navwin » Discussion » The Alley » Peace Loving Progressives in Action
The Alley
Post A Reply Post New Topic Peace Loving Progressives in Action Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

0 posted 2011-02-04 01:04 AM


http://www.breitbart.tv/peace-loving-anti-capitalist-progressive-protesters-call-for-lynching-of-clarence-thomas/

© Copyright 2011 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved
Uncas
Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408

1 posted 2011-02-04 01:16 PM



I'm not sure about Clarence Thomas but I could have lynched number one son this week, he had a couple of friends round working on his car and left my garage in a right mess - tools everywhere and not one of them where it should be. I still can't find my 10mm spanner.

Just to cap things off I got a parking ticket today - I was only there two minutes  - damn  parking wardens, hang them all I say.



Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

2 posted 2011-02-04 05:33 PM


I guess they didn't get the message to tone down the heated political rhetoric. Oh, that was only directed at conservatives who don't actually call for people to be strung-up and other assorted acts of physical violence? My bad. I should have known that.
Uncas
Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408

3 posted 2011-02-04 06:12 PM



Personally I didn't buy all that hype about the right wing rhetoric being to blame for tragedy in Tucson , my guess is that the folk in the video didn't either.

Maybe they got the message and simply chose to ignore it.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
4 posted 2011-02-04 09:10 PM


There was certainly enough conversation and finger pointing about the tea party and their evil, threatening, racial tactics. Where's Rachel, Chris and Keith to condemn this?

Never mind. We know.  

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

5 posted 2011-02-05 07:25 AM


They only 'report' as fact what they wish those on right would do. When those on the left actually do what they accuse the right of doing, all you here are *crickets chirping*. No surprise.
Uncas
Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408

6 posted 2011-02-05 08:04 AM


I'm not sure what your point is.

It can't be that what the people in the video are saying is dangerous rhetoric - we both agree that it isn't.

It can't be that the people in the video are somehow being hypocritical; that they railed against the rhetoric when it came from the right but are now using the same language themselves. To believe that you'd need evidence that they agreed, and voiced the opinion, that using such rhetoric was a bad thing before they did it themselves.

I suppose you could be criticising the folk who believed that the right wing rhetoric was bad, for not voicing the same opinion about what those left wing folk in the video said, but that doesn't make much sense either. You can't criticise them for voicing an opinion in the first instance and then in the next breath admonish them for not voicing the same opinion - that's like telling your kids to look both ways before crossing the street and then punishing them when they do what you ask.

Maybe they got your message the first time.

Personally I don't think this left wing rhetoric or the right wing rhetoric is a big deal, after all the alternative is to diminish free speech but if I were to grade them I'd say that based solely on who was voicing the rhetoric the right wing stuff was less excusable.

Maybe that's why those who claim that the right wing rhetoric was out of order aren't jumping up and down, perhaps they see a difference between public figures using such rhetoric and the local wingnut voicing the same rhetoric. That you need to point out the former and ignore the latter.

A chirpy cricket.

  

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

7 posted 2011-02-05 08:56 AM


They weren't just voicing an opinion the firt time around...they were outright lying. But when they have an opportunity to point out actual hate speech, they are silent.
Uncas
Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408

8 posted 2011-02-05 09:19 AM


So the right wing stuff wasn't dangerous but the left wing stuff is dangerous?

Sounds like a fip-flop to me Denise, either rhetoric that involves metaphors of violence is acceptable or it isn't. Allowing or disallowing it based on which side of the political fence it comes from sounds suspiciously similar to the accusation you were trying to pin on the chirping crickets.


Jack

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

9 posted 2011-02-05 11:40 AM


No, the right wing speech, while it can get heated, as it can on both sides, is not hate speech, is not calling for death or physical harm. This left wing stuff is.
Uncas
Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408

10 posted 2011-02-05 12:39 PM


Is my first post hate speech Denise? Or just a figure of speech?

I don't think the right-wing politicians actually intended for their supports to take them literally and I don't think those left-wing folk in the video actually intend to lynch anyone either. Could it incite someone else to act - sure - but anyone likely to do violence is just as likely to do it because their dog farted or it was a rainy Monday.

The left-wing stuff isn't hate speech for exactly the same reason the right-wing stuff isn't.

Jack

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

11 posted 2011-02-05 05:20 PM


No, your first post is not hate speech. In the context of the conversation you were obviously joking, Chirpy!

My point is that the right doesn't call for violence and death, some on the left do, and yet their pals in the media don't call them on it, and yet they are always attempting to portray the right in that light.

Uncas
Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408

12 posted 2011-02-05 06:11 PM



quote:
My point is that the right doesn't call for violence and death, some on the left do


Hmm..

Are you sure?

My guess is that it wouldn't take too long to find some examples of right wing folk making equally heated statements that they didn't actually mean.

Take this for instance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgec9WX21ik

The guy at the end sort of summed it up - people sometimes say stuff in the heat of the moment that they don't actually mean.

BTW - I found my spanner.



Jack

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
13 posted 2011-02-05 07:40 PM


"After we impeach Clarence Thomas, put him back in the fields".
Roger? "kill the (unable to print)!"
Justice Hill? Cut off  the toes, one by one.."
Claerence Thomas? "String him up...and his wife, too."

Can you imagine, Denise, the coverage those comments would have gotten if they had come from a tea party rally instead of a progressive one? The $100,000 reward is still on the table for the mysterious "tea party spitter" (look at the coverage that one got). I guess racial comments against Clarence Thomas or discussing lynchings or murder, even for his wife, are not tht newsworth when they come from the left.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
14 posted 2011-02-05 09:49 PM


What DOES our esteemed right wing talk show hosts do with their time?

Rachel Maddow fooled by satirist blog, reports fake Sarah Palin story.
By Brooks On February 2nd, 2011


Unknowingly citing satirical website as fact source, ChristWire.org, Maddow reported Sarah Palin called for an American backed invasion of Egypt to protect America.

Because of many eye-raising things Sarah Palin has said in the past, it’s temptingly easily and lazy to follow the momentum of an established narrative: Palin says crazy or woefully uninformed things. And, in that mindset be willing to believe a story because it sounds like something she might say.

This is not a common mistake for Rachel Maddow, but is is a common mistake for many in the media. But, for the moment, shame on Maddow and her staff for both falling into that mindset and for not checking with multiple sources to cross-check the story.  For the media, it’s just another case of a story that sounds just too good for the media to fact check.

http://www.intellectualbubblegum.com/rachel-maddow-fooled-by-satirist-blog-reports-fake-sarah-palin-story/.html


In her show Maddow commented on Stephenson Billings of "Christwire" for his call for a US Invasion of Egypt led by none other than Sarah Palin.
The only problem is "Christwire" is a satire site similar to the Onion.
The clip was quickly pulled from the MSNBC site after the show. But, thankfully the internet never forgets so its out there on YouTube.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread658056/pg1



Afer being confronted with her gaffe, Maddow said, "Well, who's to know what is satire and what isn't?" Uh, perhaps someone who bothers to check out the facts before inserting foot in mouth? They don't make Rhodes scholars like they used to.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

15 posted 2011-02-06 12:47 PM




     The report you posted is not the report I recalled hearing, which very clearly stated that Sarah Palin had not made the comment, but that the Web Site was calling for her to make such a plea.

