Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Benny B on January 10, 2011, 10:43:31 AM
-
January 9, 2011
Climate of Hate
By PAUL KRUGMAN
When you heard the terrible news from Arizona, were you completely surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?
Put me in the latter category. I’ve had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach ever since the final stages of the 2008 campaign. I remembered the upsurge in political hatred after Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 — an upsurge that culminated in the Oklahoma City bombing. And you could see, just by watching the crowds at McCain-Palin rallies, that it was ready to happen again. The Department of Homeland Security reached the same conclusion: in April 2009 an internal report warned that right-wing extremism was on the rise, with a growing potential for violence.
Conservatives denounced that report. But there has, in fact, been a rising tide of threats and vandalism aimed at elected officials, including both Judge John Roll, who was killed Saturday, and Representative Gabrielle Giffords. One of these days, someone was bound to take it to the next level. And now someone has.
It’s true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled. But that doesn’t mean that his act can or should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate.
Last spring Politico.com reported on a surge in threats against members of Congress, which were already up by 300 percent. A number of the people making those threats had a history of mental illness — but something about the current state of America has been causing far more disturbed people than before to act out their illness by threatening, or actually engaging in, political violence.
And there’s not much question what has changed. As Clarence Dupnik, the sheriff responsible for dealing with the Arizona shootings, put it, it’s “the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business.” The vast majority of those who listen to that toxic rhetoric stop short of actual violence, but some, inevitably, cross that line.
It’s important to be clear here about the nature of our sickness. It’s not a general lack of “civility,” the favorite term of pundits who want to wish away fundamental policy disagreements. Politeness may be a virtue, but there’s a big difference between bad manners and calls, explicit or implicit, for violence; insults aren’t the same as incitement.
The point is that there’s room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them; there isn’t any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.
And it’s the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence.
Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.
And there’s a huge contrast in the media. Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will.
Of course, the likes of Mr. Beck and Mr. O’Reilly are responding to popular demand. Citizens of other democracies may marvel at the American psyche, at the way efforts by mildly liberal presidents to expand health coverage are met with cries of tyranny and talk of armed resistance. Still, that’s what happens whenever a Democrat occupies the White House, and there’s a market for anyone willing to stoke that anger.
But even if hate is what many want to hear, that doesn’t excuse those who pander to that desire. They should be shunned by all decent people.
Unfortunately, that hasn’t been happening: the purveyors of hate have been treated with respect, even deference, by the G.O.P. establishment. As David Frum, the former Bush speechwriter, has put it, “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we’re discovering we work for Fox.”
So will the Arizona massacre make our discourse less toxic? It’s really up to G.O.P. leaders. Will they accept the reality of what’s happening to America, and take a stand against eliminationist rhetoric? Or will they try to dismiss the massacre as the mere act of a deranged individual, and go on as before?
If Arizona promotes some real soul-searching, it could prove a turning point. If it doesn’t, Saturday’s atrocity will be just the beginning.
-
Dumb article.
“Don’t you think we’re not keeping score, brother” – Chairman Obama
“Bring it on”- Obama Regime to The American People.
“Get ready for hand-to-hand combat with your fellow Americans” – Obama
“I want all Americans to get in each others faces! – Obama
“You bring a knife to a fight pal, we’ll bring a gun” – Obama
"Republicans are our enemies"--Obama
“I am going to strangle all Republicans who don’t agree with me politically”
– 5 Time Draft Dodger Biden
“the Cambridge Police acted Stupidly” ” – Beer Summit Gaffe Leader Obama
Last but not least the Democratic map with Republican targets on it. -- DNC
“God Damn America” – Barrack Hussein Obama’s Spiritual Advisor
“We should rip the heart right out of the chest of a former Vice President of The United States!”
– Left Wing Hate Hero And Agitator for Leftist Terrorism – Shultz
-
liberal media bias
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=361938.0
-
Like Barack Obama said, we need to prepare for hand to hand combat!
Knuckle up!
-
Funny the left is responsible for the most mass murder in the 20th century, world wide. But they want to cray about a climate of hate ::)
-
This whole episode is truly disgusting for what the communist left is trying to pull here.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Erica Jong: Obama Loss 'Will Spark the Second American Civil War. Blood Will Run in the Streets'
The New York Observer ^ | October 30, 2008 | Jason Horowitz
Here's a translation of [leftwing author Erica] Jong's more spirited quotes to the Milan-based Corriere, as selected by Rocca.
"The record shows that voting machines in America are rigged."
"My friends Ken Follett and Susan Cheever are extremely worried. Naomi Wolf calls me every day. Yesterday, Jane Fonda sent me an email to tell me that she cried all night and can't cure her ailing back for all the stress that has reduces her to a bundle of nerves."
"My back is also suffering from spasms, so much so that I had to see an acupuncturist and get prescriptions for Valium."
"After having stolen the last two elections, the Republican Mafia…"
"If Obama loses it will spark the second American Civil War. Blood will run in the streets, believe me. And it's not a coincidence that President Bush recalled soldiers from Iraq for Dick Cheney to lead against American citizens in the streets."
(Excerpt) Read more at observer.com ...
-
Funny the left is responsible for the most mass murder in the 20th century, world wide. But they want to cray about a climate of hate ::)
What?
-
January 11, 2011
Poisonous Politics
By Pat Buchanan
On Feb. 15, 1933, Giuseppe Zangara, delusional and a loner, fired his .32-caliber pistol at FDR in the Bayfront Park area of Miami.
Five feet tall, Zangara could not aim over the crowd. So, he stood on a folding chair and was piled on after the first of five shots. He wounded four people, including Mayor Anton Cermak of Chicago.
Pat Buchanan RealClearPolitics
Jared Lee Loughner
In two weeks, Zangara, who pled guilty, had been sentenced to 80 years. When Cermak died on March 6, Zangara was retried for murder and sentenced to the electric chair, where he died on March 20, 1933.
In that time, if you knew what you were doing, knew the penalty for it and then committed the crime, you paid the price -- and swiftly.
There was no wailing that Zangara, a misfit suffering from a stomach ailment, was not fully responsible.
There was no campaign to accuse Republicans, after a rough election, of creating an atmosphere in which a deranged mind may have been driven to try to kill FDR.
That came three decades later, when conservatives were charged with having "created the atmosphere" in which JFK was assassinated.
Lee Harvey Oswald was a communist who had defected to Russia and a member of the pro-Castro Fair Play for Cuba Committee, who had only recently arrived in Texas. Yet moral culpability for what he did was laid at the door of the city of Dallas and the rising American Right.
Had not, the press asked, Adlai Stevenson been lately jostled by a crowd in Dallas? Had not LBJ and Lady Bird been verbally abused in the lobby of a Dallas hotel in 1960? Was Dallas not a hothouse of the right?
The same smear tactic was employed when Timothy McVeigh blew up the Murrah building in Oklahoma City, killing 168, among them 19 children. Right-wing radio and its anti-government rhetoric, it was said, created the atmosphere that made it easier for McVeigh to feel justified in blowing up a federal building.
Saturday, even before Jared Loughner had been charged with murdering six people in Tucson, including a 9-year-old girl and a U.S. judge, and wounding 13 in an assassination attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the old smear machine had been wheeled out.
Giffords, it was said, had been "targeted" by Sarah Palin for defeat in ads depicting her district in cross hairs. And had not Palin used the expression, "Don't retreat, reload!"? Had not Sharron Angle in Nevada talked of "Second Amendment remedies"?
Had not talk-show hosts on Fox News used incendiary language that can drive weak and deranged minds over the line?
Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, a Democrat and friend of Giffords, kicked off the campaign Saturday with this excoriation.
"I'd just like to say that when you look at unbalanced people, how they are -- how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths, about tearing down the government, the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous."
Dupnik later narrowed it to some "people in the radio business and some people in the TV business." Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell narrowed it further to Fox News, the home of Glenn Beck.
Elements on the left are now connecting the dots -- the words of Palin and Fox News -- to the deeds of accused mass murderer Jared Loughner.
This is not political hardball. This is political dirt ball.
Do any such dots exist in reality? Or only in the embittered minds and malevolent motives of those unreconciled to the defeat they suffered on Nov. 2?
Undeniably, political rhetoric is hotter than it has been since the 1960s and ought to be dialed down. But Barack Obama, talking tough in 2008 about how he would deal with Republican attacks, himself said, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun. ... Folks in Philly like a good brawl."
In 2010, Obama called on Hispanics to join him and "punish our enemies." Harry Reid in 2009 called Tea Party critics "evil-mongers" who disrupt town-hall meetings with "lies, innuendo and rumors."
It is easy for journalists to imply or impute a causal connection between hot words and horrible acts. Simply twin the two in a story, or ask an interviewee if he thinks these words and those deeds are not connected. And then let the public imagination do the rest.
As of today, there is not a shred of evidence of any connection between what Sarah Palin or Fox News said and what Jared Loughner did. From the evidence, Loughner had his first and perhaps his only encounter with Giffords in 2007, a year before Palin ever came to national attention as the running mate of John McCain.
