"Proud Right-Wing Terrorist"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/...

News outlets that are focusing on the incendiary rhetoric of conservatives outside President Obama's town hall meeting Tuesday ignored the incendiary rhetoric -- and even violence -- of liberals outside an appearance by former President George W. Bush in 2002.

...

demonstrators bullied passers-by, including gay softball players and a wheelchair-bound grandfather with multiple sclerosis

...

BUSH: WANTED, DEAD OR ALIVE," read the placard, which had an X over the word "ALIVE

...

Although reporters from numerous national news organizations were traveling with Bush and witnessed the protest, none reported...

...

Protesters slashed the tires of several state patrol cruisers and leapt onto an occupied police car, slamming the hood and blocking the windshield with placards. A female police officer was knocked to the street by advancing protesters, badly injuring her wrist.

The angry protest grew so violent...

-----------------------------------------

Seems like violence from one side is ignored, while legal protests from the other side are greatly magnified. After all, it wouldn't do for the media to expose their base for it's true actions, would it?

Oh yeah, to you your own rhetoric about fical responsibilities that the conservatives have brought up......"where were you guys when Bush's life was being threatened?"

You guys are hacks and Guillermo is your king. You guys wrote books about how to kill a president, aimed at Bush. You had sings that threatened his life and nothing was done.

Now you want to sit here and act like it never happened and now all of a sudden it's the conservatives that want to kill a president?

Shameful and stupid. Yes Guillermo, stupid. I don't care what you got out of your liberal education but it certainly wasn't common sense.

You guys are now setting the standard for the double standard like it or not. I have to tell you it is also very entertaining watching you do it.

It's like watching someone dig their own grave.

Everytime you write another blog it gets better and lies get bigger. Very good stuff.

dawg,

I think the point is that the left actually DID these things, yet the right is painted as the "dangerous right-wingnuts."

I don't see how you continually come on here, Justin, and swear up and down that you "don't bat for either team". Your bias is obvious and you pretend to be some kind of in betweener and you aren't. I'm at least honest where I stand, so to is Mr. Eldridge, and many other posters that come on this site.

You talk about wanting an apology for character assassination, yet you do the exact same thing.

What exactly have I lied about in this blog Justin? Can you point that out?

You seriously believe that all this was started with Janet Napolitano? Seriously? These groups have been seeded in this country far longer than most of us have been alive and you are actually going to sit there and blame the current administration for what is going on?

You talk about character assassination and then you simply make up what is going on.

You know full well that if any Democrat or liberal stood up in the years following 9/11 and called themselves a terrorist they would have been touted as a traitor, yet somehow today, a Republican saying it is somehow a joke? I'm sorry but I don't buy that line of bull. I'm sorry that in these times calling yourself a terrorist is some kind of joke to you but for me and a majority of Americans, the word terrorist still emote a level of fear.

If you want to defend the man that's fine, but don't act like you know what he was thinking. There have been no videos posted of the interaction and he has not been interviewed himself, so you can't (nor can I) assume to know what he was thinking. If if was joke it was in poor taste and sullies the memories of all American killed by terrorism (9/11, Oklahoma City, Lockerbie, etc etc).

You are not here to remind anyone of anything except for your despise for everything Democratic. I have not one time on ANY of these blogs seen you even put a Republican in a bad light, so don't pretend to be some great mediator, because you aren't.

Mike, you ignored everything I said and you know why. It doesn't fit your crazy message. It is you that throws me into the GOP party not me. Why don't I target GOPer's?

Maybe because there are far fewer of them systematically dismantling this country!

Can I or have I ever said there are no crooked republicans? NO! I see it everyday. Simply by them being in Washington and being exposed to lobbyists makes them prime candidates for corruption and the odds are in favor of corruption.

And your lies, well when do I have that much time. you repetedly try to pass your opinions off as facts. Your GITMO comments for example. Do you have proof that every single detainee was tortured for 3-4 years? NO! It's your assumption.

The fact that you claim to not be able to intelligently tell the difference between a man that is clearly using Homelands Security's verison of profiling against conservatives to speak out against it by intentianlly being outragious means you are either incredibly stupid, or you cannot debate me on an even playing field. You have to call me a racist as you have before, or a homophobe, or now you are calling me an assaination condoning terrorist.

