DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on March 10, 2011, 02:32:47 PM
-
(http://media.620wtmj.com/designimages/620wtmj_header_01_011.jpg)
Wis Capitol Chaos: Lawmakers Get Death Threats
By Jon Byman
Mar 10, 2011
(http://media.620wtmj.com/images/620wtmj_031011capitol.JPG)
MADISON - The State Department of Justice confirms that it is investigating several
death threats against a number of lawmakers in response to the legislature's move
to strip employees of many collective bargaining rights.
Among the threats the Justice Department is investigationg is one that was emailed
to Republican Senators Wednesday night. Newsradio 620 WTMJ has obtained that
email.
The following is the unedited email:
Please put your things in order because you will be killed and your familes
will also be killed due to your actions in the last 8 weeks. Please explain
to them that this is because if we get rid of you and your families then it
will save the rights of 300,000 people and also be able to close the deficit
that you have created. I hope you have a good time in hell. Read below for
more information on possible scenarios in which you will die.
WE want to make this perfectly clear. Because of your actions today and in
the past couple of weeks I and the group of people that are working with me
have decided that we've had enough. We feel that you and the people that
support the dictator have to die. We have tried many other ways of dealing
with your corruption but you have taken things too far and we will not stand
for it any longer. So, this is how it's going to happen: I as well as many
others know where you and your family live, it's a matter of public records.
We have all planned to assult you by arriving at your house and putting a
nice little bullet in your head. However, we decided that we wouldn't leave
it there. We also have decided that this may not be enough to send the
message to you since you are so "high" on Koch and have decided that you are
now going to single handedly make this a dictatorship instead of a
demorcratic process. So we have also built several bombs that we have placed
in various locations around the areas in which we know that you frequent.
This includes, your house, your car, the state capitol, and well I won't
tell you all of them because that's just no fun. Since we know that you are
not smart enough to figure out why this is happening to you we have decided
to make it perfectly clear to you. If you and your goonies feel that it's
necessary to strip the rights of 300,000 people and ruin their lives, making
them unable to feed, clothe, and provide the necessities to their families
and themselves then We Will "get rid of" (in which I mean kill) you. Please
understand that this does not include the heroic Rep. Senator that risked
everything to go aganist what you and your goonies wanted him to do. We feel
that it's worth our lives to do this, because we would be saving the lives
of 300,000 people. Please make your peace with God as soon as possible and
say goodbye to your loved ones we will not wait any longer. YOU WILL DIE!!!!
Reply Reply to all Forward
http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/117732923.html (http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/117732923.html)
-
Whoever sent this is either very stupid or an agent provocateur.
Hope it doesn't turn out to be someone from the right, stirring the pot.
-
"But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized,
at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails
the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than
we do, it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that
we're talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds"
President Obama - January 12, 2011
(http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_031011/content/01125106.Par.4584.ImageFile.jpg)
-
Yeah.
I was specifically referring to the email.
-
Walker started this crap.
Anyone with a computer can send e-mail, and it is every bit as likely that this was done by some demented rightwing asshole as by anyone on the left.
-
Walker started this crap.
What does that mean?
Governor Walker was elected by the people to make decisions.
He is doing so.
Are you justifying threats, intimidation, vile signs,
and uncivil tactics because someone has a different
opinion? What evidence do you have that someone
from the rightwing sent the e-mail. There has obviously
been a lot of intimidation and anger from the Left
in this matter, so to automatically assume this
was some rightwing conspiracy e-mail seems rather lame.
-
Walker started this crap.
What does that mean?
Governor Walker was elected by the people to make decisions.
He is doing so.
Are you justifying threats, intimidation, vile signs,
and uncivil tactics because someone has a different
opinion?
Sure sounds like it
-
Walker started this crap.
What does that mean?
Governor Walker was elected by the people to make decisions.
He is doing so.
Are you justifying threats, intimidation, vile signs,
and uncivil tactics because someone has a different
opinion?
Sure sounds like it
Where do you get that? It could just as easily be someone from the right trying stir the pot against the left.
Think about it. How many right wing guys do you know who go around dressing up like pimps in front of ACORN offices?
-
Walker did not run on a platform of wiping out teachers' rights to collective bargaining.
He had to know that it would be seriously opposed, and he did it anyway.
He is to blame for the mess he started.
-
He is to blame for the mess he started.
So if someone comes to a different conclusion than you you think
it is ok to threaten violence and uncivility in our political system?
Lots of Republicans do not like the mess Obama started known as ObamaCare,
but they are not using the disgraceful tactics you seem to be justifying.
The Republicans won in Wisconsin but you disgraceful Leftists
want to disavow the election and pretend you are still in charge.
Leftist dont give a shit about democracy....they want their Union thugs!
You tried your dirty tricks....but we see how you got your ass kicked by the Governor!
-
Walker started this crap.
What does that mean?
Governor Walker was elected by the people to make decisions.
He is doing so.
