Slashdot Mirror
Threatening YouTube Video Lands Man In Prison
wiredmikey writes "Norman LeBoon of Philadelphia was sentenced to 24 months in prison for his production and transmission of a YouTube video over the Internet last March containing a threat to injure and kill a United States Congressman. Following his arrest, LeBoon told federal agents that Eric Cantor is 'pure evil'; 'will be dead'; and that 'Cantor's family is suffering because of his father's wrath.'"
Threatening people is against the law. Film at eleven.
Why's this news?
"Will be dead" is assault, a felony depending on who it's directed towards. This isn't news.
Care to cite examples? If you can't, you *are* trolling.
Death threats against Democrats are given the "aw, shucks" treatment.
Yeah, mod me down. That doesn't make it any less true.
No, we were told over and over (and over) again after Senator Giffords was shot that it was the right that was responsible for the shocking violence in this country, but in recent weeks death threats have been made against both Scott Walker (WI-R) and now Eric Cantor (VA-R) with barely any media coverage.
Aw shucks? Your statement isn't true at all!
Considering death threats against democrats are headline news and against republicans they're embargo'd? What you said is far from true. Lexisnexis is over there, feel free to use it.
Om, nomnomnom...
LeBoon is obviously a disturbed individual. And Congressman Cantor's pure evilness can't be good, either.
... but in recent weeks death threats have been made against both Scott Walker (WI-R) and now Eric Cantor (VA-R) with barely any media coverage.
Aw shucks? Your statement isn't true at all!
I don't know about the threats against Walker, but LeBoon posted his video threatening Cantor on YouTube in March 2010. I'm pretty sure it got some coverage then (but you'll have to Google it yourself).
Which is funny, generally they're more interested in regulating all speech rather than cutting out the middle man and regulating our morals.
There is no -1 Disagree.
99.999% of the time, it's death threats against Democrats. You don't find Democrats shooting Republicans. It's the wack-job Rethuglicans that like to whip up violent reactions in their constituency. Because they don't have any real ideas. Just anger, hatred, and stupidity.
You know it's true. :-)
His name is an anagram for: Loner Man Noob
I'm not going to defend the guy on account there are a lot of people out there that are mentally one pebble short of a total meltdown/cataclysm. Some philosophers will argue that all people are inherently evil. If that were the case, people in power like politicians would start locking up as many people as possible because the average citizen be a threat to him or her.
A lot of people are dissatisfied with their government and outside of voting, the elected official (whether they voted for them or not) sits cozy in their seats until the next term.
I don't expect the common man or woman to really know or respect common discourse if they feel that their representing politician is a crook or if someone is not getting represented.
A public YouTube video should be considered to some degree a forum of symbolic speech as the media, direction, and audience is so broad... it's not like pasting a threatening letter together with magazine clippings covered on dog shit saying you're going to kill him/her.
I think without a doubt, a YouTube video will make you stand out as a threat above instead of a grandma next store shaking her fist at CNN on television and wishing anarchy.
I guess you really got to watch what you say.
how is it possible that the man that gave us the beautiful diagonal argument be evil?
just makeing a bomb threat will do the same thing and it may be a pound me in ass one.
As others have suggested, the difference is that unlike the GOP, the Democratic party doesn't encourage, endorse or suggest violence as a means of solving the political problems int he US. Or have you forgotten about that? The various incidents were pretty well covered by the media.
That's because he *is* trolling.
Here are two recent and telling examples of why the troll is wrong:
Exhibit A: Crazy person goes on a rampage and shoots a Democrat politician in the head, nearly killing her.
Media response: Multiple week long circus trying to blame Sarah Palin for the actions of a loon.
Police response: Local police Chief spends more time in front of the camera railing against the Tea Party than he does investigating the attack.
End result: Eventually the investigation is completed by the FBI. The crazy person was crazy and acted alone, uninfluenced by any mainstream political thought or either party. Media continues blame game against Palin unabated.
Exhibit B: After a week spent trashing the capital building in Madison, Leftist thugs send multiple death threats against Wisconsin GOP members and their families.
Media response: Nonexistent outside Fox and the con-alt-media.
Police response: 1 month later and they have ONE person in custody.
End Result: Still playing out.
These are only the most recent examples. I could come up with many more. The point is, in public life in general and in the media in particular, Dems are generally given a pass and let slide when it comes to misbehavior. But the same behavior done by a GOP member elicits WEEKS of scathing coverage with the clear and obvious intent of the absolute destruction of said GOP politician.
Not to say that ANY politician should be allowed to slide when they do wrong. They should be absolutely held accountable. But it would be nice, for a change, if we got the same anti-corruption zeal from the MSM when the bad guy or gal is a 'D' as we do when he or she is an 'R'.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Yeah, funny. I cannot find a mention of this on CNN's front page -- the link is to a Security Week article. The mainstream media is really going nuts over this one
Did anyone else initially understand the headline to mean "Threatening to make a YouTube Video (presumably about someone) Lands Man In Prison"?
