Texan Lynches Chair

[Spanish Moss]

This is not an enigma.  Racism, while not in a broad stroke covering all individuals, is wildly prevalent on the "Tea Party" right.

It's absurd - and though I'm no Democrat, I certainly opposed Bush - and nobody I could ever remember, Democrat or otherwise, would have even thought to do something so symbolically extreme.  And that's the difference between the mentality of the "left" and right in America.

[Spanish Moss]

This is not an enigma.  Racism, while not in a broad stroke covering all individuals, is wildly prevalent on the "Tea Party" right.

Who brought up the Tea Party?

This kind of behavior is common among its members, if you want to talk about people doing nutty racist anti-Obama things such as this, a good cross-section of the Tea Party - a major social movement - falls into this insanity category.  Therefore, it wouldn't be intellectually honest to ignore the fact.

[Spanish Moss]

nothing the left ever does in protest equates to the ignorant vitriol that comes out of right wing movements.

Are you familiar with the ELF? The ALF? The Weathermen? James Chester Blanning? Carol Anne Burger?

Note that I said "Most (though not all) 'violent displays from left extremists' are usually instigated by the police"  You noted a handful, while many mass demonstrations where "the crowd got violent," if you were actually there or dig deeper than mainstream headlines, you find out were instigated by the authorities.

Of course there's very rare exceptions.  And though I oppose their tactics, what the ELF and ALF do isn't based on hatred and ignorant vitriol, their perspective is to make such activities - through their actions - not economically feasible to engage in any longer, therefore ending whatever practices they're seeking to end.  Sure, they use violence, but it's tactical - not ignorant vitriol reminiscent of the south in the 1950s.  I'm not saying that's better or worse - that's a different debate - I'm saying it's not nearly the same attitude and mentality that you're trying to connect them with.  So what you quoted of me saying having to do with the ELF and the ALF... I can't really see a connection there.

My point is that the ELF/ALF are about as representative of the left as the violent fringe elements of the Tea Party are of the right. The vast majority of members of both the left and right are sane, sensible people, and to try to tie the actions of a small fringe group to the aims and methods of the larger one is ludicrous. Whether it's saying that 'most leftists want to bomb SUV dealerships' or 'most Tea Party members want to lynch the President', it's equally inaccurate. The fringe nutjobs of the Weathermen are comparable to people like the Sikh temple shooter; the Tea Party itself, however, isn't comparable to violent groups but is comparable to a large political group (let's go with Moveon.org). Basically, you've got nutjobs on the far-left and nutjobs on the far-right, but the vast majority on both sides of the aisle aren't terrorists.

I don't disagree: My point was this kind of mentality spawns from the vitriol and hatred that is common in the tea party.  I'm not saying stuff as extreme as wanting to harm anyone, but just the common, ignorant, racist, ethnocentric comments that come out of it and breed a culture where it becomes more acceptable for these super-fringe types (in their eyes) to act the way they do.

[Spanish Moss]

All Left wingers are terrorists and hate America because Bill Ayers did/does.

Two can play at that game.

I never said "all right wingers" anything, there are plenty of well informed, well educated right leaning individuals who are respectable and positively well intentioned.  I happen to strongly disagree with them - but I respect the subjectivity of the inherent "rightness" of our opinions and therefore respect their right to that opinion, so long as they present it respectfully and without red herrings or strawmen.

My thesis - which I think I haven't conveyed adequately - is this: The thing about America which I feel strongly distinguishes it from other industrialized nations is that its right wing has a far higher percentage of ignorant and hateful people.  There are plenty who aren't, certainly, and there are even plenty in the tea party who aren't.  But there is a mentality present, coming from the more ignorant individuals, which is hateful and full of vitriol - not necessarily burning things or hanging things meant as avatars for those they disagree with, but still innately negative, hateful, and based on illusions rather than facts.  It is this segment of the right which I see as a breeding ground for this type of behavior and mentality becoming more acceptable than it once would have been.

And I don't see this as reflective of conservative politics, this mentality I don't see as being nearly as prevalent in other countries... Canada, the UK (well, maybe in the BNP, but most people in the UK objectively look at the insanity there).  It's an odd phenomenon that I think for whatever reason is more unique, at this level, to the United States.  And no, very few of those people are as extreme as you may be inferring I am saying they are, but it's the general sentiment of hate and vitriol that has created a divisive and rageful condition in American politics.  The fact that there are Republican legislators who will literally vote against things they otherwise would have voted for, that they know would be good for the country, specifically to make Obama look bad (who, on an international scale if we're being honest, is center-right) is another product of this.

My critique is of an underlying attitude which creates a negative atmosphere.  I'm not saying all conservatives nutjobs - I'm saying there's an element in the right in this country which is very dangerous for the attitude it promotes.

[Spanish Moss]

Obama was burnt in effigy in India by Muslims last week.  http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/09/14/live-blog-tunis-cairo-other-middle-east-cities-erupt-in-protests-over-anti-islam-film

Are all Muslims terrorists?

Of course not - this is a huge strawman.  In no way did I make a blanket accusation, I made it pretty clear in my last post in this thread what I meant.

[Spanish Moss]

Obama was burnt in effigy in India by Muslims last week.  http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/09/14/live-blog-tunis-cairo-other-middle-east-cities-erupt-in-protests-over-anti-islam-film

Are all Muslims terrorists?

Of course not - this is a huge strawman.  In no way did I make a blanket accusation, I made it pretty clear in my last post in this thread what I meant.

It isn't a strawman; both activities are similar.

Now, obviously, I don't believe that all Muslims are terrorists, nor I do I actually think that those Muslims want to burn Obama.  Following you stated logic, however, you would have to claim that "this kind of mentality spawns from the vitriol and hatred that is common in Islam.  I'm not saying stuff as extreme as wanting to harm anyone, but just the common, ignorant, racist, ethnocentric comments that come out of it and breed a culture where it becomes more acceptable for these super-fringe types (in their eyes) to act the way they do."

I just took out the words "the Tea Party" and inserted the word "Islam."  I don't believe it, and I bet you don't either, but following your logic, and considering the acts were similar (though the burning of the Obama effigy was more brutal), that is what you get.

In this case, I highly doubt Islam has any relation whatsoever to the person who committed the act.  However, you'll find that I'm actually quite the critic of Islam - for the reasons you've stated.  I'm not an apologist for the religion, and I do feel on an international rather than America-centric scale Islam is one of the greatest purveyors of this kind of violent behavior.
 
While if a Christian follows the bible the way they are intended to (as in, Leviticus does not apply because the new covenant is for all people and is not meant to continue the specific cultural laws of the Judean tribe of the Israeli people) these "evil bible quotes" actually aren't meant to apply to Christians (and ones that do, such as when it uses the word "homosexual," the actual word used likely refers to some form of male prostitution and not homosexuality) - the Qu'ran is intended word for word to be taken as it is written, and it does call for the killing of nonbelievers... and calls for the punishment of apostasy to be death. 

The "moderate Muslims" are simply the ones who choose not to follow that their religion tells them to, because their conscience outweighs to them what their religion says they should do (as in, they're "bad" Muslims).  I am not a fan of Islam, I do not see it as a religion of peace by any means.  Though to be very clear - I recognize that the vast majority of Muslims are "bad Muslims" in this sense, which is a good thing - and I have a great deal of respect for many Muslims and have found the ones I've known or interacted with to be spectacular individuals (and yes, I do personally know and greatly respect those muslims).  So I'm not some kind of ethnocentric Muslim-hater as some are, quite the opposite - my critiques are of Islam itself, and actually does not apply to the very vast majority of muslims - who are usually more devout to God and more loving and peaceful than most Christians I meet.  So in no way am I attacking the Islamic peoples, just the heart of the religion itself.

I'm a big fan of ideological consistency (such as, taxing cigarettes heavily for bad health effects yet not doing so with red meat, the other major cause of heart disease, is nonsensically hypocritical), and for me this falls within that.

I mean this with no disrespect to muslims, and like I said, most are far more holy than most Christians - and I don't (as a Christian) see Christianity as the "best religion" or "superior."  But in the unique case of Islam, yes, I think it (as a belief system) is responsible of the same kind of thing that I'm accusing the American right of.

However, it is reforming in some places, and hope it continues to do so... it can otherwise be a wonderfully positive influence on peoples lives - I'd like to see that aspect of it become dominant.

[Spanish Moss]

Pray tell how does one "lynch" a chair?

The resident of the home himself seems to think it can be done. Notice how he doesn't exactly deny what's being read into this display.

