A person at a Tuesday town hall with Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., got up and asked, "Who is going to shoot President Obama?"If you don't know the "exact wording," why do you have some words in quotes? This non-quote has gone viral in the leftosphere, the leftosphere where no one seems to mind all the violent and over-the-top language and imagery at the week-long Wisconsin protests. If you don't have that quote, why are you spewing it out there? Maybe what hasn't changed post-Tucson is you?
The exact wording of the question is not clear because, the Athens Banner-Herald reports, there was a lot of noise at the event.
Seriously. Why put out a quote that you don't have? You're trying to stir people up and create discord! You are the problem you are talking about? Do you have any self-awareness at all?
The question prompted a "big laugh" from the crowd, in Oglethorpe County, Ga., according to the Banner-Herald. Broun, for his part, did not object to the question. He said in response:
"The thing is, I know there’s a lot of frustration with this president..."And now, you want to attribute incivility to Broun, but you don't know what he heard. He mentions the president, so presumably, he caught that it was something anti-Obama, but beyond that you are making stuff up.
If the crowd was so big, and it was a planned event, where's the digital video? Don't tell me the crowd was too noisy for anyone to record it AND that the crowd heard it.
Now, as is widely known, it's a serious federal crime to threaten the life of the president, which makes it less likely that the words are as reported in the pseudo-quote. It also makes it less likely that a person of the left was trying to make trouble for Broun (a theory I see some righties are propounding). If it was said, it was said by someone who was both malevolent and stupid. Why would a whole crowd of people give a big laugh when they found themselves in the presence of someone malevolent and stupid?
Flashback to spitgate. I say, as I said then: Produce the video.
ADDED: Media Matters links to this post and says:
Althouse later announced that she'd only believe the "shoot Obama" story if she saw a video of the encounter.Care to quote me? This is about quotes and you can't quote me saying that, because I didn't. Pathetic. I'm announcing that Media Matters is pathetic. And you can quote me.
That's fine, except Broun's staff confirmed the "shoot Obama" question was asked. The Congressman has since sort-of apologized for his non-reaction to the "shoot Obama" question, and the Secret Service was alarmed enough by the question to interview the person who asked it. (The elderly man apologized for the what he said was a joke.)Yes, I am. For video or some other good-enough evidence. And you should too. As I've said — nay, announced! — you shouldn't spread viral stories unless and until you at least have your facts straight. When I wrote this post, I'd already seen that Broun’s press secretary, Jessica Morris, reportedly said "Obviously, the question was inappropriate, so Congressman Broun moved on," and I chose not to lengthen my post with the obvious question: What did the person who spoke to her say before she said that?
Still waiting for the video Ann?
The quote from Morris doesn't establish that she knew what was said independently from what was just said to her. Whoever elicited that quote from her might have just told her what was purportedly said at the town hall. Imagine a reporter saying, "At the town hall, someone yelled out 'Who is going to shoot President Obama?' Why didn't Congressman Broun denounce that person on the spot?" Her remark would fit that context, and therefore doesn't work as a confirmation of the pseudoquote.
MORE: Now, I'm clicking through to the Washington Post story, which came out after I made this post. And I'm just now paying attention to the business about the Secret Service in the Media Matters piece that links to it. The "ADDED" part above relates only to my reaction to what the spokeswoman said.
A law enforcement source confirmed that the Secret Service interviewed the constituent and determined that he or she was an "elderly person" who now regrets making a bad joke.
"In this case this was poor taste," the source says. "The person realized that."That WaPo item is updated at 11:50 a.m. to say that "Rep Paul Broun appears to admit he should have condemned his constituent." Broun now repeats the quote, which suggests he heard it that way, and says "I was stunned by the question and chose not to dignify it with a response; therefore, at that moment I moved on to the next person with a question. After the event, my office took action with the appropriate authorities."
So, I'll accept now that the quote was made.
And, Media Matters, what do you say about all the violent images and statements that have been in this last week here in Wisconsin? What do you say about the death threat that was made to me? Where are your condemnations of that? I'm waiting!
Posts
149 comments:
Apparently, were it not for the Zapruder film, JFK would be alive today.
Can we start calling out these people with their "Arizona" parallels. by all accounts there was NO POLITICAL RHETORIC involved, civil or uncivil. Bringing it up everytime there's a real "civility" issue is a deliberate non-sequitur.
It also could have been a sarcastic question, as in "Who is gonna shoot Obama?" as a way of saying, "Nobody is gonna do that, and anyone claiming someone will is a douchewaffle" type of things, too.
So, even if the quote is entirely accurate, I'd like to actually HEAR it - the tone, the inflections, the context, etc.
It's heartening that nothing has changed. Why should the behavior of a lunatic induce National Change?
Another fake quote from the left.
