Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
What was this about right wing nutjobs again?
http://www.infowars.com/threats-to-assassinate-romney-explode-after-debate/

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.

who told you?

 sebster wrote:

You're confusing comparison with equivalence.

Hardly. You're the one who used the word, dude.

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?