And this is just from the last election cycle

[heckofajobbrownie]

Now, I don't believe we can pin the shooting on these statements, but they're all calling for political violence. So two things are true at once - one, the shooting looks to be the result of a deranged man and nothing else; and two, calling for or approving of or inciting political violence is really beyond the pale:

 

- Richard Behney, a tea partier from Indiana running for former Sen. Evan Bayh's seat, told a group of Second Amendment activists that they didn't have to resort to armed insurrection -- "yet."

 

"We can get new faces in. Whether it's my face or not, I pray to God that I see new faces. And if we don't see new faces, I'm cleaning my guns and getting ready for the big show. And I'm serious about that, and I bet you are, too."

 

 

- Robert Lowry, a Republican challenger to Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schulz (D-FL), stopped by a local Republican event in October. The event was at a gun range, and Lowry shot at a human-shaped target that had Wasserman Schulz's initials written on it.

 

 

- Giffords' own opponent, Republican Jesse Kelly, had a gun-themed fund-raiser in June in which supporters could come and shoot an M-16 rifle with Kelly. It was promoted thusly: Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly."

 

 

- Stephen Broden, a Republican challenger to Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), in late October said that violent revolution is "on the table." "Our nation was founded on violence," Broden said.

 

 

- Sharron Angle (R-NV) found herself in June defending comments she had made six months earlier about the Second Amendment.

 

"People are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying, my goodness, what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you, the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out," she said.

 

 

- Rep. Gregg Harper (R-MS) told Politico that he hunts Democrats. Asked about the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, he said, "We hunt liberal, tree-hugging Democrats, although it does seem like a waste of good ammunition."

 

 

- Rep. Allen West (R-FL) almost hired a Florida talk-radio host, Joyce Kaufman, as his chief of staff. But Kaufman withdrew after media coverage of some of her more fiery statements, such as:

 

"I am convinced that the most important thing the Founding Fathers did to ensure me my First Amendment rights was they gave a Second Amendment," she told a tea party crowd last summer. "And if ballots don't work, bullets will."

 

 

 

...Anyone want to defend this?

[heckofajobbrownie]

...Anyone?

 

How about anyone want to agree that it's un-American for people who are in Congress, or running to be in Congress, to suggest that we break out the guns and start a revolution if their side doesn't win a majority in a democratic election?

 

 

 

 

[Mr. T]

Your claim is irrelevant to the tragedy that happened in Arizona.

 

The political left is trying to pin this tragedy on gun owners and conservative talk radio. Never mind the fact that this creep hated the Bible and the U.S. flag, loved the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf and, according to his friends, was a drug abusing lefty.

 

But why let the facts get in the way?

 

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

Yes, we're not talking about that. That's why I wrote "I don't believe we can pin the shooting on these statements."

 

Anyone want to defend this kind of talk? Anyone at all?

[calfoxwc]

Some are plain wrong, if true. You haven't given any links. I thought you lib whiners were ALL about LINKS to prove

 

legitimacy.

 

Oh, that's only if a conservative post is posted. I forgot.

 

Some are fine by me, like the M-16 one.

 

You lefties made the 2nd Amendment an issue. Then you whine that Pro-2nd Amendment folks respond

 

that they worry about their rights taken away.

 

The use of arms to overthrow a completely oppressive government denying Americans their GOD GIVEN RIGHTS,

 

was mandated by the Founding Fathers. No, Heck, ObaMao is NOT one of them.

 

Now you defend Obamao's statements. Shall we dredge up more made by lefties on your side?

[Hoss]

Anyone have a problem with pointing to the more radical of someone's party, tell everyone "that is who is in charge of the Republican Party" and then displaying sample after sample of these wacko-nutjobs' antics?

 

Say what you want, more people are sick of the wackos on either side. We have seen some VERY un-moderate actions by the Left, and now some think it is there turn. It isn't.

 

All these wackos need to go back into their parents basement where they belong. And stay off the internet also.

[calfoxwc]

The idea that only conservatives have nutjobs... give America a break from the

 

Democratic/liberal/socialist bs:

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

Again, Cal, can you find another example of a Democratic politician suggesting - not in jest but in a seriousness - that we shoot or harm members of the other party, or that we should overturn the results of democratic elections with violence?

 

Don't find me a douche on the street with a sign.

[calfoxwc]

I posted all sorts of nutjobs in the other thread that you chose to ignore so far.

 

It appears that some spammer is trying to ruin the political board. Our mods should

 

be deleting them soon. What a mess...

 

BTW, Isn't Obama saying all these things enough? The leader of the Dems? And, the Dems

 

have the leftwing media urged to go after Republicans like Palin and anybody who might run for pres.

 

Your new socialist friend party is going to suffer even worse losses in 2012 if they keep it up.

