A somewhat sane Republican on the tea partiers

[Darkwind]

A Cantor spokesman also said that signs at Thursday's Hill Tea Party showing murdered Jews at Dachau were "inappropriate."

Cantor criticizes Rush for Hitler-Obama comparison - Glenn Thrush - POLITICO.com

How would you know?

One must have some tenacious grasp on reality in order to make a judgement on the sanity of others.

 

[ayiakri]

On second thought, inappropriate is a pretty mild rebuke...and what of the other Republican politicians participating at the event? Like I said above, the lefty war protests didn't feature Democratic politicians.

What Republicans don't understand is that by speaking at these rallies they are given tacit approval to the signs and chants of the protestors.

As an elected official they have an expected decorum. They have an obligation to refuse to speak unless those signs are removed.

Sorry ... but that's stupid. You do realize that a lot of liberal protests (especially the ones I went to) called for the assassination Bush? So ... should all the liberals who participated in those be arrested for treason as well?

Sorry, but THAT is stupid - where did rightwinger say that protesters at the tea-party rallies should be "arrested for treason"?
Oh wait - he DIDN'T say that.

You could actually reply to what he wrote, or continue your attack on that straw-man you've built, it's quite impressive...

 

[KittenKoder]

What Republicans don't understand is that by speaking at these rallies they are given tacit approval to the signs and chants of the protestors.

As an elected official they have an expected decorum. They have an obligation to refuse to speak unless those signs are removed.

Sorry ... but that's stupid. You do realize that a lot of liberal protests (especially the ones I went to) called for the assassination Bush? So ... should all the liberals who participated in those be arrested for treason as well?

Sorry, but THAT is stupid - where did rightwinger say that protesters at the tea-party rallies should be "arrested for treason"?
Oh wait - he DIDN'T say that.

You could actually reply to what he wrote, or continue your attack on that straw-man you've built, it's quite impressive...

Critical thinking is also beyond your ability.

Death threat to the president = treason.

Racist comments = just bad reputation.

 

[ayiakri]

Sorry ... but that's stupid. You do realize that a lot of liberal protests (especially the ones I went to) called for the assassination Bush? So ... should all the liberals who participated in those be arrested for treason as well?

Sorry, but THAT is stupid - where did rightwinger say that protesters at the tea-party rallies should be "arrested for treason"?
Oh wait - he DIDN'T say that.

You could actually reply to what he wrote, or continue your attack on that straw-man you've built, it's quite impressive...

Critical thinking is also beyond your ability.

Death threat to the president = treason.

Racist comments = just bad reputation.

Why don't you go READ the U.S. Constitution. Damn, you're almost as stupid as CrusaderFrank.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Threatening the President is NOT treason - and for that matter, you're the only person on this page to even mention the word treason.

Threats against he President are illegal under Title 18 of U.S. Federal law (Part I, Chapter 41, paragraph 871).

You clearly have no experience with the law, or any familiarity with the constitution that you mention so often.

 

[KittenKoder]

Sorry, but THAT is stupid - where did rightwinger say that protesters at the tea-party rallies should be "arrested for treason"?
Oh wait - he DIDN'T say that.

You could actually reply to what he wrote, or continue your attack on that straw-man you've built, it's quite impressive...

Critical thinking is also beyond your ability.

Death threat to the president = treason.

Racist comments = just bad reputation.

Why don't you go READ the U.S. Constitution. Damn, you're almost as stupid as CrusaderFrank.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Threatening the President is NOT treason - and for that matter, you're the only person on this page to even mention the word treason.

Threats against he President are illegal under Title 18 of U.S. Federal law (Part I, Chapter 41, paragraph 871).

You clearly have no experience with the law, or any familiarity with the constitution that you mention so often.

*yawn* So I am not a lawyer ... never claimed to be at any time. However, I am a philosopher ... and to accuse one group for being "bad" for a few bad apples but not the other group has a very special word.

 

[ayiakri]

Critical thinking is also beyond your ability.

Death threat to the president = treason.

Racist comments = just bad reputation.

Why don't you go READ the U.S. Constitution. Damn, you're almost as stupid as CrusaderFrank.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Threatening the President is NOT treason - and for that matter, you're the only person on this page to even mention the word treason.

Threats against he President are illegal under Title 18 of U.S. Federal law (Part I, Chapter 41, paragraph 871).

You clearly have no experience with the law, or any familiarity with the constitution that you mention so often.

*yawn* So I am not a lawyer ... never claimed to be at any time. However, I am a philosopher ... and to accuse one group for being "bad" for a few bad apples but not the other group has a very special word.

You're about as good of a philosopher as you are a lawyer, then.

And please - for the record - post a link, or quote, where I have ever "accused one group for being "bad" for a few bad apples but not the other group".

