Yet More Death Threats Against Democrats - Including One From John Boehner! by Kwicko

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Niki

Here is the website link to TownHall. http://townhall.com/

I just can't remember how I ended up getting their regular emails - it's been I guess 5 or more years by now since I signed up. I used to get both TownHall The Federalist, but The Federalist stopped sending for some reason. Anyway, maybe when the next TownHall email comes I'll see if there's a link somehwere on it that you might use. Just remember, my intentions are good but my memory ... you might need to joggle it.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 25, 2010 7:27 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Niki, I think they were talkin of the events leading up to and involving the 1968 Democratic National Convention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_National_Convention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_National_Convention_prote
st_activity
http://blogs.chron.com/40yearsafter/2008/08/the_whole_world_was_watchi
ng_c_2.html

Quote:
"I think we got a buncha thugs here, Dan."

And yeah, we did, the biggest one of em being that ratbastard Lyndon B Johnson, grrr.

A pox on both their houses, you ask me.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 25, 2010 8:21 PM

SHINEYIMABADGUY

So no more running. I aim to misbehave.

Shiney, Lets be bad guys!

i wanna know what big government expects when they push people to the limits.

Personally i think this shit is hilarious and its a long time coming. It seems americans are growing balls.

Sometimes people only understand one language. Force. Im not saying i support what is happening but i sure as hell dont feel bad that its happening.

"I think that it’s best if we stand and unite, stand and we fight, take a f*ckin’ stand for your rights, stand for your life, revolution’s the only solution, fire back like Chechens battling’ Vladimir Putin," - TCM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 1:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ShineyImABadGuy:
So no more running. I aim to misbehave.

Shiney, Lets be bad guys!

i wanna know what big government expects when they push people to the limits.

Personally i think this shit is hilarious and its a long time coming. It seems americans are growing balls.

Sometimes people only understand one language. Force. Im not saying i support what is happening but i sure as hell dont feel bad that its happening.

"I think that it’s best if we stand and unite, stand and we fight, take a f*ckin’ stand for your rights, stand for your life, revolution’s the only solution, fire back like Chechens battling’ Vladimir Putin," - TCM

In other words, you completely agree with Osama bin Laden. If things don't go your way, do whatever it takes to make people notice you and pay attention, even if it involves murdering people who aren't involved. Is that what you're saying? Are you saying you admire Bin Laden for "growing some balls" and using force because people only understand that one language? 'Cause that's the way it comes across.

By the way, would you credit the Democrats for growing some balls, too? Do you respect them for using the one language you understand, and FORCING you to get insurance? According to your post, you should be fine with this! ;)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 2:10 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Before someone else does it in a ham-fisted and out of context fashion, Jefferson's letter to Smith, such as exists, in it's full form.

Quote:
persevering lying. the British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. yet where does this anarchy exist? where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? and can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. they were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. god forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. the people cannot be all, & always, well informed. the past which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it's natural manure. our Convention has been too much impressed by. . .

-Paris Nov. 13. 1787.

More of Jeffersons correspondance here.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jefffed.html

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 3:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

See, Jongs, I don't think it IS absurd to link the nutjobs to those people. In the case of Tom Periello, the guys who put up his brother's home address and then called him "collateral damage" ARE Tea Party activists. It's not absurd to link them if they link themselves.

It is absurd. The Tea Party has officially denounced violence and threats. That does not, however, include legal measures of harrassment and protests against Congressmen who caved in to Pelosi and Obama, and ignored the will of their constituents. They can't and won't get a free ride.

Quote:
John Boehner saying that Steve Dreihaus "may be a dead man" isn't "trying" to link nutjobs to Republicans - it's ACTUALLY linking them by their own words! And when Michael Steele says he's putting Pelosi in the firing line and has a picture of her in flames on the party's main website, I don't think that's a stretch to try to link him with fomenting this ugliness.

Those are examples of hyperbole, aka hype. It's always been quite common to use military and war strategy terminology in the political arena. Democrats and yourself here are choosing to be literalists now because it's a handy situation to exploit in the mass distraction effort away from the shitty new draconian Law.

Quote:
When Sarah Palin says "we need to reload and take aim" at certain Democrats, and puts up a map with their locations designated by cross-hairs, it's no stretch to figure out the imagery she's trying to conjure.

Again hyperbole and humor, like when she's viciously attacked in the mainstream media every day....oh it's just comedy don't ya know, or... she's made herself a target. Besides, you don't take her seriously, you don't acknoweldge her influence in any way, so why worry if she puts "targets" on Congressmen she wants to defeat.

Quote:
These links aren't tenuous; they're very real. The Republican party, and the Tea Party, are behaving like Al Qaeda, and should be labeled terrorist organizations. They are using fear and terror to try to influence political positions, votes, and policies. That's pretty much the textbook legal definition of terrorism.

Well now you're really going over the cliff friend. That's just a rant of frustrating helplessness. I recognize it because I get the same way often. Yes it is going to get ugly out there beteween now and November elections. As I said yesterday, there is a line of sanity which cannot be crossed. If physical harm comes to any politician you will know that the line of sanity has been broken, but that will likely not happen unless some kook decides to make it so. In any case, freedom of speech cannot be impinged because of the potential threat from a mentally ill person being influenced by something he hears somewhere.

Quote:
...the United Nations General Assembly has condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism: "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."

Fortunately, we live in America and have a Constitution that protects our rights. The UN General Assembly, aka The Official Terrorist Appeasing /Jew Hating body of the world has no say in American political discourse.

Quote:
Oh, and by the way, if you're trying to link the efforts of the tea-baggers to the Republican party, there's about a 3 in 4 chance that you'll be correct. Latest polls show 74% of tea-baggers self-identify as Republicans or former Republicans.

So yeah, there ARE links.

