DENVER - Denver police are looking for a person who shot at a field campaign office for President Obama in Denver Friday afternoon.
Police spokeswoman Raquel Lopez says there were people inside at the time of the 3:00 p.m. shooting, but no one was hit.
The bullet shattered a window at the West 9th Avenue office, causing an unknown amount of damage.
Lopez says investigators are looking at surveillance video but have not yet confirmed a description of a vehicle that might be linked to the shooting. Police didn't immediately release other details while detectives pursue leads.
Lopez says she isn't aware of any previous threats against the campaign office.
The Secret Service referred questions about the incident to Denver police.
An Obama campaign spokeswoman declined to comment.
I must confess, back in the days of the height of hatred from the extreme right towards the President about 2 years ago, when the tea party rallies were at their strongest, Glenn Beck's blackboard was at it's most frenetic and the birther idiocy was at full swing, I did comment to my wife that I suspected someone would either go into a democrat rally shooting or try to assassinate Obama.
I think if he does win this time, some lunatics will go over the edge. This is worrying.
The automatic assumption that is was a "right-winger". I knew this would be rampant.
Why not wait to see if they catch anyone and find out why it was done first before throwing punches. For all we know it could have been some whacked out moonbat who hates that Obama isn't far enough to the left.
Remember, Congresswoman Gifford was shot by someone whom folks who knew him described him as "quite liberal". There was also that whack nut back in 08 who carved the "O" into her face and made it look like some Obama supporter did it to her. People jumped the gun on those situations as well.
djones520 wrote: The automatic assumption that is was a "right-winger". I knew this would be rampant.
Why not wait to see if they catch anyone and find out why it was done first before throwing punches. For all we know it could have been some whacked out moonbat who hates that Obama isn't far enough to the left.
Remember, Congresswoman Gifford was shot by someone whom folks who knew him described him as "quite liberal". There was also that whack nut back in 08 who carved the "O" into her face and made it look like some Obama supporter did it to her. People jumped the gun on those situations as well.
That would allow too much rationality to become prevalent in the human spirit. That said, logic suggests that if someone is going to attack an Obama campaign office, the person is likely a Republican. Same as a Democrat would be the likely cause of an attack on a Romney campaign. Fun part of logic is that occasionally, it's wrong. It may be that it wasn't a Republican, but the boot does fit-who wishes to cause issues for Obama? Almost all Republicans. Would all of them go to these lengths? Obviously not. Doesn't change the fact that they're the likely suspect. Of course, a Democrat could know that, and attack just to make it look like a Republican attack, thus gaining Democratic support...now I see how M. Night Shyamalan's mind works...
I naturally assume that something like this was not done by any right-winged political zealot, but rather could only be done by someone quite mentally unstable (read: crazy person), as nobody else would want to see President Biden.
azazel the cat wrote: I naturally assume that something like this was not done by any right-winged political zealot, but rather could only be done by someone quite mentally unstable (read: crazy person), as nobody else would want to see President Biden.
Does not compute-right winged, political zealot....these are both pseudonyms for 'crazy person'.
Which side has spend the last year building the narrative that this country will cease to exist as we know it and that everything every soldier died for will be gone forever if Obama wins?
I'd actually buy the Machiavellian political ploy by the Dems. This campaign's been dirty, I see no reason for them to start playing fair now.
An actual nutcase would have attempted to you know... shoot the President. Not a glass window.
It's also possible that this is just random vandalism. I think I've mentioned that I've been working corporate security in Colorado for a couple years now and more then one of my offices has taken a bullet to a window pane in the night.
An actual nutcase would have attempted to you know... shoot the President. Not a glass window.
That's not how intimidation works. You don't target the guy with masses of physical security, you target the people peripheral to him; the people without masses of physical security.
This is particularly true with regard to democratic elections.
A backwoods democratic office is not the place to do intimidation. Its in a solid conservative state.
If it was an attempts at intimidation, it wouldn't have been against supporters of Obama. It would have been targeting someone running for local office.
Well, considering the fact that actual people sometimes get hit by random bullets I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that someone accidentally the window. Also, driving in rural areas you'll see bullet holes in all manner of things.
That said, it's also entirely possible that someone shot the window as a "message." If so, they need to pay more attention at terrorist school, because you're supposed to claim responsibility and explain why you did the bad thing. Otherwise people might not get your message.
Either way, I'm glad no one got hurt. We're supposed to live in a relatively civilized country, and this sort of shenanigans doesn't cut it.
Compared to other countries, we are very civilized and peaceful. The fact that a bullet going through a political parties office is national news proves it.
In many places, this would be an everyday occurance that wouldn't even make people blink. Heck, people getting shot in this situation wouldn't be news in other countries.
Grey Templar wrote: A backwoods democratic office is not the place to do intimidation. Its in a solid conservative state.
If it was an attempts at intimidation, it wouldn't have been against supporters of Obama. It would have been targeting someone running for local office.
....Denver is a major metropolitan area, the site of the first presidential debate and we're considered a swing state because Californians keep their winter homes/tax shelters here.
djones520 wrote: The automatic assumption that is was a "right-winger". I knew this would be rampant.
Well, the most likely explanation will tend to be, uh... 'rampant'. That's kind of how thinking works.
