Have they been named yet? Those who cheered for "let him die". (edited for clarity)

[Cerridwen]

Did they come forward? Surely they aren't hiding, right? They must be crowing about it somewhere. They sounded proud enough that night.

Someone must have been sitting near them to name them.

Did the media, some of whom have reported being "astonished" about the reaction, investigate who they were?

Why haven't I seen their names plastered all over websites, blogs, and infonews sites?

ETA: my first reply needs to go here.

I keep thinking, had Democrats or, hell, even people attending a Democratic function behaved so horribly, their names would have been plastered, above the fold in every major fishwrap and posted to every r/w blog and website.

Hell, they'd probably be scheduling congressional hearings of any and all Democratic office holders who had been in attendance.

[teddy51]

1. You have a very good point! Someone knows who they are, so lets reveal their names! n/t

[Cerridwen]

4. Thank you.

I keep thinking, had Democrats or, hell, even people attending a Democratic function behaved so horribly, their names would have been plastered, above the fold in every major fishwrap and posted to every r/w blog and website.

Hell, they'd probably be scheduling congressional hearings of any and all Democratic office holders who had been in attendance.

[RZM]

2. I doubt they are hiding

Same thing as the people in the crowd at the last MMA fight or boxing match who cheered 'kill him' or whatever they were yelling. They probably didn't give it a second thought. Why do you want the names anyway? Who the fuck cares? They were Republican debate attendees and they did a fine job damaging their party's image. Isn't that enough?

Is that how reporters should be spending their time? Tracking down and publishing the names of everybody who was there that night?

[Cerridwen]

5. Double standards. n/t

[RZM]

9. Huh?

Are you saying we should be publishing the names of people who attend boxing matches and MMA fights?

[Cerridwen]

10. See my reply #4 and/or my OP which I edited. n/t

[RZM]

11. Well this is a left wing site

So go do the work. Had this been Democrats, you argue that RW blogs would have found out the names and published them. So go do it. I'd say 'get back to me when you have them,' but there's no need, because I fail to see how knowing these people's names is relevant to my life.

[Cerridwen]

13. Good heavens! Who pissed in your Wheaties?

I was asking a question and attempting to make a point.

If it's not relevant to your life, please, feel free to 'hide thread', put me on 'ignore' or just don't reply to my posts.

[RZM]

15. Because it's funny and an amusing example of internet culture

You say the left wing blogosphere needs to do this and you are a part of that. So why wasn't your OP 'I'm going to find out the names.' Instead you're asking why everybody else isn't doing it.

[Cerridwen]

17. "the left wing blogosphere needs to do this". Where did I say that? n/t

[RZM]

19. So you said it's the MSM's job. I stand corrected

That's even worse. They are supposed to tell us what we need to know and we don't need to know that. What are we supposed to do? Go door to door and wag our fingers?

[Cerridwen]

23. Uh, no, I said had it been a Democrat, the corporate media would have been

all over it. Of course, it's obvious now I should have stated it outright.

But, I do thank you for keeping this kicked.

[RZM]

25. I'm just as happy it's kicked

What's your evidence the media would have been all over the names? The Wellstone memorial? I'm not aware of any lists associated with that. Other than that, the only other examples I can think of where crowds got out of control is from sports (and I don't even follow sports). How about that football game in Cleveland in 2002 when fans threw bottles on the field? Or that basketball game in Detroit in 2004 when the Pistons fans rained beer on the Pacers after players attacked people in the crowd?

Then again, there was the Puerto Rican Day parade in New York in 2000. That was far more serious. Again, no lists from that either.

[Cerridwen]

28. ACORN, the Dean "scream," ken starr, Al Gore "said he invented the internet,"

are the first that come to mind.

The media would have been all over their names had something equally as disgusting happened at a Democratic function; not so much, when it's a republican/teabagger function.

[RZM]

31. You're grasping at straws

We're talking about identifying people in a crowd and then publishing their names. What the hell does that have to do with ACORN? Dean and Gore are public figures. All three were maligned. But none were a collection of people in a crowd.

BTW. We all knew Dean, ACORN, and Al Gore's names before they were attacked.

[Cerridwen]

32. Aaaaaand, we're done; well, I'm done.

I have no idea which button of yours I pushed, why you're defending r/w asswipes, why you felt the need to go on the attack. Perhaps you and I have crossed paths while you were in another incarnation; I've no clue.

You may now have the last word and claim Victory!

