Palin is getting to be like Jesse Jackson, whenever there's a chance to get before a camera, she's there. 

You just gotta love her gun toting image.  How 21st century!

QuoteOn Twitter, Palin told supporters disheartened by the health care vote: "Don't Retreat, instead - RELOAD!" She directed them to her Facebook page, where she used rifle scope-like crosshairs to identify the 20 seats she hopes SarahPAC will flip from blue to red.

Read more

But I really enjoyed this reader's comment:

QuoteSarah Palin: National Spokesperson for the Society of Logic Impaired, Sore Losers of America, National Quitters Association, and History Redactors International.

The MORONs (Master Obfuscators Ruining Our Nation) crown a new champion who is now out duping the gullible, backward thinking base of the Grotesquely Obtuse Pigs.

I think we can find a job for this person. 

Actually such articles reflect more on the people publishing them than the people they are against due to the emotionally-driven content they contain. Those who oppose the tea parties and those who favor Obamacare should actually try debating the arguments using logic not just name-calling. I have seen first-hand evidence of deliberate distortion by the media. There was one demonstration in which a black man was standing with a rifle slung over his shoulder. An article came out denouncing the protestors as "white racists" and showed the man carrying the gun except that they cropped the photo so you couldn't see his race.

Considering that millions of Americans are not happy with the current government including those who actually voted for Obama and are registered Democrats and the fact that hundreds of thousands if not millions are protesting nationwide tells me that this is something that should seriously be looked into. I'm sorry but calling large groups of people just "morons" and "racists" and "gun-toting nuts" may work to try to discredit their views for awhile but sooner or later these emotionally-driven personal attacks will soon be seen as increasingly desparate moves and even more people will start dismissing them and actually listening to what the demonstrators have to say.

Likewise, for those who don't like gun-toting, too bad. It is in the U.S. Constitution, there are hundreds of millions of guns in the U.S., and they are not going anywhere. Anyone who doesn't respect Americans' rights to self-defense can kindly move to another country that treats its population as subjects instead of citizens.

As to transgender issues or even GLBT in general, I'd like to know what the Obama administration has actually done. Sure, he appointed a trans person to his panel and he did sign hate crimes legislation but as far as I'm concerned this is more of a smoke screen to make him look good instead of real "change we can believe in." I'll believe it when ENDA is passed and the Supreme Court declares the marriage laws unconstitutional and allows any two adults for any reason to enter into any contract whether gay, straight, male, female, trans, whatever. All I've seen done so far is an administration requiring the entire country most of which already has healthcare to now have "forced healthcare" due to a smaller number of people who have no healthcare. If this is so great, let's see how many trans people will be able to get our surgeries, hormones, etc. at an affordable rate and how much more tax we won't have to start paying. Keep smoking and dream on.

You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons.

Quitter is not name calling, its an objective summation of her experience as a gov in a minor state.

Anyone who doesn't respect Americans' rights to self-defense can kindly move to another country that treats its population as subjects instead of citizens

Can we now say the same thing back at 'cha?  If you don't like the 'socialism' of Obama, or the Progressive agenda, can't you be the ones to move this time?

Considering that millions of Americans are not happy with the current government including those who actually voted for Obama and are registered Democrats and the fact that hundreds of thousands if not millions are protesting nationwide tells me that this is something that should seriously be looked into. I'm sorry but calling large groups of people just "morons" and "racists" and "gun-toting nuts" may work to try to discredit their views for awhile but sooner or later these emotionally-driven personal attacks will soon be seen as increasingly desparate moves and even more people will start dismissing them and actually listening to what the demonstrators have to say.

Consider some punctuation, that's one hell of a run on sentence there.  But, you know what, just like on the extreme left, a lot of people on the extreme right are morons.  That's why the Blazing Saddles line is so funny, 'cause it's true.  And this ends pretty much where you are trying to steer it, with a couple of people shot, and then the entire right-wing tossed in a dung heap for over a generation because of it.  I'll never understand how they got a pass on Oklahoma City (Oh yeah, because Clinton was a moron too), but they should have had to eat that one and run against that image for a decade and a half now.  Goldwater was wrong, extremism is never right.  Which is why he lost by the way.

Right now the "protesters" are screaming about health care reform being passed.  They are all worked up because the republicans got them worked up with some heavy spin on the evils of health care.

