Georgia GOP legislator makes death threat against black, female Democrat

ChristianProgressive

Master Poster
C
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
2,860
Absolutely disgusting. This is what "free speech" for Nazis and other scum has led to.

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2017/0...issing-over-criticism-of-civil-war-monuments/

A Georgia Republican lawmaker warned a Democratic former colleague who criticized his support for Civil War monuments on Facebook that she won’t be “met with torches but something a lot more definitive” if she continues to call for the removal of statues in south Georgia.

State Rep. Jason Spencer, a Woodbine Republican, also wrote former state Rep. LaDawn Jones that “people in South Georgia are people of action, not drama” and suggested some who don’t understand that “will go missing in the Okefenokee.”
Click to expand...

The swine later tried to claim he was misunderstood.

This is the sort of crap that makes it necessary for the left to be ready to defend itself by any means necessary.
 
Don't worry, I'm sure his GOP colleagues will be calling for his resignation any minute now.

I'll just be over here holding my breath.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
Absolutely disgusting. This is what "free speech" for Nazis and other scum has led to.

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2017/0...issing-over-criticism-of-civil-war-monuments/



The swine later tried to claim he was misunderstood.

This is the sort of crap that makes it necessary for the left to be ready to defend itself by any means necessary.
Click to expand...
Were you in an uproar when Democratic state Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal tweeted- "I hope Trump is assassinated!"? Should the right be ready to defend itself by any means necessary?
 
bytewizard said:
Were you in an uproar when Democratic state Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal tweeted- "I hope Trump is assassinated!"? Should the right be ready to defend itself by any means necessary?
Click to expand...

Those comments were criticized pretty universally by those on the left - many of whom called for her resignation. That's in stark contrast to the GOP omerta
 
bytewizard said:
Were you in an uproar when Democratic state Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal tweeted- "I hope Trump is assassinated!"? Should the right be ready to defend itself by any means necessary?
Click to expand...



1. Tu quoque can be used to accuse someone of hypocrisy, but I am unaware of ChristianProgressive supporting Chappelle-Nadal's tweet, so it's kind of silly to bring it up here as your response, right? . Further, although CP is not responsible for the views of anyone else, The Don explained that many, many people of all political viewpoints denounced Chappelle-Nadal's tweet.

2. In contrast to hypocrisy, tu quoque is plain ridiculous for trying to justify any action- "Sure the guy is a child murderer but that's not so bad- so was Adam Lanza!" Presumably you don't favor people threatening the lives of others based on their political views? Then Spencer was simply in the wrong. yes? You agree, yes? Does it matter if someone else was too? Are we prohibited from identifying someone as being in the wrong as long as there was someone else guilty of the same thing? Is that how the legal system works?

3. I'm tired of this crap about "sides." Chappelle-Nadal posts an awful tweet so "the right" has a right to "defend itself" by posting an awful tweet about anyone else they identify as "the left?" That is a great model for the future of our civilization, isn't it?
 
The Don said:
Those comments were criticized pretty universally by those on the left - many of whom called for her resignation. That's in stark contrast to the GOP omerta
Click to expand...
She still has her job and so will Spencer. Neither should. But cries for "the left to defend itself by any means necessary" is a phrase right out of Antifa's handbook- You say bad things that we don't like so we will resort to any means to stop you.
 
bytewizard said:
She still has her job and so will Spencer. Neither should. But cries for "the left to defend itself by any means necessary" is a phrase right out of Antifa's handbook- You say bad things that we don't like so we will resort to any means to stop you.
Click to expand...

You realise that "defend [one]self by any means necessary" and "will resort to any means to stop you" are only the same thing when the one being stopped is attacking the one doing the defending right?
 
bytewizard said:
She still has her job and so will Spencer. Neither should.
Click to expand...
Nor should Orange Turd who during his election campaign called on his supporters to do a "Second Amendment Solution" to Hillary.

Frankly, all of them should be summarily behind bars awaiting their trials for making death threats.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
Absolutely disgusting. This is what "free speech" for Nazis and other scum has led to.
Click to expand...
Yeah, no. Death threats have been part of politics for years.

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2017/0...issing-over-criticism-of-civil-war-monuments/



The swine later tried to claim he was misunderstood.
Click to expand...
Unacceptable. he should resign.

This is the sort of crap that makes it necessary for the left to be ready to defend itself by any means necessary.
Click to expand...
When a leftwing gunman started shooting GOP lawmakers because of their party affiliation earlier this year, did that make it necessary for the right to be ready to defend itself by any means necessary? Because it seems to me that threatening rhetoric is nowhere near as bad as literally trying to kill people because of their politics.

