Right-wing blogs trivialize threats against Democrats
Right-wing blogs have responded to reported threats against Democrats who voted for the health care reform bill by trivializing the threats or suggesting that the reports are false, condemning the threats but making excuses for them, suggesting that Democrats themselves are to blame for receiving the threats, or suggesting other acts of violence that people could commit against their congressional representative.
Right-wing blogs trivialize threats, make excuses, blame Democrats
Big Government: "We doubt these threats are actually real and, certainly wouldn't condone them." In a March 25 post, the "Editorial Panel" of Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com wrote: "Democrats and the leftist media are all atwitter about alleged threats of violence against Congressmen who voted for ObamaCare. We doubt these threats are actually real and, certainly wouldn't condone them." The post continued: "But, here's a tip: Hey Democrats, if you are worried about an angry public, how about not passing a sweeping government expansion opposed by 70% of the public. Just a thought."
Big Journalism's Walsh: Media "never once stops to question whether the Alinsky Party is, you know, exaggerating or even lying." In a March 24 post on Breitbart's BigJournalism.com about a report noting House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer warned Democrats about potential violence, Michael Walsh wrote: "Naturally, the media accepts this allegation at face value, and never once stops to question whether the Alinsky Party is, you know, exaggerating or even lying -- as the spiritual mentor of both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton taught it to do." Walsh later stated: "So listen up, MSM [mainstream media], and consider this speaking out: God forbid that anything should happen. But if it does happen, try not to leap to pre-planted conclusions that fit the narrative: 'Democrats good/Republicans bad.' "
Gateway Pundit: "Suddenly the State-Run Media is Horrified that Politician's [sic] Home Addresses Are Published on the Internet." In a March 24 post responding to reports that the FBI is investigating an incident at the home of Rep. Tom Perriello's (D-VA) brother, at which a gas line was allegedly cut, Jim Hoft wrote, "Suddenly the State-Run Media is Horrified that Politician's [sic] Home Addresses Are Published on the Internet." Hoft further wrote: "This week an angry tea party activist published the address of a Virginia Congressman on his blog and suggested that Tea Party Protesters go visit this socialist at home... The tea party organizer did not direct anyone to harm the Congressman. But, that won't stop the leftist media from going berserk over the incident."
Confederate Yankee: "[H]ave a swing" at "your Congressman" instead. In a March 24 blog post, right-wing blogger Confederate Yankee wrote that it is "totally unacceptable to threaten" Congress members' "relatives or friends and put them in danger." Confederate Yankee added: "Go to your Congressman's office and scream at him in the most colorful language possible. Hang him in effigy at protests. If you're willing to do the time for the crime, have a swing at him."
NewsBusters: "The Media's Myth of Right Wing Violence." In a March 24 NewsBusters post, Mithridate Ombud wrote that while "[t]hose who commit violence in the name of politics deserve political change no more than they deserve leniency in sentencing," President Obama's "desire to continue ramming through the most divisive legislation -- against his own creed -- isn't helping bring calm to even the most peaceful conservatives. And while the evidence of a violent right is scarce, there's no limit to liberals attempting to make conservatives look evil." Ombud further stated, "Whether this is a shortcut to 2nd Amendment action, valid concern, or just a bunch of crybaby progressive politicians over reacting to criticism, it's hard to tell." Ombud concluded: "The media and politicians who are trying to construct a meme of conservative violence as we run up to the 2010 elections should only face the weapon they fear most; the ballot."
Dan Riehl: "Dems Have Only Themselves To Blame For Threats." In a March 24 post on his blog titled, "Dems Have Only Themselves To Blame For Threats," Dan Riehl wrote: "No one should seriously enjoy seeing this type of thing going on. Though, I'd add, the Netroots crowd would have absolutely no problem with this were the shoe on the other foot. But it's not. It's on theirs." Riehl later wrote of Democrats who received threats: "These malignant little tyrants want to play the victim? After victimizing America with their pathetic antics, their corrupt practices, all to push a destructive ideology America has long rejected? The Democrats are the real criminals here. They have torn the fabric of America with a repulsive world view they now hope to thrust upon the American people, whether we like it, or not."
John Hinderaker: Threats "being played up in the press because the Democrats want to dampen the anger that has erupted" over health care reform. In a March 24 Powerline post, John Hinderaker wrote, "We condemn political violence in virtually all circumstances; certainly in all circumstances that could arise in our democracy." Hinderaker later wrote that "[t]he current threats (assuming they are real, as I assume some of them are) are being played up in the press because the Democrats want to dampen the anger that has erupted over their adoption of a government medicine program through a series of legislative maneuvers that are in some respects unprecedented." From Hinderaker's post:
We condemn political violence in virtually all circumstances; certainly in all circumstances that could arise in our democracy. Threats of violence, sadly, are not uncommon in politics; let alone "harassment." Even insignificant conservatives like us have been threatened with violence on several occasions, and the linked article notes that Jim Bunning received threats after he temporarily held up the extension of unemployment benefits a few weeks ago.