The man charged with this awful atrocity is Jared Loughner.
Our country would be better served if, instead of accusing each other of moral culpability for these crimes, politicians and media joined to demand that Loughner be denied the fame (or infamy) he sought, and that he receive the same swift justice as Giuseppe Zangara.
Copryight 2011, Creators Syndicate Inc.
-
-
What?
Didn't understand something? Guess they don't teach world history in school anymore
-
Are you referring to the USSR during Stalins regime?
-
Are you referring to the USSR during Stalin's regime?
One of many examples
China/MAO
Germany/Hitler
Cambodia/Pol Pot
Vietnam/Ho Chi Minh
What do they have in common? Communist or Socialist/Fascist
-
One of many examples
China/MAO
Germany/Hitler
Cambodia/Pol Pot
Vietnam/Ho Chi Minh
What do they have in common? Communist or Socialist/Fascist
Communist/Socialist and Fascist is pretty different actually.
And putting the pussies we have on the left in the same column as Communist russians and Nazi germans? Come on that shit doesnt fly and you know it
-
Are you referring to the USSR during Stalins regime?
Mao
Pol Pot
Khmer Rouge
Castro
-
Communist/Socialist and Fascist is pretty different actually.
And putting the pussies we have on the left in the same column as Communist russians and Nazi germans? Come on that shit doesnt fly and you know it
All left on the political spectrum, what do you think would happen if those in power had absolute unchallenged power?
-
Dumb article.
“Don’t you think we’re not keeping score, brother” – Chairman Obama
“Bring it on”- Obama Regime to The American People.
“Get ready for hand-to-hand combat with your fellow Americans” – Obama
“I want all Americans to get in each others faces! – Obama
“You bring a knife to a fight pal, we’ll bring a gun” – Obama
"Republicans are our enemies"--Obama
“I am going to strangle all Republicans who don’t agree with me politically”
– 5 Time Draft Dodger Biden
“the Cambridge Police acted Stupidly” ” – Beer Summit Gaffe Leader Obama
Last but not least the Democratic map with Republican targets on it. -- DNC
“God Damn America” – Barrack Hussein Obama’s Spiritual Advisor
“We should rip the heart right out of the chest of a former Vice President of The United States!”
– Left Wing Hate Hero And Agitator for Leftist Terrorism – Shultz
Yep, Obama challenged the Republicans to bring it on. Well, they did and they slapped the taste of his mouth and those of his fellow Dems.
The "Drinking w/Bob" guy said it best. After midterms, Obama looked like a kid who saw his overweight parents having sex.
-
The liberals/leftists have gotten away with this crap for so long, they simply are not prepared for people fighting back against their crap.
This latest episode is a perfect example.
-
Archive | Biography | RSS Feed | Opinions Home
The charlatans' response to the Tucson tragedy
By George F. Will
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
It would be merciful if, when tragedies such as Tucson's occur, there were a moratorium on sociology. But respites from half-baked explanations, often serving political opportunism, are impossible because of a timeless human craving and a characteristic of many modern minds.
The craving is for banishing randomness and the inexplicable from human experience. Time was, the gods were useful. What is thunder? The gods are angry. Polytheism was explanatory. People postulated causations.
And still do. Hence: The Tucson shooter was (pick your verb) provoked, triggered, unhinged by today's (pick your noun) rhetoric, vitriol, extremism, "climate of hate."
Demystification of the world opened the way for real science, including the social sciences. And for a modern characteristic. And for charlatans.
A characteristic of many contemporary minds is susceptibility to the superstition that all behavior can be traced to some diagnosable frame of mind that is a product of promptings from the social environment. From which flows a political doctrine: Given clever social engineering, society and people can be perfected. This supposedly is the path to progress. It actually is the crux of progressivism. And it is why there is a reflex to blame conservatives first.
Instead, imagine a continuum from the rampages at Columbine and Virginia Tech - the results of individuals' insanities - to the assassinations of Lincoln and the Kennedy brothers, which were clearly connected to the politics of John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan, respectively. The two other presidential assassinations also had political colorations.
On July 2, 1881, after four months in office, President James Garfield, who had survived the Civil War battles of Shiloh and Chickamauga, needed a vacation. He was vexed by warring Republican factions - the Stalwarts, who waved the bloody shirt of Civil War memories, and the Half-Breeds, who stressed the emerging issues of industrialization. Walking to Washington's train station, Garfield by chance encountered a disappointed job-seeker. Charles Guiteau drew a pistol, fired two shots and shouted, "I am a Stalwart and Arthur will be president!" On Sept. 19, Garfield died, making Vice President Chester Arthur president. Guiteau was executed, not explained.
On Sept. 6, 1901, President William McKinley, who had survived the battle of Antietam, was shaking hands at a Buffalo exposition when Leon Czolgosz approached, a handkerchief wrapped around his right hand, concealing a gun. Czolgosz, an anarchist, fired two shots. Czolgosz ("I killed the president because he was the enemy of the good people - the good working people. I am not sorry for my crime.") was executed, not explained.
Now we have explainers. They came into vogue with the murder of President Kennedy. They explained why the "real" culprit was not a self-described Marxist who had moved to Moscow, then returned to support Castro. No, the culprit was a "climate of hate" in conservative Dallas, the "paranoid style" of American (conservative) politics or some other national sickness resulting from insufficient liberalism.
Last year, New York Times columnist Charles Blow explained that "the optics must be irritating" to conservatives: Barack Obama is black, Nancy Pelosi is female, Rep. Barney Frank is gay, Rep. Anthony Weiner (an unimportant Democrat, listed to serve Blow's purposes) is Jewish. "It's enough," Blow said, "to make a good old boy go crazy." The Times, which after the Tucson shooting said that "many on the right" are guilty of "demonizing" people and of exploiting "arguments of division," apparently was comfortable with Blow's insinuation that conservatives are misogynistic, homophobic, racist anti-Semites.
On Sunday, the Times explained Tucson: "It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman's act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But . . ." The "directly" is priceless.
Three days before Tucson, Howard Dean explained that the Tea Party movement is "the last gasp of the generation that has trouble with diversity." Rising to the challenge of lowering his reputation and the tone of public discourse, Dean smeared Tea Partyers as racists: They oppose Obama's agenda, Obama is African American, ergo . . .
Let us hope that Dean is the last gasp of the generation of liberals whose default position in any argument is to indict opponents as racists. This McCarthyism of the left - devoid of intellectual content, unsupported by data - is a mental tic, not an idea but a tactic for avoiding engagement with ideas. It expresses limitless contempt for the American people, who have reciprocated by reducing liberalism to its current characteristics of electoral weakness and bad sociology.
georgewill@washpost.com
________________________ ________________________ _____________
I'm very glad the W media types are not sitting down and letting the far left communists/socialists/progressives get away with this blood libel.
-
Terrific article by the best columnist in America.
-
Krauthammer....
-
He's my favorite, but nobody is a better writer than GW.
-
Wish benny would stick around to defend his threads for once.
-
Krauthammer: Massacre, followed by libel
Wash Post ^ | 1/11/11 | Charles Krauthammer
The charge: The Tucson massacre is a consequence of the "climate of hate" created by Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Obamacare opponents and sundry other liberal betes noires.
The verdict: Rarely in American political discourse has there been a charge so reckless, so scurrilous and so unsupported by evidence.
As killers go, Jared Loughner is not reticent. Yet among all his writings, postings, videos and other ravings - and in all the testimony from all the people who knew him - there is not a single reference to any of these supposed accessories to murder.
Not only is there no evidence that Loughner was impelled to violence by any of those upon whom Paul Krugman, Keith Olbermann, the New York Times, the Tucson sheriff and other rabid partisans are fixated. There is no evidence that he was responding to anything, political or otherwise, outside of his own head.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
-
All left on the political spectrum, what do you think would happen if those in power had absolute unchallenged power?
So you are saying that if Obama and the democrats had absolute power they would kill anyone with a different political view than there own?
-
So you are saying that if Obama and the democrats had absolute power they would kill anyone with a different political view than there own?
I know its hard for you to understand, but throughout history, will unfettered power that is what happens. Why do you think all these communist countries are 70 years behind the US? Because the first thing they do is eliminate the educated and anyone else who can oppose them.
-
I know its hard for you to understand, but throughout history, will unfettered power that is what happens. Why do you think all these communist countries are 70 years behind the US? Because the first thing they do is eliminate the educated and anyone else who can oppose them.
Yeah its really hard to understand this ::)
Its not rocket science.
I dont support Obama or the dem but i have a hard time believing they will kill anyone who oppose them if they had the chance. The dem are way to impotent for that.
And besides if they eliminate the educated there is only FOX news viewers left so thay would not be able to be re-elected ;)
-
This thread is a really good example of what the problem is from someone who has both lived in america and now stands outside looking in.
The post comes up accusing the mostly right wing rhetoric as being a problematic driver of violence among certain citizens of america.