Everyone in America would know that Tea Party supporters are likely Republicans or former Republican voters. Certainly no mystery there, and certainly no assumed danger to anyone. When Janet Napolitano made those comments last year about right-wing dangers, she had to apologize almost immediately. The comments were totally unfounded and were themselves hateful and predjudiced.

If you care to, read the blog below. I do not endorse or support some of the things in the blog, but I thought it does help explain some of the country's anger .....

Why Revenge Is Necessary

By Quin Hillyer on 3.25.10 @ 6:08AM
The American Spectator

"Every member of Congress who is not a liberal ideologue or from a wildly leftist district who voted for Obamacare on Sunday should be haunted and hounded by and for their vote for as long as they draw breath upon this good Earth. And the same is true for every liberal ideologue who actively crafted and pushed the corrupt and unrepublican (small "r") procedures and flagrant lies that were used to cram Obamacare up our gullets from the nether end of our common polity.

Before we consider the proper shape and degree of the hounding and haunting, let us be reminded of why this legislation is an atrocity of epic proportions.

Let us start with all the lies that Barack Obama told or the promises that he broke, each one of which will damage our way of life as the falsehood is made manifest in law.

This president, this sinister creature of Frank Marshall Davis and Saul Alinsky, of Indonesian sojourns and Columbia University radical salons, campaigned vociferously against Hillary Clinton's call for an individual mandate for health insurance. Now the individual mandate is the centerpiece of Obamacare.

Obama promised that he would never, ever raise taxes on individuals making under $200,000 or couples under $250,000. This legislation breaks that promise.

He said it would cause average premiums to drop by $2,500 annually. Premiums instead will rise. He said he would not tax health-care benefits. This bill does tax them. He said his plan wouldn't lead to rationing. It actually does far worse than mere rationing: It provides for death panels by proxy.

Obama said that "budget reconciliation" was improper for passing Obamacare. He is using reconciliation. He said that a 51-vote simple majority in the Senate should not suffice for major legislation. He is using a simple majority. He said during the judicial wars that the filibuster should be sacrosanct, but he is trampling over the filibuster. He said he would cut out sweetheart deals, but instead he engaged in a host of such deals. He said he would do all negotiations in the open, and without corrupt lobbyist influence, but instead he cut secret deals (secret at first) with a whoring PhRMA and with other moneyed interests. He said he would air the negotiations on C-Span, but he didn't. He said he wouldn't support a "public option," but he told the lefties in Congress that this would be merely a first step towards a public option. He said he would incorporate Republican ideas, but the final legislation was devoid of all but one minor GOP suggestion. He said Republicans would be welcome at the table, but they instead were almost entirely shut out (except for some early negotiations with Montana's Sen. Max Baucus) of actual legislative drafting. Instead, they belatedly were afforded only a dog-and-pony show at Blair House where Obama was peevish, where he personally jawboned the GOP (not to mention what he let other Democrats do) for more minutes than the GOP collectively talked, and where he never actually responded to the substance of most Republicans complaints and ideas.

He repeatedly advertised that his bill would give all Americans the same system that Congress enjoys; instead, it actually exempts top lawmakers and staffs from the bill's requirements. And he promised that he would post any bill on the Internet for five whole days, after congressional passage, before he signed it. But he signed this bill after just 36 hours.

And that's just a sample of the dishonesty of The One.

Meanwhile, it is hard to blame, on substance, the ideological lefties who really believe in this stuff, or to blame those who represent far-left districts and feel obliged to represent their constituents' wills. But for every other congressman who voted for Obamacare -- all those on the fence on substance, and whose districts are not strongly in favor of it (and indeed usually strongly against it) -- what they have done is an affront to the republic and to human decency. And what the congressional leadership did to the lawmaking process is an affront to our system of government.

The mandate to buy health insurance is an abomination. The very thought of a government forcing individuals to buy something the individuals don't want is anathema. It is abject tyranny. It is manifestly unconstitutional. It is despotic. It is so antithetical to the American tradition as to be unacceptable and invalid. For those reasons, it may well lead to non-violent civil disobedience on a massive scale.

It is worse still that lawmakers would refuse to put themselves or their staffs under the same system it puts the 300-million-strong rest of the hoi polloi. It is worse still that Obamacare's system of incentives is such that the CBO estimates that four million people will lose their employer-based plans and thus be put in the position of being subject to the unconstitutional mandate. (This, by the way, gives the lie to yet another Obama claim, namely that nobody would lose their insurance if they want to keep it.)

The bill is a job-killer. It puts a mandate on businesses that employ at least 50 workers -- which means that thousands upon thousands of firms will cut their official payrolls to 49. It is a taxing atrocity, imposing $569.2 billion in tax hikes. It will especially hurt medical device companies through new taxes and "fees," putting some out of business and hurting the patients who rely on them for life-saving or life-improving aid. And, to collect all its taxes, it will -- it already has begun, in terms of planning -- lead to the literally frightening spectacle of the hiring of some 16,500 new IRS agents, making the IRS an enforcement army, with imprisoning authority, on par with the worst of the commissars of the most autocratic czars.

Put this scary influx of IRS commissars together with the 175,000 new members of AmeriCorps now organized officially into "cadres," and all of a sudden we're getting within hailing distance of Obama's threatened "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the regular military."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 4:00 AM

Quote:
The UN General Assembly, aka The Official Terrorist Appeasing /Jew Hating body of the world has no say in American political discourse.

Talk about driving off a cliff... Now you've headed straight into PN/Rappy territory.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 4:09 AM

You know I call 'em like I see 'em. I wrote a fair response back to you. You agree with me? Not? Don't tell me you only want to cherry pick one line out of dozens just to be snarky about, 'cause that's a big step backwards for you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 4:42 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Niki

Here it is:

WERE YOU FORWARDED THIS EDITION OF THE TOWNHALL DAILY?

You can get your own free subscription to the ultimate op-ed page delivered to your email inbox early each morning by visiting:

http://www.townhall.com/secure/signup.aspx

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 5:21 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

You posted

Quote:
The Tea Party has officially denounced violence and threats.

