Protester stomped in Ky. Senate race
Since this is pretty clearly going to dominate the innertubes today:
I have no doubt whatsoever that Rand Paul and most of his supporters are appalled by what happened last night. However, I also have no doubt that in this incident and others yet to come, we are reaping the harvest of hatred sown by overheated rhetoric that treats political disagreement as betrayal and political opponents as a dire threat to America’s existence.
And on that point, it’s good to get at least SOME bipartisan agreement, notably here and here.
On the other hand, there have also been attempts to justify it and to excuse it or even celebrate it.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
646 comments Add your comment
williebkind
October 26th, 2010
3:54 pm
paleo-neoCarlinist
October 26th, 2010
3:49 pm
I had to read that twice to get the point Dooley was making.
Cekker
October 26th, 2010
3:54 pm
Squeaky Fromme looked sweet and innocent too.
Michael in MI
October 26th, 2010
3:59 pm
Don’t Forget: “No dimwit, I’m talking about pundits, media figures and even candidates saying those things about the President. Pelosi did NOT call the tea partiers nazis, she said they were carrying swastika’s to rally and that “you decide”. Show me an apology the right has made for the inflammatory things that have been said about the President.”
==========
Nancy Pelosi accused the TEA Party Patriots of carrying NAZI swastikas when none were carrying them except for the radical leftist La Rouche group.
Show me where any pundit, media figure or candidate has actually said anything inflammatory about the President worthy of an apology.
Have they said he hates this country? Yes. And it’s obvious from his past history and all that he has said and done since getting into politics — most notably how he has gone on multiple apology tours of the world, apologizing to our enemies for how bad he feels America is and has been through history — that he does hate America and feels it needs to be changed into his vision of America.
Have they said that he is acting like a tyrant? Yes. Considering a tyrant is “one who rules without law, looks to his own advantage rather than that of his subjects, and uses extreme and cruel tactics — against his own people as well as others”, it’s pretty obvious from his actions upon becoming President that Obama is acting like a tyrant, ignoring the law in Arizona regarding immigration which simply is a restating of long-standing federal law, ignoring the law with the New Black Panthers, ignoring the Constitution with pushing Obamacare through and of course completely ignoring the Republican Party and conservatives and their legislative proposals, even though he is supposed to be the post-partisan President and represent all Americans, not just radical progressives.
Has anyone called him Hitler? Nope.
paleo-neoCarlinist
October 26th, 2010
4:05 pm
williebkind. I think Dooley, like his dad, was a History major, and maybe he tried to mix metaphors (which is better suited for English majors). let’s be honest, outside of football, the over-used “football is war” line is…, well, over-used. I just don’t understant the reference. the Germans lost WWII. the Germans “lost” D-Day. what was he saying? is he going to take his wife down to the bunker and cross his fingers that the Russians don’t get hold of him. and was he implying or suggesting that Nick Saban and UA are the “good guys” (Allies)? and of UT are the Germans, who are the Japanese? who are the Italians? who are the Swiss? and for for the love of Pete is Albert Einstein? he needs to stick to the X’s and O’s and leave the re-enacting to the History Channel and Rich Iott.
AmVet
October 26th, 2010
4:07 pm
Has anyone called him Hitler? Nope.
Michigan you really are that clueless aren’t you?
A Texas Republican congresswoman told colleagues on that House floor Wednesday that a columnist who accused Obama of planting the seeds for a Nazi state is a “brilliant man.”
BTW, he was quoting that darling of the lunatic fringe – Thomas Sowell….
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/06/congressman-calls-obamahitler-comparison-brilliant/
Or maybe this is more to your liking?
http://www.care2.com/causes/politics/blog/tea-party-splits-over-obama-hitler-lenin-comparison/
Now go ahead and do your ballerina routine and say no one actually called him Hitler…
Jay
October 26th, 2010
4:09 pm
No, Michael, that is incorrect.
The Bush DoJ dropped ALL criminal charges.
It filed civil charges — charges in which the only possible penalty is an injunction not to do it again — against three people: The guy with the baton, the other guy in the video, and the head of the New Black Panthers.
The Obama folks pursued the charges against the guy with the baton, and got the injunction.
