A couple of questions.

[cali]

How is positing, without evidence, that Randi Rhodes was attacked because the admin/sinister cabals are trying to scare the left into submission, substantially different from the right wing accusation that the Clintons had Vince Foster murdered in Fort Marcy Park?

Or, how is assuming she was attacked by right wing haters and assuming it couldn't have been a mugging or accident because she was wearing a track suit and not carrying a handbag, logical, and not merely a milder version of the above? Couldn't she have been wearing a necklace that someone tried to snatch off her neck?

[_testify_]

1. Great questions...

I've been amazed at the silly accusations being made on these threads. Unfortunately, your questions won't likely be answered anytime soon, as it's now being reported that she wasn't actually attacked.

A lot of people look pretty foolish right now...

[cali]

4. and some of them went beyond foolish

becoming part of a mob mentality; a virtual lynch mob. Ugh.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

2. ..

:thumbsup:

[sufrommich]

3. I haven't even looked into those threads..

and could have predicted the outcome you have described.I don't think that behavior has anything to do with one's politics,it's a craving for drama, even if one needs to manufacture it.

[cali]

6. that is an astute

observation. We sometimes confuse the two.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. How is it substantially different?

Freepers continued to argue Foster was murdered well after police ruled it a suicide, and with no evidence.

DUers speculate that a well known, out spoken liberal activist who was alledgedly attacked, because there is motive and intent to do harm because of all the threats she gets on a regular basis.

Seems like a pretty big difference. Why try to equate DUers and freepers?

[cali]

8. We'll have to see n/t

[cali]

13. Many DUers believe Paul Wellstone was murdered even after

the crash was declared an accident.

You've provided zip to bolster your argument.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. Sure, and some folks say Elvis is still alive.

So what's your point?

[Lex]

14. That's it exactly. There *is* a big difference.

nt

[CJCRANE]

7. a) Rove did it

or

b) It was Clinton's fault

;)

[sufrommich]

10. How succinct and accurate! nt

[coalition_unwilling]

9. How is it different from the RW accusation that the Clintons had

Vince Foster murdered in Fort Marcy Park? I'll tell you how. As someone who has been physically assaulted and threatened with death on multiple occasions while demonstrating against BFEE in the relatively liberal westside Los Angeles, I can personally attest to the the willingness and motivation of the fascists to attack, especially when the object of their attack is or appears to be alone.

"Means, motive and opportunity" is the catch phrase the criminalists use. The Clintons had neither means nor opportunity to have Foster murdered. And their motives to do so remain questionable. Contrast that with your average RW fascist yahoo.

[cali]

12. personal anecdotes by anonymous persons on

the net, are not substantive evidence.

[coalition_unwilling]

20. No one said they were "substantive evidence", to my mind. But the hypothesis that

Rhodes might have been attacked by RW fascists is not entirely implausible, based on my personal experiences trying to exercise my First Amendment rights. Contrast that with the utter implausibility of the "Clintons killed Vince Foster" plot

[MrCoffee]

11. wearing a track suit? she was clearly asking for it

[Der Blaue Engel]

16. In my opinion, the fault is with the initial reports and not the speculation

When you hear such a report, it's pretty natural to wonder what happened, and why. We received misinformation. I'm not going to judge anybody's reaction to it. While I didn't post on the subject, hate crime was, in fact, my first thought, given the description of the "attack."

Given the newly released fact that there wasn't an attack at all, sure it looks silly in hindsight. But you know what they say about hindsight.

[cali]

17. I saw the rush to judgement last

night and commented on it, only to receive, er, outrage that I could be so dense etc.

A rush to judgement is not wise.

[Der Blaue Engel]

19. A lot of people confuse judgment with speculation

I'm not saying that's the case with you, since I didn't read what you responded to, but I've seen it many times on DU that something bad happens, and several people post "Oh, my god, what if it was the result of x??" That's speculation, and seems perfectly normal to me. But those people are invariable jumped on by outraged cries of "How dare you presume to judge without all the facts??" Well, I don't really think this is a court of law where all the facts must be presented before someone forms an opinion. In this case, they're not judging so much as wondering and worrying and expressing opinions that "I suspect it was x, and if it was, then I feel z."

The second scenario, when something bad happens and several people post "I KNOW that is was the result of xxx and they should fry!!" well that's different, and foolish.

[cali]

21. You make a good point, but I'd like to distinguish

between speculation and wild speculation. Here's an example from a post from last night:

1937. It's 1937. Randi is a taste of coming Kristallnachts, though I suspect ours will not happen all in one day.

[Der Blaue Engel]

22. Sure, I'll give you that

And add a :wtf:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. No doubt my truck is in the shop today because some RW'r saw my AI sticker.

And, snuck up in the night and dirtied the oil and burned out the fuse that runs the heater.

[Swamp Rat]

23. Why not just state your thesis in stead of asking leading, hypothetical questions?

What is it?

You don't like mob mentality and you believe DUers are engaging in it?

Well, just state it plainly. If that is indeed what has happened, in some instances, the truth will bear it out and your thread will be likely recognized as rational by the most critical of thinkers.

[cali]

24. You may not like it, but it's a perfectly legitimate

and long recognized method of making a point. And it's simply the way that it came to me.

[Swamp Rat]

25. The last sentence explains it.

The first two sentences detract from the natural, unpolluted explanation. ;)

[cali]

27. I think you're reading too much into it,

nit picking, and being nasty about it, to boot.

[Swamp Rat]

31. Hey, c'mon!

Who's being nasty? I have been entirely forthright and polite to you, despite our differences. Ironically, it appears you are reading too much into my posts.

:(

[The Straight Story]

26. We are preparing to bomb the RW ya know, have to foment the hate and propaganda

:rofl:

[cali]

28. nah, I'd say it's just the cheap

thrill of unfounded speculation.

[YankmeCrankme]

29. It is different because when we get the facts we change our opinion.

While someone grasps at an unsubstantiated rumor, after the facts come in we accept that it wasn't a right wing hate attack. All the while the RW continue to accuse the Clinton's of Foster's "murder".

Maybe? You think?

[cali]

30. What are the facts re Paul Wellstone?

That it was an accident, right? And there are plenty of folks on DU blaming it on the BFEE. Again, what's the difference?

Oh, and there are plenty of people on threads right now, speculating that it's a cover up.

As someone upthread noted, behavior is not neccessarily the same as political beliefs.

[YankmeCrankme]

32. Your OP referenced Foster and Rhodes...

I think there might be more unexplained things with regard to Wellstone that keeps people speculating.

[cali]

33. OK

but you did just illustrate my point.

[YankmeCrankme]

34. How? nt

[Dr. Strange]

35. Actually, the Wellstone example is quite interesting

because there are conspiracy theorists on the left who are convinced that it was BFEE and there are conspiracy theorists on the right who are convinced that the Clintons did it (so as to prevent Wellstone from running against Hillary).

What's the difference? I haven't seen one yet...