In fact, he explicitly denies he "lynched" a chair. He does state the obvious: the chair is symbolic of the chair in Eastwood's speech. Had he merely put a chair in his lawn, it wouldn't have symbolic of the chair in Eastwood's speech. suspending the chair in the arm made it a focal point. In Eastwood's speech, the chair is not symbolic of Obama, but, rather the emptiness of the chair that is symbolic of the lack of leadership this nation has from the office of the President. Those that have leap from, "Its the Eastwood chair!," to "He's symbolically lynching Obama!," have smuggled in a number of false premises.

Here is what he actually said:  "There's too many stupid people that have misconceptions," he said. "They automatically look at that and say, 'OK, that empty chair -- that's Obama.' Well that's not necessarily true."
 
However, the folks at burntorange ought to be arrested for posting a photo they purport to be the "lynching" of Obama.

Apparently, advocacy of murdering Obama is widespread in the land. In numerous front yards tires are being "lynched" with rope. As you know, tires are shaped like the number "zero," which numerous "right-wingers" use as a term of derision for Obama.

It's one thing to "lynch" a tire that people are going to swing on, that's a commonplace practice.  Hanging a chair like that is both uncommon and serves no practical purpose other than a visual demonstration of something.  Considering Obama is black, and the whole chair thing... it isn't a stretch to infer something deeply racist there.

[Spanish Moss]

My point is that the ELF/ALF are about as representative of the left as the violent fringe elements of the Tea Party are of the right.

Seriously?  You really believe that?  You must not have ever met any Americans, at least not in the Midwest or South.  Where are you?

Yes, I believe that neither violent faction clearly represents either political side. And I'm in the South.

But I mean to compare the two is totally out of connection to reality - the violents on the right are an enormously greater percentage of that side, and if you count sympathizers, there is an even more pronounced difference compared to the left.

Things like ELF and ALF are just so few and rare as to be hardly worth speaking about, but the violent gun-owning angry and racist white male is a significant force in American society. 

I think a good visual representation of this would be people toting guns at Tea Party protests, while I'm not aware of a single case of that at Occupy (certainly if it did happen, that person would have been pepper sprayed and beaten beyond belief, but that's for another thread).

[Spanish Moss]

In this case, I highly doubt Islam has any relation whatsoever to the person who committed the act.  However, you'll find that I'm actually quite the critic of Islam - for the reasons you've stated.  I'm not an apologist for the religion, and I do feel on an international rather than America-centric scale Islam is one of the greatest purveyors of this kind of violent behavior.
 
While if a Christian follows the bible the way they are intended to (as in, Leviticus does not apply because the new covenant is for all people and is not meant to continue the specific cultural laws of the Judean tribe of the Israeli people) these "evil bible quotes" actually aren't meant to apply to Christians (and ones that do, such as when it uses the word "homosexual," the actual word used likely refers to some form of male prostitution and not homosexuality) - the Qu'ran is intended word for word to be taken as it is written, and it does call for the killing of nonbelievers... and calls for the punishment of apostasy to be death. 

The "moderate Muslims" are simply the ones who choose not to follow that their religion tells them to, because their conscience outweighs to them what their religion says they should do (as in, they're "bad" Muslims).  I am not a fan of Islam, I do not see it as a religion of peace by any means.  Though to be very clear - I recognize that the vast majority of Muslims are "bad Muslims" in this sense, which is a good thing - and I have a great deal of respect for many Muslims and have found the ones I've known or interacted with to be spectacular individuals (and yes, I do personally know and greatly respect those muslims).  So I'm not some kind of ethnocentric Muslim-hater as some are, quite the opposite - my critiques are of Islam itself, and actually does not apply to the very vast majority of muslims - who are usually more devout to God and more loving and peaceful than most Christians I meet.  So in no way am I attacking the Islamic peoples, just the heart of the religion itself.

I'm a big fan of ideological consistency (such as, taxing cigarettes heavily for bad health effects yet not doing so with red meat, the other major cause of heart disease, is nonsensically hypocritical), and for me this falls within that.

I mean this with no disrespect to muslims, and like I said, most are far more holy than most Christians - and I don't (as a Christian) see Christianity as the "best religion" or "superior."  But in the unique case of Islam, yes, I think it (as a belief system) is responsible of the same kind of thing that I'm accusing the American right of.

However, it is reforming in some places, and hope it continues to do so... it can otherwise be a wonderfully positive influence on peoples lives - I'd like to see that aspect of it become dominant.

Well, I'm not exactly known for an anti-Muslim bias.

But, I think it is wrong to lump all Muslims in with the group that burnt the effigy.  Likewise, I think it wrong to lump all conservatives in with one guy who hung a chair.

I'm not lumping all Muslims - as I stated, most I've met are pretty awesome people.  Neither did I lump all conservatives.  I'm saying there's an underlying current in the conservative movement that breeds a safehaven for ignorant, racist behavior.  There are many American conservatives who are not part of this underlying current - but it doesn't mean it isn't there.

[Spanish Moss]

My point is that the ELF/ALF are about as representative of the left as the violent fringe elements of the Tea Party are of the right.

Seriously?  You really believe that?  You must not have ever met any Americans, at least not in the Midwest or South.  Where are you?

Yes, I believe that neither violent faction clearly represents either political side. And I'm in the South.

But I mean to compare the two is totally out of connection to reality - the violents on the right are an enormously greater percentage of that side, and if you count sympathizers, there is an even more pronounced difference compared to the left.

Things like ELF and ALF are just so few and rare as to be hardly worth speaking about, but the violent gun-owning angry and racist white male is a significant force in American society. 

I think a good visual representation of this would be people toting guns at Tea Party protests, while I'm not aware of a single case of that at Occupy (certainly if it did happen, that person would have been pepper sprayed and beaten beyond belief, but that's for another thread).

The difference being that the Tea Party tends to have a liberal stance on guns and would have events that would showcase gun owners carrying their guns to put a sort of positive light on gun ownership, while Occupy is not liberal on gun policy and tends to oppose guns.

"Tends to" being the most important part of your statement.  I'm an extremely left pacifist, yet am still very pro gun rights.  I oppose violence as a method of revolution, but the reason that was put in the Bill of Rights wasn't for hunters or home protection.  It was for protection against a tyrannical government, if a day ever came when revolution needed to happen.

I know some people say "well everyone had muskets back then, it's not like that now."  With enough popular support and guerrilla warfare tactics, it's not entirely absurd that automatic weapons could be used to transform society in a revolution.  The founding fathers put that Amendment in for the very reason of, if society deems the circumstance to call for this.

Personally, again, I'd be against that method wholeheartedly, and don't believe it is necessary, and the outcomes would be far better in a nonviolent method.  But I understand why it's there, and understand not everyone agrees with me.

And while the general left may be for more gun restriction, I get the impression that the far left (the ones who want revolution to happen someday) is probably more pro-gun than anti-gun.  So this, I think, is a misrepresentation.

And I don't believe Tea Partiers are showing up with guns as symbology for the argument that there should be looser gun laws.  It's a symbol, as I infer it, of the revolutionary change they seek to happen.  I've never even heard of a Black Bloc doing the same thing.

[Spanish Moss]

This is not an enigma.  Racism, while not in a broad stroke covering all individuals, is wildly prevalent on the "Tea Party" right.

It's absurd - and though I'm no Democrat, I certainly opposed Bush - and nobody I could ever remember, Democrat or otherwise, would have even thought to do something so symbolically extreme.  And that's the difference between the mentality of the "left" and right in America.

You always have extremists on both sides:

This is true, but from my own observation, it appears to me to be more prevalent on the right than the left.

[Spanish Moss]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Think Progress

These men are clearly RINOs, as it was Republicans who fought to end lynching and Democrats who fought to keep it.  In fact, Democrats were filibustering anti-lynching laws as recently as 1967.  This is extreme and does not belong anywhere in the Republican Party or the Tea Party movement.

This is not an enigma.  Racism, while not in a broad stroke covering all individuals, is wildly prevalent on the "Tea Party" right.

It's absurd - and though I'm no Democrat, I certainly opposed Bush - and nobody I could ever remember, Democrat or otherwise, would have even thought to do something so symbolically extreme.  And that's the difference between the mentality of the "left" and right in America.

You always have extremists on both sides:

This is true, but from my own observation, it appears to me to be more prevalent on the right than the left.

The right-wing extremists just get reported on more by the liberal mainstream media.

I'd argue there's no real argument to back up the mainstream media is liberal.  It's certainly sensationalist in terms of reporting nonsense (celebrity news) and reporting things just for ratings (upper middle class blonde girl goes missing again), but hardly liberal.  MSNBC seems to be trying now to copy FOX's model of pushing an agenda, but at least with them they don't report things that are factually entirely inaccurate (or, at least, nowhere near the degree to which FOX does)