Wis. G.O.P Receiving Death Threats. No Call for Civility?

[You-Gi-Owe]

Again, I have been supporting the idea that a call for civility would be a good thing. What would be the bad effects on liberals and/or democrats if their leadership made a call for civility? I would actually be impressed if they did, sort of like Mahatma Ghandi telling his hindu people to stop fighting with the muslims.

The simple fact is the Wis. Democratic Party leadership has already done the job for him, especially in how this a state matter making to actually more legitimacy as they are the one closer to fire in order to put it out.

Simply, the bad effect if President Obama steps up in speeches it greatly increases the image of the unions and protesters as being more violent then they really are or why else would the President have to step in.It would be like demanding the Republican party leadership as whole denounce call for civility every time there is reports of threats on Obama it would create a feeling of association between the party and the threats.

edit: posted jumbled following edit so fix sentence order

Recognizing the very principled persons calling out against the death threats, I still find myself wishing someone of the President's stature were doing this. It's like the difference between a nickle and a quarter. Just a feeling I have.

Now, I very much appreciated your thoughts on why a greater call for civility might be bad. Do you think-speculate that the President might have thought his call for civility might have the effect of making his opponents look even more barbaric to his followers and the segment of the population that doesn't follow politics as well as you or I?

[Fartsniffage]

The simple fact is the Wis. Democratic Party leadership has already done the job for him, especially in how this a state matter making to actually more legitimacy as they are the one closer to fire in order to put it out.

Simply, the bad effect if President Obama steps up in speeches it greatly increases the image of the unions and protesters as being more violent then they really are or why else would the President have to step in.It would be like demanding the Republican party leadership as whole denounce call for civility every time there is reports of threats on Obama it would create a feeling of association between the party and the threats.

edit: posted jumbled following edit so fix sentence order

Recognizing the very principled persons calling out against the death threats, I still find myself wishing someone of the President's stature were doing this. It's like the difference between a nickle and a quarter. Just a feeling I have.

Now, I very much appreciated your thoughts on why a greater call for civility might be bad. Do you think-speculate that the President might have thought his call for civility might have the effect of making his opponents look even more barbaric to his followers and the segment of the population that doesn't follow politics as well as you or I?

Did you know that when you just glance at your avatar it looks like a mermaid riding a surfboard? Nothing to do with the thread, I just wanted to point it out because it's been bugging me since you changed it.

[You-Gi-Owe]

Did you know that when you just glance at your avatar it looks like a mermaid riding a surfboard? Nothing to do with the thread, I just wanted to point it out because it's been bugging me since you changed it.

Best image of Go Man Van Gogh I could find on the web.

[Revolutopia]

Recognizing the very principled persons calling out against the death threats, I still find myself wishing someone of the President's stature were doing this. It's like the difference between a nickle and a quarter. Just a feeling I have.

Now, I very much appreciated your thoughts on why a greater call for civility might be bad. Do you think-speculate that the President might have thought his call for civility might have the effect of making his opponents look even more barbaric to his followers and the segment of the population that doesn't follow politics as well as you or I?

Simply, the state matter in Wisconsin has already been handled there is no need for Obama to get involved as the matter has been handled by those in charge on the ground of the whole conflict.

While, the Tuscon attack was Federal matter as it was attack on two members of the Federal government and a group of unconnected citizens. Therefore, creating for a greater need for a Federal leadership to comment and act on the manner. Moreover, about vilification after Tuscon both sides attacked each other following the events as saying the one of first poster comments I saw on the news sight reporting the instance was some one blaming Hispanics for the attack. Creating an atmosphere where no local side was likely to accept blame first further creating a need for a centering figure to call both to claim down. Additionally, if Obama had not done anything you know he would have been attacked by the likes of Rush, Beck, Hannity and rest of the right wing media machine for it.

[You-Gi-Owe]

Recognizing the very principled persons calling out against the death threats, I still find myself wishing someone of the President's stature were doing this. It's like the difference between a nickle and a quarter. Just a feeling I have.

Now, I very much appreciated your thoughts on why a greater call for civility might be bad. Do you think-speculate that the President might have thought his call for civility might have the effect of making his opponents look even more barbaric to his followers and the segment of the population that doesn't follow politics as well as you or I?

Simply, the state matter in Wisconsin has already been handled there is no need for Obama to get involved as the matter has been handled by those in charge on the ground of the whole conflict.

While, the Tuscon attack was Federal matter as it was attack on two members of the Federal government and a group of unconnected citizens. Therefore, creating for a greater need for a Federal leadership to comment and act on the manner. Moreover, about vilification after Tuscon both sides attacked each other following the events as saying the one of first comments I saw on the news sight reporting the instance was some one blaming Hispanics for the attack. Creating an atmosphere where no local side was likely to accept blame first further creating a need for a centering figure to call both to claim down. Additionally, if Obama had not done anything you know he would have been attacked by the likes of Rush, Beck, Hannity and rest of the right wing media machine for it.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with the effectiveness of the handling of Wisconsin. I doubt we can agree there.

I'm really more interested in the calls for toning down the rhetoric before the AZ attack. The chaos created by the various news media was awful, like expecting a television weather news reader to know about meteorology, "blah-blah-blah-we-really-don't-know." I think you're projecting your fears a little, the radio hosts you've mentioned really value their credibility, while still being quite opinionated, so the President would have had to have mis-stepped very badly.

[Alien Space Bats]

The fact that most Republicans didn't want universal healthcare should be irrelevant. Most Americans (as a non-partisan catchment) do.

Non-Republicans aren't REAL Americans, silly.

[You-Gi-Owe]

The fact that most Republicans didn't want universal healthcare should be irrelevant. Most Americans (as a non-partisan catchment) do.

Non-Republicans aren't REAL Americans, silly.

Of course, there can be non-Republican Americans, sillier than me.

Actually, I have nothing against a morally correct universal healthcare. It's just not financially possible.

[Alien Space Bats]

Again, I have been supporting the idea that a call for civility would be a good thing. What would be the bad effects on liberals and/or democrats if their leadership made a call for civility? I would actually be impressed if they did, sort of like Mahatma Ghandi telling his hindu people to stop fighting with the muslims.

And you have ignored my obvious response: FOX News and other conservative media outlets have falsely attempted to depict the protests as borderline violent (by using false film footage, etc.). A nonspecific call for "civility" (which is what you want) would be used by these liars are proof that their false claims are, in fact, true, as well as a "proof" that the Democratic leadership was "distancing itself" from its base (this latter being essential if the Democratic base, which is currently quite energized, is to be properly demoralized into the sort of passivity we saw prior to the 2010 off-year elections).

Arrest the woman responsible for the mass e-mail death threat (which Wisconsin could do) and Democrats can unit in condemning her for going too far. isn't that simple?

[Revolutopia]

I think you're projecting your fears a little, the radio hosts you've mentioned really value their credibility, while still being quite opinionated, so the President would have had to have mis-stepped very badly.

Really?

You really think Rush, Beck, and Hannity care about their credibility more then attacking Obama. I am sorry I don't believe that at all looking at all the lies they have attack with from birther conspiracy, calling him a Nazi/Communist/Racist, claiming Death Panels in his Health care reform, directly saying they hope his presidency fails, etc I am sorry I don't believe that all. In order, to not be extremely partisan I will admit it was same with Bush with figures like Michael Moore as both side's talking heads don't care about credibility but instead only wanting to demonize the other side.

So tell do you really believe the right's talking heads would have left Obama alone if he did not comment on the Tuscon shooting?

[Grave_n_idle]

Non-Republicans aren't REAL Americans, silly.

Of course, there can be non-Republican Americans, sillier than me.

Actually, I have nothing against a morally correct universal healthcare. It's just not financially possible.

Sounds like partisan ideological nonsense.

The UK manages a morally acceptable universal model... at half the per capita cost of our American shitbomb.

[You-Gi-Owe]

Again, I have been supporting the idea that a call for civility would be a good thing. What would be the bad effects on liberals and/or democrats if their leadership made a call for civility? I would actually be impressed if they did, sort of like Mahatma Ghandi telling his hindu people to stop fighting with the muslims.

And you have ignored my obvious response: FOX News and other conservative media outlets have falsely attempted to depict the protests as borderline violent (by using false film footage, etc.). A nonspecific call for "civility" (which is what you want) would be used by these liars are proof that their false claims are, in fact, true, as well as a "proof" that the Democratic leadership was "distancing itself" from its base (this latter being essential if the Democratic base, which is currently quite energized, is to be properly demoralized into the sort of passivity we saw prior to the 2010 off-year elections).

Arrest the woman responsible for the mass e-mail death threat (which Wisconsin could do) and Democrats can unit in condemning her for going too far. isn't that simple?

So, your saying it's okay for a call for civility to stifle your opponents' free speech, but if there are death threats against your opponents then it's okay not to call for civility because that will demoralize your own supporters, yes?

[You-Gi-Owe]

Of course, there can be non-Republican Americans, sillier than me.

Actually, I have nothing against a morally correct universal healthcare. It's just not financially possible.

Sounds like partisan ideological nonsense.

