Rally to Restore Sanity/March for Fear

Jon Stewart, host of Comedy Central's "Th...

Image via Wikipedia

President Obama got the entirety of the show on ‘The Daily Show‘ last night; the only sitting President to do so.


Jon Stewart didn’t softball him either. He asked questions about what happened to the ‘Hope and Change’ message and what about the ‘change the way Washington works’ meme. The President was eloquent as usual in his response to great applause. The gist? Change doesn’t happen overnight. Look at what has been accomplished in the face of massive obstruction and years of crafting Washington in the form that special interests have made it. Substantive health care reform, financial regulation. Have we achieved everything? No. Can we? Yes we still can.

But not if this upcoming election goes heavily in favour of the Republicans/Tea Party.

Also last night in a special comment, Keith Olbermann eviscerated the Tea Party. He spent half the Countdown listing every gaffe, stupid quote, or threat of insurrection by Tea Party candidates and finally ended up (almost to his detriment) demanding that you get out the vote, or else we are doomed to a dystopian future of corporatocracy. He’s right, but the delivery was a bit scary. Keith often rails against Republicans for whipping up fear but that rant was the biggest fearmongering diatribe I’ve ever seen him do.


But this coming Saturday; October 30, brings us the Rally to Restore Sanity/ March to Keep Fear Alive from Stewart and Colbert. The rally idea began as an internet phenomenon in response to Glenn Beck’s silly evengelical gathering on the Mall in Washington DC. Stewart’s event promises to bring in over 100,000 people in a plea to stop focusing on the extreme elements in politics and get back to what’s important for the average American citizen.

Many critics are already pounding Stewart for crossing the line of entertainment into politics (as if Glenn Beck hasn’t already done that). Stewart promises that “It’s gonna be fun”. We could all use a little bit of fun in these emotionally charged political times.

Will the event have an effect on the political outcomes three days later? Who knows? It just might.

By the way, there are simultaneous rallies taking place all over the country. Check to see if there’s one in your area.


About Mr. Universe

Mr. Universe is a musician/songwriter and an ex-patriot of the south. He currently lives and teaches at a University in the Pacific Northwest. He is a long distance hiker who has hiked the Appalachian Trail and the Pacific Crest Trail. He is also an author and woodworker. An outspoken political voice, he takes a decidedly liberal stance in politics.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

156 Responses to Rally to Restore Sanity/March for Fear

  1. Mule Rider says:

    “Keith often rails against Republicans for whipping up fear but that rant was the biggest fearmongering diatribe I’ve ever seen him do”Thank you for being man enough to admit this.

  2. Mule Rider says:

    The next fearmonger to call out is Bill Maher. His comments on George Lopez were just awful.

    If Glenn Beck or some TeaParty leader can be accused of making incindiary statements that might incite violence, then you can make the exact same charge against Maher regarding his comments.

  3. shrinkers says:

    I agree it’s past time for a “Rally to Restore Sanity.”Here’s an existential question — is it fear mongering to raise a diatribe against someone who is openly advocating violence? I truly am not certain about that. Maybe it’s a question of the level of the rhetoric used.In the end, though, falling into fear is precisely what those who advocate violence want. The whole point of political violence — or the threat of it — is to instill fear, since those who are afraid will act in non-rational ways. That’s the point of terrorism. That’s the point of talking about withdrawing from the Union, or “Second Amendment remedies.” And I didn’t watch Keith last night, but yes, that is sometimes the point of his strongly-worded special comments.We need to get away from acting out of fear. We need to begin shunning candidates who try to instill fear. We need to begin making rational political decisions.

  4. Mr. Universe says:

    @MuleOh I agreed with everything Keith said. I think the Tea Party is the lunatic fringe and would take the country into a dangerous existential dystopia. It’s just his scolding delivery was a bit uncomfortable to watch. I felt like I had been sent to my room with my ballot and instructions on whom to vote for. Weird.

  5. Mule Rider says:

    Keith Olbermann represents is a dangerous/destructive ideologue representing the lunatic fringe (and authoritarian) left (just like Bill Maher), and I firmly believe his vision for America would take it down a very dark and sad road (dystopia).

  6. Mr. Universe says:

    @MuleMaher didn’t strike me as fearmongering as much as he did condescending. Calling the averge Americans stupid is not endearing. But then neither is Maher. But I thought his point about Tiger rang true. Not right; but true.

  7. Mule Rider says:

    Keith Olbermann and Bill Maher are bigger fearmongers for the Left than anything the Right has right now. They are very dangerous people and use very dangerous/destructive words. Bill Maher evidently things that half the country is “stupid lazy hillbilles” who should be treated like “dogs.” In a subtle way, he endorsed the euthanization of some Americans. The dangerous lunacy he represents on the Far Left draws very sharp comparisons to Nazi Germany.

  8. shortchain says:

    Muley,So you’re saying that KO and Maher are more influential on the left than Glenn Beck is on the right?That would appear to fly in the face of reality, ratings, recent observed history, and common sense. Perhaps you could flesh out that observation with some data?

  9. Mule Rider says:

    Their reach into each respective segment of society is up for debate and would require a thorough quantitative assessment to come to an agreeable conclusion, but the point remains that Olbermanm and Maher’s rhetoric can be considered equally or more dangerous than Beck’s. If you can infer some of the things the Left does about Beck and Co. when statements like “take OUR country back” are used, I think you can be equally shrewd and infer some pretty damning recommendations when Maher says something like 1/2 of America is nothing but “ignorant hillbillies” who should be “treated like dogs.”

  10. Mule Rider says:

    What scares me is that too many on the mainstream left (you guys?) seem oblivious to or perfectly okay with this kind of dangerous rhetoric. I feel like I’m balanced enough to call out some of the over-the-top bile from the right, be it from Beck, Savage, or whomever.You guys seem to think that Maher’s words are standard discourse and, I’m assuming, should be taken to heart.And you wonder why I suggest that you guys “hate” conservatives…

  11. filistro says:

    If we “hated” conservatives, Muley, you would not be here.Just sayin’.

  12. Mule Rider says:

    Sorry, fili, for generalizing when I said “you guys.” “You guys” are different from people like Bill Maher and Keith Olbermann, although I’m disappointed that some of you sometimes listen to their garbage/nonsense.

  13. Scott says:

    I really don’t like throwing around the word “hate” by either side. (And, please MR, don’t mistake this for me accusing you of saying you “hate” liberals, because I know you were just making a general observation.)Maybe I’m naive, but I like to believe that none of the rhetoric – either here, out in public, on television, or wherever – is truly driven by hate. I don’t hate anyone, conservate or otherwise. I think a lot of the “hate” or the actions that point to “hate” come from a real, genuine fear. It’s a natural reaction to fear.Unfortunately, it’s easier to resort to incendiary rhetoric than it is to engage in discourse. Again, because it’s easier to fear-monger than to have an honest discussion.

  14. shrinkers says:

    I have to agree with filistro, Mule Rider. I don’t Hate” conservatives. And I think conservatives are welcomed on liberal blogs much more often that the reverse. (Perhaps filistro can speak to that.)As for the difference between KO and BO (I won’t speak to Maher – I don’t watch him); I think there is a notable difference. KO tends to react to things people like Limbaugh and Bill O say. Limbaugh and O’Rielly, in constrast, just sort of make crap up. O’Rielly’s frequent paranoid conspiracy theories are good examples (like his nonsense about the funding for the Islamic Community Center, or his frequent over-the-top rants about the UN, or his flirtations with birtherism). If there were a way to shut off that paranoid hatespeech, I think you’d be shocked at how fast people like Olbermann would tone it down. I could be wrong (this is just my opinion), but I’m convinced the strength of KO’s commentaries is directly proportional to the lunacy from the most influential right wing entertainers.And the funny thing is, at least on the right, those guys are aware that they’re just selling a product, and not giving any sort of realistic or rational commentary. Limbaugh often insists his is just an entertainer. O’Reilly, in my opinion, is one of the most obvious fakes and bad actors I’ve ever seen. Since they are going out of their way to sell hate and fear as their entertainment product, I can’t see that they deserve much respect.You are free to say the same about Olbermann et al. But do keep in mind that Limbaugh and his crew begat Olbermann and Maher. Left wing commentators, of whatever strength or rationality, did not exist before the Limbites did, and would quickly become extinct if right wing talk radio somehow vanished.

  15. Scott says:

    Not related to the above post (sorry)…Charlie Crist has cut Marco Rubio to about 7 points in latest polling in Florida. Not a huge risk to Rubio yet, but a bigger story is that Kendrick Meek is under 20 in both of the most recent polls.[OPINION, NOT FACT] Democrats – both from this data and through anecdotal evidence I have from friends and colleagues – are bleeding off of Meek and looking at Gov. Crist as the lesser of two evils.My early vote for Kendrick Meek sure feels wasted right now…

  16. Bart DePalma says:

    Mr. U:Olberman is the self appointed hitman against things that scare the hell out of the left and the Tea Party has reached that lofty position. I am only surprised it took Keith this long given we have been around for over a year and a half now.Stewart giving Obama a free infomercial and then joining with Colbert to try where Ed Schultz failed and gather over 100,000 lefties in DC in a pale approximation of Glenn Beck’s mob. What a surprise.A side note, Fox News ran one of their text to vote polls and in an admittedly unscientific poll found that over half of their viewers have already voted.