But then you go on to post that

Quote:
John Boehner saying that Steve Dreihaus "may be a dead man"

and that

Quote:
When Sarah Palin says "we need to reload and take aim" at certain Democrats, and puts up a map with their locations designated by cross-hairs

aren't veiled threats, they are 'merely' hyperbole and humor.

Let's try this on for size: how about if I post YOUR name and address on the internet and claim that b/c of your actions YOU have contributed to the destruction of the US ? And what if I further post that you should consider yourself a dead man ... ? How would that feel ? Hyperbole ? Humor ? Or threat ? There's a fine line between harnessing outrage and fueling hate, and that line has already been crossed. You shouldn't be excusing it just b/c it comes from your side.

You also have claimed that both sides do it. I'm still waiting for valid examples.

Quote:
In any case, freedom of speech cannot be impinged because of the potential threat from a mentally ill person being influenced by something he hears somewhere.

Actually ... no. There is a restriction on hate speech in the US just as there is on yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre. 'Freedom of speech' is not the blanket excuse it is made out to be. The limits of said 'freedom' have been discussed before, and there are many.

Quote:
When Janet Napolitano made those comments last year about right-wing dangers, she had to apologize almost immediately. The comments were totally unfounded and were themselves hateful and prejudiced.

That is just a stupid talking point. Her equivalent under Bush said the EXACT SAME THING - word for word. Where was the outrage then ? The only reason she 'apologized' was because of twits with their false outrage who will swallow ANYTHING from a republican but NOTHING from a democrat.

BTW - Bush is the ultimate liar. It started with claiming that the Clinton administration had trashed the WH and removed all the W's from the keypads, went to claiming that war was the last resort for Hussein but the US was forced into it by the vaporous WMDs, and ended with a ruined economy and ruined people that HAD been doing very well - caused, as he claimed, by the democrats.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 5:43 AM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
It is absurd. The Tea Party has officially denounced violence and threats.

They made a pretty weak statement, now, when they see how the violence will damage them politically. To be fair, I think the vast majority of Tea Partiers and Republicans do not want violence (esp as it makes them look bad). But that's not the issue. The issue is that they are not taking responsibility for, or toning down, the dishonest rhetoric they've used over the past two years to draw the violent whackos out of their holes.

Calling Obama a terrorist - in the post 9/11 environment where terrorists are especially hated. Calling him un-American, saying he's going to end our freedoms, destroy out country. Boehner calling this HCR Armageddon.

Come on JS. Republican leaders have specifically called their constituents to arms. Sure, you can say they didn't literally mean it, but it's still ridiculous for them to say it. They spent two years working people into this frenzy and then think one little statement - "oh, but play nice!" is going to calm anyone down.

Quote:
Besides, you don't take her[Palin] seriously,

Um... you have heard her talk, right?

Quote:
Well now you're really going over the cliff friend. That's just a rant of frustrating helplessness.

I agree on this JS. I wouldn't call the Republican leadership terrorists because they haven't actually done acts of violence. And Mike, calling them terrorists also lowers you to their level. It seems to call out for action against them they way they've called for action against Obama. Violent action. I don't want that, just want the Rep. insanity recognized and voted out of office.

What I do call the Republican leadership is irresponsible, dishonest, conniving, and self-interested. And yes, insane.

Quote:
When Janet Napolitano made those comments last year about right-wing dangers, she had to apologize almost immediately. The comments were totally unfounded and were themselves hateful and predjudiced.

Not so much. Events of this week have proved her out. And again - it may not be the leaders of Tea Party and Republicans that are the main threat, but these organizations have openly courted and worked up the violent nutjobs.

Finally: JS, the blog you posted contains several of the blatant lies and stretched truths that the right has been spreading about health care since last summer, and which have been addressed several times already on this site and elsewhere. I'm not going to take the time to refute them again, since if you haven't seen it yet, you're not likely to.

I mean, come one. Death panels? Really?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 5:43 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Crappy, you have no idea what a "strong woman" is. Your definition of a "strong woman" is one who is your intellectual and emotional equal: That is, a bitch pinhead. (And that's an insult to pinheads and bitches everywhere.)

I'm with Rue. Let's post every hatefilled right-winger's home address on line, reload and take aim.

See how the shoe fits.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 5:53 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Sic Semper Tyrannis.

Thus, let it be to all tyrants.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 6:02 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Wulf, if this is a comment at ME, all I'm advocating is that a 0.48 will decide who is right.

Right?

Why should one side pose like sitting ducks while the other takes aim? If this is going to come to guns and violence (which YOU seem to be advocating) then... let's have at it, and may the best shot win. And you better be prepared to lose, because no mercy will be there for you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 6:09 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Wasn't aimed at you, Sig... but thanks for the threat. Its cute. :)

In explanation, and I said this in another thread.. Sic Semper Tyrannis is the only thing I have to say to/about this "government" anymore.

So, we shall see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 6:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
It is absurd. The Tea Party has officially denounced violence and threats.
They made a pretty weak statement, now, when they see how the violence will damage them politically. To be fair, I think the vast majority of Tea Partiers and Republicans do not want violence (esp as it makes them look bad). But that's not the issue. The issue is that they are not taking responsibility for, or toning down, the dishonest rhetoric they've used over the past two years to draw the violent whackos out of their holes.

Calling Obama a terrorist - in the post 9/11 environment where terrorists are especially hated. Calling him un-American, saying he's going to end our freedoms, destroy out country. Boehner calling this HCR Armageddon.

Come on JS. Republican leaders have specifically called their constituents to arms. Sure, you can say they didn't literally mean it, but it's still ridiculous for them to say it. They spent two years working people into this frenzy and then think one little statement - "oh, but play nice!" is going to calm anyone down.

Quote:
Besides, you don't take her[Palin] seriously,
Um... you have heard her talk, right?