 

Most of America is very tired of the never ending, warrantless character assassination garbage that so MANY

 

of your side are using. I'll repost them here: (oh yeah, and seriously, name one Bush friend that blew up

 

policemen and still brags about it today. You can't. But I can with ObaMao.)

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

You lose. Again. I figure you should objectively lower your appraisal of your own IQ...

 

Don't miss the video of what Chris Mathews says about wanting to see Rush shot in the head with a gun...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/video-flas...angry-rhetoric/

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/michelle-m...te-on-the-left/

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/frances-fo...ent-revolution/

 

[We need Tom Tupa]

You've got to go one way or the other on this Heck. Either these types of statements result in violence or they are pointless drivel. If it's the former, say so. If not, why should we care? Do we really need to argue about whether or not politicians say absurd things while campaigning? No. This is only an issue if you think the speech is legitimately dangerous. There are those who do, and I think they have a reasonable argument they can make. But if you aren't one of them, then why spend time on this?

[heckofajobbrownie]

I don't buy your either/or at all, Tupa.

 

I do think they're potentially dangerous physically, and certainly dangerous in terms of how much harder they make it to get the real work done. I'm simply saying they don't have any obvious connection to this incident. But there have been other incidents that do seem to have risen out of the rhetoric. When someone is heading off to bomb the Tides Foundation, or to kill everyone in Bernie Goldberg's book, I think we can trace where they got those ideas. It doesn't necessarily make Glenn Beck or Bernie Goldberg culpable, but these are the types of things that set off kooks.

 

The point of posting these statements isn't to make the case that politicians say crazy things - that'd be a bit banal. It's to make the point that this type of stuff comes overwhelmingly from one party and not the other, and the lame false equivalency arguments are getting a bit tiresome. I mean, Obama said "It's going to be a fight?" and quoted the famous line from The Untouchables? Really?

 

Also, are you really saying that when a woman running for Senate, or in line to be a Congressman's Chief of Staff, openly suggests that they may have to use violence in the event a democratic election doesn't go their way (while suggesting that they're the defenders of American principles, of course) that we shouldn't make note of how batshit and dangerous an idea that is? I can't imagine you think that, especially when you consider that absent the attention those two people got for making those comments they'd probably be serving in our government right now.

 

Most on the right seem to have no interest in looking at what they've become, probably because most of the people who need to do the most soul-searching are the ones who've become it.

 

For me, the larger and more important point would be how ill-formed the rhetoric is, not how dangerous or violent it is. But that's another discussion. In the meantime, perhaps a little national time spent giving this shit some thought would be beneficial, however embarrassing it might be for sane conservatives like you.

[calfoxwc]

The truth is, plenty of folks now are saying the Arizona murderer was very mentally ill,

 

very dangerous, and very, very NON-POLITICAL.

 

He never listened to either side. He didn't care about politics.

 

Your opinion that murdering nutjobs are influenced by successful conservative talk radio

 

is so ridiculous, it's nice to know it is NOT FACT. Not at all. This sentiment is just political

 

expediency, like most everything is, with liberals/progressives/marxists.

 

And, ObaMao has now just come out and THANKED Sheriff Doofuswit for falsely blaming

 

Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh.

[Westside Steve]

Now, I don't believe we can pin the shooting on these statements, but they're all calling for political violence. So two things are true at once - one, the shooting looks to be the result of a deranged man and nothing else; and two, calling for or approving of or inciting political violence is really beyond the pale:

 

...Anyone want to defend this?

 

 

Well as they say, everything bedfore the "but" is bullshit.

 

 

But as for defense?

Here goes.

 

I don't think for one second that any of these statements were intended to inspire psychos to violence.

And I don't find any particularly outrageous.

 

 

But if there is an especially troubling (I've replaced a harsher descriptor)part to this, it's the glee that the Democrat party has taken in chance to attack their political rivals.

 

The "if only we had Obamacare this wouldn't have happened" bit (more mental health money) is pretty stupid too.

WSS

[calfoxwc]

Yo, Heck started his own thread !!!!!!!! YAY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Not with his own subject though, but, it's a start.

 

I knew Shep would help him figure it out !

[heckofajobbrownie]

Oh, Steve. I'd just love an example of what you think of an outrageous political statement is. Essentially saying, in 2010, while red-faced and pointing your finger with rage, that "If we don't win the election we're going to get our guns and start shooting" would seem to be over the line for any normal, sentient American. But not you, apparently.

 

So please. If not clearly suggesting that political violence will be the answer if an election does not go your way, then what?

 

Man, I would have loved to hear your opinions in the civil rights era. Quite the boat rocker, you are.

[Westside Steve]

Oh, Steve. I'd just love an example of what you think of an outrageous political statement is. Essentially saying, in 2010, while red-faced and pointing your finger with rage, that "If we don't win the election we're going to get our guns and start shooting" would seem to be over the line for any normal, sentient American. But not you, apparently.

 

So please. If not clearly suggesting that political violence will be the answer if an election does not go your way, then what?

 

Man, I would have loved to hear your opinions in the civil rights era. Quite the boat rocker, you are.

 

 

Which century?

 

Anyway you're free to call for murder charges to be brought against these incitors.

 

You can get to that after you guys outlaw the word "target" and crosshair/target icons on stuff.

Good luck with that. Looks like a winning strategy to me.

 

9PS good work getting the civil rights crap into the mix!)

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Answer the question. Don't make up shit I don't believe. Give me an example of something a political figure has said that you find outrageous or irresponsible. Something worse than "if ballots don't work, bullets will." Or speaking of "second amendment remedies."

 

As for the civil rights stuff, it's my opinion, after years of reading your stuff, that you would have been on the side of not doing anything about Jim Crow laws in the 60s. You wouldn't have been for integrating the schools or the Army. Your primary motivation, above all else, is pique, closely followed by a selfishness and an intellectual laziness that masquerades as individuality.

 

You've never given me any indication whatsoever that you would have been moved to say, "This is wrong. We need to change it." I can imagine lots of things you would have said, however.

 

You can't even look at an irate and obviously irrational woman suggesting and approving of the idea political violence and say that's over the line. Instead, we get the usual deflection. You never concede anything.

 

It's really brave.

[calfoxwc]

Heck, you are demanding to set the criteria again. Rep politicians speak for themselves.

 

Dem politicians let the leftwing media and vicious left media hacks do their talking for them,

 

when it comes to saying mean things.

 

The conservative side is about the CONSTITUTION, which includes the 2nd Amendment. That's

 

per the U.S. SUPREME COURT. Your side lost. Get over it.

 

The liberal/socialist side is NOT about the Constitution, so using guns doesn't come up as an analogy.

 

You are quibblng over how many Rep politicians say this, and how many Dem politicians say that...

 

The leftwing hacks are destructive enough, without their Dem leadership offering up assistance.

 

IOW's, you are trying to deduce a conclusion based on cherry picked situations that are in your favor.

 

As usual, I don't believe anybody else buys it, since Shep left again, after his drive by slur against the Tea

 

Party and Sarah Palin.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Just answer the question, Steve. I think you don't really get it. I'm not asking you if this stuff makes you (or me) want to run up a tree and hide. That's the way you always interpret it. And I'm also not tying it to Tuscon, which you keep trying to pretend I'm doing.

 

I'm asking you if you think it's irresponsible and over-the-top and a little nutty. (Or in this case, a lot nutty.) And if you don't think there's anything wrong with it, as you say, then what's a past example of something that is? What's worse than approving of political violence when you don't win an election?

 

And Cal, honestly. Go xxxx yourself with this bullshit about how you're the only party that believes in the Constitution. You have a made up, childlike interpretation of it, and that's what you believe, and spend your days enjoying yourself to. You're an embarrassment to your side, and I wish everyone could see the rank, childish, ill-informed nonsense you excrete here every day.

 

You are, in fact, what the Founding Fathers referred to as "rabble", and they worked really hard to design a system so that people like you made very few decisions.

[calfoxwc]

There ya go, going apesheet over anybody disagreeing with you, especially me...

 

right after I praised you for actually starting your own thread.

 

Here, Heck, I'll post after a bit, examples of leftist politicians, including Obamao, dissing our Constitution.

 

Then I'll start on folks in the leftist media dissing our Constitution.

 

Then, by your own ignorant maneuver played back at you, you show me where

 

one Republican dissed our Constitution, or one Tea Partier criticizes our Constitution.

 

You should go read Marx or Alinski's works, and pretend that is America's future. You are an embarrassment to

 

Americans who care about this country. Quite frankly, it's amusing to watch you try to be so intellectual

 

and fail so many times. My sense of humor isn't for quoting nationally. I just have fun on this board

 

flapping my jaws, and watching all the conservatives on this board kick your rear end again and again.

 

I'm a bit annoyed that Steve is the best at it, but maybe I just have weaker ankles - he's a good bit

 

huskier than I am...

 

Until you can show me, that dissing our Constitution is pretty much owned by the Dems, you look foolish -

 

go back to your lib friends, and they'll just shake their heads at how feeble-minded you are.

 

There's a culture war, of sorts, going on in this country, are you and the rest of the ignorant, principle-rejecting

 

left are on the losing side of the discussions. Have a nice day. You don't what I am, Heck. You don't have a clue.

 

so, go back to your TV, and pretend 3Rd Rock from the Sun is a reality show you'd fit right in with.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Cal, just to let you know: I once became aware of a project where someone was going to compile some of the most ridiculous and idiotic and offensive internet posts and have them performed in a live setting, in front of a large audience, as a joke. And they went through and found all of this great, nutty crank stuff from places like Free Republic and Liberty Post. Stuff that made their head spin. They never knew people like that, who believed this type of stuff, actually existed.

