Left-Wing Protesters Call For Clarence Thomas To Be Lynched
Just in case anyone really believed that “violent rhetoric” was exclusively a product of right:
H/T: QandO
FILED UNDER: US Politics, Clarence Thomas
Just in case anyone really believed that “violent rhetoric” was exclusively a product of right:
H/T: QandO
Really, this is the best you can do? Right wingers kill abortion doctors and their former Vice Presidential candidate uses eliminationist rhetoric and the best you can come with is a Breitbart provocateur getting ONE random lefty to say something stupid?
Sean,
Didn’t Obama adviser Bill Ayers belong to a group that killed or try to kill people? This example is here to make the point there are crazies on both sides so anyone trying to limit it to one side or another is just trying to blow smoke.
Oh, Bill Ayers has been downgraded to advisor? I thought he was Obama’s sponsor or patron, or possibly father…
I never could keep up with that bit of propaganda…
Steve,
What the hell? They worked together on a committee to reform public schools, a committee that was funded by long-time REPUBLICAN activists.
>Just in case anyone really believed that “violent rhetoric” was exclusively a product of right:
Please show me one single example of anyone arguing that no liberal anywhere in the USA has ever engaged in violent rhetoric.
Steve Plunk,
Since when is Bill Ayer’s an Obama adviser. As I recall, Obama met him at functions, along with thousands of others, because they were both members of the Chicago establishment. I know in the deranged minds of wingnuts, anything Rush or Glenn says is gospel, so it is pointless to even attempt to correct the record. But what he hey.
From Wikipedia:
“Investigations by The New York Times, CNN, and other news organizations concluded that Obama does not have a close relationship with Ayers.[63][64][65] In an op-ed piece after the election, Ayers denied any close association with Obama, and castigated the Republican campaign for its use of guilt by association tactics”
Of course, Marked, that omits Obama’s political “coming-out” party at Ayers’ home, their co-chairmanship of the Annenberg Challenge, Obama’s glowing review of Ayers’ book…
But I’m sure there were no racist implications in hanging Justice Thomas, because liberals can’t be racist.
J.
One would think that mere weeks after the murder of a federal judge, people wouldn’t talk about lynching, torturing, or maiming a Supreme Court Justice (let alone a black one), but I guess the liberals didn’t get that memo.
J.
>but I guess the liberals didn’t get that memo.
It’s amusing how much you unwittingly reveal about your mindset in your use of the definite article before “liberals.”
When Democratic members of Congress, national candidates, governors or gubernatorial party candidates, and hugely popular liberal media personalities start saying things like this, let us know.
The left, like the right, has a fringe population. The difference is that we ignore our nuts, while the right makes theirs into leaders.
Jay Tea –
One nut doesn’t equal all liberals any more than one nut equals all conservatives.
Historically in this country the the vast majority of violence by citizens has come from the left. This includes the socialists, eco-terrorists, and institutionalized violence against babies Deal with the seeds of your 60s “revolution” and the left’s love of anti-government demonstrations. It’s the left’s heritage and they keep trying to deny it.
Kudos for covering this, Doug.
Give that man a show on MSNBC!
mantis nailed it. The magic equivalency fairy flops.
@Gulliver,
I guess the Pinkertons and the Klan don’t count?
mantis,
Alan Grayson, Ed Schultz, Shelia Jackson Lee.
The inability of you guys on the left to see that those people are no different from the idiots on the right is the epitome of partisan blinders
Mantis:
here’s a couple off the top of my head:
Alec baldwin wanted to stone henry Hyde & his family. nobel peace prize winner betty williams would love to kill george bush. Obama saying to get in his opponents faces, to bring a gun to a knife fight, & to punish his enemies.
And the bigger problem is when people, especially from the left, try to use a nut to define the entire other side. Note the difference in msm reactions between the AZ shooter and the guy who wanted to blow up the discovery channel. Also note the reactions of most of the conservative media to the same events; most blamed the individual and not al gore.
I guess the Pinkertons and the Klan don’t count?
I’m sorry, did I miss a period of history where either one of these represented the core values of a political party?
Alan Grayson
Voted out of office after one term, and never, to my knowledge, advocated violence against fellow Americans.
