“What I think is different about things like what Angle and Bachmann said is that are incitement of violence”

This claim has been made several times and I have yet to see any substance to it beyond personal opinion and interpretation. Obama, Frank, Ried, Pelosi, Grayson, Franken, or other liberals make outrageous statements that imply violence on a routine basis. They are dismissed as a joke… A ‘metaphor’… But when a conservative says something, it is a call for violence. If that’s how someone chooses to roll then so be it, but let that person hold no illusion about their fairness or the justness of their cause.

Case in point…

“I see the word revolution being used literally. I see talk of losing the country, of losing freedom, in the context of saying "I want people armed and dangerous"… the Obama quote isn't well sourced, doesn't involve a lie, was pretty transparently a metaphor for traditional electioneering activities, and I suspect if Obama was asked about it today he'd say it was a poor word choice. Bachmann's quote we have audio recordings of, involves a big lie, was pretty clearly about armed insurrection …”

Every major point here is based on interpretation and opinion. “I see… Big lie… Armed insurrection”… There is even a statement of agreement that Bachman DIDN’T mean it ‘that way’. But the comment is held to a different standard than Obama’s. HIS rhetoric is ‘not a lie’, ‘traditional electioneering’, and a ‘transparent metaphor’. Bachman bad; Obama good; Motivation – bias.

“First, medical care is a scarce resource, and any system by which we choose to distribute it is by definition "rationing", whether it's a market, or something else, so saying "Obamacare" has "rationing" is a meaningless statement.”

I see… So – just to make this clear – calling Obamacare’s rationing a ‘death panel’ where Grandma takes a pain pill and gets end-of-life counseling instead of medicine (Obama said this) is over the top. But Grayson saying the Republican plan of privatization (a system that worked for decades) equates to “don’t get sick or die quickly” is fine? I’ll be honest. I see this as a classic example of distortion bias. “It’s fine when WE do it because we’re RIGHT, but not when THEY do it because they’re WRONG!”

Second, when have Democrats accused Republicans of starving people?

1990s Contract With America. Democrats accused Newt Gingrich and the GOP congress of starving children because they wanted to make cuts in education that would have had some impact on school lunch programs. Similarly in 2010, Alan Grayson accused the GOP of starving children and women, and selling people into slavery for black market organs because they wanted to stop the fourth extension of unemployment. Every time the GOP wants to cut any social program they get accused of starving people. This is not unusual.

But this is a great teaching moment. This is the origin of your bias. You – Netrunner – AGREE with Grayson. So when he says, “GOP is starving children”, you don’t have a problem with it. You agree with him - so when Grayson is incendiary and egregious in his rhetoric you give it a pass as ‘electioneering’ or ‘metaphor’ or a ‘joke’. You refuse to give conservatives the same kind of leeway. If a GOP guy says Barak Obama is jacking up the national debt to fund his vision of social justice, and calls it an ‘assault on freedom’? They are ‘inciting violence’ - even though they have just as much 'evidence' of their argument as Greyson.

I refuse to live in such a black and white world of selective bias. I can see both sides of the debate. I disagree with liberals, but I can mentally grasp their OPINION (even if I reject it) that the conservative method (smaller government, private solutions) ‘takes away’ from social programs. So when liberals get vociferous, I am willing to cut them a little slack. It’d be nice if that went both ways.

Here I personally went one click further and suggested that perhaps this is an intentional strategy to rile up the crazies, so they'll physically intimidate liberals.

So – is leftist rhetoric intentionally done to rile up the crazies so they’d physically intimidate conservatives? You know – stuff like the threats against Ann Coulter that caused a college speech to be cancelled. Or when a liberal man bit off a guy’s finger because he disagreed about healthcare. Or when liberal Amy Bishop killed her co-workers. Liberal Joseph Stack flew a plane into the IRS. Liberals destroyed radio towers in Seattle. Liberals torched Hummer dealerships. Liberals beat up a conservative black man at a Tea Party. A liberal brought bombs to an RNC meeting. Liberals attacked police in Berkley. Liberals threw rocks at animal researchers. Liberals stood outside polling stations with nightsticks. A liberal shot up the Discovery Channel. A liberal said, “You’re dead!” to a Tea party leader. Liberals made death-threats against Palin. Liberals made death threats & assassination movies about Bush. A liberal shot up the war memorial. And let us not overlook the fact that Loughner is a 9/11 truther and that the left is the source for that particular 'rhetoric'.