Quote:
Well now you're really going over the cliff friend. That's just a rant of frustrating helplessness.
I agree on this JS. I wouldn't call the Republican leadership terrorists because they haven't actually done acts of violence. And Mike, calling them terrorists also lowers you to their level. It seems to call out for action against them they way they've called for action against Obama. Violent action. I don't want that, just want the Rep. insanity recognized and voted out of office.

What I do call the Republican leadership is irresponsible, dishonest, conniving, and self-interested. And yes, insane.

Quote:
When Janet Napolitano made those comments last year about right-wing dangers, she had to apologize almost immediately. The comments were totally unfounded and were themselves hateful and predjudiced.
Not so much. Events of this week have proved her out. And again - it may not be the leaders of Tea Party and Republicans that are the main threat, but these organizations have openly courted and worked up the violent nutjobs.

Finally: JS, the blog you posted contains several of the blatant lies and stretched truths that the right has been spreading about health care since last summer, and which have been addressed several times already on this site and elsewhere. I'm not going to take the time to refute them again, since if you haven't seen it yet, you're not likely to.

I mean, come one. Death panels? Really?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

M4P, that's a good post. I appreciate and respect the restraint you showed in presenting your points of legitimate objection to what I wrote when I responded to Kwicko's original objections to my earlier posts. For the blog, I did preface it by saying I don't support the whole thing. As for Republican leaderships' responsibility to take a softer tone, I don't have any problem with that.

.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 6:15 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, my feeling on the topic is this:

IF you (and I mean anyone... you, our government, the right wing, the left wing, the Taliban) has to SHOOT to make its ideas stick then you

a) Have ALREADY lost in the marketplace of ideas and,
b) Are already a tyranny.

It doesn't matter if you're a tyranny of the left, a tyranny of the right, a muslim tyranny, or a tyranny of good ol' boys... enforcing your ideas with a gun... even if it's an idea of "democracy and individualism"... IS a tyranny.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 6:33 AM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
M4P, that's a good post. I appreciate and respect the restraint you showed in presenting your points of legitimate objection to what I wrote when I responded to Kwicko's original objections to my earlier posts. For the blog, I did preface it by saying I don't support the whole thing. As for Republican leaderships' responsibility to take a softer tone, I don't have any problem with that.

I may not agree with you on many things JS, but I respect you more day by day. Thank you for not escalating - you set a good example that I will try to follow.

I missed your preface to the blog. And I must admit, since we can agree on the lies and move past them to other content: it was correct about a few ways that Obama has not delivered what he promised. While I'm bummed about that, I'm learning enough about politics to see it as necessity. He had to give up some of what he wanted in order to get the bill through. You know, compromise and all that.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 6:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, my feeling on the topic is this:

IF you (and I mean anyone... you, our government, the right wing, the left wing, the Taliban) has to SHOOT to make its ideas stick then you

a) Have ALREADY lost in the marketplace of ideas and,
b) Are already a tyranny.

It doesn't matter if you're a tyranny of the left, a tyranny of the right, a muslim tyranny, or a tyranny of good ol' boys... enforcing your ideas with a gun... even if it's an idea of "democracy and individualism"... IS a tyranny.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 6:38 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Sooo... had you been in Germany in 1930 and had an easy kill-shot on Hitler.... you wouldn't have done it... even to prevent a massive war, millions of deaths ect ect?

Because, whether or not you want to see it.. this HCB is socialism on a national scale (i.e. National Socialism)...

And whats another name for someone who supports National Socialism... anyone, anyone?

Nazi.

Oh yeah, sure... we dont have ovens, showers, trains... yet. Neither did Germany in the 1930s.

They had to start small. Gun control, registration, Political Correctness, speech control... branding one group better than another, or deserving MORE than another... taking money from the people to pay for this new "class" of people...

Replacing religion with the "state".

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/25/ted.sam.harris/index.html

Having people who disagreed with this, ridiculed at first, then silenced..

Newspapers were branded "out of sync" with the Nazi ideals, and were shut down... (anyone remember Obama trying to shut down Fox?)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 6:41 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Make no mistake, this government has become tyranical. And must be removed.

One way or the other.

As Malcolm X said... its going to be "The Ballot or the Bullet".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 7:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Sooo... had you been in Germany in 1930 and had an easy kill-shot on Hitler.... you wouldn't have done it... even to prevent a massive war, millions of deaths ect ect?

You would not have even been able to imagine what would happen during the next 15 years, so no, you would not have shot him. If that's a time-traveller hypothetical, then you really have to balance the consequences of creating a new future versus the history that followed.

Quote:
Because, whether or not you want to see it.. this HCB is socialism on a national scale (i.e. National Socialism)...

And whats another name for someone who supports National Socialism... anyone, anyone?

Nazi.

The Nazis weren't just ideological guys. They were ruthless and barbaric murderers from the beginning of the movement. There is no comparison to Obama here at all, and calling him a Nazi is as bad as when Libs called Bush a Nazi.

Quote:
Oh yeah, sure... we dont have ovens, showers, trains... yet. Neither did Germany in the 1930s.

Don't fool yourself. They opened up Dachau in June of 1933. They started arresting communists, professors, homosexuals, and other non-Nazi types then. Dachau was used by the SS under Commandant Eiche as a training facility to hone their sadistic skills which later would be refined, expanded, and perfected for use on the Jews. The SS officers who showed the most brutality and the most un-remorseful sadism were rewarded with commands of their own in concentration camps in Poland and most of Europe.

Quote:
They had to start small. Gun control, registration, Political Correctness, speech control... branding one group better than another, or deserving MORE than another... taking money from the people to pay for this new "class" of people...

Replacing religion with the "state".

That is a stretch from where we are now, and where we will likely be in 5 years, in my opinion.

Quote:
Having people who disagreed with this, ridiculed at first, then silenced..