Ed Schultz
Who? Oh, some guy on MSNBC that nobody watches?
Shelia Jackson Lee (sic)
Umm, ok? When did she advocate violence against fellow Americans?
The inability of you guys on the left to see that those people are no different from the idiots on the right is the epitome of partisan blinders
It’s not that there aren’t the same types of people on the left and right, but rather that you on the right elevate yours to leaders. Violent revolution, “second-amendment remedies,” “lock and load,” “armed and dangerous,” “hunting Democrats;” these are all examples of the violent fantasies of popular, prominent Republican officials and candidates.
It’s not the idiots that are different. The difference is the left doesn’t want ours at all, while the right wants theirs in charge.
Gulliver,
You said:
You never said anything about “representing the core ideals of a political party.”
THAT SAID, however, White Supremacy was the dominant political ideology of the South from the 1870s to the 1960s, and violence in the name of white supremacy far outstrips ANY left-wing political violence.
As for the Pinkerton’s, the Republicans were and remain the party of laissez-faire….
Mantis – another difference between the two examples of rhetoric from the right and left; when a conservative uses an analogy it’s a call for violence, when a liberal calls for violence it’s swept under the rug and out of the spotlight. True that.
Doug,
I asked you before, and I’ll ask you again.
I’d like you to show me one example–just one!–of a liberal commentator claiming that no liberals anywhere in the USA have engaged in violent rhetoric. If you can’t do that, then you had better retract what you said, and apologize for attacking a straw man. Otherwise, you will lose a lot of people’s respect for your intellectual integrity.
“Rather than spending the next week or two gazing into our collective navels and decrying “heated political rhetoric,” let’s focus on the victims and on making sure something like this doesn’t happen again.”
– Doug Matconis, Saturday January 9
Alec baldwin
Actor.
Betty Williams
Not even American.
Obama saying to get in his opponents faces, to bring a gun to a knife fight, & to punish his enemies.
Well, at least you picked an American politician. One out of three ain’t bad!
Sorry, but anonymously sourced quotes of Obama using metaphors don’t quite rise to the level of Republican candidates openly advocating violent revolution and secession. But let’s have a look, shall we?
“get in his opponents faces”
Hardly violent rhetoric. I get in people’s faces all the time, with never a violent moment.
to bring a gun to a knife fight
An old line from The Untouchables, in the context of fighting back against Republicans dirty tricks.
Anyway, this was probably an unwise choice of words. But unless you’re incredibly dense and don’t get the reference and the context, it does not suggest advocacy of violence. On the flipside, what could “second-amendment remedies” possibly mean except shooting people? Is that a metaphor for something?
I would also note that Obama’s statement did not result in liberals all rushing out and buying guns. Right wing rhetoric about Obama, on the other hand, has driven huge increases in gun sales and a number of deadly shootings.
“Punishing enemies”
Here’s what Obama said:
“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s going to be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.”
Now, it’s quite clear Obama is talking about “punishing” and “rewarding” by voting at the ballot box. No honest interpretation of this statement would suggest Obama is advocating punishing anyone with violence.
What I’m talking about is the huge popularity of right wing politicians, elected officials, and media personalities who explicitly, not metaphorically, advocate violence if they don’t get their way.
when a conservative uses an analogy it’s a call for violence, when a liberal calls for violence it’s swept under the rug and out of the spotlight. True that.
Tell me what “second-amendment remedies” is a metaphor for.
My primary reaction to this is disgust. I didn’t watch the video, but assuming it says what is being claimed, it’s absolutely awful. I wish the primary reaction of everybody to seeing this would be to denounce it, not to use it as a cudgel in a partisan debate.
That said, the idea that this “proves” that the left and the right are just as bad is ridiculous. The examples that Mataconis lists are, if anything, evidence of how weak that case is. The Graysons of the world have never had the platform of the Limbaughs, Becks, Levins, etc. People can make a lot of money spouting rightwing craziness because there is a hungry market for rightwing craziness because there is a lot of craziness amongst far right wingers. People can not make as much money doing the same on the left because there is no comparable market for such craziness. You would think the alleged lovers of the free market would understand this.
> Obama adviser
Bald faced lie.
> Doug,
>I asked you before, and I’ll ask you again.
