David Brock on Hardball: Palin Deliberately Uses Violent Imagery To Stir Up GOP Base
January 12, 2011 6:06 pm ET
From the January 12 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Some say this is Code to our President saying "You Can Run But You Can Not Hide"
Violent Language & Imagery Kills, if you think i'm kidding ask Shirley Sherrod's Father.
He was Shot Dead, Does This Sum Up The Situation Very Well? Or do you think i need not Bother?
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
TO OBAMA AS HE SPOKE TO CONGRESS ON IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION.
That's speaking partisan nonsense to power. Not the same thing at all.
“Rush Limbaugh is beginning to look more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet, but we’ll be there to watch.” -- Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Morning Meeting, Oct. 13, 2009.
“So, Michele, slit your wrist! Go ahead! I mean, you know, why not? I mean, if you want to -- or, you know, do us all a better thing. Move that knife up about two feet. I mean, start right at the collarbone.” -- Montel Williams talking about Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) on Air America’s Montel Across America, Sept. 2, 2009.
“He is an enemy of the country, in my opinion, Dick Cheney is, he is an enemy of the country.... You know, Lord, take him to the Promised Land, will you? See, I don’t even wish the guy goes to Hell, I just want to get him the hell out of here.” -- Ed Schultz, The Ed Schultz Show, May 11, 2009.
“I’m waiting for the day when I pick it up, pick up a newspaper or click on the Internet and find out he’s choked to death on his own throat fat or a great big wad of saliva or something, you know, whatever. Go away, Rush, you make me sick!” -- Radio host Mike Malloy on the Jan. 4, 2010 Mike Malloy Show.
“I’m just saying if he [Dick Cheney] did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.” -- Bill Maher on his HBO show Real Time, Mar. 2, 2007,
After then-Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) said that the federal government was spending too much money on AIDS, National Public Radio’s Nina Totenberg, on the July 8, 1995 edition of Inside Washington, said, “I think he ought to be worried about what’s going on in the Good Lord’s mind, because if there is retributive justice, he’ll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.”
On the Nov. 4, 1994 edition of PBS’s To the Contrary, then-USA Today columnist and Pacifica Radio talk show host Julianne Malveaux said of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas: “I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease. … He is an absolutely reprehensible person.”
Rush shouldn't be the target of ill wishes, he is so loving, isn't he? I mean, who but a loving individual like Rush Limbaugh would denigrate the remembered dreams of "the snuffed out nine year old".
You forgot to mention Wanda Sikes.
You also forgot to mention how many of those statements resulted in attempts on any of those pusbags' lives.
Lets weight the garbage vitreol of both side on the Scale of Justice?
The sheer volume of incendiary rhetoric - not to mention the incidents of murder and violence - perpetrated by self-proclaimed Conservatives eclipses transgressions by self-proclaimed Liberals.
The false equivalencies and persecution complexes that have erupted from the Right side of the aisle recently has been staggering.
That's ALL he can come up with. Stretching back a few years too apparently, because Air America isn't around anymore, the Bill Maher quote is from 2007, etc.
What we as liberals must understand, is that conservatives cannot ever believe their "side" of the "fight" is ever worse then the "other" in any regard. The defense mechanism for maintaining faith among the followers of right wing media is the false equivalence, and frequently the "Robert Byrd defense".
Remember, one liberal or democrat, or even non-conservative republican does something bad once, and all conservatives are exonerated from responsibility or guilt of similar actions retroactively, currently, and into perpetuity.
UGH!
Oh, and dumb. She's really, really dumb.
What she has to spend on clothes, hair, etc. will be well beyond what she is used to. She requires a large staff on call, for everything from tweeting & Facebooking to speechwriting and photography. Things need to be designed and things need to be executed, and people who do it well charge a lot. And she has a large family that will become ever more demanding.
Believe me, them millions can disappear very quickly.
As long as there is a nickle left on the table, Sara PAYlin will not own up to her mistakes.
Spoken like a true condescending snob loser leftist. Although IRONY is admitting in his comment he is 1) an ignorant hillbilly, or 2) not American, or 3) both. I'm betting on 3).
