If my blogging friends on the right can do so, will one of you please refer to anything similar to this happening when Mr. Bush was president? When we on the Left bring up the fact that the anti-Obama rhetoric on the Right is getting more and more violent, I hear that this was also true when Mr. Bush was president.
That was only a short time ago, so I'm wondering if you will be able to find, somewhere on the net, an organization that warned of bloody gun violence to defeat George Bush, The Nazi. And were Congressional Democrats in attendance at any conferences that threatened violence against the US Government and its president during the Bush Administration, thereby giving it a stamp of legitimacy as happened at this Rightwing gathering where Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) was present?
The Right now has ownership and is fully aware of a group that is threatening the overthrow of the US Government and the assassination of its duly elected president.
Someone had better rein in these paranoid, treasonous nutjobs before someone gets hurt.
Right-Wing Conference Tells Activists To Get Their Guns Ready For ‘Bloody Battle’ With Obama The Nazi
At the How To Take Back America Conference last weekend, conservative speaker Kitty Werthmann led a workshop called “How to recognize living under Nazis & Communists.” Announcing the panel in a column preceding the conference, talk show host Janet Porter gushed how Werthmann’s description of Austria in the 1930s is a “mirror to America” today — noting “They had Joseph Goebbels; we have Mark Lloyd, the diversity czar.” The room was packed over capacity to hear Werthmann, who grew up as a Christian in Austria and serves as Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum South Dakota President.During her session, Werthmann went through a litany of examples of how President Obama is like Adolf Hitler. She noted that Hitler, who acted “like an American politician,” was “elected in a 100% Christian nation.” Although she failed to once mention Antisemitism or militarism, Werthmann explained how universal healthcare, an Equal Rights Amendment, and increased taxes were telltale signs of Nazism. Werthmann also warned the audience:
If we had our guns, we would have fought a bloody battle. So, keep your guns, and buy more guns, and buy ammunition. [...] Take back America. Don’t let them take the country into Socialism. And I refer again, Hitler’s party was National Socialism. [...] And that’s what we are having here right now, which is bordering on Marxism.
Watch it:
Before the event, ThinkProgress asked Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), one of several Republican members of Congress also speaking at the conference, to autograph Werthmann’s DVD about National Socialism. She happily obliged.
h/t ThinkProgress
More information here.
62 comments:
I can almost hear the crickets...
The violence-tinged aspect certainly seems worse.
If there's a left-wing equivalent, I'd think it be found in the Weather Underground and related groups. But those have been dormant for a long long time, and I won't count them as something to compare this to in recent history.
I'm thinking the Alec Baldwin threats against Rep. Henry Hyde and his family. Sad.
There is no left-wing equivalent. Period. The Weather Underground? Get serious. They operated...underground. This bunch has a high proportion of middle-class blue-hairs and can't get enough publicity for their hate mongering.
To satisfy Authorstone the Weather Underground certainly operated underground but still bombed above ground. The difference to the 60's and now is that the leftists in the love decade actually used violence. So far, the blue hairs are only saying to be prepared.
I question the source for the story since I have as yet to find collaborating stories from more professional outlets.
Jim-
Color me disappointed. I thought you had your feelings hurt & were headed off to where you might be better appreciated.
What happened?
So, Jim, you can't use Google?
http://bit.ly/cAqpB
There are plenty of news stories about the conference out there.
Are you unsure the conference happened? Unsure that the rhetoric was correctly quoted? Unwilling to confirm that Bachmann was there?
What part of the story do you not believe?
And Alec Baldwin? Really? You honestly believe Alec Baldwin is a threat to anyone except a catering company?
I'm a glutton for punishment.
Shaw: "IF MY BLOGGING FRIENDS ON THE RIGHT CAN DO SO, WILL ONE OF YOU PLEASE ..."
This is why I no longer bother talking with so-called "friends on the right," because they never were friends, merely self-interested hypocrites seeking entertainment. Conversing with them is like trying to carry an intelligent discussion with cholera and plague ... especially the one who trolled one of my comment threads 30 TIMES just to make an obnoxious nuisance of himself with prevaricating bullshit. In being a lot more selective with respect to the company I keep, I have time for more profitable pursuits ... without wasting time or compromising myself just to accommodate blowhards.
Michael, you too? Tsk Tsk
Look, I said I was looking for more professional stories, not more blog rants. I have no doubt that this meeting took place. I just want to see if there is a more balanced reporter. All writers write with bias. The good ones try to either control it or let the reader know of the bias. That's all.