Also, "by any means necessary"? Really? Here's a means I bet you haven't considered: Stop tearing down statues. Seems pretty clear that if you stop tearing down statues, the death threats will dry right up. I mean, that's the lesson we all learned from antifa, right? People come to your town doing something you don't like, start punching until they leave and never come back.

While I believe this legislator's remarks were unacceptable and he should resign, I think that given all that's happened over the past year or so, you're quite a bit late to the outrage party. So forgive me if I don't take you very seriously on this topic. Unless I've missed some of your previous threads calling out political violence and violent rhetoric.
 
Last edited:
Georgia GOPer warns black attorney she ‘may go missing’ if she tries to remove Confederate monument

I absolutely agree this sounds like a communicated threat and should be investigated and not protected speech/expression.

The response is to mount continuous public pressure on a single case (and hope there's no surprise twists that erode credibility) rather than getting outraged at every instance for the length of about a news cycle. That means flooding officials with calls, mass arrivals of people to speak with them, well-spoken advocates on local news stations, public campaigns, packing the seats at every. single. boring. ass. trial. part. for weeks/months, etc.

Then another. Then a few in parallel in the same district, pushing towards appellate reviews and declined SCOTUS reviews. Then move to other districts for more cases, get more precedents, get a SCOTUS case, etc. Look at how LGBT protections were introduced, they had a few carefully selected cases with great emotional narratives and drove them into the national consciousness through sympathetic media personalities, Prop 8 being the big one. They co-opted the justice pillar, they co-opted the media pillar, they co-opted state parties and put targeted pressure on state legislators, prosecutors, attorneys general, etc. They called their marches "pride" and celebrated even in the midst of being vilified as the harbingers of the new black death/HIV.

The exchange of violent threats and taunts absolutely should be discouraged from public discourse, failure to curtail it leads to a sense of permissiveness and the potential for worse, absolutely. We've been lax in enforcement. It takes coordinated public pressure to raise standards of enforcement of things. It's not even a free speech issue in my mind (communicated threats are not protected speech), it's a civil institutional failing and to some degree a cultural failing. It's a fight we can absolutely win, but I just don't see the interest and discipline is there to pull it off.
 
bytewizard said:
She still has her job and so will Spencer. Neither should. But cries for "the left to defend itself by any means necessary" is a phrase right out of Antifa's handbook- You say bad things that we don't like so we will resort to any means to stop you.
Click to expand...

See post #5.
 
theprestige said:
Yeah, no. Death threats have been part of politics for years.


Unacceptable. he should resign.


When a leftwing gunman started shooting GOP lawmakers because of their party affiliation earlier this year, did that make it necessary for the right to be ready to defend itself by any means necessary? Because it seems to me that threatening rhetoric is nowhere near as bad as literally trying to kill people because of their politics.

Also, "by any means necessary"? Really? Here's a means I bet you haven't considered: Stop tearing down statues. Seems pretty clear that if you stop tearing down statues, the death threats will dry right up. I mean, that's the lesson we all learned from antifa, right? People come to your town doing something you don't like, start punching until they leave and never come back.

While I believe this legislator's remarks were unacceptable and he should resign, I think that given all that's happened over the past year or so, you're quite a bit late to the outrage party. So forgive me if I don't take you very seriously on this topic. Unless I've missed some of your previous threads calling out political violence and violent rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Really? Even though death threats have been part of politics for years as you stated it? And of course death threats are a fully reasonable response to advocating the lawful removal of statues.
 
Huge nonstory:

Jones said in an interview that Spencer sat next to her for four years in the Georgia House and that they developed a friendly, if sometimes testy, relationship.

“If it were anybody other than Jason Spencer, then I would be alarmed. But we had a unique relationship in the Georgia Legislature,” said Jones, who served from 2012 to 2016. “If that had come from anybody else, I’d take it as a serious threat.”
Click to expand...

You know what is incredibly alarming?? This:

"This is what "free speech" for Nazis and other scum has led to...This is the sort of crap that makes it necessary for the left to be ready to defend itself by any means necessary."

It is this sort of crap that makes it necessary for the left, the center, the right to defend free speech by any means necessary
 
bytewizard said:
She still has her job and so will Spencer. Neither should.
Click to expand...



An unfortunate side-effect of them being elected officials in a system that has fixed election dates, and limited options for recall or impeachment.

Would you be willing to alter the US electoral system in order to make it possible to fire these jerks?
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tatues-are-threatened/?utm_term=.813435a574eb

Jones said that while she thinks her former colleague’s comments “absolutely and completely crossed the line, I personally did not feel threatened.”

