Democrats & Liberals Archives

Is it safe to support the Nazi apologist now?

I had thought that the talk around Washington that John Boehner was an idiot was exaggeration.

I was wrong.

I don’t know what’s worse, that I’m forced to witness such stupidity, or that Boehner likely will get away with being such a moron.

This is what irks me about the Republicans, and their system of media insulation. Normally, you might think that proudly reenacting the role of one of the most infamous Nazi SS Divisions, the guys from Scandinavia who volunteered to be members of Hitler's paramilitary police, and whom Doctor Josef Mengele was a proud member, would be a kind of a liability.

But Boehner doesn't think he should stay unpopular, be given up for dead. He's actually going to encourage this bullcrap.

Anybody who really thinks that the GOP has changed, or will change, should just look at this. Anybody who justifies this should be ashamed of themselves, because you know what? Glorifying that Nazi group is wrong. That glorification shouldn't be something you try to rationalize.

But rationalize they will. And perhaps that will get them a Nazi Re-enactor as one of their colleagues. The GOP has, on repeated occasions, thrown their lot in with the corrupt, the malefactors, with those who have committed serious crimes. They'll side with the powerful against the people they're sworn to protect, to do good by.

Whether now, or two years from now (the sooner, the better), Americans need to recommit themselves to holding people like them accountable. History shows that when one group of people can get away with just about anything, or can justify just about anything, bad things happen to the societies associated. One of the beauties of this country is its capacity for self-correction, but that capacity is something we have to make the conscious choice to employ.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at October 28, 2010 8:09 AM
Comment #311479

Your article was very informative Stephen. Thanks. I’ve been to some of the Civil and Revolutionary reenactments around here but I’ve never seen one of these WWII deals. It looks fascinating and I’d love to take my Dad (Germany vetern) if I get the chance.

Here’s a link to the WWII Historical Re-enactment Society that this guy’s group is a part of. I guess anyone who is in one of their many German units becomes a Nazi Apoligist with you. I’m sure you think Tom Cruise is one too (his movie has been playing on Showtime this month). Oh, and here’s a statement from their website (but you know you can’t believe anything on the net).

The World War Two Re-enactment Society, Inc. is a family of over 800 men and women members from coast to coast, as well as Canada and Europe. Our mission is to bring the history of World War Two to life with public displays, simulated battles that are both public as well as tactical simulations, participation in parades, and a variety of other community activities.

The society strives to honor and preserve the memory of those who served in World War Two, as well as preserve the artifacts of that period.

Our members carry out a wide range of impressions, including those of The United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, Poland, and Germany.

Our focus is entirely on the military history of World War Two. We have no place or sympathy for the ideology of nazism or fascism. Such beliefs are not welcome here.

Posted by: George at October 28, 2010 10:48 AM
Comment #311483

I don’t care how “perfectly normal” these guys seem to Tea-publicans. To me, adults dressing up like Nazis and running around playing WWII war games is extraordinarily sick, creepy, and bizarre.

But obviously the Tea-publicans are in the process of creating a new “normal” — at least amongst themselves.

What I personally find even more shocking and disturbing than Boehner supporting Iott despite his being a Nazi reenactor, is the fact that the Tea-publicans are also supporting a guy who is an authentic cold-blooded murderer:

US veteran who killed unarmed Iraqis wins Tea Party support

Posted by: Adrienne at October 28, 2010 11:15 AM
Comment #311491


According to their website, the Wikings strive to “salute” the “idealists” from occupied northern Europe who saw the Third Reich as “the protector of personal freedom and their very way of life” and signed up to fight for the Wermacht and “gave their lives for their loved ones and a basic desire to be free.”

But that’s TPM. The GOP forbids you to take them seriously.

So, here’s their own site, in their own words:

It is our aim to bring you a bit of actual history behind the men who fought against the “Bolshevik scourge”; volunteers who came from the various Northern European countries allied with Hitler’s Germany who only had a desire to see an end to Soviet Communism.

No mention of the Jews they helped round up and exterminate, or the fact that these folks were volunteering to become the Paramilitary enforcers of the Nazi Regime, even though their own countries were taken over.

You know that the word “quisling” for a collaborator comes from the occupation of those countries, don’t you? Norwegian Vidkun Quisling helped the Nazis in hopes of ruling the country after they were done. Well, essentially, the Wiking Division is a division of volunteers who decided of their own free will to cooperate with the Nazis, to enforce their will.

So, the person you’re defending is helping to glorify an entire armed division of quislings and collaborators.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 28, 2010 11:56 AM
Comment #311492

War reenactors, be they our own Civil War variety, or these others who glorify killing their fellow human beings (for the ‘cause’ of course), are blood thirsty loons. I wonder how many actually served long enough to kill or have someone close to them killed. If I were to guess, less than ten percent have served in wartime.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 28, 2010 12:20 PM
Comment #311494

So Stephen, just to be clear, if you associate with this group you are a Nazi Apologist?

Posted by: George at October 28, 2010 12:35 PM
Comment #311502

So how do we handle Martin Sheen, who played Confederate General Robert E. Lee in the movie, “Gettysburg”? Does he represent the slave owners of the south who fought to maintain slavery?

