Seriously, Potfry, you lump extremists in with me, and then take umbrage that I call you names?
Shithead, thine name is "Potfry"
Again, with the caveats: "sanctioned" political event. I've got a photo I'm staring at right now of a guy holding a cardboard cut-out of Bush hanging from a noose. At an anti-war protest. Is this sanctioned in your carefully defined world?
Do you define the Republican party to include the John Birch Society? How about the Montana or Michigan militiae? The Alaskan Separatists?
No?
Then please don't lump crackpots in with MY party, jerkwad.
Now, where's my fucking coffee?
It's really not complicated.
Exactly my point. But you simply don't get to decide what's relevant and what's not, as it suits your argument.
The bottom line is this: wherever it happened-- on the internet, at a protest, or a sanctioned event, the calls for Bush's death over the past eight years have been so deafening that we got used to them. And they are all relevant to this issue.
Then, compare them to the last two weeks when there's been anger and a few isolated calls for violence against Obama, and tell me what's worse.
You don't just dismiss the first as irrelevant without dismissing the broad side of the Democratic Party. And spare me the lecture about "sanctioned" political events, as if there's some invisible line that people don't cross. It's silly.
defy you to find one legitimate instance where anyone called for the death of Bush.
His impeachment or resignation? damn straight, but you show me one legitimate instance at a sanctioned public political event where Bush was threatened, and I'll show you the Secret Service swooping in so fast it would make your head spin,
Now shut the fuck up and get me coffee...NOW!
Nice, uh, actor. Your mindless bluster betrays your insecurity.
Again, with the caveats: "sanctioned" political event. I've got a photo I'm staring at right now of a guy holding a cardboard cut-out of Bush hanging from a noose. At an anti-war protest. Is this sanctioned in your carefully defined world?
Try, really hard, to have a discussion without stupid insults. I know you can do it.
Did you come out at the time and reject the rhetoric that called for the death of Bush? I'm sure you did, since you are now dismissing those calls.
I defy you to find one legitimate instance where anyone called for the death of Bush.
His impeachment or resignation? damn straight, but you show me one legitimate instance at a sanctioned public political event where Bush was threatened, and I'll show you the Secret Service swooping in so fast it would make your head spin,
Now shut the fuck up and get me coffee...NOW!
Wow wingnut girl. Get laid. Maybe it'll knock some brains into you.
Comment of the thread!
If the nastiness heard at McCain/Palin rallies had occurred at a, say, "Pro-America" rally, you and other Obama-supporters would have simply dismissed them as irrelevant to the campaign.
They happen all the time, and they're not getting the media attention, obviously, these presidential campaign events are. Read Malkin's post -- she specifically calls out "McCain-Palin rallies." Read Putz's post.
It's all about the context of presidential campaign events -- that's why they're getting so much media scrutiny. And there's simply a different standard for what's appropriate/expected at presidential campaign events -- which are carefully stagemanaged and cast -- as opposed to random unaffiliated Code Pink or "Pro-America" rallies.
It's really not complicated.
So all opinions expressed at anti-war protests over the past 8 years are garbage, if I may carry the dumpster-diving metaphor. You are conveniently dismissing them as fringe elements now?
Did you come out at the time and reject the rhetoric that called for the death of Bush? I'm sure you did, since you are now dismissing those calls.
But what of the seminal question:
If the nastiness heard at McCain/Palin rallies had occurred at a, say, "Pro-America" rally, you and other Obama-supporters would have simply dismissed them as irrelevant to the campaign.
Really?
This isn't thin ice, Blue Texan. You're shin-deep in slush.
http://shorterlink.com/?7J35UQ
Someone painted "Death Obama" on the chimney of an Upper Arlington house that has a yard sign declaring "Another UA Citizen for Obama."
Wow wingnut girl. Get laid. Maybe it'll knock some brains into you.
21 days until the wingers jump the tracks off the Straight Talk Express, bemoaning how much he wasn't really "one of them."
It's gonna be comedy gold.
Obama didn't "spen[d] millions of dollars on a board," Obama worked on a board funded by Republican Walter Annenberg. Terrorist-funder Annenberg also funded Nixon and Reagan, and his widow, the current head of the terrorist-funding board, is funding John McCain.
You can't suggest that GWB palled around with terrorists since he didn't.
Oh really? You mean the fact that he and the bin Ladens have dealings going wayyyyyyyy back shouldn't be construed as "palling around"?
