Is this acceptable language of political discourse?

[Meeker]

When someone ends up dead or seriously injured in Mr. Hoffa's war, will the President and his party then say that he has gone too far? Unfortunately, it will be too late by then.

Many people have already died in this war. Their sh*t healthcare didn't provide the treatment they needed for the injury or sickness they developed as a result of their job.

Let's just hope that the President agrees and puts that in some TV ads! Of course, we'll just tell him to pull the advertisements and he'll do so in record timing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(literary_device)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cop_out

No one said anything about putting anything in a TV ad, Phil. Your response was bizarre and a poor attempt at being clever.

Nobody brought up healthcare directly either until you chimed in. I brought up a TV ad and how the President should use your bizarre and poor attempt at making a point talking points such an ad.

Wrong. You implied that the war on the working class was some sort of made up problem and mocked Hoffa for bringing it up. I pointed out that this war has in fact been going on for many years and, despite your mocking, many people have already died in their fight for decent working and living conditions. Then you inexplicably started talking about Barack Obama making a TV ad.

Wrong (like usual). I "mocked" Hoffa for calling for violent action against those that he dislikes. You defended the comments with the usual excessive rhetoric. Since the President has remained cowardly silent on the matter, I said that we can only hope that he agrees with your nonsensical defense of Mr. Hoffa and that it should appear in a campaign ad. After all, if this war really does exist, there wouldn't be a problem with the President talking about it, right?

Me bringing up a campaign ad is as much of a stretch as you bringing up healthcare since the specific Hoffa quote makes no mention of healthcare. If a healthcare is part of this war then surely advertisements to rally the troops are part of the war.

Wrong as usual? Take a look in the mirror Phil.

I should've learned long ago there's no use arguing with you. Have a nice day.

[Keystone Phil]

Wrong as usual? Take a look in the mirror Phil.

Burn!

Now get to bed. You have to be up early.

[Meeker]

Wrong as usual? Take a look in the mirror Phil.

Burn!

Now get to bed. You have to be up early.

Oh you're cute.

[rwoy]

Am I the only person who remembers

• when Jesse Helms said that then President Bill Clinton better not come to North Carolina "without a bodyguard"
• that Rick Perry recently threatened Ben Bernacke
• when Ted Nugent went on a tirade saying that Obama should "suck on one of these" (meaning a gun) and that Hillary Clinton should "ride one of these into the sunset"
• that a MoveOn.org supporter was beaten by Rand Paul supporters

Yeah ... saying "let's take these SOB's out" is way worse than all of those ....

[BigSkyBob]

The world's biggest attention whore weighs in

Where was the link to Jesse Jackson?

[BigSkyBob]

Am I the only person who remembers

• when Jesse Helms said that then President Bill Clinton better not come to North Carolina "without a bodyguard"

 

This simply isn't a threat.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Threat, no. Implied threat, probably not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have no earthly idea what Nugent is referring to here. If you wish to claim it is a threat, would you elaborate on why you think it is a threat?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

The world's biggest attention whore weighs in

Where was the link to Jesse Jackson?

Didn't I soil myself enough going on this bitch's page, BSB? 

[Ban my account ffs!]

When someone ends up dead or seriously injured in Mr. Hoffa's war, will the President and his party then say that he has gone too far? Unfortunately, it will be too late by then.

Many people have already died in this war. Their sh*t healthcare didn't provide the treatment they needed for the injury or sickness they developed as a result of their job.

Let's just hope that the President agrees and puts that in some TV ads! Of course, we'll just tell him to pull the advertisements and he'll do so in record timing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(literary_device)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cop_out

When someone ends up dead or seriously injured in Mr. Hoffa's war, will the President and his party then say that he has gone too far? Unfortunately, it will be too late by then.

...I can't tell if this is serious or not. Nobody really believes that those were to be interpreted as actual crosshairs and what's even worse was the totally disingenuous, faux outrage over the term "targeting" after Giffords' shooting. Everyone in politics knows what "targeting" means in a political sense. It will be a real shame if you fall for the nonsense that it means anything else by conservative groups.

That's a very hackish post.

I can't tell if you're being serious or not.. considering that people also know what "war" means in a political sense.

[krazen1211]

I think talking, in any manner, is actually preferable to Sarah Jane Moore and the other liberals who actually try to kill US Presidents and the liberal bloggers who don't seem to mind.

[Keystone Phil]

That's a very hackish post.

I can't tell if you're being serious or not.. considering that people also know what "war" means in a political sense.

So you were never complaining that the rhetoric and tone of the GOP for the past few years was dangerous? 

[Jacobtm]

Republicans are excellent at bait-and-switch.

Perry can talk about secession and it's all good, wheras a Labor leader talks about fighting for workers rights and they want to call him a radical.

Nothing the man said was false or wrong.

