From vitriol to violence ....

Great Debates
1

Let’s just get the rules of the debate established first …What’s the standard for inciting or perpetrating political violence?

It’s pretty well “understood” around here that the right are the evil doers and the left either don’t do it or not as much.

When I think of political violence I can’t help but think of the left rioting whenever capitalist leaders get together…most recently in Pittsburgh iirc. Are they so left that it doesn’t count? How does that jibe with the argument that some groups aren’t liberal because they aren’t left enough?

I’m not sure how political violence relates to social violence either…and whether Europe counts. Whether the rioting is being done by students or Muslims…its pretty obvious to me that its caused by the right being mean to them. Is that violence acceptable then?

I’m not sure where rightwing abortion doctor killers fit. Are they just whackos like the Unabomber and the Bush hating guy in Arizona… or more organized like the Animal/Green groups who sabotage trees with spikes, burn up warming huts or liberate lab animals?

Is a certain level of campaign office window breaking ok … the most infamous incident was in Arizona way back in March but it seems like Eric Cantor’s office was hit too around that time.

Then there are the unions…whether they are astroturfing demonstrations at innocent civilian homes or beating up little black guys in St. Louis as a group they are just not always very nice people. What does the right have that is in any way comparable to union thugs?

Maybe the right uses “violent language” more…maybe it because the right relates to guns and war making more. Clearly the left uses the language too; what is most clear is that the left whines about it and points fingers the most. Shouldn’t they have clean hands or just shut the fuck up? And then after making uncivil political rhetoric the cause celebre your forced to rationalize away language referring to burning millions of Jews…its crazy.

2

I feel your pain.

Still, better out than in - as they say. Catharsis is good for the soul and I’m certain you feel a lot better for releasing the bile. :smiley:

Keep taking the blue pills - not the green ones, or the pinko ones, only the blue…:smack:

3

It’s doesn’t count when my side does it.

Really, that’s all you are ever going to get from the Usual Suspects on this board and in real life.

Regards,
Shodan

4

Or maybe, just maybe, terrorist groups which involve a small number of people who are roundly rejected and denounced by the majority of people of that political affiliations are not the same thing as incitements to violence from the de-facto leader of a major party, a widespread embrace of such ideas and tactics by large swaths - possibly majorities - of people of that political persuasion?

Your entire fucking schtick - ALL OF IT - on this boards is just saying “yeah, sure, maybe Palin said this, but some obscure leftist blogger said this in 2002 so you’re a hypocrite!” and you still don’t make any effort to understand that a big part of the issue under discussion is that we’re talking about groups that should be marginalized as extremist and crazies being accepted widely into the mainstream.

On the left, they’re marginalized extremists and crazies, rejected by the majority. On the right, they’re embraced by the mainstream, elected to office, given national TV shows, etc.

5

Wah wah wah. My side is good, your side is bad. Same old whiny crap that has been spewed here before and will be spewed here again. When come back, bring less hypocrisy. :rolleyes:

6

When bring words, use correct definitions. :rolleyes:

7

Who is the left’s equivelant of Palin/Bachman/Beck/Limbaugh?

The left isn’t “my side”, so your childish non-rebuttal isn’t even accurate on that count.

I’m not displaying any hypocrisy. If so, demonstrate it. And… for that matter, “same old whiny crap that’s been spewed here before or will be spewed here again” is much more descriptive of your post than mine. In fact, it’s kind of funny that you managed to squeeze so much wrong into so few words in one post. And called me a hypocrite in the process!

8

Of course, there’s quite a moral gulf between murder and tree-sabotage. Isn’t there?

It was determined that Cantor’s office was hit by random gunfire.

9

Excessive and incorrect use of ellipses.

Define ‘right’ and ‘left’. What if I don’t fit neatly into the pigeonholes you’re trying to create?

Sure it counts, but you seem to be implying that someone other than the demonstrators themselves is responsible for the violence. Please explain further.

I have no clue where you get the simplistic notion that rioting by disaffected young people in Europe is caused by “the right being mean to them”. In any event, I’ll take a really extreme position here and say that I personally find political violence of any type completely unacceptable unless there is clear and abundant evidence that a particular social or ethinic group is being repressed to the point of death. I can probably make that even more legalistic if it’s not good enough to convince you that I’m not taking a particular side in this poorly defined ‘left’ vs. ‘right’ world that you keep insisting upon.

