Threats are never acceptable - even ours

First of all this thread is not to negate anything that the TeaPartiers are doing, so please don't go there.

Here is a thread about threats that Stupak was getting when he still opposed the bill ... and a couple of the responses. They may not have been death threats, but all the same ... lets keep it civil folks - we are the good guys

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7944603
Leading a revolt against President Barack Obama’s healthcare legislation over abortion has been a “living hell” for Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.).

The telephone lines in his Washington and district offices have been “jammed” and he’s gotten more than 1,500 faxes and countless e-mails — most of which he says don’t come from his constituents.

The fight has taken a toll on his wife, who has disconnected the phone in their home to avoid harassment.

“All the phones are unplugged at our house — tired of the obscene calls and threats. She won’t watch TV,” Stupak said during an hourlong interview with The Hill in his Rayburn office. “People saying they’re going to spit on you and all this. That’s just not fun.”

Replies:

2. One solution Bart get out of politics. Simple.
7. Oh this is too funny.

that even remotely looks like a threat.... ????

Not really my sort of thread, but I don't quite get why it's being posted a week later like this :shrug:

If one of my kids started a fight or something equally inappropriate, and I bring it up a week later, I assure you that "Oh, that was last week" is not a valid response.

of whether it is a threat or not.

“All the phones are unplugged at our house — tired of the obscene calls and threats. She won’t watch TV,” Stupak said during an hourlong interview with The Hill in his Rayburn office. “People saying they’re going to spit on you and all this.

Maybe I was not clear enough that I in no way equate this with the level of acts that are going on now.
However, The actions mentioned here can not be brushed off as "boys will be boys" or some justification that it wasn't that violent.

It is simply not appropriate.

Honestly if you wouldn't say it in front of your mother you shouldn't say it at all.

Still, while that thread contained lots of ill will none of it was violent or encouraging violence.

however, see my above response to the first post

As far as I know, no one on DU has threatened Stupak. That's not the point

I was not accusing any one of a particular act, just making a statement about the general appropriateness of this type of behavior.

However, one of the responder did insinuate that Stupak should just get out of politics if he doesn't like getting threatened. I am not saying that the responder condones intimidation, but That sounds awfully close to condoning intimidation ... we should be cognizant of how our attitudes affect our behavior or what we say.

I am amazed (well, not really) at the defensive attitude that everybody seems to be taking to my post.

is that SERIOUS and DISGUSTING threats have been made to Stupak... to compare a DU thread to someone who has threatened him to "bleed out his a**" is kinda fucked up.

Just my opinion.

this is not intended to compare these threads and that I am just as disgusted at the Right Wing threats as you are? to ignore that assertion in my posts is, to use your own description, "kinda fucked up."

However, some right wing teapartier DID spit on someone Sunday - this is one of the types of things that Stupak mentioned in the thread I cited. It is not inappropriate to call attention to that.

Just my opinion.

I am so sorry, but i disagree.

I think you are comparing apples to oranges...but hey, that's your opinion.

In MY opinion, I just don't see that parallel. :shrug:

I am not, was not, and never intended to compare the severity of these incidents. They are both unacceptable.

I don't get it?

in fact did not make a parallel. In fat I started by indicating that there waws not necessarily a parallel.

The parallel was drawn in your over the top response to my post.

I do think that maybe I could have chosen another example rather than Stupak. That is just the one that came to mind. I unfortunately did not forsee that it would cause people to get so offended. Perhaps you think it rather foolish of me not to have seen this coming. I accept that criticism.

That brings to mind another thread that was posted this evening. People all day have been talking about Kristallnacht, including a Holacaust survivor who said "the monsters never go away." Someone made that comparison this evening and one poster said that the comparison was inappropriate. I think that it was appropriate, but I see no need to take that person to task for not fucking seeing the analogy.

Stupak created expectations among the fringe Right, and now he's receiving scorn for his betrayal of them. Once you join a gang, you're in it for life.

That said, he and his family shouldn't be subjected to threats of physical violence or harassment. But I don't consider threats to primary somebody, stay home on election day, or support a challenger as equivalent to physical threats and intimidation. One is politics, the other is a crime.

with what the TeaPartiers are doing.

Neither the post I mentioned nor the artile it referred to go into a lot of detail as to what the threats were. You assume they were threats of a purely acceptable political nature. That may be the case ... except for "people spitting on you"

none of that is political, it's criminal or borderline criminal.

Most of the threats I've seen on DU have been political in nature, so that was my assumption. I hope nobody on DU would resort to more.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm no fan of Stupak but a campaign of planned harassment is serious and making light of it is out of line. Right wing reactionary groups are famous for these. There are ways to express displeasure at the policies of others and this isn't it. It is especially not OK to target the families. We need to be bigger than them.

I appreciate and agree with the sentiment that bad behavior doesn't magically become good behavior of "our side" is responsible.

However, I also think its often convenient to suggest that "both sides do it" when that is simply implying parity where none exists. Both "sides" to do not do it in any equal sort of way. One side is notorious for its emotional, raging, insane acts - the other side is simply not.

We should be as honest about that as we are about the need to remain civil and responsible ourselves.

I especially appreciate your last sentence:
We should be as honest about that as we are about the need to remain civil and responsible ourselves.

As to parity, there is none. I have tried to make that clear throughout this discusion that I do not think the severity of the actions is remotely equal.

Jeebus. Flooding congresscritters with phone calls is what we are SUPPOSED to do. Death threats are in an entirely different league.

name calling and spitting? That is waht is alleged by Stupak in the complaint I mentioned.

Speaking for myself, I reserve namecalling for mass murdering shitstain insurance CEOs. With my congresscritters and those outside my district alike, it's all about the laws and policies.

did no really go into that. He said he recieved "obscene phone casll and threats"
They included spitting.

it did not say they were only about policy

Anyway, my point was not to compare these in kind or degree of severity.

Don't you DARE hang that on the left!

not from the right, but from the left.

changed his vote - did he think they would suddenly become "understanding"?

Look, there are NO GOOD PEOPLE on the extreme right, be they "religious" or KKK (Or both) - they are all haters who believe they are right and all others are wrong and deserve to die. You use them at your own risk.

mark