While your at it Mr. IRONY, how bout you share with us your professional accomplishments? Ever been a mayor? Governor? VP candidate? Didn't think so.
I'm sure Palin could whip your wimpy butt any time, any day. Mentally and physically. She has done more for America than every staff member of MMFA and their lemming posters combined.
But, you know what? I am really happy you leftists hate her so much. Shows your childish true colors when you blast her with insult after insult. Reminds me of third grade when the cowardly kid in eighth grade smacks ya then runs home to mommy before getting smacked in return.
Does your mom know you're using her computer again, mentalmidget?
Time to put the bong away Mini.
Give me an example of Sarah Palin's exemplary behavior. You probably shouldn't bring up her firing of the Alaska public safety commissioner because he wouldn't trump up reasons to fire her sister's ex hubby.
It probably wouldn't be a good idea to bring up her half-term as Governor of a state with a smaller population than Tucson, Arizona.
I wouldn't, if I were attempting to make her look good, bring up any interview she has done outside of Fox's spere of influence, either.
Can you give me any examples? Or will you simply attack me, as well?
Yeah, but since she is cute and can parade around on a stage like a beauty queen while lying and spouting violent rhetoric, we should respect her, or we are drug addicts.
Yeah.
yes /no..black/white....dumb/smart .Has she ever shown grasp of anything really complicated?Oh there was that Putin flying over Alaska moment while she was trying to find something to read..Now that was complicated!!!
Disagreeing with her is not the same as hating her.I wish she would speak with more understanding and knowledge ..Ok so she disagrees ..fine... what would SHE do?How is her 'proposal' better?What are the repercussions or issues to focus on to make it successful?Just attacking 'Obamacare'by saying we need common -sense solutions to Health Care reform is meaningless with out specific well thought out plans.When has Palin actually done that!?
Considering that James Danforth Quayle was the previous bar, that is quite an accomplishment on her part.
I knew what kind of person Sarah Palin was within 30 seconds into her speech at the RNC in 2008. Any thoughts I had previously had about voting for McCain (who was my candidate in 2000) evaporated like a drop of water in hot grease. She is toxic.
Took you 30 seconds bintx? You being such a fine member of good standing in the Conservative Party, you shoulda known "what kind of person Sarah Palin was" within 3/10 of a second.
BTW, when are you gonna EVER post a comment that doesn't agree with whatever your liberal friends post here? I don't recall a single post from you that doesn't endorse what your liberal buddies say. Seems to me, you being a conservative and all, out of hundreds of posts at least a measly ONE would disagree with the Left. Or, do you suppose you're actually a liberal - which of course you are but refuse to admit for some cowardly reason.
2BTW, Palin has more class, character, integrity, and intelligence in her little pinky than every leftist here.
3BTW, truth be told probably 99% of the posters here are narcissistic. Leftists aren't capable of thinking or doing anything except for themselves - but they love spending other peoples money. They certainly don't believe in charitable organizations. As you know, conservatives give much, much more to charity then liberals. I've proven this more than once here.
4BTW, on behalf of us real conservatives, any chance you could stop speaking on our behalf? We are tired of your constant goofy leftist's comments. Thank You! OMG.
Of course, that doesn't fit into the mold you want to place her in, so like a good Republican, you ignore the facts that contradict your belief.
never seen it.
Fact is it wouldnt have mattered what Sarah Palin said in her speech. You guys would have picked it apart and demonized her that much more. I mean honestly, when is it going to end?
If she had gotten on national TV and said "I take full responsibility for the actions of the lunatic in AZ, please forgive me." (even though ALL the evidence says otherwise, but we wont worry about that for the moment) Would that have appeased you wolves? I seriously doubt it.
When are you going to do your bit in ending it, The_Observer1271?
Projection Alert!!!
She just made a speech in her living room in which she was shielded from any questions. Her Facebook page monitors are deleting all critical comments. She used a term that was not only wildly inappropriate, but which insults Jewish people, of whom Gabrielle Giffords was one.