  17. shrinkers says:

    I am only surprised it took Keith this long given we have been around for over a year and a half now.Oh, he realized how insane the Teapers were right away. He’s been reporting on them all along.A side note, Fox News ran one of their text to vote polls and in an admittedly unscientific poll found that over half of their viewers have already voted.And the Dems are still outpacing them in early voting. Hmmmm….

  18. filistro says:

    @Bart… Fox News ran one of their text to vote polls and in an admittedly unscientific poll found that over half of their viewers have already voted.Wow, really? That’s AWESOME news… considering that stats from early voting show Dems running generally even with R’s.. even slightly ahead in some states.. And half of the GOP have already voted!Hmmm.. admittedly anecdotal, but I may have to readjust my forecasts a bit 🙂

  19. shrinkers says:

    Stewart giving Obama a free infomercial It’s interesting that a substantive interview is now viewed by the right as an “infomercial.” I suppose that makes sense, what with so many conservative candidates avoiding the press entirely, and being unable to articulate any rational positions or arguments when they do.and then joining with Colbert to try where Ed Schultz failed and gather over 100,000 lefties in DC in a pale approximation of Glenn Beck’s mob. What a surprise.1) There is no goal to the number of attendees. Perhaps you can furnish a quote from Stewart or Colbert proving otherwise.2) If they did get 100,000, it would far exceed Beck’s revival meeting:http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20014993-503544.html3) Stewart and Colbert are comedians and parodists. Of course it is an “imitation” of Beck. That’s what parodists do (whether it is “pale” is a matter of personal judgment, and is something impossible to ascertain before the performance).4) They’ve made it plain this performance is not for the benefit of “lefties,” though you are free to imagine otherwise.5) Over 200,000 people on Facebook have already RSVP’s to attend. No telling if they all actually will. We’ll have to wait to find out. Again, whether that will “pale” in comparison to Beck’s numbers — or vice versa — is up to one’s own judgment.

  20. Mule Rider says:

    “I think you’d be shocked at how fast people like Olbermann would tone it down.”We’ll have to disagree on this point. You can immediately remove all prominent conservative media commentators (Beck, Hannity, BillO, etc.) but as long as there are still people with conservative viewpoints who have an influence on the nation’s politics, and I would be willing to bet that Olbermann (and Maddow, etc.) would still be very much be in business in their crusade to denigrate, deride, mock, jeer, and shout down conservatives.

  21. Mule Rider says:

    “a substantive interview”I thought Stewart’s act was just for “comedy” and “entertainment” and isn’t really about substance.At least that’s the facade he tries to hide behind when anyone tries to call him on the carpet for his opinings on this country’s political culture. Maybe if he wasn’t so chicken shit…

  22. shrinkers says:

    @MuleWe’ll have to disagree on this point.Agreed.

  23. shrinkers says:

    @MuleI thought Stewart’s act was just for “comedy” and “entertainment” and isn’t really about substance.Did you watch the interview?BTW, someone who is a comedian can sometimes do substantive things. Do you disagree?

  24. shrinkers says:

    someone who is a comedian can sometimes do substantive things. Do you disagree?Let me add to that point. I never said there was no “substance” in Stewart and Colbert’s comedy. Parody often contains a great deal of substance. That’s one of the reasons why parody potentially is such an effective political scalpel. That these two comedians seem to drive the right wing so crazy says a lot about the effectiveness and on-target cogency of their humor. Satirists who are mere whack jobs don’t get to stick around long — they are seen as silly and boring and merely offensive, even by the people they are trying to gain as audience.I think that’s why humor on the left is so often more effective than humor from the right. My perception here, but it seems very few conservative satirists have the knack for it. They really seem to feel that it’s just about calling people names and being insulting. It’s far more subtle than that; there are conservatives who actually think that Colbert is secretly a conservative himself, and is duping all his stupid left wing audience into watching him. Now to achieve that truly is brilliant satire (and may be an application of Poe’s Law).Again: just because something is comedy, that doesn’t mean it lacks substance. But to compare a comedian to someone like Limbaugh is to put them in the same class. I have no problem with that; it is an admission that Limbaugh is a comedian and entertainer as well. It’s time to stop pretending the most commonly-heard right wing voices are anything other than showbusines personalities.

  25. shiloh says:

    BTW, someone who is a comedian can sometimes do substantive things.Al Franken :)and then there’s the comedy team of cheney/bush who substantially got a lotta folk killed in Iraq, etc. They were a riot er caused a riot er something.hmm, MR mentioned get a life recently as he has (9) of the first 21 posts in this thread.and please, let the comedy continue …

  26. shrinkers says:

    Al FrankenExcellent example.

  27. filistro says:

    BTW, someone who is a comedian can sometimes do substantive things.Tina Fey ;-)And speaking of the effectiveness of parody… I wonder how much influence SNL has on elections. I guess there’s no way to accurately measure… but it would be fun research.

  28. Bart DePalma says:

    shirkers/fili:The Dems are trailing the GOP in early voting as a percentage of their registered voters in nearly every state, and FAR behind their 2006 and 2008 performances.Also, what these analyses are missing are all the center-right Indis going GOP this cycle. Remember that Indis broke 3:2 to 2:1 for the GOP in the VA, NJ and MA elections, all the recent general election polls and 40% of Indis self identified as Tea Party supporters in the last Democracy Corps review of the movement.

  29. filistro says:

    @Bart… Also, what these analyses are missing are all the center-right Indis going GOP this cycle.And what YOU are missing is the fact that these are not “Indis” at all… they are people like you who are now ashamed to call themselves Republican so they pick a less offensive label.But they used to be Republicans, they are still Republicans and they always vote Republican.So…no net gain for you. Sorry.

  30. Bart DePalma says:

    fili:The Indis voted heavily for the Dems the past two cycles. 2010 is a diametric shift of Indis against the Dems.

  31. shrinkers says:

    The Dems are trailing the GOP in early voting as a percentage of their registered voters in nearly every state, and FAR behind their 2006 and 2008 performances.Have you a link to stats? I’d like to see that, since from what I heard, the number of early votes is up from 2008 for both parties. Could be wrong though, so I’d appreciate some hard numbers.Personally, I’m more interested in total votes than I am in “percentage of their registered voters.” YMMV.

  32. filistro says:

    @Bart… The Indis voted heavily for the Dems the past two cycles.Yes of course… but those are REAL Indis. Not the legions of people who are now embarrassed to admit in public that they are actually Republicans, so they pretend to be “libertarian” or “independent.”C’mon, Bart, just say it. “I’m a Republican.” How hard can it be? I want to hear you SAY it, Bart 😉

  33. shrinkers says:

    The Indis voted heavily for the Dems the past two cycles. 2010 is a diametric shift of Indis against the Dems.“The Indies” is a different group of people than it was in the last two cycles, Bart. You’ve got the people who were “Indies” in 2006, PLUS all the Republicans who are now too embarrassed to call themselves “Republicans.”Is this so hard to understand?It’s like saying, “The population of the American continent had a very different opinion of Europe in 1600 than it did in 1300.” Well, duh. There were no Europeans living on the American continent in 1300, even though Native Americans were living here the whole time.So, “Indies” have a different view of Republicans now than they did in 2006 and 2008? Well, duh.

  34. Realist says:

    @Mule Rider,The next fearmonger to call out is Bill Maher. His comments on George Lopez were just awful.His comments were certainly very condescending, though, sadly, the behavior of a substantial portion of the American population does seem to bear out his assertions.But I didn’t get any fear mongering out of it. Just condescension. And, yeah, it’s snotty, and it does nothing to make him look respectable.Can you explain how those comments could reasonably be expected to incite violence? I really don’t see it.

  35. Realist says:

    Bart’s comments about votes from “independents” highlights something brought up a couple of times in the past few days.Self-identification is slippery, and is not a particularly good measure of where one stands on the issues. It is, in essence, a cart-before-horse method of measurement.Instead, by ascertaining one’s positions on the issues, we use an objective measurement that can be applied comparatively. Horse-before-cart.

  36. Mule Rider says:

    “Can you explain how those comments could reasonably be expected to incite violence? I really don’t see it.”He essentially said that a substantial portion of the population could/should be treated like dogs. So let’s stretch that analogy out a bit further shall wee. I understand that most people treat their pets with some sense of dignity and respect, but that treatment is still “sub-human.” (Most) people don’t think twice about strictly punishing their pets by locking them up or with some other kind of negative physical reinforcement when they misbehave, and euthanasia is an option for dogs that are too troublesome, old and incapacitated, or abandoned. Either way, no matter how well we treat dogs as pets, we look at their life, on average, as being far inferior to that of humans and make substantially more “cold-hearted” choices with them as we would in a comparable situation with a human. With him instilling a mindset that so many people can be looked at and treated this way, it paves the way for a very troubled mindset.Think I’m stretching a bit? I see it as being no more of a stretch in going from him advocating treating (conservative) people like dogs and some people taking it a step farther and putting it into some kind of plan of action by the leftist throngs than when people see a conservative leader use a phrase like “take our country back” and immediately stretch that into an assumption of an armed and bloody rebellion. You can’t have it both ways. Either it’s all a play on words and innocent (albeit disrespectful or obtuse) rhetoric or it has a sinister core that, taken literally, could be used in a very dangerous way against one’s political opponents.Just like I do believe that an extremist could use “take our country back” as a cue to do something sinister, I believe a voice of the left saying half of Americans are like dogs could evoke a similar response from the fringe on that side.