[RZM]

35. Don't give up just yet

I certainly don't think ill of you either. We're supposed to be having fun here. You made an assertion and I challenged it, that's all.

If you want to argue that the media would have published Dem names, that's cool. But I believe such an assertion requires evidence . . . some sort of example of something similar happening in the past. One problem here is that there hasn't been an example exactly like this on the Dem side. It's not like death has ever been cheered at a Democratic primary debate. But that doesn't detract from my point and if anything it adds to it - no death cheering from us means no example of the MSM publishing names.

It gets at something I think is wrong with political discourse so I'll agree that you were right, maybe there was a button that was pushed and I apologize for denying that. When writing on a forum filled with like-minded people, it can be tempting to slack on doing the legwork required to make an argument stick. I'm not saying you're lazy or dishonest, because lots of people do that (I have too). But I felt that in this case, evidence from the past was required to make your argument convincing. If you're arguing that something would have happened, it's important to show that something similar did happen in the past and I don't feel the examples you gave were convincing.

I don't see myself as defending RW asswipes. If anything, I was defending the media. Not that they need anything from me, but I just felt you were coming at this all wrong.

Take care :)

[me b zola]

48. Clearly the OP sailed over your head

At this point you are just being disruptive in this thread.

[RZM]

54. I think I got it. The argument was clear and easy to understand

Asking for evidence isn't being disruptive.

[Pab Sungenis]

3. They're more valuable to us unnamed.

Named, they're "rogue individuals." Unnamed, they represent the entire Republican party.

[Cerridwen]

6. Yep. But I was trying, apparently unsuccessfully, to hint at the double

standards in place.

[RZM]

12. LOL

This is getting pretty funny.

You act like it's a foregone conclusion that Democratic names would be published. Unfortunately we can't know that. Maybe they would be, but I don't know - there's no way to know. Probably the closest equivalent would be the Paul Wellstone memorial -- and I'm not aware of any published lists associated with that.

But double standard or not, you argue it's the responsibility of the blogosphere to do it. So why aren't you out there doing it?

[Cerridwen]

14. For something not relevant to your life, you're sure investing a lot of time

and energy with it.

Please feel free to 'hide thread' or put me on 'ignore'.

[RZM]

16. I've invested about 5 minutes

A lot less than it would take to track down the names of everybody there. I could go another hour and still be ahead.

[Cerridwen]

18. And several blood pressure points from the looks of it. n/t

[RZM]

20. I'm smiling right now. Are you? n/t

[Cerridwen]

21. Actually, I'm scratching my head wondering which of your buttons I pushed. n/t

[RZM]

22. I'd rather you replied to post #19 n/t

[Cerridwen]

24. I see your crystal ball failed again. n/t

[RZM]

26. I'm a regular Miss Cleo n/t

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[RZM]

29. Read the whole thread and you might find out

Am I supposed to give the OP a pass because of how loyal they are? How would I know that anyway?

I find it amusing, that's all. If the OP wants the names, why aren't they out there getting them? And if they are arguing the MSM would have published Dem names, where's the evidence?

You don't get to just say whatever you want on a web forum without backing it up and then expect to not be called out on it? I sure as hell don't expect people to treat me that way. Isn't that what we're supposed to be doing? Debating, arguing, engaging in discourse based on facts?

And your insinuation is not appreciated. But you already knew that.

[LanternWaste]

53. I would imagine a particular wonder

I would imagine a particular wonder founded on the idles of curiosity is not the most effective thing to dissect.

I myself draw a rather fine distinction between the formal debate (which implies textual criticism, pointing out logical fallacies, debate tactics, etc.), and the informal, rhetorical (or even visceral) query.



However I do realize that for many people, that is merely a distinction without a difference.

[Cerridwen]

30. Awww, thank you kestrel. I appreciate it.

I swear, I thought I was losing my mind. I didn't see anything controversial -even for DU- in my OP.

I know I'm a royal PIA and can be a bit hard to figure out, but hell, calling the media on their obvious right-leaning slant on this board should be a no-brainer.

Thank you for chiming in. I feel a bit less discombobulated.

:hi:

[lolly]

33. There's a button for that...

Just sayin'

:hi:

[Cerridwen]

34. Several. Thanks for the reminder.

:hi:

[RZM]

38. How sad

Asking for evidence makes me a troll? So what is an anti-troll then? Somebody who doesn't question what some people are certain is true? Somebody who self-censors out of fear of being ostracized? Somebody who accepts a position without evidence because others do?

