wish Olberman well. Unlike others, I see the political war for what it is and do not wish the participants harm or censure. You failed to notice I did not define the evil as anything other than ignorance. I did not say that people should not choose that evil, if they even buy the definition. For some in is inapplicable or irrelevant. I listen, on occasion, to Olberman, Maddow, the view, Matthews, and other left leaning views. I go to daily kos. I like to know what the enemy is up to, so to speak. But I fully support people making the choice to not listen to anything they don't want to listen to. They will suffer for their ignorance as a matter of course; mine is not to dictate the terms of their life. I have three points. One, say what you want and be embraced or ignored, knowing it is the full and free right of others to do so. Two, rhetoric is not sufficient cause for violence; there is an inclination in the personal philosophy and thought of the violent to act. Case in point is this guy from Tucson. He didn't listen to the rhetoric of the right. He acted on his own for his own goals, horrible as they were. My third point is that we should exercise the rights of democracy in all forms of liberty: say what you will and pay the price. Prefer truth over fallacy that is created to coerce and not inform, and by all means vote!! That is the way we put teeth into our arguments. It is all choice and personal responsibility for that choice. I can say whatever I want, but I will face banination, or critical review, such as your reply. Banination does not deny my right to voice my thoughts, it is the agreed to price to pay for airing my thoughts. Your critical reply inspires reflection and possible change in my philosophy. That is how it works. I do not want to live in an echo chamber where only my thoughts are reinforced. But I must have some core belief to traffic in the intellectual arena of discourse. Somewhere there is informed balance. A more perfect union looks very different to all involved.

Palin endures scorn by some and love by others simply because she is a symbol. Her symbolism is what causes fear on one hand and admiration on the other. Everyone says stupid shit, as I did describing Olberman. Palin is harmless because we have the choice to hear her, evaluate her speech and then ignore her. Olberman is harmless because I have the choice to do the same with him. You can read my post and ignore me. I am not harmed by it, and neither are you unless you simply dismiss it out of hand because I do not "look" like you do, philosophically and politically. We must learn and then stand. Standing cannot occur without either learning or assuming. We assume too much as a society. The cart is before the horse, and the goal is to tear down the straw man instead of elevating the real man. Those are my observations, anyhow.

__________________
"My give up, my give up." - Jar Jar Binks

ottopilot

It does happen sometimes... a TFP super moderator flat-out lied on another related thread about some of my posts. In one of his standard "all evil conservatives" tirades, he said that I (and all conservatives... of which I'm not) simply make "shit" up. I asked him to back up his claim... what have I made up? Instead I get two rambling rants attempting to rationalize why he really didn't lie when he used lies describing how others were lying. It was pathetic... and yes, people (at least one here) are quite willing to knowingly lie to make their point.

__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

The_Jazz

---

-+-{Important TFP Staff Message}-+- otto: you are extremely close to pushing a hot button - flaming the staff and the site. You're making this discussion about TFP and the honesty of the staff. You can stop by realizing that staff are members first and staff members second and that their statements - unless they're in colored script like this - hold no more weight in a thread than any other member's. So mentioning a staffer by position here is only designed to bring shame to the rest of the staff - I will not, under any set of circumstances you can imagine - allow you to do that. Either debate the topic at hand or bring your accusations (and accompanying evidence) of staff malfesance to me.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

ottopilot

Thank you jazz... noted... and my sincere apologies to the TFP staff. You do a great job and it was not my intent to implicate the staff in any way. I will remember to refer my complaints off-line through the appropriate channels.

__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

ottopilot

More hate speech from the right... whoops, make that a hard-left!

The following video was taken at a recent anti-Koch brothers protest in Palm Spring, CA. Observe the “peaceful” leftist protesters calling for the torture and death of Clarence Thomas, plus one woman challenging Glenn Beck to a duel with her “Glock.”

You’ll also hear one person calling for revolution and another saying Thomas (who’s black) should be sent “back to the fields”:



Oh those wacky peacelovin' lefties!

When will the "left" take responsibility for their language of racism, hatred, and violence?

__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

Willravel

I had a friend at the Koch protest! He said it went really well.

As for the accusations, they're a bit hollow, Otto. People on the left commonly utilize our most powerful weapon, irony steeped in dry whit, against people we disagree with. It's why Jon Stewart is one of our greatest champions. Because we commonly use sarcasm and irony, it's not safe to take everything we say literally. It seems clear from the video, these people are being ironic. Liberals freed the slaves. Liberals, mostly, are for gun control. You see how what they say sounds like what you hear from the Tea Party? That's irony!

Cynthetiq

Wait... so because I'm conservative it means I don't have wit, sarcasm, or irony? I can't seem to express it where someone takes it out of context? I'd say the same broad statement that "it's not safe to take everything we say literally."