To hate Palin would be elevate her beyond anything she deserves.
Let me address these questions directly:
1) "Why do you lefties hate her so much?"
-Sarah Palin is a divisive, poorly informed celebrity who was nominated by the republican machine expressly for the purpose of drawing away the disenfranchised Hillary Clinton supporters from voting Democratic in 2010.
-She has spread alarmist rhetoric and misinformation like the infamous "death panels" claim. "Don't retreat, reload" etc...
-She lashes out and makes provocative statements, then retreats into a victim-hood mode when people call her out on those statements.
-She used her celebrity status to become Governor of Alaska, and then quit halfway through her first term when scandals arose and the job turned out to pay less then media celebrity gigs. You might say that speaks poorly of her desire and qualifications for civil service.
-She latched onto the tea party movement and fueled their anger with inflammatory rhetoric.
-She can't hold an interview outside of accommodating partisan media outlets where she can't handle even simple questions anyone running for important public offices should be able to answer.
-She mocked President Obama for using a teleprompter, which has been a common practice among presidents since it's invention, then went on to give a speech from crib notes written on her palm. When the "tele-palm-ter" was exposed, she did not apologize or admit her hypocrisy.
-She sees only people who live in rural, republican districts as "real Americans".
-Even when responding to criticism of her use of violent and hateful rhetoric after a tragic shooting of a prominent Jewish congresswoman, she uses offensive terms like "blood libel" to describe herself as the real victim.
2) "Arent you the side that is always preaching tolerance?"
-Yes, practicing it too...we aren't perfect, but we see tolerance as virtue, not weakness or fault.
3) "Arent you the side that wants to tone down the volent rhetoric?"
-Yes. So far I think anyone paying attention would say we're doing a far better job of it.
In their speeches yesterday, Barack Obama showed us why he is the President of the United States, and Sarah Palin showed us why she never will be.
Also figure that Sarah Palin will have huge gobs of money pouring from corporate interests who know she will play ball even better then Obama.
Also figure that Sarah Palin will have a 24/7 campaign propaganda channel in Fox and a near monopoly in Clear Channel radio hosts working overtime to smear the President and hype up Palin.
Also remember that we as a nation elected President Bush to a second term.
Never say never when big money wants something to happen.
Can the expression of certain ideas provoke violence?
While the idea to shoot an Arizona Congresswoman might not have been directly derived from Palin or any particular person, could the idea have been reinforced by certain violent imagery and language?
Need more??
your nothing but an ignorant hillbilly scumbag just like palin.
Blogger "BoyBlue" stated on the Daily Kos that Congresswoman Giffords is "dead to me". The DLC also used BULLSEYES on a US map and labeled it "Targeting Strategy" for democrats to focus their efforts to win races. Or another blog in the Daily Kos on June 25, 2008 that said "Well, I'd argue that we can narrow the target list by looking at those Democrats who sold out the Constitution last week". Of which Giffords name was bolded, along with many others! The writer went on to say "...this vote certainly puts a bulls eye on their district."
Archery-style bulls-eyes and talk of "targeting" districts are both very traditional in campaigns and again, mean nothing violent.
Basic fact of the matter is that, yes, there's some violent talk on the left and of course it's to be condemned. But right-wing violent talk outnumbers left-wing violent talk by a factor of 20 or 30 to 1.
Who said that there is a revolution coming?
Who said that the right is communists, bent on taking over this country and taking away everything you have worked so hard for?
Who said that the right is going to start a revolution?
Who has repeatedly painted the right as evil "others" who need to be taken care of, by ballot if possible, but if not, then by bullet?
project21reps, don't you realize that that's not the point? Even if we grant that your statement were true, the only way you, project21reps, can do anything about it is by you, project21reps, resisting the urge to always blame someone else.
Even if you are right, you owe it to yourself to behave better ... yourself!
You know project21reps is going to take this as "Even those liberals at MMFA agree that I was right!!!"
I just with you faux conservatives would just own up to what you really are . . . groupies. You are an embarrassment to true conservatism.
