AdAstra wrote:

GlockLobster wrote:
What if he was neither right or left?

Key point, we don't know yet.

He doesn't have to be right or left in order to be influenced by the notion that violence is an acceptable solution, regardless of which side is spouting it - hear the rhetoric often enough and it becomes justifiable in some people's minds.

Crazy is crazy. We don't know his influence, yet.

...Yet.

mark wrote:I just want to say that I haven't heard the phrse "go piss up a rope" in a long time. Its a good one that needs more play.

For you! We could use a smile or two today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfmB-8onoMo

ZJohnson wrote:The left has certainly been through its times of extremism. But when it did, the extremists were condemned and marginalized--the communists, the anarchists, the Weatherman, and similar ilk. Marginalization was the correct response to those trying to work outside our accepted legal and moral frameworks.

In their roles as winking provocateurs, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and their ilk remind me a lot of Emma Goldman, a leftist who had a habit of fiery rhetoric and insincere disclaimers, such as when an unstable admirer of hers assassinated President McKinley. I would be very pleased to see the violent right marginalized and discredited among Republicans, as it deserves to be, in the same way the violent left was disowned by the majority of Democrats. And by disowned, I don't mean just hand-wringing in the aftermath of violence but rather pro-active denunciations when their members call, not to subtlety, for "direct action" (as Goldman would have put it) against their political opponents. So far, I haven't seen it.

The key difference here is that the Left has NEVER had the media power and influence that the right has in this country. There is no leftist equivalent of FOX "News." Similarly, there is no figure in Congress who is as far to the left as people like Michelle Bachmann and Jim DeMint are to the right. The only two possibilities are Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders. However, Kucinich is simply an FDR Democrat. He's no radical. Similarly, Sanders is a social democrat in the Swedish mold. If he were a politican in Scandinavia, he'd be considered a bland, middle-of-the-road socialist.

For the record, I should add that Marxists are about building mass movements. We are 100% OPPOSED to individual acts of terrorism. Trotsky wrote an entire book on this subject.

http://www.amazon.com/Marxism-Terrorism ... 702&sr=1-1

Some anarchists, regrettably, do or have advocated acts of individual terror. Emma Goldman did advocate the assassination of political figures she viewed as dictatorial. However, Goldman was DEPORTED to the USSR. Think about the shit that pours out of the mouths of people like Glenn Beck, Sharon Angle, Sarah Palin, et. al. "Second amendment remedies", "progressivism is a cancer you have to cut out of the body politic", "lock and load", "investigate anti-Americans in the US Congress", yadda yadda... There is no figure on the Left in the US who espouses such extremism yet has a seat in Congress or a TV network.

That's the key difference.

GlockLobster wrote:

AdAstra wrote:

GlockLobster wrote:
What if he was neither right or left?

Key point, we don't know yet.

He doesn't have to be right or left in order to be influenced by the notion that violence is an acceptable solution, regardless of which side is spouting it - hear the rhetoric often enough and it becomes justifiable in some people's minds.

Crazy is crazy. We don't know his influence, yet.

The point is, crazy got tipped over, or got his ideas from, hate/violence/eliminationist rhetoric. Tell me which groups have been spouting that lately?

Van wrote:

ZJohnson wrote:The left has certainly been through its times of extremism. But when it did, the extremists were condemned and marginalized--the communists, the anarchists, the Weatherman, and similar ilk. Marginalization was the correct response to those trying to work outside our accepted legal and moral frameworks.

In their roles as winking provocateurs, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and their ilk remind me a lot of Emma Goldman, a leftist who had a habit of fiery rhetoric and insincere disclaimers, such as when an unstable admirer of hers assassinated President McKinley. I would be very pleased to see the violent right marginalized and discredited among Republicans, as it deserves to be, in the same way the violent left was disowned by the majority of Democrats. And by disowned, I don't mean just hand-wringing in the aftermath of violence but rather pro-active denunciations when their members call, not to subtlety, for "direct action" (as Goldman would have put it) against their political opponents. So far, I haven't seen it.