On a side note I earned a degree in history and know that in a meeting setting there are many first person accounts, and often they vary in perspective. Take for example 5 eye witness accounts of an accident. You will have 5 very different stories, all valid.
I'm probably not using a good search string for google.
As to Alec Baldwin, there are those feeble minded that just fall all over themselves when it comes to actors. They do carry some influence on the public. Pity.
Octopus is right. It really isn't worth the effort (most of the time) dealing with our 'friends on the right'.
Here is an instance which illustrates that problem to a tee. One of our 'friends' needs 'collaborating (sic) stories' regarding the hatemonger Shaw presented at the top of this thread while blithely accepting the 'fact' that Van Jones is gung-ho for mass murder.
For crying out loud people, this was a conference put on by the Eagle Forum. No wonder I couldn't find any stories from the major media outlets.
I shouldn't alarm you further but the early years of this Republic had many folks armed to prevent the "general" government from getting out of hand. Folks jealously guarded the sovereignty of their birth state, especially the South.
So, the point being, it is very American to protect yourself against an overreaching government.
Shaw, there is no defending this. I won't even begin to try. There is no need to come up with a comparison because it is wrong, period.
Unlike others, I'm glad that you are able to recognize that there are those on the right that still understand and condemn right and wrong! I have a feeling that if Pam were here she would feel the same way! (I hope I am not putting words in her mouth, but I know that you know her personally too) Yes, I'm sure there will be those that try and defend it, but I will not be one of them!
Little old ladies rattling on and on....
Greywolfe, a blogger, going on and on about guns and blood in the streets after the election of Obama...
The President talking to kids becomes a threat to our whole way of life?
The Weathermen, what maybe a 100 folks at most? Glenn Beck is on cable and is heard by millions nightly.
Yes, in the early years of this republic people had guns....they had them because that was how they put food on their table and how they protected themselves in the wilderness...it had nothing to do with an 'overreaching government' because the federal government could barely reach beyond its own chambers...
No, the issue is FEAR! Fear because our world has been turned upside down, not by Obama but by the financial meltdown of 2008 which is something most people do not understand and maybe it would have been a good idea to allow for the collapse of our financial system then people would have 'saw' the problem and maybe it would have effected them personally...just like the depression was something that people experienced personally.
Its fear because people do not want to accept reality and or acknowledge it but rather find comfort in believing that nothing happened and nothing went wrong but rather that Obama is creating the takeover of their lala land...
Because lala land no longer exists and it was destroyed...but that occurred before Obama was President....maybe if things had been allowed to be destroyed and our economic world ground to a stop then maybe things would be different right now...
I shouldn't alarm you further but the early years of this Republic had many folks armed to prevent the "general" government from getting out of hand. Folks jealously guarded the sovereignty of their birth state, especially the South.
So, the point being, it is very American to protect yourself against an overreaching government.--Jim
But the question is, How American is it to threaten the US Government's overthrow and bloodying of its president because a group of fanatics don't understand what has happened to America's financial institutions [see TAO's comment] and what Mr. Bush, and then Mr. Obama and his administration have had to do to stablize them.
These are not the "early days of the Republic," when communication was poor and only a small segment of society ran the place. This is a time when certain fearful segments of our culture are tuned into the rantings of demagogues Limbaugh, Beck, Malkin, and Hannity, and instead of using critical thinking skills, they swallow their lies and digest them as truth.
To give you one example of their fear mongering, here's the truth about the czar controversy Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity have been spreading. I've seen their stupid talking points repeated on many a rightwing blog. All one had to do is engage in a little research to discover that what Beck and Hannity were ranting about was distortions and lies:
"There’s been a certain fascination with calling Obama’s advisers and appointees "czars." Fox News host Glenn Beck has identified 32 Obama czars on his Web site, whom he has characterized as a collective "iceberg" threatening to capsize the Constitution. Beck and other television hosts aren’t the only ones crying czar, either. Six Republican senators recently sent a letter to the White House saying that the creation of czar posts "circumvents the constitutionally established process of ‘advise and consent.’ " Republican Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah issued a press release saying that czars "undermine the constitution." And Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison wrote an opinion column in the Washington Post complaining about the czar menace, including the factually inaccurate claim that only "a few of them have formal titles."