The response is total rejection, a bunch of posts about how bad obama is, and people running off talking about Mao and Stalin, which has absolutely nothing to do with what the post was about.
None of you have actually taken the time to consider (or appear not to have) whether or not what might have been written in the original post actually carried any weight or not, you just rejected it and threw mud back. This is how american politics looks like from the outside now, a fucking joke.
Whether the left has insighted or not is beyond question, I have had the misfortune to meet radical left wingers and they can be extrememly illogical and post up all sorts of things about resistance, fight the power etc...the question is this. There has been a sharp rise in politicised violence in america since obama got into power, we need to ask why this is so. It is not because of some watered down health care bill that is about as socialist as a savings account at Wachovia. It would seem to me highly unlikely that it is because of Obama's foreign policy which most would admit has been extrememly poor...if you remember when Kennedy was assassinated, the town was full of posters decrying him, smearing him and abusing him....there was a climate of hatred within which certain people felt free to express opinions in violence.
The way however that politics has taken this aggressive nose dive of finger pointing and lack of self questioning, combined with people Glenn Beck crying and writing goobledygook on blackboards, confuses and angers people. To say that it's not having an effect would be to stick your head and in the sand...Right wing critique used to be William Buckley, erudite sharp as a tack and always willing to go on the offensive against the left in an informed and measured manner. Sure he had nasty arguments with people like gore vidal, but he also had interesting arguments with people like Chomsky. Now you have O'Reilly, Beck and co, who im sorry are just not in the same league of quality, who shout and scream at...well nobody but a spectre, or some 'liberal' again not on the same level as vidal...as for Olbermann and Maddow, I dont watch MSNBC but I cannot imagine it being too different.
at least Buckley and Vidal argued face to face...not at some metaphysical idea. Buckley was not trying to scare people, merely give them the facts as they stood and offer an opinion. That is not what has been going on in recent years.
-
Its called when you live in a glass house don't throw rocks and complain when glass comes down cutting you to pieces.
-
By the way steevo - lee harvey oswald was marxist and communist who killed kennedy, so pinning that in any way on the right is ridiculous.
-
This thread is a really good example of what the problem is from someone who has both lived in america and now stands outside looking in.
The post comes up accusing the mostly right wing rhetoric as being a problematic driver of violence among certain citizens of america.
The response is total rejection, a bunch of posts about how bad obama is, and people running off talking about Mao and Stalin, which has absolutely nothing to do with what the post was about.
None of you have actually taken the time to consider (or appear not to have) whether or not what might have been written in the original post actually carried any weight or not, you just rejected it and threw mud back. This is how american politics looks like from the outside now, a fucking joke.
Whether the left has insighted or not is beyond question, I have had the misfortune to meet radical left wingers and they can be extrememly illogical and post up all sorts of things about resistance, fight the power etc...the question is this. There has been a sharp rise in politicised violence in america since obama got into power, we need to ask why this is so. It is not because of some watered down health care bill that is about as socialist as a savings account at Wachovia. It would seem to me highly unlikely that it is because of Obama's foreign policy which most would admit has been extrememly poor...if you remember when Kennedy was assassinated, the town was full of posters decrying him, smearing him and abusing him....there was a climate of hatred within which certain people felt free to express opinions in violence.
The way however that politics has taken this aggressive nose dive of finger pointing and lack of self questioning, combined with people Glenn Beck crying and writing goobledygook on blackboards, confuses and angers people. To say that it's not having an effect would be to stick your head and in the sand...Right wing critique used to be William Buckley, erudite sharp as a tack and always willing to go on the offensive against the left in an informed and measured manner. Sure he had nasty arguments with people like gore vidal, but he also had interesting arguments with people like Chomsky. Now you have O'Reilly, Beck and co, who im sorry are just not in the same league of quality, who shout and scream at...well nobody but a spectre, or some 'liberal' again not on the same level as vidal...as for Olbermann and Maddow, I dont watch MSNBC but I cannot imagine it being too different.
at least Buckley and Vidal argued face to face...not at some metaphysical idea. Buckley was not trying to scare people, merely give them the facts as they stood and offer an opinion. That is not what has been going on in recent years.
Great post
-
Dem Rep: “Everybody Who Tries To Put It Off On A Deranged Individual..That’s A Political Statement’
Eyeblast TV / The Blast ( Media Research Center) ^ | 1/13/2011 | Joe S.
Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2011 3:02:44 PM by blog.Eyeblast.tv
Democratic Rep. Bob Filmer appeared on “The Last Word” with Lawrence O’Donnell and spoke on the Tucson shooting tragedy. He claimed this is something much larger than just one incident.
Filner said, “This is not an isolated incident. Everybody who tries to put it off on a deranged individual I think is — that’s a political statement in and of itself.”
He also mentioned “the start of a revolution.” As Jeff Poor from the Daily Caller writes: (video within link)
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.eyeblast.tv ...
-
Dem Rep: “Everybody Who Tries To Put It Off On A Deranged Individual..That’s A Political Statement’
Eyeblast TV / The Blast ( Media Research Center) ^ | 1/13/2011 | Joe S.
Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2011 3:02:44 PM by blog.Eyeblast.tv
Democratic Rep. Bob Filmer appeared on “The Last Word” with Lawrence O’Donnell and spoke on the Tucson shooting tragedy. He claimed this is something much larger than just one incident.
Filner said, “This is not an isolated incident. Everybody who tries to put it off on a deranged individual I think is — that’s a political statement in and of itself.”
He also mentioned “the start of a revolution.” As Jeff Poor from the Daily Caller writes: (video within link)
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.eyeblast.tv ...
what an idiot...
-
Jonah Goldberg: The exploitive rhetoric of tragedy
By JONAH GOLDBERG
16 hours, 36 minutes ago
________________________ ________________________ ______________-
In the wake of the horrendous shooting rampage in Tucson, why isn't anyone talking about banning "Mein Kampf"? Or "The Communist Manifesto"? Or for that matter, "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" and "The Phantom Tollbooth"?
After all, unlike Sarah Palin's absurdly infamous Facebook map with crosshairs on congressional districts that some pundits have blamed for the violence, we have some evidence -- suspect Jared Lee Loughner's own words -- that these books were a direct influence on him.
And to listen to partisan ghouls such as Keith Olbermann exploiting this horrific crime, any rhetoric or writing or images that contributed to it must be stopped, and those who don't accept blame and then repent (specifically Palin) must be "dismissed from politics."
Note: It's apparent from evidence found by the authorities and from interviews with the alleged killer's friends and acquaintances that Loughner has fixated on Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords since 2007, long before anyone heard of the "tea parties" or, in most cases, Palin. Moreover, his grievance with Giffords appears to be unrelated to any coherent -- or even incoherent -- ideological platform. Rather, it drew on the bilious stew of resentments this young man cultivated as he lost his grip on reality.
Indeed, according to a fascinating interview in Mother Jones with one of Loughner's close friends, this twisted soul was apparently an ardent believer in "lucid dreaming" in which he could control an alternate "'Matrix'-style" reality.
Something similar seems to be taking hold in more respectable quarters. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman insists he wasn't surprised this happened because he saw it coming, even though the facts in this dimension don't support his premonitions.
But rather than beat up on those who've migrated from the reality-based community, it might be worthwhile to take them at their word.
If these people seriously believe that the tea parties and Palin's "lock and load" rhetoric are to blame, then what shall we do about it?
It's hard to find a serious answer to this question. For most of these ideological ambulance chasers, it seems enough to lay the blame at Republican or right-wing feet in an effort to anathematize ideas they don't like.
But that's shortsighted. Misplaced panics like this have a momentum and logic all their own. Already, Rep. Bob Brady, D-Pa., has drafted legislation to ban the use of symbols (crosshairs on a map, for instance) or language ("lock and load!") that could foster violence. "The rhetoric is just ramped up so negatively, so high, that we have got to shut this down," he told CNN.
That opens the bidding. The question is, where will it end?
If the alleged shooter had been inspired by a movie or TV show -- as any number of murderers have been over the years -- would those blaming the tea parties join with social conservatives in blaming Hollywood? Would they celebrate new laws to "shut down" such fare?
Mark David Chapman, who murdered John Lennon, claimed to be in part inspired by "Catcher in the Rye." Should that be banned? Or if not banned, should we "dismiss" from public life anyone who doesn't denounce J.D. Salinger?
When the subject of censorship or the "chilling" of free expression comes up in other contexts, the very idea that books, movies or TV can be blamed for the actions of the criminal or the deranged is met with unbridled scorn. I actually disagree with that. If books can inspire us positively, surely they can inspire us negatively, too. But we understand that we don't blame books for the rare demons who feed on them.
No doubt this will cause eye-rolling among those who simply want to keep the focus on demonizing conservatives and never bother to think ahead about the consequences of their misplaced hysteria. One noble exception is Slate's Jack Shafer, who probably goes further than I would when he writes, "Any call to cool 'inflammatory' speech is a call to police all speech, and I can't think of anybody in government, politics, business or the press that I would trust with that power."