There may be people in the state willing to get violent over Confederate monuments, she said, but she doesn’t think her former seatmate is one of them, even if they are diametrically opposed when it comes to the statues and memorials.
Click to expand...
Jones said her former colleague called her to let her know he wasn’t making a personal threat against her, but he stopped short of apologizing.
Click to expand...

There's definitely a molehill here, but not quite the mountain it's being made out to be.
 
Puppycow said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tatues-are-threatened/?utm_term=.813435a574eb



There's definitely a molehill here, but not quite the mountain it's being made out to be.
Click to expand...

I am glad that Jones does not view this as a credible threat directed against her, but in fact neither did I. I didn't think Spencer himself was intending to hit her over the head, put her body in a car truck, and bury her in a swamp. Or even to round up a mob to do so. But as in, "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" words like these reverberate among the thugs and insane who view this rhetoric as a call to action, as an official justification for their own desire for violence. And it poisons the very atmosphere in which we all must live. Is this the type of political and social discourse we want for ourselves and for our children?

Some may say these barbarisms are not new to politics. Perhaps so but somehow for many decades when uttered they have been widely denounced, not embraced. It has been said that morality, indeed civilization itself is based on a sense of shame. It appears we have too many "leaders" lacking any sense of shame.
 
bytewizard said:
Were you in an uproar when Democratic state Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal tweeted- "I hope Trump is assassinated!"? Should the right be ready to defend itself by any means necessary?
Click to expand...

As for me, I was not in an uproar about that issue because Senator Chappelle-Nadal retracted and apologized for that stupid statement within minutes of making that stupid statement. And, I said as much here on the Forum when this issue surfaced.

In this case, Representative Jason Spencer is saying that his statement was "misunderstood" and he has not apologized and/or retracted it.

Accordingly, there is big difference between these two cases.
 
Crossbow said:
As for me, I was not in an uproar about that issue because Senator Chappelle-Nadal retracted and apologized for that stupid statement within minutes of making that stupid statement. And, I said as much here on the Forum when this issue surfaced.

In this case, Representative Jason Spencer is saying that his statement was "misunderstood" and he has not apologized and/or retracted it.

Accordingly, there is big difference between these two cases.
Click to expand...

....and while the vast majority of Democratic Party supporters and representatives were quick in condemning what she wrote - there'll be nothing like the same response from the GOP in this case, instead they'll normalise his actions.
 
Giordano said:
I am glad that Jones does not view this as a credible threat directed against her, but in fact neither did I. .
Click to expand...

Yeah, is something a "credible threat" if you know the guy making it is total blowhole and wouldn't have the guts to go through with it even if he were serious?

I think everyone realizes that. In fact, that's what most of these "threats" really are. But to acknowledge that the threat is not credible because the person making it is too big of a pussy to do it does not make it any more acceptable.
 
The Don said:
....and while the vast majority of Democratic Party supporters and representatives were quick in condemning what she wrote - there'll be nothing like the same response from the GOP in this case, instead they'll normalise his actions.
Click to expand...

Indeed you are quite correct.

Just like they did when Trump asked the 'Second Amendment' people to kill Hillary Clinton if she became the President.
 
Crossbow said:
Indeed you are quite correct.

Just like they did when Trump asked the 'Second Amendment' people to kill Hillary Clinton if she became the President.
Click to expand...

....and yet somehow the Democratic Party and their supporters are the bad guys here in the same way that Antifa were the true villains in Charlottesville and the neo-Nazi, white supremacist, racists were the victims when all they wanted to do was preserve some beautiful public art :rolleyes:
 
Argumemnon said:
What do Nazis have to do with this?

And would it be better if the target of the threat was white or male? I don't get the title of the thread.
Click to expand...

In the wake of the Charlotteville rally, tensions are high. It is not unreasonable that people would think the recent rallies had emboldened closet racists and thus would view these threats in that context.
 
Octavo said:
In the wake of the Charlotteville rally, tensions are high. It is not unreasonable that people would think the recent rallies had emboldened closet racists and thus would view these threats in that context.
Click to expand...

Or they could read the entire article?
 
The Big Dog said:
Or they could read the entire article?
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to. Whether it was a threat or a warning, the point is that Southerners are people of action who are likely to disappear anyone who tries to take their statues? That's what he said, right?
 
Octavo said:
I'm not quite sure what you are referring to. Whether it was a threat or a warning, the point is that Southerners are people of action who are likely to disappear anyone who tries to take their statues? That's what he said, right?
Click to expand...

The part where she said the two of them "Jones said in an interview that Spencer sat next to her for four years in the Georgia House and that they developed a friendly, if sometimes testy, relationship.

