GA Rep. Paul Broun Asked: 'Who Is Going To Shoot Obama?', Fails To Condemn Question

GA Rep. Paul Broun Asked: ‘Who Is Going To Shoot Obama?’, Fails To Condemn Question

Wingnuts • February 2011 • Views: 1,831

A constituent at a town hall for Georgia Rep. Paul Broun drew laughter on Tuesday when asked, “Who is going to shoot Obama?” and the Republican didn’t come anywhere near condemning the question in his response.

“The thing is, I know there’s a lot of frustration with this president,” Broun said, according to the Athens Banner-Herald. “We’re going to have an election next year. Hopefully, we’ll elect somebody that’s going to be a conservative, limited-government president … who will sign a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare.”

The fact people in that hall laughed at that question creeps, if not outright scares the heck out of me.

Assassination talk should always be condemned by people of all political stripes, especially members of Congress. It’s a very basic sign of human decency. Unfortunately, as we’ve seen all too often recently, human decency is something that’s badly lacking in the modern Republican party.

Recent Pages by Merryweather:
The War On Women Takes A Dark, Extremely Creepy Turn Kyl Walks Back Planned Parenthood Lie Now That Damage Has Been Done CNN Asks: 'Are Whites Racially Oppressed?', Turns To White Supremacists For Answers Walker's Union Busting Budget Also Wages War On Women Pam 'Shrieking Harpy' Geller And Co Declared Hate Group By SPLC

Jump to bottom

75 comments

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 5:31:27am

Stupid goes both ways.

Recall the anti Bush screed of ‘Where is John Wilkes Booth now?’ and the other violent rhetoric directed at him.

Like it or not, we’ve all become desensitized to this kind of drivel.

Merryweather Fri, Feb 25, 2011 5:38:07am

Yes, I’m sure that some point in the past, liberal Democrats did every repellent thing the right-wing is doing now. Will that be good enough for the Magical Balance Fairy?

The fact is, I don’t recall a Democratic congressman being openly confronted with assassination rhetoric against Bush and then refusing to call it out.

celticdragon Fri, Feb 25, 2011 5:40:53am

Merryweather beat me to this one. I just posted and didn’t realize this page was already up. Good catch. :)

Jeff In Ohio Fri, Feb 25, 2011 6:46:38am

re: #1 researchok

Stupid goes both ways.

Recall the anti Bush screed of ‘Where is John Wilkes Booth now?’ and the other violent rhetoric directed at him.

Like it or not, we’ve all become desensitized to this kind of drivel.

Which congressional democratic rep fielded the John Wilkes Booth statement?

aagcobb Fri, Feb 25, 2011 7:43:05am

Bombing abortion clinics? Shooting the President? Comedy Gold! ///

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 7:47:58am

re: #2 Merryweather

Yes, I’m sure that some point in the past, liberal Democrats did every repellent thing the right-wing is doing now. Will that be good enough for the Magical Balance Fairy?

The fact is, I don’t recall a Democratic congressman being openly confronted with assassination rhetoric against Bush and then refusing to call it out.

It isn’t about the magical balance fairy- it’s about propagating the illusion that somehow, this kind of stupid is always one sided.

Lidane Fri, Feb 25, 2011 7:51:25am

re: #4 Jeff In Ohio

Which congressional democratic rep fielded the John Wilkes Booth statement?

None of them. The John Wilkes Booth comment came from British journalist Charlie Brooker, who was rightly raked over the coals for saying it.

The two situations aren’t even comparable.

Merryweather Fri, Feb 25, 2011 7:54:40am

re: #6 researchok

It isn’t about the magical balance fairy- it’s about propagating the illusion that somehow, this kind of stupid is always one sided.

That’s a strawman if there ever was one. No one is doing that - we’re pointing out this stuff is mainly coming from the right (because it is) and that no one on the right is calling this shit out.

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 8:10:54am

No, itsn’t a strawman.

Mary Landrieu threatened to ‘punch the president (Bush)’. I’ll assume you have no trouble with that or all the other violent and ugly rhetoric that was directed at him at the time. I say that because that apparently is worth even a perfunctory mention on your part.

Yes, crazy now is mostly now coming from the right, but it’s a funny thing- American voters aren’t as stupid when when it comes to assessing stupid remarks.

I mean, the GOP took the last midterms.

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 8:11:44am

re: #9 researchok

No, itsn’t a strawman.