The habit of using "czar" to refer to an administration official dates back at least to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, but the real heyday of the czar came during President George W. Bush’s administration. The appellation was so popular that several news organizations reported on the rise of the czar during the Bush years, including NPR, which ran a piece called "What’s With This Czar Talk?" and Politico, which published an article on the evolution of the term. The latter, written during the 2008 presidential campaign, points out that czars are "really nothing new. They’ve long been employed in one form or another to tackle some of the nation’s highest-profile problems." Politico quotes author and political appointments expert James Bovard saying that the subtext of "czar" has changed from insult to praise: "It’s a real landmark sign in political culture to see this change from an odious term to one of salvation.”
Now it’s turned odious again, with Republican senators calling czars unconstitutional and cable hosts like Beck and Sean Hannity characterizing them as shadowy under-the-table appointees used by Obama to dodge the usual approval processes. In fact, of the 32 czars Beck lists:
* Nine were confirmed by the Senate, including the director of national intelligence ("intelligence czar"), the chief performance officer ("government performance czar") and the deputy interior secretary ("California water czar").
* Eight more were not appointed by the president – the special advisor to the EPA overseeing its Great Lakes restoration plan ("Great Lakes czar") is EPA-appointed, for instance, and the assistant secretary for international affairs and special representative for border affairs ("border czar") is appointed by the secretary of homeland security.
* Fifteen of the "czarships" Beck lists, including seven that are in neither of the above categories, were created by previous administrations. (In some cases, as with the "economic czar," the actual title – in this case, chairman of the president’s economic recovery advisory board – is new, but there has been an official overseeing the area in past administrations. In others, as with the special envoy to Sudan, the position is old but the "czar" appellation is new.)
(cont.)
* In all, of the 32 positions in Beck’s list, only eight are Obama-appointed, unconfirmed, brand new czars.
These new "czars" include the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan; the director of recovery for auto communities and workers; the senior advisor for the president’s Automotive Task Force; the special adviser for green jobs, enterprise, and innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality; the federal chief information officer; the chair of the Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board; the White House director of urban affairs; and the White House coordinator for weapons of mass destruction, security and arms control. Or, as Glenn Beck would have it, the Afghanistan czar, the auto recovery czar, the car czar, the embattled green jobs czar, the information czar, the stimulus accountability czar, the urban affairs czar and the WMD policy czar.
Some of these new positions would have been meaningless in a previous administration. Previous presidents didn’t need an Automotive Task Force or a Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board. These positions are similar to George W. Bush’s "World Trade Center health czar" and "Gulf Coast reconstruction czar" in that they are new advisory positions created to deal with temporary challenges facing the administration. Others do represent new long-term concerns (urban affairs, climate change), but the act of appointing advisers to manage new areas of interest is hardly unique to the Obama administration. The Bush administration, for instance, created the "faith-based czar" and the "cybersecurity czar."
Another thing: Beck counts among his 32 "czars" three who have not been called "czars" by reporters at all, except in stories claiming that the Obama administration has lots of "czars." We’ve compiled a FactCheck.org list that discounts these positions, which seem to be "czars" only in the context of media czar-hysteria. (Our list also adds three czars Beck’s research didn’t find – a "diversity czar," a "manufacturing czar" and an "Iran czar.")
As for Obama having an unprecedented number of czars, the Bush administration had even more appointed or nominated positions whose holders were called "czars" by the media. The DNC has released a Web video claiming that there were 47, but it’s counting multiple holders of the same position. We checked the DNC’s list against Nexis and other news records, and found a total of 35 Bush administration positions that were referred to as "czars" in the news media. (Our list of confirmed "czars," with news media sources cited, is here.) Again, many of these advisory positions were not new – what was new was the "czar" shorthand. Like the Obama czars, the Bush czars held entirely prosaic administrative positions: special envoys, advisers, office heads, directors, secretaries. The preponderance of czars earned both ridicule and concern in editorials and in media, but no objections from Congress.'
As to Alec Baldwin, there are those feeble minded that just fall all over themselves when it comes to actors. They do carry some influence on the public. Pity.--Jim
Yes. We remember the influence Ronald W. Reagan had.
Shaw, add to your list the lie-mongers at FAUX News.
Some bobblehead claimed children are not allowed to recite the Pledge of Allegiance anymore in school.
An easily refuted outright LIE.
