home

The Politics of Violence

By TChris, Section Judiciary
Posted on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 11:06:45 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

With armed vigilantes making headlines, it may not be surprising that right-wing politicians find it understandable that judges who disagree with their extreme views might become targets of violence. Not surprising, but still shocking.

Earlier this week, TalkLeft called attention to Senator Cornyn's distressing claim that courthouse violence is caused by frustration with activist judges.

The frustration "builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in" violence, said Mr. Cornyn, a former member of the Texas Supreme Court who is on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which supposedly protects the Constitution and its guarantee of an independent judiciary.

As the New York Times editorially opines today, "when a second important Republican stands up and excuses murderous violence against judges as an understandable reaction to their decisions, then it is time to get really scared."

He thumbed his nose at the separation of powers, suggesting that the Supreme Court be "an enforcer of political decisions made by elected representatives of the people." Avoiding that nightmare is precisely why the founders made federal judgeships lifetime jobs and created a nomination process that requires presidents to seek bipartisan support.

Cornyn's message to judges: you're responsible for your own death if you rule in a way that displeases a right-wing lunatic. Is Senator Cornyn entirely sane?

Tom DeLay's threat -- the other to which the Times editorial adverts -- was at least a bit more veiled: he predicted that "the time will come" when judges will "answer for their behavior." Will the time come when voters expect politicians to answer for their incendiary comments?

< More Scrutiny of Tom DeLay | Student Teaches School About Constitution >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • The Politics of Violence | 52 comments (52 topical)
    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 11:54:26 PM EST
    Murderous violence is totally unacceptable unless of course it benefits the left.

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 11:59:28 PM EST
    As if any unstable right wing fanatics needed any more red meat in their diet. You'd think a Senator would have sense enough not to give the fringe element any justification for acts of violence against judges. But then again, we had Randall Terry acting as 'spokesman' for the Schiavo family last week. I guess advocating violence is OK when you're self-righteous. Join me in sending Senator Cronyn a nasty email or two. Make that a violent email. Here's the link: http://cornyn.senate.gov/contact/index.html Phone calls work too: (202) 224-2934 Biff leftnet.org

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 12:25:49 AM EST
    This is the same type of logic that suggests that provocatively dressed women deserve to be raped, or that doctors who preform abortions should be blown up. Bendito: ...huh?

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 04:05:58 AM EST
    Bendito is just flinging poo and hoping it sticks somewhere. I'm sure that some other fascist will come along and explain how reproductive freedom somehow equates with targeting judges for their dispassionate rulings.

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 04:54:12 AM EST
    I'd take your comments a lot more seriously if you were as interested in the same sort of nonsense when its spouted by the Democrats. Instead, there's a vast well of silence from you, Atrios, and the rest of the left. At least NRO is able to criticize its own side; TL and the left won't do that.

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 05:34:28 AM EST
    bendito, mark and james show what happens when cousins marry and reproduce

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#7)
    by roger on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 05:40:48 AM EST
    Amazing how many here want to try to justify this nuttiness. Here's a tip, bringing in stray issues, or blaming "the left" just makes you look deranged. Maybe you can add that somehow it's Clinton's fault

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 05:51:56 AM EST
    same sort of nonsense when its spouted by the Democrats The pathetic part about that post is that the poster was too lazy even to dig up a bogusly "equivalent" statement from a Democratic senator on the Senate floor (e.g., "Barbara Boxer called Condoleeza Rice a liar!"). Needless to say, a truly equivalent example does not exist.

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#9)
    by txpublicdefender on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 06:46:23 AM EST
    What is Tls position on Brian Nichols? He must be some kind of right wing nut in that he blew away a judge. I remember not too long ago on here all of the wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth over whether Nichols will get good (free) lawyers so he doesn't get the big needle. What's it called again? That technique the left perfected.....oh yeah....situational ethics.
    Yes, we want Nichols to get a capable lawyer who will enforce his constitutional rights and assure him a fair trial. We also don't think it's responsible to go around blaming activist judges for the fact that judges are being killed. Tell me again how that is situational ethics?

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#10)
    by roy on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 06:46:23 AM EST
    Cornyn has clarified his statement.

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#11)
    by txpublicdefender on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 06:49:45 AM EST
    That clarification is a piece of crap. He's basically saying, "Let me clarify by saying that only an idiot and unreasonable person could interpret my remarks in a negative way."

