There was plenty of "death" rhetoric aimed at Bush during his presidency

[Goblinmonger]

http://www.binscorner.com/pages/d/death-threats-against-bush-at-protests-i.html

I'm not saying Palin isn't an idiot. I'm not saying that the rhetoric of violence doesn't need to be stopped. But we really need to stop the "we don't do this" stuff because Repubs DO remember things, you know.

And I know, these aren't politicians saying it, but we can't just deny this didn't happen or we are just as bad as they are.

I'm ready to be flamed.

[Octafish]

1. Not on DU

I did call for the investigation, arrest, trial and imprisonment of the guy -- based on the record.

[Nye Bevan]

36. Skinner actually got a visit from the Secret Service because of posts threatening Bush.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2487403

The reason you rarely see violent rhetoric on DU is that the mods do such a good job deleting those posts before most people get to see them.

[Goblinmonger]

43. The mods do a great job.

I was a mod for a term and it is a lot of work.

I'm sure many will not tell us that it was probably just trolls on here to get us in trouble because Dems wouldn't do that.

Thank you.

[Cleita]

88. Whatever those death threats were, I'm sure they didn't

come from Democrats. I went locally to anti-war demonstrations, candlelight vigils and meetings of local clubs for Democrats, and Town Hall meetings for local Democratic elected officials during the Bush years. Never, ever did I hear a death threat to Bush or anyone in the administration. Sure there was a lot of grumbling about him, Cheney and Condi, but no death threats or even threats to harm. So those threats were not from real liberals or even moderate lefties, they were most likely from trolls that wanted to make us look bad. After all, it's what they are doing to Obama.

[Goblinmonger]

102. I called your response at 8:21 this morning.

The No True Democrat fallacy.

[proud2BlibKansan]

138. I never heard one death threat either

Pretty much the same experience as yours plus I was down at Camp Casey with Cindy Sheehan 4 or 5 times. CC had rules banning weapons and drugs and only rarely had to enforce them. I spent weeks with those activists and never once heard any of them say they wanted to kill Bush or wanted him dead. After all, he couldn't report to the Hague if he was dead. :)

On the other hand, numerous times when Bush supporters drove by us at CC or at local vigils, they yelled death threats at us, pointed guns at us and threw things at us. One guy drove his car up over the curb at us.

[coalition_unwilling]

141. Thank you. That matches my experience and recollections. I and

a couple others I know of personally were physically assaulted while protesting against the war and against the Bush Junta. I know of no instance whatsoever where any Republican suffered from a physical attack or threat of violence here in Los Angeles. The worst thing I ever saw happen was for a bunch of Republicans to be yelled at as they drove by on their way to see an appearance by Bush at the Century Plaza Hotel in Century City. And that was the worst thing and mild by comparison with what I and my friends had to put up with from their rabid supporters.

[Octafish]

117. One guy got three years in prison for making a JOKE about Bush.

No threat. It was a joke.

Details: Man jokes about Bush - 3 years in Prison. Man with gun threatens Obama - No Problem.

So, for Obama, the Secret Service allows nutjobs to carry rifles and sidearms and who knows what outside his appearances. If not hypocrisy, it's strange, wot?

PS: I absolutely agree with you regarding the mods doing a good job. It's not just DUer hyperbole they must deal with: This place is a target for those wishing to create a false impression. In addition to fueling suspicion, it adds noise to the noise-to-signal ratio.

[rbrnmw]

128. and then there's Mr Beck about Obama

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/beck-fantasizes-obama-beheaded-leaving-islam/

[Octafish]

133. That should land the NAZI Beck in the pen for 20-years to Life.

A Criminally Insane Person:



If I hadn't seen it with my own two eyes, I'd never have believed it.

[rbrnmw]

135. If Malloy would have said that about Bush he'd be in Gitmo

[proud2BlibKansan]

143. I know a guy who was in the crowd protesting Bush when he was here one time

And he stood next to a guy who had a sign that said FUCK BUSH. Didn't know him, just happened to stand by him.

A couple days later the FBI came to the guy's house wanting to know who the other guy with the sign was.

[proud2BlibKansan]

139. Both visitors who were banned

The inquiries involved three posts by two separate visitors to our website. Incidentally, both of the people in question were banned last week -- before we were aware that the Secret Service was looking into their postings. I'm not going to go into the details of the posts in question, except to say that all three of them would have been covered by the passage from the Democratic Underground rules that I posted above.

[KittyWampus]

2. Some schmuck on a street corner carrying an over the top sign doesn't equate with

mainstream, corporate-sponsored and politician-endorsed hate mongers on the radio and on the tv and on the political trail.

[el_bryanto]

6. 100% true

There isn't an equivalency. Obviously I feel we could use more moderate language around here, but we aren't the equivelant of the hatred spread by Glenn Beck or a Sean Hannity. We don't have their megaphone.

Bryant

[Goblinmonger]

23. How about the "assassins wanted" from Kilborn? n/t

[KittyWampus]

26. who is Kilborn?

[Goblinmonger]

27. Craig Kilborn

Had the Late, Late Show at one point.

I feel old.

[Orrex]

29. It's not that you're old; it's that Kilborn is a nobody

Unlike, for instance, the A-List Conservatives who've been calling for the use of lethal force.

[Goblinmonger]

61. He wasn't a nobody at the time. n/t

[Orrex]

28. Isn't he the loser who used to host The Daily Show?

[Goblinmonger]

44. Is the rhetoric of violence good or bad?

We need to speak out about it in toto if we are going to speak out about it. We can't turn a blind eye when any Dem does it and then rail when Repubs do it.

[alfredo]

127. Democrats don't elect the nutjobs to public office.

[proud2BlibKansan]

144. +1

[Vickers]

3. "these aren't politicians saying it"

So, your whole premise is fucked from the start?

