US Politics XXXVIII

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tarant,

No. Wickard v. Filburn, growing wheat on your own land (in excess of the amount allowed under Federal Regulations)for use as fodder for your livestock qualifying as "interstate commerce" when the wheat wasn't sold and it never left the man's property much less the State that's Judicial overreaching.

[awesome possum]

So now CBO is absolutely correct, while being unlikely to be correct about HIR bill?

I suppose the CBO is only correct and/or worthy of citing when it helps fit a point you're trying to make.

Well, then I assume you had no objection to how the Court ruled in 2000 regarding the election, because the law is whatever the Court says it is.

I'm glad you brought this up FLoW, because it shows just how big of a difference there is between the two parties. In 2000 Democrats had a legitimate gripe about the potential of the presidency being stolen. Not just closely contested but actually outright STOLEN. Only due to a Republican-leaning Supreme Court was the recount (which saw Gore gaining more and more and GWB losing more and more votes) in Florida stopped. Because of this, there will always be a question. But the court ruled, and while Democrats had a pretty damned good reason to outright revolt, they did not. There was anger and incredulity and shock, but no outright foaming dissent. It wasn't until years later, after the Patriot Act, two foreign wars, horrible tax cuts for the rich (oh, they tossed some of the poor and middle class a $200/$300 check too), and more - when even most Republicans had begun to jump ship that you saw anything resembling what you see in:

2008. A Democrat is elected president by a wide margin and yet Republicans are frothing mad. Why? Because they lost. Oh, and all that B.S. you like to espouse about small government, lower taxes, etc.

I suppose I'm missing a big chunk of the story here, and it seems like we're going around the same circle again. I guess my point is, as much as some may try, Republicans cannot paint their party as anything but irresponsible, angry, sore losers with an insane fringe that is steadily taking over.

[Shryke]

And the Death Threat Train rolls on: http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/dem-rep-snyder-threatened-with-assassination.php

Add Rep. Vic Snyder (D-AR) to the growing list of lawmakers saying they've received death threats in the wake of health care reform becoming law.

The Associated Press reports that Snyder was told about a letter by the Capitol Police on Tuesday saying he's a target for assassination. The police intercepted the letter.

Snyder read from a copy of the original saying: "It is apparent that it will take a few assassinations to stop Obamacare. Militia central has selected you for assassination. If we cannot stalk and find you in Washington, D.C., we will get you in Little Rock."

I'm sure the Left is just as bad though...

[sologdin]

maybe she should sit down for a cup of coffee with Bill Ayers.

aww, it's cute that y'all're still sore from the presidential election. but where's the obligatory rev. wright corollary?

[Shryke]

But don't worry, Gingrich is here to tell us that Democrats should take some moral responsibility for these threats and acts of terrorism:

I think the Democratic leadership has to take some moral responsibility for having behaved with such arrogance, in such a hostile way, that the American people are deeply upset. So let’s be honest with this. This is a game that they’re playing. People should not engage in personal threats. I’m happy to condemn any effort to engage in personal threats. But I think the Democratic leadership has to take some real responsibility for having run a machine that used corrupt tactics, that bought votes, that bullied people, and as a result has enraged much of the American people. And I think it’d be nice for President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Reid to take some responsibility over what their actions have done to this country.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/26/gingrich-democrats-responsibility-terrorism/

[alguien]

Parris' actions and intentions were not shared by everyone else in the antiwar movement, no $atter what she may claim. And if she wants to play the Vietnam card, maybe she should sit down for a cup of coffee with Bill Ayers.

The whole Ayers/Weather Underground thing... such a weird phenomena to me. In Chicago, Bill Ayers is a well-respected academic who has been literally given the keys to the city. So when that whole sad theater evolved in the 2008 general election, and he was referred to as a "terrorist" most in Chicago chuckled in amused disbelief.

A co-worker of mine at Great Books was nominated for an Oscar for the documentary he directed on Weather Underground. Its a fascinating film. I think only three people were ever hurt/killed by Weather Underground directly, and they were all members who died in an accident.