It's less important to focus on the emotionally charged campaign waged by the republicans against health care reform than it is to focus on how easy it is to get millions of people worked up into a fervor.  Politicians and their gurus know there's a lot of sheep out there who want to be told how to think and what to do.  And they know how to work that to their advantage.  That's why they are in office.

But it's irresponsible and bordering on criminal for anyone in the public eye to place crosshairs on anyone, directly or indirectly.  There are too many emotionally unstable people who are sheep and, for them, all it takes is one message and they have all the encouragement they need to carry out what they interpret as their "orders".

Palin, and her right wing buddies, need to accept responsibility for their shoot-em-up campaigns and the potential impact they may have on the people of this country.  "Win at any cost" is not a responsible policy.

It seems to me that our culture is in the first motions of civil war. Liberal life styles simply do not mix with the right wing religious.
Neither group should be required to live by life standards they do not agree with.
The two ideals have grown so far apart that the only solution is disolution of the union. I see 3 maybe 4 nations developing, probably 20-50 years from now I wager.
There will likely be civil war and class and sectarian struggles.
As a former Christian and now as a transwoman of an Earth religion I can see the complete disconects between groups that are going to bring about our downfall as a nation.
It is now just a matter of time before hatred tears us apart.
Goddess save us all.

How 'bout we just stop voting these self-serving politicians into office and vote in people who care about the country and its citizens more than they care about themselves?

It is they who are driving the wedge.

I say we create the Acceptance Party - the party that believes in human rights and the right to be who you are and encourages acceptance over criticism.  There doesn't have to be any one belief, any one religion, any one way to live one's life.  Be happy but don't hurt anyone in the process.

Quote from: Julie Marie on March 30, 2010, 11:04:56 AM
How 'bout we just stop voting these self-serving politicians into office and vote in people who care about the country and its citizens more than they care about themselves?

I prefer the vote out on regular intervals option. power and control in the form of being able to draft and pass legislation tends to corrupt, especially under the influence of bribes from special interests. (or just plain pork barrel spending)

QuotePalin is getting to be like Jesse Jackson, whenever there's a chance to get before a camera, she's there.

Can't quibble with this.

Quote
But I really enjoyed this reader's comment:

Calling people you disagree with disparaging names is hardly original or a demonstration of talent. Rather, it's the lowest common denominator of American Politics.

Quote
Actually such articles reflect more on the people publishing them than the people they are against due to the emotionally-driven content they contain. Those who oppose the tea parties and those who favor Obamacare should actually try debating the arguments using logic not just name-calling.

Bravo. Your whole post is praise-worthy.

Quote
I'll never understand how they got a pass on Oklahoma City

Mainly because those nutters had pretty much zero to do with mainstream conservatism. Pretty much the same reason we don't hang PETA people who blow up labs and stuff around the necks of environmentally conscience lefties.

Quote
Right now the "protesters" are screaming about health care reform being passed.  They are all worked up because the republicans got them worked up with some heavy spin on the evils of health care.

It's not the evils of health care, or the evils of reform....it's simply a fundamental philosophical difference about the underlying assumptions, and about the practical application of the measured passed. Already we are seeing business calculate the negative impact on the bottom line and that can't be good for an economy already hurting.

that doesn't mean any of the protesters oppose every detail of the bill or that they think no reform is needed. What they oppose is excessive government intrusion, and (what they perceive as) a massive negative economic impact.

I kinda thought the great thing about this country was that people could speak up about what disdpleased them.

I wonder - did you have this much skepticism about anti-war protesters?

Quote
Politicians and their gurus know there's a lot of sheep out there who want to be told how to think and what to do.  And they know how to work that to their advantage.  That's why they are in office.

Indeed, this is true. and it's true across the spectrum. Which is, by the way, pretty much exactly why Obama got elected.

QuoteBut it's irresponsible and bordering on criminal for anyone in the public eye to place crosshairs on anyone, directly or indirectly.

Oh please. if this had been done at HuffPost or Daily Kos or Move On, you wouldn't have blinked. It's obviously cultural symbolism, and means no more than if I say "we're in the home stretch of this race" i'm trying to get you on a horse.

Quote
It seems to me that our culture is in the first motions of civil war. Liberal life styles simply do not mix with the right wing religious.