Meanwhile, many proud liberals, not to mention dedicated journalists, see no problem with fueling a mass panic over our "political discourse." The fact that liberal rhetoric and images are often just as "extreme" is irrelevant. Also irrelevant is any violence that might be linked to such rhetoric. And the fact that the shooting suspect's motivations may lay in a reality of his own design? That's irrelevant, too.
These critics' aim is simply to exploit this horror as an opportunity to yell "shut up" at their political opponents.
Jonah Goldberg is an editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. His e-mail is JonahsColumn@aol.com.
________________________ ______________________
good column
-
Maybe it might not be an isolated movement as more and more Americans are seeing more and more anti American programs being forced down their throats by an admin that will not listen to a word from the public. The group of Americans that despise this government is growing rapidly. And the government seems to be getting more and more def to the words of its people. I am in no way excusing acts like this or any form of violence as the answer, however maybe the out right dismissal of the American people by its very anti American government is going to lead to more acts of violence against its politicians, and will not really be able to be called isolated occurrences anymore.
-
But then again look at what some of the self avowed communists that make up obamas admin have called for, violent protestes, violent revolution. Even obama himself, { we should smash our enemies} when talking about the American people that oppose some of his policies.. Since when are American citizens who question the president deemed the enemy?? I thought that was called democracy?
-
But then again look at what some of the self avowed communists that make up obamas admin have called for, violent protestes, violent revolution. Even obama himself, { we should smash our enemies} when talking about the American people that oppose some of his policies.. Since when are American citizens who question the president deemed the enemy?? I thought that was called democracy?
Yeah Obama is a dictator
Stop crying bitch Obama does have crappy economic policy among others but if you think Obama is to "hardcore" you should probably move to disney land where Mickey Mouse is POTUS
-
Bama is a financial and economic weapon of mass destruction.
-
Jonah Goldberg: The exploitive rhetoric of tragedy
By JONAH GOLDBERG
16 hours, 36 minutes ago
________________________ ________________________ ______________-
In the wake of the horrendous shooting rampage in Tucson, why isn't anyone talking about banning "Mein Kampf"? Or "The Communist Manifesto"? Or for that matter, "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" and "The Phantom Tollbooth"?
After all, unlike Sarah Palin's absurdly infamous Facebook map with crosshairs on congressional districts that some pundits have blamed for the violence, we have some evidence -- suspect Jared Lee Loughner's own words -- that these books were a direct influence on him.
And to listen to partisan ghouls such as Keith Olbermann exploiting this horrific crime, any rhetoric or writing or images that contributed to it must be stopped, and those who don't accept blame and then repent (specifically Palin) must be "dismissed from politics."
Note: It's apparent from evidence found by the authorities and from interviews with the alleged killer's friends and acquaintances that Loughner has fixated on Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords since 2007, long before anyone heard of the "tea parties" or, in most cases, Palin. Moreover, his grievance with Giffords appears to be unrelated to any coherent -- or even incoherent -- ideological platform. Rather, it drew on the bilious stew of resentments this young man cultivated as he lost his grip on reality.
Indeed, according to a fascinating interview in Mother Jones with one of Loughner's close friends, this twisted soul was apparently an ardent believer in "lucid dreaming" in which he could control an alternate "'Matrix'-style" reality.
Something similar seems to be taking hold in more respectable quarters. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman insists he wasn't surprised this happened because he saw it coming, even though the facts in this dimension don't support his premonitions.
But rather than beat up on those who've migrated from the reality-based community, it might be worthwhile to take them at their word.
If these people seriously believe that the tea parties and Palin's "lock and load" rhetoric are to blame, then what shall we do about it?
It's hard to find a serious answer to this question. For most of these ideological ambulance chasers, it seems enough to lay the blame at Republican or right-wing feet in an effort to anathematize ideas they don't like.
But that's shortsighted. Misplaced panics like this have a momentum and logic all their own. Already, Rep. Bob Brady, D-Pa., has drafted legislation to ban the use of symbols (crosshairs on a map, for instance) or language ("lock and load!") that could foster violence. "The rhetoric is just ramped up so negatively, so high, that we have got to shut this down," he told CNN.
That opens the bidding. The question is, where will it end?
If the alleged shooter had been inspired by a movie or TV show -- as any number of murderers have been over the years -- would those blaming the tea parties join with social conservatives in blaming Hollywood? Would they celebrate new laws to "shut down" such fare?
Mark David Chapman, who murdered John Lennon, claimed to be in part inspired by "Catcher in the Rye." Should that be banned? Or if not banned, should we "dismiss" from public life anyone who doesn't denounce J.D. Salinger?
When the subject of censorship or the "chilling" of free expression comes up in other contexts, the very idea that books, movies or TV can be blamed for the actions of the criminal or the deranged is met with unbridled scorn. I actually disagree with that. If books can inspire us positively, surely they can inspire us negatively, too. But we understand that we don't blame books for the rare demons who feed on them.
No doubt this will cause eye-rolling among those who simply want to keep the focus on demonizing conservatives and never bother to think ahead about the consequences of their misplaced hysteria. One noble exception is Slate's Jack Shafer, who probably goes further than I would when he writes, "Any call to cool 'inflammatory' speech is a call to police all speech, and I can't think of anybody in government, politics, business or the press that I would trust with that power."
Meanwhile, many proud liberals, not to mention dedicated journalists, see no problem with fueling a mass panic over our "political discourse." The fact that liberal rhetoric and images are often just as "extreme" is irrelevant. Also irrelevant is any violence that might be linked to such rhetoric. And the fact that the shooting suspect's motivations may lay in a reality of his own design? That's irrelevant, too.
These critics' aim is simply to exploit this horror as an opportunity to yell "shut up" at their political opponents.
Jonah Goldberg is an editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. His e-mail is JonahsColumn@aol.com.
________________________ ______________________
good column
Indeed!! Over the last three days, I've been skewering the lefties over at HP, with the facts regarding this killer. Half of my comments are still waiting "approval". The rest have put them off the deep end. You should see the lame-brained attempts to ignore the facts and keep chanting that it's Rush's fault.
Some are so desperate that they're claiming a Rush billboard with bulletholes (referring to Limbaugh as a "straight shooter") influenced this lunatic.
-
Bama is a financial and economic weapon of mass destruction.
He very well might be but he sure as hell is no dictator. When people come out with those statesments you can hear its the words of conservative commentators and then repeated by a brainwashed citizen thats just sad. So many people go through life just living on other peoples opinions because they are to stupid to think for themselves.
I agree with your statements though
-
He very well might be but he sure as hell is no dictator. When people come out with those statesments you can hear its the words of conservative commentators and then repeated by a brainwashed citizen thats just sad. So many people go through life just living on other peoples opinions because they are to stupid to think for themselves.
I agree with your statements though
He wants to be one though.
-
A private security force? I thought you would like this better than the military after all they are government run Communist programs right?
-
A private security force? I thought you would like this better than the military after all they are government run Communist programs right?
Guess who also had private armies?
-
Guess who also had private armies?
Every dictator
-
-
Ehh wrong tread..? :)
-
No, its exactly the right thread proving how moronic the left is in this country to even mking this an issue in the first place
-
Are the loons on the left trying to out do each other in terms of absurdity?
________________________ __________________-
UC Berkeley chancellor's e-mail linking Tucson rampage to issue of immigration draws criticism
La Times ^ | 1/14/10 | Howard Blume
The chancellor of UC Berkeley is drawing criticism for sending a campuswide e-mail that linked a Tucson shooting rampage with Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigrants and the failure of the DREAM Act.
In the e-mail, sent Monday, Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau condemned a "climate in which demonization of others goes unchallenged and hateful speech is tolerated."
He continued, postulating on factors that may have motivated Jared Lee Loughner, the alleged gunman in Saturday's shootings, .. : "I believe that it is not a coincidence that this calamity has occurred in a state which has legislated discrimination against undocumented persons."
...
"From the 'CAPITOL' of liberal dolts," one commenter wrote on the Fox website.
A leader of the Philadelphia-based Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a civil liberties group, also criticized the chancellor's remarks. "The supposition that political expression created a climate that led Loughner to his choice is an idea that seems to have sprung from whole cloth out of the minds of people who likely were upset beforehand about 'rhetoric' and 'hateful' speech, including, apparently, Chancellor Birgeneau," Adam Kissel wrote.
Diane Schrader, on the NewsReal Blog of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, accused Birgeneau of delivering "a nasty political rant even while condemning — you guessed it — nasty political rants!"
Birgeneau also commented in his e-mail on the recent failure in Congress of the DREAM Act, which would have created a path to citizenship for children of some illegal immigrants. "This same mean-spirited xenophobia played a major role in the defeat of the DREAM Act by legislators in Washington, leaving many exceptionally talented and deserving young people, including our own undocumented students, painfully in limbo with regard to their futures in this country," the chancellor wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
-
Benny: who it to blame for all the cop killings by the ghetto savages? Hate Radio? Russ Limbow? Glen Beck?
-
Benny: who it to blame for all the cop killings by the ghetto savages? Hate Radio? Russ Limbow? Glen Beck?