The most likely person to fire a bullet into a Democratic campaign office is a right wing crazy. Other things are also possible, but that is far and away the most likely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote: Republican upshot in the polls. Democratic campaign drive by. Who could possibly stand to benefit?
Uh huh. So we have djones520 complaining that people are assuming an attack against a Democratic campaign office is probably from a right winger, but then you're happy to just launch into some wild eyed speculation about some Democratic conspiracy. I wonder if he's going to post again to tell you off?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: A backwoods democratic office is not the place to do intimidation. Its in a solid conservative state.
If it was an attempts at intimidation, it wouldn't have been against supporters of Obama. It would have been targeting someone running for local office.
Colorado is that in among the half dozen most competitive states in the race. And Obama is leading in most state based polls.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Compared to other countries, we are very civilized and peaceful. The fact that a bullet going through a political parties office is national news proves it.
In many places, this would be an everyday occurance that wouldn't even make people blink. Heck, people getting shot in this situation wouldn't be news in other countries.
Absolutely. And while this news needs to be kept in the context of how peaceful and orderly US politics are in general, it doesn't mean things like this are okay. In fact, doing everything possible to make sure the culprit is caught is the best way of making sure your politics remain so successful.
sebster wrote: Well, the most likely explanation will tend to be, uh... 'rampant'. That's kind of how thinking works.
The most likely person to fire a bullet into a Democratic campaign office is a right wing crazy. Other things are also possible, but that is far and away the most likely.
Everyone thought that about the Giffords shooting, too.
sebster wrote: Well, the most likely explanation will tend to be, uh... 'rampant'. That's kind of how thinking works.
The most likely person to fire a bullet into a Democratic campaign office is a right wing crazy. Other things are also possible, but that is far and away the most likely.
Everyone thought that about the Giffords shooting, too.
Because even then it was the most likely explanation early on; 'most likely' doesn't mean there are no other possibilities. There are many examples of a husband or wife being murdered in which the culprit was not the spouse, but whenever a husband/wife dies and the death is investigated the spouse is always the first one looked into because they are the most likely to have done it/been involved.
Ahtman wrote: Because even then it was the most likely explanation early on; 'most likely' doesn't mean there are no other possibilities. There are many examples of a husband or wife being murdered in which the culprit was not the spouse, but whenever a husband/wife dies and the death is investigated the spouse is always the first one looked into because they are the most likely to have done it/been involved.
Due to statistical evidence, yes. If spouses were routinely found to have nothing to do with the murder of their partner, that assumption would fade.
An actual nutcase would have attempted to you know... shoot the President. Not a glass window.
That's not how intimidation works. You don't target the guy with masses of physical security, you target the people peripheral to him; the people without masses of physical security.
This is particularly true with regard to democratic elections.
Kind of hard to intimidate a guy with 15,000 nuclear warheads, and 100,000 screaming leathernecks with bombs and tanks and rifles and stuff though...
Plus he's from Chicago. THEY do the intimidating. I always liked people from Chicago.
I think if he does win this time, some lunatics will go over the edge. This is worrying.
He wasn't in Denver at the time, so it wasn't an assassination attempt as much as it was potential domestic terrorism or attempted murder of the campaign workers.
Some one fired an automatic rifle at the White House when President Clinton was in, and another man shot a gun at the White House when President Bush was there, if you'll remember.
Not trying to diminish this cowardly act, but this let's not make this into anything more than a nut with a gun.
d-usa wrote: You feel pretty gangster shooting up the office, until you notice the drone heading your way.
It's legal to operate those things in U.S. Airspace now apparently, hide yo kids, hide yo wife!
Not really they just made it not impossible to get a COA. Which is and was a miserable process.
I'd be more worried (as a random shooter) about those police systems that locate the site of a gunshot immediately and within a yard.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
AustonT wrote: Republican upshot in the polls. Democratic campaign drive by. Who could possibly stand to benefit?
Uh huh. So we have djones520 complaining that people are assuming an attack against a Democratic campaign office is probably from a right winger, but then you're happy to just launch into some wild eyed speculation about some Democratic conspiracy. I wonder if he's going to post again to tell you off?
I think if he does win this time, some lunatics will go over the edge. This is worrying.
He wasn't in Denver at the time, so it wasn't an assassination attempt as much as it was potential domestic terrorism or attempted murder of the campaign workers.
Some one fired an automatic rifle at the White House when President Clinton was in, and another man shot a gun at the White House when President Bush was there, if you'll remember.
Not trying to diminish this cowardly act, but this let's not make this into anything more than a nut with a gun.
How time flies. SOMEONE FLEW A PLANE INTO THE WH when CLinton was in office. SS was kicking back with brewskies I guess. Now it would be blasted forty miles away and all survivors and/or corpses would still have to go through a TSA second level screening - because it is the 8th level of hell....
I remember that, he wasn't even a right wing crazy either. Just a desperate man.
Missed an oppourtunity to see Clinton speak last week because the wife had to work, it's a shame, I like Clinton even more than I hate Obama.
Obviously, the Obamam team did NOTHING to ensur ethe right security personnel were in place at the Denver office. They are lucky this wasn't Benghazi all over again.
Jihadin wrote: I must have miss something. We have active terrorist groups in the USA? Milita compounds that far south...west...southwest?