In any event, what they did back then was idiotic, dangerous, and detrimental to their cause. Though I would argue that what they were protesting was even more idiotic and dangerous. And I'd be curious to read who inflicted more violence against who in terms of Vietnam protests, police vs. protesters.

[awesome possum]

Holy shit, these guys never stop, do they? Democratic politicians are having their lives threatened by Republican wingnuts that Republican politicians and commentators have riled up and all these assholes can think about it is to spin it to make Democrats look bad? I so hope the economy continues to improve and the GOP gets their deluded, moronic asses handed to them in November.

Un-fucking-real.

[The Progressive]

It has began ........... a US appeal court struck down limit on invididual contribution to political advocacy groups:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032602436.html

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jodi-jacobson/bart-stupak-i-dont-listen_b_505156.html

From the article:

The telephone lines in his Washington and district offices have been "jammed" and he's gotten more than 1,500 faxes and countless e-mails -- most of which he says don't come from his constituents.

The fight has taken a toll on his wife, who has disconnected the phone in their home to avoid harassment.

"All the phones are unplugged at our house -- tired of the obscene calls and threats. She won't watch TV," Stupak said during an hourlong interview with The Hill in his Rayburn office. "People saying they're going to spit on you and all this. That's just not fun."

This is from 3/18/2010 when Stupak was threatening to vote against the HCR bill. Just FYI.

[Shryke]

Shryke,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jodi-jacobson/bart-stupak-i-dont-listen_b_505156.html

From the article:

This is from 3/18/2010 when Stupak was threatening to vote against the HCR bill. Just FYI.

How did I know you'd be the first in here with the equivalency argument.

Call me when gas lines start getting cut.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

How did I know you'd dismiss earlier threats?

[awesome possum]

Shryke,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jodi-jacobson/bart-stupak-i-dont-listen_b_505156.html

From the article:

This is from 3/18/2010 when Stupak was threatening to vote against the HCR bill. Just FYI.

Ahhh, so it's OK to issue death threats as long as the other side has done it too?

Thanks!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ser Poss.,

It's not okay for anyone to issue threats of violence. Just don't try to pretend it's only people who are opposed to HCR.

[Shryke]

Shryke,

How did I know you'd dismiss earlier threats?

I didn't dismiss them, I simply put them in context.

One side sent angry phone calls and the threats.

The other did the same .... and then hurled racial epithets at politicians and then posted their addresses so people could go and try and fucking murder them by blowing up their house for instance. And then the politicians from that side blamed the people being targeted for the current behavior.

But keep it up Scot, maybe one day the false equivalency will actually stick.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Newt Ginrich is a putz. I wish he'd shut the hell up or simply denounce threats of violence and violent action. There is no justification for violence or threats of violence by anyone.

[awesome possum]

Ser Poss.,

It's not okay for anyone to issue threats of violence. Just don't try to pretend it's only people who are opposed to HCR.

While the threats are terrible, no matter what side is doing them, they're almost par for the course when dealing with a volatile subject (which, btw, is only volatile because one side has whipped up part of the country into a volatile state). It's unfortunately, but you can find threats issued to politicians for any major action that is heavily disagreed with.

Only one side has tried to act on those threats thus far. There's no pretending on that front.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ser Poss.,

So, leftist threats are bad but they're only happening because of the right? Call me odd but I would place responiblity for the threats and acts squarely upon the individuals who made and performed them.

[Shryke]

Ser Poss.,

So, leftist threats are bad but they're only happening because of the right? Call me odd but I would place responiblity for the threats and acts squarely upon the individuals who made and performed them.

You must be reading a different thread, cause no one has said that.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

While the threats are terrible, no matter what side is doing them, they're almost par for the course when dealing with a volatile subject (which, btw, is only volatile because one side has whipped up part of the country into a volatile state). It's unfortunately, but you can find threats issued to politicians for any major action that is heavily disagreed with.[Emphasis added]

Did I misinterperet what Ser Poss. Is saying here?

[Shryke]

He's saying the Health Care debate is volatile because one side's politicians and media personalities have whipped their side into a volatile frenzy.

Although one could probably track this volatility back to Obama's election campaign if you really wanted to.