Are you justifying threats, intimidation, vile signs,
and uncivil tactics because someone has a different
opinion?
Sure sounds like it
Where do you get that?
From the part where Xo is blaming Walker for the apparent threats, thus giving justification for the "response"
It could just as easily be someone from the right trying stir the pot against the left.
It sure could, but there's no proof to that. Transparent deflection effort it would seem though
Think about it. How many right wing guys do you know who go around dressing up like pimps in front of ACORN offices?
Apples & oranges. "Dressed up pimps" didn't MAKE ACORN officals act unethically, if not illegally, in front of a camera. Think "sting" effort, if that helps
-
Quote from: BT on Today at 05:25:22 PM
It could just as easily be someone from the right trying stir the pot against the left.
It sure could, but there's no proof to that. Transparent deflection effort it would seem though
Could you provide the proof that the threatening email came from the left? I did not see that in the article.
-
Apples & oranges. "Dressed up pimps" didn't MAKE ACORN officals act unethically, if not illegally, in front of a camera. Think "sting" effort, if that helps
or severely edited video which from an NAACP meeting which Breitbart ended up having to disclaim.
-
Quote from: BT on Today at 05:25:22 PM
It could just as easily be someone from the right trying stir the pot against the left.
It sure could, but there's no proof to that. Transparent deflection effort it would seem though
Could you provide the proof that the threatening email came from the left? I did not see that in the article.
Not the point now is it. You seem to believe I've come down in claiming this absolutely has to be from the left. Care to cite where?? Nice deflection try though
Apples & oranges. "Dressed up pimps" didn't MAKE ACORN officals act unethically, if not illegally, in front of a camera. Think "sting" effort, if that helps
or severely edited video which from an NAACP meeting which Breitbart ended up having to disclaim.
Addressing your continued deflection effort, care to provide the proof now of a "severely edited video", as it relates to the ACORN "Sting"??
-
Not the point now is it. You seem to believe I've come down in claiming this absolutely has to be from the left. Care to cite where?? Nice deflection try though
Sure it is. The email in question could have come from any part of the spectrum. The readers of the article were led to assume it came from the left , but the authors failed to provide the proof.
XO said this:
Anyone with a computer can send e-mail, and it is every bit as likely that this was done by some demented rightwing asshole as by anyone on the left.
You said this:
It could just as easily be someone from the right trying stir the pot against the left.
It sure could, but there's no proof to that. Transparent deflection effort it would seem though
So in essence you said nothing. and mumbled something about deflection.
and then, speaking of deflection, you disregard the NAACP tapes and then ask for proof of the ACORN edits.
OK
http://oag.ca.gov/news/press_release?id=1888 (http://oag.ca.gov/news/press_release?id=1888)
-
Not the point now is it. You seem to believe I've come down in claiming this absolutely has to be from the left. Care to cite where?? Nice deflection try though
Sure it is.
Sure, it's not. You immediately piped in about my concurring with Cu4 on Xo's justifying the threats, by referencing that Walker "started it". The "where" it came from is your deflection effort. The "point" was Xo's utter lack of condemning such threats, regardless of the "where". Even giving it credence by way of Walker bringing it on himself, by way of "starting it"
Nice try though
Any chance we'll get the quote where I've factually concluded these threats came from the left? Given the consistency of the left, when it comes to obscene and inflammatory rhetoric, that most often gets a pass by the MSM, I'd guess it did. But I have no proof, nor have I claimed such. That again is your deflection effort. Revel in it, if you wish
-
and then, speaking of deflection, you disregard the NAACP tapes and then ask for proof of the ACORN edits.
OK
http://oag.ca.gov/news/press_release?id=1888 (http://oag.ca.gov/news/press_release?id=1888)
Wow....you are REALLY reaching now. I must not have the proper glasses on. Can you point to the section in your link that has these "severe edits"
-
(http://www.mcpl.us/research/online/images/logo_wausau_daily_herald.png)
18 Republican senators from Wisconsin report getting death threats
after passing bill to end collective bargaining for most public workers
March 11, 2011
SHEBOYGAN ? State Sens. Joe Leibham and Glenn Grothman said they are among as many as 18 Republican senators who received a death threat following their votes to eliminate most collective bargaining powers for public workers.
The threat was sent in an e-mail late Wednesday with the subject, "Death threat!!!! Bomb!!!!" according to a copy of the letter released by Grothman's office. The e-mail also was addressed to Sen. Pam Galloway, R-Wausau.
Grothman, R-West Bend, said the e-mail is the latest example of "a new height in incivility." He said in recent weeks he has received obscene phone calls at all hours of the night, been jostled at the Capitol and has been shouted down during interviews.
"This is another example of the anger which is being spewed by the government unions," Grothman said. "This has been all about intimidating ? Republican legislators into bowing to the public unions, and it has only steeled our resolve."
