Fearing tea party violence, four Arizona Republicans resign

[rwguinn]

Were it not a tragedy, I would be amused and laughing at the Left right now.
instead, I am scared for my country.
The proper response, as has been pointed out by many is that we need to tone down the ********. From both sides. We need to look at where folks are coming from.
The Tea-party rhetoric has inflamed some folks. This needs to stop. No doubt.
But I watched Bill Maher on Leno. Pissed me off.
While telling everybody that the tea-party-style rhetoric is unacceptable, the Left is using exactly the same tactic to berate the Right.

Originally Posted by drkitten
There's been a huge increase in right-wing violence recently.

(evidence is non-existent)
Just admit your'e knuckle dragging "Gun nuts", according to Maher

Originally Posted by Thunder
what a joke. you might as well compare the USA to Nazi Germany in 1943.

just a few.

 

[TraneWreck]

Can you spot the difference? Let me spell it out for you, since you couldn't figure it out on your own the first time. I never said that there was no right-wing violence. I said that they couldn't point to any actual RISE in violence. And they couldn't. And neither could you. All you could do is dig up a few examples (not all of which were even really right wing), which tell us nothing about the levels of violence over time. So not only did you misrepresent my position (you constructed a strawman), but your evidence logically can tell us nothing about what I actually said.

According to the Secret Service, death threats against members of Congress are up 200%, death threats against the President are up 400%, both compared to Bush era.

A homeland security report described the rise in right wing extremism.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/14/dhs-report-right-wing/

Here is a list of events since the 2008 Supreme Court ruling declaring that the 2nd amendment guards the right to keep weapons for use against the government should it become "tyrannical."
http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/insurrection-timeline

 

[thaiboxerken]

This needs to stop. No doubt.
But I watched Bill Maher on Leno. Pissed me off.
While telling everybody that the tea-party-style rhetoric is unacceptable, the Left is using exactly the same tactic to berate the Right.

No, the Left is not.

 

[TraneWreck]

Yeah, but that fear should be of being voted out of office, not shot.

Yes.

 

[Ziggurat]

According to the Secret Service, death threats against members of Congress are up 200%, death threats against the President are up 400%, both compared to Bush era.

And have those threats been categorized as left-wing or right-wing? Because if not, that doesn't tell us what we want to know here.

A homeland security report described the rise in right wing extremism.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/14/dhs-report-right-wing/

You seem to believe the report says something different than it actually says. Quoting from the key findings,
"Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups
during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry
out violent acts."
And you know what's absent from the report's key findings? Any indication that the level of right-wing violence had actually increased. So... fail.

Here is a list of events since the 2008 Supreme Court ruling declaring that the 2nd amendment guards the right to keep weapons for use against the government should it become "tyrannical."
http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/insurrection-timeline

Another list of events which tells us nothing about violence rates. In other words, another obvious fail.

I haven't looked at all the items on the list (many of which involve rhetoric and not actual violence), but I do want to point out one in particular: Michelle Bachman's statement about being "armed and dangerous". Although not quite as egregious as Krugman's use of this quote in his recent column, since it did include more of the context, her statement was clearly not at all about violence. Your source is, in short, unreliable on the issue.

 

[TraneWreck]

And have those threats been categorized as left-wing or right-wing? Because if not, that doesn't tell us what we want to know here.

No doubt the election of Barack Obama caused a massive spike in democrats/leftists threatening the life of the man they just voted for.

You seem to believe the report says something different than it actually says. Quoting from the key findings,
"Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups
during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry
out violent acts."
And you know what's absent from the report's key findings? Any indication that the level of right-wing violence had actually increased. So... fail.

The storm clouds are building. This happened in the 90's. I would prefer to deal with it before people start getting killed.

Another list of events which tells us nothing about violence rates. In other words, another obvious fail.

I haven't looked at all the items on the list (many of which involve rhetoric and not actual violence), but I do want to point out one in particular: Michelle Bachman's statement about being "armed and dangerous". Although not quite as egregious as Krugman's use of this quote in his recent column, since it did include more of the context, her statement was clearly not at all about violence. Your source is, in short, unreliable on the issue.

Go ahead, put your head in the sand. Morris Dees and the SOuthern Poverty Law Center were earning people about the militia movement to the same "waving the bloody flag" response. Then there was Timothy McVeigh.