Mary Landrieu threatened to ‘punch the president (Bush)’. I’ll assume you have no trouble with that or all the other violent and ugly rhetoric that was directed at him at the time. I say that because that apparently is worth even a perfunctory mention on your part.

Yes, crazy now is mostly now coming from the right, but it’s a funny thing- American voters aren’t as stupid when when it comes to assessing stupid remarks.

I mean, the GOP took the last midterms.

PIMF- is not worth a perfunctory mention.

Obdicut Fri, Feb 25, 2011 8:12:20am

re: #9 researchok

but it’s a funny thing- American voters aren’t as stupid when when it comes to assessing stupid remarks.

I mean, the GOP took the last midterms.

How do these two things go together?

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 8:18:16am

Because if stupid rhetoric were more important that substance the GOP would not have won th election.

Apparently, even voters know their priorities.

Look, I’m no fan of the GOP nowadays as you know. But as long as the Dems keep harping on stupid instead of substance, they will suffer further losses.

Personally, I’d like see the GOP get thrashed if for rno other reason than that would force them to clean house. The Dems did just that in the 70’s and it served them well. That won’t happen as long as the focus remains on stupid.

Obdicut Fri, Feb 25, 2011 8:20:31am

re: #12 researchok

Because if stupid rhetoric were more important that substance the GOP would not have won th election.

What are you talking about?

Look, I’m no fan of the GOP nowadays as you know. But as long as the Dems keep harping on stupid instead of substance, they will suffer further losses.

Again, what are you talking about?

Where is your claim that the Democrats are focused on stupid coming from?

Your response, in this thread, to a ‘joke’ being made about shooting Obama— shooting, not punching, slapping, or any other sort of non-lethal attack, but shooting, a clear joke about assassinating him— is to talk about how Democrats are bad too, and how bad their electoral strategy is.

It’s kind of bizarre.

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 8:23:38am

re: #13 Obdicut

What are you talking about?

Again, what are you talking about?

Where is your claim that the Democrats are focused on stupid coming from?

Your response, in this thread, to a ‘joke’ being made about shooting Obama— shooting, not punching, slapping, or any other sort of non-lethal attack, but shooting, a clear joke about assassinating him— is to talk about how Democrats are bad too, and how bad their electoral strategy is.

It’s kind of bizarre.

Yes, the midterms went so well for the dems.

All that talk about being anti Obama is only proof of racism, etc.

That you don’t see that as bizarre is more interesting.

Lidane Fri, Feb 25, 2011 8:27:11am

re: #9 researchok

No, itsn’t a strawman.

Mary Landrieu threatened to ‘punch the president (Bush)’. .

…in the direct aftermath of Katrina, and she’s from Louisiana.

Obdicut Fri, Feb 25, 2011 8:28:21am

re: #14 researchok

All that talk about being anti Obama is only proof of racism, etc.

Why do you have the impression that this was the only argument made by Democrats during the midterms, though? Or equally stupid ones? What has cemented this belief in your head?

It really seems to me that you reason post facto quite often; you are certain that America is tolerant, so you reason backwards from that certainty to interpret anything without considering that intolerance could be at the root of it. You are very certain that the American public embraces substantial rhetoric over stupid, and so you reason backwards so that Democratic losses must mean that they engaged in stupid rhetoric.

Furthermore, you are still, in a thread about a joke about assassinating Obama, talking about the errors of Democrats. It is really, actually, quite odd. Your insistence that we’ve all been desensitized, is, likewise, a conclusion that you’ve done nothing to support.

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 8:29:06am

re: #15 Lidane

…in the direct aftermath of Katrina, and she’s from Louisiana.

And the other moron is from GA- Landrieu made a point of saying ‘literally’.

Like I say. stupid is a grand canyon.

Lidane Fri, Feb 25, 2011 8:32:07am

re: #17 researchok

I love how you casually dismiss the horror of Katrina as the context for Landrieu’s statement about punching Bush. I guess everyone in Lousiana was supposed to remain cool, calm, and collected?

Obdicut Fri, Feb 25, 2011 8:32:30am

re: #17 researchok

But there isn’t an equivalence between saying “I’d like to punch that guy” and “I’d like to shoot that guy.”

They are both wrong, and both should be condemned, but the latter is a far, far more dangerous statement than the former. Especially in light of the history of political assassination in the United States.

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 8:36:33am

re: #16 Obdicut

Why do you have the impression that this was the only argument made by Democrats during the midterms, though? Or equally stupid ones? What has cemented this belief in your head?

