Fearing tea party violence, four Arizona Republicans resign

[thaiboxerken]

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.

No, they don't. Respect is earned.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It's getting like Russia.

I hope so! Russian women are hot!

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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.

I think he saw the writing on the wall (he was going to lose) and did it to get the spotlight back on his campaign. I think he regretted it within about 2 days.

 

[Ziggurat]

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

You say that like she wouldn't make that comparison.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Indeed, political commentators like Paul Krugman have been pointing out exactly this. Too bad, though, that they can't point to any actual rise right-wing violence, and that even many of the examples of rhetoric are fictional.

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/right-wing-violence-threats-are-rise

 

[thaiboxerken]

I wonder why Democrats in Arizona aren't quitting.

 

[dtugg]

I wonder why Democrats in Arizona aren't quitting.

I was wondering the same thing.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Indeed, political commentators like Paul Krugman have been pointing out exactly this. Too bad, though, that they can't point to any actual rise right-wing violence, and that even many of the examples of rhetoric are fictional.

Yeah, no right-wing anti-tax/government violence in the past four years.

edit: pretend I linked a news story about George Tiller being shot to death in his own church somewhere in there, as well.

 

[Ziggurat]

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/right-wing-violence-threats-are-rise

So we have a list of events, some of which don't even have any known connection to right-wing ideology. And that proves that there's a RISE in right-wing violence? Sorry, but that doesn't prove any change at all. Nor can it, logically, even if all of the events it listed were connected to right-wing ideology (which, again, they aren't). The reason should be obvious, I really hope I don't have to spell it out for you.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yeah, no right-wing anti-tax/government violence in the past four years.

Nice strawman you've got there. Shall I light the match, or would you care to?

 

[Piscivore]

elected officials are people, with familes and children.

and they are fellow citizens.

So'm I. But seems like to a lot of 'em I'm just a "vote" or a "potential campaign contributor" or "the enemy" if I disagree.

And a little fear is healthy. Reminds people, especially people who feel on top of things, that change is a constant.

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

They "deserve" to be treated with the respect their behaviour warrants- or not, as the case may be... regardless of their political party.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Nice strawman you've got there. Shall I light the match, or would you care to?

Um, how is calling you out for saying that there isn't any actual rise in right-wing violence by showing prominent examples of right-wing violence a strawman?

 

[drkitten]

Um, how is calling you out for saying that there isn't any actual rise in right-wing violence by showing prominent examples of right-wing violence a strawman?

I think he's trying the old Tobacco Institute technique of denying a causal connection when the correlation is obvious to everyone.

There's been a huge increase in right-wing violence recently. There's also been a huge increase in right-wing violent rhetoric. These are undeniable. But to suggest a link between the two is as ridiculous as to suggest that a rise in lung cancer deaths might be related to a rise in cigarette smoking.

 

[Ziggurat]

Um, how is calling you out for saying that there isn't any actual rise in right-wing violence by showing prominent examples of right-wing violence a strawman?

Let's see, shall we? This is what I said:

Indeed, political commentators like Paul Krugman have been pointing out exactly this. Too bad, though, that they can't point to any actual rise right-wing violence, and that even many of the examples of rhetoric are fictional.

I've highlighted a word here for you, because it's important. Now, you responded with:

Yeah, no right-wing anti-tax/government violence in the past four years.

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.

 

[Snide]

So'm I. But seems like to a lot of 'em I'm just a "vote" or a "potential campaign contributor" or "the enemy" if I disagree.

And a little fear is healthy. Reminds people, especially people who feel on top of things, that change is a constant.

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.

 

[Ziggurat]

There's been a huge increase in right-wing violence recently.

How do you know? Seriously, on what basis do you make this claim? Because you hear about it more often? Because that's a pretty piss-poor way of figuring out the frequency of such events. Or did you forget about the Summer of the Shark?

And if you do have any actual evidence of an actual increase, why is nobody actually citing such evidence? Krugman certainly didn't, A Laughing Baby didn't, and you didn't. If it's all so obvious and undeniable, why isn't the evidence at your fingertips?

 

[drkitten]

How do you know?

By reading papers. If you're suggesting that the attempted assassination of Democratic members of Congress is a routine practice, but that the newspapers have until recently conspired to cover them up, then I'm afraid that I owe an apology to the Tobacco Institute lawyers and lobbyists.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

I'm not going to play semantic games on this. I know that there is no exact time-series of incidence of right wing violence out there simply due to the fact that there will be "no, that's not really right-wing" objections to events composing it, and you know that as well. As a result, you can't point to a concrete rise because you can say "well how many were occurring in the past?"

If one responds, then you can discount that as "Those weren't really right-wing." and the circle continues. It's pointless, and I'm not pursuing it further.

I am interested, however, to see how any of those weren't right wing, or at the least related to key points of right-wing ideology. At best, I would say your best argument would be toward the sovereign citizens' shooting, but at the same time, the sovereign citizen movement is traditionally linked to the Patriot movement, which I would not exactly call left-wing.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Yeah, no right-wing anti-tax/government violence in the past four years.

edit: pretend I linked a news story about George Tiller being shot to death in his own church somewhere in there, as well.

I just did a quick search on the people in those links. It turns out that at least three of them were into the "Sovereign Citizen" movement. The first had obvious connections to Info Wars. That's not right-wing, that's whacko. I'm starting to wonder if we need to be treating that group a little bit more seriously than we are right now.

I see your post above. You can't just claim that all of these people were "right-wing". One cannot simultaneously hate the country and be mainstream "right-wing" and influenced by major right-wing media sources at the same time.

 

[Ziggurat]

By reading papers.

Like I said. You have no actual evidence, only an impression.

If you're suggesting that the attempted assassination of Democratic members of Congress is a routine practice

She's not dead, which makes this an attempted assassination. And not a right-wing one either:
"He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right."
Damn those inconvenient facts.