If you look hard enough there are militia compounds in almost if not every state. It's long been my theory that Zombie prepping was the new pseudonym for militia stockpiling and training.
Grey Templar wrote: Another thing to consider is the person that did this missed and quickly got out of dodge. A gunhappy rightwinger wouldn't have missed
Or a gunhappy rightwinger knows the punishment for property damage is a hell of a lot less than second degree murder.
But....its against the law to shoot someone in the US....gunz are evil....all fire arms need to be ban....we live in a safe productive world...cats and dogs walk happily down the street. Angels and Demons interspecis marriage..CSM can be redeemed....Abaddon is promoting kid games in the park...Slannesh prancing around in the flower beds...more headheads in the stripper bars that one can shake a stick at.....its uberliscious.....oxy and vicadin so wonderful...the pretty colors....no need to turn the lights on you just all the pretty colors go away...
I don't think they said one way or the other, just that they were reviewing video. It's entirely possible they didn't have a plate. But a vehicle description maybe a fuzzy screen grab of the shooter probably go a long way.
I'm mostly suspicious that this story was reported, repeated and then dropped.
Seaward wrote: Everyone thought that about the Giffords shooting, too.
Yeah, and?
When someone blows themselves up in a crowded market, odds are they were a Muslim extremist. Other options are possible, but we shouldn't pretend the most likely outcome isn't the most likely.
This sounds a bit like those smokers who ignore the numbers of people who die every year, and instead point out the one guy who didn't. Yeah, odd things happen, but probability remains meaningful.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Due to statistical evidence, yes. If spouses were routinely found to have nothing to do with the murder of their partner, that assumption would fade.
And we know from the history of political violence that attacks are far more likely to come from the opposition, than from some strange conspiracy to make one's self out as the victim, or anything else like that.
And so the assumption hasn't faded, and the calls to not consider this to most likely be the work of right wing nut continue to be weak.
Seaward wrote: Everyone thought that about the Giffords shooting, too.
Yeah, and?
When someone blows themselves up in a crowded market, odds are they were a Muslim extremist. Other options are possible, but we shouldn't pretend the most likely outcome isn't the most likely.
This sounds a bit like those smokers who ignore the numbers of people who die every year, and instead point out the one guy who didn't. Yeah, odd things happen, but probability remains meaningful.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Due to statistical evidence, yes. If spouses were routinely found to have nothing to do with the murder of their partner, that assumption would fade.
And we know from the history of political violence that attacks are far more likely to come from the opposition, than from some strange conspiracy to make one's self out as the victim, or anything else like that.
And so the assumption hasn't faded, and the calls to not consider this to most likely be the work of right wing nut continue to be weak.
Until you actually look at the recent history of violence targeted at political figures in this country, anyway. Then you start to realize that very little to none of it was conducted by "the opposition."
But let's not allow facts to get in the way of a good narrative, I suppose.
That's terribly ironic. Auston, I was starting to think you were more reasonable than that, too.
While the observation about violence toward political figures in recent years mostly coming from lone nuts is a valid one, it's also changing the subject.
An anonymous act of violence/intimidation toward a campaign office is a very different thing than a nutjob taking a shot at a politician. It's much more akin to the kind of intimidation tactics the KKK used to use, like putting bullets through windows, painting threatening slogans on people's houses, and the like.
Mannahnin wrote: That's terribly ironic. Auston, I was starting to think you were more reasonable than that, too.
Its an observation on how a particular member of this forum posts.
An anonymous act of violence/intimidation toward a campaign office is a very different thing than a nutjob taking a shot at a politician. It's much more akin to the kind of intimidation tactics the KKK used to use, like putting bullets through windows, painting threatening slogans on people's houses, and the like.
I couldn't decide weather I wanted to answer with a specific example fitting the situation
just like saying hanging a chair is a racial statement not a political one while you screw you eyes shut and try to pretend that almost, if not every, president has been hung in effigy.
A campaign office was shot, once, and no suspect is in custody but immediately it must be some teap part/ right wing nut. Right there in the OP. Lets ignore the fact that in the last election cycle the same candidates supporters tried to make it look like intimidation tactics were being used, how could that possibly be relevant? oh wait.
You can imagine that stupid ORLY owl here.
I'm sure everyone here talking about a logical explanation and occums razor said the same thing in 2010 when Eric Cantor was fuming about his office being shot until:
Source: Associated Press
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Richmond police say the bullet that hit a window of Republican Virginia Congressman Eric Cantor's office had been randomly fired skyward.
Amid reports of threats and vandalism against Democrats who voted Sunday for sweeping health care reforms, Cantor said at a Washington news conference Thursday that a bullet was fired into his Richmond office.
In a news release, Richmond police said that the bullet had been fired into the air early Tuesday. It hit the front window of a building that houses Cantor's campaign office as it fell to back earth at a sharp angle.
So until proven otherwise I'm going with a Maurice Schwenkler incident.
What exactly does Byrd have to do with anything? Other than being a crazy relic of the days when the Dems were the party most of the racists were in, as opposed the last fifty years, in which most of them have moved over to the R ticket?