It really seems to me that you reason post facto quite often; you are certain that America is tolerant, so you reason backwards from that certainty to interpret anything without considering that intolerance could be at the root of it. You are very certain that the American public embraces substantial rhetoric over stupid, and so you reason backwards so that Democratic losses must mean that they engaged in stupid rhetoric.

Furthermore, you are still, in a thread about a joke about assassinating Obama, talking about the errors of Democrats. It is really, actually, quite odd. Your insistence that we’ve all been desensitized, is, likewise, a conclusion that you’ve done nothing to support.

Obdi, turn on your TV set. Anyone who is a TPer is a racist- or ignorant. Anyone who opposed HCR is a racist- or ignorant.
Anyone who opposed the Obama bailouts is a racist- or ignorant . That has been the progressive pundit line for a while now. I guess I shouldn’t complain- the Obama will get shot soon because he’s black has been worn out.

Also, I didn’t say America embraces stupid- that is what the progressives have done. Americans have rejected stupid rhetoric in favor of substance.

And yes, the threat by the GA moron was a joke. On that we can agree.

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 8:37:05am

re: #19 Obdicut

But there isn’t an equivalence between saying “I’d like to punch that guy” and “I’d like to shoot that guy.”

They are both wrong, and both should be condemned, but the latter is a far, far more dangerous statement than the former. Especially in light of the history of political assassination in the United States.

Yes there isw

He made a joke- she said she meant it literally.

Lidane Fri, Feb 25, 2011 8:39:43am

re: #21 researchok

Yes there isw

He made a joke- she said she meant it literally.

Ah. So when a Republican does it, it’s a joke, but when a Democrat does it, it’s literal?

Thanks for clearing that up.

Obdicut Fri, Feb 25, 2011 8:41:10am

re: #20 researchok

Anyone who opposed the Obama bailouts is a racist- or ignorant . That has been the progressive pundit line for a while now.

No, it hasn’t. Do you understand this is simply a claim you are making, and not a fact?

Americans have rejected stupid rhetoric in favor of substance.

Really? Really really? So the disbelief in global warming, can you explain how that is rejecting stupid rhetoric in favor of substance, given the extraordinary stupidity of the arguments rallied against the science?

Propaganda works. We’re human. It’s got nothing to do with smart, or stupid. We are all vulnerable to propaganda.

He made a joke- she said she meant it literally.

No, she said she meant it literally. And you appear, for no reason I can understand to be missing the point: A punch and a shooting are incredibly far apart on a scale of violence. I know you’re not an unintelligent man, so why are you dodging the point this way?

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 8:42:13am

re: #18 Lidane

I love how you casually dismiss the horror of Katrina as the context for Landrieu’s statement about punching Bush. I guess everyone in Lousiana was supposed to remain cool, calm, and collected?

I didn’t dismiss the horror of Katrina.

I do know if the entire National Guard were on the ground prior to the tragedy there would have been no difference in the damage caused by the natural disaster.

I also know the devastating effect the photos of the unused buses cannot be so easily dismissed. I also know Landrieu was late in calling for the National Guard.

I also know that despite Nagin’s assurances, there wasn’t even water to be had the superdome. These failures cannot be placed on Bush.

FEMA failed at many things during Katrina and it took General Honore to get things really moving. However, to place the entire blame of FEMA and Bush is absurd.

Obdicut Fri, Feb 25, 2011 8:42:43am

re: #23 Obdicut

By the way, the easy proof that she didn’t mean it literally:

She said she’d punch anyone who continued to criticize local officials’ response. Plenty of people continued to criticize local officials’ response. She didn’t punch anyone.

So, no, she didn’t actually mean it literally. That is wrong. She was wrong to say it, but it is wrong to claim that she meant it literally.

Lidane Fri, Feb 25, 2011 8:46:31am

re: #24 researchok

I didn’t dismiss the horror of Katrina.

First you cut off the rest of my statement, then you proceed to dodge the issue. Again.

Landrieu is from Louisiana. In the direct aftermath of Katrina, she, like so many others from Louisiana that were directly impacted by that horror, lashed out. Emotions were running high. I’m not surprised she said something stupid about wanting to punch Bush. A lot of people in and around Louisiana wanted to punch him after Katrina hit.

But of course, in your world, that context doesn’t matter. It’s somehow worse than some douche in Georgia “joking” about shooting the president because she used the word “literally”. Give me a fucking break.