But I bet the drones who watch FAUX believed every word coming out of her pretty, but stupid mouth:
Beth: I agree. The violence/threats against those who seek out legal abortions is awful. Thanks for bringing up another anger channel from the "anti-choice", [mostly] right-wing wackos.
Beth,
Your comment has nothing to do with violent threats against the president, therefore, it is being deleted.
You've come here time and time again and posted your anti-abortion and anti-Obama rants. If you can't contribute something thoughtful to the discussion, please don't change the subject to your favorite bashing points.
Thanks.
I feel like laughing after reading this post, given the week that we've had in this ObamaNation.
The survey -- "Should Obama be killed?" -- was posted by a obvious nutjob and this is nothing new. If I remember correctly there was a major movie during the Bush years about assassinating the president and it was aimed directly at Bush. And another one called Death of a President. There was also a major TV . So lets not get off the current issues. Knowing you, the next blog you'll do is blame Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck for doing it.. LMAO!!!!! Things like this will only give conservatives like myself a bad name. So maybe, just maybe it was done by a Liberal for just that very reason!
Back to the real news...We've seen Pittsburgh, PA become a war zone. If you've ever been to Pittsburgh, you know that while it is no island paradise, it certainly does not deserve to be broken down and torn apart by a bunch of lazy thugs who want the hard workers of the world to pay massive taxes, just so they can sit their asses on a couch and play PS3 all day.
We've had psychotic world leaders gather in NYC to tell the world how awful America is - and then when Barack Obama was finished, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad got up and spoke.
We have seen Glenn Beck mocked on SNL, meaning he's really doing the work of a good journalist. Not bad for a guy who constantly has to remind people he is not a journalist, he's just a rodeo clown.
We heard that Sarah Palin spoke overseas, and then we were told that she was the equivalent of The Dixie Chicks, because she dared to question America's current economic policies - as she was speaking to a group of young financial investors who were learning about the American marketplace.
We have now waited almost one full week for Barack Obama to answer the call from his Commander in the region - the one he appointed - for a deployment of more troops, else we suffer greater loss of life and possibly a complete loss of all efforts we have put forth thus far in Afghanistan.
We have learned that Islamic Jihad is alive and well - on American soil. And to that point - where the hell is Barack Obama, and why has he not given a press conference to compliment the local, state, and federal authorities for working in tandem to root out the evil that was ready to do harm to our fellow Americans?
Why has that handsome woman Janet Napolitano, head of the DHS, not spoken out in total support of the system that was created by George W. Bush and Tom Ridge, with the goal of results exactly as we have seen come to fruition this week?
This was one of the trademarks of George W. Bush's Presidency - he was always there with an "atta boy" for the hard working men and women who keep us safe.
Is this the trademark of the Obama Presidency - to bury his head in the sand and pretend that these events never transpired, in an effort to keep the loony leftists in their fantasy land that there is no such thing as evil?? His actions have shown that he has no idea of the job description and lacks respect for what the office means...worse yet, his constant apologies reflect a disdain for our country! Getting back to the Face book thing, Face book took down the poll Monday soon after it was launched. So why make a big schpeal about it? Things like that happen all the time.
Well.. I'm sure there's an overwhelming amount of other (Important)news stories I have not listed, but I came here at this moment to spread some good cheer, and dammit, I'm going to do just that.
Still got that "hopey-changey" feeling?
http://www.breitbart.tv/shock-discovery-community-organizers-pray-to-president-elect-obama/
I'd like you opinion on what you think about this!
Stevens Opinion,
"This was one of the trademarks of George W. Bush's Presidency - he was always there with an "atta boy" for the hard working men and women who keep us safe."
Yep, he fell all over Brownie for the real bang up job he did in New Orleans oh and all those medals for Tenet and Franks...
Job well done!
Nothing like elavating incompetency to an art form...
Tao has a pretty good point on Brown. How can anyone but cringe on that?
I hope that Obama's quickly sacking Van Jones is a sign that he is better in this regard.
"This was one of the trademarks of George W. Bush's Presidency - he was always there with an "atta boy" for the hard working men and women who keep us safe."--Steven's Opinion
Yeah. We remember, S.O.: "You're doin' a heckava job, Brownie."--George W. Bush to Michael Brown, complimenting his outstanding neglect during Hurricane Katrina.
Beth,
This is not an anti-abortion forum. We're not talking about it. And no one's "joking" about it. Those are your words, not anyone's here.
The subject of abortion rights has strong opinions on both sides.
I don't want to be drawn into a shouting match over it.
And I won't have my blog and its comments hijacked either.
If you want to talk about it, use your own blog to do so.
Thanks.
"Things like this will only give conservatives like myself a bad name. So maybe, just maybe it was done by a Liberal for just that very reason!'
Sir, "things like this" are not the only reason conservatives like yourself have a bad name.
If you don't understand that, then you're not paying attention.
I think Steven's Opinions has a real future. The sweeping generalities, casual libels and sneering smears are really quite well done delivered in that priceless tone of I CARE SO MUCH. As far as this sort of thing goes I'd personally like a little more of the Marxist-Maoist-Mass Murder theme but that's just my taste. And I guess that ground is pretty well covered around here as it is.
Still, it's crucial not to forget the Red Menace Steven. Islamofascists will come and go but Commies are in for the long haul.
If anything happens to Obama, the Republicans will be responsible, and they must be held accountable for it.
"If anything happens to Obama, the Republicans will be responsible, and they must be held accountable for it."
I condemned this group earlier in my comment but this statement was just too much.
I cannot believe you are actually serious. If anything should happen to Obama, then the person that injured/killed Obama should be held responsible. Maybe the group behind the person. (that is a debate that has actually been going around the blogosphere) but the entire Republican party? I know how ridiculous this sounds and I am not even a Republican!!
So let me get this straight, if someone goes out and kills someone, then whatever/whoever they believed in should get punished? What about taking responsibility for their own actions?
I am a believer that with actions come consequences and you should be held responsible (David Letterman, Glenn Beck, Don Imus, Dixie Chicks, etc) for what you say. To blame an entire political party for what a group does is just ridiculous.
Jennifer typed:
'To blame an entire political party for what a group does is just ridiculous.'
Crazy isn't it?
You might well think so. But sadly that just isn't the case. In fact one Van Jones has been smeared and discredited under circumstances exactly as you describe them. It is customary for reactionaries from the political right to use this tactic. In particular the technique was honed in the post WWII Cold-War era but the antecedents go way back in the republic.
I admit it's a little unusual to see it coming from the left.
But what the heck!
Things change!
Spitfire-
Thanks for your thoughtful remarks.
Steve, you brought up, with seeming displeasure, Mahmoud of iran followed Pres. Obama to the podium at the UN last week.
Here is your specific quote:
"We've had psychotic world leaders gather in NYC to tell the world how awful America is - and then when Barack Obama was finished, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad got up and spoke."
I would like to ask, since you seem upset by this, were you as upset with President Bush when he addressed the UN and Hugo Chavez followed him?
Did you also have contempt then for your elected president, or is it just Obama?
Consistency. It is something many on the right, and unfortunately the left, lack.
In final response to your comments, might I just add, "Heck of a job Brownie!" Yes, you are right, Bush was quick to give that atta boy, even if it was premature.
Maybe Obama is waiting to say anything because the situation is still developing. Did you ever think of that?
The Right wing just keeps spewing their hatred...
Many black people, including me, saw this coming.
Jennifer you won't convince any concerned American that you are right.. So give it up.
Racism isn't an emotion. It's taught. It's handed down by generations and the MSM. When you watch COPS on FOX (Big surprise) who are the people you see? African Americans, Latinos. Every now and then you'll get some white trailer trash but it's mostly minorities they show. BUT, when you watch Girls Gone Wild who do you see. Rich white girls on vacation in Cancun showing their assets.
Attorney General Eric Holder, do your duty!
"Jennifer you won't convince any concerned American that you are right."
Exactly who am I trying to convince and of what? I was simply giving my opinion on a comment. Apparently righties don't own the market for meaningless rants!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Crazy isn't it?
You might well think so. But sadly that just isn't the case."
I realize that it happens but I still find it ridiculous and crazy! (both words happen to fit)
"In particular the technique was honed in the post WWII Cold-War era but the antecedents go way back in the republic"
What exactly are you referring to, with this comment. I ask in genuine curiosity because I'm rather new to the political scene, and I'm interested in learning that this isn't just some new trend but rather has been around for a while.