It dropped charges against the second man because a.) he hadn’t done anything and was registered as a poll watcher, which is also why the cops summoned to the scene allowed him to remain at the polls for the rest of the day, and b.) no voter had complained of being intimidated, which makes it hard to prove intimidation in court.
It dropped charges against the New Black Panther head because this was the sole case in which a party member had behaved in such a manner. To go after the party, DoJ concluded, they needed to establish a pattern, and there was no pattern.
Finally, there’s the comparison with how other, similar allegations of voter intimidation have bee resolved in the past. As a top DoJ official testified to the Civil Rights Commission:
“In the most recent case under 11(b) to go
to trial, United States versus Brown, the court found
that the publication in the newspaper by a county
political party chairman of a list of voters to be
challenged if they attempted to vote in the party
primary did not amount to intimidation, threat, or
coercion under 11(b).
In another case, in Arizona, the complaint
was received by a national civil rights organization
regarding events in Pima, Arizona in the 2006 election
when three well-known anti-immigrant advocates
affiliated with the Minutemen, one of whom was
carrying a gun, allegedly intimidated Latino voters at
a polling place by approaching several persons,
filming them, and advocating and printing voting
materials in Spanish.
In that instance, the Department declined
to bring any action for alleged voter intimidation,
notwithstanding the requests of the complaining
parties.
In 2005, the Division received allegations
that armed Mississippi State investigators intimidated
elderly minority voters during an investigation of
possible voter fraud in municipal elections by
visiting them in their home, asking them who they
voted for, in spite of state law protections that
explicitly forbid such inquiries.
Here again, the Division front office
leadership declined to bring a voter intimidation case
in this matter.”
AmVet
October 26th, 2010
4:09 pm
The Neo-Con Apology Tour rolls along…
The by-now-tired image comparing President Obama to Adolph Hitler shouldn’t shock after its over-use during last year’s tea party anti-healthcare protests. But a streetside booth set up in Mound, Minn. — featuring Obama with a Hitler moustache — drew the attention of WCCO reporters.
A sign suggesting easy, drive-by impeachment — “Pull Over to Impeach Obama!” — was accompanied by a poster that showed the president with a Hitler moustache, but, as with many such Hitler/Obama comparisons, the activists’ intent isn’t to suggest that Obama’s evils rival those of the man who orchestrated the extermination of millions of Jewish people. No, Obama worked to reform healthcare.
“That is what Hitler and Obama have in common, they believe in killing what they call the end of life years,” a woman seated by the poster told WCCO, before hurling epithets at the camera operator. “You are full of lies and treason. You are the reason we are at war, you are the reason we are bankrupt and the reason Obama is president,” the unidentified woman shouted.
College student Nick Johnson noted the overblown Nazi comparison.
“I am growing up in Bush’s America, and I saw stuff like that all the time for Bush, I didn’t like it then and don’t like it now,” he told WCCO. “That’s ridiculous. Obama hasn’t killed one person; Hitler has killed millions.”
Michigan, Minnesota is a short drive for you and you’d be right at home…
williebkind
October 26th, 2010
4:12 pm
In my dictionary, comparing and naming someone are not the same. No one called him Hitler just compared Obama’s politics to Hitler’s politicas in assuming power of the country. Well, I know its that public education coming out.
bank walker
October 26th, 2010
4:12 pm
The progressives’ talking heads will try to make hay out of this; tea partiers, conservatives, and libertarians need to throw right back in their faces the non-coverage by the lame stream media WRT to SEIU thugs viciously attacking Kenneth Gladney (a 130 lb diabetic, recovering luekemia patient) in Aug 2009.
williebkind
October 26th, 2010
4:15 pm
Jay
October 26th, 2010
4:09 pm
Bottom line Jay, if it had been a different group they would have been prosecuted under the election laws and charged with a hate crime.
bank walker
October 26th, 2010
4:15 pm
Also, if you want to talk hate crime……a white can be charged with it but a black cannot. Now, how’s that fair?
