The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[scaeagles]

Well, as a member of the right, I didn't support McCain, and very verbally so did not. I am clearly renouncing violence and vandalism regardless of whom is doing it (and can see that it comes frmo both sides of the extremes). I was very vocal about the things I didn't like that Bush was doing (primarily in terms of fiscal resonsibility).

Do you support Earth First or various environmental extremists? Did you support those carrying signs at antiwar rallies calling for Bush to be killed?

Extremism is extremism regardless of where it comes from. Violence and threatening behavior is violence and threatening behavior no matter which side is comes from.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Do you support Earth First or various environmental extremists? Did you support those carrying signs at antiwar rallies calling for Bush to be killed?

I do not, never have.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Extremism is extremism regardless of where it comes from. Violence and threatening behavior is violence and threatening behavior no matter which side is comes from.

The problem I have is that (at least, from what I have observed) most Republicans won't even acknowledge that there is extremism on the right.

Tea party protesters that carry signs with racist and violent messages? "Oh... You're misinterpreting them."

Someone throws a brick through a democrat's window? "It's probably another Democrat trying to frame the Republicans."

Reports of threatening phone calls to Democratic members of Congress? "Just because someone leaves a threatening message doesn't mean it's really threatening."

No one here would defend or dismiss these actions if they came from someone on the left. So I ask the question again... Why is there not more condemnation from the right when there is behavior like this coming from the right?

[scaeagles]

Apparently I am not making myself clear, but don't see how thaty is possible. Threats of direct violence - wrong. Investigate the hell out of it. Vandalism/violence - wrong. I do appreciate the links that have specific info about threats, as what I had seen and heard was more about vandalism and tasteless profanity laced name calling.

I do notice that Republican leaders, in the stories you linked to, are condemning this, which seems to answer your question above about condemning extremists who resort to violence and threats.

[scaeagles]

For the same reason, I suppose, that people aren't up in arms over James Cameron recently saying that global warming deniers should be shot.

I can't answer why people don't respond the way you would like them to.

As far as the political affiliation of the person who threw a brink through the window - whomever, regardless of political affiliation, should be responsible for their actions. All I did was point out that a widely publicized right wing threat and intimidation in CO that was touted all over as being right wing extremism on parade was, in fact, a liberal democrat trying to frame republicans. Do you condemn the actions of that person? I'm sure you would....just as I have condemned the actions and the republican leaders in your links have condemned them. It may not go as far as you'd like, but there is the condemnation.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

For the same reason, I suppose, that people aren't up in arms over James Cameron recently saying that global warming deniers should be shot.

To be accurate, he challenged them to a duel.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

To be accurate, he challenged them to a duel.

I thought it was a debate.

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

For the same reason, I suppose, that people aren't up in arms over James Cameron recently saying that global warming deniers should be shot.

I hadn't heard that (or about him wanting to duel with deniers) - but Cameron isn't a political leader. I agree with his position re: global warming, but I also find him silly. (He sure can direct action sequences, though!)

This game of "why didn't you object when this or that happened?" is one of the most tiresome, predictable and potentially endless gambits in any political discussion. Alex had it pretty right on when he said that most of us can recognize metaphor in rhetoric, as opposed to outright incitement, or actual criminal acts. So, Palin's crosshair map doesn't bother me in the least, nor does the "Fire Nancy Pelosi" with fiery flames in the background on the RNC website. I can easily see that these mean "Hey, get these people out of office in November."

In case anyone missed it, here is what incitement looks like, courtesy of Mike Vanderboegh, as reported on a Fox site. No question about it - a militia man who relishes the thought of violent overthrow, actively telling people to break windows as a warning for the gunshots that are to follow if the government continues on its present course. And he's practically giddy at the thought of being arrested and charged with sedition because of the platform it will give him. Chilling. Okay, this isn't a political leader, but I would sleep a little more soundly if I heard Republicans call this guy out by name and say no, that's not the way things are going to happen.

(By the way, for what it's worth, I thought Boehner's public response to all of this was reasonable, if predictably politicized, but I'm not expecting anything any politician says to be otherwise.)

Okay, rambling as usual. I'm going to pop extra popcorn this November.

[scaeagles]

Well, I suppose I'm making the extrapolation the Cameron doesn't want to die.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Well, I suppose I'm making the extrapolation the Cameron doesn't want to die.

Perhaps. But I do think there's a difference between, "Let's battle" vs. "I'm going to kill you."

[scaeagles]

So it's OK to choose the honorable way of killing someone?