Republicans Move Toward Violence

Here's a story from Talking Points Memo, although similar accounts can be found all over the place:

"Boehner's Office Cheers On Disruption Of House Dems' Town Hall Events

The release....recounts the nasty reception that Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) has gotten, and declares that "Rep. Doggett is not alone."

The posting (on Boehner's official blog- G.E.) concludes: "Unless Democratic leaders agree to work with Republicans on a bipartisan plan that achieves real reform that Americans are seeking, it will be a long, hot August for Democrats in Congress."

Without any prospect of a real majority in the future, step by step, Republican leaders are edging up to endorsing political violence. When it happens, of course they will be nowhere to be seen.

Comments

mastercynic said…
And what, exactly, has changed? Every act of domestic terrorism in the last 30 years has been carried out by right wing "conservatives". Are they going to receive greater funding? More access to sophisticated weapons? Or is the steel-trap military genius of John McCain going to tip the balance of power?
Green Eagle said…
You are right, but I do not believe that we have seen the open encouragement of violence by Republican politicians and major media figures that we are seeing today. This is an ugly phenomenon, which is not going to end well.
Derek said…
How is this violent again? Who is hurt? What was destroyed?

"Every act of domestic terrorism in the last 30 years has been carried out by right wing "conservatives"."

Green peace, ALF, Weathermen, National Socialists, etc. Conservative? Are you joking?

GE, do you know the definition of integrity? You say you've protested and instilled fear in politicians, which makes me guess you were in a few riots. When republicans show up to town hall meetings and show that they are angry by dissing and shutting up their Democratic representatives, you call that violence, but the riots you took part in not?

What kind of condeluded BS is that?
Green Eagle said…
We stopped a war in which our country murdered between two and four million civilians in an innocent country that we had no right to be in. That justifies
a lot.

You stupid, ignorant, juvenile fools, out there doing the bidding of astroturf groups paid for by multinational companies, have sold your souls to the devil, and everything you do to further their aims is evil.

There's a big difference there, whether you will allow yourself to see it or not.
Derek said…
"We stopped a war in which our country murdered between two and four million civilians in an innocent country that we had no right to be in. "

Where do you hear such statistics?

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

100K at the most, and they include suicide bombings (we don't do those mind you). This is the number that has been quoted by your fellow dems in congress, as well as in the media. You are the first to say anything higher than a million. Note, you are suggesting that we killed more than 10% of their entire country's population.

And we had the right to be there as Saddam broke international law. Oops.

"out there doing the bidding of astroturf groups paid for by multinational companies"

No one paid for anything, except we were able to get AFP to reimburse us for the permits. My friend, and fellow OSU student, organized the events, and I, along with other local activists, helped out. No corporations, no lobbyists, no hijinks.

The question is if you will continue to believe the lobbyist lie that these are somehow run by bigwigs.
Green Eagle said…
We were talking about Vietnam, Derek. The numbers are, if anything, more likely to be higher than lower.

We marched to stop our government from continuing the biggest mass murder since World War II. You guys are marching because you don't want to pay your taxes.

Get the difference?
Derek said…
"We were talking about Vietnam, Derek. The numbers are, if anything, more likely to be higher than lower."

And no, you didn't stop the war, the Viet Cong did. Had the war been easier to win, then we would have stayed. The days of rage and the weathermen didn't help the anti-war cause. My political radicalism class talked to numerous ex-weathermen and all but one agreed.

"You guys are marching because you don't want to pay your taxes."

No, we are marching because our government has become far too large and oppressive. The Constitution spells out what the government can do, and they have been ignoring it for far too long. It has to end.
Green Eagle said…
"And no, you didn't stop the war, the Viet Cong did. Had the war been easier to win, then we would have stayed. The days of rage and the weathermen didn't help the anti-war cause. My political radicalism class talked to numerous ex-weathermen and all but one agreed."

1. There was no such thing as the "Viet Cong." That name was a propagandistic slur invented by the United States.

2."Had the war been easier to win, then we would have stayed."

You know what, Derek? Had it been easier to conquer Russia, Hitler would have stayed too. It wasn't easy because they kicked the hell out of us.

3. "The days of rage and the weathermen didn't help the anti-war cause."

I don't give a damn about the couple of hundred loons that were in the Weatherman. As for the anti-war movement, if you don't think we eventually convinced the great majority of Americans that the Vietnam war was an atrocity, you are living in a dream world.

4. "My political radicalism class talked to numerous ex-weathermen and all but one agreed."

Who, Derek? I'd like to hear their names. You took a class; I was there. Don't try to tell me something you supposedly learned in school. Name the names of these supposed ex-weathermen you talked to and let's see who they really are.