Please - go for it. I'd REALLY like to see you find where I said this, or where RightWinger said this. Either one of us.

So? NUT UP OR SHUT UP, as your sig says.

 

[KittenKoder]

Why don't you go READ the U.S. Constitution. Damn, you're almost as stupid as CrusaderFrank.



Threatening the President is NOT treason - and for that matter, you're the only person on this page to even mention the word treason.

Threats against he President are illegal under Title 18 of U.S. Federal law (Part I, Chapter 41, paragraph 871).

You clearly have no experience with the law, or any familiarity with the constitution that you mention so often.

*yawn* So I am not a lawyer ... never claimed to be at any time. However, I am a philosopher ... and to accuse one group for being "bad" for a few bad apples but not the other group has a very special word.

You're about as good of a philosopher as you are a lawyer, then.

And please - for the record - post a link, or quote, where I have ever "accused one group for being "bad" for a few bad apples but not the other group".

Please - go for it. I'd REALLY like to see you find where I said this, or where RightWinger said this. Either one of us.

So? NUT UP OR SHUT UP, as your sig says.

Did I ever say you specifically? Now you're assuming.

 

[rightwinger]

On second thought, inappropriate is a pretty mild rebuke...and what of the other Republican politicians participating at the event? Like I said above, the lefty war protests didn't feature Democratic politicians.

What Republicans don't understand is that by speaking at these rallies they are given tacit approval to the signs and chants of the protestors.

As an elected official they have an expected decorum. They have an obligation to refuse to speak unless those signs are removed.

Sorry ... but that's stupid. You do realize that a lot of liberal protests (especially the ones I went to) called for the assassination Bush? So ... should all the liberals who participated in those be arrested for treason as well?

Do you have a link? Or is this a wild assertion? Calling for the assasination of the President is a crime

Nobody is arresting anyone for what they say, that is against the first amendment. What is not against the first amendment is refusing to associate with those who carry opinions that are offensive to you. That is where the republicans fall short in terms of integrity

 

[Navy1960]

Navy1960, I think we get your point - at least one Republican in Congress (the lone Republican Jew, apparently), spoke out - in a pretty mild rebuke - against the depictions of holocaust victims at a tea-party protest. He called it, "inappropriate", and "unhelpful"...

I'm not suggesting that those people don't have the right to show pictures of holocaust victims, or to call Obama a Nazi - they absolutely have that right. I (and obviously, some others) feel that the elected Republican politicians who speak at such events - like Michelle Bachman (sp?) - should go on record as also calling out those posters as inappropriate.

One of McCain's best moments, and the point at which I realized that, underneath it all he maintained a core of class, was at a rally when some woman said to him (and I'm paraphrasing here), "Oh, I hope you win, Senator, I don't trust that Obama, he's a muslim!".

McCain responded by shaking his head, and saying, "No, ma'am, he's a good man, a family man, we just disagree" (or words to that effect).

That was a touch of class, and props to McCain for doing that. Can you imagine what McCain would have done if that woman was holding a sign showing holocaust victims, or showing "Obama as Hitler"?? I bet it would have been more than just "that's not helpful" (gee, Cantor, way to go out on a limb).

Again - when Cynthia McKinny (D-GA) made some moon-bat comments about 9/11, and how Bush "knew" about the attack, etc (conspiracy-theorist bullshit), the DNC funded a primary-campaign challenger to her, and she was forced out of Congress - by the Democrats.

When Michelle Bachman makes equally crazy claims about Obama (on one TV show, she literally said Obama might be "anti-American", and compared him to a terrorist, taking even her Fox News interviewer aback), I don't see the RNC pulling her funding.

There seems to be a sort of double-standard at work. Everyone's free to speak and assemble, even the KKK, but don't you see the damage that not clearly distancing the party from wackos does to the image of the entire political party?

It's frankly damaging to the GOP, even more than those "Code Pink" people were to the Dems, because Code Pink never had any official support.

I think it's worth repeating here that on a personal level I find anyone that uses an image of the President, our nations flag for less than honorable purposes such as the portrayl of Hitler etc, no matter what the protest happens to be, dishonor this nation, themselves, and the office holder and are truley a terrible display of someones views. However that being said, no matter how much I may disagree with that person and find their views to be dishonorable until such time they are found by our Justice System to not be protected forms of speech under our constitution, then I will say that our constitution gives them the right to express those views as it does those that oppose them. All my recent postings had little to do with one side of the isle having any blame here, but rather to show that both sides in their protest have their fair share of these people that show up at protest with Hitler signs and all this righteous anger directed at one side of the isle seems to me focus on lumping in all the people are these protest together when they know for a fact that is not true.