Update: Broun’s press secretary, Jessica Morris, confirmed that the question was indeed, who is going to shoot Obama? “Obviously, the question was inappropriate, so Congressman Broun moved on,” she said. I guess not everyone on the right takes a Flip camera to public events so we have to trust the Jessica confirmation of the quote.
Demonising the Tea Party again with missing evidence of an incivility. At least Sarah Palin was not accused of inciting it this time.
Broun's spokesperson confirmed the quote.
I can't see how a question can be considered a threat. Nor a hypothetical.
I guess people need to learn Cicero's ruse: "I will not contend that Catiline is the worst scoundrel ever to set foot in Rome, and I would not recommend that he be assassinated"
or something to that effect.
I love it. People are being threatened and/or beaten by union goons supported by the Democrat Party and the Left expects us to buy the civility line.
As Ann says, produce some video, or, at least, audio.
former law student said...
Apparently, were it not for the Zapruder film, JFK would be alive today.
Cute, but no rebuttal.
PS Thank you for putting this up, Madame.
WV "larde" Should I...?
roesch-voltaire said...
Update: Broun’s press secretary, Jessica Morris, confirmed that the question was indeed, who is going to shoot Obama? “Obviously, the question was inappropriate, so Congressman Broun moved on,” she said. I guess not everyone on the right takes a Flip camera to public events so we have to trust the Jessica confirmation of the quote.
That's what she thinks she heard, but, as the piece says, there was a lot of noise in the room. Was it accurate?
Interesting he takes a Republican's word on this, but ignores all the Leftist violence.
I think this post was very wise; roesch-voltaire, garage mahal, and Alpha Lib will now come here to breathlessly and "independently" post updates to this tremendously important evidence of violent rhetoric on the right, from a speaker no one can identify using words which nobody clearly heard in a state about as far from Wisconsin, and the violent rehetoric of its Democrat contributing unions, as it is possible to get.
I swear this whole 'they're saying mean and nasty things!' is really becoming tiresome especially after 8 years of listening to McHilerBushHaliburton.
When the Hawaiian president says he's going to change the country to, "Surf city," most of us hear "Serf city."
What's the difference in a vowel?
Apparently, were it not for the Zapruder film, JFK would be alive today.
the Zapruder film was instrumental in proving it was the communist Lee Harvey Oswald that did it.
After weeks of democrats comparing Brown to Hitler and wishing death upon him and all republicans, THIS is the evidence of incivility?
Democrats have to know what the word hypocrite means they accuse republicans of it every 15 seconds. Maybe like 'nazi' and 'racist' they think it means 'bad person who does things I don't like.' I dunno.
MMan: "It's heartening that nothing has changed."
In a way, I suppose so, in that the old tricks are still being played by the same old tricksters. Fake but accurate -- that's the old trick in play here -- just doesn't work as it did before everyone was in on the game and sharp-eyed observers like Ann were only to willing to point it out.
But, in a more important sense, the ground has shifted completely. All the high-decibel back-and-forth over the last 2 years is bringing clarity despite all the efforts at obfuscation, and fake calls for one-sided 'civility' are having no impact. It's not that anyone is against being civil but that everyone gets the game.
This is what turning points look and sound like, as each side redefines itself while everyone is watching. We are in the midst of major changes, with Wisconsin as the epicenter for now, as the changes bubble up from below. The last two major changes were Washington-led -- basically, the New Deal and the Reagan realignment. This one is, for now, playing out elsewhere, but it's gathering strength and will get to Washington soon enough.
It's heartening that nothing has changed. Why should the behavior of a lunatic induce National Change?
It's what he promised when you guys elected him.
Apparently, were it not for the Zapruder film, JFK would be alive today.
If the only evidence in the world that JFK had been shot was a piece in Slate, he'd have been healthy enough to give Zell Miller's 2004 convention speech about what happened to his former party.
Bringing it up every time there's a real "civility" issue is a deliberate non-sequitur.
Start telling people the real lesson of the Giffords shooting is that we need to close the border to illegal immigration.
" At least Sarah Palin was not accused of inciting it this time."
Just wait.
Trey
And now for the latest on over-the-top rhetoric in Wisconsin, let's go to our correspondent on the scene in Georgia.
Roesch, what do you have for us?
Apparently the Secret Service heard it well enough to have a meeting with the gentleman in question.
@Jan. Good. That's exactly appropriate.
His press secretary confirmed the quote. I fail to see how there's any question/doubt that this was asked. Are you all in disbelief, or are you so wrapped up in your own views that you simply refuse to believe that this was asked?
The political climate in this country is disgusting--from both the right and the left. Signs and protests in WI, absurd questions in Georgia...it's just gotten so out of hand.
One of the best cases for maintaining the best Secret Service in the world is Joe Biden. I pray for President Obama's welfare daily. The thought of "Slow Joe" in the Oval Office scares me greatly.
The best lesson here is that even a veiled rhetorical threat to shoot a President must be done either by a terminally stupid person or by a Dem plant trying to smear you. So ALWAYS call them out and stop them from the illegal speech. We have done that to commenters on Althouse, as I recall.
@Jim -- Yet for all this incivility, is there any more political violence today than any other time? You can pick a decade and I'll name names.
For most politicized people attention is paid to extreme speech only if it can be used to embarrass their political opponents.
Consider the attention being paid to an inflammatory statement made by a single moron at a town hall meeting held by an obscure representative who failed to respond in kind. Is this evidence of the spread of incivility? Or is it evidence of something else?
If you look hard enough, it's not hard to find terrible trivialities with which to shock your fellow travelers, but most people have more interesting hobbies.
How about the fact that the Congressman HIMSELF heard it?
http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2011/02/25/paul-broun-condemns-town-hall-question-whos-going-to-shoot-obama/
Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?
Wonder if that would get a laugh.
"Why would a whole crowd of people give a big laugh when they found themselves in the presence of someone malevolent and stupid?"
Because they're malevolent and stupid?
Oh, am I generalizing? You mean like this: "the leftosphere where no one seems to mind all the violent and over-the-top language and imagery at the week-long Wisconsin protests"?
One person heard the guy say:
"Who is going to boot Obama"?
[I made this up but it's not too far-fetched]
"Nobody said it!"
But the congressman himself says he heard it.
"It was a plant! He was stupid! ... Wisconsin!!!"
@Mojave Joe -- You guys keep making the same category mistake.
The civility freaks on the left publicize rudeness on the right as a means to demonize their opponents.
The first-amendments freaks in the center -- like Althouse and Glenn Reynolds -- publicize rudeness on the left to demonstrate the utter hypocrisy of the civility freaks.
There are two different games being played here. One of the teams is playing you.
Why is this any worse than what John Kerry said in 2004 on the Bill Maher show:
(Maher asks Kerry what he got his wife for her birthday)
Kerry: I did not get her catchup
*laughs*
Maher: … you could have gone to New Hampshire and killed two birds with one stone.
*laughs*
Kerry: I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone.
*laughs*
"The political climate in this country is disgusting--from both the right and the left."
It's the same as it has ever been.
We need more canings and fistfights on the floor of the Capitol, however.
How about the fact that the Congressman HIMSELF heard it?
Ann considers testimony from the Congressman involved to be worthless, as we learned from what she calls "Spitgate."
The only evidence valid to Ann is a recording made by a disinterested Tea Party activist.
As with Zapruder: Film or it didn't happen.
Ann considers testimony from the Congressman involved to be worthless, as we learned from what she calls "Spitgate."
Ann hears what she wants to hear and disregards the rest
Lie la lie ...
Is it also possible that someone has video, but they don't wish to share it.
As with Zapruder: Film or it didn't happen.
Last night I was so wound up on too much Mountain Dew after a marathon night of World of Warcraft I couldn't sleep so I went out on the patio for some fresh air and sitting around my patio table was an alien, Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster. They told me that Elvis wasn't able to make it and they needed a fourth for Euchre.
As I never was elected to public office that automatically qualifies my honesty in saying this actually happened photographic evidence notwithstanding.
The answer: hopefully nobody. Beyond the immorality of murder, the last thing we need is Obama the martyr.
(The second to last thing we need is Joe Biden as president.)
What's odd is that our hostess rightly criticizes the lazy journalism practiced in the original article and suddenly she does or does not believe a whole raft of statements that commenters here would like her to type.
The critique stands on its own merits with regards to the shoddy journalism. And journalists have earned skepticism with their "JournoList", fake but accurate defenses and obvious bias in things political.
I wish more of the commenters here (some on both sides) practiced reasoned skepticism in such matters.
hoosier: was your patio so crowded you could hardly see the assorted monsters?
Being in Athens, I don't generally trust the local paper.
Peach Pundit is more reliable:
http://www.peachpundit.com/2011/02/25/paul-brouns-statement-on-the-obama-question/
"We need more canings and fistfights on the floor of the Capitol, however."
Was it the Thai congress that broke into a fistfight halfway through one of their sessions? I remember seeing the video, but I'm not sure which SE Asian country it was...
Jim: His press secretary confirmed the quote.
The guy in charge of his PR? I don't think you could find a less objective person.
I fail to see how there's any question/doubt that this was asked. Are you all in disbelief, or are you so wrapped up in your own views that you simply refuse to believe that this was asked
No. We just have too much experience with the MSM manufacturing quotes. You'll understand when you're older.
Have to ask - do you really think morphing a paraphrase into a direct quote was accidental? Its at the heart of a journalists job.