 

And trust me, none of it was even close - even close - to as laughably unhinged as the stuff you write every day. You put them all to shame. They seemed like Princeton professors compared to you.

 

I thought about pointing them to you, and your stuff in here, but figured I'd leave you be.

 

You could have been a celebrity, Cal.

[We need Tom Tupa]

Now, I don't believe we can pin the shooting on these statements, but they're all calling for political violence. So two things are true at once - one, the shooting looks to be the result of a deranged man and nothing else; and two, calling for or approving of or inciting political violence is really beyond the pale:

 

- Richard Behney, a tea partier from Indiana running for former Sen. Evan Bayh's seat, told a group of Second Amendment activists that they didn't have to resort to armed insurrection -- "yet."

 

"We can get new faces in. Whether it's my face or not, I pray to God that I see new faces. And if we don't see new faces, I'm cleaning my guns and getting ready for the big show. And I'm serious about that, and I bet you are, too."

 

 

- Robert Lowry, a Republican challenger to Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schulz (D-FL), stopped by a local Republican event in October. The event was at a gun range, and Lowry shot at a human-shaped target that had Wasserman Schulz's initials written on it.

 

 

- Giffords' own opponent, Republican Jesse Kelly, had a gun-themed fund-raiser in June in which supporters could come and shoot an M-16 rifle with Kelly. It was promoted thusly: Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly."

 

 

- Stephen Broden, a Republican challenger to Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), in late October said that violent revolution is "on the table." "Our nation was founded on violence," Broden said.

 

 

- Sharron Angle (R-NV) found herself in June defending comments she had made six months earlier about the Second Amendment.

 

"People are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying, my goodness, what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you, the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out," she said.

 

 

- Rep. Gregg Harper (R-MS) told Politico that he hunts Democrats. Asked about the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, he said, "We hunt liberal, tree-hugging Democrats, although it does seem like a waste of good ammunition."

 

 

- Rep. Allen West (R-FL) almost hired a Florida talk-radio host, Joyce Kaufman, as his chief of staff. But Kaufman withdrew after media coverage of some of her more fiery statements, such as:

 

"I am convinced that the most important thing the Founding Fathers did to ensure me my First Amendment rights was they gave a Second Amendment," she told a tea party crowd last summer. "And if ballots don't work, bullets will."

 

 

 

...Anyone want to defend this?

Behney: A guy who finished 5th in a primary election, with fewer votes than would be predicted by a model that assumed that undecided voters randomly selected a candidate on election day.

 

Lowry: Managed 7,000 votes total in his political career

 

Kelly: Poorly worded ad, but this is just an example of a politician who likes guns and has voters who like guns. He lives in AZ, he is hardly unique.

 

Broden: He's an idiot that didnt know what he was saying. He took back everything he said within a day...every day...for the entire campaign. He certainly wasn't calling for revolution, as he mentioned even at the time he made the statement. And like the first two on this list, he is a nobody in national politics.

 

Angle: An idiot who knows what she is saying. Though no serious person thinks she wanted Reid shot or meant to imply otherwise. This was a poorly phrased quote.

 

Harper: That's a joke. People are still allowed to joke, right?

 

That last one is just silly. Comments made by someone who at some point was considered for a job with a campaign? Really? Come on.

 

 

I'm not sure you could've pulled together a group of less influential people. Almost no one on this list holds a public office. Most of them never have and never will. None of them have any national power at all, and none have an audience larger than a few thousand people for anything theyve ever said (except for these quotes which now have a national audience thanks to their critics). One of the comments was an obvious joke!

 

It's to make the point that this type of stuff comes overwhelmingly from one party and not the other, and the lame false equivalency arguments are getting a bit tiresome. I mean, Obama said "It's going to be a fight?" and quoted the famous line from The Untouchables? Really?

 

We're supposed to not worry about gun references when they are movie quotes (I agree), but be enraged by jokes? Really?

 

Also, are you really saying that when a woman running for Senate, or in line to be a Congressman's Chief of Staff, openly suggests that they may have to use violence in the event a democratic election doesn't go their way (while suggesting that they're the defenders of American principles, of course) that we shouldn't make note of how batshit and dangerous an idea that is? I can't imagine you think that, especially when you consider that absent the attention those two people got for making those comments they'd probably be serving in our government right now.

 

You can't honestly claim that Angle seriously considered that violence was a possible option if she lost her election. Sure, she said some dumb things, and I would absolutely want to keep beating this dead horse (the election was over months ago, right?) if ANYONE in their right mind thought that she was advocating violence in any way. But that isnt the case. She said something stupid and clumsy and backed away from it when asked. And that's one of the crazy people we're talking about! The crazies weren't even advocating anything like what you're suggesting! I dont know any context on the other woman, but of course that makes perfect sense since she was a local talk radio host who was only temporarily considered for a staff position for one of our hundreds of congressmen.

