Texan Lynches Chair

[BigSkyBob]

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.

Let me get this straight. If Obama were White, and Eastwood still gave the same speech, the chair wouldn't have been "lynched?"

Surely, the chair has everything to do with Eastwood's speech, but, what does Obama's race have to do with it?

[opebo]

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?

[Donerail]

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.

[opebo]

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. 

[Brittain33]

There's no iron law that says that violence on end of the political spectrum must be matched in intensity and breadth with violence on the other end.

I had to google ELF to remember what they were.

[Donerail]

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. 

Yes, the gun-owning angry racist white male is a significant force in American society, but the number of those who actually commit violent actions is not a significant amount, just as the ELF and ALF are very small.

[opebo]

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. 

Yes, the gun-owning angry racist white male is a significant force in American society, but the number of those who actually commit violent actions is not a significant amount, just as the ELF and ALF are very small.

The number of them who actually commit violence dwarfs the number who ever do on the left, and you know it.

[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).

[Donerail]

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.

[J. J.]

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.

[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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's not a lynching if done by a single person.

Nor does a mob have to be killing to be lynching.

Here in South Carolina the crime "lynching in the second degree" was the term for non-fatal mob violence until 2010.  The fact that most people being charged with lynching these days were black gang members probably was a factor in "lynching" being given the PC name of "assault and battery by mob".

[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.

[danny]

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:

[patrick1]

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.

....my head hurts

[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.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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.

[Zanas]

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

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what you call a wonderful argument from authority that closes all debate.

[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)