The current threats (assuming they are real, as I assume some of them are) are being played up in the press because the Democrats want to dampen the anger that has erupted over their adoption of a government medicine program through a series of legislative maneuvers that are in some respects unprecedented. It is important for the Democrats and their press minions to understand that there are many millions of Americans who regard Obamacare not just as misguided public policy, but as an illegitimate usurpation of power. I am one of the many millions who are outraged at the Left's attempt to destroy the private health care system that has served my family so well, and who regard Obamacare as illegitimate.
As for the threats, we will take them more seriously if they result in the cancellation of a public appearance by a liberal due to security concerns. But that never happens to liberals, only to conservatives. It happened again last night. That was in Canada, of course; the home of government medicine and little regard for free speech. No coincidence, that.
Lopez: "Threats are wrong. But they also are somewhat commonplace." In a post on National Review Online's The Corner blog, Kathryn Jean Lopez quoted from Hinderaker's Powerline post and downplayed the threats against Democrats:
Threats are wrong. But they also are somewhat commonplace. Take deep breaths and work harder, is my advice to anyone to receives one.
Let's not pretend that Obamacare critics are all violent or otherwise breed violence. And let's not pretend that John Boehner and Eric Cantor, or Jonah Goldberg and Kathryn Lopez, haven't been subject to ridiculous -- albeit disconcerting -- threats, too. This is bad news, but it didn't materialize this Saturday or Sunday with a "Don't Tread on Me" flag.
Fox News figures condemn threats against Democrats -- but then make excuses for them
As Media Matters for America has noted, several Fox News hosts and guests -- including Gretchen Carlson, Steve Doocy, and Brian Kilmeade; Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, S.E. Cupp, Charles Krauthammer, and Stephen Hayes -- have been quick to first condemn the threats against Democrats but then immediately make excuses for or dismiss the seriousness of the threats.
Second point: interesting that I do not remember the same intensity of outrage from the dems when it was the Bush and Cheney who were hung in effigy or when their campaign offices were shot at. Nor was there much more than a yawn when the SEIU "heavies" strong armed folks during on the '08 election day. Or when the New Black Panthers carrying side arms intimidated people in Philad. during the same election day.
So spare me the outsized outrage!
I understand what you are saying, but I just don't see what purpose it serves to go back and try and make some comparative analysis with how Bush was treated? If this doesn't stop somewhere, sometime, it will end up with an unspeakable tragedy. That is where we are heading, I fear.
So it needs to have the appropriate outrage and roundly condemned by everyone. People need to take responsibility for the rhetoric they spew when have a public platform.
And, I'm not sure we are talking about Obama and Biden here. That would be the correlation between Bush and Cheney. There are always threats against presidents and they are pretty much always investigated if they are deemed serious. Also, you may want to check your facts bludog, I believe the authorities did get involved with the New Black Panters incident. That would make your analogy fall flat. Not sure about the vague SEIU reference for strong-arming people. Sounds a little odd and like you're stretching there.
However, whatever elected representatives they attacked should certainly be given the same protection. There is no need for such sore losers in a democracy. It shows what little faith some have in the system they profess to love so much. Sometimes in America, your side loses the issue. Deal with it some other way than threatening the people who beat you. Politics is for big boys, not sore losers.
Hypocrite thy name is liberal.
I just don't feel this type of thing should have any partisan strings attached. It transcends politics, or it should. - RO
I couldn't agree more. - TBag
Wow. That didn't take you long to flip on that one, TBag. Maybe you could explain the hypocrisy you are accusing some unknown liberal of. And which unknown liberal justified these attacks that were perpetrated on the Bush administration.
From what I hear, this type of thing happens all the time, and it really doesn't take rocket science to figure out why all of a sudden it's a big deal.
Interesting, though, that Stupak was on TV just the week before the vote stating that he was receiving threats for his "no" vote, which would have come from..hmm..maybe someone in favor of the bill? I wonder who that could be?
Let's see: one incident vs. PUBLIC CALLS FOR VIOLENCE.
Yeah, completely the same thing. Pathetic BS, thy name is right-wing loser.
It also was not Rep. Cantor's office, but an office used by consultants to his campaign, and the building contains no markings designating it as any kind of political office at all.
Get your facts straight. The only thing being "shot" here is your mouth, and you shot it off before knowing anything about what was really happening.
Point taken. I am just saying that this does nothing to prove their case for hypocrisy.
PROVE ANY OF YOUR CLAIMS. STOP TELLING ME TO READ THE STUPID MMFA SHILL SPEAK.... PROOF, not just hearsay... show a picture, get a video or audio... made up BStuff...
DEFLECT, SPIN and LIE some more....
Well, then, you KNOW it couldn't have been a librul, right? Because according to Faux Cons like yourself, there are no librul gun lovers. Nope. They all hate guns and want to have them all taken away, even from real meat eating red-blooded Amrukans. So, who shot the mystery bullet, since it wasn't a librul? I wonder...
I suppose it could've been a stray from a Cheney hunting party. In which case, Cantor should apologize right away, shouldn't he?
Liar.
Eric Cantor SAYS his office was shot at overnight? Is there any video or an eyewitness? A picture of the bullet hole?
Am I suppose to believe Eric Cantor is telling the truth?
Sound familiar?
He's proven in the past that he's insincere, and he's proving it again. Police have determined that someone shot up into the air, and when it came down, it hit the window, breaking it, then the bullet fell to the floor. It only had enough kinetic energy to break the window, which means it was shot from a ways away, and simply fell to the ground.
Wow, center-right... just wow. You will go to any length, tell any lie to prove your absolute ignorance.
In a news release, Richmond police said a preliminary investigation showed that a bullet was fired into the air and struck the window coming down. The round broke the glass but caused no other damage, the release said.
Not only that on one shred of PROOF on any of these claims of "violence"..... PROOF.....
Perhaps all of the "accustations" MMFA and you shills are "FALSE".... PROOF....PROOF....
So I guess you're saying that someone hundreds of yards away had really good aim to loft a shot into that window.
POV, regurgitating Republican talking point #%*#(&^ The old "African Americans receive hand outs from the Democratic party, therefore African Americans believe anything Democrats tell them".
Do YOU ever wonder why the Republican party is 89% White? Do YOU ever wonder why you can count the number of African Americans, Gays and Hispanics at your teabagging rallies?
There is a mountain of evidence showing rampant racism in the teabagging movement. The various signs telling President Obama to "go back to Kenya" and "Obama's Plan-White Slavery", the demand that a U.S. President PROVE he's actually a citizen and then not accepting proof that he is. And your teabagging leader, Mark Williams, calling the President Obama "a Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug and a racist in chief", sending out e-mails, calling President Obama "our half white, racist president".
And from this, I'm to assume that the teabaggers only hate President Obama's policies, not his race? I'm to assume that no one at your teabagging rallies would ever dream of calling an African American memeber of Congress a n*gger? Rep. Barney Frank a f*ggot? Rep. Ciro Rodreguiez a wet*ack?
IF Cantor had an actual bullet hole in his window, he'd have had Fox Noise on the scene with a camera and Glenda doing the reporting. If some shot at Cantor's office because he's Jewish, why the h*ll did they decide to do it now? Did Cantor just become Jewish? Was Cantor just elected to Congress?
So no, I don't think ANYONE put a bullet in Cantor's office window, except one of HIS supporters trying to pretend that violence is on both sides. I think that Republicans are feeling the heat and they want to deflect the attention elsewhere. I think Republicans just realized what my Momma told me a long time ago, "you lay down with dogs, you'll wake up with fleas". Welcome to the Republican Teabagging Party!
And by the way, I'm a registered Independent.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Another Congressman's brother had his address posted online by rightwingers. That very night, a propane gas line was cut and a threatening letter was put in his mailbox. Think that's coincidence? We saw multiple instances of Democratic offices labeled as such being directly attacked - Cantor has one office that wasn't really HIS office that had a bullet hole in a window that turns out to not have been directly attacked by anyone. Investigations don't need to be complete to draw conclusions from the info we HAVE. But Rep Cantor came to an early conclusion without enough information and he misled others about the office location and the actual event.
Please, continue to trivialize threats against Dems. Please.
This is an attempt, a failing attempt to take the heat off the lies to the American people.... DEFLECT, SPIN and LIE some more....
They got nothing but lies.
Look folks, we live in a representative democracy. I think we should all be able to condemn threats against our elected officials. Any threat against our elected official is a threat against us all. If we don't like their votes, we can voice that opposition in November and get other scumbags to represent us.
Did you EVEN read the article you linked to?
"In a news release, Richmond police said a preliminary investigation showed that a bullet was fired into the air and struck the window coming down. The round broke the glass but caused no other damage, the release said."
So, the REALITY is that no one even SHOT as his window.
Do you KNOW how high a gunshot goes when it goes up into the air? Do you know ANYONE (even a pro baseball outfielder with very good eyes) who could tell you where a bullet is going to come down after shooting it up into the air?
I am thrilled that you provided that link that thoroughly debunks Cantor's assertion that he has also been targeted and shows him to be an insincere jerk. Of course, we already knew he as an insincere jerk based upon previous behavior!
Part of a statement by the Richmond Police Department. Yes, firing a gun into the air is still very dangerous and shouldn't be done, but it was not a direct attack against Cantor. It was also one bullet, not quite enough to be considered "shot up".