Did he also have the right to play the president in the show “West Wing”? Don’t you find it reprehensible that one, who played a supporter of slavery, would also play the president?

As usual Stephen, you show the silliness of the left.

Last remark on this post…

Posted by: Bill at October 28, 2010 1:17 PM
Comment #311505

Adrienne wrote; “To me, adults dressing up like Nazis and running around playing WWII war games is extraordinarily sick, creepy, and bizarre.”

Get a grip Adrienne…it’s reenactment. One of my sons has both German and Russian uniforms to play in. He also has a Medieval costume my wife made for him that he wears to Medieval Fairs. Many Americans are involved in Civil War reenactments. On October 31st, Halloween, many adults dress up in all sorts of strange costumes. Do you comprehend that this is simply playtime for adults?

I wonder if Adrienne gets upset when men dress up as women for gay and lesbian parades and such. For me, such behavior is “sick, creepy, and bizarre”.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 28, 2010 1:24 PM
Comment #311507

If they were re-enactors who simply stated something like “somebody has to play the bad guys” and leave it at that, the apologist part wouldn’t be operative. Instead, the group praises the efforts of the Wikings against the Soviets, glorifying them, instead of just presenting a matter of fact assessment.

So, they are apologizing for them.

Nice tag team. I’ll beat you both, though!

Well Martin Sheen’s played an assassin, but he doesn’t advocate assassinations, an evil politician that must be stopped by a psychic before he destroys the world, but he most certainly doesn’t advocate that, and so on and so forth.

But playing Liberal President Josiah Bartlett, he certainly hews closer to his stated political beliefs, now doesn’t he?

It’s not merely that Iott played like he was a Nazi, its that the group that he associates with takes special pains to enoble the characters they play in a way that the real world history of the group doesn’t justify, at least not in line with mainstream American values. The Nazis and the Soviets were equally nasty folks in my book.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 28, 2010 1:34 PM
Comment #311513

Royal - you crack me up - perfect table-turn. Adrienne also doesn’t think the Military Justice system works, only that it covers up for villainous crimes. He was acquitted for insubstantial and conflicting evidence, a fact which his democratic opponent understands, but Adrienne cannot.

I do agree however that there is a certain amount of idolatry associated with reenactment. You don’t dress up in medieval costumes because you hate the fantasy, you do it because it is a fun fantasy to have - running around fighting with swords and rescuing fair maidens etc. etc.

Dressing up like some of the most evil people the world ever produced means that on some level, it excites you to pretend to be them - and I don’t feel like less of a conservative or a hypocrite saying I think it is “sick, creepy, and bizarre” as is cross-dressing. But in all fairness to drag-queens, I’ve never heard of them killing and torturing anyone, much less countless innocents.

Posted by: Yukon Jake at October 28, 2010 2:33 PM
Comment #311515

If Adrienne is talking about who I think she’s talking about, you might want to ask him why he associates himself with a criminal biker gang.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 28, 2010 2:37 PM
Comment #311537

Yukon Jake,

“He was acquitted for insubstantial and conflicting evidence, a fact which his democratic opponent understands, but Adrienne cannot.”

Regardless of the fact he was “aquitted” this man, by his own words, emptied two clips into the guys he was sooooo frightened of, hitting them with more than 80% of his shots.

I don’t know about you, but I think that might be just a touch over the top.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 28, 2010 6:56 PM
Comment #311538

Rocky, were you ever in a combat situation? and before you ask yes I was.

Posted by: KAP at October 28, 2010 7:12 PM
Comment #311546


No I haven’t. I was classified 1Y during Vietnam, and didn’t have to go.

I have however read the Lieutenant’s own words about the incident;
“I then changed magazines and continued to fire until the second magazine was empty…I had made a decision that when I was firing I was going to send a message to these Iraqis and others that when we say, ‘No better friend, No worse enemy,’ we mean it. I had fired both magazines into the men, hitting them with about 80 percent of my rounds.” (emphasis mine)

So am I to believe the Lieutenant’s words or not? He was, after all, there, and you and I weren’t.

Look, I don’t know if this guy is guilty of murder or not. I haven’t read all of the transcripts, but I have read his own words in context, and consciously sending “a message” by emptying 2 clips into 2 guys that were probably already dead with the first ten shots is, IMHO, a bit over the top.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 28, 2010 8:40 PM
Comment #311548

Rocky, He said what he said we have to believe his words but we don’t know what the situation was and what was going on at the time. Two clips I agree was a bit over the top but combat is an abnormal situation. The same thing happened with the Marines at Hadathia alot on the left here on WB had them hung before their day in court but some were aquitted of any wrong doing.

Posted by: KAP at October 28, 2010 8:56 PM
Comment #311559

Sorry, I know it may be a knee-jerk reaction for some of you to search for excuses when it comes to our troops, but the man admitted to shooting UNARMED MEN TO SEND A MESSAGE.
That makes him a cold blooded murderer — well, at least it does to the average sane person on this planet of ours…

Posted by: Adrienne at October 28, 2010 9:57 PM
Comment #311560

Discipline matters. A soldiers isn’t just over there to survive, they’re there to accomplish a purpose. People who lose it and kill over twenty civilians are sending a message to the Iraqi people that might be counterproductive to our war effort.