Of course, the lawyer also pointed out they didn't NEED to put him on trial, as any half-decent psychiatrist could easily have had him committed to an asylum.
And some defendants have attempted to diminish their role in crime by saying: "someone else made me do it" (example: Nazis at Nuremberg). Both arguments are flawed. The physical murderer is assumed to be able to resist a criminal order, and the verbal murderer is held responsible for giving those orders.
If anyone had actually even implied that these folks needed to join Mr. Loughner in whatever sentence he receives from this horrible incident, then one could understand their outrage. No one sane has seriously suggested that. It has only been suggested that there is the possibility that the vitriol did, in fact, play a role, and that it needs to be toned down.
Rather than accepting that as a good idea, the RWPM (Right Wing Propoganda Machine) instead immediately launched attacks at the sheriff who first said it (without naming any names, I might add, so it is interesting that the bit dog barked) and went on the defensive, claiming to have been hurt themselves. This in itself should have shown the American people (especially those with children) that those protesting harbored at least a little self-perceived guilt.
Given that there would be absolutely zero repercussions to the talkers who may have influenced this guy, even if the FBI found a letter outlining exactly how he had been influenced, I am astonished at the response. Rather than admitting that words can, indeed, have influence, the RWPM has, almost to a man, asserted in one breath that no, words can not have any influence, so even if this guy listened to nothing but the RWPM, they cannot be held responsible. Then, in almost the next breath, they have all proclaimed how much harm the speculation that they might have some culpability has done.
I don't think that it has been too much to ask that the vitriol be reined in, but apparently there are those who do not agree with me. Especially those on the right have, since Saturday, ramped up their vitriol, one person even suggesting that the only way to make the hatred stop is for the left to give in completely to the right. If, he suggested, the right gets everything they want, exactly how they want it, then and only then can the calls for revolution, the vile name-calling, the painting of American citizens as enemies of the state, be expected to be pulled in.
If you truly believe that these things were a factor in what happened in AZ, then you have to apply the logic across the board. Violent video games make kids kill, porn causes rapes, volient movies and TV shows incite violence, heavy metal music causes suicides - and Islam causes terrorism.
There's your problem right there. Passion is all well and good, but, like capitalism, it should be regulated.
No comment on the rest of my post? If the right wing media influenced the guy to act out you have to accept the influence of al the other things I lit as influencing people, including Islam.
Not all Muslims are terrorists, but they are influenced tbecome terrorists because of Islam. Not all people will go out and kill politicians because of what they hear and see on TV, but they are influenced to do that because of what they see and hear on TV? Thats what youre saying right?
Not just "the Lib", any expert. The doctor says "moderate", the engineer says "distribute", the economist says "stabilize", the dietician says "vary" ... even parents say: "self-control".
well there you go talking about people who use math and logic to accomplish stuff. that scares baggers
Saying Islam causes terrorism is like saying political dialogue of any kind causes violent acts, or that Christianity causes the murder of abortion providers.
Nuance and the right wing brain don't play well together.
Thumbs ^
That's because it has.
then you have to apply the logic across the board.
Video games, porn, violent movies, they all don't demonize SPECIFIC PEOPLE (i.e. Democrats) to other people who have guns and limited brain function.
Druggie! :)
The first hit I got was a former gf who claims that he's faking his insanity ( uh oh, isn't the primary wingnut defense that he's "just plain crazy"?)
She also says;
Figueroa shared that he was extremely intelligent and argumentative, often debating with other about politics and going on long rants about “the government.”
Thanks for playing.
People jumped to the conclusion that it was the rethoric before evidence apeared because there had already been attacks against sen. giffords all stemming form her vote on the health care bill. Shortly after Palin put on her hit map, Sen. Giffords protested about it because it was imfalmatory.
Personally, Palin should not be having any influence in our politics. She quit her Governor post, her duty to the citizens of Alaska, amid scandals and just for the sake of throwing stones and hiding behind her whining. Her actions have been irresponsible, narcissistic and unproductive.