No child left behind, affirmative action, malt liqour, fried chicken?
-
January 9, 2011
Climate of Hate
By PAUL KRUGMAN
When you heard the terrible news from Arizona, were you completely surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?
Put me in the latter category. I’ve had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach ever since the final stages of the 2008 campaign. I remembered the upsurge in political hatred after Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 — an upsurge that culminated in the Oklahoma City bombing. And you could see, just by watching the crowds at McCain-Palin rallies, that it was ready to happen again. The Department of Homeland Security reached the same conclusion: in April 2009 an internal report warned that right-wing extremism was on the rise, with a growing potential for violence.
Conservatives denounced that report. But there has, in fact, been a rising tide of threats and vandalism aimed at elected officials, including both Judge John Roll, who was killed Saturday, and Representative Gabrielle Giffords. One of these days, someone was bound to take it to the next level. And now someone has.
It’s true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled. But that doesn’t mean that his act can or should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate.
Last spring Politico.com reported on a surge in threats against members of Congress, which were already up by 300 percent. A number of the people making those threats had a history of mental illness — but something about the current state of America has been causing far more disturbed people than before to act out their illness by threatening, or actually engaging in, political violence.
And there’s not much question what has changed. As Clarence Dupnik, the sheriff responsible for dealing with the Arizona shootings, put it, it’s “the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business.” The vast majority of those who listen to that toxic rhetoric stop short of actual violence, but some, inevitably, cross that line.
It’s important to be clear here about the nature of our sickness. It’s not a general lack of “civility,” the favorite term of pundits who want to wish away fundamental policy disagreements. Politeness may be a virtue, but there’s a big difference between bad manners and calls, explicit or implicit, for violence; insults aren’t the same as incitement.
The point is that there’s room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them; there isn’t any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.
And it’s the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence.
Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.
And there’s a huge contrast in the media. Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will.
Of course, the likes of Mr. Beck and Mr. O’Reilly are responding to popular demand. Citizens of other democracies may marvel at the American psyche, at the way efforts by mildly liberal presidents to expand health coverage are met with cries of tyranny and talk of armed resistance. Still, that’s what happens whenever a Democrat occupies the White House, and there’s a market for anyone willing to stoke that anger.
But even if hate is what many want to hear, that doesn’t excuse those who pander to that desire. They should be shunned by all decent people.
Unfortunately, that hasn’t been happening: the purveyors of hate have been treated with respect, even deference, by the G.O.P. establishment. As David Frum, the former Bush speechwriter, has put it, “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we’re discovering we work for Fox.”
So will the Arizona massacre make our discourse less toxic? It’s really up to G.O.P. leaders. Will they accept the reality of what’s happening to America, and take a stand against eliminationist rhetoric? Or will they try to dismiss the massacre as the mere act of a deranged individual, and go on as before?
If Arizona promotes some real soul-searching, it could prove a turning point. If it doesn’t, Saturday’s atrocity will be just the beginning.
-
Pelosi: GOP Budget Will Deprive Seniors Of Meals
www.realclearpolitics.co m
NANCY PELOSI: "In one of the bills before us, six million seniors are deprived of meals -- homebound seniors are deprived of meals. People ask us to find our common ground, the middle ground. Is middle ground three million seniors not receiving meals? I don't think so. We've got to take this conversation from a debate about numbers and dollar figures and finding middle ground there to the higher ground of national values. I don't think the American people want any one of those six million people to lose their meals or the children who are being thrown off of Head Start and the rest of it."
-
Pelosi: GOP Budget Will Deprive Seniors Of Meals
www.realclearpolitics.co m
NANCY PELOSI: "In one of the bills before us, six million seniors are deprived of meals -- homebound seniors are deprived of meals. People ask us to find our common ground, the middle ground. Is middle ground three million seniors not receiving meals? I don't think so. We've got to take this conversation from a debate about numbers and dollar figures and finding middle ground there to the higher ground of national values. I don't think the American people want any one of those six million people to lose their meals or the children who are being thrown off of Head Start and the rest of it."
Same old BS from the left, doomsday for the old and young ::)
-
Pelosi: GOP Budget Will Deprive Seniors Of Meals
www.realclearpolitics.co m
NANCY PELOSI: "In one of the bills before us, six million seniors are deprived of meals -- homebound seniors are deprived of meals. People ask us to find our common ground, the middle ground. Is middle ground three million seniors not receiving meals? I don't think so. We've got to take this conversation from a debate about numbers and dollar figures and finding middle ground there to the higher ground of national values. I don't think the American people want any one of those six million people to lose their meals or the children who are being thrown off of Head Start and the rest of it."
Wrong. I want those six million seniors to lose their meals and the children to be thrown out of their program too. If right wing extremism means slashing spending, sign me up.
-
Reminds me of when people blame all Muslims for the actions of a few extremists.
-
Reminds me of when people blame all Muslims for the actions of a few extremists. anything.
Fixed.
-
Reminds me of when people blame all Muslims for the actions of a few extremists.
Reminds me of when muslims blame the western citizens for the actions of one priest
-
Way Too Early With Willie Geist
MSNBC
Aired on Wednesday, Apr 06, 2011 (4/6/2011) at 01:30 AM
View other episodes
View more from this channel
View all transcripts from (4/6/2011)
Transcript
00:00:00 What will be the american role if it does.
00:00:03 It's "way too early" for this.
00:00:13 This is the show that has only two wrong sides of the bed to choose from when waking up in the middle of the night.
00:00:20 I'm glad you're up with us this morning.
00:00:23 Shoot me an e-mail and let us know why you're awake.
00:00:28 Or you can do what the red sox nation do.
00:00:33 Text the word awake followed by your response to 622639.
00:00:43 We'll read the best responses later.
00:00:45 Next 30 minutes is your cram session for this wednesday, APRIL 6th.
00:00:48 A lot going on today including boeing expressing its public surprise that 737 airplanes are wearing out so quickly.
00:00:55 Plus, as I said, the boston red sox, one of only three major league teams now without a single victory.
00:01:06 We'll have a detailed analysis of what is wrong there.
00:01:10 But first let's get to the news.
00:01:12 We're now just two days away from a potential government shutdown it that would take place at midnight on friday.
00:01:20 The possibility is looking more and more likely after president obama and congressional leaders failed to reach an agreement yesterday on funding for the rest of the fiscal year.
00:01:29 In back to back meetings with the white house and capitol hill, john boehner floated an offer of $40 billion worth of cut, but $7 billion more than the two sides have been discussing over the past week or so.
00:01:43 After their summit meeting, president obama expressed his clooming shutdown.
00:01:55 >> We're closer than we've ever been to getting an agreement.
00:01:58 There is no reason why we should not get an agreement.
00:02:00 As I said before, we have now matched the number that the speaker originally sought.
00:02:07 The only question is whether politics or ideology are going to get in the way of preventing a government shutdown.
00:02:13 >> The president then criticized the pace of the talks and urged congressional leaders to put aside their differences and get something done.
00:02:23 >> I think what the american people expect from me is the same thing they expect from every member of congress and that is we're looking out for the interests of the american people and not trying to score political points.
00:02:36 I think what they're looking from me is the same thing they're looking from speaker boehner and harry reid and everybody else and that is that we act like grown ups.
00:02:48 And when we are in negotiations like this, that everybody gives a little bit, compromises a little bit, in order to do the people's business.
00:02:59 >> And republicans have been criticizing president obama and democrats for cutting too little out of any proposed budget.
00:03:06 Here's what the president had to say about that.
00:03:08 >> This notion that somehow we're offering smoke and mirrors, try telling that to the democrats out there.
00:03:14 Because part of what we've done is we've been willing to cut programs that we care deeply about that are really important.
00:03:22 But we recognize that given the fiscal situation that we're in, everybody's got to make some sacrifices.
00:03:30 Everybody has to take a haircut.
00:03:33 And we've been willing to do that.
00:03:34 >> Almost immediately after president obama spoke there in the press briefing room at the white house, speaker boehner called a news conference of his own outside his office where he was decidedly lesses positive than the president about yesterday's meeting.
00:03:52 >> We've made clear that we're fighting for the largest spending cuts possible p.
00:03:54 And we're talking about real spending cuts here.
00:03:57 No smoke and mirrors.
00:03:58 This is an important step that we face today inned to get real cuts.
00:04:05 The white house is proposing cuts that arebeyond things we would imagine.
00:04:13 So we want to get an agreement and we want to keep the government open.
00:04:16 >> Speaking last night on msnbc's the last word, chris van hollen blamed the lack of comprehend miz on the tea party.
00:04:28 >> Speaker boehner no longer has his hand on the steering wheel.
00:04:31 This car is being driven by the tea party wing of the republican party in the house and they are drag racing with the american budget and saying that if they don't get 100% of what they want, they're going to shut down the government.
00:04:47 >> That's a talk point about the tea party that's been echoed by many democrats including harry reid in the senate.
00:04:53 So if we see the first federal government shut down oig in 15 years, here is partially what it would look like.