So do people who empty multiple clips into people, too.

The Right got bent out of shape on these incidents not because they were all concerned for the soldiers. Plenty of others were reported as doing things, and were court martialed.

The leaders in Washington took an interest in covering for these incidents because they showed the soldiers were actually under worse than appropriate levels of strain. It was a defense of a manpower policy that had peole like the folks in Haditha serving multiple tours under horrible conditions.

So bringing it up had to become an example of denying the soldiers a fair trial, rather than being the traditional discussion of major, troublesome events, like that and Abu Ghraib. Remember how Republicans minimized that as frat party antics.

You don’t know how sick and tired I am of the standard Republican response to having some event like this occur being an intelligence insulting denial. It’s like Argument Clinic from Monty Python. You can hardly hold Republicans to their own standards nowadays, much less to the rest of the country’s. If one of them kicks a protestor in the head, falsely arrests a reporter, flubs major questions about the constitution in a Debate when they claim to be experts, there’s always some ridiculous excuse.

I’m sick of it. I want Republicans held accountable. I want them to suffer the same embarrassments as the rest of us, the same shame, the same requiremnets of disclosure and honesty. I want them to at least occasionally admit error, and when they do so, admit that not every error amounts to “I’m sorry, I wasn’t conservative enough.”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 28, 2010 10:03 PM
Comment #311565

Boehner has always been about Boehner and keeping that tan. He is dedicated to these two objectives. And you have to give him credit, he has been very successful at these objectives.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 28, 2010 10:32 PM
Comment #311567

Stephen, Talk is cheap until you have been there. When you’ve been in a combat situation then you can tell me about it till then you know nothing. You have no idea what goes on and how you will act until the time comes especially if you have been in a combat zone numerous times. So why don’t you and some of your liberal buddies go over and help instead of sitting here trashing those that are fighting for freedoms you are enjoying. I want both parties to be held responsible for their stupidity Stephen.
Adrienne, The why was he aquitted? Could it be that the investigators know more then you about the case and more then your liberal rags you read have told you.

Posted by: KAP at October 28, 2010 10:34 PM
Comment #311573
Adrienne, The why was he aquitted?

That’s very simple to answer. Because our military almost always lets their own off the hook for murder.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 28, 2010 10:57 PM
Comment #311576

Adrienne That is about the sickest answer out of a liberal I have heard. If that is what you think about our military I have no words to describe you.

Posted by: KAP at October 28, 2010 11:10 PM
Comment #311577

I really don’t care for this topic.

I grew up within a stone’s throw of Concord, Massachusetts and every year I saw the Patriot’s Day reenactment of the battles of Lexington & Concord. Many people in my community don the uniform of His Majesty’s Redcoats to serve as reenactors, I see no reason to associate these people with the British policies that sparked our war for Independence and I see no reason to label Iott as a supporter of Nazism for what he has done.

We really should be debating the Right on our policy differences and not something superfluous like this.

Enjoy this Youtube video of the 2009 reenactment of the fight at Old North Bridge.

Posted by: Warped Reality at October 28, 2010 11:13 PM
Comment #311581

I wish I didn’t think that about our miltary. But, the truth is that I read a lot of history, so unfortunately and as hard as it has been to accept, I have learned over time that this is sadly true.

Even with the Nuremberg trials they purposely left out certain war crimes — such as the carpet fire-bombing of cities for instance — in order to protect the actions of our military.

A bit more recently the military did the same thing when it comes to incendiary weapons — something that should definitely be classified as a war crime (and which we’ve used quite a bit in Vietnam, and in Falluja, for example), but which is still legal, according to the Pentagon.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 28, 2010 11:29 PM
Comment #311583


You have challenged Rocky and Stephen about their war experience. Challenge ME. I’ve been there…done that. I’d like to not do it again if its alright with you. I’m a liberal. I have circumnavigated twice, and been off shore seventy four months. I spent twenty in the Corps, thirty three months in country Viet Nam, and lost two of my men to snipers. Why does it take combat experience to be aware of the horrors of war? What good has combat experience done for those who died in combat? How did being in combat help those who killed others and came back broken and bowed? Get off that high-horse, and quit acting like combat teaches life’s lessons better than other experiences.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 28, 2010 11:29 PM
Comment #311590

Dude, At least you have the been there done that experience. I was not acting like combat gives you any better experiences of life. In fact I wouldn’t wish it on anyone and I wouldn’t want to go through it again myself. You can at least talk from experience not something you read in a book. Reading and experience are two different things, what you read is not always the truth first hand experience is.

Posted by: KAP at October 29, 2010 12:06 AM
Comment #311593


Even though I haven’t experienced combat I have been around the block a few times. I wouldn’t compare anything I have done to being in the military, but I am not a complete idiot either.

“Reading and experience are two different things, what you read is not always the truth first hand experience is.”

Except when the words you read come from the horses mouth. Like I said, I have been on this planet for a while.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 29, 2010 12:44 AM
Comment #311598

I’ve been around the block a few times to Rocky and been on this planet for awhile to. I’ve learned to be careful of what I read depending on who the horse is. Things I’ve seen and things that I’ve read about the same cercumstance didn’t always jive. What is true and factual is War is Hell it’s not something I would recommend to anyone to engage in, but unfortunitly it happens. What gets me is that when someone does not know the facts but yet condemns before they know what really went on and what really happened, that pisses me off.

Posted by: KAP at October 29, 2010 1:16 AM
Comment #311611

Remer said, “Boehner has always been about Boehner and keeping that tan.”

Why would the color of his skin come into your comment? Since I live in Ohio and Boehner is in a neighboring district, there was a special about his family and upbringing. It turns out he; came from a working class family, put himself through college, and as his brother said, he was born with olive colored skin. In other words, it is natural and not a tan.

I can only assume from your’s and others comments about his skin color, that you believe he spends his time under a tanning lamp, wrong… Are you just pushing what you have heard, or have you actually done research on this subject? Your the one who is always calling people idiots for doing their research.

Posted by: Beretta9 at October 29, 2010 8:48 AM
Comment #311612

But, Boehner is so pickable…you take half the fun out of mentioning his name…fiddle sticks, just more PC from conservatives. Besides that I’m not sure I’d know how to research a guy that turns orange.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 29, 2010 9:57 AM
Comment #311615


“In other words, it is natural and not a tan.”

The dude is orange, that ain’t natural.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 29, 2010 10:19 AM
Comment #311626

do share… i have never seen an orange olive…

Posted by: john in napa at October 29, 2010 2:03 PM
Comment #311627

You can drop the self-righteous attitude right now. I am a Veteran’s grandson, and I’ve always looked up to the military, and loved my country.

There’s something basically rotten with your premise, and it’s this: why are we in the position where we’re discussing this well documented killing of many civilians?

I know some Republicans and Right-Wingers try to treat this as some kind of frame-up, but that strikes me as wildly implausible, given the other information out there. So let’s take as given that American Soldiers were involved.

If they were, then the likely cause is the accumulated tension and psychological damage inflicted by combat. In other words, the war had so tightly wound these soldiers that they were just ready to snap.

Why then were they in that place, psychologically speaking?

I would say there are a number of reasons:

First, my guess was that they were deployed too long. You have to take people out of the pressure cooker on a regular basis, or they’re going to crack. Those men were not machines.

Second, the Bush manpower policy meant that they did not have enough people to keep order there.

Third, the Bush Administration’s policy of disbanding the Iraqi Military and national police force, and of trying to break the power of the the Anbar Province’s power structure pit these soldiers against a hostile insurgency.

All in all, these soldiers were expected to work miracles on behalf of a civilian command whose policies were anything but.

But that explains the behavior, it doesn’t excuse it. Just because the horrors and terrors of war can war people’s judgment and character, doesn’t mean that we should just give a pass to dark atrocities like this one. I know that’s an unfair position for them to be in, but the alternative is to encourage behavior that both threatens united command structures in the field, and encourages the kind of behavior that you have to cover up for, or else explain.

War may be hell, but we won’t win many wars by debasing ourselves and allowing atrocities to go unaccounted for. Remember, soldiers both have to live with this, and with the environment that develops out of it.

The soldiers who commit acts like this create a bad example for others, and an improper, potentially dangerous route for natural aggressions to escape. We need to realize that the ultimate effect of ignoring this problem, or giving a pass to other soldiers like the ones who snapped in this case, is to send the message that if events like this occur, they will not be punished.

The necessity of war argument ultimately leads, if unchecked by other strategic imperatives, to a degradation of behavior on the battlefield. After all, if you can literally get away with murder, and you’ve justified it as a response to the nastiness of the conflict, why hold back?

There have to be lines you cannot cross in the military without punishment. Otherwise, you cannot run or control a military properly, much less successfully carry out objectives that involve maintaining good relations with the people in question. If Soldiers are so emotionally overwrought, so broken down mentally and morally by the horrors of the war that they cannot maintain discipline, or tell the sharks from the guppies, they should be relieved of that assignment and sent back home, and if the policy doesn’t allow for that, if it’s not making it simple enough to maintain this kind of integrity among the soldiers, then the policy has to be changed.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 29, 2010 2:30 PM
Comment #311628


“do share… i have never seen an orange olive…”

Orange tie, orange face…


Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 29, 2010 2:31 PM
Comment #311629


Posted by: jane doe at October 29, 2010 2:38 PM
Comment #311630

jane doe,

Good link, thanks.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 29, 2010 3:11 PM
Comment #311635

jane doe and marysdud

Here’s a good link too:

Around DC, good old Barney is affectionally known as, “Fudge Packing Barney”

Posted by: PartyTime at October 29, 2010 5:35 PM
Comment #311638


Trolls cannot be kept out, but trolls are not welcome here.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 29, 2010 6:00 PM
Comment #311643

Barney Frank admitted he was gay, and was not a big opponent of Gay rights. Mark Foley, on the other hand, was a puritanical homophobe. Hypocrisy, not liberal bias, is sufficient to explain why Frank’s scandal was smaller than Foley’s.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 29, 2010 6:12 PM
Comment #311644

I will make it easy for all of you to understand. And while I know I can’t speak for every conservative out there, this is the general feelings of those around me in middle America (the home of conservatism).