But since you made the argument, where have you seen daily demonization of Republicans, calls for revolution, broad brushstroke painting of Republicans as "other" or out to take away all that you have?
Where have you seen repeated accusations tha Republicans are trying to destroy this country, and that "real" Americans need to take a stand?
And, when was the last time an assassination attempt was made on a Republican by someone with admitted anti-government sentiments?
Can you explain why it is that the entire Republican media department immediately jumped on the defense when Sheriff Dupnik denounced vitriolic rhetoric without accusing any particular group or individual of doing it?
The defensive was due to the repeated use of Palins map and accusatory tones that this stemmed from the "hostile political environment".
And you falsely claim that Fox and the rest of the right wing media department waited until "the other side" pointed fingers at them.
Like when Dupnik said his piece.
So I have to revise my question:
Have any states had their populations wiped out by a liberal?
KC, you should probably link to some evidence of that claim, if you expect anybody to read any further into your post. Otherwise, it just looks like a "load of BS".
Blood Libel
Aside from the basic sickness of the sentiments in that letter, I'm sure the GOP puppet masters don't appreciate the writer straying off the reservation and admitting that there is an element of the tea party crowd who are willing to be honest about it.
I am pretty sure James Earl Ray shot Martin Luther King because he did not think African Americans should have the same rights.
I am pretty sure Brutus and the others stabbed Julius Caesar because they did not think he should be a King.
However, I agree, Gifford was not shot because Loughner may have disagreed with the legislation decisions of Giffords, but, because Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin use violent rhetoric.
Binary thinking is one of the warning signs of Right Wing Syndrome.
Images are being moderated still, I believe, but this is perfect. No explanation, only "Nah-ah, are not !"
link
Instead of " A Media Guide for the Journalistically Challenged", Ramirez could have titled it something along the lines of " A Psychological Guide to the Reality Challenged", and I don't mean Loughner.
I swear, why don't these morons come out with how I am an alcoholic because I might swill down a 12-pack of beer in a week's time?
I am sick and tired of hearing pot smokers described as addicts, drug users, drugheads, etc. Of course, I have known a few people in my life who take it too far. I have never claimed to understand the wake-and-bake mentality, and most of the pot smokers that I have known don't either. I have also known drinkers who couldn't handle it. One of the main differences is that, despite some losers claiming addiction, it is virtually impossible to become truly addicted to pot.
Only idiots with nothing but anti-weed propaganda as their information think that you can.
On top of that, weed, while not having any effect on you after an hour or two at most, stays detectable in your system for up to a month after use. So to brand someone as an "addict" because of a failed drug test is idiotic.
I find it laughable that you can purchase $50.00 worth of cheap vodka, go home and drink it all sitting on your couch, and you will die without ever having to get up. The alcohol itself will kill you.
There has never been found to be a lethal dose of pot.
A tobacco-smoker is also an addict, and many have "drug-using" behavior (stealing money for it, lying about it, etc.). Yet a smoker isn't commonly described as "druggie" any more than a drinker. It doesn't seem fair, considering the relative mildness of weed.
And then there's caffeine...
I have, at several points in my life, been a pot smoker. I have also quit smoking it for different lengths of time for various reasons and have never suffered any adverse effects, or "DT's".
I also smoke cigarettes and drink coffee. You do not want to be around me on a day without either, and god help you if it is a day without both.
Ditto, ditto, and ditto.
I just appreciate the convenient collection of strawmen and baseless denials that Ramirez took the time to put together.
And he did nothing to pull this country up. He pulled it down quite a bit.
He is a good representive for the people not like the self=centered people on the right.
Matthews corrected Brock on one assertion about the original tea party having guns. Brock instead of digging in his heels, conceded the point and then moved on with the discussion. Matthews appeared as though he expected an argument. It must have been refreshing to deal with someone who is interested in dialogue rather then shouting matches.
The "debate" in the wake of the Tuscon shooting should begin with discussing whether or not violent language ever incites violent behavior.
Another question: is it any more fair at this point to rule out linkage between the shooting and specific language like that used by Sarah Palin than it is to speculate on the potential of such linkage.