  37. Realist says:

    Yes, Mule, that’s a stretch.And the issue with conservatives advocating violence isn’t “take our country back,” it’s coupling that with “Second Amendment remedy” that incites violence. “Take our country back” has been used for years as a call to action at the polls. This time is the first time I can recall hearing references to a “Second Amendment remedy” as a fallback (?) position of sorts.

  38. Mule Rider says:

    “This time is the first time I can recall hearing references to a “Second Amendment remedy” as a fallback (?) position of sorts.”And how often has that been uttered?

  39. Bart DePalma says:

    Fili:When have I ever run from the self identification of Republican? I have been very open about my preference. That hardly means that I cannot take may party leadership to task for their ideological heresies. Nor does it mean that I cannot go third party in a protest vote as I did in 1992.

  40. Bart DePalma says:

    Realist wrote: “This time is the first time I can recall hearing references to a “Second Amendment remedy” as a fallback (?) position of sorts.”When the traditional law and order crowd starts (half?) joking about armed insurrection to take back their government, you get good idea how frustrated they are with courts, bureaucracies and now elected governments which implement policy after policy against the will of the voters. This is not an empty threat. During the sage brush rebellions over the past couple decades, we had armed confrontations between the locals here in the west and interior/park officers who were cutting off land or water to enforce court or bureaucratic environmental edicts. I am surprised there was not an armed uprising in Northern California when the feds destroyed thousands of square miles of prime farms to preserve water for a frigging bait fish.The self styled ruling class in DC better start re-reading their Declaration of Independence and taking it seriously.

  41. Realist says:

    @MR,And how often has that been uttered?Tons of times, though mostly in a meta fashion, which makes it harder to tell how many references are intended to reinforce the message.The number doesn’t, of course, make Sharron Angle’s original statement less inflammatory.

  42. Realist says:

    @MR,And, right on cue, Bart proves the point with:This is not an empty threat.Thanks, Bart.

  43. shrinkers says:

    And how often has that been uttered?And to that number we can now add Bart.

  44. Mule Rider says:

    I’ll put it this way, I want to avoid violence at all costs, but if I’m going to be “treated like a dog,” then I’m not going to rule out a “2nd amendment remedy.”I look at it as kind of a chicken/egg-which-came-first type question. The hate speech, condescension, and Naziesque hubris of people like Maher and his cohorts who see half of Americans as “ignorant hillbillies” or “dogs” that need to be dragged kicking and screaming or the rising tide of a sentiment that an armed rebellion might be necessary to stand up to said hate speech, condescension, and hubris. I know the people on “my” side. The last thing most of them want to do is raise a gun, but they damn sure won’t hesitate to if they’re going to be talked to like dogs. I don’t endorse even a subtle hint that violence is necessary when it’s not, but when I hear the kind of hate speech that someone like Maher spews, it starts raising a level of awareness in me that maybe it’s time to start thinking it’s necessary.

  45. Bart DePalma says:

    Folks:Let me pitch this scenario to you. Let’s say you have a 150 acre farm in CA that has been in the family for 100 years. Then Interior cuts off your water to preserve a bait fish. You go to the courts for justice and they tell you the fish wins. You go to your representative and senators and they tell you there is nothing they can do because an unelected bureaucracy decides these things. Now your land is worthless and your family destitute.What do you do?I would be hard pressed not to supply my own justice and reopen the water by whatever means necessary.

  46. GROG says:

    @fili,Yes of course… but those are REAL Indis. Not the legions of people who are now embarrassed to admit in public that they are actually Republicans, so they pretend to be “libertarian” or “independent.”Not true, fili. The Republican brand is absolutely not damaged like you think. This NYT poll is not good new for the Dems. “Obama Coalition Is Fraying, Poll Finds””Over all, 46 percent of likely voters said they would vote for Republicans and 40 percent said they would support Democrats. A higher percentage of Americans continues to have a more favorable opinion of the Democratic Party than of the Republican Party, with 46 percent favoring Democrats and 41 favoring Republicans. But the Republicans’ favorability rating in the New York Times/CBS poll is at its highest level since September 2006.”The R’s favorability rating is the highest in 4 years. It’s a fabrication by the left that the everyone’s embarrased to say they’re a Republican, fili.

  47. Mule Rider says:

    Curious as to your opinion, GROG, regarding the relative of egregiousness of Maher’s comments compared to some things some on the right have said?Don’t you think they’re pretty troubling?

  48. shortchain says:

    What Bart leaves out, of course, is that, although the farm has been in the family for 150 years, it’s only been the last 30 or so, after the rivers were dammed and cheap irrigation was available, that your farm has been anything but a subsistence operation.Now, after 30 years, the water isn’t sufficient, the long-term consequences of the dams are coming due in the form of extinction of “indicator” species, and you don’t want to pay.Naturally, if you are Bart, you ignore the public good and go for your own interest.

  49. dr_funguy says:

    @MR You have repeatedly said that Maher is equally inflamatory to any right wing commentator. Egs. of right wingers incitements to violence include the well-worn quote from Angle; Ann (“My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.”) Coulter. G. Gordon ([kill federal agents with] “Head shots! Head shots!]) Liddy (he got an award for that one ?!) and others.I am still waiting for a sourced quote from you or anyone else evidencing similar incitement from liberal commentators of similar stature. If you ain’t got it you are blowing smoke in a game of “lefties are just as bad”…Prove me wrong!

  50. shortchain says:

    What’s missing about this discussion of the danger of the left demagogues is the discussion of all the individuals who, upon hearing all of Maher’s or Olberman’s inflammatory rhetoric, load all their guns in their cars and drive off to shoot somebody.Because, of course, we know that never happens in the case of right-wing demagogues.

  51. Mule Rider says:

    “I am still waiting for a sourced quote from you or anyone else evidencing similar incitement from liberal commentators of similar stature.”http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/uploads/RealRadioHatemongers.pdfIf that link doesn’t count, then you’re as blind as a bat. One example from the link:“For the people who give a damn about what I say about the Republican Party beingmurdered, of course it needs to be murdered. It needs to be ended. It is a force fordestruction in this country unlike anything that’s ever been domestic. It really is. Thecommies, the spies sent by the Germans, the freaks, even [Rush] Limbaugh — the head ofthe Republican Party — is not as damaging as these Republican officeholders….TheRepublican Party needs to be executed. Rush Limbaugh needs to choke to death on his ownfat….The Republican Party needs to be beheaded. It needs to be taken out on some darkmoonless night in the middle of a corn field and decapitated.”— Mike Malloy, The Mike Malloy Show, February 18, 2009.

  52. Mule Rider says:

    “Republicans are evil sons-of-bitches. The Republican Party needs to be murdered. It needsto — it’s like if you had a nest of rats in your house, or a hornets nest under the eaves atyour barn or your house, and you knew they were going to do harm to you, your family,your kid — if you live on the farm, your livestock, whatever. What would you do? Ofcourse — you’d get an exterminator and you would murder the nest and get rid of it. Justget rid of it. This is what America needs right now; they need to have the Republican Partyeliminated, totally, completely. It is destructive, it is negative, it is sick. [laughs] A mercykilling is what’s needed here.”— Mike Malloy, The Mike Malloy Show, February 4, 2009.

  53. Bart DePalma says:

    shortchain:Your arrogant response is typical of the credentialed ruling class and why there is a tsunami heading your way in a couple days and half joking talk of armed resistance.This is like a variation of Robin Hood where we have famers who dare think about taking the King’s water for their farms.My friend, ours is supposed to be a government of the people, not a people subject to the government. The people do not give a damn about your bait fish and neither would you if it was your farm being taken.I feel the same way about an arrogant government outlawing my HSA because they want to decide what health insurance I should have. They can shove their 2000+ page tyranny where the sun don’t shine. My vote went in last week to folks who had better do the shoving if they want to stay employed in 2012.

  54. Realist says:

    @MR,but if I’m going to be “treated like a dog,”Maher provided a ton of context around that phrase. It was meant to be a term of condescension, not one of threatening to make you sleep outside, eat from a bowl on the floor, be pulled around on a leash, or (if you’re around Michael Vick) subjected to extraordinary violence.It’s truly not in the same ballpark.Now, I’m sure there are plenty of instances of leftwing rhetoric that you can point to that might be in the same ballpark. Maher’s statement just isn’t among them.

  55. shrinkers says:

    BartI feel the same way about an arrogant government outlawing my HSA because they want to decide what health insurance I should have. You have repeated this line dozens of times.My HSA is fine. What is it about yours that now makes it illegal?

  56. Mr. Universe says:

    Mule said;Just like I do believe that an extremist could use “take our country back” as a cue to do something sinister, I believe a voice of the left saying half of Americans are like dogs could evoke a similar response from the fringe on that side.Perhaps you feel that way because it’s something you personally can relate to. Most liberals I know of believe in the democratic process rather than violence. We obediently accepted Al Gore’s concession in 2000 despite the fact that it was incredibly painful. And I can’t actually see Keith stomping on some righties head or Jane Hamster taking up an armed insurrection.No, I think you fear Olbermann’s words more because they ring true; even when they are unpleasant to hear.@BartYes, that’s what happened in the 2001 Klamath Basin water shortage. But nobody died. Except fish. Not Bait fish. Salmon. Which the native folks depend upon and have for hundreds of years longer than the white folks living there. And yes, wars are fought over diminishing resources. Which is why it makes more sense not to overuse the resource in the first place, which is also what is happening in the Klamath.So your argument is full of holes (that I’m actually not going to debate with you because I am accustomed to the futility of doing so). But it perfectly illustrates your obsessive, conservative clinging to capitalistic, selfish principles that you somehow have God given rights to exploit the environment for your own personal use even at the expense of everyone else’s detriment.And that’s why the Federal government is empowered to come in and stop you from your ‘God given right’ to abuse the environment.

  57. Mule Rider says:

    “So, Michele, slit your wrist! Go ahead! [chuckles] I mean, you know, why not? I mean, ifyou want to — or, you know, do us all a better thing. Move that knife up about two feet. Imean, start right at the collarbone.”— Montel Williams talking about Representative Michele Bachmann on Air America’sMontel Across America, September 2, 2009.

  58. Gainsbourg says:

    Scott: “My early vote for Kendrick Meek sure feels wasted right now…”Don’t worry. My early vote cancelled that out. I like Meek but I hate Rubio even more.

  59. shortchain says:

    Apparently it’s “arrogant” to point out reality. And I didn’t even mention all the subsidies the farm has been receiving. That would have been even more “arrogant”, I suppose.Oh, and Bart? You’ve never explained just what provision of the 2000+ pages of tyranny made your HSA illegal, although you’ve been asked multiple times to explain the statement. I’m wondering, because my HSA seems to be perfectly legal…

  60. shrinkers says:

    Oh, and Bart, I’m going to keep asking you about your HSA until you tell us why yours is special while mine is not being outlawed. Just so you know.

  61. Realist says:

    @Bart,I feel the same way about an arrogant government outlawing my HSA…I’m so glad you brought that up, because this is a wonderful time for you to answer the pending question:Exactly how has your HSA been outlawed?

  62. Realist says:

    @MR,Malloy’s comments are at least starting to get in the ballpark. The quotes you provided were very clearly directed at the party, not the members. That said, I could squint and imagine some of the more unstable members of society having trouble making that distinction.So yeah, you’ve at least reached the parking lot outside the stadium. Maybe even gotten through the admission gate.

  63. Mule Rider says:

    “We obediently accepted Al Gore’s concession in 2000…”Um, how many people on the left, again, think that election was a sham? How many think even the 2004 one was fixed? Yeah, I call that “obediently accepted.””And I can’t actually see Keith stomping on some righties head…”Then you and I have a different impression of Keith Olbermann because his inflammatory and incendiary rhetoric makes him seem so unhinged, I wouldn’t put anything past him. Btw, I don’t condone what happened to that lady at the Rand Paul rally, but you are asking for trouble when you show up at a political opponent’s rally and uninvitedly approach their leader to fulfill an antagonistic/mocking agenda. So let’s put this in context. You can’t just go into someone’s house without an invitation and shit on the carpet without some kind of repercussion.

  64. Scott says:

    @Gainsbourg: Don’t worry. My early vote cancelled that out. I like Meek but I hate Rubio even more.Think there’s any chance that Meek drops out of the race entirely to endorse Crist, or do you think it’s too late because of early voting? I would say that there’s not, but interested to get another perspective.

  65. Mule Rider says:

    “Maybe even gotten through the admission gate.”@Realist,I greatly appreciate you for your general attempt at balance in your commentary as well as respectful and curious tone, but I’m a bit disappointed that your – and I’m not sure what it is exactly except maybe just partisan blinders – threshold for tolerance of inflammatory rhetoric and hate speech from one side seems to be extremely biased against the other.

  66. Mainer says:

    Gee Bart so if some of those you have anointed (for certainly your conservative vote is worth all of the progressive votes plus one) do not in all ways possible deconstruct what a previous majority of American voters wanted then what? do they get some special second ammendment sollutions? As impassioned as you seem to be I can not imagine you waiting for 2 whole years for your pound of flesh. Oh and if you should not get total control of the government does that mean once again that the movement was not conservative enough?

  67. dr_funguy says:

    First, thanks for the quote, while it is merely inviting a single individual to suicide rather than encouraging people to murder large numbers of their political opponants, (and I never heard of the guy), it is at least a single example that gets close to the ballpark. I still haven’t seen any quote from KO or Maher that comes close. Re. The Rand Paul episode, I guess I always thought that there was a distinction between the public square and my living room. To what part of the First Amendment are they objecting?

  68. Mr Universe says:

    but when I hear the kind of hate speech that someone like Maher spews, it starts raising a level of awareness in me that maybe it’s time to start thinking it’s (armed insurrection) necessary.

    And right on cue, Mule proves the point.

    Thanks, Muley

    (apologies to Realist)

  69. Mule Rider says:

    “To what part of the First Amendment are they objecting?”Evidently you don’t have a full understanding of the First Amendment. While it protects fres speech it doesn’t guarantee that you can say whatever you want wherever you want to. She was an uninvited guest who engaged in antagonistic and unwanted actions at that particular event. They had every right to turn her away and not let her say her piece. She didn’t deserve to be treated as physically harsh as she did, however. I concede that point. But she can’t expect to run around and say anything to anybody and expect them to listen. This isn’t a free speech-1st amendment issue, so don’t even go there. “And right on cue, Mule proves the point.”Prove what point? I didn’t do shit except say if people are to go as far as to treat me like some subhuman piece of trash, I can see where it might be necessary to take up arms. I think that would be a logical response from the vast majority of people unless they were a complete pussy.

  70. shiloh says:

    @BartYour arrogant response~~~~~Oh the continued Bartles irony …take care, blessings

  71. shrinkers says:

    So now we have both Mule and Bart implying that armed insurrection may be a good idea, in response either to environmental concerns, or to someone else’s free speech.I don’t know how GROG feels about it, but we’ve got 2 out of 3 conservatives leaning that way …

  72. Mule Rider says:

    “So now we have both Mule and Bart implying that armed insurrection may be a good idea, in response either to environmental concerns, or to someone else’s free speech.”That’s a lie. Read what I said you little shit. I specifically said it might be a good idea if I’m having hate speech spewed at me. I said nothing about it being in response to environmental concerns or in response to other’s free speech.

  73. Mule Rider says:

    Are you guys seriously trying to play the anti-free speech card because of what happened at the Rand Paul rally?Are you really that clueless about Constitutional matters?Are you really that desperate?The fact that you should (whether you admit it or not) answer yes to at least 2 of the above 3 questions is why you’re going to get your ass handed to you on Tuesday.

  74. Monotreme says:

    Mule Rider,For the record, I find the comments of Malloy and Williams reprinted above to be reprehensible. They do not represent in any way my thoughts or feelings regarding my political opponents.On the other hand, I attended many FBI briefings pre-9/11 in which the *probability*, not the possibility, of violence from the right-wing was discussed. I never attended a briefing where the FBI claimed to be worried about a terrorist attack from liberals.Trying to deny the reality of this violent streak in a small minority of right-wingers does not help your credibility in this debate.

  75. Gainsbourg says:

    Scott:Think there’s any chance that Meek drops out of the race entirely to endorse Crist, or do you think it’s too late because of early voting? I would say that there’s not, but interested to get another perspective.He’s not going to endorse Crist no matter what. He’s talked so much crap about him that he’d look like a right idiot if he did. The reason I’m voting for Crist is because Meek’s campaign was horrible from the get go. He could’ve come out and attacked Rubio, who was beind Crist, and made this a race between two moderates. Instead he chose to attack Crist instead and look where he ended up. Now we have a teabagger, scam artist with a real possibility of ending up in the senate and bolstering the national republican bench.

  76. Bart DePalma says:

    BD: “I feel the same way about an arrogant government outlawing my HSA because they want to decide what health insurance I should have.”shrinkers: “You have repeated this line dozens of times. My HSA is fine. What is it about yours that now makes it illegal?”The first step should take place in the next month where I can no longer use my HSA to purchase OTC drugs like my Prilosec without going to the doctor to get a prescription. Your insurer should have sent you a notice of this weeks ago.The next two steps are shrinking the size of my HSA under the statutory cap for deductibles and requiring through regulation that a wide spectrum of care be covered under my catastrophic insurance instead of the HSA.Obamacare outlaws my HSA.

  77. Gainsbourg says:

    Mule Rider:”She was an uninvited guest who engaged in antagonistic and unwanted actions at that particular event. They had every right to turn her away and not let her say her piece. She didn’t deserve to be treated as physically harsh as she did, however. I concede that point. But she can’t expect to run around and say anything to anybody and expect them to listen. This isn’t a free speech-1st amendment issue, so don’t even go there.”You lean towards the fascist end of the spectrum, don’t you?

  78. Bart DePalma says:

    Mr. Universe wrote: “Most liberals I know of believe in the democratic process rather than violence….And that’s why the Federal government is empowered to come in and stop you from your ‘God given right’ to abuse the environment.”That about says it all.Progressives hate democracy. You folks invented the bureaucracy to sidestep the democratic system and the living constitution to sidestep the Constitution’s checks and balances. Progressives believe in the autocratic rule of progressive experts.

  79. Mule Rider says:

    “Trying to deny the reality of this violent streak in a small minority of right-wingers does not help your credibility in this debate.”I’m not trying to deny there are a minority of crazy right-wingers capable of violent acts. I’m just saying there’s enough hate speech flying from the left to make one suspect there could be something brewing on that side. I just think it will manifest itself in a different manner than some shotgun-toting redneck holed up in a compounds somewhere finally coming out of hiding to quench his bloodlust (as you might see from the right). The hate from the left strikes me as the kind to do it via some kind of authoritarian government control.

  80. shrinkers says:

    No, Bart, your HSA still exists. You are, as usual, twisting and exaggerating for dramatic and rhetorical effect.Or did cars become illegal when it was required that they have seat belts?Did meat cease to be sold when it was required to be federally inspected?Are there no more doctors now that you must have a license to practice medicine?What utter nonsense.

  81. Scott says:

    Progressives hate democracy.Please don’t speak for me.

  82. Mule Rider says:

    “You lean towards the fascist end of the spectrum, don’t you?”Fuck it. Why do I even bother when I get pure ignorance like this as a retort?If you people have that tenuous of a grasp of the fucking 1st amendment, then I don’t know what to tell you. IT DOESN’T GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO SAY ANYTHING ANYWHERE! ‘Nuff said. Remember the whole “Fire!” in a theater bit. I’ll remind you assholes of this when some loudmouthed boob starts raising his voice at an Obama event and security leads him away for being a disruption. I’ll ram this free speech shit right back down your goddamn throats.

  83. shortchain says:

    So Bart finally comes clean and admits that it’s the new limitations on the amount of HSA’s and the rules about OTC medications.Well gee, Bart, that’s just catastrophic, that the government, which allows you to shelter that money from taxes in the first place then insists on placing restrictions on how much money it allows you to shelter and how you can use it.A quibble, though: since you can still have an HSA, although for less money, and you can still use it for the really expensive stuff, isn’t it a bit dishonest, really, to say your HSA has been “made illegal”?

  84. Mule Rider says:

    Disrupting an opponent’s political rally is NOT protected speech. Yes, they should have peacefully asked her (forced if necessary) to leave as a “head-stomping” was unnecessary and unalled for, but you can’t just go anywhere and spew whatever you want.

  85. Mainer says:

    I guess I just do not understand how politics works any more. Last spring we had individuals show up and all but commandeer meetings for the constituents of elected individuls not by those constituents but by outsiders and that was fair exercise of free speech. A lady shows up with a poster she wants a candidate for national office to see and that is not free speech. All Democratic events including internal meetings should be open to conservative press but conservative candidates should only have to talk to conservative reporters or I guess to no one in some cases. Chuck Grassley anounces last year that he was negotiating for Republicans……so I guess that means the Democrats and Indies of his district are effectively disenfranchised?I suspect I’m not the only one (my guess) that is bothered by odd things like these but beyond that one gets to this whole second ammendment thing. At some point guys you are at the very least trying to intimidate others to give you your way or else…….damn concerning. I do not want to see Republicans in charge again but if that is the way the vote goes then that is the way it goes, make the best of it and try to sell the other product better next time. But this whole we didn’t win so we will screw the process crap because it only counts as a majority if we get it is straight off the play ground.I made the point for years to students that one of the big things that seperated us from lesser nations was our ability to have quite major transfers of power peacefully…..really hurt here a bit ago when a former student asked if that was still true. A strange time we live in. Think I will get my set of Lewis Carroll out to read to the grand kids, might just as well start preparing them for the new reality.

  86. Scott says:

    He’s not going to endorse Crist no matter what. He’s talked so much crap about him that he’d look like a right idiot if he did.The reason I’m voting for Crist is because Meek’s campaign was horrible from the get go. He could’ve come out and attacked Rubio, who was beind Crist, and made this a race between two moderates. Instead he chose to attack Crist instead and look where he ended up. Now we have a teabagger, scam artist with a real possibility of ending up in the senate and bolstering the national republican bench.I agree with that.Trying to be as objective as possible here: I think Rubio has made himself look really, really good if he ever wants to take that run at higher office in 2012 (or 2016, or 2020). Obviously I disagree with his positions, but he’s come out of this cycle relatively scot-free (compared to others), and he definitely has the kind of charisma you’d expect from an “up-and-comer.”I wouldn’t be surprised if he quickly tries to establish a strong name for himself in the Senate to line up for that future bid; obviously I can’t predict how the political landscape will look in 6 or 10 (more likely in Rubio’s case) years, but he’s definitely got to be on a short-list of people that the RNC/GOP will be looking at.

  87. shortchain says:

    Muley,Your points would be a lot better supported if1. she had actually, you know disrupted the affair. There’s absolutely no evidence that she did, which makes your claims a bit odd.2. she had been shouting, screaming, etc. Then it would have been within Paul’s rights to ask security to have her removed. Not some random thugs, mind you. Security.So if, at some future point, some out-of-control yahoo tries to disrupt an event, and security has to remove them, don’t bother reminding us how this is somehow equal to having thugs step on their head.

  88. Mr. Universe says:

    Recently Barted;Progressives hate democracyBart, do you even understand how a democracy works?

  89. Mule Rider says:

    “A lady shows up with a poster she wants a candidate for national office to see and that is not free speech”Big difference, Mainer, in those townhall meetings and Paul’s rally. Those (meetings from 2009) were specifically designed to invite differing people with differing viewpoitns to weigh in on policy matters. The lady at the Paul matter was an uninvited guest engaging in unwanted/unwelcome behavior. Paul wasn’t trying to get input from a political opponent, so she should have kept her input to herself. If he was an elected offical and was holding a townhall meeting where he invited outside opinion and that happened, yeah, you’ve got an argument. Or if he never tries to even listen to his contituents, that too is a good case.But at his own political rally among supporters, they don’t have to put up with the shenanigans of an outsider trying to disrupt the party.

  90. robert verdi says:

    Olberman and the rally for sanity really don’t gel together.

  91. Jean says:

    shortchain;re: A quibble, though since you can still have an HSA, although for less money, and you can still use it for the really expensive stuff, isn’t it a bit dishonest, really, to say your HSA has been “made illegal”?Despite what wingers here believe, it’s not Republicans that Dems hate. It’s their hypocrisy.http://www.theygaveusarepublic.com/diary/6863/hypocrisy-endemic-to-right-wings-antisocial-worldview

  92. Monotreme says:

    Barted:The first step should take place in the next month where I can no longer use my HSA to purchase OTC drugs like my Prilosec without going to the doctor to get a prescription. Your insurer should have sent you a notice of this weeks ago.The next two steps are shrinking the size of my HSA under the statutory cap for deductibles and requiring through regulation that a wide spectrum of care be covered under my catastrophic insurance instead of the HSA.Obamacare outlaws my HSA.Congratulations, Sir. This is the first instance in recorded history of a person using reductio ad absurdum to destroy their own argument.

  93. Mule Rider says:

    Your ignoring the larger, more salient point. That being that they don’t have to tolerate ANY kind of disruptive behavior no matter how “innocent” it may be seen to you. This wasn’t a townhall meeting. It was a rally for Paul supporters. Whatever shenanigans she was trying to pull – again, no matter how innocent or non-disruptive – were not welcome and they were within their right to ask her to leave. The head-stomp and aggressive acts were over-the-top, no doubt, but they didn’t have to indulge her contradictory viewpoint. And again, this WAS NOT a 1st amend/free speech issue. You are not protected to go do/say whatever you want wherever you want.

  94. Monotreme says:

    Barted:The first step should take place in the next month where I can no longer use my HSA to purchase OTC drugs like my Prilosec without going to the doctor to get a prescription. Your insurer should have sent you a notice of this weeks ago.The next two steps are shrinking the size of my HSA under the statutory cap for deductibles and requiring through regulation that a wide spectrum of care be covered under my catastrophic insurance instead of the HSA.Obamacare outlaws my HSA.Congratulations, Sir. This is the first time in recorded history that a person has used reductio ad absurdum to destroy their own argument.

  95. dr_funguy says:

    I really don’t know where the Paul rally was happening, but if it was in a public place they have no right to remove someone because they don’t like their signs. Only Republican Presidents who are the sons of Presidents get to do that. ;-)Seriously Muley, have you never been to a political rally and seen signs for opposing points of view present?I can recall them at Vietnam War protests, anti-nuclear protests, and others to numerous to mention (think abortion pro and con). Why is this not protected speech? If its inside and they rent the hall its different, I concede that but I haven’t heard that was the case.

  96. shortchain says:

    Muley,So, according to you, little more than just being at a political rally on public property is required in order to justify getting your head stepped on.Which raises the question: what limits are there on behavior? Can you just attend a rally for someone you don’t support? If so, can you grimace? I ask, because we need to find the limitations you propose on free speech.My own proposal: Any behavior which does not preclude anyone else from exercising their free speech is acceptable and does not draw a foot on the head.

  97. Monotreme says:

    The alleged “head-stomping” incident in which Valle was allegedly assaulted was outside a scheduled Paul-Conway debate.This is a setting where one would reasonably expect to see signs on both sides of an issue, and as long as everyone was behaving in a non-threatening manner, I would say it’s likely protected speech.http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/125785-moveon-activist-attacked-outside-rand-paul-rally

  98. Mule Rider says:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20021024-503544.htmlSee the footage yourself. She isn’t just there holding up a sign with a differing viewpoint. She rushes the SUV that Paul is riding in as he approaches the event.

  99. Mule Rider says:

    “non-threatening manner”And there’s the key. As the footage I linked to shows, she stepped out from the crowd and rushed his SUV as it was parking to let Paul out.

  100. Mule Rider says:

    Rushing a political candidate, by almost any definition, is behaving in a “threatening” manner. Of course I’m sure there will still be those defending what she did as okay.

  101. shortchain says:

    Muley,If so — and I’ve dealt with enough video to know that appearances can be deceiving, even on video — that would give someone the right to keep her from approaching the car. It doesn’t give somebody the right to step on her head after she’s down.

  102. Mule Rider says:

    “It doesn’t give somebody the right to step on her head after she’s down.”Yes. We’ve covered this. I never defended those actions. If you’ll scroll back you’ll see several instances of me denouncing it as over-the-top.

  103. Gainsbourg says:

    Scott:“Trying to be as objective as possible here: I think Rubio has made himself look really, really good if he ever wants to take that run at higher office in 2012 (or 2016, or 2020). Obviously I disagree with his positions, but he’s come out of this cycle relatively scot-free (compared to others), and he definitely has the kind of charisma you’d expect from an “up-and-comer.”Thing with Rubio is that he pandered to the tea party and now has to take extreme positions or risk being seen as a RINO pansy. On the flip side, if he goes too extreme he’ll lose the moderates and independents that every politician needs to put him or her over the top. At best I see him as a stronger Scott Brown. I wouldn’t be surprised if he quickly tries to establish a strong name for himself in the Senate to line up for that future bid; obviously I can’t predict how the political landscape will look in 6 or 10 (more likely in Rubio’s case) years, but he’s definitely got to be on a short-list of people that the RNC/GOP will be looking at.”I think Thune gets the nod way before Rubio. The republicans may concede the 2012 election because Obama is just too strong a candidate for any of their stars to go up against. Rubio will be forty this year. That gives him another ten or fifteen years to run for president. If he gets elected this term I hope the democrats run a good candidate in 2016 in order to take him out.

  104. Mainer says:

    And again inept political behavior. The whole thing could have been handled way better. Mule and I will disagree on if she posed a threat or not and I do not think even in the heat of the moment that she did. It all boils down to a ham handed attempt to crowd out any and all that disagree with their view point. Again a point where Mule and I will part. But for a candidate for national office to boot this in the manner he did would have me even if I supported him wondering. Now note in the video the lady that I beleive was a Paul supporter bull rushing the clown that tackled her and admonishing them. I don’t care if she was a Paul supporter (that is her right) but she got it. One just does not do that and the jerk made his candidate look very bad by association. Paul could have made this go away almost imediately but he seems to have been far less on top of it than he probably should have been.It shall be interesting to see how the tackler and boot boy make out in court.

  105. Realist says:

    It’s kind of a strange feeling typing this, but…Mule Rider is right.Ow. That hurt.Anyway, he’s right that the First Amendment doesn’t give you the right to say whatever you want, whenever you want. It prevents the use of government in limiting the content of people’s statements, provided that what they have to say doesn’t present a clear and present danger to others.I don’t know the details of the Rand Paul rally, so I don’t know if it was on public or private property. That distinction is pretty important in terms of the ability of the organizers to restrict what attendees have to say.Mule is also right (ow) that, provided she didn’t present a clear and present danger, they had no right to physically restrain her. And certainly no right to assault her.(and, Mule, I’m joking about it being painful…but it really is strange agreeing with you to that degree)

  106. Mule Rider says:

    It’s fucking pointless to debate this shit with you guys as you’ll keep your partisan blinders on no matter what. I’d love to catch a glimpse of a bizarro world/universe where there’s video of a conservative activist rushing Jack Conway and his supporters apprehending the person and one or two of them putting their foot on the person’s head. Then I’d love to see what you guys would have to say about the matter. I’d bet a dollar to a doughnut that you’d be saying, “Hell yeah they needed to detain the dude! He posed a threat to Conway!!”Don’t let your disagreement with or dislike of Rand Paul and his policies cloud your judgement on what’s clearly a threatening action by a citizen towards a political figure and what a proper response to that should be. We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that what she did would have been considered a huge no-no if it were the President pulling up, and I realize that KY Senatorial candidate isn’t anywhere near that office, but there is a modicum amount of respect due for someone in that position, and they shouldn’t be expected to take shit (or a potential threat) just because they’re a lowly nominee for Senate.

  107. Mule Rider says:

    Thanks, Realist. You continue to be one of, if not, the most stand-up people that frequent this site.

  108. Mule Rider says:

    Thanks, Realist. You’ve got to be the most stand-up person at this site. I appreciate that.

  109. Gainsbourg says:

    Mule Rider:If you people have that tenuous of a grasp of the fucking 1st amendment, then I don’t know what to tell you. IT DOESN’T GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO SAY ANYTHING ANYWHERE! ‘Nuff said. Remember the whole “Fire!” in a theater bit.Your analogy is off by miles. This lady wasn’t doing anything even remotely similar to yelling fire in a crowded theater. The truth of the matter is that those coward Rand Paul supporters pummeled her because they didn’t like her sign. Your side is blaming her just like they’d blame a shooting victim for being in the wrong part of town.

  110. Mainer says:

    Actually Mule I think the actual security of the candidate was never in doubt as there was what appears to be at least one very large police officer/state trooper right there and he didn’t seem to react in such a manner that would indicate threat detection. And yes Mule is right if one is at this point running for the US Senate he does warrent protection. Now take shit…..sorry Mule sort of goes with the job at some level and a lady with a sign isn’t even close to the red line. Oh and Mule dumb behavior is dumb behavior and illegal acts are just that but this was just mostly dumb. A judge will figure the rest of it out. I don’t care which side does it, that is where it is nice to be an independent…..as in signs on my lawn for candidates from both parties as well as one for an Indy Gov.

  111. Realist says:

    @Bart,If I read your explanation correctly, you are saying that, by virtue of reducing (not even eliminating) your tax deduction, your HSA is being outlawed?I just want to make sure I have this right.

  112. shrinkers says:

    So, let’s review — Mule has twice in this conversation compared American political commentators to Nazis.Bart has called Olberman a “hitman” and said that lawmakers who are concerned with the environment should “better start re-reading their Declaration of Independence.”Both Bart and Mule have more or less endorsed the idea of armed insurrection.Impassioned speech from the left has been condemned as “hate speech,” while Paul Rand’s supporters stomped a woman in the head. And not one of the conservatives here have condemned the violence and threats in the town hall meetings from the Tea Party crowd in the summer of ’09. I think it is past time for a Rally to Restore Sanity.

  113. Gainsbourg says:

    Hey, Mule. Would these same brave conservatives have tackled a pretty blonde with a camera because she got too close to Paul’s car? I doubt it. The Moveon employee was in the crowd and these old farts had it in for her. That’s why she got her head stomped.

  114. Mule Rider says:

    “Impassioned speech from the left has been condemned as “hate speech,””There’s nothing “impassioned” about saying half of America is ignorant and should be treated like a dog. It’s hateful. Plain and simple. “while Paul Rand’s supporters stomped a woman in the head.”That was wrong. It’s been condemned. What more do you want from me? To pay the agitator’s medical bills? She didn’t have the right to bum-rush Paul. She shouldn’t have been subjected to being pinned down and stomped on. End of story. “And not one of the conservatives here have condemned the violence and threats in the town hall meetings from the Tea Party crowd in the summer of ’09.”Didn’t realize that was still an issue or you were looking for a condemnation, so let me say that I condemn those threats of violence as well as any since.

  115. Monotreme says:

    I condemned the words of liberal activists in my 2:32 pm post. You must’ve missed it.