>I’d like you to show me one example–just one!–of a liberal commentator claiming that no liberals anywhere in the USA have engaged in violent rhetoric.
Second that. You have wandered into bithead/Jay Tea territory with this one.
Mantis – Tell me what “second-amendment remedies” is a metaphor for.
First, try addressing my point, without diverting and disseminating (sp?)
Om second thought, don’t… I’ve got better things to do today. Ciao
“Really, this is the best you can do? ”
But this is about the extent to which reporting standards of the tea party are. Get an event with tens of thousands of people, find 2 guys in it with a sign that has racist undertones then write an entire week of articles and cable news “analysis” panels on how the tea party at large is racist at heart.
“People can not make as much money doing the same on the left because there is no comparable market for such craziness. ”
I don’t know. Olberman seemed to have been doing pretty well for himself for quite a while. How many times have we heard “racist tea bagger” thrown around as if that lable is harmless?
It also dynamic when a certain group is not in power. Those out of power are alwasy more wild with their emotions because they are angry/ upset with the status quo. Go back to the Bush years and it was mostly the left that was throwing out crazy comments as they were the ones who were enraged.
Doug can you show us examples of Shelia Jackson Lee calling for violence?
“First, try addressing my point, without diverting and disseminating (sp?)”
Oh, like you did when you typed this tripe…
“Historically in this country the the vast majority of violence by citizens has come from the left.”
…and then moved the goalposts to this…
“I’m sorry, did I miss a period of history where either one of these represented the core values of a political party?”
…it’s little wonder that you now want to run away…
@EJ: “I don’t know. Olberman seemed to have been doing pretty well for himself for quite a while.”
So you list a grand total of one person. And that person doesn’t even have a job anymore. Boy, there sure must be a huuuuuge market for leftward craziness if the most prominent leftwing blowhard just got fired by his profit-motivated corporate bosses.
You guys don’t seem to realize whose point you’re helping to prove.
We are them, they are us.
Alan Grayson and most of the rest come nowhere close to the craziness, lies, and hate regularly vomited up by the wingnut bloggers, media folks, and even some Republican leaders. That’s just more wishful thinking, Doug. Naming a name doesn’t automatically cancel out one on the other side.
TG: Not to mention that Olbermann at his worst was just an arrogant bastard. It would take 100 Olbermanns to cancel out one lunatic Beck, with his constant hatred and insane, rabble-rousing conspiracy theories.
lol…………….
Alan Grayson, Ed Schultz, Shelia Jackson Lee.
The inability of you guys on the left to see that those people are no different from the idiots on the right is the epitome of partisan blinders.
A truly ridiculous thing to say. Your side spews literally thousands of hours of insanity for every little pipsqueak of crazy that comes from our side.
And you know it. And we know you know it. So why try to pass off this bogus equivalency? All it does is earn laughs at your expense.
Hey, just applying the same standard to Common Cause and their allies that so many people applied to the Tea Party — find a few attendees and attribute their views to the entire group. But I think you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone from the Tea Party who’d go on camera advocating the torture, maiming, and lynching of a federal official of the status of a Supreme Court Justice.
And again, take a black man out and hang him? Nope, no racial elements there.
J.
> So why try to pass off this bogus equivalency?
Gotta have a lest a little wingnut cred. Hard to do when you talk sense much of the time.
> Tea Party — find a few attendees and attribute their views to the entire group.
Like the view that if you pay taxes, it is pretty much slavery? Hear that from quite a few tea party types. Hardly something a rational person would say though.
anjin, you need to pay better attention. EXCESSIVE taxation. For example, if one’s effective tax rate is 33%, then the first 20 minutes you work for the government.
But “we’re mad because we’re being treated like slaves” is comparable to torturing, maiming, and lynching a Supreme Court justice? Man, that’s some weak sauce.
J.
> But “we’re mad because we’re being treated like slaves” is comparable to torturing, maiming, and lynching a Supreme Court justice? Man, that’s some weak sauce.
Well, thats not what I said anyway, but don’t let that stop you.
> EXCESSIVE taxation. For example, if one’s effective tax rate is 33%, then the first 20 minutes you work for the government.
So you are saying President Eisenhower was a slavemaster?