Please don't use this to compare to actual, specific threats and damage, including attempted murder by cutting a gas line into a congressman's brothers house because that address was published for the specific intimidation and directed at innocent family members.
<Sniff> I hadn't heard the news. RIP...
That's because there were no SEIU thugs and the Black Panthers were just a couple guys playing dress up and were removed promptly and no one was intimidated.
And hanging Bush/Cheney in effigy? That's gonna happen when you have warmongers in the Oval Office. This is about health care, not war and death.
Of course you are too intellectually dishonest to admit it, but you my friend have no moral authority to judge any threats against anyone, for you are no better than the examples given above by MMfA.
You are in their league.
DEFLECT, SPIN and LIE.....
Ladies and gentlemen, another example of civil discourse from a teabagger apologist.
selective amnesia??? I don't suppose you remember the video of the Black Panthers with nightsticks intimidating the video crew who was filming them(aired on Fox, I'm sure you saw it!) Hardly playing dress-up...
And also what about the guys who hung Palin in effigy and claimed it was halloween yard-art?! She wasn't a warmonger or even in the whitehouse,...your excuse?? Double standards/hypocrisy and liberals/democrats seem to go hand in hand these days.... Change we can believe in!(yeah right!!!)
You need a class in remedial logic.
You also never asked for examples of the GOP condoning illegal activities. That showed up for the first time in your post above mine. Thanks for moving the goalposts. It shows you don't know the first thing about presenting an argument.
Sarah Palin (OK, technically a quitter and not an office holder -- but inextricably linked to the GOP): "Don't retreat -- reload." Followed by putting 20 Democrats in gun crosshairs. Class act.
Only three Republicans -- Cantor, Boehner and Steele -- have denounced the Tea Party racists. Cantor now seems to be backtracking.
GOP members cheered as protestors tried to disrupt House proceedings Sunday.
Where are the Republicans distancing themselves from racism and violence?
Your move, champ.
Your "illegal" bar is bogus. It's not illegal to say the N-word, but it's immoral and racist. And it's even worse for people like Steve King to brush it off.
Provide me an example of a Democrat condoning racism or violence as Republicans have been. (If you're keeping score, I've now asked this four times and have yet to get one response relevant to the question.)
I don't know if that is true. . . Do you have any proof that it is illegal to utter the word n****r?
I thought the nutjobs were all for freedom of speech, including hate speech and debunked lies.
And I'd deserve it.
Robert Byrd.
I guess you were just outraged at all the Code Pink interruptions of House proceedings over the years? Let in by dimocrats to disrupt. Never a word, only support from the hypocritical left.
Don't choke when eating your words...
I'm now taking bets on when the goal posts will be moved again to something like "illegal violent activity"?
You know this. Or you would if you would just take a deep breath and honestly look at the state we are in.
Actually until recently I thought the guys in congress were all just scum bags only out to accumulate power. It wasn't until recently that I think they've stepped over the line and they will live to regret it. No, I think it's people like Beck and Limbaugh who are or will soon get people killed and we will never be able to trace it back to them. It's really very brilliant on their part.
And thanks for showing how insincere you really are by moving the goalposts to seemingly limit it to 'illegal' activities.
"
I would disagree with that. This is about life and death, a very serious, personal topic. Also, presidents do get hung in effigy and so do basketball coaches. I would be more concerned with actual threats or attacks. Hanging in effigy is stupid, but it has a long and storied tradition of being stupid.
But if it's an effigy of a black person, why does it get harsher treatment then if it was an effigy of a white person?
Richmond Police have no suspects, yet you assume without any facts in evidence at all that it was a Democrat who fired a round into the air.
And the window wasn't "shattered." If it had been, they wouldn't have been able to see the bullet hole.
There is an allegation that a protester spit on a Congressman on Saturday. I don't believe it for a minute, but if it did occur, how do we know it was a conservative. It is more likely to be a Democrat plant in an effort to make conservatives look bad.
So, once again you prove your abject ignorance.
I argue with a guy at work like you.
"It's the DEMS planting people to make us hate wingers look bad!" "Those facts don't matter" "Apples and Oranges" 'That's just semantics"
Ha ha ha.
I was watching the news and saw the spittle. How's that?
But I guess it could have been a plant. Using that logic, how do we know that the Kristallnacht attack against Cantor was not a plant? I'd like you to provide evidence that it wasn't.
If you equate that with being "shot up," BJ, I think you need to look in the mirror for the "chicken wuss baby." Ditto if you still play the Kristalnacht victim card (which would be over the top and disgusting even if someone had actually shot at the window.)
Come see me when all of your possessions have been confiscated, your right to property revoked and you have deportation orders and your one suitcase in your hand.
I'm all about civility here BJ fan. But I will digress from my rule a bit. That was disgusting.
We have no idea who did it.
It was a shot that fell downward, so NO ONE was trying to shoot that window - they shot up into the air. No one, not even trick shooters or baseball outfielders, can tell you where a bullet shot up into the air will land with enough precision to target a window in the front of a building!
You're a troll who is not trying to participate in a reasonable discussion about how these rightwing blogs are minimizing and trivializing these actual attacks against Democrats. Go away.
Please don't feed this troll.
And Cantor's office might or might not have been "shot up". Check the latest news.
The big difference, to me, between the extremist stuff coming out of the tea party movement and some of the extremist stuff that came out of, say, the anti-war movement is this: the tea party movement is being mainstreamed by the Republican party.
It's not as if the Democrats ever went out there and were like, "Oh yeah, it's us and Code Pink together" or, "Oh yeah, it's us and this anti-war organization together" or something like that.
The Republicans have made a very vocal and very public effort to fully embrace, adopt, and mainstream the tea party movement. They have proclaimed solidarity with the tea partiers. So when members of a movement that is being embraced by a mainstream political party start throwing bricks through windows or cutting the gas lines to the homes of congressman's family members, then yes, that is a very serious cause for concern.
I don't remember GOP congressmen and women receiving threatening voice mails and faxes. I could have missed it but I think Fox would have covered it.
I don't remember nationally syndicated radio hosts, television hosts or op/ed writers saying that Bush had a deep seated hatred of black people. I sure hope I didn't miss that. Nor do I remember anyone saying Bush was destroying America.
I don't remember any national figures using inciting language like Beck and Limbaugh. I agree with right ON. Someone is going to get hurt and then what will that do to your cause? Colbert King has a nice op/ed piece in the Wash Post today about this topic.
We all know that people making death threats are idiots and kooks, undoubtedly a small number and not representative of most people, but come on, they could very possibly be dangerous idiots who might just try and act on their idiocy. Are you bloggers so worried about our own political viability and your sacred political affiliation that that trumps decency and common sense?
For god's sake, these are death threats. Is politics more important than anything else to you people? If it is, you've got some serious soul searching to do. Grow up.
Now that said, can anyone take 10 seconds to google and see if they can find any images of said effigies?
But, it is bad politics for the Republican leaders to continue to equivocate over this nonsense. "I condemn any threats of violence, BUT the American people are angry." There is no need for equivocation on this matter. And the only thing it leaves out there is that when and if something does happen, these Boehner soundbites being played over and over again. Truly short-sighted by the right.
I agree mike, that is a ridiculous statement to make. And exactly the equivocation I was talking about. As if that anger is rationalization for acts or threats of violence. It's pitiful.
There have been threats. We have seen the vandalism. There is no 1% chance of these things possibly happening--it's happened. It's real.
If the situation were reversed, how would they respond?
They would call for dire punishments on everybody they wanted to claim was responsible for any threat without trial.
Just as no one has suggested that all opposition to Obama is race-based, no one has suggested that all right-wingers are making threats. Cut the BS with the straw men, please. Threats of violence are bad from either side.
And I would add one more thing: There was never this widespread of an outbreak of threats during Bush's presidency, and it was also never condoned by Democrats. People like Steve King, the idiot from Iowa, have made excuses for these people.
Sorry, but Repubs are in their own league on this one.
Compare that to the rightwing politicians who hung a "Don't Tread on Me" from the outside balcony of the Capitol.
Compare that to the Republican reps in Congress who cheered and applauded as disruptive people were being removed from the viewing balcony inside the House of Representatives chamber by security personnel. They weren't cheering for the removal - they were cheering these people who were so disruptive that they were having to be removed! The Republicans reps were showing solidarity with protestors being removed!
Show us a couple of examples of Democrats EVER behaving in either of the two ways above. Or STFU because you can't make a fair comparison, as you were trying to pretend you are doing!
The only difference is nobody listens or pays much attention to you, and you have no media platform. Thankfully.
I haven't seen a single poster on the left (and I know that I have CERTAINLY never done it myself) who was unwilling to make a blanket condemnation of violence and violent rhetoric.
But this isn't ABOUT that topic. So your strawman argument that I'm showing some sort of weakness in MY argument by not condemning all violence, whether physical or rhetorical, is 100% bogus.
Another poster said that it wasn't the same on both sides. The weasel Bludog wrote that he had cited examples above that it was. But he didn't, and I explained that further.
But thanks for quickly diluting any credibility you might have gained after making a couple of reasonable posts on other threads. And thanks for making another out-of-place personal attack on me - I never claimed to have a media platform, and the fact that I don't have one is entirely irrelevant to this discussion - it was just a bogus putdown on your part. I get a thrill up my leg when you fail to recognize how your personal animus is detrimental to your overall goal here as a paid troll to convince other people of the errors in their judgments!
You don't even know what a blanket condemnation is, do you? It is not rationalizing or scorekeeping on which political party is more at fault. It is not saying one side is worse than the other. It is simply a nonpartisan sweeping condemnation of violent actions and violent rhetoric, period!
You have not done that I have seen, all your "condemnations" are laced with Republicans are far worse. That is not a blanket condemnation Sue, that is selective outrage - often times a byproduct of hypocrisy. Something you are quite familiar with.
On this same thread she says this:
Yea.....Dell never uses violent rhetoric!! Glad we cleared that up.
I think you need to go lie down on your fainting couch. The grown-ups are talking, and you don't have the guts to contribute.
You wingnuts can sure dish it out, but can't take it.
I'm really curious. Is it the foul language? Is it just "shut up" itself?
I missed something. Did Dell text "STFU" to her Congressman or something? Even then it wouldnt be in the same class as shouting racial epitaphs at them.
What?
{shaking head in bewilderment}
Huh?
WTF? {oops I sure hope you don't think that is violent}
It's rude and crude. Ok. It might be violent if she was wailing on you what a baseball bat while saying it. STFU is not violent.
Violent rhetoric is "if Brown can't stop Obama, a Browning can".
Violent rhetoric is "I'll shut you up permanently."
I don't agree with Dell's arguments often but your response failed.
I agree with you here.
I'll put you in my "a conservative I'd like to have a beer with" column.
So you make your case to stop the violence and the vile language by telling another poster to STFU?? You need to take your own advice.
Pelosi has gone on record saying she loves protesters and loves those who will disrupt a speech by a republican. Saying that republicans cheered those who disrupted the House is in no way the same thing as those same republicans supporting violence. You have no case to make here at all. Cantor's office was shot at, so save your lecture. You are one of the most vile and hateful posters here.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Video: Nancy Pelosi To Protesters In 2006: "I Love Disruptors!
http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2009/08/video-nancy-pelosi-to-protesters-in.html
STFU is not violent rhetoric.
MASSIVE FAIL.
And your unfair and grossly distorted portrayal of what Rep Nancy Pelosi said? Inexcusable. That's not what she said at all. And there's a time and a place for protest, and the gallery of the House of Representatives is not that place. And Republicans in the House know that, yet cheered it on AFTER it had gotten so bad that the protestors were being forcibly removed from that balcony area!
And Cantor's office was NOT shot at. A window in an associate's office was HIT by a bullet. It was not shot AT that office. It was shot up into the air, and happened to hit that window, according to police.
You don't have a leg to stand on.
Well I should sincerely HOPE NOT! Considering you use it with the most frequency of anyone around here, if you ever complain about it your posts would be pretty much this;
Empty.
We're all big kids here. I think we can take STFU. It's a free country, if it bothers you, find another blog site.
I think you need to go back and watch the clip again. In the first place, Speaker Pelosi was dealing with protesters from the left who were trying to shout her down. She gave them a lesson in democracy and civility, and seems to have been effective. Even the breitbart editing of the tape couldn't camouflage that.
The "disrupter" she used as an example was FDR, who shook up the status quo through legitimate means. Your accusation that she was egging on protesters to disrupt Republicans is not only not supported by the tape, it's rendered ridiculous by her admonition, "Let's not accuse those who disagree with us of being unpatriotic."
Are you choosing to ignore, or just don't believe DD's reference to the police investigation of the damage at the Cantor office? The police, if she's accurate, think it was hit by a spent bullet on its downward trajectory. In that case it would have been "hit by a bullet," not "shot at."
Massive, massive fail!
Dell is probably one of the least civil posters here, left or right, but STFU is ok on this site. It's crude and does not promote honest, civil debate but it is not violent.
And as for your link. Just plain fail. Those "disruptors" were at a town hall, not inside our nations Capital trying to disrupt the vote and debate. THAT sir was unAmerican. If you condone what those teabaggers were doing I have to ask, "Why sir, do you hate America?"
either of the two ways above. Or STFU because you can't make a fair comparison, as you were trying to pretend you are doing!"
Go back and watch the State of the Uninon Address from this year. Pay attention to around the time the President talks about the Supreme Court.
Also, here's one I haven't seen any denouncement of. This took me about five minutes to find.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2476023/posts
Provide me with one example where anyone from the Democratic party ever commended -- or tried to make an excuse for -- someone on the far left for threats of violence, actual violence, or racial/ethnic/sexual orientation slurs. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke.
So, since I already DID that, actually multiple times over the last couple of days, and on this very thread, your baseless accusation is simply a troll post, evidence that you weren't interested in participating in a reasonable conversation.
That constitutes PROOF. Not words from partisan hacks, PROOF.
People have already posted links and so has MMFA. The GOP is condoning and encouraging this behavior.
The GOP needs to be careful. Once you unleash the hounds it is very difficult to get them back. You cannot control a revolution once it starts. The GOP might find, once the violence starts, that they have not control over certain elements of their minions. I really do fear that someone will get hurt.