No? Just checking!
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
Care to name the last time a Republican shot a Democrat? Please cite your source or admit that you're a troll.
That's not a citation, that's your interpretation. Threatening a public official isn't automatically going to end with court proceedings, there is a legal threshold that must be met. It doesn't happen to occur to you that if Fox was the only one covering it that the threats might not have been credible?
Remember Fox and the con-alt-media are the ones that believe in this massive liberal conspiracy and that Fox went to court specifically to defend its right to make up stories. Fox itself isn't a source of news, and that's their official stance on the matter.
I think you are missing a small, but very important distinction. Death threats against specific individuals are almost always prosecuted, regardless of the party. However thinly veiled calls to violence(such as a politician uttering the phrase "second amendment solutions" are pretty much ignored when the Republicans make them, but if a democrat ever uttered anything like he would instantly be vilified as the worst person ever to walk the face of the planet.
Monstar L
Usually you don't get a nice You Tube video before a wacko gets a chance at someone. This is not a political party issue, this is an issue of ratcheting up the hate in America.
Hate, hate, hate, hate hate. And what do you get. Wackos who are unpredictable.
Wackos are just wackos no matter what political party they belong to.
Neither the GOP nor the Democratic party encourage, endorse, or suggest political violence as a means of solving our problems. Some of both of their supporters do so, however, and it's mostly on the left. The far left espouses violence so much because that's generally the only way it can either gain or keep power. How ofter does a country vote in communism? Even more importantly, how ofter does a country vote out communism? The first thing a communist government does is make any other political or economic system illegal. The few that are left have mostly had to back off some on the economic front (both China and Viet Nam are de facto capitalist countries today, even if their governments are still communist).
Those who favor liberty do not favor political violence; even the American Revolution was a means of last resort, when everything else had failed. The left does not favor liberty, it favors control and conformance, and that makes it much more comfortable with political violence, because violence supports that goal and walks hand in hand with putting people in jail for "political crimes." There are no political crimes in free countries, but many in non-free countries. We have not yet seen the day when a person can be put in prison in the United States merely for saying that which is not politically correct, but there are many on the left who see such a thing as desirable, and who will work to bring it about.
This guy might have benefitted from a quip emblazoned on a plaque my grandpappy had on his wall:
Perhaps I'll send Norman the plaque to decorate his jail cell.
I've been flying my RC scale predator drone over many local paranoid group meetings (tea party, gun shows, green party, critical mass, dead heads, peace rallies etc) for the last year or so. Being in Sacramento I've got a fairly target rich environment even without traveling to the bay area. Gotta watch the airspace over state buildings though. That will get you in big trouble even with a dinky electric 'park flyer'. If they catch you of course.
Feeding their paranoia. I know I'm bad.
Posting in the hope that others will take it up as well. RC predators are cheap and readily available. I've mostly overflown left wing nut groups as that's my available target (CA=fruits, nuts and flakes. I'm a nut BTW. Flakes piss me off.).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Mr. Non-Boolean
-kgj
"Threatening normal, everyday citizens? Police care less because their ticket quotas are more important."
WRONG.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
I, on the other hand, do. And that's because I have actual experience.
Communicating threats has never been taken more seriously than it is now.
I spent 30 months in prison for this crime. If someone believes your opinion
is an accurate representation of how law enforcement deals with this stuff, they
could find themselves in a world of shit.
That's all besides the point. Can you cite some examples of Democrats receiving death threats, and law enforcement responding with an "aw shucks" response, or are you just here to tell us that you hate Fox News, so you really *feel* that the original post is correct?
Care to name the last time a Republican shot a Democrat? Please cite your source or admit that you're a troll.
1838
> the difference is that unlike the GOP, the Democratic party doesn't encourage, endorse or suggest violence
As much as I hate the "citation needed' meme on slashdot, I gotta call you out and ask for some examples.
Meanwhile finding violent lefties is trivial. Bringing up Al Sharpton would be almost like shooting fish in a barrel. Stood on the stage in Democratic Party presidential primary debates with blood on his hands. Inciting a riot that results in dead bodies is a violent crime that would have been prosecuted against any white person, including most Dems.
How many violent 60's rejects are honored elders in the Democratic Party? Oh, those don't count? Why?
How many Tea Party guys have been violently assaulted by lefty goons and loons? The SEIU beatdown Kenneth Gladney for the offense of being a capitalist, selling Gadsden flags at a TP event. Another loon bit a guy's fricking finger off. The Wisconsin situation has been on a hair trigger for violence now for a month, all from union goons and outright socialist revolutionaries.
Now name a violent right winger. You have to go back to McVeigh to even find a good candidate to try to hang on our team's account. Or that loon that popped the abortion Dr. a while back. But note the common thread there, all lone wolves, not organized all the way up to the highest levels of the party like Sharpton or SEIU.