I think you might be right, but the tension right not is not remotely driven by religion, nor is it focused on social issues. That's not to say that the Palin-supports are likely to vote for broad rights for LGBT people...but that's also not why they are in the streets.

Quote
The two ideals have grown so far apart that the only solution is disolution of the union. I see 3 maybe 4 nations developing, probably 20-50 years from now I wager.

I used to think so but right now I don't think it would take that much. I think if you drew a line East extending the southern border of Iowa...and one north from the Westernmost corner of DC...until they intersected and used the west boundary of Minnesota and Iowa as the western border and the Potomac as a border - and you took everything Northeast of those boundaries and ceded it to Canada, then left wingers would have a powerful and prominent country - maybe qualifying as a "super power" - which supported their values and the right wingers would have a less prominent country (on the order of Canada or Australia) that supported there's.

And the only folks out of place would be those along the West coast, but I don't see how it's practical to take the narrow strip of counties along the coast that always votes left of center and separate them from the rest of the continent.

Quote
There will likely be civil war and class and sectarian struggles.
As a former Christian and now as a transwoman of an Earth religion I can see the complete disconects between groups that are going to bring about our downfall as a nation.

If we are rational, there doesn't have to be violence. And there doesn't have to be a downfall, just a rational realignment. i can tell you that if the New England states ask to quit the U.S. and join Canada (or be independent) that the majority of right wingers would say "Good luck to yall" and be glad of it.

Quote
How 'bout we just stop voting these self-serving politicians into office and vote in people who care about the country and its citizens more than they care about themselves?

I totally agree.

And so do the tea party folks.

They just have a completely different view of what such people would believe than you do, thus the problem.

Quote
I say we create the Acceptance Party - the party that believes in human rights and the right to be who you are and encourages acceptance over criticism.  There doesn't have to be any one belief, any one religion, any one way to live one's life.  Be happy but don't hurt anyone in the process.

Indeed. It's why I have a lot of sympathy for the Libertarians. My fondest wish (politically) is that the party who's closest to me economically would not be sullied by the obsession with social issues.

I don't question the right of the religious conservatives to push for their point of view, and mine to push back - it just pisses me off that in order to push back, i would be forced to support the economic ruin of the country.

Quote
power and control in the form of being able to draft and pass legislation tends to corrupt,

and sadly, there's no cure for this syndrome.

Jeferson was of the opinion that each generation should be allowed to write a new constitution and laws reflective of that generation.
Often he is quoted saying that the constitution should be re-writen every 20 years.

I think that is a good idea in theory but it definatly would raise issues.

One thing about Palin is that she'll stir the pot but then tries to distanceherself from the way people react to her words. She can't do that. If somone get hurt or killed, she is just as guilty as if she pulled the trigger herself.

I've soured on politics anyway. Both parties are beholden too much to corporate interests.

Gennee          

Oh yeah, we're going to secede from the Union and we'll be our own nation.  So, I kinda gotta ask, how did that work out last time for ya'll?  Right.

It will not happen, pretty much for the same reasons that it wasn't allowed to happen last time.  There is way too much money involved. 

Plus that old order is dying out.  And it never had the money to make the decisions anyway.  It controlled some - and not very important - bits of social policy, but that's about it.  Pretty much the same people who opposed Health Care also opposed (and run on repealing or rolling back) Social Security, Civil Rights, Prayer in School, Abortion Rights.  Again, how'd that work out?  Real well eh?  Even with a Republican majority in Congress, and a 'Pub in the White House them people's got zip, zero, zilch.

I'm sure part of the reason that the right is so mad at Obama (other than the fact that he won) is that he did what he said he was going to do.  No 'Pub president has done that since Nixon.

Of course, believing in some of the better notions of governing does have an upside when you actually have to govern.  Imagine that.

I bet just about every dem wishes they were on that Palin hit list, if only because it's so easy to run against Palin.  The sum total of her political power has been to scuttle the McCain effort even faster than he was doing it (and that's some power there, I'll hand you that) and get some Dem elected in a New York District that had been Republican from just about the beginning of time.  I know she is trying hard to do an end-run around the Party and all that, but the only thing she will really accomplish is to continue to ham-string those that can be painted with her brush.