AmVet
October 26th, 2010
4:15 pm
During the October 13 edition of his radio show, Glenn Beck likened the Obama administration’s treatment of Fox News to Nazi persecution of Jews, telling other media outlets: “When they’re done with Fox, and you decide to speak out on something,” it would be like “[t]he old, ‘first they came for the Jews, and I wasn’t Jewish.’ ” Beck has a long history of invoking the Holocaust, the Nazi Party, and Adolf Hitler to smear the Obama administration, other progressive individuals and organizations, and the media; indeed, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) previously criticized Beck for comparing Al Gore’s efforts to raise awareness of global warming to the Holocaust.
Beck has repeatedly compared Obama to Hitler, claimed his policies are leading America toward Nazi Germany
“This is what Hitler did with the SS.” Discussing Obama’s call for a “civilian national security force” — which was a reference to expanding the foreign service, AmeriCorps, and the Peace Corps — Beck said on the August 27 edition of his Fox News program: “I’m finding this — this is the hardest part to connect to. Because this is — I mean, look, you know, David [Bellavia, former Army staff sergeant], what you just said is, you said, ‘I’m not comparing’ — but you are. I mean, this is what Hitler did with the SS. He had his own people. He had the brownshirts and then the SS. This is what Saddam Hussein — so — but you are comparing that. And I — I mean, I think America would have a really hard time getting their arms around that.”
Beck cited Hitler to attack Obama, claim “[e]mpathy leads you to very bad decisions.” During a discussion of Obama’s statement that he would consider “empathy” in choosing a Supreme Court nominee, Beck drew a parallel to Hitler on his May 26 Fox News show: “Finally — well, he wasn’t the president. He was the chancellor, Hitler, decided that it was the only empathetic thing to do, is to put this child down and put him out of his suffering. It was the beginning of the T4, which led to genocide everywhere. It was the beginning of it. Empathy leads you to very bad decisions many times.”
Beck told Newsmax: “I fear a Reichstag moment.” On September 29, conservative news website Newsmax.com reported of its interview with Beck:
Beck links health care reform to Nazis, suggests reform would kill elderly and newborns. On his August 6 radio show, Beck suggested that health care reform would lead to the eugenics programs undertaken in Nazi Germany, saying that “three people in the White House are in love with eugenics” and that reform would kill the elderly and newborns.
Beck compared car dealership closures to Nazism, warning “at some point, they’re going to come for you.” While discussing the closures of auto dealerships under the bankruptcy deals of GM and Chrysler, Beck said that the “poem that keeps going through my mind” is “First they came for the Jews,” adding, “Gang, at some point they’re going to come for you.”
Beck compared auto bailouts to the actions of German companies “in the early days of Adolf Hitler.” While discussing the auto company bailouts on the April 1 edition of his Fox News program, after stating, “I am not saying that Barack Obama is a fascist,” Beck said, “If I’m not mistaken, in the early days of Adolf Hitler, they were very happy to line up for help there as well. I mean, the companies were like, ‘Hey, wait a minute. We can get, you know, we can get out of trouble here. They can help, et cetera, et cetera.’ ”
Beck compared TARP to “what happened to the lead-up with Hitler.” On the April 21 edition of Fox Business’ Money for Breakfast, Beck said of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, “This is not comparing these people to the people in Germany, but this is exactly what happened to the lead-up with Hitler. Hitler opened up the door and said, ‘Hey, companies, I can help you.’ They all ran through the door. And then in the end, they all saw, ‘Uh-oh. I’m in bed with the devil.’ They started to take their foot out, and Hitler said, ‘Absolutely not. Sorry, gang. This is good for the country. We’ve got to do these things.’ And it was too late.”
Beck said “the Germans” during Hitler’s rise “were an awful lot like we are now.” On the June 10 edition of his Fox News program, Beck stated: “I think the Germans, however, were an awful lot like we are now. We’re kind of living in a denial, like, ‘No, no, that can’t really be happening. No, that really — I” — you don’t want to believe some things, but you have to. You have to actually think about them.”
Beck airs photos of Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, asks, “Is this where we’re headed?” On the April 2 edition of his Fox News program, while teasing the next day’s show, Beck asked, “Is this where we’re headed?” while airing photos of Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Vladimir Lenin.
But he certainly doesn’t qualify as a pundit does he?