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 8:50:39am

re: #23 Obdicut

No, it hasn’t. Do you understand this is simply a claim you are making, and not a fact?

Really? Really really? So the disbelief in global warming, can you explain how that is rejecting stupid rhetoric in favor of substance, given the extraordinary stupidity of the arguments rallied against the science?

Propaganda works. We’re human. It’s got nothing to do with smart, or stupid. We are all vulnerable to propaganda.

No, she said she meant it literally. And you appear, for no reason I can understand to be missing the point: A punch and a shooting are incredibly far apart on a scale of violence. I know you’re not an unintelligent man, so why are you dodging the point this way?

Well, I watch Maddow, Olbermann, Matthews, et al. I read a lot of the comments here. I see a lot of the videos posted by others. It is not simply a ‘claim’ It may be anecdotal but it is curious how many progressives seem to find great solidarity with those pundits.

By the way, why bring in AGW? I’m a believer. That there are morons who don’t believe is a travesty- in the same way so many progressives (and righties) believe 9/11 was an inside job.

You are right to note propaganda works, though.

As for Landrieu and Broun, my point was and remains the same- stupid is a grand canyon and continues to be well inhabited.

Weeks after the Giffords shooting, there were images of Scott Walker with a target superimposed over his face.

Stupid isn’t going away soon.

Unlike me- lunch meeting.

Later all.

Obdicut Fri, Feb 25, 2011 8:51:58am

re: #27 researchok

Well, I watch Maddow, Olbermann, Matthews, et al. I read a lot of the comments here. I see a lot of the videos posted by others. It is not simply a ‘claim’ It may be anecdotal but it is curious how many progressives seem to find great solidarity with those pundits.

Can you explain how it is not simply a claim?

By the way, why bring in AGW?

For exactly the reason I stated: It is an example of stupid rhetoric winning out over substantial rhetoric; a disproof of your theorem.

I’d like to ask you to really, really think to yourself why you felt it necessary, in this thread, to spend so much time talking about the malfeasance of Democrats.

Obdicut Fri, Feb 25, 2011 8:53:04am

re: #27 researchok

It’s also really bizarre that you include Maddow, who makes very, very substantial arguments, as an example of stupid rhetoric from pundits.

simoom Fri, Feb 25, 2011 9:00:27am

If I were a journalist, I’d ask Rep. Broun if he reported the incident to the Secret Service. It both would be a good way of communicating the seriousness of it as he tries to deflect & sweep the whole thing under the rug, and the answer would demonstrate whether or not he behaved responsibly at his second opportunity to do the right thing.

zora Fri, Feb 25, 2011 9:03:47am

re: #1 researchok

Stupid goes both ways.

Recall the anti Bush screed of ‘Where is John Wilkes Booth now?’ and the other violent rhetoric directed at him.

Like it or not, we’ve all become desensitized to this kind of drivel.

speak for yourself. you seem desensitized. to some people (me) death threats or questions about the assassination of the president are always repulsive.

Jeff In Ohio Fri, Feb 25, 2011 9:13:27am

Unfortunately, a lot of the arguments TP’ers, HCR and bailout opponents have made are not based in fact. Has that prevented some progressive pundits from making blanket accusations against the right? I suppose not since you claim to have read them (without citing them), but the ones I read have made specific arguments against specific assertions and have backed them up with specific facts.

re: #20 researchok

Obdi, turn on your TV set. Anyone who is a TPer is a racist- or ignorant. Anyone who opposed HCR is a racist- or ignorant.
Anyone who opposed the Obama bailouts is a racist- or ignorant . That has been the progressive pundit line for a while now. I guess I shouldn’t complain- the Obama will get shot soon because he’s black has been worn out.

RadicalModerate Fri, Feb 25, 2011 10:02:09am

For those of you wondering why Broun didn’t quickly chastise the town hall attendee?
This quote from the article may give you an idea of Broun’s mindset:

Last month, Broun live-tweeted Obama’s State of the Union address and drew criticism for one in particular. “Mr. President, you don’t believe in the Constitution,” he wrote. “You believe in socialism.”

On the day after the speech, Broun told CBS News, “I stick by that tweet.”

Randall Gross Fri, Feb 25, 2011 10:02:18am

re: #30 simoom

If I were a journalist, I’d ask Rep. Broun if he reported the incident to the Secret Service. It both would be a good way of communicating the seriousness of it as he tries to deflect & sweep the whole thing under the rug, and the answer would demonstrate whether or not he behaved responsibly at his second opportunity to do the right thing.