I wanna kill the whole planet, except for The President of course.
Yes, I'm a wingnut, a hillbilly, uncivil, and have no degree, but I bet you still want my 6 figure tax dollars don't you. I thought so.
hoosier: was your patio so crowded you could hardly see the assorted monsters?
It's quite spacuious as I live on huge tracts of land.
Isn't it odd that our resident lefties are SO on Ann's case for being a "water carrier for the 'baggers" by complaining about the left's violent rhetoric? I mean why are they trying to shut her up?
Ann considers testimony from the Congressman involved to be worthless, as we learned from what she calls "Spitgate."
Because race hustlers like John Lewis have no credibility and make shit up.
@fls:
As with Zapruder: Film or it didn't happen.
That's a terrible analogy. Here we're talking about words uttered; in Kennedy's case we had an actual dead President--No need for film to confirm that. Words are ephemeral, dead corpses are not (relatively speaking).
That being said, it sounds like there's enough corroboration here to make it believable. That kind of discourse is sick and it shouldn't be tolerated by anyone, left or right.
Dear Justin Elliot:
STFU, you moron.
When the Hawaiian president says he's going to change the country to, "Surf city," most of us hear "Serf city."
Serfin' USA!
You know what's also intolerable to me? Being lumped in with every half-wit crazy who shouts out something at a town hall rally. I'm like dood - I wasn't there.
The muddled story and crowd noise notwithstanding I'll take Broun’s press secretary's word for it. The question was reprehensible.
And of course it will become another volley in the "who's side is more violent" game going on. Do you really want to be the "winner" in such a game?
I just can't understand why the easier route of "if confirmed, condemn and then return to our regularly scheduled partisan discussion" isn't chosen by more folks.
Ohh that's rights it's because they're such as**oles!
Broun's staff confirmed the "shoot Obama" question was asked.
http://athenscms.com/blogs/2487/
The Secret Service was alarmed enough by the question to interview the person who asked it. (The elderly man apologized for the what he said was a joke.)
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/02/secret_service_interviews_geor.html
From my previous link:
Paul Broun’s Statement On The Obama Question:
“Tuesday night at a town hall meeting in Oglethorpe County, Georgia an elderly man asked the abhorrent question, “Who’s going to shoot Obama?” I was stunned by the question and chose not to dignify it with a response; therefore, at that moment I moved on to the next person with a question. After the event, my office took action with the appropriate authorities. I deeply regret that this incident happened at all. Furthermore, I condemn all statements—made in sincerity or jest—that threaten or suggest the use of violence against the President of the United States or any other public official. Such rhetoric cannot and will not be tolerated.”
So, where was the left's hysteria and umbrage when people ROUTINELY talked about assassinating Bush, wrote books and plays and movies about it, carried signs hoping for it?
"Apparently, were it not for the Zapruder film, JFK would be alive today"
Yeah, that's a spectacularly good example of how a piece of film can settle all questions.
Former law student: 'former' because you failed the logic course I see.
So, lefties, you gotten around to condemning the calls for blood in the street and the actual assaults?
No?
Fen, you seem to have some serious mental issues. I don't know what they are, but they're obviously pretty advanced at this stage.
The congressman's press secretary confirmed the question was asked, and that the congressman also skipped the question. The congressman also condemned the question afterwards. The man who asked the question was questioned by the Secret Service following the town hall meeting. No, this wasn't something taken out of context--it was a direct quote. One of these days, you'll be able to put your absurd biases behind you. Oh wait, no you won't. Please, get some help.
Ignoring a stupid question is a bad idea? No. More people should do so rather than giving stupid questions widely publicity. No credit by leftists for informing Secret Service? Stuck on Stupid again.
Ann considers testimony from the Congressman involved to be worthless, as we learned from what she calls "Spitgate."
As well she should. The "Spitgate" congressman was lying.
The Queen is full of shit.
Broun heard exactly what was said and acted as if it was a normal form of discourse...until he realized what as ass he was by not confronting the jackoff:
Political Insider / 2:25 pm February 25, 2011, by jgalloway
“Tuesday night at a town hall meeting in Oglethorpe County, Georgia an elderly man asked the abhorrent question, “Who’s going to shoot Obama?” I was stunned by the question and chose not to dignify it with a response; therefore, at that moment I moved on to the next person with a question.
AA, all of your conservative lemmings defend you 24/7 ~ shocking!
Congrats! :)
Free speech notwithstanding lol
Was watching a David Frost interview w/Gore Vidal about 25/30 years ago and Vidal was quite logically/eloquently explaining why there isn't a spit of difference between Dems and Reps as once they get elected most are only worried about raising $$$, special interest, lobbyists, PACS etc. to get re-elected. As the past (2) elections have indicated er after 2008 it was non-stop winger whining and after 2010 non-stop liberal whining.
but, but, but the wingers still have liberals beat by a tad ;) in the sore loser/sour grape category as Barack Hussein Obama's election really threw conservatives for a loop, eh as their entire universe crumbled before their very eyes lol.
Nothing new under the sun since the beginning of time ie uneducated serfs and warlords.
and so it goes ...
>
We now return you to conservatives and liberals yellin' at each other 24/7 at a political blog to no effect!
take care
Jim said..."Fen, you seem to have some serious mental issues. I don't know what they are, but they're obviously pretty advanced at this stage."
You're just figuring this out?
Between Fen, Alex, Roger, Allen, BagoSHit, and a few of the other nutcases here, you could start your own insanity ward.
I wonder sometimes if they're all holed up in a trailer somewhere, sharing a computer and whatever meds they're on.
"Now, as is widely known, it's a serious federal crime to threaten the life of the president"
Only if it's a credible threat. It's perfectly legal to ask who's going to shoot the President. It's perfectly legal to say that somebody ought to shoot him, or to call for some brave soul to shoot him. It's perfectly legal to hang him in effigy. It's even perfectly legal to say that in some hypothetical situation I would shoot him. Any Secret Serviceman who arrested someone for saying that would lose his house to a Bivens suit. Government workers can't even be fired for saying "If anyone goes for Obama, I hope they get him". It's also legal to joke on national television that the Secret Service have orders to shoot Biden if anything should happen to Obama.
We have gone beyond the Imperial
President to the God King, He whose
Name must not be taken in vain on
penalty of imprisonment.
PaulV said..."Ignoring a stupid question is a bad idea?"
That's the way you see this? That if was merely a "stupid question?"
Why not call up your local FBI field office and ask that same "stupid question" and see how funny or stupid they think it is.
Duh.
M. Report said..."We have gone beyond the Imperial President to the God King, He whose name must not be taken in vain on
penalty of imprisonment."
I think threatening or even implying a threat to the life of our president has more to do with an actual "law" than any form of imperial kingdom.
But thanks for input, teabagger.
Eight years of vitriolic Bush-bashing - sanctioned by the left, Hollywood and the media - that wasn't limited to protests but was in movies, TV shows, music concerts, stand-up routines, news shows, magazines, newspapers, rap songs, EVERYWHERE has contributed more than anything, in my opinion, to the current angry environment. The sheer volume of the name-calling and angry insults was amazing and never-ending (I actually thought Bush might be assassinated after the 2004 election). I even cancelled our local paper because the Bush-bashing was so pervasive that it even made it into the graphic of an article about street names in the city, of all things. For the left to now decry the "incivilty" of the current political climate is just jaw-droppingly hypocritical.
Milhouse said..."Only if it's a credible threat."
That's not true at all.
Call you local FBI field office and take a shot at it, and see if they ignore it before knowing whether it's "credible" or not.
§ 871.: Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
See anything relating to "crdibility?"
inmypajamas "Bashing" has nothing to do with threatening or even implying a threat to the life os a president.
You can call Bush or Obama an asshole from the highest rooftop and it wouldn't mean squat as for as the law is concerned.
And speaking of bashing, were you asleep during the Clinton years?
Like I haven't been telling you they want a civil war for, like, ever. They will say, and do, anything.
Facts don't matter.
Great post, Prof. Althouse.
It's been several years, already, but it's good to see people start to recognize that virtually anything coming from the left has to be treated as if it were hostile testimony in a court of law... unless it can be documented and corroborated it is just hearsay or invention.
They really don't care about the truth. This has been obvious since the Tawana Brawley Affair, if not earlier, and driven home by their reaction to false charges of date rape, the pillorying of the Duke lacrosse team, on and on.
Arguably, the left took the turn into institutionalized dishonesty in the early 1930s when it denied and then defended Stalin's collectivization genocide, then turned on a dime with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and turned back when Hitler attacked the USSR 6-22-41. It had already been accepted in the Stalinist Terror that guilt or innocence didn't matter, the only thing of consequence was whether a particular action served the Party.
By now, this is so deep in the left's DNA that it cannot be separated from everything else they believe and do.
There are no doubt a few exceptions... but damn few, and they stand out (C. Hitchens, P. Berman come to mind) like beacons.
They lie because they don't value the truth. It's really that simple.
Well, apparently it did happen. There was a Secret Service investigation. Here's the link [sigh] http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/02/secret_service_interviews_geor.html
What did Media Matters have to say about Randi Rhodes wanting to shoot Bush and playing the gunshot sound on Air America?
Nothing.
Someone may have already mentioned this, but the lefty meme is "Fake but accurate."
Remember?
It's not facts and truth.
It's narrative and feelings.
