I'm going to risk posting this in this thread as it probably belongs here. In the Giffords' case it doesn't seem like there is any evidence to support that right wing politics had anything to do with that but that doesn't mean that such views have not had an influence in regard to violence as in the Byron Williams case and threats of violence as below and as Rep Giffords herself said she had received. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41053051/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts Calif. man arrested over threats to congressman 'Anyone who knows me, knows I wouldn't hurt anyone,' he tells public defender RIVERSIDE, Calif. — A California man was arrested Wednesday on a charge that he made threatening, obscene phone calls to the office of U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott last month, weeks before a gunman shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and others in Arizona. An FBI complaint unsealed in federal court said Charles Turner Habermann, 32, of Palm Springs, called the Seattle Democrat's office late Dec. 9 and early Dec. 10 and left two messages, each about four minutes long, after seeing him on television. He began each with his name and phone number, and went on to threaten to kill the congressman — as well as his friends and family — over his opposition to extending tax cuts for the wealthy, according to transcripts recited in the complaint. Habermann faces one count of threatening a federal official, which carries up to 10 years in prison. According to the transcript of one call to McDermott's office, Habermann said, "He thinks he can steal money from people and give it away to losers and get away with it." It continues, "I'll (expletive) hunt that guy down and I'll (expletive) get rid of him." In the other call, Habermann allegedly said, "If he ever (expletive) around with my money, ever the (expletive) again, I'll (expletive) kill him, OK." Habermann also left a threatening message on the voice mail of a congresswoman listed in the criminal complaint as "C.P.," and he threatened a California assemblyman, the U.S. attorney's office said. Willy Ritch, a spokesman for Rep. Chellie Pingree of Maine, confirmed that she was the representative referred to in the complaint. He said a threatening message had been left on her voicemail since the election, but the threat was actually directed at another member of Congress. He declined to comment further, citing the ongoing investigation. The assemblyman is V. Manuel Perez, a Democrat who represents the Palm Springs area, said Perez spokeswoman Amy Wilson. $300,000 bond Habermann, who wore a maroon-striped shirt and bunched black jeans, made his initial appearance Wednesday afternoon in U.S. District Court in Riverside. U.S. Magistrate Judge David Bristow set bond at $300,000 and placed him on home detention pending his next court date in Washington state on Jan. 25. Habermann could be released as early as Thursday. Bristow ordered Habermann not to contact any of the people he allegedly threatened as well as their families and staff members, nor was he to reach out to any elected official. Habermann also will undergo drug and alcohol testing as well as a mental health evaluation. Before his hearing, Habermann was animated and discussed the case with his attorney, federal public defender Joan Politeo. "Anyone who knows me, knows I wouldn't hurt anyone," Habermann told Politeo. Seattle FBI spokesman Fred Gutt said the complaint was already being drafted before Saturday's shooting in Tucson that killed six people. The FBI said agents visited Habermann on Dec. 10, and he admitted leaving the messages and identified himself as the caller when he listened to a recording of the calls. He said he'd been drinking when he made the calls but was not so drunk that he wouldn't have driven his car, the agents reported. Habermann also told them that he never intended to hurt anyone, and that he would never do anything to jeopardize his $3 million trust fund, FBI agent Dean Giboney wrote in the complaint. Seattle U.S. Attorney Jenny Durkan said in a news release that citizens have a right to debate government officials but not threaten them. "Those actions are intended to silence debate, not further it," she said. "They instill fear not just in the immediate victims, but in many who might hold the same views or take the same course." Habermann also left two voicemail messages for Perez on March 23, one of which threatened to kill the California assemblyman, according to court documents. He seemed 'agitated, paranoid' A week earlier, Habermann met with one of Perez's staffers and began ranting about the federal health care bill and how he didn't want to support immigrants and Latinos, records show. "He seemed agitated, paranoid and couldn't keep still," said CHP Officer John Quintero, who referred to a report about the incident. Habermann was escorted out of Perez's office, and the case, along with the threatening voicemails, was referred to the California Highway Patrol's Dignitary Protection Section, Quintero said. Habermann was never arrested. "In this line of work we often interact with agitated people for a range of reasons," Wilson said. "Through the course of dialogue and providing service to them, you can assess how conversation is going to go. This situation escalated where we felt we needed to inform law enforcement," he added. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., has also faced threats recently. One man was sentenced to a year in prison for making threatening phone calls, and another is scheduled to face trial next month on charges he waved a meat cleaver toward her and threatened to kill her during an appearance in Spokane.
this is the context: And I am going to have materials for people when they leave. I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. it's clear she means armed with "materials" (aka "facts"). with which to combat the energy tax. assuming you persist in thinking this a "dumb" turn of phraseology, would you likewise condemn Obama's "gun to a knife fight" remark? the "republicans are hostage takers" remark, and legions of others, from Obama i could dredge up to make the same point?