     I listened to the video, which actually did include the part that I remembered Ms. Maddow emphasizing.

     Ms. Maddow also mentioned as well that in the case of US foreign policy about Egypt these days, there was very much a centerist agreement on the matter that included large parts of both the Democratic and Republican Parties.  I personally felt this was an excellent thing, and was pleased to have Ms Maddow acknowledge a bit of BiPartisan activity in a U.S. Government that has felt to me as though it's been profoundly split and internally antagonistic for almost twenty years.  She did manage to talk about some folks who were outlier off the right coast, and to mind my, I thought that they were pretty much out to sea, including the guy who thought that this would be a wonderful time to stop all foreign aid.  

     I can't really see how that would improve anything.

     Did I mishear Ms Maddow on the original broadcast or on the rebroadcast that was offered as a source for the article?  Did the source distort the news and mislead Mike?  Am I misunderstanding something basic here that I should understand and need to be filled in on?

     What's the deal, commonweal?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
16 posted 2011-02-06 01:32 AM


You must have misheard, Bob, or perhaps formed your own interpretation of what was said. The simple fact that the network pulled it and Maddow had to follow with an excuse for her goof says it all.

She simply messed up. She went to a satirical website, took their satire as fact without bothering to substantiate it and reported it as news, a decision I feel fairly sure she regrets. No doubt MSNBC does.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

17 posted 2011-02-06 04:48 AM




     Perhaps: If so, I didn't see it.  And where does it say that the Network pulled her show, or even that edition of her show?  And at no point in her broadcast did she attribute the information from that site to Sarah Palin.  Even on the replay you cited, it was the same way.

     I have no objection to being corrected, I really do know I make mistakes.  In this case, though, I haven't seen any correction.  The quotes you offer seem to be in contrast to the actual statements that you're citing as evidence and I have no idea how to reconcile the difference.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

18 posted 2011-02-06 09:04 AM


Drop that spanner! Put your hands in the air and step slowly away...lol

I would guess that out of over millions who have participated in peaceful tea party demonstrations over the past 2 years it wouldn't be hard to find a few who lose it. But as the guy at the end of the video said, they aren't indicative of the attendees.

Yes, I can imagine, Michael. It would be splashed across the headlines and be the feature story on every program for days on end. Heck, they did that even when there was no evidence of right wing culpabiity in the Tucson tragedy.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
19 posted 2011-02-06 09:12 AM


And where does it say that the Network pulled her show, or even that edition of her show?


It's right there in my above entry, Bob.

The clip was quickly pulled from the MSNBC site after the show. But, thankfully the internet never forgets so its out there on YouTube. " www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread658056/pg1  


Also, in that above entry you will see the quote Because of many eye-raising things Sarah Palin has said in the past, it’s temptingly easily and lazy to follow the momentum of an established narrative: Palin says crazy or woefully uninformed things. And, in that mindset be willing to believe a story because it sounds like something she might say.

This may indicate to you that the site is not a right-wing rag. Actually, looking at it's topics, it's quite even in presenting both sides of issues. It knocks Palin and still says shame on Rachel for her non-verification.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
20 posted 2011-02-06 09:45 AM


You got that right, Denise. Why stop there? Answer these questions..

If George W. Bush had doubled the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
  
If George W. Bush had criticized a state law that he admitted he never even read, would you think that he is just an ignorant hot head?
  
If George W. Bush joined the country of  Mexico  and sued a state in the  United States  to force that state to continue to allow illegal immigration, would you question his patriotism and wonder who's side he was on?
  
If George W. Bush had put 87000 workers out of work by arbitrarily placing a moratorium onoffshore oil drilling on companies that have one of the best safety records of any industry because one company had an accident would you have agreed?
  
If George W. Bush had used a forged document as the basis of the moratorium that would render 87000 American workers unemployed would you support him?

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a TelePrompTer installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how  inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of  England  an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of  Saudi Arabia  , would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited  Austria  and made reference to the nonexistent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a  minor slip?
If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had stated that there were 57 states in the United States , would you have said that he is clueless?

If George W. Bush would have flown all the way to Denmark to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him walking out his front door in Texas , would you havethought he was a self important, conceited, egotistical jerk.

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had misspelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoes as proof of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low  over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown   Manhattan   causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually  get what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in  New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue  with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in  America  , would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved? He's done all this in 17 months.  

Are some of these silly? Of course. Would Bush have been barbequed for them? Of course.  

Uncas
Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408

21 posted 2011-02-06 10:42 AM



quote:
If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in  America  , would you have approved?


I don't like the whole idea of Czars, it was a big mistake when the Republicans first introduced them as far as I'm concerned so I'm not too happy to see that Obama has appointed 41 and I was equally unhappy that Bush appointed 49.

Back to the topic:

Denise,

I'm still not clear what your point is.

You didn't think that the left should infer a connection between rhetoric and violent actions but you don't seem to be happy when they don't.

It's almost as if the left couldn't do anything right in your eyes, that you'd always try to find an angle to take pot shots at them.

That, and Mike's shopping list, got me thinking. Is there anything at all that the left has done, any idea they've come up or policy or legislation they've put in place that you actually agree with?

Jack

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

22 posted 2011-02-06 11:11 AM


I think it should be clear that I'm unhappy with the left's agenda and their hypocrisy. They project onto the right what they themselves actually do, while ceasely slandering those on the right, accusing them of things that they don't do.

No, I can't think of anything the left has done, policywise, that has strenghtened individual liberties or financial well-being in this country. Take a look at any major city in this country that is on the verge of bankruptcy. They are all controlled by the polices of the progressives, and they are all failing. Just take a look at my city, Philadelphia. When they were at the height of economic downturn, threatening to layoff police, firefighters, and paramedics, what do they do? They raise our real estate taxes by 10 percent, they raise the sales tax an additional 2 percent, bringing it to 8% (temporary, of course...lol), they freeze the wages of city employees at 2007 levels, freeze the city's portion of pension contributions (to be made up at a later date...lol), while still canceling police, firefighter and paramedic classes, they then START a program of paying for the college tuitions of 50 financially challenged city residents, per year. Talk about screwed up priorities. They don't even have enough money budgeted for adequate snow and ice removal for public safety, but they spend money we don't have on free college for people who are already eligible for grants, scholarships, and low interest loans.  