Despite the faked fear from the legacy media for months of leadup, the most evil bugbear in your side's universe, Glenn Beck held a rally in Washington and instead of a hatefest with burning down the city as a big finish, the actual event was a prayer rally that left the grounds cleaner than they found them.
Democrat delenda est
Actually he makes a very good point. 18 Wisconsin congressmen reported death threats after the collective bargaining bill was passed there recently. Yet, you actually do have to go looking to find anything about it on most nationwide news sites. That link above is from a daily newspaper in a small town in central Wisconsin. I'm surprised I wasn't able to at easily find a wire service story about the death threats, given the hysterical nature of the rest of the coverage of the issue.
considering that CNN did report that death threats have led to at least one set of charges, it's hard to imagine that Fox News was just making shit up about the threats, as you're trying to suggest.
"Will be dead" is what he said when arrested.
The words that got him in trouble were: you receive my bullets in your office, remember they will be placed in your heads.
Now, that seems much more like a felony threat to me.
He was speaking German.
Democrats and republicans shooting at each other?
Guess I'll sit back and have a Coke.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Let's look at the claims from the summary:
For an ordinary person, sure. For a Republican congressman I'd say he's about average, maybe even on the less evil side. (Which says a lot about politics these days because he's pretty damn evil.)
Unless Eric Cantor has discovered the secret to immortality, this I can't argue with.
Hm. Well I don't know about his personal life, but I can't say it would surprise me. I mean, lots of congressmen have messed up family lives that they try to hide from the public.
To be clear: I am not advocating violence against anyone.
However.... TFA has much crazier claims:
Eep, so there are the threats and the craziness... Yeah, I'm not on board with the whole bullet thing. I had to read the article to know he even threated the guy for real. Slashdot, why not excerpt the juicy parts?
Let me guess, you didn't do an internet search, or you just stopped when all the results from the right-wing blogs convinced you that it was a media conspiracy??
Go look for Anti-Abortion violence. There have been several since McVeigh's bombing. Go look up anti-Mosque vandalism. Go look up Jim David Adkisson if you want. Check out Roy Warden. You've probably heard Fox News beat the drum about the Black Panthers, but do they mention that? Nope!
Complain about Sharpton all you want, but he's not actually that important. You want to ban him? Ban Limbaugh too.
And that Glenn Beck rally? They keep claiming their rallies are somehow cleaner, but I suspect that there is no independent verification of their claims. And I certainly have no reason to take Beck at his word, he so obviously lies about so many things that I don't bother listening to him. It's just self-aggrandizement.
Find me an independent source that supports the claim why don't you?
You refer to far, far left activity that has no bearing on the political climate in the US. Mainstream politicians on the right make plenty of incitements to violence on what is unfortunately a mainstream news channel. I don't see people who you'd consider left-wing making such extreme comments, but since I'm sure you do, would you care to cite some examples of left-wing politicians or their supporters inciting their audience to violence on a mainstream news outlet?
Now I've never made a bomb, and don't know how small you can get one.. but I'm thinking if you have to pound on it to get it in there, it's probably too big
once more into the breach
Death threats against Democrats are given the "aw, shucks" treatment.
References, please. When did this happen? Who specifically said it was "aw, shucks" for a Democrat to receive death threats?
Because I remember the news media spending weeks chiding Republicans and Tea Party members for an "extreme tone", while the same news media was much less interested in actual death threats made against Republicans.
It was big news that Sarah Palin's campaign used marks to indicate cities on a map, and the news media endlessly discussed how serious it is that Sarah Palin used words like "target" and "reload" when talking about election plans. It wasn't news at all that Democrat ads have used bullseyes, or even put a crosshairs with reticle over a Republican. That crosshairs looks like a rifle scope to me.
I remember that it was big news when a Republican shouted "You lie!" at President Obama, but it was not big news when a Wisconsin Democrat shouted "You're f***king dead!" at a Wisconsin Republican. (Nobody thinks it was a sincere threat of murder, but it still seems like a poor example of the more civil "new tone" talked about in recent months.)
Are you telling me that the same news media that was all over the Republican "extreme tone" downplayed actual death threats against Democrats?
Citation needed.
Disclaimer: I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat; I am a minarchist libertarian. I am not a fan of extremist rhetoric on either side, I am not a fan of death threats, and I am not a fan of double standards.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
It is quite documented that their adherents do the threatening and bullying for them. I seem to recall more than one sitting Congressmen of the Democratic sort making stupid comments and threats. Their supporters certainly do. If your telling me they have nothing to do with the SEIU or that their followers in Wisconsin don't count then I guess your definition of the Democratic party must be pretty damn narrow.
Both sides have their loons, to claim it is the domain of one party to make threats is just plain ignorance or playing to the certain elements of Slashdot. I don't have the time to google all the examples for you, but if you take your nose out of Huffington Post you might see the truth.
Karma be damned, what passes for insightful on this site is downright hilarious.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
we won't be receiving any important lectures about 'civility'; victim's party is incorrect.