 

Most on the right seem to have no interest in looking at what they've become, probably because most of the people who need to do the most soul-searching are the ones who've become it.

 

This is the kicker. You list quotes from a bunch of failed single-shot politicians and want to make claims about "the right"? It's no wonder you arent getting through here. This isnt a legitimate argument. Your evidence is garbage. You'd say the same if I listed a bunch of inflammatory remarks from liberal bloggers and talk show hosts, despite the fact that they have a much larger and receptive audience. Just to avoid the argument, I'll willingly concede that there are more idiotic remarks like this from the right than the left, but at best it's just a matter of what number of comments exist, not whether or not they do.

 

For me, the larger and more important point would be how ill-formed the rhetoric is, not how dangerous or violent it is. But that's another discussion. In the meantime, perhaps a little national time spent giving this shit some thought would be beneficial, however embarrassing it might be for sane conservatives like you.

 

Almost every person on your list lost their primary or general election. Even you were quick to point out that these people lost because their rhetoric was publicized. What's left to consider? The fact that you can get Cal to disagree with anything you say? Congrats.

 

If there is something else here that you think deserves some thought, please lay it out for me. Your objection to my either/or didn't clarify your position at all. You think they are potentially dangerous physically, fine. That's one side of the either/or. You think they are dangerous because they make it harder to get "the real work done"? Now we're just talking about political rhetoric, and focusing on unemployed primary candidates is completely pointless. And trying to paint the GOP as the party of rhetoric that makes it harder to get "the real work done" is a non-starter. Politicians are full of shit. That isnt the result of political affiliation.

 

I'll rephrase: either these types of statements have unique costs or they dont. If they do, let's focus on that and not broad strokes about the GOP being full of idiots. If they don't, then this is just a post about you thinking the GOP is full of idiots, and I've seen enough of those to know that this was pointless before it even started.

 

If for some reason you thought you needed to make the point that "calling for or approving of or inciting political violence is really beyond the pale," then take comfort in the fact that all sane people agree with you and that the only disagreement is about whether or not most of the quotes you listed actually do those things.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I think you protest a bit too much here, Tupa. You're really arguing something else here - that these aren't prominent people, and therefore their rhetoric has no consequence. Or that they're not smart people, so their rhetoric has no consequence. I'd quibble with both of those to start with because we're not talking about the rhetoric's effect on "the sane people who agree with me." We're talking about its potential effect on the people on the margins, and we've seen some of those incidents already. And we're also talking about the almost complete lack of push back we get from the supposed "adult" conservatives on this stuff. No, we get Newt Gingrich egging it on.

 

The point wasn't to say that these are prominent people. The question was posed to see just what you could put in front of the face of a member of the Republican Party base, which all of these guys are, and see if they'd be willing to defend or distance themselves from the worst comments from the last election cycle. All I asked was for someone to defend them. And other than Cal saying they weren't great while suspecting I made them up, nobody had a bad word to say about any of them. None of them thought it was "beyond the pale", did they? No one made the point that yes, these are some pretty reprehensible things to say, but they're not major figures and it shouldn't be used to sully the whole movement. And no, I don't give Sharron Angle the same pass you do. She really could have won, and probably should have won, and you know that as well as I do. Nor do I find the fact that a current Congressman looks at Joyce Kaufman and thinks, "Yeah, that's Chief of Staff material!" is silly and not worth noting. It does say a little bit about where the Congressman is and what he believes, does it not?

 

In short, I simply don't buy that the beliefs these people are espousing, or the ones the guys in here trumpet every day, are as atypical as you do.

 

What we've been watching over the past year and a half or so is the tacit approval of complete or near-complete lunacy coming from the right because it buoyed Republican electoral chances. We're to the point now where the 2nd amendment isn't so much defended on Constitutional grounds, or defended as a guarantee of personal protection, but something that's needed in the event we have to throw down with our own tyrannical government. That's the rather dangerous myth that the right has not simply let fester, but has promoted in their media outlets - that we're on the very brink of having our freedoms taken away and losing our entire country. Well, if you actually believed that to be true, you would start talking about Second Amendment remedies. Which is why you hear from people who think we could be living in that scenario in the near future.

 

That is where a small but significant slice of the country now thinks we are. You may not hang out with them. You may think they're as clueless as I do. And I know you don't like being associated with them, and you're not. But let's not pretend that these people don't exist in numbers far greater than we're comfortable with, and that the fringes of that movement aren't legitimately worrisome. The FBI tracks them for a reason.

 

What you're trying to do is to take these quotes, listed to make one point about false equivalency (which you've conceded), and suggest that they don't prove another, which is that these types of opinions are widespread.

 

Well, let's go down that road then. What's widespread for you? You seem to be suggesting that widespread would mean winning a national election. That's not the metric I wold use. How widespread does it have to be to be a problem?

