HCR: Threats of Violence

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

Severed gas line found at home of Perriello brother

pdated: 4:55 p.m. U.S. Rep. Tom Perrielloâ??s brother received a threatening letter in the mail on the same day that someone apparently severed a gas line at the home in Ivy.

Two conservative Tea Party activists posted the address of the home on the Internet on Monday, mistakenly believing it was the home of the congressman. One of the activists urged others to â??drop byâ?? and â??express their thanksâ?? for Perrielloâ??s vote in favor of health care reform.

Tuesday evening, Perrielloâ??s brotherâ??s family smelled gas and discovered the propane line of a gas-powered grill on their screened-in porch had been slashed.

In the mail, they found a letter addressed to the congressman that Perrielloâ??s office described as â??threatening.â??

â??It was not an explicit threat, but it was a threatening letter,â?? a source in Congressman Perrielloâ??s office said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. â??It was along the lines of â??Youâ??ll have to answer for this on judgment day.â??â??

http://www2.dailyprogress.com/cdp/news/local/crime/article/damage_at_home_of_perriello_brother_under_investigation/54038/

22

ON a brighter note (I hope this lasts):

Secret Service: Threats Against Obama Declining
March 24, 2010 11:45 AM ET | Paul Bedard | Permanent Link | Print

By Paul Bedard, Washington Whispers

When it comes to death threats, well, Barack Obama is finally just a regular old president. Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan reports that the surge in threats against Obama, peaking on Inauguration Day, has plummeted. “It’s now at a level where it was with other presidents, and that’s a good thing,” Sullivan tells Whispers. He credits the public for helping keep Obama safe during the election by calling in threats spouted by nutty neighbors. “It was an historic election, and there was a lot of sensitivity out there. I think one of the best partners we have is the public, and the public does bring this to our attention.”

23

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Bad. Yes.

Okay, but let’s not pretend that this doesn’t happen regularly to members of both parties. Bunning just a few weeks ago was showered with threats.

Which makes me wonder why these particular threats are suddently getting so much press. It’s almost as if the Dems are on a PR blitz to discredit the Right as a bunch of violent fanatics. Hmmmmm…

I have to say this as well: I AM NOT ADVOCATING VIOLENCE. Howevever, isn’t that what the colonists did? I mean, if the “Sons of Liberty” decided they’d hold demonstrations and tried to use peaceful means, would America and all it has meant ever have come into existence? Why is “violence” - either offensively or defensively - completely off the table? Serious question. AGAIN: I AM NOT ADVOCATING THAT ANYONE COMMIT VIOLENCE.

Love & peace and flowers.

~katz

[/quote]

You aren’t advocating violence, yet you turn around and equate it with the revolutionary spirit that founded this country? If you don’t advocate violence yet, according to you it was violence that begat this country, then by your logic are you not advocating the fight for independence that created this country? What greater good are the Tea Partyers threatening violence really fighting for that can be equated with the fight of our Founding Fathers? Taxes used for healthcare are hardly comparable to taxes taken by a despot for his own personal gain.

What’s next, was Oswald (or the CIA/FBI/Castro/Mafia depending on your stance) a true revolutionary simply acting in the spirit of the '76ers? If someone assassinates Obama, will that make him a revolutionary as well? This is one of the most mind-boggling posts I’ve seen on this forum.[/quote]

I read this post several times. I can make no sense of it. Would you care to try again?[/quote]

Maybe you should work on reading comprehension? I don’t know. I got it the first time through without any issues.

Interesting that you chose this post to criticize, by the way. No comments about the threats of violence though… hmmm…

24

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Severed gas line found at home of Perriello brother

pdated: 4:55 p.m. U.S. Rep. Tom Perrielloâ??s brother received a threatening letter in the mail on the same day that someone apparently severed a gas line at the home in Ivy.

Two conservative Tea Party activists posted the address of the home on the Internet on Monday, mistakenly believing it was the home of the congressman. One of the activists urged others to â??drop byâ?? and â??express their thanksâ?? for Perrielloâ??s vote in favor of health care reform.

Tuesday evening, Perrielloâ??s brotherâ??s family smelled gas and discovered the propane line of a gas-powered grill on their screened-in porch had been slashed.

In the mail, they found a letter addressed to the congressman that Perrielloâ??s office described as â??threatening.â??

