Showing posts tagged republicans
(Reblogged from sarahlee310)
(Reblogged from pieceinthepuzzlehumanity-deacti)
(Reblogged from sarahlee310)
(Reblogged from stfuconservatives)
(Reblogged from pieceinthepuzzlehumanity-deacti)
(Reblogged from purplegem)
(Reblogged from letterstomycountry)
I’m under attack all the time. They call me gay, there are death threats. There are times where I’m not thinking as clearly as I should, and in those unclear moments, I always think to myself, ‘Fire the first shot.’ Bring it on. Because I know who’s on our side. They can only win a rhetorical and propaganda war. They cannot win. We outnumber them in this country, and we have the guns. I’m not kidding. They talk a mean game, but they will not cross that line because they know what they’re dealing with.

And I have people who come up to me in the military, major named people in the military, who grab me and they go, ‘Thank you for what you’re doing, we’ve got your back.’ They understand that. These are the unspoken things we know, they know.

Andrew Breitbart, fantasizing about starting a civil war and killing liberals at a Boston Tea Party event. 

I’d like to compare and contrast for a second. Conservatives got all riled up over Teamster President Jimmy Hoffa’s comments on Labor Day. At a rally in Detroit, he said, “President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. And President Obama we want one thing: Jobs. Jobs. Jobs. Jobs. Jobs. Jobs. Jobs. Jobs. That’s what we’re going to tell him. He’s going to be - and when he sees what we’re doing here he will be inspired. But he needs help and you know what? Everybody here’s got to vote. If we go back and keep the eye on the prize, let’s take these sons of bitches out and give America back to America where we belong!”

So he’s talking about voting anti-union politicians out of office. Conservatives self-righteously condemned his remarks as “thuggery” and “hate speech.” Tea Party Express leader Amy Kremer said, “It is high time that elected leaders like President Obama were held accountable when their key supporters engage in harmful and divisive rhetoric.” Well, I think Breitbart’s quite clear, particularly when he says, “We outnumber them in this country and we have the guns…”

Penn Bullock at Towleroad writes, “On the face of it, Breitbart’s admission demands a congressional or criminal investigation. If he’s implying that military officials have pledged their armed support to him and the right-wing, those officials are guilty of treason. If Breitbart is lying, he’s diagnosable.” I’d agree. If (and that’s a big IF) he’s telling the truth, those “military officials” are supporting armed insurrection against the American government and its people. The military tends to frown on its members doing that. 

Watch the video of Breitbart’s remarks here. So, how long before Breitbart gets on Fox News and whines about it being taken out of context? Hoffa’s comment was taken out of context. This isn’t. This is talking about bullets v. ballot boxes and the bullets winning.

(via cognitivedissonance)

That’s an intelligent way to respond to random death threats, threaten to kill liberals in a bloody war. This is a very clear and very direct threat unlike any I’ve ever seen. Conservatives love to make gun and violence based political statements but yeah for the most part it’s just to rally the base, this however is something else, this is “I can’t wait till I can shoot a liberal that called me names with the military behind me.”

Scary shit.

-Joe

(via stfuconservatives)

(Reblogged from stfuconservatives)
(Reblogged from sarahlee310)

Today, “free to choose” has become “free to die.”

I’m referring, as you might guess, to what happened during Monday’s G.O.P. presidential debate. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Representative Ron Paul what we should do if a 30-year-old man who chose not to purchase health insurance suddenly found himself in need of six months of intensive care. Mr. Paul replied, “That’s what freedom is all about — taking your own risks.” Mr. Blitzer pressed him again, asking whether “society should just let him die.”

And the crowd erupted with cheers and shouts of “Yeah!”

The incident highlighted something that I don’t think most political commentators have fully absorbed: at this point, American politics is fundamentally about different moral visions.

Now, there are two things you should know about the Blitzer-Paul exchange. The first is that after the crowd weighed in, Mr. Paul basically tried to evade the question, asserting that warm-hearted doctors and charitable individuals would always make sure that people received the care they needed — or at least they would if they hadn’t been corrupted by the welfare state. Sorry, but that’s a fantasy. People who can’t afford essential medical care often fail to get it, and always have — and sometimes they die as a result.

The second is that very few of those who die from lack of medical care look like Mr. Blitzer’s hypothetical individual who could and should have bought insurance. In reality, most uninsured Americans either have low incomes and cannot afford insurance, or are rejected by insurers because they have chronic conditions.

So would people on the right be willing to let those who are uninsured through no fault of their own die from lack of care? The answer, based on recent history, is a resounding “Yeah!”

Paul Krugman, writing in today’s New York Times.

Yeah.

(via inothernews)

A major problem with this free to choose nonsense is that most of us are NOT free to choose, well we can choose between health insurance and food or between health insurance and rent or… but for most of us it is not about just choosing not to buy health insurance.

(Reblogged from sarahlee310)
(Reblogged from inothernews)