"Obama's first act as president of any consequence, in the middle of a financial meltdown, was to send taxpayers' money overseas to pay for the killing of unborn children in other countries," said Frank. "Now, I got to tell you, if a president will do that, there's almost nothing that you should be surprised at after that. We shouldn't be shocked that he does all these other insane things. A president that has lost his way that badly, that has no ability to see the image of God in these little fellow human beings, if he can't do that right, then he has no place in any station of government and we need to realize that he is an enemy of humanity."
Rep. Trent Franks R-AZ
The only problem I have with this conversation is the assumption that Kitty Wirthmann is somehow out of the GOP mainstream.
Jennifer said..“meaningless rants!”
Oh I love that!!
When your conservatives nuts rant it’s called blogging. When anyone else makes a statement it’s called rants!
You come here on Shaws Liberal blog and spew your rightwing garbage and accuse everyone that won’t buy it of ranting.
Well taking a poll on the assassination of a president is nothing to take lightly. But it's not like he’s a white president but because he's the first Black President.
I for one am concerned about the possibility of an assassination attempt on Barack Obama. I'm obviously not the only one, as you can read here many others agree with me... EXCEPT you and a handful of other republican who couldn’t care less. There are many crazies in YOUR party thinking about attempting it…Who knew that electing a black man with a foreign-sounding name would make white people so insane?
Jennifer-
You might find this of interest. Albert Canwell (our local anti-Communist McCarthyite) caused friends and acquaintances of my parents considerable pain and trouble back in the 1950's.
http://depts.washington.edu/labhist/cpproject/canwell_interview.htm
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980802&slug=2764204
"When your conservatives nuts rant it’s called blogging. When anyone else makes a statement it’s called rants!
You come here on Shaws Liberal blog and spew your rightwing garbage and accuse everyone that won’t buy it of ranting."
David, you don't know anything about me. I have commented on this blog for a long time. I am no conservative nut, but if you feel better calling me one, go for it. If you knew anything about me you would know that I am just as critical of rights rants as I am as those on the left and have posted about it on my blog numerous times. I accused you of ranting because you went off on a tangent about something that had nothing to do with the post. That's a rant, in my opinion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Beth, I am a conservative, that hasn't changed although I have tried to distance myself from those that cannot produce anything if it doesn't come from Beck's or Rush's mouth first. I tire of the hysterical ramblings about indoctrination and the health care bill. I am against it completely, (the bill) but not for the trumped up reasons that some people believe. If you read my blog you would know that I am still against abortion, and big government and national health care. I don't change opinions to please anyone. They treat me with respect here, and I offer the same respect back. That people can't understand that, I cannot help.
When I call myself an Independent, it is because I am one. I am neither Republican or Democrat. I don't give a fig about party lines. I don't agree that you have to be one or the other.
Arthur.....will check them out when
I have more time. I have to run and have a busy night ahead of me. Thanks for the links.
I would have been here sooner Beth, but it was my day to volunteer for back alley abortion training with ACORN.
As silly as the previous staement is, it's no more silly than righties like Beth glossing over major players in the republican party remaining silent while their party is taken over but nuts.
Blind, backward thinking fools like this Beth take perverse pleasure and somehow think it's civic minded to talk of the assassination of our Constitutionally elected President. This is despicable. It is almost as if the right has transformed in a cult of hatred.
The right can take all the comfort and joy it wants that Glen Beck gets 2 or 3 million listeners a night. Of course the football game gets 20 times that. Your favorite dramas like ER or House get 10 times that.
The people watching these hate mongers would watch a turd sitting on a table if they were told it smelled like Ronald Reagan.
Just an observation: reread the posts from top to bottom. I think you will be surprised at the pattern that develops.
Jennifer is most definitely NOT a wingnut. I know she does not agree with violent rhetoric toward anyone.
Can we try to be a bit more civil with each other?
GottaLaff, the blogger who broke the story about the “Kill Obama” poll at FaceBook, has been receiving right wing hate mail. In response, GottaLaff said this:
“No, it is not "grassroots", not even close. It is a sick, terrifying, dangerous movement toward violence and the worst kind of civil unrest.
The same "party leaders" who get their rocks off by pretending to be macho and exerting their windbaggy, wrongheaded power will one day come to realize that killing is real, not just a word on a Facebook poll, and it's already happened (Dr. Tiller, the census "fed"), and it is final. Real and final.”
