I apologize for calling the Tea Party Patriots "Teabaggers". I know that that's a derogatory label and it was a cheap shot.

Let's let them expose their own hypocrisy.

Not anymore, but they certainly did at one time.

Anybody remember when a left-wing anarchist killed McKinley? And in 1721 a blue-dog Democrat kicked a puppy. But that was ok because in 1621 at the Battle of Cornwall a Southern Republican crossed the street angrily.


All threats (A) are worrisome (C), and a generally increasing hostile and inappropriate tone (B) of discourse is worrisome (C). I just wish people would be more careful that in this case because A=C and B=C that B does not equal A.

The other other night Rachel Maddow played audio of three "threatening" phone messages left for Bart Stupak. They were all vile in their sentiment but so far as I could tell not one of them contained an actual threat (maybe they were hidden in the bleeps, one did contain a several second long bleep; but then playing the audio was not informative of threats).

To label everything that is really rude as a threat makes it easier for people to dismiss the actual threats. Something about crying wolf and all that.

The calls played on Maddow:

Vile, yes. Inappropriate, yes. Incredibly rude, yes. But not a threat.

"Baby killer" is inappropriate but I hear worse than this call from people on either said of issues all the time. And I fail to see a threat.

Encouraging someone to killthelves, preferably with family along for the right is again vile and way over the line of anything resembling reasonable discourse. But again, no threat is in there.

Maddow said 50 "threatening calls like these" had been forwarded to the police. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there actually were threats in some of them, but if they are all like this then I wonder what exactly the police are expected to do but wait for actual threats to come in.


Yes, there are loons and overreacters on both sides and yes the right side will probably be more prominent because being completely out of power tends to exacerbate the feelings of oppression.

As always, "that's awful but you're side did it too" is a sentiment weakened by the caveat. But then so is "that's awful and it is somehow peculiarly unique to your side."

If that was aimed at me, I want to make it clear that I have never claimed that only the right has resorted to violence; only that right wing violence is on the rise.

Alex, you're not wrong (of course).

I guess the reason the latest spate of violence (and threats) makes me particularly uncomfortable is because of its link to a growing political movement.

While I don't mean to downplay the left-wing violence scaeagles cited in this thread, I also know that these are extremist groups who, by their very acts of violence, have taken themselves out of any serious political debate (at least in my eyes).

The Tea Party Patriot movement is young and potentially a real political movement. They're taken seriously by politicians, that's for sure. If members of the rank-and-file of this movement resort to threats of violence as a tactic and the leaders (who exactly are the leaders, by the way?) don't do anything substantial to reign them in, then they become a gang.

Trust me, I hardly ever think of you so you can stop wondering if everything I say is directed at you (mentioned only because this is the second time in as many days you've said something like this).

But because you did bring up what you've said, I did just now go back and look and I find that my final point does apply to at least one thing you've said. Oh lucky day for me.

You have not said violence is unique to a side, and I didn't say you did (even if I had been replying to you). You did, however, say that right wing violence is, to use what I actually said, peculiarly unique (Post #5753) in comparison to the violence of the other side. Specifically in that violence associated recent anti-war protests don't frighten you but that right wing violence and rhetoric do.

This is not to say that you're not telling the truth. I'm sure you are completely correct that right-wing violence scares you more than left-wing violence. But it does, to me, undercut the informational value of your outrage over right-wing violence. Just as much as "Yes, Republican violence is awful but you must remember Democrats have done bad things" undercuts the initial condemnation.

Insults and ad-hominem attacks now? Way beneath you, Alex.

Your argument makes no sense to me. I acknowledge that there is left wing violence in a post, and this is proof to you that I said violence is unique to the right? WTF?!

And I don't mean to suggest that as rhetoric gets more heated it isn't worth watching for when the lines really start to get crossed.

But the sentiment underlying the most vocal part of the Tea Party movement is not new and it has repeatedly knocked itself to the fringe of society before as it has with the John Birchers, the Patriot (militia) movement in the '90s, etc.

Similarly the left has spawned movement that have fringes more accepting of violence who initially are tolerated and there's some bending over backwards to keep them in the fold and then eventually they've spun off to be isolated groups.

This is not to say that they still can't do bad things once isolated (as it could be argued that the Patriot movement reached its pinnacle with the OKC bombing) of course.

But this latest incarnation of things in the Tea Party is only a year and a bit old and while there are certainly people involved who I'm sure would be happy to do extraordinary violence so far, for the most part, it has been relatively muted.

It may prove to be the case that a violent wing of the Tea Party will be first such in quite a long time to not get spun out to the fringe once it turns violent but I tend to doubt it. It is also true that such groups tend to not get entirely cut off until after they've crossed the line rather than pre-emptively.


All I'm saying is that so far I haven't seen anything that is particularly new or unique about what is happening. This is not to say that what is happening isn't bothersome (regardless of how condemned by mainstream political leaders a person or group may have been ahead of time it won't ease the pain of another OKC-style event).

But even more important (to me, anyway, and maybe I'm only making the point in my head) is that when issuing condomenations, much like apologies, it is best to stick to the issue at hand an avoid anything looking like justification, equivocation, or insincerity.

I can see how you might be insulted by what I said, but I fail to see anything ad hominem in there.

That's not what I said at all. In fact, I'd say I quite explicitly agreed with you that you had said no such thing. I'll repeat it and make it orange and bold and bigger so it stands out more.

I'd explain my point again but in rereading what I wrote it would appear to be as clear as I can make it so I'll just leave it be.

Ah hell, no I'll give it a shot. You have not said that violence is unique to the right and does not happen on the left. You said that violence from the right is peculiarly unique in that it scares you but violence on the left (at least, specifically, anti-war violence) does not. And that, to me, isn't much different in how it reduces the value of the condemnation than saying "violence form the right is bad but remember than there's been violence from the left too."