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 07:00:35 AM EST
    Amazing how many here want to try to justify this nuttiness
    Amazing how many here are advocating the violent overthrow of one of our legislative branches as a balance of power is so unpatriotic. Didn't you know that Cornyn et al have GOD on their side and that GOD advocates the violent overthrow of all those who don't take the Old Testament literally? Wasabi Arabs, Kahanist Jews, American fundamentalist Christians. All believe that a higher power advocates the destruction of the secular state in favor of a literalist (when it suits their agenda) Theocracy. Facists, of course, don't believe in God. Just power. I think our trolls today fall into the category of folks who have idealogical brain damage and think that a facist state would stand for law and order. Of course every facist state needs spies, traitors, lunatics and racists as well as folks who immensely enjoy other human beings suffering at their hands. Sadly, there is no shortage of Americans for these jobs. Benito, if you're mentally capable, I'd love to hear you expand on your comment above that:
    Murderous violence is totally unacceptable unless of course it benefits the left.
    It sounds like your saying "Liberals want to kill people so why shouldn't we???" Of course I must have misinterpreted you as this doesn't even make sense. Perhaps you and your wingnut friends are so busy snickering, Beavis and Butthead style, between yourselves about your supposed wit that you didn't notice? The only comparison that would be appropriate would be the left saying "Bush stole the election and therefore has brought any assasination attempts on himself". We'd start disappearing so fast they wouldn't have enough planes to take us on. Can't wait to hear your comments. Spare the insults, please. Just too boring.

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 07:01:32 AM EST
    oops! I think it's Wahabi Arabs above!

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#15)
    by desertswine on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 07:48:02 AM EST
    W.....still the President Delay/Rice08
    Bush: still a drunken stumblebum marionette.

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 07:59:04 AM EST
    The wingnut Creed "Our only real defense is to be offensive!" Bendito is obviouly confused by logic and facts are something he is trying to loose at the gym! :)

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 08:00:45 AM EST
    et al - Read the Senator's comments, both sets. He didn't call for violence. Get over it. I deplore his comments, because I knew the Left would sieze them as an excuse to try and stiffle debate. mfox - I know a lot of christians. Of all varieties. None advocate violence aginst the government. There are, and have been, and will be, small RADICAL groups on the FAR LEFT and the FAR RIGHT who do things like blow up buildings, rob banks, kill policemen, etc. You had OK City and you had the Weathermen. Both are the same, just on opposite sides of the same coin.

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#18)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 08:16:39 AM EST
    Shorter Bendito: "Keep that woman alive or we'll kill you!"

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 08:17:41 AM EST
    PPJ It is a typical tactic of the likes Cornyn to Salt their Violent advocacy speeches with "escape" clauses. The message is perfectly clear to his "Target" audience. Its like watching a tape of Osama. When it's over I won't be inspired to kill a Judge but a lot of little osama wanabes will start loading up their newly purchased 50 caliber assault rifles.

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 08:21:57 AM EST
    Che well said.

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 08:26:06 AM EST
    PPJ I guess you have a lot of colored friends. Maybe some Jews too. How about Dead Judges or their familys?

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 08:33:42 AM EST
    The radical right spin on Cornyn for a couple of days now has been, he didn't call for violent uprising against activissjudges, he was just worrying out loud that violence against judges was taking place because they were being activissjudges. Cornyn is a Senator. He has a staff. They're paid to keep him informed, and to keep his foot at a decent distance from his mouth. When he wrote his "remarks," there's no reasonable way that he could have been in the dark about the actual facts of the murders of judges that have recently been in the news -- murders which have exactly zero to do with "judicial activism." If he were not a Senator, if he were not a respectable person -- if someone disreputable made the statements he made -- those statements could reasonably be understood along the lines of "Nice little branch of government you've got here ... be a shame if anyone were to violently overthrow it." Of course, there's no way a Senator, by definition a respectable person, could be understood as saying something like that. So what was he saying? It wasn't just, Gee, what a shame that random nuts and street hoods have recently murdered judges and their families; my condolences. It wasn't anything like, All three branches of government need to be secure against the threat of violence, so let's tighten up security for judges. What was he saying, if not something he couldn't have been saying if he were respectable?

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 08:59:00 AM EST
    I love the DeLay/Rice '08 ticket! Sieg Heil!

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 09:04:52 AM EST
    Well said, dog ghost.

