My Response II
Dave continues to deny that his rhetoric has downstream consequences. My response to his response is here in case anyone wants to comment, but would rather not have to deal with DelawarePolitics.
Dave,
You made a choice when you posted the on the “sovereignty” issue. You chose to be a part of a right-wing fear mongering campaign for whatever reason. Only you know if you really think states should feel threatened by Obama or if it was just political posturing.
You could have made another choice and I wish you had.
Anyway, you need to live with your choice however you can. If the way you want to live with it is by attacking me, so be it.
The facts speak clearly in this matter. The shooter used your justification to murder. I’m not saying he read it here. I’m saying that you, Dave, are part of a machine that has no conscience.
When you act as an apologist, that means you are giving approval to the statements that you are advocating for. Don’t be surprised if some of the consequences come back to you then (see Alberto Gonzalez for a good example of this).
I am still waiting for a state to get into the PCP jar and start shooting people.
Burris makes comments about state’s rights issues that have nothing to do with violence. Period.
Culpability for the violence surely rests with those who don’t reject Beck, Limbaugh and Bachmann. Normal, decent Americans understand that unstable people will certainly be impacted by their words.
Burris did indeed reject their words. In writing. Dellies should look in the mirror.
Sir, how responsible do you feel for the Missouri Church shootings?
In that “10” post, nowhere, not even in the blockquote, was there even a mention of violence, implied or otherwise, but that’s OK. Who gives a frick about actual words when you can put them into others’ mouths to suit your maniacal rage?
I’ll say it one more time. The ongoing GOP campaign to make people think that states have something to fear from President Obama is at the heart of this.
Dave chose to take part in that campaign. Everybody makes choices. Dave seems to think that his choices don’t have any impact in the real world. They do.
Did Dave say, “Go shoot someone”?
No.
Does he belong to a group that uses violent rhetoric and imagery to advance its agenda?
Yes.
Did he take part on one of the group’s recent PR campaigns to sow fear of the government in its weak minded followers?
Yes.
I haven’t posted a screed admonishing the right on their ways because it’s simply stating the obvious….
Man goes into church kills parishioners as proxies to Bernie Goldberg’s book – when will Bryant Gumble kick him off Real Sports?
White Supremacist (ok, try to make him a liberal, FSP…dare ya) kills cops in Pitty…worried about teh black, FEMA camps, re-education, blah, blah….
Retarded Texan cuts a “B” into her face, says a black mugger with an Obama t-shirt did it….
But let’s go into history, shall we?
Gay teen in Wyoming killed by peers…
OK City Bombing, anyone?
That’s enough; there’s plenty of more examples out there, if you only look. Hell, I won’t even go into the religious freaks and the shit that’s been done in their name…
Is there really any doubt which ideology harbors the violent rejects? I don’t see anti-war, peacenik folk spilling blood these days. PETA? LOL! The anti-globalization crowd? Mostly a European phenomenon – but a broken window does not equal a cracked skull. That would be false equivalency (as the right should know about all too well). It isn’t the 60s any more, FoxNews. The Weathermen and Black Panthers are dead, dying or enjoying the back nine in Augusta, well maybe not the Panthers…..they were denied tee times for some reason.
Isn’t denial a stage of something or another?
Moderation blows….get me out!
I rescued your excellent comment!
Great comment, Von Cracker.
More history of violence against liberal leaders:
John Kennedy
Robert Kennedy
Martin Luther King
How different the world would look today if they had not been killed.
See Alberto Gonzales . . . Zing U.I. – beee-u-tiful!
V.C. I wish I could write like you.
Thanks you three….funny that, to the right, the conspiracy theories of these assassinations are as bad, if not more so, than the actual murders.
If Republicans, like
Tom CarperMike Castle, want to save their party from the loonies, they need to be brave and make a stand…not kowtow to an entertainer.The Bachmanns and Becks, etc, cater to the believers, talking in a language that is similar to what girls in middle school do all the time….akin to pig Latin. No one understands but the clique. It’s their own little secret society and they feel extra-special that they are the only ones in the know. Unfortunately, just like the little girls at the cool table, they’re alienating everyone, no one can understand where they’re coming from, and no one really cares either. People change; they don’t.
It’s self-absorption run amuck.
Very interesting that those assassinations have been mentioned because when I read the FSP post (and the Steve Newton post) they mention the 10th amendment. This is simple sedition wrapped in a pretty patriotic federalism façade. This is similar rationale that brought us the Missouri compromise in 1850. It’s all about states rights *OF COURSE*. Just because we are backwards slave-owning racists doesn’t mean…
Well, there were secessions and the civil war began, not because of slavery, mind you, but because of STATES RIGHTS! Lincoln somehow won the war and kept the states UNITED. But some lunatic thought that was tyrannical and shot him in the head…
It’s funny how in the history of the US the liberal leaders labeled as tyrants never really do anything tyrannical.
It’s self-absorption run amuck.
Indeed it is, but it is a particularly McCartyite self-absorption — one that makes a fetish out of fear and victimization
Jason: The ongoing GOP campaign to make people think that states have something to fear from President Obama is at the heart of this.
The ongoing campaign or, frankly, the way that the GOP is just organized to disseminate their ideas is really a big part of this issue. The GOP can count on a fairly rigorous message discipline from its true believers. The real job of the VRW media conspiracy is to manage and feed their true believers and give them something to say everyday. When some of these so-called conservatives show up you can take a key phrase, google it and just see how many wingnut site hits you get. It is that orderly.
Many of the folks who choose to be part of the amplification of the talking points don’t check on the basic premises of that point — they just repeat it because it suits the ideology.
The entire business of ramping up the fear and loathing of President Obama is a real continuation of what McCain and Palin finally decided was their best strategy to win the Presidency. They failed on this because what they had to say was so obviously untrue and so obviously atavistic and so obviously not any kind of plan for governing. The wingnut megaphone still thinks that all of this fear and loathing crap is a serious criticism, but none of them really think about what they are really advocating.
Jason’s point — the extent that I understand him to have a point here (and I do think that there is more here) — is that if you run with the Borg, you share culpability with the Borg’s actions. So while denouncing the usual wingnut entertainers, you still get stupid wingnut shit like the Queen of England’s iPod repeated from those who want it repeated. And the first rule of making someone look bad is to made sure your information is perfectly correct.
But taking cues from leadership is exactly what doctrinaire repubs do. And now the doctrinaire are wondering why it is that people think that they are encouraging violence — when it is their entire regime of fear and loathing talking points that has clearly motivated at least one bit of violence. Those who would want to be seen as different than those who call for real violence are really want us to ignore those instances where they continued to amplify the fear and loathing crap. Whether it is ACORN or States Rights, the entire point is to portray this administration as being something to be scared of. The same point is being made by those who insist that Obama wants to take your guns.
This entire business is, of course, a really good reason for Republicans to avoid dealing with their culpability of voting for and cheering on pretty much every bit of the BushCo madness that has killed our economy. And a really good passive aggressive response for removing themselves from any seriousness in being a part of actually fixing said economy. They are delighted to sit on the sidelines and work at ramping up the fears of their base in hopes that more people catch it. Which should tell you everything you need to know about how these people will govern if given a chance again.
Thank you, Cassie, for elevating this issue above the false outrage of the right-wingers.
And I certainly hope it’s false outrage. If it’s real outrage, I think even less of them.
Frankly, the part of their screeching I found most offensive was the faux populism. Funny how people who run around bleating about “class warfare” when someone dares suggest boosting income tax 3% on the highest earners are so quick to “insult” Jason based on his father’s ownership of a successful company. To read their drumbeat of offensive comments, you’d never know they want to permanently get rid of the estate tax.
“But let’s go into history, shall we?
Gay teen in Wyoming killed by peers…
OK City Bombing, anyone? ”
Why weren’t Ruby Ridge, Waco and Elion Gonzales on that list? Oh, right…..
And again Jason, I still want to know how responsible you feel for the Missouri Church Shooting?
Again – false equivalency, Tom. At least, you’re taking the effect and making it the cause. Why are you justifying David Koresh and the potatoheads at Ruby Ridge? Or are you out of plausible arguments and have decided to go “Wolverine” on us?
And a hearty WTF?!? to your Elian Gonzales retort! LOL!
YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!
– JP McEnroe
No links – Why am I being moderated? 2nd time today! Ugh!danke!
Why weren’t Ruby Ridge, Waco and Elion Gonzales on that list? Oh, right…..
LOL . .. Tom S is defending a child molester with Waco.
“Why weren’t Ruby Ridge, Waco and Elion Gonzales on that list? Oh, right…..”
