"Kill him" allegation at Palin event unfounded.

[thaiboxerken]

Painting Obama as a dangerous, socialist, Marxist, terrorist in no way could make a person feel as if Obama should be terminated.

 

[RandFan]

According to Palin and McCain, Obama is "dangerous", "wants to teach sex in kindergarten", "is a socialist", "wants to redistribute the wealth" (which is code for a 'communist'), and, "associates with anti-American terrorists". McCain continues to claim that "we need to know what Obama's relationship to Ayers really is and has been harping on the "Obama is a communist" theme all this week.

In addition to this, a Republican smear campaign is going on as well claiming Obama is a secret Muslim and wasn't really born in the US. While McCain was too embarrassed to let the 'Muslim claim' go unchallenged at his rally, the campaign itself has done little overall to tone down the spread of such falsehoods.

This kind of garbage clearly encourages skinhead racist types to act out their fantasies. I find the idea one makes up lies in order to win an elected office to be unethical and disgusting. Just because it is commonly done is no excuse. McCain should be embarrassed.

Sure... and video games cause children to kill people... sure. No skepticsim. No critical thinking. No evidence.

"...clearly encourages"

Rock and roll clearly encourages imorality and tears at the social fabric of our nation.

Sexually graphic movies clearly causes the spread of STD's and increased pregnancy.

Causation? Evidence?

No?

Didn't think so.

But... "clearly..."

Right.

 

[RandFan]

Care to show us where in this thread?

This isn't the only thread on the subject. I have condemned it in other thread that I thought you were on. My appologies. Fine. I condemn it. Ok?

If they were not calm, they were what, Wound Up? Agitated? Angry? Antagonistic? In a rage? Frenzied?

Fired up. You know, like folks at a pep rally.

I hate to keep telling you this but this is a skeptics forum. If you make a claim it is up to you to prove it.

I withdraw my claim. I don't know where the hell they went.

• Did they protest?
• Did they march in the streets?
• Did they tear down signs?

Hey, if they didn't go home where the hell did they go? Ok, according to you they didn't go home. I'll accept that.

WHERE DID THEY GO?

So rational people yell these things out. I'm sorry you can't see that this unacceptable behavior by McCain/Palin is dangerous.

I hate to break the news to you but both sides have irrational people.

Hopefully RanFan can see this is another example why what McCain/Palin did is unacceptable and dangerous.

I'm an Obama supporter. Given the choice I would vote for Clinton over McCain.

As I said above, with the current tensions it doesn't take much to push unstable individual(s) over the edge. ATF got lucky. Fingers crossed they continue doing such a good job.

Any evidence that this had anything to do with McCain and Palin? Any? Come on, any? When did they start their plan? Was it before after the rally? Did they attend the rally?

These are basic quetions that you haven't the critical thinking skills to even consider. Do you know what critical thinking is? Do you know what skepticism is? Do you realize that you are speculating without any evidence? You are acting like a CTer.

Dude, in the end YOU are claiming something about these followers. I say BS but I'm willing to change my mind, you got something other than wink wink nudge nudge? As it is you are just spouting claims.

 

[Whiplash]

I can't help but notice that, around here, discussions about if McCain pulls an upset win, people might riot, is reprehensible and sweeping generalization of an entire people and shouldn't even be speculated on. And yet, the idea that McCain & Palin, and their message, are whipping people into a murderous frenzy is just plain accepted as "duh, of course!", and apparently without any moral qualms whatsoever. Nope, no sweeping generalizations there, no rash assumptions, no rush to judgement.. no bigotry..

Why is that?

If you are planning to repond only to ask me why I'm posting here when I said I was leaving, please at least still attempt to answer the above question.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Demonizers of the World, Unite!

Only five smearing days left to the election (unless it's real close and then we can call each other fascists and commies and argue about hanging chads and supreme court votes and rigged voting machines for another half a year).

