Congresswoman and 17 others shot in Arizona

[CaptainCrunch]

Wait a minute, because Westboro has extreme views they are automatically put into a right side category?

In their view they're apolitical, they have strong anti-gay and anti-abortion views, strong antiwar and antigovernment rules, yet they use the tax system and the courts. The founder of the Westboro church was anti-segregation and played a key role in civil rights litigation and was at the forefront of getting Jim Crowe overturned.

Also weren't the weathermen underground one of the first domestic terrorist groups on the far side of the left.

As were the Black Panthers?

There are and have been violent fringe groups on both sides, however I'm not sure I would evaluate militia groups or radical racial groups on the far left or far right as their views on various issues are inconsistant.

[MarchHare]

Extremists like the Westboro Baptist group really ought to be left out of this discussion. Everyone knows they're completely nuts and aren't part of the mainstream political discourse.

That's why I keep mentioning the fallacy of false equivalence in this thread. You can find examples of radical leftists engaging in acts of violence or hyped-up violent rhetoric (e.g. "eco terrorists" or G8 protesters mentioned earlier), but they're fringe groups, just like Westboro Baptist.

Ignore the extremist fringes and compare only the mainstream on both sides. When Bush was president, none of the prominent left-wing commentators like Olbermann or Maddow were using the same amped-up language with allusions to violent revolution like you see from their counterparts on Fox News and conservative AM radio shows. No candidates for office on the Democratic Party were saying things like "Second Amendment remedies" might be necessary to end the politics of Bush/Cheney, unlike Sharron Angle (Republican senate candidate in 2010) who said exactly that about Obama. No mainstream Democrats have used gun- and violence-themed messages when speaking to their supporters with anything close to the same frequency as Sarah Palin does. Nancy Pelosi, former Speaker of the House, never once described any of her Republican opponents as "a dead man" or said they couldn't safely go home to their own districts after voting a certain way, unlike incoming Speaker John Boehner did after Steve Dreihaus (D-Ohio) voted for the healthcare bill.

These are not fringe extremists on the right saying these things. These are mainstream conservative commentators and Republican lawmakers/candidates. The mainstream American left most certainly is not engaging in this kind of heated violent-themed rhetoric now, nor did they a few years ago when Bush was president and the Republicans controlled the House and Senate.

So can we please stop using examples from fringe radicals on both sides and limit the conversation only to the political mainstream? Extremist groups like anti-government survivalist militias, G8 protesters, eco-terrorists, and the freaking Westboro Baptist Church aren't the issue here.

[Stimpy]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Wait a minute, because Westboro has extreme views they are automatically put into a right side category?

Their inclusion on the right is not a result of their extreme views. As I said in my previous post there are extreme views on both sides. Their inclusion on the right is because most of their key values ascribe to those who are on the right end of the linear spectrum.

In their view they're apolitical, they have strong anti-gay and anti-abortion views, strong antiwar and antigovernment rules, yet they use the tax system and the courts. The founder of the Westboro church was anti-segregation and played a key role in civil rights litigation and was at the forefront of getting Jim Crowe overturned.

One trait does not eliminate all the others. Their views are almost all extremely conservative. You have to look at their beliefs as a whole. You may believe in small government, low taxes and access to guns, but when you also believe in universal health care, unimpeded immigration, the woman's right to choose and freedom from religion, you are likely going to find yourself on the left side of the balance sheet. You may hold positions on certain issues that are in conflict with your general view.

Also weren't the weathermen underground one of the first domestic terrorist groups on the far side of the left.

The first domestic terrorist group would have been the founding fathers, and they were on the left.

You are correct, and that is why I mentioned them in my last post. There are extremists on both ends of the spectrum, it just boils down to the activities of those groups. The Weather Underground was active for a few years and died out 44 years ago (has it really been that long?). Are they really still relevant in the conversation today? How many posters here were born when they were active 50 years ago? Not many. How many were around when McVeigh took out the Murrah building? Which do you think is more likely to resonate with those thinking to lash out?

As were the Black Panthers?

Again, they no longer exist. Outside of their name I doubt anyone can even recall what their platform was or about. They are the Kaiser Soze of certain circles.

There are and have been violent fringe groups on both sides, however I'm not sure I would evaluate militia groups or radical racial groups on the far left or far right as their views on various issues are inconsistant.

There's a left wing militia group active in the United States? I don't recall seeing one on the Southern Poverty Law Center, but anything is possible. Can you name a couple? I'd like to research them. The militia movement in the United States has been exclusive to the right end of the spectrum.

[Stimpy]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

So can we please stop using examples from fringe radicals on both sides and limit the conversation only to the political mainstream? Extremist groups like anti-government survivalist militias, G8 protesters, eco-terrorists, and the freaking Westboro Baptist Church aren't the issue here.