Well, that's pretty much par for this course. You can't win a debate so you fall back to your typical tactics.

I think people can read for themselves. I never advocated that, only tried to explain to you why someone would say that and you turned it into me saying that free speech is only for conservatives, and not for liberals.

I think you are mad beyond belief and you'l say anything. I think you should roll your blog back to when I said now that we tasted Obama, Clinton was one of the best since Reagan. I know you'll deny it because you could give a crap.

Just as lonf as you and your boys can trash people like me that aren't buying the garbage we're getting from Washington.

Also, that's why I've been calling it Washington, or simply DC for that last 8 months.

But you're right Mike, I'm just hear attacking liberals like Sam. Whatever. hack

I think the comment had something to do with Nancy Pilosie's (not sure how her name is spelled) comment saying that anybody who is against Obama care is un-American and reffered to people showing up at town hall meetings as a bunch of mobsters. People like me are outraged that the speaker of the house would say such a thing.

I'm going to try posting that link again.

http://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death....

G.I.,

I suppose a fundamental difference between us would also be that I don't automatically assume the worst about people. This man was not intimidating anyone, he was simply there being a responsible gun owner exercising his right. The only threat is the one you made up in your head.

The man obviously had concerns about his gun rights so he went there with the intention to show he still enjoyed his right to carry his gun openly in public. It's not like he was standing guard over something or patrolling an area to prevent anyone entry to any given place. He was just there carrying his gun in a responsible manner. In fact, he's an example of why people should be allowed to carry weapons in public. He didn't threaten anyone and he was not careless with his weapon. He has shown that even at a public demonstration, a person can responsibly handle a firearm. Oh wait, he was the responsible owner, I forgot that you only give credence to the the extremely minute minority who actually harm someone.

One Harvard study from either 2003 or 2004 (I forget which year) estimated there were 57 million gun owners in the country. Around 10-11,000 homicides are attributed to guns each year. We'll go with 11,000 though. That means for every one homicide committed by a criminal, there are over 5,000 responsible gun owners. Of course, that's assuming one gun owner is responsible for only one homicide, so there are likely far more than 5,000 gun owners to every one criminal. Yet, the focus is only on the one criminal and not the 5,000+ law abiding gun owners such as the man at this protest.

The man was not threatening anyone. Therefore, no reason to be worried about homicide gun deaths. He wasn't threatening to shoot himself. Therefore, no reason for suicide gun deaths. The only thing left is accidental gun deaths which would pertain to his specific situation which would be dependent on the condition of his firearm, his safety precautions, handling of the firearm and unforeseen circumstances that no one could predict.

If I was using suicide figures to compare this situation which had absolutely nothing to do with a suicide or an attempted suicide then that would be misleading. If I was using homicide figures to compare to this situation which had absolutely nothing to do with a homicide or attempted homicide, there wasn't even any injury, attempted injury or threat of injury to anybody. So using those figures regarding this man's situation would be misleading.

It's too bad that liberals see the free exercise of an individual's gun rights as a threat to themselves. Liberals have always been hypersensitive about guns so it figures that they would automatically assume that a person with a gun in public is a threat to them when they're not. However, a person shouldn't be afraid to freely exercise their rights because a bunch of hypersensitive liberals are afraid of seeing a gun. Of course, that fear would be right in line with that of a French phisospher. I know you probably have all sorts of admiration for Pierre the Philosopher but I think I'll put "symbolic violence" on my list of overthought and overpublished concepts, right up there with the "Hawthorne Effect".

This is one issue that liberals will just never understand. We don't carry these guns ANYWHERE to scare you. If we do it on a regular day, then we are doing it to exercise our rights, for protection and as a deterrant to actual criminals, all the while hoping that we don't actually have to use it.If we're doing it at a protest then it's to celebrate our rights and maybe even to rub it in a liberal's face that we can still do this despite their best efforts to stop it but nothing is being done to scare anybody. After the man that was relentlessly attacked by union thugs, it also serves as a deterrant to attacks from criminals at protests too. I bet the union thugs wouldn't have messed with that guy if he was able to carry a gun openly. They were criminals and they would have been deterred from committing that act of violence.