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
23 posted 2011-02-06 04:32 PM


quote:

But it won’t do to dig up stray comments by Obama, Allen Grayson, or any other Democrat who used metaphors of combat over the past few years, and then try to claim some balance of responsibility in the implied violence of current American politics. (Most of the Obama quotes that appear in the comments were lame attempts to reassure his base that he can  get mad and fight back, i.e., signs that he’s practically incapable of personal aggression in politics.) In fact, there is no balance—none whatsoever. Only one side has made the rhetoric of armed revolt against an oppressive tyranny the guiding spirit of its grassroots movement and its midterm campaign. Only one side routinely invokes the Second Amendment as a form of swagger and intimidation, not-so-coyly conflating rights with threats. Only one side’s activists bring guns to democratic political gatherings. Only one side has a popular national TV host who uses his platform to indoctrinate viewers in the conviction that the President is an alien, totalitarian menace to the country. Only one side fills the AM waves with rage and incendiary falsehoods. Only one side has an iconic leader, with a devoted grassroots following, who can’t stop using violent imagery and dividing her countrymen into us and them, real and fake. Any sentient American knows which side that is; to argue otherwise is disingenuous.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2011/01/tucson-revisited.html#ixzz1DDVJibKW




Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

24 posted 2011-02-06 05:58 PM


The liberals are still trying to tie Tucson to conservative speech but this guy takes it even further by excusing Obama for his rhetoric against the right as only lame attempts to bolster his base, while castigating Palin for not issuing a mea culpa after the tragedy! No, I don't see any twisted thinking there!

He also bemoans the fact that the AM airwaves are dominated by conservative speech, but there must be a reason why liberal talk radio always fails, like maybe nobody wants to listen to it? But no worries, the FCC is already pressuring local stations to use more local commentators in their lineup. Beck & Hannity were already taken off the air in Philadelphia, and Beck was already taken off in N.Y. The libs will get their Fairness Doctrine with or without Congress. Yep, that's the Obama way! Besides he fails to mention that the REST of the news media is owned lock, stock and barrel(oops...was that imagery too violent?), with the exception of one cable channel, by the left. But no problem there at all.

No, I wouldn't waste my time, energy or money subscribing to the New Yorker, if this guy is an example of what they offer. I prefer at least a modicum of intelligence in the analysists that I read.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
25 posted 2011-02-06 07:14 PM


Blogs must be the new bibles, one must assume? That was typical, double-talking, non-factual slime peddling the New Yorker is becoming more known for. That's what people are using for references these days??
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
26 posted 2011-02-06 09:57 PM


Ah,

Not willing to take on Packer's assertions and instead resort to the old 'liberal media' saw.

And then criticize the 'credibility' of Packer and the New Yorker ...

This coming from the man who's thread source material is a posting at Breitbart.  You remember him as the guy who rushed to be first to publish video falsely suggesting that Shirley Sherrod discriminated against a white farmer at the Dept. of Agriculture.  

The faked, doctored videos accusing Acorn of colluding with prostitution rings!

Let's even drag out the AM radio meme that 'nobody wants to hear liberal talk' and 'conservatives are on the air because they sell ads' while ignoring that the same market dynamics and OWNERSHIP dynamics either are or aren't in effect in other media such as newspapers and television.

But if you want to play that game Denise -- I'll bite.  Show me the money.  Where are all these 'liberal' media owners?  Who are they?  What are their organs?  Specifically.  No boogeymen.

Rich Bond admitted it back in 92 -- the Republicans are just working the refs.

Yawn.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
27 posted 2011-02-06 10:19 PM


Packer's asserertions are laughable at best...he's just blogging out his personal anti-conservative drivel. Yawn.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
28 posted 2011-02-06 10:49 PM


I have to wonder what Packer would have to say about the video that began this thread, the "Kill Clarence Thomas and his wife" rants, along with the others, with REVOLUTION being chanted in the background. He would probably say what you have said, reb.......nothing at all.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
29 posted 2011-02-06 10:52 PM


Ok... here's the assertions Mike.


1.Only one side has made the rhetoric of armed revolt against an oppressive tyranny the guiding spirit of its grassroots movement and its midterm campaign.

Who, do you think, is he talking about? You know.  YOU KNOW! You won't admit it... but you do.  And your denial is mere confirmation.  

2.Only one side routinely invokes the Second Amendment as a form of swagger and intimidation, not-so-coyly conflating rights with threats.

Where are all the lefty quotes Mike?

3.Only one side’s activists bring guns to democratic political gatherings.

Where are all the Liberal guns Mike?

4. Only one side has a popular national TV host who uses his platform to indoctrinate viewers in the conviction that the President is an alien, totalitarian menace to the country.

Ever seen or heard a lefty trying to suggest Mitch McConnel, John Boehner, or Rush Limbaugh are aliens?  I mean the kind that weren't born in America.  I'm pretty sure myself that Rush is a Klingon.

5. Only one side fills the AM waves with rage and incendiary falsehoods.

I've listened to Thom Harman and Ed Shultz.  Don't hear the ragemongering that I hear out of Savage, Limbaugh, and Beck.  

But lets take a look at the talk radio industry on the inside:

quote:

“Talk radio (and some cable news channels) dropped the ball the week following the shootings. Many hosts and programmers forgot good radio/good broadcasting and forgot Rule #1 - 'Ratings and Revenue.' They went right for Rule #2 - 'Never let facts get in the way of a good talk show,"
http://www.radio-info.com/newsletters/news-talk-edge



6. Only one side has an iconic leader, with a devoted grassroots following, who can’t stop using violent imagery and dividing her countrymen into us and them, real and fake.

I wonder who he's talking about?  Do you know?  If you do -- why do you?



Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
30 posted 2011-02-06 11:01 PM


I've said nothing about it? Really?  We truly are a people separated by a common language.

I'll ask a question about the video... was it shot by James Okeefe?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
31 posted 2011-02-06 11:24 PM


Why is it that you are working so hard NOT to address what was said in the video, Reb?
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
32 posted 2011-02-06 11:28 PM


For the same reason I don't consult a broken watch to find out what time it is Mike.  How do I know when it's right.  I don't even know what I'm addressing.  Do you?  I mean, other than yet one more 'protests too much' attempt to try to say the other side does it to.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
33 posted 2011-02-06 11:41 PM


Only one side has made the rhetoric of armed revolt against an oppressive tyranny the guiding spirit of its grassroots movement and its midterm campaign.

Show me  that rhetoric of armed revolt, please.

Only one side routinely invokes the Second Amendment as a form of swagger and intimidation, not-so-coyly conflating rights with threats.

True enough, because there is only one side treating the second amendment as toilet paper.

Only one side’s activists bring guns to democratic political gatherings.

How many people brought guns, reb...or are you referring to one and making that the general definition of all?

Only one side has a popular national TV host who uses his platform to indoctrinate viewers in the conviction that the President is an alien, totalitarian menace to the country.

Of course. SInce the side the president belongs to would hardly be standing up against their fearless leader, that seems only natural. Ask yourself why he is so popular. Could it be that people can relate to what he says?

Only one side fills the AM waves with rage and incendiary falsehoods.

I suggest you broaden your horizons. There is plenty of rage and outright lies coming from the left....but maybe they don't count?

Only one side has an iconic leader, with a devoted grassroots following, who can’t stop using violent imagery and dividing her countrymen into us and them, real and fake.

