'Brown Shirts'? Town Hall teabaggers' ranks are indeed riddled with right-wing extremists
By David Neiwert Saturday Aug 08, 2009 8:00am
[H/t Gavin.]
Rep. Brian Baird of Washington (whose district includes Olympia and Vancouver) has announced that, rather than run the risk of intentional disruption by the teabagging invaders at recent town-hall meetings, he is going to take another approach:
Instead of appearing in person, where "extremists" would have "the chance to shout and make YouTube videos," Baird said Wednesday, he's holding what he calls "telephone town halls" instead.
Baird said he's using the new system because he fears his political opponents may be planning "an ambush" to disrupt his meetings, using methods Baird compared to Nazism.
"What we're seeing right now is close to Brown Shirt tactics," Baird, D-Vancouver, said in a phone interview. "I mean that very seriously."
Baird's acute observation set off all kinds of predictable whining from the usual suspects on the right.
Indeed, the response from the right-wing media -- particularly on Fox -- so far to suggestions that extremists are manipulating these "tea party" protests has been to snort and roll their eyes.
Of course, these are the same right-wingers who had a conniption fit over a Homeland Security bulletin about right-wing extremism by somewhat tellingly conflating its contents to include them -- only to have those warnings come starkly true. The same right-wingers who have been doing their damnedest to whitewash out of public view the very existence of these same far-right elements.
The reality is that, in western Washington, there is very much a substantial presence of right-wing extremists with whom Baird has had to deal over the years. Including, yes, neo-Nazis and skinheads of various stripes.
More frequently, however, it's come from the far-right "Patriot"/militia movement -- descended but distinct from white supremacists -- whose presence in the region appears to be resurging in recent months. This is the same element that came surging to the fore in the last go-round of "Tea Parties" on July 4 nationally.
Along with their extremist beliefs -- including a bevy of conspiracy theories and scapegoating narratives, as well as an unmistakable racial animus -- the violent and thuggish tendencies of the Patriot movement is a matter of well-established public record. So it is not a surprise to see such behavior bubbling up whenever and wherever they are involving themselves.
A prime example of this is the video above. It's a 10-minute rant advocating a "Second Civil War" if President Obama is able to enact his "socialist" agenda, delivered by a man named Ron Ewart, a King County resident who runs an outfit called the National Association of Rural Landowners, which has been built off the bones of the organizations left behind by the late crackpot Aaron Russo.
NARLO, you see, is not only a big "Tea Party" supporter, it is also a major sponsor. It's listed by ResistNet as one of the sponsors of the Sept. 12 "Tea Party" in Washington, D.C.
In addition to calling for open, armed revolt against the Obama administration, Ewart and NARLO have produced videos such as the one below, which indulges a number of ugly racial stereotypes in attacking President Obama as "the essence of evil" and a man who intends to "destroy America."
You also get the flavor of NARLO's extremism by reading their "About" page:
Unless we organize and continue this fight, unless we get angry, unless we take action, without a doubt, the Republic that we know and love and what the founding fathers envisioned, is going to die a slow, agonizing and wrenching death. It's already showing tell tale signs. Unless we come together in a cohesive fighting unit, our freedoms and liberty shall fade into the dark chasm of socialism and radical environmentalism. Unless we come together for awhile and set aside our individualism and total independence, or our apathy and be willing to join with others who are fighting this WAR against Government excesses, our children and grandchildren will have to live in the invisible chains of the New World Order, perpetrated on all of us by internationalists who want our money and our land. Make no mistake, they are well on their way to getting it. Are we going to stop them, or are we going to just sit there and let them do it? We here at NARLO know how to stop them. Do you? If you knew what we have learned and now know, you wouldn't be able to wait to get involved.
Now, as for neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other overt white supremacists, I've seen very few indications of their presence at the Tea Parties. Nonetheless, as the ADL warned a few weeks ago, they probably are showing up and participating, but not raising their presence yet:
On Stormfront, the most popular white supremacist Internet forum, members have discussed becoming local organizers of the "Tea Parties" and finding ways to involve themselves in the events. Many racists have voiced their intent to attend these rallies for the purpose of cultivating an "organized grassroots White mass movement," with some suggesting that they would do so without openly identifying themselves as racists.
All of this tends to lead to Sara's question: Are we there yet? Are we looking at an outbreak of fascist behavior on a large scale?
My own take: Real fascism is always violent. We’re getting some light violence around the edges here, but fascism always openly embraces the ethos of violence, and that’s not present here ... yet. But we’re getting closer all the time, and the town-hall-forum hooliganism -- particularly the growing presence of right-wing extremists in their ranks -- is definitely a significant step down that road. We may not be there, but we are cruising the parking lot.
Login or Register to post comments.
peaceful civilized solution to this mess at this point.
It's already out of control.
And think about how ironic it is that working class people who want better wages and benefits suddenly have become Anti-Union?
I agree, the average working stiff suddenly is anti union, pro-corporate. The wealthy deserve lower taxes because they create jobs, and they believe this although there isn't a shred of evidence or common sense in any of it. They are perfectly happy licking up the scraps that the wealthy toss on the floor for them.
Go after campaign contributors that give money to conservatives
Sign these health care petitions
http://www.change.org/actions/view/i_demand_c...
http://www.change.org/actions/view/rep_mike_r...
Read our blog http://blog.democratz.org
After 8 years of getting reamed by Bush and these criminals, they still believe them.
Unfreakingbelievable ain't it?
Unions just try to get a living wage- like the food staff at Harvard University several years ago- is socialism/communism but Friendly Boards giving outragous salaries by unquestioned votes is OK. Bush even said we have to look at how CEO's are compensated. Its bad when G.W. says its out of control- he only spent the past 8 years working in their self interests.
It's been out of control for years, just a realised fact of the miss information that the vast majority of americans cling to, with gleeful pride of their ignorance.
My Congressional Representative, Earl Blumenauer, has also announced that his town halls will be telephone conferences too. I wish he did an online meeting too....
When our democratically elected officials become afraid to appear in public to meet with constituents you just know we're moving in the wrong direction. What's next? Bullet-proof vests? Armed guards?
The DOJ needs to get their "Domestic Terrorist" division involved, engaged and moving
http://pro.corbis.com/images/NA012180.jpg?siz...
Have them haul Dick Armey into their offices and explain why a leaked memo reads that people should shout and scream and don't worry about logical arguments, and to shut down these town halls. That appears as interfering with government operations.
By the way Exxon/Mobil funds Americans for Prosperity(?) the other astroturf organization that opposes health care so spread the word not to buy Exxon/Mobil gasoline, nor get your car repaired there nor buy convenience items from their stores.
The powers behind the Brown shirts know what they are doing.
The script is an old one.
And we know how the play ends.