The key difference here is that the Left has NEVER had the media power and influence that the right has in this country. There is no leftist equivalent of FOX "News." Similarly, there is no figure in Congress who is as far to the left as people like Michelle Bachmann and Jim DeMint are to the right. The only two possibilities are Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders. However, Kucinich is simply an FDR Democrat. He's no radical. Similarly, Sanders is a social democrat in the Swedish mold. If he were a politican in Scandinavia, he'd be considered a bland, middle-of-the-road socialist.

For the record, I should add that Marxists are about building mass movements. We are 100% OPPOSED to individual acts of terrorism. Trotsky wrote an entire book on this subject.


Some anarchists, regrettably, do or have advocated acts of individual terror. Emma Goldman did advocate the assassination of political figures she viewed as dictatorial. However, Goldman was DEPORTED to the USSR. Think about the shit that pours out of the mouths of people like Glenn Beck, Sharon Angle, Sarah Palin, et. al. "Second amendment remedies", "progressivism is a cancer you have to cut out of the body politic", "lock and load", "investigate anti-Americans in the US Congress", yadda yadda... There is no figure on the Left in the US who espouses such extremism yet has a seat in Congress or a TV network.

That's the key difference.

+1.

AdAstra wrote: The point is, crazy got tipped over, or got his ideas from, hate/violence/eliminationist rhetoric. Tell me which groups have been spouting that lately?

The point is, I refuse to assume.
I'll wait for facts and go from there.

This is good:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky ... /tia09.htm

"The anarchist prophets of the ‘propaganda of the deed’ can argue all they want about the elevating and stimulating influence of terrorist acts on the masses. Theoretical considerations and political experience prove otherwise. The more ‘effective’ the terrorist acts, the greater their impact, the more they reduce the interest of the masses in self-organisation and self-education. But the smoke from the confusion clears away, the panic disappears, the successor of the murdered minister makes his appearance, life again settles into the old rut, the wheel of capitalist exploitation turns as before; only the police repression grows more savage and brazen. And as a result, in place of the kindled hopes and artificially aroused excitement comes disillusionment and apathy...."

Old Leon knew his shit.

GlockLobster wrote:

AdAstra wrote:

GlockLobster wrote:
What if he was neither right or left?

Key point, we don't know yet.

He doesn't have to be right or left in order to be influenced by the notion that violence is an acceptable solution, regardless of which side is spouting it - hear the rhetoric often enough and it becomes justifiable in some people's minds.

Crazy is crazy. We don't know his influence, yet.

The basis of my point: we don't know, yet we're awful quick to judge. This is something the Justice Department needs to work on - not some politically grand standing Congressional commmittee. Knee jerk reactions, finger pointing, and cute little sound bites won't work. The SPLC has an excellent record of being able to legally tie to words and influence of a hate-spewing demigod to the acts of his followers. Take it on in this manner - but build a solid case. The First Amendment protects all, and a party cannot be held liable because a few deranged individuals act on their words (no matter how offensive those words may be).

If any of our favorite cartoon characters (i.e. Rush, Billo the Clown, Palin, etc) can be tied to this, or even if it turns out to be some wing-nut group we've not heard of, then prosecute or otherwise litigate - just be prepared for backlash and blowback. (Not a suggestion to back off, but a sober call to action).

Olbermann is typically eloquent on the shootings:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/0 ... 06311.html

"...every politician and commentator who...stays silent now, should have no place in our political system..."

Regarding Goldman, I believe she was actually deported under the Wilson administration (not sure the date) for advocating birth control--once deemed a greater crime than assassinations.

Yeah, Trotsky's USSR might have been very different than the one Lenin & Stalin created. Still, the famines, gulags, etc. are, in my view, an inevitable part of any totalitarian system. I'm not knowledgeable enough about Trotsky to know his role in implemented single-party rule in the USSR, so I'll can't comment on him further.

I'd recommend everyone watch the Olbermann clip. He's remarkably even-handed, especially for an openly partisan person. I don't imagine we'd be hearing anything nearly so reasonable from the right if the congresswoman had been a Republican; which is one of the main reasons I left that party long ago.

GlockLobster wrote:

AdAstra wrote: The point is, crazy got tipped over, or got his ideas from, hate/violence/eliminationist rhetoric. Tell me which groups have been spouting that lately?