Heck, if anything we would want liberals to get over their fear of guns. They're never going to get over that fear if we hide our guns away where they can't see them and they continue to have wild fantasies about evil guns run amok on the nation. Maybe this will show people that a person can handle a weapon without using it to threaten or harm another.

The main reason I don't have a problem with this is because the man was known to the police and Secret Service, he didn't try sneaking it in and he wasn't allowed in front of the President as he was standing in place anywhere or up close. The Secret Service has to take certain measures to go way above and beyond what is necessary to protect the President and they did the same in this case. If the Secret Service saw this man as even a hint of a threat then they would have removed him and that has nothing to do with who is President.

Mike, I must admit, I only read eight or ten comments, and came down to simply comment, and leave.

If I remember my education rightly, Historian's, and History Teachers had one unbending rule to be honorably successful, 'Present only True Fact.'

After reading your article, I must state that you have failed your calling, because I am quite sure you know where that 'right wing terrorist' bit came from, Senior, Liberal, leaders of our country. Although you may not read, nor heed, I say: "Shame on you, sir." Your bias is, in my opinion, more dangerous to freedom than sworn enemies of our way of life.

Perchance you are addicted to the publicity, more than you should be?

In Messiah. Arley Steinhour

Hey bigdawg, who are you to decide that my character needs to be assasinated as you put it, simply because you are not smart enough to understand the words comming out of my keyboard?

I think that's all this really comes down to. You don't get it, so you think that I deserve to be assasinated. Wow. Brainpower at work there.

I guess if I'm too stupid then we sure have a problem in this country. With my bachelor's degree, dean's list plaque, several professional certifications to my record, as well as owning a successful business, you're right, I'm clearly not a smart man.

I am smart enough to know what happens when governments grow too large and powerful and take wealth from producers to spread around as THEY see fit.

It's a shame you don't, otherwise I could congradulate you on being a smart man.

Don't worry, I stretched first. Don't want to pull a hammie!

At this point there is no reason really to get into an intelligent discussion about health care reform on this site, because the other side keeps feeding the same debunked lines over and over and over ad nauseam.

The truly sad thing is the defense of the multi-billion dollar insurance companies. One of the weirdest defenses is if the government does get the public option, THAT will somehow put ALL the insurance companies out of business and that is just beyond ludicrous.

But my favorite line came from a Republican, who when he was stating why he didn't support the public option, actually said, the people deserve a choice. Um, duh, that's the point of the public option. Here's the amazing thing about the public option. If you don't want government insurance, YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE IT. Amazing how OPTIONS work.

Mike,

You really do carefully ignore the fact that government "options" tend to put private "options" out of business quite swiftly. It probably has just a little bit to do with the fact that private "options" have to get people to pay a fair price...while government "options" can simply tax it out of you.

To you and GI, I'd like to note that OUR CONSTITUTION gives us the RIGHT to carry guns.

It does NOT give the federal government the right to suck down 30 or 40 or 50% of our money to support all the "vote-for-me" programs the Democrats can dream up.

As Jefferson said, "To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

(Isn't it funny that the "wall of separation" quote is so prevalent, yet this one is NEVER mentioned by Democrats??)

G.I.,

Now a person can't exercise his rights without automatically being labeled a symbolic threat. I'm sorry but it IS actually possible for a person to legally carry a gun in a protest without the intent to threaten a bunch of overreacting liberals. You think these "threats" are en vogue when, in reality, its these "rights" that are en vogue. I'm actually curious what this man said or did other than exercise his gun rights that absolutely convinces you that he was there to threaten anybody. It's actually your type of argument that will cause more people to carry guns at these protests because they will be there to show you they can carry guns anywhere responsibly but you'll continue to tell them they're not exercising their rights, they're just trying to threaten the President and liberals.

You were the one who said it was only liberals and the President who were threatened. So I was talking about those liberals who you thought were threatened and liberals in general. The most terrifying threat to liberals was their own overactive imagination.

Of course I know all liberals aren't afraid of guns and not all of them have a problem with gun rights but most of them do. I'm not going to put "except for some" every time I use the word liberal because it covers them quite accurately.