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 09:07:55 AM EST
    Just out of curiousity, if stopping judges from acting outside of constitutional bounds with violence is unnacceptable, does anyone know what the acceptable mean is, because lets face it.........there are a lot of judges carrying out their personal agenda's (regardless of the direction of the political slant), instead of upholding the constitution. It is in every Americans interest to ensure that the Constitution is upheld in every case, how exactly does the left propose to accomplish this?

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#26)
    by nolo on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 09:29:39 AM EST
    Dagma, if enough people think that the judges are misinterpreting the constitution, the constitution can be amended to make its meaning clearer. Also, if judges are really going off the deep end, they can be impeached. There's no need for Conyers or anyone else to be talking about violence.

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#27)
    by soccerdad on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 09:36:52 AM EST
    this so called "crisis" is a manufactured one. It has been brought about by members of the Christian right who are upset that the decisions of the judges have gone against what they believe combined with being unable to change the constitution by legislative means, espcially wrt gays. Note it is the right that wants to change the constitution, because it doesn't fit with their agenda.

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#28)
    by chupetin on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 10:01:49 AM EST
    Dagma, sound like you are asking 'do you guys have any better ideas?'

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#29)
    by Adept Havelock on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 10:02:30 AM EST
    Well Dagma, I might suggest paying more attention when judges come up for reelection. Don't like them? Don't vote for them. I also realize that not every area is as fortunate as mine when it comes to the opportunity to have judges stand for reelection. Don't like the system where you live? Two choices. One, move someone where you do have a choice. Two, work for legislation in your area to change the process. You know, change the system by working within it. Otherwise, quit kvetching.

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 10:15:17 AM EST
    lets face it.........there are a lot of judges carrying out their personal agenda's (regardless of the direction of the political slant), instead of upholding the constitution.
    I challenge you to name TWO, Dagma. One right "slanted" and one left "slanted". If you can't come up with them consider your credibility permenantly impugned.
    It is in every Americans interest to ensure that the Constitution is upheld in every case?
    Of F*cking course it is!!!!!! It is not only in our interest it is our duty (have you said the pledge of allegiance lately? "With LIBERTY and JUSTICE for all".
    how exactly does the left propose to accomplish this?
    Through a BALANCE OF POWER, silly. See, it all fits together! We like to call it d-e-m-o-c-r-a-c-y! :)

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 10:40:47 AM EST
    I challenge any of the trolls to show me where in the Schavio case judges were pushing an agenda. They based their decisions on the constitution, as judges are supposed to. The decisions break down, very clearly, why they found in favor of Mr. Schavio.

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 10:42:24 AM EST
    The Devil knows his own.

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 11:07:11 AM EST
    Well this is a start..

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#34)
    by Sailor on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 11:13:48 AM EST
    The majority of the fed and supreme judges were appointed by repubs. One of the very few dissenters in schiavo was appointed by clinton. It isn't a right/left thing, it is an uphold the law thing. The worst judicial activism in this country's history was when the supremes appointed gwb president, yet not one dem said, oh well, I understand if people want to kill judges. First the (hardly ever) right wing says it is OK to kill doctors, now it's OK to kill judges you disagree with. It is only the right that advocates terrorism. Until the rw disavows randall terry, ayn coulter and bill o'reilly for advocating violence, they daon't have a moral or ethical leg to stand on.

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#35)
    by roy on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 11:35:25 AM EST
    The Left's response to Cornyn reminds me a lot of what happened with Jan Egeland, who sort of called Western civilization "stingy". Each said something inflamatory and rose a stink. Each backed off his supposed controversial view. Critics of each continued to harp on the original comments until they extrapolated some rediculous notion directly contradicted by the speaker.