Hell of a way to run a country or a world. Kills a lot of people in the end.
When the facts fall on the right they get shredded. (As some should be.)
When they facts fall on the left
crickets
What ever happened to that guy/gal who threated Obama on this list a year or more ago?
The conservatives did not let him/her get away with it. And I don't recall anyone rooting him/her on.
The Queen: "So, I'll accept now that the quote was made."
Well, how magnanimous of you.
Your loyal teabagger sycophants must be bending at the knee at this very moment.
*By the way; when did you finally join the teabagger movement?
Hey Jeremey, you might want to look up Watts v. United State, 394 U.S. 705 (1969). Just a suggestion.
After April 15, 1865, even mentioning the the future shooting of the President has been the dumbest speech one can make. Ask Dr. Mudd how much benefit of the doubt and mercy is given to such people. Since that day, the million men of the GAR and their descendants have dared fools to cross that line.
And what about the implied threats made by some of your bloggers towards other bloggers? Where was your concern Althouse?
Crack Head - "They" want a civil war.
Geee, who be the "they" you throwin' out there?
Duh.
roesch-voltaire said..."And what about the implied threats made by some of your bloggers towards other bloggers? Where was your concern Althouse?"
Those are her loyal sycophants.
Be careful.
Sofa - I did read it, and it is similar to what has occurred here.
But I never said the old jerkoff who said this would be prosecuted, only that it is illegal to threaten the life of a president.
If you disagree, do what I suggested earlier: call your local FBI field office and give it try.
Let me know if they laugh.
r-v - cite examples or you're just blowing chunks.
Those are her loyal sycophants.
Be careful.
Why don't you go back to Daily Kos when you can brown-nose Markos?
Jeremy...We really love Ritmo. All of our sick-o-phant humor must go over your head. Ritmo coined the word "Irrelephants", and us sick-o-phants had to bust him up some for that. But, what is important to realize here is that the Professor suffers from a kind heart that gets queasy around violence. She wont even kill a bug in her curtains.
Is posing the question tantamount to issuing a threat? If so what are we to make of the author of this
? (better late than never)
"What do you say about the death threat that was made to me? Where are your condemnations of that? I'm waiting!"
I don't get the logic... because you've been threatened it's ok to threaten the President?
Or is it two wrongs make a right?
What does the fact that because there's been no condemnations of threats to you have to do with death threats to the President?
With this venomous rumor about a threat on the President's life spreading so fast among his supporters, can the US version of Kristallnacht be far behind?
traditionalguy - Take another shot at that.
I have no idea what the fuck you're trying to say or even imply.
Maybe you can ask one of your fellow suck-ups to help out.
Quaestor - You're comparing a novel to some idiot asking an elected official at a townhall meeting when the president is going to be shot?
A bit of a stretch...
"Now, as is widely known, it's a serious federal crime to threaten the life of the president"
Only if it's a credible threat.
For a threat to be credible, it must be posted as a comment on a Youtube video.
Jeremy twaddled: See anything relating to "crdibility? (sic.)
So you think a question that might indirectly imply a threat satisfies the statute prohibiting actual threats against POTUS? And that this was such a threat?
Once again, we have to wonder: How stupid are you?
-----former law student said...
Apparently, were it not for the Zapruder film, JFK would be alive today. -----
Apparently --- given the left's tendency rewriting history, if it were not for the zapruder film it would now be established truth that JFK ascended to heaven where he rules with Teddy Kennedy, who never killed a woman by driving off a bridge.
From Tuscon to Ted Kennedy as AA's wingers are always entertaining ;) if nothing else ...
Jeremy...I was not being serious. All of this searching out of violent metaphors in each sides speech patterns is weak slander and counter slander. And the the riot threats yelled in assembled groups is another thing...that IS bad stuff. And some free speechers need to learn there is a bright line boundary against any type of threat to shoot a President. So I agree with you here.
@shiloh: I have an 11-month old Australian Shepherd named Shiloh. He is an atheist and his commitment to eating other dog's food suggests he may share your progressive political views.
Of course, he is a dog and there are limits to what can be expected of him.
roesch-voltaire said...
And what about the implied threats made by some of your bloggers towards other bloggers? Where was your concern Althouse?
Sorry but I missed those Roachy. Do you have any example you would like to site?
Also, shiloh, it's Tucson, not Tuscon.
hombre - So can we assume the Secret Service spent time talking to this old jerkoff because they had some time on their hands?
Duh.
hombre, thanx for sharing ...
and I apologize for all my past, present and future typos.
take care
George - Never enough time to denigrate JFK or Teddy, huh?
Thanks for sliding that in...asshole.
Jim: Fen, you seem to have some serious mental issues. I don't know what they are -
I'm skeptical of anything coming from the MSM. It comes from decades of being lied to. And not drinking the MediaMatters kool-aide.