00:05:00 Seums,s national parks would shut down.
00:05:02 Tax refunds and new social security applications would be delayed and passports and visas would not be processed.
00:05:10 The government however does not completely cease functioning.
00:05:13 Activities that are essential to national security like military operations will continue.
00:05:17 Air traffic control, other public safety functions, are exempt from shut downs.
00:05:21 Law enforcement and criminal investigations can continue.
00:05:25 And federal prisons still operate.
00:05:27 My god, I hope so.
00:05:28 Also not affected, the fdic and postal service.
00:05:33 Also up on capitol hill, republicans are lining up behind house budget chairman paul ryan and his 2012 plan which is aimed at shrinking the federal deficit.
00:05:43 The blueprint released yesterday, he'll present it today up on the hill, suggests 8 trillion over the next ten years.
00:05:51 Also cutting corporate and personal tax rates to a top rate of 25%.
00:05:56 Privatizing medicare and turning medicaid into so-called block grants that would give states more flexibility.
00:06:03 Essentially turning that money over to states for them to do as they please.
00:06:08 Analysis by the congressional budget office, the plan would result in a surplus by the year 2040.
00:06:15 About 30 years from now.
00:06:17 By 2050, the projected debt would be 10% of the country's gdp.
00:06:25 Niors and the disabled would pay sharply more for their medicare coverage and federal payments for medicaid would be substantially smaller.
00:06:32 Announcing the plan yesterday, congressman ryan expressed hope that americans would rally around around his proposal.
00:06:40 >> Look at these people, look at these new people who just got here.
00:06:42 They didn't come here for a political career.
00:06:45 They came here for a cause.
00:06:46 This is not a budget, this is a cause.
00:06:50 We can't keep going down the path of fearing what the other political party would do to us if we try to solve a problem.
00:06:57 If we keep going down that path, then we know what that future looks like.
00:07:03 >> Response to the ryan plan falling along party lines.
00:07:06 The white house said would it would spare the rich and burden seniors.
00:07:09 House minority leader nancy pelosi tweeted this.
00:07:12 The gop ryan plan is a path to poverty for america's seniors and children and a road to riches for big oil/gop values.
00:07:28 Betty wasserman schultz echoed that sentiment.
00:07:31 >> Seniors would pay more and more each year for their health insurance.
00:07:35 No longer would medicare be a guarantee of health insurance coverage.
00:07:40 Instead medicare would become little more than a discount card.
00:07:43 This plan would literally be a death trap for some seniors.
00:07:47 Under the republican budget, we see a clear attempt for the government to back out of its commitment to seniors.
00:07:52 As a result, many seniors in america will be forced in to poverty and worse, some seniors will end up dying because they
-
New DNC Chair: GOP "Path To Poverty" Like A Tornado Through Nursing Homes
www.realclearpolitics.co m
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) comments on Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) budget proposal for FY 2012.
"Representing a large number of seniors in south Florida, I can tell you that this budget would be devastating for seniors and older Americans. This Republican path to poverty passes like a tornado through America's nursing homes, where millions of America's seniors receive long-term and end of life care," Rep. Wasserman Schultz said.
-
New DNC Chair: GOP "Path To Poverty" Like A Tornado Through Nursing Homes
www.realclearpolitics.co m
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) comments on Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) budget proposal for FY 2012.
"Representing a large number of seniors in south Florida, I can tell you that this budget would be devastating for seniors and older Americans. This Republican path to poverty passes like a tornado through America's nursing homes, where millions of America's seniors receive long-term and end of life care," Rep. Wasserman Schultz said.
As if state and local governments, as well as churches and relatives would let granny die without care.
-
This whole episode is truly disgusting for what the communist left is trying to pull here.
"the communist left"....bro....are you in another time???...are you posting from the 1960's???
-
Rep. Louise Slaughter: GOP Freshmen Came to Washington 'To Kill Women'
CNSNews ^ | April 07, 2011 | Dan Joseph
"Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) said today that the new Republicans elected to the House of Representatives last November came to Congress "to kill women." She also likened Republican efforts to prohibit federal funding of abortion except in cases of rape, incest or where the life of the mother is endangered to actions taken by Nazis.
“This is probably one of the worst times we’ve seen because the numbers of people elected to Congress. I went through this as co-chair of the arts caucus," Slaughter said. "In ’94 people were elected simply to come here to kill the National Endowment for the Arts. Now they’re here to kill women.”
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
-
Rep. Louise Slaughter: GOP Freshmen Came to Washington 'To Kill Women'
CNSNews ^ | April 07, 2011 | Dan Joseph
"Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) said today that the new Republicans elected to the House of Representatives last November came to Congress "to kill women." She also likened Republican efforts to prohibit federal funding of abortion except in cases of rape, incest or where the life of the mother is endangered to actions taken by Nazis.
“This is probably one of the worst times we’ve seen because the numbers of people elected to Congress. I went through this as co-chair of the arts caucus," Slaughter said. "In ’94 people were elected simply to come here to kill the National Endowment for the Arts. Now they’re here to kill women.”
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
The tea party was sent to kill women, seniors, minorities, children, and poor people.
-
Reid says HIS Daughter and GrandDaughter will not get Cancer Screening because of Tea Party.
Senate Floor | April 8,2011 |
________________________ ________________________ ___
Just listened to Hairy Reid claim that Repubs are throwing WOMEN under the Bus.
Not funding Planned Parenthood will mean his Daughter and GrandDaughter will NOT get Cancer Screening, Cholesterol tests? He didn't mention PP, he said Title 10, which is PP funding.
But the most pathetic arguement was that the non-essential employees will not get to buy the NEW CAR they have waited 3 years to get.
Not one word of sympathy for the 14 million un/underemployed Americans that the DumocRATS have NO sympathy for.
________________________ ________________________ ___
PAY FOR ITSELF YOU CHEAP FUCK! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
-
Bufuckinghoo
Somebody vote this idiot out
We are trillions indebt and the idiot is crying about no new cars, cancer screening bla..bla...
Maybe we need a business man like Trump in office with guys like Reid making decisions for our country...Oh my
-
Bufuckinghoo
Somebody vote this idiot out
We are trillions indebt and the idiot is crying about no new cars, cancer screening bla..bla...
Maybe we need a business man like Trump in office with guys like Reid making decisions for our country...Oh my
There's going to be a lot of Pelosi and Reid crying on TV as the entitlements get cut. It's making for a good laugh though, Pelosi's face was so serious as she talked about those seniors going without meals.
-
The Dems always seem to say some of the most outrageous things and ludicrous things that seem to just go by unquestioned. In reality all they are worried about is they won't be able to buy votes with entitlments
-
Democrat: Republicans Against Abortion Came to "Kill Women"
LifeNews.com ^ | April 8, 2011 | Steven Ertelt
Democrat: Republicans Against Abortion Came to "Kill Women"
Washington, DC -- One of the leading pro-abortion members of the House is causing furor today with her comment that the pro-life Republicans recently elected to Congress in the 2010 elections want to take women's lives.
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/04/08/democrat-republicans-against-abortion-came-to-kill-women/
(Excerpt) Read more at lifenews.com ...
-
Democrat: Republicans Against Abortion Came to "Kill Women"
LifeNews.com ^ | April 8, 2011 | Steven Ertelt
Democrat: Republicans Against Abortion Came to "Kill Women"
Washington, DC -- One of the leading pro-abortion members of the House is causing furor today with her comment that the pro-life Republicans recently elected to Congress in the 2010 elections want to take women's lives.
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/04/08/democrat-republicans-against-abortion-came-to-kill-women/
(Excerpt) Read more at lifenews.com ...
Hahaha WTF
-
"(Obama) is a terrible negotiator; does he not even KNOW a Jew?"
Bill Maher's show last night was (I thought) very good, with spirited discussion by the panel and good points made by all. However, Maher ruined the point he made about Obama giving up to much to the Republicans with the quote "He is a terrible negotiator; does he not even KNOW a Jew?" What makes him think this is acceptable?
-
The tea party was sent to kill women, seniors, minorities, children, and poor people.
that seems to be their intention :D
-
Bufuckinghoo
Somebody vote this idiot out
We are trillions indebt and the idiot is crying about no new cars, cancer screening bla..bla...
Maybe we need a business man like Trump in office with guys like Reid making decisions for our country...Oh my
yes and he can drive us into further bankruptcy like he did his own companies
-
"(Obama) is a terrible negotiator; does he not even KNOW a Jew?"
Bill Maher's show last night was (I thought) very good, with spirited discussion by the panel and good points made by all. However, Maher ruined the point he made about Obama giving up to much to the Republicans with the quote "He is a terrible negotiator; does he not even KNOW a Jew?" What makes him think this is acceptable?
He's liberal. That means he can't be prejudiced.
They have a thin candy shell....surprised you didn't know that.