I can tell you that I've dealt with some racists, misanthropes, anti-semites, misogynists, and general garden variety bigots in my time. There is nothing needed from Pallin or McCain or Rush to start these miscreants off on making their plans. They just have to look at a picture and see the man's blackness and the very thought of that man being in the White House is enough to set them off.

Let's just be thankful that it was another "gang that couldn't shoot straight", and not a couple of isolated loners who don't flap their jaws but go about their deadly business quietly. But let's not blame political rhetoric, please. This is getting absurd.

 

[Smackety]

I can't help but notice that, around here, discussions about if McCain pulls an upset win, people might riot, is reprehensible and sweeping generalization of an entire people and shouldn't even be speculated on. And yet, the idea that McCain & Palin, and their message, are whipping people into a murderous frenzy is just plain accepted as "duh, of course!", and apparently without any moral qualms whatsoever. Nope, no sweeping generalizations there, no rash assumptions, no rush to judgement.. no bigotry..

Why is that?

If you are planning to repond only to ask me why I'm posting here when I said I was leaving, please at least still attempt to answer the above question.

I'll go out on a limb here....because we have lots of videos of McCain and Palin whipping people into a frenzy?

 

[Daylight]

I withdraw my claim. I don't know where the hell they went.

• Did they protest?
• Did they march in the streets?
• Did they tear down signs?

Hey, if they didn't go home where the hell did they go? Ok, according to you they didn't go home. I'll accept that.

WHERE DID THEY GO?

Maybe they went to Disneyland?

or ......

These are basic quetions that you haven't the critical thinking skills to even consider. Do you know what critical thinking is? Do you know what skepticism is? Do you realize that you are speculating without any evidence? You are acting like a CTer.

Dude, in the end YOU are claiming something about these followers. I say BS but I'm willing to change my mind, you got something other than wink wink nudge nudge? As it is you are just spouting claims.

Don't look now those

....pussies....

Borrowing from MattusMaximus thread

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127615

... After the rally, we witnessed a near-street riot involving the exiting McCain crowd and two Cuban-American Obama supporters. Tony Garcia, 63, and Raul Sorando, 31, were suddenly surrounded by an angry mob.

There is a moment in a crowd when something goes from mere yelling to a feeling of danger, and that's what we witnessed. As photographers and police raced to the scene, the crowd elevated from stable to fast-moving scrum, and the two men were surrounded on all sides as we raced to the circle.

The event maybe lasted a minute, two at the most, before police competently managed to hustle the two away from the scene and out of the danger zone. Only FiveThirtyEight tracked the two men down for comment, a quarter mile down the street.

"People were screaming 'Terrorist!' 'Communist!' 'Socialist!'" Sorando said when we caught up with him. "I had a guy tell me he was gonna kill me." ...

Thanks for more of the condescending derogatory attitude and personal insults. I guess that's what your Queensbury Rules call "skeptical discussion" and "critical thinking".

 

[RandFan]

Maybe they went to Disneyland?

No, I'm sorry, flippant ISN'T going to carry the day here. You are making a claim. Do you have evidence? yes or no?

Thanks for more of the condescending derogatory attitude and personal insults. I guess that's what your Queensbury Rules call "skeptical discussion" and "critical thinking".

Thanks for complelty failing to provide any evidence or reason to support your position. Rhetoric makes for poor argument.

I posted a video of McCain supporters in New York that were being yelled at and fingers flipped at and some very nasty stuff. Did you watch the video? That doesn't translate into Obama supporters wanting to kill anyone. Elections are emotional. That's a fact. Your anecdote fails to prove anything.

I'll ask one more time, do you have any evidence that the crowd was "frenzied"? Any riots? Any property damage? Anything other than a sketchy anecdote? Do you have video of the anecdote? Is there any coroboration or do you simply believe as fact everything you read that fits your world view? Is that the extent of your skepticism and critical thinking? Is there proof that this was caused by the rally and not just nut jobs who would have acted this way regardless? Dude, you've got nothing.