Can't stop using violent imagery? Then you must have many examples of that. Produce them, please. Or are you talking about "targeting", ignoring the fact that the left used those same bullseyes years before? Maybe you mean violent imagery like saying, "if they bring a knife, you bring a gun!". No, you don't mean that, I'm sure, since those are Obama's words.

I'll admit you have hutzpah, reb. In a thread showing libs talking about kill supreme court justices and their families, cutting off toes of radio personalities and sending a black back to the fields where he belongs, you decide to discuss how violent the right is....nice try.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
34 posted 2011-02-06 11:44 PM


How do I know when it's right?

Uh, maybe when it's a video staring you in the face, English spoken?

They talk of killing a supreme court justice and you don't know if that's right or not?

yawn.

The video says it all. Ignore it all you want...your perrogative but please don't talk about the evil, threatening right while doing so. It really weakens your position.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
35 posted 2011-02-07 12:06 PM


But the video is not staring me in the face Mike.  The person asking the question is not on camera -- therefore -- we don't know what he's actually asking the person that's shown on the video.  Just like O.keefe's video.  We don't know the editing.  We don't even know who the responders are.  Got names?  Addresses?  But what we do have is Brietbart's track record.  Don't bet on the ponies.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
36 posted 2011-02-07 12:13 PM


quote:

Show me  that rhetoric of armed revolt, please.



Already have Mike.
/pip/Forum6/HTML/002060-2.html#38

My Packers punched em out din' they?  

Sorry I gotta run Mike.  I'll try to pick this up later in the week buddy.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
37 posted 2011-02-07 12:27 PM


The person asking questions is not on video? We don't know what he's asking? But we do. His audio is clear. WHo did the editing? Please.....

Have you presented such arguments with regards to tea party videos?

Let's face it...you watch a video where the libs clearly say that they should kill a supreme court justice and his wife and you can't even bring yourself to say that that type of speech is wrong. We have no common ground to seek.

Go Packers....(not Packer)  

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
38 posted 2011-02-07 12:39 PM


From your link...

Several GOP officials from the same area in Arizona have resigned following last week's shooting rampage in Tucson, including a district chairman who said threats from local tea party members caused him to be worried for the safety of himself and his family.

Miller, who is black, said a number of the attacks were racially based. At an event in Lake Havasu City, Ariz., Miller told The Huffington Post that someone called out, "There's Anthony, get a rope."


I see. It is noteworthy for you to report that a district chairman felt threatened and that a black man told a reporter that he heard "Get a rope". Did you ask who the interviewer was? Did you ask who edited it? Did you ask if these points were verifiable? No, but you felt them newsworthy enough to mention. Do you feel that someone saying hang the black Clarence Thomas and his wife newsworthy? Nope, you want to know who interviewed them and did the editing. Nice try.....

Interesting that the Huffington Post would print that a black man reported having heard racial slurs but have nothing to say about whites calling for a black man and his wife to be strung up and murdered. That says about as much about the Huffington Post as one needs to know.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

39 posted 2011-02-07 06:08 AM


I'm trying to figure who the national TV host is who supposedly is using his platform to indoctrincate his viewers that the President is an alien. All that I know of won't even touch the eligibility subject (an inquiry primarily as to type of citizenship, not lack of citizenship) other than to say they aren't touching that subject.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

40 posted 2011-02-07 02:06 PM




     The New Yorker is pretty much meticulous about their fact checking, Mike.  It is right up there with The Economist.  The New Yorker even fact checks poems.

     You may not like or agree with the slant of a particular article.  You may believe that an article is not balanced the way you'd like it to be and that other publications balance their articles in a fashion that's more to your liking.  The article may not be balanced to your liking in fact.  

     Should you suspect otherwise, you might consider writing the publication a letter to the editor and asking about their fact-checking policy.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

41 posted 2011-02-07 05:27 PM


     I'd suggest that now would be a good time to moderate the tone of the conversation for everybody.  Having been through one such bubbling over period, I'd rather not go through another.

     I'll try to address some of the comments made above on the assumption that they were made to everybody as part of the discussion of an issue, rather than as an attempt to get into something more personal, and because I think they deserve answering.  I won't try to answer everything because I don't want to get too hooked on the tone.  Is this me?  Possibly.  I simply want to try to keep this about the facts and the issues.

1)
Only one side has made the rhetoric of armed revolt against an oppressive tyranny the guiding spirit of its grassroots movement and its midterm campaign.

Show me  that rhetoric of armed revolt, please.

     During the Nevada Senatorial campaign, the Republican candidate made reference to "second ammendment solutions" to the way the government was being run.  She refused to reply to reporters who tried to get her to explain herself.

     Former Governor Palin published a hit list of people whom she thought should be voted out of office.  Her rhetoric on the subject was very inflammatory.  She characterized these folks as targets.  I do think she was somewhat taken aback when a psycho with no discernable party affiliation started to open fire on the congresswoman in Arizona, but I also believe her rhetoric was not helpful.  I am purposefully softpedaling the incident out of politeness here.  The use of crosshairs in Ms Palin's literature was not helpful.  Nor was her refusal to backpedal from the initial confrontation when this was pointed out to her when the literature was first presented.

     Did she have the right to publish that literature?  She certainly did.

     Does it suggest encouraging extra-legal activity?  Yes, I think it does.  I also think that this is something that I have just pointed out two examples of and which more might be available if one cared to look.  

     In fact, the notion that the president is not a citizen is in itself a notion that is designed to de-legitimize the government, isn't it?, though it's presented in terms that are difficult to disallow in any open-minded discussion.  
One side-effect of these suggestions is that any action that one takes is legitimate in response.

     Any of these factors seem to qualify for me.  The entire notion of the tea party harks back to the basic metaphor of the Boston Tea Party, doesn't it?  Lest it escape notice, this was one of the initial violent acts that led to the Revolution.  That is the metaphor that the right wing of the Republican Party has been using for at least the past two years.

     It is a legitimate metaphor, of course.  

     But to suggest that it is not the metaphor that it in fact is may perhaps be going just a touch too far.  It denies the depth of rage felt by the right wing, and its determination to overthow any changes made by the new deal and, really, by any reform movement in the united staes since the country turned against the Robber Barons of the late 19th century.  

     That would be, of course, in my opinion.



2)
Only one side routinely invokes the Second Amendment as a form of swagger and intimidation, not-so-coyly conflating rights with threats.

True enough, because there is only one side treating the second amendment as toilet paper.

     I am not interested in treating the second ammendment as toilet paper.  I don't own guns now, and haven't since I was a kid, but I really enjoy the things.  I like target shooting, and the time or two I went skeet shooting I had a blast.  

     The clay pigeons thumbed their noses at me.

     I do disagree with the reading that the more conservative folk give to the second amendment, though.  I think my reading is legitimate.  It was designed to encourage the growth of state militias in a country that really couldn't afford to have its state governments fund them.  Hence the phrase "to bear arms" in the amendment, which meant a body of armed troops, not heavily armed yahoos on the street.