Grothman said he is hesitant to completely disregard the threat given the volatile atmosphere in Madison. A note shoved under his door Wednesday night said, "The only good Republican is a dead Republican."
With Democratic senators out of state, Republican senators late Wednesday separated the collective bargaining elements from Gov. Scott Walker's budget repair bill. Republicans voted 18-1 to eliminate collective bargaining for public workers in Wisconsin aside from some wage negotiations. Leibham and Grothman supported the measure.
Leibham, of Sheboygan, said the threat came to him via e-mail as well, and his staff contacted police at the Capitol and in Madison.
The letter tells lawmakers to "make your peace with God as soon as possible and say goodbye to your loved ones," warning they will be killed "due to your actions in the last eight weeks."
The letter, which is signed, says the writer is working with a group of people and knows where the legislators live. It says legislators may be shot in their homes or killed with bombs placed at locations they frequent.
"We feel that you and the people that support the dictator have to die," the letter reads. "If you and your goonies feel that it's necessary to strip the rights of 300,000 people and ruin their lives, making them unable to feed, clothe, and provide the necessities to their families and themselves then We Will 'get rid of' (in which I mean kill) you."
Leibham said that even with the vehement protests, the democratic process is working just the way it's supposed to during the budget debate.
"We debate bills, a vote has taken place, and now the public has the right to hold me accountable either favorably or negatively for that vote," he said. "Not through threats or other means, it's through the election process. I'm just hoping for the protesters' sake and for legislators' sake it's being done in a safe way because it's been getting a little bit intense from a safety standpoint. I don't want anybody ? to get themselves hurt or injured as they passionately protest."
http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/article/20110311/WDH0101/303110067/Multimedia-18-GOP-senators-report-getting-death-threats?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE (http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/article/20110311/WDH0101/303110067/Multimedia-18-GOP-senators-report-getting-death-threats?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE)
-
I suppose this Democratic Wisconsin Representative "might be" a secret rightwing operative! ::)
"Death Threat Inside Wisconsin State House From One Lawmaker To Another!" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34xtlPeBUVI#)
-
CU. This is the problem. The reporters seem to be able to publish the contents of the email but seem reticent to include the header information , specifiably who the email was from.
Understand this. I am not saying the emails did not come from some union person. I am saying the reporters did not provide proof of those allegations.
Couple that with the constant use of the word civility and uncivility in these reports and i suspect there is an orchestration behind either the release of these emails or the sending of same.
Most states have laws against making threats to public office holders. Perhaps that is why the sender information is being withheld, because it is a criminal matter.
That is not to say that partisans can not be stupid and do stupid things, because they certainly can.
But the possibility still remains that these emails and letters could be plants by some overzealous person from the right, trying to make it appear that these emails originated from the left, and wouldn't that be an embarrassment to those one the right if this were true?
Because without honesty, without trust, what is left?
-
"But the possibility still remains that these emails and letters
could be plants by some overzealous person from the right"
and the possibility exists that the elected Democrat in Wisconsin that said to
a young elected Republican woman "you're dead" is a secret agent of the Right.
-
As President Obama gives speeches this week condemning bullying his
supporters flood Wisconsin to bully people that disagree with their agenda.
New Death Threats Against Republicans Uncovered Daily [CONTENT WARNING!] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQg-fYwaoZM#ws)
-
"But the possibility still remains that these emails and letters
could be plants by some overzealous person from the right"
and the possibility exists that the elected Democrat in Wisconsin that said to
a young elected Republican woman "you're dead" is a secret agent of the Right.
I don't know about that but she offered the same amount of proof that the Black Caucus folks did after the healthcare vote saying tea party folks hurled racial epithets at them and one even claimed to have been spat upon.
-
she offered the same amount of proof that the Black Caucus folks did after the healthcare vote saying tea party folks hurled racial epithets at them and one even claimed to have been spat upon.
BT are you now actually questioning whether the Democrat made this outburst?
Whats your next move to defend the undefendable Johnny Cochran Jr.? ::)
Hey I'd try the lame bullshit about "maybe" he's really a "right-wing plant".
Ya know try to create at least some doubt to hide and/or shield the guilty!
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/1/19/20090312061339!CBS_5_WFRV-TV_Logo.png)
Mar 1, 2011 at 1:23 PM CST
(WFRV)-- Democratic Assemblyman Gordon Hintz of Oshkosh has apologized for a remark he made
to a Republican lawmaker on the floor of the Assembly during last week's budget bill vote.
Hintz called Republican colleague Michelle Litjens of Winneconne yesterday to say he was sorry for what
he called an "outburst."
Litjens says Hintz made remarks, which included an obscenity and the words "you're dead,"
after the bill was passed following days of Assembly debate.
Litjens says she's accepted the apology, but asked assembly leaders to discipline Hintz.
http://www.wfrv.com/news/local/-Representative-Hintz-apoligizes-for-assembly-outburst--117180718.html (http://www.wfrv.com/news/local/-Representative-Hintz-apoligizes-for-assembly-outburst--117180718.html)
-
Whoever sent this is either very stupid or an agent provocateur.
Hope it doesn't turn out to be someone from the right, stirring the pot.
What a shame it is that both of these are plausable.
-
BT are you now actually questioning whether the Democrat made this outburst?
Nope i'm saying she provided no proof during that interview.
-
what bt is saying is plausible for both parties. I`ve always stated I don`t much care for either party and I haven`t seen ANY sign of improvement at least mccain address this problem. . polarity is still growing?
-
And what C is saying is that there's now proof of what the Dem congresscritter said, by way of his apologising, vs the continued unsubstantiated hearsay of the Dem congresscritter that claimed spitting and racial slurs by actual Teaparty folk
But your right Kimba....the current CnC hasn't made anything better by way of "bringing folks together". If anything, the polarization by our resident Community Organizer has become far worse
If only that Democrat had remained silent, Bt would have a partial leg to stand on
-
And what C is saying is that there's now proof of what the Dem congresscritter said, by way of his apologising, vs the continued unsubstantiated hearsay of the Dem congresscritter that claimed spitting and racial slurs by actual Teaparty folk
But your right Kimba....the current CnC hasn't made anything better by way of "bringing folks together". If anything, the polarization by our resident Community Organizer has become far worse
If only that Democrat had remained silent, Bt would have a partial leg to stand on
What happened after the interview has no bearing on the lack of proof presented during the interview.
It's a timeline thing.
Subtle enough that it probably wouldn't fit on a bumper sticker.
-
And the current timeline doesn't support your ongoing position
-
And the current timeline doesn't support your ongoing position
It doesn't have to.
-
It does tend to debunk it though
-
I don't see how. No proof was provided during the interview.
Providing proof afterward does nothing to change that. Because my position was that no proof was offered during the interview.
Not that it didn't happen.
So no debunking.
-
Providing proof afterward does nothing to change that.
Because my position was that no proof was offered during the interview.
BT what is your point?
How could she have "provided proof" in the interview?
Are victims to remain silent unless they have "proof"?
If something rude/vile is said unless you happen to have a tape recorder going
how could one provide "proof"...unless there were others that heard it....and even
then I suppose you would say how could the witness "prove" it was actually said.
Most court cases are even settled without absolute total "proof",
because how can we ever be certain a witness is telling the truth?
Most crime is not filmed or recorded, so many times there is not
100% proof of anything.
-
The preponderance of evidence would include previous experience.
In previous experience both partys have attracted a certain number of idiots.
See Theodore Rosevelts quote "Lunitic Fringe" .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunatic_fringe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunatic_fringe)
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt)
Among the wise and high-minded people who in self-respecting and genuine fashion strive earnestly for peace, there are the foolish fanatics always to be found in such a movement and always discrediting it — the men who form the lunatic fringe in all reform movements.
Ch. VII : The War of American and the Unready
-
but Plane there is also pretty good logic in some assumptions
if a group is unruly, bullying, and uncivil
if a group is furious at an opposing side
if a group is angry and protesting
and the target of that group's anger gets a threat
it's not "a reach" to assume someone that is part of the madder than hell group sent the threat
sure there is possibility it is a scam
just like there is a "possibility" that Lady Diana's driver was planted on a suicide mission
really there is almost a "possibility" on anything
-
I think C's point, which is also what is debunking Bt is, yes "both sides have their idiot fringe", however Bt's inference that both sides equally do this, is what's largely debunked. I'd opine a 90-10 split myself, if not more so. Before Bt demands it, I have no proof, as the MSM follows its SOP, but we just saw an example of how it was proven to have been the left, while the right still has yet to be proven as having been spitting & yelling racial slurs at Dem congresscritters. Even the ACORN video has yet to be shown to have been "severely edited"
-
Possible and plausable are very diffrent.
I would call it plausable that some few on either side could misbehave just this way.
If you want to show that one side is more wrong or has a greater number of idiots direct evidence is a good idea.
As long as we don't actually know who the agent is everything about the agent is supposition.
-
I think C's point, which is also what is debunking Bt is, yes "both sides have their idiot fringe", however Bt's inference that both sides equally do this, is what's largely debunked. I'd opine a 90-10 split myself, if not more so. Before Bt demands it, I have no proof, as the MSM follows its SOP, but we just saw an example of how it was proven to have been the left, while the right still has yet to be proven as having been spitting & yelling racial slurs at Dem congresscritters. Even the ACORN video has yet to be shown to have been "severely edited"
I never claimed that both sides do it equally. So how can you debunk something i did not claim.
And as for the ACORN editing did you read the link I provided?
-
I think C's point, which is also what is debunking Bt is, yes "both sides have their idiot fringe", however Bt's inference that both sides equally do this, is what's largely debunked. I'd opine a 90-10 split myself, if not more so. Before Bt demands it, I have no proof, as the MSM follows its SOP, but we just saw an example of how it was proven to have been the left, while the right still has yet to be proven as having been spitting & yelling racial slurs at Dem congresscritters. Even the ACORN video has yet to be shown to have been "severely edited"
I never claimed that both sides do it equally.
If not inferred, that what the hell was the point of this entire deflective tangent?? I don't see where either C or I were claiming with 100% factual certainty, that these threats, that initiated this thread, were coming from the left. Or that the right doesn't have its fringe, that is capable of lunatic left-like garbage. So, what was the point, besides taking the spotlight off of the actual point of Xo's justifying the threats, by way of claiming Walker started it??
-
My entire point in this entire thread reduced to bumper sticker simple is:
Buyer beware.
-
But BT...seriously dont you think that what you and Plane are doing
plants seeds of doubt....almost equating the two sides when in reality
there is most likely an obvious choice as to who sent this vile email?
In my mind you and Plane translate a "possibility" into an equal.
At least thats how many would take it....
Sure the possibility always exists for some conspiracy.....
But to me...your rush to plant seeds that it all could be a "set-up"
almost lets the bad guys off in the public's mind.
Do you see what I am saying?
-
I do understand what you are saying.
Let me give you some examples of buyer beware.
Remember when Katrina hit? Remember the tsunami of criticism from the left about how inept Bush and Fema were in handling the situation. Remember that blogger who called the Bush Admin racist and the whole mantra of "dead nigger gator bait" . And remember when the tides receded how very little of the accusations about Bush were true?
Remember when the Black Caucus confronted the Tea Partiers and claimed that the TP folks hurled racial epithets at them? Remember Breitbart offered a 100k reward to anyone who caught the epithets on tape? To the best of my knowledge no one has collected that reward.
Remember the AG Department official who allegedly was taped at a NAACP meeting saying she didn't want to help white people keep their farms? Remember how it was discovered that the tape was severely edited and that in context that wasn't her meaning at all.
Remember Dan Rather and the Bush AWOL memos?
Remeber Donald Segretti?
Remember Thomas Jefferson?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_tricks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_tricks)
-
My entire point in this entire thread reduced to bumper sticker simple is:
Buyer beware.
With all due respect....that's kind of a given. And still doesn't get you off the hook of jumping in with a defensive posture for Xo, when he was justifying the threats with his Walker started it crud
-
he was justifying the threats with his Walker started it crud
yeah sure it all started with Walker..... ::)
as if the Unions had nothing to do with "starting this crud"!
I'd say Walker is finishing off the crud not starting it!
And finish off he did!
Kudos to Governor Walker for doing the right thing & not being intimidated!
-
My entire point in this entire thread reduced to bumper sticker simple is:
Buyer beware.
With all due respect....that's kind of a given. And still doesn't get you off the hook of jumping in with a defensive posture for Xo, when he was justifying the threats with his Walker started it crud
Where did i agree with XO about Walker?
-
I didn't say agree, I said took a defensive posture. Specifically here (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/more-of-the-new-'civility'-from-the-left-gt-death-threats-against-republicans/msg119872/#msg119872), when I was concurring with C on Xo's use of rhetoric, in justifying the threats
-
defensive posture?
What the hell does that mean?
Replying to a post of yours now assumes a defensive posture aligned with someone else.
Please.
this is what i took issue with:
Are you justifying threats, intimidation, vile signs,
and uncivil tactics because someone has a different
opinion?
It was bolded and everything.
-
defensive posture?
What the hell does that mean?
It means precisely what it ways.....you immediately jumped in, defending Xo's justyfying death threats
this is what i took issue with:
Are you justifying threats, intimidation, vile signs,
and uncivil tactics because someone has a different
opinion?
It was bolded and everything.
Exactly. You're catching on finally. If Xo hadn't of claimed "Walker started it", and continued to opine along those lines, then you'd have a rhetorical leg to stand on. THAT was the point C & I were referencing. THAT was the point you jumped in. NOT that we had some inner knowledge that these threats were 100% factually emminating from the left. I'd even go so far as to guess that C, like me, wouldn't support such rhetoric if it was coming from the right, aimed at Dem congresscritters that supported & passed Obamacare, regardless if Obama/Pelosi/Reid "started it"
-
So the bolding to clarify what i was taking issue with was just so much crayon markings on a wall?
And i never jumped in justifying death threats. I simply stated we did not know who was making the email death threats from the information provided.
And we still don't.
-
And we still don't.
"we"?
You may not know, but I do....I cant prove it....but I know.
Just like I can't "prove" I love someone, but I do.
-
So the bolding to clarify what i was taking issue with was just so much crayon markings on a wall?
Are you PURPOSELY avoiding the point? being obtuse?, or being a twit just for the sake of being a twit? Your "taking issue with what was bolded" is precisely why you're getting raked over the coals, on this issue
And i never jumped in justifying death threats.
You jumped in almost directly following my concurrence with C of how Xo was justyfying them
I simply stated we did not know who was making the email death threats from the information provided.....And we still don't.
Which is AGAIN IRRELEVENT to the point of the threats being justifyed in the 1st place, regardless of the who
-
I think it best be clear that" our " side doesn't employ or accept unfair threats.
It should be clear that the truth is "good " for being told.
And lies , however clever, not.
That is more important even than fingerpointing after the threat is made.
I wonder what Twana Brawley thought she was accomplishing, when she made herself infamous, I don't really know but I would like to.
-
Where did XO justify threats?
Walker started this crap.
Anyone with a computer can send e-mail, and it is every bit as likely that this was done by some demented rightwing asshole as by anyone on the left.
No justification that i can see.
And where did i defend him for justifying threats. .
And though both you and CU want to think you know who sent the email, you really don't, you simply have your suspicions.
So unless you can show where he justified threats i have no choice but to question your honesty or your reading skills.
-
Should there be someone in charge of repudiating threats?
Ought to be on officer of each party. Master at arms or something.
-
Where did XO justify threats?
Walker started this crap.
No justification that i can see.
You're apparently blinded, as you just answered your own question. By choice or by ignorance, that remains to be determined
Anyone with a computer can send e-mail, and it is every bit as likely that this was done by some demented rightwing asshole as by anyone on the left.
The trailing Xo commentary was his recognition that he got caught, but apparently ego was too great to correct the "Walker started it" justification
And where did i defend him for justifying threats. .
By jumping in precisely as that point was being made
And though both you and CU want to think you know who sent the email, you really don't, you simply have your suspicions.
Yea....and?? Irrevelent to the justifying of death threats
So unless you can show where he justified threats i have no choice but to question your honesty or your reading skills.
Did so....adnauseum. Your choice to ignore is yours alone
-
Saying Walker was responsible for the conflict does not justify threats.
Any more than the dems passage of ObamaCare would justify a Tea Partier hurling racial epithets at John Lewis.
or are you now claiming otherwise.
-
Saying Walker was responsible for the conflict does not justify threats.
The hell it doesn't. It was in direct response to the threats being made. If it was stated at some other time, in some other contect, then yea, perhaps. But that's not when it happened or when it was said. This need to disagree with sirs for the sake of disagreeing with sirs is getting pretty ridiculous
Any more than the dems passage of ObamaCare would justify a Tea Partier hurling racial epithets at John Lewis.
It doesn't justify it there either, even if it did happen, precisely as Lewis alledged.
-
Saying Walker was responsible for the conflict does not justify threats.
The hell it doesn't. It was in direct response to the threats being made. If it was stated at some other time, in some other contect, then yea, perhaps. But that's not when it happened or when it was said. This need to disagree with sirs for the sake of disagreeing with sirs is getting pretty ridiculous
Oh cry me a river. Mommy Mommy BT is picking on me. Wah wah. What i am pointing out is your serious deficiencies in reading for content and context.
Any more than the dems passage of ObamaCare would justify a Tea Partier hurling racial epithets at John Lewis.
It doesn't justify it there either, even if it did happen, precisely as Lewis alledged.
Exactly. and nowhere in the statement that XO made did he claim it did.
CU was the first to bring up justifying threats.
BTW did Walker and the GOP initiate the legislation that brought the unions to the Capitol?
Do the unions have a right to assembly and to protest government actions?
What they don't have a right to do is take the law into their own hands, and i don't see where XO said they did.
-
Saying Walker was responsible for the conflict does not justify threats.
The hell it doesn't. It was in direct response to the threats being made. If it was stated at some other time, in some other contect, then yea, perhaps. But that's not when it happened or when it was said. This need to disagree with sirs for the sake of disagreeing with sirs is getting pretty ridiculous
What i am pointing out is your serious deficiencies in reading for content and context.
Pot, see kettle
Any more than the dems passage of ObamaCare would justify a Tea Partier hurling racial epithets at John Lewis.
It doesn't justify it there either, even if it did happen, precisely as Lewis alledged.
Exactly. and nowhere in the statement that XO made did he claim it did.
CU was the first to bring up justifying threats.
And Xo IMMEDIATELY responded to CU's reference with Walker started it, thus justifying it. It's a timing thing Bt. If you can't grasp that, I can't help you. And I never claimed that Xo brought it up, merely that his immediate comments justifyed the acts. So why you had a need to provide yet another deflection effort demonstrates the straws you are continually grasping at
BTW did Walker and the GOP initiate the legislation that brought the unions to the Capitol?
yea....and? IF Xo was responding to THAT and not responding to threats being made, then you'd have that proverbial rhetorical leg to stand on.
What they (unions) don't have a right to do is take the law into their own hands, and i don't see where XO said they did.
Of course you don't. You can't. Sirs & Cu4 said he did, and sirs must be wrong. Walker having started it was never really said....yea, thats it, it never happened. Its a figment of all our imaginations.
-
Saying Walker was responsible for the conflict does not justify threats.
The hell it doesn't. It was in direct response to the threats being made. If it was stated at some other time, in some other contect, then yea, perhaps. But that's not when it happened or when it was said. This need to disagree with sirs for the sake of disagreeing with sirs is getting pretty ridiculous
What i am pointing out is your serious deficiencies in reading for content and context.
Pot, see kettle
Any more than the dems passage of ObamaCare would justify a Tea Partier hurling racial epithets at John Lewis.
It doesn't justify it there either, even if it did happen, precisely as Lewis alledged.
Exactly. and nowhere in the statement that XO made did he claim it did.
CU was the first to bring up justifying threats.
And Xo IMMEDIATELY responded to CU's reference with Walker started it, thus justifying it. It's a timing thing Bt. If you can't grasp that, I can't help you. And I never claimed that Xo brought it up, merely that his immediate comments justifyed the acts. So why you had a need to provide yet another deflection effort demonstrates the straws you are continually grasping at
BTW did Walker and the GOP initiate the legislation that brought the unions to the Capitol?
yea....and? IF Xo was responding to THAT and not responding to threats being made, then you'd have that proverbial rhetorical leg to stand on.
What they (unions) don't have a right to do is take the law into their own hands, and i don't see where XO said they did.
Of course you don't. You can't. Sirs & Cu4 said he did, and sirs must be wrong. Walker having started it was never really said....yea, thats it, it never happened. Its a figment of all our imaginations.
Complete nonsense.
Next thing you know you will be claiming the phase of the moon determines context and speakers intent.
-
Nope, gonna stick with timing. You can continue to ignore it however
-
I'll continue to read and comprehend the words as written. You can use whatever excuse you like to bend the facts to your liking.
-
"BTW did Walker and the GOP initiate the legislation
that brought the unions to the Capitol?"
BTW did the Unions initiate the crap that brought Walker to write the legislation?
-
"BTW did Walker and the GOP initiate the legislation
that brought the unions to the Capitol?"
BTW did the Unions initiate the crap that brought Walker to write the legislation?
Yep
-
I'll continue to read and comprehend the words as written.
Me too, which includes the timing of when the words are written. You can use whatever excuse you like to bend the facts to your liking, however.
-
.
-
Don't need excuses. I have the words as written. You throw subjectivity into the mix.
inferences, timing, hell you might as well write our posts for us.
Must fit template... that's the ticket.
::)
-
Actually, what you refer to as "subjectivity" is what the rest of us call context
But I understand what you're trying to say....sirs can't be right...he just can't
-
Actually, what you refer to as "subjectivity" is what the rest of us call context
But I understand what you're trying to say....sirs can't be right...he just can't
If you are you are. If you aren't you aren't. You don't wear victimhood well, bit whiney and pathetic.
Of course that is my subjective opinion.
-
Actually, what you refer to as "subjectivity" is what the rest of us call context
But I understand what you're trying to say....sirs can't be right...he just can't
If you are you are. If you aren't you aren't. You don't wear victimhood well, bit whiney and pathetic.
Of course that is my subjective opinion.
lol....yea, that's...what I said. I've somewhat enjoyed this massive deflection tangent of yours Bt. This near obsession you have in trying to prove me wrong, sometimes resorting to some really childish namecalling and misrepresenting my position in prior threads, is quite a fascination to ride. And even though Cu4 had pretty much the identical POV in this thread, I got the lion's share of demeaning responses. I guess I should feel honored, in some form or fashion. But time to move on
-
Yes it is. The timing is good, though I'm not sure of the location.
-
(http://www.ghostnest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Huffington-Post-Logo.gif)
Shame: Ignoring Death Threats to Wisconsin Politicians Is Media Bias
By Lee Stranahan - Filmmaker, Writer, Photographer
(http://s.huffpost.com/contributors/lee-stranahan/headshot.jpg)
March 15, 2011 01:31 PM
Three questions for you.
Do you think of Republicans and the Tea Party as dangerous, violent extremists?
Do you think the Wisconsin protests over GOP Governor Scott Walker's move to
strip public sector employees of collective bargaining were peaceful?
Do you scoff at the right wing notion that mainstream media like the New York Times,
the TV networks and NPR have a liberal media bias against the conservatives?
If you answered 'yes' to all three of those questions, then let me ask you one more...
Why isn't the mainstream media talking about the death threats against Republican politicians in Wisconsin?
Try to set aside whatever biases or preconceptions you might have for a moment and ask yourself why death threats against politicians aren't considered national news, especially in the wake of the all too fresh shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and other bystanders. And there hasn't just been one death threat, but a number of them.
Here's an example and it's real. According to Wisconsin State Department of Justice, authorities have found a suspect who admitted to sending the following email:
I want to make this perfectly clear. Because of your actions today and in the past couple of weeks I and the group of people that are working with me have decided that we've had enough. We feel that you and your republican dictators have to die. This is how it's going to happen: I as well as many others know where you and your family live, it's a matter of public records. We have all planned to assult you by arriving at your house and putting a nice little bullet in your head. However, this isn't enough. We also have decided that this may not be enough to send the message. So we have built several bombs that we have placed in various locations around the areas in which we know that you frequent. This includes, your house, your car, the state capitol, and well I won't tell you all of them because that's just no fun. Since we know that you are not smart enough to figure out why this is happening to you we have decided to make it perfectly clear to you. If you and your goonies feel that it's necessary to strip the rights of 300,000 people and ruin their lives, making them unable to feed, clothe, and provide the necessities to their families and themselves then We will "get rid of" (in which I mean kill) the 8 of you. Please understand that this does not include the heroic Senator that risked everything to go aganist what you and your goonies wanted him to do. The 8 includes the 7 senators and the dictator. We feel that it's worth our lives becasue we would be saving the lives of 300,000 people. Please make your peace with God as soon as possible and say goodbye to your loved ones we will not wait any longer. Goodbye ASSHOLE!!!!
After the Giffords shooting, authorities have to take this sort of threat seriously. The media should too, even if the disturbed person who sent that email was motivated by exactly the kind of rhetoric that's been used by many liberals against GOP officials over and over again during the Madison protests. And there are more threats floating around the internet, in varying degrees of scary and credible.
If you read liberal blogs, you might have heard of some of these threats. Indirectly, anyway. Sarah Palin said the rhetoric should be toned down. The threats themselves were ignored and Palin was mocked.
On the other hand, if you read conservative blogs or listen to conservative media, you know all about these threats because people like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh and websites like Newsbusters and BigJournalism have not only been talking about the death threats for days now but they've been talking about the mainstream and liberal media ignoring the threats for days.
Ignoring the story of these threats is deeply, fundamentally wrong. It's bad, biased journalism that will lead to no possible good outcome and progressives should be leading the charge against it.
Just before writing this article, I did a Google search and it's stunning to find out that the right wing media really isn't exaggerating -- proven death threats against politicians are being ignored by the supposedly honest media. If you've never agreed with a single thing that Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly et al have said about anything, you can't in any good conscience say that they don't have a point here. Death threats are wrong and if a story like Wisconsin is national news for days, then so are death threats.
I'm in an odd position. In the last few months, I've had one foot in the left wing news stream and one foot in the right. My media duality began when conservative publisher Andrew Breitbart hired me to work with him on the Pigford 'black farmers' settlement story. I'm a pro-choice, pro-single payer, anti-war, pro-gay rights independent liberal with years of work in print and film backing those positions. Breitbart hired me to bring a different perspective to the non-partisan issue of corruption in Pigford.
Since then, I've written both here for the left-leaning Huffington Post and at Breitbart's right leaning BigGovernment.com. I've ended up reading a lot more conservative sites and dealing firsthand with a lot more conservatives than any time since I attended a high school dedicated to the principles of Ayn Rand about 30 years ago.
Unlike many on the left, I didn't view the Wisconsin battle as the end of days. I wasn't convinced that I had a dog in that hunt, in part because I think there's a strong case to be made those public employees shouldn't have the same collective bargaining rights as private sector workers -- a case made well by Franklin D. Roosevelt, who said...
"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress."
Roosevelt's statement makes sense to me; it does seem that public employees are different than private. I'm not at all anti-union. (I've publicly supported unionizing the visual effects industry, for example.) I'm open to a good rational argument against the case FDR made but in discussions on Twitter and elsewhere, all I got in response from people on the left was anger and insults. I saw little light and felt much heat.
That tone of extreme hostility I experienced brings me back to the death threats in Wisconsin. Frankly, the bile and invective in that threat reminded me of the tone I saw directed at me from many so-called liberals because I committed the heresy of taking a different position from them on the issue of collective bargaining for public sector employees... based on something FDR said.
Is this really what liberalism has come to in 2011?
Since working with Breitbart, my position on political issues hasn't changed but I'd be lying if I didn't say I'm deeply disappointed by the virulent, lockstep attitude I see on the left. My experience in the last few months tells me what I would not have believed possible; on any number of issues (including Pigford, by the way) I've seen liberals act much nastier and with less factual honesty than the conservatives... and this includes on issues where I disagree with conservatives.
Burying the death threat story is a clear example of intellectual dishonesty and journalistic bias.
Don't take my word for it, though. Look into the story of death threats in Wisconsin yourself and see who has been covering the story and who hasn't. Try for a moment to see this story from the perspective of those who you may disagree with on policy and ask yourself how this looks to them. Can you blame them for feeling that way? Then take a few seconds and read those questions I asked you at the beginning of this article.
And then ask why progressives shouldn't expect more from our media -- and ourselves -- than we expect from our political adversaries.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-stranahan/shame-ignoring-death-thre_b_835805.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-stranahan/shame-ignoring-death-thre_b_835805.html)