No, this wasn't something taken out of context--it was a direct quote.
No, it was NOT a direct quote. Thats the problem - the initial report did not quote the perp, the quotation marks were added later by others. Its dishonest.
@Jeremy: Well, since the old boy wasn't arrested, we can assume that there was no threat, so what's your point?
Duh.
MediaMatters is targeting Obama for assassination.
Hombre - Just because the old jerkoff wasn't arrested doesn't mean the threat wasn't taken seriously.
Are you really saying that any for of threat to the president is not serious?
Are you really this stupid?
*Try it out yourself and get back to us...dummy.
AP - MediaMatters admitted they are "targeting Obama for assassination."
see the difference?
Fen - Don't quit your day job...whenever you actually get one.
The link to the Althouse death threat discussed on the Best Of The Web needs a fix, since it goes to Taranto's latest column instead of to the 2/22 column. Here's the actual link: http://on.wsj.com/e8y9jf
Fen - "I'm skeptical of anything coming from the MSM."
Still just don't get what the MSM really is, huh?
It encompasses all your favorites...Fox, Rush, Sean, Glenn, Ann, Bill, Michael, Laura...ALL of them...not just the ones with which you disagree.
You'd think this would somehow sink into that rock hard head of yours, but noooooooooooo.
Up the meds, Fenny...see if that helps.
What's wrong with joking about shooting Obama? People joked about shooting Bush, Clinton, and Reagan.
Revenant - "What's wrong with joking about shooting Obama? People joked about shooting Bush, Clinton, and Reagan."
Can't think of a thing...
Why not test your theory out with a quick call to the FBI?
Duh.
Jeremy: Why not test your theory out with a quick call to the FBI?
I just did.
I paraphrased your older comments about killing Bush, then put them in quotes:
Jeremy: "Shrub needs to be taken out and shot"
The FBI is also curious why your are calling for more death threats to made against Obama.
Jeremy: Duh
Indeed.
I rarely read any of Jeremy's crap but regardless of what he posts nothing will ever top his now infamous "I evolved from sperm" statement from a few threads back. Hilarious.
I really think the left is trying to provoke those of us on the other side whether conservative or libertarian to say or do something that can by viewed as violence against them. Of course the media will run wild with this and that one incident will be verification of every negative thing they have said about the right and/or the Tea Party. So we need to be vigilant and keep our cool. Their violence will always be ignored or discounted by the co-conspirators in the media - ours will not.
Jeremy,
You should probably spend a little more time studying, and less time raging here in the comments, if you wish to graduate high school.
There are plenty of things for people to get upset about on a given day, but as regards this particular issue, I think the "wingers" are mostly upset at the strange denial of reality that takes place in the media.
We have plenty of actual, documented cases of "hate rhetoric," or whatever you want to call it, on the left. But the media narrative says union workers are just hard-working regular slobs, and we have to take their side against "the man." (Never mind that this dynamic doesn't remotely apply in the case of public sector workers). So, we don't hear about it.
Yet, we hear all about these phantom tea party terrorists (Bloomberg, anyone?), and various other nonsense, including the knee-jerk commentary that Loughner was some kind of right-wing crazy.
All of this is compounded, of course, but the ever-morally-superior members of the left wing. Liberals know they're smarter than those 'wingers. They see the evidence at their every get-together with like-minded souls, and when that's not enough every few years someone will put out a study corroborating this belief. And so we hear many a sober, considered judgment about these rash tea partiers and their dangerous anti-government rhetoric, but almost nothing about the Bushitler/Mubarak=Walker garbage.
It's almost too much sham to stomach when one sees one of those responsible, dignified lefties (the NYT, almost any academic, sanctimonious blog commenters...) declaim violence and hateful rhetoric, when we know they mean no such thing. As ever, there is no absolute truth: there is only what advances the cause. It's OK for lefties to spout off about assassinating Bush, because he deserved it! But when some 96 year old man at a congressional meet n' greet says something silly, well, it's just another indication that those right-wing mobs are cleaning out their rifles and getting ready for the rapture.
This is what happens when your politics is your religion, and you become morally certain about your voting habits. You get unhinged.
There goes lil' Ann, making it all about her again.
With a head as swollen as constantly as yours is, you could risk a serious brain injury, Ann. I'm kind of worried for you.
"After the event, my office took action with the appropriate authorities"
Does that mean his office is the one who called the Secret Service about this incident? If so, I'd say that radically changes the story trying to be peddled.
Not that it matters. The concern being expressed is really all just political posturing. Pretty much like when a soccer player falls to the ground and cries out in pain, even when no other player was near him. It's all for the sake of the supposed ref, just a game that everyone is playing.
Ann. I'm kind of worried for you.
Indeed, as many of us have empathy!