They are following the model point by point. Property destruction is next and I look for that to begin before next week is out. Turn off Clear Channel, whether or not the station you listen to has Rush. Don't watch anything on FOX, news or otherwise. Let the advertisers know why. This has to stop and the only thing their media enablers understand is money.
to anything either because they make money from that also.
People can just right click, highlight, copy and run a google search.
And one that I should have made myself. Thanks Evet. :)
These people are what happens when the KKK has incestuous sex with the John Birch Society. The modern rightwing fringe has morphed into an amazing complexity of forms and agendas, all sharing an intense fear and hatred of change and The Other.
Is abject terror of the "not them"
Jim: [consoling Bart] What did you expect? "Welcome, sonny"? "Make yourself at home"? "Marry my daughter"? You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons.
--Blazing Saddles (Brooks, Steinberg, et.al., 1974)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txrikNFX-8E&fe...
1) Bring out the National Guard.
2) If we can't civilize our own nation, wtf business do we have trying to "civilize" Iraq, Afghanistan, etc?
3) Telephone conference calls is an excellent idea.
I too kept thinking back to the mantra of "giving the people of Iraq their freedom in helping to create a democracy."
As well as other issues in their lives, these (town hall meeting) crazies obviously don't understand the concept of how a democracy works. And for those who do, it's apparent that they really don't care.
Couldn't they be disrupted by speed-dial, phone-bank clogging, and not sticking to the original question?
The only way these people will be satisfied is if they see the Democratic Party forcibly disbanded and if Obama and other Democratic leaders are impeached, imprisoned and even executed. It's completely illogical to think that these people will see any kind of reason.
They talk about free speech, and then silence their congressmen/women and senators in Town Hall meetings. They talk about defending their rights, and then call for bloodshed and civil war within 8 months of Obama's presidency. They talk about freedom, and then they deny the rights of anyone who isn't them and fight to push back social evolution by 100 years.
These people aren't American, no-one can and should define them as that. They're monsters.
Whether religious, political or otherwise, the distinctions aren't as important as the philosphy of getting their way through fear and intimidation.
well good thing bush passed all those executive orders to use against anyone threatning the state and the patriot act, the democrats can use them to go after these people.
Who would Jesus threaten, beat up or shoot at?
Would Jesus deny health care to people?
something they found out they didn’t want, shortly after they got it.
So they made up their own version.
Yesterday I was on the Dallas Morning News blog debating is Health Care a Moral Imperative, and using only Biblical citiations, leaving it to the reader to look up, and the Preamble to the US Constitution, only to have one commenter trying to dominate the thread say I was talking gibberish. And he claimed to be Christian. The scriptures he cited I actually looked up, and either seemed to have no bearing on the subject at all, or were suggesting that those who needed healthcare were somehow lazy.
They would probably insist on "Survival of the Fittest," and think that's not from Darwin, who they oppose, but the Bible.
Actually, that phrase is from Herbert Spencer, a prominent social evolutionist. The are all devout social evolutionists. It is biologial evolution they deny.
No Darwin did say Survival of the Fittest in terms of SPECIES, but I suspect from what you said Herbert Spencer argued Survival of the Fittest in terms of the Individual, i.e. Social Darwinism.
Darwin used the phrase in passing, but it was Spencer who introduced it into common usage.
I think the key thing though, was Spencer had no mechanism for evolution to happen, whereas Darwin did, natural selection.
And I checked, Spencer was involved in the Social Darwinism movement.
Which is what I said. Spencer was an egregious racist among other things, who used his theory of social evolution to promote British colonialism. FWIW, I teach this stuff in my history of anthropological theory class.
John Dingell is my Representative, I participated in one telephone 'town meeting'. This was last summer, everyone was asking about the price of gasoline and such. They were not a particularly well informed lot.
His staff came on the line with me. I said I wanted to talk about the Pentagon Propaganda Program. Before I was put through the meeting was suddenly over.
I have received periodic telephone messages about other meetings. They always say they are 'sorry' that I wasn't home to participate.
I was home, they don't like tough questions. They don't engage tough questioners.
That we have a Democracy is an illusion.
Why didn't you say you wanted to ask them about defense spending/appropriations?
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs urged that people go on discussing the issues but without the rancor.
"It's important that people be civil. We can discuss these issues without being uncivilized. It's the same thing I tell my 6-year-old," he told reporters on Friday.
===================================
How's that for a feckless response? I wish they were taking this issue seriously. Unfotunately, only after there's a bombing or shots fired will they open their eyes.
rather then stepping in and putting his neck on the line.
Being Gibbs grew up and was brainwashed as a child in Alabama probably doesn't help.
He's in the Big Time now!
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/03/0...
(Has Axe realized that part in his hair is getting a little bit on the large size?)
Trouble is on the Left there's the same problem.
You try to have a demonstration against boosh's war or other policies, and not only are you herded to a "Free-speech" zone, but you have self-described anarchists trying to cause trouble.
Problem is most of them seem to have an amorphous definition of what the term even means.
If the Obama Administration doesn't start getting tough about this 'teabagging' and 'astroturfing' bull. Someone is going to get hurt. I think that's what the GOP wants. I think anyone with half of a brain knows it's GOP that is paying and recruiting people to disrupt all these townhall meetings. I can understand Obamas' reluctance though. There needs to irrefutable proof to that effect. Who knows, maybe the Obama White House has already been collecting evidence? If it can be proven, unquestionably, that the GOP is behind all this, it would be the death of the Republican Party as we know it. This more than just grass-roots or responsible opposition. Health care is one of the very things he ran on in his campaign, now all the sudden there is this heated and almost violent opposition?? It makes no sense to me. I think the GOP is doing nothing less than trying to start another revolution or Civil War. Obama has already said that Rush Limbaugh is on thin ice. It's the likes of him that are fueling this. I wouldn't surprise me that many elected officials in D.C. are behind it also. Even though Republicans have lost much of their power, they still have the money and can still be very dangerous. They are desperate and are losing their collective minds.
The wingnutter in the first clip is probably the next Tim McVeigh. Don't wait for more innocent American men, women and children to die at the hands of another conservative domestic terrorist!
I just realized what all these town hall fracases remind me of.
Union busting.
Maybe it's time for some Trust busting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZkr2yWKk24
There was an attempt to recruit formers soldiers, the so-called "Bonus Army" in 1933, into a unit like the French Croix de Feu, and overthrow the US government and replace it with a fascist state, which was headed primarily by Wall Street.
In which Grandpa Bush was a prominent figure.
Gen. MacArthur kicked the shit out of them if I remembered correctly.
OMG....it is reminiscent of Union busting. Good call!
"Like the time I took the ferry to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe so I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on them. Give me five bees for a quarter you'd say. Now where were we, oh ya. The important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because if the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones."
did you remember that, Abe?
I don't bother memorizing Biblical passages.
What would have happened to the banking industry if Obama had a the same attitude towards corporations that Taft and T. Roosevelt had.