I have never seen such a tragic, sadly accurate "gotcha" moment, as the clip Matthews played of Rep. Gifford from last March. It's not something I'm happy to see in the least, but it's certainly chilling and gives us a moment to pause while we hope and pray for the victims of this tragedy and their families.
Go ahead and let yourself be suckered by this "stand-up" guy if you want. He is REALLY trustworthy after all.
Bonus points for introducing that big pile of fail with the scathing "Pathetic!".
Extra Bonus points for self-described Christians who are repulsed by the theme of redemption.
I wonder, jpeagle, if you remember how very well the GOP screwed this country over as recently as two years ago, or if, with the whitewashing and transferrence of blame that has been executed by the RWPM in the last few years has given you total amnesia where your Republican heroes are concerned.
PS: I actually had to deal with a high school teacher like this. Whenevr anybod mentioned the bad thing sBush did "you are juts looking into the apst", when somebody mentioned that Ted Kennedy was getting an honorary knighthood, he brought up chippywatheverthehell.
In 1996 Brock surprised conservatives by publishing a somewhat sympathetic biography of Hillary Clinton titled The Seduction of Hillary Rodham. Having received a $1 million advance and a tight one year deadline from Simon & Schuster's then conservative focused Free Press subsidiary, Brock was under pressure to produce another best seller, However, the book contained no major scoops. In Blinded by the Right (2002) Brock said he had reached a turning point, he had thoroughly examined the charges against the Clintons, and could not find any evidence of wrongdoing, and did not want to make any more misleading claims. Brock further said that his former friends in right-wing politics shunned him because Seduction did not adequately attack the Clintons. He also argued that his "friends" had not really been his friends at all, due to the open secret that Brock was gay.
In July 1997, Brock published a confessional piece in Esquire magazine titled "Confessions of a Right-Wing Hit Man," in which he recanted , much of what he said in his two best known American Spectator articles and criticized his own reporting methods. Discouraged at the reaction his Hillary Clinton biography received, he said "I want out. David Brock The road Warrior of the Right is dead." 4 months later the American Spectator declined to renews his employment contract under which he was paid over $300,000 per year.
Writing again for Esquire in April 1998, Brock apologized to Clinton for his contributions to Troopergate, calling it simply part of an anti-Clinton crusade. He told a more detailed story of his time inside the right-wing in his 2001 memoir, Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative, in which he settled old scores and provided inside details about the Arkansas Project's efforts to bring down Clinton. [u]Later he also apologized to Anita Hill[/u].
Anti-Drudge...
Right-Wing Journalism...
when talk radio is chock full of right wing hitmen? whats your point?
if your bashing brock for his past then why is it that you defend glen beck and rush limbaugh. both admitted drug addicts.
i could go on and on and on........
Anyone caught using drugs illegally needs to go to jail for a long long time.
He sure changed his tune, momentarily, when he was the one caught.
/snark
Warning, an almost classic image of a type.
Search for Habermann.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201101130007
Sure, the guy explicitly mentions his hatred of Democrats in general, Presodent Obama, the health care bill, and rich proplr being taxed to support "losers" ( poor people and mexicans), but I'm going to disregard all of that.
He uses naughty F words - Liberal ! ( source, Rush told me liberals are angry and foul-mouthed)
He mentions several books, and insults the politicians intelligence - Liberal elitist !
He admits to smoking pot - Liberal ( according to polls of Octegenarian Fox fans)
Interesting that most of his anger is about feeling that his trust fund may be threatened. Another one of the successful, self-made businessmen/millionaires that we meet here so often ?
Has anyone seen right ON lately?
If I explicitly disregard your disregard...are you going to hurt me?
Having spent to many years in and arround the Navy, I'm going to have to have to take the 5th on this subject.
Any personal use of books above the number, a few, is damaging to anyone claiming wingnuthood. Negative proof, check.
Yep deathblow of any chance that he's had of claiming to be rightwing. And the "pot made me do it" defence is anticipated.
Damn! he's one of ours. Well if he needs a crash pad between court appearences I can clear a space in the garage.