All the tea-baggers did was pretty much guarantee a Dem majority for the next election (and beyond) because no 'Pub was allowed to support a single, little, teeny-tiny bit of Health Care, there by they are all going to have to run opposed to it (because of the votes on the record) and they are going to find that real hard to do. Because faced with problems (and everyone seems to agree that we have some problems) doing something - even the 'wrong' thing - is better than doing nothing.

We've all heard from some of our poorer corporations, like AT&T that this is going to cost them money.  They are right, but do you know how they lose money?  Because they just can't write off prescription subsidies anymore. Get it? Companies like AT&T were being given your tax dollars to subisdize the prescription drug coverage that they themselves promised to their retirees, then they were able to deduct those subsidies from their taxes.  Now they have lost that CORPORATE WELFARE and are out the money, that they really were not paying out in the first place.  Well boo-hoo.

Yeah, run to roll all this back.  Run saying that the teabaggers are real patriots.  Keep running on the 3 Gs (Guns, God and Gays) and keep on losing.  We needed a new version of the Republican Party anyway, one that fiscally conservative, but very socially liberal.  And given a few more electoral defeats (you know, like the last two) the 'Pubs with the money are going to go out and do exactly that.

Quote from: Laura Hope on March 30, 2010, 12:21:13 PMCalling people you disagree with disparaging names is hardly original or a demonstration of talent. Rather, it's the lowest common denominator of American Politics.

It's what politics has become.  Personally, I wish the mud slinging would disappear but it only seems to be getting worse.  BTW, the part of that reader's comment I liked had to do with quantifying and qualifying who and what Sarah Palin really is.

QuoteI kinda thought the great thing about this country was that people could speak up about what disdpleased them.

Freedom of speech should not mean you can make personal threats against someone.  After the health care bill passed, many dissenters made such threats against the politicians who voted for the bill.  That's the kind of thing I had a problem with.  If someone wants to rant and rave, by all means let them.  But we should never allow threats of violence to pass as freedom of speech.

QuoteOh please. if this had been done at HuffPost or Daily Kos or Move On, you wouldn't have blinked. It's obviously cultural symbolism, and means no more than if I say "we're in the home stretch of this race" i'm trying to get you on a horse.

Well, I don't read HuffPost or Daily Kos or Move On but had they said it I would have responded the same way.  My comment, as stated, still stands.  Please don't impart your interpretation of who I am into what I write because you may be wrong, again.

means no more than if I say "we're in the home stretch of this race" i'm trying to get you on a horse.

Given the problems they have spelling their protest signs correctly, I'm going to have to really doubt that subtle of a distinction.

Quote from: tekla on March 30, 2010, 04:49:49 PM
Oh yeah, we're going to secede from the Union and we'll be our own nation.  So, I kinda gotta ask, how did that work out last time for ya'll?  Right.

A very great many things don't happen now the same way they did 150 years ago.

Quote
It will not happen, pretty much for the same reasons that it wasn't allowed to happen last time.  There is way too much money involved. 

this, on the other hand, is pretty much true and presents the obvious rub.

Quote
Plus that old order is dying out.  And it never had the money to make the decisions anyway.  It controlled some - and not very important - bits of social policy, but that's about it.  Pretty much the same people who opposed Health Care also opposed (and run on repealing or rolling back) Social Security, Civil Rights, Prayer in School, Abortion Rights.  Again, how'd that work out?  Real well eh?  Even with a Republican majority in Congress, and a 'Pub in the White House them people's got zip, zero, zilch.

Which is pretty much why they they are so pissed off now. It would be a mistake to assume they are big fans of the GOP just because most of them are right of center.

I'd suggest that the protesters are almost entirely economically motivated. there surely are pro-lifers (for instance) in the crowd, but they are not motivated by abortion to be at the demonstrations.

Quote
I'm sure part of the reason that the right is so mad at Obama (other than the fact that he won) is that he did what he said he was going to do.  No 'Pub president has done that since Nixon.

Some he did, some he hasn't. A lot of things he's done exactly the opposite of what he said he'd do, both things that should be mainstream and things that the left expected of him (How's the "closing GITMO" thing working out?) - which is pretty much exactly like every president since ever.

Quote
Of course, believing in some of the better notions of governing does have an upside when you actually have to govern.  Imagine that.

