A few months ago, the left was going bongos about disruptive protests and provocative language of the Terrible Tea Party People. The protests were so rowdy and their behavior was so beyond the pale.
And then there werre the comments about how provovative the language of the right was that could inspire violence.
I haven't seen one opinion piece in the last three weeks by someone who was so down on protests in the second half of last year.
And there are death threats against the Wisconsin GOP.
Are we back to the old days where "dissent is patriotic.?
but, rank hypocrisy on both sides of the political spectrum. Depends on whose ox is being gored, etc, etc.
Somehow, get the feeling you'll disagree with me on this-----.
I want to be clear that I never objected during the Evil Bush era to protests, which is why I thought it was so funny when the left went bongos when the right protested.
And the calls for violence are deafening now.
One final word of hypocrite.
The left is always screaming to separate church and state and crying the Church has no business in political battles. But of course, the most recent visitor to Wisconsin in THE REVEREND J. Jackson. Why doesn't he crawl back in his church and render on to Ceaser the things with are Ceaser's.
(It is another hypocrisy - no one ever objected to THE REVEREND KING, althouth now 95% of the references to him are to "Dr. King," even though he never cured a cold. (Before people get me wrong, which they will, I am not attacking King, whom I admire. I am just pointing out that his moral stance and presitige came from the Church, which is not supposed to be in public affairs according to some.)
despite fact I side with Wisconsin unions, have never liked Jesse Jackson. he should get a one way ticket back to "Hymietown".
I thought the Hymie town comment was funny, and that is my ethnicity.
I have referred to NY that way ever since then.
I think you're off base in your church/state argument. The Constitution simply says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This does NOT mean religious figures, left, right or center, cannot participate in the political process, only that the government itself won't establish one religious view over another. Over the years we've have many religious figures involve themselves in politics by promoting one view over another. The Catholic church, for example, takes positions on abortion (conservative), and immigration (liberal, at least in the case of the Bishop of LA). During the 1930s Bishop Coughlin ranted against Roosevelt and engaged in anti-Semitic slurs. Baptist churches in the south have long been a bastion for political activism in support of civil rights. Rabbis and Imams have long taken positions on political issues. No one has been muzzled. And no thinking person I know believes they should just shut up, even when we don't agree with their position. It's all fine. so long as the government doesn't take sides. Finally, I've never heard anyone on the left say any church has no business taking a political position. That's a classic red herring.
This is wilful blindness. If you have never heard the left say the church shouldn't be involved in that issue, I really think you are not looking very far.
BTW, I do not object to them being involved and agree there is a tradition for it. In fact, my original comment said that I did not disapprove. I grew up in the 60's where the left was very active in the church. Vietnam, civil rights.
However, when the church talks about abortion, there is a lot of "get out of our bedroom and keep it separate.
Of course. It is mainly churches that are anti-abortion. The "sanctity of life" argument is primarily a religion-based argument. But I don't think the pro-choice crowd says the churches shouldn't have a voice in the debate, just that they shouldn't force their morality on the rest of us. If you have actual evidence of left wingers asserting that churches and church members should not be able to speak their peace, please cite it.
-- Modified on 3/10/2011 9:56:22 PM
I am not going to look for a "cite" of X saying.....
But even when you say, "Don't impose your morality on us......" you are making an argument that is contrary to the tradition of the church in the civil rights movement and anti-death penalty movement.
The voice of the church, and THE REVEREND KING, was his "morality."
The moral force of their argument was based in religion.
When you say the right to life should not enforce "their morality," you have a different position than that which allows Dr. King to impose his "morality."
Again, it isn't anyone saying individuals can't voice their opinion. It is saying they should not justify with the morality of the church.
-- Modified on 3/10/2011 9:56:22 PM
First of all, when did the left last kill anybody? Hell, they don't even have guns according to their rhetoric. So what are they gonna do? Bore somebody to death with a picket sign? It's all talk. They wish they were threatening.
Sure I know somewhere, somehow, somebody on the left probably killed somebody despite their ineptitude and a small percentage own guns despite their politics. But the last time I check, Starbucks doesn't have a firing range. So if you are looking for people really good at computing in public, then they have trained to be the best. Assassins — not so much.
I say let them play. They're not hurting anybody. And it gives them some exercise.
there could be another "Kent State Massacre."
For those who don't know what the fuck I'm talking about, check out link below; most objective one I could find.
Pri, I think you're being alarmist. There's a huge difference between what was going on then and what's happening now. I can't imagine the Wisconsin guard firing on protesters of any kind, let alone a group including school teachers, cops and firemen.
I wouldn't put anything past the "Koch Bros. puppets".