Wait-- there's an important caveat: they must have occurred at a democratic candidate's rally or event.
That's the whole point. We can go dumpster diving all day. The media narrative that Putzy objects to is that the McCain campaign events are the ugliest in memory.
Key words: McCain campaign events.
lk,
I didn't produce the film or have anything to do with it. You can ignore the title overlays and just take in the intolerance if it bothers you that much.
I, for one, would never accuse a leftist of being intellectual.
Does this mean that Blue Texan believes that the folks who called for Bush's death at anti-war rallies, or carried signs comparing him to Hitler, are not representative of the Democratic Party?
Just out of curiosity -- what have the Dems done to end the war?
Irony (dead).
Clearly, Blue Texan realizes that by allowing the playing field to be open to anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-Republican protests over the past several years, it's a losing proposition.
As opposed to allowing the playing field to be open to mentioning Timothy McVeigh?
The fact that Bush is partly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths might also be a factor, of course.
w3bgrrl - Intellectuals? They were New Yorkers. PHD's? How did you determine this? You're funny, with an anti-education bias. Give us your thoughts on science.
More angry Obama supporters. It's amazing how quickly a leftist will abandon his or her principles of freedom of expression:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n...h?
v=nQalRPQ8stI
So let me get this straight.
Blue Texan smugly throws down the gauntlet, challenging Glenn Reynolds to produce evidence of murderous left-wing outbursts.
Wait-- there's an important caveat: they must have occurred at a democratic candidate's rally or event.
Clearly, Blue Texan realizes that by allowing the playing field to be open to anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-Republican protests over the past several years, it's a losing proposition. No, the only way this ploy works is if Blue Texan gets to define the playing field.
Does this mean that Blue Texan believes that the folks who called for Bush's death at anti-war rallies, or carried signs comparing him to Hitler, are not representative of the Democratic Party? Are you disowning Code Pink? Moveon.org?
Do those events not count? Is the hatred and venom expressed there somehow irrelevant?
Conversely, a handful of angry Republican protesters say stupid things at McCain/Palin rallies, and they define the Republican party?
Exit question: If those angry insults of Obama had occurred at an event that was not a McCain/Palin rally, would you dismiss them as irrelevant to the campaign?
Answer with a straight face, please.
More evidence that you don't have to be a McCain supporter to attend a McCain rally:
"This morning at a McCain rally here, a bearded young man in the crowd responded to a McCain critique of Barack Obama by shouting: "You're a liar John!" He then hoisted a young woman with an antiwar poster onto his shoulders and began yelling antiwar gibberish as McCain tried to continue his speech. When McCain supporters ripped up the woman's sign, she unfolded another one and the spectacle continued."
poor, sweet, naive Grace.
Let me provide another example: here is a story of two young men throwing a homemade explosive device at a McCain sign, causing it to burn right next to the home of the owners.
http://www.katu.com/news/30847164.html
It would be irresponsible for me to claim that these people represent the mainstream Obama supporter when I have no evidence of that. If, however, these young men were called by someone in the media and asked their views and what level of support they provide for Obama, it might be ascertained.
Oh dear Grace,
Do you not know that "beyond the pale" means "beyond the boundary" and its origin has nothing to do with color?
Don't take my word for it: http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa.../qa/qa-
pal2.htm
As to the call for proof from the name-caller:
http://www.zombietime.com/
sf_ral...tag_banner2.jpg
http://www.zombietime.com/
sf_ral...n_Murderers.jpg
http://www.zombietime.com/
sf_ral...George_Bush.jpg
http://www.zombietime.com/iraq_w...st/
IMG_0568.JPG
http://www.zombietime.com/world_...05/
IMG_3447.JPG
http://www.zombietime.com/world_...05/
IMG_3392.JPG
http://www.zombietime.com/world_...05/
IMG_3375.JPG
and the pièce de résistance:
http://www.zombietime.com/us_out...07/
IMG_2393.JPG
http://www.zombietime.com/us_out...07/
IMG_2416.JPG
Nothing much to add except to point out that Reynolds is so honkingly self-oblivious as to use the phrase beyond the pale in a post about a black presidential candidate.
Your assumptions are not valid. Anyone can come to a political rally. In fact, it is well within reason to think that a person could be violently opposed to one candidate without having any particular affinity for the other.