According to a tweet from Eric Boehlert the Secret Service did talk to this wingnut afterwards and he apologized, but so far Broun hasn’t spoken out against it to my knowledge.

Randall Gross Fri, Feb 25, 2011 10:05:45am

Update: Broun has a press statement now

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.

Merryweather Fri, Feb 25, 2011 10:14:44am

re: #35 Thanos

Update: Broun has a press statement now

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.

That’s bullshit - he did respond to the question by saying it was understandable that people were ‘frustrated’ with the President.

This is a classic case of “I’m sorry because I got caught/this ended up in the media.”

dragonfire1981 Fri, Feb 25, 2011 10:15:31am

Regarding the Landrieu thing.

There’s been plenty of people I’ve wanted to punch in the face out of frustration over the years, but I can’t say I ever wanted to shoot someone out of frustration.

HappyWarrior Fri, Feb 25, 2011 10:21:31am

re: #33 RadicalModerate

For those of you wondering why Broun didn’t quickly chastise the town hall attendee?
This quote from the article may give you an idea of Broun’s mindset:

He also very early compared Obama to Hitler. He’s a fucking asshole.

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 10:27:41am

You know what I find fascinating?

In reading and rereading these exchanges and others, it occurred to me how some (not all) progressives are never wrong. In fact, a casual reader might get the idea that some progressives promulgate the idea that progressives and progressivism are perfect. Oh, they may pay lip service to the ‘we’re human’ meme but in the end it’s just that- lip service.

It’s funny there are a number of progressives here with whom I can have substantive conversations. Others, the moment even potential criticism is brought to bear, go into full ‘pivot and attack’ mode. I’m immediately the ‘enemy’ because I don’t agree.

It occurred to me that many progressives are the reverse side of the Tea Partyers.

Exactly the reverse side.

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 10:28:50am

re: #31 zora

speak for yourself. you seem desensitized. to some people (me) death threats or questions about the assassination of the president are always repulsive.

So clearly, the threats posed to Walker in Wisconsin upset you as well.

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 10:32:54am

re: #29 Obdicut

It’s also really bizarre that you include Maddow, who makes very, very substantial arguments, as an example of stupid rhetoric from pundits.

Maddow was just busted for being less than honest about the WI deficit- and she is supposed to have credibility.

Wasn’t the first time and it won’t be the last.

Laughing Gas Fri, Feb 25, 2011 10:36:08am

Apparently, there is an imbecile thinks that punching someone in the face is the same as killing someone.

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 10:37:50am

re: #28 Obdicut

Can you explain how it is not simply a claim?

For exactly the reason I stated: It is an example of stupid rhetoric winning out over substantial rhetoric; a disproof of your theorem.

I’d like to ask you to really, really think to yourself why you felt it necessary, in this thread, to spend so much time talking about the malfeasance of Democrats.

LOL-

You’re right- none these things ever occurred.

Of course, referring to all TPers as racist isn’t a claim.

We could move on to progressive threats and violence too, if you like.

This isn’t about balance- I could care less about that- it is about an ugly political reality that exists in politics today. To excoriate one side and not the other will only serve to maintain the status quo.

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 10:39:06am

re: #42 Juice

Apparently, there is an imbecile thinks that punching someone in the face is the same as killing someone.

You seem to be quite familiar with imbeciles. Clearly, you are an expert.

Try not to make things personal.

Obdicut Fri, Feb 25, 2011 10:41:27am

re: #39 researchok

Who are you talking about? Just to be clear.

Obdicut Fri, Feb 25, 2011 10:43:20am

re: #41 researchok

Maddow was just busted for being less than honest about the WI deficit- and she is supposed to have credibility.

Wasn’t the first time and it won’t be the last.

I’m sorry, did I claim that she was always perfect, and always right?

No. She’s not.

However, her message is normally about substantial issues— not about ‘stupid rhetoric’.

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 10:44:11am

Let me ask you- when was the last time progressive politics was off the mark, in a serious way?

Who was the last serious progressive politician you took issue with?

When was the last time progressives gave kudos to a GOP leader for being right?

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 10:45:46am

re: #46 Obdicut

I’m sorry, did I claim that she was always perfect, and always right?

No. She’s not.

However, her message is normally about substantial issues— not about ‘stupid rhetoric’.

Maddow’s rhetoric wasn’t stupid- it was deceitful.

And it wasn’t the first time.

She is show host, not a journalist.