     Even the NRA today doesn't want all the guns out there that we have.  They want legal access to guns, but aren't particularly happy with the vast underground slosh of illegal firearms in the hands of criminals.  They're fairly clear that most registered gun owners aren't out there knocking folks off with legally acquired weapons.  I think the NRA would be happy to get a lot of those illegal guns out of the system, if they could figure out how to do it.

     They're simply stuck because they don't see any way of drying up the illegal market without drying up the legal market as well.  I don't see Switzerland, where there are loads of automatic rifles floating around, having the sort of firearms problems we do, and I'd be interested in knowing why.

     This doesn't come from treating the second amendment like toilet paper.  It comes from failure to come to grips with a legitimate problem we have with gun violence in this country, and with not having any real understanding of how to stop it.  I think the solutions that left and right have advocated may not be particularly helpful here, and that as a society, we're so busy butting heads and repeating what we are already convinced to be the answers, that we haven't had a fresh look at the problem in decades.

     This isn't a problem with toilet tissue, it's a problem with generalized blindness.



3)

Only one side’s activists bring guns to democratic political gatherings.

How many people brought guns, reb...or are you referring to one and making that the general definition of all?

     Mike, I simply have no idea what you're saying.

     The demonstration last year, I believe, in Washington by ome of the tea party folks has to be rescheduled mto Virginia because of the Washington firearms laws.  That suggests that there were several people with guns.  That's one example.

     Guns and political events are probably not a great combination.  Guns and booze are not a great combination.  Guns and adreneline should probably be avoided as well, even with experienced shooters.

     I think that's what you may be talking about, but I'm not certain.
  

4)

Only one side has a popular national TV host who uses his platform to indoctrinate viewers in the conviction that the President is an alien, totalitarian menace to the country.

Of course. SInce the side the president belongs to would hardly be standing up against their fearless leader, that seems only natural. Ask yourself why he is so popular. Could it be that people can relate to what he says?


     The question of popularity has always been a difficult one.  If I'd have asked you about popularity in the late years of Bush the younger's administration, I don't know that you would have offered popularity as the touchstone you offer it as here.  You certainly didn't when Obama was at his most popular.  

     Popularity is important.  

     I'm simply not certain that you want to make popularity the most important thing, if only because of the number of people who've had it that you simply disaprove of so much.  Stalin, Mao, Hitler.  And also Roosevelt, Clinton and Obama at various points in their Presidencies.  Popularity is related as much to charisma as core values.  

     I believe that each of us feels that some of the folks that the other most values may be serious buffoons; so you'd have to ask, popular among which folks and for what reasons.  We should probably do more than make an appeal to popularity.  We don't need to leave it out — it's always great to feel like you're backing a winner! — but maybe not so high on the scale would be better for everybody.



5)
Only one side fills the AM waves with rage and incendiary falsehoods.

I suggest you broaden your horizons. There is plenty of rage and outright lies coming from the left....but maybe they don't count?

     Sure, they count.  It all counts.  That's a decent metaphor, after all.

     They all weigh, as well.  That's another decent metaphor.


6)

Only one side has an iconic leader, with a devoted grassroots following, who can’t stop using violent imagery and dividing her countrymen into us and them, real and fake.

Can't stop using violent imagery? Then you must have many examples of that. Produce them, please. Or are you talking about "targeting", ignoring the fact that the left used those same bullseyes years before? Maybe you mean violent imagery like saying, "if they bring a knife, you bring a gun!". No, you don't mean that, I'm sure, since those are Obama's words.


     Do Obama words count.  Yes, they do.  Do bullseyes count?  Yes they do.  Have you heard me condemn Obama for things I believe he's done wrong?  If you haven't, you haven't been paying attention.  Is the right wing wrong when it does the same thing?  Well, in fairness, yes it is.  Does the left wing encourage people to show up to demonstrations carrying firearms?  If they do, it"s not been in any of the literature I've seen.  You'd have to look pretty far back to see much left wing interest in firearms, though it has been there.

     Frankly, though, I doubt you find as many guns in any American left wing organization as you'd find in Michegan's or Idaho's right wing groups alone.  Let alone taking the rest of the country into account.  Though I'm always willing to be shocked by the truth, if it's got a decent source behind it.  Centerist or non-fringe right wing would be fine with me.  Better would be as close to objective and a-politcal as possible.

     My guess, my opinion, ready to be disconfirmed or confirmed by whomever wishes to chip in.

     I do agree that Ms. Palin is a divisive leader.  I'd be surprised if you could, or anyone could find a mother-load of bipartisan comment by that lady, while on the other hand, the President has made a great deal of it.


7)
I'll admit you have hutzpah, reb. In a thread showing libs talking about kill supreme court justices and their families, cutting off toes of radio personalities and sending a black back to the fields where he belongs, you decide to discuss how violent the right is....nice try.


     I'll have to check back to see this evidence.  Unfortunately, the right has some history of counterfeiting and forging tapes and other evidence, such as the Pimp and Prostitute tapes used to smear and destroy ACORN.  Given that track record, allegations from right wing sources are often difficult for me to credit.  Folks who are often most vocal about preading such smears are often notably absent when it comes time for taking responsibility for having done so, I've notice.  After the Republicans in congress voted to thank those who (it turned out) faked the tape, the same politicians managed to let the matter coast when time came for an appropriate apology.  I'd call that unkind.  I wouldn't call that even a nice try.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
42 posted 2011-02-07 05:29 PM


It's a blog, Bob, not an editorial. Why should I bother writing to the New Yorker. I didn't bring them into the conversation. WHat they say is of no interest to me, whichever side they champion. When someone starts using their blogs as reference points to bring here and those blogs are little more than rants, I say something.

I don't know what they have to do with the video in question, anyway...you know, the one people of the left persuasion have no comment on.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
43 posted 2011-02-07 05:43 PM


( I deleted here a comment just made about ACORN. That dog has been whipped here in the past and ACORN has gotten it's just rewards)


On this tape you would say what? That perhaps a fine fellow said, "I would kill for a hamburger" and "I love Clarence Thomas and his wife" and then the right-wing wackos took  the recordings, spliced together the "kill" in the first one and "Clarence Thomas and his wife" and came up with "Kill Clarence Thomas!" LOL!

As I said to LR, it appears we have no  common ground at all, when you fellows can look at tapes clearly advocating violence and murder against citizens and have nothing more to say than, "I don't know what I'm looking at" (in LR's case) and "Allegations from right wing sources are difficult for me to credit", from you, I just find myself shaking my head.

So be it.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

44 posted 2011-02-07 09:54 PM


I'd like to know how people present falsehoods and other people repeat falsehoods as though they are truth without batting any eye.

WHO IS THE POPULAR NATIONAL TV HOST WHO INDOCTRINATES HIS AUDIENCE WITH CLAIMS THAT OBAMA IS AN ALIEN?