You might pass that along to DellDolly since she also seems to have missed the point.
AND, you can't provide PROOF of Republican leadership encouraging bad behavior. PROOF, not words from partisan hacks, PROOF....
So, where's his proof of Keith Olbermann doing this? Of course it's missing. It's not possible for him to provide that evidence, of course.
Please don't feed this troll.
We are outraged that the Republicans and the rightwing media condoned, publicized, promoted and spurred on this violence and this violent rhetoric, and you can't provide similar stories of similar support from Democrats and left-leaning media sources.
We don't mind, nor do we object to protestors. We object to the false portrayal of these protests as grass-roots. We object to these protestors complaining about justifiable deficit spending by Obama when they failed to complain and march on Washington when there was unjustifiable deficit spending by Bush. We object to the nonsense, lies, distortions and omission of relevant info by these protestors and by the rightwing media that FED these protestors that disinformation.
But we don't object to protestors. Republicans deserved almost all of the disrespect they got during the Bush Administration. No one deserves death threats, or nooses faxed to them, or personal attacks, all of which were tacitly condoned by much of the rightwing media and sometimes by actual politicians too - like the 3 who waved the "Don't Tread on Me" flag off an outside balcony at the Capitol or who cheered protestors being dragged out of the gallery the other day!
All you've done is quote a bunch of hearsay.... PROOF.....
Pot calling the kettle black!
You are hilarious!
Light, you might want to go back and re-read your history during the Bush years. Does the term "Anti-Christ" ring a bell?
Hoft is such an overt disgrace to humanity. Erm... you kinda left out that whole thing about how someone cut the home propane line at his brother's house... ya knwo the man not in Congress who has a wife and four kids?
Lying coward Jim Hoft, I accuse you of wasting oxygen.
I make my Pro-Clinton views well known.
What if Obama supporters/radicals are the ones doing all the vandalism and threats? That would make a lot of sense too.
I have seen it first hand at political events.
I would like to see an analysis of exactly who is making these threats.
Did you take notes, names, descriptions, and how they exposed themselves as provocators.
I'm sure some neocon blog, or other media, will tell you shortly.
There's a particular type of aggressor who will fend off all statements about his aggression. Insist on the innocence of his,or her, approach. Who'd a thought that this could become the basis of a political movement.
Yes it is scary. The enablers more evil than the physical actors.
The potential actors will be scarificed after much real damage by their enablers. After the enablers attain power due too the damage. Thereby giving them (somehow) credibility.
Thats the way this sort of thing has been run many times. In many contexts.
You obviously believe that the plural of "anecdote' is "data." It isn't, and your "first-hand" knowledge of Democrats pretending to be Republicans isn't worth the energy it took to display the pixels of your bogus claim on the screen.
Why are you morons only concerned with so called "threats" against the democrats.
Nothing more than DEFLECT, SPIN and LIE, take the heat off....
How do you get all the way to the bottom of this thread and not read anything posted? Cause the cops have already made some findings - like the bullet wasn't fired at the office. And it wasn't Cantor's campaign offices, but a consultant's he used and there was nothing on the building to identify any association with Cantor.
http://gawker.com/5502144/republican-totally-wants-in-on-this-violent-threat-scare-trend-updated
Once again you have nothing to bring to the discussion other than completely uninformed ignorance.
Good grief, do you have any self respect at all?
If they can get others to join they will sneak out and try again somewhere else.
What usually happens is after many attempts they will get a couple people to join them.
Oh, wait, you didn't.
"The way it works" is, you provide proof of your claim, or it becomes obvious that you are merely talking out of your ass once again.
What a riot! Pretending to not understand facts.......
Condoning violence and pretending it's the other side doing it....
WHY, unless it's a Republican "following someone" you won't believe them. So please tell me WHY should ANYONE bother to show you proof?
The Republicans are naive not to know the tactics of the left.
On this topic I am saying you should know where the threats against Democrats are originating.
Really if you had anything it'd currently be shouted out from one end of the consrvative blogosphere to the other.
Just as Cantor's broken window just was.
Oh yeah, just ask the teabagging loonies standing next to you foaming at the mouth.
MLK and those fighting for civil rights were a non-violent movement. There was no yelling, screaming, name calling, racial slurs, threats of violence or acts of violence.
The same cannot be said for the teabagging loonies or the Republican party.
Republican wrote the book! Just look at the loony teabagging party. It's full with Republicans!
If your observations are no better than this pitiful attempt at rewriting history, then you should keep them to yourself before you expose yourself as the fool you are.
As a 75 year old African American, I know more about MLK AND the Civil Rights movement than you'll ever know!
Your text to link here...
Usually there would be a list of things to write, about King commented that capitalism was wrong, or about how he denounced certain candidates, or other timely little facts about his life. In this case though, it's blatantly obvious that no amount of factual information is going to get through to you. You're already simply quoting right-wing websites as gospel and simply ignoring the reality of any facts that are out there. It's disturbing and distressing that people like you have access to voting capabilities, because your sole purpose seems to be lying and doing whatever it takes to believe that your side wins. No matter what they're saying, they're always right and 'progressives' are always wrong, aren't they?
Think that'll get by the texas schoolbook selection process?
Today's political parties have somehow changed in the nearly hundred and fifty years that have passed since then.
A progressive plot?
That's got to be the funniest statement of the day.
And also usually the most stupid.
The progressive movement that TR was part of did not exist when Lincoln died.
For example Lincoln was adamantly against Prohibition, which was a cornerstone of the progressive movement of the time along with the 16th Amendment which brought us the IRS.
For many, many, many decades the Democratic Party was the party of racism. Absolutely no question. It is disgusting to look at the campaign literature etc. from around 1840 to the turn of the century. Republicans, ala Lincoln, were the great champions of African-American and there were almost no Black Democrats (they wouldn't even have been allowed to join if they wanted to).
By the 1920's, the decade with the most lynchings, the Republican party was getting tired of supporting civil rights legislation, but were still the leaders while Democrats are mostly a disgrace.
FDR's New Deal programs designed to help the massive level of unemployement encourage the younger generation of whites and blacks to become Democrats. Republicans experience an all time low in national politics. Still, many blacks hold to their Republican roots. "Roosevelt may feed me, but Lincoln freed me".
Now fast forward to the Civil Rights Act signed by LBJ, supported by mostly Republicans and Eastern Democrats and opposed vehemently by "the Solid South", solid Democrats.
With LBJ's bold support, these "Dixiecrats" begin switching en masse to a Republican Party. At this point, prominent African Americans such as Jackie Robinson and MLK leave the Republican Party behind. Richard Nixon creates his Southern Strategy of emphasizing anti-busing and "states rights" to oppose desegregation. The South becomes a solid block for Republicans for decades.
Which brings us to today where only a tiny minority of African-Americans vote for a Republican Party which is overwhelmingly Caucasian (with a few notable exceptions, as in you can actually count all the elected non-white national Republicans in a few moments). Recap: Democrats racist, Republicans not. Civil Rights bill, racists become Republicans.
Last note: Nothing in this post should be taken to say that all Republicans are racist or that it is a racist party. Merely a little history of the Great Switch and why pointing at Democrats like Strom Thurmond is irrelevant to today's politics.
Try this one:
Your text to link here...
I'm not sure what J4 would call eliminating slavery in the US&A. Obviously progressive is verboten in this context.
Don't laugh y'self sick kiddo.
I heard Obama make sympathetic statements towards marijuana legalization before the election and then after the election he wants to continue prohibition.
I'll give you the answer; it's because southern whites have been voting in equally overwhelming numbers for Republicans.
Have you ever asked yourself how the southern vote became so polarized in this manner, with southern whites voting as a block for republicans and african-americans voting as a block for democrats? If you had even a hint of intellectual curiosity, you had have.
In case you haven't noticed it, the entire country has become highly polarized. With the population movement from other states like New York, the South is not what it was 100 years ago.
And yet the Republican party is 89% White. Why is that? And the Republican party as NO African American members of the House or the Senate. Every single African American serving in Congress is a Democrat. Why is that?
Here's a history lesson.
In the late 1940s, President Truman, a Democrat, decided it was time to racially integrate the arm forces. And then the Democratic party decided to publicly declare support for the civil rights movement. Truman's first move caused outrage, but the second was more than some White Southern Democrats could stand. So those angry White Southern Democrats formed a "states rights" ticket that was labeled the Dixicrats, which was opposed to racial integration and want to retain Jim Crow laws and white supremacy.
In the mid 60s, those same Dixicrats, switched from the Democratic party to the Republican party in order to help Barry Goldwater beat Johnson.
Those same former Dixicrats also played a large role in the Republican party's "Southern Strategy" which Richard Nixon the White House.
It was Ronald Regan who declared his strong support of "states rights" when he announced his run for the presidency. Regan choose to make his announcement in Philadelphia Mississippi, the place where 3 civil rights workers were murdered. Regan proudly told the almost all White crowd "I believe in states rights".
So the Republican party ceased being the Party of Lincoln and became what it is today, the Party of "states rights".
Which is why the Republican party is 89% White.
Doesn't anyone remember the hatred surrounding anything connected with civil rights? When people were lynched, shot or otherwise injured or killed doing voter registration and other civil rights work, there was this attitude that they had brought it on themselves.
Somehow, the perpetrators weren't at fault, they were provoked to acts of violence because the civil rights workers threatened their way of life.
It amazes me that the very "law and order" types on the right always have an excuse for a lawbreaker who is one of their own.