Hanging a chair in a tree, when a chair has just been used publicly as a stand-in for a prominent black public figure, has a different significance than hanging just any politician in effigy. Not to mention that an effigy is normally burned, not just hanged. People being aware of lynching and its racial dimension is not "screwing their eyes shut". Pretending there's no racial dimension in a lot of the more hateful stuff spewed toward Obama does smack of sticking one's head in the sand.
The Cantor incident might have been seen differently if he had voted for one of those bills unpopular with the whackjobs waving guns around at political rallies, and getting all paranoid about the ACA/Obamacare. As he's a Republican, and as no crowds of Dems had been protesting outside his office, no one (AFAICR) thought it was an attempt at intimidation based on his political views. The context wasn't there to make that a likely possibility.
Seaward wrote: Until you actually look at the recent history of violence targeted at political figures in this country, anyway. Then you start to realize that very little to none of it was conducted by "the opposition."
But let's not allow facts to get in the way of a good narrative, I suppose.
But you're not "looking into it". You just went out looking for one or two counter-cases and then started pretending they were more common. That's the exact, 100% opposite of "looking into it".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote: That would fly in the face of everything Sebs believes in.
Yeah, nice, well done. I really do feel the burn over that one.
I mean, it's obvious now that given your fairly loose relationship to facts you were never going to make on the policical circuit, but with shots like that one above it's good to know you can switch into stand up comedy.
Mannahnin wrote:What exactly does Byrd have to do with anything? Other than being a crazy relic of the days when the Dems were the party most of the racists were in, as opposed the last fifty years, in which most of them have moved over to the R ticket?
Mannahnin wrote:It's much more akin to the kind of intimidation tactics the KKK the KKKthe KKK
Is it obvious yet?
Hanging a chair in a tree, when a chair has just been used publicly as a stand-in for a prominent black public figure, has a different significance than hanging just any politician in effigy. Not to mention that an effigy is normally burned, not just hanged. People being aware of lynching and its racial dimension is not "screwing their eyes shut". Pretending there's no racial dimension in a lot of the more hateful stuff spewed toward Obama does smack of sticking one's head in the sand.
Yes Obama is a special swan and anything that was ok for other politicians is racist.
The Cantor incident might have been seen differently if he had voted for one of those bills unpopular with the whackjobs waving guns around at political rallies, and getting all paranoid about the ACA/Obamacare. As he's a Republican, and as no crowds of Dems had been protesting outside his office, no one (AFAICR) thought it was an attempt at intimidation based on his political views. The context wasn't there to make that a likely possibility.
There were crowds of Republicans outside the Denver office? Were they spontaneous crowds based on the youtube release of the Innocence of the Tea Party?
Auston, are you drunk? Posting that "Bob is a racist" crap discredits your argument even more thoroughly than pretending that symbolic lynching has no meaning. Cantor's office being shot was in the context of a situation where Dems were being decried and screamed at in public, and crowds and anti-healthcare reform politicians (Palin among the worst offenders that year) were using some extreme rhetoric. Given that he wasn't one of the folks being screamed at, a shot into his office wouldn't as easily be assumed to be an attempt at intimidating him. Obviously it would be looked into, though, given his position.
Right now we're in the middle of an intense and acrimonious Presidential campaign, and a shot into a campaign office for EITHER candidate would naturally be assumed to be an attempt at intimdating that campaign's workers. At least if it happened in a big city, like Denver, as opposed to a rural area where a hunting accident was a plausible idea.
Seb, my perception is that most violent incidents toward political figures (in the last couple of decades, anyway; obviously not talking about the Kennedy or King assassinations) have been perpetrated by mostly apolitical whackos. Jared Lee Laughner and John Hinckly Jr., for two examples. Am I missing some? On that score, Seaward has a point.
That said, violence being directed at more ordinary people based on politics/ideology does have a more significant history of use by right-wing extremists in this country in recent decades. Such as abortion clinic attacks and shootings, and the Oklahoma City bombing.
But you're not "looking into it". You just went out looking for one or two counter-cases and then started pretending they were more common. That's the exact, 100% opposite of "looking into it".
You're more than welcome to start naming some events in recent history that support your claim, if you like.
I don't know why you've changed the subject to racism. Is it a demonstration of oversensitivity, all because I mentioned the KKK? They did like to scare people by shooting into their homes. That was the basis of the comparison. The whole thread derailing onto the subject of race is coming from you, buddy.
If you hang a chair that is a symbolical black man from a tree, than the majority of reasonable people will see it for the racist action that it is. Nothing really crazy about it.
Nobody is saying that attacks against Obama are racist, just that racially motivated attacks using historical racist insults and tactics are.
Mannahnin wrote: I don't know why you've changed the subject to racism. Is it a demonstration of oversensitivity, all because I mentioned the KKK? They did like to scare people by shooting into their homes. That was the basis of the comparison. The whole thread derailing onto the subject of race is coming from you, buddy.
Whatever you say buddy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: If you hang a chair that is a symbolical black man from a tree, than the majority of reasonable people will see it for the racist action that it is. Nothing really crazy about it.
Nobody is saying that attacks against Obama are racist, just that racially motivated attacks using historical racist insults and tactics are.
Oh, did someone put one of those on a national stage as a stand-in for a black man? I must have missed it.
"Bob is a racist" uses the pretense that the protagonist's arguments are being dismissed unfairly, to dismiss other people's arguments unfairly. It's terribly ironic.