 

And let's go down the political road - how do you find compromise with people when much of their district thinks the opposition doesn't even hold the same basic beliefs about democracy and freedom that you do, and that you're trying to undo America, and that message gets pounded home to them every day by the right-wing media outlets? (You're familiar with the epistemic cloture arguments, I'm sure.) What's a member of Congress going to be able do in that environment?

 

Are you really saying you're comfortable with the direction and quality of right-wing opposition to the president's policies? You really think the narrative the Tea Party created was even the least bit on point?

[calfoxwc]

Heck, you need to define "Tea Party narrative". I am a Tea Party guy, and misrepresenting the Tea Party, then

 

asking Tupa to judge based on that is, as usual, very obviously self-serving. Prominent Dems have a giant

 

leftwing nutcase base to do their dirty work. Do you think it's all that Vice Presidential for Biden to say "Bite Me" ?

 

Or, do you see the wisdom of the former speaker of the House saying "We have to pass this bill, before we will

 

know what was in it" ?

 

And, all the president's antagonistic quotes, you gloss over. You didn't judge them.

 

Are you saying ObaMao is not "prominent" ?

[Westside Steve]

Just answer the question, Steve. I think you don't really get it. I'm not asking you if this stuff makes you (or me) want to run up a tree and hide. That's the way you always interpret it.

 

Sorry, Heck, I thought the answer to this is clear.

I haven't heard anything from either side (mainstream) that pushes me over the edge.

Or be reasonably expected to do so for anyone.

 

 

 

 

And I'm also not tying it to Tuscon, which you keep trying to pretend I'm doing.

 

Of course you are.

That's why were having this "discussion."

Every mention of the shooting is linked to a plea for "civil discourse" and almost every contains a swipe at one of your enemies.

Oh as well as the spurious disclaimer that, "gee we don't think the tea party actually planned this event but gosh shouldn't we at least consider it???"

And the calls to make the word target the T word?

Who're you trying to snow?

 

But again, on a 1 to 10, how much responsibility does Sarah Palin or the Tea Party bear for the shooting?

If there's any then please get the prosecution on the stick.

They're accomplices.

If none why bray constantly about it?

Why not tell your guys who actually want to abandon the first amendment to STFU?

 

I'm asking you if you think it's irresponsible and over-the-top and a little nutty. (Or in this case, a lot nutty.) And if you don't think there's anything wrong with it, as you say, then what's a past example of something that is? What's worse than approving of political violence when you don't win an election?

 

 

Thomas Jefferson perhaps?

 

 

And Cal, honestly. Go xxxx yourself with this bullshit about how you're the only party that believes in the Constitution. You have a made up, childlike interpretation of it, and that's what you believe, and spend your days enjoying yourself to. You're an embarrassment to your side, and I wish everyone could see the rank, childish, ill-informed nonsense you excrete here every day.

 

You are, in fact, what the Founding Fathers referred to as "rabble", and they worked really hard to design a system so that people like you made very few decisions.

 

 

That's true Heck.

In a perverse way those who believe in the status quo were the rabble back then.

The founding fathers murdered raped and tortured as many as they could so that they could reap the tax money instead of the king.

What's yer point?

WSS

[We need Tom Tupa]

You're really arguing something else here - that these aren't prominent people, and therefore their rhetoric has no consequence. Or that they're not smart people, so their rhetoric has no consequence. I'd quibble with both of those to start with because we're not talking about the rhetoric's effect on "the sane people who agree with me." We're talking about its potential effect on the people on the margins, and we've seen some of those incidents already.

 

If that's your point, then fine. That's one half of the either/or that I mentioned above. You think this rhetoric is physically dangerous. I think that's incredibly unlikely, but that it is still a reasonable opinion and one that I dont have much to say to. If I had a point above in response to that argument, it would be that the people you listed have extremely small audiences and even fewer people that take them seriously and care about what they say. I think that seriously lessens the probability that their rhetoric is dangerous. If a guy could only manage 7,000 votes, how many people do you think were really changing their behavior based on a comment he made? My other counterpoint would be that you're obviously stretching for evidence, as half of your list was either a joke or just clumsily worded.

 

The question was posed to see just what you could put in front of the face of a member of the Republican Party base, which all of these guys are

 

Come on. You cant be serious here. A few days ago you were telling Cal that he was crazier than the craziest people on the internet. Now he represents the base of the party? I can't take this seriously. If Cal is the GOP, then this is the Democratic base.

 

And no, I don't give Sharron Angle the same pass you do. She really could have won, and probably should have won, and you know that as well as I do.

I think you misread my point on Angle. Her quote was just a clumsy combination of 2nd amendment stuff with standard campaign rhetoric. When asked about it, she disavowed it and backed off of it. So the most prominent and craziest politician on your list is already on record opposing the types of rhetoric youre worried about. What's left to be worried about when the crazies are rejecting the rhetoric that you dont like? I only mention her campaign loss because it seems to me that the urgency to "deal with this shit' is significantly less when voters have already decided to reject everyone who has used the rhetoric in question.