-
yes and he can drive us into further bankruptcy like he did his own companies
How many billions are we in debt now? Its gonna be hard to make it worse
-
CA Rep. Sanchez Mocks Tea Party GOP as Slow with Bigoted Southern Accent
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/%e2%80%98well-loretta-it%e2%80%99s-unconstitutional%e2%80%99-ca-rep- ^
Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2011 8:55:12
‘Well Loretta It’s Unconstitutional’ CA Rep. Sanchez Mocks Congressional Tea Party Republicans as Slow for Caring About The Constitution with Bigoted Southern Accent
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/%e2%80%98well-loretta-it%e2%80%99s-unconstitutional%e2%80%99-ca-rep-sanchez-mocks-congressional-tea-party-republicans-as-slow-for-caring-about-the-constitution-with-bigoted-southern-accent
-
This is a 95%er to a tee.
What a freaking joke these assholes are.
-
Keith Olbermann Says S.E. Cupp’s Parents Should Have Used Planned Parenthood
Mediaite.comq ^ | 04/14/2011 | Tommy Christopher
________________________ ________-
Maybe he’s trying to drum up attention for the launch of his Current TV show, but Keith Olbermann is embroiled in another nasty Twitter fight, this time with Glenn Beck protege´ SE Cupp. Responding to a tweet about Cupp’s Planned Parenthood remarks on The Joy Behar Show, Olbermann tweeted “On so many levels she’s a perfect demonstration of the necessity of the work Planned Parenthood does”
When I first saw the tweet (forwarded to me by a colleague), I was certain that Olbermann had laid a clever trap, and that when Cupp’s supporters inevitably slammed Olbermann for wishing she’d been aborted, he would point out that as a woman, SE could benefit from the other 97% of Planned Parenthood services that Sen. John Kyl didn’t seem to know about.
Close. Olbermann did deny wishing an abortion on Cupp, and did reference Kyl, but said “I never mentioned abortion. I said her parents could have used counseling by PP rather than get the results they did”
(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...
-
Republicans will make US a 'Third World' country: Obama
Yahoo ^ | 4/15/11 | Mira Oberman - AFP
CHICAGO (AFP) – US President Barack Obama accused his Republican foes of wanting to turn the United States into a "Third World" country Thursday as he rallied support for his reelection campaign.
The attack came a day after Obama savaged Republican budget plans and unveiled his $4 trillion deficit reduction drive that aims to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans in order to preserve key social services.
The debate over fiscal policy will prove critical to the 2012 campaign, and Obama sought to frame it as a "stark choice" between investing in the future or watching the country fall apart.
"Under their vision, we can't invest in roads and bridges and broadband and high-speed rail," Obama told a select group of the Democratic faithful at the second of three fundraising events in his hometown of Chicago.
"I mean, we would be a nation of potholes, and our airports would be worse than places that we thought -- that we used to call the Third World, but who are now investing in infrastructure."
Republican plans to shrink the reach of government is "not a vision that's impelled by the numbers" but a "choice" to give a trillion dollars in tax breaks to the rich rather than ask those who have been "blessed" to "give a little more," he said.
Obama said his vision was one of an ambitious, compassionate and caring America "where we're living within our means but we're still investing in our future."
"If we apply some practical common sense to this, we can solve our fiscal challenges and still have the America that we believe in," Obama told supporters at Chicago's N9NE restaurant.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
-
Obama: GOP Plan Is 'No Government ... Homeless on the Streets ... Bridges Collapsing'
FoxNation.com ^ | April 19 | Staff
President Obama held a town hall meeting to discuss his "vision" for debt and deficit reduction today at Northern Virginia Community College. Off teleprompter during the Q&A, the President questioned the "values" of Americans who oppose tax hikes, suggested that Republicans want "no government," and linked Rep. Paul Ryan's plan to reduce government spending with more "homeless folks on the streets." President Obama also implied that the Republican budget will kill innocent Americans, raising the specter of the fatal bridge collapse in the summer of 2007
(Excerpt) Read more at nation.foxnews.com ...
-
MSNBC guest suggests Paul Ryan’s admiration for Ayn Rand make him pro-terrorist (Video)
TheDC ^ | April 19, 2011 | Jeff Poor
Holy guilt by association, Batman.
If a fictional character in a piece of literature from an author you admire commits some acts that would likely result in a felony conviction, does that mean you’re a proponent of felonious acts? That’s the deductive logic David Cay Johnston, the 2001 winner of the Pulitzer Prize for beat reporting, displayed on MSNBC’s “The ED Show” Monday night.
In a segment about Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan’s proposal to reduce the deficit, which includes simplifying the tax code and eliminating deductions to lower overall rates, Johnston called in to question Ryan’s legitimacy, as he’s a fan of Ayn Rand. And according to Johnston, in Rand’s book, “The Fountainhead,” the fictional character Howard Roark blows up a building, and that means people should evaluate the possibility Ryan is a proponent of blowing up buildings.
...more (w/video)...
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
-
-
University of Iowa Professor Tells College Republicans to “F” Off
The Iowa Republican ^ | 04/20/11 | Craig Robinson
A University of Iowa professor felt the need to reply to a blast email by the College Republicans on Monday morning. Ellen Lewin, a professor of Anthropology and Gender, Women’s & Sexuality Studies in the Department of Gender, Women’s & Sexuality Studies, sent a vulgar response to a College Republican email about the group’s, “Conservative Coming Out Week.”
The College Republican email, which was sent to the entire University of Iowa Community, had been approved by a number of university officials before being sent out.
Lewin responded to email by writing, “#*@% [F-Word] YOU, REPUBLICANS” from her official university email account.
Natalie Ginty, a University of Iowa Student and Chairwoman of the Iowa Federation of College Republicans, demanded an apology from Lewin’s supervisors. “We understand that as a faculty member she has the right to express her political opinion, but by leaving her credentials at the bottom of the email she was representing the University of Iowa, not herself alone,” Ginty wrote to James Enloe, the head of the Department of Anthropology.
“Vile responses like Ellen’s need to end. Demonizing the other party through name-calling only further entrenches feelings of disdain for the other side. I am sure you understand that nothing is ever accomplished by aimless screams of attack,” Ginty concluded.
In an email to the College Republicans, Professor Lewin wrote, “This is a time when political passions are inflamed, and when I received your unsolicited email, I had just finished reading some newspaper accounts of fresh outrages committed by Republicans in government. I admit the language was inappropriate, and apologize for any affront to anyone’s delicate sensibilities. I would really appreciate your not sending blanket emails to everyone on campus, especially in these difficult times.”
Lewin sent that email at 10:51 a.m.
Lewin’s response is as inappropriate than her choice of language in her first email. At the bottom of the original mass email, a University of Iowa disclaimer reads, “Distribution of this message was approved by the VP for Student Services. Neither your name nor e-mail address was released to the sender. The policy and guidelines for the UI Mass Mail service, including information on how to filter messages, are available at: http://cs.its.uiowa.edu/email/massmail.” The College Republicans didn’t even know who all would be receiving the message.
At 11:06 a.m. on Tuesday, Professor Lewin sent another email saying:
I should note that several things in the original message were extremely offensive, nearly rising to the level of obscenity. Despite the Republicans’ general disdain for LGBT rights you called your upcoming event “conservative coming out day,” appropriating the language of the LGBT right movement. Your reference to the Wisconsin protests suggested that they were frivolous attempts to avoid work. And the “Animal Rights BBQ” is extremely insensitive to those who consider animal rights an important cause. Then, in the email that Ms. Ginty sent complaining about my language, she referred to me as Ellen, not Professor Lewin, which is the correct way for a student to address a faculty member, or indeed, for anyone to refer to an adult with whom they are not acquainted. I do apologize for my intemperate language, but the message you all sent out was extremely disturbing and offensive.
It’s strange that Professor Lewin is upset with a student for calling her by her first name AFTER she told them to “$%@& [F Word] OFF.” Quite honestly, Lewin’s continued attacks make it seem like more serious punishment of the professor is called for rather just than the public apology that the College Republicans are demanding.
Professor Tim Hagel, the faculty advisor for the University of Iowa College Republicans, also interjected on behalf of the group.
The issue isn’t whether you found something in the message sent by the College Republicans to have been offensive, but how you chose to express yourself. Although some would disagree with the reasons in the message immediately below, there would have been a more appropriate way for you to have expressed yourself. Your initial apology, though qualified, was at least a step in the right direction. The “additional note” only served to retract the apology and was an apparent attempt to justify your initial response.
It’s not my place at this point to debate the merits of whether the CR message was offense, but let me remind you that they have First Amendment rights as much as you do and that their message was approved for mass distribution by the VP for Student Services, as was indicated at the bottom of the original message.
Let me also note that I found your complaint about Ms. Ginty’s use of your first name to be rather ironic. As much as I agree with you that it would have been better for her to have shown the respect for your position by referring to you as “Professor,” respect is a two way street and you clearly did not show respect for the College Republicans in your initial response.
-TH
Tim Hagle
Associate Professor
UICR Faculty Advisor
Update :University of Iowa President Sally Mason has responded to the incident by sending out a blast email. Mason’s response was “spurred” by TheIowaRepublican.com’s story about the incident.