AmVet
October 26th, 2010
4:15 pm
willie, thanks for playing the ballerina role…
williebkind
October 26th, 2010
4:16 pm
bank walker
October 26th, 2010
4:12 pm
Outstanding point!! You get a smiley face!
williebkind
October 26th, 2010
4:17 pm
Tootoo!
williebkind
October 26th, 2010
4:18 pm
AmVet:
The older you get the wiser I become!
williebkind
October 26th, 2010
4:20 pm
I think we all need to go home and practice our stomping.
USMC DAWG
October 26th, 2010
4:25 pm
Jay, there is another issue that has arisen out of the “Black Panthers” racist blockade and violation of civil rights at the polling center.
The DOJ has instituted, per DOJ personnel, a system of disregarding civil rights violations towards whites or non-minorities. Now justify that.
So, don’t frost over the real issue here. It was wrong that the New Black Panther party was freed from investigation and prosecution.
If the KKK did the same, you would be writing an article about “HATRED”.
The bottom line is that liberals hold blacks and minorities to a lower standard, which to me means that liberals truly don’t respect blacks and minorities as equals and hold them to the same standard.
Jay
October 26th, 2010
4:25 pm
Bottom line, WillieB, the “Minutemen” DID do something similar in Arizona — while armed with a handgun, no less — and nothing happened, not even a civil case.
That’s not conjecture, those are facts.
USMC DAWG
October 26th, 2010
4:27 pm
@ Scott:
I went to UGA from 1985-1989 and served in the Corps from 1989-1994
What about you?
Jay
October 26th, 2010
4:31 pm
“The DOJ has instituted, per DOJ personnel, a system of disregarding civil rights violations towards whites or non-minorities. Now justify that.”
No, the DoJ has NOT institituted such a system.
“If the KKK did the same, you would be writing an article about “HATRED”.
The Minutemen did something similar or even worse to Latino voters, nothing was done about it by the Bush administration, and nobody in the media or elsewhere made a big stink about it. This Black Panther thing was blown up from nothing into something by Fox News.
Here’s how petty this all is:
Once the Bush administration decided not to pursue criminal charges in the Black Panther case, the very MOST the Obama administration could legally do was to get a court order telling the Black Panthers not to do what the law already forbids them to do, and what they haven’t done again anyway.
Michael in MI
October 26th, 2010
4:31 pm
Texas Republican congresswoman told colleagues on that House floor Wednesday that a columnist who accused Obama of planting the seeds for a Nazi state is a “brilliant man.”
I read the article. Sowell and the Congresswoman were comparing the policies of Obama to the policies of NAZI Germany. This came after Nancy Pelosi accused the TEA Party of wearing swatikas on their arms, insinuating that the TEA Party Patriots were NAZIs. If you were paying attention in the aftermath of that, lots of conservative political pundits responded to Pelosi’s smear with correctly stating that the Democrats’ policies are closer to the policies of NAZI Germany than any policies by conservatives. Prior to Pelosi’s smear, no one was calling Obama Hitler or comparing his Administration to NAZI Germany. It was only after Pelosi’s smear that conservatives stepped up to correct her.
But good job. You found some examples. However, I still fail to see a need for an apology. Are the Democrats’ and Obama’s policies like the policies pushed by the National Socialists of NAZI Germany? If so, then there is nothing for which to apologize. Noting the accurate historical comparison in response to a smear from the Speaker of the House is nothing for which to apologize.
Or maybe this is more to your liking?
Your standard was a pundit or candidate, not just someone in a protest. So just as 8 years of the Left protesters all calling Bush Hitler and calling for his assassination not being valid for you, this also isn’t valid.
Anyway, I’m done here. This incident was started by a radical Leftist activist, she was stopped from going after Rand Paul, she was roughed up a bit by ONE jackass and now the Left has blown this up into a huge ’scandal’, because they are desperate knowing they’re going to get massacred at the polls next week. There’s really nothing more to say about this pathetic incident.
USMC DAWG
October 26th, 2010
4:35 pm
Ok Jay,
There is eye witness testimony stating the DOJ does not place importance on civil rights violations against “whites”.
So I beg to differ.