 

[rwguinn]

No, the Left is not.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197479
Let's balme Palin:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197455
TEA-Baggers are all nuts:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197600
Bill Maher

The NRA should change their name to the Assassin's Lobby, because that's what they are," he began.

When Leno brought up the hot-button issue of violent rhetoric in politics, Maher let loose, going after Newt Gingrich and a number of other Republicans, whose "go-to rhetoric," he claimed, suggests: "Wouldn't it be fun to kill people we disagree with?"

Next?

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Bill Maher is also an "autism is caused by vaccines" believer. Anyone that takes him and his opinions seriously, left or right, is an idiot.

 

[Ziggurat]

No doubt the election of Barack Obama caused a massive spike in democrats/leftists threatening the life of the man they just voted for.

And no other possibilities exist, obviously. Increasingly easy forms of communication, for example, couldn't possibly lead to more threats being transmitted.

Yes, TraneWreck, that number is consistent with an increase in right-wing violence. But 1) threats, though deplorable and illegal, are not violence, and 2) "consistent with" isn't enough, you need to show some direct evidence that this is the actual explanation. Which... you didn't do.

The storm clouds are building. This happened in the 90's. I would prefer to deal with it before people start getting killed.

Since when did your concern about what might happen in the future become synonymous with claims about what has already happened? Do you not see a rather important difference in their temporal arrangement? Because I sure as hell do. Even if those predictions turn true, a future increase in right-wing violence is still obviously not the same thing as the claim that right-wing violence has already increase. And no amount of evidence for the former can possibly prove the latter. That should be obvious. I'm disappointed that it isn't.

Go ahead, put your head in the sand. Morris Dees and the SOuthern Poverty Law Center were earning people about the militia movement to the same "waving the bloody flag" response. Then there was Timothy McVeigh.

When is the SPLC not warning people about right-wing hate groups? That's about as successful a prediction as saying it's going to rain, if you say that every day.

 

[TraneWreck]

And no other possibilities exist, obviously. Increasingly easy forms of communication, for example, couldn't possibly lead to more threats being transmitted.

Yes, TraneWreck, that number is consistent with an increase in right-wing violence. But 1) threats, though deplorable and illegal, are not violence, and 2) "consistent with" isn't enough, you need to show some direct evidence that this is the actual explanation. Which... you didn't do.

Is this a serious argument? Sometimes you might be required to use your reasoning skills, and, I should point out, the second fact, that Homeland Security was warning about increased right wing extremism, was support for the direction the threats were coming from.

As for the Secret Service, they don't reveal most of the specific information, but read this and tell me what you think the most relevant factor in the increase happens to be:

Some threats to Mr Obama, whose Secret Service codename is Renegade, have been publicised, including an alleged plot by white supremacists in Tennessee late last year to rob a gun store, shoot 88 black people, decapitate another 14 and then assassinate the first black president in American history.

Most however, are kept under wraps because the Secret Service fears that revealing details of them would only increase the number of copycat attempts.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...reats-a-day-stretching-US-Secret-Service.html

The other 29 that day were probably from PETA.

Since when did your concern about what might happen in the future become synonymous with claims about what has already happened? Do you not see a rather important difference in their temporal arrangement? Because I sure as hell do. Even if those predictions turn true, a future increase in right-wing violence is still obviously not the same thing as the claim that right-wing violence has already increase. And no amount of evidence for the former can possibly prove the latter. That should be obvious. I'm disappointed that it isn't.

Threats are actually up. They're up from the right wing.

We have had actual violence like this:

This was a symbolic killing. Who I wanted to kill was every Democrat in the Senate & House, the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg's book. I'd like to kill everyone in the mainstream media. But I know those people were inaccessible to me. I couldn't get to the generals & high ranking officers of the Marxist movement so I went after the foot soldiers, the *********** liberals that vote in these traitorous people. Someone had to get the ball rolling. I volunteered. I hope others do the same. It's the only way we can rid America of this cancerous pestilence.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/accountability-and-victimization.html

That guy just killed some people in a Church. I guess that's not a rise in right-wing violence at churches given the historical propensity for church bombings.

When is the SPLC not warning people about right-wing hate groups? That's about as successful a prediction as saying it's going to rain, if you say that every day.