Your last point did occur to me, cept he really does (so far) got dah bucks.
Didn't notice the misspellin's till your mention.
When I read presodent I think toothpaste.
Another connecting link for my chalkboard!
Beck is a con man and Sean Hannity is simply a mouth for hire. He has stated that he will say anything for the right money.
Fox News and conservative media have impared the ability of mainstream conservatives to have a true conservative-based point of view since the Bush administration. It's impossible to have a discussion with a so-called conservative who only watches Fox News because they rely exclusively on labels and misinformation for their arguements. They have lost the ability to have rational disagreement. They are completely driven by authoritarian loyalty. You see it every day here and it's really sad.
Not all of those claiming conservatism are neocons, mind you. But enough of them are that they sway the rest of that party. Witness the hive-think that resulted in the killing of the Zadroga bill multiple times last year.
you betcha...........
That's difficult to say. If you're competing for the most desperate wingnut attempt at a false equivalence, or a lame attempt at distorting the issue, you couldn't be more right.
If you're trying to make a coherent point, you're wrong.
My proof? It's only Democrats that seem to get attacked and killed. I guess the left-wing hate rhetoric is either seriously lacking or the right-wing nutjobs love 2nd Amendment remedies.
As of this posting, no states have been shot .
On other occasions I was simply a lone whacko.
Whee! How much did that three months cost us you figure?
The start of the deconstruction of various social safety nets.
Supported and financed the Taliban.
Engaged in talks with Iran pior to attaining any actual political power.
Define best country.
Don't follow Ron much. What would he have to do to bring a shine to your eyes?
By the way, the Berlin Wall fell during the George Herbert Walker Bush administration. So by your logic, GHW Bush gets the credit.
The right has put Reagan on a pedestal built on the bodies of all who died fighting communism in Korea, South East Asia and all over the world.
One war that Reagan did lead and won was his war against the American working class.
What Reagan did was make it extremely easy for companies to disregard collective bargaining agreements and fire their union workers, replacing them with non-union workers.
He got the ball rolling on ensuring that the American worker hasn't had a real wage increase, accounting for cost of living increases, in over 40 years.
I voted for Reagan twice, even when I knew he was probably suffering from early signs of Alzheimer's; however, I was not impressed with him as a president. In fact, most people weren't . . . while he was in office. Only in recent years has he become a saint. BTW, Pope John Paul II had more to do with bringing down the Berlin wall than Reagan. What REALLY brought it down was the internal destruction of the Soviet Union. They overspent and over-extended for too many years trying to the be world's "super power." It was not sustainable.
Gosh bintx. You know EVERYTHING so much sooner then anyone else! Narcissistic?
If you're too young, then there were numerous, numerous occasions where Reagan would say or do things that would cause many in the media to speculate that he was suffering from some form of dementia.
I was in high school during his second administration and even I was smart enough to recognize that there was something not quite right in his head.
"I knew what kind of person Sarah Palin was within 30 seconds into her speech at the RNC in 2008."
"I voted for Reagan twice, even when I knew he was probably suffering from early signs of Alzheimer's;...."
In fact I'll lay it out just for you Imbecile. See if you can follow. Twice today she said she is so sharp she is able to deduce such things from watching her TV. Pretty nifty, eh? And you call me the liar - heh heh heh. You people are really precious. Posts like yours and dozens of your friends continually remind me of how bad it could get if we ever allowed you patients to completely take over the asylum That is why I stick around here.
Okay.
If you look at her record as Mayor of Wacilla and then her brief stint as govenor of Alaska, you would not be impressed,
She is also a religious fundamentalist. The people of her church believe in what is called " Third Tier Theology", which claims that academics/intellectuals are the descendants of Cain. They believe , like many US christian fundies, that they are the "true Israelites"; that they are the " Spiritual House of Israel". It is in their blood that Covenant with G_D is carried. She has read Tim Lahaye far too often.