I won't hold my breath but I'm sure you will respond with rhetoric. Hey I know, blow more hot air up our asses with the "Queensbury rules" rhetoric as if that has any relevance to this discussion. Why not? You got nothing else.

 

[Daylight]

No, I'm sorry, flippant ISN'T going to carry the day here. You are making a claim. Do you have evidence? yes or no?

Thanks for complelty failing to provide any evidence or reason to support your position. Rhetoric makes for poor argument.

I posted a video of McCain supporters in New York that were being yelled at and fingers flipped at and some very nasty stuff. Did you watch the video? That doesn't translate into Obama supporters wanting to kill anyone. Elections are emotional. That's a fact. Your anecdote fails to prove anything.

I'll ask one more time, do you have any evidence that the crowd was "frenzied"? Any riots? Any property damage? Anything other than a sketchy anecdote? Do you have video of the anecdote? Is there any coroboration or do you simply believe as fact everything you read that fits your world view? Is that the extent of your skepticism and critical thinking? Is there proof that this was caused by the rally and not just nut jobs who would have acted this way regardless? Dude, you've got nothing.

I won't hold my breath but I'm sure you will respond with rhetoric. Hey I know, blow more hot air up our asses with the "Queensbury rules" rhetoric as if that has any relevance to this discussion. Why not? You got nothing else.

Skeptigirl, MattusMaximus and myself have posted stuff.

The issue is you could care less about what is posted, your condescending attitude and personal attacks show you’re more interested in fluffing your giant ego that discussing anything with anyone. And this is not the first time either. Over the last few years since I’ve been reading and posting here you’ve done the same thing before. Seems to be a pattern.

Look how you responded to my joke, in full attack mode. You have zero interest in discussing the thread.

I’m sorry posters will not post per your arrogant Queensbury Rules of discussion. But, some of us feel it’s more important to discuss issues and exchange ideas than holding our pinkie in the air to meet your egotistical needs.

Since you appear to have a hard time comprehending things let me say this again and hopefully it will sink in, YOU DO NOT DECIDE WHO POSTS ON THIS BOARD or HOW THEY POST, DEAL WITH IT

 

[RandFan]

Skeptigirl, MattusMaximus and myself have posted stuff.

Nonsense. You have no evidence that these rally's caused any violence.

I’m sorry posters will not post per your arrogant Queensbury Rules of discussion.

It's called skepticsim. This is a skeptics forum. We demand evidence. Sorry if that is difficult for you to understand.

DEAL WITH IT

 

[not_so_new]

Sexually graphic movies clearly causes the spread of STD's and increased pregnancy.

Causation? Evidence?

No?

Didn't think so.

But... "clearly..."

Right.

Teen pregnancies tied to tastes for sexy TV shows

Which brings up a point. Because there is no current evidence that Palin / McCain rallies are causing violence this does not mean the evidence isn't out there and yet to be brought to light or that the effects of these rallies could be felt months or even years later.

Lack of evidence is proof of nothing.

I agree with you, there is little evidence that the stuff happening at the rallies is translating into problems outside.

BUT

1) I would add a YET to the end of that statement.

2) It is VERY hard for someone to make the case that people at these Palin rallies are less likely to go out and cause harm to others.

You are living in a fantasy land if you don't believe it is more possible to have problems than less after the things said by Palin / McCain.

To use skeptigirl's list, when any "leader" stands in front of a large crowd and calls someone "dangerous", when that leader says their joint opponent "wants to teach sex in kindergarten", that they are "a socialist" and "want to redistribute the wealth" (which is code for a 'communist'), then they hear he "associates with anti-American terrorists".... what is that crowd supposed to believe?

They are going to see this guy as an enemy and at the base level of human reaction we all want to see harm done to our enemies. MOST people will walk away wanting to "harm" their enemy at the polls but it only takes a few wackos to take that a different way.