[Keystone Phil]

Republicans are excellent at bait-and-switch.

Perry can talk about secession and it's all good, wheras a Labor leader talks about fighting for workers rights and they want to call him a radical.

Yeah, that isn't disingenuous or spin at all.

[Brittain33]

I think talking, in any manner, is actually preferable to Sarah Jane Moore and the other liberals who actually try to kill US Presidents and the liberal bloggers who don't seem to mind.

How many liberal bloggers were out there in 1975?

[rwoy]

Am I the only person who remembers

• when Jesse Helms said that then President Bill Clinton better not come to North Carolina "without a bodyguard"

 

This simply isn't a threat.

Actually it is an implied threat.  Why would someone need a bodyguard if there wasn't the "threat of violence".  And it certainly isn't acceptable language of political discourse coming from a Senator to a President.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have no earthly idea what Nugent is referring to here. If you wish to claim it is a threat, would you elaborate on why you think it is a threat?[/quote]

Here's the vid, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNLmi0_216g

I'm pretty certain that this is FAR from acceptable language of political discourse.  And while I realize that Sweaty Teddy isn't a politician, the Right Wing brings him out for events quite frequently and never denounces his inflammatory comments.


Long story short, the Tea Partiers and the Right Wing getting upset about Jimmy Hoffa Jr saying "let's take these guys out" is hilarious considering some of the commentary from their side over the years.

[Jacobtm]

Yeah, that isn't disingenuous or spin at all.

No it isn't disingenuous at all.

The Tea Party is a strong force fighting for dismantling all the gains workers have made in this country. A Union leader wants to protect those gains.

Perry throws around secession as a casual idea, saying that Obama's actions justify it.

[BigSkyBob]

Am I the only person who remembers

• when Jesse Helms said that then President Bill Clinton better not come to North Carolina "without a bodyguard"

 

This simply isn't a threat.

Actually it is an implied threat.  Why would someone need a bodyguard if there wasn't the "threat of violence".  

"If you happen to be White, may I suggest that you not walk in certain neighborhoods without a bodyguard." Is that a threat. No, it isn't. Is it an implied threat. No, it isn't. It is a statement that the subject is potentially the target of violence. Yes, it is.

The same analysis applies to the statement, "You'd better not walk alone at night" directed at any female. That isn't a threat to rape her. That isn't an implied threat to rape. It is a statement of the empirical danger faced.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps, it isn't. But, it isn't a threat, or an implied threat, as you claimed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have no earthly idea what Nugent is referring to here. If you wish to claim it is a threat, would you elaborate on why you think it is a threat?[/quote]

Here's the vid, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNLmi0_216g

I'm pretty certain that this is FAR from acceptable language of political discourse.  [/quote]

And, I am equally certain that it was far from acceptable language of political discourse. That isn't what you claimed. You claimed it was an example of a threat. It simply wasn't. It was merely, a variation of "You can suck my d#*&!" "You can suck my d&@!" is not a threat of rape, or an implied threat of rape.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[rwoy]

Bob, you really need to go back and reread my posts.  I was giving examples of the unacceptable language which the Hard Right has done in the past.

At no point have I said that Nugent's comment was a threat ... that was you who made that jump.  Maybe that is the logical jump for your mind and you are defending it for some reason.

You actually made the assumption that I was calling the Helms comments a threat ... which, after reading your description of it I thought "yeah, actually that is an implied threat".  I'm sure if a Senator from New York or Hawaii had said "Bush better not come here without Bodyguard" you, Fox News, and the GOP would say it was a threat.

Long story short, the outrage is phoney.  You know it, I know it, and everyone else knows it.

[BigSkyBob]

Bob, you really need to go back and reread my posts.  I was giving examples of the unacceptable language which the Hard Right has done in the past.

You listed,

"•that a MoveOn.org supporter was beaten by Rand Paul supporters."

That is not an "example of the unacceptable language." That was an example of actual violence, juxaposed after your statements above, listed as if it were not different in kind.

[P.S. The incident in question involved some bystanders whom falsely believed that they were witnessing an actual assassination attempt, and wrestled the would-be assassin to the ground. Had it been an actual assassination attempt, the video would be of heroes.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clearly, the "outrage" you listed is "phoney." The remarks of Hoffa are of a different nature. "Take them out," is literally the language of murder, and metaphorically, the language of defeating an opponent. After the Giffords shooting, a lot of Democrats blamed an atmosphere of violent rhetoric [crosshairs, etc.] for contributing to the shooting.

I'm not willing to condemn Hoffa because I can reasonably intrepret his remarks as being metaphorical, not literal. However, the legions of Democrats whom claimed that such metaphorical rhetoric is unacceptable ought to condemning Hoffa. That is, if they value intellectual consistency.

[Marston]

LOL. Are we really still talking about this?