Uh... wow, really? I didn't realize there was that much political activity in Sacramento. Are you downtown? Surely you can't be in north sac (the only section I've visited for long).
Twitter will suspend user accounts for spam. They refuse to do so for death threats and rape threats saying that it doesn't violate their policy when their own acceptable use policy says such actions are grounds for suspension or deletion.
I sent them ten instances of death threats and two of rape threats made over a three week period by a user named @goferet and three different support reps said it violated no policy when I even provided the link to their rules.
He kept on making rape threats and still was last time I checked.
Sure your not from Folsom?..... head for the hills in times of crisis.
Probably because there's a difference between removing a document (movie, etc) from public view and putting it on the public record as evidence.
Blank until
Loon Near Mob-n
Hell I live on the "meth highway" which runs between Mexico and Kansas (don't know how much farther north it goes, if someone does chime in as I'm curious) and if the cops can't get paid in cash or dope they don't give a fuck if you beat or rob, as long as its a peasant! here's a couple of true stories from the meth highway.
..A neighbor called the cops because somebody beat his ass and stole his checks. I TOLD HIM that his best bet was to find out who did it and round up a couple of guys, but nope, he decided he should "trust in the law" so what happened? Well when someone started passing off the checks they came and arrested HIS ASS and when he pointed out that whomever had been passing the checks was A.-described as a tall brown hair, while he is a short blond, and B.- the cashier wrote the thieves DL number on the checks and it sure as fuck wasn't his they wrote "chance of solving case 0%" at the top and file 13'd it in front of him. Why? Too much work, no profit!
Story 2...My late sister lived across the street from a gal whose ex was savagely beating her. Restraining order didn't do shit, cops would show up MAYBE 4 hours after she called and my sis was afraid the gal was gonna get killed. I told her put that gal on the horn and told her "Say the D word" and when she asked what I was talking about I said simply "Cops ain't doing shit unless there is cash or dope in it for them, so tell them you think he is holding a large bag of dope. It don't matter if he is, they will come lightning fast and if they end up empty handed it will be HIS ASS that gets a beat down". Sure enough I get invited to her house the next week for a big home cooked chicken dinner. She said "God you're wonderful...IT WORKED LIKE A CHARM! They were here in under three minutes, tore his truck apart, and when they didn't find anything they threw the book at him, he is looking at something like 10 years!"
So yeah, unless this guy pissed off a cop I call bullshit. As long as its peasant on peasant at least here cops don't give a fuck, and traveling all over the south I have seen nothing to think it is ANY different anywhere else. The only exceptions I have seen is DWB and DWH, which is driving while black and driving while hippie, which depending on which area you are in can get you a beat down just for breathing. But as long as it is peasant on peasant they just file 13 it and call it a day. Hell I liked it better when the cops were just openly corrupt, at least in the 70s you didn't get DWB or DWH unless you were being a prick, now the only pricks are the guys with badges.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Kind of funny that Slashdot has fallen victim to the sickness of always letting you know up-front if someone being threatened or harmed in some way is a Democrat, but as with any of the media outlets seems to "accidentally" leave off mention when the potential victim is a Republican.
Also kind of funny you don't see Tea Party people being arrested for this kind of lunacy even though from reading Slashot you'd think that every last one of them were equally insane.
People here on Slashdot seem to equate the conservative body of thought in general with threats and stifling of thought, but repeatedly (as we see echoed in Wisconsin) you have to look to the edges of the left to see actual threats (or even actions) materialize.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Sarah Palin wasn't exactly vague about identities with those photos, it's their threats that tend to be vague
In fact you could not be more wrong. By using the same symbolism and words that countless politicians have use before or since, the threats were extremely clear - "we want to elect someone other than you". Wow, how brutal.
Remember the person who ACTUALLY shot Giffords hated Palin just as much as you do. You should really reflect on that before you continue spreading hatred for someone you simply disagree with philosophically.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Mouth-breathers, the lot of them.
My rule of thumb is that anyone who categorically declares any one group of people is a "mouth breather" or similar term, is themselves at best quite a bigot and probably also a "mouth breather", since they have stopped using that which lies between the ears to process new signal.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What right are we referring to, the right to make threats? Does anyone really believe that has First Amendment protection, or even that it should?
I'm pretty damned pro-First Amendment, but c'mon people...YRO should involve actual infringement of rights, not well-settled exceptions thereto.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
The GOP candidate for vice president in the last election used rhetoric that is clearly going to be interpreted as a call to violence by some of the target audience.
Obviously they aren't stupid enough to say something without enough wiggle room that they can pretend they never thought anyone would interpret them like that. And they likely don't actually want any violence to result - they just want to energize via anger and fear a group of people to vote for them.
> Go look up Jim David Adkisson if you want.
Another obviously mentally disturbed individual, if we have to claim him you guys have to take Laughner and his higher body count. Being an obvious nut probably explains the scant national coverage, which I did miss even though CNN apparently at least had a piece on their net presence.
> Check out Roy Warden.