Dear Members of the University Community:
The University of Iowa encourages freedom of expression, opposing viewpoints, and civil debate about those opposing viewpoints. This is clearly articulated in our core values of Diversity and Respect. Because diversity, broadly defined, advances its mission of teaching, research, and service, the University is dedicated to an inclusive community in which people of different cultural, national, individual, and academic backgrounds encounter one another in a spirit of cooperation, openness, and shared appreciation.
The University also strongly encourages student engagement in such discussions and supports students acting on their viewpoints. Student organizations are sometimes formed along political lines and act on their political beliefs. Even if we personally disagree with those viewpoints, we must be respectful of those viewpoints in every way. Intolerant and disrespectful discord is not acceptable behavior.
Sally Mason President
-
Liberals attack Paul Ryan because his father died young, resulting in survivor benefits
Washington Examiner ^ | 04/20/11 | Hans Bader
At the age of 16, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., suffered the death of his 55-year-old father. Because of his father’s early death, the government made survivor payments for a few years to Paul Ryan’s family – including for Paul Ryan himself. Ryan collected benefits for two years, until he turned 18.
The net effect of the death of Paul Ryan’s father was likely to reduce taxpayer expenditures on Ryan’s family, since retirees typically collect at least a decade’s worth of benefits. (My own father died five years short of retirement. The result was that my mother, who could otherwise have collected spousal benefits when he retired, instead had to wait well over a decade for benefits, reducing her lifetime social security benefits. She was effectively punished for his death.)
But the Daily Kos blog is now using his father's early death against Ryan. A Daily Kos diary attacks Ryan in a post entitled, “Entitlement-hating Paul Ryan collected Social Security benefits until he was 18.” Never mind that Ryan’s recent budget proposal doesn’t in fact seek to abolish entitlements, much less get rid of Social Security. It merely seeks to cut the rate of growth of exploding Medicare costs by eventually giving its recipients vouchers they can use to shop around for medical care.
Not all Daily Kos diaries reflect the views of Daily Kos as a whole, but this one does, since it was briefly featured on the top of the front page of Daily Kos, and is still listed as a “recommended” blog post in the sidebar on the right side of Daily Kos's main page. More than 183 Daily Kos readers have commented in response to it – virtually all in agreement with its hateful sentiments.
Even if Ryan’s recent proposal cut Social Security, rather than just reforming a different program – Medicare -- there would be nothing hypocritical about his wanting to rein in the costs of an increasingly costly program simply because he received modest benefits under that program as a child, when financial decisions were presumably made for him by his parent or guardian (people who had themselves paid into that very program with their tax dollars). Social security payments have risen faster than inflation since Ryan was a child, and have increased radically as a percentage of our economy.
Liberal bloggers frequently smear conservatives and libertarians as hypocrites for seeking to collect social security and other benefits. For example, Ayn Rand was attacked by the liberal blog Balloon Juice as being a “welfare queen” for receiving Medicare benefits even though she had contributed lots of tax money in her lifetime through income and self-employment taxes she paid based on her best-selling books.
But there’s nothing hypocritical about criticizing a government program as being a bad deal for the public, and yet wanting to recover some of the tax money you were forced to pay into that program in benefits. Refusing to accept such benefits is as stupid as refusing to accept the return of stolen money. If a program is wasteful, people should be encouraged to criticize it so that the program will be reformed, not punished by being denied the same benefits that every other taxpayer receives – including people who are too lazy or uninformed to demand reforms.
-
Hard-Left Radio Host Mike Malloy: When Will Navy SEALs Take Out Death-Dealing George W. Bush?
Newsbusters.org ^ | 05/04/2011 | Tim Graham
If any American with a patriotic pulse listened to the Mike Malloy radio show, they would have been shocked on Monday night when Malloy outrageously suggested that Navy SEALs should have shot former president George W. Bush, and not Osama bin Laden.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
-
January 9, 2011
Climate of Hate
By PAUL KRUGMAN
When you heard the terrible news from Arizona, were you completely surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?
Put me in the latter category. I’ve had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach ever since the final stages of the 2008 campaign. I remembered the upsurge in political hatred after Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 — an upsurge that culminated in the Oklahoma City bombing. And you could see, just by watching the crowds at McCain-Palin rallies, that it was ready to happen again. The Department of Homeland Security reached the same conclusion: in April 2009 an internal report warned that right-wing extremism was on the rise, with a growing potential for violence.
Conservatives denounced that report. But there has, in fact, been a rising tide of threats and vandalism aimed at elected officials, including both Judge John Roll, who was killed Saturday, and Representative Gabrielle Giffords. One of these days, someone was bound to take it to the next level. And now someone has.
It’s true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled. But that doesn’t mean that his act can or should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate.
Last spring Politico.com reported on a surge in threats against members of Congress, which were already up by 300 percent. A number of the people making those threats had a history of mental illness — but something about the current state of America has been causing far more disturbed people than before to act out their illness by threatening, or actually engaging in, political violence.
And there’s not much question what has changed. As Clarence Dupnik, the sheriff responsible for dealing with the Arizona shootings, put it, it’s “the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business.” The vast majority of those who listen to that toxic rhetoric stop short of actual violence, but some, inevitably, cross that line.
It’s important to be clear here about the nature of our sickness. It’s not a general lack of “civility,” the favorite term of pundits who want to wish away fundamental policy disagreements. Politeness may be a virtue, but there’s a big difference between bad manners and calls, explicit or implicit, for violence; insults aren’t the same as incitement.
The point is that there’s room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them; there isn’t any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.
And it’s the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence.
Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.
And there’s a huge contrast in the media. Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will.
Of course, the likes of Mr. Beck and Mr. O’Reilly are responding to popular demand. Citizens of other democracies may marvel at the American psyche, at the way efforts by mildly liberal presidents to expand health coverage are met with cries of tyranny and talk of armed resistance. Still, that’s what happens whenever a Democrat occupies the White House, and there’s a market for anyone willing to stoke that anger.
But even if hate is what many want to hear, that doesn’t excuse those who pander to that desire. They should be shunned by all decent people.
Unfortunately, that hasn’t been happening: the purveyors of hate have been treated with respect, even deference, by the G.O.P. establishment. As David Frum, the former Bush speechwriter, has put it, “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we’re discovering we work for Fox.”
So will the Arizona massacre make our discourse less toxic? It’s really up to G.O.P. leaders. Will they accept the reality of what’s happening to America, and take a stand against eliminationist rhetoric? Or will they try to dismiss the massacre as the mere act of a deranged individual, and go on as before?
If Arizona promotes some real soul-searching, it could prove a turning point. If it doesn’t, Saturday’s atrocity will be just the beginning.
BUMP
-
Updated: Dem. Rep. Favoring Civility Calls Romney D-Bag
Retweets = Endorsement
Rep. Keith Ellison
BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff - April 19, 2012 10:55 am
A Democratic member of Congress who has a history of calling for civility in politics promoted a filthy message of derision from one hate-filled Twitter user.
Rep. Keith Ellison (D., Minn.) took to the social networking website yesterday to pose a question: “ ‘… even if you have a child two years of age, you need to go to work’ Who said it?”
The heavily edited quote comes from Mitt Romney, who discussed the right of women with children to work at a January campaign event.
“I wanted to increase the work requirement,” Romney said at the event, according to MSNBC. “I said, for instance, that even if you have a child two years of age, you need to go to work. And people said, ‘Well that’s heartless,’ and I said ‘No, no, I’m willing to spend more giving daycare to allow those parents to go back to work. It’ll cost the state more providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.’ ”
In responding to Ellison’s question, one responder compared Romney to a feminine hygiene product: “A heartless douchebag who doesn’t like animals or small children. At least that’s what I’ve heard.”
Ellison, a vociferous proponent of civil discourse, subsequently promoted the message despite said calls for civil discourse.
Ellison, for instance, spoke at length about the need greater civility in politics during an event in February 2011. The congressman has also implored citizens from across the nation to sign a tolerance pledge.
He also counts himself as an ally of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, a Jewish advocacy group that has urged members of Congress and political commentators to sign a civility pledge—a document that sparked outrage from critics who claimed the organization was trying to stifle robust discussion.
UPDATE: Rep. Keith Ellison has distanced himself from a Twitter user who referred to Mitt Romney as a “douche bag.”
Ellison had promoted that comment as recently as this morning, but apparently in response a Free Beacon report on the matter, the congressman has deleted his association with the message.
Ellison’s office did respond immediately to a request seeking comment. Everyone in the press department, said one of Ellison’s staffers, were “away from their desks.”
Spokesperson Jeremy Slevin did not immediately respond to an email seeking explanation.
UPDATE at 12:24: Rep. Ellison’s Communications Director Jennifer Porter Gore responds, “As with all Twitter accounts a retweet is not an endorsement. The congressman removed the tweet because it appeared to endorse use of a nasty term, which is not what we wanted.”
This entry was posted in Congress and tagged civility, hypocrisy, Keith Ellison, Twitter. Bookmark the permalink.