 

Nor do I find the fact that a current Congressman looks at Joyce Kaufman and thinks, "Yeah, that's Chief of Staff material!" is silly and not worth noting. It does say a little bit about where the Congressman is and what he believes, does it not?

If I knew anything else about her or about many other congressional COSs, I might have an opinion on that, but I dont. If I saw any evidence that the Congressman agreed with her quote, then I would be concerned, but not even all-knowing Google can find any claims of that sort.

 

What we've been watching over the past year and a half or so is the tacit approval of complete or near-complete lunacy coming from the right because it buoyed Republican electoral chances.

 

I'd rephrase it to say that we've seen the tacit approval of dishonesty, appeals to people's biases and emotions, and other forms of bullshit. But of course that receives the approval of both parties all the time. I hope people continue to police it as much as they can, but there is nothing false about the equivalency between the parties on this point. If there is a difference here, it is that you think this specific rhetoric is dangerous. But I can hardly fault GOP leaders for not agreeing with you, as I dont either. So what I'm left with is leadership that condones and encourages bullshit campaigning. Im not happy about it, but it isnt a very unique problem.

 

More on the rest of your post later....

[calfoxwc]

Heck,

 

You are just another liberal hack who ignores the prolems within your own ranks.

 

The leftists in this country back in the day, were Jane Fonda's, Mcgovern's, SDS, etc.

 

Now, it's Soros' money going to support many different avenues of sowing discontent.

 

Trouble is, NOW, you hate that since your leftist party got power.

 

If you honestly think anything, you should think that the anti-America legions are all on your side.

 

I won't say the hate is all on your political side, but the vast majority of it is -

 

Here's the link. Explain your phoney indignation at the anger and/or over the top statements by the right,

 

but with no admission of the far more vicious rage and/or violent/way, way over the top statements and action by the LEFT.

 

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-p...imer-2000-2010/

 

 

I've tried to tone down my silly "crazy" persona on this board, only to have you continually dredging me into many conversations

 

I wasn't even in.

 

The dishonesty of condoning attacks on Sarah Palin's children, is on your side. The dishonesty of condoning Shep and the entire?

 

leftist media while they blame Sarah Palin for the Arizona murderers actions is appalling. Your arrogance is profoundly unwarranted

 

in most conversations on this board. I'm sure we're all sorry you are outnumbered by folks who don't think in Sandanista terms,

 

but your buddies won't back you up, it's your freakin fault. You just.... suck at understanding much of anything.

[calfoxwc]

Come on. You cant be serious here. A few days ago you were telling Cal that he was crazier than the craziest people on the internet. Now he represents the base of the party? I can't take this seriously. If Cal is the GOP, then this is the Democratic base. Tupa

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

 

Correction: I am goofier with politics than a lot of folks on the internet, but it's on purpose to be funny, or simply to slap people's

 

psyches into reality. Or, sometimes I might overstate stuff... @@ Mostly, though, I despise the constant personal insults levied

 

by the left around here, anytime someone has a different opinion, or doesn't agree with the liberal slant.

 

But all this hate toward Sarah Palin is intentional. She just had her "Sarah Palin's Alaska" miniseries show on TV,

 

and it was a lot of fun to watch. Truth is, Sarah Palin is a sweetheart, very smart, adventurous, beautiful, with a terrific family, and holds her

 

principles close. She lives by them, and since the vicious left doesn't have principles, they consider anyone who does have them,

 

a threat. I doubt Sarah Palin would run for pres, but it seems the left is being conditioned to destroy her any way possible.

 

Which, now, has become part of the culture war. The left's belief is "any vicious lie is a good lie, if it gets us the power we want.".

 

It's the ultimate corruption of idealogy. When Palin said "blood libel" - her analogy was absolutely right on. It's time for it to stop.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I don't have a hard time imagining that these guys are a nice cross section of the Republican base. I suppose if you reduce "these guys" to "Cal" then you'd have a hard time imagining it, but that's not what I wrote.

 

Also, what you think is "incredibly unlikely" has already been "likely." It's already led to a few incidents.

 

Again, what I did was find post a list of the worst statements from the last election cycle. I actually whittled the list down a bit because I found some to be stretches, or harmless. Then I wanted to see if anyone would say, "Yes, that's too far, but..."

 

Now, I didn't expect that any of these guys would. They never concede anything. But even you won't do that. You've dismissed the statements as coming from someone who didn't get a lot of votes, or someone who could have phrased something better. Somehow, they're not indicative of how a person thinks; only their public retraction is.