And I am not defending the Minutemen, but our country has been invaded by ILLEGAL people from Mexico and Central America…WHO don’t have citizenry rights in this country. So how can you mix those?
Michael in MI
October 26th, 2010
4:36 pm
Jay: “The DOJ has instituted, per DOJ personnel, a system of disregarding civil rights violations towards whites or non-minorities. Now justify that.”
No, the DoJ has NOT institituted such a system.
==========
Actually, they have instituted such a system. Research the testimony of J. Christian Adams.
USMC DAWG
October 26th, 2010
4:38 pm
And Jay, just to play your game…
How do you write, over analyze, and complain about racial injustice when you support racist policies such as Affirmative Action, etc?
You can’t have it both ways, Jay.
MPercy
October 26th, 2010
4:41 pm
If Mike really wanted to get banned, all he has to do is go by CT’s board and comment about how much cut&paste she does.
Kamchak
October 26th, 2010
4:43 pm
HotAir?!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Jay
October 26th, 2010
4:46 pm
And Adams’ testimony has been refuted by quite a few people, USMC.
USMC DAWG
October 26th, 2010
4:51 pm
Jay, I’m sure it has been refuted by people like Eric Holder, Barak Obama, etc.
We will just have to agree to disagree.
But you like to use technicality and nonsequiters to dodge the real issues.
How do you really feel about what actually happened?
(the actions on the Black Panthers Party at the election polling ctr)
That is the question.
MPercy
October 26th, 2010
4:51 pm
Officially, no, I suppose the DOJ has no such policy, But the Washington Post seems pretty sure that unofficially, the policy is that only whites can commit civil rights violations and blacks can only be victims.
———————
Interviews and government documents reviewed by The Washington Post show that the case tapped into deep divisions within the Justice Department that persist today over whether the agency should focus on protecting historically oppressed minorities or enforce laws without regard to race.
The dispute over the Panthers, and the Justice Department’s handling of it, was politicized from the start, documents and interviews show. On Election Day, the issue was driven by Republican poll watchers and officials and a conservative website.
At the department, Adams and his colleagues pushed a case that other career lawyers concluded had major evidentiary weaknesses. After the Obama administration took over, high-level political appointees relayed their thoughts on the case in a stream of internal e-mails in the days leading to the dismissal.
Anger and cursing
That decision to pull back the lawsuit caused conflicts so heated that trial team members at times threw memos in anger or cursed at supervisors.
The dismissals triggered outrage from conservatives and congressional Republicans, two internal Justice Department inquiries and the investigation by the conservative-controlled civil rights commission. The debate has thrust Eric H. Holder Jr., the nation’s first African-American attorney general and long the target of Republican attacks, into an unwelcome spotlight.
In recent months, Adams and a Justice Department colleague have said the case was dismissed because the department is reluctant to pursue cases against minorities accused of violating the voting rights of whites. Three other Justice Department lawyers, in recent interviews, gave the same description of the department’s culture, which department officials strongly deny.
Before the New Black Panther controversy, another case had inflamed those passions. Ike Brown, an African-American political boss in rural Mississippi, was accused by the Justice Department in 2005 of discriminating against the county’s white minority. It was the first time the 1965 Voting Rights Act was used against minorities and to protect whites.
Coates and Adams later told the civil rights commission that the decision to bring the Brown case caused bitter divisions in the voting section and opposition from civil rights groups.
Harsh criticism
Three Justice Department lawyers, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they feared retaliation from their supervisors, described the same tensions, among career lawyers as well as political appointees. Employees who worked on the Brown case were harassed by colleagues, they said, and some department lawyers anonymously went on legal blogs “absolutely tearing apart anybody who was involved in that case,” one lawyer said.
“There are career people who feel strongly that it is not the voting section’s job to protect white voters,” the lawyer said. “The environment is that you better toe the line of traditional civil rights ideas or you better keep quiet about it, because you will not advance, you will not receive awards and you will be ostracized.”
The department on May 15 dismissed the charges against Jackson, Malik Shabazz and the party without citing a reason. It sought to narrow the injunction against Heath to polling places in Philadelphia through the 2012 elections. That was granted.