What about him? Google doesn't find any crimes committed by him, at least on the first page. Anti-illegal immigration is ok but he seems to go a wee bit over the line to actual intolerance... but I didn't investigate too deeply and most of the accusations seem to track back to charges by the SPLC and they bear false witness and aren't to be believed without lots of independent evidence.
> They keep claiming their rallies are somehow cleaner, but I suspect that there is no independent verification of their claims.
The rally itself was carried live on C-Span so you are welcome to consult their archives for the events on the stage. Photos of the National Mall after the event are easy to find online. Compare and contrast with similar photos made of the union/revolutionary One Nation rally and the Stewart/Colbert rallys.
> And I certainly have no reason to take Beck at his word, he so obviously lies about so many things..
Uh huh. Vague charges. At least you aren't as stupid as the poster upthread who made the mistake of parroting a specific charge from the fever swamps. Idiot actually accused Beck of being an anti-semite, I wasn't nice to that guy. Mind making a specific charge so I might ridicule you too as another dishonest shill who hasn't ever actually watched the guy you are slandering as a liar?
And do remember that 'lie' doesn't mean what most lefties think it means, a lie is a knowingly bearing false witness. It isn't being wrong or holding a position progressives disagree with. For example, President Bush did not lie when he asserted that Saddam had WMD since he believed it to be true along with pretty much everyone else on the planet including Saddam Hussein. He may have been incorrect, but that isn't lying. Although the Syrians got a reactor from somewhere for the Israeli air force to blow up and there are persistent reports of cargo flown to Syria from Iraq on the eve of GWII, plus that whole shipload of Uranium that went to Canada from Iraq a couple of years ago that got little coverage. A lie is President Clinton saying "I did not have sex with that woman; Ms Lewinsky." (If you don't believe me let some bimbo blow you and tell your spouse/gf that you didn't have sex and invoke the Clinton defense. After they let you out of the hospital come back here and admit I was right.)
> Complain about Sharpton all you want, but he's not actually that important. You want to ban him?
You do know the President went just this week to kiss Sharpton's ring and ask for his support in the '12 campaign, right? Please supply your definition of 'not actually that important' that Sharpton isn't included in. Any racial issue results in EVERY media outlet booking Sharpton, even Fox, to get the official black response. And he incites riots, at least once resulting in death beyond a reasonable doubt attributable directly to him. He perpetuated the Tawana Brawley hoax. He has never apologized or paid any legal, political or financial price for either act.
Democrat delenda est
Cilley was a Democrat, but Graves was a Whig, not a Republican.
And of course, the political parties were totally different then anyway.
Of course, I'm sure you can find some Republican who shot some Democrat, there's been at least half a dozen doctors shot by anti-abortion activists, just find one of them and you're golden.
He uses the term "hate speech" to describe something he disagrees with. Never hear libertarians or Republicans using this silly "hate" pejorative. Only the anti-free speech left.
I'm guessing you abuse your mod points accordingly, like most lefties, which is why I must post this obvious fact AC.
Why was there any need to send thisguy to 24 months in prison, instead he could have been sent to a center for treatment of excessive anger and temperament control. But the judiciary is a puppet of top corporates, do not be amazed if they start sending you to jail for posting comments like i have done just now .......
Die Obama
Oh, the interlingual puns.
PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
Several points:
-- Glenn Beck is not a "mainstream politician on the right". He's a guy who's payed to say provocative shit in the media to generate viewer numbers. Those ratings are turned into profits by the Fox News Channel through the magic of advertising. Much like Howard Stern's detractors listen to him for long stretches of time "just to hear what he's going to say next," Glenn Beck is in the same business.
-- He uses violent rhetoric because it's provocative: it's attention grabbing, it's sensationalist, and it gets people watching. This does not excuse it, in my opinion, but he is no more making "violent threats" than any of the examples below are *actually* threatening violence. Read on.
I would!
-- Rep. Mike Capuano, Democrat, my home state of Massachusetts. Remarking on the collective bargaining legislation in Wisconsin: "It's more than just sending an email that gets you going. Every once in a while, you gotta get out in the streets and get a little bloody when necessary."
-- Pres. Barack Obama, Democrat. Speaking to folks at a fundraiser: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun, because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”
-- Pres. Barack Obama, Democrat. Talking about Republican prospects in the 2010 midterm elections"They are fired up. They are mobilized. They see an opportunity to take back the House, maybe take back the Senate. If they're successful in doing that, they've already said they're going to go back to the same policies that were in place during the Bush administration. That means that we are going to have just hand-to-hand combat up here on Capitol Hill."
-- Liberal talk show hosts like Beck are fewer & harder to find, but looking over various comments made by Randi Rhodes, Charles Bouley, Mike Malloy, and others... there are examples of violent rhetoric being used.
-- Famous recent example would be where a supporter of Pres. Obama's health care plan bit off part of a conservative protester's finger in an apparent fit of rage over their disagreement.