You're so caught up with being overly PC that someone might be afraid of hurting your feelings because they didn't clarify every possible meaning of every word for you. Fortunately, I don't have that problem so I will continue to use the word "liberal" to refer to the wide-held views of the vast majority of liberals. If that's not PC enough for you then you'll just have to get over it because I don't play those PC games.

I can address you and liberals at the same time. So, if you're having a hard time keeping up then just continue to let me know and I'll bring you up to speed.

G.I.,

The reason I don't feel there is a threat by people exercising their right to carry a weapon in public is because they are not there for the purpose of making threats at people. For example, if I go to a skeet shoot, I'm not threatened because nobody is there with the intent to threaten anyone else. The same holds true for these protests, nobody is there to threaten anyone else. They are simply there to exercise their rights.

If you want to have your own personal misperception about this guy being a threat then go ahead but don't try telling us that he showed up with the intent to threaten others.

I always assumed when using the term "liberals" that people would not overreact or automatically assume I'm referring to each and every individual liberal. Unfortunately, you're a lot more touchy about it than I thought so let me try this out... Liberals love America except for the ones who don't. Liberals oppose gun rights except for the ones who don't. Liberals love capitalism except for the ones who love socialism and except for those who like something in between and except for those who don't know what they like. Hmmm... I think I'll go with my way.

Yes, it is much easier but contrary to liberal philosophy on policy, you don't always have to make things harder than what is necessary (except for the liberals who don't subscribe to that philosophy). Easy is not always lazy or ignorant as you want to believe, it can also be very efficient provided you have an understanding. I've already laid out the fact that when I use the term "liberal" I don't refer to every single liberal on the planet and now you know so I don't have to spell that out every time I use the term. You can call it lazy, ignorant or anything else you want, because I know what is meant and if you don't know what I'm referring to by now then spelling it out every time won't help you either.

haven't responded to you in a while g.i. just wondering if you read many of mikes' posts?

mc1, in the future, would you please assume that assumption is the exclusive purview of the left

do you see any hypocrisy in his posts? i do, therefore, i believe when he posts of hypocrisy, he is only doing that which he so vehemently decries. i have asked several times for links to some of his statements; to date, i have received none. so that liberal, at least, i perceive to be a party hack with very little validity. of course, liberals will perceive me to be the same way. once again, we get nowhere.

ooooops; sorry for the second missive. lost train of thought when called to phone

The jefferson quotes Iggy brought up sure makes this jefferson character seem like a fool.

Quillermo's actually right...about the hypocracy.

Now about the 16 amendment. I'm not a lawyer, and therefore don't read like one. So, it doesn't just jump right out at me that amendment 16 trumps artilce 1, section 8 about equall taxation.

Maybe it does, I don't know. That's the trouble with reading an article like that. It's kinda like reading an old Bible, if you don't speak King James of the 16th century, it's hard to understand.

back to Guillermo and the hypocracy of out debating. It makes sense that when one believes so much what he's saying it can lead to anger, frustration, etc. That's the nature of politics now. We have leaders that are polarizing everyone with hard stances at each end.

What IU have been saying this whole though, is that a lot of what is being forced on us is socialism and it is. When you are taking money from one person to aid another buy food, to make rent payments, get free healthcare, buy damn car, etc. It's nmone other than socialism.

Where the likes of Mike are running aground is when they think people like me are oppsed to doing anyhting about the issues that these dear sweet liberals are going to fix over night.

We have to be very suspect about government on BOTH sides of the aisle. In my opinion what everyone is arguing over in almost every case is the band-aid to fix the booboo, not the actuall solution.

The healthcare issue is not where to get the funds to add 50 million more Americans and illegal aliens. The root of the problem is why the hell does the hospital cost so damn much for the average Joe? that's what needs explored!

I just think that the reason these peoblems aren't honestly being dealt with is the money getting into the back pockets in Washington. We all know it does anyway, I don't have any fantasies about how honest Washington is these days.

both sides of the aisle have let us down, not one group.

I just think the solutions to these problems are also going to hurt a little bit. It may be hard to do. We as Americans are always looking for an easy way out, or an easy way in. What our energy solution requires us to conserve a great deal more? Electricity curfews. Rolling blackouts, just like watering restrictions? Less computer time, less Facebook and blogging and more reading next to 25 watt cfl bulb.