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 10:47:42am

Obdi, you and I are not going to agree on many things- and that’s OK.

Notwithstanding our respective politics it bears remembering that even broken clocks are right twice a day.

Obdicut Fri, Feb 25, 2011 10:49:01am

re: #47 researchok

Let me ask you- when was the last time progressive politics was off the mark, in a serious way?

I’m not aware of a coherency to progressive politics, but they’re quite off the mark in terms of sustainability in many ways, and in terms of trade with other nations.

Who was the last serious progressive politician you took issue with?

All of ‘em. Kucinich especially.

When was the last time progressives gave kudos to a GOP leader for being right?

Who do you mean by progressives?

I kind of get the feeling you think I’m a progressive. I’m not.

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 10:49:17am

Arrghh…tel

Obdicut Fri, Feb 25, 2011 10:49:45am

re: #48 researchok

Maddow’s rhetoric wasn’t stupid- it was deceitful.

And it wasn’t the first time.

She is show host, not a journalist.

I don’t really care what label you slap on her. Her criticisms and shows are generally about very substantial issues, not about ‘stupid’ rhetoric.

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 10:49:54am

re: #50 Obdicut

I’m not aware of a coherency to progressive politics, but they’re quite off the mark in terms of sustainability in many ways, and in terms of trade with other nations.

All of ‘em. Kucinich especially.

Who do you mean by progressives?

I kind of get the feeling you think I’m a progressive. I’m not.

hold on a few

Obdicut Fri, Feb 25, 2011 10:50:33am

re: #49 researchok

Obdi, you and I are not going to agree on many things- and that’s OK.

So am I one of the people that you’re saying is exactly like the flip side of tea partiers? I’d really like you to name some names there.

Notwithstanding our respective politics it bears remembering that even broken clocks are right twice a day.

Not if they’re digital clocks.

tnguitarist Fri, Feb 25, 2011 10:50:35am

re: #39 researchok

It occurred to me that many progressives are the reverse side of the Tea Partyers.

Exactly the reverse side.

Good.

Obdicut Fri, Feb 25, 2011 10:51:32am

re: #48 researchok

Speaking of deceitful, you might want to read this:

[Link: maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com…]

tnguitarist Fri, Feb 25, 2011 10:53:11am

re: #47 researchok

Let me ask you- when was the last time progressive politics was off the mark, in a serious way?

Who was the last serious progressive politician you took issue with?

When was the last time progressives gave kudos to a GOP leader for being right?

When was the last time you admitted your side was wrong? Of course people think their side is right, that’s why they’re on that side. I had an argument with someone about opinions once. I’m evidently not supposed to feel strongly about my opinions. I’m confused. Isn’t that the entire meaning of opinions?

tnguitarist Fri, Feb 25, 2011 10:57:19am

Why would people “claim” that the tea party is full of racists?

Only 35 percent of those who strongly approve of the tea party agreed that blacks are hardworking, compared with 55 percent of those who strongly disapprove of the tea party.

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:35:14pm

re: #54 Obdicut

So am I one of the people that you’re saying is exactly like the flip side of tea partiers? I’d really like you to name some names there.

Not if they’re digital clocks.

No, I never made that assertion about you. In fact, just the opposite- as you know. Why you would even make that assertion is bizarre.

Secondly, I’m not going to ‘name names.’ I find that suggestion most distasteful.

Feel free to read the comments over time and make your own judgement

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:36:48pm

re: #57 tnguitarist

When was the last time you admitted your side was wrong? Of course people think their side is right, that’s why they’re on that side. I had an argument with someone about opinions once. I’m evidently not supposed to feel strongly about my opinions. I’m confused. Isn’t that the entire meaning of opinions?

Pretty much everyday.

I am no fan of the current GOP and it’s leadership. That has been my mantra for quite a while now. They have gone off the deep end IMO.

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:37:29pm

re: #56 Obdicut

Speaking of deceitful, you might want to read this:

[Link: maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com…]

Oh yeah, that went far.

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:38:02pm

re: #54 Obdicut

So am I one of the people that you’re saying is exactly like the flip side of tea partiers? I’d really like you to name some names there.

Not if they’re digital clocks.

Great argument.
/

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:38:48pm

re: #50 Obdicut

I’m not aware of a coherency to progressive politics, but they’re quite off the mark in terms of sustainability in many ways, and in terms of trade with other nations.

All of ‘em. Kucinich especially.

Who do you mean by progressives?

I kind of get the feeling you think I’m a progressive. I’m not.