So, unless you've dug up the name of this person, called him and asked him to reveal the level of support he has provided McCain (i.e. financial, volunteer hours) you have no basis for claiming this person is a "mainstream" supporter.
If GWB spent millions of dollars on a board with Eric Robert Rudolph on far-right groups, your equivocation might be valid. As it stands, you basically equate a man who has helped kill cops and planned, but failed, to kill soldiers with some unnamed "homophobes and bigots" who presumably never killed anyone.
As I said, if not so sad, it would be funny.
the hardly-ever-right wing conflates everything 20 degrees more than it needs be.
thus, someone diagreeing w/bush has "bush derangement syndrome," somebody calling for bush's impeachment is calling for his assassination, the media reporting vile behavior on the part of the repubbb base is causing said behavior.
ps blue texan warn us before you link to malkin. i accidentally clicked on that link and went to her site. now i have to throw this computer away and get a new one.
What an insufferable little whiny prick.
The irony is that kughnt Michelle Malkin regularly says very deceitful and despicable things about Obama and then gets angry when some celebrity berates McCain? What's the difference? Well, for one thing, Malkin gets paid to do that vile shit and she does it on a regular basis, every fucking day. Madonna or whoever else make a public statement that gets attention once during a campaign and then that's it.
Hey wingnut-grrrrl, can you site a single legitimate source to back up any of your accusations? I mean, one that can't be debunked in two clicks at snopes.com?
Yeah. That's what I thought. Now, why don't you do something useful, like practice saying "President Barack Obama?"
Remember wingnut-grrrl, I'm not laughing at you. I'm laughing REALLY HARD at you.
I sent Reynolds this email. No response, yet:
I'm relieved you finally pointed out what we've all been noticing the last few months here: That the unhinged, racist, xenophobic, bloodthirsty caterwauling emanating from McCain/Palin rallies can mostly be attributed to the evil DinoMedia and their dastardly reporting.
The next time I yell out 'traitor' or 'n***er' or 'boy' or 'off with his head' or 'kill him' or 'arab terrorist' or any of a number of disgusting things, I'll remember to blame CNN, The Nation, The New York Times, NBC, and of course, Fox News. And I will definitely blame that same media for reporting the wretched comments I have made, those bastards.
is the first poster serious?
wow.
the left IS calling for bush's impeachment and given what a disaster his presidency has been on every possible level, this seems reasonable.
as for the suggestion that gwb hasn't palled around with terrorists, maybe that's true.
but he has palled around with the bin laden family and didn't do a very good job of catching osama bin laden when he had the chance.
i'd say that's much more damning than obama having tea with bill ayers. ayers went to jail for what he did and is now a respected member of the academic community.
and i'd guess most conservatives would agree. if they weren't so busy writing these counter narratives that fly in the face of logic and reason.
it's sad.
George W. Bush has palled around -- on a much more intimate level -- with plenty of bigots and homophobes over the years, and I don't recall John Edwards talking about that at campaign events.
You seem to delimit the calls for assassination to official political rallies.
Yes, that's the whole point. It's one thing to have hateful crazies on your flank. It's another when they're not on your flank -- but are your mainstream partisans -- the people who go to presidential campaign events. And it's another still to have one of your candidates using their language.
Putzy wants us to believe that Code Pink should be held to the same standard as the McCain campaign.
Putzy wants us to believe that people who introduce Palin and McCain at campaign events should be graded on the same curve as anti-war protesters.
Putzy wants us to believe that the media is forcing people to shout "Kill him!" and "terrorist!" and "bomb Obama!" and carry stuffed monkeys into events with Obama stickers on them.
It's a very bad joke.
You can't suggest that GWB palled around with terrorists since he didn't. Obama has. If funneling tens of millions of dollars with Bill Ayers on ultra-left causes isn't "palling around" with a terrorist, I don't know what is.
You seem to delimit the calls for assassination to official political rallies. Is that because you know that any old lefty protest will show that the leftists are far more violent in their rhetoric and, frankly, more frequent.
Your entire demand is quite silly since we do know that leftists have called Bush a terrorist and demanded his execution or assassination. The fact that a conservative is less likely to go film them at an Obama, Kerry or Gore rally in order to produce a soundbite means nothing. The actual footage of anti-war rallies which has been documented is proof enough that leftists can dish out angry rhetoric by the thousands but cannot take one lone idiot spouting off at the mouth.
If it weren't so sad and serious, it would funny how hypocritical leftists are.
Commenting by HaloScan