You then support your argument with a litany of asserted facts...that you don't source, and are in direct contravention of what was said elsewhere (regardless of whether it'd been sourced or not).

OK – I’ll take one glove off here. I have not accused you of making crap up, and you aren’t providing sourcing either. I have no interest in making you treat everything you say like you are writing a white paper. You also support your arguments with litanies of asserted facts which you don’t source which are in direct contravention of what is said elsewhere. Why the hypocrisy on this?

I’m an intelligent enough fellow and I can find links myself. I don't need you holding my hand in that regard. I assume you have fingers because you can type. Therefore you can find the sources for ALL the examples of liberal violence I listed above. I’ve got the links for EVERY one of them and dozens more, but I don’t go around assuming you're an intellectual cripple that can't find them. Nor do I want to play dueling link banjos here. I extend the courtesy in an online discussion of not forcing the other guy to cite every freaking thing they say because 99 times in 100 the source just gets attacked and ignored anyway.

I think you should examine the way you're presenting yourself rather than assuming it's all the result of some sort of universal liberal intolerance

I typically don’t jump in a thread until intolerant liberal rhetoric has already reared its ugly face. Liberal intolerance is there before I say a single word. So I don’t care a fig about the leftist vitriol I get, because it is generally only a continuance of the intolerance that was there before I showed up. They don't hate 'me'. They hate the fact that I have dared to hold a mirror up on own intolerance. What they really want to be doing is feeling self-righteous as they spew intolerance at things they hate. Ol' Winstonfield popping up and spoiling the fun wasn't in their plan, and they react badly. Boo hoo.

But you are specifically accusing ME of being vitriolic. I stridently reject that position. I do no more than calmly, fairly, and accurately present an opposing point of view. I may do it sarcastically. I may point out hypocrisy. But I attack philosophies and public figures – not Sifters. Therefore the personal vitriol against myself is unwarranted and unjustified. I bring no vitriol or intolerance to the table here. The only vitriol and intolerance that exists is directed towards me.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

How is what these guys said any different than what the 'other guy' says (and gets a pass)?

What I think is different about things like what Angle and Bachmann said is that are incitement of violence.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Politicians since times ancient have grossly extrapolated the actions/policies of their opponents.
[snip]
Bachman wanted people 'armed and dangerous'. Barak Obama wanted people "angry, get in their face, hit back twice as hard, bring a gun". I see no difference.

First, you need to source your Obama quote. I only found this as context:

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

Kinda sounds like it's a metaphor, does it not?

Secondly, that never became any sort of Democratic talking point or campaign slogan. You didn't hear it coming out of the mouths of everyone on the left every 10 seconds for the better part of a year, the way you heard "death panels".

Thirdly, have you followed the link on Bachmann's full quote, and read it in context? If not, here's more:

I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us ‘having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,’ and the people – we the people – are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.

I see the word revolution being used literally. I see talk of losing the country, of losing freedom, in the context of saying "I want people armed and dangerous".

Fourth, have I mentioned that this is in the larger context of falsely accusing Democrats of making up global warming?

So, the Obama quote isn't well sourced, doesn't involve a lie, was pretty transparently a metaphor for traditional electioneering activities, and I suspect if Obama was asked about it today he'd say it was a poor word choice. Bachmann's quote we have audio recordings of, involves a big lie, was pretty clearly about armed insurrection against the legitimate government of the United States, and while I suspect she would say "I didn't mean that", she probably wouldn't confess to any kind of issue with her word choice.

I don't see any equivalence.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Palin's death panel is an exaggeration of the rationed care that IS a part of Obamacare. Similarly, Democrats accuse the GOP of starving people when they want to cut a social program.

Really? Neither statement is true.

First, medical care is a scarce resource, and any system by which we choose to distribute it is by definition "rationing", whether it's a market, or something else, so saying "Obamacare" has "rationing" is a meaningless statement. Even if I grant some special meaning of the word "rationing", there still isn't anything even remotely like Palin's "death panel" in the bill anywhere.

Second, when have Democrats accused Republicans of starving people? To be frank, I wish they would, especially since it's true more often than not. The closest I've seen is Alan Grayson saying that the Republican health care plan is "#1 Don't get sick. #2 If you do get sick, die quickly."

For that one to be true you need to wrap some caveats around it, but basically if you can't afford insurance, or have a preexisting condition, that was totally accurate.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Do I like the overblown rhetoric? No, but it is part and parcel of any vigorous debate.
No normal person takes these statements literally though. And trying to pander to the NOT normal people seems to me an exercise in futility. Moreover, trying to be "PC" using the outliers of society as a standard is an impossible moving target, and rather subject to opinion.

To a large degree, this is a response to an argument I'm not making. I actually really like overblown rhetoric. What I don't like is the way the right imputes sinister motives to the left. It's not just "they're corrupt and beholden to special interests (and sometimes mansluts)", these days it's "they're coming to take your guns, kill your family, make your kids into gay drug addicts, take your house, your job, and piss on the American flag while surrendering to every other nation in the world".

The left is getting pretty coarse about the right, but most of our insults are that Republicans are corrupt and beholden to special interests...and dumb, heartless liars.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
There is no nice way to say this, but you are wrong. They were not, and you know it. There is no GOP candidate who would have survived 5 seconds if they'd been calling for armed rebellion if they lost. That is hyperbole.

I'd love to be wrong about this. I am not. Scroll back up to my first comment here, there are two videos of Republicans calling for armed insurrection if they lose. These two were small potatoes, but Michele Bachmann and Sharron Angle both were saying the same thing, just a little less directly. Rick Perry has been a bit more overt, but also a lot less graphic (talk of secession rather than revolution). Not to bring the Tea Party into this, but they kept showing up with signs talking about "Watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants"

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I put it to you kindly that this opinion is another symptom of perception bias. Would you not agree that from Glenn Beck's perspective his infamous 'chalkboard histories' are an attempt to educate and outreach? And quite frankly, I feel very little sense of 'outreach' or 'education' when liberals call conservatives hateful, angry, evil, nazis, corporate shills, mind numbed robots, neocons, teabaggers, racist, sexist, and bigoted.

No, Beck's not trying outreach with his blackboards. He's painting a false picture of history in which liberalism is about violence and domination, and entirely overrun by a conspiracy of nefarious interests. That's not outreach, that's poisoning the well so that it's impossible for people who think he's illuminating some sort of truth (and to be clear, he is not), to talk to the people who haven't subscribed to Beck's belief that liberalism progressivism is just the new mask the fascists have put on to insinuate themselves into modern society so they can subvert it from within.

It's true that the left isn't engaging in outreach when they're calling you names. I suspect you haven't seen much outreach, given the way you personally tend to approach topics around here. You don't seem like the kind of person who's open to outreach.

That said, if I thought there was a way to show you what I think is good about liberalism, I would do so. I'd be happy to give you my take on what liberals believe and why, if you're genuinely interested in trying to understand the way we think.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Sure - just be sure to allow that both ways. Criticize conservative pundits all you want. But don't get all testy if conservatives criticize liberal ones. And if you try to pin accessory to murder on conservatives, don't be surprised when they get their back up.

Yeah, I didn't. See, the right's been calling us murderers and tyrants quite a bit lately. They've been making the case in countless different ways that government run by Democrats, and especially by Obama is fundamentally illegitimate. Not "something we strongly disagree with" but a total break with the fundamental principles of our government that present a direct threat to people.

Here I personally went one click further and suggested that perhaps this is an intentional strategy to rile up the crazies, so they'll physically intimidate liberals.

Again, I'd love to see someone prove me wrong about that. Ad hominem tu quoque arguments won't really do the job.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
That is because I'm bearding the lion in its metaphorical den, so to speak. The sift is liberally slanted. I'm not. So even when dare to challenge the consensus groupthink - even when done respectfully - I get blowback. I would say that I am incredibly patient, respectful, and moderate in my tone. I rarely (if ever) make things personal. Even when I'm on the receiving end of some rather nasty abuse I tend to keep it civil.

I think then there may be room for me to maybe help understand the kinds of reactions you get.

Part of the issue is a lot of your comments are of the formation "What liberals are saying is utterly, demonstrably, and obviously false, and in fact, they're more guilty of it than the right". You then support your argument with a litany of asserted facts...that you don't source, and are in direct contravention of what was said elsewhere (regardless of whether it'd been sourced or not).

Part of the issue with making an argument purely on challenging facts is that you run headlong into questions about the legitimacy of the source, and those can be some of the ugliest arguments of all, especially if the only source cited is yourself.

I'd recommend trying to make philosophical or moral arguments that don't hinge on the specific circumstances, especially when we're talking about events we only know about from news stories. I find it helps move conversations from heat to light when you shift the discussion to the underlying philosophical disagreement like that.