Liberals freed the slaves? Hmmm... Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

mixedmedia

do I believe a political entertainment medium would use the quite fanciful concept of murder to sell their wares? duh, yes.

murder is big money, dog.

in countries full of pantywaists, that is

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

dc_dux

Otto...we know for a fact that the video was produced AND edited by a guy named Christain Harsock, who claims to be a conservative "journalist (sic) and was involved in videos at ACORN offices.

And apparently was the one egging the responses on with leading questions.

Was the video highly editing (like the ACORN videos) for the purposes of misrepresenting what occurred? Were the worst remarks made by the protesters or outsiders (only heard on the video)? I dont know...do you?

Just another perspective on the event.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Derwood

Republicans in Lincoln's time WERE the liberal party in America, while the Democrats were the conservatives

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

Willravel

I was suggesting that when you hear violent rhetoric from Tea Partiers, odds are it's not sarcasm. You're a moderate fiscal conservative, which means you're very much different from a Tea Partier.
Lincoln was a liberal Republican, something impossible after Reagan, but perfectly common in the 1800s.

filtherton

I can only imagine the harping that would occur regarding Lincoln's job-killing emancipation proclamation.

Cimarron29414

Thank you for this laugh, Will.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Cynthetiq

It's isn't impossible. I know may liberal Republicans. Maybe impossible for them to take a public office, but not impossible that they exist.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

Can you name one? I'm honestly drawing a blank. The most progressive Republican I can think of is Governor Schwarzan.... Governor Shwartze.... the Governator, and he refused to increase taxes (even though we really, really need it), he believed in big borrowing, he refused to back Prop 8, one of the civil rights issues of our time, he was tough on immigration, etc. etc. He's a hard fiscal conservative and a moderate conservative socially. Are there Republicans clamoring for universal healthcare I'm not aware of? Or Republicans pushing for amnesty for immigrants? Or Republicans pushing to raise taxes, especially on the rich?

Cynthetiq

maybe you missed reading this....

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

I guess it doesn't really matter to the discussion at hand.

Regarding Otto's video, what I think we're seeing is pure and simple irony because I've done the same thing myself. Imagine if, during a political debate about the Tea Party, I used the phrase "don't tread on me". Would you think I was honestly using that phrase, or would you think I was making fun of the Tea Party? I ask this because the people who showed up to protest the Koch brothers at that meeting down south are people very much like myself, people who are not okay with the Koch brothers influencing the science debate in the media and bankrolling the astroturf Tea Party. Do you think people who fundamentally oppose the Tea Party would, without any humor or irony, talk about making a black man go work the fields? What is the most likely explanation for that, unabashed racism or making fun? I believe it's making fun.

Cimarron29414

Will-

Just so I understand. So, when we hear liberals saying disrespectful, disgusting, condescending, perhaps violent things, the rule is that we MUST give them the benefit of the doubt that what they are saying is really some form of irony...and that that irony is playing off of the "very real, non-ironic" things that conservatives say.

Got it. I will adjust my rule book accordingly to include this new one. Thanks.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

dc_dux

I applaud Ken Vogel, the reporter from Political covering the protest, who when asked by the right wing pseudo journalist behind the video, why he didn't mention the 'lynching' stuff, said "because I didn't instigate them to say those things..."

Otto and Cimarron....do you think the conservative video-guy (purporting to be an independent journalist) who started it all, had any role or responsibility to bear on the responses that you suggest are as bad as anything heard from the right?

Perhaps you do....but certainly I hope you wouldnt suggest that it is in any way comparable to the daily hate fest on conservative talk radio/tv....Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, Savage, Levin, Hewitt, etc.......

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

dogzilla

I guess the Weathermen were just joking when they set off a bomb in the Pentagon

Weather Underground (organization) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The radical left has enough actual instances of violence that discredit your line of reasoning entirely.

dc_dux

The Weather Underground was 40 years ago. It that really relevant to the discussion?

IF so, I would suggest something more recent. How about those anti-abortion activists bombing clinics?

---------- Post added at 06:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:03 PM ----------

Just in the last 10 years:

- June 11, 2001: An unsolved bombing at a clinic in Tacoma, Washington destroyed a wall, resulting in US$6000 in damages.

- July 4, 2005: A clinic Palm Beach, Florida was the target of an arson. The case remains open.

- December 12, 2005: Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. The device missed the building and no damage was caused. In August 2006, Hughes was sentenced to six years in prison, and Dunahoe to one year. Hughes claimed the bomb was a “memorial lamp” for an abortion she had had there.

