Fearing tea party violence, four Arizona Republicans resign

[fishbob]

elected officials are people, with familes and children.

and they are fellow citizens.

they deserve to be treated with respect, regardless of their political party.

Elected officials are people, they get to earn respect like the rest of us. No freebies just because they won a popularity contest.

 

[fishbob]

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.

I have to agree. Being a bit nervous about keeping the cush job is not at all the same kind of fear as having to worry about getting a bullet in your brain.

 

[fishbob]

"He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. . . . ."

I don't either. I have the internet.

 

[Dancing David]

They do. But I don't think it's particularly disrespectful to say something like "if you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas" or to point out that political commentators have been pointing to an increase in extremist violence associated with the radical right for a number of years,... and that the republican machinery has been courting and enabling the extremist right for a number of years.

And McCain in particular took a huge step in that direction when he picked Palin as his running mate. Miller was a fairly important McCain campaign worker. He should have seen the consequences of this decision years ago; the fact that he's only now realizing that "hey, these scary out of control lunatics are lunatics, and they're scary! And I can't control them!" doesn't impress.

Not to mention Rove's push for the 'social' conservatism' which would make Reagan 'republican in name only'.

 

[TraneWreck]

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.

How do you want me to prove that there weren't as many right-wing motivated acts of violence in some time interval before 2008?

You're asking me to prove a negative.

All you need to do is provide a similar list of acts over a similar time period to contradict my point, but obviously you can't, so you're just falling back on burden shifting and demanding that someone prove to you that certain events didn't happen.

We're not in court right now, the burden of proof is not "beyond a reasonable doubt." I've given you more than enough information to conclude that violence and threats of violence from right wing political groups is increasing. You can either disprove this position or accept it, but you cannot demand that I also prove a lack of such acts in the recent past.

 

[mhaze]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/fearing-tea-party-violence-arizona-republicans-resign/



Yes, I know there is no evidence teabaggers are linked to the shooting this past weekend. However I can see how that, coupled with the teabagger's rhetoric have created a climate of fear for people in their cross hairs. This is a sad day.

So....please tell us....how is life from the view of a political propagandist these days?

 

[Ziggurat]

How do you want me to prove that there weren't as many right-wing motivated acts of violence in some time interval before 2008?

You're asking me to prove a negative.

Sorry, TW, but that's still a positive. You're still claiming that there's a change. The existence of the change, whether it's negative or positive in sign (a difference which is wholly dependent on the arbitrary choice which time period you reference as your baseline), still constitutes a positive claim. A negative claim would be saying that there was no change.

You have made a positive claim. I want you to back up your positive claim. You haven't done so.

All you need to do is provide a similar list of acts over a similar time period to contradict my point,

I don't need to contradict your point. YOU made the claim. The burden is on you to support your claim, not on me to disprove it.

but obviously you can't

I won't. There's a difference.

so you're just falling back on burden shifting

The burden was always on you, TW.

We're not in court right now, the burden of proof is not "beyond a reasonable doubt."

But it's still higher than "I get the impression", or "here's a list that doesn't actually prove my point".

I've given you more than enough information to conclude that violence and threats of violence from right wing political groups is increasing.

No, you haven't. You've given me information that tells me NOTHING about any change in the rate of right-wing violence. You have given me evidence that the rate of threats against the president have increased, but no way to determine the breakdown of those threats (in terms of severity, in terms of origin, in terms of motive, in terms of anything really), or how those threats against the president relate to threats more broadly.

You can either disprove this position or accept it, but you cannot demand that I also prove a lack of such acts in the recent past.

I can demand exactly that, because if you don't provide that, then you HAVE NOT provided evidence for your actual claim. You have shown that there is right-wing violence. You have not shown that it is increasing.

Continuing logic 101 fail.

 

[TraneWreck]

Sorry, TW, but that's still a positive. You're still claiming that there's a change. The existence of the change, whether it's negative or positive in sign (a difference which is wholly dependent on the arbitrary choice which time period you reference as your baseline), still constitutes a positive claim. A negative claim would be saying that there was no change.

[...]

Continuing logic 101 fail.

All other points aside, this is the most direct way to respond. Here is a list of right wing violence since Oklahoma City:

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/terror-from-the-right

One event in 2006, one event in 2007, quite a few more in 2008 and subsequent years.

7 in 2009 and 8 since that list cuts off, June of '09.

Threats are growing, radical right groups are increasing their memberships and forming new branches, violence is moving back up to the levels it was at in the late 90's:

But last year, as noted in the SPLC’s August report, "The Second Wave: Return of the Militias," a dramatic resurgence in the Patriot movement and its paramilitary wing, the militias, began. Now, the latest SPLC count finds that an astonishing 363 new Patriot groups appeared in 2009, with the totals going from 149 groups (including 42 militias) to 512 (127 of them militias) — a 244% jump.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-inform...owse-all-issues/2010/spring/rage-on-the-right

 

[Ziggurat]

All other points aside, this is the most direct way to respond. Here is a list of right wing violence since Oklahoma City:

Does this list claim to be comprehensive? No, it does not. Do the authors give criteria for what events would be included and what would not? No, they do not. Do they even claim that criteria were applied uniformly from year to year? No, they do not.