Ini, no violent labor strikes in U.S. past ? Better brush up on your history.
"Those who forget the past are forever condemened to repeat it"--------George Santayana
-- Modified on 3/10/2011 4:44:18 PM
But I guess we'll find out.
& the economic times we're going through now are pretty fucking perilous.
For a list of violent strikes during the depression, go to near bottom of page on following link :
I'm well aware of that but I don't agree the parallel is valid. Thanks to the government programs (both Bush's TARP and Obama's stimulous as well as the Fed's action) we have avoided the worst. I don't think we will see anything approaching the labor violence of the '30s.
why the opposition will not take them seriously. The last time politicians were afraid of the left were the early 1970's. It's no coincidence the last meaningful change such as "Freedom of Information Act", Title #9, EPA etc. from the left came when they meant business and did not hesitate to hit the streets.
& not something I'd think you'd be particularly fond of. When people get pushed around too much, they push back.
I think the days of the "Marquis of Queensbury-passive left" has just ended.
The Tea Baggers were bringing loaded weapons to speeches given by the POTUS. The Tea Baggers were funded by the Koch brothers. They pay homeless people to protest to boot.
On the other hand, these protests are to protect the RIGHTS of working people. In state after state, the GOP are trying to take resources from the middle class and give it to corporations. In Michigan and Pennsylvania the GOP is trying to eliminate local representation from voters.
There is a word for what the GOP is doing Phil, and it's a word I don't use lightly. It's called fascism.
After the vote in Wisconsin, state troopers had to escort the GOP out of Madison, where they ran to DC to collect bribes from their puppetmasters. Why was the police escort necessary? Did everyone issue a death threat to these people?
These Republicans are stomping on the founding principle of popular sovereignty that found this nation, and founded the state of Wisconsin. And the people of Wisconsin will take their rights back as the supreme authority in that state one way or the other. It's the GOP's choice on whether it's violent or not.
"The Tea Baggers were bringing loaded weapons to speeches given by the POTUS"
No, I am aware of ONE idiot bringing a gun (whether it was loaded or not was never mentioned in any story I read about the incident) to a Tea Party rally in AZ. If there was another incident, please post the link. Single isolated incidents of stupidity do not reflect an entire group of diverse people.
"The Tea Baggers were funded by the Koch brothers."
Pure bullshit. Prove it.
"They pay homeless people to protest to boot."
Again, pure bullshit. This IS however, a tactic that has been employed by numerous liberal groups.
"On the other hand, these protests are to protect the RIGHTS of working people."
No, they are there to protest the end of a gravy train.
"There is a word for what the GOP is doing Phil, and it's a word I don't use lightly. It's called fascism."
Whether use it lightly or not, you fail to use it correctly.
"After the vote in Wisconsin, state troopers had to escort the GOP out of Madison, where they ran to DC to collect bribes from their puppetmasters. Why was the police escort necessary? Did everyone issue a death threat to these people?"
Noting that the GOP members had to be escorted by state troopers is not helping your case Willy. Only weeks ago, it was the Left who was calling for civility, and villifying those evil Tea Party members for harsh rhetoric. Yet you can't see the hypocrisy here. Amazing.
"These Republicans are stomping on the founding principle of popular sovereignty that found this nation, and founded the state of Wisconsin."
These Republicans are trying to stop the hemorrhaging of nearly $4 billion in deficit spending. First you toss out 'facism' without knowing how to use the word in its proper context. Now you refer to popular sovereignty in defense of collective bargaining. Willy your prolem is that you have a $10.00 vocabulary, and a $0.50 understanding.
"And the people of Wisconsin will take their rights back as the supreme authority in that state one way or the other. It's the GOP's choice on whether it's violent or not."
ROFL I just about choked laughing right now. Sharon Angle? Is that you hiding behind WIlly's account? Its the GOP's choice on whether its violent or not eh? Would you by any chance be referring to 'Second Amendment remedies'?? TOO EFFING FUNNY! Game, set, match dude.
We on the right are really falling down on the job too. We haven't even gotten around to painting the entire mob of protestors with a single brush by coming up with some cheesy perjorative for them. Admittedly, it would be tough to top "Tea Bagger" but one would think we could have at least made the effort to dismiss a group of people we disagree with by coming up with a really good perjorative about them. Where is the smear campaign? Why aren't hanging all sorts of false claims, like racism, around their neck? Isn't that what the opposition is supposed to do, or have I spent too much time reading the liberal play book in how to deal with unpopular ideas/groups?
Tea Bagee.
Thank you, thank you.
couldn't resist------
There two bags - no waiting, Pus.