Brilliant.

[DCBob]

4. Democratic leadership never said anything like what is coming from the Republicans..

No comparison.

[Webster Green]

5. You can't be serious.

Anonymous protesters or radical bloggers cannot be compared to former US Vice Presidential candidates and Republican legislators and national "news" personalities.

Idiotic post. Really fucking lame attempt.

[Jackpine Radical]

7. Now give us quotes from, say, VP candidates.

Ah, yes, I remember all that inflammatory rhetoric from Joe Lieberman, from John Edwards, from Joe Biden putting crosshairs on their political opponents while saying things like "Don't retreat, reload." I remember all those libberul soshalist Congressional candidates holding machine gun shoot-ins to raise funds to mow down their opponents. I thought it was just awful when Ed Shultz said we swhouldn't kill all the conservatives--we should save a few so every campus could have one or two for study.

[Ichingcarpenter]

14. 'If Ballots don't work then bullets will"

That's from a Republican Candidate.

The OP is wrong and misinformed.

[Goblinmonger]

21. Actually, I think that started with Malcolm X. n/t

[Ichingcarpenter]

52. Malcolm X, a leftest was assassinated in 1965

You want to go back further in history?
I thought you were talking about Bush Jr.

[Goblinmonger]

56. I was just talking about the ballot/bullet rhetoric mentioned.

That comes from Malcolm X's speech originally (don't believe he took it from somewhere else--could be wrong).

[spotbird]

97. During Malcom's Senatorial campaign, was it?

When he was running as the candidate for one of the major political parties.

[Goblinmonger]

100. Yes, let's act like it wasn't an important speech

and that Malcolm X wasn't an important figure.

Americanrhetoric.com has it as the #7 American speech of all time. It was very important at the time and still looked at as very important.

[spotbird]

106. Malcom X was never on the ticket of a mainstream party

to a high elected office. There is absolutely nothing analogous about Malcom and Palin or Angle. If Rush and Beck weren't mainstream spokespeople for the Republican, there would be a sliver of truth to a comparison between Malcom and those demagogues, but since the Republican Party embraces those two hate and violence mongers, even that comparison fails. Further, Malcom came to his senses, which is why he was killed.

Please come up with real examples. This is pathetic.

[Goblinmonger]

108. it's not my example, for goodness sake.

Someone made reference to a bullet/ballot comment. I said that that phrase came from Malcolm X first. That was it. Jesus.

[spotbird]

113. Can the indignation, you just defended the comparison,

thus my response. If you thought is was absurd, presumably wouldn't try to justify it.

[Goblinmonger]

115. There wasn't even a comparison.

"If ballots don't work, bullets will" was quoted and attributed (correctly) to a Republican.
My comment was that the phrase actually started with a liberal.
I am not wrong in that. There is nothing absurd in either case.

[spotbird]

118. You can say you didn't defend the comparison, but that isn't true

Your suggestion that Malcom's comment was made in an important political speech makes your position clear. If you thought the analogy was bogus you'd have said so by now, instead you make comments in support of the comparison.

It's a pattern, what you are doing is clear and not the least bit subtle or clever. With that said, I'm not going to bother to indulge your contradictions on this further. You can have the last word.

[Goblinmonger]

122. How wonderfully passive aggressive of you.

YOU are the one that said it wasn't an important speech. I informed you it was.

[spotbird]

129. Another falsehood. I did no such thing.

You're making stuff up. Like so many others like you, if you had to argue the truth, you'd have nothing to say.

I compared Malcom to major party candidates. Before my edit I compared him to a VP candidate, but then reconsidered and changed it to a Senatorial candidate because Angle was not pretending to use metaphor. You extrapolated from that, then argued against me from a position I had not taken. It's textbook strawman.

I'm going to log off now. You are very good at stoking, so I'll just have to leave this because there is no point in responding to fiction, that could make this endless.

[Nye Bevan]

45. "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun" (nt)

[PerpetuallyDazed]

54. *Crickets* .. n/t

[skipos]

72. What Republican said that? It is a pretty innocuous metaphor.

It is the "2nd amendment solution" and "help remove Giffords from office, shoot a fully automatic M16" crap that really creeps me out. I think we look stupid by pointing out every time a Republican uses an aggressive sounding metaphor like the one you mentioned.

[Ichingcarpenter]

76. Sean Connery 1st said that in the 1987 movie 'The Untouchables"

After that it was in the American idioms and usage

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094226/quotes

[Goblinmonger]

79. Obama said it. n/t

[Zoeisright]

86. That's President Obama to you.

Sheesh.

[Goblinmonger]

87. I don't really get it.

Is my sarcasm meter off? Is this some "you're a right-wing troll" thing? Or do you just go around telling people the formal title for politicians. Because if so, there's a "vice president Gore" comment you need to hand out below.

[Nye Bevan]

150. YES. Don't ya just HATE HATE HATE it when posters say "Obama" without "President"?

Like this gal for instance:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=11878&mesg_id=11986

[Zoeisright]

85. Which is not even close to the same thing.

And President Obama apologized for that. Has there been a PEEP of apology from any of the right wing assholes who have been inciting violence for the last 30 years?? HUH???

[spotbird]

95. True that, and further,

Palin's response to criticism of her "metaphorical" suggestion that the right start shooting was an expansion of her violent rhetoric.

Those who make the comparison act like frequency of these statements is irrelevant, and they ignore that Sharron Angle was quite serious in her "2nd Amendment" statement. They also simply ignore that even in metaphor, Obama only suggested retaliation, not initiation ....these "arguments" are just more lies. They give the mainstream a means to cover for those who stoke violence.

