TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › The Violent Left
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Violent Left - Page 2

post #31 of 43
6/27/10 at 6:29am
I never start threads without some kind of informational link enabling people to make their own judgments. This thread and particularly its title are based on nothing - not even a shady link to support the allegation.

Reply
post #32 of 43
6/27/10 at 6:34am
Thread Starter 
Oh, it makes a difference if you just post in the threads, but as long as you don't start the threads it's okay? I'll remember that. Is that called changing the goal posts midstream?

http://www.thecatsite.com/forums/sho...47&postcount=6

P.S. You don't like my links.
Reply
post #33 of 43
6/27/10 at 6:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
You mean like some people "assume" the Tea Party "advocates violence" and should be "investigated by the F.B.I."?
Well, sometimes words can be taken by many to sanction violence. You may think it is symbolic because you agree with it, but with others it leaves an impression of advocating over throwing the government with violence.

Case in point: Sharron Angle who is a Tea Party supported candidate said You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact, Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.

I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying, 'My goodness what can we do to turn this country around?' I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.

Though Angle is now realizing the errors of her ways and is disavowing what she said here. But as long as she, Palin and others are throwing out the gun rhetoric, the movement will have that impression. The majority of the Tea Party are white, middle-age people in the upper economic classes. I doubt they are advocating this type of revolution (it would destroy their way of life). But these words leave an impression. Obama has been a disappointment, but this doesn't mean that I'm automatically goint to support the Republicans in their current efforts to be an exclusionary and pure party either.
Reply
post #34 of 43
6/27/10 at 7:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
You mean like some people "assume" the Tea Party "advocates violence" and should be "investigated by the F.B.I."? You mean like some people "assume" it is advocating violence to have a FB page with a chart on it of the coming election "Battleground States in the Cross Hairs"?

Yep, assuming sucks, on both sides of the political fence doesn't it 2dogmom?
I don't see what that has to do with this, unless, of course, it's just more "tit for tat" because that seems to be sooooo popular in this forum. Those topics have already been discussed. Not only are you assuming the threats came from the left, you are assuming that there were many "leftists" involved.
Quote:
Very sad that many on the Left are advocating violence against a judge for making a ruling they don't agree with.
Reply
post #35 of 43
6/27/10 at 12:23pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by katachtig View Post
Well, sometimes words can be taken by many to sanction violence. You may think it is symbolic because you agree with it, but with others it leaves an impression of advocating over throwing the government with violence.

Though Angle is now realizing the errors of her ways and is disavowing what she said here. But as long as she, Palin and others are throwing out the gun rhetoric, the movement will have that impression. The majority of the Tea Party are white, middle-age people in the upper economic classes. I doubt they are advocating this type of revolution (it would destroy their way of life). But these words leave an impression. Obama has been a disappointment, but this doesn't mean that I'm automatically goint to support the Republicans in their current efforts to be an exclusionary and pure party either.
Regarding the bolded, underlined, I beg to differ. That is NOT true, that is the left wing media lying. I've been to one of the largest Tea Party's in the country, I can assure you the people attending were average, middle class and lower middle class. As far as race, I just don't understand how this country will ever get beyond race when people HAVE to put a skin color to everything.

It cracks me up because, at first the liberal media were portraying the Tea Party people as ignorant, hillbillies from the trailer parks of America. That didn't go over so well so they changed to rich people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockcat View Post
I don't see what that has to do with this , unless, of course, it's just more "tit for tat" because that seems to be sooooo popular in this forum. Those topics have already been discussed. Not only are you assuming the threats came from the left, you are assuming that there were many "leftists" involved.
Yes and I believe that it is pretty safe to assume that the death threats this judge is receiving are from the far left environmental whacko's. Surely it is as safe as a person saying that a chart of "battleground states in the cross hairs" for an upcoming election is "advocating violence". What do they have to do with each other? You know the answer to that, they are BOTH "assuming".

Isn't it a classic example of human nature that we don't look at what we, personally, agree with as "assuming"?

They didn't say "one death threat" they said death threat(s) as in plural.
Reply
post #36 of 43
6/27/10 at 1:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post


Yes and I believe that it is pretty safe to assume that the death threats this judge is receiving are from the far left environmental whacko's. Surely it is as safe as a person saying that a chart of "battleground states in the cross hairs" for an upcoming election is "advocating violence". What do they have to do with each other? You know the answer to that, they are BOTH "assuming".

Isn't it a classic example of human nature that we don't look at what we, personally, agree with as "assuming"?

They didn't say "one death threat" they said death threat(s) as in plural.
Without actual proof of an individual or group, you are only left with assumptions. And it is quite possible that he could have been receiving death threats if he ruled a different way.

Just as all Republicans do not advocate violence (as least I'm assuming that they did not endorse the death threats to the Democrats after the health bill), most Liberals and Democrats do not advocate violence against judges.

It does concern me more that there are people on the fringes of both sides who advocate violence against any judge because of the ruling. We had a case here where several judges were threatened by a gun activist disagreeing with their rulings. This undermines our entire legal system.
Reply
post #37 of 43
6/27/10 at 1:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Yes and I believe that it is pretty safe to assume that the death threats this judge is receiving are from the far left environmental whacko's. Surely it is as safe as a person saying that a chart of "battleground states in the cross hairs" for an upcoming election is "advocating violence". What do they have to do with each other? You know the answer to that, they are BOTH "assuming".
Not even close.

In one case, a person can have the opinion that showing crosshairs on the states of politicians targeted for defeat along with the words: "Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: 'Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!" can be interpreted as reckless incitment of violence. It wouldn't be the first time that Palin has been reckless in this regard. And as for the TP, keep in mind that they had no problem with "leadership" like Mark Williams, who only stepped down (voluntarily?) about a week ago.

In this case, a thread is started about a judge receiving death threats. Firstly, no one should be havng to put up with death threats for doing their job. No one. You can agree or disagree with the judge's ruling but violence is never the answer. However there is not a single word in that article about the source of the death threats. The title of the thread suggests that it is not only clear where they came from but also that their political views are "left." Again, until or unless I see some kind of proof from a reasonably reliable source, this is pure speculation.
Reply
post #38 of 43
6/27/10 at 3:19pm
Thread Starter 
But of course you don't think the two are "even close" I would have expected no less.

Reply
post #39 of 43
6/27/10 at 8:25pm
A lot of the psychological issues that are starting to become evident around the Gulf would appear to me to be quite sufficient to cause someone to vent their anger at someone, anyone, even a judge they might perceive as being "out of touch".

Oil spill's psychological toll quietly mounts

Maybe even do it twice...or three times, as in; plural.
Reply
post #40 of 43
6/28/10 at 11:27am
Quote:
Yes and I believe that it is pretty safe to assume that the death threats this judge is receiving are from the far left environmental whacko's. Surely it is as safe as a person saying that a chart of "battleground states in the cross hairs" for an upcoming election is "advocating violence". What do they have to do with each other? You know the answer to that, they are BOTH "assuming".
Isn't it a classic example of human nature that we don't look at what we, personally, agree with as "assuming"?
Oh, ok, like assuming that many right wingers or many Christians bombed/committed arson and murdered doctors at abortion clinics? I get it now.
Quote:
They didn't say "one death threat" they said death threat(s) as in plural.
Many = more than one? Of all the leftists in the country, more than one means many?

I believe that most people are not violent regardless of what orginazation they are affiliated with. It just takes a few.
Reply
post #41 of 43
6/28/10 at 11:40am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockcat View Post
Oh, ok, like assuming that many right wingers or many Christians bombed/committed arson and murdered doctors at abortion clinics? I get it now.

Many = more than one? Of all the leftists in the country, more than one means many?

I believe that most people are not violent regardless of what orginazation they are affiliated with. It just takes a few.
Yes, JUST like that.
Reply
post #42 of 43
6/28/10 at 11:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Yes, JUST like that.
Apparently we are using the word "many" differently. I think of it in proportion to the total amount of people in the group.
Reply
post #43 of 43
6/30/10 at 5:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
http://www.bayoubuzz.com/buzz/latest...dge-threatened



Very sad that many on the Left are advocating violence against a judge for making a ruling they don't agree with.
This thread got me thinking; what exactly makes "advocating violence" in this instance, bad; the fact that the ruling was in fact reasonable, the fact that a Judge should never come under such, ahem, "scrutiny" because of the "civilized" system we reside in, or because violence is "never the answer"?

I'm trying to draw a distinction - if there is one - between what's unlawful, and what's unjust. Would there (n)ever be a ruling or state-supported statute worth advocating violence?

Personally, I can think of a gazillion things worth advocating violence, with the presumed result being an exalted place in Heaven for myself. But then again, that's why I'm on a variety of mood stabilizers and should probably be institutionalized.

Not just for the OP. Anyone chime in, please.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › The Violent Left