Chuck Schumer compares mailbomb to Republican office window broken by thieves

That seems a bit pedantic. This bomber mailed 8 packages(it could be 1 person who mailed them all at the same time).
The baseball shooter shot at 24 people, hitting 6 and killing 1 and firing 70 shots.

I would still count all of these bombs as a single event. Particularly since it seems likely that they were all from 1 person. I get that the delivery of the attack is a bit apples to oranges, but they were both horrible acts of violence.
I absolutely don’t think that the congressional shooting pales in comparison to this bombing attack. They are both grotesque partisan attacks.

As far as violence since the 1980s, I would tend to agree. However, the closest parallels are the Congressional shooting and the attack on Gabby Gifford. Gabriel Gifford was attacked by a person without political affiliation. So, in recent memory, this seems to be perpetrated by both sides.

And that seems a bit disingenuous. Which is no more surprising than your whataboutism and false equivalencies. Like @Melz2 I’m done engaging with you.

Save your (admitted) contrarian trolling for the creationist sites. We’re not buying here.


I never expect more than a knife in the back from any politician, but I’m glad you’ll be joining me in voting for the fuck-ups. It’s the only chance we have, no matter how remote.


Thanks for sharing that link; it’s been book marked and added to my archives.


Back-pedalling now won’t make the slightest bit of difference.


“If you deliberately forget everything except for one example on each side, then both sides are the same.”


What other major acts of terrorism against political figures by the right should I be considering in my hypothetical Chuck Schumer calculus?
To be clear, I think that Trump’s rhetoric is WAY more inviting to terrorist acts.
AT the end of the day, I am just discussing Schumer and his thought process on concrete events.


Contrarian Warning Sign Number Four, from the link above (dated 2006, but of course I’ve seen this since the days of Usenet):

The Contrarian Troll. A sophisticated breed, Contrarian Trolls frequent boards whose predominant opinions are contrary to their own. A forum dominated by those who support firearms and knife rights, for example, will invariably be visited by Contrarian Trolls espousing their beliefs in the benefits of gun control. It is important to distinguish between dissenters and actual Contrarian Trolls, however; the Contrarian is not categorized as a troll because of his or her dissenting opinions, but due to the manner in which he or she behaves:

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number One: The most important indicator of a poster’s Contrarian Troll status is his constant use of subtle and not-so-subtle insults, a technique intended to make people angry. Contrarians will resist the urge to be insulting at first, but as their post count increases, they become more and more abusive of those with whom they disagree. Most often they initiate the insults in the course of what has been a civil, if heated, debate to that point.

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number Two: Constant references to the forum membership as monolithic. “You guys are all just [descriptor].” “You’re a lynch mob.” “You all just want to ridicule anyone who disagrees with you.”

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number Three: Intellectual dishonesty. This is only a mild indicator that is not limited to trolls, but Contrarians display it to a high degree. They will lie about things they’ve said, pull posts out of context in a manner that changes their meanings significantly, and generally ignore any points for which they have no ready answers.

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number Four: Accusing the accusers. When confronted with their trolling, trolls immediately respond that it is the accusers who are trolls (see Natural Predators below). Often the Contrarian will single out his most vocal opponent and claim that while he can respect his other opponents, this one in particular is beneath his notice.

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number Five: Attempts to condescend. The Contrarian will seek refuge in condescending remarks that repeatedly scorn his or her critics as beneath notice – all the while continuing to respond to them.

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number Six: One distinctive mark of Contrarian Trolls is that every thread in which they dissent quickly devolves into a debate about who is trolling whom. In the course of such a debate the Contrarian will display many of the other Warning Signs mentioned above.


Copying that for future use.


OT but, did this thread just got moderated, I’m being quoted and the original is gone? :confused:


Yep, the mods are on the job.


It probably got moderated. The follow-up comments may go as well.


How many people can a bomb injure or kill? Hey - the guy only shot one grenade from the grenade launcher?

Also - 10 and counting.


The other guy fired more than 70 rounds into a group of congressmen. How many could that injure or kill?
I am just saying that if one person mailed all of these bombs in one day, I think we can call it a “single attack”. I don’t even know that it matters. Both events were horrible and no sane person should support either one.

Are you honestly arguing that a dozen active shooters attacking Congress(as in the Handmaiden’s Tale) is less violent of an attack than 100 bombs being mailed? That seems like a completely trivial distinction.

My point is that in very recent memory the Republicans can point to a left-winger who attacked a bunch of Republican politicians. Schumer is trying to walk a fine line. He is trying to admit that things have gotten heated on both sides(and tacitly allude to the baseball shooting) and call for calm.
I will PROMISE you that some Republicans will be talking about the baseball shooting to try to deflect very soon.

Your point is that you can find one instance in a sea of other instances.

You know - that’s a pretty sucky point. What else you got?


Not really a “Sea of other instances”.
As I pointed out to others, those other instances are all of right-wingers just being general asshats. They aren’t trying to assassinate political figures.

Here is what I have this century:
-Bombing attempt(right wing attack)
-Baseball shooting(left wing)
-Gabby Gifford shooting(crazy person)
-Anthrax attack(?crazy person?)
-9/11(Muslim terrorists)
-2013 ricin letter attack(?crazy person)
-2003 ricin letter(left ring?/crazy)
-2011 White House shooting(crazy person)
-2001 White house shooting(crazy person)
-Rand Paul’s crazy fist fight over his lawn


You’re eliding all the abortion clinic attacks and hate crimes against minorities, non Christians and lgbt people. Those are all political.


Re-edit comment. The Islamist murders listed above are also right wing attacks.


Im not a Christian, I am an atheist. I despise the Christian right and the attempt at an American theocracy. However, calling abortion-center bombings “political” is bullshit. They may be taxonomically right wing, but that doesn’t make them political.

Those people would call themselves Socialists if it meant they got to ban abortion. They have zero political affiliation.

Your understanding of what qualifies as political is lacking.

That said - I’m glad that you agree with that classification of the Obama assassination attempts, the hate crimes and the chart on the overwhelming preponderance of such emanating from the right.