[Little Star]

96. Could we have a link to where he apologized? If it is true it ...

would be very helpful. Thanks.

[spotbird]

103. Sure it would.

The people who dredge up these obscure false comparisons will simply find another example that has nothing to do with the generalized campaign of violent rhetoric waged by the right. Further, they will argue that the apology doesn't mean that Obama did not make the single statement.

[Little Star]

124. Huh?

[spotbird]

94. It is a metaphor that

means we won't start it but we will fight back harder.

Quite a bit different from the suggestion made by the mainstream candidate that if they can't win at the ballot box then it is time to use violence.

It easy to understand how someone who suggests the false equivalency would pretend not to notice the difference in both figurative and literal meaning between the two comments.

[Hugabear]

155. STOP with that right-wing bullshit

The rethugs trotted that quote out in a weak, feeble attempt to equate Pres. Obama and Palin, and it's a FAIL. And it's even more disturbing to see DUers parroting that bullshit here.

[woo me with science]

75. You must have missed John Kerry on that list:

John Kerry as he was being interviewed by Bill Maher in October of 2006 on the HBO show Real Time:

Maher : You could have went to New Hampshire and killed two birds with one stone.

Kerry : Or, I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone .

[spotbird]

99. Yeah,

resonding with an extention of the metaphor is the same thing as repeatedly using the suggestion that violence op is the next remedy in the event of democratic failure.

Please do better than this, you're embarrassing yourself with these fake analogies.

[woo me with science]

125. Yep, it's colossally stupid.

I agree with you completely, and I am not being sarcastic.

It is every bit as stupid as asserting that Sarah Palin's pathetic little symbol map sent Loughner over the edge.

It's every bit as stupid as having hair-splitting arguments over whether marking a Congressional representative with a military target versus a cross-hair rifle sight is worse.

The arguments are getting frankly silly. Yes, when political rhetoric becomes overheated to the point of being threatening, we should all speak out about that. That is very different from creating and then relentlessly pushing a "rabid teabagger" narrative for this shooter that is, by the FBI's own report today, not supported by any credible evidence.

There is a lot of purposeful disingenuousness going on in this argument by people who will cherry pick and cite anything, no matter how silly, in order to get ammo for their side.

Yeah, I said "ammo." Better call the FBI! :wow:: :scared:

[U4ikLefty]

130. Make a stupid argument & call others "purposeful disingenuousnes "

Nice tactic.

[woo me with science]

146. ...

Of course it's disingenuous. That doesn't mean it isn't passionately felt and based on genuine horror at this shooting and concern about what is happening to political rhetoric in this country.

But when so many at DU decide that the shooter MUST have been a tea partier even before we had a name attached to the shooting, and when people create an entire narrative about his supposed affiliation with the right wing when even the FBI is denying that such evidence exists at this point, and when they are reduced to making ridiculous, hair-splitting arguments about why posting a "behind enemy lines" target on a political chart is not as bad as posting crosshairs....then, yes, they are being disingenuous.

Of course everyone here is entitled to their own opinions about what probably happened...just not to their own facts.

I don't claim to speak for cherokeeprogressive, but he expressed what I am feeling and trying to say much better than I have. I recommend this post a lot:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x171033

[spotbird]

134. Clearly you have no interest in the apology

or you would have found it by now. It's two clicks away, but you prefer to pretend that without a link you can't find it, therefore it didn't happen. That perfectly proves my point, that the truth doesn't matter to you.

First, you want to pretend that Obama's single (as in he did it once, off the cuff) metaphor that Democrats should respond with more force when attacked is the same as an ongoing professional campaign which exploits a visual and verbal violent theme. Next, you must pretend that Obama's apology in response to criticism (which you chose not to find) is the same as Palin's escalating the homicidal rhetoric in response to criticism. Although you say you can't see it, there is a difference between a professionally choreographed campaign and a single statement retracted. It is truly unfortunate if you can't see that difference, or again, chose not to. Palin did not make the suggestion, repeatedly, during heated discussion. She planned it, and despite the likely response (which was both predicted and predictable when she did it) she has made no statement of regret, even now.

Oh, if the distinctions I've made have truly flown right over your head, then you really aren't going to get this:
Absence of proof is not proof of absence. If they never prove a connection, the habit of rallying the wing nut base with violent rhetoric is still recklessly irresponsible, particularly from serious mainstream candidates.

[woo me with science]

137. ...

What does this have to do with this shooter?

[zazen]

8. those signs, taken as a whole, aren't flattering, to be sure

although someone here had pointed out that demanding justice for war crimes was not quite the same as proactively advocating violence against opponents.

I can believe that MSM and teabaggers are engaging in false equivalency while also admitting that some of those anti-Bush signs to which you link _are_ over the top. He is/was a war criminal, but that claim can speak for itself, without the graphic imagery.

[EstimatedProphet]

16. You're right

Those signs, taken as a whole, aren't flattering. Add to that the fact that there were maybe 50 on that page, out of how many possible protest signs during the Bush era - 1 million? More? Drop in the bucket.

[blondeatlast]

9. Equivalency fail. we are talking about leaders here, not citizens. And so was Sheriff Dupnik. nt

[RoseMead]

10. How many of those were part of the campaign rhetoric of Democratic candidates?

And how much stuff like that was posted on the official websites of a Democratic vice-presidential candidate?

There are always going to be individuals who go over the top with the things they say. But anonymous Internet posters and even sign-carrying individuals at protest events are one thing, and violent rhetoric spouted again and again by supposedly mainstream candidates of one of the two major political parties is another altogether.

And none of these sign carriers ever came close to approaching the audience that Beck, Limbaugh, and so on, preach to on a daily basis.

[EstimatedProphet]

11. That site is crap

Yes, there's a lot of rhetoric photographed about death threats to Bush. Almost every single one of them was at protests, by INDIVIDUALS. We have seen the same thing at teabagger rallies against Obama - yet the page owner tries to obfuscate that as much as possible. The protest signs aren't the point. The point is that the media is dumping violent rhetoric about the left, too, and have been doing it for quite some time. Protest signs are not ever going to have the distribution necessary to set off mentally unsound people. 24/7 media messaging will.

[bbinacan]

12. Interesting. n/t

[Orrex]

13. The non-equivalency needs to be pointed out every time, though

No one's going to listen some nameless communications major with an inflammatory t-shirt. I grant that Kerry's comment is a bit weird, but the link to the transcript isn't working, so it's hard to say what was going on.

Although it's true that elements of the Left do indeed engage in the same violent, sensationalistic rhetoric of violence, any serious discussion of the subject needs to underscore the difference in scope and scale. 1,000 anonymous, sign-waving zealots don't have the power of one off-hand comment by Palin or Limbaugh or Beck or O'Reilly.

[Phentex]

15. Yes we CAN deny it!

Because it isn't remotely the same thing!

Try again.

[Ian David]

17. ...

[TheKentuckian]

18. No rest for this bullshit meme. Are you a right wing facilitator or just a blind nanny?

[Goblinmonger]

24. Yes, I'm a right-winger, you've caught me.

I've been here all these years just to spring this one.

[tom_paine]

40. Not a RWer. Just fooled by them. It's no shame, we've all been there.

We've all, in our liberal efforts to gather the facts and be fair about the data, fallen for RW Psyops that use PR and psychology to exploit the mind's weaknesses in the same way advertising does and outflanking conscious defenses by working at the subconscious level.

See my post at the bottom of the thread (I think it's #33 or #34) for more info.

In fact, for all of us, the simple fact that we aren't fooled by 100% ALL of the RW misinformation, disinformation, and misleading false equivalencies, 100% of the time makes us different that the vast vast majority ofthe current American Subject Populace.

To paraphrase and update Lincoln, chasnneling the modern Repug Party "You can't fool all of the people all of the time. But you can get the fooling people ratio up so high that the relatively small few not fooled becomes statistically insignifcant and are de facto in terms of the overall meta-picture and societal synergy."

[bettyellen]

19. name one politican, one person in the lamestream media, and I'll name a dozen RW ones BULLSHIT

[IndyPragmatist]

20. ...

I agree. This tragedy is making a lot of people on both sides look pretty bad.

Of course Sarah Palin looks bad because of her dumb little graphic.

But those trying to make this into a political issue are looking even worse.

The guy was a nut. He subscribed to some right wing philosophies and some left wing ones. From some of the stuff that I've read, the guy doesn't have the intellectual ability to understand what the hell he is reading, so he probably has no idea what his political views are. His friends called him "a liberal pothead" but some of his actions make him seem like a right wing nut.

Bottom line, he was a nut, and this wasnt a Democrat/Republican issue. We need to start looking into ways to protect everyone from this sort of thing happening again instead of blaming Rush and dropping down to his level.

[backscatter712]

22. Not systematic. Not organized. And certainly called out when it did happen.

The left-wingers call out their own when one of them uses hateful or violent rhetoric, and certainly did not use such rhetoric in a systematic way.

See my other post linking to the Daily Kos article on Stochastic Terrorism to explain what the right-wing is doing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x170870

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1/10/934890/-Stochastic-Terrorism:-Triggering-the-shooters.

The right wing is deliberately using violent rhetoric in a systematic way, designed to push unstable people over the edge. I will say it again. Not that it absolves Loughner of responsibility for his actions (it doesn't), but think of Jared Lee Loughner not as the murderer, but as the murder weapon, wielded by Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, the Koch Brothers, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, etc. etc. etc.

They spew this hateful, violent rhetoric deliberately, having calculated that it's only a matter of time before some nutcase grabs his gun and attacks liberals. What they didn't count on was the "collateral damage", which this time included a nine-year-old girl.

[seabeyond]

25. i dont agree. with broken laws, loss of lives, little "death" rhetoric towards bushco. prosecute

and impeach was the meme of the day.

[Generic Other]

30. Yes, I recall Gore calling us all to arms in 2001 after the selection

He urged DISENFRANCHISED voters to defend him with uzis. His great battlecry: Kill the Usurpers! Count the chads or count the bullet holes. Honestly. What alternate universe did you live in for 8 years?

The only death rhetoric I heard during the Bush years was directed toward Iraq and Saddam and was coming from the rightwing.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

74. Yeah

don't forget about the threats made ("shut up and sing") towards the Dixie Chicks- and all they did was express shame that they hailed from the same state as George W. Bush. :puke:

[Goblinmonger]

80. How much hate rhetoric has been made on here

toward Mel Gibson and any number of other artists that are Republican.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

83. Are you trying to establish some kind of "equivalency" between the left and the right

I know that Republican/right-wing celebrities aren't looked at kindly on this site (and others) but none of them AFAIK have ever received death threats related to their voting records and/or political activism nor has there been any organized boycott of their movies, music, etc. although I'm sure that some people have undoubtedly been turned off by, for instance, some of Mel Gibson's overtly racist and homophobic rants. Heard of any left-wing groups organizing burnings of memorabilia of any particular Republican/right-wing celebrities? The only celebrities that I can recall being denounced for their political activism have all been left-wingers such as Jane Fonda, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Michael Moore, among others. It could just be that I haven't heard but.........?
Do you have any examples of any "hate rhetoric" and/or threats made by left-wingers towards any particular right-wing celebrities that you would care to share? :shrug:

[WinkyDink]

149. Wow. You really are jettisoning any pretense.

[KansasVoter]

31. -1 for no examples of MSM doing that about Bush!