â??It was not an explicit threat, but it was a threatening letter,â?? a source in Congressman Perrielloâ??s office said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. â??It was along the lines of â??Youâ??ll have to answer for this on judgment day.â??â??

http://www2.dailyprogress.com/cdp/news/local/crime/article/damage_at_home_of_perriello_brother_under_investigation/54038/[/quote]

Did you have a point?

Again I don’t condone violence, however the issue is close to home as it gets and they are getting to know how personal and a violoation of rights this legislation is. Right or Wrong, how could we not expect threats and the likes of this givin our history?

This is a major issue and it’s not healthcare.

25

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
"It was an historic election, [/quote]

An historic. That’s actually correct, but I never got the reason. Should be 'a Historic '…

26

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Bad. Yes.

Okay, but let’s not pretend that this doesn’t happen regularly to members of both parties. Bunning just a few weeks ago was showered with threats.

Which makes me wonder why these particular threats are suddently getting so much press. It’s almost as if the Dems are on a PR blitz to discredit the Right as a bunch of violent fanatics. Hmmmmm…

I have to say this as well: I AM NOT ADVOCATING VIOLENCE. Howevever, isn’t that what the colonists did? I mean, if the “Sons of Liberty” decided they’d hold demonstrations and tried to use peaceful means, would America and all it has meant ever have come into existence? Why is “violence” - either offensively or defensively - completely off the table? Serious question. AGAIN: I AM NOT ADVOCATING THAT ANYONE COMMIT VIOLENCE.

Love & peace and flowers.

~katz

[/quote]

You aren’t advocating violence, yet you turn around and equate it with the revolutionary spirit that founded this country? If you don’t advocate violence yet, according to you it was violence that begat this country, then by your logic are you not advocating the fight for independence that created this country? What greater good are the Tea Partyers threatening violence really fighting for that can be equated with the fight of our Founding Fathers? Taxes used for healthcare are hardly comparable to taxes taken by a despot for his own personal gain.

What’s next, was Oswald (or the CIA/FBI/Castro/Mafia depending on your stance) a true revolutionary simply acting in the spirit of the '76ers? If someone assassinates Obama, will that make him a revolutionary as well? This is one of the most mind-boggling posts I’ve seen on this forum.[/quote]

I read this post several times. I can make no sense of it. Would you care to try again?[/quote]

Maybe you should work on reading comprehension? I don’t know. I got it the first time through without any issues.

Interesting that you chose this post to criticize, by the way. No comments about the threats of violence though… hmmm…[/quote]

Maybe JEATON was confused as to why DB would use my post as a launching pad for a bizarre non-sequitor-ous rant.

27

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Bad. Yes.

Okay, but let’s not pretend that this doesn’t happen regularly to members of both parties. Bunning just a few weeks ago was showered with threats.

Which makes me wonder why these particular threats are suddently getting so much press. It’s almost as if the Dems are on a PR blitz to discredit the Right as a bunch of violent fanatics. Hmmmmm…

I have to say this as well: I AM NOT ADVOCATING VIOLENCE. Howevever, isn’t that what the colonists did? I mean, if the “Sons of Liberty” decided they’d hold demonstrations and tried to use peaceful means, would America and all it has meant ever have come into existence? Why is “violence” - either offensively or defensively - completely off the table? Serious question. AGAIN: I AM NOT ADVOCATING THAT ANYONE COMMIT VIOLENCE.

Love & peace and flowers.

~katz

[/quote]

You aren’t advocating violence, yet you turn around and equate it with the revolutionary spirit that founded this country? If you don’t advocate violence yet, according to you it was violence that begat this country, then by your logic are you not advocating the fight for independence that created this country? What greater good are the Tea Partyers threatening violence really fighting for that can be equated with the fight of our Founding Fathers? Taxes used for healthcare are hardly comparable to taxes taken by a despot for his own personal gain.

What’s next, was Oswald (or the CIA/FBI/Castro/Mafia depending on your stance) a true revolutionary simply acting in the spirit of the '76ers? If someone assassinates Obama, will that make him a revolutionary as well? This is one of the most mind-boggling posts I’ve seen on this forum.[/quote]

I read this post several times. I can make no sense of it. Would you care to try again?[/quote]

Maybe you should work on reading comprehension? I don’t know. I got it the first time through without any issues.

Interesting that you chose this post to criticize, by the way. No comments about the threats of violence though… hmmm…[/quote]

The greatest enemy of comprehension is fluency.
We use the same words, so we assume understanding.
I would suggest your above average reading comprehension may have more to do with an assumed shared worldview than the clarity of the above post.

28

Gentlemen, gentlemen gentlemen…we’re getting off topic here, myself included. The whole point of this thread is completely asinine to begin with. The bottom line is that the behavior of those who have threatened violence against their fellow Americans is reprehensible. And it happens all the time from both sides. When Dems threaten to kill Bush, it’s equally as atrocious as what has recently transpired. This whole, “oh, well they do it too” thing is childish. I certainly hope that we all understand both sides do it. Those who advocate violence against the Dems, based on their logic, must not have a problem with the threats of violence against the Repubs. If they try to justify one’s sides violence without justifying the other side’s, if certain means justify their ends, fine. They don’t deserve credibility and should be ignored. So let’s just end this thread here and now and forget about it. If people want to argue that these violent actions are ok, and if others want to argue that they aren’t but then choose to discount likewise acts from Dems toward Repubs, let them. I’m sure the logical people here are capable of leaving them to the childish bickering.

29

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
"It was an historic election, [/quote]

An historic. That’s actually correct, but I never got the reason. Should be 'a Historic '…[/quote]

The h is silent.

30

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
"It was an historic election, [/quote]

An historic. That’s actually correct, but I never got the reason. Should be 'a Historic '…[/quote]

The h is silent.[/quote]

Either is correct nowadays.

On one extreme you have the word “hour” - and you would always use “an.” An “a” would sound bizarre. Why? Because the “h” is completely silent.

On the other extreme is the word “home” - the “h” is always aspirated; so we use an “a.”

(Although, there are many parts of the US, for example, where the “h” in home is not aspirated.)

The initial “h” in historic is “in between” the two extremes, and - compartively speaking - people aspirate it variously; moreso than with most words with an initial “h.” That’s why there’s confusion. It kinda depends upon how you, personally, pronounce the word.

So either is correct.

31

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Gentlemen, gentlemen gentlemen…we’re getting off topic here, myself included. The whole point of this thread is completely asinine to begin with. The bottom line is that the behavior of those who have threatened violence against their fellow Americans is reprehensible. And it happens all the time from both sides. When Dems threaten to kill Bush, it’s equally as atrocious as what has recently transpired. This whole, “oh, well they do it too” thing is childish. [/quote]

I completely agree. I would suggest though that the possibility that the dems are using this publicity for political gain by demonizing ALL dissenters deserves serious consideration however. I forget who posted it up earlier. I also think that there is a possibility that the publicity itself on death threats is magnified over that Bush received based on the political leanings of media, and I think this possibility deserves serious consideration as well. IMO this possible double standard via media is deplorable in the extreme.

32

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Gentlemen, gentlemen gentlemen…we’re getting off topic here, myself included. The whole point of this thread is completely asinine to begin with. The bottom line is that the behavior of those who have threatened violence against their fellow Americans is reprehensible. And it happens all the time from both sides. When Dems threaten to kill Bush, it’s equally as atrocious as what has recently transpired. This whole, “oh, well they do it too” thing is childish. [/quote]

I completely agree. I would suggest though that the possibility that the dems are using this publicity for political gain by demonizing ALL dissenters deserves serious consideration however. I forget who posted it up earlier. I also think that there is a possibility that the publicity itself on death threats is magnified over that Bush received based on the political leanings of media, and I think this possibility deserves serious consideration as well. IMO this possible double standard via media is deplorable in the extreme.[/quote]

I agree, although it would seem that the actions themselves have been harsher on the part of the more recent perpetrators of violence toward the Dems. So the two cancel each other out. End of thread.

33

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
While I don’t condone death threats, I’m glad that these fuckers are scared of their constituents.

It’s exactly why we have the setup we do.[/quote]

The only fear that any politician should have is that they lose their job. Insinuating that they should fear for their safety is absolutely ridiculous.