- September 13, 2006 David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, Michigan crashed his car into the Edgerton Women's Care Center in Davenport, Iowa. He then doused the lobby in gasoline and then started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in the belief that the center was performing abortions, however Edgerton is not an abortion clinic.

- April 25, 2007: A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device after evacuating the building. Paul Ross Evans (who had a criminal record for armed robbery and theft) was found guilty of the crime.

- May 9, 2007: An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

- December 6, 2007: Chad Altman and Sergio Baca were arrested for the arson of Dr. Curtis Boyd's clinic in Albuquerque. Altman’s girlfriend had scheduled an appointment for an abortion at the clinic.

Anti-abortion violence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

dogzilla

Yes. It provides background on the so-called peaceful left.

Fine. How about the G20 riots?

Hundreds arrested after G20 protesters riot in Toronto | World news | guardian.co.uk

dc_dux

The G 2- protest in Toronto? I didnt know we were including Canadians.

Please provide example of anything on the left comparable to the daily hate fest spewed on conservative talk radio/tv....Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, Savage, Levin, Hewitt, etc.......

These guys dont just disagree with the current administration, which is certainly appropriate...they take their rhetoric to the extreme.

---------- Post added at 06:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:16 PM ----------

While you're at in, perhaps you can comment on this most recent video posted by otto.

Do you think the conservative video-guy (purporting to be an independent journalist) who started it all, had any role or responsibility to bear on the responses that they suggest are as bad as anything heard from the right?

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Willravel

No, we're probably a great deal more guilty of the crime of condescension than anyone on the right. I myself am guilty of it more often than I'd like to admit. We've even been known to be quite disrespectful, despite our care-about-everyone philosophy. That's not the issue, though. The thread is about there being violence in the discourse, even going so far as to call for violence in so many words.

In the video above, the people are jokingly mimicking the Tea Party. Is it condescending? Yes? Is it disrespectful? I suppose so. Very rarely, if ever, will you go to a protest by progressives and run into a legitimate racist, though. I say that speaking for direct experience. The guy above was clearly making fun of the Tea Party, as they're an easy target to lampoon. What he's saying would basically contradict his reason for protesting the Koch brothers. Based on that, it seems fair to conclude that he's not being serious.

---------- Post added at 04:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:19 PM ----------

In 1972, my parents were in their late teens. Let's try to keep the intellectual dishonesty to a minimum so we don't get too far off track.

dogzilla

Why not? Socialists, liberals, conservatives, etc exist in many countries, including Canada. Besides, you have absolute proof none of the troublemakers came from the US?

I'd think the actual instances of violence I posted trump anything these people might have said. I happen to strongly believe people have individual responsibility and accountability for their actions. If someone commits an act of violence, they go to jail. Not probation or sentence thrown out on a technicality. Jail.

---------- Post added at 06:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:16 PM ----------
Looks like another example of how the left also has people who suggest violence and bigotry. I don't see the video guy coercing anybody to make the statements they did. It looks like these people were speaking freely. I didn't see any knife, gun or club in the background, did you?

---------- Post added at 10:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:58 PM ----------

The people the Weathermen killed back in the 1970's are still dead.

Besides which, I also posted a link to the G20 riots in Toronto where 500 peaceful lefties were detained for destroying other people's property.

Since then I've found another current news story about the peaceful lefties.

Bush's Geneva Trip Canceled for Threat of Shoes - CBS News

While somewhat amusing this is also dangerous. I was at a concert that was cut short because a drummer got a concussion from a thrown shoe.

Peaceful lefties indeed.

Willravel

This thread isn't about The Weathermen or their victims, it's about violence in discourse. What violent discourse is there on the left? And even if there were (Spoiler: there isn't), how would that excuse the violent rhetoric on the right? You're equivocating, and you're even failing at that.
Were all 500 of them convicted? I've been to enough protests to know that being detained at one means nothing. Beyond that rather obvious point we once again are seeing false equivalence. Real people have actually died in the past month, let alone the past few years, the murders of which can be traced to violent rhetoric. There were no murders at the G20.
You're comparing the threat of throwing shoes in protest with real, actual murder. To quote Yoda, "That is why you fail."

Cynthetiq

dogzilla, I think will has a distinct difference of violence against property which is fine, versus violence against people which is not.

for me, violence is violence, whether it is against people or property. It still destroys rather than builds.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

dc_dux

dozzilla....i didnt really expect you to acknowledge the role of the conservative instigator in the video....I can only imagine the outrage on the right if a liberal pseudo journalist with an agenda pulled a similar cheap stunt at a Tea Party event.

Or address the issue of the hate talk on conservative radio of which there is nothing comparable on the left.

I get it...the weather underground, protests in other countries and a shoe thrower are a convenient way to dodge the issue.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire