Gabriella Giffords Assasinated...

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:
These are there individuals influenced by political rhetoric who went on to commit violence -- to actually kill people in two of the three cases. But, since you haven't heard about them, it must not be important. Good grief.

Right, and let's not forget the point of all this: for GOP politicians, it's all about getting out the vote. If they can convince the weak-minded that Obama's a Islamofascisocialist who wants to kill your grandma, and it's more likely you'll get to the polls, that's all well and good. For someone like Beck, it's about selling books. There's a certain element where--if they can drum up enough crazies to send death threats to the various "traitors", it'll have a chilling effect on folks like Soros getting involved in politics.

How much would you like to bet the amount of violent hate-mail Soros gets dwarfs that received by, say, Rupert Murdoch or the Koch brothers. Of course, PP would ask why that's even relevant, seeing as Murdoch's just a business man, and Soros is an evil traitor to Democracy. If he were killed he "wouldn't shed any tears." Fuckwit.

[Anonymous]

Both sides have extremists. Power is corrupting. Andrew Sullivan will drop atheism on his deathbed. Breaking up consolidation of power , constraining and disempowering the Federal Government is th genius of the Constitution.

[Anonymous]

true, getting out the vote is not important for democrats. you never see buses of union thugs driving around inner cities driving folks to the polls. good point!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
These are there individuals influenced by political rhetoric who went on to commit violence -- to actually kill people in two of the three cases. But, since you haven't heard about them, it must not be important. Good grief.

Right, and let's not forget the point of all this: for GOP politicians, it's all about getting out the vote. If they can convince the weak-minded that Obama's a Islamofascisocialist who wants to kill your grandma, and it's more likely you'll get to the polls, that's all well and good. For someone like Beck, it's about selling books. There's a certain element where--if they can drum up enough crazies to send death threats to the various "traitors", it'll have a chilling effect on folks like Soros getting involved in politics.

How much would you like to bet the amount of violent hate-mail Soros gets dwarfs that received by, say, Rupert Murdoch or the Koch brothers. Of course, PP would ask why that's even relevant, seeing as Murdoch's just a business man, and Soros is an evil traitor to Democracy. If he were killed he "wouldn't shed any tears." Fuckwit.

Democrats aren't all about getting out the vote? Are you sure? Are you thinking that's why they lost so much ground in the last election?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not familiar with most of those events (other than the late-term abortion doctor, which while inexcusable is not going to cause me to shed too many tears), so they couldn't have been too newsworthy. And as crazy as Beck, et al are, they don't seem any more unhinged than Olbermann and his buddies, so I'd guess it works both ways. So clearly there is not an epidemic of political violence in this country. However, I'd argue there is an epidemic of mass shootings by crazy people, so I'd totally be on board with restricting access to guns ...

I guess it is you that determines what lives are worthy. How many would shed tears if someone gunned you down in front of your spouse.

hey, I personally am not going to shed any tears for someone who performs late-term abortions. I hope his killer gets the death penalty or spends the rest of his life in prison, but that doesn't mean I am going to feel too sorrowful for the victim in this case.

That's great, but you SHOULD be shedding tears for the big hole this tears into our freedoms. When someone settles political differences with a gun, it threatens our way of life. Where is your outrage over that? If anyone is killed over politics, it is a grave injustice, whether you believe in the victim's point of view or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Both sides have extremists. Power is corrupting. Andrew Sullivan will drop atheism on his deathbed. Breaking up consolidation of power , constraining and disempowering the Federal Government is th genius of the Constitution.

Again, the point in question is whether the Right elevates their extremists to positions of influence, and the Left effectively shuns them. This seems like a no-brainer, but I'm open to evidence to the contrary. I'm not seeing any in the disjointed stream of platitudes above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not familiar with most of those events (other than the late-term abortion doctor, which while inexcusable is not going to cause me to shed too many tears), so they couldn't have been too newsworthy. And as crazy as Beck, et al are, they don't seem any more unhinged than Olbermann and his buddies, so I'd guess it works both ways. So clearly there is not an epidemic of political violence in this country. However, I'd argue there is an epidemic of mass shootings by crazy people, so I'd totally be on board with restricting access to guns ...

I guess it is you that determines what lives are worthy. How many would shed tears if someone gunned you down in front of your spouse.

hey, I personally am not going to shed any tears for someone who performs late-term abortions. I hope his killer gets the death penalty or spends the rest of his life in prison, but that doesn't mean I am going to feel too sorrowful for the victim in this case.

That's great, but you SHOULD be shedding tears for the big hole this tears into our freedoms. When someone settles political differences with a gun, it threatens our way of life. Where is your outrage over that? If anyone is killed over politics, it is a grave injustice, whether you believe in the victim's point of view or not.

hmmm. I'd be outraged if the killer were not caught and brought to justice. Thankfully the legal system worked in this case, and any opinions about the victim did not influence the matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
These are there individuals influenced by political rhetoric who went on to commit violence -- to actually kill people in two of the three cases. But, since you haven't heard about them, it must not be important. Good grief.

Right, and let's not forget the point of all this: for GOP politicians, it's all about getting out the vote. If they can convince the weak-minded that Obama's a Islamofascisocialist who wants to kill your grandma, and it's more likely you'll get to the polls, that's all well and good. For someone like Beck, it's about selling books. There's a certain element where--if they can drum up enough crazies to send death threats to the various "traitors", it'll have a chilling effect on folks like Soros getting involved in politics.

How much would you like to bet the amount of violent hate-mail Soros gets dwarfs that received by, say, Rupert Murdoch or the Koch brothers. Of course, PP would ask why that's even relevant, seeing as Murdoch's just a business man, and Soros is an evil traitor to Democracy. If he were killed he "wouldn't shed any tears." Fuckwit.

Democrats aren't all about getting out the vote? Are you sure? Are you thinking that's why they lost so much ground in the last election?

Of course they are. That's politics. Now you need to show your work. Where's the extreme violent rhetoric coming from elected Democrats or their proxies (like Beck, Limbaugh, etc, etc...)? Not there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both sides have extremists. Power is corrupting. Andrew Sullivan will drop atheism on his deathbed. Breaking up consolidation of power , constraining and disempowering the Federal Government is th genius of the Constitution.

Again, the point in question is whether the Right elevates their extremists to positions of influence, and the Left effectively shuns them. This seems like a no-brainer, but I'm open to evidence to the contrary. I'm not seeing any in the disjointed stream of platitudes above.

Soooo, aws long as the Federal Government is sufficiently disempowered, you don't have to worry about extremists on any side. They have minimal power to effect your life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:true, getting out the vote is not important for democrats. you never see buses of union thugs driving around inner cities driving folks to the polls. good point!

Why are people who drive citizens to the polls "thugs"? It seems like a good thing to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both sides have extremists. Power is corrupting. Andrew Sullivan will drop atheism on his deathbed. Breaking up consolidation of power , constraining and disempowering the Federal Government is th genius of the Constitution.

Again, the point in question is whether the Right elevates their extremists to positions of influence, and the Left effectively shuns them. This seems like a no-brainer, but I'm open to evidence to the contrary. I'm not seeing any in the disjointed stream of platitudes above.

I think you are confusing talk-show hosts with positions of power. The only extremist that has gotten elected recently from either party is Al Franken. Pelosi and Reid and others have made some horrible statements over the years, but I don't consider them extremists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
These are there individuals influenced by political rhetoric who went on to commit violence -- to actually kill people in two of the three cases. But, since you haven't heard about them, it must not be important. Good grief.

Right, and let's not forget the point of all this: for GOP politicians, it's all about getting out the vote. If they can convince the weak-minded that Obama's a Islamofascisocialist who wants to kill your grandma, and it's more likely you'll get to the polls, that's all well and good. For someone like Beck, it's about selling books. There's a certain element where--if they can drum up enough crazies to send death threats to the various "traitors", it'll have a chilling effect on folks like Soros getting involved in politics.

How much would you like to bet the amount of violent hate-mail Soros gets dwarfs that received by, say, Rupert Murdoch or the Koch brothers. Of course, PP would ask why that's even relevant, seeing as Murdoch's just a business man, and Soros is an evil traitor to Democracy. If he were killed he "wouldn't shed any tears." Fuckwit.

Democrats aren't all about getting out the vote? Are you sure? Are you thinking that's why they lost so much ground in the last election?

Of course they are. That's politics. Now you need to show your work. Where's the extreme violent rhetoric coming from elected Democrats or their proxies (like Beck, Limbaugh, etc, etc...)? Not there.

You're changing course here. I directed my question towards the highlighted statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both sides have extremists. Power is corrupting. Andrew Sullivan will drop atheism on his deathbed. Breaking up consolidation of power , constraining and disempowering the Federal Government is th genius of the Constitution.

Again, the point in question is whether the Right elevates their extremists to positions of influence, and the Left effectively shuns them. This seems like a no-brainer, but I'm open to evidence to the contrary. I'm not seeing any in the disjointed stream of platitudes above.

I think you are confusing talk-show hosts with positions of power. The only extremist that has gotten elected recently from either party is Al Franken. Pelosi and Reid and others have made some horrible statements over the years, but I don't consider them extremists.

These "talk show hosts" as you call them lead the unelected wing of the Republican party. Their violent rhetoric is never repudiated, and they're embraced as heroes by millions of Republicans and far-right Americans. There's nothing like that on the left.

Finally, as always we hear a lot of assertions, but no meat ("Olbermann's as bad as Beck!" "Pelosi and Reid and others have made some horrible statements over the years..."). Not the same. Have some intellectual integrity, and make an argument, or admit there's no equivalency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
These are there individuals influenced by political rhetoric who went on to commit violence -- to actually kill people in two of the three cases. But, since you haven't heard about them, it must not be important. Good grief.

Right, and let's not forget the point of all this: for GOP politicians, it's all about getting out the vote. If they can convince the weak-minded that Obama's a Islamofascisocialist who wants to kill your grandma, and it's more likely you'll get to the polls, that's all well and good. For someone like Beck, it's about selling books. There's a certain element where--if they can drum up enough crazies to send death threats to the various "traitors", it'll have a chilling effect on folks like Soros getting involved in politics.

How much would you like to bet the amount of violent hate-mail Soros gets dwarfs that received by, say, Rupert Murdoch or the Koch brothers. Of course, PP would ask why that's even relevant, seeing as Murdoch's just a business man, and Soros is an evil traitor to Democracy. If he were killed he "wouldn't shed any tears." Fuckwit.

Democrats aren't all about getting out the vote? Are you sure? Are you thinking that's why they lost so much ground in the last election?

Of course they are. That's politics. Now you need to show your work. Where's the extreme violent rhetoric coming from elected Democrats or their proxies (like Beck, Limbaugh, etc, etc...)? Not there.

You're changing course here. I directed my question towards the highlighted statement.

Wrong. You're changing course. The highlighted statement was "Right, and let's not forget the point of all this [violent political rhetoric]: for GOP politicians, it's all about getting out the vote". How is it relevant that left-leaning politicians also try to GOTV? Violent rhetoric is not a component of mainstream Democratic political messaging.

[Anonymous]

The only extremist that has gotten elected recently from either party is Al Franken.

Oh, one final thing: I think you're confusing "extremism" with "disagrees with me". In what sense is Al Franken an extremist in any sense of the word? Classic "epistemic closure" on the right. You guys would be laughable if you weren't shitting on the country every chance you get.