Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

From Miami it's more likely to be drug dealers or someone undocumented acting from fear (someone in a gang, almost certainly, if that's the case) rather than right-wing hatred. Somewhat further north in Florida I'd agree with you, but Miami is almost a Caribbean port of entry.

GB, I am from Pennsylvania, not Miami. I picked up the story in a news search on bing.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I said "democrats," not hoodlums.

Not vast majority of Republicans agree with the extremists. Just that Democrats like to smear it as so.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Or it could just mean that Odin is a tad excitable at times.

We democrats can police ourselves.

Okay then. Please housebreak your puppy before the carpets here are ruined for good.

Originally Posted by Wes84

That may be, but there have been many complaints by the right over the upcoming 2010 Census: http://mediamatters.org/research/200906250045.

Of course it might be politically-motivated. But until we know such for certain, my "usual suspects" are criminals with no political motivation. I of course will be sickened if this horrible crime is the result of hectoring by the lunatic fringe.

The Feds are good at keeping things quiet.

By the way -- the Right needs someone to make the unambiguous case against any politically-motivated violence. It's time that someone on the Right makes a clear statement that any attack on any political figure is a disaster not only for the persons involved (the victim and someone sure to end up dead from gunshot wounds by persons in law enforcement or in prison for a long time upon conviction for a violent crime) as well as the nation as a whole. It's time for Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, and the like to make clear that political violence is completely un-American and even contrary to the interests of the Hard Right.

I guess I'm not convinced that "venting" actually decreases the extent of hostility or violence.

I have no statistics or research studies to reference. However, examining and dealing with my own personal character defects over the years suggests to me that when I begin to yell and pound tables about something, I tend to escalate rather than "vent." That is, I get more worked up as I emote.

In addition, much rage originates in fear, real and imagined. Again, just in my personal experience.

It seems to me that the amount of fear-mongering taking place is extraordinary. And not just in right-wingnut talk radio.

Look at the hyper-paranoid ways that we try to maintain personal safety.

In today's Albuquerque Journal was an article about the criminal investigation that is now required into the background of all public school volunteers! In the article the comment was made that this might have an impact on volunteerism - well, no shit.

The adult who is now a "registered sex offender" because when he was 17, he got it on with his 15 year old girlfriend, and got busted.

The inability of anti-abortionists to distinguish between a zygote and an actualized human being, and who then describe the "murders" of millions of people as a threat to their view of civilization.

The walled-off, gated residential communities with their $8/hour rent-a-cops in their little outhouses.

The run on guns and ammo over the last year or so.

The demonization, fear-mongering that the Limbaugh's of the world are doing, is no service to any of us, I fear.

-----end of rant.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Because no countries welcome such people (unless they become Islamic or Commie extremists -- the latter perhaps welcome only in North Korea). Right-wing, ultra-nationalist ideologies don't travel well.

Too bad.

Originally Posted by TnT

I guess I'm not convinced that "venting" actually decreases the extent of hostility or violence.

I have no statistics or research studies to reference. However, examining and dealing with my own personal character defects over the years suggests to me that when I begin to yell and pound tables about something, I tend to escalate rather than "vent." That is, I get more worked up as I emote.

In addition, much rage originates in fear, real and imagined. Again, just in my personal experience.

It seems to me that the amount of fear-mongering taking place is extraordinary. And not just in right-wingnut talk radio.

Look at the hyper-paranoid ways that we try to maintain personal safety.

In today's Albuquerque Journal was an article about the criminal investigation that is now required into the background of all public school volunteers! In the article the comment was made that this might have an impact on volunteerism - well, no shit.

The adult who is now a "registered sex offender" because when he was 17, he got it on with his 15 year old girlfriend, and got busted.

The inability of anti-abortionists to distinguish between a zygote and an actualized human being, and who then describe the "murders" of millions of people as a threat to their view of civilization.

The walled-off, gated residential communities with their $8/hour rent-a-cops in their little outhouses.

The run on guns and ammo over the last year or so.

The demonization, fear-mongering that the Limbaugh's of the world are doing, is no service to any of us, I fear.

-----end of rant.

Rant on!
I wish I had written that.
No one is going to convince this joneser that violent words don't increase the chances of violent action.
In junior high school I don't know how many times I heard and saw verbal escallation lead to fisticuffs.
Of course, back in the 70's it was fists only. The 3T era gansta culture hadn't come along yet and made people as weapon crazy as they are now.


I hate to write this, but I believe that there is a high chance that soon something bad is going to happen in our public life and all of the instigators Beck, Limbaugh et. al. will deny any responsability.
Yes, they all have a right to free speech but since the fairness doctrine was repealed free radio speech has come to mean irresponsable speech.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

Not vast majority of Republicans agree with the extremists. Just that Democrats like to smear it as so.

Which extremists? The birthers, for instance?

Republican "Birthers" Outnumber Democratic "Truthers"

Forty-two percent of Republicans say President Obama was born outside the United States, while only 37 percent say he was born here. Twenty-five percent of Democrats say President George W. Bush let 9/11 happen, while 63 percent say he didn’t.

Not a "vast majority," but a plurality nonetheless.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Okay then. Please housebreak your puppy before the carpets here are ruined for good.

I'm trying, but you're proving to be a tough one to handle.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I'm trying, but you're proving to be a tough one to handle.

He might not be a puppy. He might be a kitten. Have you considered a high volume squirt gun? ™

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

He might not be a puppy. He might be a kitten. Have you considered a high volume squirt gun? ™

Kitties do have that independent streak about them. NTTIAWWT.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

Not vast majority of Republicans agree with the extremists. Just that Democrats like to smear it as so.

Hmm... The commutative property applies?

Not vast majority of Democrats agree with the extremists. Just that Republicans like to smear it as so.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Rant on!
I wish I had written that.
No one is going to convince this joneser that violent words don't increase the chances of violent action.
In junior high school I don't know how many times I heard and saw verbal escallation lead to fisticuffs.
Of course, back in the 70's it was fists only. The 3T era gansta culture hadn't come along yet and made people as weapon crazy as they are now.


I hate to write this, but I believe that there is a high chance that soon something bad is going to happen in our public life and all of the instigators Beck, Limbaugh et. al. will deny any responsability.
Yes, they all have a right to free speech but since the fairness doctrine was repealed free radio speech has come to mean irresponsable speech.

I've done some substitute teaching, and I once saw "fighting words" erupt into fisticuffs. That was the last time that I tolerated "fighting words". I can usually talk down the garden variety of profanity, as in

"I don't like this f---ing assignment!"

(In that case I ask the student to repeat the sentence without the offensive word and demonstrate that the word ultimately added nothing. Then I state that personal likes and dislikes of the subject have nothing to do with the appropriateness of the assignment).

"I will kill you" gets a prompt trip to the principal's office. I never accept the excuse that the speaker didn't mean it or "was only joking". Violent words have ugly consequences, and that applies just as surely in a large nationwide audience of ditto-heads as it does in a classroom.

G20 protests turn violent in Pittsburgh



Interesting contrast to the "scary" and "dangerous" Tea Parties.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

G20 protests turn violent in Pittsburgh

Interesting contrast to the "scary" and "dangerous" Tea Parties.

I, for one, am glad that the cops are protecting the hell out of us.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

I, for one, am glad that the cops are protecting the hell out of us.

JPT's link:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/09/...6751253805260/


There remains a Far Left, and it too is nasty. It just doesn't have the numbers and connections that the Hard Right has.

From a more reputable source than the Moonie-owned UPI (randomly, the ABC affiliate in Pittsburgh, WTAE-TV 4:

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/...346/index.html

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

JPT's link:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/09/...6751253805260/


There remains a Far Left, and it too is nasty. It just doesn't have the numbers and connections that the Hard Right has.

From a more reputable source than the Moonie-owned UPI (randomly, the ABC affiliate in Pittsburgh, WTAE-TV 4:

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/...346/index.html

Hey, the friggin' Moonies are still around??? I haven't heard about them in the news in ... wow, must be twenty years.

Ditto for the Hare Krishnas (Haaaaaalll-lee-LUUUU-yah!!! )

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Hey, the friggin' Moonies are still around??? I haven't heard about them in the news in ... wow, must be twenty years.

Ditto for the Hare Krishnas (Haaaaaalll-lee-LUUUU-yah!!! )

Reverend Moon did buy the once-respected United Press International after it was available after bankruptcy. The AP still gets respect, but UPI newswires don't anymore.

I just heard Terri Gross interview Taylor Branch, whose new book is a summary of taped interviews he did with Bill Clinton all through his Presidency. (Clinton has the tapes and controls them; Branch wrote from memory.)

Branch made a lot of interesting points about the Clinton years, showing that the Republican attack-dog mentality with which we are dealing today actually goes back almost twenty years now. A few examples:

1. (The biggest, really) Bill Clinton was by almost any standard quite a successful President. Although he collaborated, sadly, in deregulating the economy, he also showed fiscal responsibility and actually did away with the deficit. The American people liked him. But the Republicans, aided by the media, managed to make "scandals," none of which ever amounted to much of anything, dominate the news for eight years. By the end the Republican hatred had become pathological: they pushed through impeachment in 1999 after losing seats in the Congressional election.

2. This I had totally forgotten. After Oklahoma City, in which two white domestic right-wing terrorists killed 168 Americans who were working on behalf of their fellow citizens, there was talk about holding hearings in Congress about rightwing extremism, which had just proved itself a serious danger. But the Republicans now controlled Congress, and instead, they decided to hold hearings on . . .Waco. . .as if to show that Timothy McVeigh and Nichols had been right (that was their official reason for the attack.)

There is really nothing new about the Republican tactics of the last year.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I just heard Terri Gross interview Taylor Branch, whose new book is a summary of taped interviews he did with Bill Clinton all through his Presidency. (Clinton has the tapes and controls them; Branch wrote from memory.)

Branch made a lot of interesting points about the Clinton years, showing that the Republican attack-dog mentality with which we are dealing today actually goes back almost twenty years now. A few examples:

1. (The biggest, really) Bill Clinton was by almost any standard quite a successful President. Although he collaborated, sadly, in deregulating the economy, he also showed fiscal responsibility and actually did away with the deficit. The American people liked him. But the Republicans, aided by the media, managed to make "scandals," none of which ever amounted to much of anything, dominate the news for eight years. By the end the Republican hatred had become pathological: they pushed through impeachment in 1999 after losing seats in the Congressional election.

... and it was over a sex scandal about which President Clinton made a trivial lie. The GOP tied to make as much of it as it could -- enough that Bill Clinton did no campaigning for his would-be successor Al Gore, which might have been enough to swing a state or two.

Of course we Democrats are expected to see Mark Sanford's disappearance to Argentina and John Ensign's cover-up of a mistress (not to mention Tom Coburn's instructions to fellow Senator on how to cover up the scandal -- which in itself would be obstruction of justice), at least according to GOP-sympathetic media.

Mistresses and affairs are commonplace. Political cover-ups aren't.

What would a Gore Presidency have looked like? Small deficits if not outright surpluses, and because Gore would pay attention to intelligence reports, events around September 11, 2001 would be different.

2. This I had totally forgotten. After Oklahoma City, in which two white domestic right-wing terrorists killed 168 Americans who were working on behalf of their fellow citizens, there was talk about holding hearings in Congress about rightwing extremism, which had just proved itself a serious danger. But the Republicans now controlled Congress, and instead, they decided to hold hearings on . . .Waco. . .as if to show that Timothy McVeigh and Nichols had been right (that was their official reason for the attack.)

Why did the GOP oppose the investigation of the Radical, neo-fascist, murderous Right? What was the political gain?

There is really nothing new about the Republican tactics of the last year.

A fair warning! Who knows, of course, whether 3T politics -- gutter politics -- will work this time.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Why did the GOP oppose the investigation of the Radical, neo-fascist, murderous Right? What was the political gain?

Perhaps it was accidental, but that was the best strategy. The absolute dumbest thing to do at that time would have been to confirm paranoid suspicions that the government was out to get them. Rather, it was better to address the grievance (Waco, which was a terrible avoidable tragedy) and thereby convince most people sympathetic to right-wing insurgent groups that the government could change and was responsive to them.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Perhaps it was accidental, but that was the best strategy. The absolute dumbest thing to do at that time would have been to confirm paranoid suspicions that the government was out to get them. Rather, it was better to address the grievance (Waco, which was a terrible avoidable tragedy) and thereby convince most people sympathetic to right-wing insurgent groups that the government could change and was responsive to them.

Kurt, you have got to be kidding. You may as well try to convince the National Academy of Sciences that the earth is flat.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Perhaps it was accidental, but that was the best strategy. The absolute dumbest thing to do at that time would have been to confirm paranoid suspicions that the government was out to get them. Rather, it was better to address the grievance (Waco, which was a terrible avoidable tragedy) and thereby convince most people sympathetic to right-wing insurgent groups that the government could change and was responsive to them.

Any extremist insurgent group, Left or Right, deserves the scrutiny of law enforcement -- especially if it is amassing arsenals of illegal weapons (which David Koresh was doing). Private, politicized militias pose extreme danger to a government of law. Once an organization shows not only contempt for the lawful government of the United States and blatant efforts to overthrow the system through military-style training of armed groups, the hammer must come down. The alternative is to have government influenced at the least by forceful groups that speak with bullets more than with ideas, whose words become commands to persons to which those forceful groups have no accountability.

Lawful governments that fail to inculcate paranoia in criminals aren't doing their jobs.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Any extremist insurgent group, Left or Right, deserves the scrutiny of law enforcement -- especially if it is amassing arsenals of illegal weapons (which David Koresh was doing). ...
Lawful governments that fail to inculcate paranoia in criminals aren't doing their jobs.

Right on!. I totally agree and think we should all uniformly condemn extremists of any and all persuasions. Equal opportunity for all.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Kurt, you have got to be kidding. You may as well try to convince the National Academy of Sciences that the earth is flat.

It worked didn't it? The militia movement withered and died long before the end of the Clinton presidency.

You're making the same mistake that righties make when they criticize a hands off approach to Islamic terrorism. The tiny minority of lunatics are not the problem -- the problem is all the ordinary people who might sympathize with and enable them. Engage the sympathizers in a friendly fashion and you take all the fire out of a potentially violent movement.