She delibrately used the term"blood libel" to imply she is a martyr, falsely accused on shedding the blood of innocent people. And she is innocent of that crime, though she deliberately used the term to evoke imagery that suits her narrative,
But she is guilty of being a person who perpetuates violent language, ballistic imagery and militaristic ideology.
I often hear people talk about kids listening to heavy metal and what an influence it appears to have. Those same people drive away with a bumper sticker that says" Killem' all and let G_D sort them out" or" Obama will have to pry the gun from my cold, dead hands".
They somehow think they are above being manipulated by speech or symbols. The great part about good propaganda is you don't realize you are being manipulated.
Watch how some people uee the Flag cosntantly, or invoke the Founding Fathers, or try to appeal to patriotism, or claim to have secret knowledge. Slanted language, blind patriotism, loaded symbols and manipulation is what Sarah Palin represents.
Fan? Not really. I did vote for her because she was on the McCain ticket. She is unfairly and constantly criticized by the Left. She doesn't deserve the filthy and life threading comments she receives from the Left and lame stream media. Criticizing her policies is fair game but she shouldn't have to withstand death threats and gutter talk. If she had a "D" after her name none of this would occur and you know it. The Left should be deeply ashamed of themselves for how low they have slithered into the outright garbage they continually slam against her and her family.
Were the authorities alerted?
Threatening…threading. No, I don't see the pathway to that mistake. From "ten" to "d"? Don't see it.
Drink!!!
I'd be curious to see the actual quantity of threats against Democratic and Republican lawmakers over the last 2-5 years and compare the ratios... it might be a telling statistic of whether violent rhetoric incites "second amendment remedies".
Any links to that ?
The only references that I can find to burning her in effigy are from Tea party groups. Since the views of the Tea party are so widely separated from those of Glenn Beck, I doubt Beck had any influence on those decisions.
You have to admit that violent video games cause violence. Violent TV shows cause violence. Porn causes rapes. And Islam causes terrorism.
But we know you wont do that.
I wonder what makes the wingnuts think that their failures will improve with repetition.
Fact is it wouldnt have mattered what Sarah Palin said in her speech. You guys would have picked it apart and demonized her that much more. I mean honestly, when is it going to end?
If she had gotten on national TV and said "I take full responsibility for the actions of the lunatic in AZ, please forgive me." (even though ALL the evidence says otherwise, but we wont worry about that for the moment) Would that have appeased you wolves? I seriously doubt it.
Projection Alert!!!
If she would have said she's sorry for the violent imagery and reload statements and would refrain from using them in the future, she would have sounded "presidential".
Instead, she plays the victim and demonized Jews. She's hateful and spiteful. But that's what her hateful and spiteful followers like about her.
Do facts not matter to these people when they drag Palin into this tragedy? There is not one, single shred of evidence that this killer had any right-wing motives whatsoever. NONE. ZERO.
akmikeus, see my question below. You're agreeing with MagCynic, who seems to be the only one here stating made-up facts, in the same post that you're accusing the "libs" of not having the facts.
Try to get out from behind your blinding ideology, and take a look at the real world. Is that too scary for you ?
How much real life face to face exposure to liberals have you actuall had?
How many of your favorite places in the rightwing blogosphere allow leftwing posters?
Never mind, I was under the impression that you were avoiding reality because it was too scary for you.
You've now made it pretty clear that you're just as frightened of your imaginary world.
There was nothing evil about Palin posting a map with targets on it. The Democrats did the exact same thing and nobody said a word.
There was nothing evil about Palin posting a map with targets on it.
Who is talking about "evil"? Can it be true that you really don't do nuance at all?
Where did you get this "fact"?
Right wingers post something they call a "fact".
Somebody else asks them to support that so-called "fact".
Right winger goes mute.
Proving yet again the immortality of Keith Olbermann's appellation for her.
I hate David Brock. He wouldn't believe gravity existed if he fell off a building and broke open his thick, wortheless skull.
FACT: the left wing media and progressive monsters like Brock deliberately LIED about Sarah palin and every other conservative by blaming them for causing Loughner to go on a killing spree. There was no connection, direct or indirect. But Brock and so called progressives said there was!