It's obvious just how many idiot Right Wing-Nut terrorists didn't make it past the 6th grade.
Ask them, you want a free College Education?
They say "I don't need no stinkin educhusmation!"
Dems were home skooled wit da bible!
...into the same blood/shit drenched toilet his party has been bathing in the last thirty fucked up years while slamming the new President for trying to help pull us out.
now hold on a min, i havent said a word about what obama has done or blamed anything on him, im atempting to point out liberals and conservative have lost their principles and only make fun of each other and want to see each other fail, For example, i went out to a bunch of anti war rallies for the past 5 years or so and every body was against the govt monitoring the people, at them and gathering intel on groups under the guise of "fighting terror" but now that the democrats are in power its ok for the white house to say, hey let us know if you hear any one saying anything negative about health care in casual conversation or in an email, and send it to flag@whitehouse.gov. I think we are missing the point that both sides ignore what is "right" so long as they can make the other look stupid. Every time you call some one a wing nutter or a racist or say they should be arrested, it makes them want to fight you that much more, if there is a civil war as a result of this it will be fueled by both sides, it wont be because they are just rascist, but when you go on tv and say everyone is an extremist if they own guns or dont like obamas policy, and they are terrorist and need to be on meds thats not the way to preserve the union. And I am offended at the fact that im just a republical "liar troll" when i sat out in a feild for a week with a bunch of hippies eating granola in front of bushes ranch being called a "hippie commie fag who hates america"
so go ahead and tell me some more swear words that you know.
If "both parties are the same" why is that your party has went criminally psychotic against President Obama, an alleged member of the "same party"?
i dont care about their rhetoric and bs spectacles on tv, thats to keep you hating me,I am taking about the the fact that whoever is in power, the politacaly active group of people in the country fight about stupid issues and the legislature makes no positive change, it only grows the size of government, i mean there is a democrat president and congress, why the hell are we still in iraq? and why are you assuming i am a republican?
Let's cut the bullshit dude. You folks have been angry since election night...you never intended to give Obama a chance. These "protests" have been an extension of race based anger from November 5th.
what is the profile, because Im not just agreeing with you? first of all im not at these protests,Im making a point that i think people are instigating each other and its helping further the division in this country. And you make a big fucking assumption when you declare some body a racist with absolutly no grounds to do so, some people who have spent alot of time in their life trying to get past racial division in this counrty may take offense to it as i do, but it seems to me you cant even respond to what im saying because you have some pre-concived image of who and what you think i am. Simply because im raising a differnt point here, i must be a republican racist homophobic mexican hating christian deer hunter who dosent belive in climate change and thinks iraq did 911 and obama is a secret muslim communist homosexual, because i dare dissagree with you! and it completely illustrates my point that the foot ball team mentality of american politics is a problem.
you cant even consider the fact that i might not be one of your astro-bagger nutter-butter minuet man climate denier rascits pigs can you? theres no way a normal person could have another point of view is there?
John Dingell held a town hall meeting where there wasn't a huge presence of counter-protestors, but the teabaggers were still screaming about how their kids with cerebral palsy were going to have their government benefits cut, that Medicare was going to be slashed- fucking lies propagated by the trillion-dollar-a-year health care/health insurance/pharmaceutical industry, with the intention of getting people scared and frothy-mouthed.
We had elections in November. The Democrats built on their majorities in both chambers of Congress and won the presidency. They did this by supporting health care reform. Voters who didn't wish to see reform voted against the Democrats. And now that Democrats are close to making even the smallest bit of change, those whose candidates lost the election are using any tactics they can to stop the process. Those tactics, and the grand strategy, have been formulated by faux grassroots organizations like FreedomWorks, groups funded by corporations.
Think about it: Corporations working for their own financial interests whipping up fear and anger in a segment of the population through lies, then pointing that segment of the population at those who would act to limit the corporations. What do you get? Read this.
its not a "bull shit premise" to say that: 1:declaring all opposition as fake
2:declaring that the only reason any one opposed obama is becasuse they hate blacks
3:declaring all right winger are violent terrorist,and should have the military used against them...
is going to make them even that much more "radical" and could cause this so called "civil war". Its fine if you think they are dumb-asses or backward cave dwellers for their irrational faith-based actions, but treating them the same way bush and the neo-cons treated the anti-war movement isnt "change"
1). Not all of it is fake. A few- a very few- of these people showed up at the teabagging parties in April. They were pretty peaceful. But the crowds were tiny.
2).Why are the crowds disproportionately homogeneous? I'm not just talking about the lack of African-Americans, but of Latinos and Asian-Americans? Explain that to me.
3). Who's declaring that ALL right-wingers are violent terrorists? We're talking about the direction these "protests" are going. We're talking about people who lost, peacefully, at the ballot box and are know getting right up in the faces of those attempting to affect the change for which they were elected.
And why aren't the vast majority of conservatives- those who don't bother showing up at these town hall meetings- vocally opposing these "in-your-face" tactics?
I would think the first question you ask is simple, traditionally most minorities are democrats,any time i have been to a political rally be it on either side, i have seen predominately white people, and from what ive learned talking to black folks about this type of thing it seems they are some times brought up beliveing that they have no political say and that the blacks are not going to be listened to politically, i mean look what happend to the black panthers, they had a legitamate organization who was standing up for them selves against the establishment and the government took them down by saying they were terrorists, and as far as the mexicans go, I think alot of them probably still are a little weary of being seen as conservative because of the whole illegal issue, and i dont think there is a very sizeable asian population that is politically active on a scale big enough to show up as national force in the media, but that being said, do you have to be a certain color to have an opinion? I mean would it be ok if it was tons of mexicans against healthcare?
and as far as who is declaring them terrorist, the department of homeland security during the bush administration, and now the obama administration has put out threat assesment reports and extremist lexicons saying basically anyone opposed to the administrations policy are considered extremists, and now returning vets are supposed to be likley domestic terrorists, but i was just talking about the posts on this site, every time david posts an article about someone doing something stupid who owns a gun every one come out and says they should be thrown in prison because they are a wing nutter,and as far as the conservatives and what they are doing, who knows alot of them belive obamas from kenya and listen to glenn becks cia operative bullshit, i went to the tea party in san antonio to try to talk to people about how beck was setting them up to look like a bunch of fox news paid for fakes and they ran us out of the place saying how dare we question beck?
but either way people on both sides are driven by their hatred of the other not the proposed legislation
The report was that returning vets would be targeted for recruiting purposes by far-right groups, not that they already are far-right.
Although there are reports of some going to Nazi and other far right rallies. But that may be because the military had to drop some of their requirements to enlist to meet their quotas, including some with various criminal records they would've refused before the shortage.