I bet just about every dem wishes they were on that Palin hit list, if only because it's so easy to run against Palin.  The sum total of her political power has been to scuttle the McCain effort even faster than he was doing it (and that's some power there, I'll hand you that) and get some Dem elected in a New York District that had been Republican from just about the beginning of time.  I know she is trying hard to do an end-run around the Party and all that, but the only thing she will really accomplish is to continue to ham-string those that can be painted with her brush.

All the tea-baggers did was pretty much guarantee a Dem majority for the next election (and beyond) because....

I had to stop reading here because I can't really debate against self-delusion.

---

Post Merge: March 30, 2010, 08:22:06 PM

---

QuoteFreedom of speech should not mean you can make personal threats against someone.  After the health care bill passed, many dissenters made such threats against the politicians who voted for the bill.  That's the kind of thing I had a problem with.  If someone wants to rant and rave, by all means let them.  But we should never allow threats of violence to pass as freedom of speech.

Are you under the impression that this is new or that it only comes from the right?

I was flipping through Palin's book (horrors!) while waiting on a prescription just today and came across a passage where she described her children's life being threatened even while she was governor before she was in the national race, and again, specifically, while the 2008 campaign was going on.

Why didn't this get the public hand-wringing that's going on now?

Why is it only of so very much concern for the country when it happens to a left-of-center politician?

IMO, it's because it reinforces the leftist paradigm that says those who defend gun rights are dangerous, and that nicely sync's up with the knee-jerk urge to scores points against people on the right.

But it is an utter disconnect from reality to believe that inflammatory rhetoric, dangerous language, or allusions to (or outright threats of) violence are confined to or even more prominent on one side of the spectrum as opposed to the other.

Yet EVERY time this sort of thread appears, the implication is that "dangerous right wingers are influencing unstable extremest to violent action and should be held accountable" - with no hint that it cuts the other way in equal measure.

QuoteAre you under the impression that this is new or that it only comes from the right?

No.  Are you?

QuoteWhy didn't this get the public hand-wringing that's going on now?

While I wouldn't call it public hand wringing, a rather emotionally charged description, I do remember the public being very much against any threats made against Palin and her family and I was right there with them.  Still, that doesn't excuse Palin or her supporters from doing the same thing.

QuoteYet EVERY time this sort of thread appears, the implication is that "dangerous right wingers are influencing unstable extremest to violent action and should be held accountable" - with no hint that it cuts the other way in equal measure.

Well, if that's the case, maybe they need to get a new PR manager.

By their own admission, words and actions, the "right wingers" are against same-sex marriage, against ENDA, against DADT, and basically against any equal rights for LGBT people.  I just can't support that.  Anyone who wants to is free to do so.  But don't expect a lot of sympathy when you lose your job or are discriminated against legally.

Quote from: Julie Marie on March 30, 2010, 11:33:03 PM
No.  Are you?

Well, if I were to only listen to my left of center friends on the various boards I post on, or to the traditional media - I'd have to.

Quote
While I wouldn't call it public hand wringing, a rather emotionally charged description, I do remember the public being very much against any threats made against Palin and her family and I was right there with them.  Still, that doesn't excuse Palin or her supporters from doing the same thing.

First, I never employ the "it's alright because they do it too"  - I think it is intellectually weak and contemptible. So that's not my point here.

Second, I actually pay attention to what people on the right say and do and this is the first I've heard of her getting these threats (though it's easy enough to assume since it's pretty much the cost of doing business on the national political stage) and I sure as heck didn't hear any hue and cry from her political opponents that such threats were out of line.

I'm sure that any person anywhere on the spectrum (save the infinitesimally small nut fringe on either edge) would, if ask, condemn death threats or threats of any sort of violence in the generic question. that's a given.

But what has been my experience is that when a right-of-center figure gets derided, threatened, or harassed, it goes unremarked upon except by a few who muster the courage to suggest that the person ask for it by being so provocative and "hateful" themselves.

If it happens to a leftist, then the story-line is "noble caring public servant threatened by unhinged right wing loonies"

I will take it as a given that this is not YOUR reaction, but it is most certainly how it's played in the media and among vocal let wing public figures.

Quote
Well, if that's the case, maybe they need to get a new PR manager.