Newspapers were branded "out of sync" with the Nazi ideals, and were shut down... (anyone remember Obama trying to shut down Fox?)

They didn't try to shut down Fox. They tried to gather support from other media sources to encourage them to ignore Fox altogether and not carry any of their stories. But that didn't last long.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 7:21 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I see that Jong has once again decided to NOT respond to any of my posts - no matter how fact-filled and on-topic they are. Just b/c Jong has a personal grudge for some unknown reason. BTW Jong - I invite you to scroll down and read JUST my posts. Go ahead. They are short and there aren't many of them. Then come back and point out WHAT was offensive - if you can.

So now I will make it personal - jeez Jong - is your mind so empty you have nothing to say ? Or are you so childish you've gone into a big pout ?

Just for the record.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 7:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Sooo... had you been in Germany in 1930 and had an easy kill-shot on Hitler.... you wouldn't have done it... even to prevent a massive war, millions of deaths ect ect?

You mean, killed someone for "pre-crime"? For something they hadn't done? I guess it depends - in your version of 1930 Germany, am I clairvoyant?

Quote:

Because, whether or not you want to see it.. this HCB is socialism on a national scale (i.e. National Socialism)...

And whats another name for someone who supports National Socialism... anyone, anyone?

Nazi.

Oh jesus fucking bald-headed tapdancing christ, Wulfie. Who do you think you are, Glenn Beck?

We *HAVE* socialism already. Schools, police, fire departments, farm subsidies, CORPORATE welfare, your beloved fucking military - ALL of those are "socialist", and many on a national scale.

The ONE thing you tea-bagging fucknuts will NEVER agree to cut spending on, downsize, or outright do away with is our national military. You think we need to be at war, always, with someone or anyone, for any reason or none at all. That's not socialism - that's outright fascism. Frankly, I'd vastly prefer socialism to fascism. By the way, the Nazis weren't socialists; they were fascists. They used the "socialist" thing in their name the same way the tea-baggers misuse the word "patriot".

I *get* that you and your kind are too fucking stupid to figure that out; I guess it's a byproduct of your conservative idiot upbringing.

Quote:

Oh yeah, sure... we dont have ovens, showers, trains... yet. Neither did Germany in the 1930s.

Again, you fail, miserably. I'm pretty darned sure that there were ovens, showers, and trains in Germany in the 1930s. Maybe you're thinking of Georgia. ;)

Quote:

They had to start small. Gun control, registration, Political Correctness, speech control... branding one group better than another, or deserving MORE than another... taking money from the people to pay for this new "class" of people...

Hmmmm... "branding one group better than another, or deserving MORE than another..." You mean like branding the rich as "better" or "deserving MORE" of the stuff like, say, healthcare?

Quote:

Replacing religion with the "state".

As opposed to... what, exactly? Replacing the "state" with religion? WHAT religion? Islam? Judaism? Buddhism?

Can you show me any specific instances where you've been expressly forbidden from practicing your religion? And if you want to practice yours in public places (schools, government buildings, etc.), will you stand by the rights of ALL religions to do the same? Even satanists, pagans, or - gods forbid! - MUSLIMS?

Quote:

Having people who disagreed with this, ridiculed at first, then silenced..

Who has been "silenced"? And who have you NOT ridiculed? Are you saying it's only okay to ridicule and silence those whom YOU disagree with? Because I've seen you do one, and try to do the other: "Niki, you better not even start trying to compare gays to blacks! Don't do it! You're going to make people very mad! Don't say it!" - I've seen you use that line of reasoning quite often; are you saying you WEREN'T trying to silence Niki?

Quote:

Newspapers were branded "out of sync" with the Nazi ideals, and were shut down... (anyone remember Obama trying to shut down Fox?)

I don't. Can you provide any factual evidence to show that he tried to "shut down" Fox?

Or are you talking about the right-wingers who tried to "shut down" CBS when they demanded that Dan Rather be fired for reporting something they disagreed with?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 7:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"The more they show themselves, the more they will be shunned back by the masses into their little white supremist world."

One hopes.

Just to briefly get back to this: "Seems I recall some pretty nasty and disgusting stuff being hurled at Bush, Cheney and Republicans by protesters in the past."

I recall Bush and Cheney being called sociopaths and murderers - which is probably true. I recall people looking for their impeachment. I remember people saying they would move to Canada if Bush were re-elected. I remember jokes about Cheney shooting his 'friend' in the face and then having said 'friend' apologize for getting shot. I honestly do not recall anyone advocating violence, threatening violence or bringing guns, nor do I recall the democratic party fomenting extremists.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Well, that is because you are so blinded by your love of all things liberal you forget things. You can't "recall" it but you can google it. And, the Democratic party is nothing but a hodge podge of extremists (they just use the word activists...makes em feel all fuzzy
). I guess both parties have extremists to some extent. Humanity's nature for a percent of the people to be...Well, extreme.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 7:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I see that Jong has once again decided to NOT respond to any of my posts - no matter how fact-filled and on-topic they are. Just b/c Jong has a personal grudge for some unknown reason. BTW Jong - I invite you to scroll down and read JUST my posts. Go ahead. They are short and there aren't many of them. Then come back and point out WHAT was offensive - if you can.

So now I will make it personal - jeez Jong - is your mind so empty you have nothing to say ? Or are you so childish you've gone into a big pout ?

Just for the record.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Maybe he just does'nt want to respond to your posts...He/she may even think your not worthy of a response. Don't forget he's been around the block here a few times. I don't think he will respond to your childish ploy of calling jong childish...seems absurd.....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 8:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
You know I call 'em like I see 'em. I wrote a fair response back to you. You agree with me? Not? Don't tell me you only want to cherry pick one line out of dozens just to be snarky about, 'cause that's a big step backwards for you.

Sorry to disappoint you, Jongs, but you seem to be backsliding into partisanship, and anything else I might say might get ugly...

But anyway, you say you know that tea-baggers are Republicans, and vice-versa, and that's no surprise to anyone. I find it curious, then, that so many of them try to CLAIM to not be Republicans or NeoCons, and claim they're "independent", when clearly they aren't. And if 3 of 4 tea-baggers are Republicans, and dozens of tea-baggers are yelling "Nigger!" at members of the Congressional Black Congress, it stands to reason more than a few of them were Republicans. Just sayin'.

Now, you can claim all you want that these "people" (and I use that term loosely) aren't representative of you and your party, but you won't give the same benefit of the doubt to any Democrat (like, say, John Dingell) or "librul" who says something whacky that you disagree with. Nope, you'll plow right on in tarring every one of us with the same brush, giggling maniacally while you do it. So, fair's fair.

What bothers me most is that, for all the ugliness out there, the vast majority of conservatives I've heard and read AREN'T denouncing the hate, violence, and vitriol - they're just trying to claim that it isn't them saying and doing it! So they don't seem to actually MIND the death threats against Democratic members of Congress, they just want to make sure we know that they personally weren't the ones making such threats. It's odd that none of the conservatives - even around this board, from what I've seen - will go so far as to even denounce the violence.

Hell, I'm against whaling, and I got in a huge brouhaha with people I'm normally aligned with when I suggested that maybe piracy and sinking ships on the high seas wasn't the best solution to that problem.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 8:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You posted
Quote:
The Tea Party has officially denounced violence and threats.
But then you go on to post that
Quote:
John Boehner saying that Steve Dreihaus "may be a dead man"
and that
Quote:
When Sarah Palin says "we need to reload and take aim" at certain Democrats, and puts up a map with their locations designated by cross-hairs
aren't veiled threats, they are 'merely' hyperbole and humor.

Let's try this on for size: how about if I post YOUR name and address on the internet and claim that b/c of your actions YOU have contributed to the destruction of the US ? And what if I further post that you should consider yourself a dead man ... ? How would that feel ? Hyperbole ? Humor ? Or threat ? There's a fine line between harnessing outrage and fueling hate, and that line has already been crossed. You shouldn't be excusing it just b/c it comes from your side.

It's funny, Rue, because I was thinking the same thing this morning, before I logged in here.

Suppose I put up Rappy's personal info, along with a hate-filled tyrade saying that he should be "crucified" or "strung up"; would that cross a line, or would that merely be hyperbole?

What if I were to state that I wanted to see "Hero" given the death penalty? Is that a threat, or hype? I'll note for the record that "Hero" has repeatedly called for mistreatment of PN, claiming that PN is not due any of the constitutional protections "Hero" is sworn to uphold and apply to all persons equally. Doesn't that make him a threat to the nation?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 8:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, my feeling on the topic is this:

IF you (and I mean anyone... you, our government, the right wing, the left wing, the Taliban) has to SHOOT to make its ideas stick then you

a) Have ALREADY lost in the marketplace of ideas and,
b) Are already a tyranny.

It doesn't matter if you're a tyranny of the left, a tyranny of the right, a muslim tyranny, or a tyranny of good ol' boys... enforcing your ideas with a gun... even if it's an idea of "democracy and individualism"... IS a tyranny.

That sounds like a good little fable on paper, but in the real world(past and present) sometimes it takes a gun to get things going because the real tyranny stifles the ideas...Oh, our Republic comes to mind along with all the thoughts and ideas it fostered. Where would we be without ever having picked up a muskett.

Now in no way am I agreeing with what some of these people have advocated. I just thought your comment a bit blanketed and idealistic.....I think there would be a danger to new ideas if we all lived by mottos or slogans.....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 8:10 AM

Quote:
Posted by Jongs:

When Janet Napolitano made those comments last year about right-wing dangers, she had to apologize almost immediately. The comments were totally unfounded and were themselves hateful and predjudiced.

...except they've proven to be 100% accurate and true.

But don't let that get in the way of your outrage!

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 8:15 AM

RIVERLOVE

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I see that Jong has once again decided to NOT respond to any of my posts - no matter how fact-filled and on-topic they are. Just b/c Jong has a personal grudge for some unknown reason. BTW Jong - I invite you to scroll down and read JUST my posts. Go ahead. They are short and there aren't many of them. Then come back and point out WHAT was offensive - if you can.

So now I will make it personal - jeez Jong - is your mind so empty you have nothing to say ? Or are you so childish you've gone into a big pout ?

Just for the record.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Maybe he just does'nt want to respond to your posts...He/she may even think your not worthy of a response. Don't forget he's been around the block here a few times. I don't think he will respond to your childish ploy of calling jong childish...seems absurd.....

You may be on to something there K-man. The Mahatma, I mean Jongg, seems lately to be unwilling or afraid to engage with anyone who says or might say something upsetting to him. I think he's lost his relevance here because of that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 8:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
You know I call 'em like I see 'em. I wrote a fair response back to you. You agree with me? Not? Don't tell me you only want to cherry pick one line out of dozens just to be snarky about, 'cause that's a big step backwards for you.

Sorry to disappoint you, Jongs, but you seem to be backsliding into partisanship, and anything else I might say might get ugly...

But anyway, you say you know that tea-baggers are Republicans, and vice-versa, and that's no surprise to anyone. I find it curious, then, that so many of them try to CLAIM to not be Republicans or NeoCons, and claim they're "independent", when clearly they aren't. And if 3 of 4 tea-baggers are Republicans, and dozens of tea-baggers are yelling "Nigger!" at members of the Congressional Black Congress, it stands to reason more than a few of them were Republicans. Just sayin'.

Now, you can claim all you want that these "people" (and I use that term loosely) aren't representative of you and your party, but you won't give the same benefit of the doubt to any Democrat (like, say, John Dingell) or "librul" who says something whacky that you disagree with. Nope, you'll plow right on in tarring every one of us with the same brush, giggling maniacally while you do it. So, fair's fair.