I have broken no rules on this thread, nor have I given much indication at all about my position on important issues. This is an argument about making an argument. It's depressing that such an ideologically neutral discussion is used that way.

Oh well ;)

[greyl]

36. kestrel91316 didn't defend your arguments or your OP at all.

That's what you should be doing on your own anyway.

[louslobbs]

39. You are not losing your mind, I read the whole exchange my friend ... it's late and way past some

people's bedtime. Sleep well.
Lou

[RZM]

41. BTW. Calling people trolls is 'vicious.' Asking for evidence isn't.

I did not attempt to impugn anybody's character. That's more than I can say for you.

[Bluenorthwest]

51. The longtime DU is foisting McCarthyite tactics

and is also not presenting facts. Sorry, but making lists of names of people at political events is very, very bad medicine. The worst. You only need to know one name for those death shouters: Republican.
But their being wrong does not make it right to go out and harass them. Most of the churches in America hold sermons against gay people, loud, open, and in the case of Michele Obama's favorite gospel singer, say things like 'they are vampires, they are trying to kill our children, the gloves must come off, this is war'. So. I want a list. I want the names of every last 'Christian' who cheered for war on my family. Every last name must be published. Who attended those 'faith and family' rallies? Who attends the churches of the hate preachers themselves? Should we find out who they are and publish their names? Addresses? Names of their kids? Where do YOU draw the line?

[Pab Sungenis]

46. Good point.

Even when Republicans are identified (look at the Brooks Brothers Riot) nothing happens with them. There's all kinds of parlockery going on that the Republicans get a pass on.

Still, I'd rather they remain anonymous at least for now, so it was the entire Republican Party yelling it.

[teddy51]

7. Once named, they can be associated very easily to the Repugs/Teabaggers.

That can be accomplished within moments of identity. So, lets name these scum bags, for all to see.

[Cerridwen]

8. That, too. And who's to say they aren't someone's aides sitting in the audience.

Or some other party or teabagger leader or some-such?

[chill_wind]

37. That's not an impossibility.

Took some time to learn the names of the less than organic "brooks brothers rioters" and mainstream media was far from interested in understanding it as anything but just another spontaneous, notably raucous crowd of everyday partisans.

Unlike that, very possibly there's nothing like that here, or just maybe there might be a surprise or two. Time may one day tell.

Next best thing: They and their leaders on stage that night are already the subject in a campaign ad. www.LetHimDie.com

[trotsky]

47. I completely agree. n/t

[Kennah]

40. A Reich Wing caller to Stephanie Miller this morning was blaming the Paulites.

"Heh, them thar's the Ron Paul peoples. And heh, them ain't Republicans. Thems the Librarians. And I hates the Librarians."

OK, maybe it wasn't EXACTLY that way, but it's to the best of my recollection.

[Raine]

43. Well it figures they would hate librarians probably hate libraries too

since that's where the books are and if you read books you won't be so stupid.

[Capitalocracy]

44. When I heard it I thought they were probably Ron Paul fans

Not that I consider them to be any less Republican

[Pab Sungenis]

50. Ron Paul is the Republican Lyndon LaRouche.

The difference is, we don't invite LaRouche to debates.

[The Flaming Red Head]

42. With the death penalty you die on a gurney, so if we let the uninsured man die on a gurney aren’t we

Executing him in the same way. Just a thought, since I am currently uninsured, wouldn't they be putting me to death, too?


Oh and I am against the death penalty if anyone wondered.

[Capitalocracy]

45. No, with the death penalty, we administer drugs, including anesthetics.

Uninsured people are left to die in horrible pain with nothing to help them.

[lunatica]

49. You want their fellow teabaggers to expose them?

Dream on. They're heroes now.

[Bluenorthwest]

52. I'm not into name taking and list making

It just does not fit with my Democratic heritage, so I'll pass on the 'hunting down those I do not agree with to bring them public shame' routine. I'll point out that as a gay man, many 'churches' and religious groups attack us daily, viciously, and with gusto. I wonder if the OP thinks we should be publishing the names of those who attend rallies with the hate preachers, and if so are the rallies Obama holds with them exempt? How about all Catholics? The RCC is anti gay, and nasty about it. Let's take their names, and spread them around, shall we? Hell, it could be Ulster here in a month, the glory of it all!

[Cerridwen]

55. Or rhetorical questions either from the looks of it.

Not to worry. I've learned my lesson.

Rhetorical questions don't work.