Even you’re not this stupid. Because those were government actions … but of course, by bringing them up here, you show the true feelings conservatives have toward our government: I only have to respect it when Republicans are in office.
Yeah, VC, don’t know why . . . my guess is that it’s all DV’s fault. 😉
Geezer,
The irony of being called out for being in a family business was not lost on me. Neither was the irony of being threatened with a beating for saying Republicans use violent rhetoric.
For the record I don’t address the “silver spoon” stuff because the insults are mostly so utterly clueless and ill-informed that they make me laugh.
Feel sorry and pity poor Tom; for he has lost the ability to make a proper assessment and must rely on others, from up on high, to tell him what to think.
So when a rote response comes out during an inopportune time, let us remember his handicap, albeit self-imposed.
I’m so sick of Republican faux cluelessness. Everyone knows exactly what’s going on and exactly where this trumped up rhetoric (like Bachmann’s and Beck’s) is headed.
The it’s just a crazy person argument doesn’t hold water. No one has ever denied that the Pittsburgh shooter was crazy. It’s the words on his lips as he pulled the trigger which worry me.
When in doubt, it’s ALWAYS DV’s fault!
Dorian (re # 12)
Did you fail reading comprehension?
You say, Very interesting that those assassinations have been mentioned because when I read the FSP post (and the Steve Newton post) they mention the 10th amendment. This is simple sedition wrapped in a pretty patriotic federalism façade.
My only mention of the 10th Amendment (aside from quoting Dave’s post) was this:
Dave Burris’ original post about 10th Amendment protests is one of millions of pieces of discussion about this issue. It doesn’t in any way shape or form argue for anything illegal, violent, or confrontational outside the usual norms of political dynamics.
So now you have gone to the level at which you declare any discussion of the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights as a dynamic in the relationship between the Federal and State governments to be seditious?
You’d be amusing here if you weren’t simply tiresome and poorly read on 19th Century political history.
But if that’s your standard for labeling me as seditious–that I actually omigod mentioned the 10th Amendment–then I guess you can put me down as seditious, because I have no intention of allowing you to determine what subjects of political discourse are on or off limits.
By the way: the Missouri Compromise took place in 1819-1820, not 1850; the Compromise of 1850 repealed the Missouri Compromise; neither of these two pieces of legislation had anything to do with the 10th Amendment. The legal arguments for secession had nothing to do with the 10th Amendment (they stemmed from the ratification clause, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, the Hartford Resolution, and several other documents)….
If you want to advance the idiotic argument that states’ rights and not slavery was the proximate cause of the Civil War, you have just labeled yourself as a deep-died conservative, because no legitimately recognized modern historian has held that view since John G. Randall died sixty years ago.
As for Lincoln and John Wilkes Booth, as well as your tortured attempt to compare his assassination to those of JFK, RFK, and MLK, I’d suggest some actual reading about the times and the context, except that you obviously would have to deal omigod with seditious ideas….
You want to criticize my arguments fine.
Then criticize my arguments. If you can actually read them.
So now you have gone to the level at which you declare any discussion of the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights as a dynamic in the relationship between the Federal and State governments to be seditious?
This is where you show yourself to be an ass. You are either ignoring my point or don’t get it.
Read Cassandra’s comment and report back.
It might be worthwhile to find some of Dave Neiwert’s writing on eliminationism. What’s being described here is exactly what he talks about – about how violent rhetoric from places like Stormfront work their way up through the various conservative sites and gets “laundered” into more mainstream conservative talking points.
I think as Del Dem said in an earlier thread, we can agree to disagree on people’s intentions in various posts. What can’t be denied, however, is that the rhetoric of the far right has got increasingly more violent lately and it’s making its way up to the mainstream more and more.
As far as reading comprehension, mine is actually quite good. I just don’t peruse your entire posts, I just skim… they’re quit long winded and boring to me sometime. Maybe try to be more concise with less cut and paste of FSP.
I wasn’t really even being critical of your arguments. I just found a strange connection between the states rights arguments of the past and the current one.
Anyway, I apologize for getting the date incorrect. I mixed up the repeal date with the passage date. Sorry. I was doing this on-the-fly sans wiki.
And no, invoking the 10th amendment isn’t in itself seditious. I take your point. But crying like a fucking little baby cunt because of some false claims that Obama is engineering a federal gov’t takeover is absolute hysterical non-sense. How would you characterize secession, exactly? Patriotic I guess?