-- You could also check out the video embedded in this next link: in which a MoveOn supporter allegedly "chokes" a conservative protester. I'm inclined to believe there's not a lot of "choking" going on, but certainly there's still no need for him to be putting his hands around the other man's neck at a political protest, is there?
Look, it's easy to characterize violent rhetoric from liberals as "far, far left" activity, that's way out of the mainstream - nobody wants to believe that "their team" could be capable of the sorts of things that "those people" do, and so it's a natural reaction that you'd want to distance yourself from it. Much like conservatives will distance themselves from anybody who is *actually* preaching violence against liberals, and agree with you that it's the "whacko right nutjobs" who are talking like that.
The fact of the matter is that it's not just the whacko fringes using the rhetoric, on EITHER side. It's absolutely appropriate to be as disgusted with it from Republicans as it is to be disgusted with it from Democrats. Both of them should know how to behave better. But if you're really going to say that you don't mind if "your team" uses that kind of rhetoric, but you're going to object whenever the "other team" does, then you're just a hypocrite.
What's that got to do with censorship?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Neither of these sides could be considered "my team", both because I'm Canadian, and because Democrats do stupid things as well, like acting on behalf of the media lobby. If you look at my post though, nothing I said could be construed to mean that I think it's fine for left wing people to use violent rhetoric. At the same time though, referring to a figure of speech ("don't bring a knife to a gun fight"), even if it is a poor choice of words given the room for interpretation, does not automatically imply an intent to condone violence, and I don't think that was Barack Obama's intent when he said that. Meanwhile, I can't see any charitable way to interpret Glenn Beck acting out poisoning Nancy Pelosi's wine. Glenn Beck is more than just some kind of shock talk show host. A prominent example of someone taking him seriously is Victoria Jackson, who actually said "I watched Glenn Beck and he's taught me well", while explaining why she thinks Barack Obama's a communist.
government shuts down, they still get paid. Nobody can afford health insurance, but they get theirs for free at US Taxpayer expense. Regular people get threatened all the time, nothing happens.
And again with the conservative downmods. Reality does have a well-known liberal bias. Oh, those darn pesky facts, are they getting in the way of your conservative worldview?
Nathan's blog
Another obviously mentally disturbed individual, if we have to claim him you guys have to take Laughner and his higher body count. Being an obvious nut probably explains the scant national coverage, which I did miss even though CNN apparently at least had a piece on their net presence.
Oh, so you're allowed to count Loons against "lefties" but you refuse to acknowledge your own, instead, you just try to justify adding more to YOUR condemnation
list.
Double-standard much, huh?
It'd be one thing if you hadn't mentioned any of the "violent left wing loons" in your own posting, but you did, didn't you? Because you try to justify your own claims about it being some organized Left-wing thing to engage in violence by citing these things when you see people you don't like doing it, but never pay attention to it on your own side.
Ever. They just don't exist to you.
What about him? Google doesn't find any crimes committed by him, at least on the first page. Anti-illegal immigration is ok but he seems to go a wee bit over the line to actual intolerance... but I didn't investigate too deeply and most of the accusations seem to track back to charges by the SPLC and they bear false witness and aren't to be believed without lots of independent evidence.
Huh. Just like I feel about Glenn Beck and the blogosphere. And with exactly as much corroboration.
I think I'll stick to that same standard.
The rally itself was carried live on C-Span so you are welcome to consult their archives for the events on the stage. Photos of the National Mall after the event are easy to find online. Compare and contrast with similar photos made of the union/revolutionary One Nation rally and the Stewart/Colbert rallys.
Sorry dude, but one thing I do know is that video and photographic coverage can be misleading without intention, it is actually hard to get genuine real documentation of something. So I'd prefer somebody independently covering it.
Unfortunately, the only thing I've ever seen is the Right-wing blogosphere insisting they're clean and proper, while the other guys are dirty and filthy mess-makers so you can't trust them.
Which is so obviously biased that I'm more inclined to discount it, not less. They claim to be peaceful loving folks too, but the ones I met...less so than they claim.
Perhaps I only met the exceptions, but hey, I trust my eyes and ears more than yours.
And I certainly have no reason to take Beck at his word, he so obviously lies about so many things..
Uh huh. Vague charges. At least you aren't as stupid as the poster upthread who made the mistake of parroting a specific charge from the fever swamps. Idiot actually accused Beck of being an anti-semite, I wasn't nice to that guy. Mind making a specific charge so I might ridicule you too as another dishonest shill who hasn't ever actually watched the guy you are slandering as a liar?
And do remember that 'lie' doesn't mean what most lefties think it means, a lie is a knowingly bearing false witness. It isn't being wrong or holding a position progressives disagree with.
I agree, it does require one to state something false. I actually discussed that with somebody above as well. Frankly I think the defense of him not being an "anti-semite" was laughable myself, I didn't read the names, but all that I saw was so poor it didn't convince me of anything regarding that issue except that the defense was by flimsy assertion. It was just basically people saying "No way, He's a mormon, he can't be an anti-Semite" which well, doesn't actually say much to me.
However, in my case, I tuned into Glenn Beck a few times, often enough he said something I knew to be false. Given that he works for a major television network, he could have checked his facts if he had wanted to do so. And no, I'm not talking about simple mistakes like dates, I'm talking about actual maj
I quite literally feel very fortunate to have gotten away safely.
As opposed to figuratively feeling very fortunate??
Well, perhaps what Mr. LeBoon had in mind was giving a PowerPoint presentation to Mr. Cantor. His bullet points will be placed in their heads.
See subject-line above, & these "prime examples" below via links to the originals of WHY hairyfeet shouldn't have gone to "ITT Tech", in his TECHNICAL BLUNDERS, & more (regarding HOSTS files):
---
Static vs. Dynamic Adbanner addressing (lol, "according to hairyfeet"):
(Which even BestBuy Techs know!)
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35681060
---
DNS Client Cache turn off for HOSTS, a TECHNICAL Blunder by Hairyfeet:
(Which even BestBuy Techs know also (just like the one above!))
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686054
---
Hairyfeet's single solutions SECURITY FAILURES? See inside:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690260
---
Your sources on "security" vs. mine (actual security people) (AND myself, a source on it):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690328
---
Lastly, as to your LIBEL of myself (w/ arstech):
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35668740
---
The defeat of hairyfeet by APK (video analogy - hilarious, BUT, apt):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690536
---
They say it all, & usually vs. hairyfeet's own words quoted! I wouldn't pay him too much heed, especially after you read the above b.s., lies, changing figures, & even LIBEL of others that hairyfeet likes to do. After all - he's from "ITT Tech" (student)...
Worst part of ALL, here?
Hairyfeet just clearly doesn't even understand how HOSTS files benefit you for:
---
1.) ADDED Reliability (vs. DNS going down, or being 'poisoned', & even DNSBL (DNS Block Lists))
2.) ADDED "layered" Security online (vs. known bad sites &/or servers (botnet C&C) + maliciously scripted adbannners by BLOCKING them out)
3.) ADDED Speed (not loading adbanners, and hardcoding your fav. sites into it)
4.) Even more ADDED 'anonymity' online (vs. DNS request logs)
(Even server admins might NOT mind having the load on their DNS servers lightened up also, bonus!)
---
APK
P.S.=> Personally though - because hairyfeet is only a "techie"? I suspect he doesn't want people to know about HOSTS files' added LAYERED SECURITY benefits to the end-user: Why?? Because if users stop getting so much "malware-in-general" which layered security (and HOSTS) give you added layered protection against, he's out money...apk
this is the site i bought, www.special-beats-headphone.com/ and the most importent is the attractive price, hope it helps you .
See subject-line above, & these "prime examples" below via links to the originals of WHY hairyfeet shouldn't have gone to "ITT Tech", in his TECHNICAL BLUNDERS, & more (regarding HOSTS files):
---
Static vs. Dynamic Adbanner addressing (lol, "according to hairyfeet"):
(Which even BestBuy Techs know!)
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35681060
---
DNS Client Cache turn off for HOSTS, a TECHNICAL Blunder by Hairyfeet:
(Which even BestBuy Techs know also (just like the one above!))
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686054
---
Hairyfeet's single solutions SECURITY FAILURES? See inside:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690260
---
Your sources on "security" vs. mine (actual security people) (AND myself, a source on it):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690328
---
Lastly, as to your LIBEL of myself (w/ arstech):
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35668740
---
The defeat of hairyfeet by APK (video analogy - hilarious, BUT, apt):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690536
---
They say it all, & usually vs. hairyfeet's own words quoted! I wouldn't pay him too much heed, especially after you read the above b.s., lies, changing figures, & even LIBEL of others that hairyfeet likes to do. After all - he's from "ITT Tech" (student)...
Worst part of ALL, here?
Hairyfeet just clearly doesn't even understand how HOSTS files benefit you for:
---
1.) ADDED Reliability (vs. DNS going down, or being 'poisoned', & even DNSBL (DNS Block Lists))
2.) ADDED "layered" Security online (vs. known bad sites &/or servers (botnet C&C) + maliciously scripted adbannners by BLOCKING them out)
3.) ADDED Speed (not loading adbanners, and hardcoding your fav. sites into it)
4.) Even more ADDED 'anonymity' online (vs. DNS request logs)
(Even server admins might NOT mind having the load on their DNS servers lightened up also, bonus!)
---
APK
P.S.=> Personally though - because hairyfeet is only a "techie"? I suspect he doesn't want people to know about HOSTS files' added LAYERED SECURITY benefits to the end-user: Why?? Because if users stop getting so much "malware-in-general" which layered security (and HOSTS) give you added layered protection against, he's out money...apk
http://politicalcompass.org/
slashdot isn't on the left.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
No, I'm afraid that is *all* he is. He is listened to by a small fraction of the population (9 million - around 3%). Assuming every one of them is a voter, and every one of them votes exactly the way he tells them, the Glenn Beck listenership accounted for ~7% of the votes cast in 2008. It's likely that the actual percentage of people who both listen to him, vote, and vote exactly the way he would want them to, is somewhat lower than that. That's not mainstream. If the best example of his influence you can come up with is Victoria Jackson - an aging comedian best known for her time on Saturday Night Live in the late 1980's - then I'd suggest his influence is far less frightening than you suggest.
This is not to say that his violent rhetoric is "okay" since it's only reaching a small portion of the audience. But to claim that he's representative of mainstream conservative thought would be just as much an exaggeration as suggesting that the people showing up to MoveOn.org rallies and biting peoples' fingers off are representative of mainstream liberal thought. It's also worth noting that your own link provides numerous examples of Mr. Beck clearly and explicitly stating that the use of violence is misguided, wrong, and completely detrimental to advancing any political process: "The minute you become violent, which you're not going to do -- hear me clearly, for the record. Violence will destroy the republic. The person that picks up a gun, a bomb, anything, a knife, a rope, they will destroy the republic. Reject violence every step of the way."
If Glenn Beck saying "grab a torch" is an incitement to violence, Rep. Capuano's "sometimes you gotta get a little bloody" is certainly as much of an incitement. Pres. Obama's remark about "hand to hand combat" on Capitol Hill is also just as much an incitement - his message was clear: "If we don't keep the Republicans out, governance will devolve into a fistfight." Now, do I actually believe that any of them is *seriously* expecting people to go out and beat the stuffing out of the first person that disagrees with them? NO. They're all *quite obviously* using vivid violent imagery as a way of grabbing the listener's attention, as a way of stirring up some emotions. Unfortunately, fear & anger are two of the easier ones to stir, and ALL of our politicians have learned that lesson well, and apply it with remarkable, ham-fisted regularity.
There will always be some number of mentally ill people who will act out violently, and blame some aspect of politics for their actions. No amount of "controlling violent rhetoric" will change that fact. However, there are a lot of regular people - conservative and liberal alike - who are more than willing to turn things into a mob scene when they're in a large group and they get their passions whipped up into a frenzy, and that's the danger inherent to this style of speaking. It's wrong when Mr. Beck does it, it's wrong when Rep. Capuano does it, it's wrong when Pres. Obama does it.
The TL;DR point of this all is simply this: if you're basing your opinion of the "violence" of someone's speech solely on whether or not there's a -D or an -R after their name, and giving some people a pass based on that one-letter suffix, then you're engaging in base hypocrisy. Both sides do it, both sides are equally wrong to do it. I'd much rather they both focus on facts, and stirring constructive impulses in people, but long, nuanced and complex points don't fit well into the 5-minute window between commercial breaks, and don't fit well into the 5 minute speech you need to give before your rushed off to the next 15 of the day's fundraisers to give the same 5 minute speech. So, to build an emotional connection, politicians hit the fear & anger buttons, and move on to the next show.
...when I noted that none of the comments contain an assertion that Cantor is not pure evil.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
I agree with everything you just said, but it's not about which party someone sides with, it's about whether I think their comments are an honest mistake, or if they are deliberately trying to polarize the political debate. If I see someone engaging in hypocrisy or dishonesty in their public commentary, I'm obviously a lot more likely to see malicious intent in something they say later on, because that person would have lost credibility with me. Of course, Obama has also lost a lot of credibility since he was elected as well, but for different reasons than what I would talk about in relation to politicians and commentators from the right. Then there's the fact that I don't agree with tax cuts on the rich, blanket deregulation, restrictions on the rights of individuals, and the vilification of public sector unions and workers, so it's kind of hard to me to be sympathetic to the right wing cause. Where Obama has failed, I think it's because he's failed to follow through on the things he promised during his campaign in the face of opposition from right-leaning representatives in congress and the senate, and because the Democrats have failed to successfully combat the misinformation about e.g. health care that tainted the public debate. Being an outsider, though, I can't really analyze the situation with any more rigor or depth than that.
Davis, Sac state, cal-expo, homeless camp, downtown, bay area, I'm mobile. As time permits. Good fun for all.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Screw politics, it's for boring adults.
Is is a threat to tell someone that they "will be dead" ? Won't we all be dead, someday?
You are going to die. I am going to die. Each and every person alive today "will be dead." In a hundred to two hundred years everyone will eventually die, of nothing if they live long enough. They will just someday fall apart.
Let's look back at the last few acts of actual terrorism carried out in this country, including the attempt to slaughter children at a Martin Luther King parade and various shooting sprees. That you can look at recent history and declare that the bulk of the violence is coming from the left shows just how disconnected from reality you are. The right has become radicalized and violent to an extent far beyond anything this country has seen since the years just before MLK's assassination.
If I may throw the words of one of your own at you: "Prove to me, sir, that you are not a terrorist."