I am NOT saying this has already happened or will happen, I am just saying that it is MORE likely to happen than less after this type of campaign and let us not forget, Obama is already a marked man as a Presidential candidate, this goes doubly so as a black man.

Palin / McCain tried walking a very fine line and I personally think they went well over that line (and I don't say that as an Obama supporter, I say that as a thinking human).

 

[RandFan]

Lack of evidence is proof of nothing.

Yes, lack of evidence for unicorns is not proof that unicorns don't exist.

I am NOT saying this has already happened or will happen, I am just saying that it is MORE likely to happen than less after this type of campaign and let us not forget, Obama is already a marked man as a Presidential candidate, this goes doubly so as a black man.

Palin / McCain tried walking a very fine line and I personally think they went well over that line (and I don't say that as an Obama supporter, I say that as a thinking human).

Perhaps they did. I don't know how one quantifies such a thing. I would say you are relying on more than reason. It sound a bit like intuition. The opinion certainly isn't a scientifically rigorous one so appealing to your "thinking" is unwarranted IMHO. The mark of skepticism isn't the ability to be skeptical of opinions that are outside of your world view but to be able to be skeptical of opinions that are in that world view. I'm sorry to hammer the point so often but this is a skeptics forum. We ought to question what we know and how we know. We ought to know that bias is a deadly thing and not be so certain that we are free of such bias. Sincere scientists don't simply rely on their objectivity. They put into place protocols to guarantee their objectivity. I'm not on shaky ground to say that absent evidence you are speculating. That's fine so long as you understand that. It might be a calculated guess and a reasonable one at that but it is still speculation.

Other than that, thanks.

 

[not_so_new]

Yes, lack of evidence for unicorns is not proof that unicorns don't exist.

Absolutely, I agree 100%

The probability of unicorns existing is low enough that it is an almost certainty they don't..... but if one shows up in Times Square that probability goes up greatly.

My whole point there is that we can't rule out problems from the McCain / Palin rallies just because there haven't been any yet. That is not a skeptical approach either.

As of right now I agree, there is only slight evidence to support any violence from these rallies spilling over to the general public BUT I think if we were to track data we would find there is more potential for violence from people who attend Palin rallies than people who attend Obama rallies. Yes I admit that is pure speculation on my part but I believe my hypothesis would ring true.

Perhaps they did. I don't know how one quantifies such a thing. I would say you are relying on more than reason. It sound a bit like intuition. The opinion certainly isn't a scientifically rigorous one so appealing to your "thinking" is unwarranted IMHO. The mark of skepticism isn't the ability to be skeptical of opinions that are outside of your world view but to be able to be skeptical of opinions that are in that world view. I'm sorry to hammer the point so often but this is a skeptics forum. We ought to question what we know and how we know. We ought to know that bias is a deadly thing and not be so certain that we are free of such bias. Sincere scientists don't simply rely on their objectivity. They put into place protocols to guarantee their objectivity. I'm not on shaky ground to say that absent evidence you are speculating. That's fine so long as you understand that. It might be a calculated guess and a reasonable one at that but it is still speculation.

I also agree 100%. My skeptical spidy sense goes WAY up when I want to agree with something.

I do completely admit that part of my thinking on this issue is speculation and I am going into that with eyes wide open to my own bias.

That said, the other side of my thinking is based on scientific findings. "Group thinking" studies would point to some potential problems with Palin's attacks....... just one example...

http://www.livescience.com/health/070221_friends_memory.html

The researchers speculate that when a group of people receives information, the inclination is to discuss it. The more times one option is said aloud, the harder it is for individuals to recall other options, explained Krishnan, associate professor of marketing at Indiana University.

Again, Palin says over and over Obama is "dangerous", "a socialist" and "associates with anti-American terrorists".... put that into context with the research findings above.

What do you expect these people to come out thinking about Obama? (that is an honest question by the way, I would like to hear what you speculate people are going to come away thinking after these rallies)

Now here is where my speculation takes over. I speculate that it is MORE likely to have people come out of this situation wanting to take matters into their own hands than less when they TRULY believe Obama is a dangerous anti-American.