I am a conservative and I also believe in taking care of our planet and being responsible. I'm not a tree hugger. After reading about the Great Pacific Garbage patch I decided to recycle all of my household and business plastic. We also recycle aluminum. I am replaceing all my incandescent bulbs with cfl's. I also shut my AC off more often and the lights when not needed.

Now, when my government comes out and says that we are going to save the planet with huge taxation on virtually everything you will ever own or need, and all the money will go to Washington, that makes me suspicious. Can't we just make the laws? Why do they need all this money going to Washington?

Because it's not about doing good, it about increasing revenue to fund more social programs. Why can't we save the planet without the government? I'm doing what I can with what very little money I have. If I were rich like a senator I would do even more.

Why doesn't the government use the computer networking technology that is advancing the rest of the world. Everyone from the president all the way down to to guys that clean the tires on Limo One can fly around the world to take another co worker to coffee! The carbon that is being released by the government is staggering and a waste. The carbon enmmited by these jets is just rediculous, and the government flies like the rest of us drive!

When you stop and look at it none of it adds up to naything more than government control. We would do so much better as a society if we controled it ourselves and cut government out of it.

That anyone would stand up at a town hall meeting and pointedly describe themselves as a right wing terrorist, whether in jest or not, is plain scary.

The far right and the far left are equally scary, for both groups do share the same mistaken belief that religious and political extremists throughout the ages have shared, namely, they are "right" and everyone else is wrong and they are willing to die for their extreme views.

Not all the government does is "right" nor is all the government does "wrong", but by combining the tenets of capitalism with the rational realization some government oversight is necessary and desirable, we are lucky to live in a country under a government that has created the most prosperous civilization the world has ever known. And truly, the best is yet to be, warts and all, the republic will endure, be it attacks from the far right or attacks from the far left, the best is yet to be, unless we as a nation become so intolerant of one another that our great nation crumbles at the foundation due to that intolerance.

G.I.,

I'm glad we've come to the understanding that you only perceive a threat. Just because you have the perception of a threat, does not establish intent on that man's part.

I would gauge your statement on Christians with your prior statements on Christians and deduce the fact that you are referring to a specific portion of Christians but not every specific one. Of course, that would require the ability to reason which you seem to consider lazy and ignorant but that's the way I'll continue to do it despite your opinion on the matter.

If I wanted to extend your belief system to all liberals then I would have done so but instead I explained MY use of the term liberal so that in the future, we can focus on the actual issue being discussed and not semantics. If you won't accept that definition now then why should I expect you to accept it in the future anyway?

G.I.,

Based on the man's statements and the responsible handling of his weapon, the logical explanation would not lead a reasonable person to still believe he arrived with the intention of threatening anyone.

You say that he showed up with the intent to be a threat and that is an assumption based on the fact he was carrying a gun according to his rights and your perception of a threat. My assumption that he did not arrive with the intent to be a threat to anyone was based on his statement and how he conducted himself with his weapon. Like I've said earlier, you wanted to assume the worst and I refused to do that.

My parameters only require a decent memory and an understanding. If you lack the understanding or have poor memory then just say so. I'll try my best to accomadate you but I'm not going to waste time with every post because you want to argue the minutiae of every term someone uses every time they use it.

thanks for the reply on mikes hypocrisy (and yes, i certainly am guilty of it, also) it just turns my crank so see/hear someone whine of hypocrisy, then indulge in the same activity.

Isn't hypocrisy ironic?

Husker,

Irony and hypocrisy can coexist but it would really depend on a specific set of actions. Say a drunk driver kills someone's wife. Then, a month later that person is driving drunk again with his wife in the car this time and another drunk driver kills that man's wife. That would be tragically ironic but not hypocrisy. If he condemned the man for driving drunk then that would be hypocrisy because he was doing the same and it would also be ironic because he was condemning a man for doing the exact same thing he had done before. So it really still falls on each person's situation and their actions.

I guess with Iggy around, we must be very very specific in our terminology, and not just be a part of the discussion. But just exactly what did the Shoulder launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon (SMAW) add to the discussion. Can they be legally owned by the common citizen?

