How Far is Too Far?

I’m sure most of you have heard Democrats stating some Republicans, particularly those aligned with the the TEA Party, are acting like terrorists.

Gina Miller posts an article on the Dakota Voice pointing out that unions and other left wing groups are acting like terrorists as well.

We have watched recently as brutish union behavior has been on ugly display.  Earlier this year in Wisconsin, union members threw the most ridiculous of fits when it became apparent that they would be required to contribute just a little bit toward their healthcare and pensions.

We are all familiar with groups like extremist groups like Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, we all know who they are, and have a pretty good idea what  they want. What about these domestic terrorists? Who are they? What do they want?

With a few exceptions, they start off as special interest groups. Most groups are law abiding, but there are always a small faction who will go just a little too far. These factions push the limits of what is considered acceptable. They will do it over and over, until it becomes acceptable, then they push some more. In their mind, their goal is as pure as the wind driven snow. They have placed here to purge the evil doers. They will stop at nothing to support their cause.

To further illustrate this I am going to use the example of smoking or rather anti-smoking movement. We all know smoking is bad for your health, and everyone should quit, even though it is legal, for now.

A advocacy group may try several tactics to get people to quit smoking. At what point does a group cross the line?

  • Stopping all tobacco ads
  • Anti-tobacco commercials/ads
  • Lobbying for tobacco products tax
  • Lobbying for various laws banning smoking and sale of tobacco products.
  • Anti-smoking sit-ins at smoking establishments
  • Picketing stores that sell tobacco
  • Demonstrations at the same stores, speakers, music, etc.
  • Demonstrations at the same stores, that end violently
  • Stalking and/or harassing smokers on public, private or public accessible property?
  • Random minor property damage. (vandalizing stores)
  • Random assaults on smokers.
  • Kidnapping & released (mostly) unharmed
  • Random major property damage (Tobacco fields burned)
  • Kidnapping & released wounded (They ruined my lungs, just returning the favor)
  • Public lynchings
  • Random unrecoverable major property damage (Tobacco fields burned and the ground salted)
  • Kidnapping & murder.
  • Kidnapping & beheaded on You-tube.
  • Public execution (if they want to smoke in public they can die in public)
  • Public execution and burned bodies hung from a bridge as warning to all smokers.

I have really struggled with what is considered acceptable, criminal, then crosses into domestic terrorism. So I come to the Blogosphere and ask where should the line be drawn? When should that line be moved?

16 Replies to “How Far is Too Far?”

  1. caheidelberger

    The line should be drawn somewhere that keeps you from looking to any “Dakota” Voice author for rational thought.

    Your main question is interesting: how far can we go to get others to quit smoking? I reject violence as an element of appropriate responses. Your list gets silly at “demonstrations that end violently.”

    However, when smokers impose on others’ right to clean air, they give up some of their own rights. Socking them isn’t warranted. But stern words and legal restrictions are acceptable. Also acceptable: sterner action against the powerful corporations that deceive and addict their customers for profit.

    1. MC Post author

      A smoker has nothing to really fear from you.

      Would step in to protect a smoker from a militant non-smoker?

    2. grudznick

      The list gets me angry two before that one, Mr. CAH. If they are sitting in stores I like annoying me, I would just run them right over with my chair. Your right to bother people ends when you start annoying me.

      1. MC Post author

        Standing on the side of a parking lot, smoking, a person walks by and throws water in their faces to put out the cigerettes.

  2. CaveMan

    Smoke has been proven to cause cancer after affecting the DNA for a period of time. Liquor has been proven to affect the brain immediately upon consumption with cancer also a factor following extended use. We tax both heavily with sin taxes. Sugar has just been put under the microscope as a possible carcinogeneous substance if consumed regulary and previously proven to be a catylyst for obesity and sugar diabetes. We currently do not tax sugar though some are looking into considering sugar a sin substance. But we don’t have a weight problem anywhere in America especially in our youth and diabetes is not increasing anywhere like on Indian Reservations so surely we will continue allowing sugar to be placed into all kinds of food products unabated. 🙂

    1. MC Post author

      To make your point would kidnapping overweight people and making them work off the pounds be okay, maybe fire bombing fast food places, or just taxing and more laws regulating fatty foods?

      1. CaveMan

        Kidnapping seems extreme and the law expressly prohibits that kind of punishment for eating too many bon bons and sugar rolls. But if it is OK to force people to buy in to a health plan; as in the National Health Care Freedom Act of Obamacare, then maybe fining overweight people to help take care of their overweight arses might fly before pigs do. 🙂

        1. MC

          Legal? Who said any of this was legal? As true advocate of what is good and pure, some of these people believe they are above the law, and no jury would even consider convicting them.

  3. CaveMan

    Seriously we must first define terrorism. Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. Now lets define terror. Terror is a state of intense fear. I can totally understand why the liberal conflux of leaders in DC feal that the Tea Party is conducting terrorism based upon the definition of terror. Our liberal leaders are horribly fearful that the TP will broaden the scope of understanding of ordinary citizens forcing them to the polls next November bringing about great change in ownership of government. Yes that certainly might be considered terrorism as they are all in a state of intense fear knowing the voters are being coerced by an opposite political voice than theirs.

  4. anon

    I’ve been involved, and supported stop-smoking activities for a long time, but I’ve never heard of many of the things in your list happening. If they in fact did, it had to have been a very isolated incident.

    Many of those tactics are far more common with the pro-life movement.

  5. Job Creator

    MC, I can’t figure out why you baited us with the controversy over calling the TEA party members of Congress terrorists. You have the perfect example right there, but then switch to smoking?

    So to extend your questioning out along your original thought, I wanted to help you out:

    Is it OK for extremists to:
    Complain loudly about the current state of affairs?
    Organize public events where speakers and attendees complain about the current state of affairs?
    Raise money from wealthy donors to get operatives placed inside government?
    Threaten members of your own party with political demise unless they see things your way?
    Put up crosshair markers on maps to pinpoint your political opponents?
    Make public speeches about using the “Second Amendment Option” if the government doesn’t respond to your demands?
    Kill your political opponents?
    Bring down the financial system based on your individual “principles”?
    Kill people who act in a way you don’t agree with, even though they are acting legally under US law?

    Of course, the far left have their own political list and I’m sure we’ll get to that. I don’t think we’ll see the murder there, but most certainly some of the other issues.

  6. Stace Nelson

    Slapping all the concerned American citizens, which make up this loosely affiliated group, as extremists or terrorists, insults the intelligence of all of us.

    The vast amount of people I have met that loosely wear the TEA Party mantle are all older responsible successful voters that are concerned with the obvious problems in our country and the appearances that our government is departing from our Constitution. In regards to the ridicules claims in the media that they are racists, my beautiful brown wife accompanied me to numerous speaking engagements with these groups and she was always welcomed with kindness & respect.

    Realize that if you are an American that is concerned about where our country is going, concerned that our government is leaving the confines of our Constitution, and believe that we need to reign in government, YOU are a TEA Partier.

    As we have seen before with this administration, it is not about the truth or facts of the matter, this dishonesty is straight out of the evil Alinsky playbook of “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it… If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside..”

    Calling law abiding Americans extremists or terrorists, after this administration was launched from the actual terrorist Bill Ayer’s living room, goes beyond the heights of hypocrisy?

  7. Anonymous

    Whenever I hear people resorting to the name-calling of terrorists or extremists or racists as regards the Tea Party, I just consider the source. Enough said.