E=mc²? Einstein goes the way of Darwin: Conservapedia's war on Relativity.

Remove all ads!

Huh? Don't be sillier than usual. I was not implying anything like that. You generously read that into my post(s) because you're again on your trademark 'I have to defend the wronged right from liberal attack' one way track. Let me assure you, what looms so large at the horizon are indeed giants! Charge!

As a well informed reader, you will recall that Bush 43 as a president was not exactly popular among the 'left' (heck, eventually he was even wildly unpopular among Republicans (if his rock bottom 2007 28% national approval rating is any indication)).

I was and I am saying, very openly, that since Obama took office the death threats against Obama have quadrupled. In writing this I do neither express nor imply that the left doesn't have their nutters that utter death threats.

In a country where elections are decided 51% to 49% Obama receives four times the threats compared to his less than popular predecessor? How come?

What I say, very openly, is that that has probably something to do with either the attitude or the number of the people opposing him. Like that they are - for lack of a better quantification - four times more aggressive, or four times more numerous.

The way you describe it, the quadrupling of death threats against the president since Obama took office is simply an inexplicable accident - since the right has some nutters and the left has some nutters, and thus everything is equivalent -attitudinal or quantitative factors cannot possibly play a role.

Laughable. Such things don't just happen. Accident cannot explain a 400% spike, much less when it then becomes continuous trend ever since Obama ran for office. The 400% spike also suggests that indeed there is both/either a quantitative and/or qualitative difference between the people who loathed Bush and the people who loathe Obama. Whatever it exactly is, it strongly underlines that there is a difference.

 

True, but isn't the explanation rather obvious? Millions of Americans think he's a Muslim, and EVERYONE knows he's black. Sometimes I think the only reason some people call him a Muslim is because they cannot refer to him by a more negative term concerning his race.

I think racial and religious bigotry can easily account for 400%.

 

A very astute remark imo.

 

I thought you speaking of the Tea Party! My bad. You forgot to mention tossing consumer products into Boston Harbor.

 

You said:

which directly suggests that such things never happen. Since we were both using these as generalizations for all fringe movements, I took that to mean you suggested leftist fringe movements in the US never did such things.

I strongly suspect that you would have seen a similar spike if Colin Powell of Condoleza Rice were elected.

My guess? Because he's black.

Realize that we're still talking about a small minority here. I'll bet the KKK and Aryan Nation could more than account for all Obama's death threats.

Nonsense. I have said no such thing. I simply don't believe it's because the evil right are all lobotomized mass murderers.

Thank you, yes. They do sound an aweful lot like the worst of the Tea Party, don't they? That was my point.

 

I'm sure.

 

No, it suggests nothing like that. The point was: These things I named did not happen. Code pink protesters did not go to protests with an assault rifle. Some right winger did. Lefties don't threaten secession in the US. The Republican governor of Texas did. There are as far as I know no left wing militias in the US, and if there are a few, they are greatly outnumbered by the right.

To make it short: There is a brand of extremism that is a domain of the right. A case can be made that militia and anti-abortionist extremists alone have murdered or wounded a lot more people than the people of the 'angry left', PETA, the Earth or Animal Liberation Fronts and the Weathermen taken together. Timothy McVeigh alone made sure of that.

In saying that murder and causing bodily harm is worse than damage of property, I don't apologise for ELF or ALF extremism - for their acts of violence they are to be prosecuted - I am merely establishing priorities. A murderer is a worse criminal than a vandal. The punishment under the law reflects that.

There are a lot of 'extremists', but there are some that are more dangerous and some that are less dangerous. There is a difference between numbers and impact. In terms of domestic terrorism the left wing is currently not a problem in the US, and hasn't been for the last twenty or thirty years.

Indeed, especially the 'dangerous socialist' and 'secret Muslim' themes would be impossible to overhear if Powell or Rice were president today.

You bet? The question is whether they do. The answer is no.

What about the role of demagogues like Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and the like in this?

 

I know the Democratic party isn't one and the same with liberalism, especially if you go back in history, but just for a note: Democrats are the only ones to have actually seceded from the Union.

I can find 9 anti-abortion murders in the US. Total. I'll bet PETA and the E/ALF have more than that among their members just as background. The Weather Underground amounts to 1/3 of that alone, and they were incompetent. The ALF has repeatedly tried to kill people with fire bombs and arson, including entire families, with only dumb luck and their own incompetence saving their victims. Claiming that this is "a brand of extremism that is a domain of the right" is either a flat out lie or the product of extreme ignorance.

Really? Do you have any facts to back this up?

 

How can a political party secede from the Union? Have you been attending Glenn Beck Univeristy?

While you are at it, NOG, bring up the Klan and other similar groups -- better yet, how about the Indians, or even the Vikings? They might be "The Other Side" also. If not, I'm sure you can rhetorically try to prove they are. But I can understand why you keep trying to make this thread(s) all about some other groups that you imagine are liberal.