Again, that is speculation on my part, I admit that freely but I do base that speculation on events we have witnessed in history.

Other than that, thanks.

Sure thing, you make good points and we are mostly on the same page I believe.

 

[RandFan]

As of right now I agree, there is only slight evidence to support any violence from these rallies spilling over to the general public BUT I think if we were to track data we would find there is more potential for violence from people who attend Palin rallies than people who attend Obama rallies. Yes I admit that is pure speculation on my part but I believe my hypothesis would ring true.

Fair enough. I find nothing unreasonable in your post (I'm forum governer BTW )

Good post. Thanks for the link. I bookmarked it. I'm really interested in group think and in-group dynamics. I agree completly and the point is very valid.

 

[not_so_new]

Fair enough. I find nothing unreasonable in your post (I'm forum governer BTW )

Good post. Thanks for the link. I bookmarked it. I'm really interested in group think and in-group dynamics. I agree completly and the point is very valid.

Thanks RandFan.

Not to beat a dead horse but I think this helps to validate the concerns from the Palin rallies (I ran into this from another thread here on the forum but I thought it fit in well here… sorry for the double link to the same article)….

The Obama campaign was provided with reports from the Secret Service showing a sharp and disturbing increase in threats to Obama in September and early October, at the same time that many crowds at Palin rallies became more frenzied. Michelle Obama was shaken by the vituperative crowds and the hot rhetoric from the GOP candidates. "Why would they try to make people hate us?" Michelle asked a top campaign aide.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/167581/page/2

There isn't a scientific correlation between the two events, Palin's speeches and the "sharp and disturbing increase in threats to Obama" but it does seem reasonable to assume the events are related.

Obviously the Obama campaign feels the events are related so maybe there is something more to this than just speculation…. Or it's just speculation on their part as well but it does seem to fit with the concerns voiced here.

 

[RandFan]

There isn't a scientific correlation between the two events, Palin's speeches and the "sharp and disturbing increase in threats to Obama" but it does seem reasonable to assume the events are related.

Obviously the Obama campaign feels the events are related so maybe there is something more to this than just speculation…. Or it's just speculation on their part as well but it does seem to fit with the concerns voiced here.

Thanks, it would be fair to say that it is a red flag, a cause for concern. Nothing definitive and Michelle's statement is certainly of no scientific value. Correlation is not causation.


A couple of concerns:

1. What do we make of protests in general? Marches on Washington? Picketers? Should we focus on the increased danger to others or the message?
2. Did McCain and Palin truly wish harm to Obama and should any possibility that negative messages will lead to an increase in danger silence a speaker?

I'm sincerely not certain that the concern should rise to the level that it did. At what point does fear of the angry mob cause us to focus on that and not the message?

IMO, people were being led by the nose on this. Outraged at the behavior of Palin and McCain when all they were doing was excersising their right to speak. During the last 8 years there have been some very strong rhetoric directed at George Bush. It wouldn't surprise me that the danger to Bush increased because of that rhetoric. What then? Should we have focused on any increase in danger or the message? I could guess that we could first ask if the message is true or if it has any value but that I think is very problematic.

Unless there is clear and present danger I don't think this should be our focus. I see it as a red herring. Now, I have no problem, whatsoever, with folks calling on the speaker to be more responsible with his or her rhetoric. But using the danger as propaganda is in my opinion wrong headed.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Thanks, it would be fair to say that it is a red flag, a cause for concern. Nothing definitive and Michelle's statement is certainly of no scientific value. Correlation is not causation.



A couple of concerns:

1. What do we make of protests in general? Marches on Washington? Picketers? Should we focus on the increased danger to others or the message?
2. Did McCain and Palin truly wish harm to Obama and should any possibility that negative messages will lead to an increase in danger silence a speaker?

I'm sincerely not certain that the concern should rise to the level that it did. At what point does fear of the angry mob cause us to focus on that and not the message?

IMO, people were being led by the nose on this. Outraged at the behavior of Palin and McCain when all they were doing was excersising their right to speak. During the last 8 years there have been some very strong rhetoric directed at George Bush. It wouldn't surprise me that the danger to Bush increased because of that rhetoric. What then? Should we have focused on any increase in danger or the message? I could guess that we could first ask if the message is true or if it has any value but that I think is very problematic.

Unless there is clear and present danger I don't think this should be our focus. I see it as a red herring. Now, I have no problem, whatsoever, with folks calling on the speaker to be more responsible with his or her rhetoric. But using the danger as propaganda is in my opinion wrong headed.

Bolding mine. I think the point for McCain/Palin came when they realized that their message wasn't getting through. At that point, their campaign decided that they would play on the fears of their conservative base. They consciously and purposely started to imply that Obama was a socialist, terrorist (or cavorted with same) and could not be trusted. While that in its self would not foment violence, I think it could lead those who are already predisposed to violence to such acts.

I don't think it is over either. If you saw McCain's sincere and honorable concession speech, at one point, when he mentioned Obama by name, the crowd booed. I understand that passions still ran high, but I have to say that it disappointed me. And I really hoped that I would not hear the same during Obama's speech. I didn't.

RandFan, I understand you when you say that we should not attribute an active call to violence to the McCain/Palin ticket, but I do think that they made an active decision to play to the fears of their conservative base.

 

[Daylight]

Nonsense. You have no evidence that these rally's caused any violence.

It's called skepticsim. This is a skeptics forum. We demand evidence. Sorry if that is difficult for you to understand.

DEAL WITH IT

skepticsim? Not only do you not comprehend it, you can even spell it S-k-e-p-t-i-c-i-s-m.

Maybe if you were looking to discuss issues instead of picking one of your stupid fights to make your giant arrogant condescending massive ego feel good about itself you could see the world around you.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/167581/page/2

The Obama campaign was provided with reports from the Secret Service showing a sharp and disturbing increase in threats to Obama in September and early October, at the same time that many crowds at Palin rallies became more frenzied. Michelle Obama was shaken by the vituperative crowds and the hot rhetoric from the GOP candidates. "Why would they try to make people hate us?" Michelle asked a top campaign aide.

Thanks for the waste of mine, and everyone else's time, with your arrogant condescending attitude and personal insults. These seem to be your trademark on this board.

And one last time, maybe it will get through.

YOU (and your giant massive arrogant condescending ego) DO NOT DECIDE WHO POSTS ON THIS BOARD or HOW THEY POST, DEAL WITH IT

BTW, I typed this entire post with my pinkies in the air to meet your warped Queensbury rules so you would feel better about yourself.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[applecorped]

skepticsim? Not only do you not comprehend it, you can even spell it S-k-e-p-t-i-c-i-s-m.

Maybe if you were looking to discuss issues instead of picking one of your stupid fights to make your giant arrogant condescending massive ego feel good about itself you could see the world around you.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/167581/page/2



Thanks for the waste of mine, and everyone else's time, with your arrogant condescending attitude and personal insults. These seem to be your trademark on this board.

And one last time, maybe it will get through.

YOU (and your giant massive arrogant condescending ego) DO NOT DECIDE WHO POSTS ON THIS BOARD or HOW THEY POST, DEAL WITH IT

BTW, I typed this entire post with my pinkies in the air to meet your warped Queensbury rules so you would feel better about yourself.

Hyperbole. Attack the arguement not the person.

 

[RandFan]

Thanks for the waste of mine, and everyone else's time....

You don't speak for anyone but yourself. There is a discussion going on. Open your eyes, note the posts by skeptic guy and not_so_new.

As for arrogance, look in the mirror and get down off your high horse. If you don't want to contribute to the discussion then why not stop with the interuptions. I've never said you can't contribute so enough with that. Do you have something on topic?