 

As for Joyce Kaufman, there's a nice 10-minute-long video of her screaming red-faced into a microphone about how if you don't vote a certain way you may not be able to rally on the street corner next year because the Obama government will come and sweep you up, and then saying, "If ballots don't work, bullets will." I don't know. Maybe she's got some wonderful thoughts on Pell Grants and the Americans with Disabilities Act that are worth hearing. Maybe she was just having a bad day. I shouldn't rush to judgment there.

 

I mean, come on, Tupa.

 

Here's what you wrote: "If I saw any evidence that the Congressman agreed with her quote, then I would be concerned, but not even all-knowing Google can find any claims of that sort."

 

Well, you didn't look very hard.

 

"Congressman-elect Allen West ® is standing by Joyce Kaufman’s “ballots or bullets” comments. West choose the controversial WFTL radio talk show host as his Chief of Staff, however, she quickly resigned the position after her show was linked to threats by a listener of gun violence against Broward County schools and government building(s). The threats led to a county-wide school lockdown effecting 300 schools and over 230,000 students and their families.

West did not repudiate Kaufman’s radical rhetoric. Florida's Sun-Sentinel reports that West called into Kaufman's radio show Thursday to support her "fight on your battlefield" and he "will fight them on the battlefield in Washington, D.C., and we will meet in the middle after we soundly defeat them both."

The Congressman-elect said he is "even more focused that this liberal, progressive, socialist agenda, this left-wing, vile, vicious, despicable machine that's out there is soundly brought to its knees. You don't have to worry about me doing the right thing in Washington, D.C.”

 

Oh, there's more: "I want to say to everyone out there listening that Joyce Kaufman is the most honorable, with the most impeccable integrity and character that I have met in my life and I would not be congressman-elect if Joyce Kaufman had not taken me under her wing and provided mentor and counsel to me."

 

West is also the guy who said this: “You must be well-informed and well-armed because this government that we have right now is a tyrannical government."

 

Yes, clearly he's nothing like her. No reason to be concerned there.

 

As you said, "I hope people continue to police it as much as they can..." Me, too. But that would entail not dismissing it. Wouldn't it be easier to simply say, "Yes, these are over the line..." and then make your point? I mean, if we can't get guys like you to say it's nuts and deserving of condemnation what hope do we have?

 

And again, this isn't even about the few violent comments. It's about the closed information system that produces bad information and some truly outlandish theories, the cottage industry that distributes and promotes that information, and the large swatch of the country that doesn't hear anything but that information.

 

There are lots of people, liberals included, who don't think any of this is new, and that these people and their bizarro conspiracies were here during Clinton years, with the Birchers and the militia groups, etc. I tend to think that's essentially true, but that those groups were smaller in number and that the efficiency of the right-wing media has allowed this to go from a fringe phenomenon to something much larger and more destructive.

[calfoxwc]

But your point is cherry-picked nonsense, Heck. This is the first admin in American history, where the left

 

verbally, and through their actions, threaten to undermine our Constitutional guarantees.

 

Enforce a new gov, oppressing us, and throwing out the Constitution, and our Constitution says we

 

would be justfied in resorting to arms.

 

Arms is what GOT us our Constitution. The last midterm election slapped your hero Obamao and co, in the face.

 

That is where we are guaranteed our freedom and proper course of direction of our country.

 

But now, we have our first UNAmerican president, a true leftist.

 

We have leftist talk all over now, of implementing censureship on the airways, the internet, cable, conservative newspapers,

 

prominent people dissing our Constitution - leftist celebrities calling for Obamao to put his foot down and take over

 

as dictator, rampant gov takeover/interference with private industries, and education, the open move toward socialism/state capitalism... deliberately using a tragedy to try to overturn the US SURPEME COURT's decisions on freedom of speech and the

right to bear arms...

 

radical leftists appointed by Obamao circumventing the authority of Congress, the ridicule and defiance of the

 

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

 

And you just want to quibble over redefined, cherry picked statements.

 

Hell with leftists. Years ago, Spiro Agnew levied criticism at the media, and the media went berserk.

 

Now, the media is owned by the leftists all too often.

 

The out of control, belligerent charater assassination and the berating of our Constitution and it's guarantees,

 

is the problem. There are plenty of folks who are speaking out. What's stupid is, you have ignored all those statements

 

on the left over the years. Then you hippiety-hoppity over Tupa's post.

 

It seems you're just locked in to complain and work against every principle spoken about on this board,

 

and in this country.

 

Weird, you are always whining against our stances. But, you never let us know where YOU stand. You are just

 

against whatever stances we have. I believe you have criticized every single person on this board who ever

 

dares to say something you disagree with. Which, is most everything unless Shep shows up.

 

Nobody here should have you disputing their IQ, that's stupid. That's just a childish slur like the left levies against

 

every single conservative in true, dangerous, leftist, Saul Alinski fashion.

 

ObaMao IS Cloward-Piven. Heck, just once, start looking at our country through your own eyes, not the eyes

 

of your leftist handlers.