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 11:49:42 AM EST
    Just as I thought, not one good suggestion. Not that violence is acceptable or should be, but once again the left cant see the problem and doesn't want to. Nolo, amending the constitution is not a valid realistic option, nor should it be, we cant go changing the constitution each time an ignorant judge is appointed. Impeachment is great, but still allows a judge to blow off the constitution just so long as he does it in the direction of 50% of the politicians. Hell, we cant even agree on appointing judges let alone impeaching them. Soccerdad, your still a media regurgitating left wing ass. I ask you where a righty has asked to have the constitution amended regarding activist judges..........hmmmm? I know I havent, so if your refering to this conversation, that leaves you and nolo. Who is the righty there? Chupetin, why yes I am, do you have any? Adept Havelock, sorry pal, 99% of the judges we are talking about are life time appointed, and you know it. Does this connect any dots for you, a judge receives a life time appointment then starts going astray. Hmmm, how curious. Your point is null, you are void. MFOX, another left brained jack ass. Lets start with Scalia. I have heard the left screaming about this out of control activist for years now, you included. What about Mckathan, Pickering, or Kavanaugh. What about the judges appointed but being held up by the senate. To judges the right has a problem with, spit in any direction you choose, and it will land in an activist venue. The Fla. vote debacle, the gay marriage thing in half dozen states, etc, etc, etc. As far as the balance of power ranting goes, you dimwit, obviously their is no balance of judicial power if judges like scalia can continue day in and day out to legislate from the bench with zero reproach. That was kind of my point with my original post. V2Marty, I don't think the judges acted outside their constitutionally granted place, nor did they push an agenda in the schiavo case, but you just go ahead and keep your eyes closed to all the instances where they are doing just that and then we can continue to act like there isnt a problem.

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#37)
    by nolo on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 12:08:17 PM EST
    Nolo, amending the constitution is not a valid realistic option, nor should it be, we cant go changing the constitution each time an ignorant judge is appointed. Impeachment is great, but still allows a judge to blow off the constitution just so long as he does it in the direction of 50% of the politicians. Hell, we cant even agree on appointing judges let alone impeaching them.
    Now I'm confused. If a judge "blows off the constitution" in a way that at least 50 percent of the politicians (all of whom are subject to the popular vote) can live with, then how can it be said that the judge is an "activist" (or whatever it is we're talking about here)? For surely in this instance the judge hasn't thwarted the popular will. Now, you may respond that the popular will should have nothing to do with whether the Constitution's being interpreted properly (and I might well agree with you). But then who gets to make the call as to whether the judge misinterpreted the Constitution? Some yo-yo with an automatic weapon and his own special view of constitutional interpretation? I sure as hell hope not.

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#38)
    by nolo on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 12:52:04 PM EST
    I'd also like to repeat the request for two examples of judges "legislating" from the bench. And trotting out Justice Scalia doesn't count -- at least not with me. While I may not agree with all of his opinions, his most "extreme" views (and the ones most likely to send progressives into tizzies) get presented in dissenting opinions. Dissenting opinions, however, are not binding on anybody. Moreover, they are a classic form of advocacy.

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 01:07:08 PM EST
    If you can't come up with them consider your credibility permenantly impugned.
    just asking, ?wouldn't you need some degree of credibility to impugn it?

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 01:43:06 PM EST
    "The wingnut Creed "Our only real defense is to be offensive!" Bendito is obviouly confused by logic and facts are something he is trying to loose at the gym!" ED is definitely irony-proof. "how exactly does the left propose to accomplish this? "Through a BALANCE OF POWER, silly. See, it all fits together! We like to call it d-e-m-o-c-r-a-c-y! :)" You'd never know it by their recent behavior, mfox.

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 02:54:15 PM EST
    last post mine (as if anyone didn't know...)

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#42)
    by Rick B on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 03:19:42 PM EST
    As I read Cornyn's first speech, his problem was with the Supreme Court decision to make the death penalty unconstitutional for individuals under age 18. He was especially incensed that the decision referred to foriegn standards of law. Cornyn claims to have been a judge for 13 years, but his speech seems to show that he has no understanding of Consitutional Law with respect to the "Cruel and Unusual punishment" idea. He seems to want to apply an "Original Intent" standard, when (as I understand it, not being a lawyer) the standard is prevailing community standards which is what the Supreme Court applied. But his veiled reference to violence seems to me to be a threat that if the Court doesn't follow right-wing popular opinion and actually issues objective decisions they don't like, then the judges are bringing the threat of violence from agrieved extremists down on themselve. Not, of course, that Cornyn himself would approve of such events - But the judges should consider the possibility as they make decisions. In spite of Cornyn's many careful weasel-words, there is no other real way to interpret what he said. The one thing that is clear from "context" is that when the next judge makes an unpopular decision and is killed, Cornyn had nothing to do with it. At least not directly. No matter what the killer says. I wonder if the judges in Colombia who have to remain anonymous because their decisions are unpopular with supporters of the drug lords they convict feel that they are responsible for the violence because they are making 'unpopular' decisions. I see that Matthew Hale just got 40 years for soliciting the murder of a judge who decided agianst him. I guess Cornyn would say that it was the judges' own fault because of his decision. Hale is another right-wing extremist. Remember that Cornyn isn't just a conservative. He is a representative of the Texas Republican Party which was taken over by the extremist religious right over twenty years ago. Cornyn is their man.