And by the way, for all their fame, the Weathermen were a miniscule fringe organization living in their own dream world, and had virtually no impact on the antiwar movement.
Green Eagle said…
And by the way, Derek, you say:

"ALF, Weathermen, National Socialists,"

First of all, if you mean the Earth Liberation Front, I'll throw in the Weathermen, and Peta just for good measure as a bunch of loons with nothing meaningful to contribute, and, as much as loons can be said to have anyplace on the political continuum, I guess they are left wingers. Greenpeace over the years has oscillated between meaningful action and more looniness.

Now, as to "National Socialists," I assume you are still talking about Nazis, Derek. Try learning something before talking about them- your knowledge of them apparently came from an old Captain America comic book.
Derek said…
"There was no such thing as the "Viet Cong." That name was a propagandistic slur invented by the United States."

Fine, the NLF and North Vietnamese.

"It wasn't easy because they kicked the hell out of us."

Any scholar of history knows what was wrong: They were fighting civil war, or at least that is how they treated it. We did not know our ally nor our enemy, and that is why we failed.

" if you don't think we eventually convinced the great majority of Americans that the Vietnam war was an atrocity"

The public opinion didn't end the war.

"Name the names of these supposed ex-weathermen you talked to and let's see who they really are."

I'm not about to go dig out an old folder from a few years back. My closet is a mess and I do not wish to take the time. However:

"The responsibility for the risks we posed to others in some of our most extreme actions in those underground years never leaves my thoughts for long. The antiwar movement in all its commitment, all its sacrifice and determination, could not stop the violence unleashed against Vietnam. And therein lies cause for real regret.["

Bill Ayers.

"and had virtually no impact on the antiwar movement."

I think they hurt it, as people saw them as radical and communist (they were), and therefore disassociated themselves from the Weathermen's cause.

But lets take this back to square one and review:

The republicans protesting an illegal government takeover of healthcare is not violent, rather, just free speech.

The majority of Americans agree with whom you call a "mob".

The anti-war movement didn't end the vietnam war.

The weathermen hurt the anti-war cause.

And you are a partisan hack for trying to slander Republicans for protesting something that legitimately should be protested.
Green Eagle said…
Derek, there never was a country called North Vietnam or South Vietnam.

"The public opinion didn't end the war."

You're partly right there. The war ended because the Vietnamese people were beating the crap out of our military, which controlled about five percent of the country when we turned tail and split.

"I think they hurt it, as people saw them as radical and communist (they were), and therefore disassociated themselves from the Weathermen's cause."

You are absolutely right that they were a horrible distraction from meaningful antiwar activity. That's why those of us who were there and participated in the meetings at which the Weatherman was founded mostly refused to have anything to do with it. Nevertheless, remember that the Weatherman people were a couple of hundred lunatics in a movement that was regularly getting hundreds of thousands into the streets.

Now, what is going on at these healthcare meetings is not protest in any meaningful way. It is synthetically generated agitation by a bunch of ignorant suckers who are doing the bidding of multinational corporations that are pulling their strings, all intended to prevent meaningful discussion. And you are part of the legion of suckers, with your irrational, and patently wrong, arguments about the constitution and everything else.
Derek said…
"Derek, there never was a country called North Vietnam or South Vietnam."

Point being? Water is wet!

"which controlled about five percent of the country when we turned tail and split."

When we last left. We had a lot more control prior to the retreat and exit.

"It is synthetically generated agitation by a bunch of ignorant suckers who are doing the bidding of multinational corporations that are pulling their strings, all intended to prevent meaningful discussion"

Well there is plenty of time to discuss at these meetings. The people are allowed to speak to those who represent them, why is this so bad? The representatives can explain themselves if they so choose, and explain why they feel such legislation should be passed. They can address the protesters' arguments in a civil and honest fashion. You claim this is the work of corporations but what I see are American people who have nothing to do with corporations going and speaking their mind to their representatives. SEIU and TP on the other hand, those are lobbying groups and their mass attendance at such meetings is an effort to stop discussion and is the bidding of some of the largest lobbying groups in America. Think about what you despise and look at what the liberal groups are doing. Honestly consider whether they are being @##holes or not. There is nothing wrong with point out that what your fellow party members are doing is unethical. In reality, it is the right thing to do.

"And you are part of the legion of suckers, with your irrational, and patently wrong, arguments about the constitution and everything else."

Maybe I'd consider your statement if you would ever tell me where I go wrong. Usually all you do is ignore me. Prove me wrong then I'll move left. Tell you what. Prove to me that the healthcare bill is Constitutional, not too costly, and not mandatory, and I will vote for Obama come 2012.

You have my word. Now is your shot to prove me wrong and gain a Obama vote in the process. I'm all ears, or eyes.
Derek said…
Still waiting, GE.

I'll extend the offer to everyone. Go for it.

Popular posts from this blog

Wingnut Wrapup

It's Okay, Never Mind

Hamas