 

What I meant was that the souther states that seceded from the Union did so under Democratic control. And note, I never said the entire party seceded, just member of that party.

 

NOG,
the 'brand of extremism' I have in mind is about politicians consciously stirring up the passions of the ignorant and bigoted. Nothing good is coming of that.

The anti-abortion movement is mainstream, their violent actors are perhaps fringe, but the basic message isn't. When O'Reilly talks of 'Tiller the Baby Killer' thirty times on his show that is mainstream. And it is pretty fair to say that with News Gingrich openly opposing the mosque in New York anti-muslim sentiment has gone mainstream as well. Traditional militia themes have gone mainstream with Glenn Beck's show.

In contrast, the ELF and the ALF are fringe. Where do Democratic politicians, Liberals or MSNBC for instance openly support or endorse the ALF or ELF? Or, for that matter, violent anti-globalisation activists? The Democrats are not perfect, but they don't rouse the rabble. The Republicans do that, with gusto.

They stir the pot, and when it spills over, and someone gets scalded, well, who could have foreseen that?

​

Indeed, you get people stark raving mad about Muslims (or socialism, The Feds™, ...) - and eventually someone whacks a Muslim (or ...) and it then becomes an inexplicable freak accident for which the agitators cannot possibly be responsible for. Isolated cases! All over the place! Like last week that apparent case of arson at that mosque in Murfreesboro. Totally isolated.

That is my problem with the right.

 

Yeah, I saw that on Steven Colbert. The guy was just a construction worker, working the area. The morons in the crowd mistook him for Muslim because he was black and had his head covered. It just proves how ignorant they are.

He backed way off on that one. He has national ambitions, and although that stuff may play well with a few Texans, generally, most will think he is just a crazy (even many Republicans).

 

Not necessarily. I would certainly say the emotions of the people of New York are quite high right now -- and there are some very vocal anti-muslim people in various parts of the country. Most of the people I know who are against the mosque in New York simply believe it is a bad idea given the emotional baggage many people in New York carry about the attack.

I read an article where "some White House insider" mentioned Obama questioned the intelligence of building the mosque near ground zero.

I don't know of many politicians who openly support the choice of building near ground zero. Most say it is the right of the people to build their place of worship, but the location is probably not the best.

 

That's a blatant bait and switch, Ragusa, and you know it. On the one hand, you say the violent anti-abortionists are fringe (and conservative politicians and comentators alike disown and condemn them), but then you claim where the mainstream support for the ALF or ELF is in the Democratic movement. Your answer is Al Gore, PETA, and other environmentalists that don't support their methods, but do support their goals (environmental protection). Likewise with the atheist movement, and the anti-war movement. They're mainstream elements of the Democratic party, but their violent extremists are fringe, and disowned by all. Race relations, too, and there they visibly stir the pot easily as much as Republicans do on religion. With predictably violent results, I might add.

You know, from your introduction, I was expecting something violent. Something that maybe involved someone getting 'scalded'. Is that the best you could find, or were you just short on time? My counter example has a perfect example in the news just recently: LA's race riots over a latino officer shooting a latino crazed (reportedly drunk) knife-wielder.

And, surely, Christian churches are never burned in the US, right?
•The NCATF has opened investigations into 670 arsons, bombings or attempted bombings that have occurred at houses of worship between January 1, 1995, and September 8, 1998.

And that is my point. You're blatantly trying to single out one party to blame for this, while ignoring that the other party acts exactly the same way. It's sickening that any element of either party does this, but it's not a condemnation on one over the other.

 

So you say that the Democratic Party has pushed an anti church message that resulted in its adherents committing acts of violence against churches? That the Democrats have put out an anti church message, like the Republican party has pushed abortion as a political theme (or currently, is pushing Islamophobia)?

That is very much relevant as you base your assertion of equivalence based on that.

Frankly, I don't see that.

 

Yes, and it is the ultra-right that does some of that -- The KKK and other hate groups burning black churches in the South (note: I did not say that it was "Republicans" but the ultra-right). I understand that you realize that liberals, blacks and some on the Left are church going Christians, but sometimes you seem to forget that in the heat of your posting.


Did I say the South?

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/11/09/burning_of_black_church_ruled_arson/

 

The Democratic party as a whole? No, they know it would be political suicide. They prefer to blame everything bad that happens on Bush while pushing social-justice laws (note the difference between that an just plain justice) that allow the government to protect people from themselves (at a cost, of course). It's only an element of the Left that pushes the atheist movement like that, but it's still led to violence against Churches (and Mosques, since we're on the topic).

 

Most of the atheists I know are conservatives. I'm not sure about this "leftist, atheist movement" of yours. It just may be that I encounter more Randian conservatives than you.

 

I think there are a considerable number of conservatives who are athiests.

 

And who appreciate the idea of separation of church and state.