We are past the point of caring. We will be happy to go tit-for-tat with you on the logistics of your personnal attacks—from their rationale, their logic, even their basis in fact—but, while you may believe this to have some influence on our choices in next weeks election, we are only going through the motions. Simply put, these attacks, even if true, won’t effect our voting selections because they still don’t bring the candidate down to a level where the democratic choice is better.

A nazi sympathizer versus a democrat…Go with the sympathizer as long as he is going to fight and vote for less intusive government.

A dimwit, religious fanatic in deleware versus a democrat…Go with the dimwit as long as she is going to fight and vote for less intrusive government.

You can go down the list, but it will always be the same. Right now, the candidate’s intelligence, personnal views, or flaws are all worth overlooking if it (A)prevents the administration from taking us farther down the liberal road we are currently heading, and (B)fits within our financial goals and concern for the direction of government.

Maybe if I use Obama’s words it will help. The tea party, republican party, and conservatives in general are focused like a lazer on the economy. All the other stuff that you want to throw up to muddle the issues will not distract us from our first (and virtually only) priority at this time.

Posted by: adam at October 29, 2010 6:16 PM
Comment #311647

First off let me just say — Boehner has without a doubt, the look of a man who has been spray-tanned to the nth degree. We’re talking as coated with dye as an Oompa Loompa.

Secondly, and to speak in all seriousness here, I really think we should discuss what is truly tying this entire thread together: a generalized insanity, and an overriding acceptance of violence on the right. Because these things are so repulsive and worrisome, and because they’ve become so prevalent, it’s time to really start calling it out in no uncertain terms.

So allow me to do just that…

Why would the Tea-publicans make a lot of signs that put a Hitler mustache on Obama at their rallies, and then turn around and think it’s perfectly okay for Iott to be a Nazi reenactor playing at Nazi war games over the past twenty freaking years? Why is Boehner not steering clear of appearing beside that brand of crazy on the campaign trail?

Isn’t the reason because the right glorifies war, and so it’s perfectly okay when their candidates play at any kind of war reenactment games — even as Nazi’s?

Why would it be okay for one of their candidates to have admitted to killing two unarmed Iraqi men to send a message?

Isn’t it (again) because the right glorifies war — even a war as unnecessary and illegal as the Iraq war? And isn’t it okay that those Iraqi’s died because they were just a couple of brown people who lived half-way around the world, and therefore their lives were expendable?

Why is okay for so many Tea-publicans to bring guns to rallies, and for so many of their candidates to keep talking about violent revolution in America?
Why is it okay for Miller to have a goon squad with no legal authority arresting and handcuffing a reporter simply for asking him questions about his corrupt actions that he didn’t want to answer?
Why is it okay for someone working for Rand Paul’s campaign to assault a woman half his size, forcing her head to the ground and then smashing her face into the pavement with his foot while his buddies hold her down? And why won’t Rand Paul fully denounce his campaign workers atrocious actions by returning their campaign contributions?

Isn’t an overall message being sent here that violence is perfectly acceptable? I certainly think so.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 29, 2010 6:45 PM
Comment #311657

Adrienne: Hello, anybody home? Didn’t you read Adam’s post; we don’t care.

Rand Paul is winning, he don’t have to say anything.

No one cares about a babe who gets her scrawny butt thrown to the ground.

If anyone wants to carry a gun and it is legal, get over it. We have 2nd ammendment rights.

I don’t care who dresses in a German uniform.

And I don’t care if Boehner spray paints himself pink.

But I do care about big government, my rights, taxes, and out of control spending. So does 70% of America…

Posted by: Bill at October 29, 2010 7:56 PM
Comment #311664
Adrienne: Hello, anybody home? Didn’t you read Adam’s post; we don’t care.

Rand Paul is winning, he don’t have to say anything.

No one cares about a babe who gets her scrawny butt thrown to the ground.

If anyone wants to carry a gun and it is legal, get over it. We have 2nd ammendment rights.

I don’t care who dresses in a German uniform.

And I don’t care if Boehner spray paints himself pink.

But I do care about big government, my rights, taxes, and out of control spending. So does 70% of America…
Posted by: Bill at October 29, 2010 07:56 PM

Does anyone else on here see anything above that is frikking scary?????

Posted by: jane doe at October 29, 2010 8:37 PM
Comment #311666

If you are scared now, just wait until Wednesday morning.

Posted by: Bill at October 29, 2010 8:42 PM
Comment #311677

Lunatic asylum scary, sister. And so short sighted too — like they think they’re going to get to control everything for ever and ever — dumb as a stump, that egomaniacal attitude.

But it really proves what I was saying in my last post, does it not? Some of these nuts really do consider people on the left subhuman — and therefore violence against us is going to be considered okay in their book.

