Comments | talk_politics: "...And It'll Be All NANCY PELOSI'S Fault!"

paft in talk_politics

"...And It'll Be All NANCY PELOSI'S Fault!"

Sep 18, 2009 10:16

I think we all have to take responsibility for our actions and our words. We are a free country, and this balance between freedom and safety is one that we have to carefully balance. I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw -- I saw this myself in the late ‘70s in San Francisco, This kind of rhetoric is very ( Read more... )

nancy pelosi

Comments 152

underlankers September 18 2009, 17:35:49 UTC

They may invoke it, but they'd never go ahead and try it. In the 1860s the defense was favored in technology and civilian and military hardware were not a division but a spectrum. Now we're talking about an entirely different reality. There will be no Civil War now.

paft September 18 2009, 17:42:16 UTC

It's not just about the prospect of a "Civil War." It's about some of these gun-packing morons deciding to shoot a few "commies" and "traitors" and, if they can't get to Obama or some other elected official, going after liberal "proxies."

You know -- like the guy who punched someone repeatedly in the face a week or two ago.

Like the guy who shot a couple of cops in Pittsburgh some months back because he thought Obama was going to take away his guns.

Like the guy who shot to death several Unitarians at a church last year because he wanted to kill liberals...

underlankers September 18 2009, 18:09:10 UTC

You're the one who raised the prospect of attempted secession. The cowards speaking out here are a far cry from the men who attempted treason in the 1860s. The CSA in any case never enjoyed 100% of the white population's support, and in modern times there is far less of a chance of victory by traitors than there was in the 1860s and the chances were none too good even then (as can be seen by the fact that I am in the United and not the Confederate States).

paft September 18 2009, 18:29:34 UTC

And you're trying very hard to shift the point of the article from the possibility of political assassination cited by Nancy Pelosi to something you would find it easier to debunk.

Thread 63

mrbogey September 18 2009, 18:00:41 UTC

Do right wingers get to claim JFK because he was killed by someone to the left of him?

paft September 18 2009, 18:27:54 UTC

I should think you would be content with Viola Liuzzo, Schwerner, Cheney and Goodman, Martin Luther King Jr., Leo Frank, Sandi Smith, Dr. James Waller, Bill Sampson, Caesar Kause, Dr. Michael Nathan, Dr. George Tiller, Dr. Barnett Slepian, Dr. David Gunn, Robert Sanderson, Greg McKendry, Linda Kreager, Paul Sciullo, Stephen Mahyle, Eric Kelly, Charles Goldmark, Annie Goldmark, Derek Goldmark, Colin Goldmark, Harvey Milk, George Moscone, the 168 victims of the Oklahoma city bombing, the thousands and thousands of lynching victims from the late 19th early-to-mid 20th century, and many, many others.

mrbogey September 18 2009, 18:37:20 UTC

'...and many, many others. '

Is it more than 90 million? Otherwise the right still wins if you want to talk about death by politics.

paft September 18 2009, 18:47:28 UTC

Ah yes, a BLACK BOOK fan. The idea is that since the highly questionable and skewed statistics cited in that book put the left wing "ahead" in body count, the right wing should be allowed to even the score by killing as many leftists or perceived leftists as possible. At some point, once the pile of bodies reaches an acceptable level, someone will blow a whistle and the killing will stop.

Because after all -- that's how political mass murder works, right?

Thread 45

vnsplshr September 18 2009, 18:25:57 UTC

"See, none of those people buying up guns and ammo and packing heat in public were likely to get the idea of using that ammo against those they define as traitors and commies and Nazis and terrorists"

Agreed.

paft September 18 2009, 18:30:29 UTC

You forgot the sarcasm tag.

vnsplshr September 18 2009, 18:42:03 UTC

no sarcasm needed. it's a fine statement.

well done.

paft September 18 2009, 18:50:13 UTC

It's amazing to watch the extent to which right-wingers will embrace drooling stupidity rather than concede a point.

Thread 25

(The comment has been removed)

paft September 18 2009, 18:34:53 UTC

You're a real kidder.

Bet you blame the rape victims too.

underlankers September 18 2009, 18:38:00 UTC

What does rape have to do with his post?

mrbogey September 18 2009, 18:39:28 UTC

People who disagree with her are as morally culpable as rapists.

Thread 28

robert_johnson September 18 2009, 21:17:19 UTC

The thing is, and I'm not trying to be a raisin picker here, the possibility of political assassination always exists. The Fringe is always there and they can usually get what guns they need. Crazy people as well. That's why the Secret Service is out there. That's why politicos have security. It is a real and ever present concern ( ... )

paft September 19 2009, 22:50:05 UTC

rJ: The thing is, and I'm not trying to be a raisin picker here, the possibility of political assassination always exists. The Fringe is always there and they can usually get what guns they need. Crazy people as well. That's why the Secret Service is out there. That's why politicos have security. It is a real and ever present concern. Reagan got shot at. Ford too. They Killed JFK and RFK, And MLK, and T. Roosevelt got shot at more than once. And Lincoln's mom knew he would be assassinated from the day he took office and told anyone who listen. So the fact that you are warning against that the way that you are, seems a bit alarmist to me ( ... )