I'm ex-Air Force, E-4, Top Secret Clearance, Honorable Discharge, and you?
im an american with an opinon, what of it? now i have to be either black or former military to have an opinion?
what kind of progressive website is this? ok ill yeild that to you, there is no threat of vets being considered extremist, people are still saying american citizens should be locked up for what they belive, if you took an oath to defend the constitution then you know we dont lock people up with out due process, it dosent matter if im adolph hitler or donald rumfeld, Americans deserve due process, and when people on either side of the political spectrum demand the other side be locked up for their politics, we are no better than soviet russia, argue against that instead of telling me why I have no right to an opinion.
I agree with you that it would be good for us all to engage each other humanely and to encourage all perspectives to be logically processed.
I even agree with you to a certain point that whoever is in power or is seeking it will engage in political methods that can be deceptive, hypocritical, and condescending.
Where we'll find it harder to see eye to eye is in how we interpret the actions of people coming from different political ideologies. As a "paleo conservative" you understand why people are opposing Obama's agenda and empathize with them, which, I'd argue, causes you to overlook the means used.
The same thing would be likely to happen with progressives who may be passively accepting of some eco-terrorist acts.
I'd be curious to know if you agree that there is more of an authoritative nature in the conservative mentality. And if so, if you can see how that would lead to a more violent and less democratic response to perceived threats.
From my perspective, since '94 the republicans have been engaged in a hostile and disingenuous strategy of vilifying progressive politicians and ideas in the media to such an extent that a very corporatist, unintellectual, and nationalistic media is assumed to be liberal by virtually everyone on the right.
This is normal, since it is to the left of your views, but consider that it is also to the right of a liberal's views.
thank you for actually addressing me as a person, thats what i was looking for, I completely agree with you that republicans engage in disingenuous tactics, that was what i was yelling at the rooftops about during the last administrations use of fear of terror to demonize anyone who questioned or protested the war or the police state, but that being said, im atempting to make the point that the two sets of percived threats that each side is taught to fear from the other lead to the problems we have now. I have no problem with leftists having an agenda and trying to get it done, i just wish it didnt turn into the dragging out the SPLC shit list and painting the opposition as being violent racist because we can get away with it, because to me its no better than bush saying if u oppose the war or smoke weed you love alqeda, and hate america.
and the point that no one who has responded to me has realized is im not advocating poeple yelling at town hall meetings or any of the other crap thats being done, Im more concerned with the fact that we cant yell at politicians in america period, I mean we were thrown out of the university of texas for ambushing William Kristol about his dad being a Trotskyite and for the neocons stageing fake intel to start the war and we video taped it too, thats what you do, and when glenn beck or brian kilmead or and other of these fox news assholes came on tv and said we needed to be tased or beaten, the right loved it, i mean michelle malkin said we should be put in camps, and now i read crooks and liars and the comments i read on this and other articles are saying people should be locked up for a long time and have their 2nd amendment rights removed because, they look crazy or said something that pissed off some one, and thats fun to joke about but thats what they did in the U.S.S.R. and both sides are doing it.
first of all, what's the SPLC shit list?
Politicians (epitomized by Bush II) tend to try to control dissent and frame their message in untruthful ways. There is no way around that.
When "journalists" behave that way then you have to question their integrity and the decision-making processes of those who promote them.
Having grown up in rural Wisconsin (owning 8 guns at one point in my life) I know exactly where you're coming from in your valuing of gun ownership rights.
However, the DHS report seems pretty obvious to me. The citizens most likely to use violence for political reasons are reactionary conservatives with ties to guns. That is, clearly, an instance of profiling, but the evidence overwhelmingly supports the assertion.
That said, I don't know what the solution is. For starters, the hate/fear-mongers in the right-wing media ARE responsible for inciting people to think fearfully, hatefully, and ultimately, violently.
You just didn't see that from the left EVEN against the worst president ever.
Regarding accusations of racism, I think you make a fair point. It is not okay to presume racism. The difference in your comparison with conservatives accusing liberals of hating America, however, is that that is an absurd and ignorant assertion. Yet, the evidence of racism among the crowd who opposes Obama tells us that it is prevalent to say the least.
I think that most liberals (including those on this site) wouldn't assume you're racist just because you oppose Obama. Although, we'd really have to come to terms with what it means to be racist to continue on that topic.
its probably safe to say that the majority of white racists probably dont like obama, i guess growing up in a mixed race home and not being around anyone that really hates blacks, i just find it hard to belive there are really that many racists in america in the first place.
As far as the gun issue goes i dont think there can be a comparison because there is nothing the left fears losing that can be used as a weapon, i mean you cant kill some one with gay rights or abort some one in a drive by choiceing, and i understand why the left thinks the right is crazy for thinking that gun control may be passed, i mean to most of them guns are unnecessary in a socialy evolved modern society, so any one afraid of losing them would be backwards any way and dosent need to own them.
In defense of that however, as i am a second amendment activist there are proposed bills that would grately limit gun ownership, the attorney general the vice president and the president have all said they would like to re-instate the assault weapons ban, and weather or not you think i need a semi auto rifle or not,if the democrats control the legislature and the whitehouse, and they traditionally have been the gun control party, isnt it fair to think just from a strategic stand point that that would be the time to do it? Especially with all the shootings going on its a prime time to ban guns, if i was anti gun id be demanding we ban them now and naming the laws after little girls who were hit by a stray bullet by a wing nutter racist who dug a bunker and filled it with caned beans and a case of bibles, so i dont think its wrong to be afraid of it if thats what they fear.
imagine if palin was elected and the republicans had control and you saw bills about banning abortion or gay marraige, just because no one would have the balls to co-sponsor the bill dosent mean the left wouldnt have good reason to make a stink over it.
Southern Poverty Law Center, its the go to one stop shop for anti right wing stats, talking points, gun death numbers, every thing you could want to demonize the right, they even have a map so you can find all the official hate groups in your area, an in-dispenceable
tool for any left wing activist, I think my web site is even on there :)
The assault weapons ban was a joke. I had a ruger 10-22 that was made illegal because it had a folding stock, a 25 round clip, semi-auto, pistol grip.
How a pistol grip made the gun more dangerous, I'm still scratching my head about.
Dave Obey is the democratic rep. for northern Wisconsin and he is a strong proponent of gun rights. There are so many democratic reps. that NEED to be pro-gun to get elected, that there is no way that people are ever going to have there guns taken away.
Seeing people living with that fear is upsetting to me because as I see it, people are being manipulated. People who would normally be rational and curious can start filtering everything they think through a narrow anxiety test. And it is all to easy for media sources to keep people constantly focusing on something like that at the expense of truth and objectivity.
To be honest, guns aren't even on my radar in the political realm, so I don't know what bills are out there or how much support they have.
Please fill me in.
this is the scariest one to me it hasnt gone any where but it was proposed in reaction to a violent gang shooting in chicago, early this year:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill...
and this one i dont like now that we have bushes and now obamas list of potential domestic terrorist:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2159/show
and like i said before, im not afraid that the dems will pass all of these, but they can if they want to, and i think its fair to say if more shootings happen due to economic or racial strife, if i were anti gun id jump on it.