Legal experts have called the department’s reversal exceedingly rare.
Coates and Adams say the case was narrowed because of opposition to filing voting-rights actions against minorities and pressure from civil rights groups, but have not cited evidence.
Justice Department officials have repeatedly said the reversal stemmed from a legal review and insufficient evidence. Documents show that two career lawyers asked to review the case before it was dropped said the evidence against the party and its chairman was weak, though they recommended that the government proceed against all four defendants.
Politics denied
Officials have denied any political considerations and said the final decision was made by Loretta King, a 30-year career lawyer designated by Obama as acting head of civil rights.
Asked at a civil rights commission hearing in May whether any of the department’s political leadership was “involved in” the decision to dismiss the Panthers case, assistant attorney general for civil rights Thomas Perez said no.
“This is a case about career people disagreeing with career people,” said Perez, who was not in the department at the time. He said that political appointees are regularly briefed on civil rights cases and, whenever there is a potentially controversial decision, “we obviously communicate that up the chain.”
Justice Department records turned over in a lawsuit to the conservative group Judicial Watch show a flurry of e-mails between the Civil Rights Division and the office of Associate Attorney General Thomas Perelli, a political appointee who supervises the division.
Michael in MI
October 26th, 2010
4:51 pm
Jay: “And Adams’ testimony has been refuted by quite a few people, USMC”
==========
That may be the case, but here is the latest from the liberal Washington Post of all places. Apparently there are 3 other DOJ lawyers who agree with Adams’ claims.
Jay
October 26th, 2010
5:09 pm
Michael, MPercy, I think that WaPo article is a good, fair summation of the whole mess.
USMC Dawg, I think those jerks should have been run off by the cops, which they were. It was an exceedingly minor event, which the Bush administration in effect acknowledged by refusing to press criminal charges.
USMC DAWG
October 26th, 2010
5:12 pm
Ok Jay,
Thanks for your honesty.
That is twice today that we agree.
I am quiting while we are ahead.
Thanks
MPercy
October 26th, 2010
5:19 pm
You gotta watch out for Jay. Unlike Ms. Tucker, Jay will sometimes up and make an honest, sensible statement *and* it’s one in which we both agree.
duke
October 26th, 2010
5:24 pm
It is hard for me to believe that this incident was not staged. There simply is not that kind of angry passion coming from the libertarians- in contrast to some union members and angry Black leftists- and the provocation was not that severe. If in fact it was done by a Paul supporter, then it is unacceptable; but he didn’t stomp her head. He put his foot somewhere in the area of her head/neck/shoulder, and pushed down- right on the limit, I would say, of force without damage. There was no impact with momentum. It was an indignity, to be sure; but the police routinely treat people more roughly than that during arrests. And the clip shows the same movement several times, creating a false impression. Let’s get some perspective on this.
From a column by Ann Coulter:
“Over the past couple of election cycles, Bush and McCain election headquarters around the country have been repeatedly vandalized, ransacked, burglarized and shot at (by staunch gun-control advocates, no doubt); Bush and McCain campaign signs have been torched; and Republican campaign volunteers have been physically attacked.
It was a good day when George Bush was merely burned in effigy, compared to Hitler or, most innocuously, compared to a monkey.
In the fall of 2008, Obama supporters Mace’d elderly volunteers in a McCain campaign office in Galax, Va. In separate attacks, a half-dozen liberals threw Molotov cocktails at, stomped and shredded McCain signs on families’ front yards around Portland, Ore. One Obama supporter broke a McCain sign being held by a small middle-aged woman in midtown Manhattan before hitting her in the face with the stick. These are just a few acts of violence from the left too numerous to catalog.
There were arrests in all these cases. There was, however, absolutely no national coverage of the attacks by Obama supporters.”
Read the entire column at http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=379
itpdude
October 26th, 2010
5:29 pm
I hope this kind of crap doesn’t escalate and spread.
And that goes for the Dems, too. Nobody should tolerate this kind of crap.
Just a Thought
October 26th, 2010
5:42 pm
The frothing at the mouth hate, intolerance, and self-righteousness from both of the far sides would be humorous if it weren’t so scary.
A+A
October 26th, 2010
5:51 pm
This place reminds me of the Jerry Springer Show. In a bad way.
And Godwin, for goodness sake, at least five pages back.
Also, quoting Ann Coulter is inadmissible since she has for years been a verified attention whor*.
Tim Profitt, the stomper, has admitted that the group was ‘ready for her’ as she had been at several
events before. I’m not a lawyer but premeditated violence has that law-breaky sound to me.
popeye
October 26th, 2010
6:01 pm
Ha..Ha..Ha……………………..
After reading this I can imagine El Pigboy Rush, Crocodile tears Beck, sex pervert O’Reilly, and the entire ship of fools over at Fox, and the other right wing nutjobs gnashing their teeth.
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/39849537/ns/today-entertainment/
drew
October 26th, 2010
6:15 pm
Oh come on Jay, there are whack jobs and radicals on both sides, remember SEIU thugs beating up Kenneth Gladney? spare me
thomas
October 26th, 2010
6:22 pm
What the
October 26th, 2010
2:27 pm
I am regretfull that it has taken me so long to get back to you and address this issue….here are the 1st 2 links I gave….
hope these are good enough for you.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/19-1
now granted I did not include the link, but gave a direct quote… and if you would have looked would have seen Jay, acknowledged both as his words.
thomas
October 26th, 2010
11:15 am
“Yet out of this alleged conspiracy of thousands in which lowlife drunks and dopers play a large part, the GOP and its allies in the Justice Department and other governnment agencies can’t find a single participant willing to admit to the conspiracy and cough up the truth?”
Do you have any proof that it is “low life drunks and dopers” who played a large part?
“There’s something in the psyche of the GOP base that needs to believe they are victims of some ill-defined but clearly treacherous group plotting against them and the country. How else can they explain the fact that they’re losing? It can’t be because they have proved themselves incompetent at governance, or that they have lost touch with the reality of life in 21st century America. There has to be some other reason, and if there isn’t they’ll invent one.”
Again you are able to know the needs of the GOP base? How?
bank walker
October 26th, 2010
6:37 pm
Jay, why don’t you write about Kenneth Gladney? Oh yeah, you want to keep that one quiet.
John Radney
October 26th, 2010
7:04 pm
When will people learn thes democrat hate America? Brown Fuzzies do not work. Kill them all.
BiggiT
October 26th, 2010
7:30 pm
You gotta see the Drudge headlines about voter fraud in NV……
CorpVet
October 26th, 2010
8:47 pm
Looks like that was just half the story, Jay. How ’bout the conservative person who was attacked.
LEXINGTON, Ky. – Tensions flared at the senatorial candidates’ debate here Monday night in two confrontations between Conway and Paul supporters, Lexington police reported.
The first involved a woman who is a member of http://www.moveon.org and who was determined to pose in front of Rand Paul holding a sign that read “Rand Paul Republicore: Employee of the Month.” According to police, the woman, identified by The Associated Press as Lauren Valle, said she tripped and fell on the ground after someone grabbed her blonde wig off her head.
She was then stepped on by a man wearing a Rand Paul t-shirt. Police say she refused treatment and later filed an assault report. Her identity has not yet been released.
The second occurred after a Conway supporter stepped on the foot of a female Rand supporter, who recently had foot surgery, according to police.
The woman was wearing a surgical boot, but after the injury, her incision was cut open. Police say she refused medical treatment and also filed an assault report.
No arrests were made at the debate broadcast on Kentucky Education Television. No other information is available at this time.
Xavier
October 27th, 2010
5:03 am
Here’s a view from a middle of the road, vote for intelligent measures and people and not the party line of either side . . . some of you are disgraceful in your open and self righteous hatred of others, your fellow citizens, . . . and you wonder why you feel betrayed or hurt by the ‘other side’. It’s because you’ve lost your way in humanity and treat party as high as religion and I don’t see how extremist such as yourself go represent the needs of a country when your focus is so narrowly for yourself. People have a right to their protest but not to harm each other unprovoked. Where at the point where just showing up in protest is seen as the trigger, how soon before someone will needlessly die because someone wraps their hatred around a donkey, an elephant, a teabag or such?