Originally Posted by jamesdglick

But since you seem to be one of thise who feels that paying similar taxes morally entitles one to SS--- benefits, you're not in a position to argue otherwise.

No, I wouldn't argue that the old snide, however stupid, greedy and short sighted he may be, shouldn't have a part in the social contract of the nation that he lives in.
The point is, there are many working Americans who do pay taxes but are not protected from even catistrophic illness. The fact is that the old snide sought to do violence to others and was physically rebuffed. Maybe there should be some kind of penalty for injuries that one essentially causes to themselves, but that is a whole other issue that I won't go into here.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

...The fact is that the old snide sought to do violence to others and was physically rebuffed. Maybe there should be some kind of penalty for injuries that one essentially causes to themselves, but that is a whole other issue that I won't go into here.

-I must not be familiar with this case. In what way did the "Old Snide" attempt to do violence to others? This would be the first case of a Tea Partier using violence; in all the previous cases, the Tea Partiers were the victims of violence of Obamacare supporters.

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

-I must not be familiar with this case. In what way did the "Old Snide" attempt to do violence to others?

According to a Sheriff's Deputy he threw the first punch.

This would be the first case of a Tea Partier using violence; in all the previous cases, the Tea Partiers were the victims of violence of Obamacare supporters.

Have you any evidence of this?

Fox news reports Anti-Abortion Activist Gunned Down Outside Michigan High School

If we report abortion doctor murders, I suppose the protesters on the other side ought to get a mention. The motives weren't specified, though, in the article. While he was protesting at the time, it isn't clear that the motive was political.

Teabaggers showing their racism and stupidity at their joke of a "protest" in DC today:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/4240695...225019439/show

Originally Posted by herbal tee

According to a Sheriff's Deputy he threw the first punch.

-This was a literal "Spiral of Violence"; note that the cops are looking to charge the Obamacare supporter.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

...Have you any evidence of this ?

1) I'm not aware of any other case of a Tea Partyer initiating the violence.

2) Cases of Tea Partyers getting attacked:

In St. Louis:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/laworder/story/0470FEB3219207458625760B001142AC?OpenDocument

"It just seems there's no freedom of speech without being attacked," he said.

This attack was completely unprovoked, except that (according to the transcript), when the cops showed up, one of the SEIU goons claimed that Gladney "attacked America".

By handing out pamphlets.

The police agreed with Mr. Gladney.

And Tampa:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/08/06/violence_erupts_at_rep_castors_town_hall_in_tampa. html

Both are on apparently on "You Tube", but I have trouble getting that on the computers I use.

As for a lethal example of the "Spiral of Violence":

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/12/us/12slay.html?_r=1

Originally Posted by Odin

http://www.flickr.com/photos/42406957@N04/sets/72157622225019439/show

-Damn those people who are peacefully exercising their first amendment rights!

---

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

WARNING: The poster known as jamesdglick has a history of engaging in fraud. He makes things up out of his own head and attempts to use these blatant lies to score points in his arguments. When you call him on it, he will only lie further. He has such a reputation for doing this that many people here are cowed into silence and will not acknowledge it or confront him on it.

Anyone who attempts to engage with glick will discover this and find out you have wasted your time and energy on an intellectual fraud of the worst sort.

-So cry many Boomers (self-professed Lefties, mostly) whenever they fail to explain their hypocritical self-justifications, their double-standards, and their double-think forays into evil. Perhaps their consciences bother them, perhaps not. Who knows.

Originally Posted by Odin

Teabaggers showing their racism and stupidity at their joke of a "protest" in DC today:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/4240695...225019439/show

About all they missed was the idea that Barack Obama is a tool of the "International Zionist Conspiracy for World Domination"!

I take it back -- they somehow missed Hideki Tojo, Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, Benito Mussolini, Ivan the Terrible, Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, Caligula, and Nero.

David Sirota receives death threat after CNN appearance.

Sirota was discussing the racist overtones of the Teabaggers.

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

-This was a literal "Spiral of Violence"; note that the cops are looking to charge the Obamacare supporter.



I'm not aware of any other case of a Tea Partyer initiating the violence.

The evidence is inconclusive. That's why I haven't responded until now. I'm finding a lot of subjective posts by both sides but few documentable facts. If I find anything relevant and factual I woll get backto you with it.

U.S. Violent Crime Rates Lowest Recorded
http://reason.com/blog/show/136062.html

The FBI has just released its estimates for 2008 crime rates. The violent crime rate peaked in 1991 at 758.2 crimes per 100,000 population. Violent crimes include homicide, aggravated assaults, and forcible rapes. In 2008, the violent crime rate dropped to its lowest recorded level of 454.5 per 100,000 people. In addition, the property crime rate has also fallen from its 1991 peak of 5,140.2 per 100,000 to its lowest recorded rate of 3,212.5 per 100,000 in 2008.

It is interesting to note that despite the rise in politically motivated attacks, the broader crime statistics have continued their downward slide.

Originally Posted by independent

U.S. Violent Crime Rates Lowest Recorded
http://reason.com/blog/show/136062.html




It is interesting to note that despite the rise in politically motivated attacks, the broader crime statistics have continued their downward slide.

Not to nitpick, but isn't "forcible rape" redundant?

Originally Posted by Odin

Not to nitpick, but isn't "forcible rape" redundant?

No. There is also statutory rape.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

The evidence is inconclusive. That's why I haven't responded until now...

-Is this a race?

Since I'm not on every single day, I only start to wonder when a week passes by...

Originally Posted by herbal tee

I'm finding a lot of subjective posts by both sides but few documentable facts. If I find anything relevant and factual I woll get backto you with it.

-Good luck finding much other than "subjective", but if a Tea Partyer had attacked an Obamacare supporter before your incident, you can bet that the MSM would have been all over it.

A disconcerting post from DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com...esg_id=6555740

I have personally heard people talking openly of using violence here in north east Texas...

Strange as it may sound to you and just as impossible it may sound to you don't doubt for one moment that some people have been pushed so far off center using fear that to be honest I don't see how such if not curtailed and soon by the media, the very people inciting them with mind games it will take to push them over the edge..

It is hard to believe anyone could believe themselves capable of using violence ie guns etc on other americans that which of what would obviously be seen as criminal by our current system and believe themselves justified in any way but these are strange times...

Many people in this area are not in the best of shape and that alone, you would think, would dissuade such a suicidal event and possible jail time not exactly inviting...

But then again as I stated earlier today...common sense seems to have flown by the wayside for many that are now calling themselves tea baggers, patriots etc...

The rebel flag is being flown on the sides of the road, sides of houses,, used as window covering, small shanties salesman sitting smiling on the back of their old rusted two tone pickup trucks serving the needs of anyone wishing to fly one of their very own.....

Take into account this is a very populated area with a generous amount of all people...no one is batting an eyelash..not one...

Blacks are talked down to here....texas and northern lousiana..know for a fact this kind of behavior is not occurring so blatantly four hours either way, north south east and west and yet..no protest from those this behavior is obviously being directed at...

I was told when I made notice of the behaviors that the blacks here know there place...it was said out loud...and in hearing of a few...again...not an eyelash fluttering at the obvious back-wards mentality of days gone by...

wow. talk about the twilight zone...and though they appear somewhat intelligent..absolutely no common sense..none..it is very hard to explain what I have witnessed the past few weeks..but what I am witnessing is a bit out of the ordinary of everyday recent america and yet if it exists in this neck of the woods why not other ones similarly placed as in wide open spaces and heavy wooded areas..

Good place to set up meetings and the like without fear of discovery...again...racisim is not limited nor was it ever to this particular geographic area of this country...again...you could find similar in each and ever state of this union...

and the fear is real to them...the hate of Dem's and all things liberal even more real to those that have since been indoctrinated with the kind of talk that has been coming for quite some time from the likes of coulter, rushies etc, etc..even our last president proved to them in his own off handed way that blacks were per case new orleans not as important though I personally do not believe the last prez to have been prejudice to the extent these wing nuts are..though some would beg to differ I didn't see it..if anything he was prejudice to any that had less income that himself and those he calls close friends and or family members.....

again I have heard talk of civil war, heard those very words..strange as it may seem considering todays world I am beginning to think these people want to fight "The" civil war one more time and hope they can win where thier ancestors could not..

Does it make sense?

Not to you, not to me..but when the first one begins..

Both sides will become guility..to much anger on both sides though the ignorant hate filled in my mind is strictly coming from the one..you can only be pushed so far and many on this side are now itching to fight back...

strange times indeed..

Hope your scepticism is well founded and Nadine's is just off the mark...

But who can say..the bubble in my view is about to burst wide open if not handled with more care than it has been...

Originally Posted by Odin

A disconcerting post from DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com...esg_id=6555740

This is a very scary situation.

Originally Posted by Wes84

This is a very scary situation.

As a counterpoint . . .

The linked article has some very interesting information about the 90s militia movement and how it was unfairly lumped together with white supremacist groups.

It would be terribly sad (although ironic) if the radical right built up a police state only to become its victims.

Originally Posted by Wes84

This is a very scary situation.

I have been shocked and disgusted by this orgy of right-wing hate, starting with people going "KILL HIM!!!" at Palin's rallies last summer.

Originally Posted by Odin

I have been shocked and disgusted by this orgy of right-wing hate, starting with people going "KILL HIM!!!" at Palin's rallies last summer.

I'm thinking I should purchase a gun, and not only learn how to use it, but become very good at using it.

Just in case.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

I'm thinking I should purchase a gun, and not only learn how to use it, but become very good at using it.

Just in case.

If you do the first, then the second and third are essential.

ETA: Otherwise, you will become one of the statistics which are commonly used against gun owners. (See the 4 rules of firearm safety which are constantly violated by the uninformed. All bad news stories come from violations of those.)

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

I'm thinking I should purchase a gun, and not only learn how to use it, but become very good at using it.

Just in case.

If you want, there are a whole bunch of places out near Vernonia I could show you that are great for practicing. We could even start you off with a loaner if you want to get the feel of what's best for you (Andi's dad is a collector -- he's got damn near two of every kind).

For those who deny that the opposition to Obama is derived from Racism:

Andrew Sullivan: Unleashing a race war on President Barack Obama

Jimmy Carter’s political touch remains, it appears, eternally off-key. After a summer of simmering right-wing dissent against the Obama administration, and a protest march by about 70,000 conservative activists in Washington, Carter declared that most opposition to Barack Obama was rooted in racism.

He was responding to the unprecedented heckling of a sitting president from the floor of Congress by a good old boy from South Carolina, Joe Wilson. This is how Carter put it — and the nuances matter:

“Those kind of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national programme on healthcare. It’s deeper than that. I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man ... That racism inclination still exists. And I think it’s bubbled up to the surface because of the belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country.”

Few words would have caused Obama more heartburn than these. Obama has, from the start, emphasised the nonracial and post-racial aspects of his politics. He feared that if he were to become the black president, rather than the president who happens to be black, something deep in the American psyche would kick in, and he would be marginalised for good. In the campaign, the Clintons went up to the edge of this tactic, with Hillary at one point appealing directly to “white voters” in the South, and Bill dismissing Obama as another Jesse Jackson.

In the general campaign, Sarah Palin used codewords — that Obama was not a “real American”. But somehow Obama remained unscathed. The closest he came to racial immolation was when Fox News broadcast round-the-clock clips of his former pastor Jeremiah Wright yelling “God damn America!”. But he rescued himself with a speech of such sweep and candour that even his fiercest critics relented.

He lost a lot of the white vote to John McCain, of course. And the vote actually swung to Republicans in the Appalachian region, where racism is strongest. But McCain refused to run a race-baiting campaign, either through code or explicit association. And Obama won with a massive majority of blacks and Hispanics and with a solid white bloc. After his victory, it seemed as if the weight of history had been lifted. We should have known, of course, that his election would be the beginning and not the end of this racial narrative.

However, it’s important to note that Carter is almost certainly exaggerating. Obama has lost some lustre — but he remains a popular president with approval ratings above 50%. He’s put through massive changes to the system — from the stimulus package to support the car industry to an outreach to the Muslim world to a plan to overhaul health insurance. The last year has been bewildering for many people — a recession that seemed caused by the very bankers we bailed out, unemployment climbing relentlessly, the government owning the car industry, debt going through the stratosphere, with no relief in sight. It is in no way surprising that, under these circumstances, attacks on the president would be coarse and rambunctious.

Remember the far left’s opposition to George W Bush before the Iraq war? Equations of him with Hitler were routine. Columnists openly bragged about hating him. Remember what was done to Clinton? An essentially centrist president from the South was subjected to a wave of hysterical criticism, hysteria, paranoia ... until he was impeached. Richard Nixon was a totem of loathing for every educated liberal (and many educated conservatives) for years. Lyndon Johnson was despised by his fellow Southerners. John F Kennedy was called a communist and a traitor. This is not abnormal for America. It’s a rough and unruly place, where the first amendment protects even the most inflammatory speech. What Obama is enduring is not, in other words, utterly out of the mainstream of political discourse in the US.

Nonetheless, Carter wasn’t merely posturing. He knows the South and most Americans can pick up on nuances utterly lost to outsiders. Remember also that Obama won few white Southern votes. And there is a tone to the conversation recently that does indeed suggest that part of the country finds it hard to accept Obama as a legitimate president. As soon as he ceased to be a mere symbolic president, and started to change things, the resistance suddenly became fierce and, to some extent, irrational. Of course, race was in there somewhere. He’s black and powerful and, unremarkably, part of the country feels as if it has lost its bearings. Of course some attacks on him will be partly racist — because the racial divide is still a big factor in American partisan competition.

The right in America, after all, was reborn after the civil rights struggle. Before Johnson’s determination to protect black voting and education, the South was overwhelmingly Democratic. After Johnson took on civil rights, Nixon’s and Ronald Reagan’s Southern strategy — appealing to white Southerners who were enraged by black equality — was critical to winning electoral landslides. The Democrats believed — with reason — that race was a factor in this realignment.

Fast-forward a few decades and the Democrats now constitute the majority in much of the country once ruled by Republicans — the northeast, Midwest and west — and have much less traction in the South. You also have a black Democratic president — a concept that would have been simply incredible to the older white generations who grew up with segregation. And Americans are human; their politics is driven by reason and debate, but also by symbolism and emotion and sentiment.

And so when a white congressman interrupts an address to call the president a liar, there is a contempt in his voice that means something to Americans but which may not resonate outside. There is, in The New York Times’s columnist Maureen Dowd’s mind, an unheard “You lie, boy!” in it. “Boy” is how white men condescended to black men in the South for centuries. And in last year’s campaign, a Kentucky congressman did indeed say of Obama, “I’m going to tell you something: that boy’s finger does not need to be on the button.” In the protest march last weekend, one sign said (complete with picture of a lion): “The zoo has an African [lion] and the White House has a lyin’ African!” A mayor’s e-mail in the last campaign showed the White House suddenly surrounded by a watermelon patch.

What are we to make of the fact that in opinion polls, a big majority of Republicans in the South — far more than in any other region of the country — doubt that Obama is an American citizen? In the state of Virginia, which Obama won, 70% of Republican voters believe he is not legitimately president because he was, they believe, born in Kenya. Last week, a staggering poll found that a third of Republicans in New Jersey believe that Obama was not born in the US. And 17% of self-described conservatives in the same survey said they believe the president is the Antichrist.

What explains this if not, to some degree, racism and xenophobia? It’s almost ludicrous to look for more esoteric explanations. Obama is right to ignore it — his finest skill is refusing to take the bait — but he cannot be under any illusions that it’s out there. It is not, in my judgment, the core motivation of those who marched on Washington last weekend. Their horror at what they called a fascist and a communist president requires no racial subtext — just good old American paranoia and extremism, which can be found on right and left. But it does exist, and it’s silly to pretend that just because a black president was elected, it suddenly vanished into thin air.

What disturbs me more is something subtler but more pernicious. There are elements on the far right who are clearly trying to stir up racial animosity by seizing on random events and trying to polarise the country through them, and thereby polarise the country against Obama.

The radical populist Glenn Beck said on Fox News that Obama has “exposed himself as a guy [with] a deep-seated hatred for white people”. He offered no evidence for this: he just put it out there and refused to retract. Last week, in one of the most baldly racist diatribes I have heard on American radio, the biggest figure in the conservative movement, Rush Limbaugh, noticed that there had been a ruckus on a school bus in which a white kid was stomped on by a black kid. The incident, it turned out, was a classic school bus bully story: the white kid was being tormented and the bullies were refusing to let him sit down. There was no racial rhetoric in a bus full of black kids and white kids.

But this is what Limbaugh said: “In Obama’s America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering, ‘Yay, right on, right on, right on, right on’ ... I wonder if Obama’s going to come to the defence of the assailants the way he did his friend Skip Gates up there at Harvard.”

Limbaugh then mocked what he sees as political correctness in “Obama’s America”: “We know that white students are destroying civility on buses, white students destroying civility in classrooms all over America, white congressmen destroying civility in the House of Representatives.” Get the picture? There’s an implication that a racist president is actively trying to hurt white America. Despite the local police chief’s insistence that race had nothing to do with the incident, Limbaugh simply declared: “I think the guy’s wrong. I think not only was it racism, it was justifiable racism. I mean, that’s the lesson we’re being taught here today. Kid shouldn’t have been on the bus anyway. We need segregated buses. This is Obama’s America.”

The goal is to portray white Americans as besieged by a sea of blackness, capped by Obama’s presidency. And, in a reference that would be clearly understood, Limbaugh proposed re-segregation in order to protect white people.

Limbaugh was echoed by one of the most popular Republican bloggers, Michelle Malkin, who described the bullying as “racial thuggery”. In the same week, Beck ran exposé after exposé of Acorn, a corrupt group that tries to enfranchise minorities, and of a black appointee of Obama’s, Van Jones, who had dabbled in 9/11 conspiracy theories. Yes, these were legitimate issues, and absolutely worth reporting, but after a while, you sense a pattern. If America has a president who has “a deep-seated hatred for white people” and he’s destroying America, and backs a black Harvard friend against a white cop ... well, you get the picture. “We came unarmed (this time)” read one poster in Washington last weekend. Was that a sterling defence of the second amendment’s assurance of the right to bear arms? Or something of a threat?

We do not know. But what we do know is that this kind of discourse is not only vulgar and ugly but dangerous. Fomenting a race war to undermine a black president is incendiary, perilous stuff. This is a country that has shot its most charismatic presidents. And Limbaugh is not weighing the pros and cons of particular policies. “I wanted him to fail from the get-go,” was his refrain last week. And if racial hatred can help Limbaugh find a way to force Obama to fail, he has no hesitation — and some amount of glee — in using it.

Beneath the surface there is considerable cultural anxiety. America is not the country it used to be. It’s far more racially diverse than in any previous era, and the demographics show that without black and Hispanic votes, the Republicans may be consigned to long-term electoral doom. The collapse of the conservative movement under Bush has left many bewildered and angry. A majority-minority country beckons and the right is as scared as it is furious. They voted Republican ... and the debt exploded, spending went through the roof, two wars became quagmires of nation-building, and gay marriage came to America. Of course this leads to some paranoia, fear and unruliness. Any brief foray into American history would predict nothing less.

But there is something a little different this time — and it’s because the president is a little different this time. One of the most common signs last weekend said simply: “I want my country back”. This could be a response to the huge increase in government power under Bush and during the financial crisis, continued by Obama. Or it could be a cry of racial, cultural panic. Or, more plausibly, it could be a fusion of the two that renders the entire picture extremely volatile.

One way to mitigate this would be for Republicans to craft policies that might appeal more to blacks and Hispanics, to recruit more minorities and to embrace immigrants. This is what Bush was trying to do — and, in retrospect, seems positively liberal. But another way is to so racially polarise America that so many white votes flee from the black president that a Republican is elected by whites alone. Divide and rule is the tactic: as crude as it could be effective.

Obama understands that if he were to take this bait, and attack the racism out there, he would lose. Limbaugh understands this too — and he has a much tighter grip on the Republican base than any current politician. And so in the cultural context, Limbaugh is all about riling people up and Obama is all about calming them down. It’s a war of nerves that Obama needs to transform into something much less compelling. He has to bore his way towards acceptance.

Limbaugh, on the other hand, makes a vast fortune from such forays into the gutter and has no incentive to stop. The key for him is to generate a narrative that compounds Obama’s race with his policies. And so Obama’s policies are shredded daily — Limbaugh has the biggest single talkradio audience in America — while Limbaugh plays ditties like “Barack, the Magic Negro”, and calls the president a “Halfrican”. And this man now controls the current Republican party’s message. It is as if the party’s super-ego was removed by Dick Cheney, its ego left town with Bush, and its id is all that remains: full of sound and racial fury signifying money.

Obama, on the other hand, knows that a racially polarised America will be too distracted to address health insurance reform or climate change or the debt or the wars or anything else. And so he has to somehow plough on through the emotive racial minefield, denying the racial angle, and hoping that reason will eventually triumph over emotion. One speech, as in the Jeremiah Wright brouhaha, will not suffice any more. He’s president now, not a candidate. He has a lifetime of experience dealing with this; but it cannot be easy. And it will not be over soon.

A good post from DU from the same poster the linked to in the OP:

Ah fresh scabs of wars gone long ago

Many a times we have heard the criticism of why Europeans could hold a grudge over 1500 years... or why we have grudges going in the Middle East ... well that little fight has gone on for a LONG TIME. In fact, we look at tribal societies were the sins of the fathers are passed to the sons. As the risk of speaking something that may be a heressy for some... the US has that. It is called the Civil War.

Recent threads have pointed this to me beyond a shadow of a doubt. The war is over 150 years old, but it is an ever present scab, and a fresh one, for some folks. What is the percentage of folks still re fighting? Good question, but it still there. At least to me it shows how non-special the US is when compared to other nations we at times are critical about.

Now truth be told... I don't expect this scab to heal... again given the history of other major fights going on and on and on for hundreds of years this one is a young one. The only problem with it is that we have history, the actual events of what happened. The view of the victor, the view of the defeated... and none of them are the same. We coincide on dates, but even on terms used we do not agree...

Oh and now at the risk of angering some folks, in my view the War was about a caste system and the maintenance of such. And the last 150 years have been a fight, for some, to keep that caste system as intact as possible. It is about social control, and many of the patterns we saw leading to that Civil War... well the scab is now fully opened, and bleeding, and yes the ghosts of that past are walking amongst us.

Oh and if you want to say this is a yankee view... whatever, or a city view... again whatever. But hey, the current language of secession and tenth amendment has not really been seen in 150 years, I just hope we don't have to refight it... and if we do, it will not be gray v blue, but some of the elements of that long fought war will be part of this witch's brew. It just goes to proof Santayanna's famous dictum... those who refuse to learn from history... are condemned to repeat it. Of course Toynbee and others saw the cycles in history and we are, in my vew, entering a very violent period...

Now let me reach for the asbestos.

Popcorn is over there, as well as other treats.

Originally Posted by Odin

For those who deny that the opposition to Obama is derived from Racism:

Andrew Sullivan: Unleashing a race war on President Barack Obama

Hmm... A spiral of violence is generally preceded by a spiral of rhetoric. This thread has been documenting isolated violent incidents, though I have not been too concerned as there is no one dominant motivation, the perpetrators seem to be lone nuts so far, and the escalating need for revenge hasn't been there yet. I will truly start to worry when an organization starts to fight another organization, with each trying to deter the other by demonstrating that any violent act will be turned around with interest. It still takes two to spiral.

But Sullivan is touching on something important. On the rhetoric side, Limbaugh is trying to escalate while Obama is trying to deescalate. The more the idea is placed before the public that something is very wrong which justifies violence, the more lone nuts will start to act. If lone nuts acting becomes common enough, the organizations will come.

Given basic demographics, I don't know that the old white majority can win in the long term, but they might prevent anyone from winning.

Since the Oklahoma City bombing, both main stream parties have been united in saying domestic terrorism is not an acceptable means to achieve political change. I started being concerned about spirals of violence and looking at their role in 4Ts at the time of the Waco, Ruby Ridge, and OKC incidents. Shortly following those times, there was a rejection of terrorism by both the American politicians and the American People. It seems now that the old Republican conservative movement can see its own destruction. Given how difficult it is to alter one's basic values, violence seems more likely than accommodation. They could move from creating a 'War on Terror' to using terror to maintain some shadow of their former power, towards keeping their values front and center in the national debates.

So far, more talk than action, and no organized action to speak of. So far...

Hopefully, Obama, in addition to quelling the spiral of rhetoric will also avoid creating any martyrs. Use of excessive force or even the appearance of violating the Bill of Rights to suppress conservative dissent would contribute to the escalation. The President was given lots of tools to fight terrorism during the Bush 43 administration. Using them against any conservative terrorist movement would have its hazards.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Hmm... A spiral of violence is generally preceded by a spiral of rhetoric. This thread has been documenting isolated violent incidents, though I have not been too concerned as there is no one dominant motivation, the perpetrators seem to be lone nuts so far, and the escalating need for revenge hasn't been there yet. I will truly start to worry when an organization starts to fight another organization, with each trying to deter the other by demonstrating that any violent act will be turned around with interest. It still takes two to spiral.

Lone nuts assassinated McKinley, JFK, Bobby Kennedy, and MLK. One even tried to assassinate FDR. Lone nuts can make history -- some of the worst history. The Lincoln assassination was itself a conspiracy -- of nuts.

But Sullivan is touching on something important. On the rhetoric side, Limbaugh is trying to escalate while Obama is trying to deescalate. The more the idea is placed before the public that something is very wrong which justifies violence, the more lone nuts will start to act. If lone nuts acting becomes common enough, the organizations will come.

But do the organizations have the votes? If not the votes, do they have the ability to stage a coup?

President Obama seems to try to let the memes die of their own staleness and both intellectual and moral emptiness. He seems to believe, as does the usual optimist, that truth prevails where the light of reason has a chance. Of course, those who show the most virulent hatred of Obama seem to dread enlightenment as much as they dread an IRS audit.

Given basic demographics, I don't know that the old white majority can win in the long term, but they might prevent anyone from winning.

They seem to be trying a "tire the opposition down" strategy. Repetition of an idea, even if the idea is nothing more than a bad meme, is a powerful effect.

Since the Oklahoma City bombing, both main stream parties have been united in saying domestic terrorism is not an acceptable means to achieve political change. I started being concerned about spirals of violence and looking at their role in 4Ts at the time of the Waco, Ruby Ridge, and OKC incidents. Shortly following those times, there was a rejection of terrorism by both the American politicians and the American People. It seems now that the old Republican conservative movement can see its own destruction. Given how difficult it is to alter one's basic values, violence seems more likely than accommodation. They could move from creating a 'War on Terror' to using terror to maintain some shadow of their former power, towards keeping their values front and center in the national debates.

Desperate people turn to violence. Those who see their world coming to an end except for heroic struggle against increasingly-popular change turn to violence. Think of the violent reaction of the KKK against Freedom Riders. Think of the Nazis ratcheting up the terroristic repression in Germany as the Allies closed in on the Fuehrerbunker. Think of Nicolae Ceausescu ordering his secret police to fire upon against peaceful protesters.

So far, more talk than action, and no organized action to speak of. So far...

Just as well. Let us all hope that the bad memes wear out.

Hopefully, Obama, in addition to quelling the spiral of rhetoric will also avoid creating any martyrs. Use of excessive force or even the appearance of violating the Bill of Rights to suppress conservative dissent would contribute to the escalation. The President was given lots of tools to fight terrorism during the Bush 43 administration. Using them against any conservative terrorist movement would have its hazards.

It's also important that liberals stay clear of teabag rallies. The appropriate response to violent rhetoric and ugly slogans isn't more of the same from the opposite direction.

Even Glenn Beck Is Right Twice a Day has already been posted on the Glenn Beck thread, but I thought I'd note one paragraph here...

For discussion purposes...

Beck frequently strikes the pose of an apocalyptic prophet, even insisting that he predicted 9/11. This summer he also started warning of domestic terrorism in the form of a new Timothy McVeigh. On this, one fears he knows whereof he speaks. For all our nation’s unfinished business on race, racism is not Obama’s biggest challenge during our unfinished Great Recession. He — and our political system — are being seriously tested by a rage that is no less real for being shouted by a demagogue from Fox and a backbencher from South Carolina.