Yet More Death Threats Against Democrats - Including One From John Boehner!
POSTED BY: Kwicko
UPDATED: Saturday, March 27, 2010 04:30
VIEWED: 4753
PAGE 9 of 10
Quote:
Posted by Jongs:
When Janet Napolitano made those comments last year about right-wing dangers, she had to apologize almost immediately. The comments were totally unfounded and were themselves hateful and predjudiced.
...except they've proven to be 100% accurate and true.
But don't let that get in the way of your outrage!
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I see that Jong has once again decided to NOT respond to any of my posts - no matter how fact-filled and on-topic they are. Just b/c Jong has a personal grudge for some unknown reason. BTW Jong - I invite you to scroll down and read JUST my posts. Go ahead. They are short and there aren't many of them. Then come back and point out WHAT was offensive - if you can.
So now I will make it personal - jeez Jong - is your mind so empty you have nothing to say ? Or are you so childish you've gone into a big pout ?
Just for the record.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
Maybe he just does'nt want to respond to your posts...He/she may even think your not worthy of a response. Don't forget he's been around the block here a few times. I don't think he will respond to your childish ploy of calling jong childish...seems absurd.....
You may be on to something there K-man. The Mahatma, I mean Jongg, seems lately to be unwilling or afraid to engage with anyone who says or might say something upsetting to him. I think he's lost his relevance here because of that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
You know I call 'em like I see 'em. I wrote a fair response back to you. You agree with me? Not? Don't tell me you only want to cherry pick one line out of dozens just to be snarky about, 'cause that's a big step backwards for you.
Sorry to disappoint you, Jongs, but you seem to be backsliding into partisanship, and anything else I might say might get ugly...
But anyway, you say you know that tea-baggers are Republicans, and vice-versa, and that's no surprise to anyone. I find it curious, then, that so many of them try to CLAIM to not be Republicans or NeoCons, and claim they're "independent", when clearly they aren't. And if 3 of 4 tea-baggers are Republicans, and dozens of tea-baggers are yelling "Nigger!" at members of the Congressional Black Congress, it stands to reason more than a few of them were Republicans. Just sayin'.
Now, you can claim all you want that these "people" (and I use that term loosely) aren't representative of you and your party, but you won't give the same benefit of the doubt to any Democrat (like, say, John Dingell) or "librul" who says something whacky that you disagree with. Nope, you'll plow right on in tarring every one of us with the same brush, giggling maniacally while you do it. So, fair's fair.
What bothers me most is that, for all the ugliness out there, the vast majority of conservatives I've heard and read AREN'T denouncing the hate, violence, and vitriol - they're just trying to claim that it isn't them saying and doing it! So they don't seem to actually MIND the death threats against Democratic members of Congress, they just want to make sure we know that they personally weren't the ones making such threats. It's odd that none of the conservatives - even around this board, from what I've seen - will go so far as to even denounce the violence.
Hell, I'm against whaling, and I got in a huge brouhaha with people I'm normally aligned with when I suggested that maybe piracy and sinking ships on the high seas wasn't the best solution to that problem.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
I would say Jong is wrong. I would say Tea party members are conservitive independants and anti-neocon republicans. Every conservative knows in there heart that both Bush's hyjacked the party. That for years it was anti-war, less intrusive Government, etc...There are plenty of former democrats at tea party events also, so i'd say...if your logic holds.....that it could be a few dems yelling "nigger" also.
I think yelling "nigger" or any disrespectful term at any congressman is low class...Not something I would do, however they have a right to yell "nigger" at anyone they may feel is a "nigger"....I don't have a big problem with that. I just think people have a right to be assholes. And the rest of us need thicker skin. It's a trade off for our freedom.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
By the way, Breitbart now claims that it was the members of the Congressional Black Caucus who are to blame for being called the N-word by Tea Partiers on Sunday, because "they went searching for racism". Apparently, they didn't have to search for very long, or look too far, to find it. It would be a great day in this country if someone could go searching for racism and not find a gaggle of tea-baggers all too happy to oblige them!
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201003250053
Seems mighty similar to blaming the rape victim because, after all, "she was asking for it". I mean, they WERE walking around in public, being all black and stuff; what else could any self-respecting racist DO?
Oh, and then he referred to them as the "despicable black caucus". I'm guessing it's their "blackness" he finds most despicable.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201003260019
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
You may be on to something there K-man. The Mahatma, I mean Jongg, seems lately to be unwilling or afraid to engage with anyone who says or might say something upsetting to him. I think he's lost his relevance here because of that.
Actually, it's you who lost relevance, the day you started screaming at the top of your lungs that Signy should be banned for calling you out on your bullshit. Seems your only problem with freedom of speech is when someone uses it to address you in a way you don't like.
I have vehement disagreements with Jong, but I'd much rather talk with him than waste my time or breath trying to reach you. You're beyond reason, and the only interaction you're worthy of is ridicule.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wulfie, the Secret Service would like to have a few words with you about your repeated and not-so-subtle threats against employees of the federal government.