What bothers me most is that, for all the ugliness out there, the vast majority of conservatives I've heard and read AREN'T denouncing the hate, violence, and vitriol - they're just trying to claim that it isn't them saying and doing it! So they don't seem to actually MIND the death threats against Democratic members of Congress, they just want to make sure we know that they personally weren't the ones making such threats. It's odd that none of the conservatives - even around this board, from what I've seen - will go so far as to even denounce the violence.

Hell, I'm against whaling, and I got in a huge brouhaha with people I'm normally aligned with when I suggested that maybe piracy and sinking ships on the high seas wasn't the best solution to that problem.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I would say Jong is wrong. I would say Tea party members are conservitive independants and anti-neocon republicans. Every conservative knows in there heart that both Bush's hyjacked the party. That for years it was anti-war, less intrusive Government, etc...There are plenty of former democrats at tea party events also, so i'd say...if your logic holds.....that it could be a few dems yelling "nigger" also.

I think yelling "nigger" or any disrespectful term at any congressman is low class...Not something I would do, however they have a right to yell "nigger" at anyone they may feel is a "nigger"....I don't have a big problem with that. I just think people have a right to be assholes. And the rest of us need thicker skin. It's a trade off for our freedom.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 8:31 AM

By the way, Breitbart now claims that it was the members of the Congressional Black Caucus who are to blame for being called the N-word by Tea Partiers on Sunday, because "they went searching for racism". Apparently, they didn't have to search for very long, or look too far, to find it. It would be a great day in this country if someone could go searching for racism and not find a gaggle of tea-baggers all too happy to oblige them!

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201003250053

Seems mighty similar to blaming the rape victim because, after all, "she was asking for it". I mean, they WERE walking around in public, being all black and stuff; what else could any self-respecting racist DO?

Oh, and then he referred to them as the "despicable black caucus". I'm guessing it's their "blackness" he finds most despicable.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201003260019

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 8:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:

You may be on to something there K-man. The Mahatma, I mean Jongg, seems lately to be unwilling or afraid to engage with anyone who says or might say something upsetting to him. I think he's lost his relevance here because of that.

Actually, it's you who lost relevance, the day you started screaming at the top of your lungs that Signy should be banned for calling you out on your bullshit. Seems your only problem with freedom of speech is when someone uses it to address you in a way you don't like.

I have vehement disagreements with Jong, but I'd much rather talk with him than waste my time or breath trying to reach you. You're beyond reason, and the only interaction you're worthy of is ridicule.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 8:41 AM

Wulfie, the Secret Service would like to have a few words with you about your repeated and not-so-subtle threats against employees of the federal government.

Have a great weekend!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 9:00 AM

RIVERLOVE

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:

You may be on to something there K-man. The Mahatma, I mean Jongg, seems lately to be unwilling or afraid to engage with anyone who says or might say something upsetting to him. I think he's lost his relevance here because of that.

Actually, it's you who lost relevance, the day you started screaming at the top of your lungs that Signy should be banned for calling you out on your bullshit. Seems your only problem with freedom of speech is when someone uses it to address you in a way you don't like.

I have vehement disagreements with Jong, but I'd much rather talk with him than waste my time or breath trying to reach you. You're beyond reason, and the only interaction you're worthy of is ridicule.

I'm beyond reason? That's downright funny comin' from you.

I'm only worthy of ridicule? Well I guess that's somethin'.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 9:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
By the way, Breitbart now claims that it was the members of the Congressional Black Caucus who are to blame for being called the N-word by Tea Partiers on Sunday, because "they went searching for racism". Apparently, they didn't have to search for very long, or look too far, to find it. It would be a great day in this country if someone could go searching for racism and not find a gaggle of tea-baggers all too happy to oblige them!

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201003250053

Seems mighty similar to blaming the rape victim because, after all, "she was asking for it". I mean, they WERE walking around in public, being all black and stuff; what else could any self-respecting racist DO?

Oh, and then he referred to them as the "despicable black caucus". I'm guessing it's their "blackness" he finds most despicable.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201003260019

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

The Black caucus is a racist group...its in the definition....But you know that and let it slide. In your twisted head it would be totally wrong to have a white caucus, but perfectly fine to have a group calling itslf the black caucus. So, it is no suprise to me to see that a racist group found a racist opponent......Well, its true...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 9:29 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Thanx for the links, Rue; should be fun to investigate. Wonder if we should send Frem there, see what covert trouble he could create, eh?

Yeah, Frem, I THOUGHT he might be referring to Chicago, but figured that must not be it, because as far as I know no Democratic POLITICIAN incited anything, and the problem was Daly and his police force. The protests had been planned to be nonviolent, but Daly refused to issue permits for them and sent 23,000 police in to deal with 10,000 protesters. The day of the “police riots” started because a boy lowered the flag and the police forced their way through the crowd to beat him up. Rather and Wallace were roughed up BY THE POLICE. So I can’t figure out where these “tactics” he speaks of came from. Thus I figured he must be talking about something else.

If Chicago is the example he’s using, it’s fallacious. It was the time of the Kennedy and King assassinations, the Vietnam war and other things that had the population fired up FOR LEGITIMATE REASONS, and I don’t remember it being fomented by members of the legislature...? Very confusing...

If he means the tactics of using street theatre to create an experience that drew the attention of mainstream America. Yippie activities were used to put across the message that the average American didn't have control over the political process. They tried to show this by purposefully participating in non-traditional activities such as "nominating a pig for president. But the protests were planned to be nonviolent; it was the police who started the problems. Daly’s “shoot to kill” order and other moves had a lot to do with what happened.

If he’s speaking of the King riots, that wasn’t planned by anyone, and I don’t know what tactics were used to which he might be referring. Essentially, I never heard of any LEGISLATORS egging the protests and violence on with visceral terms such as is happening now.