The controversy was triggered by an article in The Minneapolis Star Tribune that said Ellison told his audience that the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks “kind of remind” him of the 1933 Reichstag fire in Berlin. The event was used by Hitler and the Nazis to seize special powers, which they used to oppress the political left in Germany.
Republicans call for reprimand of Ellison (compared dimson to Hitler) - Democratic Underground

"MoveOn.org informed potential ad makers that 'we're not going to post anything that would be inappropriate for television.' Two of the ads posted on the group's Web site compared Adolf Hitler to George W. Bush. One ad morphed an image of Hitler into President Bush and says that, '1945's war crimes' are '2003's foreign policy.'" Rosen says MoveOn.org is "using the memory of that genocide as a political prop.
ADVERT WHICH COMPARES PRESIDENT BUSH TO HITLER

The point is that these people do not represent the views of the whole then and they do not now and to imply otherwise is to implicate not only the people today but everyone who has every been part of a any protest movement were a person showed up with one of these signs.

 

[KittenKoder]

What Republicans don't understand is that by speaking at these rallies they are given tacit approval to the signs and chants of the protestors.

As an elected official they have an expected decorum. They have an obligation to refuse to speak unless those signs are removed.

Sorry ... but that's stupid. You do realize that a lot of liberal protests (especially the ones I went to) called for the assassination Bush? So ... should all the liberals who participated in those be arrested for treason as well?

Do you have a link? Or is this a wild assertion? Calling for the assasination of the President is a crime

Nobody is arresting anyone for what they say, that is against the first amendment. What is not against the first amendment is refusing to associate with those who carry opinions that are offensive to you. That is where the republicans fall short in terms of integrity

Then why all the whining about the signs at the Tea Party protests?

No double standards, either both groups are just as much to blame for their few idiots, or neither is. The protest signs I saw with my own eyes, no link to my brain, sorry, I was there, protesting the war during Bush.

 

[Ravi]

We all appreciate that there is no link to your brain, KK. *shudder*

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think what we are seeing is a reflection of the total lack of leadership within the GOP. There is a huge difference between a leader and a rabble rouser. A leader understands consequences.

 

[KittenKoder]

We all appreciate that there is no link to your brain, KK. *shudder*

Okay ... I did mispeak a bit .. there is one link to my brain, my new game.

 

[Ravi]

I think what we are seeing is a reflection of the total lack of leadership within the GOP. There is a huge difference between a leader and a rable rouser. A leader understands consequences.

Don't be silly. The way it works in the GOP is that it will now become acceptable to compare Democrats to Hitler, Stalin, etc. It will become acceptable to pretend that we are all going to be gassed like those in Germany...and that if anyone objects to the analogies well then they are just pussies.

 

[KittenKoder]

I think what we are seeing is a reflection of the total lack of leadership within the GOP. There is a huge difference between a leader and a rabble rouser. A leader understands consequences.

So you admit there are absolutely no leaders in our entire government ... even today. Good, that's a start.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think what we are seeing is a reflection of the total lack of leadership within the GOP. There is a huge difference between a leader and a rabble rouser. A leader understands consequences.

So you admit there are absolutely no leaders in our entire government ... even today. Good, that's a start.

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position."

Fallacy: Straw Man

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think what we are seeing is a reflection of the total lack of leadership within the GOP. There is a huge difference between a leader and a rable rouser. A leader understands consequences.

Don't be silly. The way it works in the GOP is that it will now become acceptable to compare Democrats to Hitler, Stalin, etc. It will become acceptable to pretend that we are all going to be gassed like those in Germany...and that if anyone objects to the analogies well then they are just pussies.

That's a pretty good description of rabble-rouser tactic - I used to be a lot more of a John McCain fan (around the year 2000 and before) than I am now. But even in 2008 he understood the responsibilities of leadership enough to head off and refute these types of attacks. He - like all real leaders - understands that to win at the expense of what is good for our nation is no victory.

Unfortunately the GOP has rejected leaders like this and now just call them "RINOS."
It appears the radical right preffers "WHINOS."

 

[KittenKoder]

I think what we are seeing is a reflection of the total lack of leadership within the GOP. There is a huge difference between a leader and a rabble rouser. A leader understands consequences.

So you admit there are absolutely no leaders in our entire government ... even today. Good, that's a start.

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position."

Fallacy: Straw Man

To whom are you referring?

 

[nodoginnafight]

So you admit there are absolutely no leaders in our entire government ... even today. Good, that's a start.

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position."

Fallacy: Straw Man

To whom are you referring?

The person I quoted making the straw man argument.
Is it really that unclear to you?

 

[KittenKoder]

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position."

Fallacy: Straw Man

To whom are you referring?

The person I quoted making the straw man argument.
Is it really that unclear to you?

I see no straw man, you said "There is a huge difference between a leader and a rabble rouser. A leader understands consequences." and I pointed out that it's basically admitting that none of the politicians in the government, even today, are leaders.