Hmmm. The only progressive you can find fault with is a guy who sees UFO’s.

Anyone else?

Merryweather Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:50:38pm

re: #63 researchok

Hmmm. The only progressive you can find fault with is a guy who sees UFO’s.

Anyone else?

OK, now you’re being deliberately dishonest, or wilfully misunderstanding Obdicut. That’s clearly not what he said.

re: #50 Obdicut

All of ‘em. Kucinich especially.

I.E, Kucinich is the one he disagrees with most, and there’s at least one area in which he disagrees with all other progressives.

researchok Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:54:01pm

re: #64 Merryweather

OK, now you’re being deliberately dishonest, or wilfully misunderstanding Obdicut. That’s clearly not what he said.

re: #50 Obdicut

I.E, Kucinich is the one he disagrees with most, and there’s at least one area in which he disagrees with all other progressives.

Fair enough.

Now with which other progressive politicians does he or other progressives disagree? And why?

Obdicut Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:55:52pm

re: #59 researchok

No, I never made that assertion about you. In fact, just the opposite- as you know. Why you would even make that assertion is bizarre.

Secondly, I’m not going to ‘name names.’ I find that suggestion most distasteful.

Feel free to read the comments over time and make your own judgement

I find the fact that you’re making vague accusations without being able to point out anyone distasteful as hell.

That you write a spiel about progressives not being able to admit that they’re wrong, right after having a long conversation with me, and then find it bizarre that I’d assume i was included in that— what’s up with that?

Seriously dude, if it had nothing to do with me, or the thread, why’d you write it?

Obdicut Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:58:25pm

re: #65 researchok

Fair enough.

Now with which other progressive politicians does he or other progressives disagree? And why?

I’m not a progressive, dude. Did you miss that the first time I wrote it?

And why the hell are you asking this question?

Shiplord Kirel Fri, Feb 25, 2011 1:35:32pm

re: #1 researchok

Stupid goes both ways.

Recall the anti Bush screed of ‘Where is John Wilkes Booth now?’ and the other violent rhetoric directed at him.

Like it or not, we’ve all become desensitized to this kind of drivel.

If there is any kind of equivalence here, it is not between Republicans and Democrats, it is between the crazy right and the crazy left. Unfortunately, the crazy right has almost taken control of the GOP, while the crazy left is not within shouting distance of the Democrats.

Beyond that, as I’ve said here before, threats of lethal violence from the right are far more credible than the same from the left. Ill-mannered “anarchist” poseurs can break windows and assault passers-by from time to time, but anything they suggest beyond that is the purest fantasy. It is not so with the far right, as we have seen many times since the last presidential election.
Just off the top of my head, we had the two police officers gunned down by a noted “sovereign citizen” kook in West Memphis, the woman in California who was shot by police after she pointed a shotgun at a census worker, and the Beck inspired freak who was on his way to shoot up the ACLU and the Tides Foundation when the cops shot him instead.
A very significant number of these people take “second amendment remedies” seriously and have it within their power to put them into effect. They aren’t a majority in the tea party, at least I don’t think they are. It only takes a few though and there might well be millions of them.

lostlakehiker Fri, Feb 25, 2011 3:05:54pm

Starting with the obvious—-any talk about shooting politicians is beyond the pale. But think: if you’ve spent years steeling yourself to never react in hot anger to what one of your constituents says, then you’re not going to lay the lash to one when he/she deserves it.

But the topic seems to have moved on. AGW is the elephant in the room, and Republicans are desperately wrong about the topic. Until they come around and see reason, they’re just not eligible for national leadership. Republicans are not fit to govern until such time, if it ever comes, as they acknowledge the problem and get serious. More serious, truth be told, than even the Democrats are now.

That granted, Democrats are ahead of Republicans in the stupidity Olympics when it comes to the long term fiscal problems of the nation. The net present value of all the liabilities of the federal government toward today’s citizens, counting not just official debts, but those that it can shuck at the stroke of a pen, technically, such as medicare, medicaid, and social security, [not to mention Obama-care], less the net present value of taxes yet to be collected from today’s citizens, has been calculated by a number of eminent economists, among them, Laurence Kotlikoff.

It comes to over 50 trillion dollars. [p 75, Kotlikoff, Jimmy Stewart is Dead, who cites Jagdeesh Gokhale and Kent Smetters (Univ of PA), 77 trillion.] Or see Pgpf.org. Or ask David Walker, former chief comptroller general.

There’s just NO WAY we’re going to come up with that much. Some form of default has become inevitable. Default can take several forms. We could pare back the promises made, and pare them now. Give people a heads up on what’s in store, so they can plan. We could raise taxes as high as they can go without hitting the back side of the Laffer curve. But the long term history of the U.S. indicates that never once, not even during WW2, have federal tax receipts topped 25% of GDP. To imagine that actually collecting 30, 40, or 60 percent of all the economic activity in the nation in federal taxes is feasible, is to dream. Revenue enhancements cannot be relied upon to solve more than a tiny fraction of the problem.

We could cut expenditures while insisting we had not. The means by which social security payments are indexed to inflation could be gamed, for example. The government has lied before about inflation. [See Tricky Dicky’s history, for example.]

We could default on dollar-denominated obligations by running the printing presses. In fact, I suppose I should say that we are doing that right now. Our monetary base has more than doubled just from 2008 to 2009. [Kotlikoff, Jimmy Stewart is Dead, page 4.]

Or we could just flat out repudiate the debt, and tell T-bill holders to kiss off.

Some mix of these choices is inevitable. Every one of them is painful, but some are more painful than others. The least overall pain is bound up to the most near-term pain, and so our leaders, from both parties, offer us pablum and no pain-right-now.

The Democrats offer us a new smorgasbord of promised benefits, even as the old ones will not be paid, because they cannot be.

The Republicans, some of them, are beginning to take this problem seriously. And that’s why Democrats who don’t even have to listen to Republicans are not fit to govern single handed.

Obdicut Fri, Feb 25, 2011 3:10:22pm

re: #69 lostlakehiker

many of the things you’re listing as ‘defaults’ are not, in fact, defaults.

And you strangely claim the Democrats are worse on fiscal policy, claiming Republicans are taking it seriously. Please tell me which Republicans are taking this seriously.

lostlakehiker Fri, Feb 25, 2011 3:18:06pm

re: #70 Obdicut

many of the things you’re listing as ‘defaults’ are not, in fact, defaults.

And you strangely claim the Democrats are worse on fiscal policy, claiming Republicans are taking it seriously. Please tell me which Republicans are taking this seriously.

All of them are defaults. Some, “merely” defaults in reality, others, defaults in the technical sense as well. If the government were to announce tomorrow that social security taxes would be collected as usual going forward, but that no further benefits would be paid, that would not be a default, not in the sense you want to use the word. No level of benefits is guaranteed by law.

It would seem like a default to everybody whose check stopped coming. It is perfectly possible for an entity to default on an obligation that is merely implicit. The same holds for running the printing presses. If the U.S. were to simply print up 12 trillion dollars and hand them out to bondholders, here and abroad, and thus right their balance sheet, all bondholders would feel, quite rightly, that they’d been cheated. There’s an implicit guarantee that tomorrow’s dollar will have some sort of purchasing power.

As to serious Republicans, this is difficult to do on a name names basis. Everybody’s edging up to it. But talk of cutting billions, tens of billions, and more, from the current spending bill, is a start.

The issue of entitlement spending is in the air.

Obama’s proposed budget just airily runs another trillion dollar deficit, as though dollars were nothing. Well, at this rate, that’s exactly what they will be.

Obdicut Fri, Feb 25, 2011 3:19:54pm

re: #71 lostlakehiker

All of them are defaults.

If you redefine what ‘default is’, then yes. Increasing the monetary supply is a default to you.

Can you explain why?

Do you understand that increasing the monetary supply is not directly linked to paying bondholders? Why do you think it is?

As to serious Republicans, this is difficult to do on a name names basis. Everybody’s edging up to it. But talk of cutting billions, tens of billions, and more, from the current spending bill, is a start.

No, it’s not. It’s not serious, unless they have a realistic plan.

So your claim is wrong.

Obdicut Fri, Feb 25, 2011 3:20:44pm

re: #71 lostlakehiker

Why do you assume the liabilities are not reducible through cost controls, also?

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Fri, Feb 25, 2011 4:25:30pm

re: #41 researchok

Maddow was just busted for being less than honest about the WI deficit- and she is supposed to have credibility.

Wasn’t the first time and it won’t be the last.

Or maybe it was Politifact that was deceitful and Maddow was right?

Youtube Video

tnguitarist Fri, Feb 25, 2011 11:14:56pm

re: #69 lostlakehiker

Someone once said, “deficits don’t matter”. I can’t remember who it was, though.

Auto

This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!