That was a good post MarchHare but I have to disagree with your closing paragraph. The groups in question are a big part of the issue here. If you look at the list of actions that have taken place in the past few years they have almost all been extremist groups, activated by ramped up rhetoric. It isn't the majority of the population you have to worry about, its that section that is on the fringe and has the potential to come unglued. Remember, we're fighting two wars because of some fringe radicals. See what can happen when you ignore them and continue to feed their delusions?

[MarchHare]

Sarah Palin has just reached a new all-time low. In a Facebook posting defending her previous actions, she accused her political opponents of engaging in a campaign of "blood libel" against her. I can't even begin to describe how distasteful that is. The fact that Rep. Giffords is Jewish cranks the insensitivity and offensiveness of her comment up to 11.

I'd like to think that Palin is just completely ignorant about the historic usage of the term "blood libel" and maybe she incorrectly thinks it means that people are accusing her of metaphorically having blood on her hands, but shouldn't one of her handlers have known better? How can her entire team possibly be so stupid and insensitive?

[CaptainCrunch]

I'm going off of rote here, so there are more historical ones then anything.

SLA

The ALF even though they are more animal rights.

I don't know how much I really trust the Southern Poverty Law Center, just going on rote, they seem to paint a pretty wide brush in terms of their definitions of extremism.

They also seem to be working pretty hard to shift Loughner to the Right Wing extreme side.

Also interesting to see that the Black Panthers are still in existance as the New Black Panthers.

SPLC is a really interesting site if your looking for a nutbar summary though.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Stimpy

That was a good post MarchHare but I have to disagree with your closing paragraph. The groups in question are a big part of the issue here. If you look at the list of actions that have taken place in the past few years they have almost all been extremist groups, activated by ramped up rhetoric. It isn't the majority of the population you have to worry about, its that section that is on the fringe and has the potential to come unglued. Remember, we're fighting two wars because of some fringe radicals. See what can happen when you ignore them and continue to feed their delusions?

Except that a lot of those extreme groups rheteric didn't come around recently, their aims and goals and the way that they discuss and justify things has been around since their beginnings.

They didn't suddenly appear when Obama got elected for example.

The ramped up Tea Party Rhetoric didn't amp them up further, but it did get them media attention because frankly crazy sells papers and so does timeliness.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Sarah Palin has just reached a new all-time low. In a Facebook posting defending her previous actions, she accused her political opponents of engaging in a campaign of "blood libel" against her. I can't even begin to describe how distasteful that is. The fact that Rep. Giffords is Jewish cranks the insensitivity and offensiveness of her comment up to 11.

I'd like to think that Palin is just completely ignorant about the historic usage of the term "blood libel" and maybe she incorrectly thinks it means that people are accusing her of metaphorically having blood on her hands, but shouldn't one of her handlers have known better? How can her entire team possibly be so stupid and insensitive?

There is, apparently, no limit to her stupidity. If she persists in refusing to learn the right lesson from this incident, then she should be relegated to the political margins.

I don't have a lot of faith in her making the right choice; she seems not to really understand that rhetoric matters at all, let alone that she bears some responsibility for the tone of her own rhetoric. This is what worries me about Palin and her ilk: they are a lot like Rob Anders, in that they aren't genuine ideologues, but cynics willing to say anything that polarizes and galvanizes the debate. They think politics is a game, and that the objective is winning.

The problem is that politics is actually life, and the objective is governance, and I don't think she's turned her tiny mind to that issue for even a second. One of the biggest issues on the right is that they have replaced their own proud tradition of right intellectuals with a parade of mental midgets and weeping imbeciles. When you replace Milton Friedman and George F. Will with Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, you know that your braintrust has fallen on hard times.

The U.S. needs the intellectual right now more than it ever has.

[MarchHare]

In case anyone isn't aware why using the term "blood libel" is offensive:

Blood libel (also blood accusation) refers to a false accusation or claim that religious minorities, almost always Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel

That Palin would use an antisemitic term to defend herself is offensive by itself, but the fact that Giffords is Jewish just shows that the her ignorance and/or depravity knows no limits.

[CaptainCrunch]

She needs a better political handler.

I've said it all along though, she's a moron.

I would have hoped that her rambling weird resignation speech would have finished her off.

[Stimpy]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

In case anyone isn't aware why using the term "blood libel" is offensive

Did not know the etymology of that saying. Thanks for the education!

[Pinner]

Who ever said "Palin was only a heartbeat away from the Presidency" was a genius, that phrase sealed Obama's win. LoL

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't know how much I really trust the Southern Poverty Law Center, just going on rote, they seem to paint a pretty wide brush in terms of their definitions of extremism.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is as bad if not worse than mainstream news networks at running around pointing the finger at people and claiming them to be possible domestic terrorists. They along with the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) released a report claiming that you could be a right-wing extremist if:
-you are a Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin supporter
-if you are a conspiracy theorist
-you have any political bumper stickers associated to the constitution, libertarianism, 2nd amendment etc.
-militia symbols (like the gadsden flag)


Basically, if you don't agree with current government policy, and respect the Constitution, you could be a terrorist.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

The Southern Poverty Law Center is as bad if not worse than mainstream news networks at running around pointing the finger at people and claiming them to be possible domestic terrorists. They along with the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) released a report claiming that you could be a right-wing extremist if:
-you are a Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin supporter
-if you are a conspiracy theorist
-you have any political bumper stickers associated to the constitution, libertarianism, 2nd amendment etc.
-militia symbols (like the gadsden flag)


Basically, if you don't agree with current government policy, and respect the Constitution, you could be a terrorist.

Do you happen to have a link to where the SPLC listed this criteria?

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

There has been no arrests at any tea party rally. Considering the number of people involved that is pretty impressive. The only arrests at the summer town hall meetings were when some Union workers in union shirts ruffed up a tea party participant. No one pull a gun on them let alone used it.

Again if you want to see what hate looks like just click on this link:

http://michellemalkin.com/

That was a great link, Calgaryborn. That link shows the absolute blinders put on by both sides. It's more than just ironic that that site, an angry, hate filled site, shows off the hate of "the other side" so well. That one link shows regular people why both the right and the left have descended into such a mean-spirited, angry, vengeful political argument. And it's so obvious that those so quick to point out the anger and hateful statements of the one side can't seem to see the exact same thing in their own behavior. Michelle Malkin is clearly trying to take the speck out of someone's eye..

Just wow. It's always easy to see the crazies when "the other guy" is in office. This is why I dislike party politics.

[Stimpy]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

The Southern Poverty Law Center is as bad if not worse than mainstream news networks at running around pointing the finger at people and claiming them to be possible domestic terrorists. They along with the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) released a report claiming that you could be a right-wing extremist if:
-you are a Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin supporter
-if you are a conspiracy theorist
-you have any political bumper stickers associated to the constitution, libertarianism, 2nd amendment etc.
-militia symbols (like the gadsden flag)


Basically, if you don't agree with current government policy, and respect the Constitution, you could be a terrorist.

You couldn't be farther from the truth even if you goose stepped your way onto a pile of Mein Kampfs. The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered one of the best sources of information for tracking hate groups of any bent. An example of their professionalism extends to all corners and colors. Even though they were founded as a civil rights firm in the 70's they still consider black separatist groups as domestic threats and have over 100 of them in their database. The SPLC is consider such a good source of information law enforcement, including the FBI, routinely cite their work and information. When you're talking about credible sources on hate group information you do not find many better than the SPLC.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Do you happen to have a link to where the SPLC listed this criteria?

The SPLC was listed as a source for the document. It is called the "MIAC Strategic Report - The Modern Militia Movement" report. It is political profiling and guilty-by-association to a tee.

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source...D_HSeyr9FcVDtQ

People who held political opinions opposing abortion, illegal immigration, the New World Order, the North American Union, the Income Tax, the U.N., etc., were profiled in the MIAC report.
This document was later scrapped and apologies were made to Ron Paul and others.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Phelps clan won't 'protest' Miss Green's funeral.

http://www.ksn.com/news/local/story/...hfufAP1IA.cspx

Thanks to the Toronto radio station.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I don't think we are giving the left enough credit for their violent rhetoric.

If you consider that the global warming scam/cap and trade is a leftist policy, there has been some violence coming from those extremes as well.

Some examples are James Jay Lee, the guy who took hostages and tried to blow up the Discovery Channel building. There were several families that committed suicide and/or shot their kids as a result of hardcore environmental fear mongering, and that disturbing global warming alarmist commercial with the people being blown up for not reducing their carbon footprint.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Mw5_EBk0g

Yikes...I'd call that violent rhetoric as well.

They're responsible for that whole "Earth is round" thing, too.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Stimpy

You couldn't be farther from the truth even if you goose stepped your way onto a pile of Mein Kampfs. The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered one of the best sources of information for tracking hate groups of any bent. An example of their professionalism extends to all corners and colors. Even though they were founded as a civil rights firm in the 70's they still consider black separatist groups as domestic threats and have over 100 of them in their database. The SPLC is consider such a good source of information law enforcement, including the FBI, routinely cite their work and information. When you're talking about credible sources on hate group information you do not find many better than the SPLC.

The SPLC I'm sure has a noble purpose, but they have clearly overstepped their boundaries.
I don't think any "free" nation should be compiling lists of people with opposing political ideas and labeling them as possible violent militia members or domestic terrorists.