Please...tell me that is a joke or some sort of one-off fabrication... It's hard for me as a collector/hunter and not a right-wing nut to go to gun-shows anymore because of displays like that. The level of vitriol coupled with extreme right-wing politics, overt displays of "second amendment remedies" and the general level of conservative fear & loathing leaves me wanting to take a shower.
I would like Mr. Krugman to point me to these examples of Beck and O'Reilly talking about this violence.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/oreilly-jokes-cutting-reporters-head/ http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201010150023
Yes, because unless an economist personally shows them to you, it's basically impossible/improbable to use the internet to find any examples of a notorious nutjob like Beck advocating violent right wing conspiracy fantasies.
krugman, and by extension rim, made specific charges to support his (their) thesis that right wing "extremism" caused the Tucson massacre. it's not unreasonable to ask he (they) provide specific evidence to back up the charge. absent such evidence, the charges must be considered de facto refudiated.
Where did Krugman make this charge (note I did not read his original article, because no link was provided in this thread)? I think its not unreasonable for you to cite specific evidence of your charge that he made this charge. With respect to the the actual charge he made that you quoted, namely that eliminatist rhetoric comes mostly from the right -- how would you suggest he support that? And let's turn it around. Suppose a conservative charged that eliminatist, divisive rhetoric comes mostly from the left -- how might he go about supporting that? I think its pointless to insist on a proof of such a charge. We could indefinitely point to irresponsible remarks made on both sides. Its like arguing over which is the larger infinity. The example Krugman referenced, quoting in full: [rquoter] It takes a lot to wow members of Congress after a while. This wowed them. And I am going to have materials for people when they leave. I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing, and the people--we the people--are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States and that's why I want everyone to come out and hear. So go to bachmann.house.gov and you can get all the information.[/rquoter] Context for the specific part "armed and dangerous" comes from both what precedes it and also what comes after. I don't believe she is so nuts as to be literally calling for people to be armed with guns. But this isn't what Krugman charged, now is it? He said "eliminatist rhetoric", and this certainly qualifies. She wants people to be "armed and dangerous" and they should engage in "revolution" (which is a good thing, Jefferson said so!). The Jeffersonian concept of revolution is not simply debating with political opponents "armed with ideas". That's not what revolution means -- certainly not in Jefferson's time, on the heels of the French and American revolution.
LOL, wow O'Reilly. The Beck quote is a little different as he's talking about shooting someone if they try to take his kids away. (WTF? Broccoli enema?)
Krugman made the claim so why shouldn't I want to see them backed up? I am surprised to see that O'Reilly made that "joke." Another poster here was kind enough to point it out to me. I read it and was surprised and see what Krugman said now was accurate. Why you feel the need to constantly be such an jerk when I actually try to get information and assess my position and perspective is so strange to me.
I'm not sure what I find more lacking in credibilty, your skepticsm, as somebody who appears to follow current affairs, of the possibiility that crazy stupid idiot like Beck, who regularly spouts the same fantastical nonsense as Tim McVeigh and other mentally disturbed paranoiacs, would have said something inflammatory, or your inabilty to use fancy internet search engines to find such, should you really so choose. Deliberate obliviousness on your part.
OK, here's the section of Krugman's column that's above the paragraph you cited in the original post... So, he puts an appropriate caveat on the Tucson guy but then looks at the general climate. For example: For those who don't remember, the title of Goldberg's book is: 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (And Al Franken Is #37)
Lool Sam, I just read the other thread about cleaning this forum up. I didn't know about the match.com issue. I understand now why you have so much anger on this board. I'm not the one who did that to you though so I wish you stop venting your anger at me. I was simply intrigued by the statement Krugman made. I didn't recall the events he mentioned in the article. Another poster pointed me to them. I'm sorry that I didn't feel like googling it. It sounded unlikely to me and I did not desire to do the research. Again Sam, I apologize that others on this board have wounded you deeply. I hope someday you will be able to overcome your pain and stop being such a jerk, constantly belittling people to raise your own internet-esteem.
Why did the prospect of Glenn Beck saying something inflammatory sound unlikely to you? Have you only recently become aware of his oeuvre? Now I'm beginning to understand why you have trouble processing information. You may want to read the other thread again. Though for the record, I think match.com kicks ass.