Strong argument. Perhaps they're just always right.

 

[I Ratant]

I hope so! Russian women are hot!

.
If only they were all California babes!

 

[I Ratant]

I'm fine with a LOT of fear...fear of losing their jobs. But fear for their lives, and those of their family, assuming they're not simply paranoid? No, not good.

.
It's like they're police or politicians in Mexico.

 

[Ziggurat]

Is this a serious argument? Sometimes you might be required to use your reasoning skills

Indeed. Which is part of why I've been disappointed in you.

and, I should point out, the second fact, that Homeland Security was warning about increased right wing extremism

They warned about what they considered a possibility for the future, not about any events that had already transpired. Furthermore, as the report itself made clear, "extremism" is not the same thing as violence. And lastly, the report never explicitly defines extremism, but their statements about it suggest a definition that is so broad as to be fairly useless ("Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.").

As for the Secret Service, they don't reveal most of the specific information, but read this and tell me what you think the most relevant factor in the increase happens to be

And based on the motives behind ONE threat, we can conclude what all the other motives must be. And based on threat frequency increase, we can conclude that violence must have increased as well.

What was that you were saying about using reasoning skills?

That guy just killed some people in a Church. I guess that's not a rise in right-wing violence at churches given the historical propensity for church bombings.

Again, individual incidents don't tell us about rates. It's disappointing that I keep having to inform you of this fact.

 

[thaiboxerken]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197479
Let's balme Palin:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197455
TEA-Baggers are all nuts:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197600
Bill Maher



Next?

Maher is hardly representative of the left.
People blaming Palin for using heated rhetoric is not heated rhetoric.
Tea party is nuts, they do nutty things and have even threatened politicians enough that some have resigned out of fear.

Next?

 

[TraneWreck]

They warned about what they considered a possibility for the future, not about any events that had already transpired. Furthermore, as the report itself made clear, "extremism" is not the same thing as violence. And lastly, the report never explicitly defines extremism, but their statements about it suggest a definition that is so broad as to be fairly useless ("Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.").

That says rightwing extremism is made up of hate groups and anti-government groups. I'm sure there are some organizations that will have a vague orientation, but that's not an overly broad distinction. These are, of course, necessary but not sufficient conditions.

Do you have an example of a group considered "extremist" by Homeland Security that you think isn't?

And based on the motives behind ONE threat, we can conclude what all the other motives must be. And based on threat frequency increase, we can conclude that violence must have increased as well.

What was that you were saying about using reasoning skills?

In all honesty, are you seriously suggesting that the 400% increase in death threats against the president is of ambiguous origin?

I gave one example because the SS doesn't release much information, I can't give many more because no one has access to much else.

It would seem to me that when threats jump 400% and all that's changed is that a republican was replaced with a democrat (who is black), you have the burden of showing why the obvious explanation supported by all available evidence and contradicted by no evidence, is wrong.

Again, individual incidents don't tell us about rates. It's disappointing that I keep having to inform you of this fact.

Here's a running total of politically motivated criminal acts or outright terrorism since 2008:

-- July 2008: A gunman named Jim David Adkisson, agitated at how "liberals" are "destroying America," walks into a Unitarian Church and opens fire, killing two churchgoers and wounding four others.

-- October 2008: Two neo-Nazis are arrested in Tennessee in a plot to murder dozens of African-Americans, culminating in the assassination of President Obama.

-- December 2008: A pair of "Patriot" movement radicals -- the father-son team of Bruce and Joshua Turnidge, who wanted "to attack the political infrastructure" -- threaten a bank in Woodburn, Oregon, with a bomb in the hopes of extorting money that would end their financial difficulties, for which they blamed the government. Instead, the bomb goes off and kills two police officers. The men eventually are convicted and sentenced to death for the crime.

-- December 2008: In Belfast, Maine, police discover the makings of a nuclear "dirty bomb" in the basement of a white supremacist shot dead by his wife. The man, who was independently wealthy, reportedly was agitated about the election of President Obama and was crafting a plan to set off the bomb.

-- January 2009: A white supremacist named Keith Luke embarks on a killing rampage in Brockton, Mass., raping and wounding a black woman and killing her sister, then killing a homeless man before being captured by police as he is en route to a Jewish community center.