But AA now has Meade, so not to worry ...
btw AA TMI, unless you're writing a book ;)
And if folk at other blogs don't like like you lol it's no surprise they're gonna make fun of your internet marriage, eh.
take care
Fen, you're not only stupid, but a liar to boot.
I never once said anything about killing Bush.
Pull back on the meds.
If the Secret Service wasn't impressed enough to do anything about it, neither am I.
David - Really weak, little man.
Take another shot...
MarkD - "If the Secret Service wasn't impressed enough to do anything about it, neither am I."
You're now with one of our enforcement agencies?
Why would anyone care what YOU would do about anything?
And by the way; they didn't do anything either...and evidently for good reason.
It's not illegal to be a stupid old man with a big mouth...you and others here should be well aware of that.
shiloh - "But AA now has Meade, so not to worry ..."
It's not Meade...it's Needy.
The Queen and her loyal teabagger sidekick.
Paddy O said..."After the event, my office took action with the appropriate authorities"
He called to cover his dumb ass for acting as if it wasn't that big of a deal for anybody to call something like that out during a politcal townhall meeting.
What do you think he would have done if someone had called out the same thing about G.W. or even any of his fellow GOP office holders?
Think he would have just
"moved on?"
Jeremy prattled: "Are you really saying that any for of threat to the president is not serious?"
Wh-a-at? Good Lord! You did miss your meds!
Jake Badlands - Why would I give a rat's ass about the same old teabagger drivel you're posting here?
99% of the peole here spend 99% of their time sucking on each other, never disagreeing, never really debating anyting...just regurgitating the same silly right wing shit you all listen to every day of the week on Fox or with the fat man on the radio...over and over again.
Just read through the comments on any thread, any topic...and show me where any of you ever really disagree about anything.
The Queen sets the plate and you all lap it up.
And, as always, it's ALL about denigrating, whining and bitching about anything relating to president Obama or anybody with whom you disagree or who isn't conservative enough for you.
If some yahoo had said what this old fart said at a Democratic townhall meeting while Bush was president you and the rest of the local teabaggers would be shitting your pants, screaming to high heaven...and you all know it, too.
So stuff your sermonizing bullshit up you right wing ass...because that's exactly where it belongs.
hombre - "Are you really saying that any for of threat to the president is not serious?"
Jeremy: Fen, you're not only stupid, but a liar to boot.
I never once said anything about killing Bush.
Yes you did. I've got it in quotes.
Proof enough for any Libtard.
Fen - C'mon...you don't even know what MSM stands for.
Dummy.
I appreciate how much genuine concern is being expressed in this thread about political rhetoric.
It almost, though not quite, seems genuine.
Vorrei cogliere questa opportunità chiedere ad ognuno qui di baciare la mia Ass. ringrazio voi e la buona notte.
The Queen and her loyal teabagger sidekick.
As a latecomer to this blog and not knowing anything about AA until a few months ago, sorry Ann, fire your publicist, her internet quickie ;) makes her a tad more interesting.
One thing that stood out from the never ending interview is AA mentioning she's 100% secure financially ...
I personally don't need any $$$, I'm a tenured law professor, I don't need economic support.
and yet and yet and yet
she's been asking for $$$ recently at her blog ?!?
>
So many blogs, so little time ...
Now Jeremy, I know you're a liberal and you guys are losing really, really badly. I mean considering how well you did in '08, man it must suck to be an effeminate liberal (but then I repeat myself) these days. And I think the word you're looking for is "culo." Now get on back to DKos before you hurt yourself.
Trooper as you know Ut's post are ugly to say the least and even Seven Machos said...
Roesch -- I disagree with you vehemently because you are sadly wrong about so much but this Ut guy's rhetoric is just stupid -- and a little scary. I apologize for this bastard.
And you, Jeremy, are just trolling a comment thread. And, perhaps worst of all, you're not even doing it cleverly. "Lay off the meds" and "dummy" are not exactly bon mots.
If you've got an enlightened opinion to peddle, I haven't seen it yet. Really, just a lot of puerile ranting of the sort I would expect to hear from the cartoonish straw men you like to spar with.
DON'T FEED TROLLS.
" it's a serious federal crime to threaten the life of the president,"
It is? I guess the elderly gent should have written a novel or made a film about it. Who knew speaking was crime while writing was civility?
Good grief...Ann, you are such a wussy little crybaby and your 90% of your commenters are the same. You people are so full of crap.
Good grief...Ann, you are such a wussy little crybaby and your 90% of your commenters are the same. You people are so full of crap.
Wow - so informative! You win Larry, you're our new King.
Somebody actually wasted their time threatening you ?
Good evidence there. :)
-Harry M.
An OrganoGold | Organo Gold Affiliate Worker
Post a Comment