OK, I think we basically agree.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cqi-DRbt69o

If you just mean similar, then I would respond with an unequivocal no. I do not believe they have any responsibility to do so, though if there is a great enough similarity it would probably be a good idea.

But this is not a question of similarity, this is a question of group identity. Here we have people who are identifying with a particular movement, using the same name. If leaders and members of a given movement do not want to be associated with the rhetoric of other leaders and members of that movement, then they must speak out against it or leave.

And I do not believe that people who happen to be Christians should be held to that standard, as there are many very different groups with that label. I think it makes good political sense for them to speak out against more extremist elements who share that overarching label, but I do not think it is reasonable to associate them with the extremists if they don’t. That said, in the context of Christianity and religion in general, I do believe that the act of faith enables all other faithful, including the extremists.

This is not something I am unfamiliar with. I used to be very active as a radical environmentalist. I was involved in many protests, including acts of peaceful civil disobedience (not just enviro, I also was involved in cannabis prohibition protests). There were elements in the radical eco movement who went beyond acceptable, peaceful protest and engaged in outright terrorism. While we didn’t share the same name, it was extremely important for us to not only disassociate, but also to condemn such actions both strenuously and sincerely.

I think that when people start talking about violence, others who are a part of that movement need to take the time to condemn such rhetoric and/or actions unequivocally. And that does not mean take advantage of the pulpit to speak about your movement – other than to condemn those actions – no “but I understand” or any such bullshit. Equivocation just makes it appear you are insincere.

Oh for fucks sake. The teabaggers aren’t the whole of anyone’s political opposition, nor are they even the whole of conservatives who appose spending.

None of us are interested in painting them in a bad light because they are the opposition. We are being critical of them as a movement, because the rhetoric coming from their corner is the rhetoric of violence and wingnuttery. We could sit here all day long and post pictures, video and statements by political leaders in the tea party movement. The burden of proof Themisticles, is on you to show a single political leader in the tea party movement condemning those voices that are trying to incite violence.

I spelled Moran exactly as I intended. That breze you felt by your ear was my joke going over your head.

I’ll have to admit that I hadn’t come across those ‘speeches’, but, at best, you’ve managed to identify one person who is an idiot (and that’s assuming that the articles that you present are actually supported by evidence, and are not merely taken out of context). I’ll have to dig into them myself to get an opinion, but I’ll agree that they don’t look good on the face of it, but still, it’s only one person (and if you want a counter point, consider Alan Cranston, who just recently stated that we should try to get rid of all Republicans).

What you haven’t done, is to prove that the majority of the tea party protesters go along with that. Maybe they do, but probably, they don’t. I don’t really have a dog in their fight, though I do feel that there’s been a rather large overreach in government action recently.

I’m a rational person (or try to be, overall). I’m not going to default to demonizing someone just because they disagree with me. That’s a problem I see on both sides of these various issues. Both sides have, for some reason, decided that the other is irredeemably evil, and that if they don’t agree with you, they can’t possibly have anything of value to say.

That’s bullshit.

BTW, either you read Fark, or you spelled ‘moron’ wrong. 🙂

Beyond that, do your own homework, Moran.

End of story, period.

The reason I’m stumping for proof, is that I’m offended when any person or party feels like they need to paint the whole of their opposition in a bad light, just because they’re the opposition.

You can make all the comments you like about the few loudmouths who want to make it about some kind of ‘war’, but if you actually are paying attention, you’ll notice (again, on both sides) that the idiots are in the minority. And by idiots, I mean those who promote violence, not merely those who disagree with you.

It’s simple. No one here, not one single person, has presented any evidence, whatsoever, that the hateful rhetoric, or calls for violence, are, in any way, representative of the position of the majority of the members.

Simply disagreeing with you is not promoting violence, however bad it makes you feel that people don’t see things the way that you do.

If your position has actual value, you can communicate that value in a dialogue, without having to resort to strawmen and ad hominem attacks (and that goes for both sides of the issue).

I’m willing to be proven wrong, but so far, it hasn’t happened.

SHOW YOUR PROOF. Period. End of story.

Hope you like that tree you’re barking up.

I couldn’t care less about Bachmann (though she doesn’t seem to be quite as stupid as some of the others on both sides).

I notice that you have managed to avoid the real issue here. You’re not actually providing proof that the majority of either the right or the left are violent assholes. I guess it doesn’t fit your narrative. Maybe you feel better about yourself if you can paint your opponents as being monolithically irrational and violent sociopaths, even though it clearly isn’t true.

You *do* know what a majority is, don’t you? Maybe that’s your problem.

Here’s a hint for you, ‘the majority’ means the larger percentage of. You know, if there are 10 people in your driveway, and two of them are morons (for example, an MSNBC or FOX anchor), that means that eight of them (THE MAJORITY) are not morons. I am presuming that you’re able to actually count to eight, otherwise, there’s no real benefit to this discussion.

Come on. Prove (scientifically) that the majority of people who get involved in protests (right or left) are actively trying to promote or act upon being violent.

Just like the right wing nuts who concentrate on the violence at a republican convention (to the exclusion of the majority who aren’t violent), you’re concentrating on a minority of assholes to the exclusion of a bunch of others who you may not agree with, but who are simply exercising their freedom of speech to speak out against something they don’t like. You *do* support freedom of speech, don’t you?