One would think a major political party such as the Republicans would condemn this crap, would condemn Joe Wilson for calling the President “a liar” before Congress, would condemn Trent Franks for making comments that go far beyond the limits of traditional criticism by calling Obama “an enemy of humanity,” would conduct themselves with some semblance of responsibility. Nooo! The Republicans revel in this crap and exploit it for partisan gain. The Republicans are no longer a party of principle but a party of expedience and opportunism. WIN AT ALL COST, BUT WIN! Sooner or later someone will get killed, like the census worker in Kentucky, because of this crap. Damn straight the Republicans should be held accountable. And if any right-wingers don’t like the tone of this comment, guess what? Tough shit!
Geez Octopus, don't blow ink all over yourself. Your tone is just fine with me. Seems natural in fact.
I just can't imagine why calling Mr. Obama a Liar should provoke such crocodile tears. After all, according to the left, that was Mr. Bush's middle name.
Wasn't there a town in Vermont that passed some silly ordinance that if Bush or Cheney crossed the city limits they would be arrested for war crimes? Am I right about that? So, for those folks at least, Bush and Cheney are criminals! I have an idea you agree with that.
For some it would be considered a crime against humanity to abort all these unborn children. There is a word for that, uh not genocide, uh not infanticide, er, I think the word is humanicide? Don't have a dictionary handy but anyways, we ain't killin unborn puppies or kitties ya know.
I find this argument that Mr. Obama is targeted for assassination because he's black and the KKK is after him or whatever to be baseless. After all folks, OJ is still alive and he killed his white woman. A very severe crime in the eyes of a Klansman. That reminds me, I wonder what Sen. Robert Byrd thought about all that stuff with OJ. Just a thought.
JIM wrote:
"Wasn't there a town in Vermont that passed some silly ordinance that if Bush or Cheney crossed the city limits they would be arrested for war crimes? Am I right about that? So, for those folks at least, Bush and Cheney are criminals! I have an idea you agree with that."
There is a HUGE difference between some people on the Left accusing Bush/Cheney of war crimes and talking about a legal way to deal with such crimes, and some people on the Right advocating bloody violence against the US government and Mr. Obama. And now some fool at Newsmax is warning us that the military could possibly foment a coup and take over the government? Those are NOT the same things. One is within legal parameters, the other is something a third world lawless country would carry out. It is interesting to note how quickly the extremists on the Right would break the laws to carry out their political agenda, since the election did not do it for them.
"For some it would be considered a crime against humanity to abort all these unborn children."Jim
The way a civilized country deals with differences of opinion is through the ballot box and through legislation to right what some believe is a wrong--not through killing doctors who perform a legal procedure. So far, a sizable majority of Americans believe that a woman and her doctor are the two best people to decide these matters, not crazed, lawless mobs.
"There is a word for that, uh not genocide, uh not infanticide, er, I think the word is humanicide? Don't have a dictionary handy but anyways, we ain't killin unborn puppies or kitties ya know."--JIM
I will believe the concern for human life that the Right is always mewling over when I see those same people march against war, where thousands of pregnant women, infants, children, and other innocents are slaughtered. This "collateral damage" is accepted as the price that is paid when we have to invade countries that did not attack us. Abortion is a price civilized society pays when we don't accept that people will have unprotected sex, and teenage children should not be forced to bear children.
I'll believe the concern for unborn human life when the Right joins the rest of the civilized world and accepts universal health care so that those precious fetuses have a chance at a healthy life once they're out of the womb. Until then, their militant anti-abortion actions are hypocritical.
And I'll believe their concern for unborn human life when the Right marches for free universal birth control so that abortions will be rare or unnecessaary.
"I find this argument that Mr. Obama is targeted for assassination because he's black and the KKK is after him or whatever to be baseless. After all folks, OJ is still alive and he killed his white woman."
I find your using OJ Simpson and Mr. Obama as a comparison very, very strange, and incongruous. One thing is not like the other--at all, except for the color of their skin.
From TAO:
Yes, in the early years of this republic people had guns....they had them because that was how they put food on their table and how they protected themselves in the wilderness...it had nothing to do with an 'overreaching government' because the federal government could barely reach beyond its own chambers...
Ah yes, the hunter of the 'hunter/gatherer' concept of evolution. Well, it is only a piece of the life back then.
From the Constitution:
Article 1, Section 8
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Guns were required for more than just shooting Bambi is seems.
"I find this argument that Mr. Obama is targeted for assassination because he's black and the KKK is after him or whatever to be baseless. After all folks, OJ is still alive and he killed his white woman. "
More than strange and incongruous, this is what I would expect from Stormfront.org, and what I would expect from a bigoted idiot who calls himself, among other things, "A Satisfied Loser."