By their own admission, words and actions, the "right wingers" are against same-sex marriage, against ENDA, against DADT, and basically against any equal rights for LGBT people.  I just can't support that.  Anyone who wants to is free to do so.  But don't expect a lot of sympathy when you lose your job or are discriminated against legally.

I disagree with all those positions, and have repeatedly bemoaned the fact that those who I otherwise agree with are on the wrong side of those issues and explained why I prioritize as I do.

I also don't spend a lot of time suggesting the law should be saving me from...pretty much anything in this regard. I'm fully aware of the implications of my choices.

All that said, I do not subscribe to the notion that these misguided political positions are driven by "hatred" and have no patience for the mythology that because these are "hateful" people they can be treated in a manner that politicians with the correct view should never be treated.

Again, this may not be your personal view - but it's a very common view on the left. I don't treat left-of-center politicians who are as antagonistic towards "the religious right" as any on the right are towards the LGBT community (and more so) as contemptible and worthy of my scorn and badmouthing - I just respectfully disagree with them.

I find myself in no-man's-land.

I'm thoroughly embarrassed by many of my Christian peers for their ignorance and in some cases for their hatefulness, and I'm thoroughly embarrassed by some of my LGBT peers for exactly the same reasons.

Part of the delusion is applying politics to party preference, "right vs. left," or to particular politicians. It is far more important to focus on ideas than the politicians who share them. For instance, I'm obviously for GLBT rights as I'm sure most of us on this board are as well. However, why should I vote for a politican who supports ENDA if virtually everything else he supports I oppose? What ends up happening is basically people just vote for their particular special interest issue neglecting the bigger picture. I highly doubt there is one politican in the U.S. Senate or U.S. House who I agree 100% with. You pick up a GLBT magazine and they all support the politicians who support those issues. You pick up a hunting magazine and they all support the politicians for gun rights. You pick up a parenting magazine and they support politicans who cater to that magazine's views on education and healthcare reform. The problem is you won't find a politican who is likely to share all of your views.

So it goes on and on with just back and forth generalizing that conservatives think this way and liberals think that way or what constitutes a Republican or Democrat. In the end, little is accomplished. We need to look at the ideas and the issues.

Healthcare is an issue but so is privacy, taxation, the economy, jobs, debt, and government intervention. I believe you will be hard-pressed to find people at the tea parties who oppose Obamacare to actually oppose healthcare reform. Most people--conservatives and liberals--recognize a need for reform. The problem is that many people such as those at the tea parties are not going to accept certain types of healthcare reform even if it does mean much better healthcare if it violates their other views such as decreased privacy, increased taxation, negative impacts on jobs and the economy, increased national debt, and more government in their lives. It may sound simple to say that these people "just hate Obama" or "don't want Democrats taking any credit." However, this is not simple and not true. I really believe that it ultimately comes down to a personal ethics battle of choice vs. control.

There's a LOT of people who vote single issue, a LOT.  And, while I don't have the numbers, I'd guess it skews the ultimate goal of most Americans.  Truth is, most people just don't want to take the time to get to know all aspects of a politician, so they go with their emotions.

My priorities are upholding the Constitution, following the Principles of Democracy and basically accepting people for who they are and not trying to shove any one doctrine, one set of beliefs or any one way to act or present oneself down anyone's throat.

Neither party has these priorities.  Mostly it's "what do I need to do to keep my job (or get elected)" that drives the actions of politicians.

To be a successful politician all you have to do well is get votes.  Whatever it takes to do that might have nothing to do with serving the public.  And that's why we see the caliber of people we do in public life.  Those skills attract a certain type of person.  Doing what the voters put you in office to do is only important when your re-election is in jeopardy.

What saddens me is what politics has become - mud slinging, nasty, down and dirty.  It's more about the lesser of two evils than someone who is right for the job.  It's about power, wealth and greed.  This could be a hell of a lot better place to live if we just cleaned house and let the incoming elected know we're not going to take any more of this crap.

I can only "amen" both the last two posts. Well said both of you.

One solution is to make it just as easy to recall a politician as it is to elect them, including the President. A President may have well below a 50% approval rating but unless he commits a crime and gets impeached the public has to wait until the next election to get rid of him. The public should be able to vote out presidents, governors, senators, representatives, and others just as easily as they can vote them in. That might make politicans take every day of their job much more seriously.