Have a great weekend!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
You may be on to something there K-man. The Mahatma, I mean Jongg, seems lately to be unwilling or afraid to engage with anyone who says or might say something upsetting to him. I think he's lost his relevance here because of that.
Actually, it's you who lost relevance, the day you started screaming at the top of your lungs that Signy should be banned for calling you out on your bullshit. Seems your only problem with freedom of speech is when someone uses it to address you in a way you don't like.
I have vehement disagreements with Jong, but I'd much rather talk with him than waste my time or breath trying to reach you. You're beyond reason, and the only interaction you're worthy of is ridicule.
I'm beyond reason? That's downright funny comin' from you.
I'm only worthy of ridicule? Well I guess that's somethin'.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
By the way, Breitbart now claims that it was the members of the Congressional Black Caucus who are to blame for being called the N-word by Tea Partiers on Sunday, because "they went searching for racism". Apparently, they didn't have to search for very long, or look too far, to find it. It would be a great day in this country if someone could go searching for racism and not find a gaggle of tea-baggers all too happy to oblige them!
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201003250053
Seems mighty similar to blaming the rape victim because, after all, "she was asking for it". I mean, they WERE walking around in public, being all black and stuff; what else could any self-respecting racist DO?
Oh, and then he referred to them as the "despicable black caucus". I'm guessing it's their "blackness" he finds most despicable.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201003260019
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
The Black caucus is a racist group...its in the definition....But you know that and let it slide. In your twisted head it would be totally wrong to have a white caucus, but perfectly fine to have a group calling itslf the black caucus. So, it is no suprise to me to see that a racist group found a racist opponent......Well, its true...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanx for the links, Rue; should be fun to investigate. Wonder if we should send Frem there, see what covert trouble he could create, eh? 
Yeah, Frem, I THOUGHT he might be referring to Chicago, but figured that must not be it, because as far as I know no Democratic POLITICIAN incited anything, and the problem was Daly and his police force. The protests had been planned to be nonviolent, but Daly refused to issue permits for them and sent 23,000 police in to deal with 10,000 protesters. The day of the “police riots” started because a boy lowered the flag and the police forced their way through the crowd to beat him up. Rather and Wallace were roughed up BY THE POLICE. So I can’t figure out where these “tactics” he speaks of came from. Thus I figured he must be talking about something else.
If Chicago is the example he’s using, it’s fallacious. It was the time of the Kennedy and King assassinations, the Vietnam war and other things that had the population fired up FOR LEGITIMATE REASONS, and I don’t remember it being fomented by members of the legislature...? Very confusing...
If he means the tactics of using street theatre to create an experience that drew the attention of mainstream America. Yippie activities were used to put across the message that the average American didn't have control over the political process. They tried to show this by purposefully participating in non-traditional activities such as "nominating a pig for president. But the protests were planned to be nonviolent; it was the police who started the problems. Daly’s “shoot to kill” order and other moves had a lot to do with what happened.
If he’s speaking of the King riots, that wasn’t planned by anyone, and I don’t know what tactics were used to which he might be referring. Essentially, I never heard of any LEGISLATORS egging the protests and violence on with visceral terms such as is happening now.
Shiny, you say you “wanna know what big government expects when they push people to the limits.” How exactly has “big government” pushed people to the limits? I know you believe that, but in fact what has happened is that the majority first tried to work in a bipartisan fashion across the aisle, inserted things in the healthcare bill that the Repubs had BACKED and in some cases INTRODUCED, faced an implacable wall of “no” to everything, worked to find ways for the MAJORITY to rule, and found them within reconciliation. It’s only because the bill is unpopular that you see it as pushing people to the limit, but that’s fallacious. It’s been done before, recently by the Republicans with two huge tax cuts to the rich passed through reconciliation—that would be a more accurate “pushing to the wall”, if you want.
If, as you say, the Tea Partiers have “denounced threats”, then what about the signs they carry? Some of those are pretty obvious threats...
First of all, I dispute your belief that the new law is “draconian”; secondly, calling what they’re saying “hyperbole” doesn’t excuse it. It has helped create, and definitely inflamed, their base...what the FauxNews people have been saying isn’t just hype, they’ve been pretty direct in what they say and, although you’ll deny it, encourages anger and fear among their audience, which leads to physical violence when it’s stoked far enough. That’s just fact, history is replete with it.
The worry about Palin is that she has a following who buy into whatever she says, and SHE has been fomenting fear and hatred since she first arrived on the scene. She herself doesn’t bother me except in that she’s amusing and strange, but her influence does—just as that of FauxNews. They repeat lies; people believe them. And that it’s humor is bullshit. Her idea of humor was FauxNews repeating “retarded” over and over again on TV, while condemning Emanuel for saying it once in a closed-door session. I haven’t seen her do anything that indicates what she says about the government and her opponents is seen by her as humor.
Oops, I just g
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"... I don't think he will respond to your childish ploy of calling jong childish ..."
I have a long history of commenting on posts, addressing people personally on the board and other actions. And it's not always meant to get a direct reply, most times it's meant to point something out to other posters.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME