yeah, tone it down ... (Rep Murtha of Penna) a bible thumping, gun toting, racist, rednecked hick, ... and .... a (Pelosi) rabid right wing extremist funded by K Street Lobbyists ... and ... (also Pelosi) a swastika wearing, fascist, hate monger ... and ... an angry unAmerican mob, and ... (Rep. Baron Hill of Indiana) a radical fringe, right-wing" political terrorist, ... and ... (Sen Harry Reid of Nevada) and an evil mongerer, ... and ... (Senator Specter) unAmerican ... (Demomorons)
Criminy. Where was Speaker Pelosi during the past eight years? The vitriol positively dripped off the walls (including a film depicting Pres. Bush's assassination) during the last administration's term. The rhetoric routinely was hateful and loathsome and the left didn't say jack.
I don't know what left you are talking about. Most liberals I know won't even claim to like Michael Moore movies... because he is too much of an extremist.
If you can't see the difference between legitimate dissent (not that all Bush bashing was legitimate... but what we see now is unprecedented in circles of political decorum) and threatening rhetoric... you will be just as responsible when something disturbing happens.
Distance yourself from the fringe if you have any ounce of decency.
What unprecedented breaches of decorum are you referring to?
There's a difference between fringe and the majority of the dissenters. Now or during the past eight years. Currently, the tactic is to focus on the fringe and paint it as the majority.
There was no concerted effort to gain distance from the fringe during the last eight years. Do you recall Michael Moore sitting with Pres. Carter during the '04 DNC?
When is the last time - since the imposition of "distinguished gentlemanly" conduct - has a president has been heckled on the floor of the House? Or, multiple protesters brandished loaded weapons outside of presidential engagements?
Find another time in history when these things happened simultaneously - without provocation that equaled the actions, then perhaps we can discuss civility.
2005 Pres. Bush was boo'd during the State of the Union Address. If you want to upset over a violation of decorum, as the Democrats are trying to make an issue of Rep. Wilson's outburst, they would be chastising themselves for violating decorum rules as well. Cheering, applause and standing ovations are all violations of the decorum rules.
As for the loaded weapons, did the harm anyone? No. Were they violating any laws? No. They were exercising both their First and Second Amendment rights.
Boos, applause and cheers are hardly the same as verbal interjections of challenge that stop a speech. If anyone on the house floor had felt those gutteral responses were such breaches in decorum - why did they not formally reprimand all guilty parties?
Context is key. Humming and hah-ing a quagmire presidency - while rude - is benign compared to the incitement of Joe Wilson - especially when married to the many displays of disrespect this president of just over 8 months has had to endure.
Oh please. The current displays of disrespect for the President are positively tame compared to those of the last President, or even the one before him.
Oh, please is right. After 8 months - Bush hardly had this much disrespect to deal with - and, mind you - he was coming in on the coat tails of a stolen election.
After 8 years of f--k all that gouged the heart of our constitution, well - the criticisms were absolutely deserved.
If Bush is the Litmus test for action = disrespect - Obama literally hasn't done anything severe enough to warrant this kind of madness - which makes you wonder where this calculated disrespect is coming from.
Partially true. At this time during Pres. Bush's administration, he was dealing with what years of weakhorse policy had brought to our shores, so it's hardly a fair comparison. And the disrespect started before he had even taken office, as your "stolen election" lack of objectivity is a clear indication of.
Pres. Bush isn't the litmus test. He's the glaring illustration of the hypocrisy of the left. Pres. Obama is doing things that Pres. Bush either did or if he had, would have the left raging.
Lack of objectivity? Anyone who can count (or at least watched FOX news in 2000) knows that "stolen election" is not politicizing events - it's just reporting them.
Weakhorse policy... yeah. Weakhorse policy that got closer to Al Quaeda than ANY administration since... and for a few billion less, too.
Only trouble is, we were too busy worried about dlue dresses to see that Africa really wasn't a wag-the-dog situation.
Silly us. But - man can Bush land a plane! What a man's man.
Yes, lack of objectivity. Anyone who can count, or at least read, took the independent media conducted after the fact understand that, in the end, Al Gore lost. Nevermind how hard he tried to cherry pick which counties fit into his "count every vote" mantra. Do we really need to go down the road of places such as Philadelphia that had more votes cast than registered voters?
Weakhorse policy: the WTC, the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, treating war as a police investigation...
Police investigation? Every attempt by Clinton to do anything other than covert was treated - by a paranoid American public - as an attempt to draw attention away from his personal troubles.
The covert war against Al Quaeda, however - was extremely close to its target... as intelligencfe officials will support.
But in a day and age of postmodern meddling by a philistine, transparency-seeking public... those covert efforts were more often than not - chalked up to "fake wars."
Sir - if symbols are that impotent - why display them in the first place?
An "it's my right so I'm gonna do it no matter what you think" attitude - while fitting for a grade school playground, hardly has a place in civil debate.
It won't be so empty a threat when one of these "I'm unarmed THIS TIME" guys meets up with the loaded gun guy and after a seditious Glenn Beck squealing session decides to take action.
Symbols are important. An armed person is a citizen. And unarmed man is a subject. I fully support the citizenry reminding those who work for us of the proper hierarchy and so long as things do not turn violent, something I do not support, there is only an issue for those who wish to see one.
You want to talk about civil debate? Once the current dissenters start storming stages with banners, and begin slamming pies into the faces of speakers et cetera, then we can discuss civil debate.
Last time I checked - no pie ever threatened violent revolution.
I am a citizen, sir. No hollow symbol affords me that. Anyone who believes a piece of metal gives them power is indeed a subject - to that piece of metal.
Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government. - Thomas Jefferson
He didn't mean - everyone holding a firearm.
Shake the tyrants every now and then - but for God's sake, have the sense to be able to spot the actual tyrant.
Of course no symbol affords you your citizenship, but the ability to defend oneself guarantees that your remain a citizen and not a subject. A viewpoint wholly understood by the every man you quoted. Do I really need to drag out the old chestnuts of Jefferson on that particular subject?
As for shaking tyrants, I would recommend the same to you. I had problems with Federal gov't in the last 8 years and I have problems with it today. The initial after the names in question do not affect that.
I'm always ready and able to engage in a Jefferson toe to toe.
233 years later - we're afforded many options for defending our citizenry.
As a believer in the talents and virtues of man - I'm sure, if Jefferson were alive today, knowing what modern possibilities are afforded us, he'd much prefer a more innovative and sophisticated approach to defending one's liberty than a "stick 'em up!" approach.
"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms." --Thomas Jefferson
I'd change associations if I were you. TJ wouldn't approve.
I used Michael Moore as an example of "fringe" simply because I don't like him.
But, if we were to get specific: two non-violent, albeit controversial, Dems sitting together at a conference really doesn't equal the kind of support and encouragement the extreme fringe from the right is getting these days. Now, had William Ayers been supported by the Obama camp during the run - or even now, well, then - you might have something.
Take a page from McCain on this one and back off the crazies.
The fact of the matter, and why I continued with Michael Moore, is that the Democrats did little or nothing to distance themselves from the fringe elements during the last eight years, yet now that they are on the receiving end of dissent, they want to change the rules. The double-standards the left employs is truly a thing to behold.
I'm saying no such thing. What I'm saying is that there is a concerted effort to paint the fringe of the current dissenters as the main body. Which is simply not the case and a weak political ploy. Just as the left and the media, but yeah, I repeat myself once again, intentionally played down the more extreme elements of the dissenter movement of the last eight years, they too are intentionally playing up the more extreme elements of the current dissenter movement.
Also - comparing an indie documentary that hardly anyone watched and FOX news is a bit of a stretch for comparison, don't you think?
I mean - a more fair pairing is to compare the Bush assasination documentary to the "BIll Clinton murder trail" documentaries from the extreme right in the 90s, isn't it? Or, perhaps find instances of when MSNBC tolerated and encouraged violence THEN compare it to this FOX broadcast, no?
So, how much time and energy did FOX dedicate to "George Tiller, the Baby Killer," as they called him, and his "Hitlerian executions"? Or, the false reports of his "undocumented abortions," which they insinuated he would perform outside of codes of professional ethic for a price?
Now, did they say: "Go out an kill George Tiller, please." Of course not. But anyone who has passed the 9th grade should know the manipulative value of clever word choice and the spin it is responsible for.
Oh please. And Robert de Niro was responsible for Pres. Reagan's assassination attempt and Ozzy makes kid kill themselves. You're reading into things what you want to see.
Extrapolating "hidden messages" from works of art that have nothing to do with the crimes committed in their name is hardly the same thing as FOX news inciting SPECIFIC instances of calculated rage.
Some weak-minded nut being motivated by his own stretched misinterpretation of Black Sabbath does not equal Bill O'Rielly saying: "Goerge Tiller (specific) has blood on his hands."
Bottom line - the Bill O'Rielly's of the world should know better than to cajole the weak-minded with suggestion.
A) The killing of an anti-abortion advocate had nothing to do with abortion. It was an act of personal vendetta. Shame on FOX for continuing to erroneously politicize that event.
B) There is a difference between dissent and threat... in all of my "crazy liberal" legitimate protests against Bush, I never saw (nor heard FOX bitch about) any poster that read: "I'm unarmed THIS TIME."
Speech is being compared to violence... because this time, rhetoric is THREATENING ACTUAL VIOLENCE.
I'm no fan of Pelosi... but if you listen to the whole of her plea... she is begging the GOP to be responsible with their words... because no matter how balanced the speaker, the ears they fall on might not be as balanced.
Like those who showed up to the 9/12 protest with signs that read: "Bury Obamacare with Kennedy" or "Keep pushing us and find out what happens"?
When the threat of death is made a joke of - and you don't reprimand it, you too are responsible when crazy manifests.
I don't like Pelosi. I think she's a loud-mouth hack. But, please - remind me of the time she supported threatening rhetoric that urged violence, either with verbal support or sotto voce.
You say, "she is begging the GOP to be responsible with their words"
Why just the GOP? Why not everyone? Why not herself? Who asked her for additional manipulative pandering?
I have no use for anyone who places me in a box in order to feed her self-serving rejection of my legitimacy and solidify her own denial in order to maintain a cracked facade.
We have a right to speak even if they'd prefer to ignore us.
The GOP receiving the brunt of the criticism because, by in large, it is the GOP that has produced this fringe. Believe what you will about "spontaneous rallies" but Freedom Works, The Sam Adams Alliance, American Majority and many of the other organizations putting on rallies like the 9-12 march are deeply connected to the party.
You have the right to speak - but will you be as passionately accountable when unchecked violent rhetoric (not passionate dissent) turns into actual violence?
I'm part of that "fringe" though my approach is non-violent (as is much of the opposition to Barack and his handlers)
Pulling out certain aspects of behavior and presenting them as the behavior of those within a defined group having opposing tendencies is technique, not truth (especially when pointing a finger that would be at least as accurate when pointed at themselves)
For the record - I voted for Barack
Will you be as blind to hypocrisy when martial law comes knocking at your door?
What would cause you to think there would ever be a cause for martial law "knocking on my door"? Are we in a state of violent revolution that woudl lead tot he overthrow of the government and I wasn't aware?
My civility and allegiance would always be to whatever governing body my society would have determined was fit to govern... and my voice of non-violent would be raised if I opposed it.
No one is ignoring you - quite the opposite. The rational are paying attention to what is devolving into violent, crazy talk.
Racist. Fringe. Nazi. Terrorist. These are words both sides have hurled at the other - sometimes warranted - sometimes unwarranted.
But you have to have the cognitive ability to be able to distinguish when something is empty, sour-grapes rhetoric and when it is encouraging of actual violence.
I'm unarmed THIS TIME," is rhetoric that encourages actual violence.
"Pulling out certain aspects of behavior," when that behavior is plentiful and frequent is hardly technique and ignoring it is hardly siding with truth. I recognize there are rational voices of opposition - but those rational voices are being lost in the masses of ever-incresing vocal fringe... it is incumbent upon the rational voices to do something about it, or risk being aligned with it.
If any one differs with her first we are astrotruff and nazi's. Now any thing we say is rhetoric? Sorry this a phony, weak attack on the first amendment. Vote pelosi out!