Btw Jane, you and I occupy the very lowest rung in the eyes of people like Bill, because we’re both women AND liberal. As he just demonstrated, some of these Teapublicans aren’t going to bat an eye when it comes to the brutalization of women half their size (for all their vaunted “Christianity”) — indeed they may even enjoy seeing ladies like us “broken.” Women on the left don’t “know their place”, you see.

And knowing this, perhaps the smart thing for ladies like you and I to do would be to start taking up karate or jujitsu in a very big way. You know, learn how to aim for straight for the testicles (in various ways and maneuvers) whenever these lunatic barbarians decide to come at us — due to our political impurity.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 29, 2010 10:08 PM
Comment #311678

It’s usually the ass sticking out the farthest that gets bit…
Hope you have some patches for those dungarees..
Just saying.

Posted by: jane doe at October 29, 2010 10:09 PM
Comment #311679

I just got new glasses this week and I can see better than ever.

Of course when union thugs show up and show their cowardly way of dealing with people, that’s ok.

When a Democratic Congressman shoves the person away physically, who is trying to get answers to questions, that’s ok.

When the queer from Mass does his thing, that is ok.

I’ll finish this later when I clean up all the barf off of my keyboard.

Posted by: tom humes at October 29, 2010 10:15 PM
Comment #311681

Actually, Adrienne…I’ve got a .44 Sig that I just love to shoot.
Just saying.
The country will find that knuckle-dragging, drooling, barkshooters (that ones for dude) are not going to do anything good, positive or forward leaning for us. It will take just a short time for people to see how devastating it will be to have morons trying to call the shots.

Posted by: jane doe at October 29, 2010 10:19 PM
Comment #311683

tom humes,

Who on earth are you talking about? You can’t even name any names?

When the queer from Mass

Have you been hanging with Iott the Nazi? Sounds a lot like it…

I’ll finish this later when I clean up all the barf off of my keyboard.

Aw, what’s the matter tommy? Did it upset you that Jane and I might decide to go Leftwing “Momma Grizzly” on you Teapublicans? But that we’re just not Eva Braun or Sarah Palin-ish enough for you to stomach?

Posted by: Adrienne at October 29, 2010 10:28 PM
Comment #311684

I remember the party that blocked health care for our nation’s 9-11 first responders
I remember which party was in power during every single banking crisis since 1900.
I remember which party was in power during 17 of the 23 recessions since 1900, and 9 of the last 10 since 1950
I remember which party brought us the Wall Street bailout
I remember which party defended tax breaks for corporations that moved their operations and your jobs overseas.
I remember which party started a needless trillion dollar war in Iraq
I remember the party that took a record budget surplus, and turned it into a record budget deficit
I remember the party which dismantled the government agencies that protect our food supply.
I remember the party that has worked tirelessly to destroy Social Security, Medicare, public education, civil rights, and equal pay for women.
I remember which party cannot hear the screams of the people, but can hear the whispers of big business.
I remember the Tea-publican party.

They talk big, but deliver squat.


It is plain to us that you do not care. But ‘winning’ still and forever has ramifications and consequences. You may get your way about this election, but you cannot run a country, so you will have lost it all.

jane doe,

Thanks for the ‘barkshooter’. They are truly weird. A bunch of cowardly thugs. Knuckle draggers to the nth degree.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 29, 2010 10:34 PM
Comment #311687


Indeed, things don’t look too promising at all if we get these morons calling the shots. However, don’t lose your cool with that .44 Sig, lady.
Personally, it has always helped me to remember what Robert Burns (the bard of Scotland) once said: “The best laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men, gang aft agley” — or in other words: go often not at all how they planned them.
Or, if you prefer, as George Harrison once said: All Things Must Pass.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 29, 2010 10:42 PM
Comment #311689

I remember, too.
Nicely done.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 29, 2010 10:45 PM
Comment #311721


“Why would the Tea-publicans make a lot of signs that put a Hitler mustache on Obama at their rallies,”

your right it really should be a josef stalin mustache.


“It will take just a short time for people to see how devastating it will be to have morons trying to call the shots.”

it’s taken 18 months, to be exact.

Posted by: dbs at October 30, 2010 8:59 AM
Comment #311725

Middle America, home of conservatism. Sigh. You could also call it the home of populism, too William Jennings Bryan, anyone?

You know, it might help if you realize that when you overlook details like, say, their record, that whatever they claim about being less intrusive, might belied by what they actually DO.

I don’t consider people who send FBI agents after your library records without a warrant, who have your phones tapped and your internet communications intercepted less intrusive.

I don’t consider people who try and impose their minority religious views on people through legislation non-intrusive.

Iott seems to believe that collaborating with a fascist dictatorship is better than falling under a communist power. I happen to think both are bad options.

You would elect a fascist, a dimwit religious fanatic, and God knows what else, just to be left alone. Is their any better explanation for why our government’s gone downhill, for why despite years of successful efforts at destroying liberalism in America, that none of things that Republicans blame them for, like unemployment, deficits, lack of business opportunity, have gone down under them?

The tea partiers are focused like a laser on the economy. And they’re just set to burn a hole in it, despite their best efforts, in fact because of their best efforts.

Let me take you back a little bit to what was happening in 2008: Republicans were saying, fundamentals of the economy are sound. But meanwhile credit was crunching down, we were in the midst of a recession, and the Bush Administration, after bailing out the GSEs and AIG, wanted to demonstrate their conservative credibility by letting Lehman Brothers collapse.

That, as history will demonstrate, turned out quite well. See, the problem is, Republican’s successful efforts to make it illegal to regulate OTC Derivatives, made it possible for lenders to create a whole terrible industry’s worth of lousy mortgages, which then fell through. Unfortunately, they’d leveraged a crapload of derivatives on top of that, and sold the supposedly safe bonds and derivatives off as being safe investments, despite the fact many of these assets were really very risky.

When and if your people repeal wall street reform, you will repeal with it controls on the kinds of assets that helped trigger this crisis.

You’re not paying attention to what needs to be attended too. Instead, you’re following feelings and unverifiable claims. I’m going to put this bluntly: you will be badly disappointed by those you elect.

We’re just trying to breakthrough to people to show them just how lousy an alternative they’re picking, just out of dissatisfaction and desperation. You can’t elect morons and expect brilliant policy. These are the people you’re asking to write the bills.

You know, Obama’s reduced taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars in his administration. In fact, that was a big part of the stimulus. Just little amounts out of each paycheck, or a lump sum if you’re on social security. Obama’s budget deficit has also gone down by almost 200 billion dollars. As for your rights?

I think you’re just not paying attention to anybody but a bunch of blowhard pundits more interested in pushing people’s buttons than informaing them properly. They talk about what will happen, the slippery slopes. They point at bills targeted at constraining the bad behavior of big corporations, and then tell people that their own personal rights are being violated by this.

Somebody asked supposed constitutional expert Christine O’Donnell what some key amendments were, 16th, 17th, and 14th, and she could only get, I think, the 17th.

When are you going hold your people accountable? Do you really want to have your candidates come off as a symptom of the degeneration of the choices at the ballot box? If your choice is between people who can think for themselves, who understnd things, and idiots who just hew your precious political line, might you consider that the better choice would be to get people who don’t necessary deliver every talking point, but don’t bring shame and disgrace to the party?

tom humes-
Union thugs. How many beatings have you heard about lately? Funny thing is, not a lot of union thugs are getting arrested for assaulting people or stomping on their heads. Or get caught on video arresting reporters for asking the questions.

As for a person shoving somebody away, it is justifiable, if somebody is getting too close. Unlike stomping on the head of a restrained 23 year old woman who’s already been wrestled to the ground.

Folks on the right have become convinced that they are the victims of extraordinary conspiracies, and under the pressure of that paranoia, some are beginning to think that they are justified in floating the standards of decent human behavior in order to get what they want.

But check back into reality. GM’s going to buy its way free of any government involvement soon, and the other car companies are going to start opening plants. They’re doing good business. Not only was Obama’s plan not a socialist takeover, it looks like it’s going to be good for business. TARP itself is going to make its money back, and Obama’s stimulus package according to most experts has delivered a substantial boost to the economy, and prevented a recession.

Obama’s not a socialist. He’s the guy who save capitalism in this country. Yeah, you’ll be skeptical, but I don’t think today’s right really wants to acknowledge the truth anyways: that their way of doing things proved fatally wrong.

You guys want to be treated as authorities on these matters, but I don’t see you folks do the research or take the effort to understand the nature of your own charges, the logic that would have to pan out for the facts to fit what you say. I think our readers should verify for themselves on independent non-partisan sources anything they read on our site, but in particular, what they read from the Republicans and the Right Wing, because they’ve become utterly careless with the facts.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 30, 2010 10:30 AM
Comment #311728

Stephen, while you in the mood to give answers, perhaps you can tell me why democrat politicians are running away from obama’s accomplishments?

Posted by: Bill at October 30, 2010 11:26 AM
Comment #311729

Stephen, while you in the mood to give answers, perhaps you can tell me why democrat politicians are running away from obama’s accomplishments?

Posted by: Bill at October 30, 2010 11:29 AM
Comment #311734

Bill I will answer that question.
They are “running away from Obama’s accomplishments because they have fed into the fear and hate rhetoric being fed to them from the right. they also know that a lot of folks are going to be deluded into believing the BS, they are hedging their bets.

6 of one half a dozen of another. the pres is doing a good job if you actually look past the lies and obfuscations. congress on the other hand. both parties are really really dropping the ball. their infighting and partisan attacks have sickened this independent voter. and although it may seem on election day that the right may have won, it is more correctly a mandate by the people that both parties deserve to be FIRED! don’t get your hopes up for any additional gains in 2012 unless your parties stop acting like 2nd graders.

Posted by: john in napa at October 30, 2010 11:50 AM
Comment #311737


“If anyone wants to carry a gun and it is legal, get over it. We have 2nd ammendment rights.”

We all have 2nd Amendment rights. I can legally carry in my state but I choose not to, because I don’t feel the need.
IMHO, carrying in a public gathering is merely an incitement, because sometimes s**t does happen.

IMHO, someone that feels the need to carry in a public gathering is either paranoid, or a bully.