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#43)
    by Richard Aubrey on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 05:15:36 PM EST
    I recall people suggesting connections between one social condition or another and violence by groups (principally minorities) in this country without being pilloried for threatening violence. I also recall threats (If we don't get [goody of the day] I can't be responsible.... or The put-upon may think they have no recourse....) I guess you have to be a republican not actually threatening violence at all to get characterized by lefties as threatening violence.

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#44)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 06:48:14 PM EST
    Doctor Ace: What is it that ought REALLY to be scaring that left wing nonprofit rag, the _NYT_, anyway? Please supplement your claim with examples.

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#45)
    by Richard Aubrey on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 07:32:21 PM EST
    Andrew Mickel. Cop Killer. Does that count as violence? Considering his defense, probably not. Around here. [This commenter is now limited to four comments a day. All in excess will be deleted.]

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#46)
    by Andreas on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 12:26:23 AM EST
    Cornyn’s remarks reveal the anti-democratic and fascistic trajectory of a significant section of the congressional Republicans. On April 7-8, hundreds of Christian fundamentalists are meeting in Washington under the auspices of the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration, a group whose very name suggests its goal of outright theocracy in America. The gathering, under the title “Confronting the Judicial War on Faith,” is called to promote legislative and constitutional changes to strengthen the position of religion in American public life. Featured speakers included DeLay—until he canceled to attend the funeral of Pope John Paul II—Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, and David C. Gibbs of the Christian Law Association, principal attorney for the parents of Terri Schiavo. ... The impeachment of federal judges is a major focus of the discussion at the Christian fundamentalist conference. Conference organizer Ray Scarborough declared, “Our upcoming conference on combating judicial tyranny could not be more timely or more necessary. It was an activist Florida judge who, in effect, passed a death sentence on Terri Schiavo.”
    Right-wing US senators target federal judges By Patrick Martin, 7 April 2005

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#47)
    by Richard Aubrey on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 05:28:36 AM EST
    Andreas. First the commenters equated words with violence because they didn't like the person who spoke the words. Now we're equating a constitutional process with violence?

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#48)
    by txpublicdefender on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 06:24:57 AM EST
    I love how the word "activist" has just become an adjective for any judge who rules in a way you don't like. There is no way you can describe the Florida judge who ruled in the Schiavo case an activist judge. He applied state law to the Schiavo case. He didn't overturn the state law, or say the state law wasn't pro-right-to-die enough. He simply applied it to her case. Just because others disagree with his fact-finding doesn't mean he is an activist, in the true sense of the word. That's like me complaining about all those activist juries who keep convicting my clients!

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#49)
    by Adept Havelock on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 08:47:26 AM EST
    Dagma said:
    how exactly does the left propose to accomplish this?
    to my response:
    Don't like the system where you live? Two choices. One, move someone where you do have a choice. Two, work for legislation in your area to change the process. You know, change the system by working within it. Otherwise, quit kvetching.
    Dagma responds:
    Your point is null, you are void.
    Why does Dagma hate the idea of working within the system to change it? No respect for the rule of law?

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 02:26:50 PM EST
    Glanton: Doctor Ace will never answer real questions. He says he's a libertarian, but I think he's just a plain vanilla cowardly rightwinger, whose consciousness is loaded vitriol rather than facts.

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 02:42:22 PM EST
    Richard Aubrey, I propose a compromise. Cornyn either knows how to speak carefully or he doesn't. So he's either a terrorist sympathizer* or a doofus. So let's compromise and say he's both. *Insert obligatory boilerplate here to the effect that the fact Cornyn's a rightwing nutjob doesn't excuse him any more than if he was some other kind of nutjob. The advocacy of violence against fellow Americans is unacceptable when Coulter does it, when Robertson does it, when Cornyn does it, or if Joe Lieberman did it. (Of course, Lieberman never has, to my knowledge, advocated blowing up the Times.)

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 08:27:32 PM EST
    Che - Since you brought killing up.

    Re: The Politics of Violence (none / 0) (#14)
    by marty on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:11:36 AM EST
    name calling and profane comment deleted

    The Politics of Violence | 52 comments (52 topical)