Our system is set up the way it is so that we don’t have to resort to violence to get things done. For everyone romanticizing the revolutionaries, keep in mind that they were part of totally different political system at the time of revolt and had no option other than violence. We have an option in the voting booth. Any pussy can grab a gun, or post an address hoping someone else will do the easy work. If the American system is really what these protesters want to protect, then they need to use that system, not short-circuit it.

34

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Gentlemen, gentlemen gentlemen…we’re getting off topic here, myself included. The whole point of this thread is completely asinine to begin with. The bottom line is that the behavior of those who have threatened violence against their fellow Americans is reprehensible. And it happens all the time from both sides. When Dems threaten to kill Bush, it’s equally as atrocious as what has recently transpired. This whole, “oh, well they do it too” thing is childish. I certainly hope that we all understand both sides do it. Those who advocate violence against the Dems, based on their logic, must not have a problem with the threats of violence against the Repubs. If they try to justify one’s sides violence without justifying the other side’s, if certain means justify their ends, fine. They don’t deserve credibility and should be ignored. So let’s just end this thread here and now and forget about it. If people want to argue that these violent actions are ok, and if others want to argue that they aren’t but then choose to discount likewise acts from Dems toward Repubs, let them. I’m sure the logical people here are capable of leaving them to the childish bickering.[/quote]

I agree.

However, I am still genuinely interested in whether armed insurrection is ever justified. (Again, to clarify, I am asking the question - not advocating anything.)

If not, then why would we honor the Founding Fathers?

And if we do honor them, but believe that such a revolution will never be justified again, why do we believe that? Was there some singular alignment of people and contexts in early 18th century pre-Revolutionary colonies that will never be repeated? Why do we believe that?

35

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Gentlemen, gentlemen gentlemen…we’re getting off topic here, myself included. The whole point of this thread is completely asinine to begin with. The bottom line is that the behavior of those who have threatened violence against their fellow Americans is reprehensible. And it happens all the time from both sides. When Dems threaten to kill Bush, it’s equally as atrocious as what has recently transpired. This whole, “oh, well they do it too” thing is childish. [/quote]

I completely agree. I would suggest though that the possibility that the dems are using this publicity for political gain by demonizing ALL dissenters deserves serious consideration however. I forget who posted it up earlier. I also think that there is a possibility that the publicity itself on death threats is magnified over that Bush received based on the political leanings of media, and I think this possibility deserves serious consideration as well. IMO this possible double standard via media is deplorable in the extreme.[/quote]

I agree, although it would seem that the actions themselves have been harsher on the part of the more recent perpetrators of violence toward the Dems. So the two cancel each other out. End of thread.[/quote]

Sorry, that’s just not true. And remember, AFAIK these latest are pretty much self-serving, anecdotal, unverified reports.

36

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Was there some singular alignment of people and contexts in early 18th century pre-Revolutionary colonies that will never be repeated? Why do we believe that?
[/quote]

The contexts will certainly never be repeated in this country. We all know the history. Political leanings will wax and wane, but we’ll never be under the rule that the revolutionaries were.

In my opinion, violence should always be the very last possible option, but you can never rule it out.

37

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Gentlemen, gentlemen gentlemen…we’re getting off topic here, myself included. The whole point of this thread is completely asinine to begin with. The bottom line is that the behavior of those who have threatened violence against their fellow Americans is reprehensible. And it happens all the time from both sides. When Dems threaten to kill Bush, it’s equally as atrocious as what has recently transpired. This whole, “oh, well they do it too” thing is childish. I certainly hope that we all understand both sides do it. Those who advocate violence against the Dems, based on their logic, must not have a problem with the threats of violence against the Repubs. If they try to justify one’s sides violence without justifying the other side’s, if certain means justify their ends, fine. They don’t deserve credibility and should be ignored. So let’s just end this thread here and now and forget about it. If people want to argue that these violent actions are ok, and if others want to argue that they aren’t but then choose to discount likewise acts from Dems toward Repubs, let them. I’m sure the logical people here are capable of leaving them to the childish bickering.[/quote]

I agree.

However, I am still genuinely interested in whether armed insurrection is ever justified. (Again, to clarify, I am asking the question - not advocating anything.)

If not, then why would we honor the Founding Fathers?

