Put the Fear of Something Into Them
It sure is hard to be a criminal legislator in this day and age. Steny Hoyer explains:
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is warning that some of his Democratic colleagues are being threatened with violence when they go back to their districts — and he wants Republicans to stand up and condemn the threats.
The Maryland Democrat said more than 10 House Democrats have reported incidents of threats or other forms of harassment about their support of the highly divisive health insurance overhaul vote. Hoyer emphasized that he didn’t have a specific number of threats and that was just an estimate.
What that last line tells you is, this Politico report is totally bereft of any actual facts. Generally, those are things I like to find at least one or two of in a news report, but let’s set that aside.
The important part is this: If this abominable, unconstitutional, usurperous, injurious, unsustainable and ruinous new health care law has a mere ten legislatures afraid for their safety, then this country might already be too far gone to save itself.
UPDATE: Going through my referral logs, it’s (almost) sad how little power Kos wields on Twitter. For the once-king of the political blogosphere, that’s got to be sobering.
Yikes — sobriety!
Anyway, I’ll say it again — Kos is so ’07.
World’s smallest [expletive deleted] violin.
These people think that it’s fine to initiate force against me, should I happen to disagree with them about my health insurance needs and have the temerity to act on my judgment. There are only two basic ways for people to interact — persuasion and force. They made their choice; they set the terms. Now they can live with it. They threaten us with force when we disagree with them; I have no problem seeing them face similar threats in response.
If they want their rights respected, they should try respecting ours.
The odds are next to zilch that Tea Party advocates are threatening any elected officials with physical violence. If anything, it could very well be leftists pretending to be conservatives. Playing the part of a “Moby” is a standard left-wing tactic. We have every right to demand evidence to back up these allegations.
As I said above — the Politico wrote a fact-free story.
“The important part is this: If this abominable, unconstitutional, usurperous, injurious, unsustainable and ruinous new health care law has a mere ten legislatures afraid for their safety, then this country might already be too far gone to save itself.”
In other words, you’re disappointed that there aren’t more death threats. That makes you a supporter of terrorism–so long as it’s terrorism in support of your own ideological agenda.
Cute. Objectively pro-terrorist tough guys.
This was nothing more than a reworked version of Bob Dole’s proposals from 1994. But it gives you a pretext to threaten violence because your political adversaries took power and got something done.
What a crappy excuse for Americans. All the machismo, none of the principles.
Geekesque –
Neat formulation, except of course for the epic fail.
Terrorists flying airliners full of civilians into office towers as part of their wet dream of global tyranny is a far cry from wanting to keep liberty-stealing politicians looking over their shoulders on the off chance their might be some tar and feathers coming their way.
I’m sure you knew that already, but thanks for playing anyway.
Same reply goes to Chez D., too, of course.
The dems remind me of the Nazis in WWII where they’d come up with something that could be fearful to people and whip up hysteria that is totally unnecessary; boo-hoo, the poor dems being picked on by those mean, heartless repubs.
Usurp: To seize and hold (the power or rights of another, for example) by force or without legal authority.
You’re saying the law passed by people who didn’t have legal authority.
Step away, take a breath, and realize that these people were properly elected, and they followed through on a campaign promise. That’s not usurpatory (“usurperous” is not a word). You can disagree with it all you want, and you should work to elect people who more properly represent your point of view. But “usurpers”? That’s just provably false.
Bryan,
“Usurperous” is archaic (I Googled), and fun to use. Try it!
These people were indeed properly elected — although the man in the White House was elected on a very firm “no mandates” plank. Oops. But by what constitutional authority have they enacted this legislation?
I stand by every word I used. I’m only sorry I didn’t use more of them, and with added extra bonus outrage.
“Terrorists flying airliners full of civilians into office towers as part of their wet dream of global tyranny is a far cry from wanting to keep liberty-stealing politicians looking over their shoulders on the off chance their might be some tar and feathers coming their way.”
You are advocating terrorism, as defined by US statute.
“the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets”
http://terrorism.about.com/od/whatisterroris1/ss/DefineTerrorism_5.htm
You want the threat of physical violence to influence the political process. Just like the Taliban do. And they use the same overblown rhetoric you do to justify their embrace of terrorism.
Geekesque –
This country has a fine tradition of tarring & feathering, and one I’ve come to the reluctant conclusion needs to come back.
If the US Government considers that terrorism, consider the source.
Meanwhile, you accuse me of terrorism for supporting liberty? The fail is so epic it can’t be described, even comedically.
@ 11. Geekesque
You are an Agent Provocateur, also a fool.
May the Bird of Paradise fly up your nose.
Does that qualify as advocating terrorism ?
Assault and battery on an elected official is the stuff of beer halls in Bavaria in the 1930′s.
Yes, yes, yes — defense of liberty, abortive attempt to install Nazism — same dif.
Geek, you’re banned.
Exactly how far does your condoning of violence against us “Nazi” liberals go? HOW FAR?
That depends entirely on how much violence is done to our liberties by your idiotic policies. Right now, tar & feathers still seem extreme. Tomorrow? It’s in your hands.
Interesting, however, that even though you oh-so-cleverly used scare quotes, the Nazi references all seem to be coming from one direction.
Or, to put it in fewer words: Epic fail.
Or, as a new corollary to Murphy’s Law: Godwin was an optimist.
So you’re directly calling me a Nazi? Is that correct? And exactly what are you prepared to do about it?
Please –
Not that I ever thought you were in any danger of making any, but you’re not making sense.
I still haven’t used the word Nazi, except in reference to a comment by you. And your partner in ideological violence, “Geekesque” made not-so-veiled references to the Munich Beer Hall Putsch. Meanwhile, I remain firmly on the nice side of Godwin’s Law.
As for what I’m prepared to do, currently I’m supporting various states’ attorneys general attempts to block this legislation, and would support any civil actions as well. And I’ll give whatever amount of money I can afford to give to any congressional or senate candidate running on a “Repeal It!” platform.
This law is plainly unconstitutional, and radically moves forward the day this country reaches insolvency.
If the courts fail? That day frankly scares me. And it’s scared thousands (millions?) of other otherwise-law abiding citizens into Tar & Feathers Mode. That should give you some idea of just how far the Democratic majority has overstepped its authority, using bribery and threats to slenderly pass legislation facing a veritable landslide of public disapproval.
Am I angry? You bet. But as the old song says, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
That’s all you losers have left now… fear, hatred and violence.
You were given over 200 amendments to this bill for zero votes… I hope the wussy dems have learned their lesson now. Give the right NOTHING. They don’t deserve the time of day.
I’m enjoying reading these more off the cuff comments from you Stephen
I’d like reading you engaging in the comments more often. Fierce rhetoric expressed passionately but calmly will carry the day. Rhetorically speaking I’d like to see the left and right fighting with knives, in the halls of congress in the print and electric media as well as on the internet. I firmly believe that the conservative message in more amendable to impassioned but well reasoned and calmly fought verbal combat. Good work.
Forsooth, I durst not parlay with a man who will palter with archaic words. Shrive me, sirrah.
Anyway, you’re just adding to the uninformed chaos, and I think you know it. I’ll keep looking forward to a return to civil debates. We have speech and reasoning, there’s no excuse for throwing bricks.
Poncho –
Name an amendment of substance. Just one. No? Sorry, but thanks for playing. And in even playing the amendment game, the GOP has proven to be, well, just as craven as I ever expected it to be. Maybe they’ll find some huevos somewhere down the line, but I’m not betting on it.
Bryan –
I think you’re getting into the spirit with the archaic words, but you might want to tone it down a bit. One or two, used sparingly, might prove more useful. On the other hand, I was never one to stand in the way of having fun with the English language — the world’s most practical and playful.
On the other thing, please don’t assume my motivations are anything more (or less) than exactly what I claim — for that’s a game that doesn’t amuse me.
At Bryan J Busch: The reason for throwing rhetorical bricks at each other is that the right has finally come to the realization that this has been a fight to the death for almost a century. I do mean this quite literally. The time has come to crush the left and eliminate it as a viable force in our political, social and cultural life.
Uh, excuse me, I hate to interrupt, but could someone make a list of the many, many times Democrat legislators have come out and condemned violence perpetrated by their own.
Surely, Barney apologized for sending ACORN armed with bats to the homes of the bankers, after having donated their addresses.
Obama apologized for threats of pitchforks to those same bankers,
and yes, of course, several Congressmen came out and condemned the actions of SEIU when they put Kenneth Gladney in the hospital.
No?
But, of course, SEIU officials apologized.
No?
And the Black Panthers threatening voters with sticks during the elections? Condemnations. Apologies. The DOJ prosecuted them to the fullest.
No?
Oh.
Stephen,
Let’s not forget our local “violent” attack on a democratic headquarters. The head of the Colorado party wasted no time blaming the hate on the right. The police had caught one of the perpetrators red handed and he (she?, the papers where never real clear on this) turned out to be a gender confused bicycle comune anarchist who’d been on the Dem’s payroll(REALLY, YOU CAN’T MAKE THIS STUFF UP). The Dem stuck to the “right wing hate” line in the face of the facts.
If there were any threats, why should I believe they were anything but astroturf from the left?
Aqua,
Good summary. Insty has a good roundup including bullets in windows of Republican campaign headquarters, smashed windows, mobs, etc. Not recalling any condemnation or apologies on these either, or even much interest in the news. I tend to think it sad if the Right ends up resorting to the petty violence that the Left has used for years, but no Lefty gets to get indignant about it for sure.
Mark,
Do you have a link for that? I’d love to show it to a few people who are convinced that agent provocateurs are nothing but a bitter fantasy by angry, violent, fascistic, right-wing tea-baggers. My aunt being one of them. She’s completely convinced I’ve gone off the deep end. We’ve been going toe-to-toe on Facebook, which makes for amusing times for the rest of the family….
awww…Some one piddle aw over his jammies…
Come on then, if you think you’ve got the stones.