Shiny, you say you “wanna know what big government expects when they push people to the limits.” How exactly has “big government” pushed people to the limits? I know you believe that, but in fact what has happened is that the majority first tried to work in a bipartisan fashion across the aisle, inserted things in the healthcare bill that the Repubs had BACKED and in some cases INTRODUCED, faced an implacable wall of “no” to everything, worked to find ways for the MAJORITY to rule, and found them within reconciliation. It’s only because the bill is unpopular that you see it as pushing people to the limit, but that’s fallacious. It’s been done before, recently by the Republicans with two huge tax cuts to the rich passed through reconciliation—that would be a more accurate “pushing to the wall”, if you want.

If, as you say, the Tea Partiers have “denounced threats”, then what about the signs they carry? Some of those are pretty obvious threats...

First of all, I dispute your belief that the new law is “draconian”; secondly, calling what they’re saying “hyperbole” doesn’t excuse it. It has helped create, and definitely inflamed, their base...what the FauxNews people have been saying isn’t just hype, they’ve been pretty direct in what they say and, although you’ll deny it, encourages anger and fear among their audience, which leads to physical violence when it’s stoked far enough. That’s just fact, history is replete with it.

The worry about Palin is that she has a following who buy into whatever she says, and SHE has been fomenting fear and hatred since she first arrived on the scene. She herself doesn’t bother me except in that she’s amusing and strange, but her influence does—just as that of FauxNews. They repeat lies; people believe them. And that it’s humor is bullshit. Her idea of humor was FauxNews repeating “retarded” over and over again on TV, while condemning Emanuel for saying it once in a closed-door session. I haven’t seen her do anything that indicates what she says about the government and her opponents is seen by her as humor.

Oops, I just got to the UN being called “Terrorist Appeasing /Jew Hating body”...well, that does it for me. I view you as pretty out there in your beliefs and opinions, I don’t know why I didn’t accept it before, but you don’t seem to be someone who can debate reasonably, so I’ll just let you rant on. I usually respect you and you’ve been almost always invariably reasonable to a degree; dunno why this post is the way it is, but I actually had to scroll up to see if it was you who made it, rather than Wulf or someone of his ilk. Too bad.

I see Mike agrees with me...when you hurl about buzz words like those, you close down communication. I don’t see him “cherry picking”, I see him responding to the single worst thing you wrote; the rest is pretty bad too, but I quit reading when I got there and I wouldn’t be surprised if anyone else did, too. For me, there is little reason in your arguments up to that point; to go further would be a waste of my time.

Rue covers it well, too; the pressure put on people who speak out and say the truth is huge; even the Republicans have been forced to apologize for saying things about FauxNews twits which were nothing but the truth. And the Dumbya administration DID worry about violence, when there was nothing nearly as bad as what’s happening now; Napolitano spoke the truth.

Mal, bingo!

Quote:
The issue is that they are not taking responsibility for, or toning down, the dishonest rhetoric they've used over the past two years to draw the violent whackos out of their holes.

and

Quote:
Come on JS. Republican leaders have specifically called their constituents to arms. Sure, you can say they didn't literally mean it, but it's still ridiculous for them to say it. They spent two years working people into this frenzy and then think one little statement - "oh, but play nice!" is going to calm anyone down.

are absolutely right on. Besides, the Republican leaders like Behner didn’t SAY just “play nice”. Every one of them preceded their statements with something along the line of “there are a lot of angry people out there because...(insert hype)”, thereby lessening the impact of the statement, and sometimes followed it with “focusing on the violence...(insert hype).

In fact, everything Mal wrote says how I feel in essence. By the way, the Republican who got his office window shot out actually is trying to blame the DEMOCRATS for inciting violence...it’s absurd; they know they’re free to say anything they want without being held responsible, just like FauxNews does. And they do, and they aren’t.

I do, however, agree with Sig; violence begets violence, and lowers anyone seeking retribution to the level of the violent.

Ach, most of the rest of this is too time consuming to deal with, it’s been gone over numerous times. Changes nobody’s mind. I agree that you toned it down, JS, but your original long vent turns me off.

I heard some wind whistle past my ears, but it’s not worth paying attention to. At the end I heard something about ”shut down Fox”, which made me giggle. Familiar “hyperbole”, straight out of FauxNews’ book—absolutely nobody did anything to shut down FauxNews; Obama called it for what it was, nothing more.

I’m not wasting any more time on this thread, all I hear is a bunch of wind whistling in the trees, and I assume if I bothered to make it out, it would be ridiculous absurdities making no sense at all, so onward to more interesting threads...

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 9:34 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"... I don't think he will respond to your childish ploy of calling jong childish ..."

I have a long history of commenting on posts, addressing people personally on the board and other actions. And it's not always meant to get a direct reply, most times it's meant to point something out to other posters.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 9:39 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Kwicko

It may be that the healthcare reform bill has really touched a nerve with Jong and eroded away his abiity to be dispassionate.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 9:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Kwicko

It may be that the healthcare reform bill has really touched a nerve with Jong and eroded away his abiity to be dispassionate.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

It *may* be, but I hope not. He's conservative, but he's not often so blinded by his ideology that he can't have a mature debate. I think it's obvious that he's upset by the passage of this bill, and that's fine. What's NOT fine is calling for violence because of being upset, or just because your side lost this one.

I'm still waiting for Wulfie to come out blasting me for "narking" on him, but as he pointed out, it's my free speech right to notify someone what he's saying. Hey, if you could go back to Dallas on November 21, 1963, what would YOU do?

And if I want to post his address and directions to his house, and where his wife works and his kids go to school, that's my right, too. Collateral damage, as they say.

Right, Wulfie?

(And no, I haven't actually reported him, but I'm seriously considering it. I find his threats to be very real where the President is concerned.)

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 10:08 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Make no mistake, this government has become tyranical. And must be removed. One way or the other.

Are you advocating the violent overthrow of the government? The assassination of the President?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 10:32 AM