And if we do honor them, but believe that such a revolution will never be justified again, why do we believe that? Was there some singular alignment of people and contexts in early 18th century pre-Revolutionary colonies that will never be repeated? Why do we believe that?
[/quote]

Well Katz, I think this issue deserves some examination. To tell you the truth, I’m not sure what sort of prerequisite must exist in order for armed insurrection to be justified. I suppose there’s a difference between insurrection against a foreign power and a domestic one, and in some way this could lead us right back to that whole Jefferson/Lincoln thread again.

But I will say this: the actions of those who have (allegedly, although there seems to be some truth to these accusations) “risen up” against the Dems in question are not doing so for the same reasons our FF’s did. Or maybe they are to a certain extent. I really don’t know how to explain it properly, but when I think of the FF’s and these rogue Tea Partyers, something in my gut tells me that the two just aren’t comparable.

But let’s keep this discussion going. I think it’s definitely a discussion that can lead to some substantial arguments from all sides involved. So what do you think are the prerequisites for justified insurrection?

38

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Well Katz, I think this issue deserves some examination. To tell you the truth, I’m not sure what sort of prerequisite must exist in order for armed insurrection to be justified. I suppose there’s a difference between insurrection against a foreign power and a domestic one, and in some way this could lead us right back to that whole Jefferson/Lincoln thread again.

But I will say this: the actions of those who have (allegedly, although there seems to be some truth to these accusations) “risen up” against the Dems in question are not doing so for the same reasons our FF’s did. Or maybe they are to a certain extent. I really don’t know how to explain it properly, but when I think of the FF’s and these rogue Tea Partyers, something in my gut tells me that the two just aren’t comparable.

But let’s keep this discussion going. I think it’s definitely a discussion that can lead to some substantial arguments from all sides involved. So what do you think are the prerequisites for justified insurrection? [/quote]

These people have had it, they have been pissed for a long long time. The people that are flipping have been pissed since bush and this is sending them over the edge. You think this is bad wait till the taxes start taking affect around july-october, then you will see people really lose it.

Most of their civil liberties are gone, take away their wealth and watch them explode(and justifably so). If(when) we have a double dip people will have had it with government.

Is fighting for your liberties wrong? I don’t know but I am interested to see where this leads.

39

Well John, I agree that fighting for our liberties is never wrong, but don’t you agree that the method currently being pursued by these rogues within the TP are overboard? And I am still a bit miffed at what these people are fighting against. Look, I support healthcare reform in any fashion as long as it is effective and does not come at the cost of our civil liberties.

But the reality is that we will always “be forced” to pay taxes in this country. How much we pay can ebb and flow from administration to administration, but it will always happen to a certain extent. So we have the ability to stand up and fight against what we perceive to be an unjust use of our taxes. In a way, that is the essence of Americanism. But in my own personal opinion, I think these people are wrong to stand up so forcefully against taxes for healthcare. I mean look, there is some amount of ambiguity as to whether or not this bill will fail in the long run or else the debate wouldn’t be happening. But to me, it seems as if there is much less ambiguity concerning whether the taxes we are spending in Iraq or Afhganistan or the war on drugs or green technology or bailouts/stimulus packages and so forth are worth it.

Am I making any sense here? I guess what I’m getting at is this: if people are going to protest against where taxes go, why not protest against taxes being spent to rebuild Iraq instead of healthcare? And I’m sure that there are some who have protested against both, but I suspect there are very few in the TP who protested against the war in Iraq or the war in Afhganistan or the war on drugs. There are some people who protest against taxes period, no matter where they are spent, but I think those people are fighting for something that will NEVER happen.

I suppose protesting against certain taxes and govt policies is a matter of opinion, and I understand to a certain extent why they protest against healthcare reform, but I don’t understand why they protest against that INSTEAD of something else that, to me, seems to be a much more clearcut waste of our money.

40

[quote]borrek wrote:

Our system is set up the way it is so that we don’t have to resort to violence to get things done. For everyone romanticizing the revolutionaries, keep in mind that they were part of totally different political system at the time of revolt and had no option other than violence. We have an option in the voting booth. Any pussy can grab a gun, or post an address hoping someone else will do the easy work. If the American system is really what these protesters want to protect, then they need to use that system, not short-circuit it.[/quote]

Our system was also to set up to limit the federal government’s powers. Obviously the current “constitutional expert’s” interpretations aren’t working out to well.

After all the personal intrusions with this bill, I think our founding fathers would be ashamed if we didn’t revolt. Violence