That false claim alone tells me all I need to know about Packer.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
45 posted 2011-02-07 11:03 PM


It took you that long, Denise?? I reached that point at (Most of the Obama quotes that appear in the comments were lame attempts to reassure his base that he can  get mad and fight back, i.e., signs that he’s practically incapable of personal aggression in politics.)

(Maybe it will make more sense if you take out the vowels and read it backwards)

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

46 posted 2011-02-07 11:18 PM


There's a thought!
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
47 posted 2011-02-08 12:00 PM


Actually, O'Reilly was on tonight receiving mail about his interview with Obama. One e-mail said, "Thanks. A friend bet me 100 bucks that you would ask Obama about his birth certificate and I said you wouldn't."

O'reilly replied with, "Why would I want to question Obama about that junk?"

Apparently the New Yorker was not referring to O'Reilly. SInce Rush and Hannity have said the same, they're out, too.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

48 posted 2011-02-08 05:12 AM




      "That was typical, double-talking, non-factual slime peddling the New Yorker is becoming more known for."

     The above was your statement, Mike.

     I'd imagined that you'd want to address the people directly, if you felt that way, and get a direct response to your criticism.  I thought that you'd like to know that The New Yorker actually has an excellent industry wide reputation for fact checking.  

     Should the question have been been without merit, as you suggest, then why sidetrack the discussion with such wild accusations?  They'd appear to be a colossal waste of everybody else's time if you didn't think they were part of the discussion, wouldn't they?  Why would you want to do something like that?  I'm sorry, I simply don't follow.

     You asked a number of rhetorical questions that I attempted to answer one at a time, to the best of my ability, including your request for people to give you examples of some of the far right wing behaviors that you'd asked for above.  I tried my best to offer the sort of examples that you'd specifically asked for, and I notice that you haven't responded to my attempt to carry on that thread of the conversation.  Your really did quite literally ask for the response, so I'm puzzled why you haven't responded to the response that was offered.  Did you find the responses offensive in some fashion — I made every attempt to keep them factual and well modulated.

     I understand that you might have found my comments unsatisfactory in some way, but suggesting that I had some sort of personal flaw did not, to me, seem like a response that actually addressed the nature of the discussion.  Actually, it seemed to address what you dislike about liberal politics and perhaps about me.

     Probably, if both of us kept the discussion more strictly confined to the facts we were discussing, it would work out better, don't you think?

     I said above that I thought that the New Yorker might present points of view that everybody might not agree with, and I could understand why anybody might disagree with those.  Examples of mistakes in the fact checking you allege on their part would be helpful in understanding your charges.  

     In response to Denise, I believe that the sort of alien in question is actually the sort of alien that is a foreign national rather than the sort of visitor from another planet that the discussion of the text may have made the word sound like.  A significant portion of the far right has in fact attempted to paint The President as a foreign national type alien, and the occasional denial that has come from party officials on the right has often been half hearted, and has given folks on the far right considerable encouragement in their attempts to further this particular meme.  You've mentioned and defended this particular point of view on occasion yourself, haven't you?

     I may be incorrect in remembering you speaking about Michele Bachmann as being a commentator (as well as an officeholder) who has supported this point of view from time to time.  I may well be mistaken on this;  You'd be the person I'd ask for names of any supporters of this notion among commentators or officeholders, and I'd suspect you'd be able to supply at least one or two.  If I'm in error about this, please forgive me.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

49 posted 2011-02-08 07:19 AM


Yes, of course I know what type of 'alien' he was talking about. No, I never claimed Obama was an alien. I question the type of citizenship he has, as do most of the so-called 'birthers'. Is it the natural born type required to hold the office of President, or another type?

I don't recall Michelle Bachmann ever talking about it, and I know of no 'popular national TV host' who 'indoctrinates' his audience with that assertion.

But then I suppose facts don't stand in the way of Packer.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
50 posted 2011-02-08 09:39 AM


Very well, Bob. I will address your points, which you claim you stick to the facts and the issues. I didn't respond before because it will simply turn into anther culebra (Spanish for soap opera) in which you will respond, I will respond to your response, you will respond to mine and, when one doesn't continue the responses, the other will say "Why aren't you responding to my responses?"


With regards to the New Yorker,Bob, that was simply my comment, my opinion to something that was brought up by someone else. Why should I want to waste my time discussing it with the New Yorker? If you were to express an opinion that Lady Gaga had a lousy voice, does that mean you would want to hop a plane so you could tell her directly? I really don't care what the New Yorker has to say. I'm free to read it or ignore it, as I choose.

I understand that you might have found my comments unsatisfactory in some way, but suggesting that I had some sort of personal flaw did not, to me, seem like a response that actually addressed the nature of the discussion. Actually, it seemed to address what you dislike about liberal politics and perhaps about me.

I'msorry, Bob, but I don't follow that. I said nothing about a personal flaw in you...actually, I've done my best (and fairly well, I think) not making my comments too personnel. I did say that I couldn't understand your way of thinking. Is that the flaw you refer to?

I tried my best to offer the sort of examples that you'd specifically asked for, and I notice that you haven't responded to my attempt to carry on that thread of the conversation. Your really did quite literally ask for the response, so I'm puzzled why you haven't responded to the response that was offered. Did you find the responses offensive in some fashion — I made every attempt to keep them factual and well modulated.

Very well, Bob, I will be happy to do so and let's discover together how factual and well-modulated they are...

Former Governor Palin published a hit list of people whom she thought should be voted out of office. Her rhetoric on the subject was very inflammatory. She characterized these folks as targets. I do think she was somewhat taken aback when a psycho with no discernable party affiliation started to open fire on the congresswoman in Arizona, but I also believe her rhetoric was not helpful.

What rhetoric do you refer to as being "very inflammatory"? Produce it, please, and show me one that can match "If they bring a knife, you bring a gun." The bullseyes were used by democrats before Palin was even in the public eye....and I feel confident you know that they mean nothing having to do with violence. When a psycho..., you say? Exactly right...a psycho, and having nothing to do with Palin's comments, which almost everyone from the left from the President down has acknowledged...with the exception of a few far left wackos looking for any excuse to sling mud.

In fact, the notion that the president is not a citizen is in itself a notion that is designed to de-legitimize the government, isn't it?, though it's presented in terms that are difficult to disallow in any open-minded discussion.

No, it is a notion to de-legimitize Obama. Open-minded discussion? Sure, bring it on. So many people saying a birth certificate exists and so many people not being able to produce it...sure seems a little strange that a little certificate can be so elusive, doesn't it? But that doesn't matter to me? Am I a birther? Maybe, if I thought about it lonf enough but it's not going to get Obama out of office so why bother? The major conservative talk show hosts treat it the same way, as a basic non-issue.

The entire notion of the tea party harks back to the basic metaphor of the Boston Tea Party, doesn't it? Lest it escape notice, this was one of the initial violent acts that led to the Revolution. That is the metaphor that the right wing of the Republican Party has been using for at least the past two years.

Since the original Tea Party had violence in it, then it is not suitable to be used as a metaphor? Really....?

On your second point, regarding the second amendment, we are in agreement on much of it. I, too, would like to see illegal arms off the streets. I would like to see automatic weapons gone, too, includine Ouzis and AR-15's, along with the rest. It's simply a question of how and who is pulling the trigger (pun). Therein lies the rub. Many people do not trust giving that right to the government of the moment (any moment).

The demonstration last year, I believe, in Washington by ome of the tea party folks has to be rescheduled mto Virginia because of the Washington firearms laws. That suggests that there were several people with guns. That's one example.

Guns and political events are probably not a great combination. Guns and booze are not a great combination. Guns and adreneline should probably be avoided as well, even with experienced shooters.

I think that's what you may be talking about, but I'm not certain.


Thisis your comment, Bob...I simply want to try to keep this about the facts and the issues....and then you refer to what something "suggests" to you. I see nothing in the above comment that is factual, only what is suggestible. I contend that what is suggestible to you is whatever supports what you would like for it to suggest. There have been no issues about guns at tea-party rallies, no shots fired, no massacres, no threats. Just as stating that palin using bullseyes "suggests" to you that there could be a connection with the Tucson shooting, it is without fact or merit.

Does the left wing encourage people to show up to demonstrations carrying firearms?

Does the right wing? If so, please show me where. Once again, you are producing something non-factual.

As far as the tapes, it is very interesting that, in issues involving the right, you want to see proof. In issues involving the left, you don't, such as the infamous spitting incident, an issue that not one of hundreds of reporters saw, no one video taped and was never proven, along with the racial slurs that no one heard. You were satisfied that all those things happened, without any verification at all. Yet, in this video, you do an about-face and condemn it as having the possibility of being non-factual....nice to have it both ways.

I am still shaking me head at, in a thread showing lefties yelling to kill a supreme court justice and his family, string up or send the black man back to the fields where he belongs, and other comments of violence and crimes, you bring up issues trying to portray how violent the right is. I would think it would have been simple, and proper, to say something like, "If the video is valid, then these people were out of line". Neither of you could even say that.....and, to me, that says it all.

Have a nice day....


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

51 posted 2011-02-08 06:11 PM




     I did go back and look at the initial video you wanted folks to see.  I didn't like people talking about their violent fantasies on camera that way, and I can tell you didn't either.  I don't particularly like my own violence and my need to deal with that either.

     What you see in these tapes, however, is what a psychologically savvy viewer would call "pulling for the negative transference."  That is, the interviewer is looking to find and to get the client to vent feelings of anger, though, in the psychiatric interview, the interviewer often directs the feeling  toward him/herself.  The idea is to give the client some relief against their own attacks against themselves.  These often show up as depression.

     One of the ways you can tell the same technique, or one close to it, was being used was by watching what happened in this case once the folks being interviewed were able to vent some of their helplessness and rage by  sharing the angry fantasies.  In all cases that I recall, each of the folks laughed, and their mood shifted and got lighter.

     In each case, the interviewer was encouraging the folks to express a "What if" scenario, and not to talk about what the really sought or what their plans were or what their hopes were.  When assessing for violence clinically, you'd want to look for some of these factors.

     You'll notice in at least one or two of the interviews that the folks had no wish to express these thoughts and did so only after being pushed into doing so.

     This doesn't mean that the peace loving progressives didn't or don't have angry or violent parts to their personalities; almost everybody does.  It does mean that these parts were not there on the surface, ready to be expressed spontaneously, at the drop of a hat, which is the way that it appears to me that you were presenting them.

     This is in contrast with the spontaneous appearance of these thoughts and feelings in the last Republican Senatorial candidate from Nevada, who spoke frequently of "Second Amendment remedies," and in contrast to the folks being interviewed in the video clips at the beginning of the thread, grew very silent and closed mouthed when asked to expand upon what she meant.

     Spontaneous emergence of violent material is somewhat different than its emergence when being probed for.  Emergence of the material after being probed for following a quick burst of relief, signified by the laughter, suggests that the material was being integrated in a reasonably healthy fashion.  The dead silence and the refusal to allow exploration or resolution is suggestive of a somewhat different structure.

     You should not take my word for this.  I am simply giving you a somewhat professional response; I am not trying to sell you on it.  

     As I recall, your request was for, however, examples of provocative and somewhat violent elements in Republican campaigning during the last election cycle.  I am repeating and amplifying myself by bringing up the "second amendment solutions" in this little comment, since I brought them up before.

     You wished me to be more specific about Ms Palin:
 http://www.businessinsider.com/sarah-palin-has-not-deleted-reload-tweet-or-facebook-note-2011-1
http://firedoglake.com/2011/01/08/giffords-opponent-jesse-kelly-held-june-event-to-shoot-a-fully-automatic-m16-to-get-on-target-and-remove-gabrielle-giffords/


     These are only in reference to the most recent stuff with Ms. Palin, since that seems to be what google is clotted with right now.  If you'd like to look further back, you might try that yourself, since I regard the material she spoke about during the presidential election as pretty much a given and fairly well established by now.  At the time, the presidential candidate was forced to try to clean up after some of her comments.  Isn't that part of where she got her reputation for going Rogue?  She actually glories in being outrageous.  My current thrill about her use of the term "Blood Libel" is on the muted side.

     The attempts for Ms. Gifford's Republican rival for the congressional seat seemed provocative to me as well; fund-raising by offering to shoot a fully automatic weapon with the candidate seems to me to be in less than a bipartisan tradition.  It doesn't seem to argue for a Kinder, gentler and less violent society.  I'm a guy who'd actually like to do some shooting from time to time, to see if my regular tremor has gotten any better, and to endanger paper targets.  I'd feel that paying to shoot an assault rifle with a candidate might be sending something of a dangerous message in as uncivil an age as ours.  I'm just saying.  I also suspect that there have been an occasional pro-violence provocative message being sent in the ranks of the Right that you'd be more aware of than I would be.

     Respectfully, Bob Kaven

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
52 posted 2011-02-08 08:41 PM


Very interesting, Bob, and I appreciate your taking the time and effort to try to explain in layman's terms. I would certainly not try to debate this clinical analysis, being a sometimes poet who kills bugs and hits golf balls and not a professional in the field, as you are. There are a couple of points that put questions in my mind, however.

If I were to interview you and try to get you to acknowledge that you hate your father or have dreams of raping your neighbor, how much luck would I have? Not much, I'll wager, if those thoughts were never in your mind, even as fantasies. The interviewer was certainly trying to goad them a bit, I'll agrree, but he didn't say things like "Would you like to kill Clarence Thomas?" They themselves brought up that scenario. Another fellow chimed in to add andother supreme court justice and the woman jumped in to say she wanted the same thing to happen to Thomas's wife. Obviously these feeling had to be present somewhere in whatever they call a mind. Another fellow said, "Send Clarence Thomas back to the fields where he belongs." I don't see how there is any doubt that that remark is racial and the man is a bigot. I can't buy it, Bob. If they were to respond with, "kick them all out of office" or something like that, I'd go along with you....but murder them? If that thought were never in their mind, how did it come out?