Arthur said: "There is no left-wing equivalent. Period. The Weather Underground? Get serious"
This was a group that murdered people and carried out terrorist bombings. They spoke in terms of violent rhetoric about the overthrow of the US government and the mass execution of those who did not conform.
Your repeated efforts to call Bill Ayers (an activist who was part of this group and participated in it actions) a mainstream liberal/progressive only get more and more bizarre.
I'd expect Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to call Ayers a typical liberal. I don't agree with them: the facts are not on their sidee. It is always surprising that you do. As with them, the facts are not on your side either.
Shaw's point stands. While the Weathermen were a violent and murderous (in action and deed) hate group, they are so long ago that I do not consider them to be part of recent/modern history.
While they were certainly "far left" (part of a fringe you said there was nothing wrong with), they aren't/weren't liberals or progressives, and have nothing to do with liberalism.
Real liberals, like Shaw and just about everyone else here, have condemned Ayers and the Weathermen. They realize that, like with the far right, the far left is also a problem.
Wow, a personal attack from octopus. Who woulda thunk it.
dmarks typed:
"Your repeated efforts to call Bill Ayers (an activist who was part of this group and participated in it actions) a mainstream liberal/progressive only get more and more bizarre."
You better pass your 'insights' along to the Mayor of Chicago. The Annenberg & Woods Foundations, the University of Toronto, University of chicago, etc. etc. Most Chicagoans (and frankly most Americans, well not 'real Americans') find your attitude fairly dense. Ayers has been an active figure in Chicago educational and civic affairs for decades now.
He added:
"Real liberals,..."
Ah yes. The acid test. But you know dmarks that isn't your call. And as you've demonstrated over and over again 'real' is, in your lexicon, highly subjective and it precludes anyone from any past association with radical left groups from public service.
'Real' (fill in the blank) is a building block in the construction of a smear.
Arthur said: "in your lexicon, highly subjective and it precludes anyone from any past association with radical left groups from public service."
Well, at least I am consistent. I preclude anyone from similar groups on the right (KKK, Nazis, etc) from public service.
Unless the person completely repudiates their past association with the particular far-left or far-right group they were a member of.
"'Real' (fill in the blank) is a building block in the construction of a smear."
The people in question only smeared themselves by joining extreme hate groups. It is not a smear to point out the fact of their membership.
"But you know dmarks that isn't your call. And as you've demonstrated over and over again 'real' is, in your lexicon, highly subjective"
It's not my call, really. I got it from liberals and progressives, almost all of whom rightfully condemn the fringes of violence and hate, even when these fringes are on the left.
You are the one who is "out there", and are smearing liberals by uniting them with hatemongers and terrorists.
Also, about Ayers, you mentioned " The Annenberg & Woods Foundations, the University of Toronto, University of chicago, etc. etc. "
This reminds me of the people lining up to defend Roman Polanski and his rape. Unthinkable.
"Most Chicagoans (and frankly most Americans, well not 'real Americans') find your attitude fairly dense"
Do you have evidence for this? I always got the impression that Ayers was rather unpopular. As one would expect of an invididual who actually has "terrorist" on his resume, and is proud of it.
The President has wisely disassociated himself with this terrorist.
By all means, though, Arthur, feel free to campaign on this. On the idea that liberalism and Democrats are closely linked with Ayers, Wright, and Jones.... and that they all stand for the same thing.
More than strange and incongruous, this is what I would expect from Stormfront.org, and what I would expect from a bigoted idiot who calls himself, among other things, "A Satisfied Loser."
Well, octopus, I don't think you are as cute and cuddly as the picture you use would project, but from your writing you can best be described, legitimately, as stupid.
For those of you who haven't experienced my blog let me explain the title and thus educate octopus at the same time. I am a short white guy, as you can see from the pics, and was as big as a beach ball. I learned how to lose the weight, over 50 pounds, not to toot my own horn, and to keep it off for over 3 years, eating what I want to eat as well. So yes, I am a very Satisfied Loser, thank you very much.
To charge someone with bigotry is a very serious thing to do and is designed to stop all correspondence and dialog, which in your case is the point. Octopus, would you like to say that to me in person? Or are you just a bomb thrower hiding behind a cute little picture?
Post a Comment