[spanone]

32. it's one thing to have palin do it and someone on a message board....that's the difference

[Goblinmonger]

35. I've read plenty of posts that say "we" don't do this.

And it isn't just about Dem politicians. It is a collective "we." That is what needs to stop.

[hfojvt]

142. aren't you that scary atheist my mom warned me about?

You want beyond "we don't don't do this" though. That's the same point that I was trying to refute a few days ago. To make the point that, yes, Virginia, somestimes rhetoric from the left is full of hate and vitriol as well. However, I would not agree with your OP which says "we are just as bad as they are". I still believe that we are the lesser of two evils, but that is different from the common belief around these parts that they are pure evil Sharks and we are pure good Jets. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/122

[Goblinmonger]

157. I wasn't saying that our rhetoric is just as bad

The "we are just as bad as they are" was about if we deny that we do it, THEN we are just as bad. Their rhetoric is worse. Never denied that. But to say we don't do it puts us in a position of defending a lie.

[spotbird]

120. And since such comments are anonymous,

and deleted promptly, they could easily be planted by trolls, but the site's policy is crystal clear. No violence. Why does this confuse the people who pretend that it's the same from both sides?

[Silent3]

33. At the level of a "Yeah? You do it too!" shouting match...

...certainly neither side can claim purity in regards to threats of violence and death. It is also unfortunately true that political discussions in our news media often don't rise far above the intellectual level of that kind of shouting match.

I think makes a big difference, however, that Republicans have mainstreamed violent rhetoric in their own ranks, whereas to find that kind of rhetoric on the left you need to look for obscure politicians and random unknown political protesters to find much of the same thing.

That difference is not enough of a difference to win "purity" contests -- so you can definitely expect "purity" rather than measures of degree or kind to be what the right wing pushes when evaluating the use of violent rhetoric.

I don't think that means we should give up pointing out that there is a large and important difference between Democrats and Republicans in the use of violent rhetoric, however, just that we have to be careful not to fall into the trap of appearing to be hypocrites by failing to admit that we aren't absolutely pure, or by unintentionally letting someone else frame what we say about being far less guilty of violent rhetoric as blindness to or denial of our own lack of purity.

[Goblinmonger]

37. I absolutely agree with you. But many on here claim "purity."

That this is something that the left doesn't do. Instead the focus of the argument needs to be who is saying it and how. But to take the approach of many that Dems are always saints and Repubs are the only ones that do it ever will not work well.

[U4ikLefty]

131. You show me 10 DUers that claim purity on this

cmon!!!

[tom_paine]

34. Don't fall for the False Equivalency Bushie Psy-Op

Repeat after me: Just because a kayak and an aircraft carrier are both ships DOES NOT mean they are the SAME SHIP.

Some marketing genius must have figured this out, focus-grouped it and calibrated it to perfection years ago, since it has been used so many times with near 100% statistical success. Because of that I postulate that the whole propaganda pattern of this particular method must be based on some psychological or wiring fault that allows this RW psyops strategy to fool so many people so effectively for so long.

OK, so some demonstrators went over the line with their Bush signs. I concede that, as relates to the demonstrators, that is a very valid point. That, too is a RW psyops strategy. They wrap their lies in a grain of truth to make the rest of the lie easier to swallow.

Now that we've got the RW's "grain of truth" bracketed, let's look at the Big Lie of False Equivalency that surrounds it. Show me the LW pundits and politicians using absolutist and eliminationist language to describe the other side. Show me any time since the 60s and early 70s when LWers used violence against RWers (and let us not forget the RW KKK and rest of the Old Confederacy was beating the shit out of and mutrdering Liberals by the dozens at the same time back in the 60s and early 70s). Name one recent incident of LW violence against RWers. Hell, LWers aren't even allowed to get close to RW pundits and poltiicians while RWers got close enough to surround and spit at Pelosi and Cleaver, among others.

I could go on and on, but there are so many threads flying around her today with the info, it wouldn't take long for you to search up stuff yourself. But you get the gist of my point, I think.

Just because a kayak and an aircraft carrier are both ships DOES NOT mean they are the SAME SHIP.
Just because a kayak and an aircraft carrier are both ships DOES NOT mean they are the SAME SHIP.
Just because a kayak and an aircraft carrier are both ships DOES NOT mean they are the SAME SHIP.
Just because a kayak and an aircraft carrier are both ships DOES NOT mean they are the SAME SHIP.
Just because a kayak and an aircraft carrier are both ships DOES NOT mean they are the SAME SHIP!

As a longtime DUer who has been following this far longer than yourself, mostlikely, I just thought I'd clue you into to one of the many RW focus-tested very successful PR strategies.

The only defense I've yet discovered against it? Keep in mind: Just because a kayak and an aircraft carrier are both ships DOES NOT mean they are the SAME SHIP!

In the future, keep this RW marketing method in mind, because it WILL be used again (and again and again and...)

It might save you from making carrying RW water for no good reason other than that you mistakenly fell for their False equivalency PsyOp.

[Goblinmonger]

38. What should those on here that say no Dems to this ever, remember?

Because there are plenty of those people, too.

I understand the differences. Though my navy brother would seriously get into an argument with you about the definition of a boat and a ship: A kayak is a boat; and aircraft carrier is a ship.

[tom_paine]

49. Tell the truth. That some Dems at the ground-level do, in fact, sometimes

go overboard on rhetoric (all groups of people sometimes do), and that to make a blanket statement is imprecise but overall those people are generally correct, but impercise absolutist language like that only plays into RW hands. (as it lends unwarranted credibility their False Equivalency Op)

Totalitarians, as the current RW is doing today, use their propaganda, lies, misinformation and disinformation to constantly engineer no-win scenarios for their enemies. Given that the Democratic Leadership seldom does anything more than walk chin first into whatever trap the Bushies lay out for them, these no-win scenarios cannot be beaten.