“If it were anybody other than Jason Spencer, then I would be alarmed. But we had a unique relationship in the Georgia Legislature,” said Jones, who served from 2012 to 2016. “If that had come from anybody else, I’d take it as a serious threat.”
 
The Big Dog said:
“If it were anybody other than Jason Spencer, then I would be alarmed. But we had a unique relationship in the Georgia Legislature,” said Jones, who served from 2012 to 2016. “If that had come from anybody else, I’d take it as a serious threat.”
Click to expand...



"Hey, come on, some of my best friends are racists!"
 
The Big Dog said:
The part where she said the two of them "Jones said in an interview that Spencer sat next to her for four years in the Georgia House and that they developed a friendly, if sometimes testy, relationship.

“If it were anybody other than Jason Spencer, then I would be alarmed. But we had a unique relationship in the Georgia Legislature,” said Jones, who served from 2012 to 2016. “If that had come from anybody else, I’d take it as a serious threat.”
Click to expand...

How many news articles have we read along the lines of:

"Friends and neighbors of the arrested man say that they were shocked to hear that 12 murdered, mutilated, cooked, and partially eaten bodies were found in his house and that he had confessed to the crimes.

'He always seemed like such a nice man when he picked up his newspaper from his porch every morning,' said Mary, his next door neighbor. 'Sure there were some odd smells and screams coming from his house from time to time but I never thought he would hurt anyone.

'He had a great sense of humor and we shared an interest in gourmet meals. He talked about his special long pork dishes but I thought he was joking," said Jim, a colleague from work.

'He is a good boy,' said Regina, his mother. He did threaten to set my house on fire a few times but I knew he was just talking out his anger.'"

Try Googling "unsuspecting victim."

But again- I agree that Spencer was not likely to disappear Jones himself- as I posted upthread the real problem is that words have power far beyond the physical powers, or sometimes even the direct intent, of the speaker. These threats are disgusting and diminish us all. And in this case they are based all too accurately on reality- indeed "The South" has a long history of disappearing people the establishment did not like.
 
johnny karate said:
Yeah okay, that's pretty much what I thought... You have no idea what freedom of speech actually entails.
Click to expand...

Oh dear, I was pretty sure that I did, particularly given the "scare quotes" in the OP (which I am SURE you noticed, right, of course you did).

But perhaps you can explain it to one and all:

so happy to be learning!
 
The Big Dog said:
Oh dear, I was pretty sure that I did, particularly given the "scare quotes" in the OP (which I am SURE you noticed, right, of course you did).

But perhaps you can explain it to one and all:

so happy to be learning!
Click to expand...

Good luck in your valiant crusade to protect freedom of speech from someone who has neither the power nor ability to take it away.
 
johnny karate said:
Good luck in your valiant crusade to protect freedom of speech from someone who has neither the power nor ability to take it away.
Click to expand...

wait a tick... that does not seems like "what freedom of speech actually entails."

Which you just said: "You have no idea what freedom of speech actually entails. "

And I asked you to explain... how I "have no idea what freedom of speech actually entails"

and you posted that? That "Good luck in your valiant crusade to protect freedom of speech from someone who has neither the power nor ability to take it away". Is that what free speech means, Johnny Karate?

Now I think that the greatest threat to free speech comes from the left, but regale us Johnny Karate, regale us with tales of how I "have no idea what freedom of speech actually entails"

we await your explanation.
 
The Don said:
....and yet somehow the Democratic Party and their supporters are the bad guys here in the same way that Antifa were the true villains in Charlottesville and the neo-Nazi, white supremacist, racists were the victims when all they wanted to do was preserve some beautiful public art :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I hate when that happens!
 
Oh look, another hit-and-run post by CP.

Must be a day ending in "y".

What I find curious, however, is why the other progressives on this board are so tolerant of his attack on the ACLU.
 
Ziggurat said:
Oh look, another hit-and-run post by CP.

Must be a day ending in "y".

What I find curious, however, is why the other progressives on this board are so tolerant of his attack on the ACLU.
Click to expand...

:confused:

Many progressives (as you term us/them) on this board think that there is a balance to be struck between your right to free speech and my right not to be threatened. The ACLU AFAIK always sides on the right of free speech on grounds of principle.

That an individual finds that on a few occasions the principle doesn't align with their personal views hardly amounts to an attack on the ACLU (though it is an interesting insight into the conservative mindset where any disagreement, no matter how mild, must be an attack ;)) and isn't all that surprising.

The ACLU should continue to adhere to its principles and individuals have the right to be critical on a case by case basis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom