You dishonest sack of liquid horseshit, that “cite” has not the remotest bearing on the matter at hand! Worse, I had to read it to be sure. Christ Jesus, man, did you really think you’d get away with it?
Well, this sure will further the goal of open and honest debate, won’t it?
Anti-Health Care Reform Protester Encourages Physical Violence, Use Of Firearms:
The tweets inciting violence follow the quoted text.
Hey, dipshit, you asked me (in your passive agressive assholish manner) to show a cite about Unions using chartered busses to go to a political rally. Explain to me what part I didn’t address there. From page two: “The plaintiffs were disciplined for conduct that occurred during a union-sponsored bus trip to attend a political rally in Boston.”
If you wanted me to address a different issue, you should have fucking said something before you asked me to prove that unions bussed people to political rallies.
Jesus Christ, you’re worthless when your bon mots fail you, aren’t you? Apologist mode kicks in and you the best you can do is go straight to vulgarity mode? I thought you were above that. God knows I’m not, but I thought you were.
ArizonaTeach, did you miss the part where we’ve been talking about town hall meetings?
Did you miss the part where he called a statement out of context (from a joke, I might add) and asked me to prove it?
Relevant news story:
It’s unclear from the report who or which side started the violence. What is clear is that the representatives did not have an opportunity to engage in rational dialogue with their constituents and vice versa.
Out of curiosity, I want to find out at what level of violence the conservative posters on this board will start to have concerns?
Also, does the context have any bearing on your concerns? For example, we had an incident here in Pittsburgh where a guy motivated by his concerns that Obama was coming for his guns ended up killing three police officers. Most conservatives did not see that as related to any activity by right-wingers that might foment violence. Similarly, an abortion doctor targeted by Bill O’Reilly was killed in a church, and most conservatives did not want to see any linkage.
If serious violence or death should arise due to these orchestrated efforts to shout down and disrupt town hall meetings, will those on the right who set all this in motion bear any responsibility?
No, this is when the personal responsibility mantra will conveniently start up again. “The person who sent out the email suggesting disruption did not actually disrupt the meeting; only the people who chose to act on that email are responsible.”
Boy, that “personal responsibility” mantra has a marvelous flexibility, no?
It’s an understood “everyone but me/us has”.
Looking at the sexeganarian demographic of most of them, many perhaps the same participants.
I’m against any disruptions of freedom of speech. As I’ve posted elsewhere there are a lot more of them from the left but I’m willing to condemn anyone who does this.
The only exception I might make is a forum like this. Once you enter you agree to be shouted down. It’s like a boxing match. It’s OK to punch someone in the face. Not so on the sidewalk outside the arena.
Needless to say, I condemn anything more severe than disruption of free speech.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTZjMWFjYWRlYmIyMGFhZDY0YzVjNzFjYWE4ODU2MmM=
Here’s Mark Steyn’s latest on the left’s approach to dissent.
Feel free to call him and me all sorts of names if you don’t have time to dispute the arguments.
From your link:
Oh those oppressive unions strong arming people to handle the debate in a civilized manor by asking them to voluntarily sign a pledge. Talk about brutal, and opressive. What’s next the unions challenging the tea bagers to a moderated debate? I wouldn’t put it past those savages.
Utterly dishonest. I know exactly who is being spoken of in the context of “Brooks Brothers” lobbyists, and so do you. Its speaks to well-paid lobbyists who regard political cynicism as an art form, the kind of people who look to Karl Rove and Lee Atwater as role models to be admired and emulated, rather than soul-dead pustules on the body politic.
I think he knows that. I think he throws out this crap, suggesting that the innocently well-dressed are discrimnated against by the Obamistas as a form of class warfare, as a smokescreen, trying to change the subject.
If he is an idiot and doesn’t know any better, well, bless his heart, he means well. Otherwise, he is nothing but a cynical word-warrior, defending an empty set of platitudes as though they were principles.
Oh, wait, that must mean I “don’t have time to dispute the arguments.” Apparently, neither does he. Fair enough, but at least I argue because I mean it, even if I’m a slut, he’s a whore.
Athelas, if you could restrain yourself from offering Red State as a cite, that would be nice.
What argument? You’re simply saying “You guys do it more!” That’s really not much of an argument. I also think it’s demonstrably silly.
Did you even watch the video? There’s no way to tell who was responsible.
In any case, I find it extremely amusing that you’re surprised that angry mobs + angry mobs =/= hug party. What on earth did you think would happen when your side decided to send out the goons?
Um… what arguments? That Barbara Boxer’s “well-dressed” comment sounds silly when taken out of context?
Can’t dispute that. You win!
What argument? There isn’t an argument in sight in that link, beyond “Libruls are hypocrites and mean poopy-heads”.