The UK manages a morally acceptable universal model... at half the per capita cost of our American shitbomb.

I don't always agree with U.K. and Canadian type health care decisions. Sorry.

[Revolutopia]

So, your saying it's okay for a call for civility to stifle your opponents' free speech, but if there are death threats against your opponents then it's okay not to call for civility because that will demoralize your own supporters, yes?

Once again, you know this can be equally thrown back into Republican faces of the same tactics and reasoning they used.

Sounds like partisan ideological nonsense.

The UK manages a morally acceptable universal model... at half the per capita cost of our American shitbomb.

I don't always agree with U.K. and Canadian type health care decisions. Sorry.

You know not everyone has the same morals, thus if we go by the principle that one does not always agree with something nothing could ever be done.

[You-Gi-Owe]

I think you're projecting your fears a little, the radio hosts you've mentioned really value their credibility, while still being quite opinionated, so the President would have had to have mis-stepped very badly.

Really?

You really think Rush, Beck, and Hannity care about their credibility more then attacking Obama. I am sorry I don't believe that at all looking at all the lies they have attack with from birther conspiracy, calling him a Nazi/Communist/Racist, claiming Death Panels in his Health care reform, directly saying they hope his presidency fails, etc I am sorry I don't believe that all. In order, to not be extremely partisan I will admit it was same with Bush with figures like Michael Moore as both side's talking heads don't care about credibility but instead only wanting to demonize the other side.

So tell do you really believe the right's talking heads would have left Obama alone if he did not comment on the Tuscon shooting?

IMHO, yes, the guys care more about their credibility than jumping at every chance to attack the President. Again, not to say that they don't have very strong personal opinions about him.

Re: death panels, it's going to be grusome no matter who decides who gets what operation/transplant-etcetera and ObamaCare did/does (I forget) have mechanisms for who got how much treatment.

When Michael Moore has a popular week-daily radio show, I promise to tune in for as long as I can stand it, to sift fact from opinion.

[Los Cabreddes]

Again, I have been supporting the idea that a call for civility would be a good thing. What would be the bad effects on liberals and/or democrats if their leadership made a call for civility? I would actually be impressed if they did, sort of like Mahatma Ghandi telling his hindu people to stop fighting with the muslims.

And you have ignored my obvious response: FOX News and other conservative media outlets have falsely attempted to depict the protests as borderline violent (by using false film footage, etc.). A nonspecific call for "civility" (which is what you want) would be used by these liars are proof that their false claims are, in fact, true, as well as a "proof" that the Democratic leadership was "distancing itself" from its base (this latter being essential if the Democratic base, which is currently quite energized, is to be properly demoralized into the sort of passivity we saw prior to the 2010 off-year elections).

Arrest the woman responsible for the mass e-mail death threat (which Wisconsin could do) and Democrats can unit in condemning her for going too far. isn't that simple?

So you've actually given a good reason for answering no. Well done. Now just one question, are you actually right?

[You-Gi-Owe]

So, your saying it's okay for a call for civility to stifle your opponents' free speech, but if there are death threats against your opponents then it's okay not to call for civility because that will demoralize your own supporters, yes?

Once again, you know this can be equally thrown back into Republican faces of the same tactics and reasoning they used.

I don't always agree with U.K. and Canadian type health care decisions. Sorry.

You know not everyone has the same morals, thus if we go by the principle that one does not always agree with something nothing could ever be done.

Rev, I was trying to speak to ASB about the topic. I think you and I understand one another, beyond the "turn about makes fair play". Shouldn't we stop the "eye for an eye making the whole world blind"? That what I'm trying to say. Let's "give peace a chance".

[Lunar Rai]

In my own opinion, both sides should say "Violence is bad, don't use it", then get back to ruining running the country.

Incidentally, stop using Nazi, communist, and socialist interchangeably. They are not the same things.

[Revolutopia]

IMHO, yes, the guys care more about their credibility than jumping at every chance to attack the President. Again, not to say that they don't have very strong personal opinions about him.

Re: death panels, it's going to be grusome no matter who decides who gets what operation/transplant-etcetera and ObamaCare did/does (I forget) have mechanisms for who got how much treatment.

When Michael Moore has a popular week-daily radio show, I promise to tune in for as long as I can stand it, to sift fact from opinion.

Can you provide me any sources of them apologizing for any of their attacks on the president that have turned out to be not true, along with denouncing calls of him being a Nazi/anti-American/communist/socialist/racist . Additionally, of them praising any action he has taken without it being a backhanded compliment. It would be much appreciated.

[Revolutopia]

Rev, I was trying to speak to ASB about the topic. I think you and I understand one another, beyond the "turn about makes fair play". Shouldn't we stop the "eye for an eye making the whole world blind"? That what I'm trying to say. Let's "give peace a chance".

Yes, it would be nice to stop the fighting. However, it is equally idiotic for the Democrats to get their eye poked out, but then refuse to perform retribution at all the while the Republicans are trying to stab them in their other eye.

Maybe, they would be more corporative if the Republicans and Fox stood up and admitted that the Unions have been remarkably peaceful in their protests which has been supported by the majority of Americans. Instead, of falsifying numbers to make it look like they were unpopular, claiming they are causing 7 million dollars in damage, and all around calling them thugs.

Moreover, you even had Republican leader admit that one of the reason for their attack on the unions was to make it harder for Obama to win in 2012. Edit more on this: One should find this as equally appalling as if Democrats had decided to recognize and mass tax Conservative mega-churches in effort to close them down.

Simply, put the call for civility and honesty needs to come both sides yet this thread only aims at one.

[You-Gi-Owe]

IMHO, yes, the guys care more about their credibility than jumping at every chance to attack the President. Again, not to say that they don't have very strong personal opinions about him.

Re: death panels, it's going to be grusome no matter who decides who gets what operation/transplant-etcetera and ObamaCare did/does (I forget) have mechanisms for who got how much treatment.

When Michael Moore has a popular week-daily radio show, I promise to tune in for as long as I can stand it, to sift fact from opinion.

Can you provide me any sources of them apologizing for any of their attacks on the president that have turned out to be not true, along with denouncing calls of him being a Nazi/anti-American/communist/socialist/racist . Additionally, of them praising any action he has taken without it being a backhanded compliment. It would be much appreciated.

Rev, I honestly can't recall the guys actually calling him those things. It's possible that they may have said that some of the things they saw him doing were"nazi-like".
So, before I go looking for apologies, can you link me to a quote of any of the guys making any of those specific attacks that you've mentioned?

[Alien Space Bats]

So, your saying it's okay for a call for civility to stifle your opponents' free speech, but if there are death threats against your opponents then it's okay not to call for civility because that will demoralize your own supporters, yes?

Lovely misstatement of my position, YGO.

I'm saying that everything in politics happens in context. In this particular case, a nonspecific call for "civility" ends up being an excuse for the other side to continue to perpetuate its lies about the nature of the protests (you conveniently forgot that part); back when Gabby Giffords was shot, it served to remind us that the excessive use of revolutionary symbolism and talk of "slaying tyrants" (IOW, your political opponents) was destructive to peaceful political discourse.

Your unseemly haste in trying to establish moral equivalence between the Left and the Right with respect to the nature of grass-roots activism is intended to conceal the fact that one side is basically trying to follow the model of the Civil Rights marches of the 1960's (peaceful mass action), while the other is attempting to follow the model of the American Revolution (incitement to armed action against an oppressor). Only one of those two models is appropriate within our society at present, and it's not the one being embraced by the Right.

Nobody is silencing conservatives. They don't need to bring their guns to rallies in order to express themselves, do they? They could carry signs and spout slogans about government being too big, taxing too much, and meddling too much when it comes to their right to do as they please with their property without once ranting about "Second Amendment solutions" and talking about "watering the Tree of Liberty with the blood of tyrants and patriots alike". There is absolutely nothing about their platform or their policy preferences that requires them to cloak themselves in the mantle of a revolutionary militia on the brink of taking up arms; it is a choice they make for reasons that have nothing to do with the things they wish government to do (or to refrain from doing, as the case may be). Under the circumstances, calls for "civility" in the face of such behavior are a reminder that waving guns in people's faces isn't really good practice in a democracy.

In contrast, liberals are working hard to keep these protests peaceful. There have not been guns carried around in front of State Capitols; protesters have been well-behaved (whatever lies FOX News may tell the world) and speakers have emphasized the need for political action (circulating recall petitions and exercising the right to vote). But the right has tried to tell a different story - the same story that its lies always tell: The protesters are "union thugs", part of that Dark and Violent Other™ that seeks to Steal Our Property, Jobs, and Women™. What you want are sound bites your side can use to further its propaganda, and that's not something you're entitled to.

So no, you weren't being silenced: You were being chided for using inappropriate symbolism, and urged to restate your political program in less incendiary fashion.

And no, we're not going to let your drive a wedge between us and our leadership, in hopes that we will lapse into depressed silence again and let you have your way with us.

[Revolutopia]

Can you provide me any sources of them apologizing for any of their attacks on the president that have turned out to be not true, along with denouncing calls of him being a Nazi/anti-American/communist/socialist/racist . Additionally, of them praising any action he has taken without it being a backhanded compliment. It would be much appreciated.

Rev, I honestly can't recall the guys actually calling him those things. It's possible that they may have said that some of the things they saw him doing were"nazi-like".
So, before I go looking for apologies, can you link me to a quote of any of the guys making any of those specific attacks that you've mentioned?

http://mediamatters.org/research/200906040053
Here is an article by media matters detailing how Hannity croped a clip to make it sound like Obama was giving voice to supporters of 9/11. Also, saying stuff is Nazi-like is basically calling someone a Nazi both in case of Obama and protest signs against Walker.

[You-Gi-Owe]

So, your saying it's okay for a call for civility to stifle your opponents' free speech, but if there are death threats against your opponents then it's okay not to call for civility because that will demoralize your own supporters, yes?

Lovely misstatement of my position, YGO.

I'm saying that everything in politics happens in context. In this particular case, a nonspecific call for "civility" ends up being an excuse for the other side to continue to perpetuate its lies about the nature of the protests (you conveniently forgot that part); back when Gabby Giffords was shot, it served to remind us that the excessive use of revolutionary symbolism and talk of "slaying tyrants" (IOW, your political opponents) was destructive to peaceful political discourse.

Your unseemly haste in trying to establish moral equivalence between the Left and the Right with respect to the nature of grass-roots activism is intended to conceal the fact that one side is basically trying to follow the model of the Civil Rights marches of the 1960's (peaceful mass action), while the other is attempting to follow the model of the American Revolution (incitement to armed action against an oppressor). Only one of those two models is appropriate within our society at present, and it's not the one being embraced by the right.

Nobody is silencing conservatives. They don't need to bring their guns to rallies in order to express themselves, do they? They could carry signs and spout slogans about government is too big, taxes too much, and intrudes too much when it comes to their right to do as they please with their property without once ranting about "Second Amendment solutions" and talking about "watering the Tree of Liberty with the blood of tyrants and patriots alike". There is absolutely nothing about their platform or their policy preferences that requires then to cloak themselves in the mantle of a revolutionary militia on the brink of taking up arms; it is a choice they make for reasons that have nothing to do with the things they wish government to do (or to refrian from doing, as the case may be). Under the circumstances, calls for "civility" in the face of such behavior are a reminder that waving guns in people's faces isn't really good practice in a democracy.

In contrast, liberals are working hard to keep these protests peaceful. There have not been guns carried around in front of State Capitols; protesters have been well-behaved (whatever lies FOX News may tell the world) and speakers have emphasized the need for political action (circulating recall petitions and exercising the right to vote). But the right has tried to tell a different story - the same story that its lies always tell: The protesters are "union thugs", part of that Dark and Violent Other™ that seeks to Steal Our Property, Jobs, and Women™. What you want are sound bites your side can use to further its propaganda, and that's not something you're entitled to.

So no, you weren't being silenced: You were being chided for using inappropriate symbolism, and urged to restate your political program in less incendiary fashion.

And no, we're not going to let your drive a wedge between us and our leadership, in hopes that we will lapse into depressed silence again and let you have your way with us.

Glad you can elaborate on your previously poorly chosen words.

You believe a general call for civility by your side on your side looks bad on your side. IMHO, it would help your side regain a higher moral ground.

Also, it seems you're not willing to conceed any peaceful action, like voting, could ensue for historical patirotic rhetoric.

I can't see why it would drive a wedge against you and your leadership if theycalled for peace, unless you value victory over peace.

[Revolutopia]

You believe a general call for civility by your side on your side looks bad on your side. IMHO, it would help your side regain a higher moral ground.

Also, it seems you're not willing to conceed any peaceful action, like voting, could ensue for historical patirotic rhetoric.

I can't see why it would drive a wedge against you and your leadership if theycalled for peace, unless you value victory over peace.

Good thing that both the protesters and their leadership has repeatedly called for peace and take action thru the polls. So why are we having this discussion anymore if you have already got what you want.

[Farnhamia]

You believe a general call for civility by your side on your side looks bad on your side. IMHO, it would help your side regain a higher moral ground.

Also, it seems you're not willing to conceed any peaceful action, like voting, could ensue for historical patirotic rhetoric.

I can't see why it would drive a wedge against you and your leadership if theycalled for peace, unless you value victory over peace.

Good thing that both the protesters and their leadership has repeatedly called for peace and take action thru the polls. So why are we having this discussion anymore if you have already got what you want.

Because no one on the left has thrown themselves at the feet of the right and begged forgiveness because an unbalanced person sent death threats. Of course, half of what You-Gi posted doesn't make sense, so I could be wrong.