• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

18 Republican Senators now recieving death threats in Wisconsin

That's just a smear against public employee unions. You take a threatening letter by an anonymous nutjob and assign blame to all opponents of the recent anti-union legislative action. It's just guilt by association.

Political violence is wrong and should be condemned. The letter represented a form of political violence. And, this libelous opening post represents a form of political violence. I condemn the author of the threatening letter and I condemn cpwill for his false and malicious post.

But the right wing freak show is all atwitter about a recent letter, excerpted below, which identifies the history of collective bargaining in five decades of peaceful labor relations and that Scott Walker did not run on highly constraining collective bargaining in his gubernatorial campaign and then goes on to say:

… In the event that you cannot support this effort to save collective bargaining, please be advised that the undersigned will publicly and formally boycott the goods and services provided by your company. However, if you join us, we will do everything in our power to publicly celebrate your partnership in the fight to preserve the right of public employees to be heard at the bargaining table. Wisconsin’s public employee unions serve to protect and promote equality and fairness in the workplace. We hope you will stand with us and publicly share that ideal. …

— letter, from executive Director of the Wisconsin Professional Police Association to Tom Ellis, President, Marshall & Ilsley Corporation¹

Here's a forum member's take on it.



Personally, this is a valid form of direct political advocacy. There's nothing wrong with withholding your patronage for businesses whose politics are contrary to your own. Conservative groups and liberal groups and groups in between all use the boycotts to express their displeasure with a business or public entity.

cpwill and others in the right wing freak show want to distort that legitimate, public political expression into a kind of extortion. It's just more malevolence from repeat offenders.
They can threaten to boycott, we can propose reverse boycotsts and CP can post about it and provide his own take. Just because you disagree with him, doesn't mean he's doing something wrong or "libelous". Language like that is intended to put a damper on opposing views. You must be union. LOL

I tried once to get you to condemn union violence, you wouldn't do it.
 
Last edited:
… Just because you disagree with [cpwill], doesn't mean he's doing something wrong or "libelous". …

I agree! Or, at least I agree with the statement that just because I disagree with something cpwill posts or you post for that matter, does it necessarily mean he or you have done something wrong. We must examine the content of the post and in the case where an individual made a threat, cpwill painted a whole political movement with that individual's crime. That's wrong. That's libelous. That you are unable to see that or choose not to see that is disappointing to me. It tells me you are either unable or unwilling to have an honest discussion about a pretty basic aspect of political discourse: a shared understanding of the facts.

… I tried once to get you to condemn union violence, you wouldn't do it.

For my part, I have consistently opposed political violence in all forms in this country; apart from being morally wrong, it is also ineffectual. To succeed in American politics, one must align oneself with people's aspirations and speak to their imaginations.

However, there are cases where people attempt to deflect discussions into irrelevant things and I think this was the case you are failing to link to. Correct me if I am wrong, but, as I recall you were incapable or unwilling to stay on-topic.
 
I agree! Or, at least I agree with the statement that just because I disagree with something cpwill posts or you post for that matter, does it necessarily mean he or you have done something wrong. We must examine the content of the post and in the case where an individual made a threat, cpwill painted a whole political movement with that individual's crime. That's wrong. That's libelous. That you are unable to see that or choose not to see that is disappointing to me. It tells me you are either unable or unwilling to have an honest discussion about a pretty basic aspect of political discourse: a shared understanding of the facts.
Well, I'll say this. I believe in blaming the people who commit crimes for their actions, not anybody else. I wonder if you feel the same way though. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you one that advanced the argument that the right wing rhetoric was responsible for the AZ shooting? You can't have it both ways, you can't blame the T party that had nothing to do with Laughner, but then turn around and get incensed at unions being blamed for death threats.



For my part, I have consistently opposed political violence in all forms in this country; apart from being morally wrong, it is also ineffectual. To succeed in American politics, one must align oneself with people's aspirations and speak to their imaginations.

However, there are cases where people attempt to deflect discussions into irrelevant things and I think this was the case you are failing to link to. Correct me if I am wrong, but, as I recall you were incapable or unwilling to stay on-topic.
No, it's not that I don't stay on topic, it's that I have a really good memory and I point out inconsistency where I see it.
 
so i take that as a no?

i would say currently the evidence that we do have strongly indicates that it is; and if you have any evidence to the contrary then i would love to see it.
 
… Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you one that advanced the argument that the right wing rhetoric was responsible for the AZ shooting?

No I'm the one who pointed out that violence feeds on itself:

What comes around goes around

Also, I repeated the joke I heard about hypocrisy regarding those who complain about being wronged even as they commit the same wrong against others:

Palin-drome

Also, I'm the poster who pointed out that painting large groups of people based on the actions of a particular individual is wrong:

15 Minutes of Fame Times Two

But, of course, my primary focus after the Tucson Massacre was about changing the law to ban the sale of large capacity magazines.

On not wasting a crisis: Limiting the size of handgun magazines


… it's not that I don't stay on topic, it's that I have a really good memory and I point out inconsistency where I see it.

You need to back up that “really good memory” with some links or you look like someone with a really bad memory who just thinks he has a really good memory. I think that might be an early sign of a medical condition that's fairly serious. You might want to have that looked at.
 
Last edited:
No I'm the one who pointed out that violence feeds on itself:

What comes around goes around

Also, I repeated the joke I heard about hypocrisy regarding those who complain about being wronged even as they commit the same wrong against others:

Palin-drome

Also, I'm the poster who pointed out that painting large groups of people based on the actions of a particular individual is wrong:

15 Minutes of Fame Times Two

But, of course, my primary focus after the Tucson Massacre was about changing the law to ban the sale of large capacity magazines.

On not wasting a crisis: Limiting the size of handgun magazines




You need to back up that “really good memory” with some links or you look like someone with a really bad memory who just thinks he has a really good memory. I think that might be an early sign of a medical condition that's fairly serious. You might want to have that looked at.

I just hope every one who reads this actually follows the links you provided. Your links proved what I say. You blame Fuller on the T party by suggesting the T party was just getting what comes around, but then want to divorce Fuller from the left. Goes to show you, my memory is just fine.
 
I just hope every one who reads this actually follows the links you provided. …

I hope people read my blog, too! Thanks for the recommendation. :)

Your links proved what I say. You blame Fuller on the T party by suggesting the T party was just getting what comes around, but then want to divorce Fuller from the left. Goes to show you, my memory is just fine.

Eric Fuller, a gun shot survivor of the Tucson Massacre, certainly blamed the Tea Party for the violence committed against himself and his congresswoman. I think he was wrong about that. Jared Lee Loughner was a paranoid schizophrenic his violent delusions were based entirely on his illness.

The Tea Party members' angry, intimidating and disruptive language at political town hall meetings in 2009 and 2010 is well documented. Eric Fuller's angry, threatening language at ABC News' town hall meeting seemed like more of the same. I see it as a continuum: what comes around, goes around. It's like a drunken, stupid brawl that escalates into gun play. I thought I was being clear in that and I regret you misread my meaning.

You asked, “Weren't you one that advanced the argument that the right wing rhetoric was responsible for the AZ shooting?” I offered things I did say and then I asked you to provide proof of your claim. You have so far failed to do so. I take that as your concession that you memory is indeed flawed.
 
hmmm...any proof that these threats were made by the public unions or their members cp?

It could have been the Taliban, right?
 
This doesn't surprise me in the least. It isn't the public employees. It is the criminals running the unions. When you come between a criminal and his ill-gotten gains, one can expect just about any type behavior.
 
Back
Top Bottom