Does this list provide a method for measuring the rate of right-wing violence?

No, it does not.

Nothing about your evidence, nothing about your sources, nothing about your reasoning can distinguish between an actual increase in right-wing violence and a Summer of the shark scenario.

 

[TraneWreck]

Does this list claim to be comprehensive? No, it does not. Do the authors give criteria for what events would be included and what would not? No, they do not. Do they even claim that criteria were applied uniformly from year to year? No, they do not.

[...]

Nothing about your evidence, nothing about your sources, nothing about your reasoning can distinguish between an actual increase in right-wing violence and a Summer of the shark scenario.

Weak.

 

[USEagle13]

Death threats to Sarah Palin have always been high and since recent events has shot through the roof. Doubt it is from right wingers

 

[TraneWreck]

Death threats to Sarah Palin have always been high and since recent events has shot through the roof. Doubt it is from right wingers

Oh, well there must be no problem then.

 

[johnny karate]

Nothing about your evidence, nothing about your sources, nothing about your reasoning can distinguish between an actual increase in right-wing violence and a Summer of the shark scenario.

Except that the Summer of the Shark was based on hysteria that flew in the face of the actual statistics. There were actually more shark attacks the previous year.

You asked for evidence that right-wing violence is on the rise. You were provided that evidence. Now you're simply hand-waving and shifting goal posts.

 

[johnny karate]

Death threats to Sarah Palin have always been high and since recent events has shot through the roof. Doubt it is from right wingers

Obama has seen a 400% increase in death threats over the previous administration.

Meanwhile, Sarah Palin runs around telling people he associates with terrorists and wants to institute a government plot to kill old people and babies.

But I'm sure there's no connection.

 

[Ziggurat]

You asked for evidence that right-wing violence is on the rise. You were provided that evidence.

No, I wasn't. I was provided with evidence that right-wing violence occurred, a point which was never in dispute. The evidence never indicated a rise in rates. How could it, when the evidence presented never measured the rate of violence, now OR then?

 

[johnny karate]

No, I wasn't. I was provided with evidence that right-wing violence occurred, a point which was never in dispute. The evidence never indicated a rise in rates. How could it, when the evidence presented never measured the rate of violence, now OR then?

The SPLC link demonstrates the increase and is therefore the evidence you requested:

What follows is a detailed listing of major terrorist plots and racist rampages that have emerged from the American radical right in the years since Oklahoma City. These have included plans to bomb government buildings, banks, refineries, utilities, clinics, synagogues, mosques, memorials and bridges; to assassinate police officers, judges, politicians, civil rights figures and others; to rob banks, armored cars and other criminals; and to amass illegal machine guns, missiles, explosives and biological and chemical weapons. Each of these plots aimed to make changes in America through the use of political violence. Most contemplated the deaths of large numbers of people — in one case, as many as 30,000, or 10 times the number murdered on Sept. 11, 2001.

Here are the stories of plots, conspiracies and racist rampages since 1995 — plots and violence waged against a democratic America.

See the bolded portions. They both address the intended comprehensiveness and the defining parameters.

If you feel the evidence is lacking in some way, then it is you who are now making a positive claim, and you who has the burden to substantiate that claim.

 

[lomiller]

We're not in court right now, the burden of proof is not "beyond a reasonable doubt." I've given you more than enough information to conclude that violence and threats of violence from right wing political groups is increasing. You can either disprove this position or accept it, but you cannot demand that I also prove a lack of such acts in the recent past.

The other alterative is that the right has always been violent and this is nothing new therefore the rate of violence isn’t increasing. Ziggurat obviously doesn’t like that any better so he wants to sit back and that because you haven’t provided evidence in favour or one alternative of the other they must both be false.

 

[Ziggurat]

See the bolded portions. They both address the intended comprehensiveness and the defining parameters.

No, it doesn't. It makes no claims about comprehensiveness. The bolded portion indicates that the list includes a wide variety of events, but nowhere are claims of either comprehensiveness or even representativeness made.

 

[Ziggurat]

The other alterative is that the right has always been violent and this is nothing new therefore the rate of violence isn’t increasing.

Indeed, that is a very real possibility, one which TW has done nothing to eliminate.

Ziggurat obviously doesn’t like that any better so he wants to sit back and that because you haven’t provided evidence in favour or one alternative of the other they must both be false.

Do not invent positions for me which I have not expressed. You obviously don't know what I think.

 

[johnny karate]

No, it doesn't. It makes no claims about comprehensiveness. The bolded portion indicates that the list includes a wide variety of events, but nowhere are claims of either comprehensiveness or even representativeness made.

Again, from the SPLC link:

What follows is a detailed listing of major terrorist plots and racist rampages that have emerged from the American radical right in the years since Oklahoma City.

In what way do you interpret that as not being an intention of comprehensiveness? There are no qualifiers like "some" or "a few". It's a simple, unqualified declaration, like saying "Here is a list of U.S. presidents who served since the Civil War".

If you don't think the list is comprehensive - or that it was meant to be - that is your claim which you then have to substantiate by proving it's not.

And as far as representativeness, pretty much every single incident listed describes how it's connected to the right wing, so I'm not sure to what you're referring.