Mannahnin wrote: Seb, my perception is that most violent incidents toward political figures (in the last couple of decades, anyway; obviously not talking about the Kennedy or King assassinations) have been perpetrated by mostly apolitical whackos. Jared Lee Laughner and John Hinckly Jr., for two examples. Am I missing some? On that score, Seaward has a point.
Most of the attacks on high profile politicians, I'd agree. Looking at the Giffords shooting, for instance, and it'd be a stretch to think of that guy as anything other than a nut with some vague anti-government stuff in amidst a sea of crazy.
So there's a pretty good case when a prominent politician is attacked that the default assumption should be that the attacker was just a random nut (and in the wake of the Gifford attack maybe that should extend to less prominent politicians). Maybe a lot of the JFK conspiracy nonsense would go away if people accepted that when people go nuts they often attack high profile people.
But this attack wasn't anything like that. Focusing not on any prominent person but on the nuts and bolts machinery of the party is very different, and far more like an act of arson against an abortion clinic. I just think it's silly to run about in the wake of an attack on an abortion clinic saying 'now now everyone, no need to assume this was the work of someone opposed to abortion, the attacker could have been anyone.'
That said, violence being directed at more ordinary people based on politics/ideology does have a more significant history of use by right-wing extremists in this country in recent decades. Such as abortion clinic attacks and shootings, and the Oklahoma City bombing.
Yeah, that's it exactly. And this attack was on more ordinary people, or well, the glass on the building in front of the ordinary people.
sebster wrote: But this attack wasn't anything like that. Focusing not on any prominent person but on the nuts and bolts machinery of the party is very different, and far more like an act of arson against an abortion clinic. I just think it's silly to run about in the wake of an attack on an abortion clinic saying 'now now everyone, no need to assume this was the work of someone opposed to abortion, the attacker could have been anyone.
Australian media must have a lot more on this story than American journalists do, because all we really know over here is that a single shot hit the glass and the police are investigating. Could've been an ND, for all we know.
Seaward wrote: You're more than welcome to start naming some events in recent history that support your claim, if you like.
There's been, what, a half dozen to a dozen murders of people working at abortion clinics, and another 2,000 odd attacks on clinics ranging from arson to vandalism. In every case the perpetrator has been... you guessed it, opposed to abortion.
Of the 3,500 hundred lynchings of black people, how many do you think were done by people in favour of black rights, trying to make the racists look bad?
More recently, Byron Williams was charged with an attempted attack on the Tides Foundation and the ACLU (he was stopped after a shootout with police). This attack on a left wing organisation was inspired by Glenn Beck's references to the organisation.
The September 11 attacks were undertaken by not by people who were secretly working against Islam to make it look bad, but by Islamic supremacists trying to destroy the West.
I mean, how many of these things do you want? This whole thing is just silly. When a person gets worked up enough by politics to commit violence, the default is an attack on their political enemies, not on their own. That doesn't mean it happens all the time, but it's so much more common that it is only common sense and the most practical thing to start with 'well the other side probably did it'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Australian media must have a lot more on this story than American journalists do, because all we really know over here is that a single shot hit the glass and the police are investigating. Could've been an ND, for all we know.
Okay, now you're just being silly.
We have an attack on Democratic campaign office, in which no prominent Democratic politicians were present. And you think stating 'this was an attack on a Democratic campaign office in which no prominent politicians were present' is some kind of in-depth reading of the event.
Yes, verily, the September 11th attacks do indeed prove that the majority of attacks on Democratic candidates and/or political apparatuses come from far-right Republicans.
We have an attack on Democratic campaign office, in which no prominent Democratic politicians were present. And you think stating 'this was an attack on a Democratic campaign office in which no prominent politicians were present' is some kind of in-depth reading of the event.
You know for sure it was an attack? You should probably get in touch with the cops out yonder.
Seaward wrote: Yes, verily, the September 11th attacks do indeed prove that the majority of attacks on Democratic candidates and/or political apparatuses come from far-right Republicans.
Why are you being silly?
The 9/11 attacks, and everything else I mentioned, were examples in which a politically motivated attack came from people attacking their political opponents. Which is, like, fething obvious from what I wrote.
As this was an attack on a Democratic campaign office, the most likely attackers would be political opponents, ie the right wing.
You know for sure it was an attack? You should probably get in touch with the cops out yonder.
Oh, is that what you were getting at? Then, yeah, it's possible this was a misfire/missed shot/whatever else that just happened to hit that window.
But when you see something hit by a bullet, the most common assumption is that the thing that was hit was probably the target. While it isn't always the case, it'd be a very stupid world where everytime we found a man shot dead in his driveway the police start by saying 'I wonder who the intended target was?'
So let's all just accept probability exists, and that the thing most commonly hit by a bullet is the target, and the most common target of political violence are the perp's political opponents. This might not be the case, but it is the most likely.
Because you're moving the goalposts when you realize you can't back up your assertions. Here's what I said that started you on this bizarre kick:
Seaward wrote:Until you actually look at the recent history of violence targeted at political figures in this country, anyway. Then you start to realize that very little to none of it was conducted by "the opposition."
But let's not allow facts to get in the way of a good narrative, I suppose.
In order to prove that violence recently targeted at political figures in this country is, in fact, perpetrated by the opposition, you've used 9/11, lynchings in the South during the Civil Rights era, and conflagrations at abortion clinics. Why not Pearl Harbor? The Japanese, after all, were politically opposed to the US.
I'm looking for what I said I was looking for, and what you assured me was readily available: proof that attacks on Democratic politicians or their campaigns come most frequently from the far right.
Or, you know, you can feel nice and profound by pointing out that the sacking of Rome happened because the Vandals had divergent political goals from the Romans, and that this continues to add proof to your ironclad assertion that it was a right-wing attack on Obama's campaign office.
Oh, is that what you were getting at? Then, yeah, it's possible this was a misfire/missed shot/whatever else that just happened to hit that window.
But when you see something hit by a bullet, the most common assumption is that the thing that was hit was probably the target. While it isn't always the case, it'd be a very stupid world where everytime we found a man shot dead in his driveway the police start by saying 'I wonder who the intended target was?'
So let's all just accept probability exists, and that the thing most commonly hit by a bullet is the target, and the most common target of political violence are the perp's political opponents. This might not be the case, but it is the most likely.
I'll say it one last time: given the recent history of violence targeted at political campaigns in this country, it's actually pretty unlikely that it was "the perp's political opponents."
Seaward wrote: In order to prove that violence recently targeted at political figures in this country is, in fact, perpetrated by the opposition, you've used 9/11, lynchings in the South during the Civil Rights era, and conflagrations at abortion clinics. Why not Pearl Harbor? The Japanese, after all, were politically opposed to the US.
I'm looking for what I said I was looking for, and what you assured me was readily available: proof that attacks on Democratic politicians or their campaigns come most frequently from the far right.
Oh, okay, so we're picking out the political attacks you deem equivalent, and only the political attacks you deem equivalent, and if we don't do that then we're shifting the goal posts.
So, then;
Charles Habermann was arrested for violent threats against Democrat Congressman Jim McDermott on 30th November 2011. He was earlier investigated for threats against Democrat Chellie Pingree. Habermann, to your great surprise and that of no-one else on Earth, stated he was worked up over Democrat positions on healthcare reform and immigration.
There was a rash of attacks and threats against Democrats a little while ago, with windows in Democratic offices in three states, an envelope posted to then congressman Weiner's office, and a gas line cut at the home of a Democrat senator's brother (after that address was wrongly posted on-line). Ten congressmen received direct threats by phone. One congressman was spat on. Once again to your great surprise but to no-one else on earth, the messages attached to these attacks were right wing in nature, in direct response to the healthcare reform moving through congress at that time. No-one suggested these attacks were from anyone but the right wing fringe, because that would be crazy.
With a week to go in the 2008 presidential election, the Secret Service reported a significant rise in threats to Obama. Once again, surprising no-one but you, these threats came from the right wing fringe, most notably white supremacist groups.
sebster wrote: Oh, okay, so we're picking out the political attacks you deem equivalent, and only the political attacks you deem equivalent, and if we don't do that then we're shifting the goal posts.
I don't think most people would deem 9/11 equivalent to a window getting shot at a campaign office in Denver.
So, then;
Charles Habermann was arrested for violent threats against Democrat Congressman Jim McDermott on 30th November 2011. He was earlier investigated for threats against Democrat Chellie Pingree. Habermann, to your great surprise and that of no-one else on Earth, stated he was worked up over Democrat positions on healthcare reform and immigration.
There was a rash of attacks and threats against Democrats a little while ago, with windows in Democratic offices in three states, an envelope posted to then congressman Weiner's office, and a gas line cut at the home of a Democrat senator's brother (after that address was wrongly posted on-line). Ten congressmen received direct threats by phone. One congressman was spat on. Once again to your great surprise but to no-one else on earth, the messages attached to these attacks were right wing in nature, in direct response to the healthcare reform moving through congress at that time. No-one suggested these attacks were from anyone but the right wing fringe, because that would be crazy.
With a week to go in the 2008 presidential election, the Secret Service reported a significant rise in threats to Obama. Once again, surprising no-one but you, these threats came from the right wing fringe, most notably white supremacist groups.
Now stop claiming stupid bs.
Habermann you've actually managed to be partially correct about, he got drunk and left voicemails. It was practically the next 9/11, just like the Denver thing. As far as the rest goes? No, you're going to have to provide some actual evidence, because your track record with summary is...bleak.
Actual, targeted attacks? They've rarely been about ideology, and have largely been the work of nutters. The guy who tried to kamikaze Clinton, the Giffords thing, Reagan getting shot by Hinckley. Joseph Stack...now, I'll grant you, none of these are anywhere near as serious as a Congressman getting spat on, but they all show the lone nut pattern rather than the guy striking out from the right to get something done. Everyone gets threats, which is why the Secret Service still comes into work when a Republican's in the White House. Actual attacks? Those are considerably different.
Seaward wrote: Everyone thought that about the Giffords shooting, too.
Yeah, and?
When someone blows themselves up in a crowded market, odds are they were a Muslim extremist. Other options are possible, but we shouldn't pretend the most likely outcome isn't the most likely.
This sounds a bit like those smokers who ignore the numbers of people who die every year, and instead point out the one guy who didn't. Yeah, odd things happen, but probability remains meaningful.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Due to statistical evidence, yes. If spouses were routinely found to have nothing to do with the murder of their partner, that assumption would fade.
And we know from the history of political violence that attacks are far more likely to come from the opposition, than from some strange conspiracy to make one's self out as the victim, or anything else like that.
And so the assumption hasn't faded, and the calls to not consider this to most likely be the work of right wing nut continue to be weak.
Until you actually look at the recent history of violence targeted at political figures in this country, anyway. Then you start to realize that very little to none of it was conducted by "the opposition."
But let's not allow facts to get in the way of a good narrative, I suppose.
Exactly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote: That's terribly ironic. Auston, I was starting to think you were more reasonable than that, too.
While the observation about violence toward political figures in recent years mostly coming from lone nuts is a valid one, it's also changing the subject.
An anonymous act of violence/intimidation toward a campaign office is a very different thing than a nutjob taking a shot at a politician. It's much more akin to the kind of intimidation tactics the KKK used to use, like putting bullets through windows, painting threatening slogans on people's houses, and the like.
Thats a yankee version of how the KKK intimidated people. The way the KKK would intimidate you was burn your church, with you in it.
Seaward wrote: I'll say it one last time: given the recent history of violence targeted at political campaigns in this country, it's actually pretty unlikely that it was "the perp's political opponents."
That's not true at all. Violence targeted directly at politicians (assassination attempts) in this country has mostly come from random nutjobs. Sebster and I provided quite a few examples of violence and threats directed at people to whom the attacker was politically opposed.
Mannahnin wrote: While the observation about violence toward political figures in recent years mostly coming from lone nuts is a valid one, it's also changing the subject.
An anonymous act of violence/intimidation toward a campaign office is a very different thing than a nutjob taking a shot at a politician. It's much more akin to the kind of intimidation tactics the KKK used to use, like putting bullets through windows, painting threatening slogans on people's houses, and the like.
Thats a yankee version of how the KKK intimidated people. The way the KKK would intimidate you was burn your church, with you in it.
No, that's one of the (many) ways they would murder people, though it certainly intimidated others. Ways they would intimidate people included riding up in the night in hoods and masks and threatening them personally, writing slurs on their homes, burning crosses on their lawns, and shooting at their houses.
Oh infowars...
I watched the debate and I think Obama has a nicer voice than Romney. I bet that's one reason why Obama won last time. I'd have a tighter voice if I had to put up with everything he puts up with. Speaking of the debate, I wonder how many women Romney can fit into a binder?
Seaward wrote: Yes, verily, the September 11th attacks do indeed prove that the majority of attacks on Democratic candidates and/or political apparatuses come from far-right Republicans.
We have an attack on Democratic campaign office, in which no prominent Democratic politicians were present. And you think stating 'this was an attack on a Democratic campaign office in which no prominent politicians were present' is some kind of in-depth reading of the event.
You know for sure it was an attack? You should probably get in touch with the cops out yonder.
Unless people are hunting for dogs/cats in Denver or there just happens to be some absurd confluence of events that resulted in a gun being fired at a Democratic campaign office, it was intentional.
Kanluwen wrote: Unless people are hunting for dogs/cats in Denver or there just happens to be some absurd confluence of events that resulted in a gun being fired at a Democratic campaign office, it was intentional.
More likely than not. A single shot is pretty weird, though, which leaves the window open for an ND.
The only confluence of events that result in a single gunshot being fired at a Democratic campaign office in Denver that even remotely makes sense if you're not a card-carrying, tinfoil hat wearing Republican who believes that this was an "inside job" by the Democrats to garner sympathy is that it was an intentional act done by an individual who has bought into the hardcore rhetoric that "now is the time!" for another American revolution and that the Republicans are that "true patriots".
So yeah. If you think this is some kind of conspiracy, please speak up so I can just plop you on Ignore and save myself reading paranoid shenanigans.
Kanluwen wrote: The only confluence of events that result in a single gunshot being fired at a Democratic campaign office in Denver that even remotely makes sense if you're not a card-carrying, tinfoil hat wearing Republican who believes that this was an "inside job" by the Democrats to garner sympathy is that it was an intentional act done by an individual who has bought into the hardcore rhetoric that "now is the time!" for another American revolution and that the Republicans are that "true patriots".
So yeah. If you think this is some kind of conspiracy, please speak up so I can just plop you on Ignore and save myself reading paranoid shenanigans.
Or alternatively just punks being punks and go heh heh watch this...
Kanluwen wrote: The only confluence of events that result in a single gunshot being fired at a Democratic campaign office in Denver that even remotely makes sense if you're not a card-carrying, tinfoil hat wearing Republican who believes that this was an "inside job" by the Democrats to garner sympathy is that it was an intentional act done by an individual who has bought into the hardcore rhetoric that "now is the time!" for another American revolution and that the Republicans are that "true patriots".
So yeah. If you think this is some kind of conspiracy, please speak up so I can just plop you on Ignore and save myself reading paranoid shenanigans.
So what do we get to see you do if it turns out it was a mentally unbalanced individual with no political motive, or just some guy trying to scare/kill his ex-wife who happened to work there?
Do you have any hats that seem particularly tasty?
You'll get to see me say "Well isn't that just a one in a million coincidence".
Because that's what it will be.
If this was done to a Republican office, there would be no shortage of outrage from you I'm sure.
But face facts here. The likelihood of it being some completely unrelated to intimidation of the office workers for a political motive is so small that you might as well postulate that it was done by an individual who fired at the office to convince NASA to disclose their records of contact with extraterrestrial life.
Kanluwen wrote: You'll get to see me say "Well isn't that just a one in a million coincidence".
Because that's what it will be.
If this was done to a Republican office, there would be no shortage of outrage from you I'm sure.
But face facts here. The likelihood of it being some completely unrelated to intimidation of the office workers for a political motive is so small that you might as well postulate that it was done by an individual who fired at the office to convince NASA to disclose their records of contact with extraterrestrial life.
What on earth makes you think I'm a Republican? My last two presidential votes were for Kerry and Obama, respectively.
And it'd be, at the very least, a two in a million coincidence, given the Cantor thing.
Seaward wrote: I don't think most people would deem 9/11 equivalent to a window getting shot at a campaign office in Denver.
You're confusing comparison with equivalence.
Habermann you've actually managed to be partially correct about, he got drunk and left voicemails. It was practically the next 9/11, just like the Denver thing. As far as the rest goes? No, you're going to have to provide some actual evidence, because your track record with summary is...bleak.
So you never heard anything about the attacks on Democrats in the final days of the passing of healthcare reform? For real? I mean, it wasn't a small story - Democrat candidates were targeted with threats of violence over a piece of policy that basically dominated news coverage at the time... and you missed it completely?
So you're either playing dumb, or don't follow the news at all, and still have the moxie to sit there on a computer and try to tell other people how the world works. Incredible.
Meanwhile, go look it up. Google is good for that kind of thing. You'll read about exactly what I described, windows in offices being smashed, a gas line being cut, threats by phone, all by fringe rightwing people angry over the healthcare reform bill.
Actual, targeted attacks? They've rarely been about ideology, and have largely been the work of nutters.
Given you aren't even aware of the recent history of attacks, it's pretty clear at this point you're just working with what you assume is true, and not the actual events that have happened in the real world.
This isn't about right wing nutjobs. It's about the very obvious idea that most attacks and threats against a politician or political party come from those opposed to it.
It's about the common sense assumption that when a Democratic campaign window is smashed, it was probably by a nut from the right wing fringe. In the exact same way as it is sensible to assume that when Romney receives threats they're probably from a nut on the left wing fringe.
Kanluwen wrote: The likelihood of it being some completely unrelated to intimidation of the office workers for a political motive is so small that you might as well postulate that it was done by an individual who fired at the office to convince NASA to disclose their records of contact with extraterrestrial life.
So you never heard anything about the attacks on Democrats in the final days of the passing of healthcare reform? For real? I mean, it wasn't a small story - Democrat candidates were targeted with threats of violence over a piece of policy that basically dominated news coverage at the time... and you missed it completely?
I think part of the problem here is that you seem to be under the illusion that a threat is the same as an attack. If they're both the same in your book, I can understand why you're having such a hard time wrapping your head around this whole thing.
Given you aren't even aware of the recent history of attacks, it's pretty clear at this point you're just working with what you assume is true, and not the actual events that have happened in the real world.
You are more than welcome, at any time, to point to some actual factual backing for these claims of yours. So far you've come up with a guy who left voicemails and 9/11.
Seaward wrote: You are more than welcome, at any time, to point to some actual factual backing for these claims of yours. So far you've come up with a guy who left voicemails and 9/11.
It would be interesting to give TBone some nice chili, and then bring him into a political office shortly after for a visit. The old guy is the absolute master of "silent but deadly" in a volume all out of proportion to his 8lb frame. Bioterrorism!
Alternatively the local tax office would be even better.
Frazzled wrote: It would be interesting to give TBone some nice chili, and then bring him into a political office shortly after for a visit. The old guy is the absolute master of "silent but deadly" in a volume all out of proportion to his 8lb frame. Bioterrorism!
Alternatively the local tax office would be even better.
Please don't. I don't want to spend six pages explaining to our Australian friends why that isn't a violent attack.
Seaward wrote: I think part of the problem here is that you seem to be under the illusion that a threat is the same as an attack. If they're both the same in your book, I can understand why you're having such a hard time wrapping your head around this whole thing.
So we're at a point where you're saying that shooting a politician is the best, nearest example to shooting a window at a campaign office, but that smashing a window at a campaign office is nothing at all like shooting a window at a campaign office.
For feth's sake, this is ridiculous.
You are more than welcome, at any time, to point to some actual factual backing for these claims of yours. So far you've come up with a guy who left voicemails and 9/11.
And you're doing your best to ignore the smashed windows that are the best, most direct comparison to this event. And you're doing it because your ego is butthurt. Poor you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Please don't. I don't want to spend six pages explaining to our Australian friends why that isn't a violent attack.
In the world of Seaward, smashing a window is nothing like shooting a window, but shooting a window and shooting a person are direct comparisons.
How many pages do you think it'll take for me to explain every part of why that's stupid? Less than six?
Californians keep their winter homes/tax shelters here.