  116. Mule Rider says:

    “Would these same brave conservatives have tackled a pretty blonde with a camera because she got too close to Paul’s car? I doubt it.”Hard to tell what the reaction would have been if it were someone different. I’d like to think that anyone approaching a Senatorial candidate’s vehicle in that manner as it’s about to park would be restrained. Don’t know, though. “The Moveon employee was in the crowd and these old farts had it in for her.”It doesn’t excuse what they did, but she has to know that she’s not going to be looked at in a favorable light when she’s clearly there to agitate and provoke with a differing viewpoint. Those people were there predominantly to celebrate Paul. She should have challenged his candidacy through another venue, not show up at an event with nearly 100% supporters and rush his vehicle to make a point. “That’s why she got her head stomped.”No, she got her head stomped because some asshole took it too far.

  117. shrinkers says:

    If I read your explanation correctly, you are saying that, by virtue of reducing (not even eliminating) your tax deduction, your HSA is being outlawed?Yeah, I forget that one. Bart says his HSA has been “outlawed” in part because he has to prove the medicines he buys are medically necessary (don’t conservatives want us to reduce fraud and waste? Or is fraud and waste okay when they do it?)And Bart claims “Progressives hate democracy” because we want to obey laws enacted by a democratically-elected legislature.Yeah, we need a Rally to Restore Sanity. There’s no such thing as too soon.

  118. Gainsbourg says:

    No, Mule. She was on the Rand Paul side of the street at a Conway/Paul event. Here’s some video for you. Notice the Conway posters at the top of the screen. http://www.thefoxnation.com/tea-party-zone/2010/10/27/exclusive-moveon-activist-head-stomp-video

  119. shrinkers says:

    Mule:let me say that I condemn those threats of violence as well as any since.Thank you. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge this.Equally, I condemn any similar threats of violence from any on the left. If you can point out a comparable number of political gatherings that have been disrupted in recent years in a comparable way, I would be glad to condemn them as well. Or any credible threats against any American politician, of whatever party.

  120. Gainsbourg says:

    Bart and Mule Rider got stomped. Haha!!

  121. Mule Rider says:

    I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make Gainsbourg. We’ve been through this quite a few times now. She rushed the vehicle Paul was in to shove a sign in his face. She was restrained, as she should have been. She was pinned to the ground and someone put their foot on her head, which should NOT have happened. There really aren’t many more things you can say about this. Her account and video of the incident don’t exactly jive, and they articulate that point in the articule you linked to. The didn’t have agenda to “take her out.” They simply responded when it looked like someone was behaving in a threatening manner towards Paul. And one (or two?) people took it too far.That’s all that needs to be said.

  122. filistro says:

    @ Gainsbourg… Bart and Mule Rider got stomped.Not really. It is impossible to stomp either. Muley cannot be stomped because while you are stomping him he will chew your leg off at the ankle and inject deadly venom into the bleeding stump.Bart, OTOH, gets stomped ALL THE TIME but it leaves no discernible impression. This is because Bart is not human. He is a large human-shaped object made of Silly Putty.

  123. shortchain says:

    Realist — as well as Muley on this narrow issue — is absolutely right: there are limits on freedom of speech.However, as they do not seem to understand, this was on the public street. Observe that there were a lot of people standing very close to the SUV.What’s the first-amendment rational for allowing “supporters” near a candidate but excluding “opponents”, Muley? Don’t give me crap about “threats” — there was obviously no threat here, as proven by the behavior of security and the candidate himself.What you are defending is sequestering a candidate from those who might display opposition — and that isn’t defensible.

  124. Mule Rider says:

    “However, as they do not seem to understand, this was on the public street”I concede and agree to this point and wasn’t fully aware of the situation when I first brought it up.”Don’t give me crap about “threats” — there was obviously no threat here, as proven by the behavior of security and the candidate himself.”I won’t give you crap but I’m going to answer you with a question. Let’s say this is a political event with mostly Obama supporters and John Doe, an activist representing RedState.com is there holding up a “NOBama” sign and he approaches President Obama and the vehicle he’s driving up in exactly how this lady approached Paul. Should they pull him away in such a case?

  125. shortchain says:

    Muley,His security detail can ask Jane Doe (how did an undersized woman suddenly become a man?) to back away, or, in an emergency — which the Kentucky incident wasn’t — use force if they believe he represents a potential threat to the person they are protecting. Random Obama supporters cannot not take it upon themselves unless there’s imminent danger.Look, Muley — Rand Paul has security. We can assume it’s competent. They obviously saw no threat, as their lack of reaction shows.

  126. Mule Rider says:

    “which the Kentucky incident wasn’t”And this is where we part ways…I saw enough evidence for there to be considered a credible threat and for bystanders to intervene (though not with such force). You don’t. Neither one of us were there to really gauge the climate. So it’s a pointless exerise to keep dogging this issue from such vastly different angles. I’m not going to tell you something you haven’t thought of already that’ll change your mind and I don’t expect you to do the same to me.

  127. shortchain says:

    I hope you can ignore that extra “not” in there. Oh, for a “preview” with the option to edit…

  128. shortchain says:

    Muley,If you can see a credible threat in a dark, grainy video, while Paul’s security didn’t, and the people who were there didn’t mention the “she was a threat” until two days after the fact — and that story is contradicted (search for comment number 102) by someone who was there, well, more power to you.Can we at least agree that “Supporters” of a candidate, even if well-intentioned, should not use physical force to eject “non-supporters” from public property?

  129. shrinkers says:

    I asked this question at 8:03 AM this morning. Unless I missed it, no one took up the thought:Here’s an existential question — is it fear mongering to raise a diatribe against someone who is openly advocating violence?The right wing accuses people like Keith of engaging in “hate speech” and “fearmongering” when he criticizes the violent Teapers and those like Limbaugh and Hannity and Beck and Palin who egg them on.In just the last week, the supporters of various candidates have stopped on someone’s head, held a reported in handcuffs for twenty minutes, abused a man who was sitting on a restaurant — supporters of Paul and Miller and Cantor have engaged in indefensible violence. Throughout the last two years, Tea Party activists have committed violence and threatened violence, not only against individuals, but against the nation.So I ask again — is pointing this out a form of fearmongering? Is it hate speech to condemn these threats and these actions?

  130. Mule Rider says:

    “Tea Party activists have committed violence and threatened violence, not only against individuals, but against the nation.”Care to document the cases where they’ve “committed violence”?

  131. Monotreme says:

    I seem to recall a plane flying into an IRS building in Austin, Texas.

  132. filistro says:

    Okay, seriously… here’s why this discussion matters.I don’t spend much time at left-wing sites, but I’ve visited them enough to know there’s no talk of violence. There’s lots of juvenile profanity, lots of dislike of Republicans, lots of mockery and annoying self-righteousness and ugly baiting. But it’s not part of the liberal mindset to think about turning to violence as remedy. OTOH the Freepers (who are, as I like to remind people, the organizing arm of the Tea Party Express) talk about armed violence ALL THE TIME.It is, as Sharron Angle confirms, the “remedy” that pops into their minds when they’re frustrated or upset. We could just start shooting people.If you think I’m exaggerating, I suggest you hang out at Free Republic for a while. You’ll see this stuff EVERY DAY… so much so that after a while you actually become desensitized to it. As one Freeper said just today: “We have three boxes that help us get the government we need. First there’s the soap box. If that fails, there’s the ballot box. And if that doesn’t do it, there’s the ammo box.”When Sarah Palin says “Don’t retreat. Reload!” she is appealing very specifically to this impulse in the GOP mindset. They LIKE guns. They LIKE the feeling that the guy with the gun is the guy with the power. And when emotions run high, whether or not their actions would ever follow… this is where their minds turn.And that is why it is more troubling to the pscyhe of the nation when the GOP feels itself under siege. Because (as Bart has clearly told us here today) even the apparently well-socialized and nominally housebroken members of this group, deep down in their souls, believe in Second Amendment remedies. They are scary. Honestly, they frighten me… and I watch them every day.

  133. shortchain says:

    shrinkers,Violence begets violence, extremism begets extremism. I don’t say we have to turn the other cheek, or even be very civil with one another, but we need to live within the rule of law.Anybody who calls for unlawful behavior is in the wrong, in my book.Like Muley, I’m not aware of any significant violence committed by “tea party activists”. A few instances, maybe, but nothing widespread. Physical violence, that is. Verbal assaults, sure, plenty. And frequent, vicious attacks on logic and sanity, of course.But not lawlessness.

  134. Mule Rider says:

    “I seem to recall a plane flying into an IRS building in Austin, Texas.”In your recollection, was he a “TeaParty activist”? That’s the qualifier. It can’t be just a random nut who seemed to have right-wing sympathies. It needs to be someone affiliated specifically with the TeaParty. Shrinkers made the claim. Now I’m asking him to back it up.

  135. Mainer says:

    Mule man while some of us are most likely looking for the back up you have requested would you humor me and see what you find for violence coming from the left or really not quite right stuff. I’m trying to figure out how private security gets to cuff and detain reporters…….in this state they would no be detained themselves. I keep saying I just don’t get it. My conservative friends just don’t any of this.

  136. Mule Rider says:

    “Mule man while some of us are most likely looking for the back up you have requested would you humor me and see what you find for violence coming from the left or really not quite right stuff.”The link below has a good summary of how I feel about things and includes a list of some aggressive activity from elements on the left at the bottom of the page. http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/mithridate-ombud/2010/03/24/medias-myth-right-wing-violence

  137. shrinkers says:

    @shortchainPhysical violence, that is. Verbal assaults, sure, plenty. And frequent, vicious attacks on logic and sanity, of course.But not lawlessness.I wish it were so.http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/27/earlyshow/main6995613.shtml



    I don’t know what the proper response is. I wish I knew that, too. I know that panic and fear is not the right response — it is what they want, it is what people like Bart want. The whole point is to frighten people into letting them have their way.And of course, they do this because they, themselves, are frightened. The world is changing, and it is changing in ways they can’t understand. That’s why there’s this whole “take my country back” meme. They’re losing it; their comfortable and narrow view of the world is slipping away, and it frightens them. And the only way out they can see is violence.So, what’s the solution? I haven’t got a clue. And I don’t know if the proper approach is to rail against their threats, or to pat them on the head and say, “there, there, here’s some milk and cookies, it’s okay little dear, really it is.”I mean truly, when their objection to Heath Care Reform is that it’s “socialism” — when they don’t even know what “socialism” is, or have a clue as to why that would be bad (if it even would be bad), and they have no clue that the reason they fear it is that wealthy corporations want them to be afraid — I mean look, the very forces of elitism and anti-populism that they have been led to believe they are fighting against, these are the forces that control them. I’m rambling. It’s senseless, and I feel so sorry for the people caught in this trap. But I feel more sorry still for the nation.

  138. shortchain says:

    The guy who flew his plane into the government building in Austin was an anti-tax whacko. He was, as I recall, co-opted by some in the tea party crowd, but his nuttiness had reached a fever pitch long before.The “tea party activists” I’m aware of are either long-time Republican activists or people who are new to the political scene, but they are all reasonably law-abiding. I’m not claiming they’re all completely hinged, mind you. Some of the followers are “out there”, ex-militia types, but there really aren’t that many of those — they don’t play well with others.It’s fairly solidly established, I think, that the right wing has a lot more tendency toward violence today. (We’ll stipulate that, back a few decades, it was more equally distributed across the political spectrum.)But the “right wing” is a vast swamp of seething anger. They’re not all in the “tea party”. Heck, the “tea party” doesn’t even exist as an organization or even an identifiable group with consistent goals.

  139. shrinkers says:

    @shortchainBut the “right wing” is a vast swamp of seething anger. They’re not all in the “tea party”. Heck, the “tea party” doesn’t even exist as an organization or even an identifiable group with consistent goals.It’s probably good to differentiate between the Tea Party and the rest of the right wing fringe. It’s just not always easy to make that distinction.

  140. shiloh says:

    @BartProgressives hate democracy.~~~~~Why do 538 liberals waste time arguing w/Bartles?Rhetorical question.Sometimes I do try to educate him ie Goldwater and makin’ fun of him is wayyy too easy er redundant, but trying to have an intelligent conversation w/a tunnel-vision, deflecting, winger troll who makes a fool of himself 24/7 w/his inane generalizations is useless. Particularly when he always runs away from said discussion or changes the subject after he loses yet another debate at 538.carry on

  141. shortchain says:

    Muley,Oh, please. That list is so pathetic in its conflation of “liberal” with random murderers, the anti-tax guy we were just talking about, PETA, ecoterrorists, anarchists, several completely debunked incidents, and it even lists Bill Ayers!If that’s the best you can come up with, you are not going to convince people.Just as I objected to categorizing the IRS building plane-bomber as “tea party”, I have to object to almost all the elements of the list you gave as “liberal”. A few are. Maybe.

  142. Monotreme says:

    Mule Rider said:In your recollection, was he a “TeaParty activist”? That’s the qualifier. It can’t be just a random nut who seemed to have right-wing sympathies. It needs to be someone affiliated specifically with the TeaParty. Shrinkers made the claim. Now I’m asking him to back it up.With respect, Mr. Rider, we’ve been down this road before. I find some evidence, you challenge it as unconclusive, we get nowhere.Is the Tea Party issuing membership cards now? What level of affiliation would you find as conclusive evidence? Apparently, your criteria for “membership in the left wing” is incredibly loose, so using a reciprocal test, I would say it’s clear the guy hated the IRS and people in the Tea Party want to pay less in taxes so that makes him a Tea Party member.Yes, I’m joking.My (serious) point is, you’re not going to accept any “proof” or “evidence” I offer anyway, so why bother?

  143. Mule Rider says:

    “My (serious) point is, you’re not going to accept any “proof” or “evidence” I offer anyway, so why bother?”Not true. I conceded some ground in this very post about the lady “stomped” at the Paul “rally.” I didn’t know all the facts and, admittedly, probably should have held me tongue on some elements of the story until I knew everything, or as much as one in my position can now.That said, I would accept evidence that the anti-IRS plane dude was a TeaParty activist if there was reasonable evidence he was one. Being sour on taxes doesn’t necessarily mean he should be lumped him with them, and I’m just trying to combat reckless statements (from people like shrinkers) who claim things like “TeaParty activists are committing violence.”That smears a much larger (and more peaceful) group than he’s willing to admit, trying to make them seem more outside of the mainstream than they really are. Though I’ll admit they are decidedly right-of-center. I can accept that there are plenty of right-wing extremist nuts out there and even that right-wing extremists might have a little more inclination than left-wing extremists to commit violence, but I won’t stand by and let a broader and more peaceful movement be smeared because a some people are too lazy or agenda-driven to tell the truth.

  144. shrinkers says:

    Mule, I have to ask, did you se any of the videos of Tea Party activists at teh town hall meetings in the summer of ’09?

  145. Mule Rider says:

    “Mule, I have to ask, did you se any of the videos of Tea Party activists at teh town hall meetings in the summer of ’09?”A little bit. And I don’t condone some of their behavior as some do shout and act a bit rowdy. I don’t endorse that level of discourse. But the vast majority are very peaceful. I’d like to believe that’s the case on the liberal side with their “activists.”Regarding the behavior of some TeaPartiers versus things said by people like Olby, Maher, etc., it doesn’t justify it, but there’s a difference between some random angry old man from Racine, WI blowing off a bit too much steam at a townhall meeting when he’s got no more than a few dozen people alongside him when he rants and a “journalist” with a national audience of several hundred thousand or a few million saying the hateful things that they say.

  146. Gainsbourg says:

    Mule, the security guard does take action by pushing the woman away. But then the Paul supporters/vigilantes took it upon themselves to pin the woman to the ground and stomp on her. If Rand’s security guard saw her as just a nuisance that needed to be pushed away, why did these ass holes have to wrap her arms up, pin her to the ground and then stomp on her?

  147. dr_funguy says:

    Yes some prominent left-wingers say things that are offensive (but I would argue, less often than Rush or Beck who do daily). Then we have prominent right wingers calling for assassination of federal agents and mass murder of their political opponents as I documented above. Yet somehow you equate those offensive remarks as equal to the ones from your side in that are indisputable incitement to violence; sometimes with that effect (remember that doctor who was shot in church following BillO’s call for action?).I realize that you do not endorse violence yourself, but you seem hypocritical in this context.

  148. Mr. Universe says:

    This conversation does suggest an interesting question. Wonder what the political affiliation was of all the people who perpetuated assassinations or attempted assassinations in the past five decades?Which side did they identify with? Liberal or conservative? Which side is more prone to violence to achieve thier political agenda?And in all fairness, I should point out that during there was a period during the sixties where liberal violence was not unheard of.

  149. Realist says:

    John Wilkes Booth was a Democrat, but of the branch that became the Dixiecrats later, of course.

  150. Jean says:

    Gainsbourg,re: Mule, the security guard does take action by pushing the woman away. But then the Paul supporters/vigilantes took it upon themselves to pin the woman to the ground and stomp on her.Nothing says “Traditional Family Values” quite like pinning a woman to the ground and stomping on her head.

  151. shrinkers says:

    Wonder what the political affiliation was of all the people who perpetuated assassinations or attempted assassinations in the past five decades?That’s an interesting question. When John Hinckley, Jr. tried to assassinate Ronald Reagan, he did it in an attempt to impress Jodie Foster. I’m not certain where that falls in the political spectrum.

  152. Mule Rider says:

    Just keep in mind that of the 4 presidents that have been assassinated, 3 have been Republicans (although including Lincoln in that group may be disputed to some degree).

  153. Scott says:

    A fair point to concede. There is no defending that (nor do I hope any of my fellow posters attempt to).

  154. Jean says:

    I recently read that President James Garfield was assassinated by a quietly deranged lawyer, Charles Guiteau, who walked up to the president in the central railroad station in Washington DC and calmly shot him twice with a .44 caliber revolver, then stepped aside and awaited arrest. Guiteau’s complaint was that the President had ignored his repeated entreaties to be made chief counsel in Paris.

  155. Eusebio Dunkle says:

    I haven’t watched Viacom since the strike, but I flew out this weekend to attend the rally. I’m not moderate, but I do enjoy rational viewpoints. See everyone tomorrow.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s