I also think you'll get farther with making a positive statement about what you believe, than a negative statement about what you believe liberals believe. (i.e. instead of "Liberals just want to boss people around with their nanny state", try "Conservatives are trying to give people more freedom to choose how to run their own lives")

People will likely still disagree with you, but at least there's a chance they'll respond to what you said, rather than just hurl invectives at you.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I don't apologize for being a rare conservative voice in a chorus of liberals, but that doesn't mean that "I" am responsible for 'increased vitriol'. The vitriol comes when people other than myself. I simply present a different point of view.

I don't think you should apologize. However, I also think you have to be willing to accept some responsibility for how people react to what you say. I'm self-aware enough to know that what I say is going to sound inflammatory to some people, and I certainly don't feel like criticism of my own inflammatory speech is somehow an assault on my free speech.

If you're getting a lot of vitriol (and I know you are), and that's not what you want, I think you should examine the way you're presenting yourself rather than assuming it's all the result of some sort of universal liberal intolerance.

This place has a bunch of really thoughtful people who enjoy civil discussion with people who they disagree with. If that's what you want, I gotta say I think you're just pushing the wrong buttons.

After turds like Nemesis and Insurrection the franchise was DOA.

Amazing as it seems, Trek fans alone cannot make a Trek movie profitable. You need to reach moviegoers with girlfriends.

OK I'm joking about the last part...put down the batleth.

>> ^direpickle:

Abrams' Trek was a big pile of lens flared poo.

Fixed, thanks.

In reply to this comment by ant:
*dead

*cinema for "An interview with Riker & Deanna from Star Trek TNG... Their commentaries, on Insurrection, is great, very funny. This was on the Blu-Ray version." in YouTube description.

Very interesting what outrages this audience.

That guy can advocate armed insurrection and murder to achieve his ends, but if he doesn't like Sarah Palin, he's an "infil-traitor".

WTF

^ I said "every part" was an exaggeration, and it still is. There are people on the right denouncing violence and saying that demonizing the left is destructive to their goals, especially at the state level. I'd agree with "most" of the national message inciting fear and hate, but not "all".

I also said Beck was giving a mixed message (nothing new). He implies armed insurrection, but then explicitly warns against violence because "the left needs you to be violent". I suppose it depends on whether he remembers to take his meds on a particular day.

I don't think I'm too far off base to assert that the vast majority of folks, probably including a court of law, would find a large difference between:

1) an activist, who might even go so far as to march in the streets, against the order of civil authority, to protest laws perceived as unjust, hoping to persuade the nation to get said law removed or changed, but still remaining part of the nation that produced said law, and

2) a secessionist, who has decided that they and their whole State should simply be allowed to quit and leave the nation, no matter what the rest of that nation thinks about it.

One seeks to change the nation of which they're a part, and the other seeks to quit that nation, and take a significant chunk of that nation with it.

Also - indeed, merely seeking a vote might not necessarily be in and of itself an act of insurrection or rebellion, but the act of secession itself would, assuming of course that the rest of the nation wasn't inclined to go along. So, then, where does the difference lie? If 14, 49, 51, or even 99 percent of Alaskans voted to secede, and Congress and the rest of the nation wasn't inclined to go along, and if the Alaskans then pressed their case with force of arms (or even civil disobedience in that particular case), they'd pretty definitively be guilty of insurrection and/or rebellion. Trying to get a vote on an act of rebellion doesn't make it not rebellion. Even the original American Revolution was an out-and-out rebellion. We just happened to win, which I don't think Alaska would be able to pull off against the rest of the US.

Now, as far as I'm concerned, if the Palins and a tenth of a percent of Alaska want to go, let 'em. Maybe China will give 'em a state-sponsored home. The "secession" of a single family, whether it be the Palins, the Bushes, the Rockefellers, or the Kennedys, makes me no never mind in the grand scheme. Also, as far as I'm concerned, there are far more serious reasons to avoid having Sarah Palin in any high office.

However, if Alaska successfully left and took the Palins with them, that would then mean Palin was no longer a US Citizen, and thus again Constitutionally barred from most high offices, either State or Federal.

I'd pay money to see her try to re-immigrate though - she'd have to pass the Citizenship test, and I'll just bet they don't allow notes on your palm for that one.

A political party that seeks independence of a state is not insurrection or rebellion. Insurrection or rebellion requires actually taking up arms. There is nothing you can possibly vote for that would count as an insurrection or rebellion. By voting, you're just exercising your rights under a democratic government.

Obama has never been a civil rights activist. He was a community organizer. He worked with local churches to revitalize chicago neighborhoods after local steel mills closed. Hardly an insurrection.

Would that not then mean that ... Sarah Palin is Constitutionally prohibited from becoming ... President or Vice President of the United States of America?

Well - if you want to play the rhetorical game of strict denotative definitions - then "insurrection" would mean Barak Obama should be tossed out today. An insurrection is simply "resistance against civil authority or an established government", right? As a civil rights activist Obama as resisted the government. The entire Democrat resisted an established government during GWB. The Republicans are doing it right now under Obama. You know what? The more I think about it, the more I like this goofball textpert interpretation. It essentially means that NOBODY is allowed to run for political office. Throw them all out. Good riddance.

The teabagger movement ... was founded by old skool conservative republican, Dick Armey

It would be more accurate to say that Dick Armey supported the already existent Tea Party in the same way Democrats supported the anti-war movement. Under GWB, a grassroots movement got going that was opposed to the way the Iraq war was handled. This true representation of the national mood was aided and abetted by Democrats. Democrats "astroturfed" the bejeezus out of the anti-war movement. It was politically exigent, as well as a philosophical position they agreed with.

Republicans are trying to do the same thing with the Tea Party. The Tea Party is grassroots. It is filled with citizens who hate debt and deficits - who want balanced budgets & fiscal restraint at the federal level. It is Republicans, Independants, and even Democrats for whom sound fiscal policy is a critical issue. But Republicans for years flapped thier lips about fiscal conservatism (even though they don't practice it much). Of course the GOP is going to foster & foment a movement that they politically sympathize with.

The Tea Party movement is about fiscal conservatism. They want balanced budgets, reduced spending, and limited federal power. In that sense they agree with some libertarian principles, but aren't interested in the social policies that make the libertarian party such a collection of oddballs. Neither are they interested in the "Republican party" except as a vehicle to slam the brakes on Obama & Democrats. If the GOP thinks they can just use the Tea Party like a wet-wipe and then go on to be a bunch of fiscal idiots like Bush, then they will find the TP to be an unreliable ally.

Nordlich's posting of the text of the 14th Amendment sparked an interesting set of notions and questions in my head:

1) If I'm reading it correctly, Section 3 specifically prohibits anyone from holding high office, either State or Federal, if they have previously taken an oath of such office, again, either State or Federal, and then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

2) Sarah Palin served as Governor of Alaska (until she quit, anyway), while being married to Todd Palin, who for the better part of seven-odd years was a registered member of the Alaskan Independence Party, which actively seeks to break the State of Alaska away from the Union.

3) The last time States sought to break away from the Union, around, say, 1861 or so, it was pretty definitively classified as an "insurrection or rebellion".

4) I can only assume Sarah Palin would engage in "giving aid and comfort" to her husband, or even go so far as to embrace some of his ideals.

If this series of connections holds up, would that not then mean that, barring a specifically-called two thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress, Sarah Palin is Constitutionally prohibited from becoming even Sub-Under-Flunkie to the Postmaster General, let alone President or Vice President of the United States of America?

I think know that the literacy test is unconstitutional because it limits the right of citizens to vote.

Which, I think know violates the 14th ammendment.

Cited here:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text

Read it? What does it say? That's right, all persons born or naturalized in the United States. There is no color specified in the fucking document. So these ass hats can blow it out of their collective asses.

Star Trek Insurrection Isn't All Bad (Just Mostly)
Star Trek Nemesis is the Final Nail in the Space Coffin

Let him rail against the system. Its about time some one stood up for what they think is right.

Do these radars keep a log? Timestamps and stuff like that?

If not the systems cannot be trusted, due to human error.

Would you rather this guy go and shoot a place up? Cause an insurrection? Conspire to incite a uprising? Or rather non violently present his 1st amendment right in the court of law.

Let me be the first to say, fuck you if you think he should hang. I care not whether he was guilty or not guilty. I care the tactic he used for making his statement known.

His statement will live forever in public record, of the court system, however swamped by the myriad of other court records. The system is set up to feed on the people. It feeds on the peoples toil, and exhaustive efforts to make something for themselves. Face it, the system is designed to fuck the people and take all of their hard earned rights. Know what makes it so godamned ironic? The people created the system!

As for speed limits, I object to a group of non peer reviewed opinions on what is safe and what is not. Until I can see peer reviewed scientific data to back up the speed limit. Then they are inherently corrupt. I would suspect, this is my opinion, that some one could make a case for the government trying to make revenue with the changing of the speeds.

Also, you should not have to stand if you do not. Simply say, I am exercising my 1st amendment right, which is freedom of expression, to not stand.