We won’t put up with playground bullies. And nobody has ever, ever been worried about an internet tough guy.
Either grow up or secede, we’re tired of this.
Stephen, you mentioned that the law is “plainly unconstitutional”. Care to expand upon that?
Feel free to add in some supercool internet memes in your response (e.g. “fail” and/or “thanks for playing”) to make yourself seem less like an old, angry, uninformed, and unaware hack.
Lumpy,
I’m not a snarky uber-cool blogger like Stephen, but I think he may be referring to the individual mandate feature of the law. It appears at least 13 state AG’s agree with Stephen on this one. Of course they lack the wit, wisdom, and pure genius of you, so perhaps they are wrong.
They may also lack the wit, wisdom, and pure genius of John Adams.
http://open.salon.com/blog/paul_j_orourke/2010/03/24/news_pres_signs_h-care_insurance_mandate-212_years_ago
“Grow up or secede” I second that. You people are all talk!
P.S. I’ve now seen your pic online Mr. Drunkpundit, and let’s just say my underwear doesn’t need changing.
Chris L.,
I’ll make it easy for you. Yes, in the asinine lawsuit’s third count, the 13 AGs (who may or may not have read the pleading) state:
“The Act forces citizens and residents to have healthcare coverage or pay a tax penalty. In effect, the Act compels said persons to have healthcare coverage, whether or not they wish to do so, or be subject to sanction. The Act thus compels persons to perform an affirmative act or incur a penalty, simply on the basis that they exist and reside in the United States.”
On this (and Mr. Green’s sage advice), I think you should file a lawsuit against the mandate that you have car insurance- the founders always HATED car insurance. Perhaps you should also try to declare EMTALA (passed in ’86 under Reagan) unconstitutional too. While you’re at it, you can join the 2,000 other dingbats who have filed suit in federal courts claiming that the federal gov’t has no right to tax your income.
I wish you the very best of luck.
Read the act in question. It’s a payroll tax. It is collected by the sea captain and given directly to the government, for a specific governmental purpose. The seaman is not being asked to purchase something, just contribute to a fund that could be of use to him someday. The seaman can stop paying the tax by leaving the service. I also note that the act specifically talks about vessels returning from a foreign port, which suggests that the payroll tax might involve people who are not US citizens, and that the authority is to do it is coming from the interstate commerce clause.
Lumpy,
Here’s the deal. If I don’t want to buy car insurance, I don’t have to own a car. This mandate says I need to buy insurance just to breath.
Oh and car insurance is a state mandate. The U.S. Constitution does not apply.
OK, let’s go through this again, and pay attention so we all get it this time, class.
1. Many, but not all, states mandate that you carry LIABILITY insurance for your car IF you have a car. Liability insurance covers damages that you do to somebody else, or somebody else’s property. The purpose of liability insurance is to protect society against you if you are an idiot. You do not need to purchase this if you ride the bus, or train, or subway, or hitch rides with your friends, or bike, or…. anything else of your choosing.
2. You may CHOOSE to purchase additional insurance such as comprehensive or collision but nobody forces you to. These cover your own property.
3. IF you purchase any of the above insurance, companies offer multiple plans to vary along the axis of coverage vs. affordability. Such as, I can run the deductible up to $2000 on my comprehensive policy and the premium goes down quite a bit. I can thus choose how much coverage I want.
Health insurance covers you and you only, not societal risks. You cannot opt out of it by choosing to act differently. And to boot, this law takes away many options such as HDHPs which people choose today to limit their health costs. Health insurance also is not a risk pool (except for the portion that covers catastrophic expenses) but rather a cost fixing and cost sharing arrangement.
So, in no way other than the fact that the word “insurance” is involved are car insurance and health insurance related. Come back when the feds mandate that you purchase a car, that you purchase comprehensive and collision, that you have a deductible not larger than $200, and that you also purchase lifetime oil changes, tire rotation, and brake pads. Then we might have a basis for comparison.
42 David: Thank you now all you have to do is write this on a 2×4, go to Washington and one at a time smack every Deemocrat across the eyes and then go to all media outlets and do the same. I’d bring lunch this could take awhile as this “treatment” may need multiple applications.
Adobe,
Watch out. With a post like that you’re going to be headlining a Times article about how advocating violence is getting out of hand.
Besides, it wouldn’t work. Explain reality to these people and you’ll get the same response as Nigel Tufnel finding out that volume scales are arbitrary.
David: the point was to use a more dynamic method of imparting information other than ratiional argument. Your point that even more proactive educational methods will fail is unfortunatly correct so the question becomes is it our duty to try?
Nuke,
I thought this posted earlier, but my Post-Fu is notoriously weak.
http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2009/08/is_the_alleged_colorado_democr.php
This is a pretty good sumation from a Westword (our alternate paper)blog. Google Colorado Democratic headquarters broken windows and dip on in. There’s a Think Progress page early in the list that has the initial rightous indignant response and a small grudging update that’s interesting because of the comments. Typical left wing smears almost immeadiatly swerve into “the Repugs will try to blame us” meme. Really makes you think that a lot of folks might have known about this early on.