In my opinion, they’re more like people who kill people than people who damage inanimate things.

So, that was “way back in March”, too, right? Anyway, if windows were broken in Eric Cantor’s office for political reasons, that is precisely as unacceptable as breaking windows in Gabrielle Gifford’s office for political reasons.

Since it’s not clear what you consider to be “the right”, I have no idea. Secondly, if you are accusing me of condoning union violence if I happen to self-identify as a Democrat, or even as a ‘leftist’, that is false and I expect you to withdraw the accusation.

I will say that the endless demonizing of the US Democratic party and its members by persons such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and their numerous local-market water carriers has a cumulative effect, that could potentially result in violence, whether or not these people explicitly call for violence, and that there is is no real corresponding group on the ill-defined “left” in the US.

If something is wrong, it’s wrong. I have never participated in or advocated specific political violence and I resent your implication that I should “shut the fuck up” simply because you happen to identify me (by unstated criteria) as “the left”.

Beyond that, what I have heard the most of in the past two weeks is persons who-self-identify as conservatives going on and on and on about how unfairly they are being characterized as advocating violence, long after the initial debate surrounding the motives for Rep. Gifford’s shooting had otherwise died down. Why do you, and the talk-radio blowhards who I suspect influence your opnions, keep picking at this particular scab?

I’m shocked. Has someone recently advocated the burning of millions of Jews? If they have, I roundly condemn them for it.

10

And I am squarely behind you.

11

I have yet to hear a valid explanation of why the ‘standard’ for this stuff should be any different than the already existing legal standard for inciting non-political violence.

Olberman (although he was just fired/quit), Al Frankin, Chris Mathews, James Carville, Louis Farahkan, Jesse Jackson, etc. The lefts rabble rousers may not get as high ratings as the rights, but they do exist.
As a generalized statement, I will note the freedom of speech is right there in the Constitution. No matter how hard I look, I don’t see a freedom from rudeness or stupidity anywhere in there though. Unless we’re talking about standards, what they should be, and how to enforce them; all the many threads about this boil down to little more than ‘wah, the other side are poopyheads’. Which is probably true, but so what?

12

Olberman I’ll accept. What has Olberman done that’s remotely similar to the sort of lies and fear mongering that Beck/Rush do?

Al Frankin - what has he done that’s equivelant to Palin/Bachman?

James Carville, Farakhan, Jackson? Are these people serious players on the national stage in anyone’s minds?

13

A radio show on Air America with the stated goal of unelecting Bush. He wrote a few books with such polite titles as “Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations” or “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right”. I consider him the equivalent of Limbaugh or Beck more than Palin/Backman.

Currently? No, not really. But all have been national players within the last 10 or 20 years. For example, Carville’s ‘drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park’ was a pretty defining moment for me. I’m sure most other people probably don’t remember the comment though. It came at a time when I was becoming more politically aware and was already getting fed up with common Democrat tactics. That it was considered acceptable for a Presidential representative to say something like that really helped push me from “democrat who occasionally disagrees with D’s” to “independent who occasionally agrees with D’s”. If it weren’t for Carville, and on a broader level Clinton’s blatant disregard for the law, there’s a decent chance I’d be a registered Democrat right now.

So anyway, personal story and all that. I know how much it’s worth it in a debate. But I do think Carville, Farrakhan, Jackson, etc. are recent enough that they shaped the current tone of political discourse as much as Limbaugh, Beck, etc.

14

Only in the most general sense. But specific violent rhetoric? Not our Al.

15

It’s interesting too that Franken is placed on the same level as the liars he criticizes because he wrote books… exposing their lies. And he tried to get Bush defeated in 2004! How uncivil and Limbaughesque of him.

16

I heard he once got into an argument with Dennis Kucinich about who was the most non-violent, and some fairly brusque remarks were made.

17

And how is Carville “left” in anyone’s minds?

18

:frowning: No, they don’t. sigh

19

Cite?

Regards,
Shodan

20

Exactly. I can cite dozens, if not hundreds of cases, of Democrats saying things that could only be characterized as snippy. I therefore call on my fellow Dems to immediately and permanently cease all criticism of Republicans.