The point is, I refuse to assume.
I'll wait for facts and go from there.

You refuse to assume that the rightwingnut groups have cranked up their spouting as acceptable the violence/hate rhetoric? You won't have to assume, you can take it as fact without waiting.

Another fact is that everyone hears of these rhetoric, left and right.

So if you're crazy, whether left, up, down or right, extremist violent rhetoric can easily influence you as an acceptable way of doing things. Now if you're saying that this guy's crazy and has come up with his ideas for violent action all by himself, that's as good an assumption as mine.

Ogre wrote: The First Amendment protects all, and a party cannot be held liable because a few deranged individuals act on their words (no matter how offensive those words may be).

So we can form an Al Quaeda group here in the States, that exhort individuals to blow up crowds, and you would be OK with it being protected by the 1st A? The SC will disagree with you.

Just stating an analogy here.

ZJohnson wrote:Yeah, Trotsky's USSR might have been very different than the one Lenin & Stalin created. Still, the famines, gulags, etc. are, in my view, an inevitable part of any totalitarian system.

Lenin saw, much too late, the danger Stalin posed and tried to have him removed from his leadership role in the party. By then, however Lenin had suffered two strokes and was basically confined to house arrest. He died before he could do anything about Stalin.

After the civil war, the USSR was in ruins. Lenin knew that total economic collectivisation would be impossible and counter-productive under the circumstances, so he introduced the new economic policy (NEP) that allowed for private land ownership and the production of food for profit. However, upon assuming power, Stalin reversed this policy in order to liquidate his perceived "enemies." The results are well-known.

AdAstra wrote:

Ogre wrote: The First Amendment protects all, and a party cannot be held liable because a few deranged individuals act on their words (no matter how offensive those words may be).

So we can form an Al Quaeda group here in the States, that exhort individuals to blow up crowds, and you would be OK with it being protected by the 1st A? The SC will disagree with you.

Just stating an analogy here.

I truly am not looking for a fight here but I am curious if there is any hard evidence that any body from the media has called for assassinating public officials. Right now I fear for my 1st ammendment rights and the freedom of the internet than my gun rights. I feel for the little girl born on 9/11 and going out this way while looking to learn more about public service. Ouur elected officials are now going to be very difficult to approach from here on out. I think if you even send an email about any issue to an elected rep it will raise red flags. Sucks

AdAstra wrote:

GlockLobster wrote:

AdAstra wrote: The point is, crazy got tipped over, or got his ideas from, hate/violence/eliminationist rhetoric. Tell me which groups have been spouting that lately?

The point is, I refuse to assume.
I'll wait for facts and go from there.

You refuse to assume that the rightwingnut groups have cranked up their spouting as acceptable the violence/hate rhetoric? You won't have to assume, you can take it as fact without waiting.

Another fact is that everyone hears of these rhetoric, left and right.

So if you're crazy, whether left, up, down or right, extremist violent rhetoric can easily influence you as an acceptable way of doing things. Now if you're saying that this guy's crazy and has come up with his ideas for violent action all by himself, that's as good an assumption as mine.

Again, I have no idea why this guys did what he did. I'll wait for the facts to come in. I'm not going to assume how he votes or who he listens to because, at this moment, it is unknown. You can waste all your energy in the mean time attacking others for NOT making assumptions on a total strangers actions.
Does it surprise me that this happened? Not at all.
It's funny/sad that all of a sudden after the Sheriff's plea (which I agree with and thought it was a truly human thing to say) for national sanity, is now America's (and yours) talking point is vitriol and violent verbal rhetoric that leads to action. Really? Is this like hot off the presses-news flash? I'd say 50 years too late and demonstrates how horrible America's short term memory is.

It's perception, that is to Tea Party followers Scalia would probably be considered a centrist though we'd just lump him along with the Tea Party on the right wing. Since we're to the left of Scalia we become the dreaded left wing and with Trotskyist talk, they'd see that as far left wing. We're lefty's with guns so we're probably scarier. Where you see yourself on the political spectrum influences your perception of the rest of the spectrum, we're not objective.

We don't know enough about Loughner or know his motivation. Yes the political air in Arizona is poisonous and has been for a long time. Some sketchy information - Loughner lived with his parents; left Pima Community College due to behavioral issues; was turned down by the Army, we don't know why; legally bought the Glock; and from his Youtube site he seems obsessive with fragmented thoughts, rambling and some paranoia so possibly psychotic. Apparently he is not talking and has asserted his 5th Amendment rights, so he's aware of the situation. And they are seeking a person of interest - a possible accomplice who may or may not be the agent provocateur, we don't know at this time.

More news at 11.

eelj wrote:I truly am not looking for a fight here but I am curious if there is any hard evidence that any body from the media has called for assassinating public officials.

Look no further than the "2A remedies" that Angle has stated, as one example.

eelj wrote:Right now I fear for my 1st ammendment rights and the freedom of the internet than my gun rights.

Why fear, 1A is perfectly safe as long as it doesn't infringe on the other As.

highdesert wrote:... we don't know at this time.

More news at 11.

+1

GlockLobster wrote:You can waste all your energy in the mean time attacking others for NOT making assumptions on a total strangers actions.
Does it surprise me that this happened? Not at all.

For you not to be surprised, means you've already made assumptions. You may not want to voice your opinion, but you already have one. Don't you see your contradiction?

GlockLobster wrote: It's funny/sad that all of a sudden after the Sheriff's plea (which I agree with and thought it was a truly human thing to say) for national sanity, is now America's (and yours) talking point is vitriol and violent verbal rhetoric that leads to action. Really? Is this like hot off the presses-news flash? I'd say 50 years too late and demonstrates how horrible America's short term memory is.

So why are you still "waiting" for "facts" then?

I don't consider sharon angle a member of the media, just a republican that lost her bid.

AdAstra wrote:

GlockLobster wrote:You can waste all your energy in the mean time attacking others for NOT making assumptions on a total strangers actions.
Does it surprise me that this happened? Not at all.

For you not to be surprised, means you've already made assumptions. You may not want to voice your opinion, but you already have one. Don't you see your contradiction?

GlockLobster wrote: It's funny/sad that all of a sudden after the Sheriff's plea (which I agree with and thought it was a truly human thing to say) for national sanity, is now America's (and yours) talking point is vitriol and violent verbal rhetoric that leads to action. Really? Is this like hot off the presses-news flash? I'd say 50 years too late and demonstrates how horrible America's short term memory is.

So why are you still "waiting" for "facts" then?

Enough of your silly circular arguments. You preach to the choir. If your looking for a fight go post on glocktalk or something like that. Seriously.

GlockLobster wrote:

mark wrote:I just want to say that I haven't heard the phrse "go piss up a rope" in a long time. Its a good one that needs more play.

For you! We could use a smile or two today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfmB-8onoMo

HA.... nice

I'm seeing a medium is the message kind of thing. The sophestry utilized mostly by the right provides a perfect template to hang delusion on. rush's fallacies are used to juice hell out of a great many people, it's internal drug abuse. It feels good and the rituals are internalized with no executive override. The antidote isn't to challenge his politics, it's to expose his fallacious constructs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

eelj wrote:

AdAstra wrote:

Ogre wrote: The First Amendment protects all, and a party cannot be held liable because a few deranged individuals act on their words (no matter how offensive those words may be).

Just stating an analogy here.

I truly am not looking for a fight here but I am curious if there is any hard evidence that any body from the media has called for assassinating public officials. Rwithout anticipation that we might then ight now I fear for my 1st ammendment rights and the freedom of the internet than my gun rights. I feel for the little girl born on 9/11 and going out this way while looking to learn more about public service. Ouur elected officials are now going to be very difficult to approach from here on out. I think if you even send an email about any issue to an elected rep it will raise red flags. Sucks

Agreed...we should be able to contact our officials, even in disagreement, without anticipation that we might then be possibly highlighted on some watch list. When it comes to knee-jerking, Department of Homeland "Security" has shown an affinity to this. It concerns me that a department, so called set up to protect American citizens is so changing its focus onto Americans.


Regards,


CarolinaHiker

G'day and welcome, Carolina Hiker.

Please stick around.