Pick one.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 30, 2010 11:56 AM
Comment #311740

Key point there, Rocky. IMHO… Your opinion, which matters as much as everyone else’s and no more.

Posted by: Catfish at October 30, 2010 12:16 PM
Comment #311741

While you have all the answers, why don’t you tell me which Democrats, from what districts. Some are running away, some are not.

And you sir, are avoiding the question: if the things I’ve said are true, where does that leave the President’s critics?

I think we need something better in government than self-reinforcing contrarianism.

I think people will remember the true face of your party, if you win in November. The GOP will be too arrogant and self-assured to hold back. If you assume that one good showing at an election means you’re out of the doghouse, let me break this to you gently: you will get your butt kicked in the next election.

People want something better that just a frenzy of political hubris, but with all the constraints and orthodoxies the GOP puts on itself, you won’t get anything better from them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 30, 2010 12:23 PM
Comment #311743


“Your opinion, which matters as much as everyone else’s and no more.”

Nail meet hammer.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 30, 2010 12:25 PM
Comment #311758

SD, are you playing stupid? There are a lot more who are running than there are bragging. You just pick a name and answer the question.

As for answering your questions. I didn’t know you had any.

“If the things I’ve said are true”, I’m assuming this is a hypothetical, because everything you say is nothing more than liberal talking points.

Posted by: Bill at October 30, 2010 3:09 PM
Comment #311762


“…because everything you say is nothing more than liberal talking points.”

And how is this any different than your “conservative talking points”?


Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 30, 2010 3:30 PM
Comment #311768

I take it you are speaking in behalf of SD and are admitting that they are talking points. Thank you.

Posted by: tom humes at October 30, 2010 4:32 PM
Comment #311773


I don’t speak on behalf of anybody but myself.

What I want to know is that with all of the hyperbole and bulls**t I keep hearing from the right about talking points, when are they going to put forward a plan, besides winning the 2012 election?
The talking points I keep hearing fix nothing but the blame.

Can we assume that the “party of no” will become the party of yes once the election is over?

Oh, and BTW, mere days ago the right was all but arrogantly acepting the mantle of their overwhelming win (their words not mine). Now it seems that all the talk is about voter fraud.
I am curious. It would seem to me that fraud (other than the crime itself) would only be an issue if the election was close.

Could it be the worm has turned?


Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 30, 2010 5:01 PM
Comment #311796

Rocky Marks,

You here charges of liberal talking points because conservatives have been using righty talking points for months (years?), and Karl told them that when they found a weakness in their own strategies to blame the other side for that weakness, as it takes the heat off.

Call one on a lie, prove the lie with data and facts. It falls on deaf ears, but as soon as is humanly they will start talking points on how much you lie. They will not back that up with fact or data, but will yell it loud and often. Pretty soon everyone has forgotten the first lie. That is pure Rovian.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 30, 2010 9:22 PM
Comment #311808


Yeah, I got that part.

I just wanted them to justify their reasoning.

All I hear is crickets…


Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 30, 2010 10:28 PM
Comment #311839

You hear crickets because it is dark for you.

Posted by: Larry at October 31, 2010 12:06 PM
Comment #311843


“You hear crickets because it is dark for you.”

I don’t know where you are, but the sun is shining brightly here.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 31, 2010 12:39 PM
Comment #311867

Lawrence O’Donnell had four people representing part of the “heirarchy” from the Tea Party movements on a while ago. He asked them what specifically they wanted to do if and when they gained any positions of power.
They each and every one just spouted the talking points we have heard ad-nauseum. He pushed to the point where he got through what he was looking for was specific ideas. To a person, they looked like deer caught in the headlights.
I take that back…the one guy wanted to reduce by half, Dpt. of Education…………… don’t think they understand they’re displaying what reducing education looks like….

Posted by: jane doe at October 31, 2010 4:51 PM
Comment #311870

jane doe, I also watch the same show but I do have to correct you one of the gentleman was honest enough to admit he would also defund SS. At lest he was honest.

Posted by: Jeff at October 31, 2010 5:13 PM
Comment #311871

If he defunds Social Security, I want my money back.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 31, 2010 5:31 PM
Comment #311872

I think he would give to the upper 2% you know tax cuts. Piss down I mean trickle down economics.

Posted by: Jeff at October 31, 2010 5:43 PM
Comment #311900

Jeff, you’re correct. I just saw that segment again a little while ago.
The woman didn’t have a clue about much of anything…and O’Donnel was holding them to the task.

Posted by: jane doe at October 31, 2010 11:28 PM
Comment #311909

Do you have an informed opinion, sir, or just a tendency to dismiss information that doesn’t come through proper party information and propaganda channels?

tom humes-
A talking point is just a discrete little fact or opinion that a group distributes for the sake of making their case to the media, or to the public directly.

But like any point it lives or dies on its truth value, the value of the logic that helps back and derive the truth in question.

If I’m wrong, demonstrate the error. If I’m not, concede your error. Don’t start arguing, though, that liberal points of view (That’s what those talking poitns are) are instantly invalid.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 1, 2010 2:26 AM
Post a comment