-- February 2009: A Marine named Kody Brittingham is arrested and charged with plotting to assassinate President Obama. Brittingham also collected white-supremacist material.

-- April 2009: A white supremacist named Richard Poplawski opens fire on three Pittsburgh police officers who come to his house on a domestic-violence call and kills all three, because he believed President Obama intended to take away the guns of white citizens like himself. Poplawski is currently awaiting trial.

-- April 2009: Another gunman in Okaloosa County, Florida, similarly fearful of Obama's purported gun-grabbing plans, kills two deputies when they come to arrest him in a domestic-violence matter, then is killed himself in a shootout with police.

-- May 2009: A "sovereign citizen" named Scott Roeder walks into a church in Wichita, Kansas, and assassinates abortion provider Dr. George Tiller.

-- June 2009: A Holocaust denier and right-wing tax protester named James Von Brunn opens fire at the Holocaust Museum, killing a security guard.

-- February 2010: An angry tax protester named Joseph Ray Stack flies an airplane into the building housing IRS offices in Austin, Texas. (Media are reluctant to label this one "domestic terrorism" too.)

-- March 2010: Seven militiamen from the Hutaree Militia in Michigan and Ohio are arrested and charged with plotting to assassinate local police officers with the intent of sparking a new civil war.

-- March 2010: An anti-government extremist named John Patrick Bedell walks into the Pentagon and opens fire, wounding two officers before he is himself shot dead.

-- May 2010: A "sovereign citizen" from Georgia is arrested in Tennessee and charged with plotting the violent takeover of a local county courthouse.

-- May 2010: A still-unidentified white man walks into a Jacksonville, Fla., mosque and sets it afire, simultaneously setting off a pipe bomb.

-- May 2010: Two "sovereign citizens" named Jerry and Joe Kane gun down two police officers who pull them over for a traffic violation, and then wound two more officers in a shootout in which both of them are eventually killed.

-- July 2010: An agitated right-winger and convict named Byron Williams loads up on weapons and drives to the Bay Area intent on attacking the offices of the Tides Foundation and the ACLU, but is intercepted by state patrolmen and engages them in a shootout and armed standoff in which two officers and Williams are wounded.

-- September 2010: A Concord, N.C., man is arrested and charged with plotting to blow up a North Carolina abortion clinic. The man, 26-year--old Justin Carl Moose, referred to himself as the "Christian counterpart to (Osama) bin Laden” in a taped undercover meeting with a federal informant.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/independents-day.html

Now, you are welcome to give me a similar list from 2006-2008.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's not a gun problem.

It;s not a political problem.

It's a whacko problem.

Actually it's not much of a whacko problem either. This guy, McVeigh, Unabomber. Three whackos in ummm 20 years?

I agree it's a "whacko" problem.

The actual violence (not just threats) comes from the mentally ill, and that's not nearly as small a problem as you seem to think. We have over 16,000 suicides by firearms (accounting for over half of all gun fatalities) each year in the U.S.

But I do think it's also a political problem and also a gun problem. The political problem is one that causes inaccurate jingoism to misinform the voters and which even might lead elected politicians to resign in fear of violence.

 

[Ziggurat]

Here's a running total of politically motivated criminal acts or outright terrorism since 2008:


http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/independents-day.html

Now, you are welcome to give me a similar list from 2006-2008.

You seem to have forgotten that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. I didn't make the claim that right-wing violence is increasing. And your list doesn't constitute proof or even evidence of that claim.

Oh, and we've already been over Joseph Ray Stack, who was closer to a communist than a right-winger.

 

[WildCat]

I am still wondering why McCain picked her as his running mate. I know it is off topic, but I would love some insight (PM if you like) why he might have thought it would be a good idea.

He's a maverick.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You seem to have forgotten that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. I didn't make the claim that right-wing violence is increasing. And your list doesn't constitute proof or even evidence of that claim.

His list is certainly evidence. You just won't accept it because it contradicts your views.

 

[Ziggurat]

His list is certainly evidence. You just won't accept it because it contradicts your views.

No, Thai. The "evidence" he lists is not evidence of the claim in question. A list of violent incidents tells us nothing about changes in rates of violence. And threats are not the same thing as violence, or even attempted violence, so his increase in threats doesn't tell us that there's an increase in violence either.

The claim remains unsupported.