I haven't put much thought into what I think possible solutions to America's gun violence problem might be.
But, my first instinct is that it actually seems like a good idea for there to be a record of who owns which guns. Wouldn't it be nice to know who owned the gun that's used in a crime (using forensic tests).
With the second bill you mention, I can see why you'd be leery of it if you're already on a left-wing watchdog's list. I grant you that there's potential for abuse.
That said, what do you think the answer is? Isn't it the government's job to keep us safe from terrorism?
once again a can of worms, do you define americas gun problem as gang shootings? or by the number of mass murder suicides like v tech or any other like that?
i think the core problem is preventative laws dont stop criminals, so that really leaves no hope for stopping gang violence, and as far as mass-shootings go, I think its a crime that the fact that the majority of mass shooters have been on SSRI drugs (that list side effects as having psychotic breaks and wanting to kill people and your self) is overlooked.
there has been legal precedent set to show it is not the responsibility of law enforcement to protect you at all times, when people have sued because they are hurt or had a crime commited against them, so that brings you to the great paradigm,(how do i make bad people be good with laws), if you are like me you believe in individual responsibility. if someone come in my house right now on pcp (or in the case of a liberal argument)simply looking for food to feed his under-privelaged family, no one is going to stop him from killing me or my wife, but me, purely based on the time it would take for some one who supossedly has the authority to carry a gun, to get there. So sadly as far as that goes as long as there are guns on the planet and people who kill people, realistically the good people should have them. I wish ALL the democrats had guns as well so then the debate would be how to stop people from wanting to kill each other and not "why do the wing nutters hate inner city children"
as far as terrorism goes, we then come to what we define it as, is terror some asshole in alabama who thinks obama is a muslim? no hes an idiot, if he kills somebody, hes a murderer and we already have laws for that.
I have no problem with the government "protecting us from terror" but taking advantage of the fear of terrorism to go after our political enemies IS terrorism.
I guess i just dont think there is a legitimate terrorist threat to america, from the muslims or the kkk.
but if there was your best line of defense is you, not the cops or any one else. If the black are worried about the racists killing them then i feel they should arm them selves to protect their children and families.
I guess overall I dont think there is a government solution, and thats where i lose most liberals.
I think that that is where we need to better understand each other.
Having the knowledge that it would be EASY for ANYBODY at all in this country to kill dozens of people with an arsenal of firearms is a form of terrorism to some.
We've know that for any number of uncontrollable reasons that that can happen. In fact, there is evidence that hateful people are committing those crimes at an increasing rate because their fears are being fed by right-wing extremists.
We both know that it's unrealistic that the majority of people in the country are going to pick up guns to be more secure. Urban people especially tend to prefer more restrictions to gun presence.
Given that this is how it is, I would be fine with different regions establishing their own gun laws. Rural areas being more tolerant presumably.
But, I'm now realizing that it actually seems to make a lot of sense to have a ballistics test done on a firearm before it's sold. The only drawback I'd see is that it would add to the cost. Is there any other reason you could see for opposing that?
Just think about how helpful it would be. Thousands of people are murdered every year. Who knows how many people are injured and how many other crimes involve guns that are fired (tens, if not hundreds of thousands!).
This seems like it would have great potential to cause people to be more cautious about what they do with their guns because they'd know that crimes would leave a 'fingerprint' that is directly traceable to them.
I should let you know that I am a strong advocate that it should be fairly easy for Americans to own a wide variety of firearms.
But, I do disagree with you that the best solution is the free market. These are deadly weapons that are responsible for a lot of violence in our culture. If we have the ability to know who is responsible for gun crimes, isn't it our duty to do that to the best of our ability?
Not having that information currently available is a criminal's best friend, isn't it?
The way I see it, there is no such thing as there "not being a government solution" unless you live in complete and total anarchy. Otherwise, the government is necessarily involved in some way and by all means, we want it to be in the interest of responsible gun owners, even if they want to own an AR-15.
that would work assuming all gun crimes were commited with guns legally purchased, and that their original owners who legally bought them committed the crime, and im not sayin the govt shouldnt try to fix it, im just sayin i dont think they can, at least not with out infringing on some rights, but that may be possible in the near future, especially when the majority of people dont see a need for a second ammendment and dont know why the founding (persons) put it in there, personally i dont think its so rich assholes can shoot at birds (and their friends faces) im of the belief that freedom has a cost, and by that i dont mean we need to kill everybody in iraq like the "freedom isnt free" crowd
I mean being a free human without a government restricting what you can do in regard to how you live your life requires you take on some responsiblities that someone in a system with a more invasive govt would have.
there can be a govt solution, it just depends where between anarchy and tyranny you want to live.
belive me if we could build a machine out of used clunkers that cured racism and turned all the guns into homes for unwanted nonwhite children that ran on co2 and only emitted free health care id be all for it i just dont think human nature will allow it.
the majority of the stats ive seen used to demonize guns are about gang shootings or kids shooting each other, the rest of it is school/mass shootings
so in either case most gang members have legal problems which prevents them from buying these new guns with the proposed testing done, thus stolen guns/black market, plus you have to consider every gun built on the planet in history would still be here and it may take awhile for them to go away, then kids shooting them selves, most young kids that shoot them selves wouldnt be detered by that either, and mass shooters on pshycotic drugs who usually shoot themselves, and in most cases legally buy them any way arent going to care either way. killing people is already illegal that dosent stop it. and im not even arguing from the right wing idealogical view that "its my goddam right"
im just saying realistically the guns exist they wont go away, sure if they never existed no body would get shot but in reality they do and guns are more dangerous to you if cant shoot back, i know it sucks but humans are meant to have a self defense instinct, and sadly its been conditioned out of us. birds dont call the dog when the cat chases them, they watch their ass.
On the idea that each person and each community should have autonomy to live how they want to live as long as it is not hurting anyone else:
The problem is that people, rightfully in my view, see arms production as a harm to their communities.
How would you make individuals/ communities feel safe if guns start infiltrating "gun-free" zones? (I know that you think everybody everywhere should be able to carry, but I'd be curious to know how you'd see this playing out and if you could possibly see something like this as a compromise.)
I share the concern that the police want themselves to be the only ones with firearms.
In fact, there is such overwhelming public support for gun ownership in different parts of the country that the government knows that it would be futile to try to restrict responsible ownership everywhere. But, where do you think we should draw the line? Grenades, tanks, missiles?
I guess that's where I stand. Different places should establish different rules for themselves.
There are some ways in which government involvement is harmful for society and some ways in which it is helpful (varying with each individual on the specifics, of course).
you almost said states rights there, for a min i thought i was talking to a libertarian! You can make people "feel" safe in a gun free zone but they wont be, chicago is a gun-free zone, columbine high school was a gun free zone, you can think all day about how to morally or ideologically stop gun crime, but criminals could care less what the law is, bottom line is human nature can not be legislated away, people kill with guns because its the current technology, but they killed each other with knives before, the underlying problem is we have been conditioned to think voilence is only on tv and because we have twitter and cell phones, we have socially evolved past the point of needing to defend our selves.
as far as how far should it go, in 1789, the right to keep and bear arms meant muskets and smooth bore cannons, swords and spears, because thats what the oppressors had, but in all honesty i think our culture is to fucked up now to truly have real freedom, all i know is thers well intended liberal ideology, and then theres people who may want to kill you, and you can try callin the govt, or talking them out of it, but id rather you shoot first and live to tell me about it.
But in theory, my political philosophy is probably best described as libertarian socialism. I think people and communities should be empowered to live freely.
The problem I have with straight up libertarianism is that I do not believe that governmental laws and programs are always necessarily completely useless in affecting human behavior.
In fact, there is overwhelming evidence everywhere you look that policies do affect behavior. The difficult part for me comes when behavior is coerced rather than a result of intrinsic motivation.
And this explains the gap we have in our views of human nature. Sure, people can act violently. But, people also have the capacity to be loving and compassionate beings. What we focus on will affect our future actions.
This is easily observable fact. Our brains physically develop in a way that is dependent on the environment in which we developed. Violent, hateful, fearful models of behavior create violent, hateful, fearful acting people.
Whereas peaceful, loving, compassionate models of behavior create peaceful, loving, compassionate acting people. This is not just theory, it is observable in the PHYSICAL development of the brain.
This is why I can't be a pure libertarian. If children are being neglected and abused it is society's duty to help them. I'd even extend this to education.
In order to think freely, you have to develop critical thinking skills. There are windows of development that close by the time we reach adulthood, so one could argue that it is a form of neglect to permit children to be indoctrinated into an inability to think rationally.
That said, there's obviously a great amount of leeway that parents should have in the specifics of what they think is right for their children.
As for the issue of guns, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think there is any such thing as "real" freedom. There is your conception of freedom, my conception of freedom, and 7 billion others' conceptions of freedom.
I'd feel more free knowing that if a gun is used in a crime, it can be traced back to it's owner. You'd feel more free not having to pay for a ballistics test before you bought a gun.
Neither of us is "right". But, this just illustrates that the term freedom is a hollow word in many instances.
Also, people are more likely to kill someone if they have a gun than if they only have a knife because it is much harder psychologically to physically kill someone than it is to pull a trigger from a distance. Guns dehumanize the experience.
Is the poster child of worthless feel good legislation.
It didn't prevent the shootout at North Hollywood, nor did it prevent Columbine.
It's a perfect exmaple of people passing laws over something they know little about. Here in California, the laws regarding guns are still as if the AWB was in place. Just once I'd like for one of these anti-gun people to explain to me what makes a rifle with a pistol grip and detachable mag any more dangerous than an M-1 Garand or un-modded SKS.
usually when you modify an sks it makes it less deadly because it jams all the time.
The purpose of that e-mail addy is to send ahead the rumors that are being spread ("I heard that health care reform will cut my grandmother's Medicare"), not who's spreading those rumors ("Oh, and John Smith of 112 Elm St., Anytown, USA, told me this")...Like you're doing here.
You're paranoid. At best, that is.
if i was woried about it id be paranoid, im just saying i think its hypacritical
You're disingenuous.
now we are getting some where, how so?
so you really think the administration cares that i think the two party system is a problem in relation to their health care plan? o brother..
...to fortify your bullshit through this false "intergration". Lol.
One last thing troll, why didn't you amendment hypocrites speak out in support of Professor Gates while his rights were violated in his home?
I did defend him, and i even defended obamas right to say that the police acted stupidly, I dont know what your talking about with token negros, or who the amendment hypocrites are. Why cant i be an individual, you keep insisting im a republican operative, in in some group?
You've only been signed on for four days, so you couldn't have supported anyone here on this site before then at any rate.
Your timing is suspicious as well since you only signed up roughly when all these disruptions started, and appear to try to be doing to this site something comparable to what they're doing outside townhalls.
im not trying to fool any body, yeah im a new member, and yea its because of this issue, but to say i couldnt have defended gates because i registered on crook and liars recently is just silly. as if this web site is the only place in which political debate is heard, and to say im doing what the "astobirthers" are doing at town halls, when im not talking about health care or birth cirtificates or whatever, i think thats alittle un fair. I registerd on here because id like to understand why the other members on here want people like me ( as I personally identify myself as a paleo conservative) as well as the beck followers and the idiot that follow the republicans, to be arrested and have their political speach scilenced. but overall i started viewing this site about 6 months ago when david neiwert wrote an article calling me and my girlfreind right wing racist nut cases, as this was before the more popular "astrobirther" term was concived. so id like to talk to you folks about it with out being told "fuck you" again, thank you.
Anti-war protests to these town hall crashing lunatics?
On the face of it, yeah it does seem hypocritical on the left. But looking at the context, well I don't recall many instances of people on the left with veiled threats of shooting conservatives. I mean did you or anyone around you make statements threatening to use the 2nd Amendment as an excuse to shoot Republicans?
This is repulsive. America is being destroyed from within.
They need to have better control of these events. I'm not saying taking loyalty oaths like Bush did, but how about having a few officers on hand at the start of the event.
You could start each of these meetings by saying:
Any person who shouts or disrupts this meeting or shouts questions before the Q&A period will be escorted out. Thank you.
And then proceed to remove those who are not willing to have a rational discussion.
so i cant disagree,or my post will be deleted? but its ok if i use profanity against people and call conservatives funny names?
[Jokingly or not, DO NOT ADVOCATE VIOLENCE AT THIS SITE. Thank you. Site Monitor]
:)
im sorry, i was more trying to illustrate what i felt was hypocracy, wont happen again.
My brother who is a born again christian recently said to me something to the effect of how are they going to pay for health care, he said "they're talking about taxing people who make 5 million dollars a year 400 thousand dollars. i just don't agree with that' ( aparantly modern evangelicals are all calvinists who believe that people are rich or poor because of moral failings or success ). anyway there is also a lack of perspective. to put it into perspective my brother would have to make 100 thousand dollars every year for 50 fucking years to make 5 million dollars.
nuh uh mr. government man don't you tax that rich man. i don't even want to say "rich" man because i don't believe in rich or poor. i believe in god and freedom and...don't you dare infringe on his ability to eat lobster salad at any time of the day. fuck you, i don't want a living wage, i don't know what the fuck that is just give me pocket change and ass pennies. no way you're giving me health care, i don't need hand outs i've got a turnakit, i've stopped the bleeding.
uh...im sorry this is all just so frustrating
my brother in law (a different person) started talking to me about entitlements and so now i think i have at least partially figured out all the objections to health care. 1. they don't trust the government (we knew that) 2. they hate to see poor uneducated blacks receive anything. its like during new orleans all they saw was the looting and these perverse stories of people raping and murdering. they didn't see the humanity of these people drowning and losing their homes. so right now when they see government programs they imagine good honest upstanding christian white men having to pay taxes for these poor savage beasts. that's what they mean when they say "entitlements" they are referencing that mental image of a black woman at an obama rally saying (paraphrasing:) "obama's gonna save me and take care of me."
