When I had Haji in my sights, it was POP POP. NEXT! I didn't run up to them, get on my knees and offer them my WileyX glasses as a peace offering so they wouldn't talk bad about me.
I could care less what the enemy thinks of me. I want my enemies SCARED TO DEATH of me and I made DAMN sure they were. I don't want to go along to get along with anyone.
Thanks for sharing.
Sonia Sotomayor IS the enemy.
Barack Hussein IS the enemy.
Tye DCN and half the GOP IS the enemy.
[....]
Sonia is a racist. Enemy identified.
Sonia is a bigot. Enemy identified.
Sonia holds unconstitutional "values". Enemy identified.
SABOT!
And to be fair, the guy wrote back immediately, realizing that he had been "over the top" and would be fine if his comment was deleted. But all the same, wow. This is not a good place for us to be. And while I suspect (hope) he was using rhetorical effect to exaggerate his case and was perhaps just letting off steam, I'm sure there are others like him that won't write this at a blog; but they think it and they infect others with this sort of thinking. And even if this guy would never go through with it, he could easily infect someone else who is unstable enough to do so.
After all, this is how the Federal Building in Oklahoma got blown up. And while I don't think this was meant as a direct threat of Obama or Sotomayor, it kind of sort of was. I mean, when you say you want to make "damn sure" that your enemies are "scared to death" of you and then list your enemies, including the president, a federal judge, and a large majority of our politicians...I don't know. I'm a bit creeped out by that. Particularly in the context of having just mentioned killing enemies in combat, without making a distinction between those enemies and these enemies. Not good.
And so while I don't want to be making tooooo big a deal out of this one comment, I just wanted to highlight this sort of thing; as a warning. When people don't feel the system works for them, they work outside the system. That's the basis of terrorism: To demonstrate that there are such alternate methods and that even weaker parties need to be respected. And while Democrats are both dominate and popular, we need to understand that we shouldn't attempt to steamroll our opponents or back them into a corner.
Desperate people do crazy things. We need to make sure that everyone feels they have a say in what's going on in our country. Not just for their good, but for the good of all of us. And with any luck, the over-the-top rhetoric won't be quite this far over the top.
Remember when Clinton was a mass murdering Soviet? I do.
Posts
7 comments:
I think to be fair we should be considerate of their mental health needs, but at the same time it is not the left that is stoking this kind of thinking, and if we are very nice to the Republicans it will not make the Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks and their supporters and backers nicer to us.
While I didn't find the Bush reign to be a bowl of cherries, I did refrain from making what could be perceived as death threats. I think these clowns on the right need to man up to the fact that they lost and start working toward fixing their party. Attacking Obama for bullshit like putting mustard on his burger may not be a step in the right direction.
It would be nice to engage some of the sane portions of the right if that is possible. I went over to American Powermad recently and over the course of 3 posts, John Cornyn was called a RINO, Bill O'Reilly was called a liberal apologist and Mancow was called a pussy. These are their own people. When you're tossing Cornyn out of the party as a liberal, you might be moving in the wrong direction.
Mahakal & DLB - I suspect I wasn't referring to anything you or I do, but there are liberals who insist that we "steamroll" Republicans and completely ignore anything they have to say. And in that regards, I'm not referring to being nice or putting up with the BS political games. But rather, taking into consideration their positions on the big policy issues of the day, and at least attempting to engage in dialogue with them regarding what we're doing.
And I assure you, the Limbaughs and Becks are totally in line with the "steamrolling" of Republicans, as they want to be the only outlet conservatives have. We need to undermine their efforts at shutting off the dialogue. We'll never have Limbaugh on our side; we just need to deny him the ability to cut us out of the equation. But again, I don't think this is anything you guys are doing. But if you see libs doing that sort of thing, this is the warning they need to get.
I dunno, Dr B, it seems to me the Obama administration has been bending over backwards to hear the Republican point of view and give them lots of consideration. A few people saying we should steamroll them doesn't mean that there's anything like a steamrolling that is happening or about to happen.
But triumphalism isn't very helpful, and democracy does mean hearing all voices even if it also means we do what the majority decides.
It certainly would be nice to see a credible opposition party. I'm fully confident that the Dems will become as corrupt as Delay (or Murtha for that matter) before long. Conservatism has much to recommend it, or at least it did before the neos perverted it. So I do hope they can put it back together.
Somebody mentioned the Modern Whigs on a thread on Maha's blog. Maybe they or something like that can replace the Republicans. I want the Republican party to be ended as a credible entity.
Ex-DLB, I think you're right we cannot have one party control in this country without it degenerating over time, and we need a credible progressive party in this country to compete with the Democratic party when it is corporate-bound.
Post a Comment