Quote:

---

Nancy Pelosi made some very sobering comments yesterday about the potential for political violence inside America….

"I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco, this king of rhetoric. … It created a climate in which violence took place. … I wish we would all curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements and understand that some of the ears that it is falling on are not as balanced as the person making the statements may assume."

Naturally, Republicans disagree with Pelosi. Pete Sessions (R-TX), head of the National Republican Congressional Committee responded to Pelosi's comments…..

“Speaker Pelosi is right that the American people are upset, but it is her own words that continue to fuel voter frustration in America," Sessions said in a statement sent to POLITICO. "No longer content with criticizing concerned citizens for being ‘un-American,’ the Speaker is now likening genuine opposition to assassination. Such insulting rhetoric not only undermines the credibility of her office, but it underscores the desperate attempt by her party to divert attention away from a failing agenda."

Abortion doctor George Tiller experienced firsthand the "genuine opposition" Sessions refers to here. Tiller was assassinated while attending church. Tiller was murdered by a man genuinely opposed to legal abortion rights for women. Scott Roeder, the assassin, I'm sure, was frustrated that America elected a president who favors keeping abortion legal in the U.S. The assassination came after 4 months of heated and wildly irrational rhetoric from extreme conservatives over all things Obama.

Yet the Republican response from Sessions to Pelosi's honest and emotional assessment of today's thuggishly heated rhetoric aimed at all things Obama….is to blame the Speaker, herself, and the words she speaks as the reason for conservatives' "frustration." Sessions is saying that if there is any heated rhetoric, Nancy Pelosi fueled that rhetoric by the words she spoke.

What words? Pelosi and Steny Hoyer (D-MD) co-wrote these words in USA Today in August….

"These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades,"

Pete Sessions, as most Republicans are prone to do now, describes Pelosi's, "Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American"…as…"No longer content with criticizing concerned citizens for being ‘un-American,’ the Speaker is now likening genuine opposition to assassination."

Numerous examples of planned conservative disruptions at town halls, with all the ugliness, intimidation and hatred displayed there, are translated by Republicans, like Sessions, as only "concerned citizens", who, if angry and frustrated, were made that way by what Nancy Pelosi says.

Those "concerned citizens" very purpose in attending primarily Democratic town hall meetings was to "drown out opposing views." Many buster-uppers followed a shared playbook explaining how to bust-up a town hall. Many buster-uppers who traveled to Democratic representative's town halls came from other voting districts. The plan from the beginning was to raise hell and disrupt. To Sessions, that's what "concerned citizens" do. Everyone has seen the town hall videos…..there's no question that drowning others out, intimidating and disrupting was the "concerned citizens" goal from the beginning.

For Pelosi to recall the 1970's when domestic political violence seemed like a weekly occurrence….and for Pelosi to warn that 70's violence was also accompanied with heated and hateful rhetoric…simply a fact,…. is to Republicans like Sessions "likening genuine opposition to assassination."

Nancy Pelosi did not accuse the people using the heated rhetoric of being assassins themselves. She said…."some of the ears that it is falling on are not as balanced as the person making the statements may assume." Like Scott Roeder, or the guy who killed three cops in Pittsburgh because he'd heard that Obama was coming for his guns, or the guy who shot up the Holocaust Museum.

Perhaps….THAT'S the goal of people like Pete Sessions. Perhaps, Republicans want unhinged, hateful, lying rhetoric-spewing buster-uppers to be heard by citizens who are "not as balanced" as those spewing the rhetoric or throwing a tantrum.

Perhaps Republicans, conservatives….while never stating so explicitly….want national breakouts of political violence by dangerous lone-wolf, conservative nutcases.

All this time I've been thinking that the nonsense I've been hearing and seeing from conservatives since Obama's inauguration were all just attempts to "grab" those headlines, those teevee video bytes.

Is it possible that what's really going on with all the hateful language, all the displays of firearms, all the Obama-is-Hitler posters, all the thuggish intimidation,…..is a dog-whistle call to the "not as balanced" in the hope that random political acts of violence,….if nothing else works,….will bring down Obama's presidency?

---

Quote:

---

The righties are gonna blame the left for all their violence whether Pelosi speaks her mind or not. Don't make the mistake of justifying silence--that's their comfort zone, not yours.

I have a different theory. Every time a Jimmy Carter says it all boils down to racism, or a Pelosi says we need to be mindful that violent rhetoric can lead to violent action--any time we stop and name the abuse, even if we're inaccurate, it engages the rational mind and decreases the momentum of the violent escalation, however briefly.

---

Quote:

---

However, let me ask you then... what is your answer to how we get there?

---

Quote:

---

Voting? I do. Right to the papers, and to my reps, do that to. Organize with others, trying to.

---

Quote:

---

Without change, true change, we will never reach it. And even should we reach Nirvana, we must defend against losing it.

---

Quote:

---

to fight for liberty, for freedom for all people, for hope and safety... I will gladly lay my life on the line.

---

Quote:

---

Yes. I speak in absolutes. There is no retreat from the ideas of liberty and hope.

---

Quote:

---

if you are for this, then I guess you wouldn't mind if Bush was the one controlling the speech. Bush, Cheaney, Palin... Huckabee.... or wait, would you?

---

Quote:

---

Wulfies issue is that he's got a lot of passion, a lot of feelings, but little in the way of plans or strategy - might be a good idea to help him along on that front rather than kickin him in the shin for it over it, other than of course pointing out the consequences of rash action without thinkin it through.

---

Quote:

---

All pawns are always best aligned together against the govt. regardless of the agenda or whose in power

---

Quote:

---

All resistance is good, it makes Obama think about what the people want. Yeah, sure, most of these people are pawns of some lobby, but without them, the interests of the insurance companies and drug companies and the MIC and FED are all that will decide the agenda...

---

Quote:

---

The problem with that argument is that you're saying that by being pawns of the special interests, we're stopping the special interests from setting the agenda.

---

Quote:

---

That's not a recipe for a push back - that's a recipe for stagnation. If all anyone sees is "I'm against Obama!", then he becomes afraid to move on ANY issue, and becomes utterly ineffectual. Is that what you really want, a President that does nothing at all, who moves us neither forward or backward?

Truth be told, I *AM* against Obama's healthcare plans - but only because they don't go far enough! That's a far, far cry from being out there hollering "Socialist! Communist! Nazi!" with the booboise.

---

Quote:

---

I want public health insurance. I guess my opinion doesn't count?

---