Combination of Calvinism/Jansinism/Social Darwinism/False-Consciousness.
They may hate uneducated blacks but they hate upwardly mobile blacks even more.
When you're so far down the ladder you're outclassed by nearly everyone, it causes great angst and the need to feel superior.
The only thing they can feel pride about is the color of their skin.
....when you so far down the latter........
Excellent! Today's winner!
Did your brother mean that those who make 5 million a year would be taxed $400,000 in total, or in addition?
Because if he meant in total, $400,000 is only 8% of 5 million....that would be a rather low tax rate!
in addition...but im sure he would be bothered by it even if it was only 8% :/
After watching republican greedheads transfer 25% of the total wealth in this country to the richest 5% over the last 30 years, I am amazed at how many middleclass people defend the rights of the oligarch's to continue screwing them by defending the idiotic tax system we now have.
No money for anything, because a handful of super-rich have half of it. It's not hard to figure out the problem. It's very basic math.
and a rabid right winger....I'm not relgious, but have tried to remind him that Jesus; someone he worships as a GOD, stood for charity, compassion, and empathy. So mabey the way Christians could best honor him is to 'do as Jesus would do', and help others!
Jesus would want us to heal the sick and feed the hungry.
My brother follows a curious blend of fundamentalist Christianity and militant American nationalism. He sees the rest of the world as America's enemy. My brother's reaction is 'fuck the sick, fuck the hungry'- let them get a job and help themselves.. He hates immigrants, despises gays, and feels charity is 'liberal stupidity'.
He feels that you don't get to heaven through good deeds- yoiu get there ONLY by worshiping Jesus as a god.
His religious interpretation is repellant to me, and is VERY common amongst Republicans..
I really feel sorry for my brother, his relgion hasn't given him peace of mind, instead, it's filled him with fear and the hatred of others.
That's what religion will do to you....fill you with fear and hatred.
I have 4 brothers and 3 sisters. I'm awfully glad they think like me. None of us practice our Catholic faith any more, even though our parents took us to church every Sunday....our parents no longer do the religion thing, either. They, like us, cannot stand the hypocrisy.
Do I seem filled with fear and hatred?
I've got a cousin (well he's more like a brother) that's a devout Catholic, but NOTHING like the assholes you guys mentioned. In fact, those people are at the top of his people that he doesn't like list.
thats what my brother's group believes. they call themselves the "fellowship" and they have small underground churches all over the country. they believe that the bible is the literal word of god (ironically they mostly subscribe to the king james version but they'll pull a bit from greek texts and a couple other versions, ya know to get things right ;) )
basically they believe that there are/were three "administrations" 1.) the old one that involed the jews as the chosen people in which no one but jews could get into to heaven because of the fall of man ie garden of evil eating of the forbidden fruit. a jew could get into heaven by doing good works
2.) i don't know what its called but the current age in which all men can get to heaven by (romans 10:9) believing in:
(1.) jesus (that he exixted)
(2.) that he died for our sins (redeeming us for eating of the fruit) and was resurrected. this allows for all men (and women obviously) to not only get to heaven when they die but to have a permanent connection to god while living through the spirit of jesus (in traditional churches this is known as the "holy ghost" and it is considered a separate entity from god and jesus...fundamentalists consider this notion known as the "trinity" as crazy and it is the one point in which i agree with fundamentalists...it surely is crazy).
3.) the next age is the post apocalyptic age i think they call it the age of mystery (not sure the jesus age we're in might be the age of mystery it doesnt really matter what its called though) , they don't dwell on it much because for them they'll all be raptured and meet up with all of their loved ones in heaven and live forever in paradise. we'll all be left to enjoy the lakes of fire and shit. so they don't talk about this stuff, its sorta in the background, it is the promise that they all rely on, their hope for the future.
so the main reason that these groups exist is that they disagree with main line churches over the concept of the trinity. they don't consider jesus's spirit to be a separate entity from jesus(in old paintings it (the holy ghost) is typically represented as a white dove).
the other reason that they are separate from mainline churches is that they don't believe that good works can get you into heaven. you never heard of jesus too bad you go to hell.
I have a brother-in-law just like that. He is a very unhappy person.
The more I hear out of them the more I have to convince myself that Lenin wasn't right either...
This is real scary, the same people who were calling for Obama's death at Palin McCain rallies are now calling for a CIVIL WAR! I'm leaving the U.S. if this keeps up.
These morons will not stop until they are put in their place.
It wouldn't take long to rout these morons on a field of battle. Most of these fat-assed pasty bloated idiots couldn't march more than 50 yards without taking a knap, or pounding some blood pressure pills.
They would have to carry jabba the Limbaugh in a reinforced basket from point to point to get their orders.
I'm picturing these people carrying Limbba the Hutt on the same carrier those mutants in Island of Dr. Morau were carrying Marlon Brando in.
These assholes want to start another Civil War, the Union Army can count on my support. Hell I'd fully back the general to march to the sea and make the south howl.
...of every possible crime against America. These are calls to kill the President.
in which some yobbo like Tim McVey or Scott Roeder wiill fall for the "Saving Murka" line and take a shot at 'thePrez.'
That would leave Biden in charge, but they could live widdat: Biden's White...
When Democrats criticized Bush for failing so miserably before, during and after Katrina, that was terrorist speech. When Republicans criticize a Democrat, -especially a black Democrat-, it's "free speech", no matter how graphic, threatening or deliberately misleading. The reason it works like that is that most police, prosecutors and judges in this country are have a similar philosphy to the people who hate Obama.
im sorry what did i say wrong?
As Amato pointed out earlier this week, death threats against Obama are up 400% over Bush.
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/presiden...
Another sickening aspect of this is that these right wingers try to marginalize this. I looked at some comments on the Freepers' site; you see comments like, this is a leftie "spin" on the data; did they change the definition of death threats to include anyone making comments about Muslims?; "does this include non-citizens and people of other countries?"; "probably the same curve for any president"; "just out of curiosity....how many death threats were there against George W. Bush?"
These people are raving lunatics. Even their comments prove that they have severe brain damage.
I posted this in April. Dang I hate being right all the time...
Will the rightwing loons try a coup d'etat?
More and more each day, we hear people like Michelle Bachman inciting conservatives to stock up on guns and ammo and launch the revolution against Obama. Will they really do it?
It wouldn’t be the first time. The first rightwing attempt to overthrow the government was driven by an alliance of big business and army veterans. The Liberty League consisted of very rich men in the 1930s who loathed FDR. They included leaders from DuPont, GM, EF Hutton, General Foods, GM, Montgomery Ward, JP Morgan, the Hearst newspapers, Lehigh University, Princeton, Yale, U.S. Steel, Standard Oil (Exxon), Chase National Bank, Goodyear, Birdseye Foods, Colgate, Heinz, Mutual Life...and Prescott Bush. Some Democratic leaders belonged. The group was so powerful that even New York Times gave them dozens of positive front-page stories. Prefiguring today’s rightwingers, they screeched that FDR’s policies betokened "a trend toward Fascist control," and “the end of democracy." Their aim was to use WWI veterans to overthrow FDR so the fatcats could put their own man in. Their first choice to lead the charge was Douglas MacArthur, but the veterans hated him because he had crushed the Bonus Army march a year or two earlier, so they turned instead to another general, Smedley Butler, who (luckily for us all) had the good sense to blow the whistle on these loons in Congress.
[Edited for length. Site Monitor]
One thing working against the extremists, is that they may have waited too long. The popularity of Reagan’s mix of snake oil – tax cuts for the fatcats, holy wars for the anti-abortion and anti-gay forces, brain-dead militarism and gun worship, contempt for the government – began its arc across the sky in 1980 and crashed to earth in 2008. The exact mid-point – the high-point – of that parabolic arc was 1994, when they conquered Congress. At that point they should have launched the revolution. Instead, they launched Oklahoma, which backfired badly, and ensured Clinton’s landslide reelection. Now it’s a bit late in the day. The paradox of revolution is that when your ideas are in the ascendant, whipping up the anger among your hard-core adherents is difficult, but once your ideas are exposed as fallacious, everyone but the hard-core abandons you – and the revolution won’t go anywhere unless a million Joe Blows buy into it.
http://hellodollyllama.blogspot.com/2009/04/w...
[While we appreciate the sentiment, it's a bit long. The link will suffice. From the C&L commenting policy:
"Bandwidth is expensive. The comment space is reserved for comments that relate to the topic of the post . You may not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You may link to them. Please limit excerpts to 3 paragraphs."
Thanks. Site Monitor]
to not only vote for the GOP against their own interests, but to actually do the job of the oligarchs defending their "right" to work their entire lives to make somebody else richer and be thrown out like a used kleenex once they stop being "useful."
When you have elderly people, on medicare, protesting against federal health care... you know it is going to get "fun." It is an odd mixture of entitlement, racism, assholiness, lack of education, and supreme mediocrity that fuels these idiots. How do you deal with someone who is by all intents and purposes a masochist and wants to continue their regime of abuse as if it was a gift from god?
as the background music? I mean these people listen to Toby Keith they must have a production consultant.
Claire de Looney?
kick in?
Of course, the State (Obama's or anybody else's) won't ever employ force to suppress WHITE disorder. That's only for the "undesirables" and the "undeserving" other...
Still, this sorta NARLO shit just reeks of treason...
Good Point, Professor Gates gets arrested at his own home after being "lured" onto his front porch so he can be charged with inciting the "mass" gathering but these people can rant and rile people up until its only a matter of time before violence breaks out and nothing happens to them.
To notice that the gripes the Oath Keeper guy was talking about all occured under W Bush? I mean, how thick can they get?
The problem is, thanks to boosh era economic policies, we have a lot of laid off people with too much time on their hands, and an unwillingness to blame the policies they supported.
Fortunately, I can read and think critically. Go Obama!
While I could not stomach watching all of the videos all the way through, I didn't see any "brown" faces except for the black guy who was HOLDING THE UMBRELLA for the white oath keeper. Sick fucking assholes, the lot of them.
how dare they say they wont illegally arrest people, and we all know people of specific races cant have political opinions, I bet that guy was a slave owner and that guy was his slave, i mean he must have been a slave owner, hes against obama!
I could only make it through the first video. What a waste of a perfectly good Beethoven piece.
Weird how these people are completely blind to the power of corporations and corporate lobbyists.
Even weirder that their hatred and suspicion of government doesn't recognize the danger - and vast expense - of a military-industrial complex that spends more than all American allies and put together.
0.7% of GDP for foreign aid = Evil
4.1% of GDP for military $$ = Not even worth mentioning
These people are Romantics - they speak as if nothing has changed since the early 19th century, as if the USA is still a nation of small farmers and local businessmen, and the only legitimate taxes are tariffs on imported goods.
There's a good argument for that particular idea. Thom Hartmann is one of the foremeost advocates.
African war drums beating at 0.40 . .and at 0.43 satanic chants being recited in the background where the Organizing for America sign is shown?
There's some pretty slick producers behind some of this stuff.
Lot's of weird sophisticated subliminal things happening.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxSsThBSVmg
Technically, their shit is irreproachable.
Just like Frank Luntz.
That "what they do" is to attack and undermine democracy, fairness, justice, and the "pursuit of happiness" for the people, apparently, never crosses their minds.
where they zoom in on the guys chest scratch from the scuffle . . "mark of the beast" I presume the message is huh?
A technical exam on that video would be something there's all kind of "messages" lurking in that thing audio as well as visual.
"Do as I say, not as I do". Moveon.org was censured by CONGRESS for calling Patreaus "General Betrayus" but not a peep from Republicans about calling Obama Hitler or calling his health plan the "final solution". Not even a squeak from them. Now I have to ask the panel: Which one is worse?
I've been sending emails out to various congressmen, Fox News, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, and others about this very issue.
When Moveon produced those ads, Fox News and other conservatives got all over them. As Margaret says, Congress passed a resolution condemning Moveon.
Now, where is the censuring of Glenn Beck from Fox News, after Beck has long implied that Obama is a Nazi by showing Nazis marching through the streets, while talking about Obama? Where is the condemnation from Fox when Beck calls Obama a "racist"? (They merely say that Beck's opinion is their own, and not the view of Fox.) Where is the Fox News censure of Beck "joking" to poison Nancy Pelosi in her glass of wine?
Where is the Congressional condemnation of Beck and Limbaugh for either inferring or directly comparing Pelosi, Obama, and Democrats to Hitler and the Nazis?
lives in Santa Monica, California
He's tweeting too.
http://twitter.com/max1media
Check his "followers"
Does that white nutter in the middle clip really have a black man holding an umbrella for him? Are there chains around that black man's ankles too?
..and I use the term loosely are the real threats to this country and should be locked up and left to rot..
And before anyone says "They have the right to say what they want same as us" let me make one thing clear: They...do...not...care. They are acting against the best interests of this country and the only to keep them from going any further is to separate these people from the rest of society and let the extremists know this behavior will not be tolerated..
nuff said.
that they consider her 'qualified' for the position.
Completely insane - Their hatred for Obama has made them insane.
Raw, unadulterated hatred for Obama and everything he stands for, or rather, what they have been told he stands for.
Login or Register to post comments.