Minuteman Leader murders 9 year old girl.

A 9 year old girl was shot, and killed, late at night in her own house. The armed Minutemen, who had broken into her house, had no reason or right to be there.

Whether any of the victims was a drug dealer is completely irrelevant.

These people are home invaders and dangerous extremists.

First of all, no group can be judged by its worst outlying points.

Quote:

First of all, no group can be judged by its worst outlying points.

More irony from the anti-immigrant side.

((I only wish it were true))

If a group can be judged by the acts of its worst practitioners,
then all illegal aliens can be condemned for the crimes of any of them.
`

I have met illegal immigrants. I have met anti-immigrant extremists-- not only the idiots yelling slogans at rallies... but also a co-worker.

The illegal immigrants I know are decent hard working people who I am happy to have in my house. The anti-immigrant people I have met are loud and ignorant and barely tolerable even in a business setting.

Sure, not a big enough sample to be scientifically valid. But read the comments under any random article about immigration (or any web-based discussion) and you will find comments which do nothing to challenge my view.

Minutemen are loud, obnoxious and hate-filled-- and that includes the ones who haven't murdered any 9 year old girls.

The illegal immigrants I know are decent hard working people who I am happy to have in my house. The anti-immigrant people I have met are loud and ignorant and barely tolerable even in a business setting.

I think ebrown has it correct. Breaking the law doesn't disqualify someone from being nice nor does it mean you should avoid them at all times

Romanticized notions of overthrowing our government are misplaced. In the Bush years, I saw plenty of people speak out against him, but overall I felt that the call was to civil service; get involved; write letters; go vote. What I'm witnessing post Obama election is lots of fires being fueled.

Who in the GOP is the voice for working with the democrats? Who in the conservative media? If they exist, where is their support? Who are their attackers

You are wrong about that Finn. The First Amendment is not the problem...

...it is the solution.

The solution is to make individuals and groups who tolerate hate speech pay-- politically and socially.

The solution is to publicize and condemn the hate speech coming from FAIR, and CIS and the Tancredos of the world. and this is exactly what we are doing.

Diest wrote:

Romanticized notions of overthrowing our government are misplaced. In the Bush years, I saw plenty of people speak out against him, but overall I felt that the call was to civil service; get involved; write letters; go vote. What I'm witnessing post Obama election is lots of fires being fueled.

You haven't really answered my questions:

If Bush had been assassinated, would you have placed any responsibility on those who attacked him or criticized him with extreme rhetoric?

Did you attend any of the Tea Parties?

While I have no doubt there were a few cretins at some of the Tea Parties who tried to use them as a platform for their extreme ideology or simple hatred, they were hardly the rule, and certainly not the intent of the organizers.

My wife attended the Tea Party held in our town and I can assure you she is not a would-be revolutionary, and had no desire to attend an event designed to promote the overthrow of the government. And she didn't.

The Tea Parties were a call to political action not revolution, and it would be quite disingenuous to argue differently simply because they adopted their label from an historical event associated with the American Revolution.

I would argue that romanticized notions of revolution are far more the ideological fare of the left than the right, but at the very least, they exist at both ends of the spectrum in equal measure.

I would also argue that the vast majority of people who criticized President Bush, even those who approached hysteria with their hyperbole, were not hoping to incite violence and would not have been pleased if assassination attempts were the result --- more importantly, I would not have attempted to place blame with them if some madman, listening to their rhetoric, decided that millions of liberals would consider him a hero for murdering the president.

Equating Bush with Hitler and calling him a tyrant was ridiculous and ugly hyperbole as was calling Obama a terrorist or some sort of Islamist sleeper agent. This sort of criticism simply reveals the ignorance, immaturity and shallow thinking of those who employ it. It's dangerous in the sense that such rhetoric is a danger to reasoned and productive public dialogue.

To a large extent, blaming public figures with strong opinions for the acts of madmen and criminals is simply an extension of the effort to demonize those who have an opposing world view.

Perhaps unintentionally, but ebrown has made it clear that he sees how political advantage can be gained from these instances of violence and mayhem.

Quote:

Who in the GOP is the voice for working with the democrats? Who in the conservative media? If they exist, where is their support? Who are their attackers

Who among the Democrats were voices for working with Republicans when they controlled congress and the White House? Who in the liberal media?
If they did exist, how much support did they receive? Joe Lieberman experienced the price for "working with" the Republicans, and his attackers among the left were legion.

We can debate whether or not the opposition party should work with the party in power or if they should attempt to operate as a set of governmental brakes, but irrespective of that discussion, refusal to work with the party in power is not, even remotely, a causative factor of the extreme actions of a few.

Typically, supporters of the party in power call for the opposition to work with the politicians for whom they voted. What they really want is for the opposition to not oppose any of the policies and actions of their chosen party. This applies to both Democrats and Republicans.

Typically, as well, the parties in power make full use of the parliamentary advantages available to the majority, and seek to work with the opposition only when they can't rely on the unanimity of their caucus.

So far, the extent of President Obama's reaching across the aisle has been appointing a few Republicans to positions within his administration. This is not something to dismiss, but his campaign promises of working together were never going to be realized, whether or not they were sincere.