Emergence of the material after being probed for following a quick burst of relief, signified by the laughter, suggests that the material was being integrated in a reasonably healthy fashion

Excuse me? They spoke of murdering a man and his wife and it was excusable because they did it in a healthy  fashion? I must be misinterpreting your thoughts there. Yes, they giggled like schoolchildren because they knew they were being naughty like schoolchildren. Are they a good representation of liberals....people who walk around with fantasies of murder and giggle after admitting it? I must say I find it interesting that when liberals speak of committing atrocities you call them "sharing angry fantasies". Do you do the same for conservatives? Not from what I have seen, sir.

As far as Palin's comments are concerned, I see nothing new in your link, except it is from a liberal rag aiming it's rhetoric at like-minded souls. Did you read the comments under the article? If those are the types of people you like to be linked with, then good for you. There is nothing nefarious about using terms like targeting or aiming, unless you want to twist it to mean what you want it to mean. As I said, the targets were used by democrats before Palin got into town. How do you feel about that? For that matter, how do you feel about fans who scream "Kill the ump!"? Should they be arrested and charged with attempting to incite murder?

I also suspect that there have been an occasional pro-violence provocative message being sent in the ranks of the Right

You suspect, Bob? So you have gone from fact to suspicion?  Or perhaps that is some attempt to justify the comments in the video? Sorry...in my book, there is no justification, as there was no justification in the "Kill Bush" signs that were prevalent in liberal rallies during Bush's term. I would say the same about any conservative who spoke of killing Obama.

Sorry, but I see your analysis as an attempt to justify the unjustifiable.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

53 posted 2011-02-08 10:52 PM




     I like that you don't take my word for it, Mike.  I would hope that you wouldn't, and it would be unfair for me to expect that you would.  I can't offer this stuff as an attempt to  tell you the way things are.  It's a discussion, and in a discussion we should be talking on equal footing.

     I appreciate your willingness to think about the material I laid out, and to play with it in a thoughtful way.  More than that is an unfair call upon your good will, and I won't ask that of you.

     The notion that everybody is trying to deal with this sort of material much or most of the time is difficult for many people to tolerate, in the same way that some of the basic Freudian material about about sexual impulses can be difficult to tolerate....

     I did explain the difference between more or less healthy and more or less unhealth ways of processing this material.  At no point did I suggest that it was likely that folks wouldn't have the material to deal with, and that it wasn't something the people have ongoing concerns with.  Folks with solid religious faith frequently have a bit of an advantage in processing this sort of thing; it's one of the things that religion is excellent in helping us tolerate and process.  

     While I don't have that sort of faith myself, I like to encourage it becauser it hel[ps people navigate the stresses that we must navigate in order to deal with our violent impulses  in reasonably straightforward ways.

     I did mention some of the Republican canidates and their reasonably well reported direct and indirect appeals to violent impulses.  "Second Amendment Solutions" were widely reported, and you should not be a stranger to the term or the the reportage about them.  

    

    

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

54 posted 2011-02-08 10:56 PM




     I am glad to see you would be upset by any right wing person who would suggest killing the president, left or right.  I believe we are in agreement on this, no matter which wing the president represented.  Out of such agreements, much can grow.

oceanvu2
Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066
Santa Monica, California, USA
55 posted 2011-02-21 02:17 PM


Well then, three cheers for Jan Brewer.  She no only says what she means, no satire or obfuscations, and her policies actually do kill people. Hurrah for integrity in government!

Best, Jimbeaux

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

56 posted 2011-02-21 04:09 PM




     Is there some policy of Ms. Brewer's you think I am supporting here, Jim?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
57 posted 2011-02-21 04:11 PM


her policies kill people....brilliant statement.
oceanvu2
Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066
Santa Monica, California, USA
58 posted 2011-02-21 04:29 PM


Hi Deer --  I only make brilliant statements, but thanks for noticing Oh, and I was referrinng to her support for letting transplant patients die as a cost cutting measure.

Hi Bob:  Nah, I wasn't referring to any particular remark of yours.  Sometimes I just get annoyed at the general lunacy that crops up in these forums.  Pure Alice in Wonderland stuff. Or maybe it's just the shoot first ask questions later approach.

Jimbeaux


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
59 posted 2011-03-18 05:13 PM


.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/262428/death-threats-dozens-deroy-murdock?page=1


.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

60 posted 2011-03-18 07:10 PM


Lovely civilized people.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

61 posted 2011-03-18 07:44 PM


http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=267389
Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

62 posted 2011-03-19 03:19 PM




     Gotta say, I don't care who makes death threats, they're still wrong.  If a liberal makes a death threat, it's as wrong as a conservative making a death threat.  

     Considering that I'm the only poster to have addressed that directly and I can only guess that this might be the issue that John and Denise are trying to talk about in this revitalized thread, I point out that the comments made in one of the columns suggest that liberals don't care about repayment of debt.  I'd like to point out that I made several comments about this very issue when the debt was being run up in the Bush administration.  I said that it would have to be repaid and that the longer we waited, the more unpleasant it would be.  I got nothing but disagreement for my troubles.

     I would also like to point out that the first order of business in Wisconsin after the seating of the Republican majority was to pass a tax cut for businesses and the very very wealthy amounting to about a billion and a half dollars, putting the state into a severe deficit.  All the various cuts they have been attempting to pass since have not even begun to pay for it, and have come out of the pockets of the poor and the middle class.  The Union busting is merely another attempt to dismantle middle and working class protections against the depredations of the super rich whose lickspittles the Republicans appear to be in this case.

     Much the same is happening in Michigan, except the funding for the tax cuts to corporations and the very very very rich are being funded by tax increases on the poor and on the elderly, and by an attempt to take the right of voter self determination away from any municipality that the governor deems financially in difficulty.  The criteria for that are in the governor's hands.

     While I condemn death threats, I believe that the cost of cream pies ought to be lowered or even subsidized in these states, and classes in cream pie flinging ought to be encouraged.

     I want to know where the Tea Party indignation is about this bushwa.  I want to know why honest Republicans think that this sort of thing  makes any sense at all?

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
63 posted 2011-03-20 09:45 AM


.


"While I condemn death threats, I . . ."


I condemn death threats.


.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

64 posted 2011-03-20 07:07 PM




     Thank you, John.  Sometimes the rhetoric gets in the way of basic agreement and underlying humanity.  It's good to see that confirmed.

     Coconut cream?  Banana Cream?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
65 posted 2011-03-20 07:31 PM


I understand your meaning, John.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

66 posted 2011-03-21 09:53 PM




     But do you join him, Mike?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
67 posted 2011-03-21 10:25 PM


In believing that the phrase "I condemn death threats" should not be preceded by a conditional word?

Absolutely.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

68 posted 2011-03-22 04:45 AM




quote:

Gotta say, I don't care who makes death threats, they're still wrong.


Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » The Alley » Peace Loving Progressives in Action

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary