Originally Posted by wtrg8

There are a lot of people waking up (personal norms) and do not know how to handle it.

That's no excuse.

What's even worse, it's not just Tea Party wackos who are excusing this sort of thing, it's official Republican spokespersons:

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo...the-victim.php

"Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA) is one of the Democratic lawmakers who has been targeted after the health care vote -- and one Republican group suggests he has only himself to blame for the situation.

National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Andy Sere said that while his organization doesn't condone the actions of the person or people who cut a gas line at Perriello's brother's house (apparently under the impression that the home was the congressman's), Perriello is not the victim.

"Central and Southside Virginians are the ones who are going to have the bear the burden of increased taxes," Sere told The Roanoke Times. "What you're seeing is a frustration among his constituents who believe he's not listening to them."


To his credit, Periello's opponent at least is unambiguously condemning the threats and violence. How about you?

Originally Posted by kurthi

Also GOP leadership is taking a lot of heat for rallying the protest from the balcony of the Congress, however, I bet many of the senior staff members in the Obama white house were the same junior staffers who trashed the WH offices in Jan. 2001.

In the political atmosphere we have today we should all be very careful of accepting anything at face value. The accusations of racist and gay epithets to the congresspeople last weekend is a good example. Some interesting questions from someone on the right:

----

1. Other than the claims of a few Congressmen, all from the same party and all on the receiving end of the Tea Party protests, what incontrovertible evidence do we have that any demonstrators yelled racist or anti-gay slurs? (The live video doesn't show it.)
2. Even if we can prove that one or more people in the crowd screamed such epithets, how do we know they had anything to do with the Tea Party? If they exist, has even one of them been identified? Isn’t it also possible, given the white-hot nature of the ObamaCare controversy, that protesters in favor of the bill infiltrated the crowd and shouted slurs in a Saul Alinsky-style attempt to stigmatize the Tea Party?
3. Even if we can prove that several Tea Party protesters yelled slurs, why do the actions of a few members speak for the motives of thousands more, not to mention the movement itself?

-----

This is political warfare. There is no question the dems would like to discredit the Tea Party as that is where the energy on the right is coming from. Maybe this event happened like the initial narrative, maybe not. As long as we hold to the same standard of truth for both sides, we will be OK. Be skeptical.

Asbestos suit on.

James50

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That's no excuse.

What's even worse, it's not just Tea Party wackos who are excusing this sort of thing, it's official Republican spokespersons:

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo...the-victim.php

"Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA) is one of the Democratic lawmakers who has been targeted after the health care vote -- and one Republican group suggests he has only himself to blame for the situation.

National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Andy Sere said that while his organization doesn't condone the actions of the person or people who cut a gas line at Perriello's brother's house (apparently under the impression that the home was the congressman's), Perriello is not the victim.

"Central and Southside Virginians are the ones who are going to have the bear the burden of increased taxes," Sere told The Roanoke Times. "What you're seeing is a frustration among his constituents who believe he's not listening to them."


To his credit, Periello's opponent at least is unambiguously condemning the threats and violence. How about you?

Its no excuse to act on or say things. I condemn those radical acts on all sides of the story.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Correct, they are another thing. Foreign terrorists are not guilty of treason, while U.S. citizen terrorists are.



That will never happen. The U.S. military knows its duty and its responsibility, and took an oath to uphold the Constitution.

Which, for your information, means to fight against anyone trying to overthrow the government by force of arms -- even when those people SAY they are fighting FOR the constitution.

You know, KIA, I have to say that it's bloody disturbing to see someone get up here and defend people who are trying to commit murder for political purposes. In doing that, you are defending traitors. There is no other word for it. Go beyond words, and actually give people like that material support, and you become a traitor yourself.

The subject in my class of field grade officers this week was (in part) the American Civil War, and we got to talking about Lincoln, McClellan, and the way McClellan and others talked disgracefully about Lincoln in private correspondence. Several officers in the room mentioned all the seditious talk they had heard about Clinton in the 1990s. I asked them if the situation was similar today. They unanimously said that it was not. Obama has won the military's respect, partly through policy, I suppose, but also by making some small but significant gestures. There will not be any military coup in America, trust me.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

You wrote:



While you have established that vandalism took place, you still have not shown a connection to "senior staff members in the Obama [W]hite [H]ouse." Can you do that?

The word "bet" is not a declarative statement of fact.

1bet
Pronunciation: \ˈbet\
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
Date: 1592
1 a : something that is laid, staked, or pledged typically between two parties on the outcome of a contest or a contingent issue : wager —often used figuratively in such phrases as all bets are off to stress the uncertainty of an outcome b : the act of giving such a pledge
2 : something to wager on
3 : a choice made by consideration of probabilities <your best bet is the back road>


Therefore I have nothing to prove. you can disprove to your hearts content.

U.S. Capitol Police are investigating a threatening voicemail left in the office of Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio), her chief of staff said Thursday.

http://bit.ly/bBLNOk

James50

Originally Posted by kurthi

Therefore I have nothing to prove. you can disprove to your hearts content.

So you simply smear and insinuate.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Or smash windows and cut propane lines. Or spit on people.

I didn't know that tea party members have been arrested, tried and convicted for these crimes.

or you just slandering and insinuating these acts were done by tea party people?

Originally Posted by kurthi

I didn't know that tea party members have been arrested, tried and convicted for these crimes.

or you just slandering and insinuating these acts were done by tea party people?

Nope, I just said that they don't have the right to do any of those things (Neither does anyone else).

Your accusation was much more specific.

Originally Posted by James50

U.S. Capitol Police are investigating a threatening voicemail left in the office of Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio), her chief of staff said Thursday.

http://bit.ly/bBLNOk

James50

I hope they catch these voicemailers. Do Congressional offices have caller ID?

Also in the article:

The accounting office said similar pranks were reported in prior transitions, including the one from Mr. Bush's father to Mr. Clinton in 1993. ''We were unable to conclude,'' it said, ''whether the 2001 transition was worse than previous ones

.

This one is so weird it has to be true. Still scary.

Eddie Adams, Florida Republican Candidate, Gets Burned http://bit.ly/9SxrGd

James50

I don't care which side has the moral high ground, personally. This cold war of values has existed since the 1960s and the status quo is wearing thin. I've chosen my side, and I'm itching for a fight. Bring it on.

(At least, that's how I feel today...)

I was talking with my old Silent Shakespeare Professor and he's astounded to read that 1/4 of Republicans legitmately think that Obama is the anti-Christ. He was also astounded to read that certain people on the LW side of things are thinking of establishing "camps" to put disatissfied citizens in. Both extremes highly offend his sensibilities (as it would any Artist archetype).

The validity of the statements that he mentioned I leave to be debated (however I have no doubt he read these things somewhere). More and more it looks like the US is headed for an internal struggle crisis. Perhaps one not as strong as the ACW, but perhaps something more akin to the Glorious Revolution in England. And it doesn't look good since we've recently repealed the law which made it illegal for the military to patrol our own country (it was a Homeland Security issue of course ). I'm not liking where this crisis is heading, not at all.

~Chas'88

Here's an update on Eric Cantor's office allegedly being shot up:

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/ho...antors-office/

The Richmond Police Department is investigating an act of vandalism at the Reagan Building, 25 E. Main St., Richmond, Virginia. A first floor window was struck by a bullet at approximately 1 a.m. on Tuesday, March 23. The building, which has several tenants including an office used by Congressman Eric Cantor, was unoccupied at the time.

A Richmond Police detective was assigned to the case. A preliminary investigation shows that a bullet was fired into the air and struck the window in a downward direction, landing on the floor about a foot from the window. The round struck with enough force to break the windowpane but did not penetrate the window blinds. There was no other damage to the room, which is used occasionally for meetings by the congressman.

So:

1) This was not Cantor's regular office, but the Reagan office building, in a room which is "used occasionally for meetings" by Congressman Cantor.

2) Nobody intentionally shot out the window; instead, a gun was discharged into the air, and the bullet penetrated the window on falling back to earth. In other words, the fact that it struck that window was a fluke, not something someone was trying to do.

(The person who did this, of course, should not have been firing a gun into the air. That's bloody dangerous and irresponsible. But he was NOT trying to shoot out Congressman Cantor's office for political or any other reasons.)

Originally Posted by Chas'88

I was talking with my old Silent Shakespeare Professor and he's astounded to read that 1/4 of Republicans legitmately think that Obama is the anti-Christ.

Chas, just a clarification, since I was the one who posted the "wingnut" survey...

It wasn't 1/4 of Republicans who think he's the Anti-Christ. It was 24% of those Republicans who responded to the poll. That said, with N=2,320 it's pretty credible as a predictor of the larger group.

Originally Posted by Xer H

Chas, just a clarification, since I was the one who posted the "wingnut" survey...

It wasn't 1/4 of Republicans who think he's the Anti-Christ. It was 24% of those Republicans who responded to the poll. That said, with N=2,320 it's pretty credible as a predictor of the larger group.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm just mentioning what my professor mentioned to me when I replied that it was the times we live in which was the cause for why my Millennial class wanted to embrace the fairy tale world of Pericles.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Thanks for the clarification. I'm just mentioning what my professor mentioned to me when I replied that it was the times we live in which was the cause for why my Millennial class wanted to embrace the fairy tale world of Pericles. ~Chas'88

LOL... actually, I've always rather liked Pericles.

I came back to admit, though, that many have read the survey that way. Check out this headline from the UK's Daily Mail.

Originally Posted by XerTeacher

I don't care which side has the moral high ground, personally. This cold war of values has existed since the 1960s and the status quo is wearing thin. I've chosen my side, and I'm itching for a fight. Bring it on.

(At least, that's how I feel today...)

This is for you and Chas88. The last 5 minutes of the "Bridge over the River Kwai." This great battle you are yearning for may well end up like this. Loyalties confused, everyone dead or wounded, everything wrecked, and one of the main characters mumbling as he is about to die: "What have I done?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7O5agx5Ot0

I sympathize with the guy muttering "madness, madness".

James50

Originally Posted by Xer H

LOL... actually, I've always rather liked Pericles.

I came back to admit, though, that many have read the survey that way. Check out this headline from the UK's Daily Mail.

Apparently my Silent Professor has always run into people disliking it for as long as he's taught his Shakespeare courses. The reason being "too contrived" & "too ridiculous". We agreed that it was contrived and ridiculous, but we didn't see that it being like that meant we still couldn't like it or consider it a "breath of fresh air".

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by James50

This is for you and Chas88. The last 5 minutes of the "Bridge over the River Kwai." This great battle you are yearning for may well end up like this. Loyalties confused, everyone dead or wounded, everything wrecked, and one of the main characters mumbling as he is about to die: "What have I done?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7O5agx5Ot0

I sympathize with the guy muttering "madness, madness".

James50

Thanks James. Correction, I think the great battle is coming & I definitely agree that it probably will leave the country in the manner you describe, but there's a difference between predicting something to happen, and actually wanting it to happen. And I don't think it's hard to tell which category I'm in--I'm predicting this stuff, but I don't like it or really want it to happen.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Here's an update on Eric Cantor's office allegedly being shot up:

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/ho...antors-office/



So:

1) This was not Cantor's regular office, but the Reagan office building, in a room which is "used occasionally for meetings" by Congressman Cantor.

2) Nobody intentionally shot out the window; instead, a gun was discharged into the air, and the bullet penetrated the window on falling back to earth. In other words, the fact that it struck that window was a fluke, not something someone was trying to do.

(The person who did this, of course, should not have been firing a gun into the air. That's bloody dangerous and irresponsible. But he was NOT trying to shoot out Congressman Cantor's office for political or any other reasons.)

A plane should have never gone through an IRS building, but one did.

It still is deemed as a Congressman's rented space whether or not it is occupied by the Congressman at the time of the incident. You still have to have a local office in your District.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

A plane should have never gone through an IRS building, but one did.

That was a deliberate act by the pilot. This was an accidental result of someone irresponsibly shooting a gun into the air. Totally different.

It still is deemed as a Congressman's rented space whether or not it is occupied by the Congressman at the time of the incident. You still have to have a local office in your District.

The fact remains that nobody shot at it, whoever's it was.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That was a deliberate act by the pilot. This was an accidental result of someone irresponsibly shooting a gun into the air. Totally different.



The fact remains that nobody shot at it, whoever's it was.

Heard that excuse before.

We are now allowing an intent to do something rule the day. So let's keep it simple, whether it is or not, the act should not be acceptable to anyone.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

Heard that excuse before.

LOL no you haven't.

I guess you didn't understand the article I linked earlier. The police found out that the bullet hit the window from above -- that is, it fell out of the sky at an angle and fell through the window. Nobody shot it through the window, they shot it into the air. It had very little force behind it, enough to break the glass but not enough to then go through the blinds into the room.

That would not have happened if someone had taken aim at the window and pulled the trigger. No one did that.