Hmmmm...So...Would the assumption that a man carrying a gun is a threat in a specific organized setting, but not a threat in another specific organized setting be hypocrisy or ironic??

If he were at a protest to fight for his rights to carry a weapon (outside of a senator/presidential "town hall" meeting) it is completely appropriate.

But to carry that same weapon, in the same responsible manner by the same man (outside of a senator/presidential "town hall" meeting) over a - let's say - health insurance debate. And then to label him a threat in only one circumstance...is that hypocrisy...ironic...ironic socratic dramatic hypocrisy...or perhaps a double standard?

I fully realize that in one circumstance he is showing support for the debate directly related to the weapon...but the question isn't what are they debating...the question is how is he a (perceived) THREAT in one situation, but not another?

I'm just unclear whether you're trying to convince everyone that he is a threat at the Obama Care meeting...or if you're trying to convince yourself that he isn't a threat at a pro-gun rally.

"If you can prove that Obama actually is acting knowingly and maliciously against the best interests of the country, and prove that Rev. Wright's sermons had influenced him in such a way as to threaten our country, you may have a point. I can do that with the anti-Obama pastor and his minion."

You cannot prove what the demonstrators intention was...this is only your opinion.

Keep in mind that I am not trying to defend this specific person (he may be a loon). But you have no more facts that he was there to do harm than I do about the President and his intentions. Was he arrested? Did he make a threat? You are judging him based on his (alleged) participation in a sermon. Yet you let the President have a free pass.

Difference is that I admit they are similar. You are willing to hurt your credibility by hypocritically choosing one scenario over the other as acceptable.

You have been sensitive about being labeled a liberal in this blog, yet your posts have shown your true colors. You defend the President relentlessly regardless of the situation. You are obviously against the 2nd amendment. You are proud of the accomplishments of one of the biggest liberals in history, Senator Ted Kennedy. And don't forget your other liberal hero, Barney Frank.

Why can't you just come out of the closet and admit you are a liberal. Haven't you heard...it's "in" now. You are supposed to be the so-called majority now. It's not the dirty little word it was a few years ago.

Just come out and say it. You are against gun ownership (at least in anyplace other than the shooting range - for now).

I'll start so you can follow...I'm a proud right wing conservative. Now you follow up, then we can at least have it out in the open and have an honest debate.

"I see you made no effort to try and establish any to support your claim that the Pres is a 'threat.'"

Go back and reread. I said that I would concede that he is as much a threat as the president is for his participation. I have no proof, but you have made the claim that you do.

"It is not alleged, he was in attendance, and the next day he was at the rally with a weapon shouting about abortion...don't be obtuse."

You got that from CNN...I will continue to call it alleged until a credible news organization can back it up.

"I own an SKS and a 9mm Beretta, why would I be against gun ownership?"

That doesn't mean you aren't against the 2nd amendment. It means you are a hypocrite. Just as the good senators are trying to give us all a different set of laws to live by than what they have to abide by (including health insurance).

"Rigidity is also stupid and annoying."

Rigidity should have been you sign on name.

"I however do have proof that the guy carrying that weapon was a threat. A reasonable person would logically conclude..." is not proof anymore than: A reasonable person would logically conclude that the President is a threat to the Country due to his ties with Reverend Wright. (He is the god-father of one of his children for crying out loud). There is quite a difference between opinion and proof. That is another stereotypical flaw of Liberals in general - welcome to the club. It's not your fault though. Maybe "opinion" hasn't shown up in your "Word of the Day" calendar yet.

I am not trying to tell you what you believe...I am telling everyone else what you believe since you are avoiding our original debate. Irrelevent of what this specific man's intentions were, you stated a position against people carrying firearms to organized events (other than specifically for gun support). If I'm not mistaken, the 2nd Amendment provides for the right to bear arms at places other than just pro gun rallies and firing ranges.

Simply owning a gun doesn't make you a proponent of the 2nd Amendment. There are many celebrities, politicians and sports figures out there that are against the 2nd Amendment, yet still carry a weapon or have armed bodyguards. Based on your previous statements, your views appear to be no different.

Regarding my sign on name..."based on a struggling local sports team"...that may be the only accurate statement you have made. Maybe you should stick to the sports blogs.

Agreed.