LOL... She's SUCH a phony. Sorry little wimps. This is all about you can dish it out (and BOY DID YOU dish it out) but you little wimps cannot take it. SORRY, NO KUMBYA with obambi. STOP your whining. President BUSH endured your CRAP for the last 8 years. Your little whiny joker cannot even endure it for 8 months. GET USED TO IT. We've only JUST begun!! Cry me a river, Nancy!!
Think back to who was the president in late 1970's President Carter a Democrat which is the time span she mentions. When we had long gas lines and all those problems.
yeah, tone it down ... (Rep Murtha of Penna) a bible thumping, gun toting, racist, rednecked hick, ... and .... a (Pelosi) rabid right wing extremist funded by K Street Lobbyists ... and ... (also Pelosi) a swastika wearing, fascist, hate monger ... and ... an angry unAmerican mob, and ... (Rep. Baron Hill of Indiana) a radical fringe, right-wing" political terrorist, ... and ... (Sen Harry Reid of Nevada) and an evil mongerer, ... and ... (Senator Specter) unAmerican ... (Demomorons)
letzteschlact2 2 years ago
Criminy. Where was Speaker Pelosi during the past eight years? The vitriol positively dripped off the walls (including a film depicting Pres. Bush's assassination) during the last administration's term. The rhetoric routinely was hateful and loathsome and the left didn't say jack.
Anakha13 2 years ago 2
I don't know what left you are talking about. Most liberals I know won't even claim to like Michael Moore movies... because he is too much of an extremist.
If you can't see the difference between legitimate dissent (not that all Bush bashing was legitimate... but what we see now is unprecedented in circles of political decorum) and threatening rhetoric... you will be just as responsible when something disturbing happens.
Distance yourself from the fringe if you have any ounce of decency.
coconnel51 2 years ago
What unprecedented breaches of decorum are you referring to?
There's a difference between fringe and the majority of the dissenters. Now or during the past eight years. Currently, the tactic is to focus on the fringe and paint it as the majority.
There was no concerted effort to gain distance from the fringe during the last eight years. Do you recall Michael Moore sitting with Pres. Carter during the '04 DNC?
Anakha13 2 years ago
When is the last time - since the imposition of "distinguished gentlemanly" conduct - has a president has been heckled on the floor of the House? Or, multiple protesters brandished loaded weapons outside of presidential engagements?
Find another time in history when these things happened simultaneously - without provocation that equaled the actions, then perhaps we can discuss civility.
coconnel51 2 years ago
2005 Pres. Bush was boo'd during the State of the Union Address. If you want to upset over a violation of decorum, as the Democrats are trying to make an issue of Rep. Wilson's outburst, they would be chastising themselves for violating decorum rules as well. Cheering, applause and standing ovations are all violations of the decorum rules.
As for the loaded weapons, did the harm anyone? No. Were they violating any laws? No. They were exercising both their First and Second Amendment rights.
Anakha13 2 years ago
Boos, applause and cheers are hardly the same as verbal interjections of challenge that stop a speech. If anyone on the house floor had felt those gutteral responses were such breaches in decorum - why did they not formally reprimand all guilty parties?
Context is key. Humming and hah-ing a quagmire presidency - while rude - is benign compared to the incitement of Joe Wilson - especially when married to the many displays of disrespect this president of just over 8 months has had to endure.
coconnel51 2 years ago
Oh please. The current displays of disrespect for the President are positively tame compared to those of the last President, or even the one before him.
Anakha13 2 years ago
Oh, please is right. After 8 months - Bush hardly had this much disrespect to deal with - and, mind you - he was coming in on the coat tails of a stolen election.
After 8 years of f--k all that gouged the heart of our constitution, well - the criticisms were absolutely deserved.
If Bush is the Litmus test for action = disrespect - Obama literally hasn't done anything severe enough to warrant this kind of madness - which makes you wonder where this calculated disrespect is coming from.
coconnel51 2 years ago
Partially true. At this time during Pres. Bush's administration, he was dealing with what years of weakhorse policy had brought to our shores, so it's hardly a fair comparison. And the disrespect started before he had even taken office, as your "stolen election" lack of objectivity is a clear indication of.
Pres. Bush isn't the litmus test. He's the glaring illustration of the hypocrisy of the left. Pres. Obama is doing things that Pres. Bush either did or if he had, would have the left raging.
Anakha13 2 years ago
Lack of objectivity? Anyone who can count (or at least watched FOX news in 2000) knows that "stolen election" is not politicizing events - it's just reporting them.
Weakhorse policy... yeah. Weakhorse policy that got closer to Al Quaeda than ANY administration since... and for a few billion less, too.
Only trouble is, we were too busy worried about dlue dresses to see that Africa really wasn't a wag-the-dog situation.
Silly us. But - man can Bush land a plane! What a man's man.
coconnel51 2 years ago
Yes, lack of objectivity. Anyone who can count, or at least read, took the independent media conducted after the fact understand that, in the end, Al Gore lost. Nevermind how hard he tried to cherry pick which counties fit into his "count every vote" mantra. Do we really need to go down the road of places such as Philadelphia that had more votes cast than registered voters?
Weakhorse policy: the WTC, the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, treating war as a police investigation...
Anakha13 2 years ago
Police investigation? Every attempt by Clinton to do anything other than covert was treated - by a paranoid American public - as an attempt to draw attention away from his personal troubles.
The covert war against Al Quaeda, however - was extremely close to its target... as intelligencfe officials will support.
But in a day and age of postmodern meddling by a philistine, transparency-seeking public... those covert efforts were more often than not - chalked up to "fake wars."
coconnel51 2 years ago
Did the loaded weapons harm anyone?
Sir - if symbols are that impotent - why display them in the first place?
An "it's my right so I'm gonna do it no matter what you think" attitude - while fitting for a grade school playground, hardly has a place in civil debate.
It won't be so empty a threat when one of these "I'm unarmed THIS TIME" guys meets up with the loaded gun guy and after a seditious Glenn Beck squealing session decides to take action.
coconnel51 2 years ago
Symbols are important. An armed person is a citizen. And unarmed man is a subject. I fully support the citizenry reminding those who work for us of the proper hierarchy and so long as things do not turn violent, something I do not support, there is only an issue for those who wish to see one.
You want to talk about civil debate? Once the current dissenters start storming stages with banners, and begin slamming pies into the faces of speakers et cetera, then we can discuss civil debate.
Anakha13 2 years ago
Last time I checked - no pie ever threatened violent revolution.
I am a citizen, sir. No hollow symbol affords me that. Anyone who believes a piece of metal gives them power is indeed a subject - to that piece of metal.
Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government. - Thomas Jefferson
He didn't mean - everyone holding a firearm.
Shake the tyrants every now and then - but for God's sake, have the sense to be able to spot the actual tyrant.
coconnel51 2 years ago
Of course no symbol affords you your citizenship, but the ability to defend oneself guarantees that your remain a citizen and not a subject. A viewpoint wholly understood by the every man you quoted. Do I really need to drag out the old chestnuts of Jefferson on that particular subject?
As for shaking tyrants, I would recommend the same to you. I had problems with Federal gov't in the last 8 years and I have problems with it today. The initial after the names in question do not affect that.
Anakha13 2 years ago
I'm always ready and able to engage in a Jefferson toe to toe.
233 years later - we're afforded many options for defending our citizenry.
As a believer in the talents and virtues of man - I'm sure, if Jefferson were alive today, knowing what modern possibilities are afforded us, he'd much prefer a more innovative and sophisticated approach to defending one's liberty than a "stick 'em up!" approach.
coconnel51 2 years ago
"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms." --Thomas Jefferson
I'd change associations if I were you. TJ wouldn't approve.
coconnel51 2 years ago
That quote can just as easily apply to those on the left. I confess to no such associations with which you wish to ascribe to me.
Anakha13 2 years ago
Characterizing violent rhetoric as "honest dissent" encourages a regrettable association with unstable fringe, at the very least.
coconnel51 2 years ago
I used Michael Moore as an example of "fringe" simply because I don't like him.
But, if we were to get specific: two non-violent, albeit controversial, Dems sitting together at a conference really doesn't equal the kind of support and encouragement the extreme fringe from the right is getting these days. Now, had William Ayers been supported by the Obama camp during the run - or even now, well, then - you might have something.
Take a page from McCain on this one and back off the crazies.
coconnel51 2 years ago
The fact of the matter, and why I continued with Michael Moore, is that the Democrats did little or nothing to distance themselves from the fringe elements during the last eight years, yet now that they are on the receiving end of dissent, they want to change the rules. The double-standards the left employs is truly a thing to behold.
Anakha13 2 years ago
It is not a double standard when the two topics of comparison don't align.
When has Michael Moore - as fringe as he is - ever suggested violent action be taken against those he disagrees with?
This is not a debate about the right to dissent - it's about having the mental faculties to distinguish between dissent and threats of violence.
You're honestly telling me nothing you've seen from the far right fringe has been of concern to you?
coconnel51 2 years ago
I'm saying no such thing. What I'm saying is that there is a concerted effort to paint the fringe of the current dissenters as the main body. Which is simply not the case and a weak political ploy. Just as the left and the media, but yeah, I repeat myself once again, intentionally played down the more extreme elements of the dissenter movement of the last eight years, they too are intentionally playing up the more extreme elements of the current dissenter movement.
Anakha13 2 years ago
Also - comparing an indie documentary that hardly anyone watched and FOX news is a bit of a stretch for comparison, don't you think?
I mean - a more fair pairing is to compare the Bush assasination documentary to the "BIll Clinton murder trail" documentaries from the extreme right in the 90s, isn't it? Or, perhaps find instances of when MSNBC tolerated and encouraged violence THEN compare it to this FOX broadcast, no?
coconnel51 2 years ago
And believing Fox News is encouraging violence isn't a stretch?
Anakha13 2 years ago
So, how much time and energy did FOX dedicate to "George Tiller, the Baby Killer," as they called him, and his "Hitlerian executions"? Or, the false reports of his "undocumented abortions," which they insinuated he would perform outside of codes of professional ethic for a price?
Now, did they say: "Go out an kill George Tiller, please." Of course not. But anyone who has passed the 9th grade should know the manipulative value of clever word choice and the spin it is responsible for.
coconnel51 2 years ago
Oh please. And Robert de Niro was responsible for Pres. Reagan's assassination attempt and Ozzy makes kid kill themselves. You're reading into things what you want to see.
Anakha13 2 years ago
Extrapolating "hidden messages" from works of art that have nothing to do with the crimes committed in their name is hardly the same thing as FOX news inciting SPECIFIC instances of calculated rage.
Some weak-minded nut being motivated by his own stretched misinterpretation of Black Sabbath does not equal Bill O'Rielly saying: "Goerge Tiller (specific) has blood on his hands."
Bottom line - the Bill O'Rielly's of the world should know better than to cajole the weak-minded with suggestion.
coconnel51 2 years ago
A) The killing of an anti-abortion advocate had nothing to do with abortion. It was an act of personal vendetta. Shame on FOX for continuing to erroneously politicize that event.
B) There is a difference between dissent and threat... in all of my "crazy liberal" legitimate protests against Bush, I never saw (nor heard FOX bitch about) any poster that read: "I'm unarmed THIS TIME."
Speech is being compared to violence... because this time, rhetoric is THREATENING ACTUAL VIOLENCE.
coconnel51 2 years ago
Pelosi is the queen of rhetoric - she even pulled out the Beck-style weepiness - what a crock.
Enjoy your supposed throne while you can Pelosi - you'll be out next year.
cmstyz 2 years ago
I'm no fan of Pelosi... but if you listen to the whole of her plea... she is begging the GOP to be responsible with their words... because no matter how balanced the speaker, the ears they fall on might not be as balanced.
Like those who showed up to the 9/12 protest with signs that read: "Bury Obamacare with Kennedy" or "Keep pushing us and find out what happens"?
When the threat of death is made a joke of - and you don't reprimand it, you too are responsible when crazy manifests.
coconnel51 2 years ago
It's hypocritical of her to make this "plea" because she's guilty of the same behavior she's speaking against.
She has no credibility in such matters.
cmstyz 2 years ago
I don't like Pelosi. I think she's a loud-mouth hack. But, please - remind me of the time she supported threatening rhetoric that urged violence, either with verbal support or sotto voce.
coconnel51 2 years ago
Nazi.
Racist.
Fringe.
Terrorist.
Hateful words from a hateful woman.
You say, "she is begging the GOP to be responsible with their words"
Why just the GOP? Why not everyone? Why not herself? Who asked her for additional manipulative pandering?
I have no use for anyone who places me in a box in order to feed her self-serving rejection of my legitimacy and solidify her own denial in order to maintain a cracked facade.
We have a right to speak even if they'd prefer to ignore us.
cmstyz 2 years ago
The GOP receiving the brunt of the criticism because, by in large, it is the GOP that has produced this fringe. Believe what you will about "spontaneous rallies" but Freedom Works, The Sam Adams Alliance, American Majority and many of the other organizations putting on rallies like the 9-12 march are deeply connected to the party.
You have the right to speak - but will you be as passionately accountable when unchecked violent rhetoric (not passionate dissent) turns into actual violence?
coconnel51 2 years ago
I'm part of that "fringe" though my approach is non-violent (as is much of the opposition to Barack and his handlers)
Pulling out certain aspects of behavior and presenting them as the behavior of those within a defined group having opposing tendencies is technique, not truth (especially when pointing a finger that would be at least as accurate when pointed at themselves)
For the record - I voted for Barack
Will you be as blind to hypocrisy when martial law comes knocking at your door?
cmstyz 2 years ago
What would cause you to think there would ever be a cause for martial law "knocking on my door"? Are we in a state of violent revolution that woudl lead tot he overthrow of the government and I wasn't aware?
My civility and allegiance would always be to whatever governing body my society would have determined was fit to govern... and my voice of non-violent would be raised if I opposed it.
coconnel51 2 years ago
No one is ignoring you - quite the opposite. The rational are paying attention to what is devolving into violent, crazy talk.
Racist. Fringe. Nazi. Terrorist. These are words both sides have hurled at the other - sometimes warranted - sometimes unwarranted.
But you have to have the cognitive ability to be able to distinguish when something is empty, sour-grapes rhetoric and when it is encouraging of actual violence.
I'm unarmed THIS TIME," is rhetoric that encourages actual violence.
coconnel51 2 years ago
You see what you want to see - no further discussion is necessary.
cmstyz 2 years ago
"Pulling out certain aspects of behavior," when that behavior is plentiful and frequent is hardly technique and ignoring it is hardly siding with truth. I recognize there are rational voices of opposition - but those rational voices are being lost in the masses of ever-incresing vocal fringe... it is incumbent upon the rational voices to do something about it, or risk being aligned with it.
coconnel51 2 years ago
The "plenty" you see is an intentional construct.
Anakha13 2 years ago
Down the street from me too? Hmmm.
coconnel51 2 years ago
If any one differs with her first we are astrotruff and nazi's. Now any thing we say is rhetoric? Sorry this a phony, weak attack on the first amendment. Vote pelosi out!
john51880 2 years ago
LOL... She's SUCH a phony. Sorry little wimps. This is all about you can dish it out (and BOY DID YOU dish it out) but you little wimps cannot take it. SORRY, NO KUMBYA with obambi. STOP your whining. President BUSH endured your CRAP for the last 8 years. Your little whiny joker cannot even endure it for 8 months. GET USED TO IT. We've only JUST begun!! Cry me a river, Nancy!!
chattingcat 2 years ago
first: WHEN is this administration going to move past blaming EVERYTHING ON THE past ADMINISTRATION?
second: WHY can't this administration take what they dish out?
third: NAME CALLING certainly is NOT my idea of maturity from the Democratic party
fourth: TEARS? WHAT TEARS? ALL I see is a fake person, looking like a rabbit ahead of the hounds!
MsSouthernpatriot 2 years ago
Think back to who was the president in late 1970's President Carter a Democrat which is the time span she mentions. When we had long gas lines and all those problems.
fhughey2005 2 years ago
Cry me a river Pelosi, You & your democrap party is what's wrong with this great country.
Rarerat 2 years ago
This is so fake . Her botox is wearing off
sailfished 2 years ago
All politicians should use their influence to tone down the hostile rhetoric; Pelosi should've kept her trap shut. She just added to the mess.
sleonardelli 2 years ago