But that's another topic for another long post: Bushie PsyOp/Infoganda Op #17b (I just made that number up - I don't have them in a numbered file or anything) ;-)

[Goblinmonger]

50. Fair enough.

And I really do think you have them numbered in a file.

[Chorophyll]

39. Sorry, no.

Those pictures of individual protesters are NOTHING when compared with Republican leaders and candidates calling for violence. Want specifics? How about Giffords' opponent:

Last summer, Ms. Giffords found herself challenged by Jesse Kelly, a Republican candidate with Tea Party backing, who assailed Ms. Giffords on health care and immigration. He held a “targeting victory” fund-raiser in which he invited contributors to shoot an M-16 with him.

and

Mr. Kelly, who won the nomination after defeating a moderate Republican, offered tough-worded attacks on the establishment and Ms. Giffords. “These people who think they are better than us, they look down on us every single day and tell us what kind of health care to buy,” he said at a rally in October. “And if you dare to stand up to the government they call us a mob. We’re about to show them what a mob looks like.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/us/11district.html?hp

That's not a protester with a puppet who wants the president charged with war crimes. That is an official Republican candidate for the U.S. Congress stirring up fear, hatred and violence among his supporters. And what do you know? His opponent pulls off a win, then gets shot.

[Goblinmonger]

41. Sorry, I don't think those two are that bad.

It was "targeting victory" not "targeting Giffords." What did they shoot the M-16 at? If it were an effigy of her, we'd have a point. Kelly thought people would like to shoot an M-16. Nothing that would turn my crank, but whatever. Saying that having a rally where there are guns is rhetoric of violence against Dems is just not true. Plenty of Dem gun supporters would disagree with you.

The "mob" rhetoric struck me at the time as the "take back the government" rhetoric of the tea baggers. The "get out and vote and make your voice heard" stuff.

I don't see fear and hatred. OK, maybe hatred but no more than the hatred that many liberals felt toward Bush. Violence? OK, maybe you have an argument with the guns, but that isn't violence aimed at Dems.

[Chorophyll]

48. Why not read the whole article?

It's about the climate of fear and tension that's been brewing in Arizona for some time now, largely ratcheted up by rhetoric against Obama and the "illegals."

If you don't see the violence implied in Kelly's fundraiser (why on EARTH should a political fundraiser involve shooting an M16, unless you're stoking the primal fear among certain people that Obama will come and take your gun away) and the very real act of violence perpetrated against Giffords, then we are living on two different planets.

That, and the fact that you went to the trouble of finding "scary leftwing protester" pictures to post here at DU.

'Mkay.

[mmonk]

42. No comparison. It didn't come from recognized or formal circles

like commercial media, politicians, etc.. But know this, the vitriol based on eliminationist speech is directed against us.

[marmar]

46. What is with all these DU posts promoting this false equivalency?

nt

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Rex]

111. Take one guess.

[ClassWarrior]

47. Most are calling for his execution by the state for crimes. I disagree with even that...

...but it's hardly, "Put on your man pants and take some second amendment remedies."

Besides, I thought RWers were all about the death penalty. :shrug:

NGU.

[devilgrrl]

53. And how many acted on it? What Democratic rep. sent a death threat - or media personality?

:popcorn:

[Goblinmonger]

55. I don't really believe this guy acted on Palin's threat

He is seriously mentally unstable. If Palin's map had not existed, he still would have gone over the edge.

[devilgrrl]

58. I agree...

and hopefully, if anything comes out of this, is that this country starts doing a better job caring for the mentally ill.

[Goblinmonger]

59. I'm right with you. n/t

[coalition_unwilling]

145. The whole friggin country (DU excepted) is mentally ill - n/t

[seabeyond]

62. you dont kow this. you are totally clueless. everyone knows you dont know and are clueless.

what an absurd presumption to put out as fact.

[Goblinmonger]

63. I didn't say I "knew" it.

I don't "know" it. That's why I used the word "believe." Way to jump on me for a strawman you created.

[woo me with science]

77. It is more likely that he didn't see it than that he saw it.

And frankly it is preposterous to argue that that stupid chart pushed anyone over the edge.

[seabeyond]

81. no, it is not more likely. why would you say that. again, you dont know. i dont know

but then i have yet to say the odds are, he was watching all the shit.

all i do i line out facts we know. they all point right.

that is it. that is what we know

he could have listened to right 24/7 as far as we know. there is NO info to support or not to support

[spotbird]

123. Palin knew what she was doing

If she can read or think. It was reported at the time, and she didn't walk it back, instead she ratcheted the violent rhetoric up a notch. Her local paper which is normally quite supportive of Palin recognized the controversy reported on it at the time:



Palin's firearms-themed rhetoric called dangerous -- UPDATED



"RELOAD!" Sarah Palin shouted at right-wing supporters via Twitter on Tuesday after President Obama signed the House health care bill. On her Facebook page, she posted a U.S. map with crosshair targets in states where she's planning to campaign against moderate Democrats who voted in favor of the health insurance overhaul. "We'll aim for these races," she wrote, in the "first salvo" leading up to the midterm elections. A few liberal commentators don't find that kind of rhetoric amusing.

......

Joan Walsh, Salon.com: Most (but probably not all) Palin supporters may insist the tuckered-out former Alaska governor meant "reload" metaphorically. But in a country where angry right-wingers carry guns to see the president speak, and spit on African-American congressmen, I thought it was a chilling statement. Will any Republican denounce Palin's language?

.......
.

Maybe you don't understand the difference between a single comment, retracted or extending a widely used cliché which was asked in a question in the answer. I can explan it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

[littlewolf]

66. here is one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=162500&mesg_id=167891

[elias49]

57. No equivalency - the 'left' can spell. nt

[Goblinmonger]

60. I did notice that as I looked through the pictures.

We do have a better grasp of writing conventions.

[formernaderite]

64. the kid was crazy... he wasn't influenced by anyone on either side

seriously... the rush to blame has been hilarious to watch.

[EstimatedProphet]

73. No, he was crazy

But crazy doesn't mean that he would necessarily go out on a shooting spree. Just dismissing this act as crazy doesn't cut it. Besides, the point of the argument against violent rhetoric is that it is likely to get to someone who is mentally unbalanced in the first place, so the shooter being crazy only strengthens the blame.

[formernaderite]

84. so where are the daily shootings?

If what you're saying would hold true..wouldn't we be seeing non-stop violence? I'm sure we don't just have ONE crazy in all of the US. This kid has apparently been stalking the congresswoman for a few years. His actions had nothing to do with anything beyond easy access to her, and his condition worsening.

[Catherina]

65. No flames here thoough as many pointed out, it was almost exclusively private citizens doing it. n/t

[tilsammans]

67. What Repubs DON'T "remember," they make up n/t

[sadbear]

68. Our rage was directed at one person, bush (well, maybe two people)

Their rage is directed at all of us. They want all liberals gone. They blame all America's problem on us. Not just our leaders. Us.

[lynne]

69. Agree 100% and its been going on by both parties long before Bush or Obama -

- but it seems that some can't remember beyond last year or so. The focus on "who said what when" takes away from what we should really be looking at - HOW did this guy slip through the cracks? He alone is responsible for his actions but he's obviously mentally ill and it wasn't a secret based on his history. So why didn't any one of the persons or groups that he had contact with make sure he got help?

An article on the mental health laws of Arizona indicates that anyone could have alerted authorities and required him to be evaluated. That didn't happen. Why?

Article here > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/10/AR2011011007049.html

[LanternWaste]

70. You of course can supply us with...

You of course can supply us with a ratio of one side's death rhetoric versus the other side's? You can of course point us to towards Democratic candidates running on, and exploiting that rhetoric? You can of course supply us with the names of relevant liberal media/radio persona who have, at best directly implied violence and threats of violence? I ask this because you did little more than supply anecdotal evidence rather than a real pattern of violent rhetoric being used by the left.


"I'm ready to be flamed..." Everyone likes to assume the role of martyr at one point or another. :eyes:

[Goblinmonger]

71. I don't think I made anything more than an anecdotal claim.

I certainly wasn't making claims of trends or anything.

I'm sure you go after the same people that make causation claims about Palin to this shooter?

My comment about being ready to be flamed was a disclaimer that I know what I was going to say was not going to be popular. That's it. I still feel I have the right to say it and have no desire (or ability, if I were really arguing this) to be a martyr.

[Orrex]

92. Well, here's the problem

You're saying that the Left and Right are equally guilty of incendiary rhetoric, or at least the we on the Left have no basis for criticizing the Right's violent sloganeering.

However, in doing so, you equate the extremist fringe minority of the Left with the leaders of the Right's mainstream thought machine. There's no equivalency at all. It would be like saying that no Democrats have any right to criticize Bush the war criminal because some Democrats voted for the Iraq war.


Your OP is guilty of false equivalency and, after a fashion, of equivocation as well. The disparity between fringe-Left and mainstream-Right must be cited when discussing the relative heat of the invective on either side.

[Goblinmonger]

98. Nope and nope

1. I am not saying we are equally guilty. I am saying that we both do it. I will maintain that the right is more vocal and more violent and has more exposure.

2. I don't say we have no basis for criticizing just that our criticism is less effective when we pretend that we don't do it. Because we do and the right remembers that. So when we say we don't and then make the arugments in #1 above, #1 gets lost because they have the lie first that we don't do it.

So, no false equivalency. I'm not sure what term I redefined for equivocation, but I don't think so. I also don't think that the mainstream-Right is as guilty of it as many on here contend (notice I didn't say they weren't guilty just that it is very rare--I would not put Palin in the mainstream-Right, btw).

[Orrex]

136. The "gotcha" subject line of your OP establishes the false equivalency

So, yes false equivalency.

The subordinate point--that the minimal and disorganized death rhetoric from the Left doesn't hold a candle to the multi-billion dollar Rightwing hate/death machine--was weakly made and totally overshadowed by the subject line and the disingenuous claim to flame-martyrdom.


Also, you're surely aware that equivocation doesn't solely mean the slanted redefinition of a single word; it applies equally to the deliberate misrepresentation of a concept. In this way it is akin to a straw man, but whereas the straw man seeks to represent the weakest link as the whole, equivocation is the misrepresentation of the whole or part of the whole.

And Palin most certainly is mainstream-Right, insofar as no one on the Right will take a firm, definitive stand to say "Ms. Palin doesn't speak for me or represent my views."

She postures herself as a viable Rightwing spokesperson. It's not up to me to let the Right off the hook by arguing that she isn't.

[grahamhgreen]

78. A) this was not done by Fox News or a major media outlet; B) Not done

by party leaders or representatives C) nobody got shot

[Goblinmonger]

82. Do you really think that is why this guy went on a shooting spree?

I don't. Not saying the rhetoric shouldn't stop, but I don't believe it was a causation.

[grahamhgreen]

112. Absolutely. If it wasn't him, it would have been one of these whackos, IMHO.

I believe this is just the kind of trouble they are trying to stir up.

Some people make money off of strife, the more, the better.

[Arkana]

89. Not on Democratic Underground, and not on any of the liberal blogs.

No one--NO ONE--threatened to kill Bush in the "leftosphere" (I'm using that as a collective term to describe all things liberal, Democratic, etc).

[Goblinmonger]

104. Check above

Skinner was contacted by the Secret Service because of things posted on DU.

[6000eliot]

90. It was never mainstream the way theirs is.

[ellenfl]

91. i don't recall having much of a lw media presence when dubya

was the decider and i haven't seen or heard anything like faux since we have been represented. have individual lefties proposed violence? probably. but where would we have seen them, unless we watched faux news? the left was so ignored by the msm that we never even got to see free speech zones or the millions who marched against the war. imo the only images you would see about the left during dubya's reign would be images to discredit us.

i still see no equivalency.

ellen fl

[JNelson6563]

93. I confess.

Once here on DU I posted that I hope the Bushies are dealt the worst sorts of death mother nature can come up with (I know bone cancer is a particularly nasty way to go).

Julie--who still holds that view

[RainDog]

101. How many of them have a national news program supported by the national party?

just wondering.

[EFerrari]

105. Go watch this TYT's segment.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x542498

[Hannah Bell]

107. gee, i see a collection of signs written by anonymous protesters, not by media figures

& politicians with 24/7 access to the public airwaves.

[Bluerthanblue]

109. you speak the uncomfortable, unpopular truth-

recommended.

We have to be the people we claim to be.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

116. When the RW say the Arryan Brotherhood and KKK are their people..

... then maybe 'we' will own up to lunatics.

The things is.. OUR POLITICIANS DONT SOUND LIKE THESE FRINGE ELEMENTS!

[Bluerthanblue]

132. no, our politicians don't sound like the fringe elements, but if you

are only going to do what is 'right' when your opponent does so first, then you've lost imo. I don't think we should wait for the right-wing, or allow their behaviour to dictate ours. That would be allowing them to control us- and manipulate us.

The hatefilled messages and threats aren't "equal" imo- but that doesn't matter. We do ..'own' a share of the uglyness- and should continue to encourage our party as a whole, to not stoop to or tolerate the worst of what is said and done.

The fact that the RW is NOT accepting responsibility, but instead pointing to us and saying "yeah, but look what THEY do" reminds me of my kids. When one of them was caught doing something wrong, they'd point to the other and try to avoid owning their actions.

We can acknowledge the fact that 'we' aren't perfect, while still confronting the over-the-top words and actions of the high profile individuals in the Republican party. Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, Boehner, McConnell etc.

[EFerrari]

126. Palin Rally: "Kill Him" Yelled Again

The Huffington Post | Rachel Weiner
First Posted: 10-14-08 02:32 PM | Updated: 11-14-08 05:12 AM



Chris Hackett addressed the increasingly feisty crowd as they await the arrival of Gov. Palin.


Each time the Republican candidate for the seat in the 10th Congressional District mentioned Barack Obama the crowd booed loudly.

One man screamed "kill him!"

At previous rallies, McCain-Palin supporters have shouted "Kill Him!" as well as "Treason!" "Terrorist!" and "Off With His Head!"

The latest violent call came on the same day that Brave New Films has come out with a compilation of these moments, urging supporters to "tell John McCain to end the politics of hate."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/14/palin-rally-kill-him-yell_n_134597.html

[Rex]

110. Yes by individuals that didn't have a billion dollar platform to stand

on and tell MILLIONs to go out and be violent toward your political opponent. You comparison has no merit, sorry. The Right has a billion dollar hate machine with national outlets all over the country.

Nice try but epic fail.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

114. There are probably Leftist threats against Obama too.

After all, his policies aren't make a lot of leftists very happy.

HOWEVER, point to ONE DEMOCRATIC POLITICIAN that COURTED these people in CAMPAIGN REQUESTS and SUPPORT?

One thing about a 'protest' by a group of people.
Completely different when these folks are STANDING AT A TEA PARTY RALLY being cheered on / greeted by PALIN & BECK.

[Catherina]

119. No flames here. Recommended. n/t

[Rabrrrrrr]

121. And even if Republicans DON'T remember something, they'll just make it up anyway.

And if they DO remember something, they'll just makeup whatever they prefer to be the truth. Sometimes it's factual and reality, most times it isn't.

[KamaAina]

140. But were there crosshairs over Crawford, TX on a map?

:shrug:

[joe_sixpack]

147. Since you brought it up...

The one incident I remember was this:

Alan Hevesi was number one - with a bullet - when he lamely tried to fete Queens College honoree Senator Charles Schumer by saying, "We really feel bad for poor Chuck, the U.S. Senator, the man who, uh, uh, how do I phrase this diplomatically, who will put a bullet between the president's eyes if he could get away with it.

This was even discussed on DU, with some over the top comments.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1329987

[WinkyDink]

148. Repeat after me: "NOT from national politicians or national media figures." THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.

[rko_24550]

151. Good point, I guess

[WinkyDink]

152. Is that your "guess," is it?

[upi402]

153. BULLSHIT

There's incitement to violence and hate on the right - radio and TV - 24 hours a day. They feel no reason to hide it, no shame.

Liberal incitement to violence? You have to scour and scrape to find one instance buried in anonymity.

So your OP is 100% BULLSHIT! Many of those signs on your link are the same guy - who looks like the posterboy for all the rednecks I know. I call bullshit on some of that site too.

[Hugabear]

154. Would you please not link to RW bullshit, your attempt at equivalency is a fail

As others have pointed out, how many instances are there of Democratic politicians encouraging acts of violence against rethugs. NONE. Sorry, that Untouchables quote doesn't count. Anybody with half a fucking brain can see that.

How many left-leaning radio talk show hosts have you heard advocating violence against rethugs?

[Richard Steele]

156. Utter fucking bullshit.

nm